Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1335.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): The government's changes to out-of-country health care treatment are having a negative impact on the access to computerized axial tomography scan services in northwestern Ontario. Prior to these changes, residents of this area who needed these services went to Winnipeg, Thunder Bay or International Falls in the United States, depending on proximity, waiting times and degree of urgency.

Under the old system, for those who went to the United States for CAT scans, OHIP paid 75% of the cost while the International Falls Hospital waived the remaining 25%. This was much cheaper than having to send patients to Winnipeg or Thunder Bay. Now area residents must apply for out-of-country treatment benefits that take weeks to receive and do not come close to covering the hospital fees.

Access to elective CAT scans at McKellar General Hospital in Thunder Bay is limited to a long waiting period of some 100 to 270 days compared to the provincial average of 20 to 30 days. These waiting times will increase due to the present changes. This all adds up to reduced access.

If we are to believe that the goals of the Ministry of Health are to focus on preventive medicine and to reduce the cost of health care delivery in this province, improved access to CAT scans in northwestern Ontario will certainly assist these goals. It will cut down on the long waiting period and allow for early diagnosis. It will also cut costs by reducing dependency on the northern health travel grant program.

The NDP government's out-of-country health care policy does not work in northwestern Ontario. It is time this government sat down and actually listened to health care professionals at the local level to address local concerns. The Kenora-Rainy River District Health Council from that part of the province has requested that all concerned parties meet to discuss the problem of access to CAT scan services, and I strongly encourage the Minister of Health to take an active interest in this request.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to point out to members of the Legislature today a serious concern I have regarding the Minister of Education's conduct in relation to how he dealt with the transfer payments to the boards of education in my riding of Dufferin-Peel.

In my riding, the Dufferin County Board of Education has had to raise property taxes 5.57% to cover the cost of this government's downloading. That 5.57% is an increase to the very same taxpayer whom the NDP is trying to protect by offering transfer payments of 1%, 2% and 2%. For the Peel Board of Education, this same downloading has meant a decrease of 4% in transfer payments, a decrease the property owner will have to make up.

This government preaches restraint and fiscal responsibility, but in fact what it is doing is making someone else deal with the problem. When is this minister going to learn that the same taxpayer he is trying to protect with 1%, 2% and 2% transfer payments is the taxpayer who is being hit with mill rate increases as high as 14%?

The Minister of Education preaches fine, unique solutions. Let me tell you what some of those solutions have been: Teachers have been laid off; no junior kindergarten; reduction of special and alternative programs; programs being frozen or cut. What you have done, Mr Minister, is you've taken our education back in time and caused irreparable harm to our education system. You've taken an education system that was one of the best in the world to a level that is deplorable and an embarrassment.

In 1992, the provincial government will spend $6.4 billion on welfare and only $4.9 billion on education. You don't need to tell us where your priorities lie. We already know, and our children are suffering because of it.

FOOD DRIVE

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): First of all, I'd like to take a moment to wish all members of this Legislature and those watching a restful, peaceful and safe weekend. Fortunately, we are some of those lucky people who don't have to worry about putting food on the table this weekend. I don't need to remind any member of this Legislature that there are many people around the province who aren't quite so fortunate. There are tens of thousands of men, women and children who have to rely on food banks for that meal this weekend.

This is not a partisan issue; rather it is an issue that all members of the society we live in can make a contribution to help address. I would like to encourage all members to do three things this weekend when they return to their ridings to observe Passover or Easter. First, I wish they would all give to their food banks generously this weekend. Second, I'd encourage them to tell their friends and families to do the same. Third, they can publicize it in a number of different ways, to let people know it is a time when we have to be giving.

I have put a little note on the bottom of my personal correspondence over the past couple of weeks, and I'd encourage all members to do that: "Please give generously to your local food banks." It's something we can all do. Many communities had bags that they could put some of their donations in, to be turned in to their ambulance stations, grocery stores and fire stations. I'd encourage all members to do that.

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Today we find Bill 143 regarding waste in the GTA before us once again despite widespread public opposition and repeated calls for the government to rescind this flawed and ill-conceived legislation.

As recently as yesterday, the chairs of the regional municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto, Durham and York, in conjunction with the mayor of the city of Vaughan, issued a news release calling for the withdrawal of this legislation and requesting an opportunity to work together with the province to solve our solid waste problem.

This unprecedented joint action by these heads of council arises from three serious and important objections to the bill: first, that there is no garbage crisis in the GTA that proper management procedures cannot handle; second, that Bill 143 ignores the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act, including the consideration of a broad range of waste management alternatives; finally, that this bill allows the province to assume municipal responsibilities and gives provincial bureaucrats the power to tell elected municipal councils what their financial priorities should be.

This situation is unacceptable. The municipalities are partners and they certainly deserve better than Bill 143. I call on the minister to withdraw this bill and to begin immediate consultations with our municipal partners on how together we can find sensible waste management solutions based on cooperation and deserving of the public's support.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Yesterday the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health attempted to make like Peter Rabbit by informing Simcoe county hospitals that his government would honour a $108-million hospital funding commitment made by the Liberal government in 1987. What the parliamentary assistant and the Minister of Health have failed to mention is that they have added another trail of roadblocks which further delay the releasing of these badly needed funds.

In 1989 the then Minister of Health travelled to Barrie and said an extensive health services review was needed to determine the best possible use for the millions of dollars allocated to Simcoe county hospitals. She said, and I quote from a newspaper article of three years ago: "The review will begin immediately and the first stage is expected to be completed this fall. At that time, each of the projects will be able to proceed with detailed planning."

These projects have not gone ahead. The announcement made yesterday creates further delays and sounds much like the announcement made by the Liberal Minister of Health in 1989. Now the NDP Minister of Health wants more downsizing and an additional study completed before Simcoe county hospitals can touch the money promised to them five years ago.

People are sick and tired of political promises and politicians who play games with the taxpayers' money. The reaction to the NDP's non-announcement yesterday was swift and decisive. Supporters of the Royal Victoria Hospital feel they have been royally shafted by a government that has chosen to imitate its Liberal predecessors. The Barrie community --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired. Would the member take his seat, please.

AGRICULTURAL EXCHANGE PROGRAM

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to inform members of the House of a very unique opportunity that we should all take advantage of. It involves an exchange program between politicians and farmers sponsored by the Ontario Agricultural Leadership Alumni Association. I participated last year and have signed up again this year. It provides an excellent opportunity for politicians to experience farm life and allows farmers the opportunity to visit Queen's Park to see the Legislature while the House is in session.

We all know that farmers in Ontario are experiencing difficult times. This exchange offers MPPs, especially those from Metro and other urban areas, the chance to see what goes into a day on the farm.

Protection of our ability to maintain our high-quality food supply is essential to this government. However, the farmers need our help. Politicians from all parties have vowed to help the farmers, but more is needed than promises. In order to properly address the farmers' needs, we must work together to achieve our common goal. This is what the alumni are working towards with their exchange program.

Earlier this week, the alumni held a reception for MPPs from all three parties here at Queen's Park to inform them of the exchange program. I am encouraging all MPPs to sign up for this exchange. After all, our food doesn't come from a grocery store; it comes from a farm. By the way, Mr Speaker, have you signed up yet?

NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY MAILING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I would like to share with members a piece of correspondence I got. It was at my house. I opened it quite quickly when I arrived and it was from someone called Jill Marzetti. What it said was, "Please send this back right away and sign me up as a member of the New Democrats."

I wondered how I got on that mailing list, but I remembered Jill Marzetti was the person on the Consultation Central Coordinating Committee, the NDP propaganda one. It said she would use mailing lists for ministries.

But what mailing list? Then I see, in the body of the letter she sent me, a reference to older male Liberal cabinet ministers. It must have been that list.

Then it goes on and I think illuminates life as the NDP sees it. It says here, "You know the story -- women work to be heard by an older, male cabinet minister -- but we all knew our message would be misunderstood by their inability to understand." I think that gives us a little insight and confirmed my belief in the Liberal Party and why I am there, where we don't judge people by their gender or age but rather by their thoughts and actions.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Health. Minister, while there appears to be some dismay over your rather vague announcement yesterday with respect to the regional hospital facility in Barrie, I know for a fact that the people of Orillia and area are pleased with your $29.55-million commitment for the redevelopment of the Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital.

This financial commitment will result in the redevelopment of the hospital on the existing site, including diagnostic and treatment facilities. This financial commitment will also reconfirm the faith that numerous individuals, businesses, organizations, municipalities and service clubs have shown for this project. They have shown their belief in, and support for the redevelopment of Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital by committing millions of dollars worth of pledges for this project.

Your announcement means these dedicated individuals and organizations can continue with the fund-raising efforts with the expectation that the hospital redevelopment project is now going to evolve from a well-planned dream into a first-class health care facility.

Minister, your announcement means the redevelopment of Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital will finally happen and result in effective and efficient health care planning to meet the needs of those who depend on this facility. However, it would certainly have been nice if your announcement had contained a date for construction and did away with the further studies that are anticipated so we could proceed with this immediately.

BERNARD JAMES MAHONEY

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Today I would like to express my sadness at the passing of Rev Bernard James Mahoney on April 4 of this year. The reverend was, and is well liked and respected for his pastoral achievements and commitment to the community of York East.

Father Mahoney, as pastor of the East York Canadian Martyrs parish, was instrumental in the establishment of a much-needed senior citizens' housing project at that site. As well, Father Mahoney was active for many years on the East York Peace Committee. On a more global level, the reverend was known for his involvement in the reforms of the Vatican II. Father Mahoney, as a peace activist, champion of the poor and theologian will be missed by all of us.

1350

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mr Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order under standing order 31. This standing order deals with ministerial statements and I would like to refer to that, of which I am sure the House is aware: "(a) A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed." The intent of this rule is to allow the government to publicly inform this House of important developments and directions in the government.

Yesterday, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations gathered the attention of the members of this House to listen to her ministerial statement about the response of her ministry to the GATT decision on beer and US threats. However, the statement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was a non-event. The minister provided no information regarding the activities of her --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat, please. To the member's alleged point of order: (1) The operative word is "may," and (2) For every ministerial statement which is made there is time allotted to the opposition for its response. Such was the case yesterday.

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before proceeding with the next order of business, the member for Mississauga West brought to my attention yesterday a remark alleged to have been made by the government House leader and requested that I take a look at Hansard, which I have done. I can report back that there is no remark by the government House leader as the member for Mississauga West had stated.

I should bring to the attention of all members in the House that the guidelines for Hansard as to what appears in our final printed edition are that interjections are not recorded unless they interrupt the proceedings and the member who has the floor at the time responds to the interjection or the Speaker responds to the interjection. If the remarks do not meet those criteria, regardless of who in the chamber may have heard the remarks, then they do not appear in the final edition of Hansard. I should also add of course that all interjections are out of order. I know all members like to observe that.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and government House leader): Mr Speaker, the member for Mississauga West and I had an opportunity to talk earlier today. I understand that the interjection he referred to -- I can honestly say, and I did say this to the member for Mississauga West, that I did not recall the connection between the comment from the member for Renfrew North and my interjection, but if I said anything yesterday to offend any members of the official opposition, I withdraw them and I apologize.

