Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

Mr Grandmaître: My statement is directed at both the Minister of Housing and the minister responsible for seniors' issues.

There have been press reports in the Ottawa newspapers regarding the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Housing Authority's plan to integrate younger adults into seniors' homes starting in February.

According to the Ottawa Citizen, seniors have no say whatsoever in the decision. Seniors who attended meetings held in their targeted senior citizens' buildings were faced with a fait accompli. Even after they "complained, they argued, they shouted" and a senior citizen raised his arm asking the simple question, "You've got it your way, and we just sit here and listen; what can we do?" representatives of the housing authority answered, "Nothing."

The article concluded: "Regional and provincial bureaucrats have absolutely no intention of listening to them. The seniors will accept the new tenants and that's the end of it."

The Minister of Housing claims that her government is always consulting with the people of Ontario. It has clearly failed here, since it has not even asked the advice of the people who will have to live with these new tenants. I would like to know if the minister, who is never able to meet with the Ottawa groups, even if she is the government's representative in the Ottawa-Carleton area, has even consulted her colleague the minister responsible for seniors' issues, or will seniors have to wait for the long-awaited advocacy legislation to have their voices heard? The Minister of Housing should listen to our seniors instead of making decisions without consulting them.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Cunningham: In October, the results of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey reported that more than a third of Ontario's small and medium-sized businesses are thinking about leaving the province. Citing the proposed labour legislation as one of the major reasons, more than 85% of the 3,539 businesses surveyed said the Ontario business climate is unfavourable.

The London Chamber of Commerce has 2,400 members, representing 1,000 firms and employing approximately 70,000 employees in the London district. The London chamber's position paper on the proposed changes states, "With the current poor economic conditions in Ontario and limited prospect for recovery, any initiative by the government of Ontario that undermines confidence or gives the perception of an anti-business bias to investors and others is counterproductive to what must be the government's first priority -- encouraging economic growth."

Walt Legrow, vice-president of human resources for EMCO Ltd in London and vice-chair of the More Jobs Coalition, says the More Jobs Coalition has been holding meetings across the province. The coalition represents 70 companies and over 200,000 employees. They are also discovering that many companies are looking to invest outside Ontario and that many parent companies are choosing not to consider Ontario as a possible area for their business location. In answer to the question, "Do we need these labour reforms?" the resounding answer is "No."

NOVACOR CHEMICALS PLANT

Mrs MacKinnon: I am very pleased today to recognize the Novacor Chemicals plant in Moore township, in my riding of Lambton. Novacor celebrated two million hours of safe work, from October 1987 to September 1990, and was presented with a plaque from the Western Ontario Industrial Accident Prevention Association. Also, the plant was given a certificate of performance for 1990 for attaining one full year without a compensation case.

This particular plant was built by Union Carbide in 1977 and was purchased by Novacor in 1987. The workforce has increased its productivity by two thirds since 1987 by introducing new technology and systems, by reorganizing itself and by continual training.

With 243 employees, the plant produces polyethylene resins for the plastics industry. It is one of three Novacor plants in the Lambton area that are owned by Nova Corp of Alberta.

I congratulate Novacor for the outstanding accomplishments and its dedication to a safe and prosperous workplace. My personal congratulations to all the employees and management of Novacor.

CHILD CARE

Ms Poole: Last week this government finally followed up on a promise made 10 months ago and reannounced a low-wage enhancement for child care workers. At that reannouncement, child care workers were told they would have their cheques by Christmas. Late last week child care centres received these forms with an urgent memo attached.

The memo advised that the minister would not be able to process their request unless the forms were completed and submitted within seven days. That is right -- seven days. Members should look at the forms, look at how complex they are and look at how extensive they are -- and they have been given seven days.

At the same time, the forms have to be completed by the volunteer board of directors. They are volunteers -- they have other jobs, they have responsibilities -- and yet if they do not fill in these forms and complete them in time and the workers do not get the money, who is going to get the blame? Certainly not the government. The overworked board of the child care centres will get the blame, when it was really this government that created the mess in the first place by delaying the process so long. In a very clever move, the government has imposed an impossible deadline.

When is this government going to learn that it has to plan, that it has to commit and keep to its promises? They have to do it in an orderly way, not a last-minute promise and a last-minute delivery to appease the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care.

This kind of manipulation that I talked about today, using the boards of the child care centres as pawns, is simply unacceptable and unconscionable. We do not want this government to engage in this type of activity again. They must change their ways.

1340

COCHLEAR IMPLANTS

Mrs Marland: Earlier this fall, in a W5 interview, the member for York East rejected cochlear implant technology. The member is an important advocate and leader for persons who are deaf and hard of hearing. However, many persons with hearing loss do not share his views on cochlear implants, which may help hard-of-hearing persons to hear and speak.

Carole Théberge, executive director of the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association, writes in a letter to the Premier: "Government funding of cochlear implant research, development and implementation is absolutely essential for those of us who do not wish to be isolated in a silent world but who instead desire to be integrated into the 'hearing' world. The cochlear implant may be freedom at last for many. Mr Malkowski has no right to remove this choice from the people of Ontario. No one should be forced by financial circumstances into the isolation of the deaf community when another alternative is available."

Not all hard-of-hearing persons are as fortunate as the member, who has several interpreters provided at taxpayers' expense to help him function in a non-deaf world. As Mr A. F. Bowden, first vice-president of the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association has written, the member for York East "has no right to use his political position to interfere with decisions made from community group input and a subsequent consensus of a ministry to fund this cochlear implant program."

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Ms Harrington: Many women hoped the week of December 2 was the turning point in the attitudes of society towards violence against women. I remember two years ago the attitudes of denial, and I believe there has been substantial change. In Niagara Falls progress was made. City council wore white ribbons when inaugurated a week ago.

From 1 to 2 last Friday I discussed this subject with many callers on the local phone-in show. From 4 to 5, I distributed leaflets at the main bus stop. People were interested and receptive. At 7 pm there was a candlelight vigil held, where women shared with each other the personal violence they had experienced in their lives. A new and controversial film entitled Freedom Sacrificed, which is the price of porn, was released in Niagara Falls this week. This was made by the Social Justice Committee, of which I was the founding member, and funded by the secretary of state.

In the throne speech, we said: "The government will deal resolutely with violence against women and children. It is time now for society to come face to face with the reality." That was a year ago. For the sake of the teenage girl who said, "My father beats my mother, my uncle beats my aunt, my grandfather beats my grandmother; I didn't know there was another way," we must continue our commitment made in the throne speech. Because women have less power in society, there is violence against them, and because women experience violence, they have less power. Now this vicious cycle can be broken.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Chiarelli: Today I want challenge the Premier to honour his stated principles of public ethical standards of behaviour and his throne speech statement, "My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario."

Former Premier Peterson was alleged to have said he had a plan to reduce auto insurance rates. For that the now Premier publicly called him a liar, words which, if spoken in this House, would cause the Speaker to have him ejected.

Last Thursday the Minister of Financial Institutions said that under David Peterson's Ontario motorist protection plan, "To date 18 insurers serving 50% of Ontario's drivers have applied for or implemented premium reductions." The Peterson promise is being fulfilled. On the other hand, this Premier's throne speech promised a public, driver-owned plan. This has been totally abandoned, a "complete betrayal" according to the member for Welland-Thorold.

Does the Premier still think it is appropriate to say one thing in this House and another outside? In view of the foregoing, will the Premier publicly apologize to David Peterson and his family for publicly calling him a liar? Where are the Premier's standards?

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Mrs Cunningham: Traditionally, opposition parties criticize governments when they flip-flop on issues, but today I would like to congratulate the Minister of Education for coming around to our position on the school achievement indicators program. Parents, trustees and business leaders all applaud the minister's decision to participate in the national testing program.

On October 1, 1991, I pointed out to the former Minister of Education that the Council of Ministers of Education could accommodate Ontario's concern about gender or racial bias and the length of time a student has been in Canada. Ontario's objections were not insurmountable. On Friday the member for Dovercourt, our new Minister of Education, said he agreed.

One concern remains. Teachers argue that the tests will not be tied to Ontario's curriculum. I have a solution for that problem as well. Following the proposals put forward in the federal government's prosperity initiative document entitled Living Well, Learning Well, Canada should develop a core curriculum for literacy and numeracy skills. Commonality of curriculum already does exist. We just need to sit down and hammer out the details.

Report after report has concluded that Canada's future prosperity depends on the skill and knowledge of our workforce. Let's stop talking and start taking action. The prosperity framework is a good place to start. The paper states: "Our success will require the co-operation of many, some of whom have differing opinions. All these differences will not be resolved. We need to work together to identify areas where common ground exists, build a consensus and take action."

GODERICH DISTRICT COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE

Mr Klopp: I rise to pay tribute to the consulting process and to two grade 11 classes at Goderich District Collegiate Institute. As members are aware, the Ministry of Natural Resources put out for public discussion the document Looking Ahead: A Wild Life Strategy for Ontario.

In my riding, two classes from Goderich District Collegiate took the opportunity to examine the document and to put down what they felt they wanted to see for the future. They provided me with a copy of their submissions for the minister and I would encourage all the members to review these proposals done by the students at Goderich. I truly admire their efforts and the care these students have demonstrated on this project. I know the minister will have a chance to review the proposals and to comment on their fine work.

This is not only a good chance for us to take advice from our future leaders, but an excellent learning process for future discussions and decision-making that we all have to go forward with. Therefore, I take my hat off to those grade 11 students of Goderich Collegiate who worked hard on this effort, and I hope to see more students participate in the future.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NATIVE ISSUES

Hon Mr Pouliot: I rise today on behalf of my colleague the minister responsible for native affairs to inform this House of an initiative which opens the way to a brighter future for six remote aboriginal communities in northern Ontario.

Under the terms of an agreement signed earlier today, Ontario will make 235 square miles of crown land available to be designated as reserve lands for the first nations of Aroland, Kee-Way-Win, McDowell Lake, New Slate Falls, Saugeen and Wawakapewin.

Canada will contribute $35.5 million and Ontario $25 million over a seven-year period, for a total of $60.5 million, to provide basic community facilities such as water and sewage services and decent housing for five of those communities, the types of services which are often taken for granted in non-aboriginal communities.

Taking part in the signing ceremony earlier today with the Minister of Natural Resources, who is the minister responsible for native affairs, were Tom Siddon, the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Grand Chief Bentley Cheechoo of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation and the chiefs of the six first nations, all of which belong to Treaty 9 or the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation.

We will give credit where credit is due. We will give the previous government credit for starting the process of doing something for these six communities. We also wish to credit the Indian Commission of Ontario for the success of the negotiations. This government willingly picked up the initiative. Staff of the Ontario native affairs secretariat have worked closely and intensely with Canada, the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation and its first nations and the ICO since last November to finalize this agreement.

Members will recall that the NAN communities fought for recognition as first nations for many years. The finally received status as bands under the Indian Act in 1985, but did not get the expected land bases or the benefits that go with them.

The Chiefs of Ontario made it clear last fall that it considered the six NAN communities as a priority for government action. Canada offered to create the reserves if Ontario contributed the land and made a substantial contribution to the infrastructure costs in the communities. We agreed, mindful of the fact we were stepping into what might be considered traditional territory of the federal government in working with reserve communities. But crown land is a responsibility of the province and it was up to us to make the land available.

Then there was the issue of the quality of life in these communities. The residents of those communities live in dilapidated, overcrowded and inadequate housing with chronic dangers to their health from untreated sewage. Many have limited access to schools and medical facilities. Economic opportunities are scarce or non-existent. This government has taken the position that the quality of life must be improved in aboriginal communities. That is why we accepted the opportunity presented to us by the federal government.

There are many exciting aspects of the agreement signed today. For instance, an aboriginal development corporation is expected to be formed by the first nations to plan, manage and deliver the facilities provided through the agreement. The people of these communities will assume a very real control over their future and the development of their communities. This is a very real beginning to creating self-government.

The agreement will also lead to economic bases for the communities and benefits to native businesses, but I am also sure economic benefits from the agreement will flow to northern Ontario businesses that are actually outside those named communities.

Staff of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines will play a pivotal role in implementation of the agreement. They will assist in the creation of the aboriginal development corporation and will administer the agreement on behalf of the province until the corporation can assume its responsibilities.

The government recognizes that there are many other aboriginal communities in the province that lack very basic services, both on and off reserve, and there are many other areas where we must take action if we are to meet our commitments to fair and just treatment of aboriginal peoples. I assure the members of this House that the government will meet those commitments in the months ahead.

RESPONSES

NATIVE ISSUES

Mr Ramsay: This is a very important announcement by this government in trying to address the growing crisis in our native communities. I would like to congratulate the minister responsible for native affairs and the Minister of Transportation for doing this in the minister's absence.

This is a good start. As the minister knows, there is much more to do. The unemployment rate among natives is 50% and over 70% of on-reserve natives receive social assistance. As the government is painfully aware, native health care and education are sadly lacking; 50% of all native households have experienced some family violence and 72% of all victims of native violence are women.

I have some concerns and questions I would like to address in my response to the minister. One regards the funding. The minister has announced funding of $25 million. I would like to know if that is new and over the $48 million the Treasurer announced for native issues in his budget last April. I would also like to know if these are just the capital costs. Have the minister and the government taken into account the maintenance costs of this program? Where is that money going to come from?

We also have some concerns about the delivery of this service, especially with regard to the Auditor General's report on federal government spending. I would like to know if the minister has some guarantees that this money will go to the production of housing and basic infrastructure, as it is supposed to, and what proportion of this money will go to supported housing. Are there any stipulations that a certain percentage of these funds go to supported housing for seniors, for the handicapped, for alcohol and drug addiction and for battered women's shelters, etc? I would like the minister to look at that.

As the Auditor General of Canada has just brought down a ringing condemnation of the federal government's mismanagement and ineffectiveness in providing decent housing for natives, what do the minister and the Premier know that suggests this federal mismanagement will not continue? They have to make sure these funds are well spent, as the federal government does not have a good track record on this.

The Premier has stated many times his desire to take over Ontario's proportion of the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and in this agreement the Ontario government seems to be allocating the lion's share of costs, with no change in that jurisdiction. The federal government is clearly in charge. The federal minister gets all the hype in the first quote in the press release, yet Ontario is the one that is making the important commitment. We would hate to think Ottawa is playing the Ontario government off for its money when it rightfully should be getting the Premier's commitment.

I would like to make one further note about consultation. As the minister knows, other groups have been affected by this. I would like to know what consultations and feedback from local residents and people in the mining community, etc, have taken place, as this is very important.

I would like to allow a little time for the member for Kenora, who has a great interest in native issues, to complete the comments.

Mr Miclash: Mr Speaker, you will realize that in my riding I represent a good portion of the first nations members of the province, and I must say that I, too, am fairly happy to hear this announcement and would like to thank the minister for recognizing the previous government for what progress it made in this area.

As the previous speaker has pointed out, there are a few concerns we have in terms of the announcement. I have already heard one member of the NDP government talk today about the consulting process. I must emphasize that is something I am very interested in as well. As we know, throughout my riding we depend a lot on resource-based industry. I think we have to consider the other people who are in the area and the consulting that goes on in terms of extracting those resources. I think it is a good announcement for the first nations people in the riding.

The minister who announced the program was on a trip looking at health services and conditions throughout the north a few years back, and he realizes some of the bleak conditions many of those communities are faced with. I would like to say that as a northerner I realize the importance of this agreement, the importance of both the provincial and federal governments coming in with the first nations and coming up with some resolutions to these many bleak conditions. But we must have the co-operation of and a process of consultation for all the people throughout the north in the province.

Mr Eves: I would like to respond to the minister's statement by congratulating his government for taking this initiative in the minister's absence here today. I have a couple of questions, like my colleague the member for Timiskaming, as well.

I thought it was a great precedent; I believe it was the band from Whitedog that was here several weeks, if not a couple of months ago now which suggested to the government that the proper way of proceeding with respect to its particular problem, its particular claim and the agreement it signed with the government was a public consultation process with people in the area. I think the native community itself showed us how these types of things should be done. I reiterate the question the member for Timiskaming asked in his remarks: Has this been done in this instance and will it be done in further agreements and negotiations with the native peoples? I am sure there will be more forthcoming in the weeks and months to come.

