The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

EARTH DAY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA JOURNÉE DE LA TERRE

Mr Christopherson moved second reading of Bill 155, An Act proclaiming Earth Day / Projet de loi 155, Loi proclamant la journée de la Terre.

Mr Christopherson: It is a pleasure to rise today on the first bill I have had the honour of creating and introducing here in this House. My bill is not intended to revolutionize anything, but rather it is meant to be an added wind in the sail of the environmental movement. Earth Day is becoming and has become an internationally recognized day of awareness of the need for all of us in our society to continue to focus and work towards, quite frankly, a survivable planet.

I would like to begin my remarks by going back to the beginning of Earth Day. To do that we must go back to the term in office of Senator Gaylord Nelson in the United States, who was a former governor of Wisconsin. One of the more proud events and accomplishments he felt he had enacted during his term as the governor of Wisconsin was to implement a one-cent tax on a package of cigarettes which generated over $50 million in 10 years, and in those days that was a fair bit of money. That money was used to acquire wetlands and park lands. In today's thinking we might route that money elsewhere, but certainly that was pioneering and revolutionary action for any politician of that day.

It is also significant that in 1963 Senator Nelson approached President John F. Kennedy and suggested to him there were not enough politicians speaking out on the issue of the environment and conservation, which really was the key word in that era. He persuaded John F. Kennedy to go on a resources and conservation tour, and indeed President Kennedy went on that tour and made some speeches following that tour, but they were not covered that widely. Later that year, President John F. Kennedy was felled by the bullet that brought his life to an end. Who knows what would have happened to the environmental movement and to the issue of Earth Day as we now know it, had someone like President John F. Kennedy lived long enough and grabbed hold of that issue as he did so many other important issues.

However, in the summer of 1969 Senator Nelson was aware of the effect of the antiwar teach-ins and the attention they were focusing on the war. He said, "Why don't we do the same thing with the environment and have an environmental teach-in?" He announced that on April 22, 1970, there would be an event in honour of the Earth. In the United States, to the credit of those people, 20 million Americans participated in that first Earth Day event. Some argue that was the day the environmental movement was galvanized, certainly in North America and perhaps around the world.

One of the key organizers said on that day, "If the environment is a fad, it is going to be our last fad." Far from being a fad, 20 years later there was a recognition of what had happened in 1970: "Why not seize the opportunity to pull as many people together again and focus on the issue of the environment?" In 1989 a group of people got together and planned and expected that perhaps 30 countries might participate in such a 20th anniversary event. It needs to be said that during this time many communities continued to have annual Earth Day events, but certainly they did not carry the same kind of attention that the first one did in 1970.

In 1990, when there was the 20th anniversary, as many people in this House will remember, there was a major focus worldwide. In fact, 140 countries participated and 200 million people played some kind of active role or supported the issue of Earth Day 1990. For us in Canada, 1990 was a pivotal year. During that year the decision was taken by Earth Day International to move its international headquarters from San Francisco to Canada, and the 1991 Earth Day event was held with the world headquarters being in Victoria, British Columbia.

I had an opportunity last evening to speak with Sandra Beattie, who is the executive director of Earth Day Ontario, and I would also like to note that Mr Maury Mason, who is the president of Earth Day Canada, is here with us today in the members' gallery. I welcome you, Mr Mason, and thank you for your efforts, sir.

1010

I spoke to Ms Beattie last evening and she advised me that just yesterday Earth Day Ontario approved its final mission statement. It reads, if I have the quote correct, "Earth Day seeks to foster environmental awareness and responsibility, using the celebration of Earth Day as a focus."

The Kitchener-Waterloo Record says:

"Earth Day will have succeeded when every day is guided by the principles that are the focus of today's effort at raising consciousness about our planet and its fragile environment. When everyone is constantly sensitive about natural resources, when waste is minimized and neutralized and when environmental consciousness is the norm, there will no longer be a need to designate Earth Day."

From the London Free Press: "Earth Day Revisited: Surveys consistently rank environmental issues among top concerns, but do those surveyed really mean what they say? Earth Day today is an appropriate time for reappraisal."

Both these editorials and others point to the fact that Earth Day is not meant, as I understand it, to be the be-all and end-all solution in and of itself. What it is meant to do is to provide a focus. If we ever have any doubt as to whether or not it is working, we should go to our school system, go to the classrooms and talk to the young children. Their support and understanding of the environmental movement is as strong and as secure and as sacred as that of the freedoms and human rights we were all taught in school. Every year when Earth Day comes around, there is a focus in the classroom as the children and others learn to appreciate that this is something we must continually, each of us, work at in our own way.

My bill is only meant to assist Earth Day in that role of providing an awareness and a focus. I have talked to some people and I think there are some minor wording changes to Bill 155 that would be appropriate. Certainly a recognition of Earth Day Ontario in the bill would be the correct thing to do in light of the presence in the Legislature in other words. However, if it were enacted, it would provide in law that each and every year April 22 would be proclaimed and designated as Earth Day in Ontario.

I think that would be our one small piece of leadership in the kind of terrific, dedicated work that literally thousands of people are doing across the province. I hope the opposition members present today will be able to support this, and hopefully we will see this bill become law.

Mr McLean: I would like to rise today and speak on this bill, An Act proclaiming Earth Day. What the member wants in this bill is as follows:

"The 22nd of April in each year is proclaimed to be Earth Day for the purpose of encouraging participation in community, provincial, national and international activities that are organized or approved by Earth Day Canada or Earth Day International or that share a common purpose with the activities organized by the Earth Day movement."

Really what this bill does is to make people more aware and have some type of focus in regard to observing Earth Day. Many years ago the natives of this land and the immigrants who came from other countries worked and tilled the soil, cut down trees and picked stones and really made agriculture what it is today. It is an indication to me of where we started being more aware of what Earth Day is all about.

As years went on, we looked at how we should be preserving our wetlands. We looked at our park lands. One of the greatest movements in this province was the formation of conservation authorities. Conservation authorities were a partnership with the municipalities and the government whereby wetlands and lands that were not wanted would be maintained to make sure our water was kept to a level that would be acceptable for the public and kept clean for drinking purposes.

Conservation authorities have done a lot of good work over the years. I was involved when a lot of people were not aware of the area called the Minesing Swamp, where we purchased large tracts of land in that area to keep it for nature, for the birds, for the habitat. That has gone on across this province in many different areas. So today, when we are discussing Bill 155 proclaiming Earth Day, I think we have to go back and look at all these things that have taken place to make people aware of the great country we live in.

It goes back many years ago to the introduction of a bill to look at the environmental assessments that would take place in the province with regard to people wanting to expand and to build on our wetlands, so to speak. With that legislation, the Ministry of the Environment put in place something that would not let our wetlands be wasted. So I was pleased to see that Earth Day International has moved to Canada and has its head office here, and that yesterday the mission statement was completed. That mission statement, I am sure, will put a further feather in the cap of those people and businesses that are on board now to recognize Earth Day.

There is an industry in this province that is very dear to my heart, and that is our agricultural industry. We must not forget that all the food produced in this province comes from the top six inches of the soil. That is the earth that we are talking about here to maintain and to make sure it is kept in a suitable manner in order that we will all have good produce and clean food. When we look at the many different aspects of the environment, we look at our Holland Marsh, one of the greatest food-producing areas in this province. There are many other areas like that. On the dairy farm I own, we produce hundreds of tonnes of feed a year off the top six inches of that soil, thereby producing the milk that comes to Toronto and goes all over Ontario for people to drink.

Those top six inches of the earth are so important to this province. I know the member for Hamilton Centre is aware of that. He is aware of the great privilege the farmers have of trying to feed the people of this province. I say to his Minister of Agriculture and Food that we must not forget that this is so important.

I just wanted to take a few minutes to put a few things on the record from my perspective of what I feel Earth Day is really all about. Really, it is to make sure that our environment is protected, that our agricultural industry is protected, that our conservation authorities will continue to thrive and expand, to make sure that our wetlands are preserved. Some people think that wetlands are so large. If you just get in an aeroplane and fly from here to North Bay and you look at the wetlands in this province, it is tremendous. I look at the good agricultural industries in the areas around them which have the good land preserved for habitat, to maintain and to expand on.

Yes, Earth Day, I think, is important to make the awareness and the focus that this member is trying to put on the importance of the top six inches of the soil that feeds us.

1020

Mrs Mathyssen: I am delighted to be able to participate in the debate in support of the member for Hamilton Centre's proposal to make Earth Day an annual event by law. As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, I believe this proposal compels all of us to recognize the importance of coming to terms with the fragility of our planet, the environmental crisis we face and our obligation to change the way in which we regard our world. That obligation, which we all share, is to take responsibility for practices that jeopardize our future and the future of our children.

Unfortunately, past generations built a society based on rapid production, mass consumption and mass waste disposal. We took a lot from nature; we returned very little, except as waste. We did not think much about that waste. We buried it in our land, dumped it in our rivers or spewed it into our air. We thought there was no limit to the amount of garbage we could toss into Mother Nature's lap. Few thinking people cling to this fading illusion any more. The reality is all too grim.

The decaying garbage in our landfill sites not only pollutes our ground water but it releases gases into the atmosphere which in turn artificially warm the planet and upset the balance of nature. We know this phenomenon as global warming or the greenhouse effect.

Likewise, the toxic emissions we pump out of our smokestacks not only contribute to global warming, they also attack our lungs and threaten our soil and water with acid rain. Acid rain, as I am sure members know, occurs when smokestacks belch out nitrogen and sulphur gases. The gases mix with water vapour and create an acidic rain that damages plant and animal life and even eats away at buildings.

Meanwhile, the chemical and biological contaminants we dump in our waterways damage our fisheries and other aquatic life and leave many of our beaches unfit for swimming.

Industrial pollution has contributed greatly to the deterioration of the quality of water in the Great Lakes basin. We have turned this great natural resource, the largest fresh water body in the world, into a cauldron of contaminants. There are at least 1,000 known chemicals in the Great Lakes system, 250 of which are considered serious health hazards.

Only a few weeks ago, yet another scientific report warned us that this witches' brew poses a serious health risk to both humans and wildlife. We have already seen far too many warning signs -- fish that swim upside down, water fowl whose bills cross like twisted scissors. Did you know, Mr Speaker, there are turtles in our Great Lakes system that are so full of chemicals they can be legally classified as toxic waste? Each summer, more than 100 beaches along our system have to be posted "No swimming" due to contamination. The seriousness of this situation is underscored by the fact that 60% of the Canadian population and 20% of the American population live around the Great Lakes basin. That is more than 35 million people who are exposed to these dangers.

It is imperative that we address this situation collectively. I believe recognizing Earth Day every year will help us to keep environmental concerns before the public. This public attention in turn ensures that governments respond to these environmental concerns.

One of the ways our government can respond to this situation is through regulation. The prevention program with the most direct impact on Great Lakes water quality is MISA, our municipal-industrial strategy for abatement. MISA is a water quality program that began in 1986. It focuses on the industries that discharge waste into our lakes and rivers as well as our sewers. Our NDP government has revised MISA. Instead of controlling pollution, the new focus of MISA is pollution prevention. We want to turn off the toxic waste tap at the source.

We want to focus industry's energy on getting things right at the beginning instead of trying to fix them at the end. We cannot afford the cost of cleanup and we cannot afford the environmental damage. That means we want industries to recycle or recirculate their waste products rather than dump them into the river. We also want them to find less environmentally harmful methods of producing their products. Most significant perhaps, we are now developing a list of the worst persistent toxic chemicals and we are going to ban their discharge into our waterways. This is zero discharge. These are tough measures, but we have no choice.

Another Ministry of the Environment program that directly affects water quality is our waste reduction program. I am sad to say that Canadians generate the highest per capita amount of waste in the world. Ontario alone generates 11.5 million metric tonnes of municipal solid waste annually. Most of this finds its way into landfill sites where, as I have already mentioned, it continues to degrade the environment.

Again, we feel prevention is the best way to deal with our waste disposal crisis, through the 3Rs program: reduce, reuse and recycle. The first and most important R, reduce, encourages people not to buy disposable and overpackaged goods. It also challenges industry to examine its packaging practices and to generate fewer throwaway products. The second R, reuse, calls on people to reuse an item again in its original form for the same or different purpose. Examples include cloth diapers, refillable bottles and rechargeable batteries. The third R, recycle, involves separating valuable materials such as paper, glass or metal from our waste system, reprocessing them and introducing them back into the market. Ontario's blue box program is the most recognizable symbol of recycling.

The Ministry of the Environment has made the first of these Rs, reduce, the priority. If you do not produce garbage in the first place, you do not have to get rid of it. Consequently, the Ontario government has set some tangible targets for reduction. We intend to divert at least 25% of all household and industrial-commercial waste from disposal to productive uses by 1992 and 50% by the year 2000.

To accomplish this will require nothing less than a revolution in thinking. We have to move from a consumer society to a conserver society, from a throwaway society to a thoughtful society. This will involve the co-operative efforts of the public, industry and government. It will require the constant reminder that we live in a finite world and that we only have one.

I would like to reiterate my support for the proposal by the honourable member for Hamilton Centre. I believe the recognition of Earth Day as an annual event is important to make sure the message that we must consider the Earth each and every day is clearly heard. May I extend my congratulations to my honourable colleague the member for Hamilton Centre and thank members for their indulgence.

Mr McClelland: At the outset, I want to congratulate the member for Hamilton Centre for introducing Bill 155, designating a specific day as Earth Day. I think it is important to note that the first Earth Day was on April 22, 1970. I am sure that has been brought to the attention of this House by my colleagues who have spoken. A lot of things have happened since that time that I think draw attention to the significance of environment not only locally but indeed internationally. As has so often been said, only when we begin to act locally and take specific steps to do what we can as individual citizens, as communities, as a province, as a nation and then as a community of nations in our world will we be able to have the kind of impact that is absolutely necessary to leave a legacy for those who will come after us that we can be proud of.

Pollution knows no boundaries. We can pass the toughest clean air laws and regulations in Ontario that we could possibly imagine and we could do our utmost to enforce those laws, and if a neighbouring jurisdiction -- our friends to the south particularly -- chooses not to follow in a like manner, then it is of not little consequence that we would take a very positive initiative, but certainly any initiative taken in this province or in this nation would be offset by a lack of similar initiative, by way of example, by our friends to the south in the United States. That is something that is understood when we look at the issue of acid rain and the international impact acid precipitation has in its genesis and also the effect it has that pollutants discharge into the atmosphere, mainland or almost anywhere. The air and the water of our world do not respect international boundaries in that sense.

I think we have seen that world leaders, since the first Earth Day of 1970, have taken it upon themselves to hold international summit conferences dealing with environmental questions. Certainly the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl galvanized the world's attention to what could happen with a major environmental disaster and drew the attention of people from every nation to the significance of what could take place -- what in fact had taken place there -- and the responsibility each and every one of us has to respond.

1030

Not long ago the Prince William Sound disaster in Alaska, where millions of gallons of oil spread on the open seas and did untold damage to the environment and the area around Prince William Sound, was evidence of the very serious consequences that can result from irresponsible action by men and women around the world.

I suggest that concern about the environment has now moved out of the media spotlight somewhat. Economic crisis seems to dominate the news of late. It certainly does in the jurisdiction of our province. That is understandable, but it does not mean people are not vitally concerned about the environment. In fact, environmental issues remain at the core of the concern of the majority of citizens in Ontario. Virtually every poll commissioned by industry, the private sector and governments has indicated that environment remains very high on the list of people's priorities of concerns.

I find it interesting and might I say somewhat ironic that our friend the member for Hamilton Centre would bring forth a bill designating April 22 as Earth Day and at the same time the government he is part of, which campaigned so very vigorously on environmental issues and promised, by way of example, an environmental bill of rights as the cornerstone of its environmental agenda, subsequently produces as its first piece of legislation, legislation that basically flies in the face of every principle the party of which he is a member stood for. I am sure he must find it difficult and somewhat -- dare I use the word -- embarrassing that he would be in a position where he would stand here and talk about Earth Day when this very afternoon in this place, his government would seek to shut down the right of people across this province to participate in environmental decisions that would affect them in a very fundamental way.

To me that is the height of irony, that here we would be debating the designation of a day as Earth Day on the very day the government of Ontario is saying: "Look, I'm sorry about what we said. It doesn't count for anything any more. The undertakings we gave, the commitments we made, are now of no effect and we're not prepared to live up to the promises we made."

As Humpty Dumpty said, "Words mean whatever I choose them to mean." Indeed, I think that is the message the government of the day is sending to the people of Ontario. Words about environmental commitment, integrity -- what does Earth Day mean to the people of Ontario when this Legislature would consider a private member's initiative to have a day proclaimed as Earth Day, and then the very day that proclamation was made say to the people of Ontario, "We're sorry, but we really don't believe in the general concepts that would underline an Earth Day"?

As we consider the symbolism of what has been talked about here -- that is what Earth Day is: It is symbolic -- it is fine to have a token day, if you will, but environmental issues are not prescribed or confined to a designated day in Ontario or around the world. It is a mindset, a lifestyle, a willingness for us to consider, in the whole scheme of our economic developments, the environmental sustainability of the kind of development we will proceed with in this province. It is a way of thinking. Earth Day is symbolic of that. I have no difficulty with that. In fact, I support it and applaud the member for bringing this forward, but I ask him to consider where the symbolism of Earth Day stands when you put it up against the environmental agenda of the government of the day.

I hasten to add that there has been only one piece of environmental legislation brought forward by this government. What is that piece of legislation? It is legislation that seeks to shut down the participation of people in this province. What an irony that a member of the government would introduce a piece of legislation that would designate a day as a symbol of environmental concerns for the people of this province on the very same day the government says: "I'm sorry; we don't want the participation of men and women, of interest groups, of municipal governments on the very first piece of legislation we have brought forward that impacts the environment." I hope that as we consider the designation of Earth Day pursuant to Bill 155, as introduced by the member for Hamilton Centre, that would not be lost on members opposite.

I very well know the pressure many of them are going to be under. I very well know the realities of what takes place here on Thursday mornings and indeed in the afternoons throughout the week. Members are occupied with other things. They have a sense: "Oh, we've heard this before. It's an opposition member who's trying to get his digs in at the government."

Members will do other things. They will be working diligently at signing Christmas cards or reading the morning paper or looking at what other material is necessary for the conduct of their business throughout the day. I appreciate that because certainly I have done that and doubtless will do that again. The comments I make may not really be heard by all members. I notice the member for Lincoln is listening intently and for that I thank him. He is a man of integrity, a man who has demonstrated his integrity and stood in his place and voted on a matter of principle.

We have here a matter of principle with respect to Bill 155. That is the fundamental issue here. Concepts are fine, but until they are put into practice, until people are willing not just to pay lipservice but to respond with concrete action to ideals, promises given and principles enunciated, they are, after all, meaningless. All the rhetoric in the world and all the designations of special days mean nothing if there is not action, and positive action, that flows from that.

While I support the general principle, I do so with great concern that in and of itself the principle is not sufficient. It accomplishes nothing. What is necessary is action that is consistent with the principle that underlies Bill 155.

When we vote on this matter, I ask members to seriously consider in good conscience, if they are voting for this, where it fits within the scheme of other things before this House and to let their conscience be the test of their integrity and consistency as we move towards designating a day as Earth Day, recognizing the serious responsibility each one of us has as a legislator and as a person who lives in this province, in this country and in this world to leave a better place for the young people who will follow us. The legacy we want to leave is a healthy environment and something we can be proud of.

1040

Mr Cousens: I am pleased to support the motion before the House today and I congratulate the member for Hamilton Centre for bringing it forward. I have seen the value of Earth Day over recent years and I think it has done a great job. Environmental groups have helped educate the rest of the world on the importance of planting trees and making this Earth and the neighbouring surroundings a more friendly place for each one of us.

Taking care of our land, taking care of our backyards, taking care of our parks, everything that happens around that day gives an emphasis, a very proper emphasis, to the value of this planet Earth. In fact, I have the Earth Day flag flying in my office beside the Ontario flag as a constant reminder that we have a far bigger responsibility than just the province of Ontario when we are dealing with these great subjects that have to do with the future protection of society and this great planet Earth we live on. So I commend the member.

Now, those are the good words. The member for Hamilton Centre is to be congratulated for bringing forth the motion and for, I think, the very genuine desire he has for the betterment of all through this kind of motion.

Having said that, I wonder where he is at with his own Minister of the Environment, seeing what she is doing with regard to the protection of planet earth. First of all, on our order paper today we are looking at significant changes to the plans for this Legislature in debating Bill 143, an act that affects the landfills for the greater Toronto area. We are going to have closure placed on this House to complete the debate on Bill 143 so that it is all put aside before Christmas.

We are dealing with property rights, land rights. The Municipal Act, the conservation act, the municipalities' acts and all those acts that are inherent in existing legislation will be shoved aside. All those rights that deal with property rights people have as individuals or municipalities are going to be put to one side as this New Democratic government in Ontario brings in legislation that gives it unprecedented powers over the rights of landlords and municipalities in dealing with the landfill crisis we have in Ontario.

I have to say that out of one side of our mouth we are saying that we want to protect the Earth, that we want to protect the future, and out of the other side, someone else within the government, the Minister of the Environment -- we have already had the parliamentary assistant speak on this bill -- does not talk about the tremendous powers this government is taking and the abuse of power that can have for future generations -- absolutely wrong. What this government should have been doing is looking at ways in which we could streamline the environmental assessment process, and in that way we could speed up the whole business of having landfill sites approved.

Instead, we have seen this draconian legislation brought forward, absolutely the worst piece of legislation I have ever seen. It is the first piece of legislation the Minister of the Environment has brought into the House since she became minister on October 1, 1990, and what she is doing with this bill is taking away property rights and land rights for people.

I know we have a crisis with landfill sites. We do have a crisis and we have to find a way of dealing with it, but what this government is doing to try to find a place to get rid of our garbage just does not make a lot of sense. This government is saying: "You've got to find a place to get rid of your garbage within the greater Toronto area. You can't look outside that. You can't transport it anywhere else." What they are doing is closing off options rather than opening them up.

In this legislation the government brings in very important packaging legislation, which we all have to look at together, but why not do it with consultation with industry and everyone who is involved? That consultation will be closed off by December 19 when this government forces through its legislation. There will not be dialogue. There will not be discussion, except what we are able to cram in in the few days of open sessions we are going to have.

On the one hand, I support this member's bill in saying, "Let's do something about Earth Day." On the other hand, I condemn their Minister of the Environment for not having any sense at all of working together to make planet Earth a safe and good place to live. There is something dreadfully wrong going on there. Maybe when his motion passes this morning, the honourable member can go to the minister and try to talk some sense into her brain on other matters that are coming out from the Ministry of the Environment.

What about the Clean Air Act? What is happening with the air? Planet Earth is important and I support the member on this, but we have to do something about the acid rain emissions. I have had a private member's resolution in this House since December 20 of last year, asking the government to do something about the Countdown Acid Rain program. The fact of the matter is that 1994 is when the existing guidelines expire. We have seen the United States buy into the acid rain program through the Environmental Protection Act and what they are doing down there, but our government has not taken leadership on that.

In fact, when I call the Minister of the Environment the minister of garbage, I am right, because that is all she is looking at, garbage. She is not looking at the other issues that pertain to the world and the protection of it. She is not looking at acid rain. She is not looking at the other issues. She is not looking at clean air. I am saying that has to be an issue. We cannot look at one without looking at the other. They are all integrated and tied together.

What is happening with our water resources? This government has not begun to do anything about clean water for the province. One of the few things David Peterson's crew did was to establish a corporation that was going to be responsible for making water in Ontario clean for the long term. People are worried about their water. More and more people are now going out and buying bottled water, and what is this government doing about it? Zip-all, nothing. The water we have in Ontario is one of the most valuable resources we have.

They are integrated, all together, the air, the water, the earth. Somehow or other this government is only looking at one thing and that is landfill problems, garbage sites, and it is not beginning to look at the great, broad spectrum of the problems that surround us. The people of Ontario have been so let down by the New Democrats, because they have not been able to develop any kind of comprehensive program on anything except garbage, and even that is flawed. They have not looked at clean air, they have not looked at water.

What are we dealing with? We are dealing with a Legislature that is off the rails. The New Democrats continue to shove through legislation, as we will see with Bill 143, that disregards the rights and privileges of the people of Ontario that have been built over our whole history till now. What we have to see then is somehow -- and I know it exists, because the member for Hamilton Centre and ourselves agree on this resolution -- why can we not agree on some of the other priorities this province should be working on together?

Why can we not in private members' hour, or by closing down the rest of the Legislature, sit down and honestly work through ways in which we can deal with water, deal with the tire problem? Nothing is happening. They have collected $200 million from the tire tax, yet they continue to pile them up or bury them or we have guards watching them. It is part of the whole issue. We can talk about the 3Rs, and I believe in the 3Rs. I believe every member in this House has a sense of commitment about the 3Rs, but what are we doing about it beyond just talking? We are bringing in legislation, but can we not deal with the greater and ongoing issues that deal with the environment? We have a responsibility to do that.

When I think of the way this government is now dealing with other issues that have to do with the environment, it is off the rails. This government is in trouble with the really critical issues. They say the right words, as the member for Hamilton Centre says so well and so eloquently within this private member's resolution, but the actions that follow through the ministry and through the other ministers do not convey the same sense of commitment to the fundamental principles he is displaying. Maybe he can have some impact on those people who are in the government.

1050

Mr G. Wilson: I am certainly happy to join in this debate that the member for Hamilton Centre has begun with his very important bill regarding the proclaiming of Earth Day in Ontario. I am especially pleased because, as the member pointed out, the co-ordinator for Earth Day Ontario resides in Kingston. I can attest to the very good job she is doing in bringing the community's attention to the need for greater awareness of what we are doing to our environment.

As the bill points out, Earth Day is for the purpose of encouraging participation in community, provincial, national and international activities. It shows that regardless of where you live, you are aware of what the importance of the environment is and that it is only by working in your own locality that you can do something about the environment but always in the context of greater areas.

As some members of the opposition have pointed out, it is one thing to proclaim a day, but it is certainly a different thing to bring about the necessary action. We know that Mother's Day did not achieve the protection of women in their homes, and this week we are highlighting the assault of wives. The fact is that proclaiming something does not lead to the goals that are set out. I am pleased the member has also included in his bill the necessity of working with a movement to achieve the goals, because it will take the participation of everyone in the community to achieve the life-sustaining globe that we are all after.

I am puzzled by the member for Markham's observations. He says he has in his office the Earth Day flag. I wonder where he thinks the degradation of the environment has come from. It is only since our government took over a year ago that the severity of the problem has emerged. As the member for Hamilton Centre pointed out, Earth Day itself was first devised 21 years ago in 1970. That followed on a very significant event: 29 years ago the publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson drew awareness to the problems our environment faces. Certainly the problems are now well recognized.

The importance of this bill, I think, is just to keep in mind the necessity of doing something about it. But then the question arises, what should we do about it? I think, as the member for Markham pointed out, there is some disagreement here. Certainly their government had a lot of opportunity to protect our air and water and to come up with sane arrangements so that our resources would be used to beneficial purposes, but they appear to have failed. The following government was not that much more successful.