MINISTERIAL COURTESY

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. My privileges as a member of the Assembly have been offended. The Minister of Health, despite numerous requests from our office over a period of about five days about what the announcement was going to be with reference to the Chinguacousy health facility, did not have the courtesy to inform my office of it, went out to my riding, met with the mayor and informed him and bypassed the two members, the member for Brampton North and myself. I consider that to be totally unacceptable. Not only did they do that, but they ran roughshod over --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat, please. To the member for Brampton South, while I appreciate the concern he has raised, it is not a privilege that he has lost. He speaks of course of general courtesies which may or may not be extended by ministers of the crown. He has voiced his thoughts here and no doubt they have been noted by the Minister of Health.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I wonder if you might assist me in the same manner as my colleague the member for Brampton South. He has been through the facts situation. I wonder if it would be a point of privilege with respect to the fact that the minister gave me her personal undertaking in this House that she would respond to the questions I put to her with respect to this matter. Furthermore, she did so in writing and said that she would advise me before any information was forthcoming. I wonder if that might be a point of privilege that was breached.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of privilege. This is a matter to be dealt with between the member and the minister and there would be no appropriate role for the Speaker in that regard.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FOOD BANKS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Last year at this time the Premier acknowledged that more had to be done about the increased use of food banks and that more would be done. In the meantime, nothing has been done and the number of people using food banks in Metropolitan Toronto alone has increased some 24%. Now the food banks are closing, not because they are not needed but rather because their staff are burning out.

The need for food is a reflection of the need for other things, mainly jobs. The Premier speaks of taking a longer view, but that won't help the people who face food shortages today. I ask the Premier, how much longer will the food bank lines have to get before your government does something?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I cannot accept the characterization by the Leader of the Opposition that this government only takes a long-term view. I want to remind her that one of the reasons we have a deficit, for which we have been criticized by some, is precisely because we have been providing a very substantial investment and stimulus to the economy.

With respect to the comments made by the leader, I would say to her that we have done everything we can to provide a stimulus to local employment. We have also done a great deal with respect to welfare reform. It is not as much as we would like, but I remind the member that we have without question the most broad-based system anywhere in North America with respect to what we are attempting to do.

I know this is a reply that will not satisfy her and will not make her particularly happy, but I can assure the honourable member that the question of the recession, its impact on people, its impact on children, its impact on the poor is an issue that of course will be addressed in the budget.

Mrs McLeod: I want to bring the Premier back to the simple reality that food bank use has increased by some 24% over the past year, that food bank lineups continue to get longer and longer and that the people who have been running the food banks feel they can no longer cope.

The Daily Bread Food Bank has told the government that demand does relate directly to people who have lost their jobs. The daily food bank is also prepared to work with government to develop some creative solutions to the immediate problems. Rather than joining this group around the table, the government has suggested the food bank submit a proposal instead. These people are helping families get from one day to the next. They are simply too busy to write proposals for the government.

We all know that the hunger problem the government had promised to resolved within its first year remains unresolved. I ask the Premier whether his government will at least commit to meeting with the food banks to begin to identify creative, immediate, achievable solutions.

Hon Mr Rae: I know the Minister of Community and Social Services will want to do just that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Mr Rae: No.

The Speaker: I'm sorry; I thought you were redirecting the question.

Mrs McLeod: I accept the Premier's answer as a direct response to the question I asked, which was whether his government would commit to a meeting with the food bank. The Premier has indicated the Minister of Community and Social Services will do just that. The Daily Bread Food Bank will certainly appreciate that.

It seems to us that while the Premier responds to the crises of the day by talking about the longer views, people are struggling to find jobs. There are some immediate solutions which could be helpful to these people. For example, with the rising cost of the public transit system, subsidizing transit passes would ensure that the unemployed could easily do their job search.

The Daily Bread Food Bank apparently submitted a proposal to the Minister of Community and Social Services to set up a working committee. The purpose of the effort is to evaluate food bank data and standing recommendations of the type presented to the minister on January 15, 1992, to determine whether targeted approaches could alleviate food bank need for specific groups of people.

I would ask the Premier to confirm that in saying the Minister of Community and Social Services would meet with the food bank representatives, they are in fact committing to setting up this kind of working group to seriously explore those creative proposals such as the subsidization of transit passes.

1400

Hon Mr Rae: Of course we will be prepared to sit down and discuss practical proposals. But when the leader says we have done nothing in the short term, let me remind her that we have committed in the past year $215 million for social assistance reform; let me remind her that the social services employment program has created approximately 8,000 jobs; let me remind her that we've increased the minimum wage to the point that it's now the highest of any jurisdiction in North America; let me remind her of the anti-recession fund; let me remind her of the $175 million that has been committed to the wage protection fund; let me remind her of the work we've done on the supports to employment program, on opportunity planning and of the assistance that has been provided by the Ministry of Labour to people who have been laid off.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Six per cent for OPSEU; 2% for social assistance.

Hon Mr Rae: In case it gets picked up in Hansard, I have to respond to the member opposite. She says, "Six per cent for OPSEU; 2% for social assistance." That's a false analogy. In the same year in which the average settlement across the public sector was 5.8%, this government provided a 7% increase in the basic welfare rate and a 10% increase in the shelter allowance. Get your facts straight.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also for the Premier. I would like to return to an issue that, along with the very critical and pressing issues of the day, remains a very serious concern for the members of this House. I know the Premier shares my concern about the lack of faith people have in the political process and in politicians. I refer, in making that assumption, to the Premier's own guidelines for the conduct of his ministers, in which one of the fundamental principles is that ministers shall perform the duties of office and arrange their affairs in such a manner as to maintain public confidence and trust in the integrity of government.

The spectacle of a minister taking a lie detector test to prove she lied because she sees this as a lesser offence than breaching the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act surely undermines public confidence and trust in the integrity of government. I would ask the Premier why he does not seem to agree that this is an offence of sufficient weight to justify asking for the minister's resignation.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I will give the member the answer I provided to the House in December and that I provided in answer to questions previously on this matter. The member for Sudbury East, the Minister of Northern Development, obviously regrets profoundly what has happened. There has been an extraordinary review and investigation of what has taken place. I would say to the honourable member that it's my judgement, with which you can disagree; members opposite certainly have indicated they don't agree with it, and that's fine. I know that's what democracy is all about.

The minister has clearly indicated that she regrets what took place. There were a number of other allegations made by colleagues of the Leader of the Opposition, made throughout question period prior to Christmas and also made prior to the public hearings, which proved to be utterly and completely unfounded and have no relationship to the facts or to what took place.

After all that process the minister has clearly indicated that she regrets what has taken place. I think the minister can be said to be a person of great ability, a person of character and somebody who cares profoundly about this province. It was my decision and my thought that, having made the mistake she made and having clearly indicated that she was sorry for it and gone through the entire process, that, if I may say so, is the way in which we have decided to approach it.

Mrs McLeod: This has absolutely nothing to do with unfounded allegations that are made across the floor of the House. The minister has clearly made and has acknowledged making a mistake. What she did was clearly unacceptable for somebody holding responsibilities as a minister of the crown, and it clearly warranted her resignation. By failing to demand the minister's resignation and by forcing her to justify on a continuous basis why she has not resigned, the Premier has placed her in the impossible position of defending the indefensible. In the course of her doing this, the minister's credibility and therefore her ability to do her job as minister have been seriously eroded. She has been forced to present as an argument justifying her failure to resign that she is apparently considered to be or considers herself to be indispensable to the government. Would the Premier not agree that the damage done now to the minister's credibility and therefore to her ability to carry out her responsibilities as a minister of the crown is sufficient now, and still, to merit her resignation?

Hon Mr Rae: No.

Mrs McLeod: Then I would raise another aspect of the problem which continues to concern us. On March 18, less than a week after the minister appeared before the legislative committee, she told the Sudbury Star, apparently in response to concerns that some members of her constituency no longer trust her: "I'm the local MPP. If they don't want to deal with me, they can see how far they get."

Is this the way this government operates? Surely the Premier must realize that the message that has been transmitted by his inaction in this matter is that anyone who criticizes his government will not be heard. If that is not the message this government wants to send out, isn't the minister's statement to the Sudbury Star yet another indefensible action which would justify more than ever her stepping down? I would ask the Premier, in the light of the minister's most recent indiscretion, how he can justify in his own mind keeping her in his cabinet?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me respond to that, because I was asked that question yesterday by the member for St George-St David. I must say I've developed a habit, after listening to questions from members, of wanting to get a handle on exactly what was said, so I have a transcript of the interview which was given and which I will read from.

Wheeler is apparently the person commenting, saying, "Martel's comments which sparked the inquiry dealt with a Sudbury doctor and the alleged leak of confidential billing information," which allegation, I would add parenthetically, we know to be completely untrue. Listen to this: "When asked how the controversy has affected her relationship with doctors, Martel says she is open to discussion."

Following this is the full quotation. I will say, wanting to give the full benefit to the Leader of the Opposition, that perhaps she's not seen the full quotation, because I'm sure if she'd seen it she would have read it to the House. "Martel: There are important health care issues. People can make a choice. They can refuse to deal with me, and I'm their local MPP, and they can see how far they get from there, or they can try and deal with me and we can try and work on these issues together. And that's a personal choice that people are going to have to make."

If you are trying to take a partial quotation and make the allegation that in any way, shape or form the member for Sudbury East is even suggesting that she would deal with people in a way that was other than evenhanded, I think you're being very unfair in your attributions and in the way in which you've handled the quotation which I've just read to you.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is for the Premier. Premier, we know the Minister of Northern Development believes she broke your guidelines. Do you think she broke them, yes or no?

Hon Mr Rae: I think it's quite clear that the minister regrets very much what took place and that she feels very strongly about that and very clearly about that.

Mr Harnick: Now we can see why there was no mention of integrity in the speech from the throne.

Premier, yesterday the member for St George-St David told this House that the Minister of Northern Development said: "I'm the local MPP. If they don't want to deal with me, they can see how far they get." Premier, does this sound like a person who understands what she's done and is remorseful? I appreciate what you've read, but it doesn't make it any better.

Hon Mr Rae: With great respect to the honourable member, I think I've replied to that question as it was asked by the Leader of the Opposition. When you put the remarks in the full context of what it is the member said, I think there is every indication on the part of the minister of a full willingness to work with all the citizens of Sudbury.

Mr Harnick: Premier, allowing an admitted liar to serve as a member of the crown is reprehensible. Do you believe that your integrity has been damaged by this?

Hon Mr Rae: I think I'll let the people of the province judge my integrity.

1410

ONTARIO HYDRO SPENDING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, yesterday I asked you about a $750,000 contract that had not been tendered. It seems Ontario Hydro makes a habit of spending our tax dollars without shopping around. I have obtained purchase orders totalling $7.4 million worth of computer software. In response to the freedom of information request I put in to receive the tender documents and details about this, Ontario Hydro wrote back to me and said, "These contracts were not tendered." They weren't tendered at all, therefore my FOI request to see the documents was in vain. Minister, if a $7-million contract isn't tendered at Ontario Hydro, what is?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions and acting Minister of Energy): As I said yesterday in response to the leader of the third party's question, this minister unfortunately doesn't keep track of all of Hydro's day-to-day operations. The rules have been set out fairly clearly. The member has raised a question; I'm prepared to deal with Hydro in finding the answers for the member and I'll do that.

