Hansard Transcript 1993-Nov-22 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): A recent Statistics Canada survey showed that more than half of all Canadian women have been physically or sexually assaulted at least once in their adult lives. In hard numbers, that means more than five million adult Canadian women have been assaulted.

There are those who have attacked the reliability of previous studies by other groups on the extent of violence against women: attacks by people who don't believe and don't wish to believe that violence is that endemic and that widespread. But Statscan is known for its reliability and its accurate methodology. Surely the naysayers now have to admit we have a serious problem.

The NDP has pledged resources to deal with the results of the violence, and we support measures such as core funding for women's shelters and training of the judiciary and the police, to name a few. But the NDP government has done nothing to get to the root of the problem.

What has the NDP done to stem the proliferation of slasher films, films which celebrate the brutalization and death of young women? The answer: nothing.

What has the NDP done to keep violent video games and serial killer trading cards out of the hands of our young people? The answer: They've been all too silent, saying it's not in their job description.

It's time for action, not words. If the NDP truly wants to stop violence against women, it has to attack the roots of the problem, not just the result.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): This morning, representatives of the Brew on Premise Association of Ontario held a news conference at Queen's Park to draw attention to the devastating effects of the government's 26-cent-a-litre tax on beer and wine produced in brew-your-own establishments. As the Conservative advocate for small business, I was at that news conference.

The association's president, Mark Hamelin, indicated that in August and September of this year alone, approximately 186 full-time and 225 part-time jobs have been lost as a result of this tax.

In response to a previous statement I gave in the Legislature on this issue, the Minister of Finance replied in writing, "The tax of 26 cents a litre was carefully chosen so as not to undermine the viability of this sector."

The minister obviously has not done his homework on this issue. The Brew on Premise Association says that since August 1, 10 of its members have gone bankrupt, while 33 businesses were in, or on the verge of, receivership. This tax is also killing businesses in Wellington county.

I have met with George and Karen Pudsey, who own a brew-your-own business in Erin. They've told me they have seen a significant drop in their business, they believe, as a direct result of this punitive tax.

Our party's small business task force has been touring southwestern Ontario last week. Small business owners have told us again and again that high taxes and red tape are killing businesses and jobs. The brew-your-own establishments are a prime example of government taxation policy killing small business.

The Premier has stated his priority is jobs, jobs, jobs. If that is this government's priority, then it must scrap this tax before even more jobs and businesses are lost.

YOUTH ACTION CENTRE

Mr David Winninger (London South): I'm pleased to rise today in the House to recognize the efforts of the London Coordinating Council for Children and Youth in establishing a new Youth Action Centre in downtown London.

The coordinating council represents 70 agencies which serve children and youth in the London area. In the past, the council has played a leading role in providing referrals and advocacy for our young people. For the first time, the council has undertaken the lead with 30 other agencies with a youth focus in providing an information and referral centre for youth.

Young people, primarily off the streets, can stop in to get information and referrals on their health, social assistance, housing, education and employment needs. There will even be light snacks and a few cots if hunger or fatigue are among the immediate problems.

I would like to express my gratitude to Don Donner and Frank Capitano of the council and the members of the executive committee of the Youth Action Centre for their vision in bringing this centre to reality. Money spent wisely now to meet the needs of vulnerable street kids will save a great deal more money later on court and correctional facilities, health care, special education and a variety of other services for dysfunctional adults.

COURT FACILITY

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Mr Speaker, as you know, I have made two statements in this House with reference to the bypassing of our community, Peel region, in terms of a courthouse. I'm rising once again, because today I'm going to be going out to meet with my mayor and the council, who have called a special meeting to discuss this very important issue.

As I've said before, Peel region is one of the fastest growing areas in North America. We have the airport, which makes our case load much higher. Our courts and our crown attorneys work feverishly to meet the test.

I'm hoping today that the Premier will back up statements he made to the press to the effect that this project is on-line, is continuing, will be dealt with expeditiously, and that in fact I can count on that and the people of my community can count on that.

If they can't, if this is nothing more than politics being played out, I would suggest that the Premier is going against his word last week in the House where he said, and I agree with him, that justice is not something we play politics with. It's a very fragile commodity, a very fragile concept.

I will be asking the Premier to commit clearly and definitively that the Brampton courthouse will proceed and that it will proceed on time. I understand there are reports that there will be a ground-breaking in the spring. I will certainly look forward to that feverishly, as will the entire legal community in my area. I will be expecting that the Premier will answer my question and not refer it to the Attorney General when I ask it.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Today we'll be debating the resolution introduced by myself with respect to waste management in the greater Toronto area and indeed the province of Ontario. I encourage all members to participate in this debate on such issues that include:

The NDP government continuing to proceed with the Interim Waste Authority process of selecting dumps in the regions of Peel, Durham and York without considering any alternatives;

The continuation of this process breaks the NDP promise made during the last provincial election as outlined in the Agenda for People;

This NDP government will destroy farm lands by placing the three sites on existing farms, will threaten the environment by placing sites on aquifers, and destroy community life by forcing residents out of their homes and away from their communities;

The fundamental rights of the residents in the three regions have been violated by the arbitrary decision to rule out any other alternatives;

The NDP government has dictated the IWA process by passing Bill 143, forcing the greater Toronto area to accommodate sites for their garbage;

The NDP government must be made accountable for its bad decisions.

The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party therefore calls on the NDP government to repeal Bill 143, disband the Interim Waste Authority and place a moratorium on the process of finding three superdumps within the greater Toronto area until all alternatives have been explored and researched, including the long-rail-haul option to willing host communities, incineration and better product management.

1340

EVENTS IN PETERBOROUGH

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I want to congratulate the citizens of Peterborough on the exemplary way in which we are working together to overcome the difficulties of our times.

I would like to draw attention to four particular examples of this cooperation.

The first is a coming together under one roof of five social service agencies. Adjacent suites mean easier cooperation, sharing of equipment such as photocopiers and a shared boardroom provided, rent-free, by landlord, AON Inc. Good work. This is cheaper for the taxpayers and better serves the clients.

Secondly, the arts community in Peterborough now has a shared facility, rent-free, in Peterborough Square, Gallery in the Square. This is a place to exhibit and sell local art, a box office for local theatre groups, a rehearsal space and more.

Thirdly, we have the steering committee working hard to bring an environmental research industrial park to Peterborough. Trent University, Sir Sandford Fleming College, city hall, the county of Peterborough, the Greater Peterborough Economic Council and the chamber of commerce are working together to make this a reality.

Of course our two hospitals, Civic and St Joseph's, have been working together for a long time. Their integration is well advanced.

Congratulations to all concerned and more power to your elbows.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Despite the retreat under pressure on the issue of the now infamous ad in the internal Ontario government publication, the ad which told white males that they need not apply for a senior position in the Management Board of Cabinet, concerns remain that the Rae government plans to extend this policy to a much wider spectrum of jobs in the Ontario civil service.

While most people in our province would be fairminded enough to see that individuals who in the past have been very unrepresented in government positions are given a chance to compete for public service jobs, they find repulsive, as I do, the prohibiting of one segment of our population from having access to any and all government positions available.

Although the Premier ordered the withdrawing of the controversial and unacceptable ad for the Management Board position, a leaked government document now reveals that the Rae administration has been planning to widen the use of so-called limited eligibility competitions.

All citizens of this province, regardless of race, creed, ethnic background or gender, deserve the right to be considered for jobs in our public service in Ontario. The Premier should give orders that this practice will be halted in the interest of fairness and the interest of quelling the understandable backlash to the efforts to make our public service more representative.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I'm calling on the Ministry of Environment and Energy to consider all methods of waste disposal including the willing host option, such as the Adams mine site near Kirkland Lake, and including incineration, provided these options can be implemented in an environmentally safe way.

The head of the Interim Waste Authority has indicated to mayors and councillors from the greater Toronto area that the ministry is considering alternative methods of disposal but not for Metro Toronto's garbage problem.

Yet the citizens of Vaughan, the citizens of Pickering and the citizens of Caledon are totally opposed to the recently announced landfill sites in their communities because of the damage to the environment and the waste of good farm land.

Metro Toronto has such little confidence in the government's Interim Waste Authority process that it will within the next few weeks officially seek a willing host site for waste disposal. Metro has an obligation to provide waste disposal for its residents and cannot rely on a flawed provincial process which is doomed to enormous conflict, expensive legal battles, endless delay and ultimate failure.

The GTA mayors are saying to this government: "You have already spent $50 million in taxpayers' money. Surely you owe it to the taxpayer to consider a 'willing host' option and all other options to resolve this problem before it becomes a crisis for municipalities."

FIRE PREVENTION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION AWARDS

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I rise in the House today to recognize the efforts of two Ontario citizens who have received the Ontario Fire Prevention and Public Education Awards, which recognize the dedication and commitment of people whose actions in the area of fire safety have helped make their communities safer.

Dr Mark Hanson, within the Family Court Clinic at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, assisted in the development of a community-based screening and intervention program to help children who start fires.

Mr Angus Crawford, with the financial support of Young and Rubicam Ltd of Toronto, created and produced a series of fire safety educational posters designed to combat the growing problem of juvenile arsonists, reduce the number of malicious false alarms, and increase the public awareness of the dangers of careless smoking.

These gentlemen were presented with their awards on November 4, and I bring their names to the House today to further recognize their efforts and to add our congratulations for their achievements.

ESTIMATES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Standing order 62(a) provides that "The standing committee on estimates shall present one report with respect to all of the estimates and supplementary estimates considered pursuant to standing orders 59 and 61 no later than the third Thursday in November of each calendar year."

The House not having received a report from the standing committee on estimates on Thursday, 18 November 1993, respecting the estimates of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, and the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation as required by the standing orders of this House, pursuant to standing order 62(b), the estimates before the committee of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, and the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation are deemed to be passed by the committee and are deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I am very proud to tell the House that later today I will be tabling the Tobacco Control Act, a far-reaching piece of legislation that takes strong steps to prevent young people from starting a deadly habit.

We're here today because of all the hard work and commitment of a coalition of health organizations. Some of them are here today in the gallery, and I want to pay tribute to them: the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, and the Ontario Lung Association. All of them agree with us that it is time to act.

One in five deaths among adults in Ontario is attributed to tobacco use, and tobacco-related illnesses are responsible for 13,000 preventable premature deaths. Each year, $3.5 billion is lost in Ontario alone because of premature mortality and unemployment caused by disability due to smoking. That's why we must act now.

This legislation embodies our commitment to health promotion and disease prevention. Our goal is to cut tobacco use in half by the year 2000. With this legislation, we'll be well on our way to achieving this goal.

I'm pleased to highlight the major features of the new legislation:

-- We will make it illegal to give or sell cigarettes to anyone under 19.

-- We will ban the sale of tobacco in pharmacies and other health facilities.

-- We will prohibit the sale of tobacco products from vending machines.

-- We will require retailers selling tobacco to post health warnings and age limits on their premises.

-- We can require health warnings and other health information as part of tobacco packaging.

-- We will monitor the sale of tobacco through mandatory reports from distributors and wholesalers.

-- We will prohibit or restrict smoking in designated places.

-- We will provide an effective enforcement mechanism that includes fines and bans on the sale of tobacco.

1350

We need this legislation now. For the past two years, smoking among grade 7 students has increased by 50%. There is no time to waste. Twenty-four per cent of Ontario students aged 12 to 19 now smoke. As renowned Oxford University epidemiologist Richard Peto has said, "If you want to kill yourself, the best way to do it is to start smoking as a teenager." We want to reach the young people of Ontario before they start smoking.

The statistics on tobacco use are frightening. Tobacco causes about 80% of all lung cancers, as well as many other forms of cancer, including mouth, throat, oesophagus and bladder cancer. Tobacco causes 80% of chronic lung disease such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis, and one third of premature deaths due to heart disease.

Since 1970, the rate of lung cancer in women has tripled. It's now a major epidemic, the second leading cause of cancer deaths in women, with the number of deaths nearly equalling that for breast cancer, all as a result of women starting to smoke 20 to 30 years ago.

Secondhand or environmental tobacco smoke is linked to lung cancer and heart disease in non-smokers, and to respiratory problems in children and infants. We must protect these people who are most vulnerable.

That's why the ministry last year introduced its far-reaching tobacco strategy. Its focus is to prevent people, and particularly children and teens, from starting to smoke; to encourage smokers to quit; and to protect people from secondhand or environmental tobacco smoke.

Legislation is only one part of a comprehensive strategy. A soon-to-be-launched media and public education campaign will reach young people before they become addicted, and we are supporting province-wide community action with public health agencies and our other community partners.

We are not acting alone. We have widespread support for this legislation, and it follows an extensive period of public consultation. The ministry received 240 written submissions and heard 34 oral presentations. Our consultations confirmed that the legislation's focus, especially on tobacco use by young people, is right on target.

Our legislation supports and supplements the federal government's soon-to-be-proclaimed Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act. While the Tobacco Control Act will give us regulatory power over packaging issues, we need a national strategy on packaging.

By preventing the province's number one health threat, we are protecting our health care system for future generations. Ontario is setting the standard for others to follow. Our health care reforms will make our system more efficient and effective, and this legislation is a major step towards achieving our goal of a healthier Ontario.

I want to pay tribute to the work that was done by my two predecessors as Minister of Health, both of whom are here today, to the minister without portfolio the member for Perth, to the member for Thunder Bay, to my parliamentary assistant from Simcoe Centre, and particularly to my parliamentary assistant the member for Durham-York, whose tireless efforts and work on educating all of us about the need for this legislation are shown in our statement today.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I think it will be not unexpected if we say that this tobacco strategy and this Tobacco Control Act were a long time coming. The first promises that were made by this government with respect to this act were made before the Treasurer brought in his first budget in 1991. We certainly expected the legislation last spring, and even last September, when the 17 priority pieces of legislation were put on the table, the Tobacco Control Act was not one of them. So frankly, on November 22, 1993, we are pleased to see a step forward in this area.

We believe that beginning with youth is the appropriate strategy, that we should start when the habit begins, before that habit becomes an addiction. One of the things we have noted is that the strategy with respect to sales that's included in the bill which the minister will table is comparable to the strategy that the federal government has adopted. I think it's positive to have a national strategy in that area.

I personally believe that we need much more work on behavioral influences with respect to smoking, the factors that lead to smoking in the first place, those elements of peer pressure or of wanting to look older or more sophisticated or whatever. Those things should be looked at. I believe those areas are far more influential in terms of starting smoking in the first place than where one is able to purchase cigarettes.

I believe it's disturbing that the data show that there is an increasing use of cigarettes among young women, and the data are consistent across North America in that respect. When one compares these data with new data with respect to lung cancer, and when we see that the incidence of lung cancer in women is overtaking breast cancer, we see some evident cause for concern not only today but in the future.

I am not certain, because we haven't seen the legislation, whether the aspects with respect to the designated smoking areas are in fact any different from those which are now included in our labour legislation.

I have been surprised that there is not an accompanying announcement from the Minister of Agriculture and Food with respect to additional exit strategies for those who participate in the tobacco industry.

We certainly want to know how the monitoring will occur and how one will ensure that the offences are indeed noted and taken into account.

My colleague from Ottawa South, as you know, has introduced a bill with respect to tobacco control, and I'm going to ask him to continue the response to this statement.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to begin by thanking and complimenting the minister for adopting in large measure my private member's bill.

The delay in the introduction of this bill is really nothing less than tragic. As the minister knows, every month, 3,000 kids in this province start smoking. During the past two and a half years, while the government dithered, that means 180,000 kids picked up the habit.

Studies show that 75% of our high school smokers become lifelong smokers. Studies also show that if you haven't started smoking by the time you're 19, it's very unlikely that you ever will. That's why anything in this bill that makes it harder for young people to get access to tobacco before 19 years is a good thing.

That leaves me to ask the question of why it is that the minister muddied the waters by banning cigarette sales in pharmacies. My research shows that banning sales in pharmacies will not reduce overall tobacco usage. If I'm a smoker and I want my smokes, I'll just go elsewhere. Secondly, I found that kids do not generally buy cigarettes from the pharmacists. Thirdly, I found that the pharmacist is more likely to ask for age identification than the kid working the counter at the corner store.

Further, we're opening up a can of worms here, constitutionally speaking. There is a real issue as to the constitutionality of banning the sale of a legal product by one particular retailer out of many. It's one thing to restrict the sales of a legal product to one retailer. We can say in this province that you can only get your booze at the LCBO and you can only get your beer at The Beer Store, but it's another thing to say you can buy cigarettes anywhere, that anybody can sell cigarettes except one particular retailer. That's a problem.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I want to say at the outset that I agree and my caucus colleagues agree with the thrust of this legislation. We are supportive of legislation that's designed to stop young people from starting to smoke.

Others have said that the government's taken a long time to come up with this legislation, but when I read the legislation and when I note some of the flaws, I think the government is merely catching up with the federal government, which has already introduced legislation that contains much of a similar content to what the minister announced today. Indeed, it seems that this province is now trying to play catch-up in the hope that the public will give this Health minister and this government credit for this issue.

1400

This government is also playing catch-up with my colleague the member for Carleton, Mr Norm Sterling, who since 1985 has consistently and persistently put before this House and other places bills and resolutions to deal with this very issue. Back in 1985, he had introduced legislation to control smoking in the workplace and to control smoking in other public places. Indeed, it took till 1989 for the Liberal government of that day to do anything about that particular aspect of this issue. Mr Sterling did not let that deter him, though, and he continued throughout the 1980s and beyond to try and persuade governments to take action on this issue.

With respect to today's announcement, I think there are some flaws in this legislation. It's laudable for the government to attempt to control the consumption of tobacco products, but I don't think today's announcement will do very much at all to reduce consumption. It will only ensure that many pharmacists go up in smoke as a result of this new law. Banning tobacco from Ontario's 1,300 pharmacies will only shift and not control the consumption problem.

By removing the sale of tobacco products from pharmacies, the government has admitted that it's more concerned about the optics of selling tobacco in pharmacies than it is about the consumption problem, particularly the consumption problem among young people. I think this policy is grounded in optics and ignores the retail reality that pharmacists must deal with every day.

There are currently 28,000 retail outlets in Ontario that sell tobacco products. This includes other retail establishments which sell health-care-related products, such as grocery stores, discount stores and convenience stores. These stores are in direct competition with local pharmacies. Drugstores are a legal part of the retailing stream and many rely on the sale of tobacco products to remain competitive. Removing their right to sell tobacco is discriminatory and damaging when 28,000 other retailers are allowed to continue to sell tobacco products.

One study done in Metro Toronto indicated that 12% to 20% of clients purchasing tobacco products bought one or more products at the same time. In other words, the ability for pharmacies to sell tobacco products brings people into their stores and allows them to buy other products as well.

Ministry of Health officials have admitted that they do not possess one single study which suggests that banning tobacco products from pharmacies will reduce the consumption of tobacco products among any groups, including adolescents. This discriminatory legislation will ruin many locally owned pharmacies. All big retail pharmacies have to do to circumvent this legislation is to erect a smoke shop or to erect a kiosk just outside their doors in the mall; that way they'll get around selling tobacco within the pharmacy but they'll own the smoke shop next door.

Minister, if you really wanted to control the sale of tobacco to minors, to those under the age of 19, who better to trust than the local pharmacist? We trust the local pharmacist, who is a respected member of his or her community, to control pharmaceutical substances, to control drugs. Who better to ask for the age-of-majority card than the local pharmacist, who's already established as a respected retailer on many of our main streets throughout Ontario?

