The House met at 1330.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
Mr Chiarelli: The Premier is playing possum with the people of Ontario on the issue of automobile insurance. On 10 November the Premier said. "The approach the government takes has to be based not just on pie-in-the-sky hope but a solidly based. documented approach -- the decision cannot be based on ideology." Yet the Premier's cowboy minister was quoted last week as saying that the present Ontario motorist protection plan, Bill 68, is "a complete disaster." Where is the documentation to support this?
A legislative research officer reports that Ontario's three largest automobile insurance companies are complying with the guidelines restricting premiums to an average 8% in the greater Toronto area and 0% outside the Toronto area. I ask the Premier, where is his documentation on premium affordability, the root of automobile insurance reform? Will the Premier document for us his current information on premium levels in Ontario, and if he does not have this type of information, why not? I repeat, where is the Premier's documented approach and why does he not rein in his shoot-from-the-lip cowboy minister?
PUBLIC SECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE
Mrs Marland: Today the Treasurer will reveal the details of his government's throne speech promise to "allocate $700 million for necessary maintenance and renovation of public sector facilities." But unless the Treasurer is a magician, $700 million will not do the job. Over the next 35 years, more than $2 billion a year will be needed for infrastructure renewal just in the greater Toronto area. According to the deputy minister for the GTA, revenues currently provide only half of the amount needed for this capital spending. Even if the Treasurer devotes the whole $700 million to GTA infrastructure, he is proposing a $700-million solution to a $40-billion problem.
To make the picture clearer, consider that the 1990 budget paper E on the costs of public services shows that each kilometre of a four-lane highway costs about $6 million to build. If we spent the whole $700 million on a new four-lane highway, we would get only 116 kilometres of new road: 116 kilometres will not even get us across the greater Toronto area, which is 140 kilometres wide. If we included the cost of $14 million for the average highway interchange. $700 million would buy us just 10 interchanges and 93 kilometres of highway.
No ordinary mortal could make $700 million solve our infrastructure problems. We are waiting to see what tricks the sorcerer and Minister of Economics has up his sleeve.
ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION, BRANCH 635
Mrs MacKinnon: Recently I had the honour of attending the official opening of the Royal Canadian Legion's newest branch. Branch 635, in the town of Brig- den in my riding of Lambton county. I also had the pleasure of presenting the members with a plaque on 23 November 1990.
Historically the Royal Canadian Legion originated when several small associations of ex-soldiers banded together throughout Canada during the First World War. The first national organization, known as the Great War Veterans Association, was established in April 1917 and in 1960 was renamed the Royal Canadian Legion, as we know it today.
As I speak of the Royal Canadian Legion, many things come to mind, in particular the variety of community services it provides to our nation today, such as Remembrance Day or Poppy Day, ladies' auxiliaries, adult education services, community service projects, rehabilitation services, bursaries and fundraising campaigns.
In view of all their contributions to our community, the Royal Canadian Legion, the veterans and today's men and women serving our country deserve to be acknowledged and commended for their dedication and contribution to our country. and we should continue to provide them with united support. Once again, I am honoured to have the privilege of announcing the opening of Branch 635 in the Lambton riding.
RACE RELATIONS
Mr Curling: Many elements of the recently announced Metropolitan Toronto Police race relations policy deserve praise. I want to single out one particular example today, and I hope the Solicitor General is paying attention.
On 15 November 1990 the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission enacted the following amendment to the bylaw governing police conduct: "Members shall not, by word, deed or gesture, conduct themselves or persuade other persons to conduct themselves, in any manner that is discriminatory towards any person because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, record of offences, age, marital status, family status, handicap, or political or religious affiliation."
The Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission, Chief Bill McCormack and, most important, members of the police force, should be applauded for implementing this landmark clause. They also deserve a great deal of credit for the consultative process that preceded this announcement and for the commitment to continue to work with all community groups.
The Solicitor General has told this House that he will conduct consultations with all affected groups before he introduces regulations governing the Police Services Act this year. I trust he will pay attention to the fine example set by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission. It is vital that the landmark amendment passed by the commission be included in the provincial regulations. If the Solicitor General is not prepared to provide leadership on this issue, the least he can do is to be a good follower.
HOSPITAL EMERGENCY SERVICES
Mr Arnott: A serious situation exists in the riding of Wellington that I would like to bring to the attention of this House. It pertains to the possible closure of the emergency department of Louise Marshall Hospital in the town of Mount Forest.
Because of a dispute between the hospital board and the doctors who serve this institution, four doctors have threatened to withdraw their services from the hospital's emergency department effective 1 January 1991. Such an event will have serious ramifications for the future of this hospital and the community it has served for over 80 years.
The hospital board has been in contact with the Ministry of Health to enlist its support in finding a solution to this problem. I have personally spoken and written to the Minister of Health requesting her personal intervention in seeking an end to the dispute between the board and the doctors.
Louise Marshall Hospital is a viable and important medical facility which serves not only the approximately 15,000 people of its immediate catchment area but also a tourist population in the summer and accident victims from Highway 6 in its vicinity. Its doctors, nurses and staff are hard-working, conscientious, dedicated individuals whose positions, along with the hospital's future, are now in jeopardy.
On Wednesday 5 December, tomorrow afternoon, the board of Louise Marshall Hospital is holding a special meeting in a final attempt to reach a resolution. If they are unsuccessful, the Minister of Health will have to take immediate action to avert the closure of the institution's emergency department and so avoid the very grave consequences that will result from that closure.
1340
RAIL SERVICES
Mr B. Ward: Commuters in Brantford are rejoicing at the success of the Minister of Transportation in keeping this government's commitment to restore the early morning and early evening rail service from Brantford to Toronto and back. This commitment was made to the commuters of Brantford during the election campaign, and I am pleased that the Minister of Transportation made this issue such a priority with his ministry.
Five weeks ago I met with the minister and expressed to him the concerns of Brantford's commuters. In only three weeks, the Minister of Transportation has managed to accomplish what others have failed to do in the past year. The commuters of Brantford suffered during the year, a year in which they were forced to use the already congested Highway 401 and Queen Elizabeth Way corridors, a year in which their productivity was reduced as they sat in their cars in traffic jams rather than at their workstations.
I am pleased that the Minister of Transportation has also offered to have continuing dialogue with the people of Brantford and will look into ways to continue improving the system. I want to assure the minister that the commuters and local business representatives with whom I have spoken fully support his initiative in restoring this rail service to Brantford. They are delighted that they will have the option of taking a train to work here in Toronto and are not concerned whether it has Via or GO painted on the side.
FARM LANDS
Mr Bradley: The refusal of the government review committee looking into agricultural finance to visit the Niagara Peninsula and to hear on a firsthand basis the concerns of Niagara farmers, as they relate to the somewhat dismal economic prospects facing them, represents a snub to those who have been severely impacted by free trade with the United States and by the international GATT rulings.
Those of us who have spent years attempting to preserve agricultural land in the province where favourable climatic and unique soil conditions exist, as they do in much in the tender fruit lands in north Niagara, begin to question the commitment of this government to farm land preservation when the committee, under the chairmanship of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who is on his way to Brussels, refuses to hold public hearings in an area where lands are under tremendous pressure for development and where financial hardship for farmers has become all too common.
I call upon the parliamentary assistant to reverse the decision denying the people of the Niagara region direct access on their own turf to his committee. The Niagara regional council and the Niagara North Federation of Agriculture, which have expressed their concerns in this matter, would certainly appreciate the same chance being afforded to farmers in our area as is being given in several other parts of the province.
Saving the farm land means saving the farmer, and the appropriate first step is to listen to their concerns.
WATER SUPPLY
Mrs Witmer: I rise today to bring a matter of the utmost importance to the residents of my riding to the attention of the Minister of the Environment and this House.
The Ministry of the Environment is currently considering an application by Laurel Springs Water Corp to undertake significant water takings in the Erbsville area for the purpose of bottling and sale. This proposal could have very serious consequences for the local residents and the environment.
Many residents, as well as the councils of the townships of Wilmot and Woolwich, the city of Waterloo and the region of Waterloo, have expressed concerns about the possible impact of such water takings on the quality and quantity of the well water that most local residents rely upon. These residents are already experiencing difficulties with their water supply and there is a possibility that approval of this application will exacerbate their problems. Moreover, they are very concerned about the possibility of serious environmental damage being done to the Laurel Creek watershed, as well as the nearby wood lot, Schaefers Woods.
I want the Minister of the Environment to know that I share these concerns and that I am sending her a letter requesting that she withhold approval for a permit for water taking until a complete and independent environmental impact study has been conducted. I would also urge her to undertake a thorough examination of her ministry's policy with regard to large-scale private water taking permits and the laws governing water mining and the ownership of subsurface resources.
DRINKING WATER
Mr Hope: Today I would like to comment on our government's announcement to finance the Lake Huron water pipeline for my riding. It will provide clean drinking water to the people of Wallaceburg, Dresden, Walpole Island and the townships of Chatham and Camden. Clean water is something these communities have not had for quite some time.
During the boom years, the Liberals had a generous opportunity to fully fund the same project. Now we are forced to pay double the cost, and possibly lives.
On Friday, the Minister of the Environment came through with the $43.1 millions the project's entire 1990 cost. She also guaranteed the province would cover 75% of the cost overruns.
But we are not heroes. We are simply fulfilling a basic need. It is what we swear to do when we take a seat in this House. But when I look across the floor and stare into the eyes of those who have turned me away as a constituent, I know such guidelines have not been followed.
Today the true heroes include the Wallaceburg Citizens Coalition for Clean Water, the group a member of the Liberal Party deemed radical in its fight for a basic need. Today the true heroes are the people of these communities who wondered aloud each time they turned their taps on if the safe drinking water was there.
In light of this, we should all sit in this House today humbled and think about why we are here and what we owe each other.
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
Hon Mr Laughren: I am honoured to deliver to the House the first major economic statement of the newly elected government, led by this Premier.
This is my first opportunity to provide a formal report to the Legislature since taking on my responsibilities as Ontario's Treasurer. I wish to assure the members that I intend to keep the Legislature informed regularly about economic conditions and the fiscal position of the government.
I would have been happier if the economic outlook today were brighter. It will come as no surprise to the people of Ontario to hear that there is a recession in this province. In fact, working people and businesses were aware of the downturn long before the economists and the politicians started making it official.
This is not a message of doom and gloom, however. The overall fiscal position of the government of Ontario is solid. The economy of this province is one of the richest and most advanced in the world, and our workforce is one of the most highly skilled.
This government will not sit back and wait for economic forces to take their course. We believe that there are important steps we can take to stimulate job creation, to alleviate hardship among the most disadvantaged in our society and to ensure that the engine of economic growth is primed for an early recovery.
We inherited a recession and a deficit, but we did not inherit the policy paralysis that often accompanies economic hard times.
We do not believe that as a government we can spend our way out of this recession. There are too many external factors beyond our control, such as the economic performance and the conduct of monetary policies in the United States, Europe and Japan, and the continued unrest in the Middle East, to say nothing of the high-interest-rate, high-dollar policies of our own federal government.
But what we can do, we will. What we can do is pursue, through our economic initiatives, some of the broad policy goals that are central to the philosophy of the New Democratic Party government. These goals include introducing greater fairness into our institutions and practices, providing better protection for those least able to protect themselves, opening up the process of public policy development, and planning an economically and environmentally sustainable future.
In pursuing these goals, we are determined to build new partnerships. In the economic arena, it is important to note that we are firmly committed to working with key groups, such as labour, business, other levels of government and community organizations, in developing a common agenda. This agenda must support economic recovery while promoting positive and creative labour adjustment policies and industrial strategies.
We need to work together. These are complex economic times. Economies around the world are undergoing fundamental structural change because of new trade alliances, increased competition and new technologies. In Europe, the political map is being redrawn.
In Canada, there is a feeling that we have lost our collective sense of community. The government of Ontario wants to help build a national recovery agenda. Once again, we are asking the Prime Minister to bring together the first ministers of this nation to respond to the current economic challenges.
1350
We are also urging the government of Canada to join us in supporting recovery in Ontario by supplementing our own job creation initiatives.
Recent numbers have shown that the Ontario economy actually entered into a recession in April of this year. Employment generally in the province has declined by 66,000 since February. The number of unemployed workers has risen by more than one third since then, and the unemployment rate has jumped to more than 7%. Job losses have been most marked in the goods-producing sectors, especially in manufacturing, where employment has fallen by 77,000 over the past 12 months. Bankruptcies so far this year are up 73% over last year's level.
The downturn reflects the impacts of federal high interest rates and high-dollar policies. The Bank of Canada has pursued an extremely tight monetary policy in an effort to slow growth and eliminate inflationary pressures. The results have been record-high levels of real interest rates, unprecedented spreads between Canadian and US interest rates and an appreciation of the dollar to a 12-year high of more than 88 cents US earlier this year.
These policies have undermined the ability of Canadian industry to compete internationally and have produced sharp declines in business investment and in key sectors of the Ontario economy such as manufacturing, construction and housing.
Declines in real output and employment are expected to continue well into 1991. We expect real growth of only one half of 1% in Ontario next year. For the second year in a row, there will be no net job growth. Employment in the construction sector will continue to fall as major projects are completed and few new projects are started. And the manufacturing sector will continue to be adversely affected by the recession and the free trade agreement. The unemployment rate is expected to average 7.3%.
The planned introduction of the federal goods and services tax on 1 January 1991 will extend and exacerbate the downturn. We estimate that the consumer price index inflation would remain relatively stable in 1991, at just below this year's level of 4.9%, in the absence of the GST. However, with the new tax, we estimate inflation in 1991 will actually reach about 6.1%.
Despite substantial uncertainty surrounding the economic outlook, we hope that recovery can begin by mid-1991. However, the recovery is not expected to be as strong as the one following the 1981-82 recession, as the combined effects of the GST, high real interest rates and increasing global competition continue to restrain economic growth.
The timing and the pace of the eventual recovery will depend critically on events external to the provincial economy, including US economic performance, developments in Europe and Japan especially as they affect world interest rates, the course of oil prices and federal interest rate and exchange rate policies.
The international environment is more precarious than it has been for some time. Even in the absence of war, uncertainty over developments in the Middle East continues to undermine the confidence of consumers and investors in both Canada and the United States. Any further erosion of confidence will make it more difficult for the economy to recover in the latter half of 1991.
However, a negotiated settlement in the Middle East and an easing of tension could reduce uncertainty, boost confidence, lower oil prices and speed up the eventual economic recovery.
The prospects ahead are uncertain at best. Based on current indicators, we are projecting slow growth, rising unemployment and rising inflation due to the GST and are hoping for the beginnings of a modest recovery at midyear. Further details on Ontario's economic outlook are presented in a separate staff paper which has been distributed to members with this statement.
As I have mentioned, a return to strong and sustained economic growth will depend to a large degree on improved economic conditions beyond our borders. However, we can take measures to ensure that we are fully ready to benefit from and participate in economic recovery. In addition, we can alleviate some of the hardships of the recession by introducing immediate actions to create jobs.
There is considerable need for the renewal of our stock of social capital: our schools, housing, roads and bridges, universities and colleges, and our water and sewage facilities. As well, many of our public buildings and infrastructure need to be expanded, upgraded, made more energy efficient or made more accessible for the elderly and for persons with disabilities.
As we find ourselves in a recession, with major weakness in the construction sector, now is the time to undertake the renewal of our capital stock. As announced in the throne speech, the government is giving the go-ahead to a significant renewal of public infrastructure with a commitment from the province of $700 million.
This short-term capital projects initiative is expected to generate the equivalent of approximately 14,000 full-year jobs. However, by the very nature of the program, a much larger number of people will benefit through employment opportunities for periods of less than one year.
Our school boards and municipalities will be important partners in this initiative. In consultation with all ministries, a large inventory of short-term capital projects has been developed. Many of the projects in the inventory have been requested in the past by local governments and school boards but were not undertaken because provincial funding was not available. Today's commitment will allow much of this backlog to go ahead. As a result of the provincial-local partnership, it is expected that our special allocation will create up to $1 billion in short-term capital projects. All of these projects will begin to create jobs within six months, with completion before the end of the next fiscal year. Many projects will begin to create jobs almost immediately.
The employment impact of this major initiative will be felt at the very time when the economy most needs the stimulus. It will create modest growth in an economy that might otherwise be stalled at no growth. And while it is forecast to bring the unemployment rate down only by 0.2%, it will make a significant difference in the lives of many thousands of Ontario citizens. That is an impact that does not show up in macroeconomic statistics, but it is real and it is important.
The infrastructure renewal program will have important longer-term benefits. It will prolong the life of our public capital stock, it will avoid more costly reconstruction requirements in future and it will, in many cases, reduce future operating costs.
The current inventory consists of almost 3,000 projects throughout the province. These projects represent the full range of public activities and involve significant priority areas, such as the environment, roads, rehabilitation of water and sewage facilities, public and non-profit housing, community and educational facilities, retrofitting for access for disabled persons, improved fire safety, greater energy efficiency and improvements to waste sites, watercourses and forest management activities.
We will give priority to projects in communities and regions experiencing serious economic problems. Special efforts will be made to make job opportunities or apprenticeship positions available to all parts of the community, particularly women and natives.
To begin to create jobs immediately, $41 million has been approved for projects that can be started very soon. These projects, which are the direct responsibility of provincial ministries, can be undertaken in spite of winter conditions and do not depend on other partners for activation.
Included in these immediate actions are improvements to access for disabled persons and seniors to community facilities, electrical generating facilities in several native communities, upgrading waste disposal sites on crown lands, enhancing tourism attractions at such sites as Upper Canada Village and Huronia historical parks.
We will finalize the allocation of the province's $700-million commitment in the near future. Further announcements will take place as soon as final decisions have been made.
In addition to the direct spending I have already outlined, the government will undertake a number of tax- based initiatives.
The federal government's GST proposals could not have come at a worse time. It is expected that the GST will reduce consumers' 1991 real disposable incomes by at least $4 billion nationally. This blow to consumers' incomes can be expected to reinforce the decline in consumer spending already set in motion by high interest rates, declining employment and sagging consumer confidence.
As I announced on 11 October, this government will not tax the GST. Amendments to the Retail Sales Tax Act were tabled on 20 November by my colleague the Minister of Revenue to ensure that if the federal government's proposed GST does in fact become a reality, Ontario's sales tax will not be piggybacked on top of it. The government also introduced in that bill a series of administrative adjustments to its retail sales tax policy that will only take effect if the GST is introduced.
Our decision not to tax the GST will save Ontario consumers an estimated $70 million in this fiscal year. In 1991-92, the action provides $500 million in savings to Ontario consumers.
1400
The government will introduce legislation to enrich the Ontario tax reduction for low-income Ontarians. This action, proposed originally by the previous government, cuts personal income taxes for low-income families with children and disabled dependants by an estimated $44 million this fiscal year. Making further improvements to the tax system's treatment of lower-income Ontarians will be an area for early action by this government.
Providing a stable climate for business planning and investment is also an important objective in good times or bad. A number of corporate tax measures have created uncertainty because proposed legislation had not been passed prior to the election. Changes announced by the previous government, some dating back to the 1988 Ontario budget, have served as the basis for business decisions and tax returns. I do not believe it would be fair or appropriate to change those tax rules retroactively.
The government therefore has decided to proceed with the outstanding legislation, including the research and development super allowance, the Ontario current cost adjustment -- OCCA -- and the enrichment in the OCCA rate to 30%.
The OCCA will provide additional support for investment in manufacturing and pollution control machinery and equipment by the manufacturing sector -- the sector hardest hit by the recession. While I believe that the OCCA has a useful role to play in stimulating investment during the recession, it is not clear that it provides the most cost-effective or strategic incentives necessary for our long-term economic wellbeing.