Mr Harris: It's you and your Premier who are bringing in the bill to give cabinet, the minister and the Premier total control over Hydro. It's you who put the sweetheart deal with your guy in place to run Hydro, so don't tell me now that it's hands-off. Who's in charge over there? We're facing hydro rates of 9% this year. We find out that the 9% is only because they're drawing down reserves. They haven't cut costs at all; it's really 11%, but they're going to pull money out of some reserve fund. Maybe Leslie Frost built it up; I don't know where that would have come from.

Nine per cent hikes: Ontario Hydro should be tightening its belt. Ontario Hydro should be looking at ways to cut costs. Awarding a $7-million contract without going to tender is unfair, irresponsible and, I suggest to you, Minister, it is unacceptable. Now that you're in charge and supposedly in control, will you put a stop to this bureaucratic arrogance that we've seen over at Hydro, particularly since Mr Eliesen has been in charge?

Hon Mr Charlton: The leader of the third party should fully understand that it's the characterization put on things by the third party that has suggested that Bill 118 is intended to move total day-to-day control of Ontario Hydro to the Premier's office. That, as the member well knows, is not a reality.

As I've said a number of times, the member has raised a question. I don't have the answer. I will get an answer for him.

Mr Harris: It's not like there wouldn't have been lots of warning. These were pretty open, public, FOI requests some time ago.

The former Minister of Energy said in this House, "What we are trying to do here is ensure that Ontario Hydro deals with this government by the front door and not the back door." Can you tell us why, then, Ontario Hydro is dealing with business and contracts through the back door?

Hon Mr Charlton: I simply repeat that the member has raised a question about certain contracts of Ontario Hydro. I will get an answer for the House.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): To the Premier: So many people in the province are failing to understand why the Premier will not adhere to the type of standards that he expected everybody else to adhere to and ask the Minister of Northern Development to retire from cabinet.

I did a little bit of research. Perhaps the reason that the Premier is unable to exact a high standard of conduct from the minister is because, in reviewing his record with respect to his statements about David Peterson at the beginning of the 1990 election, it was quite clear that the strategy of the New Democratic Party was to smear and call the then Premier a liar publicly and as many times as possible to call that person a liar.

In fact, the reason he cannot exact any standard from his colleagues in cabinet is because the member for Sudbury East is merely mimicking the activities of her leader as he was then in July 1990. Will the Premier tell us that the standards for membership in his cabinet require the members of his cabinet to do as he did, and that is to publicly smear anything they see in the way of their future political success?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think the assumption of the member's question is quite unfair.

Mr Elston: There were so many people who have carried on political life in this province who felt at the time that for the member for York East, it was equally unfair, but it did neither stop him nor temper the manner in which he attacked publicly a very fine, distinguished politician in this province. Neither has the fact that somebody stands in this House and says she is sorry stopped any other person from carrying out the activity that she is guilty of, and that is smearing another private citizen in this province.

Will the Premier admit that until he apologizes for his public smearing campaign and requires also that his minister step aside from his cabinet, there will be no confidence in his either being fair or being apt to publicly carry on a government of the highest integrity in Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I would only say to the member for Bruce that I think all of us in public life recognize that in the cut and thrust of debate there are things that are said. The way in which politics is carried out is a matter of public record, and I would say to the honourable member that I think the assumption behind his question, as I've said, is quite an unfair one.

Mr Elston: No, no. I'm asking you, are you sorry?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

1420

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): To the Minister of Labour: I am sure the minister recognizes the serious nature of the cross-border shopping problem. I suggest to the minister that it's a shame the swamp that he oversees doesn't share his concerns.

I have here a 1992 calendar of events. I refer the minister to May 1992. I wonder if the minister could explain to me why WCB paper and WCB bulletin boards are being used to encourage WCB staff to take their payroll tax money paid for by the businesses of Ontario for a three-day US shopping spree on May 16, 17 and 18.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'd like to deal with the leader of the third party's question. Let me tell him first that I'm not aware of the bulletins he's talking about, but let me tell him also that I would do a very careful check of it before I accepted the information he's given me.

Two days ago in this House we had the leader of the third party tell us that he had documentation -- let me quote it exactly -- "on a claim which was awarded to a Niagara Falls labourer in 1990. This individual claimed that the rubber boots he wore on the job had marked his ankles. These marks, he said, restricted potential job opportunities as an exotic dancer. The WCB agreed and awarded him $1,125."

I want to tell you that the leader of the third party clearly has little sense of irony and, worse still, trivializes what was a legitimate claim. The claimant suffered from dermatitis as a result of wearing rubber boots. His doctor advised him to be off work for three to four weeks, and the claim was adjudicated and granted. He came back to work and at that point in time made the comment that the scars he'd already achieved on his ankles would probably prevent any advancement to other jobs such as, in jest, an exotic dancer. The WCB never dealt with the claim on that basis, which was exactly what the leader of the third party claimed. I'd suggest he get his information more correct.

Mr Harris: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Before I give my supplementary, since the minister has given a statement in response to a question earlier asked, normally I would be allowed a supplementary on that. I would ask, Mr Speaker, if the supplementary you're expecting from me now is in response to the statement to a previously asked question or whether you now want my supplementary on the first question.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the leader of the third party, I certainly understand his alleged point of order. The rules provide that members may ask questions and that ministers have an opportunity to respond. The response of course is up to the minister. At this point, the member is being invited to pose a supplementary to the original question he placed.

Mr Harris: Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that.

Let me say to the minister by way of supplementary that I appreciate his quoting back the facts as I gave them and as I stand behind them. Now you have requoted them and put them into the record as to what the excuse was for the concern over the rubber boot affair. I think that your minister confirms I was right, the facts were the facts and that indeed was the basis, it appears to me, the claim was laid on.

I wonder if one of the pages would take over the calendar of events I alluded to. Also the minister might want to talk about the July one on WCB bulletin boards, WCB paper, WCB staff. It's Atlantic City. They can't wait for the casinos to come to Ontario. They can't wait to take their Ontario payroll tax money off down to Atlantic City. I will send both of these over to the minister, although I see his staff has provided him with one already.

Last year 882 retail businesses closed their doors. Most recently Beaver Canoe folded, putting 70 more men and women out of jobs in Metropolitan Toronto. Cross-border shopping is a major factor in many of these closings. With so many in this province who don't have a job, can you explain why your civil servants, the civil servants under your control, are helping to pour the Ontario economy down the drain?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I notice in the material that's been sent over to me to date that the programs outlined are those of the staff association of the Workers' Compensation Board. I certainly will look into it and get back to the minister. We don't run the WCB directly. But I hope it is more accurate than the information he gave us in the last question he gave us in the House.

BRONTE CREEK PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): My question today is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, a recent proposal to transfer Bronte Creek Provincial Park to the Halton Region Conservation Authority has raised many concerns for many of my constituents and groups across the Halton region. For example, one of those groups, the Oakville and District Labour Council, has raised a concern of the transfer of the park in light of a proposal from the Burlington developers to build an office complex in the park.

Can the minister assure me and many of my constituents and groups across the Halton region who use this park regularly that the park and its services will not be affected?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and minister responsible for native affairs): I appreciate the member raising this. It is a very important issue. We have indeed had exploratory discussions with the Halton Region Conservation Authority over the possibility of transferring Bronte park. The detailed proposal will be shared with all the interested parties: OPSEU, the region of Halton, the local municipalities, as well as the interest groups. The objectives will be to protect the natural and cultural features of the park as well as to provide maximum job security.

This is a recreation-class park. As the member knows, the Halton Region Conservation Authority has a significant amount of experience in operating such recreational parks. It might be appropriate for the conservation authority to operate this park as a recreational facility, but the main emphasis will be to maintain the values of the park as well as the job security of the workers related. This proposed matter will be dealt with in detail with all of the interested parties before any final decision is made.

Mr Duignan: Minister, in light of your reply here today, has the minister made any efforts to contact groups such as the labour council to outline all the items or make them understand what you have raised in the House here today?

Hon Mr Wildman: I don't believe the labour council is one of the groups that has been directly involved in the consultations to date. But at the suggestion of the member, I will ensure they are included and be part of the discussions before any final decisions are made.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Premier. Many people in this province and in this House remember when the Premier used to have standards. They also remember when he had principles as the Leader of the Opposition and used to speak about questions of cynicism and integrity. I particularly remember June 28, 1989, when the member for York South, as Leader of the Opposition, told this House: "The question of the integrity of the democratic process and the integrity of the electoral process is the first question in politics...it is at the foundation of everything else a government does." What has happened since that time to change his views?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): My views have not changed at all on that.

Mrs Caplan: In light of that extraordinary answer, I would say to him that the people of this province are even more cynical and confused today because his words do not match his actions. Just this morning I had a conversation with a resident of North York who said to me: "Tell him it is important that he act to show that he understands how important public trust is and especially, as leader of the government, that he set a standard in this province the people of the province will respect."

By refusing to take action, the Premier has demonstrated contempt of that public trust and has increased the cynicism and concern the public has about integrity in this place. I say to the Premier, how can you then, in light of your answers, justify your lack of action in accepting the standard of conduct from your minister today?

Hon Mr Rae: The member may not agree with the action taken but she cannot argue that there's been no action taken. In response to questions and allegations that were made and, if I may say so, certainly shouted out by her along with a number of others with respect to all kinds of allegations that were being made, this government agreed to establish a committee. The member for Mississauga North was asked to be the Chairman of the committee. It interviewed 21 witnesses over 15 days of hearings, and as a result of that, nothing, none of the allegations that were made have proved to be substantiated with regard to the fundamental question of whether or not the minister and other ministers had misused confidential information. With regard to that allegation the committee came up with nothing. In the words of the member for Renfrew North, "There was no smoking gun."

1430

GAME AND FISH ACT

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Mr Minister, Ontario's growing deer farming industry is worried that it's being legislated out of business by your colleague the Minister of Natural Resources. Can you, as Minister of Agriculture and Food, assure us today that you support deer farming as a legitimate farming industry and that you will maintain that particular segment of agriculture within the Ministry of Agriculture and Food?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The member refers to some legislation that is being handled by the Minister of Natural Resources. It might be more appropriate for him to give his response.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a supplementary? Sorry, the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and minister responsible for native affairs): The question is of great importance and I know the agricultural industry is concerned about the changes proposed in Bill 162. He will know the proposals in Bill 162 reflect the recommendations of the wildlife strategy, which was the result of widespread consultation across the province, beginning before the change of government and involving representatives of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

The concern is around whether or not we should allow for game farming involving species that are native to Ontario, as opposed to exotic species, and questions about how we deal with disease and control to ensure that any effects of game farming are not adverse to the native species in the wild. These are very important issues and I would be happy to consult with the member and representatives of the agricultural industry about how Bill 162 can meet its ends while ensuring we protect native species in this province.

