The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

RADIATION SITES

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on an article in this morning’s Globe and Mail headlined, “New Radiation Tests Ordered by AECB for 148 Locations.”

Perhaps I might begin by saying the only law that refers specifically to the permissible limits of exposure to ionizing radiation is the Atomic Energy Control Act, an act of the federal Parliament, and more specifically, regulation P.C. 1978-1195 thereunder. However, since 1975, various provincial governments, including Ontario’s, have co-operated with federal authorities in programs to guard against health hazards arising as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation.

We have taken the view that there is little purpose to be served in arguing about jurisdictional responsibilities; rather our concern has been to see that there is maximum co-operation between the two levels of government and that available expertise is shared and effectively deployed. The 148 locations referred to in the newspaper article are located across Canada. Approximately 70 of these are in Ontario.

The existence of this situation came to light in 1975, following the discovery that a building on Church Street in Toronto had high radiation levels. Subsequently the list of 148 locations across Canada was compiled by the Atomic Energy Control Board from a number of sources.

In February 1975 a group consisting of staff from the AECB, the federal Department of Health and Welfare and the Ontario Ministry of Health conducted a survey of the sites within Ontario to determine whether buildings or sites other than the Church Street location constituted health hazards. This survey did not reveal radiation levels that were likely to result in exposure in excess of the criteria permitted under the regulations enacted pursuant to the Atomic Energy Control Act.

In 1976 the AECB established a federal-provincial task force on radioactivity. In 1977 that task force published criteria or guidelines to assist in deciding whether or not decontamination should be carried out in any of the locations. These criteria or guidelines were followed in carrying out decontamination procedures at the Church Street property in Toronto, at the various properties in Port Hope, Elliot Lake and Bancroft, where work is still in progress, and at Deloro.

Questions have now arisen concerning the remaining sites in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada. These concerns have been brought to the attention of the AECB. My officials have been in close touch with the president of the AECB and his officials to determine the appropriate action to be taken. The president of the AECB proposes that the survey conducted in 1975 now be reviewed in the light of the criteria or guidelines published by the federal-provincial task force.

We are in agreement with this proposal and have indicated to Mr. Jennekens we are prepared to co-operate in such a review. I understand that within the next few days the Ontario government will be receiving a specific written proposal from the AECB as to how this review should be conducted, what further action, if any, might be undertaken, and what further remedial action, if any, might be required.

I might add that based upon tests conducted at the sites referred to in the recent newspaper articles, namely the Malvern subdivision in Scarborough and the property on Davenport Road in Toronto, there is no indication of health hazards to anyone. We shall, however, continue to co-operate in the review that the president of the AECB proposes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my first question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food on the subject of South Cayuga.

Given that the land on which the liquid waste plant in South Cayuga will be located is among the best farm land in Canada, from the point of view of both soil and heat units, the amount of sunlight and warmth that falls upon the land, and given the resolution passed unanimously yesterday by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture demanding a full justification of the South Cayuga site and a hearing on the matter by the Environmental Assessment Board, will the honourable minister explain to this House how he can allow the matter to proceed without such a hearing and what his participation in the decision-making process was?

Did he speak up against this within the cabinet and within those places where the decision was made, or did he meekly acquiesce to let this happen?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the honourable member and the resolution that passed at yesterday’s meeting of the OFA, I have not had an opportunity to read the resolution or to know the actual wording of the resolution.

Mr. S. Smith: Come on.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am being honest. Apparently the member has access to something I do not have, but I do not have a copy of that resolution. However, this morning I was at the OFA meeting along with several of my colleagues from cabinet. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) took 15 minutes this morning and went into full detail. He told the group the background of the environmental hearing, the whole suggestion.

Mr. S. Smith: That is not the question I asked about your participation.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: My response to the question this morning was that we, as the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, identified the type of soil it was. We made the Minister of the Environment aware of what the conditions were. If the member would read the announcements the Minister of the Environment made respecting this, it is the intention there will only be certain types of agriculture grown around this site. They will not be agricultural products that will be consumed directly by the consumer.

Mr. S. Smith: What did you say about it?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It was a full government decision to put this site in Cayuga.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: Since it does appear as though the minister has simply acquiesced in this particular decision, can I ask the minister to confirm what was reported in the Chatham Daily News of August 4, 1980? Concerning the Lambton site, which the MacLaren consultants were very high on and felt was a very close second, could the minister say whether it is true, as reported in that newspaper, that “following a closed cabinet meeting it was decided not to locate the dump in the riding of Lambton”? Is that a fact or not?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The member was never more wrong in his life. One third of the total industrial waste of Ontario is disposed of 10 miles from my house, right in the centre of Lambton, so the member was never more wrong. He really does not know what is going on. There are dry cellars in the centre of Moore township, five miles from Sarnia, as the member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy) can tell him. The member is absolutely wrong. One third of the industrial waste of this province --

Mr. S. Smith: I did not ask the minister about one third of the industrial waste.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, one third of the industrial waste is disposed of within 10 miles of my house. The item is wrong; the member is wrong. He really does not know the situation. He was never more wrong in his life.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the Minister of Agriculture and Food explain the differing treatment of urban residents and farmers in the cases of the proposed industrial waste facility five kilometres from the town of Thorold and the proposed facility at South Cayuga? Why is it that when the ministry and the government intended to put a liquid waste disposal facility in an urbanized area in the Niagara Peninsula, the government was prepared to have an environmental assessment that would have provided some assurance to people in the area, if it went through, that the environment was protected, but when it is farmers who are involved in South Cayuga there is no such assurance because the government has waived the necessity of having an environmental assessment?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the New Democratic Party had waited until this morning and gone down to a meeting of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, he could have had all his questions answered. I would suggest he ask that particular question of the Minister of the Environment. Everybody at the federation this morning understood it. I will let that minister answer the question.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege: This is not the Ontario Federation of Agriculture; this is the Legislature and the government.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege either.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture and Food is aware that under the old classification, 90.8 per cent of the land in South Cayuga was classified as one and two agricultural land, and that under the new classification, 93 per cent of the land is classified as one, two, three and four. Under the honourable minister’s own guidelines and the recommendations brought in for the Ministry of the Environment, development of treatment or disposal sites for liquid industrial wastes and hazardous wastes should not be using class one, two, three and four land. What is the policy of the minister’s government in response to the quality of the land?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the classification of the land. I can point it out acre by acre to the honourable member if he wishes. This situation was judged by government and it was decided that it was a most appropriate site to serve the people of this province.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: May I ask the minister, in his answer to the initial question, do we understand -- and I assume we do -- that much more than 100 acres will be taken out of agricultural production and perhaps much more than 740 acres? The minister is not going to allow edible food for human consumption to be grown in quite a substantial area around that, and perhaps rightly so. My question to the minister is, how can he justify that volume of good agricultural land being taken out of production when there is an extreme shortage of class one and two land and many of the other sites are on very poor agricultural land?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see that the honourable member has not studied the proposal. The proposal is for 100 acres of land for the actual site for the treatment plant. The area surrounding it will be growing agricultural crops -- not crops such as lettuce and tomatoes, but agricultural crops.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Accepting the honourable minister’s statement that Lambton county accepts its share of liquid industrial waste, is it not true that before the provincial government decided on Harwich township as the recipient of the dump, it had been a toss-up between location in Harwich or expanding an existing waste plant near the town of Brigden in Lambton? Is it not true that the minister used his weight in caucus to say there was no way that was going to come to Lambton county? If the minister’s staff made comments on the site at South Cayuga, would he please table any reports or comments that they made?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to understand that the honourable member really has not studied the situation. Had the honourable member been where the official critic of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food should have been this morning, he would have heard the whole explanation. He would have heard that Huron county was the first choice.

The Lambton site for industrial waste was established in the late 1960s. It is one of the more up-to-date sites in Ontario. Yes, we have had our problems with it. One has problems with industrial waste wherever one is, but about two years ago, Tricil Limited upgraded their plant. None of us likes it and there is no sense kidding ourselves, but it is doing the job. There was no interference on my part with the minister in making his decisions as to whether they would enlarge the Lambton site or whether they would choose other sites.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the same topic again to the Minister of the Environment.

In the honourable minister’s statement on Tuesday, he referred to a new corporation to operate the disposal site. He said this Ontario Waste Management Corporation will be incorporated immediately. He then referred to forthcoming legislation to set up a crown corporation to assume management and development responsibility. Could I ask the minister, are these two different corporations, and if so, could he explain the point of having two different corporations? Could he confirm if it is correct that under his general policy, a private corporation would he exempt from environmental assessment whereas a crown corporation would not be exempt?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the latter part of that question: First, there is no relationship to that at all; it applies to government activity.

Before I answer the middle part of that question, I would like to tell the honourable members of the House that I have to put a word in to the credit of the member for Lambton and Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, don’t let him wander. You don’t let me get off the topic.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. The question dealt specifically with crown corporations. It had nothing to do with the previous question.

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It is rather sad that the one person who has done the most to deal with the problem should even be remotely criticized. That happens to be the member for Lambton. He has really done his share.

However, on the crown corporation, one would flow from the other. It would be necessary to have the appropriate legislation in this Legislature to establish a crown corporation. It does not deny the possibility of having a corporation formed which, when the appropriate legislation was presented, would become the crown corporation with the appropriate terms of reference drawn forth.

Mr. S. Smith: I had trouble hearing the answer to that question. I would ask the minister when he stands again if he would accept that a private corporation would be exempt from environmental assessment whereas a crown corporation would not be exempt. I want a direct answer to that when he stands again. Specifically, could he also tell us who will be the shareholders of this private corporation? Is it to be a nonprofit corporation? Exactly how is it to be incorporated? Who will hold the assets, and what will the arrangement be in its dealings with the government?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The shareholder, obviously, would be the crown, and any assets would flow to the crown. For the first part of that question, there was no thought that by establishing a private corporation it would be exempt. That was an entirely different question. I made the statement on Tuesday that dealt with the environmental assessment aspect of it. It had no relationship to whether or not it was or was not a private company. The same terms apply to both.

Mr. Cassidy: Could the minister say whether it is the government’s intention, either through supplementary estimates or through legislation, to bring this matter before the Legislature before the House rises about December 12; or is it the government’s intention, having rammed the decision on South Cayuga into consideration with the MacLaren study, now to seek to make the establishment of that liquid waste facility a fait accompli with no consultation whatsoever with the elected representatives of Ontario here in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would be more than pleased to have this discussed in a committee if the members wish. If they want to refer it to a committee for a full discussion, that has been my habit ever since I became minister. I do not think the question is readily discussed in detail in the question period to the degree that a matter of such vital importance to this province can be discussed. If the honourable member is asking if I would be happy to have me and my staff go to a committee hearing, of course I would. I would go any time the members wish it.

As far as coming to this Legislature, I am here every day. The member can ask me about it any time he wishes to in question period. He knows that. I do not know why he would not respond accordingly.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If the first corporation, the one the minister is going to set up right now to get things going, is to have only one shareholder, basically the crown, and that is to be followed by a crown corporation for which he will bring a bill into the House, is the only reason he is setting up the first corporation, rather than coming directly in with a crown corporation bill, simply to avoid the possibility of having a vote in this Legislature on his crown corporation?

They both, in effect, will be owned by the crown. What conceivable reason could there be for doing it in this rather odd way with two separate corporations, rather than simply having the decency and the honesty to come before the House with a resolution for the crown corporation, and a bill that we can then vote on in a democratic manner?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I said no to that question three times already. When the crown corporation is to be formed it will be formed because of legislation that has been introduced in this House, where the members opposite will have their opportunity to vote on it. As soon as I am able to receive a phone call I would like to make a statement here today about the membership of that corporation, or at least a part of it. I want to have that confirmed; I believe it is correct. But I am more than happy to serve notice now about what I think will be a significant statement forthcoming in a very short period of time.

Mr. Speaker: If it is forthcoming we will ask for a consensus of the House to revert to statements.

Mr. Isaacs: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the honourable minister assure us there will be no activities on the South Cayuga site that mean the acceptance of any waste on to that site before the crown corporation has been considered and voted on by this Legislature? Is he going to use the private company as an end run around the House --

Mr. S. Smith: That is exactly what it is going to do precisely.

Mr. Isaacs: -- or will he make sure that nothing is done that involves waste until there has been a vote here on the crown corporation?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It may disappoint the leader of the Liberal Party, but he will have to learn to live with the fact that there will be no activity on that site until a crown corporation is formed.

As I have said for the fourth time, that will be an act of this House. There will be no activity on the site until after June 30 at the earliest, regardless of what happens; that is, activity meaning the acceptance of waste. I think that was the reference point the honourable member made. Under no circumstances will waste be accepted there prior to June 30.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I want to direct to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in his role as acting Premier in the absence of the Deputy Premier and of the Premier.

Could the acting Premier tell the House whether we can now take it the cabinet has approved in principle the exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act of the South Cayuga liquid industrial waste site? Can he say on what grounds it was that cabinet decided, once again, to overrule its own law which was adopted five years ago and has yet to be applied to any major environmental project of this province?

Hon. Mr. Wells: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am not acting Premier. I am the government House leader and that is the position I am speaking from. I would be happy to have the member’s question directed towards me, but I would answer him by saying he should direct that question towards the minister.

I think any minister of this government who presents a position in a policy statement obviously does so with the full support of cabinet. If the member wishes to have the reasons for bringing forward that policy, the Minister of the Environment is fully qualified and can effectively give him the reasons for what he is doing.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs indicates this action of the Minister of the Environment was taken with the full support of the cabinet, can he say whether the cabinet or the Premier consulted with the advisory group set up to advise the cabinet on environmental questions, that is, the environmental assessment steering committee which is headed by Dr. D. A. Chant of the University of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The same response would pertain to that question as to the first one. I think the member should refer that question to the minister.

I think I made it very clear. First of all, I am not sure where my friend studied parliamentary democracy, but when a minister of this government stands up under “Statements by the Ministry” in this House and makes a government policy statement, it has the support of the whole cabinet. I think he should be aware of that.

That minister takes the responsibility for that statement and will give him a complete answer to any kind of question such as he has brought forward, as to whom he advised and what advice he got and so forth. I think if my friend would ask the minister that question he will get an answer.

Mr. Cassidy: If I can redirect my question to the Minister of the Environment, could the minister tell the House, are we to take it the cabinet has now approved in principle the exemption of the South Cayuga project from the Environmental Assessment Act? Would the minister tell us on what environmental and technical data the cabinet made that approval, to railroad approval and override completely the Environmental Assessment Act of 1975?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The answer, very clearly, is yes, cabinet has made that decision. Information was supplied to cabinet at great length on which it based its decision.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member will have an opportunity. We have spent 23 minutes on this question. I will allow one final supplementary.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: But it is on the matter of who he received advice from, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister confirm that he did not receive advice on this matter from the Waste Management Advisory Board and, furthermore, that he did not receive any advice on the matter, nor did MacLaren, from the Grand River Conservation Authority? As the minister well knows there is a flood plain at the Grand River, at least in the control area of his project. Will he confirm that he received advice from neither of those bodies?

Hon. Ms. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter for the Waste Management Advisory Board to have a referral from the ministry. Basically, they are free to comment on any particular item they wish. But I think it is already understood they are primarily interested in solid waste. That was, has been and will continue to be their major role in advising us on solid waste. I did not go to the committee and ask them for their advice on liquid waste because we have a very comprehensive study, doing that. Whether MacLaren went to the conservation authority, I do not know. At that stage, we were asking the consultants to make their report. It cost us $425,000 and they have done that.

Mr. Cassidy: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of the Environment. Can the minister say what environmental and technical information was submitted to cabinet to justify the exemption from environmental assessment of the South Cayuga project? On top of the MacLaren report, was there any other data or information? What was that data or what were those reports, and will the minister agree to make that information available to the public and to this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think most people know that top cabinet documents are not subject to me releasing them to this House. Of course, there were papers and information for cabinet’s perusal; but they were cabinet documents and they will remain that way.