Consistent with our goal of stimulating the economy in 1991, the OCCA enrichment will be available for new manufacturing machinery and equipment purchased between 1 January 1991 and 1 January 1992. In keeping with my intention of reducing uncertainty through open planning, I am announcing today that the government intends to sunset the OCCA on new manufacturing machinery and equipment. However, given the continuing need to ensure that new production processes are adopted to reduce pollution, the OCCA for pollution control equipment will stay in place indefinitely.
The OCCA will provide an estimated $160 million in tax-based support for business investments in manufacturing and pollution control equipment in Ontario.
In total, these tax changes will deliver $700 million in tax support to Ontario's people and businesses in 1991. We estimate that this support will add 0.2 percentage points to the 1991 provincial real growth rate and preserve or create up to 8,000 Ontario jobs.
Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent at this point. As the time is running down. I would ask for consent that we allow the Treasurer to finish his statement and then extend extra time to both opposition parties for responses.
The Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed to.
Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the compliance of the members of the opposition.
I would now like to provide an interim update on the province's finances for the current fiscal year. As members know, on 11 October I disclosed that the $23-million surplus projected by the previous government had deteriorated to a projected deficit of $2.5 billion. This sharp turnaround reflected both the impact of the recession on provincial spending and revenue, and a number of significant obligations that had not been included in the estimates tabled by the previous government.
In respect of revenues for the current fiscal year, it appears that federal transfers of Ontario personal income tax will be higher than expected. However, trends in corporate and retail sales tax revenues may offset much of this gain. On the expenditure side, the case load of social assistance recipients is expected to exceed our recent estimates at a cost of a further $150 million this year. In addition, part of the cost of new initiatives announced today will affect spending this year.
In spite of the continuing impact of recessionary pressures, the government expects to hold the deficit to within the projected $2.5 billion.
These are volatile and uncertain economic times. I will be providing members with a more detailed breakdown of the current-year fiscal position in the quarterly Ontario Finances report in January, when I expect to have firmer figures.
Our projected fiscal position for 1991-92 is difficult to predict in the current economic climate. However, we will still be dealing with the significant impact of the recession on both revenues and expenditures.
Revenues will suffer from the combined effects of economic slowdown, the decision not to levy the retail sales tax on the GST, and the federal decision to cap Canada assistance plan and established programs financing transfers. This last item alone will cost the province a further $940 million in reduced revenue in 1991-92.
On the expenditure side, we face strong public demands and rising costs at a time when anti-recessionary efforts must also be put in the forefront. Funding should and will be set aside next year to undertake needed improvements and reforms as outlined in the recent throne speech. But in developing our budget for next spring, we must also take into account the size of the deficit. I remain acutely aware of the difficulty of increasing revenue during a recession, yet I cannot forget the urgent social and economic agenda facing the province. I can assure the members of this House that my deliberations concerning the budget will balance these competing pressures.
I realize that our transfer partners are anxious to hear about their funding for the coming year. The practice in Ontario has been to announce in November or early December the amount of funding available in the upcoming fiscal year for transfer partners such as hospitals, schools and municipalities. With the change in government, our funding allocations process has been somewhat delayed. To allow my colleagues and myself sufficient time to consider the funding requirements of our major transfer partners, we intend to make our announcement for funding levels early in the new year. I realize that in some cases this may delay budget planning by the boards, councils and institutions affected. However, once funding levels are established, we will expedite the process of informing municipalities, school boards, hospitals, universities and colleges of their specific grants.
Looking beyond the 1991 Ontario budget, I plan to introduce a more open, policy-driven process to review the extent to which the budget, with its taxation and expenditure priorities, reflects the objectives of the government. I intend to examine the rationales for budget secrecy and consider innovative ways to expose the tradeoffs inherent in the budget. It is also time to consider moving towards multi-year budgeting. In addition, we plan to look at alternative ways of reporting the province's capital spending that will more clearly reflect the long-term benefits to the economy of those investments.
All of these initiatives should help to improve the budget process in Ontario.
Establishing the Fair Tax Commission is the first of many steps aimed at tapping Ontario's diverse and knowledgeable constituencies for their insights and advice. I will provide a detailed report on the establishment of the Fair Tax Commission in the near future.
In conclusion, as I noted at the outset, we are in a recession of uncertain duration. International events and unduly restrictive federal monetary policy are adding significant risks to the economic outlook. I sincerely hope the federal government will respond positively to the Premier's suggestion for a federal-provincial meeting on the economy and will join us in responding to this recession. Governments in Canada have to make co-operative and concerted efforts in dealing with the recession and in preparing for recovery.
The government sees a role for all parts of our society in successfully overcoming the current recession and in laying the foundations for a strong recovery and a more secure, resilient economy. It is our firm intention to develop close working relationships with all key groups in the community. I will be conferring closely with my cabinet colleagues and members of this House to establish the necessary framework and forums for government, labour, business and our many diverse communities to join together in addressing the challenges of economic adjustment and restructuring.
The measures I have outlined today are both progressive and responsible. In total, they provide $1.4 billion to create jobs, stimulate investment and offset some of the negative impact of the proposed GST. Taken together, I expect that these measures will increase the provincial gross domestic product by 0.6% and create more than 20,000 jobs.
The Speaker: The clock indicated that the Treasurer went an additional three minutes beyond the normal 20 allotted. What I would like to do is add three minutes to each of the opposition parties in addition to the five which they are allocated under the rules, so that both parties have a total of eight minutes at their disposal for responses.
1410
RESPONSES
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
Mr Bradley: It is most interesting, first of all, to note the change in the sides of the House, and how it changes what flows from the mouths of individual members who sit in the Legislative Assembly. One can recall with some interest, just short months ago, the gentleman who is now the Treasurer of Ontario and the Premier excluding the external forces that affected the province and, of course, pointing the finger at the government of Ontario as being responsible for all that happened economically in this province and having within its hands the opportunity to ensure that the provincial economy was moving at the right pace. It has changed now, as the Treasurer has indicated, in reading the words that were prepared for him. In fact, the Middle East, Japan, Europe, all of the world, the United States, the other provinces, all happen to have an influence on the provincial economy. That, to a certain extent, is true.
But we want to ensure that the province takes on its responsibilities in dealing with matters within its jurisdiction, and that is what the opposition will be watching for in the next several months. We are assured, and perhaps we can be pleased to a certain extent, by the fact that perhaps we will not have a GST in Canada because, as I recall, just a few weeks ago and a few months ago, the Premier of this province was going to lead a crusade against the GST. We can be assured as well that the effects of free trade are unlikely to impact upon Ontario because, once again, the Premier of the province, a few weeks ago and a few months ago, indicated that he would be implementing measures designed to block the implementation of free trade in Ontario. So perhaps there is some assurance in those who believe that the Premier will be able to undertake those activities and be successful.
In addition to this, I find it interesting and I guess, from a politician's point of view, one can be a bit admiring of the government's being able to use the projected $2.5-billion deficit in the province of Ontario which it inherited. One forgets that when the party that used to sit over there just a few months ago came into office, in fact the provincial deficit was $2.6 billion and there had been a series of deficits previous to that, so this is not a unique situation. It did not impede the government in carrying out its programs, but the Treasurer and his Premier have been quite successful in getting that message across and I must say I admire them in this honeymoon period in being able to do so.
I note as well with some interest that this new government will be maintaining some of the tax changes proposed by the previous government. Despite the rhetoric during the election campaign that indeed it was going to change these measures which were designed to improve the business atmosphere in the community known as Ontario, we see that in fact the government is going to continue to implement those policies, recognizing the wisdom of them but having a difficult time explaining in the union halls of the province and other places just how it is going to be able to justify those.
To be fair to the Treasurer -- and I want to be fair to him -- we have a similar situation existing across the country. In fact, every province and the federal government are all revising their estimates or predictions of their budgetary revenues and their expenditures. That is to be expected in a recessionary period, but we will be looking for actions that are designed to create jobs and give an impetus to the economy.
The Treasurer has mentioned some investments in capital projects. They, of course, are extremely important. The Minister of the Environment will be particularly knowledgeable of the fact that there are a number of projects sitting on the shelf in many municipalities, and provincial projects, that could be proceeded with. In fact, a time of recession is the time to accelerate those particular projects, and we will be looking forward to those.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities put out a booklet called, I believe, Work, Work, Work, in which it indicated the desirability from an economic point of view of implementing infrastructure renewal in a variety of fields. I think of sewers, water projects and waste management projects, but also there are the transportation projects, such as the Pelee Island ferry which could be constructed at Port Weller Dry Docks in the city of St Catharines and take the workforce, which is at present at 30, and place it somewhere well into the hundreds. I know the Treasurer will make particular note of that and attempt to influence his cabinet colleagues to proceed with that most important project.
We recognize as well that schools in the province of Ontario always need some renewal of their buildings. There are the roofs which inevitably leak after 25 years. There are safety measures that have to be undertaken. The Ministry of the Solicitor General requires fire regulation changes. All of these can be implemented at a rather accelerated pace because they are projects that can be proceeded with quickly. We will be watching carefully to see, in each and every municipality, that the government is in fact proceeding with those projects.
The minister would recognize as well the opportunity during a period of recession to get some rather good prices when tendering is going to ensure that some of the projects that might have cost more money in a boom economy can in fact be done for somewhat less. That is an advantage again of proceeding with those kinds of projects.
In regard to the deficit, I can well recall when we were in government that at the beginning of the year all of the ministries would come in with the wish list. I suspect they have been in to the Treasurer with the wish list and appear to have convinced him, in many cases, that all of the projects should proceed. But he would recognize, as our government did, that the deficit was always going to be $8 billion or $10 billion if he proceeded with the wish list of all of them.
The Management Board of Cabinet and the policy and priorities board of cabinet will have to look carefully, establish priorities and disappoint some people in the community by not proceeding with certain of the projects that they would like, particularly those which have long-term economic ramifications in terms of operating costs for the province.
I think if the government is going to move in the field of capital investment at this time, it is going to have to be much more productive than getting involved in longer-term programs that it may wish to initiate, and in fact will initiate, when the economy returns to what we hope will be something closer to normal.
We also recognize that had they decided to cut the sales tax in Ontario by one percentage point, they would have put back some $1.1 billion into the hands of consumers in the province at this time of recession. They seem to have conceded the fact that the GST is going to be implemented instead of fighting it, as we had expected. But with that one gesture on the part of the Treasurer, consumers across Ontario would have been generating the kind of economic activity which would have produced even more jobs in this province.
Mr Stockwell: The last time we were in this House outlining a financial proposal such as this, we had a $30-million surplus and we were recession-proof. I hope this particular outline is a little more accurate.
My first concern is, why is there still no mention of transfer payments? That is a large concern for a lot of operations in this province. They are still waiting for the concerns about whether or not they are going to be funded, to what extent they are going to be funded, and of course I think within the near future it should be announced. It has been reasonable that they have announced it in the past.
They are partners in this operation, the people that the Treasurer is transferring moneys to, and if in fact they are partners, using his terminology, I think they should know what their share is. We apparently have a $1.4-billion commitment here today. We should also remember that part of that money -- I believe at least $300 million -- is coming from other levels of government, particularly a kick-in from the municipalities, to kick that up to $1 billion from the original $700 million announcement. The Treasurer is shaking his head. "We can look into it."
He can look into the economic outlook that we have that is not doom and gloom. It is certainly not good; not good at all. In fact, we have a declining manufacturing sector. With the decline of the manufacturing sector, I hope we do not generate new revenue by simply increasing the tax portion. I do not think that would help anybody at this point in time.
If we admit that the manufacturing sector is declining, I fear that by slapping more taxes on it, it in fact will not be around and operating by this time next year, if in fact this is the type of financial outlook that this government will have. Undercutting the manufacturer at this point in time through more taxes would simply undercut the competitiveness of those sectors. By undercutting their competitiveness, obviously there is loss of revenue to them, loss of jobs and so on.
1420
I am very disappointed about the regional strategy here today. We keep talking from the point of view that there are concerns, that there is a recession. This particular government, in An Agenda for People, talked about a recession back in August. They knew there was a recession. They have in fact been elected. They told us that the recession was here. So I do not know why it is taking this length of time to determine how far we are into the recession. We know it is here. They knew it was here. Why can we not see some solid proposals to fight our way out of this recession, for the northern Ontario and eastern Ontario regions specifically?
We spoke of a partnership of players. When we talk about a partnership with the private sector and so on, maybe the Treasurer should have a meeting with the Minister of Housing, because on page 6 he says, "I do not believe it would be fair or appropriate to change tax rules retroactively." He must not have told the Housing minister that, because he is doing everything retroactively. A little consistency would certainly help. Clearly, if they are going to forge partnerships, they are going to have to forge a better partnership than the Housing minister has forged with the landlords, which is no partnership. Speaking about it and doing it are two very different things.
From the fiscal side, the government has forgone $500 million in revenue that would have to come from piggybacking the sales tax with the goods and services tax, which again is laudable in my opinion, but I do not understand the hypocrisy of it when the government goes forward and still doubles the tire tax. They are continuing on along those lines, the $40 million or so, but they do not strike it there or slash the budget there. They are giving up $500 million. I do not think it adds up to more than a couple of hundred thousand dollars on that particular item. I do not know why they do not dispose of that as well right now. It seems to be their policy. Maybe they should be consistent right across the board.
I think we are set up for a big deficit next year. I think this is a setup. I think it will exceed the $2.5 billion that is the deficit today. Why? I think we have stagnant growth. There is no question about that. I think 0.6% is not achievable. I do not believe we are going to achieve those kinds of numbers. It is stagnant out there. We are in a recession. It is going the wrong way. I think we are in for big trouble when it comes to the revenue side. We are losing nearly $1 billion through established programs financing. And what does that add up to? Where do you generate the money from? I do not think the private sector today can accept any more new taxes. The Treasurer has made similar statements; it is not time to go out and tax the private sector. So how are they going to generate the shortfalls? They are going to generate the shortfalls by passing it on to the deficit and the deficit will climb from the $2.5 billion we have today. The Treasurer has stated in the past that he is not scared at $2.5 billion; he will be scared at $10 billion. Where do we find that special line in between, where he starts getting scared? I think the public is very interested in that number and I think we in the Legislature are also equally interested.
Taxes are killing business today. They are killing business today because their revenues are down and their profits are down, and by continuing this tax-and-spend approach, which I think we will see next year, it is going to cut into the competitiveness of these businesses. You are going to see job losses.
I do not believe that this kind of economic outlook, although the suggestion is that it is not doom and gloom, is putting us on the road to recovery. I think we are still seeing the typical approach we have seen for the past five years, which is the tax-and-spend merry-go-round. The only difference is that with this tax and spend, the taxpayers are paying for the government's tickets.
Mr Cousens: I would like to just carry on where the member for Etobicoke West left off. Whom do you believe? We know we could not believe the Liberals with their $23-million surplus, and now I think that there is a real justification for non-belief in the government's figure of $2.5 billion. One is a surplus; one is a deficit. We know it is going to be bigger. We know that one was not that much.
It is too bad that there is not some way in which we can have an accounting on how they come to their numbers. We should open up the process even further so that we can see where they are coming from, because the Treasurer is given a range by the people in Treasury and he is playing around with the numbers. I agree with the member for Etobicoke West that the Treasurer really does not know where this is going to take us or how deep the hole is going to get: in fact, he will probably be happy if it is not just as deep as it is probably going to be.
We have problems with delays in transfer payments, and I just hope there is more time to discuss that. Everybody in this province depends on what happens out of this Treasury. If the government is going to be so late in doing things then it is going to have a ripple effect right through to the school boards and municipalities. Let's come along and face the music. We should give them some sense of hope out there. We have had double-digit increases in our taxes at the municipal level. We need to have some relief and the Treasurer needs to give some leadership and tell them where it is going to be; he should be positive and come up with a faster answer.
Mrs Marland: In the time remaining I just want to reconfirm what I said in my statement earlier today, that this Treasurer will have to be some kind of magician or sorcerer in order to fulfil his statement of this afternoon.
I would like to also emphasize that there is a tremendously heavy burden on those people who live in the greater Toronto area. We have not yet seen the benefits for those people from the commercial concentration tax, the increase in motor vehicle licences or the driver permits. So I say to the Treasurer. these tax burdens that are added to people and become punitive are totally unfair and unjust. We expect more of this government.
ORAL QUESTIONS
ECONOMIC POLICY
Mr Nixon: The member for St Catharines has already adequately described our concern at the inadequacy of the Treasurer's statement. I want to indicate our further concern with the inadequate economic leadership from the government as a whole.
The political platitude "Too little and too late" applies to the situation that the government has brought forward in this statement. In that regard I would like to ask the Premier what he thinks of a program that will reduce unemployment by 0.2%, which involves a $700-million-plus municipal expenditure in addition but which in fact will have very little impact on the employment situation in the winter that we are now entering. Is that sufficient for him?
How is he going to answer questions in this House -- if we are coming back in the wintertime -- having to do with the elevated levels of unemployment and the suffering that is going to be evident in all communities of this province with a program that is going to reduce unemployment by 0.2% and which in fact takes only a minuscule amount of the money presently allocated by this government for the relief of the situation in this particular winter?
Hon Mr Rae: The Leader of the Opposition asked me the question, and I am sure he did not mean it rhetorically, how am I going to answer questions? I am going to do the best I can to answer questions, as is the Treasurer.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition, we have provided tax relief of well over $500 million. We have injected an additional $700 million into the economy, plus additional moneys which we hope very much will be forthcoming from the municipalities as well as from the federal government. We have done that after having been in office for a little over two months, prior to the formation of a budget.
I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that we are preparing for the budget. We have been doing that, if I may say so, from 1 October on, as effectively as we possibly can. I think the people of the province understand that in the circumstances we are doing the best we can. We are injecting money right away in areas where it is going to have the most impact, we are proceeding with programs that will have the most initial impact and we are planning for a budget which will go on in the spring. If that is not good enough for the Leader of the Opposition, I am sorry. He was here for five years. He had an opportunity to do the job and now it is our turn to do the very best we can. That is exactly what we are going to plan to do.
Mr Nixon: The budget that I had the honour to present to the House some months ago had $3.2 billion, which is presently being expended across the province for the sorts of capital works that are certainly worthy and which the honourable Premier has indicated by way of policy will have $700 million added to it. My point is that only a very small percentage of that, probably less than a sixth, will be spent during the months of this winter.
We look forward to the Treasurer's budget in May, when the tulips are blooming and certain other things are going to be happening. But during the wintertime, when the unemployment impact is going to be the sort of severe thing that all of us will be concerned with, democratic socialists or not, I would put to the honourable Premier that his initiatives are totally inadequate.
For example, I want him to tell the House specifically what he is going to do by way of his promise to have a tax revolt which is designed to stop the goods and services tax. The wording of this statement is rather careful, with sort of a subjunctive approach to the GST on 1 January. We will be talking about his bill to parallel the retail sales tax with the GST and we will be discussing that at the time. But what is this tax revolt? Surely he can be at least as effective as the Liberal government was in stopping free trade.
1430
Hon Mr Rae: I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition is expressing a hope or a fear. I am not quite sure.
In the space of being in office for a little over eight weeks, the Treasurer has made an announcement today that we are going to be reducing taxes and adding to spending for an additional amount of nearly $1.5 billion to whatever was in the former Treasurer's budget.
He may think that is nothing, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition as clearly as I can, he was in office at a time when the economy started to turn down. He was there in April and May, he was there in June and July and he was there in August. He saw the signs as clearly as anyone. In fact, since he was the Treasurer at that time, he had far more access to information with respect to the downturn than anyone else in this Legislature.
To be fair to the Leader of the Opposition, he announced that it was the plan of the Liberal government to reduce the sales tax by $1.1 billion. We have decided to do things a little differently, to reduce the effect of the sales tax by half a billion dollars and to inject more capital spending, because we think that is a better mix. That is our view. He may disagree with what we put forward. All I can say to him is, we are doing it as fast as we can. If there are more projects we can bring on stream more quickly under the $700-million capital program, that is exactly what we will do.