This is not to point fingers; it is just to say that the problem is deeply rooted. As long as we have finger-pointing and jumping up and down about the activities that we try to reach, rather than, say, a more impartial and objective look at the conditions and asking questions: Why are the rain forests disappearing in the Amazon? Why is our air so polluted? Why are the Great Lakes at risk? Indeed, why is the human species itself under threat from the lack of oxygen, and not only, I might point out, the human species but all the species that have evolved on this planet and certainly are very important to our standard of living. So again the question is why, and even when we reach that, what to do about it.

Thinking back to the celebration of Earth Day in Kingston last year, it was an important gathering. I was startled, in touring the park where the main exhibition was, to find cheek by jowl with the usual bootstrap operations a display set up by Loblaws, where we had several green products listed. It was almost like coming upon, I guess, a snazzy operation out on the street corner next to the kids' operation with lemonade. Even though it looked a bit out of place, I must say it was useful to have that person there because you could discuss exactly what a corporation was doing. At least it begins a discussion.

But I think we do have to go beyond there to say what it is that is causing the degradation of our planet and seeing things like recycling, for instance, as in effect a hospital operation. If packaging were properly set up, there would be no need for recycling. I think it is that kind of approach. We cannot reach that tomorrow, but we have to at least look at it to say what we can do to make sure that packaging, for instance, is done in a sensible way.

Again I want to applaud the member for Hamilton Centre for raising this issue. I think he well understands that simply proclaiming the day does not mean we will reach a sustainable planet, but it is a beginning and will lead to discussions like this.

Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to rise in support of the resolution to proclaim Earth Day. I believe the people of this province are in need of this kind of opportunity to express their commitment to the environment. I think that is the reason that Earth Day has been such a success in the past. It is a time when we see real educational opportunities, not only in our schools but right through our homes and our streets and in offices where everyone comes together to heighten public awareness about the need for everyone to make every day an Earth Day.

The concern I have has been expressed by others; that is, it is particularly interesting to see this member come forward with this resolution at a time when the record of his government is being exposed for the very first time. I think the reason he brought this resolution forward was because of his own personal frustration. I know of his commitment to the environment -- he shares that commitment with me and many others on this side of the House -- but I have seen during the time this new government has been in power not one piece of environmental legislation. The only piece of legislation before us is Bill 143 and that is not a piece of environmental legislation, it is carried by the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area.

I know the member for Hamilton Centre, as he brings forth this resolution, is very aware of the letter of August 14, 1990, when his party was very clear on what its environmental platform would be. Yet when you take a look at the rhetoric of the past and the action of the present it is very sad, very upsetting.

Back in August 1990, as the member knows full well because he campaigned on this, he said there would be zero discharge for all toxic chemicals. They have done nothing. Lakefilling is still occurring. Millions of cubic yards are being dumped into the lake in this greater Toronto area. They called for an absolute ban on organochlorine dumping in the pulp and paper industry. They have done nothing on that.

We know when they go down through the list, yes, they brought in a ban on municipal garbage incineration. I think all of us want to make sure anything that is unsafe for the environment is stopped and better ways are found. But they have also said, particularly under Bill 143, that they are not prepared to consider any new technologies in the area of energy from waste, which may be better and safer for the environment than landfill.

As we talk about Earth Day, each and every single one of us wants to make sure our commitment to the environment is tested every single day. On this day and in this Legislature I say to the member that the government's record on refillables -- it says here, "The NDP would require all refillables" --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mrs Caplan: They have done nothing. It is about time we saw some action.

Ms Carter: I am sorry I do not have longer to speak on this very important issue. I think it is the biggest issue that faces us because all the things we do to help people socially, to improve our economy and so on, if we do not look to our environment, are going to be useless in the long run.

I support Earth Day. It is already in operation in my home community and there are a lot of very enlightened and dedicated people who take part. It is an educational issue, and I am glad so many teachers in schools are working on this with the children.

We are guilty in this country. We have a small population but per capita we produce vast amounts of pollution with our cars, our power stations, our generally extravagant standard of life. The good news is that we could pollute less without suffering, particularly if we do it in the right way.

I want to put in a word here for the Ministry of Energy as opposed to the Ministry of the Environment. It was said, I believe, by Jim MacNeill, who was the secretary of the Brundtland commission, that a Minister of the Environment gets to clean up the mess, which is what the Minister of the Environment is in fact having to do, but a Minister of Energy can prevent it from happening in the first place.

As we get to our industries, our homes, our commercial people and show them how they can get the heat, light, power and everything else they need and use less energy, we are helping to save the world and to improve our own immediate economic situation. There is hope if we can attack it in this kind of way.

Mr Christopherson: I thank all members who contributed to the debate today for their contributions. I want to give particular thanks, of course, to my own colleagues on this side of the House, the member for Middlesex, the member for Peterborough and the member for Kingston and The Islands.

Not to detract from others, but I want to give special acknowledgement to the member for Simcoe East who had the opportunity, as an opposition member, to rip and slash if he wished to. But he took what I consider to be the high road and talked about this issue in the manner in which it was offered and, quite frankly, in the way the international licensing corporation, which sent me a fax this morning, requested we do. I quote from their letter: "May we offer you our sincerest best wishes that your presentation of this bill proves successful and that all members of the Legislative Assembly support your bill in a non-partisan spirit of endorsement for this outstanding environmental initiative."

The other members who had criticisms did so because they felt it was their obligation. I take them, as do my colleagues, as constructive criticisms, but I offer that special acknowledgement to the one opposition member who felt that was not quite appropriate in this place today.

I also want to acknowledge that it was fortunate for me today in that there was a group of students here from the Cathedral Girls' High School and I slipped out for a moment to have a photograph taken with them. I asked them if they were aware of Earth Day and they said they were. I asked if they supported it and they said they did. One of the students put her hand up and said, "I want to ask a question about why there are real trees being used here in the assembly." The answer is that they come from a tree farm and it provides employment. The example was given that it is the same as vegetable farming, etc. But the point is that the students are going to be putting the pressure on all of us, regardless of who the government is, and in that way Earth Day will be a global event every day.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

1100

SPADINA SUBWAY

Mr Sorbara moved resolution 34:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the development of our transportation infrastructure must be an urgent priority, and that initial plans for the looping of the Yonge and Spadina subway lines have already been developed, and that York University comprises a community of over 50,000 people who commute daily to the university campus, the vast majority in automobiles due to the lack of adequate public transportation, and that Metropolitan Toronto's transportation needs can only be properly addressed in conjunction with those of the surrounding regional municipalities -- York region in particular -- the government of Ontario should act immediately to extend the Spadina subway line to York University and along Steeles Avenue to join with the Yonge subway line, thereby significantly reducing the congestion on our roads and highways and laying the basis for an integrated transportation system for the greater Toronto area.

Mr Sorbara: I begin just by noting that this is my first opportunity to bring a resolution forward in this private members' time that we have every Thursday morning in our Parliament. My experience during almost six years as a member of this assembly is that this time allocation is an opportunity for members to bring forward projects, issues, items, approaches to reform and new laws and bills that are of particular importance to them, their constituents and the province as a whole. That certainly is the case with me this morning as I simply ask the members of this House, through this resolution, to direct their minds to the incredible need that exists within the greater Toronto area, and certainly Metropolitan Toronto, for us to get on with the business of revitalizing our infrastructure, particularly the infrastructure of transportation.

My own view of this is that if we are not capable of urgently getting on with the building of subways and other means of transporting people, including the extension of the GO system and subway construction that goes beyond this extension of the University line to York University, then we are going to run into very significant difficulties in maintaining the quality of life and high standards in both our businesses and our community life that people in the greater Toronto area have come to expect.

How did this notion of expanding and extending the University-Spadina line up to York University begin? Frankly, it goes back well beyond the time when I first brought this matter to the attention of the former member for Scarborough East, Mr Ed Fulton, who was for a long time, as members will recall, the Minister of Transportation for this province.

Mr Curling: An outstanding member.

Mr Sorbara: He was an outstanding member, as my colleague the member for Scarborough North says. All the members from Scarborough are outstanding.

Mr Owens: Thank you.

Mr Sorbara: I hear another Scarborough member acknowledging the pre-eminence of Scarborough members. I should just point out that in advocating the York University subway in this resolution, I do not for a minute try to suggest to the members of this House, or to the members who represent Scarborough, or to my friend the member for Oriole, that this line should somehow take precedence over another subway system that we desperately need in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr Owens: The Sheppard line.

Mr Sorbara: That is the Sheppard line, I say to my friend the member for Scarborough Centre.

In my view, we must get on with the business of extending rapid transit and building subways in Metropolitan Toronto. I know the member for Oriole is in agreement with that. Why do we have to do this? The answer is quite simple. The success, the viability and the vitality of an urban area such as the GTA is dependent on a host of things, but among the most important is effective transportation.

Anyone who came into the heart of Metropolitan Toronto, into downtown Toronto or to Queen's Park this morning or any other morning of the week will know our roads are now clogged beyond acceptable levels, and when we have a little bit of snowfall, traffic moves at an absolute snail's pace. The only alternative is to use the very best technologies we can develop and secure and to continue that kind of building we have done historically in this province quite well. I think back to the first leg of the subway we had in Toronto, the Yonge line from Union station up to Eglinton Avenue. It was a small start, but for a while we took this stuff very seriously. We built the Bloor line; that has been a great success. We extended the Yonge line; that was a great success. We built the University line and extended it up to Spadina; that has been somewhat less successful.

The reason I am putting this resolution forward is that if we complete the line that was built along University Avenue and its Spadina extension up to York University, we can make the line that already exists a line that operates at capacity. The members should think as well about how the metropolitan area and the GTA are developing and understand that York University is a community of 50,000 people that needs to be served by rapid transit and a subway link if it is going to reach its real potential.

I used to live relatively close to York University. I attended York University. The great shame of it, as I say in my resolution, is that currently transportation to that area is dominated by the automobile. This is unacceptable in any context, but it is clearly unacceptable for a university where most students struggle just to pay tuitions and maintain living costs, let alone try to bear the cost of owning and operating an automobile.

There is another benefit that is going to accrue when we extend this line to York University. We are going to join up our two universities in the Toronto area by rapid transit; that is to say, the University of Toronto right next door to us -- our landlord in fact, because the University of Toronto actually owns the land these Parliament buildings are situated on -- which is served by a subway, will be joined to York University. This kind of synergy between the two institutions, enhanced by rapid transit, will indeed in the future allow students to involve themselves in joint programs between the two universities, and it will actually in a real way build upon the kind of energies we need to develop between those two institutions.

More than that, members will recall the previous government adopted a plan to link the two subway lines with a loop. This loop will in fact allow the two lines to run as one. The real issue for this loop is where the western extension and the northern extension are going to run to. There are a number of models before, I guess, the Ministry of Transportation, the Toronto Transit Commission and Metropolitan Toronto. One calls for the western extension of the loop to end at Dufferin Street and the northern extension of the loop to end at Finch Avenue.

1110

It appears we are going to build the loop. That seems clear by all accounts. The government has agreed to finance that kind of loop -- at least the previous government had agreed to that. The TTC is in agreement with that and Metropolitan Toronto is as well. If we build that, we must ensure that this loop goes to where the people are and where the community is expanding to. I say to members, in the context of this resolution, that this loop must go to Steeles Avenue and it must extend to York University. Anything short of that would not only be a terrible disservice to the people in the northwest of the greater Toronto area, who are crying out for alternative methods of transportation, but it will for ever foreclose the opportunity to serve the university with appropriate transportation means.

Finally, I just want to point out that it was in the news this morning that a coalition of labour groups, employers, civic officials, representatives from Metropolitan Toronto and others have called upon the Ontario government to get on with the construction of subways. I see my friend the member for Oriole has the article right here. The headline reads, "Grier Seeks Quick Action on Spadina Projects." That is very important. I am glad she is doing that. One of the things getting on with this construction right away will do is to put people who are not now working back to work. That is absolutely crucial.

There are thousands and thousands of construction workers who should be working on these very projects. If we could provide the financial assistance and if we could approve the projects, we could start that construction even this winter and it would make a great deal of difference to thousands and thousands of people in the greater Toronto area, in particular, construction workers. The project is called the Metro Jobstart Coalition.

In closing, I want to say that I support their view absolutely and 100%. I simply plead with my friends here to support this resolution and give York University the kind of subway service it deserves.

Mr Turnbull: I want to congratulate my colleague for bringing this motion forward today. I know he is working very hard on behalf of his constituents. Unfortunately, I cannot support him today for the following reasons.

While it is quite clear that we need to extend the Spadina subway line, it is inappropriate that we cut off the process at this moment of building the extension which has been planned over a period of years. The planning and the environmental assessment for the initial extension of the Spadina subway, which is Wilson to Sheppard, has been completed. Indeed, two years of study went into this. The study sat on the desk of the Minister of the Environment until September, and only then did she put out the various papers of her review and advertise the project.

The process allows, as members know, for the 30-day period when anybody can object to anything within an environmental assessment. There was only one objection, and that was filed by a Mr Ian Lithgow of the Loop Group. He is employed by York University. York University has a great interest in getting the subway out there. Indeed, it may be that ultimately that is where the subway should go. But there is ongoing study as to where it should go under several different routes being studied, and the answers are not in yet. I hate to say it, but this is probably the first and only time I will agree with NDP councillor Howard Moscoe. He is suggesting this is a crass grab by York University to increase the value of its lands, because it has desires to sell off large chunks of the university for development. Obviously, if there is a subway line going out to it, the land will be significantly more valuable.

At the moment we are looking at a proposal to extend the subway up to Sheppard, which is a distance of some 1.5 kilometres. If you go out to York University -- as I say, one day it may be appropriate to do that, but we have to wait for the studies -- you are doubling the distance.

Clearly, at the moment we have a problem with respect to the subway lines. The Yonge line is overburdened with volume and the Spadina section is underutilized. The ideal scenario would be to get headway times between trains of some 30 seconds in rush hours. At the moment they have considerably less than that. The trains running up and down the Spadina line are half empty. We have to find a way of tapping into a large reservoir of people who will ride the subway. By going up to Sheppard, we would immediately do this. We know the largest block of potential riders we can tap into is at Sheppard.

The imperative is to make sure we do not delay the process. Unfortunately, this one objection from the Ministry of the Environment is leading to a potential delay. One of the things that is constantly a problem for the taxpayers of this province, and in fact throughout Canada, is this whole question of governance. It is absolutely essential that we have proper environmental protection. The process in itself is good. The problem is that it is too long.

We have to start having very finite times allocated for the environmental process so that within a short period of time after objections, you resolve them one way or the other, and basically you either fish or cut bait. What happens at the moment with environmental assessment is that the whole question can be dragged out over many years. We only have to look at things like the building of large Ontario Hydro lines across the province. Some of these lines have taken as much as 14 years to be approved. This costs the taxpayer a lot more money because of inflation in the meantime. The peculiar thing is that when we look at most of these assessments, the lines end up being built where they were proposed in the first place, but we have added to the taxpayers' burden.

This is the thing I would especially say to my colleague the member for York Centre who brought forward this motion: We need to get the whole process moving now, get the subway built to Sheppard, get all the studies in and then have a look. Maybe we can extend it out to York University, but there are about three alternative routes and they should be given a proper chance to be debated. In the meantime, we are holding up construction, which could start as early as January and generate at least 700 jobs. I suggest the construction industry desperately needs those jobs at the moment.

In an article in the Globe and Mail about Howard Moscoe's comments, he is suggesting: "We're ready to put shovel in the ground in January, it will provide 700 jobs, and York has the unmitigated audacity, hiding behind the phony Loop Group, to file an objection." I have to point out once again that the person who filed the objection is an employee of York University and in fact is employed specifically to lobby, as he has lobbied me, on the question of extending the subway.

1120

Once again I reiterate that I am not necessarily against extending it out there, because the northwest corner of Metro is probably one of the most underserviced areas of Metro in terms of transit and we need to be able to give an appropriate type of transit facility there, but what we do with this is give the NDP government the excuse to get out of building now. There are no environmental considerations involved here, and in fact Mr Moscoe says as much. My friends across the floor do not have to have any worries about that; such an NDP source as Howard Moscoe said there are no environmental problems.

We must look at the whole question of rapid transit, not just to northwest Toronto but out to all these greater Toronto areas, and ideally we will look at a system that will have multiple modes of rapid transit. Preferably we will rely heavily on subways and electrically operated trains, which are more environmentally acceptable. But we also have to look at the question of how we are going to fund them. If the TTC were to fund the construction out along Steeles with the normal arrangement with the province, it would be providing a service for people who live in Vaughan and Markham and they should contribute towards the cost of it. I am sure my good friend the member for Markham would agree that would be appropriate.

But we must not allow an objection to halt the construction of the proposed extension to Sheppard at the moment. We must move forward with all the plans to examine the alternative routes, and if in fact the university is chosen as the preferred route, let us make that extension. But at the moment, with the distance we are moving, there would be virtually no difference between the route we would be choosing now and an alternative route that would go out to the university, so it just gives the NDP government ammunition to stall and not spend money at a time when we need stimulation of the economy. The best time to build rapid transit is when you have a recession, because you can do it at much cheaper prices than when the construction industry is booming.

With that, I will say I congratulate my colleague once again for bringing forward this motion. I regret that I cannot support this motion at this time, but I do think we should look very seriously at the alternative of getting the subway eventually out to the university, along with the other potential routes, and move expeditiously with those once that plan is brought forward.

Mr Dadamo: I am pleased to rise this morning and speak on ballot item 50 being put forward by the member for York Centre. Along the way I would like to give the position of MTO, because I am parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, but I know my colleague the member for Downsview is very close to this issue and has had meetings with the Loop Group and I would like him to take the bulk of the time, so I will be brief.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond on behalf of the government to the private member's resolution brought forward by the member for York Centre. This government is a strong proponent of public transit and is dedicated to improving transit, not only in the Toronto area but right across the province.

As members will know, just over one year ago we confirmed our commitment to continue with plans to complete the Yonge-Spadina subway loop as well as other projects under the Let's Move program of transit expansion. We have not wavered on that commitment. The Ministry of Transportation is now working actively with Metro Toronto, and of course the TTC, in pursuing these transit initiatives.

Connecting the Yonge and Spadina lines into a single-looped system in the Finch-Steeles area is one of the major initiatives in the Let's Move program. The first step towards implementation of the Yonge-Spadina loop is the preparation of an environmental assessment study. It is hoped this study will be completed by next spring.

The environmental assessment is intended to ensure that the proposed rapid transit initiative is properly planned and that potential impacts on the social and natural environments are considered. We believe in and fully support the comprehensive evaluation and consultation provided by the EA process. As part of the environmental assessment process, six public information meetings have been held: three in February 1991 and three in June of this year, and another three public meetings are planned for next spring prior to the submission of the environmental assessment report.

The EA is being carried out by the Toronto Transit Commission under the direction of an advisory committee that will include staff from the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Transportation, Metropolitan Toronto, the city of North York, the city of Vaughan, and of course the region of York. Various route options are being evaluated including the one recommended by the member for York Centre, the alignment along Keele and Steeles. The transportation needs of both Metro Toronto and south York region are being considered as well as service to York University. Planners are also investigating opportunities to integrate the TTC and GO Transit as well as other transit services operating in the York region.

To date there has been no decision concerning a specific corridor alignment, nor can there be prior to further public review and completion of the environmental assessment. Members will know that a coalition of ratepayers, community groups, municipal government, institutions and private developers known as the Loop Group have asked for a deferral of the current environmental assessment. This request is currently under consideration by the Ministry of the Environment.

We are all anxious for work to begin as soon as possible, not only because subway service will be improved but because jobs will be created. The loop will provide major benefits including increased capacity and improved transit service on the Yonge-University-Spadina subway line. There is also no question of the need to complete the missing link in our subway system. Daily TTC ridership has reached 1.6 million and the system will be able to carry even more riders in the future if the service improvements are made.

In closing, and to the member opposite, this government is committed to increasing public transit and the Yonge-Spadina loop is just one example of the commitment of this government.

Mr Cordiano: I am delighted to be able to speak this morning on the resolution proposed by my colleague. I see various other colleagues who are probably in favour of this resolution, because they too have concerns that are similar to those I will express in my comments with respect to a number of issues regarding the extension of rapid transit to northwest Metro.

The loop, as it is proposed, will see an extension of subway access up along Dufferin Street to Steeles Avenue and then loop on to Yonge Street. Everyone knows that here, and I think that was a long time in coming and is overdue. The concern at the present time is for delay, which will be costly and probably not good for a number of reasons, for economic as well as transportation considerations, and the kind of environmental impact that has with respect to congestion and smog that we see increasing daily in northwest Metro.

In the last election I spoke a number of times and put forward the view that one of the major concerns for Metro Toronto and the surrounding region was rapid transit. In fact, I believe it is one of the most important issues we are facing with respect to the growth of Metropolitan Toronto and the other surrounding urban areas. Without the kinds of links we are going to see occur with rapid transit, we are simply not going to get the rational growth that is required, the kind of growth that makes sense.

What we see today in northwest Metro and surrounding areas in the greater Toronto area is enormous congestion of traffic. Chaos actually reigns. If members take a drive along Steeles Avenue at the three rush hours, one starts in the morning and goes for roughly three or four hours; there is another that starts at midday and there is another at the end of the day. Quite frankly, it is getting to the point where you have an entire rush hour period during the whole day. There does not seem to be any delineation between when one starts and one ends. That simply cannot add up to economic expansion when it takes enormous amounts of time to get from point A to point B in the northwest part of Metro, let alone come to downtown Toronto. There are simply no routes that allow for easy access to the centre of the city by an automobile.

To link up to the Wilson-Spadina line at the present time is a feat in itself. There is no doubt that the loop is necessary. The question is, what should the loop accomplish and in which direction should it go to meet the greatest need? The decision having been made, we would not want to delay unnecessarily. I think, however, that the first phase of the construction could take place --

1130

Mrs Caplan: Immediately.

Mr Cordiano: Immediately is correct. I thank my colleague the member for Oriole.

It should start and that first phase should go up to Sheppard. In the meantime, I cannot see why consideration cannot be given to extending the loop northwest from that point. I simply cannot see why that cannot take place. Perhaps the tactics that are being employed at the present time are not the ones we need.

What is required, I believe, is a little leadership on the part of the government to simply say, "We need another extension that extends northwest from Sheppard and Dufferin in the direction of Steeles and Keele, ending there." I think it is ludicrous to think we should exclude a circulation of 50,000 people who will most likely use the rapid transit facilities on an everyday basis. To ignore that is ludicrous. It is bad policy; it is bad planning in the extreme.

The kind of expansion we are talking about would also facilitate the possibility some day of more rapid links to the airport and to the whole quadrant that we are seeing expand at an ever-increasing rate northwest of Metro, which I think is probably the fastest-growing area in the greater Toronto area.

I cannot see why we cannot look at a possible alternative as a compromise. I repeat: The government should start the subway expansion immediately, go up to Sheppard and, in the meantime, some resolution could be found for this difficulty. This other alternative could be accomplished in the short term without too much delay. Environmental assessment is probably not the answer. It is simply a delaying tactic. I do not agree with that in the sense that it is there as an alternative, but I think also the intended purpose is to get delay so that this other alternative could be brought to the fore.

I do not want to delay the extension of the subway. The subway runs right through the heart of my riding. We know the enormous problems the people in the riding of Lawrence face as a result of the congestion, the ever-increasing amounts of traffic that flows north-south. We do not want to see a delay of that rapid transit expansion. The problems I have noted earlier with respect to the congestion -- enormous amounts of carbon dioxide and monoxide being released into the air -- are a pollution nightmare with respect to what is happening up there in the northwest quadrant of the city. We simply do not want to see that going on for ever.

Mind you, the recession has alleviated that problem somewhat in the last little while, but it is a short-term thing. In the long term we cannot have that kind of growth in the northwest section of Metro without some rapid transit expansion. We have to get on with the program of building, and the sooner we do it the better.

Mr Cousens: I would like to go on record as commending the honourable member for York Centre for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very important subject. I would also like to say, to his credit, that there has seldom been anyone who has worked as hard or as conscientiously for transportation issues and other issues within his own community. As the member for the neighbouring riding I would like to have more reason to be angry with him.

I think it is worth while saying that the member for York Centre has always had the greatest interest in serving the needs of York region. That is something I have enjoyed very, very much, as we live in the same area and have the same concerns for the region. We were able to be very effective in fighting for those things that help the people who live north of Steeles Avenue.

Having said a few things that are nice, I now want to go to three more points where I do agree with the resolution put forward by the member. The first one is that in his resolution he says, "the transportation infrastructure must be an urgent priority." I do not think there is any doubt about that. As head of the Tory task force on transportation issues in the greater Toronto area, we saw this as an urgent priority.

To the credit of the former Liberal government, it did put $5 billion into the expenditure of building the infrastructure for transportation in the greater Toronto area, and to the credit of the New Democrats, they have continued that commitment. To me, we are doing something positive to help create a transportation network that is going to do an awful lot to help our areas. That must continue to be a priority. Transportation serves everybody and it is essential.

The second thing I agree with is that Metro Toronto transportation needs cannot be properly addressed without looking at the neighbouring municipalities. We have got to have far more integration of the planning that goes on between the regional municipality of York and the greater Toronto area. It has to do with the planning of TTC services north of Steeles, integration of fare structures, rationalization of the local transportation networks and linking them more effectively with GO Transit and the other systems, having more transportation within the region and Metro Toronto linked so you can time the pickup of one bus to the next bus and people are not just caught at the boundaries of the different municipalities. This must continue to be a high priority.

The next thing I agree with is that through a better infrastructure of rapid transit services we will be able to get cars off the road and we can encourage people to use public transit more. That is the third of the three views the honourable member for York Centre has presented that I agree with.

Having said all that, I am not able to support the motion because I believe it does preclude some of the other options that should be considered for getting that subway north. I do not want to lock myself into one specific option at this time. Once we build it to Sheppard and once we see the different possibilities through the process that has been described by the government, then it may well be an option to build it to York University. I think it is going to be an expensive option and may well not succeed. If it does, after it has gone through the whole process of consideration, I will be in a position to support it. At the early stage we are at right now I cannot agree that it is the very best option, which this motion would be inclined to want me to say.

There are a number of possibilities. I have the map as I look at them. It certainly is a greater distance to head over to Keele and then up by the university. I look forward to seeing the subway head north. If it takes a more direct way to get to Steeles, then I am not going to be totally unhappy, as long as it comes over to the corner of Yonge and Steeles. I would also be pleased to see some way in which we begin to look at subway expansion further north to Highway 7, and in that way there can be a linkup by people elsewhere.

We are going to have to look at the expansion of subway services. Rapid transit services have to be increased in this province. The more we do to link those areas outside Metropolitan Toronto into the Metro infrastructure the better. I know that is part of the intent of the motion put forward by the member for York Centre. I believe his intentions are honourable. Unfortunately, he is inclined to lock out other options through this motion, which may not be his intent, but is at least the way I interpret it now. I have every desire to go anywhere, and rapid transit is the way to go.