Mr Villeneuve: Thank you for enlightening us to some degree on this, but to the Minister of Natural Resources, the deer farming industry will definitely be out of this province as soon as you bring in Bill 162, because it will declare those animals as animals of the wild and they will be returned to the wild or to the slaughterhouses. I am told by people within the industry close to Quebec that they will be long gone into another province as soon as Bill 162 comes into effect. Does the minister plan to amend this legislation to at least allow them to continue production, or are you going to do like other businesses, chase them out of Ontario?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member should know that under Bill 162 the raising and keeping of non-native species such as red deer and fallow deer would not be prohibited, so there are options that are available to the industry. What is of concern is native species, and there are options that are available for deer farmers. I hope they will be able to adapt and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and Food would want to encourage them in their enterprise.

NON-UTILITY GENERATION

Mr Martin: Yesterday was a very important day in the community of Sault Ste Marie in that the workers at Algoma Steel voted overwhelmingly to give of their pay packet so that company could be saved and given a future.

I ask a question of the Minister of Energy which is related to the further economic growth of Sault Ste Marie, and it has to do with the cogeneration plant which is being negotiated at the moment as a diversifying initiative that will help the community of Sault Ste Marie to better its economy and take control of its future. My question to the minister is, what is the status of the proposed Great Lakes Power cogeneration plant in Sault Ste Marie?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions and acting Minister of Energy): As I believe the member knows, in December Ontario Hydro brought the negotiations around non-utility generation to a halt for a moment while it was awaiting its report on a strategy around non-utility generators. When that report was tabled on February 7, Ontario Hydro reopened negotiations with 13 of the non-utility generation proposals, including the one in the Sault, and those negotiations are ongoing presently. We are advised that they are fairly well along in those negotiations.

Mr Martin: As you are aware, Mr Minister, the impact of this plant will be substantial for our community, especially if you take into consideration the immediate relief it will offer St Marys Paper by way of its energy needs and the cost reduction there.

It is also important to know that this is an all-private-sector investment. The cogenerational plant is very important, an issue of some magnitude to my constituents, and we're anxious for a positive response. I know you mentioned that in time we will have an answer. I was wondering if you could be more specific, because we are all waiting very patiently at the moment and would like some further news of that sort.

Hon Mr Charlton: Unfortunately I can't give the member a precise date. These are negotiations that are ongoing between Ontario Hydro and the proponents in Sault Ste Marie, but I could say that the decision to reopen the negotiations in this case was made for a number of very important reasons.

First, the proposal in the Sault already meets Ontario Hydro's efficiency guidelines and is one of the few projects that was as good in that respect. In these negotiations, Hydro is also taking into account the economic circumstances in the community. So both of those factors bode well for the negotiations, and the member should know that we expect a conclusion of the negotiations some time this spring.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Premier. It concerns the integrity and the standard of conduct of his government. Premier, I think you would agree that one of the most important functions you carry out as Premier is in selection of the members of your cabinet, of the executive council of the province of Ontario, and that the judgement you exercise in doing that is very important not only for those of us in the House, but for the people in the province to clearly understand.

Would you not agree, then, Mr Premier, that the message to be taken from this whole matter involving the Minister of Northern Development is that, first, it is acceptable conduct for a member of your cabinet to lie and to admit to lying; second, it is acceptable conduct to impugn the integrity of a private person in a public place; third, it is acceptable conduct to offer an apology but to continue to state that faced with similar circumstances, that cabinet minister might conduct herself in exactly the same fashion? Mr Premier, does that not describe your standards and your expectations?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): No, I don't think it does fairly describe either my standards or expectations or the way in which this government has conducted itself.

Mr Beer: The answers the Premier has given this afternoon, yesterday and in December to this whole issue are simply not credible, because what they reveal is an absence of real and meaningful standards. Premier, surely you would agree, as you go about this province, as all of us do, that the public increasingly views politicians and our political system with deepening cynicism. This sordid affair, if it does anything at all, only serves to further the erosion of public confidence in our democratic and political system.

Mr Premier, the facts are clear; they are very simple and straightforward. Would you not agree that the only course of action for you to take following the committee's report and the admission by the minister that she has lied is that you now request her resignation?

Hon Mr Rae: Having spent many years in opposition on the other side, I can say to the honourable member that I understand the question and the tone of the question, but I want him to perhaps reflect. I think the public judges all of us. I think they judge the questions and the allegations as well as the answers. I think they judge the conduct of all members, all ministers and all leaders. That is a judgement which I am certainly prepared and want very much to live by.

Mr Beer: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: There were no allegations in my question; they were facts.

1440

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The government says it's considering the establishment of casinos and video lottery terminals in Ontario. It has been widely reported that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation supports casinos and VLTs in Ontario. What impact studies has the minister done to determine the impact his video lotteries and casinos will have on Ontario's recreation groups, service clubs, horse racing, churches, charities and our crime rate?

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): As far as having casinos or VLTs in the province is concerned, or any of the other suggestions the member has made, that decision has not been made yet. We've had a lot of discussions with a lot of different groups on impacts and how and whom it would affect. We continue to look at these avenues and to have discussions with groups to see what the impact would be and what considerations we could make for these groups.

Mr Arnott: It's very clear this minister does not understand the full extent of his responsibilities to the people of Ontario. If his proposal to establish government-run gambling casinos in Ontario is adopted by this government, hundreds of recreation groups and teams, service clubs and others will be the losers.

Recently recreation clubs numbering in the thousands in this province were told by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that they can no longer raise money through raffles, lotteries and bingos as they have in the past to offset their costs and keep their participation rates as low as possible. It appears the government is planning to go ahead with casinos, and just like the godfather, it wants to give the opposition and the competition an offer they can't refuse.

As the advocate for recreation in Ontario, what is the minister going to do to ensure that thousands of recreation groups, such as the Oakville Blades junior hockey team and the Arthur Snowblazers snowmobile club, which rely on fund-raising, will continue to be able to exist?

Hon Mr North: I certainly advocate recreation in this province: hockey teams, baseball teams, snowmobile clubs, all the groups.

Interjection: Name them all.

Hon Mr North: Name any group you like.

My job is to advocate that they continue to exist in this province. The suggestion that they won't exist in the province in the future is a suggestion the member makes and is not one I would hold. We'll continue to do the fine work we do in recreation in this province. We will continue to advocate all that can be advocated for those groups.

I certainly understand that there is a need --

Mr Tilson: You like your job. What else do you like? We know you like your job.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr North: You asked the question. Did you want an answer? I am saying we understand there are charities in this province. We understand the value of charities in this province. We understand the value of recreation in this province. We'll continue to advocate all those things. We do it through the Trillium Foundation. We support charities in a big way through the Trillium Foundation, and we support capital expenditures on recreation in this province, the brand-new fresh approach program. I think we're not doing too badly considering the dollars we have to do it with.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Communications. I represent a riding with a large degree of high-technology industry, a number of plants that rely upon communication strategy, plants such as Andrew Antenna and Croven Crystals, which are essential to the communications strategy throughout our country and as part of our government's trust towards a new industrial strategy for this province in the abandonment that we have been faced with from the federal government. I want to know from the minister what plans she has undertaken, what efforts she has under way, in terms of developing a new telecommunications strategy.

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): Actually, I'm very pleased to answer the question.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): This comes as a total surprise.

Hon Mrs Haslam: It comes as a total surprise. You're absolutely right. I am so pleased that he has come to me and said, "I'd like to ask you a question."

In fact there has been no telecommunications policy in the last 20 years. I am very pleased that the ministry has put forth a new telecommunications advisory group. We want to recognize that Ontario can be a lead in the new telecommunications industrial sector.

In the last decade telecommunications has evolved from the plain old telephone service to a dynamic enabling technology. For business individuals, telecommunication applications like telemedicine and electronic data interchange are impossible without modern telecommunications, and they hold a promise for an enriched quality of life.

I have established an advisory committee to provide guidance on developing a telecommunications strategy for the province. The advisory committee's membership includes both industry participants such as labour, equipment and service suppliers as well as user groups, which include residential, business and institutional --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Haslam: I certainly would, Mr Speaker. The committee is expected to present a report by the end of June.

Mr White: If I could place a supplementary with the indulgence of the opposition, I'd be very interested to know: With that kind of a framework, with those kinds of people involved, what is going to be the cost of this process? How are we going to be able to afford it?

Hon Mrs Haslam: Actually, we have a vision statement. We have four goals. We have a ministry advisory committee set up, as I have indicated, with partnerships with business, partnerships with the communities and partnerships with industry.

I would like to point out that we also have subworking groups inviting people to participate in those. It's quite a large undertaking. A number of very important people are taking part. I wanted to mention those things because moneys for the implementation of the advisory committee will come from within existing ministry budgets, and to date there has been no new money allocation.

I would also like to point out that the extent to which this initiative has been supported by many interests can be seen in its composition. All participants are volunteering their time and effort at no cost to the taxpayers of Ontario.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question was for the Premier. We were told that he was here until 2:50, and unfortunately he left early.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and government House leader): He's meeting with the Premier of Manitoba.

Mr Mahoney: We were told, Mr House leader, that he'd be here.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there someone else to whom you wish to direct your question?

Mr Mahoney: He left 10 minutes early, so it's with some regret that I will have to direct my question to the Minister of Northern Development. I say it's with regret because the questions we're putting forward, in my view, have less to do with her and her conduct than they do with the Premier and his standards.

But it's perhaps possible, Minister, that you can give me an answer, give this House an answer, with regard to the fact that you've been involved, obviously, deeply with the Premier in the discussion of those standards.

Every editorial board in the province, Minister, has called for your resignation. A riding association in Ottawa, I'm told, of your own party has called for your resignation; 70% of Ontarians believe, as a result of the polls that have been taken, that you should step down. The real tragedy is that I'm afraid to say your career has been destroyed. You were possibly a future leader of the party, in my view, at one time, a leading light, someone who I thought had great potential, and I think that's all been destroyed. We've seen ministers fired because supposedly they appeared in a newspaper, and yet we know that's not the real reason. We've seen members kicked out as chairs of committees for supposed reasons that we know are not true.

1450

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Mahoney: Can you tell us, after your discussions with the Premier, what is the real reason you are not resigning? What is the real reason that the Premier has either not accepted your offered resignation or not asked you to offer your resignation? Please help us understand.

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Let me go through some of the comments I made at the hearings in response to a very similar question. When this incident occurred in December of last year I seriously thought about resigning. I went back and forth with that thought in my mind. I thought of many things: the kind of day I had, the encounters I had during that day, the work I was trying to do in the riding to resolve this issue, the work I have done as an MPP in Sudbury East and as well the work I have tried to do as Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Bearing all that in mind, I made a judgement call to remain in this cabinet. At the end of the day, in the next election, it will be the people in the riding of Sudbury East who will judge me on that.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): It's not your call to make.

Mr Mahoney: As my colleague the member for Wilson Heights has just said, it's not really, Minister, your call to make. Frankly this should be, I say again, Mr Speaker, directed to the person who is ultimately responsible for this decision. I guess the difficulty we're having is that no one believes either your explanation or the Premier's. He has said, even today in answer to questions from my colleagues, that he has not changed his standards. He has said he believes that a minister of the crown should be open to the highest scrutiny.