I would just say to the Leader of the Opposition, I think the people who are watching these questions and these answers have a memory. They remember who was on this side up until 6 September. He saw a recession coming and he had a chance to do something about it. We are doing the very best we can as we have taken office and that is exactly what we are going to do.
Mr Nixon: The Premier knows that our response was to allocate $3.2 billion for capital works during this year, far bigger than any previous government in the history of the province has allocated. We are very proud of that allocation in the budget.
I would say in response that the Premier has indicated that his Treasurer and others have been planning carefully since they took office on 1 October, more than two months ago. The statement today allocates what the Treasurer previously said would be $25 million during the winter. He has adjusted that now to $41 million worth of starts during the winter, which would be allocated for payment during the next fiscal year. I would simply say again to the Premier that the platitude "Too little and too late" applies because it is true under these circumstances.
In the program An Agenda for People, which says Ontario is now in a recession -- and their planning must have taken these difficulties into consideration -- the Premier calls for interest rate relief. He plaintively calls in the Treasurer's statement for Mr Mulroney to meet with him and do something about it. That has been totally inadequate for two months. Nobody will talk to him. Even the other premiers do not bother talking to him about these matters. But they did promise specifically interest rate relief for first-time home owners and farmers. That is a promise. They were elected on that promise. Where is it? That is what we need now. Where is that promise and how is it going to be kept, I put to the Premier.
Hon Mr Rae: The Leader of the Opposition says, where is it; when is it coming? All I can say to him is, be patient. We are preparing a budget. I mean it quite sincerely. What if we were to run off in all directions, if we were to run off without having a real assessment of exactly how serious the situation is, and frankly what we can afford to do? That is exactly what we are assessing now. The former Treasurer took pride in the $3.2 billion. We have just raised that to $3.9 billion and, with the additional capital investment of the municipalities, that is going to be an additional amount.
I really think the public who are watching this exchange are going to be rather surprised at what they hear from the Leader of the Opposition. He had an opportunity over five years as the Treasurer to do his best for the provincial economy. He did that, and the people rendered their judgement on 6 September. Now we are going to do the very best we can to deal with the recession which we face. That is what we are going to do.
NORTHERN ONTARIO
Mr Nixon: This question is to the Premier as well. He indicated in his last answer that we should wait and be patient. We have the impression from statements made by himself, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Agriculture and Food, that in fact government members are sort of observers of the scene, stewards as he called them yesterday. who stand by and hold the seals of office while the economy of the province slides past them and do not take the sort of action that should be required.
There are many communities in the province that are going to be dramatically impacted during the next few months; they are dramatically impacted now and are not well served by this particular announcement. Northern Ontario particularly is one of the most vulnerable.
I would ask the honourable Premier to simply contemplate some statements made by his own colleagues. For example, the present Minister of Northern Development: "Times are not the best in northern Ontario. It is probably going to be a deep and ugly recession." I believe she is correct, and the Treasurer's comments today verify it. The Minister of Northern Development went on and said the absence of a commitment to the northern development fund was not discouraging. "The current recession makes it very unlikely that new businesses would want to get started even if government funding was available." This is quoted in the Chronicle-Journal of 21 November.
With that approach from the Minister of Northern Development, how can the Premier possibly effect any kind of development in the north when there is such a negative approach from the minister herself in this particular sensitive area?
Hon Mr Rae: If the Leader of the Opposition says that the Minister of Northern Development is a negative person or being negative in the comments that she is making, I could not disagree more profoundly. I would say to him that in terms of credibility on northern issues, credibility with respect to what has not been done and what needs to be done, I think that the Minister of Northern Development has a record that is second to none in this Legislature.
I want to stress to the Leader of the Opposition -- he can disagree with our approach, and I know he does -- I think everyone will be assessing the relative credibility of that approach. Our approach has been to say we are going to inject the money that we can as quickly as we can in those projects that we can pull off the shelf as quickly as we can in northern Ontario as well as in southern Ontario.
Mr Nixon: Where is the northern development fund money? You promised it.
Hon Mr Rae: The Leader of the Opposition is shouting across, "Where is the northern Ontario fund money?" I can say to him it is there. The fact of the matter is that there is sufficient money in the fund right now to address projects that are being put forward until the budget which is coming in the spring.
For us to proceed with spending across the board -- whammo, let her rip, do not think about the consequences, just let her go, do not think about it, do not worry about what the operating expenses are going to be in a year -- I know enough about the Leader of the Opposition when he was Treasurer to know that he was the person who sat in that cabinet room and said: "No. No. No. No." Now he is turning around and has the nerve to say, "Why aren't you spending the money that I never spent for five years?" I do not think you have credibility when you do that.
Mr Nixon: I said no to the extent that the budget of the province of Ontario went from $23 billion in 1985 to $45 billion at a time when we at the same time balanced the budget. The reason I put it to the Premier is that he promised there would be more money for the north. Why does he say no when all he is relying on is the money, which he considered to be picayune and inadequate, that was put there by the budget that I had the honour to introduce?
For him to say now that this is sufficient and nothing further should be done while his Minister of Northern Development says that there is such a recession in the north that no more money would help anyway because nobody wants to open a new business indicates the bankruptcy of the Premier's policy. Why does he not put adequate funds into the economy of northern Ontario to simply keep his election promises?
1440
Hon Mr Rae: I am going to resist the temptation and just say to the Leader of the Opposition that half of the money which is being allocated this year under the $700-million fund, I have just been reliably informed, is targeted for northern Ontario. One half of that money is already being addressed; it is flowing as of now.
Mrs Cunningham: When will it be spent?
Hon Mr Rae: The member for London North asks, not rhetorically, "When will it be spent?" It is going to be spent prior to the end of this fiscal year.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I think those northerners who are watching will know who was in power for the last five years in times when things were very good, and they know full well who is now taking responsibility for an economy which is in recession. All I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is, we are going to do the very best we can in the circumstances. If it is not adequate to satisfy him, I am sorry. We are simply doing the best we can. That is all we are doing.
Mr Ramsay: That answer is not good enough, because what the people of northern Ontario want to have is a reconciliation between what this party said in the election and what it is doing now. The Premier says that this minister has a record. The minister has no record. The first announcement that this minister made was to abolish the cabinet committee on northern development. How is this ministry and this government going to be working on the economic development of northern Ontario?
An Agenda for People states clearly that this government would set up a northern fund of $200 million a year for the first two years of this government. The people of northern Ontario would like to know whether this government is going to put that fund in place or not.
Hon Mr Rae: Being Premier, I am prepared to listen to lectures on political consistency from all members of the House, including my good friend the member for Timiskaming.
Mr Jackson: Good friend?
Hon Mr Rae: Yes, I say that. In at least one election, I remember campaigning with him; so I assume there are others.
Let me say to the member that the announcements that have been made so far are a clear indication of the commitment of this government to all the people of the province, including northern Ontario. As I said, of the money that has already been directed, that has been decided upon that we can move off very quickly, at least $20 million is going directly into northern Ontario.
With respect to the question which has to do with the additional moneys to the fund, that decision will be made in the context of the budget. We are working flat out, I think it is fair to say, in the preparation for that budget. The member knows himself, from his experience in other cabinets, that this is a process that takes some time. That budget will be presented in the spring and when it is presented, I think the member will have ample opportunity to see what he likes and what he does not like. I am sure we will have a chance to debate it then.
LAYOFFS
Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Treasurer. We are told to be patient. The minister's outlook report today has expressed some concern for the economy, and patience is something we should have.
How about the workers who are being laid off today? How can one ask them to be patient? A hundred or so workers in Thorold have been laid off, 51 workers at Eddy Match in Pembroke have been laid off, 230 jobs were lost in Kitchener at Greb, 100 in Kitchener at the Lear plant, 60 in Tilbury and so on and so forth. What about these people? What are they supposed to do for the next few years? What are they supposed to do while the Treasurer decides what his economic forecasts are going to be? How can they be expected to be patient?
Hon Mr Laughren: I think, to be fair, the member for Etobicoke West will realize that we have already announced programs to support people who find themselves laid off. We have talked about that already. I think as well that by announcing a $700-million capital works program, that will go at least some way towards easing the problem.
I do not stand here in my place and pretend to the member or anyone else that the measures announced today in this economic statement are going to solve all the problems in the province of Ontario. We know that we are in a recession. We know that the recession is going to last at least another six months, probably longer, and that there are going to be problems. I am not going to stand in place and say to the member for Etobicoke West that I have got all the problems solved for the workers to whom he refers.
Mr Stockwell: If the Treasurer is not going to resolve these problems and these people are in fact going to have to be patient, then let's deal with his report today with respect to the deficit.
The Treasurer has stated that a $2.5-billion deficit does not worry him; a $10-billion deficit in fact does worry him. Where do we find his projections? Surely to goodness, after doing this work, he must have some idea what the economic impact on this province is going to be and on his government next year. Where will he see the deficit ending up at the end of the next fiscal year? How much will it be?
If he could come clean with the public, I think they deserve that kind of information. They should know where the Treasurer wants to take this province. If he can let them know that, they can measure his success or failure. Is it $7 billion? Is it $8 billion? What is his comfort zone? Could the people of this province find out that kind of figure?
Hon Mr Laughren: I have a fairly narrow comfort zone, if that makes the member feel any better. I think the member should understand that, even if I wanted to, I could not stand here in my place and tell him what the deficit is going to be for 1991-92.
As he will understand, I hope, there is a process we go through in this province of allocating funds to various ministries. They come back and state what kind of allocations they want. There is a period of negotiations that goes on. We have not yet decided on any kind of revenue changes that we want to bring in in the budget. We have not even talked about constraints within the various ministries. I do not think it makes sense for the member for Etobicoke West to expect me to tell him what I think the deficit is going to be in 1991-92. I will level with him to the extent I can. I believe it is going to be higher than in 1990-91, but I do not know what that number is.
Mr Stockwell: The Treasurer has a fistful of promises out there from An Agenda for People; we are talking probably to the tune of $14 billion in promises, in that kind of range. His numbers are not quite that high, but the numbers that would be considered realistic have got to be in that range. His education promises over five years top over $7 billion.
Nobody held a gun to the Treasurer's head to make these promises. He made them. He wrote them down. He distributed them. Now he is denying them. When is he going to fill the promises, how much are they going to cost the taxpayers and when is he going to come clean? Nobody held a gun to his head when he was at the landfill sites promising full environmental assessments.
Nobody held a gun to his head when he promised all these extras for the people of Ontario. They believed him. They thought he was going to do them. How much are they going to cost, and when is he going to implement them?
Hon Mr Laughren: I would like first of all to commend the member for Etobicoke West for his rapid transition to the behaviour in this House from the more sedate form of behaviour at municipal council level. I do want to caution the member, though, not to make demands on this government to implement what I agree are expensive promises that were in An Agenda for People. I would urge him not to pressure us to implement those quickly at the same time as his leader is urging us to practise restraint.
1450
NON-PROFIT HOUSING
Mr Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Yesterday, in response to a question from the member for York Mills, who pointed out that a recent project with his ministry's name on it, a non-profit project, was costing the taxpayers $2,500 per month per unit, the minister said that his press release was wrong and that he thought it would be less than that. I believe that was the gist of the minister's response and I accept that. I sure hope it is less than that when it finally comes out, but that is what his press release said.
In July the Ministry of Housing said it cost the government $1,500 to $1,800 per month to subsidize tenants of non-profit rental units. Could the minister tell us if that figure is still valid, or is it higher than that, after a few months have elapsed?
Hon Mr Cooke: I can indicate to the leader of the third party that the press release that he referred to and that his colleague referred to yesterday in fact quoted the estimate of the subsidy figure given by the non-profit sponsoring group.
Mr Harris: It was out of your press release.
Hon Mr Cooke: I realize that. I read the press release.
I have instructed the Ministry of Housing people that in future press releases when units are being committed -- they have not been built yet -- there should not be an estimate of the operating cost given that is provided by the sponsoring group, the estimate should be based on the experience of the Ministry of Housing. That figure for the project that was raised in the House yesterday will be approximately $1.2 million to $1.4 million and, as I understand it, the subsidy works out to about $500 a month per unit.
Mr Harris: I want to congratulate the minister for being able to put non-profit housing on the market for a quarter of the cost of the former government. I do not know how he is doing it.
Hon Mr Cooke: It's the subsidy.
Mr Harris: Oh, that is just the actual operating subsidy from the province; it is not the true cost.
Would the minister agree with me that the total taxpayer cost over 35 years for non-profit housing is, as the ministry states and as we see on every press release, in excess of $1,000 a unit per month for every project we have seen outside of Metropolitan Toronto and $1,500 to $1,800 a unit per month in Metropolitan Toronto?
Second, can the minister explain to me how it was reported last July that the private sector could make available to the government and the government subsidize through its shelter subsidy, take people off the waiting list for subsidized housing, luxury condominiums in Scarborough with five to six appliances, marble lobbies, microwaves, indoor pools, saunas, tennis and squash courts for a subsidy cost to the taxpayer of $850 a month per unit, half the price of the two-bedroom boxes that the minister is building and supplying through the non-profit route?
Hon Mr Cooke: I think the leader of the third party should understand a couple of things, and I think he does. Number one, on the subsidy rates, you cannot compare $1,500 to $1,800 with an average of $500. There is a range of subsidies and he knows that. There are people who are paying market rents in non-profit and co-op housing and there are people who are subsidized for rent geared to income. There is obviously a range; he understands that.
I think he has also got to understand that the vacancy rate in the region of Toronto is 1% and that the vacancy rate in Ottawa-Carleton is 0.3%. If we were to buy the proposals that the member's party put forward during the election and again today, that we not build any non-profit and co-op housing in the province and that we simply make arrangements with the private sector for a rent subsidy program, we would be in even worse shape in terms of the vacancy rates across this province.
It is our objective to have an overall housing strategy that takes advantage of the private sector and the not-for-profit co-op sector, as well as a rent regulation system so that we can have a well-rounded housing program in this province that meets the needs of the people of this province and builds on supply and creates jobs. The leader of the third party might realize that the housing program we are involved in, which was begun by the Liberal Party, will create over 40,000 person-years of work next year. So there is also a very substantial economic spinoff.
Mr Harris: I am not surprised that there is double the number of jobs in providing government-subsidized housing, because it costs twice as much. What I am interested in and what I want to compare -- apples to apples, as he asked me to do yesterday -- is the cost of subsidization, the cost that the taxpayers pay to house people who need help. By the way, his figure of $1.2 million with 58 units, if he checks it out, is $1,700 a month, consistent with what the ministry says, not $500 a month, if he checks his calculator. I want to compare apples to apples, the amount of subsidy per unit.
I gave the minister the example of the luxury condominiums; the private sector offered those new units to the government, which the former government picked up and said, "Look, we don't know whether it makes sense or not, but it costs half as much." I applaud them for at least recognizing that. I pointed out that example. Second, the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario, in a press release and in a proposal of 1 October, offered him 20,000 units -- the same number the New Democratic Party wants to build in non-profit housing, costing taxpayers $1,700, $1,600 or $1,800 a month per unit -- for $60 million, a cost of $300 or $400 by way of shelter subsidy to put a family that needs help into an equivalent unit. Apples to apples: $300 to $400 versus $1,500 to $1,800.
I would like to ask the minister, short of having a philosophical disagreement that he wants the private sector out of the housing business and out of the province -- I suppose if he accepts this proposal it might put government out of the housing business, and I do not know what the NDP would do if that ever happened -- can he explain to the taxpayers who are paying four times the subsidy for each unit why his proposal makes sense to them?
Hon Mr Cooke: I can indicate to the leader of the third party that when I met with the fair rental people I indicated to them that I wanted to pursue their proposal, that I wanted to look at it, because I believe that in the short term rent supplement might be one of the vehicles we will want to use. But I fundamentally reject the approach of the Conservative Party, which would be to eliminate rent regulation, eliminate rent control and simply subsidize the private sector from one end to the other. That is not the approach of this party.
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr Callahan: Much has been said about An Agenda for People in this House. We all recognize that the only clear thing in that agenda was that there was a recession. Not expecting to be elected, they made all sorts of promises. We are now in a very serious recession, obviously, as the Treasurer has told us. Taxes are one thing. An additional thing, however, is that during the recent election campaign -- this is directed to the Minister of Energy -- the now Premier stated on a Radio Noon show on 13 August 1990 that he would ensure the province had the legal power to prevent gas price gouging.
A recent survey by the Ministry of Energy showed that pump prices have jumped about 60 cents per litre in most Ontario cities, supposedly because of the Persian Gulf crisis. Calls to local retailers, and that includes portions I represent, have shown that prices are well over 67 cents per litre and perhaps as high as 70 or 72 cents in the north.
These continual price increases are in contrast to the fact that crude oil has dropped from $41 a barrel to $29.15. Can the minister indicate what steps she is taking to protect the consumers of this province and to ensure that oil companies are not making windfall profits by exploiting the so-called Kuwait crisis?
1500
Hon Mrs Carter: I would like to point out that there is a time lag. We have several days' supply in this country so that as the prices oscillate, as they have been doing, where they are at does not always correspond to what is happening as a result of the Gulf crisis. This government is monitoring gasoline prices and we shall take appropriate action if we feel that becomes necessary. We do not feel this is necessary at this moment.
Mr Callahan: Certainly the minister has to be aware of the fact that prices in the province have increased dramatically. This is having an impact on people. Taxes are one thing -- they do affect people -- but every nickel is important. In my riding just recently they opened up what I suppose in the terms of the Depression would have been a soup kitchen. There are also people -- 80% of them are young people -- who have bought homes who are suffering under power of sale, so every nickel counts. I suggest that when it increased from 57.4 cents per litre in early October to 65.5 cents now, surely the price should be coming down equally as fast as the price of oil drops.
I repeat to the minister that this is very important to the economic survival of a lot of people in this province. Can she indicate what steps she is taking to protect the consumers of this province and to ensure they receive lower prices, and would she be prepared to establish a committee of the Legislature to gather information, monitor prices and ensure that gasoline wholesalers justify all price increases? She may give us the information in the House that she feels there is no need, but the people out there who are suffering that cost and seeing prices go up and down like a toilet seat do not believe her.
Hon Mrs Carter: I just want to state that gasoline prices have not increased as much as crude oil prices. Second, I want to point out that in this province we do now have a policy of energy conservation and efficiency, and one way of avoiding the consequences of increasing prices is to use less. If we all manage to have energy-efficient vehicles, to have our houses efficiently heated and so on, we shall in fact end up paying far less of these increases than we otherwise would do.
COURT SYSTEM
Mr Harnick: My question is for the Premier. The 17 November edition of the Oshawa Times included an article describing how a son broke down and cried in court after seeing the careless driver who killed his mother in a car crash have the charges dismissed due to the length of time he waited to come to trial. The same article details the story of a woman whose husband assaulted and threatened to kill her. The charges were dismissed without even being read. As she left the court, she saw posters promoting Wife Abuse Awareness Week: what a joke. she thought.
Some 3,000 of the 3.400 cases dismissed to date have been dismissed from the provincial court (criminal division). We now have two judges from the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division), and I am referring to Mr Justice Callahan and Mr Justice Trainor, who have said that the Askov case does not apply to the provincial court. Why is the government continuing to permit cases in the provincial court (criminal division) to be dismissed on consent, stayed or withdrawn? How can this be justified to the victims of crime?
Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I want to say to the member for Willowdale that there are few issues about which I feel more strongly personally than this one with respect to the importance of our ensuring that we have a justice system that works, that we have the assurance that those who are charged will be tried in time, that they will receive a fair trial and that those who have been hurt or affected by people who have been charged will have some assurance that the system of justice is working. As Premier, I can say that I feel incredibly strongly about it. We have discussed it extensively. We have added resources to the judiciary. We are going to be taking other steps. Other measures will be announced by the Attorney General to deal with the issue.