I also understand the minister has at his disposal the sum of $250 million which has been allotted to him with respect to agreements such as this, to be expended before the end of the fiscal year. Having again some thoughts on what the member for Timiskaming had to say about the contribution from the federal government, the question I would have in my mind is whether the government of Ontario is going to insist that the federal government not neglect its duty in putting forth its share of the funding.

It is fine for Ontario to say it has $250 million set aside in this fiscal year with which it hopes to address some of the outstanding native issues that are out there, but we would like to know that our partners at the so-called senior level of government in Ottawa are going to be forthcoming with their fair share of the funding for the native community as well.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Ramsay: I have a series of questions for the Treasurer in regard to his continuing saga that we call the Ontario budget. I hope the Treasurer will be paying attention to this. He should be.

We heard the Treasurer yesterday, after his emergency cabinet meeting, telling the press about the continuing, worsening economic situation in Ontario and the problem that is causing for him to balance his budget, more spending cuts possibly being hinted at and tax increases possibly next year.

We are getting tired of this continual saga, this sort of As the World Turns soap opera with the budget. We started with a $9.7-billion deficit in the April budget. Then only one month later the Treasurer had to cut and put off and beg for another $2.1 billion in extra money because forecasts were off again. The Treasurer already knows that next year's tax revenues are going to be $1 billion to $2 billion short, and now he is saying there are going to be more restraints.

Can the Treasurer tell us now, rather than causing more of this apprehension about what is going on, how bad the economy is? Are we going to have to wait till the April budget? What is he going to do now to get control of the Ontario budget so we can start dealing with the problems this province faces?

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the question from the member for Timiskaming. I should tell the member opposite I do welcome the question because it allows me to put in context the situation in which we find ourselves.

First of all, the meeting yesterday should not be categorized as an emergency or crisis meeting. It was a meeting to bring my cabinet colleagues up to speed on the latest economic information because of all the changes that have taken place since the last time we had a half day or a full day back in September to talk about economic problems.

I should tell the member opposite that we are not happy with the numbers that are coming out. Perhaps the member saw numbers released last Friday which showed job losses again, particularly in manufacturing. That is indeed a concern to all of us, but I can assure him that just as we have done since the budget was brought down last spring, we are continuing, despite very difficult times, to manage within the numbers we forecast in our budget last spring.

Mr Ramsay: We are already getting some hints about what possible remedies the Treasurer may be applying to the situation. I have a letter from the Ontario Lottery Corp stating that it is developing a plan to introduce video lotteries in this province -- surprise, surprise -- possibly by the spring of 1992. The point is, the Treasurer appears to be counting on money from these gambling machines to pay for his government's economic mismanagement.

I recognize the government has to look for new sources of revenue, but what I cannot believe is that his party is starting to look at this type of revenue-raising system when the NDP has stated before that this type of gambling is an inequitable tax on the poor. The Treasurer is considering this unfair form of hidden taxation to pay for his spending. I would like to ask him if he is really considering video gambling as a way of dealing with the province's economic woes.

Hon Mr Laughren: To be fair, if the member opposite can change his views on some aspects of our party policy, I can too.

I hasten to add, because the member opposite asked a serious question and I do not want to trivialize it, that what we did on treasury board was indicate we were seeking new sources of revenues that would help us compensate for a very difficult fiscal time. I am sure the member opposite appreciates that.

When a suggestion was made that we should look at video lotteries as a potential source of new revenues, I said, "Yes, why not look at video lotteries as a potential new source of revenues." I hasten to add that absolutely no decision has been made. There has been no report back to treasury board yet. In the end it may be we will decide to proceed, but I assure the member that absolutely no decision has been made at this point, none whatsoever.

Mr Ramsay: I am glad to hear that because I think it is important for the Treasurer to note, as he is making that decision, that any bingo or lottery type of system runs up against how charities derive a lot of their revenue in this province. I think the minister has to be very careful in how he proceeds.

Again, when we were the government, the opposition at that time opposed the Cleansweep lottery we were investigating to generate more revenues to clean up the environment. The former Solicitor General has stated that gambling in Ontario is a disease and that the government used to oppose such lotteries. Is the Treasurer so bereft of new ideas and thinking that he is really seriously going to rely on this type of mechanism to start to get new revenues for the Ontario government?

Hon Mr Laughren: Any idea that something as minor as video lotteries could solve the fiscal problems of a province the size of Ontario, with expenditures in the $50 billion range, really would not have any bearing on reality whatsoever. All I say to the member opposite is that as a treasury board and a government we have an obligation to look at any sources of new revenues that would help us deliver to the people of this province the essential services which I believe they still think they are entitled to and which I think they are entitled to. Not to examine any potential new sources of revenue would be irresponsible at this time.

Mr Ramsay: Just as a note to the Treasurer, if he does look at gambling, not Pink Floyd but Pretty Boy Floyd might be his nickname after he gets to there. I think it is a great name also and I do not mind.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Ramsay: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Yesterday the Treasurer met with his cabinet colleagues to discuss more budget cuts, potential new taxes and the introduction of video gambling machines, which we have just talked about.

While the Treasurer turned his mind to more budget cuts, I wonder if the Solicitor General was asking the Treasurer not only to save the OPP from the budget axe but for some more money for the OPP so that we can have policing services in Ontario.

The Solicitor General will know Ontario is facing an unprecedented cut in OPP services. Detachments are being ordered to limit their police coverage, stop hiring new recruits and replacing retiring officers. They are to eliminate training. They are asking their officers to donate up to 43,000 hours of overtime.

Will the Solicitor General make a commitment today to stop the decline in services and ensure the Treasurer helps the OPP meet its $16-million shortfall?

Hon Mr Pilkey: There have been no cutbacks in the OPP budget. We should get that clear. I explained to the House last week, if I recall correctly and I am sure I do, that the estimates provided had not been met because a number of officers who were going to retire from the force did not retire and the attrition that was estimated did not occur.

The essential services that the OPP are committed to provide for the safety and wellbeing of the people of this province are ongoing. I have every confidence in that. I will add and share with the member, though, that it is the case that I as Solicitor General, in promoting the estimates for our ministry, have encouraged the Treasurer to be very aware of the circumstances and the concerns we have around policing in this province now and more particularly into the future.

I find it interesting, though, to notice that in a recent poll released by Gallup in September fully 78% of Canadians approve of police performance. In fact, in Ontario the number is 87% and here in the city of Toronto 89%. The public believes it is being well served.

1410

Mr Ramsay: If the Solicitor General reads further in that poll, it also indicates that 75% of Ontarians would like to see an increase in police spending, because they do not feel safe in this province today. That is his responsibility.

There is a bit of a problem here because the Solicitor General today assures us that there are no cuts in police spending and that policing is going on as normal in Ontario, except that the Treasurer does not agree. I have a letter that the Treasurer wrote the chief superintendent of policing for his area. He should not have written this letter. In this letter --

Mr Bradley: Is this a leaked letter?

Mr Ramsay: It is a leaked letter, right here from the Treasurer's office. In this letter the Treasurer is asking the chief superintendent about policing in his particular riding and in particular the Foleyet detachment. He is asking questions because right now Foleyet does not have 24-hour-a-day policing. It has come to the Treasurer's attention that another officer who is leaving is not going to be replaced because of the Treasurer's own budget restrictions. The Treasurer is starting to ask how come in his riding he is not getting that police coverage.

I would like to talk to the Solicitor General to ask him if he intends to tell the Treasurer and the people of Foleyet that they have nothing to worry about, or does he intend to be honest with them and tell them that the reduction in service is a result of his failure to tackle the OPP problem and its deficit?

Hon Mr Pilkey: There have been no fiscal cutbacks from the budget estimates provided and approved. As a matter of fact I would share with the member opposite that in a meeting I had with Robert R. Hunter, the chief executive officer of the Ontario Provincial Police Association, he indicated to me, and it is quoted in the Toronto Star recently, that the problems this force is having did not start this year or in the last year but emanated back at least the five years when the Liberals were in power.

Mr Ramsay: Let me give the Solicitor General a current example of what is going on out there, in case he does not know. I would like to give an example of Thessalon. The Thessalon detachment requires 19 officers. Today it is going to have 11 officers. Because of that, starting January 1 the Thessalon detachment is thinking of reducing from 24-hour-a-day service to 20-hour-a-day service: 11 municipalities, a 100-kilometre stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway, and that service is being cut. I would like to bring that point to the Solicitor General.

The police and the people of Ontario are counting on the Solicitor General to give the police the support we need for security and safety in Ontario. Will he ask the Treasurer for the necessary funds so the OPP can provide 100% service to the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can assure the member that every responsible attempt has been made in the past and will continue to be made in the future with respect to funding the OPP in this province.

TAXATION

Mr Harris: My question is to the Treasurer, who I hope is not going to follow the advice of the Liberal Party which, as I gather, is to get into organized gambling to give the money to fight organized crime. If that is not the case, they can explain to me their actions over the last six years.

Mr Bradley: He still forgets who is the government and who is the enemy.

Mr Harris: I sometimes forget who is the government but I do not forget who got us into this mess, I might say to the interim, interim, interim leader of the Liberal Party.

My question is to the Treasurer. We have a $10-billion deficit. We all know it is going to be even higher next year in spite of all his pronouncements to the contrary. In fact, I made the prediction I think the day his budget came out that it will be higher than $9.75 billion this year and higher again next year given the track he was on, and I think that has proven out.

The Treasurer intends at least to double Ontario's debt over the next four years. Twice he has come to this House to make readjustments, yet he has cut not one nickel. He deferred to the next year but he has not cut a nickel. He delayed buying new cars for the police so they cannot catch up with criminals any more, I guess. He has delayed some things. He has transferred things but he has not cut anything. Now we find out, as has been revealed, that he is looking at video gambling to get us out of the mess.

What people are telling me and what they find offensive and I find offensive is that he apparently is still trying to figure out more ways to gouge more tax money out of the people of Ontario to balance the books, without acknowledging the fundamental reality and problem that we are not competitive with the current tax structure and the taxation levels we have in this province. Until the Treasurer deals with that, we will never be competitive in this province. Why is the Treasurer still trying to gouge more money out of the people of Ontario through taxation or fees?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite has an unfortunate selection of words. The fact that the government is looking at ways to raise revenue and at the same time to reduce expenditures surely should not leave us open to the charge that we are gouging the people of this province.

I believe -- and I think it is time the third party came to grips with this -- that the people of this province want essential services of health, education and social services to be maintained. If the member opposite thinks that can be done without the adequate level of taxation, he is sadly mistaken and he is not going to fool anybody but himself.

Mr Harris: The Treasurer has a $53-billion budget. Between him and his high-spending Liberal predecessors, taxpayers in Ontario have been hit with 47 tax increases since he or the coalition of his party and the Liberals --

Hon Mr Laughren: I ask the member to separate us from them. How many were ours?

Mr Harris: I do not know. They had a coalition there for part of the time. We find them all the same when it comes to spending and taxing. We do not differentiate. But instead of talking about where we could control expenditures, where we can cut spending, all he has talked about is trying to figure out how he can get into some new taxation.

The Liberals taxed tires and put that into general revenue. This government hiked gasoline taxes, which we all know is a tax on the poor. They are the ones who live farthest from the core of a city; they are the ones who drive the older vehicles. Now he is talking about a gambling tax. We know that is more of a tax on the poor than it is on the rich. He still has not addressed the fundamental problem.

The Treasurer said we do not understand. We have offered to help him cut expenditures. We have said we will assist with that. Why will he not today admit that we are spending at a level we cannot afford, taxation-wise. Instead of trying to dream up new taxes, he should admit that and bring to this House a package of priorities, that we will help him with, to begin in this province to live within our means.

Hon Mr Laughren: I have said many times that we are in the process right now of examining all major expenditures of government. There are major expenditure reviews under way as we speak. Surely the member opposite would not support simply a cut, slash and run approach to managing a very difficult economic situation. That is exactly what we are doing. We have an expenditure review process going on right now that is examining all major expenditures of government and I look forward, on the day we announce those expenditure restraints, to having the member opposite support us in all of them.

Mr Harris: If the Treasurer will share the information, we will help him make them. He seems to be doing it willy-nilly without consulting with the taxpayers, with the public or even with this House. That is the problem. He has had two goes at it and he has cut nothing. Now we hear from the weekend he is dreaming up new ways to tax. That is the problem.

We do not know when the Treasurer is going to be making his transfer payment announcement. Last week he gave 2% to those most needy in Ontario. I assume that is now the upper limit for transfer payments to municipalities, hospitals and school boards. I doubt he is going to come to this House and say, "Teachers can have more than 2%, but those on welfare can't."

Because he has not shown any leadership to these transfer partners, we now have school boards negotiating salary hikes of up to 5%, 6% and 7% and the reason is, they say, "The government hiked its salary package 16% last year; surely teachers should be able to catch up." He has shown no leadership. He will not set a freeze on salaries at the top, so they are running away from him. I want to know who is going to pay the teachers' salaries of 5%, 6% and 7% increase next year while he dithers around and refuses to lead by example.

1420

Hon Mr Laughren: First, we are doing exactly part of what the member opposite suggests.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: We are approaching it in a way that it has never been approached before. We are tackling our expenditures in a methodical way by examining all our expenditures. I remind the member opposite that distorting the amount of increase we gave the civil service last year does not do his case any good at all. The increase was 5.8%, of which 0.8% was absorbed within the ministries involved, so basically it was 5%. On top of that, this government froze the salaries of all MPPs, deputy ministers and senior officials of government. That is not something that perhaps sits well with the member opposite, but that is what we have done.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Harris: My question is of the Minister of Northern Development. I have a memo which outlines a conversation the minister held last Thursday regarding a Sudbury physician who is protesting the cap on his income.

According to this memo, the minister said she had seen the doctor's file and those present would be very surprised when they learned how many charges were going to be laid against him, and she then used the words "It's criminal." In a letter of retraction the minister says, "The remarks I made were entirely without foundation and I withdraw them without reservation." Could the minister explain to this House why, as minister at an official function, she deliberately smeared this doctor's reputation?

Hon Miss Martel: On Thursday I was involved in a private conversation with a few people at a reception. I made some remarks which are completely unfounded and which are without basis. Yesterday I spent a good part of the day talking directly to those people who were involved or caught up in those comments. I offered my apologies to them. I told them the remarks were without foundation, and my apologies were accepted.

Mr Harris: I have been the first to say that in these circumstances, if you make an honest mistake, you should apologize. In fact, that is exactly what I said last June when I felt the minister made an honest mistake. She stood up and said, "I made an honest mistake and I apologize." I accepted that. But this did not sound to me like an honest mistake. If I am to believe her letter of apology and the comments that were made -- I have no reason to doubt either -- she deliberately told a falsehood in order to justify a government policy.

As Minister of Northern Development, she smeared a northern doctor's reputation to a number of people at a public reception, and then she retracted only when either the media or ministry officials contacted her because one of the persons was so offended with the comments she made. Did the minister make up these allegations? Were they just a lie she made up, or were they something she said and found out later were false?

The Speaker: Order. The honourable leader of the third party, I do not believe, would want to accuse a member in the House of telling a lie.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Perhaps the leader of the third party would like to find a different phrasing for his question.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, I think you will want to be very careful. I am not accusing the minister of lying in the House. I am talking about her admission of lying last Thursday at this reception. That is indeed what I am asking for the answer to. That is what her letter says.

Hon Miss Martel: As I have said, I was involved in a private conversation with a few people at a reception Thursday night. The conversation became very heated, and I made comments which have no basis in fact and were unfounded. I contacted those who had been involved or who were implicated by this and said to them very clearly that the comments made were without foundation and not based on fact. I offered them my apology. I regret very much the incident that occurred.

Mr Harris: I understand, and I understand the apology the minister has made to the people. I am really concerned, though, with the information she felt she had. The minister said she had seen the file. In the letter of apology she says: "I retract that. I apologize. I have not seen the file."

However, the minister has admitted she made the remarks. Would she tell us how she knew any of this information she made the remarks about and, if she had not seen the file, who she heard that information from that would have led her to believe there were criminal actions involved and that the doctor was going to be charged?