Minister, if no one believes your explanation, we're searching for another reason, some way to help us and the public. I'm not just saying "us" here; I think anyone would have to admit, as the result of the polls and the media and what everyone has said, that no one outside of the trained seals believes the explanations that are being put forward. Minister, I think it's a tragedy; I really sincerely do, and I think you know I think that.

I would like you to give us either the real reason or to admit that at the very least you have damaged the credibility of the government, that you have violated the Premier's guidelines and that you have put the Premier in an unbelievable position. I can only assume --

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: -- it is due to some former commitment or some other obligation that he's sticking by you. Maybe you could tell us what that other obligation is, Minister.

Hon Miss Martel: I am sorry if the member or other members of the House do not accept the explanation I have given or do not want to believe it, but I can say very clearly to the member and to other members in this House, as I repeated in committee, that the explanation I have given is the correct one; there is nothing else I can add. What happened is how I have explained it.

LEGAL SERVICES

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. Mr Attorney General, is it your intention to charge sales tax on legal services after the next budget?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I do not collect sales taxes; the Treasurer collects sales taxes. The Treasurer will decide what taxes will be assessed and what tax changes may be made in Ontario. I really have no say in that.

Mr Harnick: Will the government be adopting a system of provincial public defender or will the government be continuing with the current system of legal aid?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and minister responsible for native affairs): Wait a minute, that's not a supplementary.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): That's not a supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Attorney General may answer if he wishes.

Hon Mr Hampton: I'm not sure what the issue of a public defender system has to do with whether or not sales tax would apply to lawyers' services. I gather there must be some connection in the member's head. I'll try my best to read his mind on this issue.

There has been no discussion anywhere in Ontario regarding the establishment of a public defender system. We have had a number of discussions with judges, with community legal clinics, with the criminal defence bar about the funding problems with respect to legal aid. I should say to you, so that the public will understand, that we have a real problem because the federal government refuses to live up to its responsibilities to fund legal aid, and further insists on offloading on to the provinces many of the matters dealing with immigration. It's causing a real cost crunch for provinces across the country with respect to funding legal aid.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. For the interest of both the Attorney General and the member for Willowdale, the original question dealt with a matter of taxation on legal services, and hence I allowed the supplementary since it dealt with the comparison of two different types of delivery services of legal services.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and government House leader): Before I call orders of the day, there is unanimous agreement among the three parties that the House will adjourn today at 4:30 pm and that even though we're adjourning at 4:30 pm it will be considered a full sitting day of the House for the purposes of the time allocation motion that will govern this afternoon's business.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is that agreed? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA GESTION DES DÉCHETS

Consideration 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.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Perhaps I should give some brief explanations of what took place during the winter adjournment on a motion that was introduced by the member for Windsor-Riverside.

It was ordered that the standing committee on social development shall meet to consider Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act, during the winter adjournment in accordance with a schedule of meeting dates to be agreed to by the three party whips and to be tabled with the Clerk of the assembly at a later date, as follows: three weeks to receive public submissions at televised meetings in Toronto, one week to receive public submissions at meetings outside of Toronto and one week for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill at televised meetings in Toronto.

1500

Two sessional days -- this is the first one -- shall be allotted to further consideration of the bill in the committee of the whole House. All amendments to the bill proposed to be moved shall be filed with the Clerk of the assembly by 4 pm on the last sessional day, the second day, whenever that day is called by the government, on which the bill is considered in committee of the whole House.

Any divisions required during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House shall be deferred until 5:45 pm on the last sessional day, the second day. I would remind members that if you wish to divide on any sections or on any amendments, you must stand and there must be five people altogether standing. If only one person stands, this is not sufficient. You need five people to defer the vote at 5:45 on the last sessional day, the second day, whatever that day, as chosen by the government.

At 5:45 pm on that sessional day, the second day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put. The members are called in once and all deferred divisions are taken in succession.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'm reluctant to raise this matter because I know the concern we all might have about me doing so. Brandon Sheppard, one of our new pages, is the grandson of Howard Sheppard, who was a member of this House, and he's being visited today by his grandparents from West Virginia and his brothers, Tyler-Blair and Layne. We're real pleased to have them here. They've conducted themselves with some patience and a decorum which was absent from the House during question period. It's real nice to have them here.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On a point of order, Mr Chair: On the point of order the member for Welland-Thorold raises, I think most members of the House would know, and the Speaker and the Chairman would rule, he is clearly out of order, but it is nice to have heard that a former member's grandchildren are here in the House. We all know, whether this point is in order or not, it's nice to be able to acknowledge generations of young people who are interested in the proceedings of the House.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I would only say, having been a close friend of the former member for Northumberland Howard Sheppard, he would be most upset to know his grandson sat on the wrong side of the House.

The Chair: I wish a happy Easter to everyone.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Before we begin debate and get into committee of the whole House, I beg permission of the Chair to move to the front row and allow some staff to come up.

The Chair: Yes, please do so. We can now start. Are there any questions, comments or amendments, and if so, to which sections of the bill?

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I have tabled a number of amendments. It was my understanding -- perhaps the Chair could assist -- that we would be going through the bill in sequence and would be referring to them as we went, section by section. I have tabled them. Some I will be referring to specifically as we proceed. Others, depending on the debate that is engendered in this place, may or may not be moved.

My understanding was that there would be opening comments by the parliamentary assistant. I see the minister is now here. Perhaps we can find out some indication whether there will be opening comments or whether we'll proceed right to the substance of the bill. I don't know; I'm just waiting. The minister is indicating that we're in your hands, Mr Chairman. I just wanted to afford that opportunity. It was my understanding that would take place before we got into the amendments.

The Chair: The member for Brampton North, you have an amendment.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and minister responsible for the greater Toronto area): Mr Chair, the member for Brampton North said it was his understanding there would be opening comments from the government. I would be pleased to introduce the report of the committee and just make some comments.

The Chair: No, there are no opening comments. We start immediately with the amendments. Would you please introduce your amendment.

Section 1:

Mr McClelland: My first amendment is particularly to section 1. My amendment is tabled with you and I will explain it subsequently, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: Mr McClelland moves that section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Definition

"1. In this part and part II, 'corporation' means the corporation continued by section 2."

Mr McClelland: This amendment was in fact put forward in committee. I don't want to revisit every amendment I put forward in committee, but I want to make a couple of comments about the amendments put forward. I think this is perhaps indicative or useful in terms of the frustration the opposition members, and indeed the vast majority of people I have spoken to who presented before the committee, felt.

Some 200-plus delegations appeared before the committee, Mr Chairman. You indicated the process by which that took place, as we held hearings both here, in the Amethyst Room, and subsequently in various parts of the province. I think one of the tell-tale signs in terms of what took place in committee as we went through clause-by-clause in that latter week was the fact that literally dozens of amendments were brought forward, both by the official opposition and the third party, and one was accepted.

One might argue, and I suppose if I were on the government side my quick quip and off-the-cuff response would be, "That was because your amendments weren't worthy of support." That's the decision of the government, and so be it. But I hasten to add this: The vast majority, if not indeed all those amendments, were crafted, albeit by our party and submitted by myself as critic, in response to criticisms, some of them very constructive, I might add, brought by people from across the province who said, "We have some difficulties with this bill and we want to have some changes made to at least make it redeemable, if that's possible."

1510

One of the aspects of the bill that I think sets the tone is the wording right in the first section. We wanted to make it more expansive than the definition as it now reads. We wanted to change it to the Ontario Waste Authority, because it's our view that this bill has implications that are far-reaching, that not only impact the greater Toronto area but will have an impact right across the province.

I don't think it is coincidental that this bill was introduced in the House during municipal elections, and we've been through that many times. But the fact of the matter is that the bill was introduced during municipal elections, when people across this province didn't have an opportunity to really respond to it, particularly those people who are ultimately charged with responsibility for waste management in their communities, many members of municipal councils. They expressed those concerns both officially through AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, many members of that organization, and many individual elected municipal officials and mayors from across the province as well.

We have begun to realize more and more even in the past few weeks -- I think of the situation in Windsor by way of example, with the Maidstone dump and what's happening there, the tremendous anxiety that is being created in that community and with the municipal council there. I believe, and I think the writing's clearly on the wall, that the impact of Bill 143 will be felt right across the province. What we've done basically with Bill 143 is changed the rules in terms of the way we operate with waste management in Ontario. We've certainly done it for Toronto, which has the greatest population and is certainly the greatest producer of waste in the province. It stands to follow, and I think it's a logical progression, that this will be the portent of things to come right across the province.

Accordingly, we have moved this amendment, notwithstanding the fact that it was not accepted in committee. We wanted to bring it up again because we believe all the people of Ontario will be dramatically affected by Bill 143 and the Interim Waste Authority. Indeed we seek to drop the word "Interim" because there's no way that anybody who realistically has any measure of what's taking place believes this will be interim. In our view, the reality is -- and I'm sure there will be some contrary message -- that this is seen as a foot in the door and a changing of the rules. It will not be interim. So the amendment we have moved again is to recognize that reality, to recognize that the implications of Bill 143 are not just for the greater Toronto area but for the entire province. That's the rationale behind this amendment.

Hon Mrs Grier: I would like to comment on the remarks of the member for Brampton North and on this amendment, which we are not prepared to accept at this stage, as we were not prepared to accept it in committee.

I think the words we've heard from the member are very telling. The member says he wants to change the word to "corporation" so that all of the people of Ontario can be impacted by this bill. All of the people of Ontario are impacted by this bill. All of the people of Ontario are assured by the passage of this bill that the waste that is generated within the greater Toronto area will be disposed of within the greater Toronto area.

I know that under the previous administration and with the support of the member, it was the intent that waste from the greater Toronto area could go perhaps to Kirkland Lake, perhaps to Marmora, perhaps to Plympton, perhaps to Cayuga or to places all around this province. We heard from the municipalities and from the environmental groups and from the citizens that they thought the municipalities and the people of the greater Toronto area had a responsibility to look after their own waste. That is why this legislation is before us, that is what this legislation is designed to ensure and that is why we cannot accept the amendment that is put forward today.

I want also to comment briefly on the remarks made that this ought not to be an "Interim" Waste Authority. It is very deliberately called an Interim Waste Authority because historically in this province the responsibility for waste management has lain with the municipalities, whether they are the lower tier or the upper tier, and, in the GTA, with the regions.

There had been a bringing together of those regions under an organization known as SWISC, the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee, to find a cooperative solution somewhere out of the GTA for the GTA waste. We did not allow that process to continue and have instead put in place an Interim Waste Authority with a mandate to find disposal sites within the GTA, but it is certainly our desire that the responsibility for the ultimate disposal of that waste would eventually return to the regions, which traditionally, historically and legislatively have had that responsibility. The word "interim" in the title of the Interim Waste Authority is a very deliberate signal that it is not the intention of the province, it is not the desire of the province, to retain that responsibility; it is the intent of the province to ensure an environmental solution to the crisis that has plagued the greater Toronto area for well over a decade now.