I think also that this legislation will be a windfall for the underground economy. We've heard nothing in this announcement to stem the some $200 million worth of illegal tobacco sales. Banning the sale of a legal product in selected retail establishments, I think the government will find itself in court spending taxpayers' money to get itself out of this particular predicament.

Again, we agree with the thrust of the legislation. I think it's important that we tell young people that it's stupid to smoke, I think it's important that we encourage them to butt out, but I think it's equally important that this government butt out of the free market, butt out of the retailer's right to sell a legal product.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNDERGROUND ECONOMY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My first question goes to the Minister of Finance. It in part concerns tobacco, but it is, generally speaking, a question about the underground economy and how that growing part of Ontario reality concerns itself with tobacco and with alcohol.

I want to begin on the tobacco side, Mr Finance Minister, because some weeks ago your government announced a new policy limiting the amount of non-taxed tobacco that would be allowed on native communities. Last week, the native leadership rejected out of hand that policy and that directive, saying, among other things, that the native community and the native leadership had not been consulted. From the point of view of Chief Peters and others in his community, the Ontario government directive of a few weeks ago which sought to control the amount of non-taxed tobacco allowed among native communities is, from the point of view of the native leadership, null and void. My question to the Minister of Finance is: Given the comments of Chief Peters about their dismissal of the new policy directive announced by your government, your ministry, just a few weeks ago, what response do you have to that latest development in that connection?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I was disappointed to see the reaction from Chief Peters because I've felt all along that our attempt to control the sale of tobacco was in the best interests of the aboriginal community as well. I still believe that very, very firmly.

Secondly, when a court case called Bomberry and Hill was rejected by the Court of Appeal in the province of Ontario, it was my understanding that that therefore, along with an amended regulation to the Tobacco Tax Act, gave the province of Ontario the right to impose these kinds of quotas. So it's my hope that we have not yet reached the end of the road in working this out with the aboriginal community. I don't for a moment pretend it's going to be easy, but I think that in the end people who basically have the same goal should be able to come to a reasonable agreement.

Mr Conway: About the same time as Chief Peters was rejecting absolutely your new regulation for unmarked tobacco allocation for first nation people in Ontario, Andy Brandt, the chairman of the Ontario Liquor Control Board, appeared before a legislative committee and announced a couple of things.

He announced that by his best estimate, the government of Ontario this year would lose about $475 million in lost revenue because bootlegged alcohol was now at unprecedented levels in this province. In fact, Mr Brandt indicated that not since the heyday of the Prohibition era of the 1920s have we seen such a volume of bootlegged alcohol in the province of Ontario.

Given the fact that Mr Brandt, a very respected former member of this Legislature and currently a very senior person at the liquor board, has announced that you're going to lose nearly half a billion dollars this year because of bootlegged alcohol, what, Mr Minister of Finance, do you have to say to that alarming statistic?

Hon Mr Laughren: To put it in perspective, I'm not happy with those numbers either, obviously. It isn't as though this has suddenly exploded like a bomb. The underground economy is at unprecedented levels, and it has been growing steadily for many, many years. We could argue about why that is the case, whether it's strictly because of the level of taxation, to what extent the introduction of the GST was an impetus to it as well. All of those things are factors.

My own view has always been that the answer in the end is appropriate enforcement rather than reducing or eliminating taxes on these products. It seems to me that those people who argue that the solution -- and I have letters from members of the Tory party who suggest that the answer is simply to eliminate taxes on these products.

Applause.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, I have one message to the members of the third party who are applauding so vigorously: You cannot, my friends, have the level of services in this country, in this province, with the level of American taxation. The sooner you understand that, the better we'll all be.

Mr Conway: I agree with my friend opposite that our primary focus must be on the enforcement side. Let there be no confusion on anybody's part about my position. But as we stand here on November 22, we have bombs going off in Cornwall, which may or not be related to this smuggling business; we've got Andy Brandt, the chair of the LCBO, saying that we've now got a Prohibition level of bootlegged whiskey costing your treasury half a billion dollars, his estimate, for this year; and we've got Gord Peters on behalf of the native leadership announcing that they, that is, the native community, do not accept your latest policy directive in respect of that part of this multifaceted issue.

1410

My question to you, Minister, again is, given all of these very recent developments which make plain that this part of the underground economy is running rampant, with not only a significant revenue loss occurring and growing to your detriment but with more and more evidence that the public safety of communities and individuals in Ontario is increasingly at jeopardy, what additional measures, if any, do you as the Minister of Finance for Ontario intend to take to stop this activity?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't disagree with what the member is saying. How could anyone? I would simply point out a couple of things to him, however, just to put it in perspective.

We are going to be doing something on the enforcement side. We have done something already and we will be doing more. I would remind the member and others in this assembly that we do have some control over enforcement. We do not as a province have jurisdiction over smuggling. That's why some of the comments about the size of the boats in the St Lawrence River were quite irrelevant. That is a federal jurisdiction, and I'm not trying to pass the buck here.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, it is a federal jurisdiction. I can say to the member --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- that within the next very short time, we are having meetings with the federal government and with the Quebec government. We do want to take a coordinated approach to the problem, because we are all losers with the way in which the underground economy has grown, and in particular as regards alcohol and cigarettes.

But I do think it should be clear that if the provincial government attempts to engage in controlling smuggling per se -- precisely, smuggling across the border -- we'd get laughed out of court. I think the member from Renfrew understands that. We will do what we can on the enforcement side and on the monitoring side and on the auditing side, but the member from Renfrew I hope will, as I will be doing, talking to his friends in Ottawa about the need to do more at the federal level.

KARLA HOMOLKA

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): The second question is to the minister of justice, to the Attorney General. Madam Minister, on Friday afternoon a 28-year veteran of the Ontario Provincial Police, now retired, Gordon Domm by name, was arrested as he attempted to distribute several copies of a British newspaper account of the Homolka/Teale trial of some weeks ago. Mr Domm has made no bones about the fact that he doesn't agree with Mr Justice Kovacs's publication ban and that he intends to do anything and everything he can to break that ban.

So on Friday we have the spectacle of Mr Domm being arrested as he attempted to break the ban. But he was arrested but not charged, and according to an official in the minister's department, quoting Ms Barbara Krever: "It's all under review. It's very complicated because the arrest was a preventative measure."

Will the minister of justice tell this House what the policy of her department is with respect to enforcing and being seen to enforce the publication ban that Mr Justice Kovacs imposed some time ago in this case?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I'm happy to have an opportunity to do so. The member may be aware that there is a section of the Criminal Code which allows an officer of the law to make an arrest to prevent someone from committing a crime that that law officer reasonably expects will be committed unless action is taken. The subsequent section that relates to that then requires that that person be released once the imminent danger is relieved.

In this particular case, the individual was warned that this would be the process, continued to attempt to do so, was arrested, the material was confiscated and then, according to the Criminal Code provision, the person was released as is required when the crime has not actually been committed but has been apprehended in the course of possibly being committed.

The difficulty for us in all of these issues remains the determination of what in fact would constitute a breach of the ban, and that is the matter that is under review by the Attorney General's ministry, by crown law officers, and we continue that review. If a determination were to be made that the material involved is in fact a breach of the ban, then I would expect that charges might follow.

Mr Conway: Just a couple of weeks ago, in response to some questions about the program A Current Affair and the release of that television program into this jurisdiction, you said in this place -- I think it was late October, October 19 -- quoting yourself now: "We are monitoring very carefully what is going on and if in fact there is a breach, it will be handled very, very severely."

Mr Domm is making no bones of what he's about here. He is advertising his ongoing intent to break the ban, and you have said that for anyone who attempts to break this ban, you and your government are going to react in the most expeditious and in the most severe fashion.

We have evidence that on Friday, as Mr Domm tries to do what he has advertised he wants to do, he's arrested but not charged. What I want to know and I think what the people of Ontario need to know is what Mr Domm or anyone else out there would have to do to break the law in such a way as to be charged. Could you help us understand that?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We are acting as quickly as we can to prevent any breaches of the ban, and that is what we did, using the Criminal Code in this case. This person did advertise that he had an intent. We prevented him from carrying through that intent as we are enabled to do by the Criminal Code and released him as we are required to do.

We then, of course, looked at the material that was part of his intent, and the determination will be made as to whether or not that material in fact breaches the ban. If it does and if it has been released by anyone, then that would constitute a breach of the ban.

Mr Conway: The question remains. You have said that if there is any breach of this ban, you are going to react very, very severely. Mr Domm has said repeatedly and has tried on at least a couple of occasions to apparently breach that ban.

What would Mr Domm have to do or quite frankly what would any other copy cat out there have to do that has not already been done to cause an arrest that would lead to a charge? Because to people looking on this is bizarre. Somebody has advertized repeatedly that he wants to break the ban, that he's going to make every effort to break the ban. On Friday he's arrested but not charged. What does he have to do that he has not already done to attract a charge?

Hon Mrs Boyd: He has to actually have broken the law, and what we have done is to try and act so that in fact we will not be closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. What we are doing is acting within the ability that we have under the Criminal Code to try to prevent those who are attempting to breach this ban from doing so. We have done that on a number of occasions in terms of the A Current Affair show and so on, and we will continue to do that.

In the meantime, each time a piece of information comes to our attention that may break the ban, that is being looked at and examined to determine whether or not it in fact does breach the ban and whether or not we have the evidence we require to charge someone with having knowingly done that.

1420

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier concerning his government's discriminatory hiring policy, which excludes individuals from applying for government jobs.

Premier, on October 14, the Chair of Management Board told us no one would be excluded from any government job. On November 10, we were told that some would be excluded from a few jobs. Last Friday, a leaked cabinet document revealed that some would be excluded from jobs in all ministries and in all schedule 1 and schedule 4 agencies.

The public, as well as the public service, are justifiably confused and they're afraid. They want to know, and perhaps you could tell us today in this regard, what is the hiring policy of your government?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm just going to refer this to the Chairman of Management Board, Mr Speaker.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): First of all, it should be clear to the leader of the third party that, as was announced last Monday, the limited eligibility competitions have been suspended and the policy is under review.

The leader has raised a number of questions that come out of a story that was in the Toronto Star on Friday that purported to have revealed new information. On a number of occasions during scrums on this issue over the course of the last two weeks, I have made it clear that the intent of the policy which has now been suspended was to target specific problems that were identified, specific barriers in isolated cases.

The policy presently, at the time of that event, only applied in senior management, but it was also made clear that the intent of the policy was to be a general policy for limited application. If you had, for example, looked at the numbers in terms of employment equity progress that's been made, senior management, and I've said this a number of times, was the area where the greatest problem exists.

The progress that has been made in the bargaining unit is substantially better, so the number of positions that might have been affected by this policy, if it were still in effect, would have been a very small number. But in any event, before any such policy could be applied to the bargaining unit, there would have to be a negotiated agreement with OPSEU to do so.

Mr Harris: I wonder if I could have a page deliver to the minister -- perhaps you could deliver this to the Chair of Management Board; thank you very much, Heidi -- or the Premier will send it on.

What concerns me is that, Mr Chairman of Management Board, we can't trust you to tell us what's really happening. Either you don't know what's going on or you are deliberately trying to hide the facts from us.

On October 14 you said, and I quote, "Positive measures programs will not in any way restrict jobs in the public service to designated groups." I have just sent over to you a competition, February 25, 1993, nine months ago, about seven or eight months before you gave us the answer "in no way will it restrict any opportunities." This is a job competition: district engineer, salary, $68,000-$84,000, for the Ministry of Transportation, an executive position. It says very clearly at the top that this competition is restricted to classified employment equity designated group staff members.

So nine months ago the Ministry of Transportation had excluded all but those who were in the target groups from a promotion within the Ministry of Transportation. Clearly you have not been forthcoming, Minister, which is why I directed the question to the Premier, about what is the policy of the government.

Can you tell us if this policy that has been going on for nine months was authorized by Management Board? If not, why has it been going on all this period of time and, if it has, will you put a stop to it today too?

Hon Mr Charlton: The ad to which the member refers is an ad that was published by the Ministry of Transportation under its own policy internally. As I have said in this House, the Management Board policy which the members have referred to was passed in August of this year, not in February of this year.

I've said a number of times, again around this issue, that there have been limited eligibility ads before the government policy was ever passed -- in the OPS, in the private sector -- and all of those competitions have been suspended as a result of the decision last week in the OPS.

Mr Harris: Sir, last Monday and only after public outcry. The civil service have been telling you for quite some time. It was pretty widely acknowledged and known that this is what you were doing, but finally it was put into print. Finally, last Monday, you pulled the ad. That's all; you pulled the ad and you said on that Monday, "I have not at this point rejected that policy." All that ad did was reflect a policy that Ontarians all across this province have found repugnant.

I would ask you today, will you scrap that policy, will you pull the policy that says right here in the Ministry of Transportation that certain groups need not apply? Will you pull that policy and scrap it today and will you cancel all directives that may be out there in any ministry -- job ads, policy initiatives -- that discriminate against individuals who are applying for jobs in Ontario?

Hon Mr Charlton: I have said a number of times that the limited eligibility ads to which the leader of the third party refers have been suspended. The policy is under review. The Premier has made it clear that he does not find those kinds of restrictive ads acceptable.

I have said here in the House, both in response to the leader of the official opposition and in response to the leader of the third party, because they keep saying withdraw this policy and get on with the job of removing the barriers, that we will have to review the policy and identify another tool to proceed with the barrier removal, because we still do have a real problem, which both of the opposition leaders admit, to confront.

The Premier has said this policy was an unacceptable approach. We will have to review the policy to find another way to get at barrier removal.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is for the Premier on the subject of dumps. I hope he does not pass that on to the minister of the greater Toronto area, not only because the answers he has been giving in this House really don't answer any of the questions we've been putting forward, but also because I think it's time the Premier put himself and his government on the record as to where it stands on these terrible dumps.

Mr Premier, last week your minister for the greater Toronto area confirmed that you intend to be putting garbage in these three dumps within three years, that you will have gone through an environmental process, that you will have had an expropriation procedure, all within three years. I would like to ask you how you intend to have a proper and impartial environmental assessment process.

Particularly, the residents of these three regions are most concerned that you, as the Premier of this province, when you were the Leader of the Opposition, and other members of your government, strongly opposed the Liberal process -- a Liberal process that shortened the environmental process to five years under the environmental protection plan. At that time you, as opposition leader, strongly opposed this whole process. You did other things. You stood up at Whitevale and said, "There'll be no dump on farm lands." Now we're going to have three dumps on different sets of farm land across the greater Toronto area.

My question to the Premier is, specifically, when after the Halton search took 16 to 17 years -- I don't know whether there's any dump anywhere in this province that's going to take as little as three years and it certainly won't take three years -- how can you maintain the residents will be receiving a fair and impartial process in such a short time frame as the minister of the greater Toronto area is putting forth?

1430

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I will refer that to the minister of the greater Toronto area.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I think we've seen that with the IWA, the process that this government set up is in fact a fair process, that for the first time there is a process which is not open to any kind of political tinkering, and that for the first time there is a process that has actually met deadlines and moved ahead in a very expeditious way, and in fact that has involved the public at every step of the way, that has provided $1.5 million in participating funding for groups that may have some concern about what is being proposed, and that will provide intervening funding for those people who may still have some concerns about the particular three sites which have been chosen by the IWA.

No previous government has had such a transparent system. No previous government has had a system in which those who have concerns can actually be financed to make those concerns known and to do the research which is necessary to have all the facts on the table before the joint boards consider if or if not the particular sites proposed are acceptable.

Mr Tilson: I am simply appalled that you're talking of this whole process, of politicians tinkering. What in the world do you think you did with Bill 143? That was the greatest tinkering process I've ever seen in this province.

You have simply abolished any environmental plans with respect to this government. With respect to the Liberal plan that went on some time ago, where you objected to five years' environmental process, your party objected up and down as to what it was doing. Now you're going to have a process that's going to be less than five years.

When the government's representative, Mr Walter Pitman, met with the greater Toronto area mayors last week, he assured the mayors that the Minister of Environment and Energy is still looking at alternatives to superdumps. That was his assurance to the mayors of the greater Toronto area last week: nice political rhetoric but not really any substance.

Minister, if the Ministry of Environment is looking at these other alternatives, why are you not allowing the government to stop this madness, to stop the plan for the three dumps, to look at all alternatives, including the so-called alternatives that you told Mr Pitman about?

Hon Mr Philip: Unlike, I believe, the Conservative caucus, which met with some people who came forward with a series of alternatives, we said that the Ministry of Environment was open to all alternatives that would look at ways of reducing waste in any way possible. Since we formed the government, we have put more money into research into recycling, reusing and reducing waste than any previous government. The record is there. It's fairly clear that we are committed to the 3Rs, that we are reducing the amount of waste that is going into dump sites.

Where were you when those programs then were there? Why did you not, as a government, see that you couldn't wait for ever because it would greatly affect the investment in the greater Toronto area unless you had a solution?

We've set up a process that in a non-partisan, democratic way is coming up with solutions to a problem.

Mr Tilson: I don't know how in the world you know what our caucus is talking about, but let me tell you what our caucus is talking about. We're planning on looking at all the alternatives. We're planning on looking at all the alternatives that have been put forward to your government and which you've ignored. You've ignored that from day one.

You continue on with your blinders with respect to three superdumps on farm lands on top of water aquifers, simply not regarding any other alternatives with respect to this province.

On the 3R regulations, you, or one of your predecessors with respect to the Ministry of Environment, indicated that one of the predications with respect to developing the three superdumps would be forcing, or developing, the people of this province to get involved with respect to the three 3R regulations, those 3R regulations that were scheduled to become law this past August.

We learned last week that these regulations will quite possibly be delayed for some time, for an indefinite period of time. Not having those 3R regulations up will mean the 50% reduction plan that the Minister of Environment promised this province simply will be difficult to take place.

Having said that with respect to the three dumps, and having delayed now the regulations with respect to the 3Rs, can you tell us, are you really serious? Are these three dumps going to take 20 years or are they going to take 30 years? Obviously, you're going to have a heck of a lot more garbage being put in these dumps than you had ever dreamed about, when you don't have proper regulations with respect to the 3Rs. Are you going to be putting lifts on these dumps, like you did at Britannia?

My question is that if you intend to delay the institution of the implementation of the 3Rs, will you not delay the IWA process, the implementation of the three dumps, until the 3R regulations are in place? Can you be assured that we will be able to achieve your reduction targets?

Hon Mr Philip: We've said that the proponents of either Kirkland Lake or any other proposal are free to go, as is the honourable member if he has a proposal -- and I haven't heard any proposals other than to burn and ship. But if you have a concrete proposal then you, like the proponents of some of the proposals, are free to go to the Environmental Assessment Board and to present those proposals and have them evaluated, in the same way as the three proposals by the IWA are going to be evaluated, in a completely non-partisan manner. But if your proposal is to simply ship or burn, I suspect that those kinds of proposals would find difficulty in making their way through any independent environmental assessment.

COURT FACILITY

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): My question is for the Premier, and he indicates to me that he's going to refer it to the Attorney General. He'll be aware that I made a statement earlier where I indicated that justice is so sacrosanct that it should not even have the aura or the aroma of political meddling. For that reason -- I understand the Premier shares that concern about justice -- I'm going to call upon him and insist that he in fact answer this question, rather than referring it to the Attorney General, lest it appear as though politics is being played with justice.