Mr. Cassidy: Since what the minister is saying is, “We know best on the basis of information that we have seen but that we are not going to share with the public, the Legislature and the people in South Cayuga or anywhere else,” will the minister not agree that the reason he will not share it is because there are no other technical assessments of any validity on that site; he has not had the time to assess them; and the only comprehensive report he has indicates quite clearly there is a requirement for further field studies to confirm the geological data before it can be decided whether South Cayuga is an adequate site? How can the minister go forward with South Cayuga when he does not know and has not done the technical studies to justify it, and he will not publish the information he says he has?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: With respect, Mr. Speaker, there is the Morrison Beatty study, which had specific information on that site. I tabled that. Surely the leader of the third party has seen that one, has he not? I know I am not permitted to ask a question, sir. It was tabled and sent to him. I will assume he saw that technical data. That report does say there needs to be further investigation. But it is also clear in my statement that the crown corporation would be charged with the responsibility of making sure that site was totally suitable for the purposes intended, and that with the public representation on that particular crown corporation they would be able to make that information available for the people.

I think we have said it often -- I hope eventually it will be heard -- that corporation is as open and free with its information as is possible. There are no conditions to be put on that crown corporation with regard to dispensing all -- I mean all -- of the technical data for that site. We have nothing to hide. We want the people to know and they will be given every opportunity to have that information. It is the responsibility of the crown corporation to make those decisions, with local people having a great deal of input into them.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on this subject of documents to be tabled: The minister told us the other day there were appendices to the MacLaren report. Anyone reading the report can tell that all we got was a summary and that the meat of the report is in the appendices. Could the minister tell us, first, if he has read those appendices himself? If he has, will he make a photocopy of them and give us a copy rather than force us to wait for these to be printed, as he stated on Tuesday?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have voluminous volumes and I will make them available as soon as printed, as I said. We are talking about a matter of days. I am not going to photocopy literally hundreds of pages when they are at the printer and will be delivered here within days, when he can have as many as he wants.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the minister says he has nothing to hide and that all the data will be shared with the public of Ontario, would the minister undertake to start now by tabling all of the information that went before the cabinet, including the political rationale that justified an act of crass political expediency?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The answer is no.

FOOD INDUSTRY PRACTICES

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. When I asked the minister on October 21 about the action he would be taking concerning the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Discounting and Allowances in the Food Industry in Ontario, he replied that he would not be taking action until he got input from the whole world.

The president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture stated at the convention that the report is completely unacceptable and has asked the government to reject it. Will the minister now assure us that he will reject this report and bring in appropriate legislation such as we proposed or the Ontario Federation of Agriculture proposed to protect the producers and the small processors and grocers of the province?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have received one report from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and I have received one letter from a Liberal Party member supporting the federation. I have had no other input whatsoever. I am waiting for that input.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister would be direct instead of dissembling. When I put the same question to him yesterday, he said the letter for rejection of that report had gone to the Premier and he was leaving it totally to the Premier. Is he still leaving it with the Premier, or is he gathering and soliciting letters before he makes up his mind?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I believe all members of the Legislature got a copy of that report from the federation. That is the letter I referred to the Premier.

Mr. MacDonald: Would the minister respond to the question of whether or not he is rejecting the report?

Mr. Speaker: He has done that in his own way.

SOVIET INVOLVEMENT IN POLAND

Mr. Dukszta: I have a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. As a Polish-Canadian I rise on a most urgent matter, Mr. Speaker. In view of the massing of the Soviet troops on the Russian-Polish border and veiled threats of invasion of Poland in the USSR, and in view of the fact the changes in Polish society are a significant development towards democracy and must be encouraged, will the minister undertake to introduce a resolution to the Legislature as soon as possible expressing the support of the people of Ontario for the socioeconomic rights of Polish people?

Would such a resolution also express the concern and opposition of the people of Ontario to the possible Russian intervention in Poland and third, in case of Soviet intervention, the intention of Ontario to exercise whatever political, economic and other sanctions it can against the Soviet Union in opposition to such invasion?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I suppose traditionally it would be said that this is a matter within the purview of the federal government. However, my friend has brought up this question because of his very deep feelings about it. The position of this government and the Premier in the case of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan is well known, and the Premier said at that time all our fellow citizens were convinced the Soviet Union had gone too far in regard to what happened there. He said that as Canadians we must stand with the free nations of the world in drawing the line and making our position known.

2:40 p.m.

As members of this House know, we put that position forward, along with the government of Canada, very vocally at that time. In fact, even before the government of Canada had made up its mind, we strongly supported and recommended the boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games.

I think all of us in this House welcome the moves that have been taken to bring more democracy to the institutions in Poland. I think that move is applauded by all of us and that all of us would deplore any interference, particularly outside interference, to cause those gains to be turned back or to cause interference with them. I think anything that caused that to happen would be the subject of grave concern and would not have our support.

However, I think it is premature to suggest that any resolution such as my friend has suggested be introduced here. Certainly, it is well that we be aware of that kind of thing but, as I say, I think it would be premature for any resolution to be introduced at this time.

Mr. Dukszta: I appreciate and thank the minister for those sentiments but I think an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. If he would accept our resolution, expressing the sentiments of all of us here, I think it would have a beneficial effect and may stop the Russians from considering intervention in Poland. It is within the purview of the powers of the Legislature to do so, or the minister could, on the other hand, move towards sending these sentiments to the federal government, which has been somewhat at a loss to express them. It is better to do it now than regret it in bitterness later.

Mr. Speaker: That was really a statement, not a question.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I was just going to say, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this House ever passed any official resolution regarding the Afghanistan situation. I do not think there is anyone in Ontario or Canada who doubted our feeling about Soviet involvement in that particular country and I think at the present time, from the exchange that has taken place and the support that I sense in this House and that my friend senses, there is no doubt where our sentiments are and what they would be if any action were to occur in Poland.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: May I suggest to the House leader that he inform the federal government of the feeling of the province of Ontario with respect to the discussion that has taken place in here so it would know that Ontario is definitely opposed to the proposed actions of the Soviet government?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to communicate with the Department of External Affairs and inform it that this House certainly supports the kind of progress and progressive things that are happening in Poland and would certainly regret anything that would turn those progressive steps back.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you something on a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: There is really nothing out of order. If the House in its wisdom wants to pass a resolution, it would be my responsibility to transmit it to the federal government.

Mr. Dukszta: May I ask a point of privilege then on a different matter?

Mr. Speaker: Have your privileges been abused in some way?

Mr. Dukszta: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear it, but I cannot think of any conceivable way in which your privileges have been abused since you asked the question.

Mr. Dukszta: I wonder if I could ask the House for unanimous consent for that resolution to pass?

Mr. Speaker: No, you can not.

FEDERAL AID TO TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) I will direct my question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Would the minister relate this question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications? As a follow-up to my colleague the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), would the minister assure us that he would continue with his federal counterpart to ensure the positive supply of federal funds for commuter rail traffic in Ontario? If such funds are obtained, would the minister ensure that they would be put forward for the extension of the GO train system to the city of Oshawa?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to pass that on to my colleague. I can tell you that in this particular matter my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications has the full support of all cabinet and all members of this side of the House and, I am sure, the other side, in drawing to the federal government’s attention that its promises to aid urban transit have never been fulfilled. We want to see a little action in that regard. Once that action occurs, improvements will occur in the system.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the minister is conveying his message to the Minister of Transportation and Communications, will he make sure that both ends of the GO system get equal consideration?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to pass that on, but I just have to get a slight parochial comment in here. I really believe the western end of the GO system has had a lot more consideration than the eastern end out where I live. We are looking for an extension of the GO system to Agincourt.

Mr. Speaker: We have heard from the east and the south. Now we will hear from the middle.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware of the fact that all these questions on urban transportation coming from the Tory back-benchers are just a parroting of what Sinclair Stevens asked in the House of Commons the day before?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that I just had lunch with Sinc Stevens, although he was sitting at the head table and I was not talking with him -- he was two or three seats removed -- I was not aware they were the questions he had asked. I am not sure what the relevance of that is.

Mr. MacDonald: The relevance is it is an orchestrated Tory attack.

GUELPH TEXTILE FIRM

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Could he inform the House what financial arrangements have been made with the former owner of the Guelph textile firm in relation to his ministry and the federal ministry? As I understand from news reports, this firm is going to re-establish effective January 1, and I would like to know what amounts of money the minister is putting into this firm.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will have to get that information for the member. I will report in the morning.

Mr. Worton: I would like to know, if the minister is considering refinancing it -- and the paper does indicate that -- would he take into consideration as part of that refinancing, as part of the condition of this firm getting money, seeing that the former employees of that firm get their holiday pay and the employees who had NSF cheques given to them in lieu of wages get their money back?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That seems reasonable. I will report to the member in the morning.

DURHAM REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment concerning the environmental assessment of the proposed liquid waste treatment facility in Ajax. Can the minister assure us that the report which I understand is to be released tomorrow is the report prepared solely by the three-member panel of the Environmental Assessment Board that sat through the hearing and heard all the evidence, or had some other people who were not at the hearing some influence in the writing of the board’s decision?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that I do not give direction to that board. They will issue the results of their hearing, and whether it is a board decision or the three-man panel that heard the matter, I do not know, nor do I have any inclination to find out. It is their business. They are at arm’s length from our ministry and will continue to exist that way.

I notice that the member’s colleague has already said, regardless of what the decision is, he is opposed to it, and I know the member is opposed to it, another prime illustration where he demands a hearing and then makes the judgement one day ahead. The member does not wait for their decision.

Mr. Isaacs: It is absurd for the minister to say we are opposed to whatever the decision is. What nonsense.

Is the minister aware that if the hearing had been held under the Environmental Assessment Act the legislation would have required that no member of the board shall participate in a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board unless he was present throughout the hearings and heard the evidence and argument of the parties, but because it was held under the Environmental Protection Act, which contains no such guarantee, there is every possibility members of the board who have not heard all the evidence and who did not sit through the hearings have participated in the decision?

Does the minister not think the judge of a matter should be the judge who sat through the hearings and not somebody else who may be influenced by who knows what?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think this is a well known procedure. It is not unusual for it to be followed by the OMB. I would like to comment on the fact that the chairman of that board was complimented extremely highly by the citizen protest group, which said it had great confidence in the chairman and in the board, notwithstanding the fact it was going to oppose it. That is the kind of comment that I think gives due credit to those in opposition. It has confidence in the board. I wish the members opposite would let it perform its function.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister confirm that the chairman of the panel which heard the Ajax matter has resigned? Would he also confirm that the reason the member resigned was given as interference, in the sense that the full board reversed the decision which the panel recommended?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I will confirm the former for sure. Yes, he has resigned, but the letter of resignation makes absolutely no reference to that at all and I would be absolutely amazed if it is true. I will be glad to table the letter of resignation from that particular chairman. It sets out very clearly why he resigned.

FARM BUILDING MATERIALS

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. In view of the confusion that exists at the present time with the information bulletin that went out regarding farm building materials -- the document said the sales tax was to be taken off for renovating and constructing homes and apartments -- can the minister tell us if materials purchased for the construction of farm buildings are exempt from the seven per cent sales tax on this temporary basis?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm all the building materials listed in the bulletin are all exempt, whether they are for agricultural farms or industrial purposes or otherwise.

Mr. Watson: In view of the fact constituents of mine have not been given this, would the minister’s office issue some press release indicating that farm building materials are exempt?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I think what the member is referring to is a small sentence in the bulletin which says, “The following building materials which are used for constructing and renovating homes and apartments are eligible for the exempting.” That is what has caused the confusion. It may be that I will have to send out another bulletin to clarify that.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the minister if this change has been made since the question was asked of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) this morning at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture breakfast.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: No, Mr. Speaker. I think if anyone had called my ministry a week ago he would have been given the same answer I have given today. There has been no change in this particular policy.

MEDICAL AND DENTAL PROCEDURES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) I would like to ask a question of the government House leader. After his glorious foray into the field of external affairs, I wonder if he would join me in interceding on behalf of one of my constituents, a Mrs. Isabelle Smith, who had a medical and dental procedure denied coverage under regulation 43 of the Health Insurance Act. Such a procedure was necessary, according to the medical information I have here, because she did not have a proper food intake. In other words, she could not eat adequately.

Does the House leader not feel that such a procedure is necessary for the health of an individual in order to eat adequately, and would he intercede and see to it that regulation 43 of the act is changed?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, obviously that question should be referred to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Roy: The minister is going to help me and see to it that he gets it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: If the member would like. Is the member not going to be here tomorrow to ask him?

Mr. Makarchuk: He’s not going to be here on Monday either.

Mr. Roy: I think I am in this House more often than he is lately. My record is better than one out of four.

By way of supplementary, instead of standing up there and getting smart, is the minister going to intercede on behalf of this constituent of mine? Is he going to see to it the Minister of Health gets this question and is he going to put some pressure on to amend regulation 43 of the act?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I really believe the duty of interceding with the Minister of Health is one of the things all of us are elected to do on behalf of our constituents, and I am sure my friend does that very well. I suggest he continue to do that with the Minister of Health.

URANIUM MINING MONITORING

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of the problems some of the construction workers and electricians in Elliot Lake are having when doing contract work in the area of the mine and the mill? Are they being monitored for their exposure to radiation? Can the minister tell us what arrangements are made for contracted-out workers in that vicinity to be monitored for exposure to either radon daughters or to the poor uranium or yellowcake in the mill?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It was my understanding when I visited that Elliot Lake mine about a year ago the monitoring was the same as it was with the regular work force. If that is not so, I would be glad to check on it, but I was not aware of any difference in it.

Mr. Laughren: I wonder if the minister could check into complaints by those workers that when they are exposed -- in some cases they are in greater exposure than the miners themselves who are being monitored -- the mine safety branch of his ministry tell them there is no danger. At the same time the branch will not provide them with the appropriate monitoring badges and so forth to make sure they have a way of measuring their exposure. Will the minister look after that, please?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will certainly look into it. I did not get that kind of story when I visited there a year ago about lack of inspectors and the necessity for proper monitoring procedures, but I will be glad to look into it.

ASSISTANCE TO CANFARM

Mr. J. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the fact the federal Minister of Agriculture has reneged on his commitment to financially support Canfarm, will the minister undertake to try to convince the federal government to reconsider this decision?

Mr. Makarchuk: What is going on? Is there an election coming up and you guys are trying to get a higher profile? Or are you trying to prove --

Mr. Havrot: Why do you keep yapping every day? Why do you get up and ask stupid questions?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the Canfarm operation was set up -- I am not sure how many years ago -- with a grant from the government of Canada. Was it 1969? But about three years ago -- I do not have the exact times here -- the government of Canada reduced the grant. Last year Canfarm found themselves unable to finish their year.

Mr. Peter Hannam retired as the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and took on Canfarm in the hope he could review it and bring it back so that it would be of service. Many thousands of farmers across Canada are using this in the technical operation of their farms. Towards the end of last year I did send a cheque for $150,000 to this operation to help it continue. Recently I received a financial statement from this company where they need a great deal of money, many times the amount of that cheque. I believe one province has pledged support. We in Ontario are quite willing to do our share in conjunction with other provinces. We believe there will have to be assistance from the government of Canada to bring it back. We believe it is an important service for the people.

3 p.m.

The honourable member really asked me what pressure I will put on the government of Canada. I believe they are as knowledgeable about the situation as I am. I believe they are aware and I believe they are evaluating their position. We in Ontario stand by, ready to do our share.

Mr. J. Johnson: It is my understanding that Canfarm could continue to operate if it were to receive an outright loan or grant of $2 million from the federal government. Would the minister work with Peter Hannam and Canfarm Co-operative and see if he can arrange to help them in some way to obtain this financing from the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I will be very happy to meet with Mr. Hannam, as he is well aware. A year ago when he came to my office and put the overall situation before me, I made arrangements for the cheque to be sent out. Yes, I will be glad to meet with Mr. Hannam, but I state again that I believe the government of Canada is well aware of the problem and of the services being provided.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the minister says the Ontario government is ready to do its share, does he mean on a per capita percentage basis of the farmers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I believe about half of the farmers using Canfarm are from Ontario, although I do not have the exact numbers. We have not turned them down. We are still appraising it. I believe Alberta has suggested -- and I only believe this, it is not firm -- that they will put up $50,000. I believe that is the only commitment. I am ready to look at the usage of Canfarm as to the total service across Canada.