1140

Mr Perruzza: It is very much a pleasure to be able to participate in this discussion this morning. I would like to thank the member for York Centre for bringing forward this resolution and bringing before this House a subject that is very important both for my area and for a number of other northwest Metropolitan Toronto communities which are in dire need of some infrastructure that will be able to facilitate their moving in and out of Metro more expeditiously. This is an issue that is relatively long-standing in the community, and I will speak a little bit to the merit of the proposal.

I know the member for York Centre has alluded to some of the more salient points in this regard. He talked about the ever-growing population at York University, the 50,000 or so students who access that campus on a daily basis. Those people come from all parts of Metro and from all parts outside Metro as well. Most of them commute by car to York University. If you saw an aerial photograph of York University, you would quickly see it is a rather large parking lot as it stands today. We have to deflect some of this traffic. We have to get some of these cars off our streets, and obviously the subway is the way to go to be able to move people in and out of this area rather quickly.

There are also a number of other factors. York region, Vaughan in particular, is growing at an alarming rate. It is my understanding they do not have an official plan, so how they are guiding their developments I am sure the member for York Centre would be better able to speak to. It is growing at an alarming rate and a lot of the residents in the greater Toronto area -- primarily the west end, Woodbridge, Vaughan, York and northwestern Etobicoke -- need access to the centre of the city, and there are not the transportation links that would facilitate that kind of access. That is another reason why this makes eminent sense.

As a North York councillor when the Liberals made their first announcement in this regard, I was really pleased to see the Spadina-York University-Yonge loop was at the top of the list in terms of expansion of the transportation infrastructure. However, my experience with this issue, as with other issues, has always been that the politicians, the people who make the decisions to get these kinds of things on track, quite often cannot agree. This is one of those issues where the politicians have not been able to agree. There has been a tussle.

Obviously the moneys are very limited in terms of what you are going to do with respect to expanding transportation infrastructure, and when you start piecemealing the money, quite often you find you come to dead ends, as the Spadina subway did at some point when it reached just north of Wilson and then died. It did not continue on the route it was intended to go as the Spadina Expressway.

The list goes on and on. Quite frankly, from a municipal standpoint, I am really shocked at some of the stances that have been taken by our municipal politicians on this particular issue. I know in his inaugural address yesterday the mayor of North York, Mayor Lastman, once again reiterated his particular push for the Sheppard subway line. This is not to say there is not a need to build a Sheppard subway line, but when you weigh the need for the Sheppard subway line against the need for the Spadina-York University-Yonge loop, you quickly see that one is a current, existing people need.

You see the populations in the west end of North York along Jane Street, along Finch Avenue and in Vaughan. Most of the roads in this area -- Jane, Wilson, Keele Street, Steeles, Finch and Weston -- are gridlocked. Gridlock is that magical transportation term which says that once you are at gridlock, the system begins to break down, people cannot get around any more. Their trips and their turnaround trips and the time they spend in their cars on the road is exaggerated, and when that begins to happen, we do not have a productive workforce and an economy that booms.

With the Sheppard subway proposal, this is not to say there is not a current, existing need, but it is a created need. The mayor of North York wants to realize a dream of a North York downtown. I am not going to speak to some of the planning implications of that particular kind of dream or creating that kind of an access at Yonge and Sheppard, but one is a current existing need, the need for people to get from the place where they live to the place where they work expeditiously; the other one is simply a need to deflect commercial development from the centre of the city, a need to create an access, to create a downtown to be able to justify the kind of growth they are proposing and planning for North York's downtown.

Consistently in my history with this, as a municipal politician I generated petitions to the former Liberal Minister of Transportation, impressing on him the need to proceed with the Spadina-York University-Yonge loop, to my fights, quite frankly, on North York council with the mayor of North York, trying to impress on him and my colleagues at that time the need for this to be a priority. From that perspective I have attended meetings the Metro task force conducted to study this particular issue. I have called meetings within my own community and surrounding communities to talk about transportation needs in the west end, a west end which my Conservative colleague the member for York Mills said was underserviced, and I agree with him. The northwest end of Metro, in terms of transportation needs, has been underserviced.

It was underserviced during the Conservative reign during the 1970s when the Jane and Finch corridor saw unprecedented growth in terms of housing developments. It was to some degree underserviced by the former Liberal government. For five years they simply howled in the wind and did not proceed with a comprehensive plan to address some of these needs that obviously were lacking. Just in their final hour, in fact several months before they called their premature election which saw them bounced, for many obvious reasons, out of power, they made this grandiose announcement that they were going to commit $5 billion to a rapid transit network, which I thought was going to go a long way towards addressing some of the needs of this particular community.

As I mentioned earlier, I was really glad and surprised to see the Liberals make that kind of announcement, but just on the eve of their campaign call. They did not fool anybody. They obviously did not fool the west end communities, because they saw Downsview fall, they saw Yorkview fall, and two New Democrats were elected in these areas, and so on.

I am glad to see that the government is continuing in its commitment to proceed with this very much needed, very much sought after subway expansion to be able to serve a community that exists, a population that exists, not one that has to be created, not one that has to be conceptualized. The way I have read it all along, this is an issue of east end versus west end.

I was appalled when I was on North York council and many of my west end colleagues -- I will name a few who fought and supported the mayor in his push for a Sheppard subway line. We had Councillor Li Preti, Councillor Sgro and Councillor Sergio who supported Mayor Lastman in his push for the Sheppard subway line.

Quite frankly, this has to stop. We have to get together; this has to go now.

1150

Mr Curling: What an opportunity this has given me, to speak in support of this resolution, this private member's bill. I, like the member for Markham, would like to pay high tribute to my colleague from York Centre, a very hardworking, dedicated politician and individual who has brought forward something that needed to be brought forward and to be addressed in the proper way.

This bill addresses itself to a very important matter. When we say "transportation," I see the word "opportunity." It is an opportunity for people to get to work, an opportunity for people to move around easily without the congestion that plagues this city now.

There is a saying that comes from Midas Muffler. It says, "Pay Me Now or Pay Me Later." As I hear from my colleagues across there, they are saying, "We want all or nothing" -- I am saying from some of the members of the government side. "Why do that portion now when we should be waiting to do it all?"

I am from Scarborough North which is, as members know, one of the fastest-growing communities, and quite a few of my colleagues on the government side are from Scarborough. I know they will support this. I am confident they will support this, because there are unselfish people in Scarborough, east of Yonge. Of course there are unselfish people west of Yonge too, but I just want to say why we are unselfish people.

We in Scarborough, and in North York too, have been advocating for a subway along the Sheppard line. We need that because half a million people just in Scarborough live east of Yonge Street. We need, very much so, that transportation from west to east. There is no way I would stand not in support of this resolution. The subway advocated by my colleague to go north up to York University is a very important part of it. The fact is, we should start doing that movement north.

Also, of course, anticipating this government, which is quite sensitive -- sometimes people in this government use the words "ordinary people." The ordinary people who get back and forth using the transportation system that is available to them in the city, many of those ordinary people we speak about who may take the surface routes, in the sense of cars or so, spend two to three hours and sometimes four hours just moving back and forth to work or for shopping or what have you when they use the public transit system. This system moving north would assist tremendously in following the growth of the city, so I have no qualms at all in supporting this resolution.

Of course we advocate less pollution. I listen to the government side. Of course there is the environmental assessment. I am a bit confused at times. At one stage they would like to move briskly on certain issues, giving power to the minister to bypass the environmental assessment. We are not saying to bypass the environmental assessment. We are taking into consideration all those steps necessary to be taken so that we do not have more pollution. As a matter of fact, I hear some of the members here say we have to go through these steps.

I am saying, "What an opportunity." The chairman of Metro, Alan Tonks, has supported this and said, "Let's get on with it." I am very sure the mayor, Mel Lastman, in North York would also say: "Let's get on with it. Let's move very fast and get along with the Sheppard subway line too." So we have an opportunity to have the co-operation of all levels of government.

I am confident that our mayor in Scarborough, Joyce Trimmer, will also support this. The unselfishness of Scarborough, seeing that it will not go immediately to the north but quickly go across the Sheppard line -- we see a link there. The rapid growth in Scarborough, and I emphasize this to our colleagues here, is moving at such a pace that we have to do something or else it will be more difficult to expand the transit system, especially a subway line.

When we were trying to build a highway in Scarborough moving north and south, we realized that the more delay on this issue, the more costly it would be. There are approvals for housing and approvals for other things that will make it more expensive for us to be uprooting people. The member mentioned the Spadina subway line earlier. I can recall the delay for that expansion and the costs involved because people had already built along the line. The cost factor of buying out those individuals expanded the cost to move the subway line up to where the end of it is now, at Lawrence on the Spadina line.

I feel very strongly in support of this because it is a progressive thought; it is looking ahead. Too often we feel we should be so parochial in our thinking that we will say, "We can't do it now unless we have it all." I think this is the first step in having a subway line not only move north, but on the Sheppard line, so I stand very strongly in support.

I just want a few seconds to emphasize the family time we spend at home. When we calculate the time and find out that we are spending up to four or five hours on the road getting to and fro because of the traffic jams, we could be moving faster and spending more time with our families. I want to commend the honourable member for York Centre for bringing forward this bill.

Mr Sorbara: Just to sum up, I am glad members have agreed to participate in this debate. I hope there is going to be significant support for this resolution when it comes time to vote on it.

There are just two points this resolution makes. New subway lines in the metropolitan area are an urgent priority for two reasons. First, as acknowledged in today's newspapers, this construction will in effect be a strong boost to an economy that is failing very badly right now. That is important to do in any event, but second, it is only through the construction of new subway lines and expansion of the rapid transit system that we will free the streets of Metropolitan Toronto and the greater Toronto area again for people and the movement of goods.

The second point, and it is the crucial point in this resolution, is that any extension of the subway northwest in Metropolitan Toronto that bypasses York University is unacceptable and shortsighted and would be a terrible mistake. We are going to build that extension. That subway is going to move to the northwest. I plead with members of this House simply to give the political direction that the planners, the bureaucrats and the other officials need to say, "In doing your planning, you must integrate York University as the northwest terminus of this subway system."

My friend the member for Markham said there are other alternatives. There are no other alternatives. Every other alternative is shortsighted. Every other alternative would constrain the loop and have it bypass the university. If we get to the university, the university could be the hub for a transportation system that would serve the entire northwest. The people of Ontario deserve it, the people of York region and Metro deserve it and the students and faculty of York University deserve it. I am asking for the support of the House.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

EARTH DAY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA JOURNÉE DE LA TERRE

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Christopherson has moved second reading of Bill 155, An Act proclaiming Earth Day.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

SPADINA SUBWAY

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Sorbara has moved private member's resolution 34. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Some hon members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 1203.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LIFE SCIENCES TECHNOLOGY PARK

Mr Daigeler: Last December and again recently, on October 7, I urged the government finally to approve the Ottawa life sciences technology park. Unfortunately, there has been no action as yet by the NDP.

I know we have had a new Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology since then. I also know he has recently visited the Ottawa area, and I am truly thankful for this and I recommend his example to the other ministers. During his visit, he was told that one of the Ottawa-Carleton region's top economic priorities is the development of the life sciences technology park.

Last Thursday, David Crane wrote in the Toronto Star that there is a clear and present threat that Canada will be left behind other nations which have already focused their national efforts to gain new competitive advantages through the use of biotechnology.

Ottawa business people, economic development officers and researchers are trying to bring new jobs to our area through the development of biotechnology. They are anxiously awaiting a supportive sign from the provincial government. How often do I have to raise this matter in the House? Will the minister please act and act now?

TVONTARIO

Mr B. Murdoch: Members will recall that in October I raised the issue of TVOntario and its apparent unwillingness to be an upstanding member of the community. It is relying on the Assessment Act to avoid paying tax in Grey, not only on the land it owns but on the land it rents out and for which it receives revenue.

I wanted the Minister of Culture and Communications to realize that the host municipality does not appreciate providing services to TVO while receiving nothing in return. I hoped she would ask TVO to use the enabling clause of the Municipal Tax Assistance Act and at least pay for the portion of land which is rented out.

The minister obviously did not take this very seriously, because nothing was done. The township of Sullivan then felt it had to deal with the situation the only way it could. Council passed a motion which said that since TVO has made no contribution to the township to maintain and snowplow roads, the township will provide no maintenance for it this winter.

I am very distressed by this situation. TVO makes an enormously valuable cultural contribution to the province, yet it loses all its respect and credibility when the people see that it is not willing to be a good neighbour and fulfil its community responsibilities.

CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 1973

Mr Lessard: Last week Canadian Auto Workers Local 1973, serving Windsor's General Motors workers, proudly announced it will now be providing onsite child care for members participating in local union meetings, unit meetings and educationals.

Onsite child care is a natural progression for Local 1973. The union hall is fully accessible, and the local meets the needs of hearing-impaired workers by providing sign language interpreters. This local is also known for consistently sending a positive message to minority, disabled and female members that harassment of any kind will not be tolerated. They had previously offered child care for union educationals and community-oriented events.

Marg Rousseau, an employment equity rep, and Terry Romanchuk, education chair, brought the concept of onsite child care to the attention of the local union executive board. Shirley O'Neill, a recent early childhood education graduate, has been hired to provide child care services, which began on November 26.

This initiative continues a tradition of accessibility of services to this 4,800-member local union. I understand it is the first of its kind in the Windsor area and sets an example for others to follow throughout the province.

I want to commend CAW Local 1973 as it continues to meet its goal of providing innovative service to its membership by actively removing barriers to further member participation in local union activities.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs McLeod: I listened with great interest yesterday as the federal government announced its pulp and paper regulations to protect water quality in Canada. As I listened, I waited to hear how Ontario's Minister of the Environment would respond. I was sure this government would at long last tell us what its plans are for the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement. There was nothing from Ontario.

At a time when industries across this province are looking for consistency, at a time when industries across this province are looking for predictability, at a time when industries across this province are looking for responsible government, this government has done nothing.

Instead, our forest products industry will have to wait. They participated in consultations with government and were prepared for a harmonization of regulations at the federal and provincial levels. It makes good business sense and it is what environment ministers from across this country agreed to do.

This government will force our businesses to adjust not once but twice, because Ontario's Minister of the Environment is too busy looking at a world as she would like it to be, not as it really is.

The forest products industry and its thousands of employees need to know what the Ontario regulations will be and when they will be introduced. There has been no movement on MISA for a year. I call on the government to tell us what it plans to do and when to restore some predictability to business in Ontario.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Marland: The NDP government's proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act will do nothing to create jobs in Ontario, nothing to make us more competitive or attract investment and nothing to renew or strengthen our economy. So what will the changes do? They will pay back the NDP's friends in the labour movement, the union bosses whose support this socialist government desperately needs if it is to stay in office.

According to David Gordon, executive director of the Mississauga Board of Trade: "Should these proposed changes become law, we would see serious erosion in the present balance between employer, employee and union rights.... Legislation of this kind, which is so blatantly union-biased, sends all the wrong messages to those persons who look to Ontario as the place to do business in Canada."

Mississauga's city council has asked the government not to proceed with this legislation until broad consultation has occurred. Unfortunately, it is obvious that the NDP has already made up its mind to pass these proposals into law next year. The so-called consultation process is a sham.

Last spring a committee of labour law experts studied the proposed changes. While the labour members of the committee endorsed the government's wish list, the business members concluded that the present legislation works very well and there is no need for change. Indeed the government has never released any documentation to justify its radical proposals.

Clearly then, there is a Bob who sets this province's agenda, but it is not Bob Rae; it is Bob White.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Farnan: I received today a letter from a small group of 30 striking employees at the Cambridge Reporter, and they are requesting swift action on their application for first-contract arbitration applied for on November 29, 1991.

They walk the picket line daily and have received overwhelming community support from area unions and subscribers who have cancelled their papers for the duration of the strike. Cambridge city council cancelled discretionary advertising in the Reporter until the dispute is resolved.

However, they face a very powerful adversary in Thomson Publishing Co. They are witnessing the full might of the Thomson empire brought to bear on their small union. Expensive security equipment, dozens of security guards and imported strikebreakers are Thomson's proven method of union-busting. Thomson Publishing Co has a successful record of crushing attempts to unionize in small communities. Witness Welland, witness Timmins, etc.

All this small group wants is an opportunity to achieve a decent first contract. They asked for a wage grid, standard at daily newspapers across Canada, but Thomson will not address this basic issue across the bargaining table. The Thomson wage proposal, delivered five hours before the strike deadline, allows Thomson to maintain arbitrary control over substandard wages.

The reality is that the will to crush this strike is there on Thomson's part. Arbitration is the swiftest way to end this bitter strike, and I urge government intervention to help resolve this matter.

1340

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mrs Caplan: While the Minister of the Environment is busy attempting to dismantle the Environmental Assessment Act and runs roughshod over civil liberties and due process with Bill 143, she is neglecting the environmental problems about which she had so much to say in opposition.

We have heard absolutely nothing on a clean air program for Ontario; lakefilling, so vehemently opposed by the minister in the recent past, continues unabated; there are no remedial action plans in toxic hot spots on the Great Lakes; the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement regulations are stalled within her ministry; sewage treatment plant upgrading is postponed; district Ministry of the Environment offices are understaffed and facing further staffing cuts; trucks belch black smoke from their exhaust pipes; landfill sites leak; overpackaging continues; the percentage of soft drinks sold in refillable containers has fallen to 7%, an all-time low; the minister fails to show up at meetings of the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy; rampant clear-cutting takes place in our forests, and no progress is made on promised further reductions in acid rain emissions.

What does the minister do to address these urgent and important issues? She introduces and promotes Bill 143, a draconian, dictatorial law that flies in the face of everything the minister stood for in the past. That was then, this is now, and it is unbecoming of this minister and this government.

JEWISH COMMUNITY IN SYRIA

Mr Harnick: This past Sunday evening the Jewish community began the Hanukkah festival, a celebration commemorating the saving of the Jewish temple from the hands of Syrian oppression. As a member of the Jewish community living in Ontario, I and my family celebrate this and all Jewish holidays without any restrictions on our lives. However, this is not the case with respect to Jews in Syria.

In Syria, 4,500 Jews are concentrated in the ghettos of Damascus, Aleppo and Kamishli; a special branch of the secret police is assigned to monitor the Jewish community; no Jewish emigration is permitted; Jews have no voting rights; identity cards of all Jews are marked in blue with the word "Mousawi," meaning Jew, on them. Discrimination, arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and torture all occur with regularity to Jews in Syria.

It is incumbent upon us as free people to indicate our displeasure when the human rights of Syrian Jews are endangered. They must be free to leave for friendly countries and to be reunited with their families abroad. Until that time, our efforts must continue and our voices must cry out.

In order to prevent the ultimate destruction of the remnants of Syrian Jewry, I urge the government of Ontario to call upon the government of Syria to lift all repressive regulations and permit its Jewish citizens to emigrate freely in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Syria is a signatory.

For a great many Jews, this is not such a happy Hanukkah.

LOYALIST PARKWAY

Mr Johnson: Today I want to tell members of the Legislature about a great little highway in my riding called the Loyalist Parkway. It is known as Highway 33 and it runs literally from Trenton to Kingston.

This is a wonderful little highway that brings tourists and commerce through the counties of Prince Edward, Lennox and Addington. My riding being Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, I can say this highway is wholly within my riding and I am very proud of it. It is the original highway that used to carry the United Empire Loyalists back and forth as they travelled about this particular part of the province.

I also want to tell members about the Loyalist Parkway group of advisers, but first I would like to mention some of the communities this highway runs through. This highway starts at Carrying Place and runs through Consecon, Hillier, Rosehall, Bloomfield, Picton, Wellington, Adolphustown, Bath, Millhaven and ends in Amherstview. A couple of other small communities are Conway and Sandhurst.

The Loyalist Parkway group of advisers, chaired by John Ellis, is a very important group that has worked very hard to maintain the heritage of this highway and they are very grateful for some of the funding they have received from the Ministry of Transportation. In time, they would like to become a commission. I know that may not be easy to do today, but they are working very hard to see that this becomes a reality.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Hon Mr Charlton: I am pleased to advise members that later today I will introduce for first reading the Insurance Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991, an act that will enable this government to guarantee Ontario motorists nothing less than the best auto insurance protection in the country.

The reforms outlined in The Road Ahead, our policy document, address five key goals: affordable insurance premium prices, reasonable and fair accident compensation for everyone, a fairer driver classification system, greater insurance availability and better customer service and safer roads.

The legislation we are introducing will return to many more innocent accident victims the right to recover compensation for their pain and suffering. The reforms provide Ontarians with greater access to the courts, including victims who suffer serious psychological as well as physical injury. The former government's plan did many grave injustices to Ontario motorists, while delivering windfall profits to the insurance industry. But in no area was that legislation more callous than in its disregard for the psychological suffering that can result from a motor vehicle accident.

There is also much more in this legislation and in the package of reforms. Let me share with members a few of the highlights. For income earners, the maximum weekly benefit moves to $1,000 a week from the current $600 a week, a much more realistic reflection of the income needs of many families today. The new ceiling, coupled with the new income replacement formula, covers more than 90% of full-time earners. Under the previous government's plan, 75% of full-time earners were covered.

We have recognized and are providing for people in special circumstances. Children and students, for example, will receive lump sum payments for each school year missed, as well as compensation for loss of earning capacity in the case of long-term injury. Our reforms provide vastly improved compensation to primary care givers and provide special recognition of their lost earning capacity when they are temporarily out of the workforce.

At the same time, we have removed the lifetime cap on the amount of money available for long-term care for accident victims. We also have removed the limit on the money available for supplementary medical and rehabilitation costs. This government does not intend to inhibit an injured person's chances for recovery or rehabilitation while allowing insurance companies to enjoy record profit levels.

It is an unfortunate fact that loss of life is the all too common result of traffic accidents. No amount of money can ease the pain of families and loved ones, but compensation can help to ease the economic impact of those accidents, and we intend to increase that help. The current death benefit to a spouse is $25,000. We will increase the minimum death benefit to double that amount, to $50,000, with a geared-to-income maximum benefit of $200,000. Under our new plan, the funeral benefit doubles, from $3,000 to $6,000.

These features provide fair benefits. We have ensured also that those benefits will not be eroded by inflation. Our income replacement benefits and weekly ceiling are fully indexed to the consumer price index. Also fully indexed are the monthly care cap, death, funeral, dependant care and new student lump sum benefits.

Under the previous government's plan, access to the court was limited by a very restrictive threshold. Only about 6% of those injured in accidents were able to clear that threshold, and those who did often faced long, expensive and frustrating processes. Sometimes they received nothing for all their hardship. This is not what most people want from an auto insurance system.

The fact is, a good accident benefit schedule better compensates most injured parties' economic loss. The court system, on the other hand, better addresses specific and harder-to-define pain and suffering issues.

We have developed improved automatic accident benefits for economic loss for all those injured, and, for all injured persons not totally at fault, greater opportunity to recover compensation for pain and suffering, subject to a $15,000 deductible. Our accident compensation plan is expected to triple the number of injured persons who can access the court system.

1350

Through regulatory and other changes, we will get good drivers out of the Facility Association and ensure they can purchase insurance at market rates; phase in a uniform, non-discriminatory, industry-wide classification plan, and create and maintain a more dynamic marketplace that encourages competitive and stable insurance premiums.

An improved insurance system that better meets the needs of motorists and accident victims in Ontario is essential, and our reforms will provide Ontario with a fair, affordable and accessible auto insurance system. At the same time, we recognize that the best possible protection for all Ontarians takes the form of prevention rather than compensation. My colleague the Minister of Transportation will outline the measures his ministry is proposing.

Our reforms will lay the foundation for greater linkage of insurance with other auto-related systems, including road safety education and traffic law enforcement. This government's commitment to substantially improved automobile insurance for Ontario motorists is well known. We reluctantly put aside our plan for public auto insurance, but we did not put aside our responsibility to ensure Ontario drivers are better served by the auto insurance system.

When this bill is passed, Ontario will have the most generous and equitable accident benefits in Canada, while keeping premiums affordable. Persons injured in accidents will have wider opportunity to seek compensation through the courts for losses associated with pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of expectation of life. Ontario's six million drivers will have simpler, more convenient and more straightforward service.

Today I have announced many reforms. They constitute significant improvements for Ontario motorists, but they are not our final word on the subject. We will continue to monitor the system and to make appropriate changes and feasible refinements.

Collateral benefits are a good example. Under legislation put in place by the previous government, such sources as private disability plans, public health care and workers' compensation carry costs previously borne by insurers. We looked very carefully at this issue. To reinstate the insurers as first payors would mean an immediate and significant increase in premiums. This is, however, among the issues we are determined to address in the future as we continue to adapt Ontario auto insurance to evolving needs and changing circumstances.

The reform package I have outlined follows an auto insurance review that has lasted a year. Throughout this period, we have encouraged widespread participation. The resulting dialogue involved hundreds of individuals and interest groups. We welcomed presentations from consumers' associations, advocates for victims' rights, lawyers' groups, the insurance industry and others. Strong arguments supported a range of often conflicting positions. We believe these reforms will achieve fairness and the best possible balancing of these diverse objectives.

ROAD SAFETY ORGANIZATION / ORGANISME DE PROMOTION DE LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIERE

Hon Mr Pouliot: Safety is the top priority of the Ministry of Transportation, yet we know there is much more we can do to make our roads even safer for everyone in Ontario.

Every year more than 1,200 people are killed on Ontario's roads. Another 120,000 people are injured. Every four and a half minutes someone is injured. Most unfortunately, every seven hours someone is killed.

It is estimated that motor vehicle collisions cost the people of this province more than $4 billion every year in health care costs alone. The personal costs and trauma are beyond calculation. The terrible reality of all this is that 85% of all vehicle crashes are caused by human error. This suggests that most could be prevented if people drove better.

A l'occasion de la Semaine nationale de la sécurité routière, nous croyons qu'il est approprié d'annoncer les mesures que nous entendons prendre pour accroître la sécurité sur nos routes en Ontario.

I am pleased to tell the House today that the government will develop Ontario's first Road Safety Organization. The new organization will handle all services and programs related to road usage in Ontario. Its priority will be to improve road safety by enhancing driver behaviour and awareness and developing policies that will tangibly reduce traffic collisions and fatalities in our province.

The organization will work closely with private industry and community groups, sharing advice and information. It will also identify opportunities for partnerships to develop and fund new and enhanced safety programs. The result will be safer roads for all the people of Ontario. Let me outline some of its potential benefits.

Ontario has more than 6.3 million drivers, almost 30% more than it did 10 years ago. As our population grows, we can rightfully assume the number of drivers will of course continue to grow. A road safety organization will ensure that drivers have the proper skills and attitude. It will allow us to monitor and improve the performance of all drivers.

We expect the work of this organization will significantly reduce traffic fatalities and injuries. Fewer and less severe crashes will result in lower insurance claims and rates. This will complement the initiative introduced today by my colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions in auto insurance reform.

The Road Safety Organization will also improve customer service, making transactions such as licence renewal or vehicle registration easier for Ontario drivers. I would like to point out that we will be consulting with the ministry's private licence issuers and involving them in discussions as the organization develops.