It's his quote in fact. Premier, after I had made a statement in the House that not putting the Brampton courthouse within the announcements that were made was perhaps a political matter, you're quoted in the Toronto Star and several other papers. But I'll read one to you. You've indicated:

"'We're going to try to work with the private sector in creating a facility that we think is going to save taxpayers' money while at the same time providing the necessary courtroom space,' Rae said in an interview.

"'Discussions are now under way. The Brampton courthouse remains a priority and we're going to try to do something exciting with it.'

"Rae refused to give details but promised an announcement soon. 'Something is on the way. I want to stress that for the people of Brampton and Peel region, their needs are going to be met.'

"Construction of a 40-courtroom building in Brampton was announced in 1991." It was previously announced, as you know, Premier, in 1987, as a result of an independent study by the former Attorney General.

It goes on to say, "Rae said the Hamilton and Windsor announcements shouldn't be viewed as a sign that the Brampton courthouse is no longer a priority for his government."

It indicates, "A ground-breaking had been set for next spring" -- that's 1994 -- "on Hurontario Street near Steeles Avenue."

Premier, considering that justice should never even have the taint of political involvement, I'm asking you to answer this question. I'm asking you to commit to the House today that in fact the courthouse is on stream, that it will in fact be put in a rush scenario and that in fact we will be putting a shovel in the ground in the spring of 1994.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): To my good friend from Brampton South, I'm delighted that he asked me this question, and I will not be referring it. It's an issue that, as a jobs issue, is one that's of concern to the overall management of the government and I'm very much interested in this question.

I can say to the honourable member that what I told the small group of reporters -- dedicated, but not as large as some of the scrums I've had in Toronto, but nevertheless -- in Peel last week when I was visiting the Peel Board of Education to discuss the very successful Jobs Ontario Training programs that are in place in Brampton and in Mississauga, what I told the reporters there was exactly what is reported in the Toronto Star, and that is that as opposed to some of the things that I had heard about our announcement with respect to Windsor, Cornwall and Hamilton, and the suggestion that somehow Brampton had been forgotten, I wanted to emphasize that quite the opposite was the case.

Cabinet has already heard a report from treasury board, and we've asked treasury board to go back and give us as quick a response as possible in terms of a solution to the courthouse situation in Peel that is going to be timely and is going to be cost-effective.

Our concern has been that we believe there are some discussions that need to take place with the private sector, and we want to have those discussions before we make any final determination as to the exact nature of how we will meet the commitment we have made. But I can tell the honourable member that every sentence that is between quotation marks that has been attributed to me in the Toronto Star is entirely accurate, which is itself something I want to take note of and pass comment on and leave it at that. I know he shares my interest and the interest of all of us in seeing that justice is served.

1440

Mr Callahan: I appreciate the Premier taking the question because he appreciates as I do that justice should never be a political football. I'm sorry, Premier, but I have difficulty in accepting it. I have gone around my riding, I've talked to the chairman of the region of Peel, I've talked to mayors, I've talked to the chief judge of the General Division, I've talked to the chief judge of the Provincial Division, I've talked to the crown attorneys and they all know nothing about this private operation that the Premier says is about to be imminently done.

I suggest to you as well that in addition to that you have a full-time staff person out there who is running around looking at where to allocate office space in the plans that were drawn up for this building. It seems to me strange that this person would be running around trying to figure out where the rooms should be if in fact it's not on stream.

I'm taking you at your word, Premier, and I can assure you that I will be back to revisit it. I was once promised in this assembly a health facility on 45 acres of land that we owned in Brampton. It was axed by your government about a month after in fact it came into office. I'm trusting you. You're an honourable member. I'm trusting that what you're saying is that there will be a spade in the ground in the spring of 1994.

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the vote of confidence from the honourable member, and I'll take those votes wherever I can find them these days. I say to the honourable member that I hope he would recognize that since he himself in his first question pointed out that this facility had originally been promised by his government, of which he was such an active and strong proponent, in 1987 and it failed to deliver, and since it was a former Premier who was the member for Brampton before 1985 -- I can only assume that he had an ongoing interest in a project even prior to 1985 -- and nothing happened, as in so many other situations, I tell the honourable member what he's going to find as time unfolds: He will find that his party may have promised it and that party may have promised it. This is the party that's actually going to do it, and that's the difference between us and you.

BY-ELECTION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question to the Premier who just stood in his place and said he's going to live up to all his promises.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: Oh, he didn't say that. Okay, I'm sorry.

Premier, there are two groups of constituents in this province who do not have an official voice at Queen's Park, the people of Essex South and the residents of Victoria-Haliburton. It seemed to many of us that it would've made pretty straightforward, simple common sense to have both by-elections called for the same day. Instead you called one for Essex South and you ignored the people of Victoria-Haliburton. Can you tell me why, by not calling the Victoria-Haliburton by-election at the same time as Essex South, you have further denied the people of Victoria-Haliburton a voice in the Legislature of Ontario?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): There will be a by-election in Victoria-Haliburton in the allotted time.

Mr Harris: Mr Premier, our candidate for Victoria-Haliburton, Chris Hodgson, was just nominated last Thursday evening. Some 1,500 people turned out because they want to ensure that as soon as possible, they have a credible voice at Queen's Park.

Premier, in September 1988, following the resignation of your good friend MPP Mel Swart --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Who?

Mr Harris: The Premier's good friend Mel Swart resigned in 1988. You urged the government to immediately call a by-election. It wasn't fair, you said. In fact, here's your quote: "People are entitled to local representation." That's when you were pressing the then Premier to hurry up and get on and call this by-election.

Premier, I agreed with you then, and the people of Victoria-Haliburton agree too. They want to know, will you give them an opportunity to have representation at Queen's Park at the first opportunity?

Hon Mr Rae: I take note of a couple of things, and it's all in good fun. First of all, I say to the honourable member that I would hardly have wanted to call a by-election before the third party had nominated a candidate. I notice that he wasn't asking me this question 10 days ago.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Can I send this to the Welland Tribune?

Hon Mr Rae: We all learn from our experiences, and I guess the by-election at Welland-Thorold is an experience from which I'm still recovering.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a question to the Minister of Transportation. I note there's a little bit of light humour in the room here. I want to reassure the members that this is a serious question.

I come from a large rural riding that has --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

Mr O'Connor: Mr Speaker, obviously these people don't represent rural Ontario and they don't give a damn, but I'll tell you right now, the people of rural Ontario care about this question and they want the question asked.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Ask it then. Come on.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Durham-York.

Mr O'Connor: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'll try to speak over the heckling.

From a large rural riding perspective -- and there are a lot of members here and I hope they'll listen, because they represent rural ridings as well -- they have a need for volunteer firefighters. These volunteer firefighters, of course, react to either a pager or an alarm system that goes off, and from that moment it's minutes before they can get to the hall and get out to fight that fire. It's very important that these people have direct access that's safe, so they can let people know they are coming and down the road.

My question to the Minister of Transport is, will he be moving forward with the green flashing lights for these firefighters to get to the fire hall as quickly as possible?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): There has never been any doubt of the conviction of the member vis-à-vis the lives of his constituents in all of rural Ontario. Let's make no mistake about this.

As the minister, I share the safety concerns associated with those women and those men who provide the essential service of volunteer firefighting. Not only do we share in their concern, but we're only too aware of the obligation to introduce, hopefully in this session, sanctioning green lights for people leaving home and attending a fire.

This legislation will complement the legislation that was put through by the member for Northumberland, Mrs Joan Fawcett, by way of a private member's bill. The two bills -- I should say, the two laws -- will blend, which will enhance the possibility of attracting more firefighters. But first and foremost it will be immediate for the recognition, not only for those firefighters but for the general public, vis-à-vis what is an emergency.

1450

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMENTS

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Attorney General. Minister, I'm sure you will agree, as we do on this side, that your Deputy Attorney General is one of the best and most professional public servants in the provincial government. However, you're also aware that I've caused to be brought to your attention a letter that the Deputy Attorney General sent, which I will refer to.

It's dated August 13, on Ministry of the Attorney General letterhead. It's from the office of the Deputy Attorney General, signed by the Deputy Attorney General, in the matter of Carole Curtis, to the Law Society of Upper Canada discipline committee. It says, "I have been asked if I would write a character letter on behalf of Carole Curtis in relation to an upcoming hearing."

Minister, you're aware of the fact that there are two and a half to three pages of character reference, with which we have no question whatsoever, but as we get into the letter, it states, "Finally, I would like to make a few comments about the matter that is before the committee."

It goes on to say, "I have read only the letter written by Ms Curtis dated April 17, 1990, and the affidavit of Scott Kerr in this matter." Of course, he's commenting on two of the most important documents in the hearing: One is the letter in question, the subject of the hearing, and the other is the substance of the allegations.

After expressing an opinion based on this -- I'm not sure if it's hypothetical or actual -- case, your deputy goes on to say, and I'll be very brief, "While I do not suggest this would be the only course of action, I do understand why a lawyer facing this problem might contemplate it as part of a much broader response to the child's allegations." That statement suggests the possibility of exoneration. It suggests the possibility of exoneration based on your deputy's reading of two important documents in the hearing.

Minister, I want to know if you support your deputy sending that specific letter to the discipline committee of the law society.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): As I believe the deputy minister made very clear in his response to the member opposite, he did send this letter entirely on his own, without either asking for or getting any sense of acceptance from me or from anyone else in the government. My sense is that the deputy has explained to the member very clearly his reasons for doing so. Let me just read from the letter that he sent to the member. He said:

"First, I should confirm that it is the firm policy of the ministry and of myself as Deputy Attorney General not to interfere with law society discipline matters. The law society is a professional governing body that is totally separate from the government. The government as such has no role in its disciplinary matters and therefore of course is not able or permitted to usurp its authority. Publicly filing a character reference and expert opinion for the committee's review is a means of acknowledging, not challenging, that independent authority."

He goes on to explain that he believed he was acting as someone who had a unique ability to offer some expert opinion on a case kind of evidence, not this particular case but the kind of issue raised in this case, and that this was his intention. I accept that this was his intention.

I certainly understand the concern the member has raised but would say to him that the deputy has also explained the reasoning behind that.

Mr Chiarelli: Your deputy, in his own letter, indicates that he was asked to write a character letter. He goes far beyond that. He was not subpoenaed to give an expert opinion. He was not asked to give an expert opinion. He gave an expert opinion based on documents in the hearing: an affidavit of allegations and the letter that was called into question at the discipline proceedings.

A lot of people would disagree that this is a proper thing for him to do. In fact, this issue was brought to my attention by a member of the public a long way from Toronto. They saw a little article in the newspaper and they said, "How can this happen?"

Minister, this is bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. You and former ministers have indicated, time and again, that you cannot interfere with discipline matters of the law society. I have many of those letters on my desk which you sent to people interested in discipline proceedings.

I'm going to ask you, will you disassociate yourself from your deputy's letter, and if not, will you consider resigning?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have made it very clear in this House that I had nothing to do with the letter. That was done on the judgement of the deputy himself. I certainly would say to the member that this was his decision.

I would also say to the member that it's very interesting that this complaint comes forward not from the law society, which is very jealous and very careful of any sense of interference. There has been no suggestion from the law society or from members of the law society, or any complaint, to my knowledge, that this in any way was seen to intervene in its authority. I think the member must take that into consideration in his comments.

UNION REPRESENTATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Mr Minister, you may be aware that we made a presentation in the House last week about Randall Klein Designs, which is a London furniture company. I'll send the statement over to the minister with one of the pages, just so he knows what I'm asking about.

There was an unfortunate situation in fact where the workers found themselves unionized, whether they liked it or not. They tell me that during the Bill 40 hearings you eliminated the petition process, which was the only way an individual employee could express a desire not to join a trade union. Now employees do not have a mechanism that will allow their views to be heard.

They've tried everything. It's been in the process for six months. They've spent all their money. They've gone to the labour board. They don't want to be members of the union. Could you advise or tell the employees of Randall Klein Designs, who find themselves with no recourse to this dilemma, how you can assist them?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I apologize to the member. I had a note on that and I can't seem to lay my hands on it. I will get back as quickly as I can to the member.

Mrs Cunningham: I don't think it's very complicated, Mr Speaker, if you will allow me just a minute here. These members signed their union cards in July. Somebody turned them in in February. In a couple of days they found themselves members of a union. They very quickly sent a letter and tried to be decertified. They didn't really want to be certified. They solved all their problems with their company; everybody was happy.

What they find themselves now in is a process. Both the workers and the management, the owner of a very small company with just 20 workers, went to the labour board. That experience was something most of us wouldn't be proud of. You make a presentation. It's supposed to start at 9 and it starts at 11. After a couple of questions, you take a two-hour lunch break. Then you come back and say, "That's all we can do."

They are very frustrated. I'd like the minister to think about that. I don't think he needs any notes on that.

During the Bill 40 hearings, my colleague Elizabeth Witmer introduced an amendment making a representation vote mandatory, and you ignored it. Then she introduced a private member's bill that would require a mandatory secret ballot. The workers tell me that if they'd had to have this secret ballot, this wouldn't have happened.

I'd like to ask you, what would require you to agree with the mandatory secret ballot? Is that something you'll consider under the circumstances?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: As the member well knows, the secret ballot is not a provision that was put in place when the legislation was put in place by her government back many, many years ago in the province of Ontario. It's not quite as simple as is being stated by the member from London. As I said, I'll get back to her very quickly.

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Yet again, for another year in northern Ontario we're going through probably the most difficult process in regard to the situation with moose tags.

I realize that southern members, especially members from the opposition, sometimes howl when we ask this question. But I don't think they have an appreciation for the importance people in northern Ontario put on their hunting season, especially in places around Timmins, Chapleau etc.

The question is this, Mr Minister: For years and years and years people have been going through this whole tag system with the expectation that one day, hopefully, maybe they can get drawn for a tag. Year after year it's happened; I think we're now in year nine when it comes to moose tags. I know people within my constituency, as I'm sure other people from northern Ontario also know people from their constituency, who, after nine years of having their name in the drum to be drawn for a moose tag, an adult tag, have yet to be drawn. There is an extreme amount of frustration on the part of those people in northern Ontario who for nine years have been unable to get a tag.

1500

There were some assurances by the Conservative government of the day under Minister of Natural Resources Pope --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Get to the question.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order, please.

Interjection: You can have order if you cut him short.

Mr Bisson: I realize that members from southern Ontario don't see this as an issue, but in northern Ontario this is a very big issue.

The question is very simply this: There were some assurances when the tag system was set up that if you went into the tag system you would be guaranteed of being pulled for a tag at least every two years. Here we are some nine years later, and you've still got people who haven't been drawn for nine years. What kind of confidence can people have in the system unless they feel it works for them? What do you say to those people who haven't been drawn for nine years?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): The member is indeed correct that for many communities in northern Ontario and central Ontario, and for people in southern Ontario, the issue of a moose allocation draw is an important question that some folks have difficulty understanding.

The essence of it is this: We have wildlife management units in the province that every year are undersubscribed; that is, there are more moose tags available in those units than there are hunters who seek to hunt in those units. We have other wildlife management units, essentially those closer to southern Ontario, where there are more people seeking to hunt in those units than there are tags. Someone who applies for one of those wildlife management units where there are more hunters than there are tags may indeed go four or five or six or possibly even nine years without getting a tag because they are so oversubscribed. Meanwhile, someone who is applying for a moose-hunting tag in one of the units that is lightly subscribed can probably get a tag almost every year because there are fewer hunters than there are tags.

Mr Bisson: Minister, I realize the ministry has looked at opportunities to allow more tags to get out the door, a better system of allocation in order to deal with the needs of the people of northern Ontario, by and large, and some people in the south, but your answer doesn't go anywhere close enough to addressing the question that people in my riding ask, which is, "When can I get a tag?"

Hon Mr Hampton: The Ministry of Natural Resources will not allocate tags in a wildlife management unit if the moose population in that unit will not support more hunting. For individuals who want to be assured of getting a tag, the best bet for them would be to look at the wildlife management unit maps, determine which units have an excess of tags every year -- in other words, very good moose populations -- and apply for a tag in those units. They may have to go a little further from home, but it will be well worth it in the sense that they will have a much better chance of getting a moose tag.

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr Minister, last Friday the member for Ottawa Centre held a press conference in her constituency office denouncing the opposition members for stalling second reading of Bill 77. The member said if this bill does not receive second and third reading, the bill will die, and I quote, "unless the opposition guarantees it a smooth ride in the legislature."

Mr Minister, I think you want to try and take the opposition for a ride, but muzzling the opposition will not work. After all, the standing orders in this House were changed to accommodate the passage of your legislation in an orderly fashion. Why did you wait until the 11th hour to tell this House that you will not have second reading of Bill 77? After all, MVA for Metro and also the London-Middlesex legislation was given extra time to be debated in this House. Why are you treating Ottawa-Carleton differently?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): There have been three studies since 1986 and public hearings --

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): That's not the question. Come on, wake up.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. The member for Ottawa West, order, please.

Hon Mr Philip: The honourable member says I should wake up. He's the only member I've ever known who had a dream that he was speaking in the Legislature, and he woke up and everybody was asleep.

The Deputy Speaker: Please answer the question.

Hon Mr Philip: Actually, he was speaking in the Legislature and everyone was asleep. But I'll answer the question. There have been extensive --

Mr Chiarelli: Don't be silly.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa West, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Philip: This has been under study since 1986 with two different governments. It's fairly obvious that the opposition doesn't want to see the change that the people of Ottawa-Carleton have been requesting for so long and on which so much tax money has been spent on all kinds of public hearings.

If we do not get cooperation from the opposition on the bill, it's very difficult for us to have it in place and have the machinery in place in order that people can make reasonable --

Mr Chiarelli: That's total nonsense.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa West, order, please. Minister, I would ask you to address the Chair.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Speaker, the member for Ottawa East was the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He did nothing to resolve the problem. We're trying to resolve the problem. We're saying we have to have the machinery in place in order to have a democratic municipal election. All he wants to do is to stall and play politics with the people of Ottawa-Carleton. They know that, and they'll catch up with him at election time.

PETITIONS

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it goes as follows:

"Whereas the NDP government has imposed" --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Please take your chair. We'll just wait for a few minutes.

Mr Arnott: I'll start this petition again. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

"Whereas the NDP government has imposed a 26-cents-per-litre tax on wine and beer made at brew-on-premise locations in Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result to these businesses from the above implementations;

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

"That the government remove this unfair tax on people's free time and encourage business rather than discouraging it through punitive taxation."

I endorse this petition 100% and have affixed my signature to it.

TAX EXEMPTION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition that has been brought to my attention from the annual conference of the Ontario Museum Association. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas museums are an essential part of the community, serving to preserve heritage and educate the public; and

"Whereas municipal government should be empowered to provide automatic support for museums by enabling them to pass a bylaw exempting particular museums from municipal and school board taxes;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Leo Jordan's private Bill 46, An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide for Tax Exemptions."

That's been signed by 61 people attending the annual conference of the Ontario Museum Association in Ottawa, and I affix my signature.