UNICEF CHRISTMAS CARDS

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, on November 21 the member for Beaches-Woodbine asked me if it is true that the retail sales tax is applicable to handling, shipping and postage charges for Unicef Christmas cards as indicated on the order forms sent out by Unicef this year.

The answer is that the retail sales tax is applicable for handling, shipping and postage charges as part of the fair value where ownership transfers from delivery of goods. When ownership transfers before delivery or shipping, the retail sales tax does not apply to the handling, shipping and postage charges. The sale of Unicef Christmas cards falls into the former category and tax is properly applicable to such charges.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary Mr. Speaker: Since the minister has confirmed that this government in some cases applies the regressive sales tax to shipping, handling and postage charges on mail orders, I would like to ask the minister if he might not get the Christmas spirit and bring in a total exemption for Christmas cards that are sold by charitable organizations in order to encourage this form of fund raising.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I have been known to have the Christmas spirit from time to time, as has the member across the floor and the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell). I think she gets it once in a while too.

It would be a very confusing administrative problem to do what the member for Beaches-Woodbine has suggested. However, for her information and for the members of the Legislature, to show that we are from time to time rather appreciative of these types of charitable organizations, I think it is only perhaps a week or two ago that an order in council was signed giving a remission of over $30,000 in sales tax to Unicef on purchases they had made in order to make the Christmas cards to sell, so they could collect the sales tax on handling and postage.

BENDIX CORPORATION

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Is the honourable minister aware that John Moynahan, the president of Local 195, United Automobile Workers, learned last week that Bendix has called for return to the United States of one set of dies from Central Stampings Limited in Windsor and is in the process of asking for the recall of another set? Has the minister approached Bendix and asked it to stop such practices?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I could not give the honourable member a firsthand report on the discussions with Bendix. I expect I will be able to do that by the morning.

My staff is in weekly contact with Bendix, so I will see if it can give me an update on that situation and report to the House.

Mr. B. Newman: Would the minister use his powers of persuasion and let Bendix know that the withdrawal of such dies is a violation of the intent of the auto trade pact?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will be pleased to comment on that when I get a report.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs) has expressed his dissatisfaction with an answer given by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) concerning the proposed Ajax liquid waste treatment plant. This matter will be debated at 10:30 tonight.

PETITIONS

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, 1978-79

Mr. Cassidy: Pursuant to standing order 33(b) of the assembly, the undersigned members of the assembly hereby petition that the annual report of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979, which was tabled in the House on December 13, 1979, sessional paper 285, be referred to the standing committee on resources development for such consideration and report as the committee may determine.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of that referral is specifically so that the standing committee on resources development can look into the intolerable way the Minister of the Environment is proceeding with respect to the choice of South Cayuga for liquid industrial waste disposal facilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BOARD HEARING

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition for the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis). Would the Premier rescind a decision of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) and file the province’s own environmental assessment process, which includes a full environmental study under the terms of the Environmental Assessment Act and an independent public hearing by the Environmental Assessment Board before proceeding with any such facility? The petition was signed unanimously by the council of the region of Haldimand-Norfolk.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Riddell, on behalf of Mr. Gaunt, from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Labour be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981:

Ministry administration program, $8,682,400; industrial relations program, $3,499,000; women’s program $993,000; occupational health and safety program, $25,017,000; employment standards program, $3,776,000; manpower commission, $1,466,000; human rights commission program, $3,090,000; labour relations board program, $2,918,000.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment was trying to get the attention of the chair, I think, for purposes of making a statement. Do we have unanimous consent to revert to statements?

Agreed to.

3:10 p.m.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a rather brief but I think very important statement to the Legislature while all the honourable members are here rather than at night.

First of all, I would like to think the debate would be better postponed for a matter of two weeks. I am not asking for that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister is anticipating something that is going to come before the House. If he wants to make a statement he is free to do so.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would like to suggest, therefore, that I have two or three announcements to make at this time which I think are extremely important and will have a profound effect upon that consideration.

The first consideration is we would like to be able to propose the names of the people who will sit as the board of directors of the crown corporation.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: It is extremely hard to hear the minister. I do not believe we have had copies of the minister’s statement, as is the custom. Could the minister either take the marbles out of his mouth or speak into the mike?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I confess to having a rather poor voice today. I have been a little preoccupied in the last 48 hours. I have been doing a fair amount of verbal communication. I will try to speak directly into the mike.

I think the quality of that board will have a profound effect on how it is seen to do its normal functions and duties.

Second, at a meeting of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture this morning, the very respected Dr. C. L. Emery, the director of the Northumberland County Federation of Agriculture, was there. He is a well known and accepted authority on environmental affairs. He proposed the resolution they passed yesterday be reconsidered. The assembled delegates agreed to have that item reopened for further discussion.

Dr. Emery proposed that a concept of a crown corporation and government-owned facility as announced be endorsed, and that in his opinion the hearing process would not resolve the issues. He said what is required at this time is consultation and co-operation because of the severity and importance of these urgently needed waste disposal facilities. He then recommended an advisory committee to the corporation be set up under the aegis of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, that it be funded by the Ontario government and that it have free access to all information in order to make public its report and recommendations. He recommended it be able to draw on whatever expertise it feels is necessary -- legal, technical and medical.

I accepted the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s suggestion completely. The committee will have full and total access to all documentation and technical details. Along with the corporation itself, it will be able to hold public hearings throughout Ontario. This item was referred to the executive, which will make a decision on December 10. Needless to say, I hope it decides in the affirmative.

Mr. Breithaupt: What executive?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No. I would not say that in the agricultural community if I were the member. The farmers have a lot to do with protecting the environment.

Mr. Breithaupt: So do a lot of other people.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: You had better believe they have a lot.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would also like to announce today that the most eminent environmentalist of our day and of our time, Dr. Donald Chant, will serve as chairman of the board of directors of the crown corporation. Dr. Chant is an extremely well respected environmentalist and current chairman of the Premier’s (Mr. Davis) steering committee on environmental assessment.

After due consideration he agrees that the concept of this facility and the site selection need not be subject to a hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act. However, he also believes that hearings should he held on the merits of the technology under the Environmental Protection Act.

I have also agreed that detailed geotechnical surveys will most certainly be a part of this site development. I said that earlier in the statement today. That is the end of the statement, but I would like to table for members the curriculum vitae of Dr. Chant.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are not debating that.

Mr. Speaker: Is that the end of the minister’s statement?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will table it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. S. Smith: Could I have a copy of that statement, Mr. Speaker? I couldn’t bear it.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot understand why I did not hear some objection from the opposition parties. You did agree to revert to statements. However, you allowed the minister to proceed without having a copy of that statement. If I can anticipate the member for Port Arthur, is it about the lack of a copy of the statement?

Mr. Foulds: No.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it is unusual to have a statement at the end of questions as we had today. It is also particularly unusual in that the statement was germane to questions that were being raised over the course of the question period. I would wonder whether the Speaker would permit perhaps one question apiece from the two opposition parties on the statement that the Minister of the Environment has just given.

Mr. Speaker: In the same spirit in which the minister asked the House to revert to statements so he could bring forward this very important information, and in that there was unanimous consent to allow him to do that, do I have the unanimous consent of the House for one question each from the leaders of the opposition parties having to do with the statement?

Agreed to.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, since I could not hear the statement, it is difficult to know what the man said. For clarification, basically by way of my statement, could the minister confirm that what he has just said is that there will be an environmental hearing on the subject of the technology to be used on the site in South Cayuga, but not with respect to the qualities of the site itself?

Could he clarify that aspect of what he just said? Did he really say Dr. Chant feels there is no need for further consideration concerning the selection of the site? Is that what Dr. Chant said? If so, why is the Ontario Federation of Agriculture now going to have hearings, with the minister’s blessing, about the selection of the site?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, let me put it in these words: Dr. Chant was asked about this just yesterday, and that is why I was not able to give members an answer at two o’clock. He has thought about it very intensively because it is a very important matter for him to decide on. He has given that a lot of consideration and has said he would act as chairman of that crown corporation. He has said he thinks an environmental assessment hearing is not desirable, not necessary on the site itself in the concept of a crown corporation operating that site.

In other words, the site location is finalized. Dr. Chant believes it is best that it should be. He has viewed in those 24 hours at great depth the MacLaren report. Based on that assessment, he thinks the site discussion, the need and all of those aspects of an environmental assessment proposal, and no doubt a hearing, should be waived.

He rightly asks that the technology of that facility be subject, of course, to the scrutiny of the board. That was already agreed to. There was no question there at all. The technology will be subject to the scrutiny of the board. He wishes that the scrutiny be done at public hearings. I agree. It can be done under the Environmental Protection Act, or some similar assistance can be given to him in having the public hearings.

He asked -- and we had already agreed to that at the federation meeting this morning -- that there be a geotechnical survey of that site. Again, it was obvious it would be part of the board’s original and first activity.

3:20 p.m.

Those are the two conditions that Dr. Chant wanted clearly identified. He will serve as the chairman of the crown corporation. I think we are unbelievably fortunate to have a man of that great calibre serve in that very vital role.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of the Environment explain why the ministry is so obsessed with its desire not to have an environmental assessment and environmental assessment hearing on this particular project to the point that the chairman of the steering committee, who would normally recommend as to whether or not the exemption should be granted, has now been brought into the crown corporation and to the extent that the minister keeps on trying to pretend that the environmental assessment would take such a long time, when we have learned from the people of MacLaren that they could, now, with what they have in hand, prepare the environmental assessment in a matter of two or three months? In other words, the environmental assessment and the hearing could be completed by the June 30 date, before which, the minister says, “Nothing is going to be done on that site.”

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the leader of the third party does not understand the full implications of applying that act. One must look at a lot of other considerations as part of that assessment hearing. It is Dr. Emery’s belief -- and I thought he said it very well this morning; I am sorry some of the members of the third party did not take time out to go to the OFA meeting, or maybe one or two did, I do not know --

Mr. Riddell: Were his proposals endorsed by the OFA?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: He asked that his proposal be referred to the executive, who will make a decision on endorsing his proposals at the December 10 board meeting.

Mr. Breithaupt: You put him on the board too.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will come to that. The meeting appropriately, after having passed quite a contrary resolution yesterday -- it is a little difficult to be heard’, Mr. Speaker -- obviously wanted the time to consider and wanted its executive to have the time to consider.

I think Dr. Emery, in his statement this morning, put it extremely well. I have read this statement to Dr. Emery because I did not want him to have any doubt about what was being said on his behalf. I have just finished speaking to Dr. Emery. He makes it very clear -- and he made it extremely clear down there -- that this is not the time to question that site; now is the time to get on with full discussions of solving that problem.

It is a very serious environmental health problem. It is not the time for the debate of hearings but for the spirit of co-operation. I will rest that verdict with the OFA. What they are proposing, Mr. Speaker, is that --

Mr. Breithaupt: What have they to do with it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the minister have anything further to add to the original question? Let us just ignore the interruptions.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Right. The question was what would the role of the federation be? They will organize that committee and then be an advisory committee, because what Dr. Emery said is so true. There will be four people on the crown corporation representing the public. I am pleased that they should make up the corporation with only two technical experts.

In their wisdom, the OFA said that what they need is more technical advice. I think that is eminently logical. Based on that, we have agreed to work in the spirit of co-operation with the federation and have them advise the corporation on all aspects of the technical considerations for that site. I think they made a very important move this morning. I endorse it and I hope it follows through.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I think the rights of the citizens in my riding have been taken advantage of by the fact that they are being treated as third-class citizens by not being given a proper environmental assessment protection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have nothing to do with protecting the rights of citizens of the province. I have a responsibility to protect your rights as a member.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have been very disturbed about this process of the government automatically asking for leave to revert to ministerial statements and so on. As a private member, any time I am here for the rest of this session and the government asks for permission to revert to statements, I will object.

Mr. Speaker: That is an option and a prerogative that is open to the honourable member. I hope he is not suggesting there was anything irregular. I asked for unanimous consent and I got it.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to sit on the afternoon of Wednesday, December 3, 1980.

Motion agreed to.

TRANSFER OF BILL

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that Bill Pr45, an Act respecting the Powers of the Jewish Family and Child Services of Metropolitan Toronto, be transferred from the standing committee on social development to the standing committee on general government.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DEVOLUTION OF ESTATES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Walker, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved first reading of Bill 210, An Act to amend the Devolution of Estates Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a bill to amend the Devolution of Estates Act. Within the past year, certain problems encountered in attempting to deal with the estates of persons dying in Ontario who leave beneficiaries in the Soviet Union have been brought to the attention of the minister.

It appears that exorbitant charges by the Soviet government, or its agents, and the low exchange rate for conversion of dollars into rubles result in a beneficiary receiving less than the amount he should receive. While it is clear that Ontario legislation cannot completely rectify such problems, we should attempt to prevent such abuses to the extent this is possible.

The Devolution of Estates Amendment Act, 1980, contains a provision whereby a court order is required before money can be paid out of an estate in Ontario to a beneficiary in certain countries to be designated by regulations before it is received by the beneficiary. This provision is based on legislation in the United States, such as section 2218 of the Surrogate Court Procedure Act of New York. Under that section, surrogate court may withhold payment of money unless it is satisfied that the claimant will have the benefit or use or control of it. The money can properly be withheld if it appears that its full value will not reach the beneficiary by reason of various fees and taxes and an unrealistic exchange rate.

A further provision in the Devolution of Estates Amendment Act, 1980, requires a person who receives property in respect of which an order has been made as agent, solicitor or assignee, to file a report with the surrogate clerk for Ontario in a form and containing such information as will be prescribed by regulation. Where the property is transferred directly to a foreign beneficiary, the personal representative must file such a report

INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED SECRETARIES AND ADMINISTRATORS IN ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Belanger moved first reading of Bill Pr41, An Act respecting the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

3:30 p.m.

CITY OF KINGSTON ACT

Mr. Ashe, on behalf of Mr. Watson, moved first reading of Bill Pr50, An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

Motion agreed to.

HAMILTON CLUB ACT

Mr. S. Smith moved first reading of Bill Pr51, An Act respecting the Hamilton Club.

Motion agreed to.

SIOUX PETROLEUMS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved first reading of Bill Pr47, An Act to revive Sioux Petroleums Limited.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answer to question 403 standing on the Notice Paper.

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

Mr. S. Smith moved, pursuant to standing order 34(a), that the business of the House be set aside so that the House may debate a matter of urgent public importance, that being the statement made by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) regarding the establishment of a toxic liquid waste dump in South Cayuga to be approved without environmental assessment.

Mr. Speaker: Proper notice has been given of this, and I will hear the honourable member for up to five minutes as to reasons why he feels the ordinary business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on Tuesday a somewhat similar motion roughly bearing on the subject of liquid waste was presented by another honourable member of the House. But at that time you ruled, correctly in my view, that the matter had not yet been presented by the honourable minister at the time you had received the notice, and that therefore that particular subject would not have been a fit subject for the emergency debate.

This would appear to be the first opportunity that has presented itself for us to have that urgent debate on this matter, which I said then and believe now to be in the public interest -- an extremely important matter inasmuch as the people of Haldimand-Norfolk are going to be subjected to this particular facility being thrust into the property that has been described in South Cayuga without proper environmental assessment hearings.

The concern we have is that there is no neighbourhood in Ontario that can consider itself safe. If the largest environmental project of its kind can be placed into one area without a proper environmental hearing, how can one justifiably demand such a hearing in any other situation which will undoubtedly be less massive than this one? We feel this decision represents an important precedent, an important milestone, and is one which should not be allowed to pass without our taking every opportunity to show the people of Ontario that what seems on paper and on the books to be good environmental legislation protects no one when the government of the day wishes to be high-handed and wishes to impose its will on the people.

We believe that in the emergency debate we are recommending to you, Mr. Speaker, it would be important for the minister to speak first for his party to explain his point of view and also to give further clarification of some of the statements he made at the end of question period today. We feel he might even be allowed to speak more than once if there is concurrence in the House on the matter, because we believe the information he brought on Tuesday is of extreme importance and has been somewhat confused, rather than clarified, by the statements he made a few moments ago.

The fact of the matter is this: Irrespective of whether the minister has been able somehow or other to convince a prominent individual to become chairman of this particular body, and irrespective of whether some particular member of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has accepted the job of looking at site selection, even though the site selection apparently has already been finalized according to the person who is newly appointed, the people of Ontario are not going to be totally fooled by this.