I cannot comment directly on the two decisions that have been made by Mr Justice Callaghan and Mr Justice Trainor except to say that I am sure those decisions are having an impact and will have an impact on the decisions that are made by crowns and, I hope, provincial court judges across the province, but beyond that I really cannot give a comment. I will naturally draw the member's question to the attention of the Attorney General when I next see him, which I hope will be tomorrow in cabinet, because it is a question that needs to be answered and deserves to be answered. It is a good question. It is a question that is on the minds of a great many people and I will endeavour to give the member an answer.
Mr Harnick: If it is in the Premier's power, will he undertake to the people of this province that in light of the decisions and comments by the two judges to which I referred, he will refer an appeal to the Court of Appeal to settle the law in so far as the provincial court is concerned, and that he will do this in an expeditious way by way of reference or whatever, so that the matter can be solved and we can save as many of these outstanding charges as possible and thus justify to victims our good criminal justice system?
Hon Mr Rae: As Premier, I can express what I think is a policy that would be endorsed by every member of this House, and that is that we all want to have a justice system, a criminal justice system and a civil justice system, that works, so that when people are charged with something, it means something -- the charge proceeds to trial, there is a disposition on the basis of evidence, and it works.
When we took office, because of the impact of the Askov decision and other things that were not in place, frankly, we found that we had to make very difficult choices. The Attorney General had to make some difficult choices.
As Premier, I cannot really answer the member's question directly, because I do believe that what he is asking essentially are questions of judgement that have to be put to the Attorney General, that are not political questions. that are not partisan questions. They have to do with his responsibilities for the administration of justice to all the people of the province. I will bring the member's question to him. Again, I think it is a good question. I think it deserves an answer and I will see that he answers it for the member as directly as possible.
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
Ms Haeck: My question is directed to the Minister of Health. I recently received a letter from a constituent concerned about his ability to obtain a 250-day prescription for his diabetes. This appears to be a ministry policy, but at the same time does not seem to be widely known in my riding. I would wish the minister to comment on that.
Hon Mrs Gigantes: The issue that is being raised here is one which affects the efficiency and effectiveness of prescriptions that are given in Ontario, particularly in the case of older people. It is one where the Ministry of Health has established a pattern of telling prescribing physicians and encouraging pharmacists to provide prescriptions in a reasonable and rational way.
Ms Haeck: I was wondering, in light of the fact that the minister has already indicated there has been some encouragement of doctors and physicians, how widely this policy has been advertised since it does not seem to be taking effect in all places.
Hon Mrs Gigantes: I think the member is correct and that the policy should be more widely known in Ontario. I will be asking ministry officials to make the policy as widely known as we can, in as efficient a way as possible.
1510
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr Scott: I am reformed, Mr Speaker. You will be glad to hear I do not intend to ask any more questions about An Agenda for People. It does not seem to me it makes any sense. It was never intended in that sense to be acted on. Nobody expected that this gang would win the election, so we cannot press too hard on that subject.
I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board. As she knows, her principal job is representing the taxpayer in bargaining with, among others, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. Some members last week commented on the difficulty of performing this in light of her past experience, which was exactly the opposite -- representing the Ontario Public Service Employees Union in bargaining with the taxpayer.
I have a question about the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. That act, by clause l(l)(g), as the chairman knows, prevents the union from making political contributions to the governing party. I received today a policy and priorities board of cabinet submission, which is dated 22 November 1990. At page 4 of that submission, marked in the margin in capital letters, "new," meaning new proposal to amend the act, it was suggested that the act could be amended so that employees of the government could raise funds for political parties and the governing party.
Will the Chairman of Management Board assure me that the government has clearly abandoned that intention that members of the public service should be able to raise funds for the governing or any other party?
Hon Ms Lankin: I am not prepared to comment on cabinet documents. However, with respect to the issue that we have announced in the throne speech, reform of political rights, political activity for public service workers, the ability for public service workers -- of course, they have always had the ability to individually contribute -- and the ability for individual workers to be involved in a greater degree in the public service is something we are looking at with respect to the Public Service Act.
Mr Scott: The minister, in being not prepared to comment, has let it remain possible, if not plain, that the government intends to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act so that the government union can raise funds for the government party or indeed any other party.
I have a question ancillary to that. We are now on notice that this may be one of the things her cabinet is going to do, but I want to talk about consultation now. This document which came into my hands had attached to it a letter from the deputy minister of human resources to all other deputy ministers saying in the letter, "We have sent this cabinet paper to OPSEU, but to no other individuals or groups" and, needless to say, not to the Legislature of Ontario. I seem to have been, no doubt on account of historic connections, an accident.
What I want to ask the minister, ancillary to the first question, is: When is she going to, before she comes to the Legislature, stop consulting privately with OPSEU when she refuses to consult with anybody else?
Hon Ms Lankin: Let me start off by saying I am not sure it is a historical relationship that the member has with the union. In fact, as I understand it, he has returned to the law firm that is representing the union on this very issue of political rights. I wonder where the document came from.
May I also say that we made it very clear to this Legislature in the throne speech that we were proceeding with a review of the issue of rights for political activity for public service workers, workers who are in the bargaining unit and in senior management. That is being discussed with senior management and with the representative of the bargaining unit, and I think that is entirely appropriate. As we bring forward suggestions for reform, we will be at that time consulting with members of the Legislature and those outside of the public service who will be directly affected.
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
Mrs Cunningham: I too want to talk about consultation this afternoon. My question is to the Minister of Education. The Ontario Teachers' Federation and the Ontario Multi-faith Group for Equity in Education have both proposed the appointment of an advisory committee, the one in this report, whose task would be to make recommendations on circumstances under which (1) a constitutionally valid religious program and (2) alternative schools could be provided for by the public school boards in Ontario. When will the minister respond to these requests for an advisory committee?
Hon Mrs Boyd: I am pleased to answer the question this afternoon, having just come to this House from a meeting with the multifaith group and a number of other interested parties. This is an issue that has been really looked at over a long period of time. There have been a number of consultations with interested parties, and it is certainly the intention of this government to bring forward some response in this session to some of the requests that have been made and to look over time at other possibilities that may not be included in that initial policy. To that end I have agreed today to meet again in February with the multifaith group. We have made arrangements to meet over a period of time with other interested parties in terms of various constitutional issues as well as funding issues, and that procedure is going forward.
Mrs Cunningham: On that point, the minister will come to understand that the meetings go on and on and on. We meet individually, we meet with groups, and this government has stated loudly and clearly its intent not only to consult openly but to come up with solutions to problems. Will the minister, before making any basic policy decision on the role of religious education programs and alternative schools, consult with all the significant stakeholders by way of an advisory committee as recommended in this report? Will she do that and when? I underline "advisory committee."
Hon Mrs Boyd: I certainly find that the existence of advisory committees suits the style of governance that I feel works best. I feel that members will find this is the kind of issue that is very much the way I prefer to deal with things. Members will recall that I already have announced advisory committees in French and English for folks who are deaf or hard of hearing. I certainly have an intention that at some point over the next few months some kind of permanent mechanism for looking at education about religion in the schools would be my intention. At this time, though, I think it is very important to recognize that this is an issue that has already had a great deal of consultation in the province, that we have a stack of opinions from a large number of people. I do not think it is an area where we have inherited a lot of previous consultation and continue that consultation.
1520
SEVERANCE PAY
Ms Haslam: My question is for the Minister of Labour. In my riding, 110 workers have lost their jobs in the community of Milverton as a result of last July's closure of Deilcraft Furniture. Unfortunately, owing to federal bankruptcy laws, the hard-earned severance pay of these workers at Deilcraft is not protected, and as a result those 110 workers have lost $780,000 in moneys they are entitled to receive. I have spoken with the workers at Deilcraft, and they understand that existing legislation will not protect them. Can the minister advise us what steps his ministry is taking to ensure that the workers of this province receive the severance pay they are justly entitled to?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I can tell the member that I am aware of the Deilcraft closure in Milverton and of the efforts of the citizens' groups to assist the employees there. She is correct. The federal bankruptcy legislation does not cover workers in a situation such as this. It is something we have raised for some time. I myself have raised it with the federal Minister of Labour within the last two weeks, attempting to get a speedup in changes in federal legislation. However, I want to assure her that we will not wait on the feds to act on this. My own employment standards department is currently looking at legislation that will protect workers' severance pay in situations such as this.
Ms Haslam: The workers of Deilcraft have also lost a considerable amount in lost wages. The speech from the throne spoke of the wage protection fund. Can the minister advise the House on the status of this fund?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: The purpose of the wage protection fund is to protect workers who lose their wages or their vacation pay in a bankruptcy or receivership situation. The ministry has appointed a supervisor to begin the process of laying out the rules and regulations that will be called for in looking at situations like this. We hope to start calling, in December or right after Christmas, those who have already suffered in terms of receivership and bankruptcy cases and we would hope that we will hear from the Deilcraft employees' group about the kind of things they have run into in trying to protect the workers in that town.
HEALTH PROFESSIONS LEGISLATION
Mr Phillips: My question is to the Minister of Health. I think she well knows that thousands of health professions out there are awaiting the legislation on the health profession regulations. When the previous minister brought in the proposed legislation in June, I think all three parties agreed that it was time to take that legislation to committee and get on with it. Certainly the health professions are anxious to get on with it. I think the public is anxious to get on with it.
My concern is that if we wait until the spring session, we will lose at least six months on a very important piece of legislation. What I would like today is a commitment by the Minister of Health that we can have that legislation introduced now so that in terms of the consultation we can get on in January and February to dealing with it in committee rather than letting six more months go by. I would like that commitment today from the minister.
Hon Mrs Gigantes: The member has raised an issue which I consider very important. I have raised it with my House leader. I hope to carry forward in discussions with other House leaders the possibilities of getting this legislation back into the Legislature and into a period of review during the break so that we can move as quickly as possible on it.
Mr Phillips: Again, as part of that, I wonder if the minister might assure the House today that the legislation will be coming back as it was in June, because I think many of the health professions out there are anxious that there not be changes. If there is any thought of changes, they want to get very active right now. So that would be the second part of assurances that I would appreciate today.
Hon Mrs Gigantes: I can give the member the assurance that the legislation will come back in the same shape as in June. One additional item might touch on the matter of naturopathy, and in that we would very much look forward to having the contributions of members of this Legislature and indeed of the public during the hearing process.
NUCLEAR POWER
Mr Jordan: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Last Wednesday, the minister proudly announced that her government intends to avoid building any new nuclear plants, if possible, by instructing Hydro to increase and accelerate its efforts in demand management. Hydro's demand-supply plan for the next 25 years is currently before the Environmental Assessment Board. Taxpayers' money will be spent to hear public input on the feasibility of this plan, which includes some demand management but also includes the construction of new nuclear generating plants.
Given the minister's position on nuclear energy, will cabinet overturn any Environmental Assessment Board decision to continue with nuclear development?
Hon Mrs Carter: I think that is a hypothetical question. I think we shall have to wait and see what is going to happen in the years to come before we can give a definite answer to that. However, there are a lot of points to remember here. One is that although the recession is a problem for this province, nevertheless it does give us a breathing space as regards energy, because our energy use is not rising as fast as projected.
I could also state that there is no prospect whatever of power shortages even over the longer term because there are many reserve means of providing power that we can call upon. My government has great faith and belief in the efficacy of conservation and efficiency as a means of avoiding the need for generation of large quantities of current in the future. We also have large reserves of hydro possibilities that we can build as soon as they have passed the environmental assessment, which is being speeded up. We expect that large quantities of parallel power will be generated in the near future. We also believe that we are doing the right --
The Speaker: The answer, while being informative, is a touch long. We will allow the member to place his supplementary.
Mr Jordan: I would like to ask the minister --
Hon Miss Martel: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am going to raise this matter today as well, because I have very carefully timed the questions today with respect to the questions from the leaders. I can tell you they were far longer than the response from my colleague. If we are going to be fair in this House about apportioning time to all members, then I suggest we get on with that. But I can certainly tell you, Mr Speaker, that I watched that very carefully today, and the answer that was provided was not in excess, certainly, of the questions that were posed in terms of time early this afternoon.
The Speaker: It will not likely come as a surprise to anyone that the Speaker has been carefully monitoring both this question period and all previous ones. Quite frankly, there are some flaws on all sides, the subject of which will be dealt with by the Speaker in a subsequent sitting. For the time being, I am allowing the supplementary to be placed. I hope it is succinct, and I hope for an equally succinct reply.
Mr Jordan: If this government is so committed to adhering to the decision of the Environmental Assessment Board, as my party believes it should because it will have considered public input into Hydro's demand-supply plan, then I would suggest that her statement last Wednesday was nothing new. She is just keeping the status quo. The hearings of the Environmental Assessment Board will go on as previously planned. How can this minister continue to take the credit in this House for her government's supposed antinuclear policy when in fact she has done nothing to alter the position of her government?
1530
Hon Mrs Carter: I would just like to say that we believe, as I said, in listening to the input of all the intervenors in the environmental assessment. We shall obviously consider the outcome of that very seriously. I do not feel that we can further commit ourselves on that at this moment.
Mr Hayes: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I feel that my privileges as a member in this House have been abused because the member for St Catharines got up in the House and made a statement that our agricultural finance review committee was not going to be visiting his riding down in the Niagara area. In fact, the minister's office has notified the regional council down there and also notified the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and it was also given to the reporter for the St Catharines Standard.
The Speaker: It may be a point of interest, but not much more.
VISITORS
Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I have a point of privilege. You were kind enough earlier this afternoon to extend the use of your gallery to a group called the Peel Association for Handicapped Adults. We did have these visitors in the House this afternoon in their wheelchairs, with some other members in the public gallery, and I know that you would have wanted to have the opportunity to recognize their presence here. It is a very meaningful, very special visit on behalf of that association.
The Speaker: I wish to draw to members' attention that on special occasions, if they would be kind enough to notify the Speaker that there are specific groups seated in the Speaker's gallery, I would be most delighted to welcome them to our chamber.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO
Mr Laughren moved first reading of Bill 9, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
M. Laughren propose la première lecture du projet de loi 9, Loi autorisant les emprunts garantis par le Trésor.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
Hon Mr Laughren: The government requires authority to borrow in order to meets its obligations. Since a loan act was not tabled after the 1990 budget, I am tabling one now to provide borrowing authority for this fiscal year. Next year I will follow normal practice and table a loan act for 1991 immediately after the 1991 budget presentation.
CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990
Ms Wark-Martyn moved first reading of Bill 10, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act.
Motion agreed to.
INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990
Hon Ms Wark-Martyn moved first reading of Bill 11, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.
Motion agreed to.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (MISCELLANEOUS), 1990
Hon Mrs Boyd moved first reading of Bill 12, An Act to amend the Education Act.
Motion agreed to.
OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE CONSEIL SCOLAIRE DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE D'OTTAWA-CARLETON
Hon Mrs Boyd moved first reading of Bill 13, An Act to amend the Ottawa-Carleton French Language School Board Act, 1988.
Mme Boyd propose la première lecture du projet de loi 13, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1988 sur le Conseil scolaire de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
CITY OF YORK ACT, 1990
Mr Rizzo moved first reading of Bill Pr52, An Act respecting the city of York.
Motion agreed to.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
OPPOSITION DAY
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Mrs Sullivan moved opposition day motion 2:
That in the opinion of this House, since the Minister of the Environment has acknowledged that even under the most optimistic forecasts of reduction, reuse and recycling there will still remain more than three million tonnes of municipal waste within the greater Toronto area requiring disposal annually;
Has effectively absolved communities within the greater Toronto area of their responsibility to designate interim sites within their own boundaries to deal with the impending garbage crisis;
Has indicated she is prepared to exercise emergency powers to extend landfilling at Keele Valley and Britannia Road in excess of currently allowable volumes, thereby ignoring all safeguards under the Environmental Assessment Act, and order without a hearing of any kind the disposal of garbage into the proposed site 6B in Brampton and P1 Whitevale site;
Has refused to provide this Legislature and the public with the details of her waste reduction strategy, and
Since the present government has clearly abdicated its responsibility to protect the public and the environment, and has failed to provide a sound environmental plan to deal with the impending garbage crisis;
This House therefore calls upon the Minister of the Environment to provide that:
(i) A comprehensive waste reduction strategy be presented to the Legislature immediately for public debate and implementation;
(ii) No existing landfill sites will have their capacity expanded without full and public hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act;
(iii) No region can transport its waste to another municipality in the province without a resolution of the recipient municipality indicating that it is a "willing host" for such waste;
(iv) No regional landfill site that is coming on stream in a municipality having completed the environmental assessment process shall be required to accept municipal solid waste from outside the municipality by the Minister of the Environment's emergency powers;
(v) No new waste disposal sites will be designated within the province without the benefit of full and public hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act.
1540
Mrs Sullivan: I am pleased to be leading off the debate on this motion, which I believe is one of some urgency.
I think there is a fundamental rationale for putting forward this motion and that rationale is shock and, indeed, some anger. Like many others, my colleagues are shocked by the actions of the Minister of the Environment on waste management issues. We are shocked by her threats. We are shocked by her approach, shocked by her naïveté, shocked that she seems to care so little about the very demands that she made when she was in opposition, and shocked that she has so willingly abandoned the promises of the New Democratic Party green paper, of the New Democratic Party's Agenda for People and of the limited New Democratic Party agenda announced in the throne speech.
I am not alone in that shock. There are many people throughout Ontario who share it, and they are unhappy, they are disappointed and they are frustrated with the minister's lack of action. The base reason for that is that the minister seems to have compromised her principles. She made a great show of being an environmentalist when she was in opposition, but we are seeing a different face now.
We heard the Premier, in question period today, talk about political consistency. Well, I will tell the House that there is certainly none here.
It is not new knowledge that there has been a changed approach to solid waste management over the last decade in Canada, in Ontario, in our cities and in our towns and villages. It is not new knowledge that this approach had as its strongest proponent the member for St Catharines, the former Minister of the Environment, the current minister's predecessor.
The former minister, through his charm, through his doggedness, through his will, made integrated waste management strategy a top priority of every government at every level in this province. Because of his work, every industry, every hospital, every retail outlet, every school, every town council in Ontario was aware not only of the issue but of concerted action plans in which they, as individuals and groups, were participants.
On 10 March 1989 he announced to this House his program for solid waste management. Of the waste produced, 50% was to be diverted from landfill or incineration by the year 2000 and 25% of all waste generated would be eliminated by reduction or reuse. We would generate less waste to begin with, or we would reuse a product again and again for its original, or another, purpose. Another 25% of waste which was generated would be recycled. It would be separated and sorted, and materials would be extracted from it to make new products.
The other 50% of waste, which could not be reused or recycled or reduced. would necessarily be targeted for disposal at landfill sites or through energy recovery operations. Where disposal was necessary, there would be public protection through the environmental assessment process.
The former minister put his money where his mouth was, and I think the current Minister of the Environment would recognize that. The funds committed to the 3R program reached $54 million in this fiscal year, although I must say that we have not heard whether she intends to change, to reduce or to increase the commitments to that program.
The industrial 3R programs, which were initiated in about 125 industrial projects. were on target at 15% under the stewardship of the member for St Catharines. Recycling in our blue box communities is close to 15%, well on target. In total, under the stewardship of the member for St Catharines, some $225 million was going to be spent by the year 2000 for the 3R programs and master plans, and certificates of approval, which were integral to those plans, were being put into place.
Ontario was a leader in developing the national packaging protocol. We knew that packaging wastes in Canada had increased by 80% since 1960, we knew that every family in Canada was throwing away one long ton of packaging waste every year and we knew that four fifths of that packaging was ending up in dumps or incinerators. As a result largely of Ontario's initiatives in that area, a national packaging protocol was adopted in March 1990. That packaging protocol requires 50% diversion of packaging wastes by the year 2000, with interim phased targets to be met. With the concurrence of Ontario's waste advisory committee, there was a plan prepared to implement that in Ontario. It was ready to be brought to the House this fall. I say that the new minister could have brought that plan to the House, but we have seen no action. We have not seen the plan here.