1510

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition signed by about 50 members of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada, Peterborough branch, and it reads as follows:

"Dear Member,

"'Five-hundred and forty Quebec residents are enrolled in the Ontario education system in an advanced apprenticeship electrical, 36-week technology course, while Ontario applicants are placed on a waiting list' (Ottawa Citizen, May 14, 1993). All this beneficence is costing you and I, the Ontario education taxpayer, $11,000 for each student and, like the controversy over Quebec construction workers getting employment in Ontario while Ontario workers are denied the privilege of even submitting an application, the education fiasco does not work both ways either. Quebec has already plundered Ontario beyond endurance. We demand that this program be discontinued immediately and that our students receive that important preparation so that they will be qualified to secure and do the work for jobs in this province and elsewhere."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business. I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such days will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr Hansen from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented the committee's report on the role of the independent member and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Our committee was studying the role of the independent member and his participation here in the House. I would like to thank the three independent members who came before the committee and the committee members on this report that's handed in to you, Mr Speaker.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Hansen moved the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOBACCO CONTROL ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DE L'USAGE DU TABAC

On motion by Mrs Grier, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 119, An Act to prevent the Provision of Tobacco to Young Persons and to regulate its Sale and Use by Others / Projet de loi 119, Loi visant à empêcher la fourniture de tabac aux jeunes et à en réglementer la vente et l'usage par les autres.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): This is far-reaching legislation designed to prevent illness and death and to promote health. I appreciate the comments from members in other parties today to the effect that they support it, and I look forward to its debate.

OPPOSITION DAY

LANDFILL

Mr Tilson moved opposition day motion number 4:

Whereas the NDP government has continued to proceed with the Interim Waste Authority process of selecting dumps in the regions of Peel, Durham and York without considering any alternatives to building superdumps; and

Whereas continuing this process breaks NDP promises made during the last provincial election campaign of 1990, as outlined in the Agenda for People; and

Whereas the NDP will risk farm land by placing the three sites on existing, operating farms; will threaten the environment by placing sites on aquifers supplying drinking water to surrounding communities and will destroy community life by forcing residents out of their homes and away from their communities in order to develop superdumps in each of the three regions; and

Whereas the NDP have insulted the residents in each of the three communities and in fact the people of Ontario with their rhetoric of a fair and open process; and

Whereas the fundamental rights of the residents of the three regions have been violated by the arbitrary decisions to rule out any other alternatives to the superdumps; and

Whereas the NDP dictated the IWA process by passing Bill 143 forcing the greater Toronto area to accommodate sites for their garbage; and

Whereas the NDP government is to be made accountable for its bad decisions by the people of Ontario;

Therefore, this House calls on the NDP government to repeal Bill 143, disband the Interim Waste Authority and place a moratorium on the process of finding three superdumps within the greater Toronto area until all alternatives have been explored and researched, including the long rail-haul option to willing host communities, incineration and better product management.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member has made his motion. The honourable House leader.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): As you know, Mr Speaker, we split the time evenly among the three parties on these opposition day motion debates, and I believe we have an agreement that the member for Elgin, who sits as a non-aligned member in this Legislature, would have 15 minutes in total to speak to this motion, five minutes to be deducted from each of the three caucuses' times during the debate this afternoon. I believe it has been agreed that he will speak second.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have an agreement? Agreed. I would like the table to take note of that, that the member for Elgin will be speaking for 15 minutes and speaking immediately following the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): This is a resolution which I think is affecting many of us in this House, directly or indirectly. I will tell you, we've been trying on this side of the House to ask questions of this government explaining why it is going through with a process that has been flawed from the very outset, including the implementation of Bill 143.

We've put forward what we believe are sound alternatives for the government to consider, and yet the government continues to proceed with its plan to implement these three superdumps without studying all of the alternatives as governments have done in the past.

This past Saturday evening, I attended a dinner that was put forward by the Peel federation of agriculture. It was a dinner meeting to honour the farmer of the year, and I suspect that this type of meeting of federations of agriculture around this province is conducted in many of the areas and it was one that I have attended since being elected to this House.

This community is in the middle, of course, of one of the superdumps in the region of Caledon, although I'm sure that similar stories could be told by members of this House who represent areas in regions where the three dumps are located and which are in prime agricultural land.

This particular year, 1993, an award was presented to farmers of the year. It was a husband and wife team, Wilson and Lily French of Caledon. It's an honour to receive this award and it has been going back a great number of years.

I am sure, as I say, this happens in other areas, but speaking from an area which I represent, this is an honour and the farmers, of course, talk about their progress over the years in developing the farm land, many farms which go back over 100 years, many of which have been in the same family. There's one particular farm in Caledon specifically which goes back into the 1950s and a second generation is now operating prime A farm land on a portion of the dump that's been chosen.

These are dinners which local politicians, members of the federal government, members of the provincial Legislature can attend and come to talk about agricultural matters. This is a policy which all governments have spoken of in the past: the desire to preserve our farm lands. This has been put forward by Conservative governments, this has been put forward by Liberal governments and this has been put forward by the New Democratic government in the past.

1520

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Oh, take the politics out of it. Let's just kill the bill.

Mr Tilson: Well, the member says taking care of the politics. You can say about that that the fact of the matter is that these superdumps are being put on prime agricultural land.

Mr Sorbara: Never mind the politics. That's the substance.

Mr Tilson: The member should be very cautious, because we do remember what the Liberal government did when it was in power; it intended to do the same thing. This government opposed that, and it stood up and down and ranted and raved on the Liberal policy with respect to placing dumps. Now they're even worse; they're far worse than the Liberals even had hoped to be.

I would like to get into other areas members of the three regions are concerned about with respect to these dumps and why they're inappropriate. These dumps are not only on prime agricultural land; they're near populated areas, they are near industrial development areas, they endanger water supplies.

That was the whole commitment of the Interim Waste Authority. It was a commitment by law and process to protect agricultural land and operation, to stay away from populated areas, and that's not what they're doing -- they're very close to populated areas; not to interfere with industrial development areas, and they're doing just that; and not to endanger the environment or water supplies in any way. They're doing all of the things that they're not supposed to do by law and process. Instead they have chosen a dump in all of these three areas.

People in these areas are simply frantic. They are shocked that, after all of the effort that has been put forward in these three regions, the Interim Waste Authority has come to the conclusion that it has. They're angry. They're angry because of the deception and the incompetence of the Interim Waste Authority, and yet we go ahead.

Even as late as today, the Interim Waste Authority has decided to choose, it appears, the region of Peel with respect to a flawed process. The residents of the region of Peel are concerned that the wells and the surrounding area are first tested before the government continues to proceed with developing this site, and yet the government won't make a commitment with respect to testing the wells surrounding this particular dump.

We've already had one confrontation this past week, where the members of the ratepayers' association literally had to guard, had to stop the Interim Waste Authority from arriving on this site, to protest the actions that it was taking. Now it appears that tomorrow they may have to do the same thing, because the government, the Interim Waste Authority, refuses to properly explain the process to the people of this province as to what it's going to do.

Even with respect to the access agreements, not all of these agreements are signed, not all of them have been ever really explained to the people of the greater Toronto area, and yet the government continues to plow onward.

Mr Pitman of the IWA says, "We have a whole slew of new technology, and I can assure you that these dumps will be well built and will not damage the aquifers that supply the water to these communities and that there will be no problem." We all know that can't be proven. We can't be guaranteed that these large aquifers are going to be preserved.

I will tell you that the dumps are going to last approximately 20 years, and after that the government will say, "Well, it doesn't matter." What guarantee are they going to have? The water of this area not only provides water to the communities, the farm lands in these communities, but in many cases they're the headwaters to all of the streams and the rivers that go down to Lake Ontario. It's a most inappropriate place to put superdumps, in the greater Toronto area, in any of the three regions, yet this government continues to proceed with that process.

On the whole topic of people's investment, there have been many people from other areas who have moved to these areas not being told that the government planned to put superdumps in this area, and now they're being told, "We're going to have three superdumps."

On the topic of investment, the topic of refinancing, people are suddenly discovering that no one wants to move to these areas. I'm not talking about the dumps proper, I'm talking about the areas around them. Why would you move to where in one area the size of the dump is 350 acres and in another area it's what, double that size?

The people are very concerned. Their life savings have been put in, and they will not be compensated for it. Many people are trying to renegotiate their mortgages. They're finding that financial institutions are most reluctant to renegotiate their mortgages. Why? Because it's a great risk to invest in areas where you're putting superdumps.

Then there's the issue of the assessment of taxes. The government continues to download onto the municipal governments in all of these three regions. Yet the municipalities are finding it's anticipated that the rest of the municipalities' taxes will go up because you can bet your bottom dollar that all of the areas within and around these dumps will be reassessed and, notwithstanding the information that's being put forward by the government, this will affect the overall tax structure of these communities.

Communities will be destroyed financially, socially, economically. It's tragic, particularly when there are other ways of solving a very serious problem.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why this government will not even consider the topic of incineration. They won't even look at it. Why won't they look at it? I'll tell you: There are other countries around this world, whether it be Europe, whether it be the United States, whether it be Japan, where incineration is working very well.

There's nothing wrong with a government, particularly in this country, at least looking at that topic. But this government is saying, "Oh well, the emissions are going to cause problems." What in the world do you think is going to be the effect of the leachate that's going to be put into the ground from these giant holes you're going to be creating above aquifers, aside from the effects on rivers and streams leading to Lake Ontario, within and outside the dump areas?

The whole concept, the whole philosophy of this government is very suspicious.

This past week there was a development where a citizens' coalition from the various groups around this province put forward a plan on government funding, on intervenor funding, although the intervenor funding said: "You can't look at incineration, you can't look at the long rail-haul. You can only look at certain things which we tell you." So they did that.

It was reported in the Toronto Star over the weekend that the coalition put forward a very extensive package called Resources Not Garbage. The government, it seems, isn't even going to consider that. They're not even going to consider that alternative.

This coalition came up with a five-point plan which it hopes provincial and municipal politicians will adopt over the waste authority's selections. The plan promotes reducing waste through stricter provincial laws on excessive packaging; intensive recycling and composting programs; processing garbage headed for dump sites to recover recyclable goods; above-ground storage mounds for the remaining garbage; and creating community-based groups to select mini-dump sites.

In other words, they're saying that waste reduction, more recycling and composting could create 2,000 jobs with annual wages of $100 million.

I don't know whether this plan is feasible, but this government, after giving this group money to investigate and hire people to develop it, is not even going to consider it. They're not even going to hold off or put on a moratorium with respect to the three dump sites. They're just plowing ahead with these great, giant cavities in the ground and putting waste in them.

People have worked very hard with respect to this development. There's the King-Vaughan Environmental Coalition in York region; there's the Credit Valley coalition; there's Don't Assault Rural Environments from the Peel region; and Vaughan Cares in York; and Pickering Ajax Citizens Together, PACT, of the Durham region.

This coalition came up and put forward this plan. The minister said, "Well, we're going to consider it." But we don't know what he's going to consider. If these people have a legitimate position that should be studied, why are we proceeding in the fashion that we are?

1530

I guess when you read the resolution, when we put forward the resolution, that's all we're asking. We're simply asking that this government disband the Interim Waste Authority, which has been flawed from the very outset. I would think that this government would be embarrassed with the way this group of people have conducted themselves in a very political fashion. Following Bill 143, which hasn't worked and is not going to work and will never work, why would they not even consider it at this time, having seen the actions of the Interim Waste Authority to date? More importantly, they must realize now that Bill 143, with its draconian sections, will not work.

We must look at all of the alternatives, which all of us are aware should be looked at, and put a moratorium with respect to the process of finding the three superdumps within the greater Toronto area.

We feel that there are other alternatives. This government seems to think that there are no other alternatives and that this is the answer, building giant dumps in the area is the only answer.

I can tell you that the people are concerned in these regions about their children and the effect that it's going to have on them with respect to their health, with respect to their future. It will have a tremendous effect on these individuals, which will include a population of over --

Mr Sorbara: How come he gets four hours?

Mr Tilson: It's in the middle of an area containing 4.5 million people.

I'm going to close so the member from York can come and finally have his say after he's been heckling me throughout my comments. I'd simply remind the members of this government where it stands with respect to farm lands. In their Agenda for People, which they put forward during the last election, under "Preserving Agricultural Land, " they said that they would amend the Planning Act to preserve farm land.

"The agricultural land base in Ontario is quickly shrinking in the hands of a Liberal government which refuses to reign in the land developers. A draft foodland preservation policy statement under the Planning Act has languished at the cabinet table since early 1986. We propose a land speculation tax to slow the conversion of valuable farm land to other uses, and would pass major amendments to the Planning Act to prevent the conversion of classes 1-3 farm land to non-farm uses."

Under the Interim Waste Authority, of course, the proposed dump sites in all of the three regions are all on valuable class A1 farm land.

Reverse this policy, put a moratorium on the three dumps, and look at all of the alternatives, which you know you're supposed to do.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Elgin, as previously agreed, has 15 minutes to participate in the debate.

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I'd first like to talk a little bit about just the issue of landfills in general, because in this particular province I think the issue of landfills has created an extreme problem for this government, and it's a problem that dates back quite some time.

A number of issues that are most difficult are the issues of opposing interests in issues such as the environment, agriculture, economics, and family and heritage. All play, I think, a large role in that particular problem.

I think one of the other issues that needs to be addressed, and it's something that I hear locally at home as well, is the issue of process. That is an issue that above and beyond anything that's been discussed either in this House or outside of this House is, in everyone's mind, I think, a catastrophic method of dealing with this particular problem, landfills.

There has been discussion on the regions of York, Peel, Durham, regions that are in southwestern Ontario, and on an area in northeastern Ontario with regard to landfills and how the process should work in granting or not granting landfills. It has been, to my knowledge, one of the most convoluted discussions and processes this province has probably ever seen.

People of certain parts of this province, depending on the interest that they find for themselves, end up on both sides of the problem. They have had, on the one hand, support for a process that goes along to find a solution. Then there are people, on the other hand, who believe that the process is leaving them out in finding the solution. And we have vast numbers of people on both sides of the issue.

The thing that I found in the discussions I've had with people in the province is that neither is satisfied. You can talk to them about the issue of wanting the landfills and they're not satisfied. You can talk about the issue of not wanting the landfills and they're not satisfied because they can't seem to get the answers.

They tell me that when they speak to members of the government or members of the House in general, they find they can't get answers. They find that the answers they get are convoluted and that they are continuously talked back into the process: that the process will solve their problem, that the process will be the be-all and end-all of their problems. Yet in the end, they've neither understood the process nor have they understood the answers. They're left with a feeling of emptiness and a feeling of misunderstanding.

The last thing I want to say on that particular issue of process is the fact that they find, in dealing with the process, that it becomes a nightmare of red tape. It's something the government members and it's something myself as a government member and it's something I think past government members on this side of the House have spoken and tried to speak very clearly about, the issue of red tape and the need to try to control red tape and the bureaucracy of government. There's no method by which we are able to, or have been able to in the past, control that amount of red tape, and with that red tape comes a vast amount of money spent. Whether it's by municipalities, whether it's by interest groups, whether it's by members of the general public or whether it's by the government, in the end, all people who are involved in this process spend vast amounts of money on red tape.

In that, I wanted to use an example, and I'll use the example of Elgin county. I think I can show a fairly good example by using the Green Lane landfill, which is in Elgin county.

We started in September 1991 on a process to try and reopen a landfill that was deemed to be full. At that point, the municipalities asked the government of Ontario, through me, if there was some way we could come to a resolution of the problem at the time through an emergency certificate. Unfortunately, that emergency certificate was not granted. We had to begin a process by which we would find out whether or not the landfill that we had had, that was full, was adequate to serve the people of Elgin county and the surrounding municipalities, or whether in fact we could not find safety in that particular landfill.

At the time -- and I've said earlier about process -- there was a misunderstanding already, because shortly thereafter there was a landfill named Maidstone in the Windsor area that for some reason, although it was in the same situation, was deemed to be something that could be opened, although Green Lane in Elgin county had to be closed. I don't know if there's any particular reasoning. I will tell you very frankly that the people of Elgin county thought the reasoning may very well be the fact that Maidstone was public and the landfill in Elgin county was private. But for whatever reason, it was closed.

We then went into the process and continued to follow the direction of the Ministry of the Environment that was given to the municipalities and went through a process that lasted just shortly more than two years.

We're now at a stage where we were given an interim certificate agreement to reopen, but at that point there was an appeal put in to the executive council of the province of Ontario. The people who made this appeal, some two people in the county of Elgin, felt that the process had not been followed properly. Again, here is a situation involving process. They felt the process was not followed properly, that there were some irregularities in the process and perhaps some irregularities by the people who were dealing with the process in the county of Elgin and also in the Ministry of the Environment.

1540

I wanted to talk a little bit about the impacts of this process and the impacts of these decisions on our particular county, to give you an example of what red tape can do in these particular situations.

For example, the interests of the environment, when you're in a process like this, undoubtedly become overlooked. As an example, we had in Elgin county literally tons, and I don't think I use the term lightly, of debris and waste; whether it was tires, whether it was construction materials, whatever the case may be, literally tons of material were dumped on to the side roads, the ditches of the side roads, in family farms in our community, in ravines and ditches and other areas that were, to say the least, unsightly, not to mention the cost in terms of economics to certain municipalities to clean this debris up.

Also in terms of the environment, there was a great increase in trucking, as we had to truck the debris, the collection of waste that we would normally do, down the road some 60 or 80 kilometres to Ridge Valley landfill, which is in the Blenheim-Chatham area, something the people of that area weren't exactly thrilled about either.

To be fair, there was also some interest by the people whom I mentioned earlier in the water that surrounded the landfill in Southwold township, the Green Lane landfill. I believe they were legitimate concerns and needed to be addressed. They were, coincidentally, addressed after that particular incident. In the interim between the time that we were closed and the time that we actually were reopened but closed, those interests were checked, the health and safety issues were checked, and it was deemed to be suitable or fit for consumption in that particular area.

The agricultural interests that people have in that area were, I believe, strongly impacted by this particular process. On the one hand, you have people of the rural communities now having people from other areas coming in and dumping debris and rubbish on their front lawns, so to speak, or in the particular areas that surround their homes. The agricultural community came forward, saying, "Why would we want to go and look for another site in Elgin county when this is the one that has been deemed suitable, not once but twice, for taking waste from the municipalities of Elgin?" So there's been quite an impact on the agricultural community as well.

But I think the one I want to touch on most strongly is the question of economics, because I know the people of York, Peel and Durham will be concerned with this issue as well as they go through this process and try to find out what's going to happen to the waste from Toronto or the waste that will be coming into their area.

In our particular area, we've had devastation, basically, as a result of the recession. We've had some six plants close in the manufacturing sector, which has given us tremendous hardship in terms of job losses: some 2,000 jobs just as a result of the manufacturing sector. If you include the retail, business, municipal and agricultural sectors, those job losses could be in the neighbourhood of 4,000 to 4,500. So we've had a difficult time with it. The latest, just as an example, is MacMillan Bathurst, some 130 jobs that we lost on November 2.

These people talk to us and they talk to the municipalities, and they discuss costs. They discuss the cost of doing business in Elgin county, and one of those costs, quite frankly, is the cost of waste, to be able to rid themselves of waste. They're good corporate people. They want to do it in the most environmental way possible and they need to have a landfill in which to do it. But if they have to truck that garbage all the way to Chatham or to Ridge landfill, or wherever that landfill may be in the future, it impedes their ability to do business. So we're having a difficult time, and it's not conducive, I would say, to having people come into the area and set up a manufacturing business.