They can see as clearly as anyone else that the land in question is held by the government because of a foolish and politically embarrassing decision by this government to acquire at very high cost a large parcel of land in one of the areas of Ontario thought to be suitable for an idyllic, pollution-free housing environment just a few years ago. Left with this political embarrassment on its hands, the government has plainly decided to push ahead to try to solve its toxic waste problem.

In the old saying, if you have a lemon, you at least try to make lemonade. They were stuck with this piece of land and, to try to make the best of a bad situation, they have decided to try to push through this toxic waste facility against the wishes of the people in Haldimand-Norfolk and to do so without any opportunity for proper examination of the MacLaren report or its appendices which, after all, are terribly important. I wonder if even Dr. Chant has seen the appendices to the report. They have done it without any opportunity to see any of the hydrogeological studies that may have been ordered in other areas and, particularly, without any opportunity for contrary opinions to be expressed in front of a neutral hearing officer.

If the environmental assessment legislation in Ontario is to be set aside in this case, if it is inadequate, if the minister feels the board cannot do the job and a group from the OFA --

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. S. Smith: -- should do the job, I say no site in Ontario is safe from this highhanded method of imposition by the government. We must have this debate as soon as possible.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I also want to urge that we hold an emergency debate today on what the government intends to do, not just with respect to the choice of the South Cayuga site but also with respect to the rationale that led the cabinet to endorse the Minister of the Environment’s proposal and thereby to jettison the Environmental Assessment Act, as it was passed in 1975. The fact is -- and this is now an emergency -- the Environmental Assessment Act is effectively a dead letter today if the government is allowed to continue with the decision it announced in the House two days ago.

We are faced with a fait accompli about the choice of a site when the residents and people in the Cayuga area had no idea until a month ago they were even being considered as a site for liquid industrial waste disposal. We have seen a systematic effort by the government to dismantle all the normal procedural devices that exist to ensure there is public consideration about a project as major and all-encompassing as this one.

The cabinet has now approved the project. The cabinet has waived the process not just of a hearing on an environmental assessment, but also the environmental assessment itself. I really wonder what the government is trying to hide in this fantastic effort to avoid the process of environmental assessment, a process by which one questions whether there are alternative sites, what the technical considerations are and what the environmental consequences could be.

3:40 p.m.

We could be sitting on another environmental landmine at South Cayuga without knowing what those consequences are going to be, because the government has decided to waive these particular provisions of the act. That is what is happening right now and that is why we need to debate this as a matter of emergency.

Not only that, this is an emergency because, from the way the government is proceeding, it seems clear it is prepared to move heaven and earth to try to eliminate any public consideration through the Legislature, the Parliament of Ontario, about this particular procedure or development until it is well down the road. The government has not announced an intention to bring in legislation to set up the crown corporation before we rise about the middle of December. There is no indication it will bring supplementary estimates in before we rise at the middle of December. In other words, there is no indication it will be bringing to this Legislature, apart from an emergency debate, what it actually intends to do.

On the other side, there is tremendous concern in the area. Two hundred people turned out on November 13 in the area because they did not know what the devil was going on and they felt they had a right to know. We have a minister and a ministry whose behaviour in the past have consistently been that “we in the Ministry of the Environment know best and anybody out there who questions our expertise is simply wrong.” The minister has once again repeated that particular position in the attitudes he has struck in the Legislature today.

Finally, another reason for having an emergency debate is the bizarre announcement today that the watchdog of the environmental assessment steering committee, Dr. D. A. Chant, a respected and eminent environmentalist, is now being put into the crown corporation and is therefore not in a position where he and his steering committee could objectively advise the government over whether or not an environmental assessment was to be held or not.

I know the reason for that. I suspect Dr. Chant, having had his committee’s advice rejected in the case of the Darlington nuclear power plant and in the case of the Elora Gorge decision, has just simply thrown up his hands. Dr. Chant has said, “Look, if you can’t beat them, I am going to have to try to join them and see whether there is not something I can do to prevent the most harmful consequences of this particular proposal.”

The Morrison Beatty hydrogeological report says at least another 12 months of hydrogeological studies are required before it is possible to go forward with that proposal. The MacLaren report likewise says very explicitly: “It is recommended that the ministry undertake field studies, such as confirming geological data by a series of soil borings, et cetera, on the Huron and South Cayuga sites to confirm their suitability. Should these sites prove to be geologically unsuitable, similar investigations are recommended for the Lambton and for the Bruce sites.”

In other words, the document the ministry has offered as the proof that South Cayuga is the appropriate place to put this liquid waste disposal facility is not confirmed by the MacLaren consultants. They say there remains a possibility, which can only be explored by means of further tests, that the site will be unsuitable.

I am saying we need an emergency debate because the government should not be allowed simply to dispose of all of the devices that have been put into place to protect the interests of this Parliament, of the people of Ontario and of South Cayuga. It is time the minister agreed to have that assessment and he can get it done in good time.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I argued a few days ago against an emergency debate on a matter very much related to this and, at the time, you found the case had not been made for an emergency debate based on the particular motion that was put forward. At that time, I indicated to you there were several reports which had just been received by members and which we had not had time to consider fully -- the MacLaren and Morrison Beatty reports. Those reports have now been received and I am sure the honourable members have had time to consider them.

Members have also had time to consider the statement made by my colleague the Minister of the Environment. I think, in making a ruling today on this motion, several facts should be taken into consideration. The first fact is that the Minister of the Environment has made a very courageous statement and has come to grips with and brought forward a solution to a very vexing problem in this province and one which no one else seems to want to come to grips with. That is the first thing.

The second fact that must be considered is that the statement the honourable minister has made has been misrepresented by many of the people sitting opposite and that misrepresentation is carrying on out to the general public and needs to be corrected. I think the opportunity to correct that rests in a debate in this House today. In other words, what may not have been an emergency a few days ago is now an emergency because a courageous act by a minister of this government is being misrepresented in a manner that is causing it to be misunderstood by many of the people of this province.

It can be argued that the misunderstanding is sufficient to cause us to say that the minister and the members of this government should be given an opportunity -- and they can do it exceedingly well -- to explain all the ramifications of this decision and to challenge members opposite, if they want to criticize this particular solution to a very vexing problem, to come up with some alternative solution. They should not just argue about negatives. They should not just put roadblocks in the way of progress. They should not just belittle names of people. They should just sit there and come up with some positive solutions as to what they would do.

Because we have had an opportunity to consider the reports, because this is now a matter of public knowledge, because there is misunderstanding about it, and because there is legitimate concern in some quarters that can be very adequately cleared up by the minister and other members of this party during this debate, we would not oppose this matter being considered. In fact, we believe that a case can be made for us to debate this today and that it does fall within the parameters of rule 34(a).

Mr. Speaker: I have listened with great interest to all the members who have spoken. There is unanimous accord that it is of urgent public importance. I think it is quite obvious that due to the nature of the debate, it has province-wide implications. It deals with a specific incident of recent occurrence.

Lest I be accused of being inconsistent in the light of the fact that I turned down a similar debate, the specific request to set aside the business of the House was with reference to a specific occurrence that did not have the obvious implications it does now, since members have had 48 hours to discuss the implications of the statement made by the Minister of the Environment. I am going to say that it does fall within the four walls of standing order 34.

Now the only question before the House is, shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The debate will proceed. I want to remind honourable members that each one who wishes to speak will be limited to 10 minutes and the debate will conclude without any motion before the House at six o’clock.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would be very glad to hear the minister first if he cares to say anything or add anything, and also to hear him wind up. If not, I will be happy to start. It is up to the minister. I just want him to have that privilege if he wishes it.

Mr. Speaker: It is normal procedure that the honourable member who moves the motion will speak for 10 minutes and, unless there is some agreement to do otherwise, we will be guided by past practice.

3:50 p.m.

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, we have been told repeatedly in this House that Ontario enjoys the benefits of some of the most advanced environmental protection legislation on the books anywhere. I agree that we have, on the books, the best environmental protection legislation. The problem is that we seem to have an aversion to utilizing it to protect the citizens of Ontario.

Never has there been a more blatant case, however, than this one. The minister found himself with an interim report from some consultants who had looked at some 17 sites around Ontario. They had rejected a good many other places in the province and had looked at 17 and come up with about five they thought should be further studied because they would be suitable to receive liquid waste.

Plainly the minister, or some other agent of government, then instructed the consultants to go back and look at another site. This was the site, held by the government as a consequence of some exceedingly foolish and ill-considered expenditures of some $30 million to purchase land for an alleged town that was going to be built in a district called South Cayuga. As a result of that, the consultants were put in a dilemma. They found themselves having to go back on what they had done.

The meat of this report is contained in appendices which none of us in this House has had the opportunity to examine yet. But even in the summary we have been given, they say they did not look at South Cayuga in the first place because it did not meet their criteria. These criteria included the avoidance of using excellent agricultural land.

Then a funny thing happened. They say that while processing data collected during site visits, they came to realize that none of the areas studied really met the original spirit and intent. A lot of the places they figured were grade five and six agricultural land had been upgraded from time to time and some of it was up to grade one and two agricultural land. Conversely, some of the one and two land had fallen into disarray and disuse and was now down to five and six.

That is what they said. I don’t blame the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) for laughing; I found it funny as well. But that is what they say -- it is on page 3-15. They say certain lands had been significantly upgraded by local drainage work and had become very productive while other lands had been allowed to deteriorate. Logic dictated they should not be that concerned with agricultural productivity and so they decided to forget about that and look at South Cayuga.

They had what they called revised or refined agricultural criteria, which are never explained. Using those, the Huron area was identified as the most suitable of the five, with Lambton and Bruce being the best alternatives and very close seconds. That is what they found once they ignored the agricultural criteria. But, they say, the primary constraining factor in Lambton is that there is existing agricultural use on the land.

So what they did first was eliminate agriculture as a consideration so they could look at South Cayuga. Having then looked at South Cayuga, they found Huron was the best and Lambton a very close second. They decided then to eliminate Lambton on the very agricultural criteria they had set aside in the first place to enable them to look at South Cayuga.

It is obvious the kind of backflips and somersaults being done by these consultants have plainly been done in an effort to keep whatever is left of their scientific reputation while meeting the minister’s order, which is to find some way to get South Cayuga accepted as the place to dump the toxic waste.

All right. All that has been said. But, Mr. Speaker, look at the situation. We find ourselves with the environmental protection legislation being set aside by the government. So keen are they to avoid their own laws that they have created two corporations instead of one. There will be one corporation to get them through until possibly the next election, certainly until this House rises at Christmas, and then a second corporation some time in the future which the House will have to vote on.

It is evident there is no need for two corporations when one will do. Both will be owned by the crown. There is plainly not the slightest difference between the two, but the minister wishes to avoid a vote by the elected representatives of the people. Not only is he avoiding his own laws, which apply to everybody else -- and let me tell you, if you are an ordinary citizen, you cannot even expand a pig barn in Ontario without getting some environmental approval -- but the minister can create this corporation and dump this liquid waste without any consideration of the kind of legislation that is supposed to be protecting all of us.

We are told today of some very interesting developments. First of all, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture condemned the ministry for its actions. Then, apparently, some particular fellow of this federation, some chap from Northumberland, undoubtedly a fine gentleman, came up with some proposal off the top of his head that said --

Mr. Cassidy: Probably a Tory.

Mr. S. Smith: We can speculate as to whom he was trying to rescue and for what political purpose, but I do not have to say that.

He came up with a marvellous idea that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture -- not the National Farmers Union, not the Christian Farmers Federation, not the Ontario Federation of Labour, not any of the environmental groups, not Pollution Probe, not any of the special interest groups, not any of the conservation authorities -- a particular group called the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, for which I have the greatest of respect in agricultural matters, should set itself up somehow by means of a subcommittee. This has not even been approved by the OFA; it is just the idea of one guy.

The ministry leaped at the proposal and said, “Whereas the board of experts appointed by law and the statutes of Ontario shall not be permitted to examine the matter and to have public hearings, this group of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture shall be entitled to go about the province and have public hearings of some kind.”

Will it be able to compel people to testify under oath? If so, how can it possibly happen unless the members of the group are made royal commissioners? I ask the minister this. Would he kindly attend to this question for a moment? Will he listen for a moment, please? Is he intending to make the OFA group royal commissioners or, under the Public Inquiries Act, will he be intending --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. S. Smith: I yield to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: What I have said to the federation, and I make that statement again --

Mr. S. Smith: Just say yes or no. Will they be under the Public Inquiries Act? I am sorry, I do not yield the floor.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Does the member want the information?

Mr. S. Smith: Just say yes or no. Are they going to be under the Public Inquiries Act or are they not?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Does the member want the information?

Mr. S. Smith: The answer is yes or no, Mr. Minister. There is no other answer.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the honourable member yielded the floor?

Mr. S. Smith: No, I have not yielded the floor. I will not yield for a filibuster. We will hear when the minister speaks, Mr. Speaker. We will hear whether or not this group from the OFA will be given subpoena power, whether groups will be able to appear in front of the OFA and be funded to bring in experts and to have money to pay for these experts. We will find out whether testimony will be compelled under oath, whether they will have the power of the Public Inquiries Act or its equivalent.

We will find out when the minister speaks, and then we will presumably find out something that I am certainly waiting to hear, which is why some particular individual from the OFA is to be permitted to do what the Environmental Assessment Board is not to be permitted to do. What conceivable rationale can there be for this to happen?

4 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. S. Smith: I finish with simply one sentence. Irrespective of whether the minister has been able to create a certain propaganda for himself by getting Dr. Chant by some means or other and for some purpose or other, by getting an environmentalist seemingly to agree -- and we will wait to hear from him -- the fact remains, if South Cayuga can go without an environmental assessment, no neighbourhood, no town, no piece of farm land in Ontario is safe from this arrogant group of ministers and sooner or later, preferably sooner, they will be turfed out as a consequence.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader said just before we had this debate that he felt it was appropriate to have it because there had been misunderstanding of the government’s position. I cannot imagine how that accusation can be made, because the public, the people I have talked to since the minister’s announcement on Tuesday, understand very clearly what has happened.

They understand this is an arrogant government; a government which is high-handed; a government which has moved from the basis of political expediency and, in the process, a government which has torpedoed a piece of legislation, the Environmental Assessment Act of 1975, which has been the mainstay of the speeches of Ministers of the Environment over the course of the last five years, in defending the environmental record of the government of Ontario.

What is happening in this regard is similar to the behaviour of the government in many other areas as well. We know what is happening with doctors opting out. We know what is happening with the financial plight of hospitals trying to serve the people of Ontario. This government has tried to pretend no problems exist. We know about the government’s refusal to provide adequate day care facilities across the province. They have tried to come up with $1 million and say that solved the problem. We know the difficulties in getting equality for women in the province. The government pretends there is no problem. It simply ignores the realities of Ontario right now. We know the problems of laid-off workers. The government comes up with a bit of papier mâché and tries to pretend that is a full and final solution, when 50,000 workers have been laid off.

We know in South Cayuga the people in that particular community had no foreknowledge at all, prior to August of this year, that their community was even being considered for this liquid waste disposal facility. They did not know for sure until October 27 that the matter had been referred to the MacLaren company for it to report upon. It was not until two days ago that they learned the finger had descended on South Cayuga and that the government had decided to put the liquid waste disposal facility in South Cayuga.

I have to say that the whole manner in which the government, both the cabinet and the Minister of the Environment, has treated this particular affair raises enormous questions in my mind about a minister, a ministry and a government which already had enormous credibility problems with respect to the matter of the environment.

The MacLaren report was meant to be an independent appraisal of what sites were appropriate for liquid industrial waste disposal across the province, but in the end, because the minister said, “I do not care what you suggested in your interim report; you have to look at this one,” it no longer can claim to have independence. It is a $425,000 justification for the site that the minister wanted to have chosen. Even there, let us make it clear, the MacLaren report has not said it is the only site. It has not said it is the preferred site. It has said that further geological studies are required and it has said that those studies may in fact, indicate that South Cayuga is not the appropriate site to go on.