Could it have only been a year ago, on 7 December 1989, when the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore issued a news release following opposition day debate in this House? In that release she indicated, and her leader the Premier indicated, that everyone knows we have an acute and massive garbage crisis in Ontario. That news release included some recommendations: ban the disposal of certain items at landfills province-wide instead of leaving it to the municipalities; require mandatory blue box recycling programs; institute a system of green taxes; set up a waste reduction office.
Those were her recommendations, and yet when the minister spoke to the House on 21 November, what did we hear? We heard, indeed, a repeat of, "There is a crisis in waste management." But how is she going to deal with it? She will use her emergency powers under the Environmental Protection Act to expand existing landfill sites or to open new ones. That is the only measure that she has addressed with any clarity or precision. Did she talk about product bans? No. Did she say that she would make the blue box program mandatory? No. Did she announce new green taxes? No, she did not. Did she set up a waste reduction office? No. She said that she will make sure that the tipping fees and the revenue generated by what waste remains are in fact reinvested in the three Rs.
Municipalities are now preparing their 1991 budgets. Have any of them seen or heard what she meant by this? Have any of them had any information about what will be required of them and what impact this will have on their operations? No, they have not.
The minister promised "firm and aggressive and decisive programs." Have we seen them? No, we have not. Instead, we have seen the minister jettison the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee initiative. When regional chairmen and their councils in the greater Toronto area were coming to terms with an integrated waste management strategy where the first priority for 50% of the greater Toronto waste to be diverted was given clear preference, where the other 50%, the three million tonnes per year still required disposal and where the disposal requirements were being approached logically, consistently for both the short and the long term, she threw it all away.
I am very familiar with the operations of that SWISC committee because I come from Halton, where we have spent an enormously long time going through an environmental assessment process in seeking a landfill site that divided our community and cost millions of dollars -- $37 million, I would tell members, in a community of 300,000. During that process of the SWISC action there was a thorough analysis of GTA waste management projections, of actions which have been taken to date, of potential for further action. There was a 3R action plan. I have it here. It involved the initiatives in the plans of all the communities within the GTA. There was public consultation and there were innovative and creative ideas put forward and expressions of interest from the private sector.
1550
There was also a recognition that demonstration projects may have to be put into place before the adoption of some unproven approaches, that indeed some of the traditional ways of approaching the issues may not in fact be the ultimate and appropriate ones.
There was a sense of urgency and I recall that words like "critical," "fast-tracking" and "expedite," were used throughout SWISC's documentation in its 3R action plan. The minister's response was to throw it all away, to set up a new authority whose mandate, she has told this House, has not been defined; whose composition, she told the House, has not been defined; whose time lines and whose authority, she told the House, have not been defined. We do not know yet when or how they will be defined. There is no plan; there is only a pipedream.
The one thing that the minister has said is that her authority would "search for and select new landfill sites for the GTA." It will not be involved in 3R activity and it may be set up in a year or so, after consultation on some of the things that I have mentioned: the mandate, the composition, the time lines and the authority.
But in a year or so we will have a real crisis on our hands. The Britannia Road site in Peel will be out of capacity in one year. The Keele Valley site in York region will be out of capacity in a little over two years. The Brock West site in Durham region will close in a little more than six months. The minister will use her emergency powers to keep the garbage not off the tennis courts, as she is wont to say, but out of our parks and roadsides and ditches and farms.
She will expand Britannia by fiat and Keele Valley and Brock and possibly the Rouge Valley site -- we did not get an answer to our question on that one -- despite the technical requirements of capacity and volume and contours and despite the knowledgeable views of people in the community. In the next phase, she will use her emergency powers, she has told us, to open the Brampton 6B site and the Whitevale Pl site. If the minister sees an emergency in the offing, why is she not demanding an environmental assessment of the expansion of the Keele Valley site now, of the Britannia site, of the Brock West site, of the Whitevale site and of the Peel 6B site? Why is she not demanding that now?
An environmental assessment would have reviewed the issues of leachate and ground water contamination. Those issues are already of concern at Keele. An environmental assessment would have reviewed the issues of nuisance, noise, dust, odour, truck transportation and volume. An environmental assessment would have guaranteed that people have a say, an opportunity for a hearing in public.
I had occasion earlier today to refer back to the minister's remarks in a debate much like this a year ago, on 7 December. I would like to read to you what she said then. She said:
"What are we doing in 1989 and 1990? We are moving backwards. We are saying that we can exempt sanitary landfill projects from the Environmental Assessment Act. The strength of course of the Environmental Assessment Act is that if you are evaluating a project under that legislation, it is incumbent upon the proponent to examine alternatives to the project that is being evaluated. Those alternatives are not just alternative locations for a sanitary landfill, but alternative ways of dealing with the garbage."
Is the minister now insisting on full environmental assessments? No. She said she will give us dumps by decree. That is a nasty signal to all of us. Where are her plans? Where are her timetables and her budget? If she has any, why have they not been put forward? Why has she not introduced packaging legislation or regulations? Consumers are demanding action. The national packaging protocol provides sound guidance for implementation and the Liberal government had a consensus agreement from the waste advisory committee to proceed this fall.
The minister said a year ago that certain items should be banned from landfill sites. Where is her legislation and where are her regulations? What about the gypsum wallboard and the construction wastes and the corrugated cardboard? Where are her plans? She said that a mandatory blue box program would be required across Ontario. It is already required in my home town, but where are the regulations that she demanded when she was in opposition?
Where are her green taxes? She must have consulted at some point with Stephen Shryban, who is counsel to the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and be familiar with the Canadian Bar Association committee report on sustainable development in Canada. She must have seen their options for law reform which included a graduated excess packaging tax which would reflect the environmental costs attributable to packaging. But where is the signal that there will be a green tax in Ontario? It certainly was not in the document that the Treasurer put before the House today. There have been no signals because there are no plans and no directions.
Where do we see any increment in demands for 3Rs activity in industry? There are none. Where is the waste reduction office? There is none. What we get is a new authority that will select a landfill site for the greater Toronto area, what we get are broken promises and what we get are irresponsible actions that would not have been tolerated under our government and I do not believe should be tolerated under this government.
The minister has had time to get her act together. She has had time to put her plans on the table. We have seen what could charitably be called a concept. But there are no targets, there are no budgets, there are no timetables, there is nothing that can be measured. We are shocked and angry and we want to hear where those plans are.
Mr Cousens: I just want to give real applause to the last speech and the member for Halton Centre, a one-handed clap, because I do not know where the Liberals were during the last few years with the kind of words that are now coming forth. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for this chance to participate in this debate.
[Applause]
Mr Cousens: Don't you guys clap because I am about to beat you up, I hope.
Mr Speaker, first of all, let me say kind words for you. It is a great pleasure to see you in the chair again. You have always been a very generous, benevolent dictator, and when you are in the chair, we have appreciated your leadership. Seeing you there now, until you get all that funny-looking regalia that we will put on you soon, you are looking very comfortable in the chair, and I know that you will be a very fair and equitable person in leading this House. Congratulations on your appointment by this House.
I have not had a chance publicly to commend the new Minister of the Environment for her elevation to the deity of Environment. I will be coming back to that theme, but I do wish her well. She looks good in green, and by the time she has had a term of office she might be choosing and wishing for a different colour. Notwithstanding that, on behalf of our party, I wish the minister well and know that it will be kind of fun for her to give leadership to something that she has had so much to say about in the past.
This is quite a motion. To think that the Liberals have resurfaced from what happened on 6 September in such a short period of time with this motion. I just cannot help but laugh. Have they forgotten all the things they did not do when they had the chance to do them? Here they are coming in now, self-righteous, as if we are all to have forgotten the four or five years of do-nothingness that they have been so good at. Now the Liberals come into the House and have a very good motion, which I am going to support by the way, but for them to be presenting it and for them to speak to it the way they did is really another sign of the times.
No wonder people do not have much confidence in politicians. When they are in opposition they say one thing, when they are in power they say another, and when they are out of power and go over to the opposition, then they can come back and be self-righteous again. If there is any lesson to what is going on in this Legislature, it has to do with how your positions change when you move from one side of the House to the next.
Is it any wonder that politicians have a lower rating than car salesmen? Right now we need more car salesmen to get the economy going than politicians just to burn this place up with -- empty, useless words that do not mean a thing, especially when you measure them against the actions. They had a chance to do something and they did not do it. I cannot believe it.
Sure enough, this Liberal government when we had it -- and it was too long and already I am beginning to feel the same feelings I had with them with the guys across the floor. Notwithstanding that, here they had the chance, and on 14 March 1989 they had their magnificent plan. They did not announce it in the House. They went up to the Ontario Science Centre and had a little meeting with all the regional chairmen. The Premier did not even involve his then Minister of Environment --
Hon Mrs Grier: The Minister of the Environment wasn't even there.
Mr Cousens: He was not even there. Yet this became their big environmental plan. The Premier came along and had this great big press conference with recyclable paper -- no, maybe it is not.
1600
Hon Mrs Grier: The first time he had ever used it.
Mr Cousens: The first time he had ever used it. The member is right.
They came out with a lot of plans, which this government has just reiterated, by the way. This government has come along and said the same kinds of things. "We're going to have waste diversion of 25% by 1992 and 50% by 2000." They have no idea how they are going to do it, none whatsoever, but none the less, those words just bring music to the ears of the people of the province of Ontario. They did then and maybe the government thinks they will now. They will not. We have learned once. We listened to these guys and hearing the same thing coming from the government right now does not give us a great sense of confidence.
Then the government came along and the Liberals said, "Create a state-of-the-art system for processing solid waste." What did they do on that? Sweet nothing to maximize industrial development opportunities. But they go on and have their innovative framework and words, words, words, and we got more words from the member for Halton Centre again today. If there is anything that is really causing this province to sit and wonder what is going on, it is just the words with no action plan, with no design and no strategy to take us there. The Liberals did a poor job, and I have little doubt that if the government just follows their plan, which I think it is doing, it is going to do an even poorer job because it has even started to mess up some of the things the Liberals were trying to do.
I really cannot believe we are into a situation as serious as we have today. It goes back to the very simple problem. As of February 1989 the greater Toronto area had a total of 15.7 million tonnes of landfill capacity. The projected landfill capacity for 1 January 1992 is 4.7 million tonnes. Assuming a current rate of waste diversion, the greater Toronto area is likely to experience a shortfall of landfill capacity some time in the first half of 1993. That is what we are dealing with. We have a crisis on our hands. Finally the minister at least has admitted to a crisis. A few weeks back, when she was meeting with Metropolitan Toronto chairmen and regional chairmen, she was sidestepping the word "crisis," but a few weeks ago she came in the House and said, "Yes, I think we have a crisis."
I like to compare the new Minister of the Environment to a prophetess. In the Old Testament days when someone was about to be anointed, he or she could speak out and the people of Israel looked at that person and said, "There is a voice sounding the true word, someone who has really got the inspiration from on high to lead people and to provoke thought and inspire confidence."
If anyone was Ms Environment, it was the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, none other, who was stirring the province with all her good words. Her questions to the Minister of the Environment were indeed among the best, and I am looking forward to having those back on the record. They are in Hansard once already. The member for Halton Centre already referred to some of them. There it is.
She has said it all before and now, as she is given the chance to be a true anointed one -- because on 1 October she had the hands laid on her by the Premier and she is now the goddess of the environment for the province of Ontario and what we are seeing now is someone who has lost the spirit, because when she was that simple little prophetess out there proclaiming the message, she had the spirit in her. Now she is no longer the strident, strong, stirring, steely-edged, stinging star of the days she was when she was sitting over on this side of the House.
I do not mean to say she has lost it totally. It might be there somewhere but we have not seen it and, in her announcements and pronouncements, we have no sense that it really is going to be there. She just cannot lose it that fast, but she is and the sense in this House is that her party is very quick to forget the promises she made prior to taking office. In the leaders' debate, her leader, the now Premier, said, in talking about the garbage problem: "The current crisis is Peterson's fault. He's been sitting on the issue and done nothing for a long time."
If she thinks she is handling the issue in a proactive way to lead us towards a solution, she is going to have the same thing said of her leader and herself, because she is going to have to have some kind of action plan to demonstrate proof that she is really committed to solving this.
Another thing the Premier said in the election leaders' debate was, "We have to deal with this issue in a fair and upfront way and there has got to be full environmental protection." If there is anything I agree with, it is that. We have to be up front and there has to be full environmental protection. If there is anything that is beginning to worry the people of the province of Ontario, it is the fact that we are not convinced that the minister is going to be up front and we are not satisfied that she has made the commitment to environmental assessment and environmental protection in as full a way as she should.
We have to see some action from her as minister. I venture to say she has the capability within her. When she was the prophetess out in the wilderness leading the New Democrats in their charge for environmental rights in the province of Ontario, it was not just New Democrats who were believing her. I think we all believed in the kind of thrust. I do not think there is anyone in this House who cannot say that he or she is not an environmentalist. If someone can stand up and enunciate clearly an environmental position, then I think every one of us should give respect to that person, regardless of the party or the partisan politics that are on here.
There is not any ministry that should not be involved in the solution of environmental issues. It is everybody's problem, every one of us. It is not one issue where you can say, "Oh, this is an issue that the government has priority over." Every one of us in this House and in this province has to buy into the environment as a major issue and show our constituents and all the people in this province that we are not only saying the right thing, but we are going to do the right thing and we are going to give leadership to it.
We have really got to see some immediate plans come from the minister that show that there is a mandatory waste reduction proposal to meet the targets of 25% diversion. We believe that recycling has to be done, but how is it going to be done? We still have no details on that program. We have no details on how much the minister expects to save from landfills, how much money she is prepared to give to municipalities for implementation of these proposals.
We have not heard from her enough to tell us really that there is a real, detailed plan that is in place within her ministry or within her own mind. Her call to prohibit valuable resource materials such as wood and cardboard at landfills fails to include any measures for providing secondary markets for these materials. You have to have a market for them. If you are going to take things out of the system right now that are going into landfill sites, then we have got to find a place where we can sell them, where we can use them, where we can take them to. You have got to involve industry in that process and not just try to do it as if you are the government doing it alone. You have to have everybody buying into the solution.
I also commended the minister when she and the member for Halton Centre voted for the member for Mississauga South's private member's bill on mandatory recycling. That was something that was significant in this House. Our own Ms Environment in the Progressive Conservative caucus and still one of the great leaders of environmental issues in my books brought forward a motion in this House that received the minister's support for mandatory recycling. What is she doing about it?
That is one way of putting teeth into her waste reduction measures and forcing more municipalities to look at that. She has Oxford doing it and Midland doing it. How many other municipalities have put any teeth into that? When the minister starts saying that she has got waste reduction measures, she has got words but she does not have a real plan to make it happen.
I am really interested as well in knowing what amendments are going to come forward from this government on the Environmental Assessment Act. The minister has those changes in her hands right now. She has got to have them. Why does she not release them to the House immediately?
She should do it today. She should do it as soon as possible so that the people who are interested in what those changes are going to be will have a sense of what it is.
The Liberals had them ready before they went to the election. Then they told their cabinet members just to sit on them until the election was over, and then they would start dropping them out one by one. We would like to see them. I think that it is up to the minister not to do the same thing her predecessors did in just making statements and saying, "Well, we'll bring it out in due time." At that point, they have got it in for translation services and then it is another delay.
Let's see what it is that the minister is going to be doing with regard to the Environmental Assessment Act. What amendments is she going to make? Why not table them so there can be public discussion on them right now. She has them. Does she admit that she has them? Sure she does.
1610
Hon Mrs Grier: I haven't got any.
Mr Cousens: Well, maybe they have not shown them to her in the ministry yet. They will give them to her and then she can come along.
As the prophet of old, the minister would have had more to say on what those changes were. Now that she is up in the deity, in the clouds of the gods, she does not seem to have the same information that she had when she was down here with us guys, so I just hope that the honourable minister, who is quite capable of coming out with these inspirational messages and these acts of leadership, can do it and should do it as Minister of the Environment, right now without further delay. Where are they? We want to see them. We need to see them. I think there needs to be public debate on them.
I also have tremendous concerns about the minister's new public garbage authority. She was very quick to criticize the Liberal government's strategy as not being environmentally sound, and yet the minister calls for a new authority to search for and select a long-term waste disposal site. The fact of the matter is that the Liberals had planned at least some kind of limited hearings on Whitevale and Brampton. The minister's new strategies have completely removed the possibility of that if she goes and uses her powers as a minister under an emergency situation. She will fall back on her interim plan and then she will be able to do what she wants to do, when she wants to do it, without the full environmental assessment, or even the environmental protection as the Liberals had promised.
The minister seems to have complete confidence that her waste reduction strategy and the changes in the environmental assessment process will give the province enough leeway to be able to get out of the problems we will have by 1994. I do not believe it and the people in the greater Toronto area do not believe it, and the fact of the matter is that the minister has still got her backup plans. Her backup plan could be that she will go and open up Whitevale.
They have stopped dancing out there now, I tell her, once they realized what it was the minister said, that it was not all that significant. They realize that they could still have an interim site in Whitevale, that they could still have an interim site in Brampton, and that she could come along and take Keele Valley and allow it to be expanded and increased, that what she might end up doing is putting another mountain on top of what is there already in order to handle a year's garbage.
The minister's solutions do not begin to address the problem we have right now with landfill sites. If she thinks she can do it just by recycling, it is a noble gesture, a good suggestion, a good idea, but if it does not have teeth in it, it is not going to be sufficient to solve the problem. She is still going to have garbage that has to be placed somewhere.
What I am saying is that the minister has nothing concrete. We have more words from this minister and that does not give me the sense of confidence that she is about to do what is right.
Mr Elston: Aren't you a member of the good news fraternity?
Mr Cousens: What I am trying to do is just lead off so that a few others from our caucus can have a chance for a few kind words to the Minister of the Environment, but I have a few points to close with.
The first is that clearly, in my mind and in the minds of our caucus, there is an about-face on the part of the Premier and the minister with the way in which they are dealing with environmental assessment, the way in which they are dealing with openness and the way in which they are dealing with these issues. They made promises prior to being elected about what they would do with regard to environmental assessment for all sites, and now she is prepared, as minister, to forget those promises. Those are too big to forget. It is clearly an about-face on the part of the minister and the Premier.
My next point is that during the election campaign and before, the minister was adamant that there must always be environmental assessment hearings. It is absolutely imperative that she continue to have that thrust and that she not sidestep that issue now and in the future. It is also important that she have detailed plans for waste reduction and for mandatory recycling. She has to come and lay out how it is going to happen. She cannot just sit up there on her high throne in the clouds and make more pronouncements without telling those of us down here how it is going to be done.
Even if the current diversion targets are met, the greater Toronto area is still likely to experience a shortfall in landfill capacity. We are about to have a crisis, and the people in the greater Toronto area are not going to have an easy solution to it. She will end up having the tennis courts filled with it. She is going to end up having many, many problems because we will not have a satisfactory site.
I happened to listen to what Paul Christie was saying. He is chairman of Metro's works committee. He says that the minister has dumped a process because it offered less protection for one that offers no protection. Under the Liberals we had a little bit. Now she is taking it further and giving us no protection. Vaughan Mayor Lorna Jackson has vowed a bitter fight with the province if it intends to proceed with plans to extend the Keele Valley dump site.
I am saying we have a situation on our hands that is not being dealt with fully or correctly or completely by this minister. I am sure that if the minister still acted as the Environment critic she would have some solutions to offer. Now that she has been moved into this high office, she has somehow tripped over herself. She has lost sight of the vision she once had. She is now dealing with the kind of words that we had previously from the member for St Catharines when he was Minister of the Environment. She is now sitting up there, listening to something that just does not make sense.