The other impact I would like to talk about is the impact it has on the people of the area. They are concerned. They obviously want an environmental way to rid themselves of waste. They have joined wholeheartedly in the process of the 3Rs and in doing the best they can to try to recycle, reuse and all of those things. They feel very strongly that they have worked through the process and done the right things.

They're in a situation now where they wait, and they wait patiently, but their patience is waning. It's a patience that costs them $10,000 a day, as they wait and wait and wait for this landfill to be reopened. This question has been put to the executive council through the appeal. They've told them very clearly, "If there is no issue with this, we would like to see the landfill reopened and people able to rid themselves of waste in Elgin county in a safe and environmental manner."

I'll close by thanking my friends on all sides of the House for the opportunity to speak, just reiterating a few things about landfills in general. We need to have the safest process we can, the most environmental process we can, to do the things that need to be done for the environment. We need to be able to have a process that cuts red tape, not increases red tape. We need to have a process that lets people into the process, let's them understand the process and let's them feel a part of the process.

In Elgin county, we've had difficulty with that. We've had great difficulty with it in economic terms. It's costing us dearly to wait for a process that has passed us by. Although we've wanted to participate and have done the best we can to participate, it's now in the hands of the executive council. I don't believe that I've seen, in the time I've been here and in the time I was in government, a decision that was made by an Environmental Assessment Board with regard to a landfill that's been overturned by the executive council. Perhaps that may be something that will be done in the future. Perhaps that may be something that will be done as far as Elgin county goes. I believe it won't be.

In my view, it's time to get on with it in Elgin county, it's time to get that landfill open and it's time that the people of York, Durham and Peel had a chance to voice their concerns and put them on the record. I thank you very much for your time.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate, the honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs, also responsible for the greater Toronto area.

Mr Sorbara: Let's hear from Jim Wiseman.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr Wiseman will be speaking, I'm sure. If the member will just be patient, I'm sure he will hear from Mr Wiseman.

I'd like to start off by thanking my colleagues for taking part in this afternoon's discussion and debate regarding waste management in Ontario, and specifically in the greater Toronto area. I'd also like to thank the honourable members of the official opposition and the third party for this opportunity to clarify any misconceptions regarding the government's position on this matter so that we can get on with the job of managing the 3Rs initiatives in waste disposal for the greater Toronto area.

Mr Sorbara: How about repealing the bill? Then we can get on with it.

Hon Mr Philip: I am always courteous to the honourable member for York Centre. I hope he will give me the same courtesy, since we have limited time for this debate.

My colleague the Minister of Environment and Energy no doubt would be in a better position, since he's so knowledgeable about this, to present the views of the government. Unfortunately, because of the tragedy in his family, he cannot be here today. I hope I'm able to present his views and his positions with some clarity.

Mr Sorbara: He wanted to repeal the bill. I remember he wanted to repeal the bill.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member will have the opportunity of speaking later.

Hon Mr Philip: We also, of course, feel very deeply for him and for Anne and for members of the family at this tragic moment in their lives.

At the same time, I do want to express to the Minister of Environment my appreciation and admiration for the excellent staff he has, both political and bureaucratic, and for the time they spent in helping me to understand some of the key issues and to answer the questions of the members in the House.

1550

Like many of my colleagues, I was certainly aware of the greater Toronto area's garbage problem. As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and later as the minister responsible for the GTA and for economic growth in the GTA, I naturally saw the consequences of not dealing with this problem. But it's not until you become directly involved that you realize that waste management is indeed one of the most critical challenges of the greater Toronto area's environmental, social and economic wellbeing. Like every minister who's dealt with the issue, I learned very quickly that there are no easy answers.

My colleagues will further expand on the fact that there were not the easy answers this government was after when it developed and articulated the province's first comprehensive waste management strategy. They were the right answers, answers based on our belief that the problems of Ontario's environment had to be of foremost consideration.

We're very proud to be doing something positive to change our bad habits and to improve Ontario's wasteful reputation. The cornerstone of our strategy continues to be our commitment as a province to change Ontario's consumer way of life into a conserver society through the 3Rs. We remain committed to reducing the amount of waste going to disposal by at least 50% by the year 2000.

To date, the government has provided over $160.4 million in funding for municipal business and institutional waste reduction programs across the province. In 1992, Ontarians sent --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Speaker, members of the Conservative Party are polite enough to listen to me. Maybe members of the Liberal Party would show the same courtesy.

The Acting Speaker: I remind all members that you will have the opportunity of participating, if you so desire.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

Hon Mr Philip: In 1992, Ontarians sent 25% less waste per capita to landfills than they did in 1987, reaching our first goal of the waste reduction plan. It's estimated that around 440,000 tonnes of blue box materials were diverted from landfills across the province by more than three million Ontario households in 1992. Nearly one million homes are involved in backyard composting and approximately seven out of 10 offices now have waste reduction programs.

In the GTA alone, this government has invested more than $50 million in municipal and industrial 3Rs activities. As the next step, we are now funding a number of special projects aimed at adding new materials to municipal recycling programs, improving cost-effectiveness and developing markets. Some key examples are: The MOEE and the town of Markham in York region are pursuing a one-year, three-stream, wet-dry co-collection project to achieve over 50% diversion from landfill at reduced costs. Our estimated commitment is $543,100.

The Ministry of Energy and Environment and the regional municipality of Halton have enhanced the region's recycling program to recover additional materials such as high-density polyethylene plastic, polystyrene, aluminum foil, boxboard and fine paper. Our estimated commitment is $1,522,400.

As a clear step towards strengthening the market for old newspapers, the ministry has provided $4 million in funding to Atlantic Packaging Products for the purchase of equipment to recycle 141,000 tonnes of old newspapers annually in its new de-inking plant in Whitby.

The ministry has provided $575,150 in funding to the Canadian Polystyrene Recycling Association in Mississauga towards the purchase of equipment for its recycling facility. The facility is currently able to recycle 6,000 tonnes a year to post-consumer polystyrene products with the potential to expand and handle 16,000 tonnes a year.

The ministry provided $1.1 million in funding to Fibre Resource Recovery Corp in Toronto towards the purchase of equipment to recycle old corrugated cardboard and wastepaper. The facility has an annual recycling operation capacity of 120,000 tonnes a year. The ministry has also provided $300,200 in funding to IKO Industries Ltd in Brampton towards the purchase of equipment to reuse --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Markham, on a point of order.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My point of order has to do with the minister's speech in that it does not relate to the opposition day motion with regard to the NDP government selecting dumps in Durham, Peel and York. What he's saying has to do with other issues. Maybe he's got the wrong speech notes this afternoon --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Cousens: -- and to that extent I'd like to correct him and give him a chance to find them.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister has the floor. Please address the Chair.

Hon Mr Philip: If I may continue, if you don't produce it and if you're able to recycle it, it doesn't go into a dump. I think that if the member hasn't seen that point, then perhaps he'd like to read the speech, since he wasn't here for the beginning of it.

The MOEE provided $300,200 in funding to IKO Industries in Brampton towards the purchase of equipment to reuse an estimated 19,000 tonnes a year of in-house asphalt waste in the manufacture of roofing shingles.

Thanks to our government's efforts, Ontario has become a leader in the conserver approach to waste management. Enormous strides have been made to divert huge amounts of municipal solid waste we generate from disposal to productive uses through the 3Rs. These achievements are testimony to the level of partnership and commitment to action by municipal and provincial governments, by industry and labour, by environment and community groups, as well as by individuals.

That's why I welcome the proposals such as those of the Resources, Not Garbage Coalition, which presented its views. I think their views are worth examining and indeed trying to follow up on, as many as possible, unlike the members of the Conservative Party, one of whom I believe called the very interesting proposals by that very interesting group to be fairy dust.

Nevertheless, much remains to be done in a very short time frame. Even when the provincial waste reduction targets are actually achieved, there will be a substantial amount of residual waste requiring disposal. For well into the foreseeable future, the total volume of waste generated annually in the GTA will continue to be measured in the millions of tonnes.

The job of finding three long-term landfill sites in the GTA is a tough one, but I know it is necessary if we want to ensure that the long-term waste disposal needs of the greater Toronto area can be managed safely and efficiently.

The Interim Waste Authority was created in May 1991 and incorporated under the Business Corporations Act to conduct concurrent searches for three new landfill sites, one in Peel to serve its residents, one in Durham to serve its residents and one in Metro Toronto or York to serve the residents of the combined area.

The IWA reports to an independent board of directors: John Cherry, Margaret Kranmer-Bing, Joan Phillips, Bruce Campbell, David Balsillie and Walter Pitman as chair. The IWA search for three environmentally suitable landfill sites in the GTA is designed to be consistent with the requirements of numerous provincial and federal statutes, including the Waste Management Act, the Environmental Protection Act and the Environmental Assessment Act.

The IWA's search process entails a politically independent, scientific and technical process for site selection, including consultation with the affected parties, assessment of alternative site locations, considerations of all aspects of the environment and systematic evaluation of net environmental effects. It also includes clear and complete documentation of what the IWA has done, how it was done and why it was done. The IWA's preferred sites will then be studied even more closely by the Environmental Assessment Board to make sure they are acceptable places to put landfills.

The IWA comprises staff of 19 individuals, mostly seconded from other government departments, who coordinate the efforts of a team of consultants. These independent consultants have a broad range of expertise in the siting and the development of landfills.

1600

To conduct searches, the IWA developed a six-step methodology that began, in step 1, by screening out the areas which obviously could not be considered suitable as possible sites for landfill. These were areas where government policies effectively prohibited locating a landfill; for example, urban areas, parks, airports, agricultural lands where specialty crops or other unique agricultural features existed and lands that were obviously environmentally unsuitable.

Step 2 screened out lands where present or future uses, such as approved plans for residential subdivisions or parkland, were incompatible with or unsuitable for a landfill site.

In step 3, the large tracts of land that were not screened out were divided into smaller areas by applying logical boundaries such as the provincial highways, regional roads, railway lines and some hydro lines. These were called "candidate areas." The candidate areas were divided once again to create candidate sites of the appropriate size to accommodate the landfill.

Step 4 analysed each candidate site according to how landfill sites would impact the environment, people, plants, animals, land and water resources. Those that measured a low overall impact comprised a long list of candidate sites that was announced in June 1992. Peel had 21 sites, Durham 17 and Metro Toronto 19.

In step 5, extensive consultation with the public and landfill site experts led to the development and ranking of a set of comparative criteria that were used to measure the potential environmental impacts of each long-listed site. People who participated in the public consultation workshops told the IWA that the higher-ranked criteria should be agriculture, biology, geology, hydrology and social. The lower-ranked criteria were archeology, aviation, design and operations, economics, heritage, surface water, transportation and planned land use.

Those criteria, applied to long-listed sites according to the ranking, led to the identification of the short list of sites which was announced by the chair. Peel dropped five sites, Durham five and Metro-York six. The public consultation process in step 5 resulted in an enormous amount of public input on the long list. The benefit of that input was that the IWA was able to add information about property characteristics that it did not previously have.

Some of that information led to the elimination of sites from further consideration. For example, the IWA had said that one site was removed because it contained agricultural land on which a specialty crop was grown. The process required that specialty crops be screened out in previous steps.

During step 6, the final and most demanding stage of the IWA's search process, copious amounts of data were collected to conduct exhaustive comparison analysis on each short-listed site. The end result of this work was the selection of one site in each study area that had the least impact on the environment. These preferred sites were announced by the chair on November 12.

Finding a location to put any waste disposal facility is not an easy job. Obviously, the process must be undertaken with the participation of the people who will be affected. That is why the IWA has made public consultation an integral part of its work. The public has been encouraged to participate and comment at every step.

The first opportunity came with the IWA's release of the draft approach and criteria document in August 1991. It set out a proposed approach and asked for comment and discussion on it. Open houses and workshops helped facilitate public input. Similar formal and informal meetings have been and continue to be organized at each stage. As well, since the long list of candidate sites was announced, the IWA received more than 1,000 phone calls, 2,000 letters and 150 written submissions.

Despite the rigorous and open process, the IWA continues to be criticized, and I'd like to address these criticisms. Members of the opposition continue to say that the process isn't fair. They argue that the process isn't fair for all kinds of reasons. For example, some say that the search has taken too long and that it has created too much anxiety. Others say that they need more time to prepare their arguments. Some of the opposition say that the IWA produces too much documentation. Other members in the same parties say that they don't get enough information. Some of the opposition members complain that the IWA has access to expensive professional expertise, but others say it doesn't know what it's doing. Still others say that the whole process is a sham and that the decision has already been made.

I'd like to take this opportunity to assure the members of this House that the process that has been carried out is indeed fair and the IWA is committed to the following principles of environmental assessment process: (1) to consult with the affected parties; (2) to consider reasonable alternatives; (3) to consider all aspects of the environment; (4) to systematically evaluate environmental effects; and (5) to provide clear, complete documentation.

Adhering to these principles requires that the site search is open to public scrutiny, that it is traceable and is documented from beginning to end and must include broad public discussion. The IWA must defend the decision before an independent board of an environmental assessment, or EA, hearing, and if the reasons for the IWA's decisions are unsubstantiated, the board could reject the recommendation and require that all or part of the searches be repeated.

Second, the IWA is one of the first proponents in the province to offer participating funding to citizen groups who oppose the candidate site. Participating funding allows site groups, municipalities and other citizens to hire independent experts for the purposes of reviewing and monitoring the IWA's process before the environmental assessment hearings begin. The IWA has made the offer voluntarily as part of its commitment to encouraging public participation.

The first stage of participant funding was carried out during step 6 of the IWA's process, when $1.5 million was provided. The second stage will now commence during the review of the IWA's step 7 testing; an additional $1.5 million will be provided by the IWA for its second stage. The funding will be distributed by an impartial panel consisting of members of the Environmental Assessment Board as well as the Ontario Municipal Board. Intervenor funding, which is a legislative requirement, becomes available to citizen groups at the EA hearing stage. These funds allow groups to pay for professional assistance in presenting their views at the hearings.

Third, the public consultation process has allowed the public to be involved in the decision-making process to a greater extent than has ever happened before in the siting of a public facility. Open houses, workshops, extensive distribution of information mailed to people's homes, group meetings, school presentations, community information centres, technical seminars, an information telephone number, presentation of briefs and more provided opportunities for people to hear about the search process and to tell what the IWA what they think.

Fourth, even though the IWA will do everything it can to lessen the landfills' impact, when all is said and done, some people are going to be living next to a landfill site. Needless to say, people want to know how the IWA will compensate them for the loss of property values and the quality of life if this happens to them. The IWA recently released a report outlining its commitment to fair compensation. It promises property value protection for people who are affected as well as outlining the efforts that will be made to minimize the impact a landfill has on the surrounding community.

The opposition has said that the process is flawed, and ever since the release of the long list of candidate sites, people have accused the IWA of creating and perpetuating a flawed process. One commonly asked question was, how could a state-of-the-art site search select prime agricultural land? Class 1, 2 or 3 agricultural lands were screened out by the IWA in steps 1 to 4 of the search process. The only exceptions were the urban shadow lands, publicly owned lands and lands designated as non-agricultural under Municipal Affairs.

Mr Sorbara: That's not true. Every single acre is in the urban shadow.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Philip: Maybe the member for York Centre would rather have his family put buildings on those sites instead of a garbage dump. Mr Speaker, I'd like to ask that he kindly keep --

Mr Sorbara: You're really obnoxious, Minister. Don't accuse me of that sort of stuff.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

1610

Hon Mr Philip: Putting the last two aside, let's look at the urban shadow. This term describes land now in agricultural production but evolving away from farm uses. Most of it is located close to urban areas and, typically, non-agricultural development is encroaching. Sometimes developers own or have options on these lands.

Typically, urban shadow lands offer the lowest adverse effects in long-term agricultural use. When you're looking for large tracts of land for landfill in rural areas, urban shadow lands provide an opportunity to situate the facility as close to the urban areas as possible, thereby protecting those farms which offer the greatest potential for long-term agricultural production. The urban shadow concept has long been used in the EA process, not just during the tenure of this government but during the tenures of the two previous governments.

Some members of the opposition are suggesting that the IWA's approach to landfill searches is not cost-efficient and is more expensive in comparison to searches undertaken by the GTA regional governments prior to this process. It is a little hard to compare the cost because none of the regional governments had completed their search process before the provincial government had to step in.

Briefly, the regional government searches were not moving fast enough to guarantee that new landfill space would be available when the existing capacity ran out. Regions were going to have to bridge the gap with interim sites. When the provincial government assumed the responsibility, the objective was to make certain that the GTA would not be without landfill capacity at any time and that all new sites would undergo a rigorous environmental assessment process. To achieve that, the IWA had to move as quickly as possible. It hired staff who would be dedicated to the project. It implemented searches simultaneously and it provided for extensive public information and consultation. As well, the IWA added a further aspect to public consultation the regions hadn't, and that was participant funding.

There's no doubt that the process is comprehensive, but it must be in order to ensure that it is open and fair, and that costs money. The IWA has advised me that it has spent $49 million to date. There are three factors to be considered when talking about the IWA's cost. The IWA has made every effort to clearly present the search approach and findings at every step of the process.

The search has been conducted within the broadest public consultation programs that have ever taken place in this country, let alone in this province. One quarter of the IWA's spending has been for public consultation and participation. The IWA is moving along quickly, faster than any other landfill proponents in the province. For example, it took Halton more than five years to identify its site, Kingston's search has been going on for seven years, Lanark's search has been going on for eight years, and they still haven't found sites. The IWA has undertaken an environmental assessment process and identified its preferred sites in just two years. Moreover, one must also remember that the IWA is doing three concurrent searches, not just one. Nevertheless, it is still incumbent on the IWA to be cost-effective.

In summary, I would say to you that both the Liberal and Conservative governments have stood back and not dealt with the problem, with a ticking clock as the problem of garbage disposal in the GTA mounted.

As minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, I'm concerned both about the environment and also investment in this area. The process this government has devised is fair, is independent and is transparent. If we are to continue to attract investment and create jobs in the GTA, we need a process that has some finality. This is a process that any objective person would see is fair and has some finality to it, and I'm committed to it, as is the Minister of Environment.

Mr Sorbara: I want to begin by congratulating my friend from Dufferin-Peel for bringing this emergency debate, this opposition motion, to this Parliament this afternoon. I don't think, frankly, as I look around the province, that any issue has more inflamed, certainly, the people of the greater Toronto area than this disaster the government has created on the question of building megadumps, one in Peel, one very large one in York region and one in Durham.

I want to say to the minister, who apparently doesn't have the courtesy to sit through the rest of the debate -- he chastised me for interrupting him -- I want to talk just for a moment about interruption. I want to talk about the way in which the government has interrupted the lives of thousands and thousands of people in Peel, in Durham and in York region.

I want to talk about the fact that this afternoon, rather than being back in the city of Vaughan looking to the important municipal problems that arise in our great community, the mayor of the city of Vaughan has to come down here to be part of and witness this debate, because this huge, terrible, obnoxious issue has disrupted the city of Vaughan and York region like no other issue I have ever seen in the nine years that I've sat in this Parliament.

I want to talk about the people of Caledon whose lives have been interrupted dramatically -- the other night 500 or 600 people out at a meeting, not being with their families, not attending to the kinds of things that one would normally like to attend to in community life, but having to go out to meeting after meeting.