But having made the tough decisions, having taken the heat, and knowing that there is more heat to be taken when the Interim Waste Authority moves forward to select preferred sites within the regions, it is certainly the intention of my ministry to work cooperatively with the regions to devise a comprehensive waste management system for the GTA that will allow the regions to reassert their traditional responsibilities and to take their traditional responsibilities in being the agency or the element or the level of government that has the responsibility for waste management. That is why the amendments being put forward by the member for Brampton North cannot be accepted.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I wasn't on this committee, but I understand that some four weeks were spent by members of this Legislature listening to some 200 oral briefs, some 43 written briefs, travelling to at least four or five areas in this province. That has to come to an awful lot of money, probably $100,000, $200,000, $300,000; more than that, perhaps. If only one amendment was accepted by the government, why did we have the hearings? Why did we waste that money by travelling the province? Why did we receive 200 oral briefs? It appears as though the 200 people who appeared before the committee were not listened to. Surely that flies right in the face of democracy. It flies right in the face of tax dollars out here, out in the --

The Chair: I would ask you to speak to the motion.

Mr Callahan: I am speaking to it, Mr Chairman. I am trying to find out --

The Chair: Read the motion; I want you to speak to the motion.

Mr Callahan: I'm trying to find out why the government is not prepared to accept any of the amendments that were put forward in committee or the amendment my colleague from Brampton North is putting forward. They're only accepting one amendment, after they went through all this trouble and all this expense. I would like to know how the minister justifies that on the basis of supposedly listening to the public, or did we in fact just blow the money at a time when we can ne'er do well to do that, when food banks need money and other people who are poor in this province are starving to death. Minister, perhaps you can explain that to me. What was the purpose of going out on public hearings? What was the purpose of uselessly spending taxpayers' dollars if you are not prepared to accept any of the amendments, either in committee or now, and you only accepted one minor amendment to the bill?

The Chair: Order, please. I think the motion is very clear, and you haven't addressed that motion. If the minister or the parliamentary assistant want to answer your question, they are free to do so, but the motion is dealing with the meaning of the corporation.

Mr O'Connor: It's very important to respond to some of the concerns the member opposite has raised. I don't feel that any time a legislative committee of this Legislature travels the province or has people come to Toronto to meet with a committee to make and discuss legislation before us is ever a waste of time. I think any time a person is welcomed to this Legislature to make amendments is very important, and from that we can take a lot of important information and facts, and things that can improve the bill should be included.

I'd like to direct the member opposite to take a look underneath his bench right now. You can see that we've got a reprinted bill with all the amendments made because of the committee process and all the amendments made by the social development committee. If you take a look, there are about two dozen of them, 24 amendments, quite a few of them, and they're not just cosmetic; they're very important. I direct that to the attention of the member and say that when we do meet with the people of Ontario it's very important.

1520

The Chair: I won't allow any more debate on a general topic. The topic is the amendment that was introduced by the member for Brampton North. I will only accept that type of discussion.

Mr McClelland: I want to respond briefly to some comments made by the minister. The fact of the matter is, Minister, that I'm not seeking to make the bill apply to the people of Ontario; I am making it reflect reality.

You have said, Minister, that this bill will at the end of the day ensure that the greater Toronto area deals with its own waste. We'll get into this a bit later on as we get to the specific section of the bill. That also says that it leaves you with the authority to order waste to be moved into another jurisdiction for up to a period of five years.

The fact of the matter is that the bill has potential to impact people right across the province. I'm not trying to make it impact people across the province, as you suggested. I'm trying to reflect that reality.

Minister, you talk about interim authority. The reality is that you're talking about a 20-year site. A 20-year site in your view may be interim. A 20-year site for the people in Durham who are going to have a site located on their farm or in their area, or the people in Brampton, or the people in York, who will almost certainly now receive Metro's waste or have an extension of 20 years, would hardly be deemed to be interim.

Twenty years may be interim for you, but I'll tell you this, Minister: My experience certainly has been, and I'm sure yours has been, that ratepayers, people who own land, concerned citizens, don't regard 20 years as an interim period, particularly as it impacts their property and their lives.

That is why, in response to your comments, Minister, we are not trying to change the impact of the bill; we're in fact trying to reflect reality. The reality is that it is not interim. It's in no way interim for the people at Britannia. It's in no way interim for the people in Keele Valley. It is in no way interim for the potential site in Peel. It is in no way interim for Durham. It's not interim. It's long-term: 20 years. It's going to dramatically affect people's property values and affect their lives. It is not interim.

Again, I say we're not trying to make it expansive across Ontario. It already applies in Ontario right across the province, and we're trying to reflect that reality.

The Chair: Are there any further questions on the amendment to section 1?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I will have a question for the minister on her explanation, which I believe does not make much sense to me and to the issue that is before us.

One of the concerns I have, as I've expressed a number of times in this House, is that if people of the province and my constituents in Oriole are going to have confidence in the government, the words have to fit the actions. As my leader, the member for Fort William, has noted on a number of occasions as leader of the official opposition, "From this government the words don't match the music." In fact, the title "Interim Waste Authority" is an example of exactly what she's referring to: 20 years is not "interim."

It is extremely important that the people of this province know and understand that the Minister of the Environment is taking away from the municipalities in the region of the greater Toronto area the responsibility for the establishment of dump sites in the greater Toronto area, which will have a 20-year impact.

My question to the minister is, in light of the fact that there is nothing interim about the Interim Waste Authority and that the amendment posed by my colleague would in fact describe much better what you're doing, and because I know she agrees with me that it's important that the words and the actions match, will she consider the amendment to give confidence to the people so that they will really understand what this waste authority is all about?

The Chair: Order, please. Let me read the amendment; let me read the motion.

"Mr McClelland moves that section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Definition

"1. In this part and part II, "corporation" means the corporation continued by section 2."

The debate has to be on that motion, nothing else -- strictly on that motion. Are there any further questions or comments? If not, is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

Interjection: No.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Chair: On section 1, I have an amendment to move with respect to the whole of the bill.

The Chair: We're dealing with this one here; we're dealing with section 1.

Mr Turnbull: It deals with sections 1 through 4, the whole of the bill.

The Chair: We'll deal with this one first.

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Chair: The member for York Mills has an amendment to section 1.

Mr Turnbull: I move that the government, given that the Ministry of the Environment has not released their promised initiatives paper on the financing of the waste management system and that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has not released their promised paper on statutory authority regarding the waste management for Ontario municipalities, not proceed with the third reading of Bill 143 until the aforementioned papers have been released for consideration and consultation with Ontario municipalities.

The Chair: Have you distributed that amendment to other members? I don't have a copy. This is not a proper amendment.

Mr Turnbull: Would you direct me as to why this is not a proper amendment, Mr Chair?

The Chair: It does not refer to section 1 at all.

Mr Turnbull: It refers to the whole bill, which includes section 1.

The Chair: It does not deal with section 1 specifically.

Mr Turnbull: Would you guide me as to when I might move this amendment then?

1530

The Chair: The member for York Mills, the amendment you have presented is a reasoned amendment. This can only be presented when third reading is introduced in the House.

Mr Turnbull: Very well.

The Chair: Shall section 1 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2:

The Chair: Are there any amendments to section 2?

Mr McClelland: I had tabled a couple of amendments to section 2. Going back a bit just by way of explanation -- I'm sure this is entirely confusing to people who may be watching -- my first amendment would have worked in tandem with proposed amendments for section 2 in terms of changing the name to the Ontario Waste Authority and so forth. Hence the first amendment you read that referred to the corporation would have a meaning as set out later in the bill, specifically in section 2, would be continued and go in tandem with that. But inasmuch as the government has indicated that it is certainly not going to accept that amendment and has voted down the amendment to section 1, the amendments on section 2 and section 2.1 that I had moved are withdrawn accordingly.

I do have another amendment, or an addition. I think it will pick up the intent of the amendment my colleague the member for York Mills proposed to put forward, which you moved out of order. I am sure he may want to speak to it. My proposed amendment would be in addition.

The Chair: Mr McClelland moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Quarterly report

"2.1(1) Within four months after the coming into force of this act, and every four months afterwards, the corporation shall prepare a written report setting out descriptions of all the sites the corporation is considering as possible sites for landfill waste disposal sites.

"Idem

"(2) The corporation shall give a copy of the report to the Minister of the Environment and shall make copies of the report available to members of the public at no charge."

Mrs Caplan: I have some comments. I think this is a very important and thoughtful amendment that has been put forward by my colleague. I believe the people of this province have a right to know what sites are being considered. I was very disappointed when the Minister of the Environment and the parliamentary assistant repeatedly refused to acknowledge that there were lists or files or, available for the public today, a compendium of the sites that were being reviewed.

We knew, and we had information from the government House leader, that if this legislation had passed as the minister wanted, without public hearings and by the end of December, that list would have been released in January. I think the minister is aware how important it is for the public to have access to that kind of information. By putting that requirement in the legislation, the public will be assured that every four months it will have open access to the kinds of deliberation and the sites that are being considered by the waste authority.

With the reprinting of this piece of legislation I know that some of the sections were renumbered and that it is sometimes very difficult for people in the public who are watching these hearings to follow exactly what sections we're going to be dealing with. But I think it's important that we try and explain, as we make comments on the proposed amendments, what intention the amendment is trying to achieve.

This quarterly reporting requirement is a very important one if the public is to be kept informed, particularly because under this new piece of legislation, rather than a publicly accountable body like a municipality or a regional government having responsibility and authority to act in the public interest -- to inform the public, to hold public hearings in the search for a site for landfill in their regions -- this responsibility is now being given to a waste authority called the Interim Waste Authority. It is not a publicly accountable body; it is accountable only to the Minister of the Environment. Therefore, it is the minister's responsibility to make sure this information is forthcoming to the province.

Unless there is a statutory obligation for those lists to be available, for a quarterly reporting to the public, our concern and the concern of my colleague from Brampton is that in fact the public will not have the information they need to make appropriate representations to the authority and to the Minister of the Environment who now has responsibility for waste disposal in the greater Toronto area.

I believe this amendment is not only appropriate; it is well thought out. The point he makes that this information should be made available to the public without charge I think is a very important one. My constituents in the riding of Oriole feel they are paying at least their fair share in taxes, and many of them feel they are paying higher taxes than is appropriate at this time in the midst of a recession. They are concerned, as government starts to offer more services, that they will either be further taxed or forced to pay through user charges.

I know that this government, in its reviews, has been musing about user fees and user charges and the Treasurer recently -- in fact I have a newspaper article from the Ottawa Citizen today that says the Treasurer was very clear that he intends to raise taxes in his upcoming budget. What he said in the Ottawa Citizen is, "'This is not some machiavellian attempt to raise people's fears about higher taxes and then come in with virtually none,' Laughren told reporters." So he is saying he's going to raise taxes. What this amendment would do in this legislation is to say: "We're paying enough in taxes. We want you to give us the information. You shouldn't charge us for it and we want to make sure we have access to the information we need so we will know what is going on in our communities."

I very much support this legislation and I hope the minister will. I know that while she was in opposition she was very supportive of the public's right to know and the public's right to information, and I know she would want to assure the public that they would have this information on a regular basis by law and that they would have access to this information without cost.