Hon Miss Martel: If I might, I said to the member of the third party that I made comments in a private conversation, a conversation that was very heated. I made some comments which were entirely without foundation. I have made it very clear to the people who were implicated, having talked to a few of them personally, that there is no basis in fact for the allegations I made. I have withdrawn those remarks in conversation with them and I have offered them my apologies for the remarks which were made.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. Last week the minister announced what he has the nerve to call the government's auto insurance plan. There was immediately a reaction against it in the community, much from this side of the House, but even from his own members. First off was the honourable member for Welland-Thorold, who had certain things to say about it. His views are reported in the press, and I understand from local authorities that his views have been shared and expressed by the honourable member for Simcoe Centre, the honourable member for London South, and even, though in a muted way, the Attorney General.

Here is what the member for Welland-Thorold said. After saying the government plan would be supported by "a slick public relations scheme in which carefully scripted speeches only would be used," he went on to say the plan would create greater profits for the insurance industry: "That is undisputed, and anyone who says differently is misleading us." He refers to the plan as "a complete betrayal" of all previous NDP commitments, and he says, "The bottom line is that the careless, the reckless, the negligent and even the drunk are going to be treated as if they were victims."

I would like to ask the Minister of Financial Institutions -- and I am certain he has what the member for Welland-Thorold calls a "carefully scripted response" -- what his response is and what the slick public relations campaign will say about the honourable member for Welland-Thorold and his colleagues.

Hon Mr Charlton: In terms of my carefully scripted response, I will have nothing specific to say about the member for Welland-Thorold. I intend to pursue the plan and my comments about the plan based on what the plan will deliver.

Mr Scott: We are perhaps getting used to the notion that there is no response to the honourable member for Welland-Thorold. I take it he has got used to it, and those colleagues of his who share his views, like the honourable member for Lincoln, on a different subject, will have to learn that this is the way ministers behave in this new government.

But the honourable minister had considerable difficulty getting into this ministry. He has learned that a lap dog has a lot of virtues as a domestic pet, and he is perhaps learning that the rule of NDP politics is that getting along is going along. What I want to know from him is not what he says to the member for Welland-Thorold but what he says to the dozens of other members of his party and to the public at large who make this criticism and who particularly assert that the increases for the insurance companies will be very great under this scheme, which will do injustice to consumers of automobile insurance and to victims. What does he say, not to the member, whose opinion he obviously does not give a damn about, but to the critics of the policy?

Hon Mr Charlton: I will say to the public that the plan I introduced here last Thursday will deliver premium reductions and a dramatically improved benefits package without premium increases to the drivers of Ontario, and that the profits of the insurance industry which were gained as a result of the former administration's very lucrative plan will be largely eaten up by that new benefits package.

The profits that will flow to the insurance companies as a result of our package will be nowhere near the kinds of profits we have seen in the last year and a half. We will return the profit factor to a reasonable level in this province and deliver benefits to the drivers that they warrant.

1430

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Health. We have had a number of concerns in this House -- the former Minister of Health certainly had a concern -- over access to files, to information about doctors and billings and names.

The minister has heard from the Minister of Northern Development, who made remarks last Thursday concerning a doctor in Sudbury. She alleged at that time that she had seen the file and told people that charges, in effect, were going to come out of that. She now denies this and says what she said is not true. I do not think the Minister of Northern Development dreamed all this up. I do not think anybody would think that. Has the minister shared, or does she know of any officials in her ministry who have shared, information concerning the doctor in question in Sudbury with the Minister of Northern Development or with other members of cabinet?

Hon Ms Lankin: I certainly have not, and after questioning officials in my ministry, there has been no revealing of any confidential files. The materials that have been made available are some general materials about thresholds and the effect of thresholds in the underserviced area program. That was put out in a press release made available to the Sudbury media and people attending a meeting of Sudbury doctors last Thursday evening. But there has been no revealing of any confidential information or files by any officials to the minister involved in the member's questioning, or to myself, as a matter of fact.

Mr Harris: I think it stretches our credibility a little bit to think the Minister of Northern Development just made this up. The minister would know, I believe, that there are a number of physicians, none of whom are prepared to come forward, expressing concerns about the OHIP police if they complain about the government, that you had better be very careful if you complain about the government and that these files are available. That has been the suspicion. I do not know if it is true or not but they feel that way. I am sure the minister has heard some of that.

What we have heard today concerning the Minister of Northern Development I think would lead most objective observers to believe that somebody has seen the doctor's file and relayed some information to the Minister of Northern Development that there is information in that file that charges would be laid. Otherwise I do not think the minister, as mad as she was or as heated as the argument was, would have suggested, "I've seen the file and there's going to be charges laid."

Will the minister undertake a full investigation to find out how the Minister of Northern Development got access to that information concerning this doctor that is presumably in those files?

Hon Ms Lankin: With respect to the first part of the leader of the third party's comments, about the OHIP police, actually I have not had any comments of that sort drawn to my attention except for one. I received a call from a doctor over the weekend who told me about an incident when he took on Dennis Timbrell in a debate at one point in time when he was Minister of Health, and following that he found he was being investigated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. In his mind, he drew a connection between those two events. I do not know of any proof of that sort of thing and I have not had any direct allegations brought to my attention with respect to this at this point in time.

With respect to the issue the member raised in the second question, I have very specifically asked and received assurances from my deputy minister, who has heard directly from the director of OHIP, that no confidential information with respect to doctors' files and their billings and their incomes has been shared with anyone outside the OHIP department which has proper access to that information. I have not seen it, the Minister of Northern Development has not seen it and no other MPP has seen it.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Sutherland: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As he knows, the deadline for a GATT agreement approaches and dairy, poultry and egg farmers in Oxford county, and indeed across this province and country, are becoming increasingly concerned about the fate of Canada's supply management system. Recent news reports that the visit of the federal ministers, Mr Wilson and Mr McKnight, to Geneva has failed to win support for Canada's balanced position have done nothing to allay farmers' fears. Would the Minister of Agriculture and Food please tell this House what he is doing to help save supply management for the farmers in Oxford?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I would like to thank the member for the question. As the member knows, I led a delegation of farmers to Geneva and Brussels some weeks ago to defend the Canadian position and make the views of the Ontario farmers well known to negotiators in other countries over there. We received mixed signals in terms of supply management from other countries while we were there.

Since returning to Ontario I have written to several of the agricultural ministers in other countries, explaining how supply management works in Ontario and Canada and urging them to support our position at GATT. I have also written to some of the key leaders in the US Congress and the Senate agricultural committee, again urging them to take a look at it, because we know that many of the farm groups in the United States now are interested in how supply management works here in Canada.

I also met with the federal Minister of Agriculture, Bill McKnight, a week ago to make sure we had the same information. We continue to support the federal government and urge it to hang on to its position and be firm and not cave in at the last minute.

Mr Sutherland: I am sure the farmers in Oxford are appreciative of those efforts, but I must also stress that the potential conclusion of these talks is near and that all efforts must be put towards securing support for Canada's position. I was wondering if the minister could tell us what else he has been doing besides those things he outlined in the first response to the question.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I also met late last week with the minister from British Columbia to make sure he was doing everything he could. I believe he is going to make a trip over to Geneva to support the Canadian position. Many of the members in the House from rural ridings have received concerns from their constituents about supply management and what is happening with the GATT negotiations. I would urge all members on all sides of the House who represent rural ridings to write letters to the federal government or to talk to the federal MP from their area, urging them to hold to the Canadian position.

One other thing I might add is that the trade ministers met last week. My colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was there. There were discussions at that meeting around agriculture and supply management. I believe he urged and in fact got the support of almost all the other provinces to maintain supply management in our negotiating position at GATT.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Conway: I want to go to the Deputy Premier about the matter involving the Minister of Northern Development, because I have now had an opportunity to review some of the information related to that. I must say, just taking a preliminary look at the material that is now in my hands, that it appears this is a very serious matter involving the standards of a member of the Rae government.

I repeat that I see this as an extremely serious issue, because from reading the material, one of two things happened. Either the Minister of Northern Development had possession of the information she used in that encounter in Thunder Bay, in which case that would on the face of it be a serious breach of the law and a very serious breach of good judgement by a minister of the crown, prepared to use that material in some kind of public way to advance a political or public position, or if it is not the case that the honourable minister had that information, then there is in my view an equally serious matter of judgement and integrity, because if the honourable Minister of Northern Development did not have the information, then she apparently made it up out of whole cloth with very serious implications to the character of an Ontario doctor and the Ontario community.

In the second instance there is, in my view, an equally serious matter of judgement and integrity. What can the Deputy Premier advise as to the position of the Rae government on this latest and I believe most serious question affecting the ethics and integrity of a minister in this government?

1440

Hon Mr Laughren: I listened very carefully to the response of the Minister of Northern Development, and of the Minister of Health as well. In both cases it was clear, at least to me, that the minister did not have access to information she should not have had. I take her at her word in that regard. I also remind the member that she made it quite clear that the comments came as a result of a very heated private discussion and that she has apologized to all concerned and regrets it very much. It would seem to me that she has done what she can, at this point, to rectify that situation.

Mr Conway: Accepting the Deputy Premier's position that the honourable Minister of Northern Development did not have access to the sensitive medical records of the doctor in question, then it is surely the case that the honourable Minister of Northern Development last week in Thunder Bay behaved in a thoroughly discreditable fashion for any minister of the crown, that she made up a story that impugned the integrity of an Ontario citizen in a way that was wrong and utterly unacceptable, if not malicious.

Accepting that latter position, if the minister did make that up, in a way that now seems to be accepted in all accounts, she behaved in a way that violates fundamentally the ethics code the Premier heroically established for his own government, and has now behaved in a fashion that leaves her and her government no choice but that she withdraw from the ministry on this account.

Hon Mr Laughren: To be fair, the Minister of Northern Development made it eminently clear that she regretted very much the comments that had been made in the midst of a very heated private discussion. It seems to me that the Minister of Northern Development has stated categorically that she regretted saying what she said and has apologized, to the best that anyone can apologize, to everyone concerned. I would not choose the words the member opposite uses, but the Minister of Northern Development has stated quite clearly that she regrets she made the comments and has apologized accordingly.

Mr Harris: I realize the Premier is away, which is not unusual. I would not expect the Deputy Premier to undertake the role of the Premier in this regard. I think it is too serious a matter. He has heard from the Minister of Northern Development. He has heard from the Minister of Health. Would the Deputy Premier not agree with me that this is a matter which should be brought up with the Premier, to find out how the Minister of Northern Development had access to this information, if indeed that is the case, and that there should be a thorough investigation on that aspect of it? Second, would he not agree with me that if we accept the former premise that this was entirely a fabrication, this whole matter of appropriate ministerial behaviour ought to be referred to the Premier as well?

Hon Mr Laughren: May I welcome the leader of the third party back to the Legislature.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I must have said something that upset the members opposite. I do not know what it was. I was trying to extend an olive branch to the leader of the third party and they did not appreciate it.

I do not think there is any question that the Minister of Northern Development has stated that she regretted making the comments and consequently has apologized. While I expect the leader of the third party to be out there headhunting, I think the member has done what she should have done and apologized unconditionally to everyone concerned.

Mr Harris: Will the Deputy Premier now agree to ask the Premier when he comes back, whenever that is, to do what it is he should do in these circumstances?

Hon Mr Laughren: The Premier will be apprised of the situation. I can only assure the leader of the third party that the Premier will be looking at the entire matter. Beyond that I would not comment.

FARM PAYMENTS

Mr Jamison: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. White bean producers in my riding have been calling my office wanting to know when they can expect to receive their payments under the tripartite program for 1990. Will the minister tell the House why the bean producers have not received their 1990 payments yet and what action he is taking to get the payments out and in their hands?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The member for Norfolk is not the only one who has been getting calls. Most of the members, both provincial and federal, from rural ridings that have white beans have been getting calls.

There was an announcement back in the spring that a payment would be made. That payment was delayed because not all provinces had signed on to the agreement, one in particular. It is my understanding now that that province, which is Manitoba, has consented to the agreement. The cheques will be sent in the next few days.

Mr Jamison: That will be welcome news for the producers in my riding and elsewhere, but if the current plan is in such difficulty, could the minister indicate what plans for stabilization of the 1991 and 1992 white bean crops will be in place?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The member talks about some of the problems with the current tripartite plan. There is a deficit in that plan. We support the bean board's proposals for the 1991 crop as we understand them. We would like to change their plan over to something similar to the gross revenue insurance plan so that it would be more in line with the safety net plans in other commodities. We hope to be able to negotiate with the bean board on side from Ontario and talk to the other provinces and change the plan and make it a better plan that serves the interests of the bean growers in Ontario.

1450

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Scott: I would like to return to the Minister of Northern Development. It has been reported that she made a statement of fact in the north about this doctor. She has now said that this statement of fact was without foundation, which I take it means it was not true. She has unreservedly apologized for that, and I accept that. We have the assurance of the Minister of Health, in so far as it is possible to have an assurance in a big ministry, that the Minister of Northern Development did not have access to the doctor's file, which alone would have permitted her to make an accurate statement.

Assuming that the statement is false, that the apology is unreserved and that she did not have access to a file, will the Minister of Northern Development tell us, did she make up that statement, yes or no?

Hon Miss Martel: As I said earlier with regard to the case, I became involved in a very heated conversation at a reception in Thunder Bay. At the time, I made comments which are unfounded and not true. I have made it very clear to the people who were involved in the conversation or who were implicated by the conversation that the comments made were without any basis and were not in fact correct. I have offered my apologies without reservation to those who were involved or implicated and I have withdrawn the remarks I made from them.

Mr Scott: In light of that, I challenge the minister in this way: I assert in this House that she made up that information out of whole cloth and I ask her to deny it.

Hon Miss Martel: I can only go back and say what I have already said in this House, which is the following: I became involved in a heated private conversation at a reception. I made comments which were not based in fact and which were not true. I have contacted personally those people who were involved in the conversation or who were implicated by it and I have said to them very clearly that the comments I made were not true and had no foundation in fact. I regret what I have done and I have apologized to them for those comments.

Mr Harnick: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development. She made remarks that were unfounded and untrue. Did she make up those statements, and is that behaviour of a minister that should be condoned?

Hon Miss Martel: I am not sure what else I can add to this conversation. I have said clearly to members of the House the following: I became involved in a heated conversation, which was a private conversation, at a reception in Thunder Bay on Thursday night. I made comments during the course of that private conversation which were unfounded and not true. I have contacted those people who were implicated by it or involved directly in that private conversation and told them very clearly that the comments I made were without foundation. I have offered them my apologies, and those apologies have been accepted.

Mr Harnick: Did the minister fabricate this story and did she lie?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Willowdale will know he cannot accomplish indirectly what is forbidden by the rules directly, and perhaps he would consider just a slight rephrasing of his question.

Mr Harnick: Mr Speaker, you put me in a awkward position. I am not making any allegation that this minister lied. That is not the tenor of the question. I am asking if she fabricated certain information. The answer will speak for itself, but she must answer the question. We have heard that her remarks were unfounded. Did the minister fabricate the information, yes or no?

Hon Miss Martel: I can only repeat what I have already said in trying to make this very clear to the House. I made comments during a private conversation which were unfounded and not based in truth. I have made that clear to the individuals who were involved in that conversation or who were implicated by it. I have made that clear in the House this afternoon. I have offered my apologies to those who were involved or implicated by my comments and those apologies have been accepted by them.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Kormos: I have a question for the Minister of Housing about the funding of co-op and non-profit housing units by the government. The minister is aware the ministry promised to provide funding for 10,000 co-op and non-profit housing units in the most recent budget. This funding was in addition to the 30,000 units pledged under the Homes Now funding program and the units funded under the cost-shared federal-provincial non-profit housing program.

First, can the minister assure the people down in Welland-Thorold, the people involved in Niagara Peninsula Homes and the co-op movement there, that her ministry will be delivering the full amount of the more than 40,000 units pledged?

Hon Ms Gigantes: It is our intention to deliver the full amounts of all units pledged.

Mr Kormos: I want to ask about the share of non-profit housing units being allocated to the co-operative housing sector. During the last year, the minister has made announcements regarding three non-profit housing programs. The co-op housing sector received, I am advised, only 19% of the units allocated under these programs, a percentage no different from the share that the previous Liberal government provided.