Tonight well over 600, perhaps 1,000, people will be at St David's church in the community of Maple in the city of Vaughan to start organizing to wage what can only be described as a war against the government of Ontario, given what they have done and the disruption that they have caused in our communities as a result of this flawed, this stupid, this obnoxious policy called Bill 143 and the government's waste management strategy.

If the minister now sitting in for the Minister of Environment or any member of the government party or any NDP member had had the courtesy and the courage to attend a week and a half ago at the announcement made by the puppet IWA in a banquet hall on Steeles Avenue in the city of Vaughan, if any one of them had had the courage to attend that meeting, then they could have witnessed for themselves the level of anger, the level of despair, the level of concern and the level of outrage from people in all three communities at what was about to happen to them.

I want to tell you, sir, that the puppet IWA is not the real issue here, other than that it has spent some $50 million of your money and the money of the taxpayers of Ontario in this great process that the minister reads about -- and frankly, sir, I just want to interject by way of saying I find it terribly discouraging indeed that a parliamentarian like the Minister of Municipal Affairs doesn't have the courage to come in and speak about this issue. He reads some two-bit speech prepared by some low-life individual, probably in the IWA. I think that's absolutely objectionable. If he had the courage to come in and speak his own mind, that would be a different quality of debate.

But let's get back to that announcement; let's get back to the announcement of the puppet IWA doing the government's bidding. The reason I describe it as the waste management equivalent of the declaration of war is because the level of resistance that one felt among citizens and their representatives, like the mayor of Vaughan who has come down, as I've said, to bear witness to this debate, is really tantamount to taking on a government and being so determined to use every legitimate means at their disposal to make sure that this thing, this outrage, does not happen to them.

The good news is that the people of Vaughan and the people of York region and the people of Peel and Durham are going to win this war. There is such a determination to forgo what otherwise they do with their lives and to use every tactic and strategy to make sure that we slow this process down, legitimate means -- no one's talking about breaking the law -- but every legitimate means to ensure that this doesn't happen.

The good news is that time is on our side, that there's no way that the government is going to be able to ram this thing through in the time left in its feeble life as a government. They know over there that the parliamentary clock is ticking.

1620

The truth is, if Bob Rae were true to his word, we'd be having an election next September. The Premier, when he was in opposition, proclaimed the fact that he believed that after four years was the time for a government to go back to the people and seek a new mandate. Do you think Premier Bob's going to do that? No way. Do you think we're preparing for an election next September? We're ready any time, but Premier Bob Rae doesn't have the courage to call an election within the time frame he set out as a matter of principle when he was Leader of the Opposition.

But that's okay because it's still under two years. Even if they go right to the very end and have an election in September 1995 they still don't have enough time to take that agricultural land and turn it into a big pit filled with garbage. They can't physically do it. They're going to run out of time.

We're determined to make sure we do everything in our power to see that they are so far away from a conclusion to this process the minister talked about that all we will need is a defeat of the New Democrats and then we can get on with a better way of dealing with this problem. There is a better way and I'll get to that in a second.

But there's another aspect of this thing, this disruptive aspect, this warlike aspect of this battle we're having with the government: Like all wars, no matter what the parameters of the battle, there's economic damage and there's personal damage done.

I want to tell my friends that they should consider for a minute the economic damage, if nothing else, that you've done in the city of Vaughan, and in Peel and in Durham.

Mr Cousens: And Markham.

Mr Sorbara: Markham's another story and we're going to hear from my friend from Markham in just a few minutes.

If you talk to the people in our community now, everything's on hold: no plans for the natural continuation of growth of the community. Remember, Vaughan is the second fastest-growing community in all of Canada. A whole bunch of that development, new homes for people looking for homes, new businesses, all of that stuff is really on hold because of this fear that this thing somehow will actually get done and it will devalue, for years and years and years, like half a century, the attractiveness and the viability of our communities.

I just want to tell you, sir, and the people of Maple and Vaughan and York region, that while I understand this pause in our economic development has to happen while we fight this war, I just want to tell them and you, Mr Speaker, that we are determined to win this.

If we cannot, through debate and through intervention, get the government finally to do what is right and bring in a bill to repeal Bill 143 and end this process, if we cannot do that, then we will do it with the ballot box in the next election.

I want to say, parenthetically, that if through some crazy, unimaginable electoral fluke that party ever gets re-elected, frankly garbage will be the least of our problems in this great province. People would be so discouraged that it wouldn't really matter where you put a dump because basically people would say, "Turn the lights out, we've got the socialists for another four years." But it's not going to happen.

I was out there in the street during the last federal campaign. I was at doors virtually on every single day of the campaign. I know what the people of Ontario, not just in York region but right across southern Ontario -- I didn't get up into any northern ridings. But, you know, typically what you would hear from people is, after I made my pitch for the Liberal candidate with whom I was campaigning, they would say, "We're considering that, but would you tell me, Mr Sorbara, how long is it going to be before we can vote against the NDP government?" That's the election they're waiting for. That is our ace in the hole as we fight these guys on this business of megadumps in what the minister calls the urban shadow.

Think of it. Think of what it means to virtually destroy the economic viability of thousands and thousands of acres of land right in the backyard of the greater Toronto area. You don't put those dumps there. You know that over the course of the next two generations, that's where the development is going to be. That's where the next generation, our children and grandchildren, will build their homes and communities.

But how many new communities do you see encircling landfill sites that leak into aquifers and pollute the water we drink and the wells out of which we draw the water? All the evidence is there, sir. No matter how much engineering you do, no matter how thick you make the clay, the dumps eventually leak and they eventually pollute, and inevitably they give off tonnes and tonnes of methane gas that has to be burned, so carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide go off into the environment.

Yet they are so narrow-minded that they will consider nothing else but outhouse technology -- that's what dumps are -- and they are so narrow-minded that even before they begin all that process that the minister talks about, they put right in the law that the dump has to go in York region.

Where was the process for that? Who made that little decision? Where were the hearings to determine that Metropolitan Toronto's garbage was to be placed and sited and dumped in York region? You want to know who made that decision? The cabinet of Ontario under the leadership of Premier Bob Rae and the then Minister of the Environment, Ruth Grier, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. No hearing, no process, no consideration; a secret, private determination that we would have outhouse technology and that the site for Metro's garbage would be York region.

Then they spent $50 million picking out the particular site. Well, I want to tell my friends on the other side that for about $1.95, I could have told you the site that they would choose. If you come to York region and you look, it's quite obvious, because anything north of the site that you choose, you're right into the Oak Ridges moraine and you can't put a dump there. Then you're into the watershed of Lake Simcoe and you can't put a dump there. Anything further south, you're into the urban areas of the greater Toronto area. You're out of the urban shadow that the minister talked about.

Are we surprised that we've got a site just on the edge of our communities and the Oak Ridges moraine, right next to the highway that you want to use to send the dump trucks up? Why are we not surprised? Why did you spend $50 million?

I'll tell you why: So that some Minister of Environment or someone sitting in for him or her would be able to say that the process was impeccable. Well, the fact is that the process is a disaster, and the disaster is the decision to accept only outhouse technology and to insist that the garbage goes in York region.

I said earlier on in my remarks that this is not a difficult problem to solve. The first step is to endorse this resolution and repeal Bill 143. The second step, if you want to keep the IWA, is to tell the IWA that it has to continue its search for a solution to the garbage issue based on two simple principles.

The first principle is to identify a willing host community. Now, that's not all that difficult, particularly given the fact that a lot of money flows to the community that is the ultimate site for a waste management facility. While Kirkland Lake is one, I'm aware that there are others, willing host communities that say they would invite an opportunity to provide a facility.

1630

The second principle that should direct our future site is to compare all available technologies in dealing with the waste, to have a real environmental assessment process that compares dump technology with the other available technologies that are emerging all over the world.

What is of great interest is that when Bob Rae, now Premier Bob Rae, was in opposition, that's effectively what he promised when he stood on the edge of the proposed dump site in Whitevale, when he came to my own riding of York region, and in Peel as well. That's precisely what he promised, because that is what a full environmental assessment does: It compares a variety of sites and must compare a variety of technologies.

It's the betrayal of Bob Rae and the NDP government that has set the people of York region and Durham region and Peel region at war with the government, and it is a war that the people will win.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I'm delighted to be involved in this debate today because I must say I congratulate the member for Dufferin-Peel for having brought forward this motion. It's one that I support 100%.

Reference has already been made to the fact that the mayor of Vaughan is joining us today, and were she able to speak, were she in this House, which one day maybe she will be, what she would say to the members of this House is, why is this Interim Waste Authority process in place only here in the greater Toronto area? Why doesn't it apply to the rest of the province? The reason is, of course, that it doesn't make sense even here, let alone in the rest of the province.

In Kingston, for example, they are going through a similar process. Kingston isn't governed by the Interim Waste Authority process, isn't governed by Bill 143, and it is looking at the possibility of the export of waste. Indeed, waste is being exported today, and the government is turning a blind eye to the export that's actually occurring even today. They don't sanction it, so it's not popular to talk about it.

Waste from Metropolitan Toronto is being exported, for example, to an Occidental incinerator in the state of New York. Waste is going to landfill sites in Erie, Pennsylvania, and in Detroit, Michigan. Waste is being exported to Waterloo in New York and to the Seneca Metals landfill. This is waste from Metropolitan Toronto, waste that formerly was destined for either the Keele Valley site or the Brock site, but because the tipping fees are high, the waste is exported to American landfill sites. It's being exported to Ohio, it's being exported to Indiana, to the Grand River disposal landfill in Detroit, Michigan, and on and on it goes.

If the government is prepared to accept the export of waste to the United States, why isn't it prepared to look, for example, at a willing host site in Kirkland Lake? If it's okay to send it to Ohio, why isn't it okay to look at the Kirkland Lake site which is a willing host site? It doesn't make any sense.

The mayor of Pickering is here as well. If the mayor of Pickering were here and if he could speak to the House today, the mayor would say that we're looking at this whole issue from the wrong way, that we should look at it from the point of view of least social impact on population and look at the population of the GTA, over four million people who are having to deal with this problem in the most densely urbanized area of the province of Ontario.

Does it make sense to impose a landfill site through this flawed process in that area or does it make sense to look at the export of waste to a willing host site? The mayor of Pickering would say we should be looking at land use. Is it a good use of valuable land, thousands of acres of good farm land in southern Ontario, or is it a better use to be looking at other alternatives for that same property, the farm use by itself or, in the future, residential use, commercial use perhaps, industrial use, any kind of economic development in the future? We will rue the day if we put a landfill site on the three farm properties that are being discussed. In the future, this will be looked at as being very shortsighted.

It perhaps raises the question of the view of this issue in Kirkland Lake in northern Ontario. I have a copy of the Northern Daily News and it's dated August 23, 1993. It's the editorial from the Northern Daily News. It says, "Joe Mavrinac is a pit bull when it comes to promoting the area's economic wellbeing in what he calls the great garbage debate." We all know that Joe Mavrinac is the mayor of Kirkland Lake.

"With no place to turn but to Queen's Park, southern Ontario municipal leaders in all likelihood will redouble lobbying efforts to arrive at a viable solution....

"With land for landfilling to spare, the north is eager to assume a lead role in waste management -- and to collect $600,000 to $700,000 annually in dumping fees alone from Toronto."

That's the attitude. Now, compare that with the situation that is faced in southern Ontario, in Caledon, in Vaughan, in Pickering, where the residents, rightfully so, will mount a heated opposition, and that's an understatement. The citizens will mount the most ferocious attack on this process that I'm sure this government has seen in many, many years, not only in terms of their own personal actions, but in terms of legal cases and of testing the process to the fullest.

To contrast that again, I get back to the editorial from the Northern Daily News, November 9, 1993, just a few days ago. "The communities of Kirkland Lake, Englehart and Larder Lake have spent $25,000 to answer the $64,000 question: What is turning the Adams mine into a landfill for Metropolitan Toronto waste worth to the economic wellbeing of this hard-hit region?"

The answer is an estimate that "a 20-year waste disposal contract would generate upwards of $320 million in direct and indirect benefits for the region....

"The report stresses the potential for jobs in a time and place when work is scarce...." They say this should impress even Bob Rae. Apparently it doesn't.

"For too long the province has stubbornly insisted it doesn't want any solutions other than home-grown remedies for Metro's garbage woes. From its lofty perch on the environmental high road, the government has maintained it doesn't want the north to become a dumping ground for the south.

"But this issue isn't about garbage; it's about jobs."

That's what's said in the Northern Daily News, and I think that's a pretty fair assessment of what's happening.

Metropolitan Toronto faces the predicament that it agrees with the motion that the member for Dufferin-Peel has put forward, that this process is flawed. Now, I'm speaking on behalf of people who will be sending garbage to the landfill site in Vaughan. But the Metro council agrees that this process is flawed and the Metro council long ago attempted to work an arrangement with Kirkland Lake as a willing host.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): As long as it goes to northern Ontario, it'll be fine with you.

Mr David Johnson: Indeed, over the next few weeks Metropolitan Toronto, if I can speak over the heckling --

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member for Cochrane South, please come to order.

1640

Mr David Johnson: -- will be going forward and officially requesting willing host sites from across this province, and it's expected that the Kirkland Lake site will come forward.

Why are they doing that? Because they don't believe this process will work. They don't believe that at the end of the day this Interim Waste Authority process will result in a disposal facility for the people of Metropolitan Toronto. The Metro government has a strong obligation to ensure that such a facility exists, so it cannot rely on the government and is going ahead on its own.

The only statement I would make at this point is that I hope this government will come to its senses, and as Metropolitan Toronto continues on its track to make arrangements with a willing host site, this government will permit -- we've heard the minister here today say that a willing host site can come forward, but reading between the lines, certainly the members of the Metropolitan Toronto council, as indeed the mayor from Kirkland Lake, are concerned that no matter what the minister says, this government will not permit a willing host site if it involves export from this region.

I hope the government will come to its senses and will permit other sites such as Kirkland Lake to be considered with an environmental assessment hearing. It would be much better if the government would include those sites up front, but at least permit such a site to be considered.

Going beyond that again, and of course this will be asking too much, the government should permit other techniques such as incineration to be considered as well.

There's much more I could say on this topic, but my time has expired, so I'll permit other members of the caucus to carry on from there.

The Acting Speaker: In rotation, further speakers. I recognize the minister of consumer and corporate relations.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Consumer and Commercial Relations, Madam Speaker.

I am very pleased to participate in this debate today on the IWA process.

Mr Tilson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I'm concerned that with a matter as important as this, I count 12 people in this House.

The Acting Speaker: Are you asking for a quorum call?

Mr Tilson: I am indeed asking for a quorum count.

The Acting Speaker: I will ask the clerk to determine if a quorum is present.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The debate will continue. The minister may have the floor.

Hon Ms Churley: Of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I'm glad we do have a quorum, because what I have to say I think is important, although I'm really interested to see that this is a Tory private member's bill today and there are only three of them here for this.

Mr Sorbara: It's an opposition day resolution.

Hon Ms Churley: Resolution, sorry. For this resolution, there are only three of them in the House and two Liberals. It shows their commitment to this whole issue.

What I want to concentrate on for a few minutes, and I could go on for hours about this because it's an issue that I've been intimately involved in for about 10 years, is the issue of incineration, which is one of what have been called the viable alternatives by both opposition parties, and why we're not looking at that.

Let me say to the members opposite that the government did not come to that decision lightly. We certainly want to look at any viable options that we can, because we all know that landfill is not something that, at the end of the day, is environmentally sound. We do our best to make it as sound as we can, but overall, when looking at incineration, the problem is that in a lot of people's minds, it's out of sight, out of mind.

The reality is, it's really taking an old way of dealing with garbage by burning it, creating new technology to burn that garbage and saying: "Oh, we've got this wonderful technology. We're going to throw it all in another kind of hole and burn it up." Well, it doesn't disappear. About a third of that garbage by weight ends up in fly ash and slag and turns into a very hazardous material which has to be disposed of and is even harder to be disposed of than ordinary solid waste. That in fact is reality.

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: God almighty, Marilyn, you're talking about the 1960s. That was in the 1960s. Remember, when you were a municipal politician? They don't use that any more.

The Acting Speaker: I would like the members to come to order. The minister has the floor. She is here to express her views, and we'll hope we'll be able to hear your views shortly after.

Hon Ms Churley: To address what has been said across the floor immediately so maybe they'll be quiet and listen, the latest tests on some of the newest incinerators show that these problems still exist, and that evidence can be produced a little later.

Very quickly, what I'd like to say is that when you throw all this garbage into this big hole to burn it, yes, there's new technology to burn it, but the reality is that you need to keep the temperature very high and at a consistent level. In order to keep that temperature high and at a consistent level, you need to use materials that should be reused. This is a resource issue as well. The reality is that this government is committed to the hierarchy of the 3Rs, and moving in the direction of incineration will move us away from that.

When you burn these materials, they produce very heavy toxic materials that go up the smokestack, and these materials go for miles and miles and fall on our land and fall in our water and fall on our farm animals. At the end of the day, we end up drinking in our milk and eating in our food dioxins, mercury and other highly toxic materials. There is no way to contain it whatsoever. It goes up the stack and out it goes and falls literally for hundreds of miles.

The other problem here is that once you have the latest abatement equipment to deal with the pollutants in this material, the better the equipment is, the more it does trap some of these materials, but it doesn't trap it all. That has to be dealt with in landfill somewhere, and that is a real problem. Trying to site a landfill or a site for hazardous materials is even more difficult and even more dangerous.

1650

Another problem is the expense. We have looked at, and governments for some time have been looking at, cost-effectiveness as well. What has been proposed over here by the members of both opposition parties is that we spend time in a hearing looking at a technology that really doesn't work and in fact takes us back even further into the Dark Ages. It is a quick fix so that people will say: "We don't have to do landfill anyway in my riding right now. Let's look at incineration, and that'll solve the problem." Mr Speaker, it doesn't do that.

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I just want to offer the minister an opportunity to correct the record. She is accusing several European jurisdictions --

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

Mr Sorbara: -- of living in the Dark Ages.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member for York Centre take his seat.

Mr Sorbara: I don't think she would want that on the public record, Madam Speaker. I just invite her to correct the record.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

Mr Sorbara: I certainly will, but I invite her to correct the record.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member take his seat. The minister --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The minister has the floor to express her opinions. Can we have order. Minister?

Hon Ms Churley: Mr -- Madam Speaker, I'm sorry. I keep referring to you as Mr until I look that way. Most of our Speakers are males, so I forget. I apologize for that.

As I was saying, incineration is less cost-effective than any other method we know of for dealing with garbage. It is more expensive than all of the other waste disposal alternatives. That is something that also has to be considered. If it were clear to us that it were an environmentally sound proposal to look at despite the expense, then the government would be willing to look at it. But all of the evidence shows that it is taking us away from the 3Rs hierarchy, it is highly toxic, and it creates more environmental problems while we're trying to fix some of the old ones. That just does not make sense. I would ask the members of the opposition to work with us to come up with viable alternatives that are as environmentally sound as possible.

I appreciate the time you've given me today, Madam Speaker, for participating in this debate.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise in support of my colleague's motion. I rise in support and, I guess, as do so many who have been battling this particular issue over the last couple of years, one wonders just what it is going to take to make the government recognize the futility of the policy that has been put forward, and in particular the futility of the proposals that were made just a few days ago with respect to the three preferred sites.

One of the things that I think we need to do with this debate that is ongoing is to stop for a moment and just think about what is being proposed. I'm going to start there, because I think the minister, whom I respect, unfortunately has used a line of argument that just simply doesn't fit in with what is happening. Let me explain why.