Hon Mrs Grier: I'd like to respond to this amendment by saying to the honourable member that she and I entirely agree that the public has to have information and be involved in the process of the selection of the sites that will be ultimate disposal sites for the regions of the greater Toronto area. But I would like to remind the member that the site search is being carried out by the Interim Waste Authority on the basis of the powers enshrined in Bill 143, the legislation we are debating here today.

I think it would be entirely inappropriate for the Interim Waste Authority to have continued its work in the development of a potential list of sites before that legislation was there. In fact I suspect that had the Interim Waste Authority gone ahead with the original schedule of the authority and published a list of potential sites for the greater Toronto area, the honourable member would have been one of the first on her feet to point out that there was no legislative authority for the Interim Waste Authority to exist or to carry on that process. That is why we instructed the Interim Waste Authority not to proceed with the work on developing the long list of potential sites once it became clear it was the wish of the Legislature that there be public hearings and consultation on Bill 143.

1540

When this legislation becomes the law of Ontario, the Interim Waste Authority will pick up where it left off last November and will proceed as quickly as possible to develop the long list of sites, which will them be refined on the basis of very specific environmental criteria down to a shorter list of sites, and from that to a preferred site. Once those preferred sites have been identified, then the environmental assessment process will continue and ultimately lead to a hearing and, we hope, an approval.

Having said that, I hope the honourable member will recollect that the Interim Waste Authority has already begun a very detailed and clear process of public consultation. They are committed in the draft approach and criteria for the ultimate disposal sites to the most extensive public consultation and involvement that I think has ever been undergone by a body looking for a landfill site.

In York region just last week, or maybe the week before, I was able to spend some time with the citizens consultation group that is working on refining the criteria and working with the Interim Waste Authority as it looks at what the criteria for site selection ought to be and the process that ought to be followed in the search in the regions of Metro and York. That process is not only well under way but has been committed to by the Interim Waste Authority in the meetings and consultations it has been having since last August.

To change direction now and enshrine in the legislation a quite different process of public consultation would, I think, undermine what is turning out to be a very productive and constructive consultation that is under way under the auspices of the Interim Waste Authority, and for that reason we can't accept the amendment as proposed.

Mr Turnbull: The comments made by the minister just now are somewhat disingenuous. It's very clear that municipalities feel an important part of the process of evaluating the draft legislation is to understand the thinking of the ministry and the interim authority in terms of site selection and financing of these projects.

The fact that we were told in December that had we passed this bill we would have been in possession of those lists in January demonstrates very well that the lists were at a very late stage of preparation. In fact, in the brief period that I sat in on committee hearings, we had complete bafflegab from one of the Interim Waste Authority officials which very clearly indicated that while the list wasn't prepared, the sites were very well identified. Municipalities are saying, "Look, in order for us to be able to rationally evaluate this, we must understand where they are and we must understand the regulations in terms of financing."

The suggestion that we should have to wait until after the bill is passed is not reasonable. We know the work has been done. It had to have been done in order for them to be ready to distribute it in January. Here we are in the middle of April and we still don't have that information, yet municipalities are saying very clearly to the government that they need that piece of information so they can do their homework.

We know this bill was brought in at the time of municipal elections, when the local politicians' centre of attention was away from this. It doesn't do the government credit to bring this kind of important legislation forward, which has implications for the whole province, not just the greater Metro area, or the way this government plans to proceed, not only with waste elimination but also how it will overrule municipalities in its intentions as to how they are going to solve their own garbage problems.

Mrs Caplan: I would like to address to the minister the comments she made and I would say to her that she can't have it both ways. I don't think she's missed the point of what I was saying, but I'm distressed because I think what she has done and what she is saying could be misinterpreted by a number of people who are not aware of the situation.

Neither our critic for Environment nor myself as critic for the treasury board has ever raised the issue of the lack of legislative authority. Quite the contrary. In fact, the minister says on the one hand, "The work has begun, the process is in place and this Interim Waste Authority is committed to certain processes." Then, knowing full well there is a time allocation motion attached to this piece of legislation and knowing full well, as every member of this House knew back in December, that this legislation is going to be passed in this spring session, they stopped the one thing the public had an interest in, and that was the production of the list.

This NDP government does many things without legislative authority. As critic for the treasury board, I would point out to the minister that there is no legislative authority for the decision-making of your treasury board. We have yet to see a piece of legislation that would empower a new treasury board and give it a mandate and responsibility. There is the Management Board of Cabinet Act, there is the Legislative Assembly Act, but there is no new treasury board act. Yet we have not complained, we have not criticized. What we have said is that we understand you will organize things the way you feel you should in order to govern and make appropriate decisions.

You established an Interim Waste Authority, you gave it a mandate, you set it up. You've spent enormous dollars; a lot of money has been spent by the Interim Waste Authority. The one thing the opposition has requested is the list of the sites the public has a right to and is interested in, and you've responded by saying, "They can do everything else, but they can't do that until there's the legislative authority."

Minister, that is the kind of activity that breeds cynicism in the public mind. The municipal representatives know what you're doing. It is unbecoming of you, it is contrived, and it is of great concern to me that you would attempt to justify that kind of behaviour here in this House on the basis of "no legislative authority." That's absolute, utter nonsense.

The other point I wanted to make, when we discuss the style of government and the approach of this legislation, is that it is very appropriate, as you have no legislative authority, for this Legislature to determine what the process should be in giving the public information. For you to stand in your place and say, "We didn't produce the list because there's no legislative authority, but they've done all of this, they're committed to all of this, the work has all begun and it's now too late in the process to make any changes," belies the fact that we're here in the House debating a very important piece of legislation which there is still time to change.

You began this process in October by saying: "Here's my bill. I want it by Christmas. I want it without public hearings. I want it without delay." Public hearings were forced upon you. You then came to the public and said, "I'm willing to listen and I'm willing to make some changes." Today you stand in the House and say: "We're not going to make any changes. This process is already in place." You admit you have no legislative authority for the things you have done.

1550

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Would the honourable member please address the items of interest.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I'm very concerned, because the minister is walking away from her seat at this moment. It makes it very difficult for me to contain my frustration.

I spoke at length on this legislation during second reading and I was assured by the minister, through the public hearing process, that they would be willing to consider reasonable amendments. Here is an amendment clearly in the public interest which requires only that the public be informed, mandates how that information will be dispensed and assures the public that it won't cost anything to get the lists and get the information they need.

The answer the minister just gave as she denied acceptance of this significant amendment I think puts her credibility on the line. I'd ask her to reconsider, because this is a very significant public interest amendment. I believe she will be severely criticized if she says no to this important amendment.

Mr O'Connor: I've listened intently to what the members opposite have had to say about public consultation. The minister referred to the draft document that was put out by the Interim Waste Authority. Right in it is the public consultation program they're following. It's laid out in quite a bit of detail. The members of the committee have had a chance to review it, but for those who haven't, it's really an incredible document, because it lays out exactly the process of communications. It talks about communications through the media, about liaison with local, provincial and regional politicians and staff. They put 1-800 numbers in every regional municipality. They did a lot of surveying. A lot of documentation had to go on after this document was put out, because they encouraged a lot of people to participate, they held meetings in all the regional municipalities, and from that they gathered a lot of information.

While the Interim Waste Authority had suspended its work in developing a list, it went a little further and had these public information meetings. They talked to people throughout the GTA, and the document that resulted was Revised Approach and Criteria, Steps 1 to 4; Supplementary Criteria, Steps 5 and 6. It's an incredible document. It shows how we're streamlining and making sure that we're going to exclude areas of agricultural importance, of biological and hydrogeological significance.

It was really an incredible process, and we did get the public involved. This question was raised in the committee, and we had an opportunity to hear the people from the Interim Waste Authority. They talked about the process and how they got as many people involved as possible. It's quite an incredible process, a very open process -- and all that before it gets to an environmental assessment hearing. It's incredible.

Mr McClelland: I will try to restrict my comments strictly to the content of the amendment, notwithstanding the fact that I think the honourable parliamentary assistant has moved into a broader scope of discussion.

What we're asking for, as the member for Oriole has said, is accountability in the Legislative Assembly. The minister said in her comments and response to the amendment we've put forward that the Interim Waste Authority suspended its work because it had no legislative authority, notwithstanding the fact that considerable sums of money have been spent: I believe the budget this year is in the order of $13 million. Is that more or less correct? It was $13 million for this year and it very well may be more, we were told during the process.

What we have here is a minister who's said: "I have chosen a particular direction and I'm going to go ahead with it. I'm going to allocate $13 million or more of public moneys to proceed in this direction, and then after the fact we'll put the bill in place to give me authority and to legislate what's taking place here." Is it any wonder, then, that those of us sitting opposite would ask where the public accountability is?

The parliamentary assistant can talk all he wants about 1-800 numbers and how the public was consulted. The fact of the matter is that after the Interim Waste Authority completes its work and moves ahead on the basis of the recommendations that are forthcoming from its work and the direction it has taken, and people's property and communities are impacted, there will be a hue and cry like you've never heard. All the rhetoric about consultation and about the fact that "We're available through our 1-800 number" will not appease those people. They will ask, "Why weren't we told? Why weren't our representatives in the Legislative Assembly, from whatever party, and why wasn't the public generally given in concrete terms a report" -- not input, but a report -- "on what is taking place?"

Here again, what we've heard this afternoon is, if I can repeat and try and put into context what we've heard from the minister and the parliamentary assistant: "We've gone ahead and we've begun a process. We've committed millions upon millions of dollars to do it, but we've suspended the work because we had no legislative authority."

Think of what that's saying, Mr Chairman; consider that for a moment: "We're moving in a direction because we know we'll get what we want." We're a little frustrated, because notwithstanding the rhetoric we heard earlier about how this assembly decided to go with public hearings, we know that was not an easy task to accomplish. This government wanted third reading on this bill by December 17. It was a "must-have" bill. They had to have it by the end of the last session, otherwise there would be tremendous hardship befalling the people of the province.

So they "suspended" their work on site selection, but in the very same breath, the parliamentary assistant said, "But they went on a little further to do other things, their public consultative process." They suspended their work on the list because they had no legislative authority.

I have to ask -- either rhetorically or there may be an answer forthcoming -- is not one of the difficulties the minister and the parliamentary assistant find themselves in now this: that they began a process under the auspices of Bill 143 as proposed legislation to move forward and to begin to expend public funds, millions upon millions of dollars -- we heard in committee when we asked for a specific amount of money that it was "a tremendous amount of money." We weren't sure whether a tremendous amount is more than $20 million or less than $20 million; whatever it is, it's a tremendous amount of money. And how much will it cost in the final analysis? "We're not really sure, but it will be a tremendous amount of money," was the response. "We really don't know where we are going with this. It may be $20 million this year, $50 million next year, but we don't know. It will be a tremendous amount of money."

We have a responsibility in this House to account for public dollars, and the great irony is that, by her own admission, the minister said: "We proceeded without legislative authority to spend millions of dollars, so we held up the work on one aspect of it, the part that was politically contentious and could have caused us a great deal of hardship out there in the community in terms of public response. We suspended that until we get the legislative authority to move ahead on the tough part." And the parliamentary assistant stands up and says, "All the while we continued to do the other stuff."