In the past, our party, the New Democratic Party, has pledged a fair share model for the distribution of non-profit housing units which would give the co-operative sector an equal share of the allocations along with the private non-profit and municipal non-profit sectors. Would the minister pledge and promise to this House that the announcements to be made regarding the remainder of the units to be funded under this program will correct this unjustifiably low share of the allocations going to the co-op sector?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The allocations that we make in the Ministry of Housing are based on the needs on a regional basis and on the quality of projects put forward by community-based organizations. I am concerned about the level of co-ops which get allocated on this whole selection basis, and I have asked my ministry to investigate on what criteria we are making these decisions, which seem to create a bias against co-ops. I think the member has correctly identified a problem there. What we are looking at are those elements of the selection process which may be creating a bias against co-ops. If there is a reason to try to change those elements, we will do that.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Conway: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development. Given the gravity of the situation in which she finds herself arising out of the incident in Thunder Bay last week, can she indicate to this Legislature whether at any time since that incident occurred she has discussed this matter with the Premier and, if she has, whether in the course of those discussions she has at any point tendered her resignation to the Premier?

Hon Miss Martel: The Premier's office is aware of this event, and no, I have not tendered my resignation.

Mr Conway: It is interesting that the member did not indicate whether she had personally communicated with the Premier directly, as we know the Premier has taken on to his bosom full responsibility for these questions of standards and ethics.

I want to say, as a final point to my colleague the Minister of Northern Development, that we have a situation where one of two things occurred. She has indicated in her letter of December 8, 1991, to Ms Dodds in Thunder Bay that the remarks that she, the minister, made in Thunder Bay last week were "entirely without foundation" and that she withdraws those without reservation.

If it is, as I believe it to be, that the minister did not have access to the files -- I cannot believe she would have access -- it leaves me with only one alternative belief. That is that she made this story up, that she knowingly impugned the integrity of a northern doctor. I can come to no other conclusion. Surely my honourable friend would recognize the gravity of that, what that does and says about her judgement, her ethics, her conduct.

The Speaker: And your supplementary?

Mr Conway: Does the minister not feel, as a bright and honourable person, that she is left with no other choice, difficult though it may be, as an honourable person having done this, but to withdraw from the government?

Hon Miss Martel: I have gone through very carefully with this House the actions I have taken to respond to this matter. I have spoken directly to the people who were involved in this private conversation and those who were implicated by it, to tell them as clearly and uncategorically as I can that the remarks made had no foundation and were not based in truth. I have offered each of them my apologies and my apologies have been accepted by them.

1500

Mr Harris: I believe we are going to have to wait until the Premier comes back to get an objective analysis of the appropriateness, but I have one more question for the Minister of Northern Development before that.

She is talking about this being a private conversation. Could she confirm for me that the event in question was a public event, that it was a reception with numerous members of the public there, that she was invited as a minister of the crown of the Rae government and that in fact her conversation, as she has said, was heated and was heard by many more people than the one who relayed the information to me?

Hon Miss Martel: The incident occurred during a private conversation with a few people at a reception. Those people who were involved in the private conversation and the person who was implicated by it have been contacted directly by me. I have spoken to them and made it very clear that the comments I made were unfounded and not based in fact. I have spoken with those few people who were implicated or involved in it. I have offered them my apologies. All of them have agreed and accepted those apologies.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING

Mr Cooke moved government notice of motion 30:

That, pursuant to standing order 6(b), notwithstanding standing order 9, the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on December 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18 and 19, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

Motion agreed to.

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA GESTION DES DÉCHETS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act / Projet de loi 143, Loi concernant la gestion des déchets dans la région du grand Toronto et modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement.

Mrs Caplan: As I rise to participate today in the debate on Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act, I think there is much information that can be shared with members of this House which perhaps will persuade the government that it is extremely important that this legislation receive full public hearings during the intersession.

I hope my remarks will alert members of this House, particularly those of the government caucus, as well as people around this province that this piece of legislation is precedent-setting, not only for those in the greater Toronto area, where 44% of the population of this province lives, but for communities right across this province.

As I begin today's remarks I would like to review some of the things we find in the four parts of this act which cause great concern and I would like to share with this House some of the opinions I have received since the last time I had an opportunity to speak on this issue in the Legislature.

On December 5, Metropolitan Toronto council had its inaugural meeting. They broke with all tradition and precedent by having before the council a report from their solicitors, a report from their works commissioner, alerting the council of Metropolitan Toronto to the implications of Bill 143, which is presently before this Legislature.

The reason the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto council took this unprecedented step is that this was the very first opportunity the new council had to review, to hear about, to be made aware of Bill 143, because it had not met as a council since this bill was tabled in the Legislature on October 24. The reason they had not met was that there was a municipal election going on.

The last time I rose to speak on this subject I said that the timing of this legislation was creating a lot of anxiety within the greater Toronto area because it had been tabled on October 24. That was the day of first reading. The minister said very clearly that she wanted this bill, in its entirety, passed by this Legislature before the recess for the winter break. We all know that recess is scheduled for December 19, yet we see a piece of legislation with four components, each of which has serious implications not only for the people of the greater Toronto area, not only for the people of Peel and Durham and York and Metropolitan Toronto, but also for the people of municipalities right across this province who are grappling with the issues of planning for waste management and waste disposal into the future.

I point out very simply that in part I of this bill what the minister is proposing is the establishment of an Interim Waste Authority. I expressed concern before about the title "interim" because this waste authority will have responsibility for the next 25 years in planning for the capacity that is needed for the disposal of waste and for waste management in the GTA. I have said to you, Mr Speaker, that there is nothing interim about 25 years of responsibility, and I know you understand how important the establishment of this authority is.

What I do not think people fully believe is the powers that are going to be granted to this authority in order to allow it, as the minister has said, to do its job. The powers she is proposing, simply put, are that on any farm, on any piece of land in the greater Toronto area where the waste authority feels there might be a good location for a landfill or a dump, the waste authority will have the power to phone up and say, "We'd like to come on your land and test your property."

If the individual says, "No way; I'm not going to let you on my land; I'm not going to let you on my property; I do not want my land considered for this purpose," the response from the waste authority will be: "Consider this your notice. We can get a warrant and we can show up on your property in a week's time with the police and use whatever force is necessary to enforce our warrant and test your property for its potential as a dump, as a landfill site, and you, land owner, have no right of appeal."

1510

I see you are picking up the piece of legislation, Mr Speaker. If you look at part I, that is exactly what it says. The waste authority can phone you and ask for your permission. If that permission is denied, they can tell you they will be showing up with a warrant and the police. If you resist, there is a $5,000 fine. There is no right of appeal. There is no right for any land owner in the greater Toronto area to protest. This is exactly what is being proposed by the Minister of the Environment, who is the NDP minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, and the NDP government of the Premier. Further, the waste authority can then expropriate your property.

I do not believe people are aware that this power is being vested in the Interim Waste Authority by this piece of legislation, but as members read this legislation, they will know I am telling the truth. This is the fact. I hope members of the government caucus will realize the public will not stand for those kinds of powers -- no right of appeal, no right to protest -- because those are police state powers. That is what is being proposed in part I.

Part II is the process for the establishment of the long-term sites over the next 20 years. The process for the development of the site is one which, again, I believe the people of the province do not yet fully realize is a complete reversal of the Environmental Assessment Act.

The last time I spoke, I said it was important for people to understand the difference between the Environmental Protection Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. Mr Speaker, as a veteran member of this Legislature, you know that the Environmental Protection Act allows for the examination of an individual site to determine its acceptability for a specific use and that the process of the Environmental Protection Act, in looking at that one site, is to determine its suitability and what, if any, mitigation should be taken to result in protection of the environment as that site is used for whatever the intended purpose is, whether it is landfill or anything else. The Environmental Protection Act looks at a site-specific location and determines if the proposed use is environmentally acceptable.

The Environmental Assessment Act's principle is very different from that of the Environmental Protection Act. Under the Environmental Assessment Act, each option must be examined and considered. Each site for the intended purpose must go through examination. Then the judgement is not on just that individual site. Under the Environmental Protection Act, the judgement is made as to which is the best environmental solution available to solve the problem. In this case, we are talking about waste management and the disposal of garbage.

What part II of Bill 143 does is preclude the consideration of options. Bill 143 says you cannot consider all possible options. It says we are not seeking the environmentally best solution.

That is what Bill 143 says and I know members find that very hard to believe. I think the people of this province will find that hard to believe, because what it says under part II is that only solutions within the boundaries of the greater Toronto area will be considered, even if there is a community outside the greater Toronto area that can provide a site or a solution which could be judged to be more environmentally sound and better for the environment than a site or a solution within the boundaries of the GTA.

I can give members some examples of those kinds of solutions that have been considered in other parts of the province where the solution has been found outside the boundaries of that region. There are examples where municipalities have worked together with other communities, and the concept of a happy host community, one that says, "We have a proposal we'd like you to consider," is not a new concept. There are many examples around the world of the kinds of partnerships and proposals where municipalities will work together and enter into agreements, or where a municipality will enter into an agreement with a region.

Bill 143 says there can be no agreement between municipalities that are not within the boundaries of the GTA and in fact very specifically within the boundaries of Durham, York, Peel and Metropolitan Toronto. Part II of this bill runs contrary to the principles of the Environmental Assessment Act, which says we want the best environmental solution to our problem.

Part II says, "Our philosophy is, our ideology is, and we are going to take a doctrinaire approach that says solutions can only be considered if they are within that boundary," even if that solution is not as good an environmental solution as a proposal outside the boundary. What part II says is that we cannot even consider it for a period of 20 years.

Part II also says that if next week, next month or next year energy from waste technology has developed to the point where it is better than the technology that is available to us today -- I would say that many of us have great concerns about the available technology today, but I for one know the technology is changing so rapidly. Technology is finding solutions. Every day we are seeing breakthroughs from the research and development that has been going on around the world.

It reminds me of the Industrial Revolution. There were those they called Luddites, who to stop progress threw their shoes into the machines that were being developed at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, who said: "This new technology is unthinkable. Stop the progress."

Interjection.

Mrs Caplan: I would say to the member for Downsview that I think he is one of those Luddites. He is yelling, "Stop the progress." I think that many in his caucus who support this legislation are in fact taking that same attitude if they are saying: "Progress is unthinkable. New technology can't even be considered. We don't want to be confused by the facts." That is what is available in part II.

1520

Mr Perruzza: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The member quite clearly did not hear what I said. I would never say you stop progress. Obviously, she has mothballs stuck in her ears. I would ask her not to mislead this House with respect to what I have said.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Certainly the member has a unique way of putting forward his point of view, but it does not contribute to the good order of the House.

Mrs Caplan: I would say to the member for Downsview that he should read this legislation, because part II does exactly what I have just said. It does not allow for the consideration of new technology in the field of energy from waste or incineration. Even if it is developed next week, next month or next year, following the passage of this legislation it cannot even be considered. That is as much as saying, "Stop progress." That is like throwing your shoes into the machines. That is not just mothballs. That is out of touch with the reality of what is actually happening within our society today, as solutions are being found that were never contemplated.

I am not that old; I am only 47. I keep telling my family and my children, "That's not that old," but I remember before television. I know you do too, from the way you are smiling, Mr Speaker. You remember the days before television. I was about five years old when television was invented and I remember the excitement of that new technology. I remember it was black and white. We did not have VCRs. We did not have compact discs. We did not have computers. Colour television, VCRs and compact discs have all been developed within the last 20 years, and yet this piece of legislation says that for the next 20 years we cannot consider any new technologies that are developed to solve our problems.

Members should think about the implications of saying, "No new technology can be considered for the next 20 years." They should think of the message that sends to the research and development community here in Ontario. We know the policies of this new government are not encouraging business and industry to stay and develop here, but this policy is madness in a world where you see the kinds of rapid changes we have seen in the last 20 years. I appeal to the government and I appeal to the members of the government caucus to read this legislation, to at least allow the facts to be considered, to at least allow new technologies to be developed. They should not preclude the options. Not only does it run contrary to the principles of the Environmental Assessment Act; it runs contrary to the wisdom of our society, which is encouraging new technology to solve our problems. I say to the NDP that it cannot stop progress.

Part III of this bill, as members know, addresses three specific sites: one in Peel, one in York and one in Durham. The responses from those municipalities to what is proposed from a minister who just a year ago said, "There's no problem; there's no gap," should be of grave concern to every member of the NDP caucus, because this is now a question of credibility. I say to the members from Durham and to the members particularly who stood in front of the landfill sites and promised there would be no dump, that their credibility is on the line and thoroughly tested with the proposals, not only under part II but under part III.

I suggest they talk to their own taxpayers about one issue they have neglected and that is, what is the proposal under part III of this legislation going to cost? What is it going to cost in taxpayers' dollars? What is it going to cost in loss of rights of their community to have its say? These are very important questions, because this is not just a question in Durham, York and Peel. What is proposed before us could well be a precedent across this province, because it is effectively a new approach to the Environmental Assessment Act; it is a new approach to the Environmental Protection Act.

We see amendments under part IV which do not apply just to the greater Toronto area. The amendments under part IV are amendments to the Environmental Protection Act. The amendments under part IV are to the minister's powers under section 29. The amendments under part IV will affect every municipality in this province. Every member of this Legislature should ask the question, "What is Bill 143 going to cost? What is it going to cost municipal taxpayers?"

One of the principles in our democracy is representation by population, responsibility and accountability. We have discussions going on right now on disentanglement, and the principles behind disentanglement suggest that the level of government that makes the decision should also be accountable and responsible to its taxpayers.

Let me tell the members what Bill 143 does. Simply put, it is a message from the province to the municipalities, and this is the message from the NDP government. It says: "We have the say and you will pay. We, the province, have the say and you, municipal taxpayers, will pay. We, the province, will tell the Interim Waste Authority what the capacity will be and the Interim Waste Authority will require the municipalities to implement their plan and pay for it."

I do not think anybody really realizes that this is what this legislation does, particularly the amendments under part IV which should be of concern to every municipality across this province, because it goes contrary to the principle of democracy that says our local representatives will make decisions and decide how they should be paid for. To have part IV before us at the same time disentanglement is being discussed with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in my view creates a sham of that whole consultation. It creates a sham of the whole concept. It calls into question the commitment of this government to the disentanglement discussions and the disentanglement process.

How can the government bring forward a piece of legislation at the same time as it is saying to the municipalities, "We are going to discuss disentanglement"? They are tangling it up some more when they say, "We are going to make the decisions and you are going to pay." Is that partnership from the democratic government? Is that the concept of consultation? "We're happy to discuss it with you, we'll spin our wheels on disentanglement, but we're going to table legislation that requires you to pay when you don't have the say." That is Bill 143.

I mentioned the discussions that took place at Metropolitan Toronto council. I would like to share with members of the House the recommendations from the management committee and the report. It is a lengthy report. I do not think I am going to be able to have sufficient time to read the whole report, but I would commend it to the members, and I can assure them they will be hearing more from Metropolitan Toronto council.

Let me tell members what Metro council has accepted and what the requests are of this provincial government that has said it wants this passed by Christmas. Let me tell members what is being requested. This is a joint recommendation from the Metropolitan Toronto council solicitor and the commissioner of works. They are saying that:

"1. This report and the comments...on Bill 143 be forwarded to the minister responsible for the office for the greater Toronto area and of the environment." So they have sent this to the Minister of the Environment.

"2. The province be requested to defer passage of parts I, II and III of Bill 143 dealing with the Interim Waste Authority, the long-term waste disposal site search and implementation of the minister's report under section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), to enable Metropolitan Toronto, other municipalities and interested parties sufficient time to make adequate representations.

"3. In any event of a deferral, the province be requested to strike from the draft legislation section 19 of Bill 143 providing for rights of injurious affection in connection with the Keele Valley lift.

"4. The province be requested to defer passage of part IV of Bill 143 dealing with amendments to the EPA, and that part IV be considered with other proposed provincial legislation and the regulations and consultative process associated therewith on municipal waste management responsibilities.

"5. The appropriate Metropolitan officials be authorized and directed to attend before any legislative committee considering the contents of Bill 143 in order to communicate the concerns on Bill 143 as set out in the report."