The minister has said that incineration is a bad technology, is not the way to go. That may be. What we have said, and what the third party has also said, is that we want a process that is going to look, within the context of an environmental assessment, at all of the options that are currently available.

When so often we hear from the government side, "You over there in the Liberal Party or in the Conservative Party are proposing things that are environmentally unsound," I ask myself what on earth is sound about proposing the megadumps that they are proposing.

This is right in the legislation. It goes right back to Bill 143 and it is, I would strongly suggest, Bill 143 which has caused us all of the problems that we're currently in.

I come from York region and I want to use the example of the proposed dump in Vaughan which is going to be north of Maple and adjacent to the town of King City. As an example of trying to say to those who perhaps are watching on television, to those members of the government who are here, whatever your feelings about different and various alternative technologies, how you can possibly be proposing that what we are now going through in terms of these megadumps in any way, shape or form makes sense? It strikes me that as a matter of public policy, as a matter of environmental policy, what is being proposed is absolutely ludicrous.

I wasn't able to be here when my colleague from York Centre spoke, so I don't know if he used the phrase that he so often uses, "19th-century outhouse technology." Take away all the glitz, take away all of the fancy reports; a megadump of the size that is being proposed is 19th-century outhouse technology and no amount of pseudo-scientific argument can make that appear any different.

After the announcement that was made by the IWA a week ago Friday, a number of us went to the proposed site in Vaughan, in York region. From where we were standing at the southern end of that site, you could see the Keele Valley dump. So you had to ask yourself: In what way is it environmentally sound to be proposing a dump the magnitude of which is even greater than the dump at Keele Valley? It is a dump, a dump that we know from the Keele Valley example leaks; there is leachate. There are problems with that dump.

It is maybe a mile, a mile and a half tops from Keele Valley to the proposed new dump. What does that say about what we are trying to do on any measure, whether we're talking social equity or environmental equity? Surely on all counts, whatever one's views are about rail-haul, whatever one's views are about incineration, whatever one's views are about any number of other technologies that are out there, it seems to me that common sense says the proposed megadump makes no sense. That is not the answer. There must be better approaches.

Go back to Bill 143. Can we get some guidance? Why did the government decide in the fall of 1990 that it wasn't going to continue with the process that was allowing the regional areas to look at how they could best deal with their garbage over the next 20 years? The minister of the day said, "No, I'm going to do it, and the vehicle through which I'm going to do it is the creation of the Interim Waste Authority, and I'm going to put into that bill restrictions on what they can do, what they can look at."

Our argument as members here in the House is not with the members of the Interim Waste Authority. They are and they have been trying to carry out their mandate, as difficult and indeed as impossible as that mandate is. The argument is with the government that brought in the bill. If you go back and look at that debate, you will see that those of us on this side of the House said there is one good thing in that bill, and that was the fourth part that dealt with packaging.

We said, "Take that apart and we're prepared to look at that, to work with you and to provide support." But we said that the other sections of the bill were not only going to strip the rights away from ordinary citizens to really be sure that they could have a fair environmental assessment, they proposed a response that we just don't need today and that won't work. Frankly, I don't think any of those three sites are likely to pass muster in terms of the kind of review that they're going to have to go through.

1700

Nobody today has one simple answer to the waste disposal problems of the greater Toronto area. It's another reason why, we argued, it is only by looking at all of the options that you can really then come up with a mix that's going to meet the needs that are there.

Why has the government refused to do that? We have had an incinerator functioning in Brampton for about a year now. That's not the answer to all of our waste disposal needs -- no one is suggesting that -- but we should look at it and we should try to develop the kind of scientific evidence to see whether this is a practical part of, a practical component of an overall solution.

Rail-haul: We have talked in our party about the concept of a willing host. If the government, on the one hand, is saying York region must, not "might" but "must" take the garbage from Metropolitan Toronto, then why is it refusing to allow other areas that say they might be prepared to take garbage to look at that, to put that under the environmental assessment process and try to determine if in fact in this particular case the proposals that have been made by Kirkland Lake make sense?

No one has said, "Do it." What we've said is, "Put it under a proper and appropriate environmental assessment." Because if you're dictating to York region, "Thou shalt take the garbage of thy neighbour Metropolitan Toronto and thou hast no choice," then it seems to me that is every bit dictatorial and autocratic and provides no recourse for anyone within that region, let alone in the area adjacent to Maple and King City, to be able to say: "No, that is not fair; that is not just; that is not equitable; that should not be."

It's one of the reasons why the mayor of Georgina, Bob Johnston, has launched a court case which is still very much alive, going through the process, and which, under the charter, is simply stating that the rights of the citizens in York region have been abridged.

Why will the government not stop and do the only sensible thing at this point in time? We've spent $50 million on this process which, despite all the argument from the government members, is not fair, is not equitable and does not give citizens in this province real rights in terms of where waste disposal sites should go. That's $50 million since June 1992, and for what? To many, many people, the final options that have been put forward are ones about which I think really all of us, when we sat down back in June 1992, when we first saw the list, said, "I know where that's going to go," and Vaughan was the clear location that everybody fingered.

Why? Because it was closer to Metropolitan Toronto, because it already had a dump site, because it was close to Highway 400 -- all the arguments were there -- and because in effect Vaughan, Maple, King City, the residents in York region, had no real power, no way to stop it. It was simply going to happen.

What we've said, and I think we've all been pretty consistent on this in the opposition, is that we must simply get rid of the Interim Waste Authority. It has not played any useful purpose in trying to determine the most appropriate way to get rid of waste in the greater Toronto area, and that's the only place where we can begin. We have to admit that this process has been a failure. It has not been transparent; it has not been fair; it has not been equitable; it has not been just. The only one that is in fact is the one that is going to truly meet the spirit of the Environmental Assessment Act and look at all of the options and put them under review.

The government keeps saying that under no circumstances will it look at any other options. This is what in effect the minister, speaking before me, was saying: "No, we've got to end up with dumps because we can't have incineration; it's bad. We can't have rail-haul, because it's bad. We don't want to look at the concept of a willing host except in the case that we'll make it necessary that an unwilling host, York region, has to take the garbage from Metropolitan Toronto."

So how do we get out of this mess? I say to the government members that the process we're now into is going to go beyond the time when that next election will occur, and during that election the issue of waste disposal is, I submit, going to be a major one, not just in the greater Toronto area. I think all members know, wherever they are from, that this is a key issue.

If the only answer that this government has, and so far it's the only answer it has put forward, is that dumps, megadumps are the way we have to find a solution to our garbage problems, then we are going to have incredible civil unrest throughout this province the like of which we haven't seen, because people are saying, "Our rights are being taken away from us, because the solution is being dictated to us in terms of what we must have."

We cannot, I believe, accept the fact that waste dumps, megadumps are the only solution. We have to personalize it. I close, as I began, by saying to members opposite on the government side, and to those who are watching this debate, that this is not the NIMBY syndrome -- not in my backyard -- at work.

We in York region and in Maple and King City --

Laughter.

Mr Beer: I hear the member from the government side laughing over there, and I say to that member, you go to Maple, you go into Keele Valley and you try to determine whether putting another dump even larger than that within that same area makes environmental sense. It does not.

I think the people who live in the area around Maple, who live in the area around King City, can take great offence at members on the government side who belittle the concerns that they have and who in effect say, "Just because you've been living next to a megadump for all of these years does not make that, as a matter of social equity, a perfectly valid reason why that should not be considered in your community."

What I urge the government to recognize is that the policy that it has adopted through Bill 143, the policy that it has ensured that the Interim Waste Authority has now taken to its penultimate conclusion, is wrong. It is, as I said before, bad public policy and it is bad environmental policy. I want the government to know that on this side of the House we will continue to fight this because we believe that this should not happen and that there should not be a megadump in these three regions.

Mr Cousens: I very much appreciate the leadership from the member for Dufferin-Peel and also the excellent remarks that are coming from the members of the Liberal caucus today. I think that we share something in common, and that is that we have a mammoth problem with this government and the way it's approaching the selection of landfill sites.

Also, there is the fact that in the gallery is a large number of people representing different groups: The mayor of the city of Vaughan has been mentioned, Mayor Lorna Jackson. Also, the mayor of Pickering, Wayne Arthurs is here.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I would think that the Conservative and Liberal caucuses would be interested in listening to the speech on opposition day. I don't think we have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Are you calling for a quorum call?

Mr Bisson: Yes.

The Acting Speaker: Would the clerk please determine if a quorum is present?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Markham has the floor.

Mr Cousens: Among others who are also with us: Peter Barker; Albert and Junta Heinreichs; Sarah Hunt; Nancy Stewart, acting chair of DARE; Richard Whitehead, a regional councillor from Caledon; David Probert; Harold Alexander and Ernestine Ogilvie from the King-Vaughan coalition, also representing Mayor Britnell. People care, and the fact is that they've taken the time to come just to find an answer to this problem, and to see how we can resolve it would be a great pleasure to them.

Having listened to different speakers today, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, responsible for the GTA, really doesn't understand why people are upset at all. He went off on a tangent and talked about recycling issues. I would have to think that there isn't a member in this House who doesn't strongly support the initiatives of the 3Rs in the province of Ontario. For him to go off and say that's the only answer -- that is not the only answer, when you know the government is in the process, through the Interim Waste Authority, to bring in three huge megadumps in the greater Toronto area. What he had to say didn't lead one to believe he understood the reason people are paying attention to this issue.

1710

When he starts talking about the urban shadow lands, I start to realize that a farm is a farm is a farm, and if it's within the shadow of Metropolitan Toronto, it's still a farm and has tremendous value to us. It just shows how the New Democrats have lost the sense of what a farm was when they were in opposition and what they think of one today.

The member for Riverdale, when she talks about incineration, certainly gave no evidence in her statements of why she's opposed to incineration. I would think the one favour you could do as a government and for the member for Riverdale is, instead of just saying you're opposed to incineration and will not allow an evaluation of incineration as an option, allow it at least to go through an environmental assessment process. That's all we ask.

I don't know whether incineration's the full answer or not; I don't happen to believe it is. Notwithstanding that, don't make a political decision that says you're opposed to it; make a decision based on scientific technical data and allow it to go through an EA process. Instead, in Bill 143, you and your government have disallowed any consideration of incineration. All we say is at least look at it, and you as a government have refused that kind of an open process.

Right from the very beginning we've dealt with a government that has had its own agenda. On the one hand, they were in favour of looking at rail-haul --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I would like to be able to hear the member. If you want to speak at other times, you will have the opportunity.

Mr Cousens: The government, when it took power, had a feeling it was willing to look at rail-haul. I have a letter from the Minister of the Environment, Ruth Grier, who was also minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. In a letter to Alan Tonks on January 22, 1991, she says, "...continue to investigate the conceptual design and valuation of the feasibility of rail haul." Right then, early in the year, when later on in that same year she brought in Bill 143, she was still in favour of looking at rail-haul, and suddenly along the way she had a change of heart, a change of mind. I don't know who got to her, but at least at that time she ceased to have an open mind to the option of rail-haul.

The day of October 24, 1991, is an ignominious day in this Legislature. It's the day the government brought in Bill 143 for first reading. So began the process we're into today. In December, we were about to break off for the Christmas break. We got together as opposition members and said, "Let's have public hearings." The government tried to fast-track the legislation. We stopped it and we got five weeks of public hearings.

We went through the hearing process and made a series of amendments. Not one of the amendments of members of the opposition was accepted by this government. They just had it in their mind that they had all the answers and refused to listen to anybody else. So we said, "Give us the list you're going to look at." They wouldn't give us the list until they had third reading and royal assent. Then we got the list of 57 sites and then began the summer of turmoil, the summer of anger, the summer of frustration.

The summer of 1992 will go down in history as one of the worst summers for the people in York, Durham and Peel. There were rallies, there were petitions, there were public meetings. There were garbage trucks circling Queen's Park. There were slowdowns on Highways 400 and 404. Our communities were drawn together in one common desire to fight this government and force it to rethink, to reconsider the whole position it had.

At all those meetings -- we had meetings here at Queen's Park -- not once did Bob Rae or Ruth Grier, the Premier or the minister, come out and speak to the people. That minister and the Premier were above and beyond meeting with the people of the province of Ontario, and we found that in the public hearings as well. The minister would have had meetings with environmental groups and special interest groups but would not even meet with the mayor of Kirkland Lake, Larder Lake or Englehart.

On June 23 of that same year, I brought in Bill 73, a bill to repeal Bill 143, but we know what happened to that. It's the same as the history of many others.

Presentations were made. We've got loads of presentations: I mean, the stacks of words and files that have been tabled to the Interim Waste Authority. I don't have time to read them now, but we made them. We presented the views of the people of Ontario.

The regions fought back. The regions said, "Let's do something to fight it," so the region of York, taking leadership, has taken the Interim Waste Authority and this government to court on two issues, one on a constitutional right and another on the sections of the Interim Waste Authority act where the government refuses to look at alternatives. Thank goodness the region is at least fighting this government and doing something about it.

Finally, we come to November 1992: 57 is reduced to 15, and we get a sigh of relief from some communities, but still an undergirding sense that the communities are angry that the government is still looking at putting landfill sites in York, Durham and Peel and still will not look at rail-haul, still refuses to look at it. We continued as a community to make presentations, and we still continue to be stonewalled by the Interim Waste Authority. There were more presentations. I'm short of time to present them.

What are these criticisms we've got? We got to 15, and now in the last week or so, we have the final short list of three sites. The government still has refused to look at alternatives.

So what I'd like to ask is, what are the issues?

The first of all is that when Bob Rae became Premier, he gave us a wake-up call. His wake-up call was that he no longer had an open and fair government. In passing Bill 143, it brought in more change to the province of Ontario by disregarding all previous bills and legislation. Don't call it an environmental process. It's a very special process designed by this government to deal with the waste for the greater Toronto area that sets aside all other acts within the province of Ontario.

It also sets aside the promises made by the Premier. This was the question asked today by the member for Dufferin-Peel, when he said: "What was it that the Premier meant when he was at Whitevale, at Keele Valley and Britannia, when he said there would never be a landfill site on these locations, that there would never be an extension without a full environmental assessment?" What does that make what he said then and what he's doing today? It's called a broken promise. But if you want to go on and say the rest of it, it's not legislative language to call someone a liar in the Legislature.

He took broken promises further. He broke promises because they avoided the alternatives of rail-haul. They would not as a government look at Kirkland Lake. They would not as a government look at incineration. They won't look at energy-from-waste alternatives. They won't talk to people, even though the people in Kirkland Lake voted 67% to at least have it looked at. They weren't saying they wanted it, necessarily, but at least have an environmental assessment. But no, not this government. It refused to listen.

This is one of the key things. This government has not listened. They set up a process known as the Interim Waste Authority, an arm's-length crown agency one step removed from the government, so when you try to find something that's going on with the Interim Waste Authority and what it's doing, we can't find it out from the Legislature. Though they're spending over $30 million in the process, we still can't identify how that money's being spent: mountains of words, mountains of documents, a secret process; they come through with more words of what they mean. I spent part of the weekend trying to analyse and assess what it is, and I'll tell you, it's an excuse for someone to get a doctorate in something, but the fact is that they have not addressed the real issues.

This is a government that has not only not listened; it has made false accusations to people. They've set up Walter Pitman as chairman of the Interim Waste Authority, just as another way of separating themselves from the process.

It's not an open process; it's not a fair process. The government, in trying to stick Metro area with three huge megadumps, is wrong. It's wrong because they won't look at alternatives. As long as they are going to do that, I can guarantee you there is going to continue to be outrage, there's going to be anger, and the communities will continue to fight this government. The one thing that is on our side is that as we fight it, time elapses, and there will be a time, not too long from now, when this government will cease to be and we can have the whole thing corrected at that time.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): It's appropriate for me to rise in my place today to take part in this debate on Bill 143. There are few in this place who have had the enviable opportunity to become as familiar as I am with the issue of waste management. I find it quite ironic that so many members have risen to speak on this issue and that they clearly have no knowledge or have had a convenient lapse of memory.

I would be remiss in my duty if I did not point out to the Leader of the Opposition that she need not be concerned about the people of Whitevale. The time for her to have helped them was back in 1988 and 1989, when it was her government that was ramming a dump into that community without even an environmental assessment.

1720

Did you know when they were the government, they arbitrarily decided that they would put a dump into Whitevale and that they would do so without looking at any options? I don't mean the option of incineration or export to a willing host community. I mean they didn't even look at the alternative pieces of land. No options, no alternatives, Whitevale was it for the Liberals, and that is where the garbage was going, not only for Durham but of Metro and York.

I have been told that one of the opposition members met with the people of Whitevale when they were fighting the Liberals' P1 dump site. These people were told by that member to keep quiet about the dump for the sake of the sitting member at the time. They didn't keep quiet; they rid themselves of the Liberal government and rid themselves of P1. They sit in their places and find fault with Bill 143. How hypocritical.

And the Tories: They were the government when the existing site in my riding, Brock, was sited. They are the originators of the "Metro can dump on its neighbours" deal. If they were so conscientious, how come they didn't provide for a landfill site way back when they were the government? How did we end up with such a crisis? Could it be they believed out of sight, out of mind, out of my term of office?

I was elected in a community that was and is extremely cynical about politicians. I realize this is not particular to just my riding, but in my riding they have seen politicians put all kinds of negative infrastructure into one small community: nuclear plants, sewage treatment plants, dumps, dumps and more dumps, all for the benefit of the people who live outside of the community.

My constituents have seen governments throw countless families out of their homes as they expropriated 41,000 acres of land in Pickering some 20 years ago. Are these people cynical? You better believe it, and they should be. They have every right to be. How can they believe that they can trust any government after the Tories and the Liberals took over their community and left it in shambles?

Over these last two decades the community has tried to rebuild. They have tried to put back together their community that was left in pieces. The land that the IWA has chosen as its technically preferred site for Durham is on land that those members across the way, the Progressive Conservative members, expropriated some 20 years ago. In fact those members made the IWA's job so much easier by expropriating the land.

They stand in their places and they speak about being concerned about a fair process. I can only suggest they look back in the history books to the way this land was expropriated in the first place. Tell me how much consultation did you actually do when your agents were hassling people by day and by night to convince them to give up their homes, give up generations of heritage? They sit across from me with such concern about this process. What hypocrisy.

I did not want to resort to casting blame on others when there's a situation that we are all faced with today. I did not want to spend my time on partisanship, but there is a history involved with how we got to where we are today. The important part of that history is that we are not the ones who created the situation; we are the ones who have been put into the position of dealing with it. No matter what we do, it won't be a popular decision.

Interjections.

Mr Wiseman: The members from across the way sit and talk and heckle me as I make this speech about repealing Bill 143. Do they really want to do that? Do the people of Ontario really want that? Do they really believe that this would be the best thing? Would this really be the best of all options? Do all the members of this House really believe, and I ask all of the members of this House, that their own ridings would not be opened up to take Metro's garbage? Remember Marmora, remember Plympton, remember Lambton, remember Dunnville, remember Pickering and remember that Keele Valley was going to be lifted with only an EPA.

Does the member for Dufferin-Peel really want Metro's garbage coming to his riding? He obviously does because he moved amendments under the Environmental Bill of Rights that would've taken away those citizens' rights to even challenge it.