The ministry paid some more of the taxpayers’ money to Morrison Beatty Limited to do a hydrogeological study on South Cayuga. They too say that another 12 months are required. The ministry, however, has taken a railroading approach through cabinet and through the community, regardless of the fact that further studies are required.

It is not just the overriding of our laws that concerns me, it is also what I feel is the very compromising approach that is being taken to a respected environmental expert, Dr. Donald Chant, in appointing him to the crown corporation. I feel extremely uneasy about what is being done.

If I can put it on the record, Dr. Chant is the chairman of the environmental assessment steering committee. That is a committee which advises the Premier, not just the minister, on questions respecting the environment and which is specifically charged with advising the Premier and the cabinet from time to time about whether environmental assessments should take place.

The government knew that in this particular case the question of the overriding of the environmental assessment was going to be a very clear issue in the minds, not just of people in South Cayuga but all across this province. What it has done is effectively to remove Dr. Chant’s ability to act objectively in recommending whether the environmental assessment should take place. There is no way we can get around that. From the moment Dr. Chant was asked to take on the position in the crown corporation, he no longer could act impartially as far as the environmental assessment steering committee’s functions were involved. It seems to me that is another example of this government’s willingness to go to any lengths to try to steamroller over the procedure which has normally been followed in the past.

I call on the minister to explain in this debate why it is he has gone to such lengths to try to avoid the environmental assessment process. He keeps claiming it will take year after year. The facts are that in the case of the Thorold dump of Walker Brothers Quarries, the minister had a company which was engaged in breaking the law and which has now been charged by the Ontario Provincial Police --

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Is that correct? Do you want to put that on the record?

Mr. Cassidy: The company has been charged by the OPP. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and others have engaged in activity which by any definition of the law -- although the courts will have to decide -- look like prima facie cases where the law was not being followed by that company. It has been acknowledged by the ministry that the company was accepting liquid industrial wastes in contravention of its own permit for that particular site. Down at Harwich --

Hon. Mr. Parrott: What company has been charged? I want to know.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister will have his turn.

Down at Harwich, the government got itself at loggerheads with the local council. The fact is there have been no hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act. The fact is it is not the hearing process which has caused the delay. It has been the approach of this ministry, the confrontation this ministry has consistently sought regardless of its assurances to the contrary.

The minister and the government have a credibility problem with respect to the way they are handling this particular process. Now I think it is up to the minister to explain why he is rejecting the environmental assessment process.

Does he reject the consideration of alternatives which is in that act? Does he reject the measurement of effects on the environment which is called for in the assessment required under that act? Does he reject the need to put forward plans for protecting the environment which is called for in that act? Does he reject the need to evaluate alternatives which is required in that act? Does he reject the requirement of the act that no funding and no licence shall be given until the environmental assessment process has been completed? It is clear that he does. Under those circumstances one has to ask, what good is it to have a piece of legislation if the government is never prepared to use that particular legislation?

Experience in the past where environmental assessment hearings have taken place has further put into question the capacity of the Ministry of the Environment to get the story straight even with months of preparation. In the case of the Nanticoke project and in the case --

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No assessment act applied there. Get your facts straight

Mr. Cassidy: All right. In the case of Nanticoke, the Environmental Assessment Board recommended against approval of the proposal. It said, among other things, that the Minister of the Environment had accepted data and figures from the applicant without inquiring fully into the validity. It indicated the ministry had neither the experience nor expertise properly to evaluate the technology which was being put forward in that case. It established that although the minister had a responsibility to evaluate the assessment, the ministry had blown its evaluation of the assessment and missed salient data which was very important and which led the assessment board to reject that application. That was the case of a proposal which went through the whole assessment procedure. I ask myself in a case where -- Dr. Chant had this for a day -- the cabinet had this for a period of a week --

4:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: A point of order, Mr. Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: What’s your point of order?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would simply like to correct the record to this point. I believe the member said it was an environmental assessment hearing for that project. Is that his statement? Was it under the Environmental Assessment Act? I just want to know whether that is being put on the record or not.

Mr. Cassidy: The Environmental Assessment Board under the Environmental Protection Act. The minister is picking at straws. The minister is being picky.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It is an entirely different procedure.

Mr. Cassidy: The fact is that the ministry’s own evaluation did not stand up in that case. The minister is now suggesting that the Environmental Protection Act should be thrown out the window in addition to the Environmental Assessment Act. If that is the position of the ministry, I suggest they bring in a repeal act for the Environmental Assessment Act. If that is what he wants to do, he should do it up front and not weasel around with regulations --

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Cassidy: I was here in 1975 --

Hon. Mr. Parrott: You just know the decision. You don’t understand. It’s sad.

Mr. Cassidy: I certainly do understand. I understand that should apply to every project, large and small, and the minister should not exempt or waive the application of the act every time there is a major proposal coming before the people of the province.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, in rising to discuss this action of the honourable minister, I want to start by commending the minister for taking such action. I think we all realize the problem we face in this province in handling liquid industrial waste.

Mr. Kerrio: Who has been running the store for 37 years?

Mr. Eaton: It’s a problem that probably every jurisdiction in North America is faced with at this time and one that some jurisdictions are taking action on. This minister is taking the leading action in North America to solve this problem. He is a minister who is dedicated to seeing the job is carried out properly.

Some of the actions of the opposition at times make the job almost impossible. I always felt the role of the opposition was to be critical, to put forth suggestions on what could be done in given situations. But it has become obvious the only role the opposition is playing in this province is one of obstruction. Any time there is some suggestion a site might be located in a particular area the opposition has gone in and tried to create a scare before the fact. They have utterly destroyed the process of trying to carry through on assessment hearings.

Mr. Cunningham: Why isn’t it in Middlesex?

Mr. Eaton: Somebody said why not Middlesex. Middlesex was on the list in the MacLaren report.

Mr. Cunningham: You screamed and cried.

Mr. Eaton: I did not say a word against it. I took the facts as we had them and at that point there were very few facts because the MacLaren report just indicated possible sites in this province. But one of the NDP members came into the riding and created scares. The NDP came in and gave complete misinformation. They put figures at 500,000 times what they actually were, as we raised it in the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment. It was just atrocious misrepresentation of a situation.

Without the facts, without starting on any assessment in the area, they came in and suggested circulating a petition -- “Let’s get a petition going against having the site come here.” That utterly destroys any process that can take place in assessing a problem and assessing what the impact might be, having any environment hearings, because scare tactics are carried out before any process ever takes place. This is a problem that faces everybody in Ontario and everybody has to deal with it responsibly.

It was refreshing to hear some of the people at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture this morning when they moved a resolution to try to work with the minister, to have people involved in some way so that they could know exactly what was going on in the process and exactly what was to happen. It was obvious in discussions that the minister had with them this morning they had already been fed misinformation again and someone was already trying to get a scare tactic going in that area to reject outright any location of an industrial waste plant. Before any assessment could take place or before any hearing could take place, they wanted to have people scared so they would object to having it there; yet at the same time they want the problem dealt with.

This minister is taking steps to deal with the problem. He is taking steps to work with the people, wherever the plant might be located, and there is not even an assurance at this point that it will be located at the South Cayuga site. That is the site the minister has chosen. There will be a lot of work going on before it is finally said that this is where it will be located. That scare tactic still goes on among the members of the opposition.

It is the responsibility of the opposition, as well, to try to take a look at the facts properly, to try to assess what is needed, to try to assess the technology that is going to be applied. Probably the best technology in the world will be applied to this site to handle liquid industrial waste in this province. Surely this is what we want; this is the way we want the waste handled. If we continued the way we were, with an area suggested and immediately an attempt made to block it, we would never get this technology developed in Ontario. There were certainly people at the federation meeting this morning who said, “We must get on with the job; we have a lot at stake.”

The agricultural industry uses a lot of chemicals in producing food in this province. Those chemicals produce some of the industrial wastes that have to be disposed of here. It is in that light they are concerned. They want to see industrial waste treated. Certainly there is going to be emotion involved in whatever area it will take place. But I think that type of suggestion today shows the responsibility, particularly of the agricultural community, and they were not limiting it to their own organization to be involved in a committee. They were suggesting they would take the leadership to promote the committee, but that lawyers, environmentalists and engineers be involved in it, people who would take a responsible look at it. Those people could then pass on their comments and their facts to the public and could deal with the public so there is not suspicion cast by the opposition that it is the government that is doing it.

It really is a belittlement by the Leader of the Opposition when he suggests that it is a political ploy of any kind on the part of the government to have people like that involved. Surely all the citizens of this province want to see people involved in it, who are interested in seeing that the job is carried out correctly. Members opposite destroy the process by the actions of people going out and starting their scare-mongering before that process can be followed through.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Eaton: This process can be a leader in North America. It can be an example for other jurisdictions to follow in treating their waste, and we need that.

Mr. Swart: On prime land?

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Eaton: I think anybody in this province should be prepared to sacrifice 100 acres of prime agricultural land to see that industrial waste in this province is treated. The importance of this treating of industrial waste far outweighs 100 acres of land. The industrial waste that is being spread around this province at this time by irresponsible people and the blocking of the process of being able to treat it by irresponsible operations could do a lot more than damage 100 acres of land in this province. It could put all kinds of acres out of production. This is what has to be considered at this time.

I would hate to see the members opposite do it because where would they put it? They would go to every community and say, “We can’t put it in your community.” On the basis of facts, on the basis of information, this minister is taking leadership in doing what needs to be done in this province in regard to treating industrial waste.

He deserves the consideration and support of the people of this province to do it, and to do it in a rational way. I am sure if people look at it rationally and not just for political purposes, as some people on the other side are doing, not just for scare-mongering, this job will be done, and it will be a landmark in North America for the treatment of industrial wastes.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak in this emergency debate this afternoon. We have come to the crossroads in the history of Ontario when we are beginning to deal realistically with our wastes and trying to manage them properly. I think that is a step in the right direction, and I would be the first to agree we should be doing it in a proper manner. We have been trying to deal with this matter ever since I came into the Legislature in 1975. Because the government would not bring forward proper policies and guidelines to deal with it, we have got into a position at this time where we are in a panic position.

We are talking about an area in the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, along the northern shores of Lake Erie, which happens to be represented by a Liberal member at the present time. I am proud to be a representative of that area. I was born and raised there and have made my living there. I have worked with that soil from the time I was 12 years old, and I think I understand it as well as anybody in this House, and maybe as well as anybody in Ontario.

We are talking about 12,500 acres of soil that is number one and two class land as classified according to the old classification -- 90 per cent of it. It is a resource we can make no more of. We have no more access to it. If we do not guard it properly, it goes down the drain, never to be retrieved. As I drive from home to Toronto every day, I see the good land being utilized along the QEW. When I was a boy it was beautiful orchards, beautiful farm land. It has disappeared; it has been paved over. We have no more access to it.

The same thing could happen with this particular piece of land we are talking about in Haldimand county: 12,500 acres of class one and class two land. We have already established a steel plant in my area, which is coming on stream. They own 6,500 acres of land. They have not even got one plant there at the present time, with the exception of Charles Jones Industrial Limited and Marsh Engineering. They have the oxygen plant. But there are 3,500 acres of land there not being utilized. If the government really wants to take a look at some place to be utilized as a waste disposal site, that land is already zoned for heavy industry. It is already being properly utilized. Why not take 100 acres of that land and put the proper equipment in and deal with it? Why should the industry of our province not take some responsibility for dealing with its wastes?

Farmers recycle their waste and put it on the fields. It makes the crops grow better. We do not ask for support. The Minister of the Environment, living in the great county of Oxford, must understand that. But he has not cared to look at it. The government has 12,500 acres of land for which it paid $2,000 an acre. The Minister of the Environment thinks it is dear; he is getting criticized for it. Down the road a few years that land may well be worth $5,000 an acre for agricultural purposes.

I will give the honourable members an example. In Norfolk county -- again going back 50 years -- one could buy all the land one could get one’s hands on for $2,500 for 100 acres. What does it cost today? I just had a call from one of my constituents who was buying 164 acres, and how much was he quoted for a farm credit loan? Does the minister want to guess? It was something like $750,000, which works out to $5,000 an acre. I am telling the minister this because it is properly managed. If he lets them come into that area and start this plant, although it only takes 100 acres as the member for Middlesex said, what happens to the land around it? Can crops be grown around it? My understanding is that that land goes down the drain. The food cannot even be eaten.

I agree we need a bridge there. That is being held out like candy to us. I agree we need a bridge there, but do we need the bridge to get from Port Colborne to the industrial park? I have pointed out to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) many times, because we have access to an industrial park, we have access to Dunnville and we have access to Port Colborne. In the meantime, leave it as agricultural land.

They should spend $425,000 for a drainage study to improve the drainage. I have been trying to get the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) to do just that, to put it under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion program, because I understand Haldimand needs some improvement in drainage. It needs some special attention because they are not getting a return for their dollar. If they could get a return on the dollar from the land, they could compete with industry any time.

The minister is making a mistake. As I indicated to the Speaker today, the minister is treating the people as third-class citizens by not even providing the rights of law established in this House. He is going against that very grain.

Now he says that we are going out on the street and misleading people. We are not misleading people. I would like to read my press release:

“The government’s decision to locate a liquid industrial waste site in South Cayuga is irresponsible and totally unacceptable. Any attempt to bulldoze this decision through this Legislature in the same way that regional government was forced down our throats must be fought every step of the way and I intend to do that.”

As the member representing the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, I do not just consider my riding but the rights of everybody in Ontario. The government of Ontario does not accept its responsibilities when it tries to locate those sites within Liberal ridings to its own political benefit.

I received a resolution from the region of Haldimand-Norfolk today and I would like to read it to the minister. The reason I did not put it to him in question period was because it was addressed to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and I knew the Premier was not here:

“Would the Premier rescind the decision of the Minister of the Environment and follow the province’s own environmental assessment process, which includes a full environmental study under the terms of the Environmental Assessment Act and an independent public hearing by the Environmental Assessment Board, before proceeding with any such facility?”

That was supported unanimously by the council of the region of Haldimand-Norfolk. That is not mine. It is from the people who represent that area. They are just asking for justice, the same as anyone else in the province and, as I said to the Speaker, they are not third-rate citizens. We have people who live on the other side of the Grand River. We have a parcel on the Grand River which is being used by the public -- a public park, run privately. Doesn’t the government think they should have some protection? How can they justify spending these hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect their own seats over there?

I think the minister is on the wrong track and if he does not reverse it, he is going to have to go to the people of Ontario and explain it, because he is wrong. The Minister of Agriculture and Food is not meeting his responsibilities to protect the land. We have asked him, in all fairness, to stand up for agriculture because agriculture is good for the steel company of Nanticoke. Agriculture is good for that hydro plant at Nanticoke. Agriculture is good for the Texaco oil refinery there. Agriculture is good for Port Maitland, which is making plans to put up holding areas for storage of our grain to give it access to the St. Lawrence Seaway.

4:30 p.m.

They are taking away from that area any possibility of developing agriculture in the future just because they paid $2,000 an acre. It may be cheap down the road. They are going to have to stand up and take the flak. We did not make that decision. They are the ones who did and they are going to have to stand by it.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the decision made by the honourable minister. In doing so, I recognize he has made a couple of moves in the right direction. First, the waste is going to be handled by a crown corporation; second, the location is somewhat removed from large and perhaps even small urban areas.

What the minister has done is objectionable for two fundamental reasons around which everybody else’s remarks have revolved. First, he has abolished the environmental assessment procedure, has bypassed it; second, he is locating this on prime farm land.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: You are the guy who, more than anyone else, destroyed it. You should be ashamed to rise in your seat and say that.

Mr. Swart: The reason the minister gives is that there is such urgency at the present time and that is why he must abolish the environmental hearing. There is some validity to saying there is urgency at this time but we are at this point now through the fault of his ministry and his government. There is no mistake about it. He is the author of his own misfortune with regard to the rejection his government has been getting from the public.

The minister’s actions in the last two years have been totally inexcusable. First, over the two years he has ignored his own reports. He knows very well that the interim report for The Development of Treatment and Disposal Sites for Liquid Industrial Waste, which was done by MacLaren, makes specific recommendations, and the two sites he chose did not conform to any of the recommendations made in that original report. The site the minister has now chosen conforms only in part, even though that report lays out 30 to 70 other sites that do conform with the criteria listed in this report.