The new organization will not duplicate existing services. It will take all existing road safety programs and customer service currently provided by our ministry. We will work with ministry staff to ensure they are closely involved in the development of the organization.

The government will continue to receive the revenue generated by driver and vehicle licensing. A major responsibility of this new organization will be to initiate and secure business partnerships. We will be combining the forces and resources of our government, industry and community groups to improve road safety. As a result, the new organization will have no increased impact on the Treasury.

After ministry staff have had an opportunity to review all the options for a Road Safety Organization, I will return to the House in the spring with an implementation plan for the new organization, which we expect will be fully operational in less than two years. While this is the first Road Safety Organization in Ontario, there are similar groups in other provinces. The province of Quebec has reduced both collision and insurance premiums in the 10 years, since it launched its road safety agency, la Société de l'assurance.

Tout en amorçant la mise en place d'un organisme de promotion de la sécurité routière, le gouvernement de l'Ontario continuera de solliciter la collaboration et l'appui de tous ses partenaires chargés de la sécurité, c'est-à-dire la communauté, l'industrie et les diverses instances gouvernementales. Nous sommes tous responsables de la sécurité routière.

This government recognizes the need to improve safety on Ontario highways. We believe our efforts to develop a road safety organization will reduce the tragedies and costs of collision and give all Ontarians greater peace of mind on the roads.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Hon Mrs Boyd: This government has had to make some very difficult decisions. As we grappled with the matter of annual increases to the rates for Ontario's social assistance programs, we first looked back over the accomplishments of our first year.

As of January 1, 1991, we increased both the basic and shelter allowances beyond the rate of inflation, enabling social assistance recipients to begin to catch up with the past. We rejuvenated the process of social assistance reform in Ontario, and through our Back on Track report and the implementation of many of its recommendations we improved the ability of the social assistance program to respond. Turning to the future, however, we are seeking to maintain this momentum and we have had to keep in mind three very different but very compelling needs.

First, there are the vulnerable people in Ontario who must turn to welfare for support. A record number of Ontarians are now dependent on one form of social assistance or another. Second, there are the needs of our municipal partners and their ability to fund their mandatory portion of the social assistance program. The recession continues to build case loads and thus increase program expenditures at the local level. Finally, there is the need of our government to manage Ontario's economy responsibly and not add to the deficit.

1400

After much thought and discussion, we have balanced these needs as best we can and arrived at the following increases. We will raise the basic allowance for individuals receiving assistance in 1992 by 2% and raise the maximum shelter increase by 6%. This 6% shelter allowance increase will be implemented in two stages, with the first 3% increase in January 1992 and the second 3% increase in July 1992. The increase in basic allowance will help families and individuals pay for their food --

[Interruption]

The Speaker: Order. Remove the demonstrators, please.

The members will note that the clock has been reset five minutes, to the approximate time when the demonstration occurred. The minister is welcome to continue with her remarks.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The increase in basic allowance will help families and individuals pay for their food and personal needs. The 6% increase in the maximum shelter allowance reflects Ontario's rent review guideline and will help people meet the high cost of keeping a roof over their heads.

We cannot avoid hard reality. The recession is not over, not over for those on welfare and not over for all of us who, through our taxes to the province and the municipalities, fund social assistance programs.

The statistics are both revealing and frightening. The case load of Ontario's family benefit allowance is made up primarily of people who need long-term income support because of disabilities, because they are single parents or because they are age 60 and over. That case load now numbers 264,000. When dependants, most of them children, are added, that case load represents 561,000 people.

General welfare assistance goes to people in immediate financial need because of unemployment, ill health or emergency situations. The current GWA case load is 271,000. When we add dependants, this translates into a total of 477,000 people. In all, more than one million people in Ontario are now relying on social assistance, a growth of 39% over the last 12 months.

The municipalities, our partners in providing welfare, are also facing extremely difficult financial times, given the increased case loads. When we increase overall welfare rates, we must be mindful of the impact on the municipal share of costs, a share which can be raised only through regressive property taxes.

Everyone in this chamber agrees that it is shameful and an outrage that about 10% of Ontario's population has been forced to turn to the welfare system for support. We know people are hurting. The social assistance safety net must be kept as strong as possible. The increases announced today, while lower than any of us would have preferred, will, when added to last year's rates, still provide benefits which keep well ahead of the two-year rate of inflation.

The safety net is only one aspect of social assistance. The other goal is to support people while assisting them to get off welfare and into a position of greater independence and self-sufficiency.

This government must actively address poverty and social justice issues, not merely by making the social assistance program more effective but by taking a variety of initiatives with respect to training, employment creation and community supports to families. The launch last week of the Ontario Adjustment and Training Board is one example of such programs.

Although we know the rate increases I have outlined today are modest, the government must maintain some flexibility in order to move forward with reform of the welfare system and to ensure increased opportunities for recipients.

RESPONSES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Chiarelli: Yesterday the Minister of Financial Institutions said, "Anybody who makes a promise and then finds there are in fact better ways to deal with the problem or deliver a better product than he promised is a fool if he sticks to his promise." He is a fool for having made the promise in the first place and I guess the people of Ontario are fools for having believed the promise.

For those people who wanted the full right to sue, as promised by the NDP, this announcement is worse than a crumb. It is a cynical ruse to provide fodder for the new NDP propaganda committee set up last week at the taxpayers' expense. Today's announcement is a political ploy to take the Premier off the hook for having accepted the Liberal automobile insurance plan.

I want to compliment the Premier for reining in the ideologues in his cabinet, caucus and party who would have destroyed an effective system of auto insurance, destroyed thousands of jobs and cost the taxpayers over $1 billion. The government has realized that the experience under the Ontario motorist protection plan has been mainly positive. Premium rates have stabilized and are moving down.

Premier Peterson promised a plan to reduce rates. Today, the minister acknowledged that over half the companies are applying to reduce rates, and yet the Premier called former Premier Peterson a liar for making that promise. Who is the one breaking the promise today? Who is the one who promised a public system whose promises are in tatters on the floor of this Legislature?

The OMPP is in fact working. Utilization of alternative dispute resolution is much lower than expected. There are high levels of consumer satisfaction with the program. There is no question that the present system can be improved. Together with all the stakeholders there should be a reasoned, educated and fair review of all aspects of the OMPP.

The minister has been haranguing anyone who would listen that insurance company profits are excessive. No one has ever heard the minister say what an appropriate profit is. Is any profit acceptable? If so, how much? The people of Ontario want to know what the minister's anti-business agenda really is.

We are concerned with several things. Removing the right to sue for economic loss above the threshold takes away much more than would be given by enlarging the right to sue for pain and suffering below the threshold. We are concerned that the government's promise to move to a universal classification system will penalize seniors. They are calling my office now. They are very concerned. We are also concerned that the government's intentions are still to move to a full public system, such as the British Columbia system, which has just announced a 24% increase.

We agree with the improvements to the OMPP. We are very concerned about a number of them, but the NDP promise for a public system is in tatters on the floor of the Legislature today.

ROAD SAFETY ORGANIZATION

Mr Mancini: My response is to the statement made by the Minister of Transportation. The minister's statement was 95% platitudes. The minister, after a number of months in office, has made the bold promise that he has now come out in favour of safer roads. The only real substance in this announcement is the hint that licence issuers will be affected. Licence issuers have been worried about their jobs, but there has been no word about whether their future is secure under the NDP auto insurance plan. We wait to hear from the minister about the 1,500 licence issuers.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs McLeod: The announcement by the Minister of Community and Social Services comes as no surprise, since one of our colleagues essentially indicated that it was going to be the announcement, although it was not confirmed. It has already raised the concerns we had, anticipating that the announcement for an increase in social assistance would be limited to 2%. I do not think I need to remind the minister how far short this falls of the NDP commitment to deal with the problem of families and children trapped in poverty. It is the first time in recent years that the increase for social assistance falls short of inflation.

In these few seconds, all I can do is point out the fact that this is a result of irresponsible budgeting last spring, when we raised the concern that there was no budget for increases in social assistance as of January this year. The government has failed to carry out the kind of planning that would allow it to address real priorities.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Tilson: I wish to respond to the minister's strategy for automobile insurance reform. The minister promised to give the injured motorists of this province a day in court. He promised to get rid of the Liberals' no-fault plan. He promised the right to sue for economic loss. He promised to get rid of the Liberals' threshold tests.

A year ago, the member for Leeds-Grenville put forward a private member's bill regarding the restoration of the right to sue. The now minister said at that time, "I am going to support this piece of legislation because it deals with the most offensive part of Bill 68, the threshold." The minister has just given us a threshold test: the indexed $15,000 deductible. We will still be paying outlandish premiums and have a $15,000 deductible.

Yesterday, the minister said in this House that if someone finds a better way, that person is a fool if he sticks to his promises. No one believes this government. No one believes this minister. The Agenda for People has become an agenda for fools.

With the minister's plan, fewer people will have less access to the courts. He will have a threshold test that even the member for Bruce would not have implemented. He will have created a meat chart that says everyone injured is the same. He will have turned our legal system on helping injured motorists into a Workers' Compensation Board. No one can sue for lost income, past, present or future. He has discriminated against children, women and the workers of this province. After a year of dithering within his caucus, after spending $5 million on consultants, the best he can come up with is The Road Ahead, a road of broken glass and broken promises.

1410

ROAD SAFETY ORGANIZATION

Mr Turnbull: I want to address my comments to the Minister of Transportation. In the document he released today, buried away on page 28, is the statement that the Ministry of Transportation will develop a new road safety agency responsible for issuing drivers' licences and vehicle registrations.

As the minister well knows, I have asked him twice in this House, on October 21 and again on November 25, whether there were any plans to move the licence issuing away from these offices. I would like to quote the minister's words. He is giving assurances there will be no changes, "It is business as usual." He says, "The system is operating well and we have no intentions of changing it."

Will the minister unequivocally guarantee today -- I am going to be asking for the guarantee in question period -- that none of the 1,500 jobs will be lost, non-unionized jobs, I may say. Of course, these are low-paid, predominantly female employees. He has said there will be no change and today he hides away this statement. We want guarantees that there will be no job losses. What about the people who have invested in leases and equipment in these offices? Will the minister guarantee that today?

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Jackson: The first official words of the Premier of Ontario on November 20, 1990, in the throne speech were: "We will provide support for those who find themselves out of work and unable to provide for themselves and their families. We pledge to continue the reform of Ontario's social assistance system and address the shame of child poverty in the midst of affluence." The Premier also went on to say he was going to have to say no to certain loud voices in Ontario in order to say yes to those who previously have not been heard. How hollow those words are today when we have $100 million to engage in an offensive to force out the private sector in day care while there are 12,000 families living below, at or near the poverty level, with their children, waiting for subsidized spaces in day care. But he is going to engage in an expensive buyout of the private sector.

The Premier had the Provincial Auditor last week saying that his deputy ministers are bellying up to the bar, having free taxpayer lunches and yet he has 2% for the poor. He has 11% raises going to senior civil servants from his government and yet he has 2% for the poor. It is so bad that Stephen Lewis would choke on the "Let them eat cake" attitude of this new government -- for the poor, 2%. The tragedy is that instead of restraining the wages of senior civil servants and runaway government spending, this government today has informed the province it will restrain assistance to the needy and the poor in Ontario.

VISITOR

Mr Curling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: From time to time you have recognized distinguished people in the gallery, and I just want to point out to you today that Ellen Shuman of the Cincinnati TV News is with us in the members' gallery.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order, but we certainly welcome the invitation anyway.

Mr Bradley: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Is it within the rules of the Legislature to allow a government member who disagrees with government policy to respond to a minister's statement?

The Speaker: I am sure matters of disagreement find their way to the floor of the House in one form or another. The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Mrs Boyd: And responsible for women's issues, Mr Speaker. In that capacity, I would like to tell you that we have all-party consent to make a statement regarding December 6.

Agreed to.

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Hon Mrs Boyd: I am very pleased this afternoon to be able to announce to this House the official proclamation of December 6, 1991 as the first provincial Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. I would like to read into the record the words of the proclamation:

"Whereas on December 6, 1989, 14 women died as a result of a massacre at the University of Montreal; and

"Whereas it is important to denounce all forms of violence against women; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario wish to reflect on the event in the hope of preventing further violence against women; and

"Whereas the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers this matter to be of public concern:

"Now, therefore, a proclamation be issued throughout Ontario naming the 6th of December in each and every year as a Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women."

In making this announcement, first I want to give some honour to a colleague of ours in the House of Commons, Don Black, who has worked through the last year to encourage the federal government and all provincial governments to take this action. I am very pleased that my federal colleagues have done so and know my fellow ministers responsible for women's issues are making commitments on behalf of their governments to do the same thing, if not this year, then in the coming years.

The reason, of course, is that all of us were shocked into awareness of the great toll that violence against women takes by the horrendous actions that took place on December 6, 1989. The wholesale slaughter of women by a man obsessed by his lack of ability to do what he wanted to do, and his expressed view that women who were able to accomplish what he was not able to accomplish deserved to be punished for that, gave us all a consciousness of the very real sense we have in our society still of the dominance many men continue to believe they ought to have over women.

While we have grappled with the feelings that this occasion gave us, I think we have gone through very much the kind of path of mourning that Elisabeth Kübler-Ross talks about, because of course the first reaction was denial. There was from some of us denial that this could have happened at all on a campus in Canada, but second, by many men in the country, a denial that this had anything to do with their attitudes, that this could have anything to do with a societal attitude about the relative roles of men and women.

We went through denial and we went through anger, sometimes at one another, about this issue. We went through depression, and now I think we have realized that the importance of remembering this event is to begin to take action.

I have been struck by the number of newspapers and radio shows that have been reporting December 6 as simply a day of remembrance. If it were only a day of remembrance, it would be only a day of symbolism, a symbolism like the red roses which all the women in the chamber were offered today as a way of showing their respect. But December 6 is a day of remembrance and action, and it is important for us to emphasize that, because while few of us here can act without remembering, too many of us remember without acting. To remember without acting is to underestimate the potential each of us has to confront, challenge and change the reality of women in our society.

Men who are sincere in wearing white ribbons tomorrow will do so not merely to symbolize their disgust with violence against women but to stimulate discussion and to take responsibility as well. As one of the newest anti-wife-assault ads on TV shows, individual men are making a difference by telling each other that abusing women is wrong.

This year too corporations, unions and schools are educating employees and children about sexual harrassment and the dangers of sexism. This House has legislated over the past number of years and will continue to legislate such equality-seeking measures as employment equity, pay equity, family support and supervised access. In short, individuals can act as well as remember; organizations can react instead of deny; Legislatures can enact instead of ignore. That is what this day is all about: empowerment.

1420

From the uncelebrated, often lonely battle of countless women to escape abusive homes, workplaces, campuses and streets, to the political struggle of one female MP to have December 6 nationally observed, to the underpaid, underrecognized efforts of shelter workers, rape crisis and sexual assault counsellors, affordable housing advocates, women's groups and their supporters, this day is about doing, informing and involving.

Until women are supported for disclosing their stories and until all segments of society from community groups, to parents, to teachers, to doctors, to athletes, to CEOs, to police officers, to judges and to journalists take part in breaking the silence, neither the magnitude nor the pain of violence against women will ever be appreciated or changed. To update a well-known slogan, we still mourn. More are working for change, but many more are needed to achieve change. What better reason for a day of action and remembrance.

Ms Poole: The Liberal caucus would give support to the minister's sensitive statements today and the commemoration of December 6. The minister referred to the red rose as a symbol, and she is right. It might be a red rose, it might be a white ribbon, it might be a black armband or it might be a button. They are just symbols. Some people might think they are fairly insignificant items, but just as individual drops of water can wear down stone, so these individual items and symbols can become a very powerful statement, which is that our society will not tolerate violence against women.

I know we have our detractors. In fact, just this week in the Toronto Sun there were several columns to this effect. I will quote from Lorrie Goldstein's column: "I will not be wearing a white ribbon because, never having beaten or sexually assaulted a woman or child, I have nothing to personally apologize for or to feel guilty about."

Mr Goldstein and columnists like him have missed the point and in their ignorance have done incredible damage. They have ignored the facts. The facts are that every year one out of eight women is assaulted by her spouse or partner; that one out of every four women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime; that last year 234 women in Canada were murdered, and one third of these were killed by their spouses.

It is not that men are intrinsically evil; they are not. It is not that they are intrinsically disposed to violence; they are not. I have been married, happily I might say, for 20 years to one of the strongest, most opinionated, most forceful men there can be on this earth, and although I am sure there were temptations, never once has he resorted to violence or even thought of resorting to violence. Women and men must work together to break the silence and to break the cycle. The cycle has been going on for centuries; it is nothing new. What is different is today we are talking about it.

On Monday night for a rare occasion I was home watching the replay of question period with my son. He was listening to some men from our caucus making very strong statements about violence towards women. He turned to me and said, "Mom, can you get me a white ribbon so I can wear one?" That is what it is all about. It is changing the attitudes. It is just a ribbon but it is changing the attitudes.

Two years ago 14 bright, ambitious young women in Montreal, women with promising futures, were gunned down. Their deaths must not be in vain. On November 11, we very fittingly recognize the men who died valiantly in war. On December 6, we commemorate the women who are dying in a different type of war, and I say to the Lorrie Goldsteins and the Christie Blatchfords of this world: "Have no doubt about it. It is a war." I find it a bitter irony that with all the talk about safety in our communities women in Canada today are safer on our streets than we are in our homes.

Today I offer a challenge to the people of this province. To the women: We do not need to be victims; we can break the silence, and we must break the silence. To the men: You are our partners; you and only you can break the cycle. To the media: I challenge you to make a difference and to help publicize the war; I challenge you, every time you publicize the current homicide statistics, to tell people how many of those deaths, how many of those homicides were caused by violence against women. Together we can make a difference.

Mrs Marland: Since December 6, 1989 there has been a new and tragic expression in Canada's national vocabulary: the Montreal massacre. On that date, Marc Lépine singled out 14 terrified young women at Montreal's l'École Polytechnique and slaughtered them, screaming that they were "a bunch of feminists." It was a vicious and senseless crime against women, in particular women like his 14 ambitious victims who sought to share the status and power from which women in our society have traditionally been excluded. They were 14 intelligent women who had the fortitude to seek careers in engineering, a profession in which there are few women and sexism is a serious problem, 14 women who would have been the role models for younger generations, 14 women who were the pride of their families.

Our first thoughts today are for those young women's families and friends who are reliving the horror, anguish and outrage of their slaying. We grieve with them. We share their anger. But we know our pain pales in comparison to theirs. Our sympathy also goes out to the community at the University of Montreal which was profoundly shaken by this massacre.

The loved ones of these 14 women have struggled to recover from their loss. For many of them, recovery has become a crusade to ensure that the life of someone else's daughter, sister, wife or friend does not end so prematurely and violently. All of us, women and men, must join that crusade. For the Montreal massacre was the extreme embodiment of sexism, a continuum which ranges from systemic discrimination and harassment to sexual assault and homicide.

Recently there have been so many reports of crimes against women that we are in danger of growing numb to that horror. Just this week there have been more than half a dozen vicious crimes in the greater Toronto area, including the rape of a Humber College student in broad daylight. I was sickened to learn that just days after this brutal crime, posters at Humber College advertising the remembrance ceremonies for the Montreal massacre have now been defaced with hateful slogans such as, "Nice shot, Marc."

It is extremely discouraging that these crimes have occurred during the white ribbon campaign leading to tomorrow's national Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. However, it shows we have a long way to go before symbols and words become actions and solutions.

1430

We cannot dismiss these violent crimes as aberrant, random acts that we are powerless to prevent. They are extreme cases, but crime against women is pervasive and insidious. Considering that one out of every four women will be sexually assaulted during her lifetime, probably every person in this House knows a woman who has been or will be a victim of sexual assault. It is horrifying that 85% of these assaults are committed by a person the woman knows. What a searing indictment of our society.

Each of us as legislators has a responsibility to involve our constituents in our community effort to reduce crimes against women. We have a responsibility and an opportunity. For instance, I recently held a series of cable television shows on the subject and sponsored a private member's resolution dealing with the related topic of pornography. I have also held community events, with the proceeds going to our local shelter for battered women. In the new year I will host a series of public forums on violence against women and children.

Going beyond our local responsibilities, we must do more as a provincial government to stop violence against women. The campaign against wife assault is a good start, but we need to devote more resources to education, law enforcement, assistance for abused women and treatment of men who batter. We also need legal reforms so that the judiciary takes crimes against women more seriously and gives stiffer penalties to the offenders. Reviewing the priorities of our limited resources, what could be more important than making Ontario a safe place to live?

As well, behavioural change requires changes of attitudes and values. This means that on a personal level we must take steps which could range from telling somebody we are offended by a sexist joke to reporting a case of wife assault.

One cannot underestimate the importance of public relations efforts like the white ribbon campaign which has been organized by men who realize that without their involvement, there can be no end to the senseless crimes against women. Their efforts will help educate the 65% of Canadian men who, in a poll after the Montreal massacre, thought that Marc Lépine's 14 murders were not connected to violence against women in general.

We must also raise our children to see women and men as equals. While this sounds easy, it entails fighting damaging stereotypes in every aspect of our children's lives: their education, toys, games, television and extracurricular activities.

The success of this day of remembrance and action will be difficult to measure. However, if more and more men and women are talking about violence against women and showing in their actions that it has to stop, there will be change.

We all look forward to a day when we do not see page after page of our newspapers devoted to reports of crimes against women, when women do not have to worry about how to get safely from bus stops or parking lots to their homes after dark, when women's shelters do not have to turn away victims of assault for lack of space, when we no longer need a plethora of educational tools concerning wife assault.

It is encouraging that in the two years since that gruesome day in Montreal, public opinion about the massacre is slowly changing from, "It was nothing more than a madman's psychotic attack" to "It was an extreme example of a larger, less visible war against women." Without mobilizing the public to action, we cannot hope to stop the assaults and killings.

This is a day of remembrance and action. In memory of those 14 young women and all the other women who have suffered at the hands of men, let us each pledge to work for change.

The Speaker: I invite all members and our visitors in the galleries to stand and join with me in a moment of silent remembrance.

The House observed one minute's silence.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mrs McLeod: I have a question for the Premier. I am sure the Premier is well aware that if we are going to have economic renewal in this province, it is going to be necessary both to encourage our existing businesses and industries to stay as well as to attract new businesses and industries. I wonder if the Premier or anyone in his government is aware of the reality that this means we have to have some aggressive marketing techniques to persuade business and industry that they have reason and that it makes sense to do business in this province.

It was on November 6, just a month ago, that the Treasurer indicated Toronto had been short-listed as a possible location for Piper Aircraft, with up to 5,000 jobs. We have learned now that Piper Aircraft has come and gone, and has expressed shock and disappointment at the indifference with which it was received by, of all places, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology.

This morning, the Premier was handed the keys of 300 firms that have closed because of the policies of the NDP government. This seems to be the kind of siege mentality this government has towards business. When potential investors look at Ontario, they see a runaway deficit, proposals for new labour legislation and a whole host of legislative, economic and tax policies that run counter to the interests of both workers and their employers; whereas if they look south, for example, they are going to see sales tax exemptions, tax credits for new jobs and research and development and state-sponsored financing for land, buildings and equipment.

What programs and policies has the Premier's government put in place to persuade existing businesses to stay and to attract new businesses to come to this province?

Hon Mr Rae: In her preamble, the member for Fort William mentioned the issue of Piper Aircraft. Let me advise the her that I spoke to Mr Eaton at about 1 o'clock this afternoon. Mr Eaton spent some six or seven hours with officials in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology yesterday putting forward a proposal that required considerable public investment. He put forward a proposal which the government has now received and which we are considering.

I am sure the honourable member would be among the first in the House to say that on the first day the government of Ontario receives a substantial request for public support from a company that has been in serious financial difficulty in the United States, it is only fair and reasonable that we have a few hours to consider that particular proposition, which involves a very substantial commitment from this government.

In my discussions with Mr Eaton, of which I have now had two, I have made it very clear to him that this is a good place to do business and that this is a good time for investment. He has indicated a great deal of willingness to work with this government with respect to that question.

In addition, since the member mentioned in her preamble the gift of the keys this morning, the person who gave me the keys made it very clear that he felt it was a situation this government had inherited with respect to a very serious recession. That is precisely what the questioner said to me in asking the question.

1440

Mrs McLeod: I am glad there are one or two new situations which have now caught the attention of the Premier, and hopefully of his government, but I would like to tell the Premier about a place that has not yet heard about the good things his government is prepared to do to ensure there is some confidence for staying and doing business in this province. It is the town of Paris. Perhaps I should remind the Premier that it is in the apparently forgotten riding of Brant-Haldimand.

Over the past few months, unknown to the town's workforce, many of the community's largest employers have been heavily courted by a host of American states, cities and counties. They have had personal letters from state governors. They have received a host of appealing material that extols the virtues of their jurisdictions. I would be happy to share it with the Premier. They have even sent senior people to Paris to meet business owners face to face.

The mayor of Paris obtained some of that material. He conveyed it to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and asked for a letter that might refute the claims, so that he could somehow accomplish what other area mayors have not been able to do; that is, convince these businesses not to head south.

I have obtained a copy of the letter that was sent on behalf of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology to the mayor over the signature of the regional director. I want to share one brief line because I think it indicates the kind of frustration that communities feel with the lack of response from this government. "Such cross-border activities are understandable but can lead to inefficient as well as inequitable movements when governments use discriminatory and market-distorting practices to attract firms and investments from other jurisdictions. There is little that this ministry can do directly to stop these practices."

Is this the message of confidence the Premier wants to send to people in Paris and other communities across this province? Is that the kind of vote of confidence his government has to offer?

Hon Mr Rae: I am sure the honourable member would understand that it is not exactly new for American businesses, or indeed for American governors or officials, to come to many different jurisdictions across Canada and talk about what is going on in their particular jurisdiction.

I believe Ontario needs to do a better job of marketing what we have. I have asked the vice-president of Semi-Tech, Mr Michael List, to head a task force within the Premier's Council to report to us in January with respect to a more aggressive marketing strategy for Ontario. I think that message needs to be delivered throughout the government. I think this government does need to market what we have: our strengths and advantages as a place to do business more effectively. We are a very competitive environment in which to do business in the world today and that is something of which we as Ontarians can be very proud.

Mrs McLeod: I do not think the Premier fully realizes the sense of despair that exists among the communities in this province, among companies trying to do business here, among workers in Ontario.

The Premier may be aware that Statistics Canada has said that Ontario's help wanted index has now hit its lowest point in the past seven years, a drop of 15% from the time this government took office. Clearly, companies are looking for fewer workers than they did in past years. The unemployment figures will be released tomorrow and we have no reason to believe they will not be just as bad. But the only response this government seems to be making to the economic crisis that exists in this province is literally to go from one specific crisis to another, remaining blind to the bids of the United States to take our businesses south.

Again, when will this government stop scaring off new businesses and chasing away the old ones? Why is the government's only plan to keep companies in Ontario just to shrug its shoulders and say, "There is nothing more we can do"?