The report highlights some of the concerns. I would like to share with the members some of the concerns Metropolitan Toronto council has highlighted for its members. I am now quoting because it is important this be on the record:

"1. The Interim Waste Authority and Long-Term Waste Disposal Sites:

"Parts I and II of the bill provide a statutory framework to allow for the activities and environmental assessments in relation to the long-term waste disposal sites as 'undertakings' of the Interim Waste Authority (IWA). The legislation is retroactive in respect of prior work of the IWA. The undertaking of the Interim Waste Authority in respect to York and Metropolitan Toronto is defined as" --

Mr Tilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe there is a quorum.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan) ordered the bells rung.

1535

Mrs Caplan: I was quoting from report 1 of the management committee of Metropolitan Toronto council. Without going through the report in detail, what I would like to point out is that it says very clearly:

"The environmental assessment to be undertaken by the IWA for a disposal site is not required" -- underline "not required" -- "to consider as alternatives anything beyond reduction, reuse, recycling or the use of other sites outside of York and Metropolitan Toronto. Accordingly, the environmental assessment need not examine as alternatives possible sites such as Kirkland Lake, one site serving the whole of the GTA, or require a comparative examination of the other sites to be provided by the IWA in the other regions.

"As well, the environmental assessment to be prepared by the IWA is not required to evaluate as alternatives:

"(a) incineration" -- sometimes called energy from waste -- "(the legislation appears to be comprehensive in attempting to shut the door on incineration by ensuring it is not raised as part of the consideration of the alternative waste reduction, reuse or recycling);

"(b) transportation of waste beyond Metropolitan Toronto and York" -- for example, the proposal to have composting outside the boundaries of the greater Toronto area -- "(eg, composting in Kirkland Lake); and

"(c) multiple landfill sites (this would, for example, appear to remove from possible argument over alternatives the consideration of the equitable sharing of the waste disposal burden by the establishment of a number of sites....)"

It says that anything which would fall below the capacity established by the minister's estimates could not be considered. Therefore, it is the minister who will be setting the policies, the Interim Waste Authority that will be implementing those policies and the taxpayers of the greater Toronto area who will be footing the bill.

This is from the management committee report: "It would appear that the IWA is to be guided in the environmental assessment by policies to be established by the minister." I am now digressing from the report: This is a piece of legislation which says very clearly that the proposed environmental assessment which is going to take place will be guided by the policies of the minister to be set. Nobody knows what they are. It is not in this legislation. I am quoting once again from the report:

"The legislation specifically states that the corporation" -- the waste authority -- "must use estimates of waste reduction, reuse and recycling provided by the minister. It is unclear, however, whether the minister or the IWA will have the responsibility to establish and justify gross waste generation figures. Moreover, while the IWA will be planning capacity for the waste disposal site based on waste diversion targets established by the minister, there is a discrepancy between the mandate given to the IWA to plan on the basis of at least 20 years...and the fact that the estimates are to be provided for a 20-year period." What this means is "ie, the IWA must determine the period for which the site is to provide disposal -- 20 years and beyond," even though the estimates that are to be provided are for a 20-year period.

The report goes on to say:

"The person approving the undertaking under the EAA (presently the minister, the Environmental Assessment Board or a joint board under the Consolidated Hearings Act) must make its decision consistent with the statutory provisions and 'have regard to' the waste diversion estimates and environmental assessment policies established by the minister. Again, the legislation is unclear what weight is to be given to those policies and estimates.

"There is a provision in the legislation for participant funding within the environmental assessment process. Section 16 of the bill contemplates that the policies of the minister to guide the environmental assessment will deal with participant funding in the environmental assessment process. Participant funding is defined to mean funding to assist persons in participating in any part of the environmental assessment process to which the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988 does not apply. It, in effect, refers to the funding of the process prior to the actual hearing. Actual detail as to what comprises the funding will have to be elaborated by regulation or ministerial policy."

The report goes on and talks about a number of concerns regarding section 29a of the Environmental Protection Act in part IV. It sounds quite technical and complicated, but I know there is one concern which members would understand. There was a recommendation regarding the impact on taxpayers of the "injurious affection" clause. What this report points out is:

"If injurious affection results from implementation of the minister's report, an affected person is entitled to compensation in the same way as if the municipality had expropriated land from the person. The definition of injurious affection is used in the legislation in such a way that Metropolitan Toronto may be liable for damages resulting from the use of the lift as opposed to simply construction of the lift."

That is very significant for the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto.

The report goes on, as I said, and I am not going to read it all in detail. I know it will be available for members of the House if they wish to review it in its entirety. It expresses some of the concerns as it not only points out the comments of the solicitor and the works commissioner at Metropolitan Toronto but suggests inconsistencies.

On page 15, the report states, "The proposed legislation will ensure that a completely modified environmental assessment is substituted for that contemplated under the EAA" by the legislation, Bill 143. I think that is something members of the NDP caucus have not yet fully realized. For 44% of the population of this province, they are writing, with this legislation, a new Environmental Assessment Act. Their Premier promised that all new sites and all existing sites would be subject to a full environmental assessment under the EAA, yet what piece of legislation have they tabled? One that completely modifies the environmental assessment, one that substitutes a new process.

They have done this without any consultation. They have done this and expect this legislation, which was tabled on October 24, to be passed by December 19. That is what they have demanded. Their House leader tabled a time allocation motion last week. It is outrageous that, through new legislation, they would substitute a new Environmental Assessment Act. That is what they have actually done.

This will have implications across the whole province. For those members opposite who, like myself, want the very best solution for the environment, this act will not give them that opportunity. Those members opposite who, like myself, believe in public information, public awareness, public participation and individual rights will be appalled, as I am, that the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, who is the Minister of the Environment, would try to ram this through in a few short weeks and that the government House leader would be complicit in tabling a motion that would force this to be done before the winter break. That the minister would suggest that a new Environmental Assessment Act, which is what this really creates, is one that does not require extensive public hearings is something I believe she will regret.

I point out what the management committee of Metropolitan Toronto has said:

"The proposed legislation will ensure that a completely modified environmental assessment is substituted for that contemplated under the EAA by the legislation. By the legislation:

"(a) a full examination of alternatives need not be undertaken; and

"(b) the assessment process is 'governed' by policies and waste diversion estimates which can be established from time to time by the minister. As indicated above, it is not clear what weight is to be given to the policies and estimates by the ultimate decision-maker for approval of a site" -- the minister.

"There is an inconsistency between the 20-year period for which the estimates are established and the open-ended planning period to be served by the long-term sites (at least 20 years). The effect is to require the IWA to justify its planning period and possibly to prove the need for capacity beyond that dictated by the estimates."

Part 2 is "Implementation of the Minister's Report under Section 29 of the EPA." The report says:

"The legislation is comprehensive in imposing a statutory obligation for the respective municipalities to comply with the minister's report. While comprehensive in attempting to set aside potential legal obstacles, the legislation creates uncertainty as to what is to eventually occur, the timing of the lift and the costs to Metropolitan Toronto. Examples of this uncertainty are" -- this is pointed out by the solicitor and the works commissioner and I think should be taken very seriously by members of the government caucus:

"(a) The minister may amend or revoke her report at any time. Further conditions can, therefore, be imposed on Metropolitan Toronto. As an example, the issue of participant funding still has to be decided by the minister and the requirement that Metropolitan Toronto pay for such funding can be the subject of a further condition."

That is what I was referring to when I said the Interim Waste Authority and the minister of the NDP government will have the say and the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto and the greater Toronto area will have to pay.

1550

Part (b) of this report, under section (2) on page 15, says:

"As indicated...the conditions to be attached to the certificate of approval may be those that a regional municipality or an area municipality might have imposed under the Municipal Act, the Regional Municipality of York Act, the Planning Act and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. Given that the approval powers under those acts are broad, arguably, the conditions could deal with the payment of royalties, the receipt of waste and rebates which a municipality might have required in giving its approval to a waste management facility under those acts.

"(c) Given that North Avondale is not covered by the definition of the undertaking to be implemented, decisions, therefore, will still have to be made by Metropolitan Toronto about attendance before the Ontario Municipal Board to oppose the town of Vaughan's rezoning bylaw and official plan amendments in so far as they affect the extraction of clay from North Avondale.

"(d) The Keele Valley expansion is only a vertical expansion directed by the province. Yet the bill imposes a requirement that Metropolitan Toronto pay damages for any injurious affection (loss in market value and personal and business loss) resulting from the use of the site. Statutorily allowing for claims for injurious affection and broadening the definition to include damages arising from the 'use' as well as construction of the site creates total uncertainty and unlimited cost exposure concerning claims that may arise" -- unlimited cost exposure for the people of Metropolitan Toronto.

In part (d) there is more, but I am going to try to abbreviate it, given the time allotted.

Mrs Mathyssen: That is what you said about three hours ago.

Mrs Caplan: The member may not want to hear this, but I know the member for Durham Centre, who sits behind the member, will want to hear this because his ratepayers, his constituents, will be outraged when they realize this is going to have an impact on them. This runs contrary to everything he said in the last election. It runs contrary to everything his leader said and it runs contrary to everything the Minister of the Environment stood for when she was in opposition.

Mr Speaker, I know you will appreciate what I am about to say. This is a report from the management committee of Metropolitan Toronto.

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: They do not like to hear the truth. This is an issue of integrity, and the members had better listen, because the taxpayers are not going to stand for this.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. Obviously these interjections are out of order, but it would facilitate the process if the member directed her remarks to the Chair.

Mrs Caplan: I must admit I am provoked by the comments, extemporaneous as they are, from members of the government caucus, who seem to be willing to trample over people's rights, who seem to be willing to ram a bill through before Christmas that will take away people's rights, that will say, "We have the say, but you, Metropolitan Toronto taxpayers, have to pay." This is no joke and I am outraged that they would have the nerve to try and bring this kind of legislation, complex as it is, into this House on October 24 and have it passed and in place without the proper public hearings and bring in time allocation to do that before the winter recess. That is outrageous.

I have been in this Legislature since 1985, and I want members to know that I have never, in all my time here in the House, seen such a complex piece of legislation brought forward nor seen a time allocation motion put on the order paper to ram something through in a way which is clearly undemocratic and run totally contrary to the public interest.

I want those members in the government caucus to know that if any other government had attempted to do this, the howls of outrage from their caucus would have been heard far beyond this great chamber. They should know that just because the people of this province do not believe the NDP would do this does not mean the NDP is not doing this. They are, and they have done this.

When the people of this province realize what they have tried to perpetrate, they will be as outraged as I am that the government on October 24 tabled this legislation and then demanded it be passed before Christmas. What a Christmas present to the people of the greater Toronto area. What a Christmas present to the people of Metropolitan Toronto. Shame on the Premier. Shame on the Minister of the Environment. Shame on the NDP. They know better than this.

I was referring to the report of the management committee of Metropolitan Toronto. I talked about the open-ended obligation that is not imposed on any other facility in any other municipality yet.

Part (d) on page 16 says, "The Keele Valley expansion is only a vertical expansion directed by the province. Yet the bill imposes a requirement that Metropolitan Toronto pay damages...resulting from the use of the site. Statutorily allowing for claims for injurious affection and broadening the definition to include damages arising from the 'use' as well as construction of the site creates total uncertainty and unlimited cost exposure concerning claims that may arise."

The government caucus may not want to hear that, but that is a real and legitimate concern on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole, that they are going to be forced to pay for something they will have no say about through their Metropolitan Toronto councillor, who happens to be Mrs Joan King, the chairman of the works committee at Metropolitan Toronto. She has grave concerns about the costs to all taxpayers in the greater Toronto area, and in particular the taxpayers of the Metropolitan Toronto council, if this bill passes intact.

Part (e): The legislation allows for a potential hearing under the Environmental Protection Act, an act which I would point out was totally unacceptable to the Premier before the election. He went to every site around the province and said: "The Environmental Protection Act isn't good enough for you. We're not going to look at just one site. We're going to make sure that all of the alternatives are considered. We, an NDP government, would ensure that you have a full environmental assessment act."

Yet what do we hear under Bill 143? The legislation allows for a potential hearing under the Environmental Protection Act. Whether a hearing is required or not most likely depends on the provincial appreciation of whether there is such a thing as a hearing, given the timing of exhaustion of capacity and the provision of sites by the Interim Waste Authority.

I would point out that the legislation, while allowing for a hearing under the Environmental Protection Act, does not require one. It does not require even a hearing under the Environmental Protection Act, when what was promised were the protections of the Environmental Assessment Act. As I pointed out before, the Environmental Assessment Act is the one that requires a look at all the options. This act removes that right for the people of the greater Toronto area, 44% of the population of this province.

The amendments under the Environmental Protection Act, which comprise part IV of this bill, are also of real interest. The management committee heard this from the Metropolitan Toronto solicitor and commissioner of works:

"There are two broad policy issues created by the legislative amendments to the EPA:

"(a) the potential dichotomy between the waste management responsibilities of municipalities and control over that responsibility; and

"(b) the uncertainty created for municipalities by the amendments.

"Bill 143 does not amend the regional acts, including the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. At the present time, the waste disposal power and the statutory obligation in respect of the management of waste reside with the regions, including Metropolitan Toronto. The powers given to the IWA are permissive only. Section 3 of the legislation simply states that certain powers are given to the IWA 'for the purpose of establishing landfill waste disposal sites.' It appears that a discussion paper will be forthcoming on the role of municipalities in waste management, including the relationship between government and the private sector. If so, there will be consultation before any amendment to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act or other regional act occurs.

1600

"Assuming, however, that Metropolitan Toronto continues to play an operational role in waste management, Bill 143 represents what may be considered" -- are members ready for this? I hope they are paying attention -- "an unprecedented and fundamental intrusion of provincial control over the actual waste management responsibilities of Metropolitan Toronto" -- words like "unprecedented" and "fundamental intrusion." "The province will now be regulating extensively in program planning and implementation, not just in setting facility standards and in granting approvals. The province will be regulating, for example, waste management planning, including control over when to seek approval and implementation of facilities and the manner of financial waste management. In fact, the bill states that regulations under the legislation may regulate all waste management activities.

"The minister is also given power to establish and operate waste management systems, waste disposal sites and programs concerning the reduction of waste or the reuse or recycling of materials that are or could become waste. This would represent a 'residual power' even if all waste management was statutorily assigned to upper-tier municipalities."

That is what I meant when I said, "We will have the say and you will pay." Is this legislation saying, "We the province, we the waste authority will have the say and you, Metropolitan Toronto taxpayers, will pay"?

"Uncertainty is created by the breadth of detail that is left to the regulations. The regulation-making power has been broadened considerably, but with a scarcity of information on what is intended by the legislation and in the absence of determining the appropriate division of waste management responsibilities amongst the levels of government."

I could go on at length. There are many issues that are raised. It is my hope that the government will listen to what Metropolitan Toronto council has heard and that it will be willing to change significantly some of the provisions.

I will state that I have received communication from Eldred King, chairman of York region. He has asked if I would convey the position of Cassels, Brock and Blackwell as the position of the region of York here in this Legislature.

A letter of December 4 from the firm of Cassels, Brock and Blackwell to the Minister of the Environment says, to summarize very briefly: "York region requests that you delay passage of Bill 143 to allow York council and other affected newly elected regional councils in Peel, Durham and Metro council to study the bill and consult with you and your officials about changes. York region also requests that, in any case, Bill 143 in its entirety be referred to committee for analysis and study on a clause-by-clause basis." This is very significant. "Bill 143 is too new in direction and too rhadamanthine and draconic in effect to be rushed through the Legislature, using the government's majority, without allowing for full public debate and amendment." I am sure if we look up the meaning of that word we will find it is not too complimentary about the NDP government's actions. I have not heard that word before and I can assure members I will be looking it up.

The letter goes on to say: "York region requests that you make a public statement that Bill 143 will be referred to a legislative special committee, that affected regions and citizen groups will be heard by this committee, that the government will maintain an open mind about suggested amendments, and that the government will allow a reasonable amount of time, at least three months, for this process to occur."

This is in this letter from Cassels, Brock and Blackwell:

"As of today, York region's concerns are that:

"1. The bill is fundamentally unfair and ignores the way that 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.'" An eminent law firm in this province is saying that about this NDP Bob Rae government.

"2. The bill will not result in an environmentally optimal solution for the GTA's and Metro Toronto's garbage."

Interjection.

Mrs Caplan: The member should be listening to this. Anyone who has seen this legislation and had an opportunity to review it believes, as I do, that it will not result in the best environmental solution for dealing with Metro Toronto and the GTA's garbage.