I think I am correct in saying -- if not, the minister can correct me when he gets up to speak -- that the minister stated his previous selections had conformed with section three of the interim report on liquid industrial waste of the standing committee on resources development. I say to the minister categorically -- and I would like him to deal with it when he gets up -- that the sites selected in Thorold and Harwich did not conform with any of the five options. The number three option, which the minister quoted yesterday, called for joint public-private ownership in operation of sites and facilities. Where was the joint public-private ownership in Thorold? Where was it in Harwich? It is totally private in Thorold. It did not conform with one of those five options.

This was put before the minister over two years ago and he frittered away those two years. Now he says he does not have time for an environmental assessment.

Mr. Kerrio: They are not even on the list.

Mr. Swart: I know. The one we have now is not even on this list.

The minister has lost the support of the public and what he has done has been rejected because of his lack of inspection.

The minister replied to a letter of mine, which I wrote last June to tell him there were not adequate inspection officers in the Niagara Peninsula, by saying -- and he will recall this -- that the opposition parties, including the New Democratic Party, had demanded funds for the environment be cut down. I challenge the minister now to get up in this House and name one member on this side of the House who asked that funds in the Ministry of the Environment be cut back. I challenge him to do that. He said that to me in the letter.

The minister did not do the inspection. He does not know what was going on in the area. This is one of the main reasons he has been rejected by the public.

It is the citizens who have had to police the minister’s dump sites and where the industrial waste was going. This was true in Thorold. The minister did not know there were problems there or that there were problems in Upper Ottawa Street. He knew nothing until they were brought to his attention. It is no wonder the public rejects his government’s attempts to dispose of industrial waste. They have every right to have such little faith in his government.

The minister’s failure also has been due in no small part to the secretiveness of what he has been doing. He had a report on the Thorold site last January that told him there was liquid industrial waste in the boreholes. One of them even was reported to have had paint in it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, it did not say that.

Mr. Swart: I have the report here. It certainly did say there was paint in one of the boreholes where there was not supposed to be waste of any kind.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Read that into the record.

Mr. Swart: I have the report here and the minister knows it.

The minister’s failure has been due to the inadequacies of inspection and his doctrinaire beliefs that he had to let private enterprise do the whole thing. He has now come around after two years to taking the right move in that direction, but that was what caused a lot of the problems he had.

Everything the minister has done up to this time in the disposal of industrial liquid wastes has been wrong and now it is time he did it right. He cannot do it right at this site in South Cayuga without an environmental assessment. There must be an environmental assessment.

Finally I want to deal with the issue of using prime land. I hope when the minister gets up he will say how much of the prime land in that area will be prohibited from growing crops which can go directly to human consumption. I hope he will make that comment because the Minister of Agriculture and Food did not say that.

We know there are 640 more acres taken out under the total of something like 12,600 acres. We know there are going to be about 75 million gallons of liquid waste that is going to have to be stored around there someplace after it is solidified or treated by whatever process the minister is going to be using. We know this site is contrary to the interim report that was provided to him by MacLaren. There are perhaps 70 other sites in total, either optimum or minimum, which they first recommended before the minister told them where they should go to bail his government out of the money it has spent up there.

It is deplorable that this government, which has done nothing to date to preserve the farm land in this province --

Mr. Eaton: That is baloney.

Mr. Swart: I challenge the honourable members over there to name one single major development that has been deferred or stopped because it was to be located on prime farm land. They simply cannot do it in the Niagara Peninsula or any place else. It is full speed ahead to develop on the very best land in this province.

Even their own document that was put out, their food land guidelines, should tell them this is not the place to locate that site. It says such things as, “Land are to be available for agricultural use” -- that is the high priority agricultural land. On a long-term basis, the type of land use permitted should only include uses compatible with agriculture and so on. That thing is no more worth the paper it is written on than the Environmental Assessment Act if the minister goes ahead and breaks this at the present time.

Mr. Turner: Where would you put it?

Mr. Eaton: You don’t want the job done. That is what it boils down to.

Mr. Swart: The honourable members on that side of the House have no concern at all about the world food prices we are coming into at the present time. They have no concern at all about the lack of self-sufficiency of food production in this province or in this nation. They shake their heads; they don’t have any concern about that.

4:40 p.m.

Just two or three days ago in the paper there was a reference to a starvation alert. “The world needs to go on a global alert because its food stocks are so dangerously low, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization said Friday.” I also have another report from the Globe and Mail of September 16.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. MacBeth): The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Swart: It forecasts one million dead in Africa this year. Yet the government is prepared on any pretext to go ahead with the destruction of the best land in this province, It is a pattern it has followed for 37 years, and we in this party are going to do everything we can to stop it.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed proud to be able to stand up so close to a man with guts. There are really not too many people in this particular House who have the guts of the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott). It must be extremely easy to sit over there and constantly criticize until they finally convince themselves they cannot have a positive thought to save their lives. That is what goes on all of the time. They say the government is not doing this and the government is not doing that; there is liquid industrial waste being dumped here and there is liquid industrial waste being dumped there; the government is not getting on with the job; it is not solving the problem.

What happens when the government takes an action through a minister, through a ministry or somebody who does something right? The first thing they do is criticize. It really does not matter what the process is; they immediately criticize it. They immediately then use some representatives, whether they be honourable members or people retained to advise people on the other side, whether they be leaders of the opposition or others. to see if they can go out and disturb the area in question.

It is a matter, I suppose, of conscience be damned, of getting on with the problem and problem solving be damned. They stand up and say, “Yes, we are all in support of a better environment but,” and it is in that big “but” that the political overtones really come through. It is not a matter of saying, “Yes, we think this is good about it. We think there is a little weakness here. Yes, we would make a very positive, concrete recommendation there that might help. We will be part of a co-operative government process and part of a legislative process that will end up as the best for the people of Ontario and that will end up with the problem being solved that everybody acknowledges exists.” I really have not heard anybody who does not acknowledge the problem exists. But, no, that is not what they do over there.

What happens when there are hearings? As a matter of fact, right in my riding, as many of the members in this chamber are well aware and as some of the people sitting in the galleries right now are aware, there has been a proposal put forth by the regional municipality in which I reside and part of which I represent to convert a redundant sewage treatment plant to a treatment plant to treat liquid industrial waste. That was the proposal. Some of the same people I am talking about went out and stirred up the people.

There is no doubt people have quite legitimate concerns. They want it proven whether something is right or something is wrong. We went that process. I am very pleased to say the people of Ajax were much more responsible and receptive to their natural feelings than those in some of the other areas which were being proposed for an environmental assessment.

What happens there? The people are turned off and have their minds made up before the process is even allowed to happen because things are stirred up from within.

Mr. McGuigan: Come down and tell the people of Harwich they are irresponsible.

Mr. Ashe: How can members opposite talk about the problem there is in having a hearing when they are already telling them it does not matter what the hearing says because the answer is no? Let us get on and be realistic. You cannot have your cake both ways. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. One has to be on one side or the other.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I did not at any time tell the people of Harwich they could not have a hearing. I fought for the matter of their having funding for the hearing. I challenge the member or any member on that side to find where I said that. Until he can find that, I demand he withdraw his statement.

Mr. Ashe: The member must have a guilty conscience. I do not know that I was talking about him when I pointed over there, but if it makes him feel better, that is fine. I will acknowledge, I do not know if he personally made those kinds of statements. I will say categorically that some of the members over there made those kinds of statements in his area. I apologize to him personally if he did not.

Mr. McGuigan: I would say again, no one on our side of the House made irresponsible statements regarding Harwich. Perhaps people did from another party that came in, but not from this party.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member may speak for himself. I do not see how he can speak for the entire group.

Mr. Ashe: It is also on the record that I feel, and I think it has been acknowledged by many, there is a process in place. How can the member, or any member in here, consciously get up and say, “We have a process, we have law, we have to live by it,” and at the same time go out there and say, “We are opposed to it”? That is the same as saying, “It does not matter what the process says. We do not even want the process to happen because our minds are made up.”

The member has said that whether he wanted the process to happen or not, he made a conclusion, and the same thing has happened in many places. The answer is, the problem is still there. We have a minister who has the guts to get on and solve the problem. Let us do it responsibly and let us try to get something concrete out of it. There are even some suggestions vis-à-vis the choice of that particular site.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I did not draw any such conclusions. I call on the minister, who was at a meeting in Blenheim in Harwich township, at which I clearly said I supported the law and I would not take part in any activity that violated the laws of this province. The minister was there and heard me say that.

The Acting Speaker: The point has been made.

Mr. Ashe: I hope the Speaker is keeping track of the time and all of mine is not being used.

The Acting Speaker: I have that in the back of my mind.

Mr. Ashe: There have, of course, also been suggestions as to the choice of that particular site. I would even suggest that some of the innuendoes that have been put out here, today particularly and I suppose to a lesser degree on Tuesday, would really impugn the integrity of the MacLaren engineering firm and the reasons and motivations that ended up in its report.

Of course, that is up to that particular organization, which I am sure has the expertise and the qualifications to defend its integrity. I am really surprised that certain members would even think that low of a professional organization. I believe they have professionals working there and they are widely recognized as being a highly professional organization.

What we are really talking about here is a problem that has to be solved. We are talking about solving it in a reasonable and responsible way. Once again, we have the rural community through some of the spokesmen opposite saying, “They do not recognize famine in the world; they are going to abuse 100 acres of land.” What rubbish -- 100 acres. They say, “Bring it into the urban community.” But those same people will go around into the urban community -- again, the town of Ajax, which I represent, is exactly that; it is a relatively small urban community -- they go in there and say, “Not in the urban community; put it out in the sticks; put it out in the boondocks.” They cannot have their cake and eat it too.

There were even advisers who came, for example, into my area, professional advisers who, as a matter of fact, would not even put their own professional views in front of their peers for examination. I suspect their actual motivations in that.

4:50 p.m.

Those suspicions have some validity. But some of these situations are suspect when it is a matter of you’re agin it if it is here, maybe for the exact opposite reasons. However that really is irrelevant. It is a matter of always being opposed to everything and anything. I think it is nice to know that we have a minister, a government and a province that are recognizing the problem and want to solve it in a reasonable, fashionable, responsible way to the betterment of us all, to get away from the irresponsible dumping and misuse of our lands going on now in the disposal of these same products.

People do not want to comprehend that the problem does not store itself. It does not just disappear for the two or three years some members would want to add to the process. It is here, now. I would even go so far as to say there are some lands now being degraded in this province because there is no place to go. This government, through the guts of this minister, is solving that problem and it deserves the support of this Legislature.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Minister of the Environment stated in this House that Dr. Chant “recommends the concept of this facility and the site selection need not be subject to hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act.”

That implies to me that Dr. Chant in some way endorses the action of the government in not having an Environmental Assessment Act hearing for that site selection. But the fact is I have just spoken to Dr. Chant and he makes the following statement, which I am authorized to read in the House to correct the record. He says:

“I do regret that the site selection was not subject to a proper environmental assessment hearing, but given that the government has decided that the facility is going to be in South Cayuga, I am willing to operate that facility to make certain that it is the best facility that money can buy.”

I want to make it very plain that Dr. Chant does not in any way endorse the fact that there was not an environmental assessment hearing. He simply said that given that the site is a fait accompli and the facility is to be there because the government has so decided, he is prepared to operate the facility.

The Acting Speaker: The opposition has been placed on the record.

Mr. Nixon: It concerns me that the information just put on the record by my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition does not fall directly in line with the statement made by the minister earlier today.

I was very concerned that copies of the minister’s statement were not available because they were so important. The intent of using Dr. Chant and Dr. Emery, apparently a well known member of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, to carry the argument is substantially unfair. I hesitate and do not use the word “misleading,” but I feel there was at least an attempt to carry the argument by fastening it to the reputation of these men rather than having it on its own merits.

I represent a constituency right next to that of the Minister of the Environment. We have no problem whatsoever co-operating in local affairs. The question from the minister and his colleagues is a valid one: What would we do instead? I would say the best answer is that we, and they, should simply obey the law. If there is a problem with the buildup of toxic waste from industry without a reasonable procedure for disposal, I can only assign some of the blame to the present Minister of the Environment.

The blame must be shared with his colleagues and predecessors going back 15 years because the policy of the Conservative government has been to vacillate and play protective politics with an issue that they knew must be solved at some time. The chickens have come home to roost. The toxic wastes are gathering in the present minister’s puddle and he must do something about it. We agree on all sides.

All sorts of alternatives have been proposed. One of the most outlandish was to store some of these toxic wastes in Middleport, the constituency of Brant. We debated that in the House and a number of questions were asked. The minister adhered to the concept of an environmental hearing in that case, which was proper. In fact, it postponed the breaking of ground for such a temporary storage facility by 18 to 24 months.

Now the minister has simply forgotten that area and I am glad, but the alternative on which he has lighted, putting the toxic wastes in South Cayuga without an environmental hearing, is completely unacceptable. I cannot accept the argument that we have no time for an environmental hearing, a concept that has been intrinsic in what the minister and other spokesmen for the government have said. Deciding once and for all the disposition of toxic wastes is an important, and I might as well say politically sensitive, matter. If the minister had the guts to which his colleague alluded in the most previous speech, he should certainly have undertaken to retain the very best independent advisers and consultants from any place in Ontario and asked them to come up with their principal recommendation for the disposal of these toxic wastes.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the South Cayuga area was not even referred to in MacLaren’s interim report. The only thing that recommends South Cayuga is that the government owns it and therefore can move forward without the problems that might be involved in an expropriation hearing.

They have asked what we would do, and what should be done if MacLaren has the people who are best in this. It concerns me that their reports, which do not even show that South Cayuga should be the repository for these wastes, do not even show red or pink behind the crosshatched blue, indicating that it was considered previously as a depository. There is every indication that the suggestion came from the minister or his officials and that is what concerns me.

Surely these experts should be given the responsibility for making the recommendation and the minister should then say: “Okay. Here is their recommendation. We will have an environmental hearing and I don’t give a damn if it is a Liberal, Tory or NDP riding.” Frankly, I don’t think he does.

I am not prepared to get on my high horse about that in spite of the odds and difficulties presented to me and my colleagues over these many months. The minister asks what we would do and the simplest and best answer is to say we would do what the government should do, and that is obey the law, which calls for an environmental hearing. To proceed in any other fashion is an indication of the fiasco which has resulted because of the way in which the minister and his predecessors have dealt with this problem over the last 15 years, not an indication of good or great political leadership.

This is what concerns me. If the minister thinks that by a show of bravado and bringing in the names of reputations of the federation of agriculture and Dr. Chant he is going to ride roughshod over the opposition, he is mistaken. He knows the special political problems he faces in this House with getting approval for any of the proposals that were a part of his announcement on Tuesday and his additional announcements today.

I can assure him, and you, Mr. Speaker, that all of us, including our critic who will speak later in this debate, are deeply concerned about the mess this province has got itself into with industrial toxic wastes, liquid wastes, and what we are going to do about it. I do not accept the contention that is inherent, that there is no time for a hearing. We have wasted the last six years in the muddle of the various policies of the minister and his predecessor, but we can get the kind of co-operation in this House called for from the last speaker if the minister is to say we are in this terrible situation, toxic wastes are metaphorically rising up past our collective necks, and here is the proposal, not based on a political situation under which he has to use up land John White bought by mistake -- that has already been put forward.

The area of South Cayuga has not figured in any of the recommendations from the experts who had the freedom to roam the province and come up with a proposal, but if he is prepared to allow the experts, untrammelled by political advice, to come up with the best recommendation and then hold an environmental hearing, I, for one, am prepared to say that is where the stuff goes even if it is in my backyard in South Dumfries.

5 p.m.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I think the challenge that was thrown out by the House leader for the Conservative Party is probably the reason why it is so important that we have this debate today and why I believed it was so important that we have it on Tuesday. I don’t think things have changed substantially. We have to identify the problem, we have to look for the causes, and then we have to get the agreement of the people of Ontario for the procedures and programs the government and this Legislature wish to implement.