Hon Mr Rae: There is a lot more we can do. There is a lot more we can all do. That is exactly what we are doing in terms of the activities of the government. But one of the things we have to recognize is that there are going to be more aggressive marketing tactics from other places. My view is that we have to meet those tactics head on with the facts about Ontario, with the facts about our taxes, with the facts about our costs and with the facts about the advantage of doing business in Ontario. That is what we have to do. I am sure all members would join with us in the need to start telling the truth and the facts about the business conditions, and the business conditions for prosperity, in Ontario.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mrs McLeod: I would like to address another issue about winners and losers in Ontario and direct a question to the Minister of Financial Institutions. Today's announcement about changes to the auto insurance plan are a clear attempt to save face after having retreated from a previous promise his government made.

I think those who were counting on the NDP to keep its pledge to restore the right to sue are going to be very surprised and disappointed with the announcement that was made today, because they are going to find this plan actually eliminates the right of seriously and permanently disabled people who are no longer able to earn a livelihood to be able to sue for lost income.

If I can try to put this in some human terms, under the scheme the minister has announced today, a concert pianist who loses an arm, a truck driver who is blinded, a construction worker who is paralysed, will no longer be able to sue for lost income and lost livelihood. Instead, they are going to be limited to claiming only for the pain they have suffered. This government is going to prevent them from suing for what is really important, which is their inability to earn a living. They are going to tell them that compensation for pain is sufficient.

Clearly the minister has decided that the catastrophically injured will be losers under this plan. What does he have to say to those people who can no longer support themselves or their families and who will now never --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I invent -- invite -- invent, yes; I would like to invent calm. I invite the member for Fort William to place her question, please.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I do not mind the interruption, because I share the sense of outrage. I would again ask the minister, what does he have to say to those people who can no longer support themselves or their families and who will never be able to recover the financial losses they have suffered?

Hon Mr Charlton: The answer to the question is quite simple. The package we have proposed today is a package that will not only deliver the right to sue for pain and suffering to each of the individuals the member has described, but will also deliver benefits for economic loss without the need to sue. In addition, one of the problems with the right to sue is that it only delivers benefits to those who have someone to sue. Our package delivers benefits to everyone, whether there is someone to sue or not.

Mrs McLeod: The minister is failing to acknowledge the real loss in this plan, which is that the previous plan allowed the seriously and permanently disabled the right to sue, so that they could regain the income they had lost because of their inability to continue in their profession or in their field. That is what has been lost with the amendments this minister has proposed today.

When the government backed away from its commitment to public auto insurance, the minister at that time pledged that Ontario consumers would still receive premium reductions of about $40 to $60 per driver, and in fact in recent months some companies have voluntarily announced that there would be premium reductions. Now the minister has unveiled his package of rather dubious reforms to the plan and he talks about affordable premiums.

I ask the minister, what does "affordable" mean? Will he assure us that his government's proposals will either reduce premiums for consumers or at the very least ensure that premiums will not be increased?

Hon Mr Charlton: In response to the member's question about prices, currently about 50% of the industry has applied for premium reductions. We expect that process to continue and we also expect that this package of benefit increases will be implemented without further premium increases.

1450

Mrs McLeod: It really is a little hard to know exactly what the government is promising today, but it leaves us with a very real concern that this plan is going to either lead to increased premiums for consumers or that it is going to lead to an impossible situation for insurance companies to be able to deliver the increased benefits without increased premiums, that it will lead to insurance companies leaving this province.

There is only one conclusion for us to draw from what has been presented today, and that is that this government is inexorably taking the next step towards publicly owned auto insurance in Ontario. I ask the minister to simply tell us today, so he can end our uncertainty, when is he planning to tell us his plan for publicly insured auto insurance in Ontario? When is he going to carry it out?

Hon Mr Charlton: This government's intentions around auto insurance reform are very clearly set out in an extensive paper that was released today, The Road Ahead. It deals with all the things we intend to accomplish and we intend to accomplish those things in the private sector.

Mr Tilson: My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. I would like to ask him a few questions on the booklet he has published today. Yesterday the minister informed us that the new insurance scheme would save the Ontario driver $45 a year in premiums. For that $45 a year, all the driver is getting is a reduced right to sue. It is quite clear from this booklet that this is what the driver will be getting. If the minister's child were permanently injured in a motor vehicle accident, would it be worth $45 to him to ensure she is able to seek compensation for the money she will never earn and for the job she will never hold?

Hon Mr Charlton: Very briefly, the member will learn the plan as we go through the process, because he obviously has not correctly read the information he has. The package we proposed today will deliver an income for life to that child who has been permanently injured.

Mr Tilson: The minister is right. I literally got this thing seconds before, but I will say that I have perused it and what I have said is correct. Let me give another example: If an apprentice in a union were seriously injured in a highway traffic accident and thereby prevented from graduating from the position of apprentice to the level of journeyman, could he be forced to live at a salary of an apprentice for the rest of his life? Would it be worth $45 to him or her to be able to seek compensation for the income he will never be allowed to earn, or would he be stuck at that level he had currently, the level of an apprentice?

Hon Mr Charlton: The package of benefits we have delivered in this plan is a fully indexed package, including pension benefits.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Charlton: The package will deliver a lifetime, indexed benefit to this individual.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: You should rename the Agenda for People as Lies for the People.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Mills should not use unparliamentary language.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I referred to the Agenda for People, which was put out through the election.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Mills will take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I asked the member for York Mills to please not use unparliamentary language and I ask him to withdraw the remark he made.

Mr Turnbull: I will certainly withdraw it and suggest it must be terminological inexactitude.

The Speaker: I appreciate the withdrawal.

Mr Tilson: The minister asked me to refer to this booklet in answer to my second question. I look forward to him pointing to the page where I can find the answer because I say it is not there. He has not solved that problem. I will give the minister another example, and if possible, he can refer me to the page on that one.

If a mother were to take five years off, take time off from her job as a teacher, for example, to raise her children and during that time she was permanently injured and became disabled as a result of that motor vehicle accident, she would be forced to spend the rest of her life earning no more than $185 a week which will not be indexed.

An hon member: That's not true.

Mr Tilson: Well, that is what it says in the minister's booklet. Would it be worth $45 a year to her to be able to seek compensation for the $40,000 a year she would have earned when she returned to her job?

Hon Mr Charlton: As I said in response to the member's last question, as we go through the process of understanding all that is in the package, he will come to terms with how this package applies in individual cases. In the case the member raised, the teacher will get an indexed lifetime benefit based on her income as a teacher. In designing this package, this government has chosen to deliver benefits to all those who are seriously injured in auto accidents, rather than revert to a system that delivered benefits to some and none to others.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Harris: My question is to the Premier. Many Ontarians, and certainly, I think, most members of this House were rather appalled at the Premier's casual attitude towards the proposal to move Piper Aircraft to Ontario. We are talking about 5,000 jobs. Cyrus Eaton said he was shocked by the indifference of officials at the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. The message the Premier is sending out clearly to this firm, and I suggest to investors in business, is that this government is too busy to talk about creating 5,000 new jobs for this province.

The Premier said he talked to Mr Eaton today at 1 o'clock. We have known for over a month that Mr Eaton wanted to locate in Canada. Can the Premier tell me why over this whole period of a month he personally has not called Mr Eaton, as other premiers and other governments have done, asked to meet with him, flown down to see him, made himself available and laid out the welcome mat? Why is it that every other government and every other Premier in this country are so far ahead of the Premier in making companies like Piper Aircraft feel welcome to their provinces?

Hon Mr Rae: Let's get some facts on the table, because I think it would be useful in terms of the question.

First, the day there was a headline in the newspaper with respect to the possibility of Piper Aircraft coming to Toronto, I picked up the phone and spoke personally to Mr Eaton for about 20 minutes. That was about a month ago. The member asked, why did I not make a phone call? I made a phone call right away. I spoke to him right away. I spoke to the officials in the ministry right away. I said, "I want there to be contact between Mr Eaton and the ministry as soon as possible." That contact has taken place over the last 30 days.

I might add that if the member will make any inquiries, he will know that the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Ontario International Corp have had extensive dealings with Mr Eaton in the past, so he is not someone new in dealing with the government of Ontario and with certain experiences with respect to investment possibilities, in this case in Leningrad, which investments, I might say, were not able to materialize for whatever reason.

1500

Mr Harris: So you wrote him off based on that experience?

Hon Mr Rae: No, that is not the case. Mr Eaton was met at the airport yesterday by officials of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. He met for over six hours with the assistant deputy minister and with other officials, including our senior trade officer from Chicago. Mr Corcoran, who has been with Scotia McLeod for many years, has joined the government in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, with specific responsibilities in this area, and Mr Corcoran had an extensive meeting with Mr Eaton.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr Eaton put forward a proposal and a written business plan which is being considered by this government. I can tell the honourable member it involves extensive public guarantees and requires extensive --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- financial involvement by the government of Ontario. You cannot just snap your fingers and write out a cheque for somebody who comes in and says, "I've got an idea." You have to sit down, study it and look at it.

Mr Harris: If the Premier has done all this, can he explain why Mr Eaton feels that every other province has been co-operative, wants to meet with him, would like to discuss it? They are all studying the financial implication as well, as the Premier is. Why is it then that Mr Eaton feels Ontario does not want him?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member is the first one on his feet any time there is any public money involved with respect to a private investment. He is the first one on his feet to say that is not what Ontario should be doing. Yesterday was the first time Mr Eaton and his group and Piper Aircraft, the people who are the shareholders of Piper, presented us with a business plan. He would be the first one on his feet if I were to have authorized an official to say, "Whatever he asks for, give it to him." That is not the way to conduct business. It is not the way to conduct negotiations.

I would tell the honourable member that we are looking at the proposal and we will consider it, as we will consider many others. But since it involves extensive guarantees by the public purse, this government obviously has to look at it very carefully, that is all.

Mr Harris: Mr Eaton did not suggest to the media he was disappointed that the government did not offer him gobs of money. He said he did not feel welcome, that the Premier, his government, his officials did not make him feel welcome. They were too busy opening the vault with all their labour discussions with de Havilland to save 3,000 jobs. They spent all that time, they invested all that effort there, but they were too busy to treat him seriously, to meet with him when he wanted to meet, to just make him feel welcome, that is all.

I will tell the Premier what is going on out there. Whenever there is any hint of an opportunity for jobs in the United States, that company's phone lines are inundated from 50 governors of every state calling and saying, "We'd like to meet with you; we'd like to talk with you," not offering gobs of cash, although they do that in the normal course of events, as the Premier does, but making the company feel welcome. Nine other premiers do the same thing.

I am going to ask the Premier the same question I asked him in the first supplementary -- nothing to do with money. Why is it that Mr Eaton and other companies are now telling us the same thing, that they are not made to feel their private sector money and jobs are welcome in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: There was a six-hour meeting, a luncheon, a meeting with the assistant deputy minister and a serious business discussion. I would say to the member that it is not 5,000 jobs. I have spoken to Mr Eaton personally twice. I spoke to him again today. I made it very clear to him that the province was interested in looking at his proposal. He knows that. At the end of the conversation, I asked Mr Eaton, "Is it fair to say, as result of this conversation, that you are still interested in doing business in Ontario?" He said: "Definitely, Premier. On the basis of our conversations, I can give you that assurance."

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICES

Mr Mancini: My question is of the Minister of Transportation, who today tried to hide a major policy shift in the announcement made by the Minister of Financial Institutions. Previously in this House, the minister has been asked what he intends to do with the more than 250 licence-issuing offices across the province and the 1,500 employees who work in those offices. He was asked whether those jobs were protected.

The minister said in the Legislature on October 21: "The system is working quite fine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Further, the minister said: "By way of conclusion, this is what those fine soldiers are doing, and it is not terribly lucrative. They are doing it because they believe in providing an essential service." That is what the Minister of Transportation had to say at that time. We want to know what the minister is saying today.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I certainly admire the member's passion -- and he is right -- when it comes to those 1,500 women or men who have been, are still and will keep on providing the service that they do. Because people are so busy, they do not spend time on these meticulous items the way they should; and why not? It is not their endeavour. For the benefit of the member and other members in the House, at present licence issuers are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation.

Mrs Caplan: What a revelation. When did you figure that out?

Hon Mr Pouliot: It is not profound, that is right. I want to keep it simple. The member should bear with me.

In the future, we will put forward an organization that will deal at arm's length. The jurisdiction will change, but the issuers will still be providing the service they are today. That will not change.

Mr Mancini: The member for Renfrew North wrote to the minister about this matter in October. I want to remind the minister he is still waiting for an answer. We have reviewed meticulously the document that was presented today. This is what his document says on page 27: "They involve linking concepts and activities which up to now have been seen as separate, for example linking insurance with driver and vehicle regulation." On page 30, the minister's document says, "Opportunities to improve the linkage between insurance and motor vehicle registration will be examined."

It is very clear what they want to do. They want to give the responsibilities and duties of the licence issuers over to insurance companies. That is what they want to do. We need a guarantee from the minister that those private operators will be protected, whether they are under his ministry or an agency of his government.

Hon Mr Pouliot: With respect, I simply wish that the member opposite would stop the fear-mongering. It is mere speculation. I tell him that it is business as usual for the 1,500 people who are working there. There is no denying this. Nothing will change this year, nothing will change next year, nothing will change the year after, etc. What more guarantee does he want? We will be meeting with those fine people at 4 o'clock this afternoon.

The workload may increase. The workload may be somewhat different. This is what it is all about; this is a coalition. I guarantee we are not going to lose the good efforts of these people. They will be placed to work, I can assure members of this.

1510

Mr Turnbull: My question is to the Minister of Transportation, and he will not be surprised that my question is in the same vein as the last one. Indeed, it was my questions in the House that triggered the responses from the minister. He says, "With due respect, the member should stop selling fear."

If he understood his briefing when he took over the ministry, The minister will know that the only significant amount of money that is made in these offices, and it is a very modest amount of money, is made from the renewals of licences. Perusing the document he has put out today, it is very clear that once the agency is established, these services will be transferred.

I ask the minister, before he responds, to look at page 28 of this document he put out today. What exactly is he saying? Is the minister guaranteeing the jobs of the 1,500 low-paid, predominantly female, non-unionized workers who work in this industry, and is he guaranteeing the offices where there are leases taken out? That is my question.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Simply put, it is the responsibility of the ministry that will be transferred to the agency, not the work that the issuers are doing; no more, no less. C'est simple, n'est-ce pas ?

Mr Turnbull: I want to make crystal clear that the minister is saying that not a single job will be taken away as a result of this, that all the jobs stay in the present offices, because he has issued a letter requesting that they attend in his office today for the briefing affecting their jobs. I want the minister to clarify what he means by "affecting their jobs."

Hon Mr Pouliot: Although the question is valid, it is quite difficult to penetrate when you talk about simple facts. I guess if the member does not wish to believe, he believes what he wishes. We have no control over that.

We will be meeting at 4 o'clock to discuss the kind of coalition we are putting forward where motorists of Ontario will be better served. This is a good new situation, and in all honesty, I was expecting here today, after our statement in this House, that this would be one of those rare moments where partisanship would be put aside and the safety of motorists and the future of Ontario motorists would be causes for celebration by all of us. I am so saddened the opposition members have chosen not to do so.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I would like to respond to a question asked yesterday by the member for York Mills, who asked why the Workers' Compensation Board had signed a letter of intent to lease space in downtown Toronto instead of potentially less costly facilities on the outskirts of Toronto. As well, in his supplementary the member asked why the WCB was leasing 32% more space while projecting the amount of staff will be 18% less.

I want to say the WCB is relocating because the current location is inadequate to meet the present and future needs of the Workers' Compensation Board due to inadequate floor plan, inadequate elevator capacity and limited accessibility to wheelchairs.

Under section 67(1) of the Workers' Compensation Act, the board's main offices must be located in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. The WCB selected the Simcoe Place site from among 35 potential sites as the most accessible and appropriate to meet the needs of staff and stakeholders. A review of staff and stakeholder transportation patterns clearly indicated that a downtown location was preferable. No existing site can meet the organizational and technical space requirements.

The WCB has been able to secure a long-term lease on 525,000 square feet that will be below market rents over the life of the lease in a building that is being redesigned to meet the specific organizational and technical requirements of the WCB. Its rent formula is based on the cost of construction of the office tower and parking garage with parking revenues offsetting the rent.

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

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It is a financially prudent approach. I can tell the member also that there will not be a 18% reduction. The vocational rehabs are now full-time and we will be going with it. The current location had exactly 100 square feet per worker, against an average of 200 square feet in the city of Toronto. The new location will have 150 square feet for the use of the workers at the WCB.

Mr Turnbull: The minister has failed to give out the amount of money involved in this lease. It is quite clear that there is approximately $10 million worth of savings to be had by going to the suburbs and running a shuttle bus. If the minister cannot change the regulations of the Workers' Compensation Board in order to accommodate that, he is in really serious trouble. When his government is sucking air on its budget, he should be saving the taxpayers money. Why he is increasing up to approximately 150 square feet per employee, when commercial companies typically have around 100 square feet per employee, is absolutely beyond belief. I want to know specifically how much he is going to pay, including the add-ons, and how it compares with suburban premises?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am a little surprised the member would want to use a shuttle bus to ferry the workers around the city of Toronto, and I do not think it is a very reasonable position he has taken.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Premier. It follows up on a comment he made earlier today in the House, looking for the opposition's help in dealing with the economic woes. I will just say to the Premier that we are having difficulty working with his government because, frankly, his backroom political operatives on that Consultation Central Co-ordinating Committee are trying to manipulate our committee work.

I will just give the Premier some examples. The chairman of that committee was yanked off it and fired from the committee because he happened to disagree with him. There was a memo that was given to the opposition, an innocuous, non-confidential memo, and the Ontario Provincial Police was called in and an investigation launched for one reason: to intimidate the civil service and to intimidate the opposition.

When our legislative committee attempted to have hearings last summer dealing with the budget, the Premier's office phoned various groups that depend on government funding and suggested they appear and speak in favour of the budget. Now we have the leaked CCCC document, which indicates that it is the intention of this group, led by John Piper and others in the Premier's office, to use the legislative committee for the party's own particular support.

My question to the Premier is this: Will the Premier commit that he will march down the hall, tell John Piper and the other political operatives on the CCCC to keep their hands off our legislative committee that is attempting to deal with the fiscal mess and give a hand, and leave the committee to do its work without political interference? Will he undertake that today?

Hon Mr Rae: It is not in my makeup to march down halls, but I would say to the honourable member that I think in fairness, if he looks ahead at what we are trying to do and what we will be doing in the next three or four months, he will find we are going to set out as clearly as we possibly can for the committee, for the House and for the public the very difficult choices we face, with as much information as possible given the old rules about budget secrecy.

My own view is that we need to share as much information as possible with the public. We need to share as much information as possible with the committee. That is the direction this government wants to take. I expect the member to be critical, but I want the criticism to be based on the information we are getting from Treasury people and from others with respect to the next budget year and the year after that.

1520

Mr Phillips: The problem, to be completely frank, is that we hear one thing and we see something different. I will go back to the OPP, where the Premier says he wants to let the public know.

I am struck by the fact that in Ottawa -- the Premier may have seen this article -- the federal civil service put an ad in the paper, opened a toll-free 1ine, and said: "Come on, civil servants, tell us what's happening. We want to know about anything that's in the public domain." They were quite anxious to have information out to the public. Here in Ontario, when a civil servant happened, I think inadvertently, to let an innocuous, non-confidential memo get into the hands of the opposition, the OPP was called in.

My question to the Premier is this: Is he prepared to give the Ontario civil servants the same right Brian Mulroney has given the federal civil servants, or will he continue to call in the OPP if those sorts of memos are in the hands of the opposition or the public?

Hon Mr Rae: I am not aware of the Prime Minister authorizing the release of cabinet documents. If that is what he has done, if that is what the member is suggesting the Prime Minister has done, that is news to me and it is news I am interested in hearing.

I say to the honourable member, for whom I can say I have considerable regard, and I want to say it to him very directly, the economic and fiscal situation facing the government today, facing the public, facing the people of the province, is very tough. We are going to share as much information as we possibly can and we want to encourage as much information to be shared as is humanly possible.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr McLean: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday he stood in this House and announced very clearly the UTDC sale and was so pleased about it.

I have a question for the minister today. It has is to do with the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. This commission recently purchased routes between North Bay and Toronto, as well as between Sudbury and Toronto, from Gray Coach Lines Inc, a company owned by Stage Coach (Holdings) Ltd of Perth, Scotland. I would like to know how the minister can justify spending $7 million of taxpayers' money to compete with a private corporation like Penetang-Midland Coach Lines, which has been serving the people of Simcoe county since 1867.

Hon Mr Pouliot: With the highest of respect, in terms of jurisdiction Ontario Northland lies with my distinguished colleague, the Minister for Northern Development and Mines. I will convey the member's good wishes and question to her when she returns from northern Ontario.

Mr McLean: My understanding is that the Minister of Transportation is responsible for the transport board. It is the transport board that made the decision, which he is maybe not aware of. That is in his ministry. I am asking him why he would want to spend $7 million to subsidize a company which in the long run will probably not make a profit. He is going to put the private operator out of business on the lines that he runs from Orillia, Barrie and Toronto, and he has run them for years. It is his jurisdiction. He should not try to put it on to another ministry. It is the transport board that made the decision and he is responsible for it. Does he not know what is going on in his ministry?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Of course we know what is going on in our ministry. Let me make this clear: The question talked about the money emanating from one ministry, which was not the Ministry of Transportation. The member is right in his supplementary when he says that the transport board is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation. It is exactly that; it is MTO. We have an arm's-length relationship with the board. They are there to make decisions. We are not there to interfere.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Malkowski: My question is for the Minister of Housing. Many tenants of apartment buildings in my riding of York East have expressed their outrage to me about recent rent increases that have been granted to landlords, even in cases where there have been no repairs or renovations. Time and time again, the tenants have told me of the rent review hearings issuing 11% and 13% rent increases even after the tenants have appealed the original order and have waited months and even years for a decision. Why is this happening and what can we do to help my constituents and all other tenants in Ontario?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I thank the member for York East for the question. I can certainly understand the dismay and anger of the tenants in the riding he represents. The problem is that for several thousand cases we are still dealing with appeals and processes taking place under the current legislation, which was brought in by the former government. As the member is aware, new legislation is on the way. We have the bill for the new Rent Control Act in committee now. We are hoping to have the work wrapped up on that by Christmas, with the co-operation of the opposition, so that we could have it in place and effective by this April.

However, we still have to deal with those appeals that came through the cumbersome and very drawn-out, lengthy appeal process under the present legislation. We are going to be dealing with them for months to come, much to the dismay of tenants like those in York East.

Mr Malkowski: My constituents want to know what this government is going to do to provide real protection for tenants. What is it going to do to prevent these increases from happening again in the future?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Essentially what I can ask him to convey to the tenants in York East is that our new legislation will provide for a guideline increase and no greater than a 3% eligible capital cost increase on application for eligible expenses, only eligible expenses, by the landlord.

In the meantime, until that legislation comes into effect we have provided protection for tenants from the period November 29, 1990, with the introduction of Bill 4, an amendment to the current legislation. It is confusing for tenants, but we have provided interim protection for tenants. When the new bill comes in, gone will be those long-drawn-out appeal processes.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr McClelland: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I have drawn to the minister's attention numerous times in this House through statements and questions the importance and immediate need for a second health care facility in Brampton. I am referring, of course, to the Chinguacousy Health Services Centre, which is indeed a model for community-based health care. Could the minister please update the people of Brampton, my community, as to what her ministry's progress is on this very important project?

Hon Ms Lankin: I appreciate the question from the member. We have spoken on a number of occasions with respect to this project, and I understand his keen interest in it and the interest of the people who live in his area of the province.

The proposal, as the member knows, was discussed with the former Deputy Minister of Health earlier this year, at which point I think it was made clear to the community group working on this that there were some problems in the direction the proposal had been headed. It was a proposal for an ambulatory care clinic, and short of having beds it was almost like a second hospital as opposed to a second health care facility. There were some discussions, I believe, within the community about whether or not there should be some redirection of that proposal, moving it more into the line of a community-based health care clinic setting, and those discussions, I think, have continued to take place.

The ministry has had ongoing communications and there is a proposal that is being worked on that will be coming forward for me to review soon. I will be in a position to give the member an update, I would hope, within the next couple of weeks.

Mr McClelland: I will be looking forward to that update because I simply want to say to the minister that the project is indeed needed. Brampton's population is growing fast, as the minister well knows. A new development of 70,000 people is on line. The Chinguacousy board has, I remind the minister, over 46 acres of land. They already own that. The region of Peel has committed over $20 million and has it set aside for this project.

I believe, and I think that the documents indicate, that primary care is planned for the first phase, with an emphasis on wellness, prevention and rehabilitation, the very things the minister and her ministry say they want. The Chinguacousy Health Services Centre, I believe, in terms of the guidelines of the Ministry of Health, could and should be used as a model for the direction of community-based health care.

They have had their master plan at the Ministry of Health for over a year. The board advises me that it was promised a response by February 1991, this year. They are awaiting that response. They would dispute, quite frankly, rigorously some of the arguments that have been raised: that the board is not representative of the community. That certainly is not the case. The board has the co-operation of the existing health care facility. The hospital, Peel Memorial Hospital, and the district health council are in support.

The Speaker: And the member's supplementary?

Mr McClelland: Can the minister tell the people of Brampton today that the project is still alive and that there is hope to see this back on track very soon? Clearly it is offtrack. Roadblocks have been put up by the ministry. We want to know what needs to be done. The master plan is there. The response was promised in February. Where is that response?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think I indicated to the member that I will be able to give him a fuller response in very short order. He makes the point that the region of Peel is a very high-growth area in the province, and that is true. I hope he would want us to be appropriate in our direction of the planning to ensure we are matching services to that area of population growth and not just the sort of projection he is talking about.

Particularly at a time when we are looking at shrinking services in the institutional sector and a need for those resources to be used effectively within the community, investment in future capital plant is something that has to be assessed with great care. That is what we are attempting to do, and I will hopefully have an answer for the member very soon.

1530

SALE OF BEER AT MAPLE LEAF GARDENS

Mr Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It relates to a suggestion I made, back in September before the beginning of the National Hockey League season, that this government allow the sale of beer in Maple Leaf Gardens. I have talked to the minister on a number of occasions. She indicated in the media following my proposal that she was supportive of it, but nothing has happened.

Apparently she has expanded this beyond Maple Leaf Gardens, and in looking at a host of areas with respect to this issue, she has muddied the waters. It is a relatively simple decision. I have sent over to her three simple, easy regulations which she could take to cabinet next week. Why is the minister delaying this decision?

Hon Ms Churley: It is not true at all that nothing has been done on this issue. I thank the member for sending over his amendments. I have stated before -- and pardon the pun here -- I believe in a level playing field, and that is what I am working on here.