The residents of my riding will not stand for it. My constituents have made it very clear that they will not be the host to Metro's garbage ever again.

Should every community across the province be subject to the threat of Metro's garbage? I say no. I know this is not acceptable. That is what it will mean if Bill 143 is killed. I want to repeat that. Every community in this province will be opened up to Metro's aggrandizement and garbage imperialism. Make no mistake about it. Not only that, but the tremendous strides that we have made with respect to the 3Rs would go with it.

Interjections.

Mr Wiseman: The members opposite must have forgotten that this bill is enabling legislation that will allow us to reach a target of at least 50% reduction by the year 2000. The 3Rs regulations that will be finalized in the near future are what will allow us to reach this target. The entire premise of this legislation was to maximize waste reduction and only find landfill for the waste after all three Rs have been exhausted. That is what we have here.

The reality is that no matter how large or small a landfill is, people still have a great fear of them, and quite rightly so. Metro has been so incompetent and mismanaged Brock West landfill site in my community for so many years that the rumours have spread. It's a miserable, awful dump. In my riding they know well what a horrible landfill site can be. They have Brock West and all the horrors that have gone with it.

What I find very disheartening is that, with all the discussion that has taken place over the past 20 years with respect to the 3Rs, I believe that it was all lipservice.

If the chair of the region of Durham could go on national television and say that the recycling program we have is just a waste of time and money and that we, the people of Ontario, would be better served if you would throw all those recyclables into a pit somewhere and bury them, I say to you, Mr Speaker, that is where the problem is. It is with politicians who don't understand the importance of a conservative approach. They don't understand that we cannot continue to use our natural resources and find a community that's suffering economically and suggest that we pay them to take our trash.

It is a philosophical thing, I admit it. That is what sets me apart from these members across the House, those members who see the political expediency, crying, "Put it in someone else's riding, so long as it's not mine." I don't believe in that and I won't say it.

I remember when this waste management debate began in this House, when this government came into power and saw that it had to remove the exemption from P1. I remember well the debate that day. I remember the member for York Centre heckling loudly across this place, chanting, "Put it in Whitevale, put it in Whitevale." We all knew that it meant if it was in Whitevale, it was not in his riding.

This government went on to set up the IWA. Hated as it may be in some circles, it does one thing that I believe in strongly. It no longer allows politicians to pick where dump sites go. No longer can politicians decide what would be the most beneficial spot politically. For, if you remember and reflect, David Peterson picked P1 and said, "We will put it here," with no alternatives.

I know what those sites are like. The people of Pickering already have a number of those types of sites. The issue we're dealing with is a blatant example of political expediency, a perfect example of --

Mr Sorbara: Well, Ruth Grier picked York region. What are you talking about?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

Mr Sorbara: This is the worst misrepresentation I've ever heard in here.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York Centre, please withdraw that remark.

Mr Sorbara: What I said was this was the worst misrepresentation I've ever heard in this House. I withdraw that. It was not the worst misrepresentation I've ever heard in this House, so I totally withdraw any suggestion that it's the worst misrepresentation.

1730

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Durham West.

Mr Wiseman: I'm going to begin this paragraph again because it's a crucial paragraph. The issue we are dealing with is a blatant example of political expediency by the opposition parties, a perfect example of why we are in a crisis today. The issue that really needs to be discussed in this place --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Durham West, please take your seat.

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You will find that it's inappropriate to impute motives to other members in this House and that's exactly what my friend from Whitevale did in his remarks in the paragraph that he just read, imputing motives to us in the opposition in respect of this debate. I ask you to ask him to have that remark withdrawn.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Durham West, please continue your speech.

Mr Wiseman: The issues that really need to be discussed in this place are issues like: Who should own these sites? Who would be most concerned about the surrounding community? Another important question is, where should the revenues go from these sites? Should they be allowed to continue to flow into the coffers of municipalities which have been allowed to get rich from garbage while thumbing their noses at recycling? These are the true questions if we are truly going to deal with the horrendous situations we are left with today.

All I can say is that this resolution is fraught with hypocrisy and that they are all hypocrites.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Durham West, I don't accept that. Please withdraw this remark.

Mr Wiseman: Mr Speaker, if I was to withdraw that comment, I would add to what I think is the cynicism of the community. I will not withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: I didn't hear you. The member for Durham West, I ask you to withdraw this remark.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Durham West, I'm waiting patiently.

Mr Wiseman: Mr Speaker, to withdraw that statement would add to the hypocrisy that these two parties have inflicted on my community over 20 years.

The Deputy Speaker: You leave me no alternative. If you do not withdraw the remark, I will ask you to leave the House. Will you withdraw that remark?

Mr Wiseman: No, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: I name you, the member for Durham West, Mr Wiseman.

Mr Wiseman left the chamber.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'm pleased to take part in this debate. Let me say at the outset that I will be speaking in favour of the motion put forward by the honourable member.

It's very difficult to decide how it is that one follows the speech that just took place, because if there was anything as ludicrous as what was put forward, if there was anything as error-ridden as what was put forward, I have not heard it. The member and the government members have gone on at length about something when it appears that they do not know of what they speak.

I would like to take a few moments to talk about my position and the party's position on this particular matter. I think we all have to recognize that the problem that has occurred is the introduction and the passage of Bill 143. Bill 143 was the piece of legislation put forward by the Rae government that created the Interim Waste Authority.

Interjections.

Mr Offer: Shall I sit, Mr Speaker, or what?

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Yes, sit down and stay there.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Yorkview, the member for Grey-Owen Sound and other members.

Mr Offer: It's really a pleasure to continue. We have a number of people in the gallery and I'm sure a number of people watching through the legislative channel, either live or later on this evening, who will be very, very interested in what has gone on this afternoon.

As I said earlier, the problem we have is that we have a piece of legislation, Bill 143, that set in progress a process which just excludes people, which excludes communities and which excludes alternatives.

What we have heard today from both opposition parties is their concern with Bill 143 and what it's done to communities. What we've heard from the government side, and what I think the people of the province will be quite interested to see and hear, is that the government stands behind a piece of legislation which excludes community groups, which excludes alternatives, which excludes a full environmental assessment hearing, which is, without question, decision-making by politicians against what community wishes are.

The fact of the matter is that Bill 143, from beginning to end, should be repealed; that the Interim Waste Authority, from beginning to end, should be disbanded; that the process and the 50 million bucks which they have spent, if possible, should be returned to the taxpayers of this province. But the toll continues to grow.

My party has indicated quite regularly how opposed to the bill we are and have been, and indeed how this bill should be repealed, that the work of the Interim Waste Authority has as its basis a process which excludes people --

Hon Ms Churley: Do what you did: no EA at all.

Mr Offer: -- and in fact an environmental assessment process which is non-existent.

The members on the government side are yapping about their concerns about Bill 143 and the environmental assessment hearing and what not. But the problem they have is that they're new to this.

I want to hear the members on the government side respond to this: Do you know that in 1990 the now Premier of the province said that there would be no expansion of existing sites, that there would be no creation of a new site, without a full environmental assessment hearing?

Mr Sorbara: Did Bob Rae say that?

Mr Offer: Bob Rae said that in 1990; that's correct.

In the area that I represent rests the Britannia landfill site. The Britannia landfill site is the site that looks after all of the region of Peel's garbage -- all of it. The problem was that the Britannia landfill site was coming up to capacity; it was getting filled. A hearing was in process for an interim site. The government decided to stop that process. There was no hearing for the community groups. People in Mississauga and Brampton and Caledon were not given any opportunity to voice their position in this matter. Then the government not only stopped the hearing but expanded the Britannia landfill site. They expanded the Britannia landfill site without any hearing whatsoever.

Mr Sorbara: Here's a news bulletin for you.

Mr Offer: I was just given a news bulletin that CBC News has just reported, and I've just been given this information, that Julie Davis is going to resign her position as president of the NDP in Ontario.

Now to get back to the issue at hand. The fact of the matter is --

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): She was listening to the debate and couldn't take it any longer.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It was over this issue.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga North, I would ask you to debate the issue.

Mr Offer: Certainly. We just don't know if Julie Davis's resignation of her position as president has anything to do with Bill 143.

The fact of the matter is, and I hope the members of the government will at least remember this, that your government expanded the Britannia landfill site and gave to the people of Mississauga no hearing whatsoever. Your Premier, in 1990, stated that there would be no expansion without a full environmental assessment. What do you say to that: truth or otherwise?

What we have here is Bill 143, which is a continuation of the government's continuing misrepresentation of facts. I think that's probably in order. It's not worse than "deception," so I didn't use that word. But the fact of the matter is that Bill 143 excludes alternatives. It says to those who might wish to hold themselves open from other municipalities as wanting to be the city that takes other's garbage that you can't even sit down at the table. It doesn't matter if it might be the best environmental solution; the government has politically decided that's not in the cards. Whether one be for or against incineration is not the issue. You're not even allowing people to talk about it. Tell me how that's in the best interests of the environment.

1740

What you have done through Bill 143, what you have done through the creation of the Interim Waste Authority, is made political decisions over the environment, and it is for that reason that the people in Peel, that the people in Durham, that the people in York, that the people across this province recognize that Bill 143 is a political piece of legislation. It has nothing to do with the environment. It has nothing to do with safeguarding the future of the province. It excludes alternatives. When you said to the people in and around Britannia landfill in 1991, "We are going to expand it and it doesn't matter what the impact is because you don't have a way to be part of a process," you set in stage the process that Bill 143 follows.

It's something that is going to be your legacy. Your legacy is going to be that you stood against the environment. Your legacy is going to be that you insulted the people of this province. Your legacy is going to be that you put above the environment political decisions.

Let me say that I know there are going to be those who say this is a debate that goes on in this Legislature and at times becomes political. I happen to have a press release from the Watershed Ecosystem Coalition. These are people who are not in this Legislature. These are caring, concerned individuals, much like those who are in the gallery today, and what did they say about the IWA process? What did they say about Bob Rae's political fingering as to where dumps are going to go in the GTA?

They said in their press release of November 12, 1993: "The IWA process stops its study at political boundaries rather than at the natural ecosystem limits. Water, woodlots, habitat and environmentally sensitive areas extend beyond these 'lines on a map'." Could it be better said? It is the message that people are saying from community to community.

Don't do to the people in the greater Toronto area what you have done to the communities in and around the Britannia landfill site. Don't do to the communities that want to be viewed as a possible host of garbage what you are doing in Bill 143. Don't exclude the alternatives in the 1990s. Don't make decisions based on 1960s technology. The world, my friends, is moving much more rapidly than, apparently, your decision-making.

There are technologies in existence, there are alternatives in existence, there are ways in which we can deal with this problem, but it is clear that you do not deal with the problem on the basis of political decision-making. Everybody recognizes that except the government, which has in fact embraced political decision-making in Bill 143, and it doesn't work in the best interests of the environment.

What we hope to do is to hold down this process. What we would actually like you to do is to start thinking about the alternatives and for you to do that, but I don't think you're going to. But we have to recognize that if we cannot change the direction today, then we just might end up where we're headed. Where we're headed is a process which is faulty, a process that has failed, a process that excludes alternatives, a process that excludes communities. It is a process that says no to the technologies. It's like another world that the members of the government live in. Just today, November 22, the Premier of this province --

Mr Mammoliti: They had a Humpty Dumpty process. They sat on a wall. You're a bunch of Humpty Dumptys.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Yorkview, order, please.

Mr Mammoliti: You've got a lot of nerve standing up.

The Deputy Speaker: I ask you to keep quiet, please.

Mr Offer: In the time remaining, I think it's important for the members of the government to understand one thing. Today the federal government announced, in cooperation with the province, the creation of green jobs. The province relied on the initiative of the federal government. The Premier was at this press conference, and what the Premier had said is that we are stimulating the green industry sector.

What are these things that are being created? There is going to be the establishment of a new technology centre to boost Ontario's rapidly growing environmental protection industry. The Premier took part in this, as well as, of course, the federal government, which is leading the way. What are these centres going to do? These services include assessing new technology and building partnerships with institutions, companies and economic development agencies.

Bill 143 says let us remain for ever in the 1960s. It doesn't matter that the technologies are continuing, that the technologies are growing, that yes, there are incinerators in this province -- in fact, they are right now working in the region of Peel, which your government did not stop -- that the technologies are not to be shunted aside but to be embraced, to be put forward in a full environmental assessment hearing. Let the environmental assessment hearing decide what is and is not a viable alternative.

Bill 143 takes that out of the environmental assessment hearing process. It says to all of those companies that can create jobs, that can create a new industry, that can create a new synergy, a new energy, that Bill 143 is all about the NDP government and Premier Bob Rae making political decisions about where outhouse technology should be in this province. It is clear that Bill 143 should be repealed, that the IWA should be disbanded, that groups should be included. We should get on with embracing new technologies and new alternatives and get away from the political decision-making that you are party to.

Mr Harris: I want to share a few thoughts and just make sure we're very clear. I would hope the government takes the opportunity we provided on this day to pause and reflect on just what's happening here and what a tragedy we think it is; not just for the environment, although indeed that's uppermost in our minds, but for real people, for real people who are being affected in their lives, in their homes, in the communities where they live and work; and as well for respect for politicians, respect for processes. As we're dealing with the environment and putting processes in place, the public of this province is indeed, as has been witnessed since 1985 by the Liberals, who circumvented the EA process altogether, and now the NDP, who want to limit the EA process and eliminate options -- faith in that process is diminishing at the same time as faith in politicians is diminishing.

We've been through a series of three elections where politicians have committed to this and promised that: "No garbage here. Don't you worry. We'll care more than the others." We've now seen, perhaps at a time in the last eight and a half years from 1985, where the environmental assessment process may have needed amendment, may have needed some improvements -- the improvements that people were talking about were, "Let's ignore it altogether or forget it," or, "Let's make the environmental assessment less onerous and eliminate options." Indeed, people felt and expected with a change of government in 1985 and again in 1990 that the improvements would be better for the environment, better for people, not worse.

1750

I think it's absolutely disgraceful what's happened for the sake of the environment and what's happened for the sake of the integrity of the political process and of politicians through a succession of Liberal and NDP governments. I think it is absolutely terrible, and if for the environment and for the sake of people, you won't think about that, maybe for the sake of your own hides you'll think about it, how politicians are viewed in this province, every time you violate a sacred trust, not only a campaign trust but a sacred trust of involving people.

We have here today Lorna Jackson, the mayor of Vaughan, Wayne Arthurs, the mayor of Pickering, and other representatives of council. As they look and as I've had a little chat with them about the way this Legislature is treated, I want to tell you that the attitude in here throughout this debate, particularly by members of the current government, the perception that a member will get thrown out of here because he's mad at another member over inside, picayune name-calling but is not that interested in standing up and fighting for his constituents and fighting for those in his riding on the very issue of the dump -- that tends to reinforce any more the lack of respect they have for people, for constituents, as to why we're elected and what we're here to fight for. I think it's absolutely disgraceful and I ask all members as they yell and bellyache and scream in their places, all those members of the NDP, that they think about that.

I want to take a few minutes to congratulate the member for Dufferin-Peel for bringing forward the motion today. Not only has he fought consistently, not only have we opposed what the government has done, we have put forward positive alternatives as to how this crisis that has been created by eight and half years of inaction by both Liberals and New Democrats -- we've put forward positive proposals as to how it could be resolved. We've gone on the record. We've said, "Were we governing today, this is what we'd do." We think that's responsible, in spite of the fact that you have chosen to ignore all that.

The member for Markham has led the fight throughout the whole Vaughan region and as former critic on behalf of our caucus and indeed beyond on behalf of the people of Ontario; the member for Mississauga South, when the Liberals were in office, led the fight against the complete ignoring of the Environmental Assessment Act. It's hard to know which process was worse: forget the EAA and just order dumps wherever you want, or this government that essentially gutted the EA process and eliminated so many options that the net effect was the same.

The Liberals are quite correct in accusing the New Democrats of picking dump sites, using politicians, politically picking them; and the NDP is just as right in accusing the Liberals. But perhaps we'd better get beyond all the mistakes of the last eight and a half years and get back to solutions. So I congratulate the member for Dufferin-Peel, the member for Markham and the member for Mississauga South for consistently bringing forward positive solutions as to what we should do.

One of the other tragedies, and I would ask the government to reflect on this, I would ask the members of the NDP to reflect on this. There was --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Nipissing.

Mr Harris: We heard many, in a federal election, of the NDP, we heard many in the Liberal Party, we heard much opposition to some things that were happening federally, particularly in the last week or two of a campaign. I can remember Pearson airport. They said: "Don't sign this deal. You're not going to be the government after the next election and there's something morally wrong with doing it."

I heard all the things you said and I'm asking you, don't sign this deal. You're not going to be the government after 1995, before any garbage goes to any three of the sites. Quit wasting the taxpayers' money proceeding down a path that is obviously not good for the environment, not good for people and not good for the integrity of putting a process in place that says politicians, premiers, cabinet ministers shouldn't pick where garbage goes; it should only be done in the best interests of the environment for today and for the long-term future of Ontarians. Why is it, then, that you will not explore these other options and these other alternatives?

Clearly, unless you're prepared to bring in other legislation to stomp on the process like the Liberals were going to do, unless you're going to that, none of these three megadump sites where they are not wanted, on prime agricultural farm land, are going to be open before you're out of office. So all that you're doing is wasting money, because we have made a firm commitment --

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've listened to all sides here today and I know that the member for Durham West made the comment about hypocrites. I'm not going to do that at all, but I want to make my point. The point is that we have someone in this House from the Conservative Party talking about the process and environmental assessment --

The Deputy Speaker: This is on a point of order. I want to listen to a point of order.

Mr Hayes: May I make my point now, Mr Speaker? The point of order is that there's a similar situation in my riding. We talk about the process. Darcy McKeough sent a letter to the Minister of Environment telling the minister --

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please take your seat. This is not a point of order.

Mr Harris: It's perhaps significant. I understand why Julie Davis packed it in. She was watching the debate today and she said, "That's it; I've had enough; I wash my hands of this party," and for that I congratulate her.

I don't know why you have to go back 25 years to find a mistake made by Progressive Conservatives; I'm sure you could find one more recent in history if you look hard, because undoubtedly we probably made some mistakes. The problem is, what about the future? What are we going to do about this?

We have said, number one, we first will repeal Bill 143. That's on the plate for the first 100 days, the first order of business. We now are pleased that six months after we said that, the Liberals said: "Us too. We'll do that too." We just hope that when they repeal it, they don't go back to their method of saying, "We'll pick the sites and abandon the process altogether."

Interjection: We won't have to worry about that.

Mr Harris: I don't think the people have to worry about that either.

Secondly, we're prepared to make sure that an expert panel, not politicians that will pick the sites, will have available to them all possible options and that those options will be selected on the basis of what's best for the environment: not what's just politically best, not based upon, "No dump here, no dump there," but based upon what is best for the environment.

We make those commitments and we think we speak with a great deal of confidence that that in fact will be in plenty enough time before we allow you to proceed with a disaster.

We've talked about willing hosts. You not only don't have any willing hosts, you don't even have willing donors. Metro Toronto doesn't want to put its garbage in Vaughan. They don't want to do it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The time has expired.

Mr Tilson has moved opposition day motion number 4. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1800 to 1805.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the members please take their seats. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Caplan, Carr, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Henderson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murphy, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poole, Runciman, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wood, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 34 and the nays are 62. I declare the motion lost.

It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1808.