The minister does us some credit, and indeed does my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold a great deal of credit when he accuses him of being responsible for the cancellation of the Walker Brothers proposal before the Environmental Assessment Board. I would be overwhelmed if I felt that we in the New Democratic Party had that kind of power over the people of this province. I want to say to the minister that it was not because of our actions that the council of the city of Thorold and the people of that community and the people of the town of Harwich and the council of Harwich decided they did not want those facilities to proceed in the way the minister had proposed in his role as co-proponent with those two companies. If we had that kind of influence over councils that are not even dominated by members of this party, it would be an impressive day indeed. That day will come and the day will come when we are on that side of the House.

Let us look at the problems because we have very little time in this debate. The problems are three. The first problem is that great volumes of liquid industrial waste are being generated in this province. We have approximately nine million kilograms of PCBs in Ontario today. We have 62 million gallons a year of liquid waste being produced by industry in this province today, and this figure is projected to go to 75 million gallons by 1984. We have a situation where, if the US government were to close the border to our liquid waste trucks, we would have an immediate crisis. We recognize that problem.

The second difficulty is that the government has been totally unable to get the people of this province on its side when attempting to deal with this problem. That is because of a total lack of credibility of this government when dealing with environmental matters. I want to quote very briefly from a paper by David Estrin entitled Siting Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities -- How to Prevent Lawsuits and the Not-in-my-Backyard Syndrome. The paper was presented to the Ontario Industrial Waste Conference in June of this year, and I know the minister’s staff was there. Mr. Estrin, who is a well known environmental lawyer, says:

“Dr. Parrott has to be congratulated for bringing to the Ministry of the Environment a fresh attitude of ‘Let’s get something done about this grave problem.’ Unfortunately, the ministry went about attempting to implement this initiative in a manner that totally ignored the very challenge that Dr. Parrott recognized in a speech in 1979 -- the need to gain widespread public acceptance of the existence of disposal facilities and the great need for new facilities.”

Mr. Estrin does go on further to explain how it is necessary to get public leaders, not only in this House, but out there in the community, to trust in the credibility and technical competence of the Ministry of the Environment, and also says what is so desperately needed is a belief among the members of the public that the ministry is willing to allow the public to participate in the decision-making process. That process includes the siting decisions.

I want to use the MacLaren report, which we got on Tuesday, at lunchtime, to illustrate the point we are making today in this House. I want to tell the minister that although he has said the MacLaren report justifies his decision, in fact it does not justify his decision. Further, I say to him we are prepared to endorse wholeheartedly the recommendations contained in the MacLaren report. I want to go through them briefly and read portions into the record.

“1. It is recommended that the ministry continue to actively encourage industrial waste generators to minimize waste volumes by such techniques as process change, recycle, waste exchange, on-site treatment or a combination of these.” We endorse that recommendation.

“2. It is recommended that the province proceed as soon as practical to acquire one or more sites where it would be possible to establish the following facilities:

“(i) a secure landfill;

“(ii) a high temperature incineration complex...

“(iii) a physical/chemical treatment complex...” We endorse that recommendation. We do have some questions about what is meant by secure landfill.

“3. It is recommended that the ministry explore the feasibility of using underground facilities, such as dry mines, as an alternative to secure landfilling of solid waste or for the storage of relatively innocuous wastes...” There aren’t any dry mines in South Cayuga and I don’t think the recommendation is connected in any way with what the minister announced on Tuesday. In any event, we endorse it.

“4. When the ministry has selected a site for the establishment of waste management facilities, it should consider the development of a deep well for the disposal of residual saline solutions...” We endorse that, but not a deep well in South Cayuga because it has been illustrated before, in the case of the Nanticoke deep well proposal, that area is unsuitable for a deep well. Yet the minister has not stated categorically there will be no deep well on that site. Indeed, by endorsing the report, he is allowing us to believe there could be a deep well on that site.

“5. It is recommended that a generous buffer strip be established around any waste management facilities and that the buffer be used for agricultural purposes not directly linked to the food chain (e.g., sod farming, nurseries and flowering seed production, growth of Christmas trees, et cetera). Provisionally, a minimum width of 500 metres is suggested for the buffer.”

That recommendation confirms exactly what my colleague from Welland-Thorold said, that the land, all 740 acres, is likely to be taken out of food production, not just primary but secondary food production as well, because there aren’t any animals that eat sod, flowering seeds or Christmas trees that subsequently go into the food chain.

“6. It is recommended that Ontario finance, own and control the facilities...” We agree. We welcome that. The minister has made his best step yet in dealing with the problem, but it is still not good enough.

“7. It is recommended that the province attempt to establish a waste management facility on a single site...” We agree. We concur. We endorse the minister’s grasp of that.

The next recommendation is an important one.

“8. Experience in Europe has shown that some three years may be required to design, construct and commission a comprehensive, central waste management facility. Until such time as the recommended facilities are operational, the ministry should proceed with the interim solutions which it initiated in 1979 to alleviate the current situation with respect to liquid industrial waste management, viz, establish at least one interim storage facility...” and “establish one or two solidification plants...”

We have already addressed the problem of the minister’s 1979 announcement and how that too totally lacked credibility because the homework had not been done previously. Nevertheless, if the minister is suggesting to us the South Cayuga site is going to be a temporary facility, as well as a permanent facility and that there may be things done on that site which are not to be done in a permanent facility, then we have to object very strenuously indeed. It is a fact that from the minister’s announcement on Tuesday we do not even know what he plans to do on that site, let alone how it is going to be done or how we can be assured it is safe.

Recommendation nine talks about a complete review of the waybill system, which is long overdue and was not mentioned in the minister’s announcement.

5:10 p.m.

I want to sum up in one sentence by saying that everything in the MacLaren report is supportable. Every recommendation in there can be dealt with through the environmental assessment process and in no other way. Every MacLaren recommendation can only be dealt with through our existing legislation. Let us get on with it. Let us get the hearing started as soon as possible in the new year so it can be completed in time for the facility to be operational.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this afternoon and on several occasions there has been more heat than light addressed to this issue. I have some familiarity with the county of Haldimand and know of the texture of the Haldimand clay loam that has made such a contribution to this province’s agricultural production over the years. I also know that in the selection of this site, as has been pointed out but lost along the way, we are speaking in terms of only 100 acres for the site with 640 adjacent acres as a buffer zone and in addition a control zone of a mile for safety reasons.

The impact on agricultural production in the total picture is so negligible, as has been stated by the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), it should not occupy the time of this House in discussion. If we look at any of the recent agricultural statistics, we will see in every crop an increase per acre production across this province and the reduction, if any, in this is so negligible we can dismiss it.

Besides that, within the control zone, agriculture can be carried on. I want to say if we do not address this problem and dispose safely of our liquid and other industrial wastes, there will not be any food within the food chain free of impurities. The whole province will have this problem right across its area if we do not come to grips with the problem, gather this material together and destruct it safely.

The first NDP speaker mentioned there is a problem of credibility with the minister. This just is not so. We have in this current minister a man of integrity, of honesty and ability, a forthright individual who has devoted a great deal of time to wrestling with this problem. He has come up with a solution that should be supported by all members of this House.

Over the years we have debated disposal of industrial wastes and selection of sites. I well recall being involved in a discussion on one occasion a year or two ago where the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) -- and I see he is here -- said we cannot have this process going on in the built-up areas. He said what should be selected is a large tract of land somewhere in the less populated areas of this province. I say to that member that I followed him in his remarks and endorsed that. Now this has occurred and it behooves us to come to grips with it and support this site.

There are two issues that seem to be addressed. One is agricultural production, which can be set aside, because in the total picture it is not urgent or important. The other one has to be risk and health. The minister has pointed out in his statement that the equipment being used will engage the best technology known anywhere in the world. They are going to go and find it. There will be a process that will ensure total destruction. If it is totally destroyed -- and that is what will occur -- there is no risk to health. In addition, we have the buffer zone and the control zone.

If anyone thinks I do not have some appreciation of the fear of any jeopardy to the health of people, I can set his mind at rest on that issue. I have been there and I know all about it. I know that with the facility there that risk is eliminated.

The other thing that was brought up is the need for an environmental assessment hearing. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) indicated the minister was in violation of the law by the action he has taken. This is simply not the case. That act was put together to give ministerial discretion in such situations as this and it is being applied. When that bill was put to this Legislature, there was a lengthy debate and it went through. As I recall it, it went through after a great deal of input, both from witnesses who came and from the members. It was not a bill that was swiftly put through. It was put through with all these factors taken into account and was endorsed by this House. Therefore, the minister is within the law in using this discretionary power.

The other point I want to make is the concern that there would not be involvement of the public. I can assure the members, again from experience, that there will be involvement of the public, both unofficially and officially, through the makeup of the corporation that will be conducting the affairs of the facility. In that corporation are two resident members and, as has been announced, a chairman with unexcelled qualifications to chair the corporation.

I do not know in what further direction we could go, unless we are again going to procrastinate and not do anything. If we do procrastinate we can fairly state, as is the case now being demonstrated, there will be impurities in the food produced in this province, not only animal but plant as well. Plant, animal and marine life will be affected if we do not come to grips with the situation and get this plant established and in operation.

I want to congratulate and commend a courageous minister who has not brought this forward lightly. He has been working with it since he took over his present onerous office, which he handles so well. He has been receptive, open and accessible to all groups. I have heard this across the province and so have the members opposite. Not only that, if we get this plant in place, our technology without doubt will ensure that Ontario will continue -- and I emphasize continue -- to lead in environmental protection matters. The spinoff and the benefits from what we learn, achieve and put in place to deal with these hazardous wastes will be available to other jurisdictions, not only in Canada but anywhere else in the world. I think it is a problem that must be addressed beyond our boundaries as well.

5:20 p.m.

I commend the minister for taking this lead, for finding out all the technical information that is available and building that in, as well as any improvements we can make, to ensure the most sophisticated, safe system that can be produced. We should, in this Legislature, proceed without further delay. Certainly, the public have a right to know what is going on and that information will be available to them. As I have said, the minister shares this and will continue to do so.

I have some understanding of the concern of the member for that riding and of the people, but from the experience that I and some others here have had, that fear -- perhaps if it is a fear of the unknown that will be known -- need not unduly perturb them because there is no way this government is going to do anything to jeopardize the health of its residents. On the contrary, if we do not move on this, I submit we will be jeopardizing the health of the people of this province.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to a very important issue. I am sure that all members on all sides feel that this particular problem is one of quite long standing. I must say at the outset that the government should accept the responsibility for the problem as it exists today.

There has never been any jurisdiction throughout the land that has been in charge of the shop as long as the government of Ontario. For some of the members to come here and suggest that we members on this side are negative and all we can do is tear down what the government puts before the House is ludicrous in the face of the fact that we would not be dealing with this problem today if this government had taken a responsible position.

The member for Mississauga South can stand in his place and suggest that he is a responsible person, but when there was going to be a test run on burning PCBs in Mississauga he vociferously opposed the research. We were not talking about some kind of involvement of long standing; we were talking about research for the benefit of the people of Ontario and all of Canada. All that member had to do was stand in his place and say, “Yes, in the interests of the people across Ontario, I think we should allow this research to go on.” It is ludicrous to suggest that we on this side of the House stand in the way of progress when a member on the government side can take that position and then stand here and try to defend the position of this minister.

I have been very much involved in the concerns as they relate to the toxins going into the river at Niagara. My concern has to do with the fact that there have been many governments in many jurisdictions not caring and not doing the proper thing. Recently, SCA Chemical Services Limited was dumping in the river. We need solidification processes in Ontario so that we don’t put those wastes in the river. I say the situation in Niagara-Thorold was handled so badly that the citizens of Thorold were up in arms against the Walker Brothers site, and justifiably so.

If this government had put in place some kind of ministerial group that would go down and look at the situation and properly monitor that site, we would not have had the opposition from the citizens.

We are still faced with the dilemma today that with all the government money and with all their expertise, the citizens of this nation still have to band together to defend themselves against the people they put in place to do the job for them. It just isn’t happening.

What happened in Niagara is a disaster. In attempting to enter an agreement with Walker Brothers to put in a solidification process, this minister did not see to it that the Ontario Provincial Police investigation was accelerated so they could get on with the charges that were going to be laid or not laid. It is still going on. The minister and the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) have not seen fit to do what the people are demanding. They have put me in an awkward position because I have been waiting for the evidence to come forth to understand what the minister is trying to do.

I refuse to sit here any longer and wait. I am suggesting if the minister had done the proper thing, if he had put in place a monitoring group at Niagara that was going to look at every dump site down there, we would not be debating this issue here today. We would have a crown agency in place that would be doing the monitoring and we would not have another fiasco like the one that happened in Niagara-Thorold with the Walker Brothers Quarries facing us today. We would not be in this dilemma.

Mr. Laughren: Thank goodness for the member for Welland-Thorold. It is a good job he is there to look after things.

Mr. Kerrio: Are there not going to be any more speakers from the New Democratic Party? I thought everyone had a chance to speak to this issue. Why do you clowns not go out and do your thing later?

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you I am taking a responsible position. When the member stands up and suggests it is not our role as members of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition to point out the inadequacies of the government, I would respond by suggesting that is the very thing we are charged to do. This is what we are doing at this instant. That government is floundering over there and refuses to listen to some of the alternatives that should be entertained and that have been put forth by the members on this side. It is unconscionable, after that fiasco at Niagara, that now we are going to go into another site, have the citizens put in the same predicament as the citizens of Thorold and the people of Niagara Fails and start this process all over again.

I wonder when this government is going to learn that the citizens of Ontario are educated. They understand the process. They only want the government to follow the rules of the game. This government has been in power so long it thinks it can take along the referee while it plays the game and changes the rules as it goes along. We are not going to be satisfied with that any longer. We are going to ask the government to put good legislation on the floor, let this group debate it and put those regulations on the books. We will ask the government plainly to live up to the rules of the game. Let us not look to run end-runs around the rules as they exist today, as the minister is now trying to do with two different corporations by circumventing the hearings as they relate to this very important site.

This site is going to be placed near the Grand River. There we go again. We are going to talk about waterways that might be disturbed. We are talking about more environmental impact on the Grand River, Lake Erie and the flow down through the Niagara River. That waterway will not stand any more pollution of any kind. The member for Welland-Thorold suggested there should not be another drop. On that score he was absolutely right. We cannot afford to have any more liquid waste get into our water courses. We must go the high road. We must make the kind of determination here and now that we are going to put in place reasonable laws and regulations and that we are going to live by them.

They were suggesting they did not have enough people to do the monitoring at Niagara. I pose this question to all members of this assembly. With all the advertising the Ministry of the Environment does, with the utter hypocrisy of the advertisements that show this beautiful girl coming out of this nice, clean lake, it is utter hypocrisy to suggest they do not have the money to properly inspect landfill sites and industrial sites. It is ludicrous in the face of the millions they are spending on these advertising campaigns. I say they should be stopped immediately and those dollars should be put in the hands of the people who need to monitor the very thing we are looking at today, that is, the pollution of our environment. That should start immediately.

The fact that the OPP investigation is still going on at Niagara speaks so well of the ineptitude of the two ministers over there who should get on with the job so we can resolve the question of whether there has been some violation of the regulations down at Walker Brothers Quarries. I think the minister has lost credibility. I do not know that we are going to allow him to go about the province in other matters whenever there is a crunch situation, deal on an ad hoc basis with it and put another site in place without environmental hearings. We may as well decide here and now that on the very first proposal the ministry is not going to be directing a those sites without proper environmental hearings.

5:30 p.m.

The last member who spoke for the NDP made mention of a couple of the recommendations by the Ministry of the Environment. I only want to read one. He neglected to complete recommendation No. 6 which reads: “It is recommended that Ontario finance, own and control waste treatment disposal facilities for liquid industrial and hazardous waste management” -- he should not have stopped there; he should have read on -- “and that they be built and operated by private sector contractors, using the best available technology.”

I think the government has done a gross disservice to a proper blending of government and private sector involvement. It is going to put that back many numbers of years. I cannot imagine the Tories, who are supposed to be proponents of free enterprise, putting themselves in a box where they are not even going to be able to carry on with their own philosophies.

I ask the member for Durham West: What is he going to do about that when he talks to the private sector? How is he going to justify his existence at all when he cannot even live up to the fundamental reason for being a Tory? I am completely surprised and disappointed.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Kerrio: I have just about expired too, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad we are having this emergency debate because the problem of the disposal of liquid industrial waste is equally as serious as the problem of acid rain. These are the two major environmental problems of today.