We hope that very soon the minister will come to her senses and come forward with a strategy that means something, something that will protect the environment, and that she will continue to be what she was before, a protector of environmental rights rather than someone who is going to break them. We are concerned over that.
This opposition motion by the Liberals, again, is quite a change in stance for them, but at least they had the courage to come forth with it today. They did not have any sense of knowing what to do when they were in power, so at least today they are maybe waking up. They will have a few years to really wake up and see what it is like on the other side. We are seeing what they are doing -- it is not very much; the minister can see what she did -- it was even less.
Hon Mrs Grier: The member for Markham is always a hard act to follow. I do not think I have ever been called a prophetess before, and to be elevated from prophetess to goddess in the course of one speech is a compliment that I will accept from whence it came.
I also want to say to the member for Markham that I appreciate the critique he included in his remarks of the member for Halton Centre, because that saves me from using some of my limited time telling the House about the inconsistencies, the confusions and certainly the light-year change in the attitude of that government from when they sat here to now that they are in opposition.
I regret if the member feels I have not accomplished in two months what her government failed to do in five years, but let me assure her that I certainly intend to do what I set out to do, which is to propose and to implement in this province an integrated waste management strategy, something we have not had before. I look forward to the support of the member for Halton Centre and the member for Markham when we introduce the elements of that strategy that will require the support of the members of this House.
I hope that in the course of the debate this afternoon we can have a constructive approach to the issues we face, that we can hear from members on all sides their contributions to the solutions of the problems we face, because we have a problem. We in fact have a crisis. It is a crisis that exists not just in the greater Toronto area, but all across this province. The legacy of inaction, of misplanning, of lack of any aggressive action on waste management that we inherited when we took office is quite startling. The member for Halton Centre would say "quite shocking."
Let me tell the House the situation with respect to waste management across this province. There are 1,400 active landfills in the province. Some 160 of them are expected to be full within two years. Some 350 more will be full within five years. The average Canadian generates 1.7 kilograms of waste per person per day; in the greater Toronto area that figure is 3 kilograms per person per day. Across the province, 90% of municipal solid waste goes to disposal; 10% is being diverted. That government set up targets: 25% diversion by 1992 and 50% beyond that, but it did not put in place any plans, any strategies, any programs to get us to those diversion rates. That is what this government is going to do.
1620
The problem we have of wasting so much of our resources is an economic one as well as an environmental one. For too long we have looked for ever bigger and bigger sites to dispose of the garbage that we generate, rather than trying to reduce the amount of waste that we generate and looking upon that waste as a resource that is in fact wasted. That is the approach this government is going to take and that is the approach with which we look at both the short-term and long-term problems.
The previous government introduced the blue box program; the emphasis was on recycling. Recycling was the answer to everything as far as they were concerned. They were afraid to tackle the problems of reduction of garbage and the need to reuse our resources. They were afraid to move aggressively with regulations. They were afraid to put in place mandatory programs. They relied on the voluntary sector with the emphasis on recycling. Last September the people of this province voted for a new approach and they are going to get that new approach. They are going to get an integrated waste management system. To put that in place requires a major overhaul of the existing system.
I know the opposition wants to have all the answers today. Let me say to them that that is not possible for two reasons. First, it is not realistic to think that we can turn around in two months something that, as I say, took them five years to create. Second, it is very important to this government that we involve the people of this province in the discussion and in the resolution of these issues, because we do not believe the government can do it alone. We believe there are municipalities out there, industries out there, environmental groups and consumer groups, all of which have contributions to make in looking seriously at waste reduction and at our waste management system. An opportunity for those people to work in partnership with the government is much more likely to reach a solution to the problem than for me to come in here today and say, "This is what we're going to do, like it or lump it."
Our plan is going to take seriously the hierarchy of the 3Rs. We are going to be looking at reducing, reusing, and then recycling. We are going to be looking at the planning of the disposal system in this province. We know how many waste management master plans are in the course of preparation right across this province, and we know the hundreds of hours and the thousands of dollars municipalities have spent in trying to prepare those plans. We know that the inability of the previous government to administer the system led to frustration and cynicism on the part of many of those municipalities. That is why our policy is designed both to put reduction seriously in place and also to reform the planning process and to adhere firmly to the principles of the Environmental Assessment Act, but to make that act work better.
We had in this House, just about a year ago, a debate on an opposition motion of mine. That motion spelled out very clearly the policies of this government. I want to say that those are still the policies of this government and that those are the policies I will be moving aggressively to put in place.
Let me remind the House of what that motion said. It said that we would adopt the 3Rs in a hierarchical system: reduce, reuse, recycle. It said we would establish a waste reduction office. It said we would legislate mandatory waste reduction and mandatory source separation, that we would pass regulations to prevent the disposal of materials and products for which waste reduction alternatives exist, that we would phase out some kinds of packaging and that we would use financial incentives and disincentives such as a graduated waste management surcharge system to favour reduction and reuse of products.
The motion that we put in place last December, and which was supported on all sides, called upon the government to introduce the needed legislation and to establish the required policies at the opening of the March 1990 session of the Legislature. Did the Liberal government act on that resolution? We all know that they did not and we all know that is why the crisis exists in our province today. That is why the people of the province have put in place a government that is prepared to act in the spirit of that resolution and that is prepared to put in place the necessary regulations to make sure we seriously reduce the garbage that is being generated in this province.
There are a number of very good ideas out there. There are a number of very good initiatives. But there is an incredibly uneven performance in the achievement of any reduction, reuse and recycling. The region of Halton achieved 23% reduction for 1990 -- it is their target -- but for the region of York it is 5%. There is no consistency in the policies, in the support from the provincial ministry. There is no system in place to get serious about reduction and that is what we are going to do.
There is an enormous amount of goodwill out there for the initiatives I introduced and mentioned in this House. There is an enormous amount of support, and constructive suggestions out there about what we should do. We are consulting widely. We have already begun to consult and have met with environmental groups, and we hope the opposition will share with us its constructive ideas as to how we can resolve the issue.
When it comes to moving on the approvals side of the equation, the past government was very quick to take shortcuts with the approvals process. They were not prepared to take shortcuts to get to reduction. We have clearly said that we do not see the need for interim sites.
We know that we can move aggressively on the 3Rs and that we can reform the environmental assessment process so that the frustrations, the delays, the roadblocks in the way of reaching a long-term site for the greater Toronto area and for all those other municipalities that lack disposal capacity will be eliminated.
The document that is available, which I am going to release very shortly, that was prepared for the previous government and was referred to by the member for Markham spells out some ways in which the Environmental Assessment Act can be improved. It does not spell out the specific amendments and I will be looking for some feedback from the opposition, as well as from people across the province, as to what those appropriate amendments should be.
Let me tell the House that those amendments are designed to improve the opportunities for public participation in the environmental assessment process much earlier than is now the case, that those changes look for an early identification of the issues to be dealt with during the environmental assessment process, and that those amendments will look to put time limits on different parts of the process so that the frustrations and the delays I have alluded to are no longer there. The region of Halton took 11 years to go through the environmental assessment process to get a landfill site, 11 years and countless dollars. That is no longer acceptable and that is not what the people of this province want.
The initiatives of reduction and of improvements to the Environmental Assessment Act will benefit people all across the province, and here in the greater Toronto area they will greatly facilitate the search for a long-time site and eliminate the need for interim sites and for emergency sites. I hope that the members opposite will lend their support to our efforts to get serious about reducing garbage so that not one extra tonne of garbage than needs to happen goes into Keele Valley or Britannia or Brock West.
The motion that we are debating today is very confused in many of its elements, confused in the preamble and confused and contradictory in its resolution. It is not a motion this government is prepared to support. It is not a motion that contributes to what has to be the bottom line, what is best for the environment of this province. Seeking ever bigger and bigger disposal sites is not what is good for the environment of this province.
This government has indicated that it is prepared to give the kind of leadership that has been lacking in dealing with waste management, that we are prepared to make the tough decisions and that we are prepared to move aggressively to make mandatory some of the things the opposition is calling for today, but which they were not prepared to do when they stood on this side of the House.
1630
We are going to give opportunity to people across the province to join in a partnership with this government within the greater Toronto area. It will be a partnership between the regions and the province, across the province. We will be working with municipalities, environmental groups and community groups to put in place the kind of programs that are appropriate to their community, because what works in Metropolitan Toronto may not work in Haliburton. We need to be able to work with those people to make sure we are helping them do what they want to do, what they have said they have wanted to do and what they elected a government to do, which was get serious about reducing waste in this province, not continue to dispose of it by means that are not good for the environment. That is our bottom line.
I stated at the beginning that we had inherited a legacy of waste disposal problems from one end of the province to the other. It is not our intention to leave a legacy of environmental disaster garbage sites for our children and for our grandchildren in the years ahead in this province.
Mr Offer: I rise today in support of the motion of my colleague. I have had occasion, of course, to listen to the honourable minister. The minister should be very much aware that as a result of her announcement of 21 November there has been created a very real emergency not only in my riding of Mississauga North but throughout the city of Mississauga and region of Peel.
My riding is home to the Britannia landfill site, which is the recipient of garbage for all of Peel and has been for many years. The minister's decision of 21 November effectively put a stop to an environmental protection hearing which would have selected an interim site in north Brampton. Her decision impacts directly upon us in Mississauga North and throughout Mississauga and the region of Peel.
I want to talk about that impact and talk about four realities. Reality number 1: The Britannia landfill site has approximately one year until it reaches capacity. Everyone in my riding knows this; everyone in Peel knows this. In fact, the minister knows this. It is found in her own backgrounder, which reads: "The Britannia Road landfill site services the waste disposal needs of Peel region. It will close by the end of 1991."
Reality number 2: It will take much more than a year to complete the hearings for a new site. By stopping the hearings at this time, a time gap or, better still, a garbage gap has been created. This garbage gap is the time between the date that Britannia reaches capacity, one year from now, until the new date when a new site can be created. I believe that today that garbage gap is probably in the vicinity of one, two or three years.
Reality number 3 is made up of three parts. When Britannia reaches capacity and there is no other site to be used in Peel for the disposal of our garbage, it means of necessity that we will have to transport our garbage to another site, wherever that may be. The taxpayers in the region of Peel will have to pay increased transportation costs. The economics are simple. The greater the distance you have to transport garbage, the greater the cost.
The second part of this reality is that the region of Peel receives what are called tipping fees. If there is no site in the region to dispose of garbage, then there are no tipping fees to be received.
The third part of this reality is that if the region has to transport to another site it will have to pay that other site tipping fees. When one adds up those three parts of this third reality, increased transportation costs, loss of tipping fees paid, payment of tipping fees, the total, as advised by the region, is $100 million.
The fourth reality, and I find this to be most objectionable and disturbing, is that when the Britannia landfill site reaches capacity and another site in Peel has not yet been determined and the province is unwilling to pay for the extra costs in terms of transportation fees, tipping fees lost and tipping fees having to be paid, it will be apparent that the only other solution is to extend the Britannia landfill site, to extend this site without hearing, without public consultation. As the local representative, I find that to be totally unacceptable. Even more, I find it unacceptable because the minister in her own words states it would be "irresponsible to take risks with public health and safety."
The question in the final analysis is, why would the minister then permit the potential expansion of Britannia on her order, as already admitted? That cannot be done. It cannot be allowed to take place.
In our region, our municipal representatives have recognized the demands and challenges of waste disposal and the need for a new landfill site. They took action, they planned, they were ready, and now the minister's announcement puts all that planning, that expense to be ready and the willingness to meet that challenge to naught. The minister has broken a promise that there would be a full hearing.
On the basis of these four realities, I cordially invite the minister to come to the Britannia landfill site one year from now to close that Britannia landfill site, to attend the closing of a site that has been the recipient of Peel garbage for many years. The minister's attendance is welcome; a minister's emergency order to extend this site, to create a tower of trash without public consultation and hearing, is not. Do not fail us, Madam Minister.
Mrs Marland: The irony of getting up today to speak to this opposition day motion placed in the name of the member for Halton Centre is that it is placed by a Liberal member. It is an incredible irony when you get into what is actually said in this motion. I am not saying I am in full agreement with all of the announcements and decisions made by the current Minister of the Environment a week ago, but it has to be very significant that the Liberal opposition in this House is supporting a motion with some of what is in it.
I do give the member for Halton Centre, who is momentarily out of the House, full credit for the fact that she did support my private member's bill to make mandatory recycling a responsibility of all the municipalities in this province. However, at that time the balance of the Liberal government members in this House saw fit to vote against my private member's bill, therefore defeating a requirement that all municipalities in this province offer a basic recycling program in terms of at least the blue box program.
Remembering that the blue box program was in fact introduced by the former Conservative government in this province, we might as well lay all the laurels and all the credits where they belong. It certainly was our party which introduced that system of recycling and started the initiative. How ironic that the Liberal government, when it took over and was faced with the same crisis in waste management in this province that is now being faced only in an accelerated form, could not even see the value in mandatory recycling. Except for two members of their caucus, one of them being the member for Halton Centre, they voted against my private bill on that issue.
Now we have today a motion from the Liberal opposition party that says some very interesting things. One of the aspects of the motion that I find particularly significant is that they say, "No existing landfill sites will have their capacity expanded without full and public hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act." They go on to say in item 5 of the resolution that, "No new waste disposal sites will be designated within the province without the benefit of full and public hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act."
1640
I say to the member for Halton Centre, although I give her credit for the content of this motion, that I hope she has been able to convert all the other members of her caucus who I assume were behind the former Premier, because it was a very bad day in this province when Premier David Peterson made the announcement. I emphasize that it was the Premier who made the announcement, because it was not even the Minister of the Environment who made the announcement but Premier David Peterson who announced in this province that all interim landfill sites would be exempt from the full Environmental Assessment Act.
Is this not significant? Because now we have the Liberal caucus standing today and saying that everything has to go through the Environmental Assessment Act. All I can say to our Liberal members is welcome aboard. Finally, they have seen the light and finally they are on side with us. The significance of the difference between the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act has finally come through. We are very happy that although they are not in the government any more, they finally do realize what is necessary. We are only hoping that the current Minister of the Environment, who also believed when she was in the opposition that all landfill sites had to be subjected to full environmental assessment -- We only hope that the full Environmental Assessment Act will be applied to the approval of any new landfill sites in this province.
It is also significant, of course, to realize that our new Premier has also given assurances and promises about where he stands on this terribly important issue. In the 1990 election leaders' debate, the Premier said: "Reducing packaging and the amount of garbage is not a long-term solution. That's a short-term solution." He went on to say, "We have to deal with this issue in a fair and upfront way, and there's got to be full environmental protection."
I simply ask both the Premier and his Minister of the Environment how it is that in such a short time, less than three months, they can say one thing to the people of this province and yet in their own announcement say something that is very different and, in fact, very regressive.
To ask the region of Peel to expand and extend the life of the Britannia landfill site along with the Keele Valley site is a very significant request and totally unrealistic. We have to be very concerned about some of the solutions that are being brought forward on the management of waste in this province. I am not saying I am not sympathetic to the current Premier and his Minister of the Environment. I certainly concur with their comments that they have inherited an accelerated mess after five years of Liberal government in action. But I am saying that we will plead with them that, being the committed environmentalists we were led to believe -- and certainly every position they ever gave in this House confirmed that -- now that they are the government, we would hope they are not going to change their commitment to the preservation of the environment.
In fact, it is rather ironic, because one of the landfill sites they want to expand -- namely, Britannia, as I mentioned a moment ago, in the region of Peel -- is one of the landfill sites that has not accepted wood or cardboard for the last three years. They are already doing something about the diversion so that they do not accept unnecessary materials for their site. The irony is, however, that the current Minister of the Environment has not given any credit for what is currently going on in operating sites.
She talked in her announcement about having a discussion document on the Environmental Assessment Act. I would say to that minister, in fact I would plead with her, to please not go the route of the typical Liberal solution, which was, "Let's get a discussion document out." When the minister was in opposition, she said there had been enough talk. I am standing here today saying there has been enough talk and enough discussion. We do not need any more. What we need today, now, are the solutions and not the discussion papers. In fact, the Canadian Environmental Law Association four years ago brought forward some very worthwhile recommendations to deal with the waste management crisis in this province. Certainly, when we look at how accelerated that crisis is today, there is no reason we have to have another discussion document: We simply say that if the environmental assessment process is a problem, we know it is a problem through the approvals branch of the Ministry of the Environment.
There is no question that under the full Environmental Assessment Act, the process is elongated. It is too costly in terms of the length of time it takes to get these approvals. The solution is for the minister simply to hire contract staff in the approvals branch of the Ministry of the Environment and expedite the turnaround time for the comments for these applications for landfill sites. We do not have to shorten the process in terms of the investigation and the thoroughness. I want to emphasize that. We do not want to put the environment at risk because we expedite something. I am simply saying it can be just as thorough under the Environmental Assessment Act if the ministry would hire contract staff to expedite the process. In expediting the process with contract staff, what happens is that we end up with contract staff that are not permanent additions to our bureaucracy in this province. Once we get caught up with the backlog of applications. then those staff no longer have to stay in the employ of the Ontario taxpayers.
There is a solution to streamlining the Environmental Assessment Act without going out for more consultation and more discussion. I certainly hope this Minister of the Environment will make some decisions instead of putting us in a position we have been in for the last five years, which is the same old Liberal solution to everything. The Liberal solution was to produce a discussion paper and send it out for comment. When the comment came back, they filed it. We got so many reports on so many different issues in the last five years which cost the taxpayers of this province millions of dollars. Those reports just sit on a shelf somewhere gathering dust.
We simply say to this minister that the solutions are there for waste management. It takes leadership to exercise those solutions that exist. We cannot just keep dumping off the responsibility. I use the word in the literal sense. We cannot simply dump off the responsibility to other causes and look for other remedies. The remedies are there. We do not yet know whether this new authority the minister has established is a crown corporation. We do not know whether it is going to operate similarly to the water and sewer crown corporation that the Liberal government established. What it is doing is simply putting something out there that creates another level of bureaucracy which costs more money to the Ontario taxpayers.
I am going to complete my comments, because we are short of time. We simply ask this Minister of the Environment to please show her own direction and her own leadership and not send us round the same circuit we have been around the last five years with the Liberal government. We say to her and above all we plead with her not to use emergency powers in dealing with the expansion and extension of existing landfill sites in this province without full environmental assessment. The full environmental assessment can be done if she has the will to apply the number of staff needed to expedite the process, and then we will not be in a position where something as critical as the expansion of the Britannia landfill site in the region of Peel ends up being the solution because nothing has been done in a real, strong, strategic way.
1650
Ms Churley: I want to spend just a few minutes telling members a bit about my background. I promise I will not bore them with a lot of details like the time I was kissed by Joey Smallwood when I was a baby and that sort of thing, which turned me against the Liberals for ever.
However, I do think it is important for members to realize that not all of us on this side of the House, and I am sure over there, are bankers or lawyers or from the business community. A few of us happen to be from community grass-roots organizations, and I am serious. I would like to let members know a little bit about the perspective that I bring to this issue, as the parliamentary assistant to the environmental goddess sitting to my left, as she has been labelled today.
In 1983 I became the first president of Citizens for a Safe Environment. As members may know, that is a local group in Riverdale which was formed to be the intervenors against the city of Toronto's plans for an environmental assessment for a giant incinerator in our backyard, in an area that was already highly polluted. Getting into that organization made me become very involved in waste management issues. Then in 1988 I ended up running for city council, mainly on environmental issues from the grass-roots perspective.
In my short time at city hall I brought many environmental issues to city council. I would like to list a few of them: water conservation; trying to get post-consumer, de-inked paper; energy-efficient office; trying to green city hall, as we are trying to do here now at the Legislature, among other issues. One of the things that I ended up doing was getting city council to support me and asking the then Liberal government to allow the city enabling legislation so that we could begin to ban certain kinds of packaging in the city of Toronto because the Liberal government was not doing it.