I am not just looking at Maple Leaf Gardens. Within the next two weeks, the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario will be conducting consultations with stadium and arena owners, public interest groups and the law enforcement community to find out what their views are. Right now, there are only six stadiums within Ontario, I believe, that are allowed to sell alcohol, and that is just in the area of baseball, football and soccer. We are looking at a level playing field here, so it is taking a little longer than just licensing one more stadium within Toronto.

Mr Runciman: That is a bunch of hogwash. Let's face it, we only have one NHL team in Ontario. The minister is talking about a level playing field. There is a suspicion out there that this government could not organize a two-car funeral, and I think it is well founded.

We are talking about a very simple exercise here. The minister could take those regulations in next week. When we put booze into the SkyDome, it happened relatively quickly. When we put it into Labatt Park in London, it happened relatively quickly. The minister can do this. It is the only team in the National Hockey League that does not have the opportunity to sell beer.

I am continually baffled by the minister expanding this into other areas. I am saying let's get on with it. They only have half a season left. The minister supports it. She should take it to her cabinet colleagues -- I am sure her caucus will agree -- get it through the House and let's have it for the remainder of the NHL season.

Hon Ms Churley: The member must be a hockey fan. I am a baseball fan myself. I understand the issue, because I must admit I do get to go to baseball games and drink beer. Again I bring it back to the fact that I am talking about a more level playing field here. I am not willing to go ahead and say, "Let's put it in one more stadium." It is not fair to all the others within Ontario that are requesting the same thing. I will tell the member that the consultation period is happening now and we will be moving on this very soon.

WETLANDS

Mr White: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Many Whitby residents are concerned about the protection of the Lynde Shores marsh, which is a valuable and cherished class 1 wetland to the west in my riding on the border of Lake Ontario. Adjacent privately owned lands are being slated for residential development along with the lands to the east which are in provincial hands. Can the minister assure the people of Whitby that this valuable class 1 wetland will be protected?

Hon Mrs Grier: First, let me say I fully understand the concerns of the member and of the residents of his riding and I share them. As the member will recall, it was in 1988 that the then Minister of the Environment gave a conditional exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act for this project. That exemption was subject to stringent terms and conditions.

Our ministry earlier this year concluded a review of the Lynde Shores environmental management master plan which had been required by my predecessor as a condition to that exemption, and we believe that plan satisfactorily deals with the protection and the buffering of the wetland which is adjacent to the site.

However, we have recommended to the Ministry of Government Services, and I am glad to be able to tell the member the minister has agreed to my request, that a public committee involving citizens of the area be established to finalize details of an environmental mitigation and monitoring that will ensure protection of this very sensitive wetland area.

Mr White: May I ask as well if the ministry has identified any specific concerns with the Lynde Shores proposal?

Hon Mrs Grier: Under the environmental management master plan, the environmental concerns that were identified were primarily wildlife habitat protection and water quality. We have endeavoured, as part of the conditions we have requested be imposed on the development, both buffering by open space and by not putting the residential development directly adjacent to either the buffer or the wetland and by very stringent storm water management conditions that we are imposing to make sure wetland is protected and water quality from the runoff from the development is not impaired to any degree.

CEMETERY MAINTENANCE

Mr Kwinter: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The other day the minister announced what amounts to a tombstone tax, and that announcement has left industry officials and the general public confused and angry. Dying Ontarians will have to pay an extra $50 to $200 for a gravesite, and the tax has been called an unfair burden on seniors who can least afford it.

There is an old adage that nothing is as certain as death and taxes, but I am sure it was not contemplated that they would both happen at the same time. Only the large cemeteries are going to benefit from this; the small cemeteries are not. The minister's response so far, and I think it is rather insensitive of her to say it, is that there is no problem, and if there is a problem, they can do without.

The minister has been quoted as saying consumers will be asked to contribute to this care fund. By asking to contribute, it sounds as if it is voluntary. Is she planning to make it a voluntary contribution by those who would like to contribute or is she in fact going to call it a tax? If it is not voluntary, it is a tax. If it is voluntary, why is she doing it?

Hon Ms Churley: I did not announce a tombstone tax yesterday. Let me make that very clear from the beginning. Those are not the facts. The reality is, as I said yesterday, that this is not a new policy and this is not a tax. There has always been a care and maintenance fund for safety reasons.

People will be asked to pay this. There will be exemptions for people who buy the smaller flat stones that create no public danger. The reality here is that we need to extend that fund to make sure that, as has happened in the past, small children are not hurt. Some of those monuments are not installed properly. They topple over and they have literally killed and injured small children. This is the continuation of a program that has already been in place. The government makes no revenue from this fund. It goes back into the community for the care and maintenance of those tombstones.

1540

DRUG OFFENCES

Mr Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Standing order 33(a) has to do with question period, and I am asking you for a ruling.

On October 8 I asked the Solicitor General to ensure that those persons charged with drug offences had their driver's licence suspended. He promised this House a response. Yesterday I got the response in writing. He said he is no longer responsible for the provincial anti-drug secretariat and that consequently we should ask the honourable Minister of Health for a response.

I am giving you notice today, Mr Speaker, that I am unhappy with this response. I would like to take this matter up at the adjournment of the House. Unless you have a different ruling, this is the way I would like to proceed.

The Speaker: To the member for Parkdale, I certainly appreciate his intense interest in question period. However, the member will know that dissatisfaction with a response must be given at the time when a question is asked and the necessary document filed with the table before 5 o'clock of that same day.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Miclash: I have a petition to the Minister of Transportation which reads:

"We, the undersigned, being users of Highway 641 on a regular basis, petition you to give serious consideration to improving the condition of this highway as soon as possible. We suggest that the mere putting of patch upon patch is not a satisfactory solution."

That is signed by 308 of my constituents, and I too attach my signature to it.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Stockwell: To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91, made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right,

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

There are well over 1,000 signatures on this list, and I will be happy to affix my own.

HAMILTON TIGER-CAT FOOTBALL CLUB

Mr Morrow: I have a petition here signed by 8,407 people.

Mr Mahoney: Is it all on that one page?

Mr Morrow: It is a lot of pages.

"We, the undersigned, petition the province of Ontario that you grant us a sports lottery that we need in the city of Hamilton to further that the Tiger-Cats in the city of Hamilton can continue their many, many years of success and prosper."

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Mahoney: I have a petition. It says:

"We, the undersigned citizens of the Bobcaygeon-South Verulam police district, Victoria county, are concerned about the increase of incidents requiring police attention in our community;

"Whereas we feel that the Ontario Provincial Police are not currently able to provide adequate service for these problems;

"Whereas we are concerned both for the safety of the citizens in our community and for the safety of the Ontario Provincial Police officers who patrol this area;

"Whereas we feel strongly that our community would be better served by a greater police presence in the form of additional officers to be added to our Lindsay OPP detachment,

"Therefore, we look forward to the Solicitor General's immediate attention to these concerns."

It is signed by some 700 people from that community, and I affix my signature thereto as well.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Arnott: I have a petition signed by some 400 people. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91, made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right,

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

WETLANDS

Mr White: I have a petition signed by some several thousand members of the town of Whitby. It is addressed to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas class 1 wetlands are a limited resource in Ontario and are continually threatened by development projects;

"We, the undersigned, are requesting the government and Legislature of Ontario to ensure that any proposed development beside the Lynde Creek marsh, a class 1 wetlands in Whitby, poses no short- or long-term threat to the existing integrity of that marsh."

It is, as I said, signed by several thousand, and I affix my name thereto as well.

Mr Ruprecht: I too have a petition, but before I read my petition, I have a continuation on my point of order.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. If there is a new point of order, it can of course be raised at any time. I remind the member that this portion for presenting petitions does have a time limit and the clock is ticking.

Mr Ruprecht: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will get back to my original point of order and I have something new to tell you. How can I possibly show my dissatisfaction with the response of the minister when he promises, "I will undertake to review the resolution and respond to the member"? I have no alternative, Mr Speaker, but to ask you to acknowledge this situation and to permit me the adequate response.

The Speaker: Once again I will draw the member's attention to the standing orders, which are quite specific with respect to filing dissatisfaction with the response to a question which he had placed during the day. The dissatisfaction must be filed at the time, during that sitting, and not at a later sitting.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Ruprecht: I have a petition to the honourable Lieutenant Governor and the government of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Premier Bob Rae will soon give the approval to have us subjected to a new tax scheme; and

"Whereas more than 9,000 small businesses in Metro Toronto would experience tax increases in excess of 100% if market value assessment were implemented;

"We, the undersigned citizens, petition the Legislature of Ontario and Mr Rae not to implement this new tax system because it will drive us into bankruptcy."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Carr: I am pleased to table a petition on behalf of the Monarchist League of Canada, signed by thousands of concerned citizens of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91, made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty by the police personnel in Ontario."

I sign my name to that.

Mr B. Murdoch: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91, made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to this.

1550

Mr Tilson: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91 made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right,

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

There are 422 signatures to this petition and I have affixed my name thereto.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LES LOIS CONCERNANT LES ASSURANCES

Mr Charlton moved first reading of Bill 164, An Act to amend the Insurance Act and certain other Acts in respect of Automobile Insurance and other Insurance Matters / Projet de loi 164, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances et certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne l'assurance-automobile et d'autres questions d'assurance.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Charlton: This bill is the legislative component of a broad strategy for automobile insurance reform, a strategy that will establish an insurance system for all motorists and accident victims in Ontario.

The reforms incorporated in this new legislation follow a review of auto insurance that has lasted a year and included widespread consultation.

The reforms will address five key goals. They provide the principles for a new compensation system, a new definition of the criteria of the right to sue and permissive amendments to enable regulatory changes necessary to implement further reform of automobile insurance as outlined in The Road Ahead, which has been distributed to all members' offices today.

RIDEAU TRAIL ASSOCIATION ACT, 1991

Mr G. Wilson moved first reading of Bill Pr94, An Act to revive Rideau Trail Association.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not see a quorum.

The Speaker: Clerk, is there a quorum?

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

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT LES MUNICIPALITÉS

Mrs Grier, on behalf of Mr Cooke, moved first reading of Bill 165, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities / Projet de loi 165, Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives aux municipalités.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mrs Grier: This bill amends a number of statutes related to municipalities. Many of the amendments are minor in nature.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, I hate to quarrel with the Clerk, but I count 18 members and that is not a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is present.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE D'OTTAWA-CARLETON

Mrs Grier, on behalf of Mr Cooke, moved second reading of Bill 123, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act / Projet de loi 123, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur la municipalité régionale d'Ottawa-Carleton.

Hon Mrs Grier: I am speaking to this bill on behalf of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the member for Windsor-Riverside, and I am introducing for second reading the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Amendment Act, 1991. This legislation is being introduced at the request of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and it will enable the regional municipality to pass bylaws establishing terms and conditions for operators of waste disposal facilities and landfill sites.

These amendments will give Ottawa-Carleton the same authority that is currently enjoyed by other regional municipalities, specifically by the regional municipalities of Halton, York, Durham and Waterloo. The amendments permit greater control over existing and future operations of facilities run by area municipalities, private operators and other municipalities.

Since the introduction of this bill last spring, consultation with the region has taken place to determine the wording of the legislation and the Minister of Municipal Affairs proposes to make minor amendments to Bill 123 for the sake of clarity. These motions will be introduced and will enable Ottawa-Carleton to impose conditions on waste disposal sites developed by any municipality when the site is located inside Ottawa-Carleton and also to allow Ottawa-Carleton to impose the same conditions on existing landfill sites as those imposed when new sites are approved.

This legislation will assist the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton in planning for its own waste disposal needs in the future. I hope there will be support from all sides for this legislation, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity of participating in the debate.

Mr Chiarelli: There will be reluctant support for this bill. There is some reluctance to support this bill, because it is really another example of this government's ad hoc approach to environmental issues and in fact it highlights the point that there is no province-wide policy under this minister and this government dealing with solid waste management.

I want to put this bill in some perspective. Last November, the chairman of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, Mr Haydon, discovered there was a site in Ottawa-Carleton, the Laidlaw site, operating under certificate of the province, which had been, without anyone's knowledge, importing garbage into Ottawa-Carleton from Toronto, Kingston and other points in eastern Ontario. Some of this material was coming from Metropolitan Toronto and it was contaminated waste.

The chairman, with whom I have not always agreed, at that time I think performed a real public service in the manner in which he dealt with this particular issue. He issued a press release. He called upon the provincial government to take some action to give Ottawa-Carleton control over the importation of garbage into Ottawa-Carleton.

1600

He asked for assistance from the province and there was no action forthcoming. As a matter of fact, the members of this Legislature from the Ottawa-Carleton area had received a number of submissions from representatives in Ottawa-Carleton to get the provincial government to move on this Ottawa-Carleton garbage issue, and the government simply refused to move. It basically said it had no intention of dealing with it because there were greater provincial issues.

As a result of the requests from Ottawa-Carleton, particularly the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, I, as well as some of my colleagues, made some very public representations to the province to come to Ottawa-Carleton's assistance, and in that regard I introduced a bill. The bill was introduced on March 25, 1991.

The reason I introduced the bill was that the NDP government was not responding to Ottawa-Carleton's request for legislative assistance. My bill had to do with an amendment to the Environmental Protection Act. The bill was broad enough to encompass municipalities across the whole of Ontario. It was not designed strictly to deal with Ottawa-Carleton, as is the government's bill at the present time.

I want to indicate some of the sections in the bill I had proposed to deal with the very same issue as Bill 123. I want to point out that my bill was intended to cover municipalities across the province. The proposed section 38b reads:

"(1) The council of a municipality may make a bylaw prohibiting, except upon conditions specified in the bylaw, the deposit of waste from outside the municipality at any waste disposal site in the municipality in respect of which a certificate of approval or provisional certificate of approval has been issued.

"(2) No person shall deposit waste at a waste disposal site contrary to a bylaw made under subsection (1)."

It goes on to say:

"(4) A bylaw passed under subsection (1) may,

"(a) control the amount of waste from outside the municipality that may be deposited at the waste disposal site;

"(b) provide for a progressive reduction in the amount of waste from outside the municipality that may be deposited at the waste disposal site;

"(c) provide for the periodic review of matters pertaining to the waste disposal site;

"(d) require payment by the owner or operator of the waste disposal site of a fee for depositing waste from outside the municipality at the site; or

"(e) provide for compensation to be paid to the owner or operator of the waste disposal site for the amount of profit that the owner or operator would reasonably have expected to earn but for the bylaw during the five years immediately following its making."

The act also went on to provide some pretty harsh penalties for anyone who breached a bylaw passed under these sections. The government's Bill 123 just deals with Ottawa-Carleton. The bill I introduced to solve the problem for Ottawa-Carleton was also a generic bill to deal with other parts of the province.

The bill I introduced, an amendment to the Environmental Protection Act, would have permitted a city like Kirkland Lake, having taken the proper environmental studies and hearings, to enter into a contract with the municipality, for example, of Metropolitan Toronto, to ship garbage from Toronto to Kirkland Lake. It would have been done contractually. It would have been done on a time basis. It could have been done on a reducing basis. It could have been done to suit the purposes of the time and the circumstances.

At the same time, the bill I introduced would have permitted Ottawa-Carleton, in its particular case, to restrict the importation of garbage or to ban the importation of garbage to the Laidlaw site from Metropolitan Toronto, for example, including contaminated waste.

I introduced my bill and I was quite concerned that the minister was not responding. My bill was introduced on March 25, 1991. On April 16, 1991, or I think a day or two before that, the Minister of the Environment made an announcement in this House, without introducing legislation, indicating that she intended to provide legislation for Ottawa-Carleton. I want to quote a question that I asked in this House on April 16, 1991, in response to the Minister of the Environment's announcement:

"My question is to the Minister of the Environment concerning the question of transportation of garbage. With this issue, this minister has clearly demonstrated that she is the most inconsistent and policy-bereft minister on the government benches.

"Last month I introduced legislation that would provide a province-wide framework for municipalities either to prohibit or control the importation of garbage. When I introduced this bill to help Ottawa-Carleton -- "

Mr Cousens: What was your bill number?

The Acting Chair (Mr Farnan): Order, please.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, I am trying to follow this member and I am having difficulty. I do not know what bill number he submitted. I cannot find it or anything associated with it.

The Acting Chair (Mr Farnan): Perhaps I could suggest to the member for Ottawa West that it would be helpful perhaps to some of the members in the House if you could give the number of the bill to which you are referring.

Mr Chiarelli: If the member will check the record, he will see I have mentioned both bills, which are really related, on a number of occasions. I am referring to Bill 123, which is the subject of the orders of the day, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act, and I am also referring to a bill I had introduced dealing with the same issue, Bill 41, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

For the member who has just come in, I will indicate to him, through you, Mr Speaker, that I intended to indicate that the bill we are dealing with, Bill 123, is very ad hoc in dealing with the issue of solid waste management and transportation in Ontario. I will also relate Bill 123 to the issue of Bill 143, which is of some interest at the present time.

As I was saying, I believe the minister responded to the request from Ottawa-Carleton and to Bill 41, which I introduced, by making a statement in the House. I asked the question I was in the process of quoting, the question being:

"My question is to the Minister of the Environment concerning the question of transportation of garbage. With this issue, the minister has clearly demonstrated that she is the most inconsistent and policy-bereft minister on the government benches.

"Last month I introduced legislation that would provide a province-wide framework for municipalities either to prohibit or control the importation of garbage. When I introduced this bill to help Ottawa-Carleton and other municipalities across the province, the minister dismissed it outright, stating, 'It is not appropriate for each municipality in Ontario to pass bylaws on how garbage is disposed.' She went further to say that she favours 'legislation that would cover waste disposal for all municipalities, not just for those in a crunch like Ottawa-Carleton.' That is exactly what my bill does.

"The minister has now done a complete flip-flop and about-face and has made a commitment to introduce legislation specific to the region of Ottawa-Carleton allowing this one municipality some measure of control over importation of garbage to settle a lawsuit.

"Will the minister bring forward legislation that will provide full control to all municipalities in Ontrario so we can have a province-wide policy on the shipping of waste and not simply emergency, ad hoc reaction?"

Of course the minister stood up and spoke some words, but there was no answer to the question.

The issue raised by the chairman of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the rationale for the introduction of my bill had to do with the importation of solid waste from Metropolitan Toronto into Ottawa-Carleton.

As a result of the great concern, and a very appropriate and proper concern on the part of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, the RMOC initiated a court action against Laidlaw, the owner-operator of the site in West Carleton on Carp Road. The injunction was in abeyance. It had been adjourned. The application for the injunction and some negotiations took place between RMOC, Laidlaw and the Ministry of the Environment. In that regard, an agreement was reached.

1610

I want to emphasize that it was only in the context of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton having its wits about it and the commitment to initiate an application for an injunction that the province even went to the table to discuss it. It was the court case and the injunction which really initiated this minister's introducing this bill for Ottawa-Carleton. She tiptoed through the tulips on this issue and introduced a bill dealing with just Ottawa-Carleton and not province-wide.

I want to point out some of the terms of the agreement that laid the groundwork for Bill 123, which we are debating here today. The agreement includes the following.

Laidlaw agrees that the amount of out-of-region garbage allowed at Carp will be kept to about 26,000 tonnes a year, 10% of its normal annual volume. That is the current level, most of which comes from Ottawa Valley centres such as Smiths Falls, Carleton Place and Pakenham. As long as Laidlaw does not exceed the 10% limit, it can accept garbage from anywhere within a newly defined good neighbour zone. The zone includes all of eastern Ontario from Leeds, Lanark and part of Renfrew counties east, excluding Cornwall.

Laidlaw cannot accept any garbage from elsewhere without the consent of regional council, with one exception. The sole exception is garbage from Kingston. That city's current dump site, also owned by Laidlaw, is full and the Environment ministry has ordered it to close April 30. Laidlaw can accept a total of 165,000 tonnes of Kingston garbage during the next two years.

The region will get $20 a tonne for all out-of-region garbage. This is a new dumping fee which will work out to $2 million a year while Kingston garbage is accepted, and $500,000 a year after.

In the next two years, the region itself will send 100,000 tonnes of sewage sludge from its R. O. Pickard treatment plant to the Laidlaw dump. Between 1994 and 1999, it will send 15,000 tonnes a year of other sewage byproducts. This represents $8 million in revenue to Laidlaw. The waste would normally go to the region's own Trail Road dump, which will now have more room.

As another part of the settlement, the Ontario government will quickly pass a law giving Ottawa-Carleton permanent control over the type and amounts of out-of-region garbage accepted at dumps within its boundaries.

There is no reason this Minister of the Environment and this government could not have responded more quickly, without the need for Ottawa-Carleton to initiate an application for an injunction and without having to settle on other than ideal terms for the municipality and the 650,000 people of Ottawa-Carleton.

The bill I had introduced would have enabled the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton to do what it wanted. The sections of my act permitted sections to be fair to Laidlaw in terms of lost profits, etc, because it did have a certificate.

The minister, having indicated that the government would move quickly to pass this legislation, waited until June 11, 1991, to introduce a bill. She did not introduce the bill until after I stood up in this House and in a member's statement reminded her that the government had signed an agreement and undertaken to pass this bill. We were nearing the end of the session in June and yet they still had not introduced their bill. Consequently, several days after my statement and my urging and my press release, again focusing on this particular issue, the Minister of Municipal Affairs introduced Bill 123, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act.

I want to refer to the compendium on Bill 123. It is called the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Amendment Act and it reads as follows:

"The regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has expressed concern that a private waste disposal facility operator, Laidlaw, has in the past received solid waste from outside the region and may do so again, thereby reducing the capacity available to regional users. These amendments provide the regional council may impose terms and conditions, including the requirement for compensation when granting consent to persons operating a solid waste facility in Ottawa-Carleton.

"The legislation applies to existing waste disposal sites. There are four landfill sites in Ottawa-Carleton not owned by the region. The legislation provides that the terms and conditions imposed on Laidlaw are to be backdated to April 12, 1991. On that date, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and Laidlaw entered into an agreement regarding the disposal of waste from outside the regional area in the Laidlaw site. The other three landfill site operators have not entered into any agreements with Ottawa-Carleton.

"The regional municipalities of Halton, York, Durham and Waterloo already have similar powers. Their powers, however, relate to new sites and do not cover existing sites."

We are talking about Ottawa-Carleton under Bill 123 having a certain type of provision for solid waste management which includes existing sites. We are talking about the regional municipalities of Halton, York, Durham and Waterloo, which have similar provisions. However, their powers only relate to new sites. What about the rest of the province? What about Kirkland Lake? What about your community, Mr Speaker, of Cambridge and environs?

There is no orderly provision of environmental regulation or laws in Ontario. To make matters worse, we have to put these provisions in Bill 123 into the context of Bill 143. This is a new bill which the minister is trying to ram through. With due respect to the government and the Ministry of the Environment, Bill 143 does that to the Ottawa-Carleton bill.

Mrs Caplan: Does what?

Mr Chiarelli: It rips it up, because Bill 143 can override Bill 123 by a director in the Ministry of the Environment. The RMOC will have absolutely zero in terms of permanent legislation, because Bill 143, which we are presently in the process of dealing with, is going to totally undermine Bill 123, which is being debated for the benefit of Ottawa-Carleton. I want to relate 143 to 123. I think it is very significant. I want to review first a bit of structure to put some of my concerns in context.

On Thursday, October 24, 1991, the Minister of the Environment introduced for first reading the Waste Management Act, 1991. This is a far-reaching piece of legislation dealing with four aspects of waste disposal. This legislation pertains primarily to the regions of the greater Toronto area. However, section 4, which deals with waste reduction regulations, will apply to all municipalities in the province. The four components of this act -- there are basically four sections -- are as follows:

Part I will establish the current Interim Waste Authority as a crown agency. The legislation will give the agency the power to expropriate land for the purpose of establishing three long-term landfill sites in Durham, Peel and either York or Metro Toronto. Of course, that does not apply to Ottawa-Carleton.

Part II outlines the criteria for the long-term site selection process.

Part III is the controversial section which expands the minister's emergency powers, ordering Peel to expand Britannia landfill and Metropolitan Toronto to expand Keele Valley. These lifts will be done with no environmental assessment and no opportunity for public hearings. That does not directly impact on Ottawa-Carleton either.

However, when we look at part IV, this part outlines the amendments to the Environmental Protection Act which broaden the definition of "waste" to include all materials, and this section provides the legislation required for the minister to implement her waste reduction regulations.

1620

What does that mean for Ottawa-Carleton and what does it mean for Bill 123, which we are debating here today? Members should note, with regard to the minister's position on the transportation of waste, there is an inconsistency in this bill. Despite subsection 14(2) stating that the shipping of waste will not be a consideration in dealing with waste management in the GTA, the minister has at the same time amended section 29 to give legislative authority to directors to order municipalities to ship waste to or accept waste from other municipalities. That amendment to section 29 deals with all municipalities, not just the greater Toronto area.

What we are doing here is authorizing the provincial government, with a cabinet edict, to overrule Bill 123 on a director's whim or on the minister's whim. What validity does Bill 123 have under those circumstances?

Under part IV of the act, that is, Bill 143, which deals with the amendments to the Environmental Protection Act, the minister repeals section 29, which gives the minister her emergency powers. It amends section 29 in part as follows:

"If the director considers it advisable in the public interest, he or she may order a municipality...(a) to collect or transport such waste as is specified in the order, including waste from such source outside the boundaries of the municipality as is specified in the order."

We have just given the director in the Ministry of the Environment the power to totally overrule the provisions of Bill 123 and many other pieces of legislation. It is a sham.

On the one hand, the czarina of the environment, through her House leader, is negotiating with our House leader on an urgent basis to get Bill 143 through, which gives her directors this power to order the transportation of waste in and out of municipalities. On the other hand, she is sitting here today across the floor, supporting Bill 123 to give Ottawa-Carleton ostensibly the right to control the importation of solid waste in and out of Ottawa-Carleton. With the signature of a pen at any time, she -- in fact, not even she but the director from her ministry -- can overrule Bill 123.

It makes no sense. There is no rhyme nor reason to what the minister is doing. She passes Bill 123 and says, "It's to give Ottawa-Carleton legislation similar to some of the regions in the Metro Toronto area." On the other hand, she says, "But in the Metro Toronto area, these powers do not apply to existing, they only apply to new." Yet neither the powers that the Metro municipalities have nor the ostensible power she is trying to give the RMOC affects other parts of the province such as Kirkland Lake.

We are looking at one of the most draconian pieces of legislation. On the same day as the minister's House leader is negotiating Bill 143 through this House, she is asking this Legislature and the people of Ottawa-Carleton to buy Bill 123.

I quote again from Bill 143 as it amends section 29:

"If the director considers it advisable in the public interest, he or she may order a municipality....(a) to collect or transport such waste as is specified in the order, including waste from such source outside the boundaries of the municipality as is specified in the order."

It goes on to say:

"(b) to accept, process or otherwise deal with such waste as is specified in the order, including waste from such source outside the boundaries of the municipality as is specified in the order."

Section 29 is meant to deal with short-term solutions to waste disposal crises, so we are told. However, the minister is giving legislative authority for a director to order a municipality to accept from or ship waste to another municipality in order to deal with that crisis. At the same time, she will not allow the transport of waste to be given any consideration by the waste authority in its search for a long-term solution to the GTA waste crisis.