We know the problem of liquid industrial waste is a growing one as more and more toxic chemicals are used in industry. We are in great danger of fouling our own nests if we do not take vigorous action, not only to dispose of the wastes but to reduce the use of toxic chemicals and the production of toxic substances. Two years ago the resources development committee told the minister this was a serious problem, that time was of the essence and that the development of a comprehensive plan for action and for the safe handling and disposal of toxic wastes must have a high priority. What has happened in those two years? The minister has dithered with reports, dithered with pursuing blind alleys by private corporations and then, in some cases, refused to co-operate with proposals from private corporations.

Take the one from D and D Disposal Services which asked in its most recent request through Environment Canada for approvals to conduct tests of its new diesel engine disposal method for PCBs. It could not get the minister to act on its request for approvals. It had already raised the money it needed for the tests and the building of a prototype. It was not asking for money, but the minister seemed to think that was what it was asking for and delayed giving the approvals until such time as the whole process was given to an offshore company in the United Kingdom.

As a result, a lot of the rights for this process will be given to that company. The whole European market will probably go to that company. We will not have the opportunity in Ontario to have this particular process developed and marketed from here to any great extent. Certainly, we are losing the world rights to it.

The minister’s statement in this House, it seemed to me, showed it appeared he had finally, after two years, got the message of the resources development committee which was that if he is not able to find adequate disposal plans in the private sector, “It is essential that the government become directly involved.” It has taken a long time for that message to get through to him. It is almost akin to St. Paul being struck on the road to Damascus that he has finally seen that a publicly operated corporation of a comprehensive nature is the only sensible way to deal with this problem, because it can monitor the whole thing without having to hire Parrott-troopers to monitor private companies.

It can engineer the whole thing itself to the highest standards; it can develop the best technologies; it can look after the question of aesthetics and of protection of any resident who may be within any distance of the plant. However, I think the criteria should be that whatever public facility is developed, it should be a considerable distance from any heavily populated area. That should be the first criteria.

The minister has seen that government involvement is essential. The one thing he has not seen is that in site selection there must be public involvement and public acceptance. For years the minister has been saying there is that not-in-my-backyard syndrome. I submit the minister has never tried to make a site selection process work. He has never tried to make a site acceptable to the public.

Mr. Eaton: Not when you go out to a site and scare people before there is any.

Ms. Bryden: I am asking for full environmental assessment so the facts can come out.

I would like to set forth what must be done in order to obtain public acceptance. First, a series of criteria for site location must be adopted which says that no site may be close to a heavily populated area. Second, a series of standards must be adopted for design engineering monitoring and aesthetic appearance of the site. Third, complete information must be provided to the public on the proposal. Fourth, the local government must be consulted. Fifth, it seems to me that incentives for municipalities must be considered to have a waste disposal site somewhere within their vicinity but with adequate buffer zones around it. The government has never considered either incentives or easements for any property owners who might be within 10 or 15 miles of the site. We do have easements when Hydro puts through transmission lines. It seems to me those things should be considered.

There must be an adequate waybill system so we know exactly what is going into the site and can track all waste from the generator to the disposal. There must be registration of the waste being generated in this province so that we can plan the facilities needed for the disposal.

I think if the minister had proceeded along this route of developing a publicly operated, comprehensive facility that could be expanded and added to as needs developed, it would not have been necessary to ever consider the Ajax disposal operation. We have now gone through a long hearing process on that. Regardless of what the decision is, it seems to me that now we are going into a publicly-operated facility, if it was in the right place it could handle all the waste that was to be destined for Ajax.

Mr. Watson: What is the right place?

Ms. Bryden: I am telling the minister how he can determine what the right place is. He must, of course, provide a public education system on the standards that are being set and on the criteria for the site location and then he must conduct an environmental assessment to allow ecological and environmental dangers to be assessed. But also, no environmental assessment is worth anything in this province until public funding is given to citizens’ groups appearing before such assessment tribunals on a somewhat equal basis with the proponents.

This is one of the reasons citizens have been so suspicious of environmental assessment hearings, mainly, hearings under the Environmental Protection Act because we have not had many environmental assessment hearings. They have not been able to hire their own expert witnesses or researchers except by digging very deep into their pockets and paying with after-tax dollars.

5:40 p.m.

If the minister followed that pattern, he would not have to contemplate, as apparently his ministry is doing, putting in legislation that would set aside municipal protection bylaws. I call them protection bylaws because they are bylaws which say the minister can’t have a waste disposal site in a municipality because in the past he has not enforced the regulations about such sites. He has not prevented toxic wastes from going into sites not licensed for toxic wastes. He has not monitored them adequately. He has not listened to municipalities when they said that they wanted to discuss tests before their results were put into effect, as happened in Mississauga.

I don’t blame municipalities for passing bylaws of that sort. Their past experience with both the private operators of waste disposal sites and with the ministry’s enforcement of the rules regarding them has been such that they have no confidence in the ministry. The minister must first build up confidence that he is going to operate a publicly-operated waste site in the interests of all the citizens of this province so that the location of any site will be acceptable to those into whose area it goes.

After all, we do have municipalities accepting factories of different kinds --

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Ms. Bryden: -- airports and so on, but they are not accepted unless there is an attempt to persuade the public, to take the public into our confidence as to how they can be made as fail-safe as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Oxford. The debate concludes at 6 o’clock.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would be quite happy, if the member for Huron-Bruce would like to speak for the next six minutes, and I could conclude in 10.

Mr. Speaker: Is that agreed? The honourable member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I will be fairly brief. The concerns expressed on this side of the House have been amply debated during the past two hours. I think it’s pretty obvious that we have some very serious concerns about the ministry’s action with respect to this particular site, particularly the location and the manner in which that was decided.

We feel the siting was not properly done. The site is not the best one in the province of Ontario and that belief is supported by the MacLaren report. I have been looking over the guidelines used in selecting candidate regions and on page 313, number 2 of the report, it says: “Avoid designated parks, open space and conservation areas.” This site is very close to the Grand River Conservation Authority. The report also says: “Maintain a distance of eight kilometres or five miles or greater between site and urban or densely populated areas, specifically incorporated cities, towns and larger villages.” This particular siting is only two kilometres from South Cayuga so the government is also violating this point.

“Avoid Canada Land Inventory lands designated as class one, two, three or four...” Thirteen per cent of the land is class three; 50 per cent is class four; quite a bit of the land in the control area is class two; so the government is violating that point as well.

“Hydrology: Avoid flood-prone areas or hazard lands.” Some of the control area is in an area prone to flooding.

The simple point is the government has taken the political route. It was stuck with a big chunk of land that was an embarrassment, and it simply decided that this was where it would go with the plant. The decision is not supported by the studies that have been done so far.

That raises another point. I think it was said in the House today that the government is going to undertake, through its consultants, hydrological studies to find out exactly what was going on. What if these studies show this is not appropriate? What if the tests show something is wrong with this particular site? Where do we go then? Do we start all over again?

It seems to me we have certainly got the cart before the horse in this one. I think that is why there has been so much concern expressed from the point of view of holding an Environmental Assessment Board hearing. Surely to goodness such a hearing would identify some of these concerns, would give the ministry and the other experts associated with this particular project time to advance their evidence, if they have any, to support the selection of this particular site. To do so without an environmental assessment hearing I think is a very serious omission on the part of the minister.

That raises the other question and the other concern I have, and it is just as important, perhaps more so, than the first point. Frankly, I think we are going to destroy the Environmental Assessment Act by this action.

The Environmental Assessment Act, when it was brought into the Legislature and introduced for the first time on March 24, 1975, was proclaimed as a great new ground-breaking piece of legislation. The then minister indicated that without a doubt this bill was one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced into this province. What has happened? For the most part, projects have been exempted from the Environmental Assessment Act. The government, time and time again, has used the exemption clause in the act to waive any necessity for an environmental assessment hearing.

Section 3(a) of the act requires that the government submit all of the activities or enterprises undertaken on behalf of Her Majesty in the right of Ontario to an Environmental Assessment Act hearing. Section 30, however, exempts; it gives provision and power to the government to exempt if they so wish.

We had an extensive debate when this legislation was going through during which some members said that section, section 30, would indeed destroy this act and its intent if it were misused. I suggest it has been misused over the years and continues to be misused; and by its action in this case the government is going to destroy that act. I think that is one of the sad points, environmentally, with which we are going to have to deal.

I beg the minister to reconsider his position in this respect, because I think not only is the matter of this plant and the siting of this plant at stake, the Environmental Assessment Act and its intent are also at stake. If we continue like this we are simply going to destroy it; we might as well wipe it off the books.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to participate in this debate today, because there are few debates of more importance to the people of the province than the one in which we are engaged.

I want to start by suggesting that if there is any confusion in the remarks I put on the record earlier, I would like them cleared. I believe the members complained a bit that they could not hear, so I have the record here.

5:50 p.m.

It says in Instant Hansard of this afternoon, 1510-3, about Dr. Chant, “After due consideration he agrees that the concept of this facility and the site selection need not be subjected to a hearing.” That was the first one.

I skip down to 1515-3, referring to Dr. Chant, “He has given that a lot of consideration and he said he would act as chairman of that crown corporation. He said he thinks an environmental assessment hearing is not desirable.” That is the way it reads. It should read “is not necessary.” I want to correct the record for that one word, and that word only. I think that follows exactly what I said in the previous illustration.

I continue that it need not be “necessary on the site itself in the concept of a crown corporation operating that site” exists.

I think that makes it very clear.

Mr. Nixon: What are you reading from?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m reading from the transcript of Instant Hansard. I don’t want any shadow whatsoever on the appointment of Dr. Chant. He is by far the finest person we could find.

Mr. S. Smith: He says he regrets you didn’t have a hearing.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am making it clear -- and I am only going to deal with this one -- that Dr. Chant said the site selection need not be subject to a hearing. He may very well have said he would have liked to have a hearing, but he also accepts that there need not be one.

Having put that aside, because I think it’s awfully important, that board will have tremendous credibility.

They say we have done nothing right in the last two years. That’s rather an interesting comment, for two reasons. We accepted 38 out of the 47 recommendations of the standing committee on resources development. Are members condemning that committee for having given me and this government such poor advice? I don’t think so.

Let me put on the record just what has been accomplished in two years by this government. We have a new, updated and improved waybill system. We have a site identification study to provide a list of all the sites all over this province. We are monitoring and testing those new sites and the old ones as well. We have a waste classification guideline. We have a new environmental police force.

We are introducing -- and I will do that either tomorrow or early next week -- new minimum fines. We had the most progressive legislation one could imagine in Bill 24.

We have given funds to the municipalities to upgrade their own landfill sites. We have increased enforcement. We have increased public hearings. We have a proposal for perpetual care under consideration. We are funding new technology on PCB disposal.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Believe it or not, I would actually like to hear the minister. I’m having great difficulty hearing him.

I would ask the minister to kindly repeat slowly what he said about introducing certain minimum standards tomorrow. I did not hear it and I would like to hear it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I said tomorrow or in the near future I will introduce minimum fine legislation. I have already said that.

Let him pretend deafness. I think the Leader of the Opposition is deaf on many occasions.

This party and this government really appreciated the spirit of co-operation at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture meeting this morning. I do not know what the federation will decide. I do not want to infer it is going to make certain decisions. That meeting had the kind of spirit and co-operation that should be predominant in our discussions on liquid industrial waste. That’s what we need.

Mr. Kerrio: Sure, they did it your way.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The member says so many things; and it worries me that the members opposite apparently truly do not understand, with few exceptions, the Environmental Assessment Act as opposed to the Environmental Protection Act. There are great differences.

In the last year and a half, we have had 60 proposals for an assessment, but only one hearing. That is not a condemnation of the act; that is the greatest praise in the world.

What happens is a proposal goes forward. The people who make that proposal then are confronted with the deficiencies of that proposal and make the adjustments necessary to make it an environmentally acceptable proposal.

When that occurs, one has the spirit of co-operation. On only one occasion was it deemed necessary to go to a hearing process.

The Environmental Assessment Act never envisioned a large number of hearings. Why? Because that often becomes confrontation. We do not believe in that in this party, on this side of the House, in this government. We believe that one should try to listen to the people, try to understand the problem and come to solutions. That is what we are trying to do.

I have had the experience, Mr. Speaker, far too frequently -- and it happened this morning in a private meeting; I said, “Why did you not let it at the least go to the proposal stage so you could see what was truly being proposed; why not wait until after the adjustments necessary in that concept became known, and then if you still want it, have a hearing?” He said, “I have to accept that I was unconditionally opposed to it; I took that position right from the very beginning and I really did not care what was said.”

That destroys the act; and in fairness, that has frequently been done in the past.

Mr. Nixon: Who said that?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It was said at the meeting that we held with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture after the general meeting. It was there.

Mr. S. Smith: By whom?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It matters not. It happened to be, maybe, a man from Harwich. I am not out to criticize that particular man, but it typifies what so often happens and that is the desire not to understand the proposal. That really is the essence of what we are talking about.

Mr. Cassidy: Who said that?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It is really not important, because that, indeed, is so often what happens. Rather than listen to the proposal, rather than hear it through and then decide whether it is adequate and a hearing is necessary, they object right from square one. As the member for Middlesex said, “Let’s go out and wave the flag when there is not even a threat,” that is not the spirit of co-operation that will make this law work.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, if you can keep those people quiet for another two minutes, I can sum up.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you --

Mr. S. Smith: There is a limit. Every trial has a prosecution and defence.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Indeed it has. Every person who is accused gets an examination for discovery, then a trial and then a verdict, and you have consistently denied that opportunity for the Environmental Assessment Act. If we had the privilege on this side of the House to see that act work in Harwich, in Thorold --

Mr. S. Smith: Who did that?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: You did by your actions here of saying we are opposed. It just happens to be the case. You know it is true, it hurts and you do not like it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. S. Smith: The hearing officer could make the decision even if he hears both sides of the case.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Can you explain to me why in the community of Thorold, before the proposal even came to public knowledge, a vote was taken and the decision was 90 per cent against? Now if that is not before the trial even begins --

Mr. S. Smith: The hearing officer is still free to make his own decision.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, indeed he is, against the 90 per cent vote. The sad part about it is that we on this side of the House believe when the people speak we must listen and we do.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Have you heard them in South Cayuga?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The time for this item has expired and this is the time at which we normally have the statement by the government House leader to indicate the order of business for the next week. With your indulgence, we will hear him.

6 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order: During my contribution to the emergency debate this afternoon I stated in error that charges had been laid against Walker Brothers Quarries. I should have said they were being investigated and mentioned the fact that the ministry had withdrawn from its partnership with that company in Thorold.

Mr. Speaker: That is to correct the statement. It is not a point of order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the standing order, I would like to indicate to the House the business for the rest of this week and next week.

Tonight we will be continuing with any legislation not completed on Tuesday, November 25, in the order of bills as shown on today’s business paper.

Tomorrow we will conclude the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services and start the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue.

On Monday, December 1, in the afternoon, we will continue the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue; and in the evening we will also do the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue.

On Tuesday, December 2, in the afternoon, we will discuss any third readings of bills on the Notice Paper; then we will continue with any legislation not completed this evening, Thursday, November 27. Second reading in committee of the whole House is required on Bill 191, which is the Employment Standards Amendment Act; then Bill 187, which is the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act; then in committee of the whole on Bill 172, the Municipal Affairs Amendment Act. Second reading and committee of the whole is required on Bill 200, Bill 199, Bill Pr36, Bill Pr18, Bill 201, Bill 204 and Bill 177. In the evening we will continue with the legislation I have just indicated, that portion which is not completed in the afternoon.

On Wednesday, December 3, four committees may meet in the morning -- administration of justice, general government, resources development and plant shutdowns. Four committees may meet in the afternoon -- administration of justice, general government, social development and plant shutdowns.

On Thursday, December 4, in the afternoon, we will again schedule private members’ ballot items 35 and 36, standing in the names of the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong) and the member for Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta). In the evening we will debate the Hydro affairs select committee’s report on nuclear fuel waste.

On Friday, December 5, we will continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue.

The House recessed at 6:03 p.m.