The letter goes on to say:

"3. The bill allows provincial power to intrude into regional and municipal responsibility over waste management."

As I said before, this NDP government will have the say, and yet it is the property taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto and the GTA who will have to pay -- totally contrary to the essence of our democracy.

The bill is called unfair. It does not allow for the optimal solutions. All the things I mentioned in my remarks are echoed in this letter from Cassels, Brock and Blackwell, signed by Mr Ian Blue. I know this will also be tabled before committee, should this bill get to committee during the intersession, as has been requested.

I would also point out that there is a legal opinion from the firm of Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt for the city of Vaughan. I could speak at length about this legal opinion. But it is interesting that while the minister tabled this on October 24, there has already been the kind of clause-by-clause analysis that should cause the minister grave concern. That is why I was so shocked to see a time allocation motion tabled last week that would have forced this bill through the legislative process before Christmas.

I am not going to go on at length, only because I know I have a number of colleagues who will also want to make comments and who will be referring to the opinions of the solicitors. I want to point out I could speak at length, but I just want to tell people that I have had some very interesting phone calls.

1610

I had a phone call from John West. He called my office. He is the mayor of Aurora. He believes, as I do, that there must be extensive public hearings on Bill 143 and supports the call by the official opposition for those hearings during the intersession. My staff took this quote. I hope I am quoting him correctly. He said: "When the NDP got elected, it promised to listen to the people. I am calling the NDP as well." I am sure the minister and the Premier have heard from John West, the mayor of Aurora, who shares my concern that this government must listen. They must not table legislation and expect they can ram it through before anybody notices and not pay very dearly for that kind of crass partisan opportunism the people of this province just will not stand for.

I had another call to my office, from Fran Sainsbury, mayor of Whitchurch-Stouffville. She told my office she does not agree with Bill 143 as it is written. She does not believe Bill 143 should be rushed. She says that her area does not mind taking York region's garbage, but that there will be a problem if the area has to take all of Metropolitan Toronto's garbage. She says this bill is totally unfair, that they are bypassing due process and they are bypassing the process they professed to believe in for so many years while they were in opposition.

Mayor Sainsbury reflects some of the comments I made the last time I spoke on this about why the public is so cynical, why the public is so upset with all of us who stand for public office, those who say one thing during election time and another following the election. What they do is undermine the essence of the trust the people place in those of us who stand for public office. I notice that one of the members from Durham stood proudly in his place and said, "I just said all those things to get elected." I heard him during private members' hour.

Mr Wiseman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not recall any member from Durham rising in this House and saying he only said those things to get elected. That is not a correct or accurate assessment of what was said.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. The member will take his seat, please. This is certainly not a point of order. It may be a matter of some disagreement. The member for Oriole will continue.

Mrs Caplan: I will not argue with the member because the point I am going to make is that everything is recorded in Hansard. I was here in the House during private members' hour and I remember when the member for Durham East stood at his place and totally dissociated himself from everything that was in his election brochures. He said he felt he had to say that to get elected, but now that he was in government, he did not have to do that any more. That is in Hansard. It is on the record.

I say to the members of the government caucus that this attitude creates ill will, increase the cynicism, questions the integrity of members of this Legislature and creates a lack of trust among the people of this province, this kind of attitude that says, "Look, you say what you have to say to get elected." That is what he said, "You say what you have to say to get elected."

We in the Liberal Party and we in the Liberal caucus do not believe that you say what you have to say. We believe that you should say what you believe in, that you should talk about your principles and plans and that you do not tell the people one thing during election time and stand up proudly afterwards and say, "We just said that to get elected." I was very frustrated and upset because I know how my constituents react to that kind of cynical behaviour. It is very disappointing. They react by saying to me, "Elinor, we lose faith in those who enter public life." They expected better and they deserved better than the likes of the members of the government caucus who do not believe you have to say what you are going to do and then do it.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order, please. I would ask the member to move back to the order of debate, if possible, so we can continue the discussion.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, I am, speaking about Bill 143. In the historical perspective, when you compare this to what the Premier said during the election; what the member for Durham East and his colleague the member for Durham West said during the election; how those who campaigned talked about in their literature protection of the environment, support for the Environmental Assessment Act; the Minister of the Environment, all the things she said in opposition and then what she has done, I would say my comments are very germane because the people of the province do not realize Bill 143 is a betrayal of their trust. But they will when this is examined before committee. The people of this province are just beginning to understand the deception, the sham, the lack of integrity that has been displayed by this government in the tabling of Bill 143.

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, it is obvious that the truth hurts, because the members opposite have reacted to the truth as you would expect, with shouts and screams. When this bill goes before committee -- and we in the Liberal caucus are going to make sure it goes to committee -- we are going to make sure the people of this province understand exactly what is being perpetrated by the members of this NDP government. The government used to profess the importance of rights of the individual, the importance of looking at all the options, the importance of people paying when they have had a say, of accountability and responsibility.

When they realize the NDP has not only jettisoned its policies and its principles but is imposing a draconian approach, taking away the rights of people in a heavy-handed, undemocratic way that the people of this province just do not believe the New Democratic Party would do, when that is exposed, whatever is left of the halos of the members of this government -- and let me say, there is not much left -- will be gone. Even a trip to the Virgin Islands will not replace the purity of the members of this government.

When the people of this province realize what Bill 143 does, the New Democratic Party of this province will pay dearly. They will have lost their credibility, lost the respect of the people and will deserve to be turfed out of office and for ever banished for having attempted to perpetrate this kind of deception on the people of this province.

On behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole, I protest loudly and strongly the actions of the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area and Minister of the Environment, who tabled a piece of legislation on October 24. The minister supported and demanded passage of this legislation before Christmas that will not provide the best environmental solution, that will be unaffordable for the people of Metropolitan Toronto in its present form, that removes the rights of my constituents the people of Metropolitan Toronto and the greater Toronto area to have their say, that creates a new environmental process in this province and that purports to live up to the commitment to the environment of the New Democratic Party government. It purports to live up to the commitments when in fact it does exactly the opposite.

1620

On behalf of my constituents, I say shame and I say to them that we will not let this go. We will not allow this kind of deception to go unchallenged, and we will hold the Minister of the Environment accountable. We will hold the Premier accountable. We will hold every member of the NDP caucus accountable to their constituents for this piece of legislation, for the approach and for the cost.

Mr Stockwell: Those were probably the kindest comments the member from the Liberal Party could come up with about the bill respecting GTA waste management, or Bill 143.

It seems she has touched on a very large number of issues that I believe will come back to haunt this present government, not just for the duration of its two or three or four more years in office but once it comes back to opposition after the next election. It will haunt them even at that time, because what they have done is -- and I think the last speaker was very clear -- usurped the Environmental Assessment Act and all those powerful and important pieces of legislation that go along with it. This is from the party that was protector of the environment, the party that stood fast in its positioning on environmental hearings and on expansion in sites and on the shortening of the Environmental Assessment Act to the Environmental Protection Act -- all this coming from the party that purports to be the one that best exemplifies the concerns of the environmental groups today.

The speech touched on some very important concerns that municipal politicians have, specifically in Peel region and York region but also in the greater Toronto area and Metropolitan Toronto. It seems to me that this government has basically abandoned policies and principles it stood by for many a year. It is very funny to see a party publicly crumble before your eyes when any kind of heat is applied to its positions. It is hopelessly adrift. It has gone against everything it stood for.

That comment made by the member from the Liberal Party, I think, was fair and just and maybe did not go far enough. If members were allowed to go far enough in this chamber, words that they could get sued over spring to mind. I certainly compliment the member for her comments.

Mr Offer: In the short time permitted to me in response, I would like to compliment the member for Oriole for bringing forward so many of the issues as a result of the actions of the Minister of the Environment.

Later on in the day I will be speaking to the bill specifically, but I think we should all recognize that in my riding of Mississauga North is located the Britannia landfill site. That is the site that was slated to be closed this year and would have been closed were it not for the heavy-handed, draconian actions of the Minister of the Environment.

I see that the Minister of Transportation sort of shudders when he hears those words "draconian" and "heavy-handed." I ask the minister and any member of the government side to come out and visit the riding of Mississauga North or in fact anywhere in Mississauga or Peel to listen to the people who have been specifically and directly affected by that decision. They have purchased homes and communities have been built on the basis of agreements that were entered into many years before. It is the actions of the Minister of the Environment which have said no to that agreement, which have said no to the official plan, which have said no to zoning bylaws. It is the actions of the Minister of the Environment which have said: "We don't care what the local municipality has done in terms of planning, in terms of organization, in terms of the building of communities. We don't care what the ratepayers' associations and the many residents not only surrounding Britannia but indeed throughout the city of Mississauga have to say."

The Minister of the Environment has been asked to come out on more than one occasion, and on each and every occasion she has said no. Not only has there been no response or action by the Minister of the Environment, but no member from the government, none of the many parliamentary assistants at her side has seen fit to come out and speak directly to the people who have been directly affected by her actions. This is something which the people of Mississauga are not forgetting. They are matters which I will be bringing out in my response to this particular piece of legislation, and it is one thing I think the members of the government had better understand very rapidly.

Mr Tilson: I have a brief comment with respect to the excellent remarks of the member for Oriole with respect to this bill. One of the areas that she raised which I would like to emphasize is that the promises were made by the government, and particularly by the Premier when he went around this province during this last election. He emphasized the environment. He emphasized that he would have a safer environment. In fact, those were the words that were put into the Agenda for People: "We're going to have a safer environment and we're going to have environmental assessments. We are going to have environmental assessment before any expansions or before any new sites are put forward."

As the member for Oriole indicated with respect to these three sites, we are not going to have them; we are not going to have environmental assessments. With all the issues that have been raised by this government, and particularly by the Premier as he went around the province the summer prior to the election commenting on the fears he has with respect to the environment, the ozone layer, cancer, the destruction of our forests and everything else with respect to the environment, saying, "We're going to protect our environment; we're going to make sure that before we do anything we have environmental assessment," lo and behold, with this new bill that is coming forward, we have no environmental assessments.

We are just going to build up the garbage higher and higher, with no consultations with respect to those municipalities and certainly with no environmental assessments. The government has no idea what the effect of those lifts are going to be on the environment of those areas, no idea whatsoever. It has got itself in a mess. It has had a year to solve these problems, and this is what it is going to do. It is going to create lifts, with no environmental assessment. That is one point I wish to emphasize that the member for Oriole raised and which I think we should all consider before we vote on this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Further comments and questions? The member for Oriole may wish to use two minutes to respond.

Mrs Caplan: I want to thank my colleagues who commented on my remarks. I know I spoke at length. The reason I spoke at length is that I care so very much about the environment. I care so very much about finding the very best environmental solution for Toronto's garbage and waste management problems. I believe it is possible for us to find those solutions by working together co-operatively.

I also believe that Bill 143 does not set a climate for that kind of co-operation within Metropolitan Toronto and the greater Toronto area. I believe very strongly that it does not allow for the very best environmental solution to be found because it excludes options. It excludes the alternative which, through new technology, may be developed over the next few years. I believe that is shortsighted.

The legislation itself is of grave concern to me. On behalf of my constituents, I want to share those concerns and ask the government to reconsider many of the aspects of this bill. I think it is fundamentally flawed. I believe it requires extensive public hearings so that the government members will be aware of exactly how it is flawed. Some parts of it are supportable, but I suggest to the government caucus that it sends out the wrong message because it does not allow for the best solution to be found. To table it and expect passage in a few short weeks is fundamentally unfair to the democratic process. It is unfair to the people of this province because their attention to these matters is extremely important.

Mrs Marland: In rising today to speak to Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act, the irony is that the name on this bill is "The Hon R. Grier, Minister responsible for the Office for the Greater Toronto Area. The irony is that for five years I stood in this House and discussed this same subject we are discussing today, when this member whose name is on this bill, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, agreed totally with my comments. That person, who is now the Minister of the Environment and the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, was the Environment critic for the New Democratic Party in opposition.

1630

Of course one would think that the Environment critic, if she ever had the opportunity of becoming the Minister of the Environment, would cherish that opportunity, would even possibly cherish the trust and the faith that were handed to her by that opportunity in that particular portfolio. The travesty in this case is that all those ideals and all those beliefs that the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore stood for suddenly dissolved into thin air when she was given the portfolio in the cabinet of this socialist government, whereby she is now responsible for the area that she had pledged, I may say, not just the five years before that, but many years before that.

I am quite convinced that the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore is a committed environmentalist, to the degree that I recall very clearly, and I think perhaps at this moment in this House -- well, there is one cabinet minister in this House --

Hon Mrs Boyd: Three.

An hon member: Five.

Mrs Marland: It is almost amusing how sensitive they are. These seals do not let you finish a sentence. What I was going to say is that there is one cabinet minister in this House, the member for Lake Nipigon, who was in this House when the Minister of the Environment was a committed environmentalist.

I happen to have known the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore when she was in municipal politics, and she has a very fine record as a municipal politician serving the public. There is no question about her record to the public as a member of a municipal government, namely, on the council for Etobicoke.

This member whose name is on this bill before us today as the person responsible for the bill is the same person who -- I could actually pull, not out of the current Hansards but out of our records, another bill that bears this member's name as the person responsible for that bill. That was when the Minister of the Environment, as a private member, brought forward her environmental bill of rights.

She stood for everything, in terms of the preservation of the environment, I stood for. I certainly cannot believe that member has been so changed by the cloak of power that now surrounds her because she is in the cabinet that she is willing to give up all the goals, both personal and otherwise, she had for the protection of the environment. Yet as minister responsible for the office for the greater Toronto area, her name on this bill unfortunately confirms my worst fears.

I suppose she had a choice when the recommendations for drafting the contents of this bill came forward. I suppose she had a choice of saying, "The thrust and direction of this bill are so contrary to what I believe about the preservation of the environment in this province that I will not allow my name to stand as the minister responsible for this bill." I suppose she had that choice. I suppose as Minister of the Environment, which is the other hat she wears, she could have gone to the Premier and said, "Mr Premier, I've really considered this responsibility very seriously, and in light of my years and years of commitment in public service to the preservation of the environment, I feel I cannot go forward with this piece of legislation with my name on it."

That also brings us to the fact that with Bill 143, while under the name of the minister responsible for the office of the greater Toronto area, we recognize there is a conflict for that member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore who is also the minister responsible for the environment. The management of waste in this province is a major responsibility for the Minister of the Environment. It is rather ironic, I suppose, that both ministries are not on this bill, because it is an act respecting the management of waste -- where? in the greater Toronto area -- but it is also an act to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

Mr Tilson: It covers the entire province.

Mrs Marland: It covers the entire province, as the member for Dufferin-Peel just said.

Is it not interesting that the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area can bring forth a bill into this House that amends the Environmental Protection Act? Is this not something? I wonder how many other bills can be brought into this House and amended by somebody who is not the minister. It is very significant that it is not the Minister of the Environment is bringing an act into this House to amend the Environmental Protection Act, but the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area.

As my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel has said, the implications of Bill 143 are not just for those municipalities within the greater Toronto area. Certainly it is for them, but it is not solely and exclusively for just those municipalities. It is a significant piece of legislation which sets forth the policies and direction of this socialist government for the entire province for all the years to come in dealing with the subject of waste management. I do not believe there is anyone in this House who knows what is going on who could deny the significance and challenge of waste management today in this province.

1640

It really is a travesty of justice that people in this province can be told something, not just by one person but by a number of people on a campaign trail, that they can be promised the same thing over and over again by the same people while they are campaigning for their votes, and yet when those people are given their support by their votes, those same people who have made those promises turn around and totally turn their backs on the people whose trust they have been given.

The trust of a great number of people in this province was given to an individual in this House who was elected to represent York South. I do not suppose that if you were to ask the member for York South directly, he would tell you that he ever really anticipated becoming Premier when he was elected leader of his party. It is wonderful for him personally that this became an achievement in his political career. It is wonderful that to the surprise of everyone, and certainly no less to the members of the New Democratic Party, the member for York South, as leader of their party, became Premier.

But it is not wonderful for the people who heard the member for York South, when he was just the Leader of the Opposition in Ontario and not yet the Premier, promise time and time again that there would be no expansions to existing landfill sites without full environmental assessment, none; not, "Just some," not, "Perhaps," not, "Maybe we'll wait and see," but no expansions.