I ask a very simple question to the Minister of the Environment: Is she prepared to approve an amendment to Bill 123 saying that Bill 143 does not apply to Bill 123? Is she prepared to say, "We're here today giving Ottawa-Carleton authority under Bill 123 to put conditions on the importation of waste"? Yet she is now negotiating to try to ram through without full debate Bill 143, which says that her officials can just sign an order saying that Bill 123 does not apply any more.

We have a crisis in Metropolitan Toronto and we want to send our garbage to Ottawa-Carleton. Bill 143 does just that. This is the most insane conglomeration of legislation and regulations imaginable. It is a proliferation of inconsistencies that defies any rational explanation.

There will be very extensive debate in this House on Bill 143. I do not want to dwell on that particular bill at the present time. I did want to relate it to Bill 123. Obviously I will be supporting Bill 123 for the benefit of Ottawa-Carleton, but I will ask the Minister of the Environment if she will consider an amendment to Bill 143 to exempt Ottawa-Carleton's legislation, because, quite frankly, members know and I know and the 650,000 people in Ottawa-Carleton know that they want a bill for Ottawa-Carleton that has teeth.

They would prefer the same bill to have teeth for the whole of the province, similar to the bill I introduced, but at the very minimum they want a bill which has teeth. On the one hand, the minister is preparing a set of dentures for Ottawa-Carleton and, on the other hand, with Bill 143, she is ready to extract it. It simply does not make sense.

With respect to Bill 143 and the draconian nature of the bill and how it will affect Bill 123, I want to refer to a letter which was sent to the Minister of the Environment, dated December 4, 1991, from the law firm of Cassels, Brock and Blackwell. As members know, this is a very reputable law firm in Canada, let alone in Toronto or Ontario. This particular law firm represents the regional municipality of York.

I want to indicate just a few comments from that letter, because I think they are very pertinent to the present debate. This is addressed to the Minister of the Environment:

"Bill 143 is legislation of a type citizens should only be asked to accept in wartime. Your ministry's and your personal position always has been to require that a proponent putting something forward that will affect the environment, including the socioeconomic aspects of the environment -- your government in the case of Bill 143 -- consult with the affected parties."

There are also other concerns: "The bill is fundamentally unfair and ignores the way we do things in Ontario. The draconic nature of the bill and the government's determination to pass it quickly reminds one of Edmund Burke's statement that 'If I cannot have reform without injustice, then I will have reform.'"

This again is a legal opinion I am quoting from the letter: "The bill allows provincial power to intrude into regional and municipal responsibility over waste management."

What a juxtaposition. At the same time a prominent law firm on behalf of a regional municipality in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area is saying, "The bill allows provincial power to intrude into regional and municipal responsibility over waste management," this government has the audacity to come in and pass Bill 123, ostensibly to give Ottawa-Carleton authority to control or prohibit the importation of waste into its region, and to say, "Bill 143 is not worth the paper it's written on because any director in our ministry, without notice, can simply sign an order telling Ottawa-Carleton to import waste from the greater Metropolitan Toronto area." It is absolutely astounding.

I cannot believe this government could be so inconsistent, so incompetent and so insensitive to the people of Ottawa-Carleton and the people of the province. I cannot believe they could be so insensitive to the people of Kirkland Lake; honest, hardworking, well-meaning people who are trying to create an economic base for their community in their area, who have reasonable solutions to problems and in fact reasonable solutions to solve waste management problems, including those in the Metropolitan Toronto area. Why would they not be given the same right to control the importation of waste as Ottawa-Carleton has, or at least as Ottawa-Carleton used to have or, I should say, used to think it had.

1630

We used to think Bill 123 would have some teeth, but now we have Bill 143 coming in saying Bill 123 does not make any sense. We have these two bills coming together on the same day in this House and they are totally in conflict with each other. I cannot believe the government could be so incompetent. What does it say to the people of Kirkland Lake who are sitting up there, sucking their fingers, wondering what this government is doing? "What're they doing for us? They're running around passing all these acts, these bills, this legislation, and it doesn't make any sense."

I am coming to my conclusion on this. There is not much more I can say. I think I have made my points. I believe the people of Ottawa-Carleton have yet to realize the significance of Bill 143 for them and their policies for controlling solid waste in the region. I am telling the Minister of the Environment and this government that they are going to have a thorn in their sides on a regular basis. If they think they have had trouble and they have had a harangue or the greater Metropolitan Toronto opposition members have been a pain in the neck to them on Bill 143, they can add Ottawa-Carleton to the list as well, because part IV of Bill 143 is so draconian to Ottawa-Carleton that it defies description.

Once again, in conclusion, I want to say to the new chairman of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, Peter Clark -- who I wish to congratulate, incidentally -- and to the chief administrative officer, Ron Clark, who is no relation, that the bill they negotiated with the Ministry of the Environment, the control they thought they had over the importation of waste into Ottawa-Carleton, really does not exist and is a sham.

I will vote for this bill today in the hope that the Minister of the Environment will amend Bill 143 to exempt the provisions of Bill 123, the Ottawa-Carleton bill. I have little hope she will do that, but I will work towards that. I give a commitment to the people of Ottawa-Carleton that they will have a strong lobby at Queen's Park from the opposition benches to prevent the government from totally undermining their solid waste management bill which is being passed here today and which is, incidentally, being totally undermined by another bill, Bill 143.

Mr Cousens: I want to apologize to the member for Ottawa West if I interrupted him in his speech. I could not find his bill. Then when I found it, I did not like what I found. But I apologize for interrupting him during his ramblings.

I do not know where this member is coming from. When you start looking at his bill, he is one who just wants to make sure no garbage comes into his municipality. That is really what it boils down to. He comes along and says this bill would amend the Environmental Protection Act by giving municipalities and territory without municipal organizations the authority to make bylaws prohibiting the depositing of waste from outside the municipality.

That is NIMBY, not in my backyard. All you want to do is make sure it is not in your backyard, and that is the whole purpose of your sweet little Bill 41. There you stand up and pontificate for an hour about the minister and her hypocrisy when you have more of it in your heart and soul and mind and bill than I have ever seen.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. The member will take his seat. The member will address his remarks to the Chair. He will find they will be less provocative and there will not be interjections.

Mr Cousens: The Speaker is right again. You are absolutely right. Once you really hit the nail on the head, it really makes them suffer, but I would appreciate if that honourable minister, in his great integrity that he likes to exude, could come along and say why his bill is not NIMBY. I am convinced what he has said in his little bill here is just trying to make sure he protects his backyard.

The problem we all have with garbage and landfill sites is that everybody is afraid of where it is going to be, and the minister -- I think he is right -- is further afraid she will not release the lists of the sites that are under consideration for the greater Toronto area. She also has a chicken heart, but I have to say that the concept coming forward from the member for Ottawa West is giving the minister a very bad example.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Further comments or questions? The member for Ottawa West has two minutes in which to reply.

Mr Chiarelli: I will take my two minutes to comment on the previous remarks.

I have to say that the member was not aware of my bill. He quickly scurried around and grabbed a copy of it and then interpreted it in a way which was totally incorrect and false. The fact of the matter is that Bill 41, which I introduced, is exactly the type of bill that would also give Kirkland Lake the right to pass a bylaw to import waste into Kirkland Lake and to make agreements to help the economy of Kirkland Lake. In fact, it also provides a municipality with the right to pass a bylaw which will regulate the amount of waste coming in. It will put it on condition --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): The member for Etobicoke West is not in his seat. Please refrain from interjections.

Mr Chiarelli: I also do not want the member for Markham's comments to distract members from my main point. My main point was not Bill 41, which I introduced. My main point was that Bill 123, which we are debating here today for the benefit of Ottawa-Carleton, is totally expunged and overruled by the provisions of Bill 143, where a director can pass an order saying effectively that Bill 123 does not apply.

But I do want to say that if he reads Bill 41 carefully, he will see that it provides a province-wide framework. In fact, the people of Kirkland Lake could pass a bylaw under Bill 41, which I introduced, which enables them, under proper conditions, to import garbage from other parts of the province, which is their desire and their wish. Bill 41 would have enabled them to do it. It definitely is not a NIMBY bill.

1640

Mr Sterling: I rise today to support this bill. The need for this bill came to light because of the fact that a private disposal company, Laidlaw, started to receive waste from municipalities outside the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. I believe the region and the residents of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton felt that if they were going to be hosts to garbage from other areas, there should be some kind of compensation paid by the receiver of that garbage or waste so that when it was necessary to expand the waste disposal sites in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton to take care of its own waste, as it is responsible for doing, there would be some funds to develop those sites to provide additional capacity to receive the waste of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

The region of Ottawa-Carleton has for a long period of time now received waste from the outlying municipalities, some from the county of Lanark, some from the county of Leeds-Grenville and some from as far away as Kingston, as has been mentioned here. In some ways they have received this waste in helping out the smaller municipalities, I believe with really a fair bit of generosity, because a lot of the smaller municipalities that have been using the region waste disposal sites have not had the financial wherewithal or the expertise to set up their own environmentally safe waste disposal sites.

I think the region has acted as a good regional corporate citizen of eastern Ontario, because it has said to areas outside in eastern Ontario, "We understand your situation and we're going to help you out for a little while," and they have helped them out for a period of 10 to 15 years in receiving waste from other areas.

There are two principal waste disposal sites in the region, one located in the city of Nepean and one in the township of West Carleton, which I represent. The one in Nepean is run by the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the one in West Carleton is run by the Laidlaw corporation.

What has happened is that because of the outcry, the Laidlaw corporation entered into an agreement with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, even though the region at that point in time had no legislative authority to ask Laidlaw to pay any money for the right to accept waste in its own site. Laidlaw, I believe a good corporate citizen as well, has said: "Okay, we understand the argument. We understand the need for the government of the regional municipality to explain to its constituents that it must receive some compensation to be able to provide additional waste capacity when the Laidlaw dump fills up and when the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton dump fills up."

There is a lot of logic and reason behind this act. It is not new to the province. I understand that the regions of Halton, York, Durham and Waterloo have similar provisions in their regional acts, so the region was not without some precedents in asking for this special legislation to be brought forward here in this Legislature.

I also want to indicate that I am aware of the concerns of the residents who live in the immediate area of this waste disposal site. I am talking about the Laidlaw site in the township of West Carleton. When there were water problems approximately four or five years ago, there was some concern about leachate coming from the dump and polluting the wells of the people in the area. Laidlaw entered into an agreement with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton to provide water for those people from municipal sources. So Laidlaw, in my view, has acted in a responsible manner, not only in dealing as a corporate citizen with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, but in dealing with the local citizenry, who had, I think, some legitimate concerns with regard to the quality of their well water in the area.

There are two sections to this bill. One section deals with the future and the right of the region, when a private concern develops a site in the region, to ask for compensation from that particular site if garbage is brought across the border of the regional municipality. There would really be no logic or sense in asking for compensation with regard to waste that was brought from within the region to a private site.

The second section deals with a retroactive situation dealing with the Laidlaw situation. As I said, Laidlaw has already sat down at the bargaining table with the region and hammered out a deal to deal with waste coming from Kingston. It is interesting to note that the amounts of money we are talking about here are not insignificant. Under the deal struck with Laidlaw, it has agreed to pay to the region $20 per tonne for each tonne of garbage deposited in the waste disposal site in West Carleton township.

I believe that over the next two years -- I am not certain whether it is 168,000 tonnes per year or a total of 168,000 tonnes, but if you translate 168,000 tonnes times $20 for each of those tonnes, we are talking about $3.3 million. We are not talking about an insignificant amount of money that is going to be transferred or paid to the region under the agreement with Laidlaw.

My concern is, what happens to the $3.3 million and any additional revenue the region may receive from these agreements? I think this legislation should be specific in putting aside any moneys collected under these compensation agreements into a reserve that will be there for future generations to utilize in order to increase their waste disposal capacity.

My concern is the experience we have known whereby, for instance, municipalities have in the past been given moneys for lot levies that were originally thought to be for creating and paying for additional infrastructure: for recreation facilities in a municipality, for sewers, for water, for additional demands upon the municipalities. What has happened over the period of our last 20 years of history, since lot levies have been introduced and collected, is that municipalities have not used lot levies specifically to increase their infrastructure. Lot levies have been used for operating expenses of municipalities.

When the time came in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, for instance, to pay for the Green Creek sewage treatment plant, when the time comes in Ottawa to pay for the tremendous restructuring of its sewer system -- which is, I understand, in a great deal of disrepair -- when the time comes to do those things, there is no reserve pot for the municipal politicians, the regional politicians, to go to and say, "This money has been put aside to deal with these very kinds of problems."

What has happened is that all that money has gone out the door. It has paid for fire protection, for police protection, for recreation and for a host of other normal municipal operating expenditures. The region finds itself in such a tremendous debt problem it is then forced to go to the taxpayers and increase taxes.

1650

What I am concerned about with this legislation is giving the ability to the region to collect a new kind of tax, in essence, but not requiring it to put these funds aside for the uses for which they will have this additional power to collect these funds.

The outgoing council of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton found itself in the fortunate position this year of having a budget surplus of close to $3 million at the end of the year. Despite the fact we have elected politicians and heard the municipal politicians say that the issue at the door was taxes, taxes and taxes, the outgoing council of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton found it could not leave office without spending this $2.5 million to $3 million, and so it gave away the money to worthy causes. They gave $1 million to both the former universities I attended, Carleton University and University of Ottawa. They gave them $1 million each, and they gave another amount of money to a drug treatment centre, which was another worthwhile cause as well.

I am asking and demanding that it be included in this bill that any funds that are received for taking garbage into the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton -- the $20 per tonne that was negotiated in the Laidlaw contract -- be put aside in a reserve fund so that I can be certain this council of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton will have funds to develop new capacity to dump our waste from the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton in the future.

Therefore, when this bill is put into committee of the whole House of this Legislature, I will put forward two amendments, both similar in nature: one for section 1, dealing with future sites, and one for section 2, to deal with the money coming from the Laidlaw contract which I want put aside in a special reserve fund. I hope the minister will have the opportunity to consider, and can consider this amendment. It is not a partisan amendment and I hope she will consider it seriously.

One of the problems we have in dealing with this legislation is that we have the transition from one regional council to another regional council. In the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, effectively half the members of council, including the regional chairman, are brand-new elected people. So we have a situation where I am having difficulty talking to the new regional chairman and the new council of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton as to their feelings with regard to amendments to this bill. In fact, I have not been able to ascertain from the new council what their feelings are with regard to Bill 123.

I therefore ask that the minister consider not going ahead with committee of the whole House with regard to this bill and the amendments, because I think it would be most prudent for us to get some kind of reaction with regard to the amendments she has put forward. She intends to amend the bill. We have been given today for the first time three amendments to the bill, even though it is only a two-section bill. I would also like the region to react to the amendment I am going to propose to this bill.

I have indicated that it is not a bad piece of legislation. Perhaps the minister should consider doing it on a province-wide basis. I do not believe we can solve all of our garbage problems, as my colleague the member for Markham has said, by giving individual municipalities the blanket right to say no to garbage coming into their area.

We have to realize that some areas just do not have the capacity to set up a dump, to set up a waste disposal site. I think that we have to be reasonable in our approach to environmental solutions and that we cannot close down options. I have been very much concerned that this Minister of the Environment has yielded to the shrill voices of people who call themselves environmentalists and closed down a number of options. I was sorry to see her take such a hard stand on incineration and sorry to see her take such a hard stand on Kirkland Lake.

I do not think we are going to be able to solve our problems in this province with a minister who is ideologically setting herself up to be wrong in a scientific and rational way on decisions that are evolving to deal with waste disposal problems.

I do not want to divert away too much from the intent of Bill 123, but I think it is important to know that Sweden was one of the countries with the most vehemently strict laws against using incineration as part of the solution to its waste disposal problems. Now they have reversed that tack totally and are looking to incineration as one of their solutions to dealing with this subject. Quite frankly, I understand that the Green Party in Germany is looking to incineration as one of its solutions to waste disposal problems. So I would urge the minister, when she is standing up in front of environmental groups, to not be so shrill, so definite, in terms of saying, "We will not consider new technology to deal with the environmental problems we have."

In this country we do not want our engineers and our scientific community lagging behind in terms of seeking environmental solutions. We have one of the best engineering professions here in the world in Ontario. I say that with prejudice because I happen to be one of those engineers. We have 58,000 engineers in Ontario, the largest professional organization in all of Canada. I think engineering is one of the few remaining professions -- we have many professions that have transferred into what I consider union membership, but the engineers have not done that and they are very loath to do that.

What I would like this minister to do is to challenge those engineers, to challenge our scientists to come up with environmental solutions, technically sound solutions, to our environmental problems. We cannot go on saying, "We will not have incineration." We should not deal with environmental problems by blanket statements, black and white statements like that. We must consider all the environmental solutions that are out there. We must not close down the options.

I think Bill 123 has captured a little bit of the kind of co-operation that is possible between municipalities. I only wish the Minister of the Environment would show that same kind of open-mindedness towards all the environmental issues she is facing at this time.

Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to comment on the remarks by my colleague from the Ottawa-Carleton area. The point he is making about the desire for us in Ontario to seek the very best environmental solutions, and that many of those solutions will be as a result of new research and technology that is developing, perhaps even as we speak, is a point well taken and well made.

We not only have an excellent engineering community; we also have a very fine cadre of research professors and scientists. We know that in the world there have been more discoveries and accumulation of knowledge and information and new technology developed in the last 10 years than probably in the past three decades in comparison.

I support his comments when he encourages the minister not to close out any option which is going to give us the very best environmental result. I support his comments in encouraging this government to keep an open mind about new technologies in energy from waste, if they are the best. If something is discovered tomorrow, we do not want to see a situation where we cannot even think about it.

I am concerned when the minister and the NDP government say that certain things are unthinkable. I support the comments of other members of this House who say that in times of rapid technological change it is in the public interest for us to get the facts, seek the very best environmental solutions for the challenges we face and explore every possible option.

1700

Mr Cousens: I would like to acknowledge the excellent presentation by the member for Carleton. I listened very carefully to his remarks, and when you consider the background he brings to the subject, first of all as an engineer and also as a lawyer, he is able to apply a tremendous amount of educational background developed over many years of experience, not only in private industry but here in the Legislature as one of the longest-serving members of our caucus.

As he has gone through this bill, he has touched on some of the critical issues. I think he shows a level of kindness to the minister that is very generous in that he is asking only for an amendment that will allow the moneys to be collected to go into a reserve fund. He is going to support the bill. I really cannot go as far as he can in supporting the bill, but I do not live in Ottawa-Carleton. I can raise a few other matters when I have that opportunity shortly.

I would like to put on the record how fortunate the people from the Ottawa region are to have someone representing their needs as well and as articulately as he has done this afternoon on this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): The member may have two minutes to respond.

Mr Sterling: It is hard to differ with what has been said, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): I thought it might be, "I love you, too."

Mr Mahoney: I think it appropriate that following those lovely remarks, I would be the next speaker. I absolutely bring seasonal greetings to everyone in this place.

I wish to join this debate and express some concern about how this bill relates to overall government policy, or rather how it does not relate. I understand the need in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. I understand the problems they were facing with garbage coming into the Laidlaw site and Chairman Haydon's concern at the time about importing garbage into their community. I understand their desire to negotiate a better arrangement with the provincial government to allow for more control to be placed in the hands of the regional municipality.

Having been a regional and city councillor for 10 years, I very much support the concept of local autonomy and the concept that what is particularly good in Ottawa-Carleton might not necessarily work in other parts of the province. I have trouble reconciling the statements by the minister in responding to the bill put forward by my colleague, who spoke so eloquently earlier to that --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I am just following the lead of the member for Markham. We have all been nice today, so far.

To the comments of the Minister of the Environment in speaking against the bill which would have allowed for that kind of control to be placed, it almost seemed like the minister was simply saying it is not a good idea because it came from an opposition member, but she thinks it is a good idea when it comes from her. I have some difficulty with that kind of partisan mentality in dealing with a problem as important and as significant to the people of Ottawa-Carleton as the filling up of their landfill site with garbage without proper compensation and without an attempt perhaps to collect the tipping fees or to get some form of compensation that presumably they can then place in reserve funds or put in funds for the future when they may indeed have to deal with rather expensive new ideas of how to dispose of their waste once the sites they are currently dealing with are filled up with garbage from other regions.

I can understand how they would come to this government and say, "If you don't want to listen to Mr Chiarelli, how would you like to listen to us and give us an opportunity to have some control over our own destiny within our own municipality?"

What did this government do? They said, "Sure, we're prepared to talk to you about a partnership and an arrangement." They entered into an agreement in April 1991 among the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Ottawa-Carleton region, a written commitment by the minister to introduce amendments to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act to expand the region's control over importation of waste into that community, which also said specifically that no Toronto-area waste would come into that community. That was part of the agreement. It also went on to allow the region to charge a surcharge over and above the tipping fee charged by Laidlaw to municipalities that were shipping their garbage in. They went on to put in place a plan.

What seems so inconsistent to us, though, is they draw up this new partnership, one that I am sure is supported in principle by the members from that region who understand the severity of the problem and that is certainly supported in principle by the people in the Kingston community, who had a dump site which this ministry ordered closed and had nowhere to put their garbage. Then what does this government do? It introduces another bill, which we will be dealing with perhaps later on today or perhaps next week, Bill 143, that totally strips the region of any authority at the whim of not just the minister but a bureaucrat to override the bill we are talking about supporting today.

If I were the regional chairman in Ottawa-Carleton or the member of this Legislature from that community, I would be awfully nervous at the thought that this minister and/or a bureaucrat in the Ministry of the Environment could, perhaps due to some undue pressure from an environmental group or some other special interest group -- we all know that this government is driven by special interest groups, that this government clearly does not have the broad interests of the province at large at heart and that this government is clearly dominated by the trade/labour movement or perhaps by the special interest environmental groups.

So here they are. They think they have entered into a new partnership. They say: "This is a good deal. We can increase our revenue. We can build up reserve funds. We can do all those kinds of things. We can turn off the tap because we've been given some controls as a regional municipality over the filling up of our own waste site," and now this government is coming in with another bill, which as I said we will be debating in a short time, that will completely put this particular agreement at risk.

The other thing I have some difficulty with is statements by the Minister of the Environment that all municipalities should take care of their garbage within their own boundaries. Clearly in my municipality we have been doing that for years at the Britannia site. That site has now been ordered to accept some more garbage. Very clearly, with the new bill we will be dealing with that affects this bill, the minister is expanding her emergency powers and simply putting herself in the position where she will be able to order more garbage into the Britannia site or more garbage into a dump site in York region -- which would concern those members -- Keele Valley or wherever, maybe even Ottawa.

Clearly, the agreement says no Toronto garbage will go to Ottawa. But Bill 143 says this minister can do whatever she likes, with no requirement for an environmental assessment, no requirement for an impact study, no requirement for dialogue with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, Peel, Durham, Metro, anywhere. If this minister wakes up one morning and says, "I think I'll send all Toronto's garbage down to Ottawa," under that legislation, she can simply override the agreement that the chairman, the members of council and the citizens in Ottawa-Carleton have entered into in good faith.

1710

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My colleague is making some very important points, and I do not believe there is a quorum here to listen to this important debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): A quorum is present.

Mrs Mathyssen: Steve, you drove her out.

Mr Mahoney: Apparently, I drove the minister out. We all have to do business for the good of our constituents, and I am delighted to see she has returned, because I hope she will listen to the remarks. I am sure you were busy. You were listening on television and having a muffin. I can appreciate that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): I would ask the member to speak through the Chair.

Mr Mahoney: As I was saying, the concern is that the minister has really done something that on the surface would appear positive, in entering into an agreement with Ottawa-Carleton at its request, in order to allow it to control its own destiny. But she has not been consistent.

The region of Peel has a major crisis. I believe this minister is going out to meet with Mayor McCallion and members of council. I hope to be in attendance, if at all possible, if only to be a fly on the wall, to watch the blood-letting I anticipate may take place that day. I am sure it will be the minister's; it surely will not be Hazel's.

I have tried to understand why the minister would enter into an agreement with Ottawa-Carleton to bring some sensible arrangements to that community with regard to importation of garbage and then bring in another bill which totally puts that in jeopardy. I have tried to understand why this minister would look at a process that was well under way in many communities, mine particularly, where an environmental assessment would be about three quarters done in my estimation, and we would be extremely close to a new landfill site in the region of Peel. She has totally thrown that into a quandary. She has totally stripped Peel, Durham, Metro and municipalities all over this province, of any kind of authority or ability to deal with this problem. Yet it is those people who represent the ratepayers who will be facing garbage piling up in their streets if this minister does not get a handle on her responsibilities.

We know Halton, for example, has been shipping its garbage to the United States to be burned. This minister has said there will be no burning of garbage whatsoever. I wonder where she thinks the smoke goes when the garbage is put into the incinerator in Buffalo. I think it probably blows right back across the border. Our information is that the incinerators that are burning it in the United States do not have the technology and the scrubbers that we could put in place to ensure that the carcinogens and the other problems coming into the atmosphere would not occur.

That does not matter, because the special interest groups that are driving this minister, this ministry and this government to bring in draconian legislation such as Bill 143, which totally impacts on Bill 123 and negates the potential of Bill 123, had some debts out there that were owed to them by this government. This government is clearly paying off the debts it incurred in getting the support of some of these special interest groups.

Then you take a look and you say to yourself, "The minister came out with a statement and said that municipalities should deal with their waste disposal in their own community." I wonder if the member for one of the Durhams -- I forget which Durham it is; not the member for Durham East, the fellow behind him who is not here, Norah Stoner's old riding -- if the member for Durham Centre is nervous about the fact that the minister has said everyone has to deal with it within his own community.

Mr White: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I have had no connection whatsoever with Ms Stoner. I have not succeeded nor had any knowledge nor contact with Ms Stoner.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, it was Durham West.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Durham West is the riding.

Mr Mahoney: I appreciate the fact that the member admits he has never succeeded at anything along those lines, I have no difficulty with that. The member for Durham West won, I think based on the fact that he was prepared to lie down in front of some bulldozers or whatever, and now the Minister of the Environment has come along in that part of the world and said they are going to have to take care of their garbage in their own backyard. Yet in other areas they are allowed to import it. There is such inconsistency on the part of this minister that it scares everyone.

We have Halton burning it in the United States. We have Peel being forced to expand its boundaries. We had a pretty good plan in place in our community. We had site 6B in Brampton. We were very close, I think. It would have gone to the environmental assessment hearing. There would have been intervenor funding. All the interest groups would have had an opportunity to put their cases forward. Everyone could have had good public debate. We could have had the scientific assurance that the aquifers in that area were not being affected, and if they were, we could have put in the proper liners and the proper engineering technology to ensure that a new landfill waste site in Peel in the community of north Brampton could have been in place by now.

But that is not what this minister has done. This minister has thrown the cat among the pigeons and has put the regional municipality of Peel in the position where it has no option. Even though so far they are resisting, they are resisting obeying the ministerial order --

Hon Ms Ziemba: I'm still listening.