Now, it is ironic -- at that time I did not even know I was running for here -- that on my first day in the House I ended up introducing that bill to this government. We shall see what happens with that, but it is rather ironic.
Mr Sorbara: What does this have to do with Joey Smallwood? What is this about? What is she talking about?
Ms Churley: But I am getting to the point here.
What I discovered at that time was that we were not, as a municipality, getting the leadership that we needed from the provincial government in order to tackle the waste management problems that were engulfing us, as they are every municipality. That is something that this government wants to change and has to change. There has to be a partnership, and that is not a cliché. There has to be a partnership and there has to be leadership coming from the provincial government. There has to be fairness across the board however we approach this issue, and that in fact is what we are doing.
It absolutely astounds me here today to hear the former Liberal government and the former Conservative government talk about all that they have done on this issue. The reality is, both past governments have stood back and dithered while the current waste management crisis grew. Unfortunately, disposal had been targeted as the centrepiece of the previous government's waste management strategy. Then when they got a little bit of a message that they had to change that a little, it became clear that the focus had to change a bit. The biggest mistake was emphasizing recycling at the cost of the sound and less resource-consuming solutions like refillable containers. There is a bit of a myth around that the Liberals brought in the blue box program. In fact, the Conservatives may be pleased to know, if they do not, that it was brought in around 1975 under the Davis government, a minority government. Then the Liberals, as I mentioned yesterday, released relaxed soft drink quotas in favour of the blue box.
I am not knocking the blue box. It is a good thing for people to be involved, but it is such a tiny, tiny part of the solution, and the real answer is reduction. We know that. That is the only solution to this waste management crisis. That is it. That is the area that we have to move in as quickly as we can, and what that involves is getting serious about the problem and regulating, using our enforcement powers and our fiscal powers to bring in regulations where necessary. We regulate with liquor laws, we regulate traffic, we regulate in all kinds of areas and people do adjust. This is where we are heading, in this direction.
We are also listening to groups like the It Is Not Garbage Coalition, which tells us very clearly, as we all know, garbage is not garbage, it is a resource that we can reuse. We must start moving in that direction. These people are at the forefront of the new direction in which we have to think about garbage. It is not garbage any more.
They are at the very forefront, and a few years down the road people will not laugh as they did when they read Silent Spring. We were told that DDT was a dangerous substance and politicians and scientists laughed at that time. We now know what DDT does to people. A few years from now people will not be laughing at this concept. That is the direction in which we have to move.
We are moving in that direction, we are to use that C-word, consulting, because the difference is, we are going to tell people that we are regulating and we are going to sit down and consult with people about how to do it, not sit down and say: "Gee, we think we may have to regulate. Do you think you might go along with it, industry and consumers and everybody else?" We are going to do it because it has to be done.
In closing, I would like to make a point that we are not paying lipservice to the 3Rs as the other previous governments have, and that is why we are in crisis. This waste management plan we have walked into is in chaos. You do not really expect the Minister of the Environment, a few weeks after taking office, to take this chaotic situation and suddenly have all the answers. That is ridiculous. In five or 10 years, the chaos has been created.
I would just like to say that we are not going to make the communities be the only ones to pay for this crisis. That is what the Liberal government did. The Liberals said: "We need interim sites. We are going to put them in your backyards, with just the Environmental Protection Act." They did not say to the producers of waste, "We have a crisis and therefore we are going to have to regulate you." They said, "Gee, you can have all the time in the world to think about this, and then maybe volunteer when the day comes." What we are saying is, everybody has to get in on this act and that industry and commercial sectors have to share the burden by accepting regulations.
The minister will be announcing in a short time. We are working very hard on this issue. It is a top priority. We realize that it is a crisis. We realize that we have been left with chaos, and we will have a rational, carefully thought out plan, I am sure, to bring before this House very soon.
1700
Mr Sorbara: We have now been sitting in this House for three, almost four weeks, I guess. The minister made her announcement back on 21 November. She said in her speech that it was well received among environmental groups around the province. I followed the press the day of the announcement and subsequent to that and I did not see one endorsement of the minister's plan from any environmental group.
Let me tell the minister before she leaves the room that the very night she made the announcement, she had the opportunity to speak with one of the province's and, indeed, one of the nation's most outstanding environmental crusaders and environmental critics and environmental advocates, a woman named Lyn MacMillan, whom you will know, Mr Speaker, and whom I think most of the members of this House will know has been active in this area for several years. In fact, she was the woman who helped design the Niagara Escarpment plan and saved the escarpment from the kinds of ravages that were being proposed for it.
I want to tell members of this House that Ms MacMillan, in talking with the minister that night, condemned her plan from beginning to end. She said it was not workable, that she could not do it, that her timetables and lack of plans were totally unrealistic and that she was setting back the process of dealing with a very serious issue many years. So her statement today that her plans have been well received is simply untrue. The worst thing about what the minister has done here is that she has incorporated into her plans something which violates fundamentally the principles that she and her party argued for the five years while I have been a member of this House.
During the debate that she referred to, the debate of almost exactly a year ago -- these are the minister's words, and I hope the member from Essex-whatever-it-is can leave the minister alone for a moment because I want her to hear these words. She said a year ago, the following: "The result of the minister's attitude and the fact that so many of these dumps are now going to be looked at under the Environmental Protection Act as opposed to the Environmental Assessment Act, is that the municipalities and the groups -- the representatives of some of them are here today -- share a very common and legitimate concern, that the sites will not be adequately evaluated."
What has the minister done? In three sites in this province, in the greater Toronto area, she has said that she will have no process at all, that she will decide, that she will be the czar of the environment, that she will use her emergency powers to decide whether or not those sites will stay open.
When the glass of water is filled, if you put anything more into it, it spills. And that mess, I tell the minister, will contaminate the province. She simply cannot do it.
Now, she has an ambitious plan. We do not know the details, we do not know the budgets, we do not know the timetables.
Hon Mrs Grier: Will you support it?
Mr Sorbara: The minister says, will I support it? I will tell her that when she brings in the details. I will support it on one condition: that she retract her commitment to use her emergency powers, that she will not, under any circumstances, use her emergency powers to expand sites when they are full.
The irony and the great defect in her suggestion back on 21 November that she would use emergency powers is simply this. I will use Keele Valley as the example. Keele Valley has capacity to take garbage for another three or three and a half years based on the current rate. The minister said, "We do not think we will need additional interim sites."
I want to tell her that we are still in 1990, that if she is serious about not needing any interim sites, she can announce today in this debate, or tomorrow or next week, the fact that in order to avoid the arbitrary use of emergency powers in all of the potential sites she said she might have to look to, she will start right away with some hearing process.
She advocated the Environmental Assessment Act, and that is certainly what the people of Maple want, what the people of Vaughan want, what the people of York region want and what the people of Ontario want. Let her choose any hearing process, but certainly with three years available in order to consider the matter --
Hon Mrs Grier: York was going to nominate it as an interim site under your process.
Mr Sorbara: The minister says no one will nominate her, but today, tomorrow or next week she could, in her interim plans, simply announce that she will not use her emergency powers -- that will solve the defect of this strategy -- and announce that she will give the people of this province the very hearings that she herself argued for for five years in this House. I call upon the minister to do it.
Mr B. Murdoch: I am pleased to be able to address the resolution presented by the honourable member for Halton Centre as it relates to municipalities across Ontario. The resolution states that "No region can transport its waste to another municipality in the province without a resolution of the recipient municipality indicating that it is a 'willing host' for such waste." Our party has always believed this and I have no difficulty in supporting this concept. Indeed, in the Toronto press on 19 August of this year my leader was quoted as saying that no municipality should have to take any other area's garbage unless it agrees to do so and that the region with the problem should have to find a willing host.
I realize that this resolution deals with the greater Toronto area, but I would like to point out in the House that this is not just a Toronto problem but one that is affecting or will soon affect many parts of the province. It is now municipalities outside the GTA that may be pressured to take waste which is not their own, as in the case this summer in Orillia.
I am a little surprised at this member from the Liberal Party who is raising this issue for debate. I realize that the honourable member's riding could be directly affected, but I wonder why her government did nothing to prevent this situation from occurring when it had the chance.
In the last five years we in Ontario have realized that time is quickly running out and that we will soon be faced with emergency situations. Over two years ago the former Minister of the Environment predicted that at least 160 municipalities would run out of landfill space by 1990 and that another 150 would need additional landfill capacity within the next 10 years, yet the minister did nothing about it. Since taking office in 1985, the minister approved only five new landfill sites. Therefore, it seems strange that the member for Halton Centre is focusing on this new government, which at least seems to understand that the environmental assessment process must be more efficient and effective, even if it may not do it quickly enough, rather than on her own party. There was a lack of planning by the Peterson government and now the municipalities will be asked to bail out the province, which caused the problem in the first place.
Many municipalities have helped find a solution, have implemented blue box recycling programs. We all agree this is an important initiative, but as of March 1990 only 16% of waste from households using blue boxes has been diverted from landfill sites and the municipalities are finding the cost of funding these programs fairly heavy to bear.
I am pleased that the minister plans to reduce packaging. Our party advocated that as well during the recent election campaign and I applaud the minister for listening to us. The problem is that the minister has released no details as to how she plans to achieve her reduction goals. Municipalities are suffering because of this lack of detail and some, like Metro Toronto, are being forced to consider their own agenda, which includes a limit on household garbage and a user-pay system. If every municipality is forced to do this, we will have a completely uneven system across the province. The minister states that she is going to further fund recycling programs, but again, municipal councils do not know how much or when the funding will begin. I ask the minister to consult with local governments on this issue as quickly as possible so that they will have some idea of what this government expects of them.
Mr Wiseman: It is indeed a pleasure to rise on this occasion to speak to this resolution. Before I do that, though, Madame Speaker, I would like to congratulate you and the other Speakers of the House on attaining your positions and I would like to congratulate all the members who have been elected. Since this is the first time I have had a chance to speak, it is indeed a pleasure to honour everybody by congratulating them.
I would like to also congratulate the Minister of the Environment, because I believe that what she has done is the most courageous event that has come to the floor of this House in at least the last 20 years. It is courageous because it takes a new direction. It takes a direction that every environmental group and every recycling person and every person who is concerned about the environment has asked for and not received from any of the previous governments. I congratulate her and I think that her stand is absolutely one of the most courageous there is. I endorse it fully.
1710
But I am not alone in endorsing it fully. The member for York Centre indicated that nobody anywhere supported our minister. I would like to point out that a letter from Garrett Associates, from the Pickering-Ajax Citizens Together for the environment, a group with which I am intimately familiar, since I helped found it three years ago -- in the office of one of the former Liberal members, by the way -- has said:
"Our clients fully support the direction that your government appears to be taking. They wish to be the first to offer your ministry assistance through active participation in the development and implementation of the proposed three-part waste management strategy." That comes from a group that has no average understanding of what waste is all about.
My constituency, Pickering and Ajax, has had to suffer the obnoxious, stinking perfidy of Metropolitan Toronto's garbage for almost 30 years, first with the Beare Road landfill site, which took 18 million tonnes of garbage approximately, and then for the next 14 or 15 years with the Brock West landfill site, which is still open. No one in that community needs to be told what it means to have a garbage dump in the backyard. It stinks. They cannot use their backyards for barbecues or for swimming, and no one ever knows when the dump is going to react. No one knows why they react that way and very little study has been done to find out why they react that way.
As time went on and the Liberals in the previous government suggested that they use Whitevale, it was normal for the people of Pickering to react the way they did, having been inundated with the obnoxious odours for so long. They rallied behind PACT and they rallied to prevent the creation of another dump in their backyard. They are by no means NIMBY. All they ever asked for was equality under the Environmental Assessment Act, which was denied to them by the Liberals.
We hear all this rhetoric from both sides, through all the catcalling and heckling and so on, and I think one of the major reasons is that members opposite have not been intimately involved with the garbage process, as I have for so long. I have no fear that we will attain our goals.
Mr Mahoney: You're the only knowledgeable one here.
Mr Wiseman: I did not say that. I said I am intimately familiar with the process. I have no fear that we will meet our objectives. The reason I have no fear is because there are examples of other communities that have done so.
For example, Cardiff, Wales, collects its biodegradable, compostable material, uses it an anaerobic digester and then uses the composting material to reclaim parts of its countryside. That is ongoing now. Belgium and Holland, for example, do not have landfill sites because they recycle and reuse and reclaim everything.
Wood was mentioned a little earlier. I have two offers from the private sector already to take the wood that will not go to landfill sites, to be used in a number of capacities.
We will take another look. I promised my party members that I would not take too long. I would like to point out that the public is way ahead of the opposition, way ahead. I am going to quote from a group that is called Zero Garbage. They believe that everything can be reused, reduced or whatever. They believe that there is no need for garbage sites and to prove it, when Durham region said that it would put a garbage dump in their backyard, they cut their garbage production by 50% in less than three weeks. So it can be done.
Also, from this article in the Oshawa Times from 21 November 1990, David Climenhage, an engineer with DuPont Canada, said: "Five leading plastic types make up over 90% of plastic found in refuse and these could be recycled with pilot projects under way in Peterborough. Across the province recyclable plastics are finding their way into some 900,000 blue boxes weekly." So there is a willingness by the public to get involved and fall in behind this program.
Now I would like to turn just for a moment to this motion. I think that I will use a quote from the member for St Catharines earlier. He said, "It is indeed interesting what flows from the opposite side of the House." I would like to use that because in reference to this motion we have here one of the very interesting twists of irony that I am sure the former member for Durham West would sorely like to have seen at least six months ago. Had it been there, perhaps I would not be here. That is the last part of this motion, which says, "No new waste disposal sites will be designated within the province without the benefit of full and public hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act."
This is the most obnoxious example of hypocrisy that has hit the floor of this House since I came here three months ago. It is absolutely unbelievable that the Liberal Party, which had in its midst one of the foremost recycling environmentalists from municipal government and ignored her completely, then turned around and said, "We will put a dump in your riding under the Environmental Protection Act." This has got to be one of the most cynical turns of change that I have seen in a long time.
I would echo one of my fellow members that this is a shame. On the other part of this, "Since the present government has clearly abdicated its responsibility," I would say that this government is the only government that has ever accepted its responsibility, and the only thing that is more stinking and obnoxious than the perfidy that has been perpetrated on the people of Pickering is the hypocrisy that is in this motion.
Mr Elston: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I know that the gentleman who just spoke is new to this House and you are newly in your chair, but people ought to be reminded that the use of the words "hypocrite," "hypocrisy" or other things are unparliamentary and, in fact, he ought to be asked to withdraw those comments and apologize to the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Haslam): I agree and I am sure that the member would like to review his remarks with a view to withdrawing them.
Mr Wiseman: This topic is one that does rile me. and I am afraid I did get a little carried away. I wish to apologize for some of the comments that maybe I should not have made.
Mrs Fawcett: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I am able to participate in this debate on the environment and more specifically on waste management.
On 22 November the Minister of the Environment was asked by my good friend and colleague the member for Quinte to confirm that communities like Marmora will not be candidate sites for Metropolitan Toronto's garbage. The minister was unable to make that commitment. She instead only spoke about her reliance on reduction efforts in the hope that an emergency waste site will not be necessary. In her responsibility as the Minister of the Environment it is essential that she have plans in place to deal with Metro's waste if her reduction targets are not achieved, and I hope she is considering those.
I would like to refer to the statement I made on 2 May 1990. At that time I expressed very real concerns that constituents in the north and east portions of my riding have regarding the impending dangers should the Marmoraton mine site be chosen as a landfill for Metro Toronto's garbage. These residents are most concerned about the adverse effects this would have on the ground and surface waters. They are concerned enough that they have formed an organization, the Campbellford TNT, which stands for Campbellford Takes No Trash. This is a subgroup of the Marmora TNT, with which I am sure the member for Hastings-Peterborough is most familiar.
In fact, on 27 October members of the Take No Trash group met with the Minister of Agriculture and Food in his constituency office, where he stated that he is against Metro or anyone else using the Marmoraton mine site as a garbage dump in view of environmental problems. He claimed at that time that he had been speaking to the Minister of the Environment and that she was also in support of the TNT group's position.
1720
I too have spoken with the members of the TNT on numerous occasions and I am most supportive of their efforts to protect and preserve the environment. The Marmoraton mine site is a former open-pit iron ore mine. The pit is filling with water and is currently about half full. I might add that the water is stocked with several species of fish which are surviving very nicely. This water flows directly into the Trent, Crow and Moira rivers which in turn flow directly into Lake Ontario at the Bay of Quinte.
Members of the various TNT groups and myself are vehemently opposed to any suggestion that the Marmoraton mine site accept any garbage from the greater Toronto area or in fact anywhere. The suggestion that it be a potential site has been put forth to Metropolitan Toronto by Armbro Materials and Contruction Ltd and is currently being considered and pursued by both parties. I can tell the members the people of Marmora do not want Metro waste dumped in the Marmoraton mine site; they are not willing hosts. Even though it is estimated that the town could make $3 million per year in tax revenues from taking Metro trash and it would create 100 new local jobs. they do not want it.
Speaking on behalf of the village of Marmora, their reeve, Andre Philpot, said: "The town won't take Metro's garbage even if it is paid in gold nuggets. They can pave our streets with gold and put diamonds on the soles of our shoes, but they are not getting a dump here."
The devastating effect that the selection of this site would have on the communities bordering these waterways which are heavily dependent on the tourism industry would be insurmountable and irreparable. Not only that, but equally important are the adverse effects that the leachate would have on ground water which the residents of the area depend upon for drinking. This double whammy on the ground and surface water would totally destroy the agrifood industry, the major source of income for the entire area.
The current government must ensure that the preservation and maintenance of water quality throughout this province is a number one priority with it. I would suggest that they further explore effective ways to reduce, reuse and recycle and that the implementation of packaging laws be a major consideration in this as soon as possible.
I would also urge that when considering a site for GTA's garbage, they remember the farmer in Seymour township, the tourist operator in Campbellford, the families of the village of Marmora as well as the fishermen, both commercial and sport, in the Bay of Quinte and never ever allow the Marmoraton site to be an option for them. The GTA's garbage problem is a problem of tremendous proportions, but the solution cannot come at the expense of workers, families, business persons and farmers of eastern Ontario. If we are to pass our heritage on to our children and our children's children, our land, air and water quality must be protected.
Mr Stockwell: The fact of the matter is that the situation is the situation. There are only 20 in our caucus -- the situation is the situation and that is where one finds oneself. I think trying to suggest to this House that the member did not know that the situation was the way it was is unreasonable. It is unfair and unacceptable.
The member who sits as the Minister of the Environment today knew that this was the crisis we were in. She was not totally uninformed of Metropolitan Toronto's position and situation when it came to disposing of its garbage. The difficulty she is facing is that the Premier pranced around the province promising people who had a waste site in their backyard that they were going to get a full environmental hearing. That is the difficulty she is faced with.
The difficulty is further enlarged for two reasons: One, she did not think she would get elected and she did. Two, she has all these promises out there that people believed. They believed that the NDP would give them a full environmental assessment hearing on all the sites. The fact of the matter is that even a 25% level of reuse, recycling etc will buy the minister six months of extension, and 50% will buy her 18 months of extension. The fact is that that kind of extension will not allow her to be in a position not in fact to open a new site somewhere. There has got to be an interim site in the next year or so that has to be started. The work has to start within the next year or so if it is going to be on stream soon enough for the waste to be dumped.