He did not say that in his office in Toronto. He did not say it on some street corner in his riding in Toronto. He went out to the sites. He stood on the sites with his arms out to embrace the whole sensation of the feeling that the people who were there with him wanted him to embrace their concern, their worry, their fear, their anxiety that those landfill sites might be expanded. He embraced those concerns. He took them to himself. He brought them into himself as his responsibility and he pledged that there would be no expansions without full environmental assessment.

Now we know that the rest is, tragically, history for this province, history that we will not be able to turn back or recall once Bill 143 is passed, history, I would say to the members opposite, that I would not want to have on my record of voting in this Legislature.

Not one member of the Progressive Conservative caucus in this Legislature is going to vote in favour of this bill. Not one of us in the Progressive Conservative caucus wants to be associated with a piece of legislation that is so regressive in terms of the rights of people and the preservation of the environment.

The one good thing is that the record of every one of these socialist government members who stand to vote in favour of this bill will stand for ever. It will stand for them when their remains have long turned to dust. The record will still be there. They will have to face their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

I do not want to be in that group. I do not want to be there when my yet-to-be-born grandchildren and great-grandchildren might turn around and say to me, "Grandmother, what did you do to help preserve the environment in the future of Ontario?" or, "Great-grandmother, did you do anything about fighting against the direction in which this kind of legislation took this province?" I want to be able to look in the mirror. I want to be able to face my children, my grandchildren and great-grandchildren and say to them, "We are all aware of how much damage mankind has done in this world to the environment and we don't want to be part of it any more."

I really thought that was what the Environmental Protection Act and the Environmental Assessment Act were all about. I thought that was why we passed those acts 20 years ago. I thought finally the people in this province had brought their legislators to the point where they understood that we only have one go at this, one opportunity to preserve the environment.

Sadly, with this government that is not the case. This government said: "We care about everybody. We care about the littlest guy and we care about this person who has all these problems, this person who doesn't have opportunities. We care about everything and we're the only people who ever cared about the environment." That is what this government always said in opposition.

What this government does not realize, however, is that through Bill 143 it is enshrining a truth, and the truth is that it does not care about the environment and it does not care about the basic rights of individuals.

We also have to talk a little bit about the fact that this government has a Premier who elects not to meet with the mayor of the ninth largest city in Canada.

1650

Whether or not we want to meet with people, frankly, as elected representatives of people, it is not something that is our choice. What is our choice is when we decide to run for public office, but once we have run for public office and have been successfully elected, we do not have a choice about meeting with people who want to meet with us to discuss serious and relevant matters. I am talking about anybody in this House and I am talking about anybody in our ridings, but in this case I am talking about the Premier of the province and the mayor of the city of Mississauga.

The city of Mississauga has 460,000 people, so when Mayor Hazel McCallion asks for a meeting with the Premier and the Premier brushes her off and says, "No, you will meet with my Minister of the Environment, my minister of the greater Toronto area or my Minister of Municipal Affairs; I will not meet with you," I think that is the height of arrogance.

Even if this Premier knows he is not going to agree with anything Mayor McCallion says, even if this Premier knows he cannot give her the answers she wants, even if this Premier for whatever other reasons my imagination cannot even lead me to -- I cannot think of any reasonable explanation why this Premier would not want to meet with Mayor Hazel McCallion. But in any case, for a number of months now the mayor of the city of Mississauga, the person elected to represent 460,000 people in the city of Mississauga, has not been able to get a meeting with the Premier to discuss the most grave and urgent crisis of waste management in her municipality and in the region of Peel.

Can members believe that the Premier would put himself in that position? I am sure there were a few of those 460,000 people in the city of Mississauga who voted NDP in the last election. I am quite sure there will perhaps be a few who will consider voting NDP in the next election, but I can assure members that if the mayor of Mississauga has anything to do with it there will be fewer than there might have been otherwise, had this Premier granted the courtesy of a meeting with the mayor.

I respect the fact that we all come into this chamber with different views on different subjects. That is a given. That is what the parliamentary procedure is about. We do not all come from the same experiential base. We do not all come from the same philosophies, thank goodness, but we should all come from the same point of common courtesy and we should all come from the same point of common respect. I suggest that the fact the Premier of this province has refused to meet with the mayor of the city of Mississauga for this number of months shows a total lack of respect for her office as mayor of that city and is a very bad reflection on his office as Premier of this province.

If somebody should, for one fleeting moment, think, "Perhaps the Premier has been busy," and the Premier has said, "Speak to my other ministers," the mayor has met with the other ministers. It is not that the mayor said: "No, I don't want to meet with the Minister of the Environment. I will not meet with the Minister of Municipal Affairs." The mayor has met with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of the Environment. The mayor has still asked for a meeting with the Premier.

If we think that perhaps the Premier has been too busy and does not have time to meet with Mayor Hazel McCallion to discuss the most important, critical matter, and potentially one of the most expensive matters this province is going to have to deal with, waste management, if we think for a moment that this was a possibility, let me tell the members that this same Premier has had time to go to the city of Mississauga and cut ribbons.

I do not know the number of times in the period of months that the mayor has been waiting for this meeting because I do not keep track of the itinerary of this Premier, but I know the mayor and the Premier have sat at the same head table on more than one occasion at a function to which he has been invited, as I say, cutting ribbons, official openings, that kind of stuff. What is more important to the people of this province, cutting ribbons or the Premier facing his responsibility as Premier and solving the crisis of waste management?

This Premier chooses to ignore Mayor Hazel McCallion. He chooses to ignore his responsibility as Premier of this province to meet with a mayor of a municipality. I do not care, really, whether the municipality is large or small. I simply say that to hide in his offices or have time to go all over the world -- I am not sure. I know he has been to Paris and London. Where else has He been lately?

Mr Tilson: Who knows? We have lost track.

Mrs Marland: We know this Premier has become a globe-trotter in the last few months. He turns his back on the crises in this province. I am not talking about the recession. That is not on the bill so I am not going to speak about the fact that he turns his back on the recession or job losses, the fact that they think the increase to those people in social services and the people requiring welfare support are only inclined to, what is it, a 2.3% increase? They gave their staff 6.7% or whatever those figures are. They are only figures, but the figures indicate an inequity. The fact that he does all that is on his back, on his shoulders. It is not on mine. If he has time -- this is the point I am making -- to do all those other things and he cannot set the priority of a meeting with the mayor of Mississauga to discuss the crisis of waste management, then it is just a further demonstration of arrogance to the people of this province and certainly a demonstration of ignorance towards the mayor of Mississauga.

The other thing is that if we are talking about what has happened here, we are talking about a Minister of the Environment who has totally shed all those garments she wore in supporting the cause of the preservation of environment for this new cloak of indifference. But at the same time, it has taken a year to have this bill come through. Do members realize that today is December 9? Do they realize how long this socialist government has been in office? I think there are three socialist governments in the world now, and all three socialist governments in the world now are in Canada. Whoopee, is that not exciting? Unfortunately the worst part is that one of the three socialist governments in Canada is in the largest-populated province, Ontario. I think the cabinet was sworn into office on October 1 last year. Certainly the election was on September 6 last year. Here we are on December 9.

1700

I realize that of the 74 socialist government members we have today, only about 14 of them were in the House before, so I do not expect the people in the House today to understand at all what I am talking about. For the most part, when most of them stand up on points of order and so forth, they are not points of order. Even after 15 or 16 months they still do not understand what our routine proceedings are. They do not even understand the orders of the House or how meetings are conducted, so I do not expect them to understand what I am going to say now.

When they became the government, in my own experience I had been here five and a half years at that time. For five and a half years I had sat on this side of the House and listened to the New Democratic Party in opposition attack the government of the day because of its inaction in dealing with the waste management crisis in Ontario. We listened to all their concerns about any possible expansion of existing landfill sites in order to resolve the capacity crisis. Then they suddenly became the government and we thought: "They know what the problems are. Now they are the government, we'll get a piece of legislation very quickly and get this problem resolved." Well, we did not get a piece of legislation very quickly, and then when we got it, it was Bill 143.

I would be embarrassed to be part of Bill 143. It is not as though Bill 143 has come to us so quickly so they can say: "We're going to remedy the situation, so we've brought you this bill and we'll bring in some other bills later that will amend it and perhaps make it better." It has taken them 15 months to bring into this House a piece of garbage -- I apologize for the ironic pun -- that does not even deal with the garbage, a whole year of delay.

Let me talk a little bit about what this delay means. Sometimes we can think there are some humorous parts to our responsibilities here in this Legislature, but for the most part most of us treat our responsibilities very seriously. In the case of the expansion of the Britannia landfill site, I would like to tell the honourable members what is involved.

I am going to tread on the toes, for a moment, of my colleagues in the Liberal caucus because they were the former government. They were the former government for five years, not without the help of these guys though, I must say. We all remember what happened that fateful summer of 1985 when we were the government. I actually sat on the government side of the House for six weeks, as I recall. In fact, the motion I moved was the motion approving the throne speech. I went down in history as moving the motion that was voted upon that defeated the Conservative Party after 42 years in office. It is not something in Hansard I would have wished to have read that way, but that is how history evolved.

Following that defeat of our government in June 1985 we had this accord where the two opposition parties decided, because together they had more seats than we did, that they would choose between them who would be the government. Not much of a choice, I suppose, because obviously the Liberals had more seats than did the NDP, so the Liberals had to become the government through the signing of this accord or this coalition.

Then we had five years of the Liberal government. In the five years of that Liberal government we never did have a new landfill site established in Ontario. But in the meantime, while the Liberal government was doing its thing, the region of Peel was certainly doing its. The region of Peel councillors were being very responsible. The regional municipality of Peel was going through its own site selection.

There is a unique situation in Peel. There are three municipalities that make up the region of Peel: Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon. There is an agreement in the region of Peel that the location of the landfill site will rotate within those municipalities. Caledon had one, Mississauga now has one and the next one is Brampton's turn. So the site selection was going ahead in the region of Peel for the next site in Brampton. In fact, as of today it is not an exaggeration to say that over $5 million have been spent by the taxpayers of Peel to establish a new landfill site -- not $1 million, $5 million.

At one point during that site selection, which is now all going to you-know-where in a handbasket with this Bill 143, one of the sites was owned by a company called Ronto Development Corp. If members really want the interesting part of this story they would have to look up who one of the major owners of Ronto was at this period. Peel had narrowed it down to this particular site and everybody was in agreement more or less. There were certainly some concerns by the city of Brampton on the elimination process of the site and the actual location of it and so forth, but for the most part Peel regional councillors had agreed.

This site was going forward to the environmental assessment hearing -- not, I may say, under the Environmental Protection Act, but under the Environmental Assessment Act. The people in that community who might have been concerned about whether this site in Brampton was suitable did not have to be concerned, because at least they knew it was going to have a full public assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act.

Do members know what happened? At the midnight hour, we got the notice of an order from the then Minister of the Environment, the member for St Catharines, who was in the House here a moment ago. He issued a notice of order to stop that site selection going to the environmental assessment hearing. He put the whole train that was going down the track to solve the problems of waste management in Peel on hold. Suddenly Peel was brought to a total stop. The reason I say it is interesting is that we have always wondered if it was a coincidence that the site was owned by Ronto Development Corp. That would be something only the former Minister of the Environment, the member for St Catharines, could answer. I have never actually asked him that.

1710

In any case, here is an example of a regional municipality in Ontario doing what it is supposed to do, looking after its own garbage. There was nothing in the books anywhere in this Legislature in those days that said the province was responsible for garbage. The regional municipalities were responsible for garbage. The region of Peel was taking its responsibility very seriously, I suggest. If you are spending $5 million of taxpayers' money, I think you are taking the responsibility pretty seriously.

Interjection.

Mrs Marland: I have just received a note from my House leader, and I always do what my House leader tells me. I do not want to disappoint the members opposite, but the note does not tell me to sit down.

Here we were in Peel assuming the responsibility that we needed to assume, or that they needed to assume as regional councillors. I was part of that process at the beginning back in 1983 and 1984, but from 1985 on, when I was here, the region of Peel was still going forward and doing what it was supposed to do.

Now the Liberals say: "No, you can't proceed to an environmental assessment hearing on that site. You've got to go back and re-evaluate all the other sites." Members do not need the details of that, but in any case that is what happened. Peel was stopped.

In the meantime, the active site, which is Britannia, of course is filling up. The other aspect of this that is very significant is that there is an agreement between the city of Mississauga and the area land owners around the Britannia landfill site that the site would close in 1991. We are standing here on December 9, 1991. The site is still open. The site has already had one extension to August 1992.

That agreement between the region of Peel, the city of Mississauga and the property owners neighbouring the Britannia landfill site was not just an internal document. It was not something where a few pals got together and on the back of a serviette said: "If you let us open this landfill site, it'll be open for only 12 years. We promise you it'll be open for only 12 years. Then it'll be full and then it'll be closed. We'll be quite happy to make sure it doesn't go on beyond 12 years."

It was not a casual agreement, Mr Speaker. It was a written contract. Furthermore, it was confirmed by the Ontario Municipal Board. There may be some members in this House who have not worked with the Ontario Municipal Board and do not fully understand that it is a quasi-judicial body. But when a document is confirmed by the OMB, we would always have thought it was enshrined and safe. I do not know of OMB documents similar to this one that have been reopened and the signatories to them then betrayed by a further piece of legislation. I do not know of a situation like that. I certainly know the people who signed that document on behalf of the region of Peel and the city of Mississauga signed it in good faith with the people who live around that site.

The funny thing about landfill sites is that I do not think we would have nearly the problem we have siting them if we could say to people, "Yes, you're going to have a landfill site here beside you, but it's only going to be open for so many years and then it's going to be closed, and then you won't have the trucks going up and down past your streets and past your schools." It could work if we could say to the public once and for all, "We all generate garbage so we all have to share in the solution of what to do with garbage." There is no question that every citizen in Ontario knows he or she generates garbage. Everybody who is responsible is willing to take his or her share.

But the city of Mississauga has taken its share. A landfill site that was to be open for 12 years was open and has already had one expansion. Now we come along with this bill and we say to those people in Mississauga: "I'm sorry, but that agreement that was confirmed by the Ontario Municipal Board is worthless. I'm sorry, but you know, we've got a garbage crisis in Ontario today and we can't afford the time to give you to go through an environmental assessment to find another site. We've got to expand your site; we've got to expand Britannia."

That is what Bill 143 says. That is what it says to the people in the city of Mississauga who live adjacent to this landfill site. It says it does not matter what went before. But worse than that, it not only says it to the people in the city of Mississauga; it says it to the whole province. This act amends the Environmental Protection Act. This act says it is okay for Big Brother government to come in with its big claws and do whatever it wants to do. They can claw out existing agreements. They can ignore whatever has gone before. This is no gentleman's game. This in fact is a total sham. This piece of legislation takes away the rights of individuals, it takes away the rights of municipalities and it totally nullifies pre-existing agreements. This piece of legislation is unbelievable.

In the case of Peel, the irony even deepens. What this legislation does is, after it takes away the authority for waste management from Peel -- and of course the other municipalities, but I was speaking about Peel -- this Big Brother socialist government comes in with its big claws and says to the municipalities in this province, "Okay, we are here now. We are going to control everything that goes on in these municipalities. We have the power. Okay? We have the power."

1720

This bill says: "It doesn't matter about any pre-existing agreements. It doesn't matter about the Environmental Assessment Act. It doesn't matter about the Environmental Protection Act. It doesn't matter about any of the previous acts, the Planning Act, the Municipal Act. It doesn't matter about any of those acts." This bill will have precedence. This bill will be the big claws that come in and say, "Okay, we are in control."

That is one thing it does. But the irony is, after they come into the municipalities and strip them of the power, remove them totally from the control of the management of waste in those municipalities, then they turn around and say: "We've done that. Here's the bill. We'll tell you what you can do, we'll tell you what you can't do, we'll tell you what you will do, but we won't pay for it."

What this legislation says to the municipalities is: "We're the boss. That's the way it's going to be now in our new Ontario, our new Russia-with-love, under our socialist government." To tell the truth, I think you are probably better off in Russia today than you are in Ontario. At least --

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: Oh, I am glad I am getting a reaction. Come on. I think it is wonderful. Not only are the government members in the House, but they are awake. It is wonderful to hear them, I say to the government members. It is great. As soon as they hear the truth, they react.