Mr Mahoney: Nice to see you.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I'll be back.

Mr Mahoney: That's good. Don't threaten me.

Even though they are going to resist the ministerial order as long as they possibly can, the bottom line is that they know that this minister, coming down with a hammer --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. I think the people of Ontario deserve civility in this House. They expect civility in this House, and I think we can give it to them.

Mr Mahoney: I think I was being quite civil, given some of the acrobatics that were going on. I appreciate you, Mr Speaker, reining in some of the excitable members and getting control over them. I will carry on with expressing my concerns.

As I was saying, if we relate this Bill 123, which is an attempt to enter into a new partnership to solve a problem in Ottawa-Carleton, to the inconsistencies in the rest of the province, we have no sense of confidence whatsoever that the minister or the government might live up to it.

What this government fails to understand is that the disposal of garbage should be treated like a business. The people of Kirkland Lake analysed what opportunities they had to expand their industrial base. They came up with the rather unfortunate decision that they had very few opportunities and they put together a very well thought out plan that said they would be a willing host for Metropolitan Toronto garbage.

What happens? It just gets dismissed out of hand. There is no examination of an environmental impact, no examination of lost jobs in that community, no examination of the fact that many of the products and the packaging that is generated out of this particular GTA market wind up on the shelves of the stores in Kirkland Lake, notwithstanding the fact that those folks, since they do not have jobs, do not have money to buy those products.

But the reality is that the GTA is a centre of economic growth for the entire province. Certainly I would not support a government decision to simply force Metro's garbage or Mississauga's garbage or Ottawa's garbage on a municipality that was unwilling to take it. I do not think we are at that stage in development in our life in Ontario that we want to force things down people's throats. But when you actually have a municipality come forward and say, "We have a business plan that we think makes sense" --

Mr Callahan: A good one.

1720

Mr Mahoney: A good business plan, as my colleague the member for Brampton South says, a business plan that makes sense, that says we can ship garbage in enclosed containers.

I have spent some time in Japan, a country where the people, unlike the people of Canada, basically do what their civic and political leaders ask them to do. That is the Japanese way. It is a matter of honour. They believe in co-operating with their elected representatives in a very real way. That is not necessarily the way things happen in this country, as we understand. It is a different political system. Even in Japan they only recycle approximately 25% of the waste that is generated. In a country where the people actually do what their elected leaders ask them to do, they recycle 25%. This minister thinks you can simply put out an edict that will force everybody to recycle. It is not going to work.

Our government, the former provincial government, was instrumental in advancing the blue box program. The government I was part of at the city of Mississauga was instrumental -- we were the largest city; Kitchener, I think, was first, and then Mississauga was the largest city to implement the blue box program. It is expensive to get off the ground. You have to buy all the equipment and the new trucks and enter into the contracts. But we have promoted it in our community and it is extremely successful. When you drive down the street on garbage day in my community, you see house after house after house with a blue box out.

I believe we are doing whatever we can. Our government led the way, and I think the municipalities are doing whatever they can to find new and creative ways to deal with waste. What they need is an understanding government that recognizes that we need a comprehensive waste management program. Why should we simply stick our heads in the sand and say no to incineration? Why should we not be open-minded and try to understand that there is technology that exists, whether it is in a cement kiln or whether it is in a plant with new scrubbers, the proper type of technology?

I use Japan as an example again. They have incinerators all over the island and they actually generate power. They heat their local swimming pool right in the community with this industry. What happens is that properly enclosed garbage trucks drive into a building --

Mr Perruzza: Did you pay for that government trip to Japan by yourself?

Mr Mahoney: No, the government paid for it. Do not worry about it.

They drive into an enclosed building and back up to a hopper, we will call it. They dump the garbage into a hopper. Someone is there operating a crane and they separate the plastics and the rubber and the metal. They separate all this into different streams and they purify the stream of the garbage. Out of that they get out what can burn and will not put toxins into the air. They generate enough power right in Kariya City, the twin city of Mississauga in Japan, to provide electricity to the local community, to heat the local swimming pool. They make a business. They create jobs. It is clean. You could walk around the site. You would stand there, Mr Speaker, and you would eat your lunch. Well, maybe you would not eat your lunch, Mr Speaker, but I would eat my lunch there. You would not even know that this was a garbage operation you were going into. The smell is totally enclosed in that hopper because it is all operated by a crane. It is really a modern-day way of dealing with it.

The Kirkland Lake proposal could have been similar. We could have had the garbage shipped in enclosed boxcars on rails. Some of the members shake their heads. They obviously do not understand. They think the only solution to this is to continue burying everything and hope that somehow down the road we do not wind up with everything burping right back on us. That is exactly what is going to happen.

I went to a dump site on the Credit River a few years ago. We were making it into a park. We did a drill to test. The dump site had been closed 20 years. You could still read the newspapers from 20 years ago. It was amazing how active that particular dump site was. Now, I do not say that because you have that problem, you just eliminate dump sites. We need composting. We need all the recycling and the reusing. We need the blue box program. We need incineration. We need it done safely and carefully in communities where we can generate power. We need landfill. We also need proper packaging regulations and I hope we get that kind of tough legislation.

The only government I have seen in recent memory that had any guts at all on environmental issues was the last government. We were the only government to put a polluter in jail. We were the only government to expand the blue box program and expand the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement regulations and to actually get tough with environmental foulers.

Mr Owens: How long did it take?

Mr Mahoney: We were only in office for three years as a majority government, which I realize is not a great length of time, and in that short period of time we actually managed to lead the way in the western world in new environmental protection ideas.

What has this government done? With bills like Bill 123 on waste management in the Ottawa-Carleton area, it has thrown the community into confusion. With ignoring the problem by saying to everybody in the GTA, "We're going to take over this problem; don't you worry about it; everything is going to be fine," they are in a quandary. They do not know what to do. They are all trying to get meetings. Do you know you cannot get a meeting with this minister? It is unbelievable. I have people calling my office every day who say, "We would like to meet with the Minister of the Environment to show her some of the ideas we've got that might solve some of the problems."

An hon member: An open and accessible government.

Mr Mahoney: It is not, obviously. It is not open. I understand why the minister does not want to meet. The minister is embarrassed at the record of the government in this area. The minister would have to sit there and admit that --

Mr Callahan: She's leaving.

Mr Mahoney: That is okay. She may come back. I can assure members she is not going off to meet with proponents who have new, good ideas on how to solve waste management problems.

Hon Mrs Grier: As a matter of fact, I am.

Mr Mahoney: If she is, I would like to know who they are, because they all call my office and say they cannot get a meeting with her. She is probably meeting with one of her interest groups, someone who is driving her agenda.

I tried to think, why would this minister, with a golden opportunity -- here is a government that comes into power brand, spanking new. They have a situation in my region and in Durham and in other regions where there are dump sites that have been identified, where the analysis has been conducted, where the drilling has been conducted and the tests have been done. They have intervenor funding being provided to groups that want to come to the environmental assessment hearing. They have a golden opportunity to say to those communities, "We are going to fast-track the environmental hearing process," or: "We don't even have to fast-track it. We're just going to make sure your proposals go to the environmental assessment hearing."

That is not what they do. They come in and say, "You've done all this work. You've spent hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars and dollars generated by tipping fees" -- which ultimately come back to the taxpayer, whether corporate or residential -- "hundreds of millions of dollars in trying to find ways to put a dump site" -- who wants a dump site in their backyard, other than Kirkland Lake, because they have a business plan that makes sense, that allows them to create profits, that allows them to generate revenue, that allows them to create jobs in their community, that allows them to look at this thing in a commonsense, pragmatic way that says, "We have a solution to a major problem in southern Ontario."

But no: "We don't want to listen to that. We've got a better idea. We're going to stop everything. We're going to take it all away from the regional municipalities that have been working hard on it. We're going to tell them they have to find a way to dispose of it in their own backyard, unless you're Ottawa-Carleton. With Ottawa-Carleton, we're going to make an exemption." This is the government of exemptions. They have principles, and if we do not like them, they have others. That has been very clear from day one. So they make an exemption. Obviously they have a problem in Kingston. They are going to have a problem elsewhere, except what are they doing to solve the problem?

If they do not allow the sites that have been identified by my regional municipality to go to an environmental assessment hearing, their only other option is to bring in these draconian measures where the minister can bring down the hammer and say to Hazel McCallion and everybody in Peel, "You are going to expand Britannia Road."

What does that cost our community?

We made a deal. Some members would not understand it. I am sure they were not around politically in those days, but we worked very hard in our community to make an agreement so that we could develop a proper, long-range plan, not for three years, not even for 10 years. We developed a plan that said, "We're going to open a site on Britannia Road in 1978 and we're going to close it in 1990 and we're going to replace it with the next dump in Brampton." That was the deal. I was there. I was on council in 1978, and that was the deal that was agreed to by the late Ken Whillans, the former mayor of Brampton, by the entire regional council and by the people in the community. That was the deal.

1730

Of course, we ran into some difficulties in coming up with acceptable sites to the community. Members would know that every time you identify a site, whether it is in Huttonville or Brampton or Mississauga, obviously some people are going to come out and say: "Hold on here. You're violating our quality of life. We don't want garbage and seagulls and rats and problems in our community." We all understand those feelings. It is called NIMBY. In all honesty, that is an unfair label, because it is really just protecting your own community. We as political leaders have to be prepared to justify that kind of thing and to ensure that it is safe disposal of garbage, that it is not going to ruin a community if we are going to put it in that particular community.

We went that route. We went the route of all the hearings and the public meetings, and there was a first set of six sites that were identified. We were very close to doing a particular environmental assessment hearing there and those sites got derailed, so we went back and looked at them all again.

Then we were right on the verge of making sure that a site in Brampton would be acceptable from an engineering point of view, from an aesthetic point of view, whatever we had to do, and we were ready to go for environmental assessment. What happens? This minister comes along with her great new philosophy that says: "We're going to solve this problem. We're going to take it over. We're going to bring in a bill that is going to provide for emergency powers for this government and this minister to do whatever they want."

Then they come along and they bring in Bill 123, with all the agreements that were reached. II am in support of my colleague the member for Ottawa-Carleton, because I know he has a problem with the regional municipality down there in accepting this garbage from outside. I listened very carefully to his arguments about this bill, and I believe he has clearly and succinctly put forward a position of moderation that says we should adopt this bill because this bill will be good for Ottawa-Carleton. This bill will do what I have always believed is important: It will put authority and autonomy in the hands of the people who are elected at the level of government that is closest to the people.

Let's face it. We all know that when you become an MP or an MPP, you have broader issues and you wind up perhaps moving a little bit away from your community, even though none of us want to do that. Members who represent an area like Ottawa-Carleton have to spend time at Queen's Park, so they are away from their homes and their families and away from their constituents from at least Sunday night usually until Thursday night, when they are back opening up their offices to meet their people and try to represent them. I think it is very difficult to be a member of this Legislature and come from a community as far away as Ottawa.

I am quite fortunate that I can literally drive half an hour to three quarters of an hour, depending on rush-hour traffic, and I can be back in my constituency. I am there every night and every morning, and I have an opportunity to drop into my community office and return messages and meet people. Even the Acting Speaker, being in Cambridge, is not too far away.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): I encourage the member to move back to the subject.

Mr Mahoney: I am on that subject. It relates to the member for Ottawa-Carleton and the difficulty he has and that all members who are far away from this place have in spending so much time here. As a result, he has to rely on the level of government that is closest to the people. The Acting Speaker can see how that ties together. It only takes a little bit of imagination. It clearly shows that this member is supporting his regional municipality in the deal they worked out.

He expressed some very legitimate concerns. I hope the minister will respond to those concerns. It is a basic fundamental thing called trust. The minister meets and enters into Bill 123. Perhaps initially the people in the regional municipality feel a sense of confidence: "We struck a good deal here. We can generate some additional revenue. We are using up our capacity in the landfill. We have to be concerned about that." But very clearly, they felt they had struck a good deal. That is why I and, I assume, other members of our caucus are quite willing to support my colleague from Ottawa-Carleton in his desire to see this bill passed.

Why, though, is the minister setting double standards?

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: To the best of my knowledge, Ottawa-Carleton is not as yet represented. If perhaps the member has a redistribution --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): The member does not have a point of order. The member for Mississauga West will continue.

Mr Mahoney: It is the member for Ottawa West and the region is within that district. I thank the member very much. I am glad he is on his toes today. That is very helpful. The member for Ottawa West --

Mr Chiarelli: From Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr Mahoney: -- from Ottawa-Carleton, as he points out, introduced a private member's bill which would give the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, which is near Ottawa West, more control over the importation of garbage into the region. That is interesting. It was this man's idea to introduce such a bill. When he introduced this bill, the Minister of the Environment was critical of the bill, saying she did not want different legislation for different municipalities. Can members imagine? She did not at that time want different legislation for different municipalities. Rather, she wanted province-wide legislation. A month later the minister then contradicted her own statement and agreed to make special provisions for the Ottawa-Carleton region.

Members can imagine our dismay and concern. She negotiated the deal on Bill 123 and then introduced Bill 143 -- which, I can see by the clock, we are not going to get to today -- which strips this agreement of any authority whatsoever. So we do not trust this government.

Mr White: No kidding.

Mr Mahoney: I do not think the people trust this government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): The member for Durham Centre will not make interjections while he is out of his seat.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, you really did well at Speakers school. I am impressed at your handling of this place.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): You have the floor and we would appreciate it if you would continue with the debate.

Mr Mahoney: We need more decorum in this place. You add to that, sir, and I congratulate you for doing that.

The point I am trying to drive home is that the member for Ottawa West, the member for Nepean, all of the Ottawa caucus -- that is one area where this party is very substantially represented; like Mississauga, I might add.

Mr McClelland: Peel.

Mr Mahoney: All right, all of Peel; that is right. The members for Brampton and Mississauga are chirping in the background here. Most of Peel and most of Ottawa had the good sense in the last election to stay with us.

We have a government that we do not trust and that is operating under management by crisis. The minister says the private member's bill of the member for Ottawa West is no good because it confers special authority on a regional municipality. "We do not like that. We want the same rules for all of the province."

Then she does a complete turnaround and flip-flop, which, in fairness, we are getting used to around here, and brings in legislation that in effect does what the member for Ottawa West --

1740

Mr Chiarelli: She stole the bill.

Mr Mahoney: She stole his bill. That is exactly what she did. I agree with the honourable member. What kind of honour is that? She stole a private member's bill.

Private members' hour is supposed to be an opportunity for all backbenchers over there, who will not be back after the next election, to put forward the concerns of their communities. It is supposed to give them a chance. In fact, if the honourable members were here, and some of them were, and voted in favour of my private member's resolution last week, it called for more free votes for MPPs; it called for a government not to be toppled except on a vote of confidence or lack thereof. It allowed for MPPs to have more opportunity for input, more freedom, more democracy, more openness to the budget system. It allowed for the democratization of this place, and many of the members opposite voted in favour of that.

They must then in their private time think this Minister of the Environment was extremely unfair. When she saw a really good idea come from the member for Ottawa West to solve a problem with regard to garbage in their community, she stood up and said: "That is not a good idea, I do not like it." Then a month later she turned around and stole the private member's bill right off the table, reworded it a little --

Mr Johnson: What a hypothesis.

Mr Mahoney: It is not a hypothesis; it is a fact. This bill basically does the same thing the member for Ottawa West's private member's bill would have done. Why was it not good enough for this government to recognize that a member of the opposition has done his homework in his community, put together a responsible bill and introduced it in private members' hour?

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: No, it is no good. They throw it out and then they steal it. I would say that is a compliment to the member for Ottawa West, if it did not make me so angry that this government clearly has no agenda in the area of waste reduction, of waste management, has no agenda in the area of establishing new partnerships with the municipalities out there that do not trust the government. They do not have any sense of comfort that the government knows what it is doing, whether in the area of waste management or flip-flopping on auto insurance. It does not matter, they are all over the map.

The government members may pay their pollsters to do some fancy polls, ask questions in a funny way and try to sleep at night by pretending they have 41% of the support. If that is how they want to kid themselves, they can go right ahead. I can tell the members of this government that I cannot find anybody who voted for them. They will not admit it. I cannot find anyone who is not totally embarrassed if they do admit it. There are even buttons out there with a picture of the Premier and a slash through it that say: "Don't blame me. I didn't vote for him."

It is quite remarkable. However, government members are there and they have another three years. They are going to mess up the economy, they are going to mess up waste management and throw the sense of confidence out the window.

The Minister of Labour is sitting over there smiling, knowing he has the authority now to bring down all the payback bills to Leo Gerard, Bob White, Shirley Carr and all the men and women in the hierarchy of the labour movement. He understands it just as well as I understand it, and he knows it. He can smile for three years because he has the power and he is going to do it. He is going to pay them back.

The Minister of the Environment is doing the same thing in offering paybacks to the environmental and special interest groups that have put forward their support, either financially or in some other way, to this minister or members in the government, and it is payback time for them.

As the members opposite will understand, in opposition you wind up in a bit of a quandary at times. You find a bill that makes some sense, and Bill 123 does because it was our colleague who in essence drafted the bill. We will be supporting Bill 123 because we support the people in Ottawa-Carleton, not because we support this government. This government is absolutely bereft of any kind of long-range plan to solve the waste management problems in this province, in Ottawa-Carleton, Kingston, Mississauga, Brampton and Toronto. They have no idea what they are doing.

If Bill 143, which we might call in some sense related legislation, carries, the people in Ottawa-Carleton can only sit and hope and pray that this minister does not wake up with a headache one morning and decide that is it, she is going to bring down the hammer and destroy everything they worked hard to attain in negotiating with this government a bill that makes sense.

Mr Chiarelli: First, I appreciate the comments made concerning my participation in this legislation. It has been a very successful debate on the part of the member for Mississauga West because he has moved up now to my second ballot support for the leadership. I encourage him to keep up the good words. I did want to comment on his comment about the inaccessibility of the Minister of the Environment to stakeholders and people with an interest.

The member indicated it is very difficult for people with an interest in these major issues to get in and do any significant or substantive consultation. I want to say I know exactly how he feels. We are dealing here with Bill 123 regarding Ottawa-Carleton and there has been virtually no input and no access from the only NDP member for Ottawa-Carleton, the member for Ottawa Centre, on this issue, including the time it first started in November. The question of accessibility is significant for the people of Ontario and it does not exist with this government.

I know it is inappropriate to comment on the non-attendance of a person in the House. I will not comment on that specifically, but I will simply say I have not seen a letter, I have not seen a comment, I have not seen any action whatsoever from the member for Ottawa Centre, the cabinet representative in this government, on this issue of garbage, on the concern of Ottawa-Carleton or on this piece of legislation. She has chosen not to debate this legislation or comment on it. It is a common refrain from Ottawa-Carleton that there is no accessibility to the local minister, the member for Ottawa Centre. As this member has said, there is no accessibility to the Minister of the Environment.

Mr Callahan: I have listened very attentively to the last speaker and I want to comment. Has Kingston suddenly become part of Ottawa? That has to be the case, because the Minister of the Environment, for whom I had great respect when she was in opposition but to this day is a know-nothing minister, told us garbage had to be looked after in the community from which it came. As I understand, they are trucking the garbage from Kingston to Ottawa.

Mr Sola: Kingston is a suburb of Ottawa.

Mr Callahan: Is that right?

Mr Chiarelli: That is what the bill does.

Mr Callahan: That is what the bill does, my colleague tells me.

I find it really interesting. No one, no reasonably intelligent person, likes to have a garbage dump located in his or her area. The people of Brampton do not necessarily want it. There was a great deal of concern about getting it, but it went through a process which finally centred on a particular site. The fact is that it is centred on that site and then suddenly the Minister of the Environment and this government comes along and upsets the whole apple cart. Millions of dollars were spent by the region of Peel and its taxpayers, and suddenly the know-nothing Minister of the Environment says: "Put a hold on it. Nothing's going to happen. We're going to go through it all again."

No one likes to have a garbage dump in his or her area. However, I cannot think of a person who wishes to have the uncertainty that existed during the entire process that went on in our city in terms of where it was going to be located. We are now back into the uncertainty area. I suggest that causes people more unrest than if the know-nothing Minister of the Environment had said something, because then at least people would know where it was going to go.

Mrs Fawcett: I too want to commend my colleague the member for Mississauga West for his very thoughtful and informative remarks. Certainly he has put forward many options that are available in the solution to the garbage crisis, one of them of course being Bill 123. I agree with him, though, that we cannot close our minds to any ideas that might be out there. In this age of progressive technology and science, one never knows when there an idea that right now may not be a correct one may be the absolutely most environmentally friendly idea around. Incineration may become that because of the technology that would make it so.

I am worried because this minister has said, "No, never can incineration be an idea that might be considered." In Belleville, I think, she said, "Over my dead body would incineration be allowed." This really boxes her into a corner. I do not think we should ever do that.

1750

Many people are worried out there. This minister makes people worried, especially the farmers who speak to me about the environmental bill of rights. They are really worried, so I think we must be open to all ideas. My colleague put forward so well the idea of trust. Can farmers really trust this minister not to put them out of business? Hopefully, the people of Ottawa-Carleton can trust this minister with this bill, that there is not something further behind it and that it will be good for the people concerned.

Mr Mahoney: You can tell if you are making a mark when two things happen: Either the members opposite chirp and interrupt you and rise on points of order, which members saw happen on a number of occasions, or they sit there muzzled, which is what is happening now.

I can understand their whip has told them: "Don't get anybody too excited. Don't bother with the two-minute replies. We don't want to hear your ideas. We don't want to hear if they agree with this." Do they think this is a good deal? They don't even speak in the rotation, for goodness' sake. Some of them actually supported my private member's resolution which called for them to have more freedom to deal with their government. No members of cabinet supported it, notably, but many members on the back bench supported it, and they do not have the guts to get up and speak about this bill.

The people in Ottawa want to know if the member for Ottawa Centre has them muzzled and told them not to say anything about this bill. Maybe that is exactly what has happened. That is a disgrace. They call themselves open and accessible. Their Environment minister will not meet with people who have good ideas. The backbenchers sit there like trained seals waiting to be thrown a fish and do not have the courage to get up and let the people of Ontario know what they think. They were elected to do that and they do not have the courage to do it. That is a shame.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): The member will speak to the comments that were made, please.

Mr Mahoney: I want to thank the member for Ottawa West for his announcement -- that second-ballot support is very much appreciated -- and the member for Northumberland for her very thoughtful comments about openness and access to this government. I think that, frankly, the reaction of the members opposite is quite clear. As I said in my remarks, and I will close with it, I will be supporting this bill in a vote if necessary. But that is clearly not an indication of support for this minister or this government.

Mr Cousens: It is awfully hard to follow the act we have just had. I sit here in awe and I wonder where we get the acting lessons, because if we did we could not do a better job than we have just seen. I would just like to give this honourable member at least a one-handed clap so that it goes on the record that we have all sort of --

Mr Mahoney: Are you with me on second ballot?

Mr Cousens: If I am able to give any kind of ballot support for that kind of performance: People who are watching this lovely program on TV, you have just seen one of the contenders for the Liberal leadership who hopes to replace the interim leader who replaced the other interim leader who replaced another interim leader who replaced David Peterson who was interim leader.

I just wish that these honourable members had sufficient memory to go back two or three years. If this honourable member had had the same speech in caucus to the then Premier, David Peterson, maybe we would not be in the mess we are in right now. All he would have had to do is stand up there with the same degree of fervour, the same enthusiasm, and maybe when his government had a chance to do something with the reins of power it would have done things an awful lot differently.

I do not know. I cannot call people hypocrites because that is not parliamentary language and I would not want to get into that. But the biggest laugh for me today was not the member for Mississauga West, who was delightful in his presentation, but the insidious remarks by the member for Ottawa West. His amendments to the Environmental Protection Act that he went on at length for -- if I have ever seen a NIMBY approach.

One thing about the Minister of the Environment is that she indeed tries to make a law that is going to help a few people. But when the Liberals come up, it is truly something. When you look under section 38b of the member for Ottawa West's amendments to the Environmental Protection Act, he goes to great length to "control the amount of waste from outside the municipality that may be deposited at the waste disposal site." He brought this in with regard to this whole situation for Ottawa-Carleton.

His private member's bill had a great deal to say about the powers that would go to the municipalities, and it was all because Kingston was sending some garbage up to Carleton. When you have this kind of reaction, members saying, "We just want to do something to protect it," I just wish the government would come to some understanding of a policy that is going to work not just for one area but for all areas across the province.

When the New Democrats were in opposition they were listening to everybody and always having an audience in order to consult and share and understand things, and now that they are in power it is hard to get their attention. I know Hazel McCallion and the people from Peel have tried for some four or five months to have a meeting with the Premier and the Minister of the Environment with regard to Britannia Road and the landfill sites. They cannot get a meeting. This open, available group of people now running the province is operating in isolation from the people who want to contribute to a workable solution that has everybody committed to developing some kind of compromise that is going to work for everybody.

But instead what we end up having is ad hockery. Here we again have a bill in the House, brought in by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act, and I want to get into some of the powers he is talking about in this act, but it is just another example where the government, when it is dealing with any one situation, deals with each one in isolation. It cannot see the forest for the trees. What we really have to criticize this government for is that inability to lift things up to another level, rather than just have the very parochial, belief-ridden system it works under, to allow others with new ideas, fresh ideas and ways of trying to resolve things to work it out together. That is not the way this government operates.

That is the greatest condemnation I have of the Ministry of the Environment and the way it has brought forward Bill 143, a bill affecting the landfill sites for the greater Toronto area. It came out only on October 24. There is a special resolution on our order paper today in which the House leader of the New Democrats would like to try to force that through for quick passage before December 20, when we rise for Christmas. It is just totally unacceptable that they want to ram it through in the few weeks that exist between now and Christmas, not giving municipal politicians a chance to look at it, not giving anyone a chance to really participate in the dialogue. We are dealing with a government that seems to operate from crisis to crisis to crisis. We are dealing with a Minister of the Environment who --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): I ask the member to take his seat at this stage. We move at this time to business items.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mr Cooke: Pursuant to standing order 53, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, December 9, we will consider second reading of Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act; Bill 130, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act; Bill 150, An Act to provide for the Creation and Registration of Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations to Invest in Eligible Ontario Businesses and to make certain other amendments, and Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

On Tuesday, December 10, we will give second reading consideration to Bill 129, the Truck Transportation Amendment Act; Bill 156, the Financial Administration Amendment Act; Bill 163, the Legislative Assembly Amendment Act, and Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

On Wednesday, December 11, we will give committee of the whole consideration to Bill 158, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act with respect to the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Sector of the Construction Industry; Bill 83, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act; Bill 84, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act; Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act; Bill 130, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act; and Bill 136, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy. We will follow with second reading consideration of Bill 117, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, and Bill 125, the Education Statute Law Amendment Act.

On Thursday, December 12, in the morning, we will deal with private members' business ballot item 51, standing in the name of Mr Eves, and ballot item 52, standing in the name of Mr Mammoliti.

In the afternoon, we will deal with second reading of Bill 164, the Insurance Statute Law Amendment Act.

The House adjourned at 1802.