The suggestion is that everyone wants to chip in and help the minister. Well, I think everyone does want to chip in and help the minister. Everybody would like to see the recycling program work, everyone, including Metropolitan Toronto, Peel, the Conservatives and the Liberals, I am sure. But the statistics are the statistics, and they simply state that Metropolitan Toronto has 9.4 million tonnes of space left. They are producing at 265,000 tonnes per month. If the Ministry of the Environment directs the Britannia site to be diverted to the Keele Valley site, that loses another five months of space. That means that the minister is going to have to find a new site somewhere in late 1993 or early 1994. No question about it -- she is going to have to find it, assuming she has a 25% recycling pro forma.
If she is assuming a 25% pro forma, then the only option for the member for Durham West at that point in time is to cross the floor to join the Conservatives, because they are going to have to open Whitevale and they are going to have to open it with no environmental assessment hearing at all, period. Not a day, not an hour, not a minute.
What is very curious is that the Environment minister stood up here today, and not once did she say "emergency powers." Those words never came up. Why do they not come up? Because she would just as soon ignore the issue, not deal with it until the time comes when she is going to have to break all her promises. She should talk to the commissioner of works in Metropolitan Toronto. He has already suggested that she is going to run out of space by 1993 or 1994.
She can plan and plan all she wants. The fact of the matter is, if she diverts 25%, which is a bold goal, she has still got three million tonnes of waste per year coming from Metro, and she has only got nine million tonnes that she can dispose of. That gives her three years. She had better find something in the meantime.
To go on to make the suggestion that if we all chip in we can resolve the problem is a very good idea. Let's all chip in and we will try to resolve the problem. But the minister is going to have to tell us what the game plan is. No more rhetoric: we need to know the game plan. What is her commitment to dollars for recycling? What is her commitment to the municipalities with respect to the blue box program? How is she going to achieve these recycling goals that she has set out? She is not going to tell us.
If she wants the people to chip in, the least she could do is give them a look at the playbook. If she cannot give them a look at the playbook, maybe she could tell them when they can get a look at what the playbook says. If she cannot tell them when, maybe she can tell them when she can tell them when she can tell them what is in the playbook, because right now they have no idea.
The clock is running. It took two weeks for this minister to admit that there was a crisis. She lost two weeks worth of time to resolve the issue. It has now been three or four weeks we have been sitting in the House. We have lost three or four weeks of time to resolve the issue. All the time that we sit here talking about integrated systems, consultation and new committees, the clock keeps ticking.
Every time that clock ticks, the people of Durham are that much closer to a dump site. Every time that clock ticks, the people of Vaughan are closer to an expansion of Keele Valley. Every time that clock ticks, Metro's garbage crisis worsens, and it worsens to the point that the minister knows for a fact that when it comes to the time of 1993 or 1994, the emergency powers will be exercised. The die is cast. The people have not got an option. She will open sites without any environmental assessment hearings. She knows it, the Liberals know it, and we know it.
1730
She had better tell her caucus backbenchers so they can decide whose membership card they want to buy next year when it comes to political affiliation. The suggestion is made that the next time the Premier of this province goes out making promises -- maybe it is good they found out this is the problem of being elected, because maybe he will not be running to every municipality making promises that are absolutely and totally impossible to keep. Maybe he will stop making promises that the garbage will in fact vanish.
We have not taken one thing into consideration, and that one thing is the miracle factor, because that is what she is going to need: The miracle factor. Come this time next year, the only thing that is going to save the minister's bacon is a miracle, and it is going to be a bigger miracle than happened on 6 September.
As we read through An Agenda for People, people are looking for a simple and just solution to a very controversial and difficult subject. The simple and just solutions she had three months ago the minister has either forgotten or they were just too simple and just not enough. This will come back to haunt the minister, it will come back to haunt the backbenchers, and it will come back to haunt her credibility on the campaign trail in five years.
Ms S. Murdock: I want to take this, my first opportunity, to congratulate everyone, and I welcome the opportunity to speak today against the Liberal motion.
As the member for Markham stated earlier today, there is not one person in this House who would not agree that the environmental concerns of this province are of prime importance. As more and more landfill sites reach capacity and as more and more delays in the process hold us back, we know full well that the responsibility for the protection and regeneration rests with us both as residents of this province and as legislators.
I will not be discussing Peel today or any of the other landfill sites mentioned. I would rather discuss the northern perspective, because I want it noted that we in the north have the same concerns as the rest of the province almost in every matter, but most especially in the environmental concerns and in landfill sites specifically. We are not shocked by any alleged naïveté of the Minister of the Environment. In fact, the statement that the minister has made is welcome to the people of the north.
Being a member from the north and being in the south these past few months, specifically sitting here for the past few weeks, has solidified the sense that waste management problems are simply confined to the south, and that is just not the case. In my riding of Sudbury, three of our waste sites are nearing approved capacity and all three require either expansion or replacement. My regional municipality wants a clearly defined process for environmental assessment, but experience has shown thus far, and in the past it has shown conclusively, that to get a decision or an approval from the present environmental assessment system is almost impossible. We are very happy to see that the ministry's three-part plan includes review of and revision to the Environmental Assessment Act. To say that the present environmental assessment process has, and I use the minister's words here, "not always worked in the best interests of all concerned" is putting it mildly. The need for a speedy review is imperative.
We in the north are thrilled with the minister's announcement that making revisions to this act is a priority, while at the same time maintaining environmental safety. Northern communities have to be conservers to the same degree as our southern counterparts. Just because there is more space in the north does not mean that the rules change, nor does it mean we can continue to produce waste at the same runaway pace we are presently doing.
Moving waste by whatever means -- I do not care whether it is rail or truck -- is simply creating another environmental problem. What we have to do, all of us -- and that is the north, the southeast and the west -- is reduce. The whole issue of reduction has been introduced by the minister, and at long last there are provisions to reduce packaging, separate at source, educate us as conservers, and increase and expand municipal programs in the 3Rs.
The blue box program, which has yet to start in Sudbury -- it is scheduled for the spring -- is not enough. One has to reduce. If a family of five, as we have in my city, can reduce to less than half a bag of garbage a week, then it can be done by all of us.
There is no quick and easy solution, but it is plain to see that less garbage can be better managed. So no matter where we live in this province, reduction first is the key, then reuse and then recycle. The bottom line for all of us is protection of our environment.
Mr McClelland: It is with a great deal of interest that I participate in this emergency debate today. I have particular pleasure to participate in this debate with the new goddess of the environment. I notice that she blushed somewhat when her parliamentary assistant, the member for Riverdale, anointed her as the new goddess. I want to say to the member for Riverdale that I had the privilege of serving as parliamentary assistant, and I hope I showed appropriate deference to the minister at that time. I would also trust that in dubbing her today the goddess of the environment she will not end up being the goddess of garbage. I say that in all sincerity, because I think, as we stand here today and talk about a very serious situation, we have to recognize what may very well take place.
I fear a little what I am going to say here, because I find myself agreeing with the member for Etobicoke West. That gives me pause. But let me refer in the very short time I have to the situation in Brampton. I want to be very parochial, but I think that from the specific we can talk about the general.
The member for Durham West made comment about a former colleague of mine and the situation she faced in her riding prior to the election, the riding he now serves; I am sure he will serve it with enthusiasm and serve it ably as well. The member's predecessor had a situation similar to what he now faces in Whitevale and that I faced in Brampton with the proposed interim site 6B. Until a few weeks ago, the people in Brampton, who, interestingly enough, I will be meeting with this evening, believed that at least they were going to get an Environmental Protection Act hearing.
Some reference has been made today throughout the course of the debate by my friend the member for Mississauga South and others about the distinction between an Environmental Protection Act hearing and an Environmental Assessment Act hearing. Quite frankly -- and I do not say this in a pejorative sense -- I am not sure that a lot of people who talk about that difference really understand the distinction.
Let me say this in the short time we have: The people in Brampton North, particularly those close to site 6B, understood that they would rather in the normal course of events be afforded a full environmental assessment hearing. I think that goes without saying but needs to be said. Given the situation they were faced with, they were at least hanging on to the expectation that they would have an Environmental Protection Act hearing. I can say there is a great deal of opinion that says site 6B in Brampton may not have environmentally withstood the scrutiny of an Environmental Protection Act hearing. I think that is critical, because as my friend the member for Mississauga West says, we may never know.
My fear is this -- it has been said and I will say it again -- that with all of the plans, and I wish the minister every success, much was under way, and I am familiar with the draft plans and what is available from the very competent staff at waste management at the Ministry of the Environment.
1740
Our friend the member for Durham West talked about what other communities in other jurisdictions are doing. I wish the minister well in achieving that. I know she has committed herself in the past and will continue to do that.
But the people of Brampton are concerned about this, as they are in other parts of this province: What will happen when the day comes and she has not been successful -- I hope she is -- and she relies on her emergency powers? I think the folly -- and I say this with respect to the minister -- in what we have heard with respect to her plan is that we uphold any initiative that has begun with respect to the environmental hearing process.
One of the comments the minister made was that, if necessary, she would be prepared to rely upon the initial work. Time does not permit me to go into the initial work that was done. The minister will know that it was extremely flawed. There is no question that the initial work done in Brampton and Peel was extremely flawed and hence the order from the then minister, the member for St Catharines, to restart the process. What we have now is a difficulty where the process that was about to have been restarted has been put on the shelf; we do not know where we are going to go. I say to the minister, as my friends have said today: Would she please tell us what she plans to do, what kind of environmental protection will be afforded the people of Brampton and other sites across this province when the day comes when we have waste and we do not have anywhere to put it?
Mr O'Connor: It is a great pleasure to speak today in the House as an MPP in a greater Toronto area riding and as the parliamentary assistant to the GTA minister. I would like to take this opportunity to speak in favour of the Minister of the Environment's statement on the environmental plan of action.
Ontario, especially the greater Toronto area, needs a comprehensive environmental plan, a plan of action that the minister spoke about in this House, the plan to change Ontario's 1980s consumer way of life into the 1990s conserver way of life.
It is essential that the GTA retains its quality of life for its inhabitants. I would like to share with the House a little information about the greater Toronto area. The GTA is a highly integrated urban complex. It contains five regional municipalities: Metropolitan Toronto, Halton, Peel, Durham and York regions, with 30 local municipalities. It has over 6,000 square kilometres, with approximately four million inhabitants and 1.4 million households. It is estimated that 2.4 million people work in this region; 44% of the population live here; 45% of Ontario's total employment base of about 4.2 million jobs; 40% of Ontario's gross provincial product of $2.249 billion; and it uses less than 1% of Ontario's land area.
Just to get an idea of the enormous problem we are facing today, the GTA generates 4.3 million tonnes of waste every year. It would fill the SkyDome to the height of the CN Tower every year. Between 1967 and 1987, waste quantities requiring management in the GTA grew by 6% annually. The GTA municipal regions every year generate the following: Metropolitan Toronto, 2.5 million tonnes, 58% of the total; Peel region, one million tonnes, 17% of the total; York region, 0.5 million tonnes, 12% of the total; Durham region, 0.4 million tonnes, 8%; and Halton region, 0.2 million tonnes, 5% of the total waste.
The GTA generates the following waste: residential, 1.5 million tonnes, 35%; commercial, one million tonnes; industrial, one million tonnes, both at 22%; construction and demolition accounts for 0.2 million tonnes or 5%, leaving a miscellaneous amount totalling 0.6 million tonnes or 16%.
In 1989, 8.5% of the total waste generated by the GTA was diverted by application of the 3R principle in waste management. The estimated waste rates diversion for 1990 vary between 10% and 15% -- obviously not enough. Today virtually all GTA municipalities have curbside recycling. Obviously it is not enough, though.
Many municipalities within the GTA also have special recycling programs for motor oil, white goods, leaves, yard brush and household hazardous wastes. Some municipalities recycle telephone books, batteries, tires, cloth and propane containers. Halton region has banned from disposal the following: newspapers, glass containers, steel and aluminum cans, PET plastic bottles and old corrugated cardboard. All regional municipalities have banned the disposal of white goods, stoves and refrigerators. The disposal of wood waste in Peel region is prohibited. The municipalities are considering the disposal of drywall along with wood. Many industries and commercial establishments and institutions have in place recycling collection programs for old corrugated cardboard, fine paper, plate glass, glass containers, tires, oils, solvents, drums, metal, plastic, rubber and textiles. Hundreds of schools within the GTA are involved in the recycling of fine paper, steel and aluminum cans and newspapers.
As members can see, the problem that the GTA faces and the challenges regarding waste management are enormous. Good initiatives and programs are in place, but they are not enough. More must be done: a strong determination in the direction with firm priorities. As a society of waste generators, we must all, including legislators, citizens, business owners and operators, teachers and students -- all consumers who drive this wasteful society -- reconsider what resources are being eaten up as we feed our material appetite.
The Minister of the Environment and this government's planned announcement will shape a waste management policy that is beneficial for the people of Ontario, especially within the GTA. The government will develop plans and pursue conservation within our industry, commerce and private and public institutions. Our communities must return to a society that uses simple tools like lunch pails and milk jugs instead of throwaway containers.
Landfill is not the solution to this waste management crisis. The solution lies within the 3Rs priorities. Reduction is the key to the whole situation and I urge our communities and citizens within this House to support co-operation in this far-reaching effort. I know that in speaking with people within my riding, they assume responsibility as well. Reduction has to be paramount.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: On 21 November the Minister of the Environment made her waste management strategy announcement. As others have stated, she called for a reordering of the priorities of the 3Rs of waste management, an emphasis on reduction and reuse over recycling.
1750
This minister has also announced the establishment of a new public sector authority to deal with waste management problems in the GTA to search and select a waste disposal site. However, in the meantime waste continues to be produced. Landfill sites continue to be filled and no further announcements seem to be forthcoming from this minister as she plans to implement her ambitious if not incredible reduction plan. She has put all her eggs in one basket -- reduction with no contingency plan in the event her reduction levels are not achieved. She presents only emergency orders as backup.
The minister is now in the perfect position to bring forward legislation calling for an aggressive reduction plan. Indeed, it is her responsibility to do so. Otherwise the feared garbage gap of 1993 will be there.
The NDP position has always been that the greater Toronto area should be responsible for finding sites for its own waste within its own boundaries and not be looking outside its boundaries. This minister now asks us to wait as we search and select. Regions like my own of Ottawa-Carleton are concerned with this government's current plans, or no plans, to deal with the GTA garbage crisis. They are concerned that the GTA does not deal with its own garbage crisis -- eastern Ontario and Ottawa-Carleton are being asked to pick up Metropolitan Toronto's garbage against their will.
Only last week it was discovered that Laidlaw Waste Systems had been bringing construction waste from Toronto to Ottawa "for quite some time." Our region discovered much to our chagrin that Laidlaw was accepting at least 100 tonnes a day of construction waste and had indeed also received 1,900 tonnes of soil contaminated with oil and gasoline.
Our regional chair called on the member for Ottawa Centre to bring forward emergency legislation to allow the region to control foreign garbage. In answer, the member for Ottawa Centre's special assistant, the member for Oxford, said, "We think no one should have to take someone else's garbage unless they want it." That is the position the NDP had defended while in opposition. That principle seems to have gone completely by the wayside. When the Minister of the Environment was questioned in the House on 22 November she could not confirm -- I repeat, not confirm -- that only municipalities that were happy hosts or willing hosts would receive GTA waste. She only pledged that whatever site was found would be subject to the full environmental assessment.
Ottawa does not want Metro trash or garbage, as that only means that municipalities throughout eastern Ontario that use Ottawa's landfill site, such as Smiths Falls, Carleton Place or Lanark, will end up without a site much, much earlier than had been anticipated or planned. We in eastern Ontario are relying on this government to take waste management as a top priority, to develop meaningful, realistic strategies.
The problem in Ottawa is just the tip of the iceberg. As our regional chair has said, "The NDP government's decision on Wednesday, November 21, to scrap plans for two new, desperately needed Toronto area dumps will put more pressure on eastern Ontario to accept Toronto's garbage."
This is just unacceptable. It is simply unacceptable. We need leadership and direction in waste management from this Minister of the Environment. When will the specifics and time lines be presented to this House and to the people of Ontario? I ask that question.
The Speaker: Any other members? The member for Mississauga West.
Mr Mahoney: I believe they have a minute and some left, if they wish to use it.
The Speaker: Yes, but there was no one standing.
Mr Mahoney: They have to stand up to speak.
Mr Sutherland: When the Minister of the Environment was speaking earlier, she said that she hoped this debate would bring about some constructive suggestions as to how all of us could work together to try to make sure that we had a good solution for the garbage crisis. Yet throughout the debate, whether it was the mover of the motion, whether it was the member for Markham or the member for Etobicoke West, all they talked about was how this plan was not going to work, yet none of them proposed an alternative plan.
Both the Tories and Liberals have talked this afternoon as if they are experts on garbage reduction, and they have talked about the minister and emergency powers. I want to remind the Conservatives about the people of southwest Oxford, who went through an environmental assessment that said the dump site should not be put there. The Progressive Conservative cabinet of the time overturned that decision. The former Premier promised that if he got elected he would overturn the Conservative decision, but he never delivered on that promise and we know where he is today. However, the people of southwest Oxford responded by implementing the first mandatory blue box recycling, long before the former government was even thinking about it, and today they have been able to extend their landfill site.
The point is that if we are really going to deal with a solution, everyone must be working together. We can no longer afford to point fingers. We have got to work together to find the solutions. The Minister of the Environment has proposed a plan; the other parties have not. That is the key difference.
Mr Mahoney: I think that member should be in cabinet, the way he stands up there and lets them have it. I think the member for Oxford should be right down, maybe in the Ministry of Labour. Maybe one of these guys would give up his $27,000 and the limo.
Mr Bradley: It is $32,000.
Mr Mahoney: I never got there. I am sorry, I did not realize how much it was. I am going to tell the Premier that the member ought to be down here just for a little spark. He might make the odd mistake, but I think we can live with that.
The new people in here must find it entertaining when they watch the Tories stand up and immediately turn over this way and start shouting at us. They do not know what happened on 6 September. They won. They are the new government.
Something that happens when you become the new government is, you get responsibility. It is really difficult to understand, but you are not over here any more shouting at us, telling us how we should solve the problems. Instead, what the Tories are doing is complaining about the last five years. In fairness, we always complained, and so did the New Democrats, about the previous 42 years, and these are legacies. What scares me, what frightens me, is the next 50 to 100 years, with the legacy that the government is going to leave to our kids with the kind of decisions being made by this Minister of the Environment.
This decision has totally abdicated her responsibility and the responsibility of this government to show leadership in the areas of waste management. Instead, what has this government done?
Mrs Marland: Are you running for leadership?
Mr Mahoney: I am always running. The member knows that.
This government has simply told the regions and the people out there that they have got to find ways to reuse and to reduce. "Eat your chicken bones. Don't throw them in the garbage; eat them." That is what this government is telling the people: "Eat your garbage; reduce." The government should be realistic. The people out there on Friday morning, or whatever day it happens to be, put their garbage at the curbs.
The poor Treasurer, he only gets chicken bones. I understand that. They put their garbage at the curb and they come home from work on Friday night and guess what? They expect the garbage to go somewhere. Well, it is about time that we started educating them about where it goes and how we have to dispose of it.
The minute you get into office, the minute that you take on the most incredibly important portfolio in your government, that you stand up and say, "We are going to throw out the dump sites, we are going to throw out the environmental assessment process, we are going to throw everything out," then do members know what is going to happen? This guy up here, the member for Durham West, who is such a champion and believes in what great things the minister is doing, the day she stands up in the House and announces the dump is going there, he is going to jump right over the back of this House and he is going to run down the 401 calling: "Norah, you were right. Norah, save me: save me from my own party," with this absolutely misguided platform that this government is putting forward without any positive leadership.
1805
The House divided on Mrs Sullivan's motion, which was negatived by the following vote:
Ayes -- 53
Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Jordan, Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, McLean, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Murdoch, B., Nixon, Offer, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J., Witmer.
Nays -- 67
Abel, Akande, Bisson, Boyd, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.
The House adjourned at 1811.