Is that not great? I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I do not want you to stop the interjections. I am actually grateful for them because it shows two things. It shows, one, that they are awake. Second, it shows that when you say something that is the truth. they cannot take it. They cannot take the truth.

The fact is that the people of Ontario really do not need me to tell them. The people of Ontario know full well what is going on with this socialist government. They also know what is going on in the eastern European countries and they know that the people in Russia-with-love, I say, are probably going to be better off in the long run, because this government continues to put industry, commerce and business out of this province.

Job losses, people who are hungry, all of these issues, how are we dealing with them? The Premier is off in France, drinking wine, turning his back on the people of this province. We can tell by the number of ministers that are in the House today.

If they want to prattle about hearing the truth, I can prattle right back with them. If they cannot take it, they should not vote for Bill 143. They should stand up and believe in the act that this bill takes precedence over. They should think about what the Planning Act means in this province, if any of them might know anything about it, about what the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act mean.

Mr White: It looks like your party has abandoned you, Margaret.

Mrs Marland: I say to the member for Durham West this is the bill that before he was elected he would have shuddered to think about. He is here because he gained some respect and notoriety, I guess, from the people because he was concerned about a landfill site. Yet I am quite sure this member is going to stand up -- I cannot presume -- I might guess he is going to stand up and vote in favour of his government's bill.

He is concerned right now because of the things I am saying. He along with the other members just had this wonderful outburst which stirred everybody up. It is 5:30 in the afternoon and catnaps are finished. It stirs everybody up to say, "Oh, no, you're wrong, you're wrong." We will see who is wrong about this legislation. We will see the ramifications of this legislation. It will not be on my voting record and it will not be on the voting record of any one of the people in the Progressive Conservative caucus.

I will tell members what will be on record tragically. This socialist government, as I have said, that takes away the powers --

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: Are interjections really in order, Mr Speaker?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. Interjections of course are not in order. It would be appreciated if the honourable member for Mississauga South would address her comments to the Chair and the people who have interjections can participate in the debate when their turn comes up.

Mrs Marland: When this socialist government strips away the powers of the municipalities in terms of waste management and then turns around and hands them the bill and says, "I'm sorry, this is what you have to pay to do what I'm telling you to do," it is going to be very significant.

I would like to talk about something that is not directly a bill to the municipality but is very much directly a bill to the people within the municipality. I would like to tell members what happens when the Britannia landfill site is expanded. That is one thing. I would also like to tell them what happens between now and then and what has happened for this whole past year since this government froze the land development around the Britannia landfill site.

First, the number of acres around the Britannia landfill site which have been frozen are approximately 1,200; not 12, not 120, but 1,200 acres. Mr Speaker, I know with the experience you have personally with land management you probably know better than anyone who is in the House right now what a volume of land 1,200 acres is. I am quite sure most of the members in this House might be able to imagine what 1,200 acres is like. But 1,200 acres in the city of Mississauga, 1,200 acres right in the core of this greater Toronto area are frozen at a time when people are living on top of each other because we have no property for development. These 1,200 acres are frozen.

At a time when we are talking about the shortage of housing, this is where the numbers become very significant. The total number of housing units on hold is 5,000. There are 5,000 housing units that could be built on this acreage but have not been able to be built because this socialist government has frozen the land.

1730

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: As the member for Mississauga North says, is it not significant that the members opposite, and I particularly hear the member for Durham West and the member for Durham-York, are exchanging their brilliance in comments and laughter at a time when we are discussing something as significant as 5,000 housing units on hold?

But now I come to what I think perhaps some of these members might be interested in, because it seems that no matter what we get up in this House and discuss, no matter what subject it is, all we hear from them is: "We must save the workers. We've got to save the jobs. Whatever we do, we've got keep people working." That is what they say. Mind you, they do not bring in any policies, business incentives or encouragement to industry to make that happen. They just bring in proposed labour law reforms that drive industry and commerce and business out of our province. But I am telling you what they say, Mr Speaker, so we get this picture very clear. The thing is that all they want to do is interject because they do not want to hear what is being said.

Under Bill 143, we have 1,200 acres surrounding the Britannia landfill site on hold, 5,000 housing units not being built and -- the point that I think might be of some interest to these people who say, "Save the workers, save the jobs" -- the total employment lost or delayed is more than 10,000 person-hours.

Perhaps the members who are listening do not care about those 10,000 person-hours. I can tell members that the member for Nipissing, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, cares a lot about those 10,000 person-hours that are lost. He cares a lot about the jobs.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. The honourable member for Mississauga South has the floor. You will have your turn to participate in the debate immediately upon the member for Mississauga South completing her remarks.

Mrs Marland: We in the Progressive Conservative Party care about keeping people working in this province. We care about every job opportunity that is lost in this province because of actions by this government. If this government says one thing out of one side of its mouth and something else out of the other side of its mouth, that is on its shoulders. It will be on their voting record. It will be there for the people of this province to clearly understand come the next election.

What will be on our record is what I am saying this afternoon, which is that we are concerned that 1,200 acres of land are being frozen around the Britannia landfill site while this government waffles back and forth about where it is going to put the garbage.

I say to the members opposite who are asking where Mississauga is going to put its garbage, the city of Mississauga had a site; indeed the region of Peel, if it had been left alone doing its own business, which it was doing. Today, as I stand in this House, I tell members that the responsibility for the management of waste in this province is still on the shoulders of the regional municipalities. Probably these members do not even know that. Today the people who live in Peel are in --

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I do think they are being a little unfair.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. The honourable member for Mississauga South still has the floor.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. This is not question and response time; it is debate.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. The honourable member for Mississauga South has the floor. Rotation will continue and participation can then be undertaken. Thank you.

Mrs Marland: Ten thousand person-hours is a great number of jobs; $5 million is a phenomenal amount of money, even to this government with its $10-billion debt. I suggest that even they might understand $5 million. Five million dollars is what the people of Peel who pay property taxes have already paid to get to the approval of a new landfill site in Peel. We have taken $5 million out of the pockets of the people who pay property tax in Peel with the promise that we would have our own landfill site. That is all out the window.

While it is out the window and while this government has been in its big black hole of indecision for the 16 months it has been the government, where it has not done anything about waste management until it brought in this Bill 143 that we are debating today, it is not only costing the region of Peel continued thousands of dollars, but the options about what we get to do with our garbage in Peel are running out. At the same time, we are not building 5,000 housing units when we need housing; we are not allowing to provide for the employment involving 10,000 person-hours. If the members opposite do not care about jobs and they think it is okay to freeze land around the landfill site --

Mr Jamison: Speak on the bill.

Mrs Marland: It is funny; they do not understand, Mr Speaker. When they say, "Speak on the bill," that is the thing that makes me sickest of all. When the members of the government say in this House, "Speak on the bill," I say to them they do not have a clue what is in this bill. If they did, they would know that I am speaking on this bill. If they understood what this piece of legislation says and the implications of this legislation through all 35 sections of it -- I say to them, "Read the bill." If they say to me, "Speak on it," I say to them to read it, to recognize what the implications of this bill are.

The 10,000 person-hours that have been lost have been lost this year. Those contractors, builders, bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, you name it, those people have not worked this whole year because the government has held up the land by freezing it around the Britannia landfill site in Peel for this past year. If members opposite do not care about them, I am just saying we care about them. We care about those jobs that have been lost.

1740

I will tell members one thing, finally, about the freezing of this 1,200 acres around the landfill site while this government fiddles away the months and months and months. The information I have says at least 25% of that development was already committed and would have been taking place even in the current recession. Even in the current recession, I say to members, we could have had people building those houses which would have given those people jobs, and equally important we would have had people able to move into houses because they had been built and were available.

I have a letter here on the letterhead of the regional municipality of Peel and it is over the signature of the regional solicitor, whose name is R. Kent Gillespie. The date of the letter is just over one week ago; it is 28 November 1991. I will read the letter because the implications are very grave for the region of Peel and the people who live there. it pertains totally to Bill 143. The letter is to Mayor Hazel McCallion.

"Dear Mayor McCallion:

"The following is an overview of Bill 143, the proposed Waste Management Act, 1991.

"Background: Bill 143, the Waste Management Act, 1991, received first reading in the provincial Legislature on October 24, 1991, and is in the process of receiving second reading.

"The bill deals with the following subject matter: the Interim Waste Authority Ltd, waste disposal sites, long-term site search by the Interim Waste Authority, implementation of the minister's report under section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act, amendments to the Environmental Protection Act.

"Highlights of Bill 143: The comments that follow highlight the provisions of the bill in order of the abovenoted subject matter.

"The Interim Waste Authority and long-term waste disposal sites: Parts I and II of the bill provide a statutory framework to allow for the activities and environmental assessments in relation to the long-term waste disposal sites as undertakings of the Interim Waste Authority. The legislation is retroactive in respect of prior work of the IWA. The undertaking of the IWA in relation to the regional municipality of Peel is defined as 'one landfill site located in Peel, having as its primary function the disposal of waste over a period of at least 20 years.' The IWA is given the status of a crown agent and is given the power to expropriate."

Let's just talk about this for a moment: "having as its primary function the disposal of waste over a period of at least 20 years." What municipality, what community, what area within a community is going to want to have a landfill site that is described as "its primary function the disposal of waste over a period of at least 20 years"?

That is what I was saying before about the Britannia landfill site. There was a contract that the site would be open for 12 years.

If this government really cared about people, it would not be coming in here with a proposal to have a landfill site for "at least 20 years." Who wants to be next to a landfill site for 20 years? Nobody does. If this government really cared about people, it would make the decision that in giving direction to the Interim Waste Authority there would be consideration to have landfill sites established for a period of, say, 10 years, maybe even eight.

I realize the acquisition of land is very expensive, but I also realize that if we developed a policy where there was an equity of sharing the responsibility for where waste goes and for who has to tolerate the intrusion into their community of the operation of that landfill site, it is possible we would be able to convince people more readily to accept a new landfill site in their backyard as long as it was established through a complete environmental assessment that the backyard -- I am using that just as a description -- the location was environmentally safe, that the adjacent properties would not be at risk, and that the pleasure of living in that community would not be detracted from, because it would be a well-managed site and they would know the transportation of the waste would be limited to certain roads, possibly major arterial. I do not need to go into the details.

In any case, if we as people responsible for deciding where landfill sites should go said: "Okay, we all generate waste. We all have to take our turn. We are all responsible for the disposal of waste but we are going to do this equitably. We are going to put a landfill site here. It is going to be environmentally assessed and it is only going to operate for eight years, maybe even six" -- I do not know what is feasible. I am not the Minister of the Environment. I have not had the opportunity yet to serve as a minister of the crown. I say "yet" because I am sure there will be some members in our caucus who will have that opportunity after the next election. Because I am not on the inside looking at the books, I simply do not know what length of time is feasible to operate a landfill site. I do know, however, that the region of Peel must have been a feasible project and it was only 12 years.

Here we have a government saying to this waste authority it has established that the new landfill site would be responsible for the disposal of waste for a period of at least 20 years. Is that not something? It is called the Interim Waste Authority -- "interim" being the key word -- and it is told that the landfill site in Peel will be responsible for waste for 20 years. If somebody could tell me that 20 years is interim, I would be very interested. I would say that three or four years might be interim, but I do not think a 20-year site can be described as interim.

I think it is unfair to establish the Interim Waste Authority, which is the new crown agency of the government. The government could not make any decisions about the management of waste. That was another thing. How long did it take them before they established the Interim Waste Authority? It seems to me it was something like 10 months. I cannot remember the date the authority was established. It was announced in the throne speech; I do remember that. It was announced in the throne speech a year ago but it only came to fruition this summer. I know; I was at the first meeting the Interim Waste Authority held, the first public meeting it held in Mississauga. I was there with half a dozen people.

1750

Here we have an Interim Waste Authority that is responsible for establishing these new landfill sites. They are told the landfill sites have to last for 20 years. You would have to be Alice in Wonderland if you believe anybody is going to say with open arms: "Come and put your interim landfill site in my backyard. I know it's going to be there for 20 years. I'm going to love it. For 20 years I'm going to have it in my community." That is not being realistic.

If this government was sincere in resolving the waste management crisis in this province, it would start looking at justice. They would start trying to develop ideas and policies that would work. They would not start by saying all the new interim landfill sites are going to be for 20 years. I wonder how many years the long-term landfill sites are going to be. If an interim site is 20 years, perhaps a long-term site would be 40 years; it might be 50 years. Heavens, what a thought. Maybe by then we will be back to another socialist government in Ontario. It might be long enough that we might have come full circle again. In any case, what kind of government gives an authority that kind of direction, an interim site of 20 years?

If this government would realize that the people in this province are just as bright or brighter than it is and treat them with the kind of respect the people of Ontario should be treated with, it might say to them: "We're going to site landfill sites. We have to put them somewhere. We won't have the trucks rolling past your door for 20 years. We'll make it reasonable -- six, eight, 10 or whatever it is that is the shortest period of time to make it economically feasible." That should be the criteria, not: "Gosh, we've finally got a site. We're going to keep it open for 20 years and call it an interim site." An interim site should be an interim site, and it is not 20 years.

This is the other thing this letter from the solicitor at the region of Peel says: "The Interim Waste Authority is given the status of a crown agent and is given the power to expropriate." Let's talk about expropriation. Do members know who pays when the Interim Waste Authority expropriates land? I bet there is not one person sitting opposite right now who can answer that question. The reason I know there is not a person opposite who can answer that question right now is because the people opposite are the people who have been saying to me for the last hour and a half, "Speak on the bill." But they do not even know what the bill says so they do not know whether I am speaking on it. The fact is that if they did know what was in this bill -- this draconian, regressive legislation -- they would not say, "Speak on it"; they would know I was speaking on it.

I say to them, for their pleasure, do they know, when the Interim Waste Authority expropriates land for a landfill site, who pays for it? Do they know who pays for the expropriation? Suddenly we are all busy signing our Christmas cards. They do not have the answer, but I will tell them. It is the same people from whom the powers are stripped to manage waste. It is the same people who, as I said earlier, are handed the bill for everything to do with that landfill site selection and management.

It is a funny thing. The Interim Waste Authority was established, I think, in June or July, finally.

Mr Stockwell: Yes.

Mrs Marland: It was announced in the throne speech -- the member for Etobicoke West confirms that for me -- last year, but it took another nine months to become a reality. When it became a reality, the Interim Waste Authority was given $17 million to help resolve the problem of landfill sites in the greater Toronto area.

Do members know how it works? They go to the municipality and they do the work out of this $17-million pot they have been given by the Treasury, which, I hasten to add, the people in the greater Toronto area have already contributed to. They use that money for soil tests and lots of consultants. In the region of Peel, as I said, we have already spent $5 million on consultants and other associated costs of selecting a landfill site. But now the Interim Waste Authority is going to come in, hire more consultants and do more work on researching where would be a suitable landfill site. Then they are going to turn around and bill the people in that municipality.

Talk about paying through the nose. The people in this province are paying through the nose twice. The people in the region of Peel, who have paid $5 million, are now going to be billed again for the next step in this regressive process. The Big Brother socialist government in Ontario does not leave a municipality alone to resolve its own problems, but comes in and takes over and says: "That's okay. We can bill the residents of Peel again."

What do they think the residents of Peel have, some kind of bottomless pit where all we want to do through our property taxes is pay and pay and pay, and we still do not have a garbage site; we still do not have a new landfill site? How long can this go on?

The member for Oakville South is not in the House at the moment, but he is a representative of a municipality within the regional municipality of Halton. I know they spent something like $10 million or $12 million before they got their new landfill site. In fact, they spent $8 million or $9 million alone shipping it to Niagara Falls, New York, to be incinerated. Perish the thought: incinerating their garbage in Niagara Falls, New York, so it could blow back over southern Ontario. But they did not have a choice. I say that with respect to the regional councillors of Halton. They did not have a choice, but those regional municipality residents in Halton paid a very dear penny of their property taxes for this big void, this big vacuum in waste management. The worst of it is that we have paid more than half of that now in Peel, and under this legislation we are going to be billed all over again for it.

[Report continues in volume B]