As the member for Oriole said, it's really difficult to understand how you can have it both ways. What you're saying is that you want to ensure the integrity of the process and so forth, so, "We had to hold it up, we had to put on the brakes until we had the legislative authority to move forward. But things weren't going well. They weren't going the way we thought they'd work. The opposition didn't roll over at Christmastime. We figured they wouldn't want to hang around and would get this bill through and everything would just fall into place and we could do much of what we're doing" -- without the public protection that has been afforded people in this province for quite some time through the process of the Environmental Assessment Act or the Environmental Protection Act, and countless other pieces of legislation.

1600

Bill 143 apparently, when it is finished, because we've already heard from the minister that there will be no significant amendments accepted, will override those public protections. This money will be spent without any direct accountability to this place. That is why we put this amendment forward. We think it's important to draw to the attention of members in this House and the public generally and the press that the minister, on her very own admission, is going ahead and spending this money without authority.

It will impact people potentially in a very negative way. We believe, as the member for Oriole has said, that one of the fundamental doctrines of democracy is one of public accountability. Accordingly, we feel a report should be forthcoming. I would be pleased if the government would entertain perhaps an amendment to the amendment. Maybe having it once every four months is too onerous, and I can accept that. Maybe we don't want to get into a situation where the primary function of the organization is to draft reports. Perhaps there's an argument to be made there; I'd be interested in entertaining that. But surely there ought to be some mechanism in a regular legislated format and time frame by which a body expending "tremendous sums of money," to use its own words, in the order of millions upon millions of dollars, is required to lay before the people of Ontario what is happening with that money. That is the nature of the amendment.

I come back to that point. I say to the minister with great respect that you can't say: "We held up the area that was tough for us. We held up the work on the sites, because we knew that would be a hornet's nest politically, until we got the legislative authority so we could move ahead and really do it under the tremendous draconian authority that this bill will grant us."

Understand what's being said here, Mr Chairman. What's being said here is: "We wanted to have the legislative authority so that we could do things differently, so that we could change the rules in terms of public participation. We didn't want to move ahead. But after we have the legislative authority to change the rules, to change the kinds of things we used to fight for when we were in opposition -- public participation and public accountability -- once we get the override of those protections, we'll move ahead. In the meantime, we'll continue to spend money as we see fit. We know we're going to get what we want because we've laid it out in a time allocation motion."

It doesn't matter what the people of Ontario say. Quite frankly, I don't really expect a great deal of response. I accept very much the goodwill and good spirit the minister has demonstrated in many cases in trying to have constructive dialogue on a variety of issues, but the fact of the matter is that this was etched in stone before it really even hit the desks in this place. The agenda was clearly carved out. I don't think it's stretching inference one bit to say that the intention of the government to have this legislation before December was part and parcel of its communications strategy to move ahead with the "legislative authority" to override public participation, because they knew what would happen. They knew that if they went ahead and proceeded to make it known to people around the province that they might be impacted, those people would be very upset.

So again I say, as the member for Oriole has said, I don't know how you can have it both ways. I don't know how you can say: "We want the public to participate but we don't want to be accountable to them. We don't want to move ahead in terms of those areas of this bill that will give us a problem, because we don't have the authority to do it, but the stuff we can do that isn't difficult for us or that we can do in the bureaucratic maze that currently exists, we'll go ahead with. After all, we're going to get the legislative authority anyway because we're calling the shots here. We have the numbers, we're going to control it, and we have a time allocation motion that's already been put on the floor by the government House leader."

When you come back to this motion, what does it say? It says: Tell us what you're doing. Tell us what you're doing with public money. You have a budget coming down in a few weeks' time -- April 30. There is no doubt that services are going to be cut, taxes are going to go up and we're going to continue in the downward spin that we're in unless this government gets a hold in terms of its management. We're saying to you: Here's an opportunity for you to indicate to the people of Ontario something that's very important to them. It's something that's very important in terms of an issue that is of concern: the environment. We want to know what's happening with our tax dollars in that area. That's what the amendment speaks to.

I guess I'm torn. I would like to say it's unbelievable that the government doesn't accept something or perhaps make an amendment to the amendment. On the other hand, when you recognize what they are trying to do here, I guess it is understandable why they don't want to proceed with the amendment. It's got to be very embarrassing for them, trying to pick and choose and have it, as the member for Oriole has said, both ways. I think they have clearly indicated they're not going to accept this amendment. I'm sure we'll have our members rise on this matter to have this put to a vote at the appropriate time on the second day of committee.

In the meantime, I want to ask the parliamentary assistant or the minister if they could perhaps indicate to this House and the people of Ontario exactly how much money has been spent today "without legislative authority."

Mr O'Connor: The main gist of the amendment before us at this moment is to try to get some information out to the public. I think that's the main gist of what the honourable member opposite is trying to do. He's trying to make sure that information about the situation the bill is going to be dealing with gets out to the public as much as possible.

I'd like to read a preliminary list of contacts the Interim Waste Authority has approached. They've approached municipal political representatives, regional political representatives, provincial political representatives, MPPs from throughout the GTA, and federal politicians as well. They've contacted federal and provincial agencies from regional municipalities. They've talked to information offices, planning commissioners, departments, school boards, waste management committees, public works committees, recycling committees, liaison committees and agricultural organizations. I note the Durham Federation of Agriculture and the York Federation of Agriculture, which are in my riding, have been involved in this.

They've had library, board of health, conservation authorities, tourism and recreation, and utilities contacts. They've included on their list special interest groups, environmental groups, community associations, ratepayer groups, recreational organizations, heritage and archaeological associations and key community contacts as well, citizens, chambers of commerce, boards of trade, business associations and media contacts. They've talked to people at radio stations, TV stations, regional magazines and both local and regional newspapers.

The list really is incredible when you consider how many people they've tried to include in the process. The honourable member is saying we're not trying to get the information out to the public. I think this list of contacts shows the incredible work that's being done by the Interim Waste Authority to try to get as many people involved in the consultation as possible. As well as having all these meetings, anybody who has phoned for information on these 1-800 numbers has been included on newsletters sent out. They've had numerous open houses, which I spoke about earlier, and many workshops on the site criteria. A very large amount of consultation has gone on.

As far as public consultation and trying to get the information out to the public are concerned, I think the Interim Waste Authority ought to be applauded for the work that has been done. It's just incredible.

Mr Turnbull: Much in the vein that we see from this government in question period, we absolutely didn't get an answer to the question posed by the member for Brampton North. The question was: How much money have you spent? I don't know how you can put it in plainer English than that. We get a shopping list of all the wonderful things you've done and all the meetings you've had, but it has nothing to do with the question. The question is: How much money have you spent without authority? I would very much like us to get an answer to that question.

Mr O'Connor: I just have a comment, Mr Chair. We are debating the amendment at this time, the Liberal motion before us, are we not?

The Second Deputy Chair: Yes, we are.

Mr McClelland: Let's get back to that. We're talking about the amendment I put forward. What it says, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, is to put forward reports, and presumably the reports would include sites and would have attached thereto some reference in terms of expenditures related to the work of the Interim Waste Authority. One goes hand in hand with the other. You're going out, you're doing work, you're spending money, you're bringing scientific evidence to bear.

What we're talking about here, I say to you, Mr Chairman, and to the parliamentary assistant, is not a public relations campaign. We're not talking about information through 1-800 numbers and publications that are sent out and a PR campaign. We're talking about accountability and responsibility. You, sir, as a representative of the people of Durham-York, have as part of your responsibility the job of being accountable, a watchdog, for what happens with tax dollars.

1610

Apart from the substance of Bill 143, which we will continue to debate, what's really taking place here is the override of many people's hard-fought-for protection. The question I put to the parliamentary assistant, who regrettably has had to respond to a message -- I'm sure he'll be back; perhaps the minister will answer -- is: How much money has been spent? What we heard in response was that millions of dollars have been spent. A tremendous amount of money has been spent, and we didn't have legislative authority to do it.

What we're saying is: Surely there ought to be some sort of reporting mechanism. Let's think of this in terms of a loop, the concept we're operating within. The government comes forward and says: "We're going to pass legislation and we believe we're going to get it, so we're going to go ahead and do our thing anyway. We're going to go full speed ahead because we have the numbers; we have the majority. We believe we can do what we want to do and we will do it. It matters not what the opposition says. It matters not, more important, what the people of Ontario say. We will do what we will do and that's what's going to happen. In fact, we want to have it done by the end of 1991, so let's just go full charge ahead. This is going to slide through and at the end of the day we will backfill the legislative authority we need to do what we have begun to do."

It didn't work out the way they planned. Some people generally in the province, many municipal leaders and members of the opposition, got a little bit excited about it. They said: "Okay, I didn't read this one correctly. We'll go to public hearings, but we'd better put a brake on this because it's not unfolding the way it should."

The reality is, within that context and the spirit of trying to move ahead without public participation -- that was your intent. There is no denying it. There is no denying you intended to move ahead without significant public consultation. You wanted the bill in the worst way, with one day's worth of debate in this House. You didn't get it. In that context, we are saying there's something amiss here. One of the things we can do as an effective opposition is to demand your accountability by tabling in this House legislatively what you're doing with the taxpayers' dollars -- millions upon millions of dollars to date.

In committee, the response was that it will be a tremendous amount of money. The member for Markham asked, "What will it be -- $200 million, $500 million, $1 billion, $2 billion?" The response was: "It very well could be. We don't know, but it will be a tremendous amount of money." I suppose the member for Markham could have gone on. I don't know how high he would have gone, where the buzzer would have gone off -- at $10 billion or $20 billion. I don't know.

But the fact of the matter remains that the government said, "We don't feel we have to lay before the Legislative Assembly and the people of the province an accounting for what we're doing," in doing it with a bill that by its very nature overrides public participation. That's the great irony. On one hand, you're asking that the right of the public to participate as they had before, to have full hearings and be engaged in a process -- we'll pick up more of the substance of that later in the bill. In the context of that being a fundamental and very contentious element of this bill, we're saying: At least come clean with the people as to what's happened with their money and what's happening in terms of the site selection process.

It was a political card, in that sense. The minister got very angry with me in committee when we were doing clause-by-clause, because I was accused of playing fast and loose with allegations of insincerity or something of that nature. What happened was this. I'd said I was confused in terms of the list of sites because I had memoranda from the House leader that said, "Give us the bill and we'll give you the list." So it stood to reason in my mind that a list must be out there. We heard throughout that it's not there. I accept that. We've been around that bush countless times. I accept that there was no list.

But what I have to question is this: In the context of the House leader saying, "Cooperate with us and we'll give you what you're looking for on behalf of the people of Ontario," is it any wonder that the opposition says, "Let's require, if we can, or at least" -- obviously we're not going to get it in terms of the legislation -- "put before the people of Ontario the fact that the government does not want to come clean with what it's doing in terms of the site selection process"?

I remember well the minister, when she was Environment critic, just hammering away at the member for St Catharines in terms of his responsibility to be completely open and forthright and honest in terms of anything that was happening with the environment and what was happening with waste management. She would stand in her place and go after the then minister and say: "You cannot hide behind your ministerial authority or confidentiality in terms of cabinet decisions because we're talking about waste management sites and the environment and that's too important to the people of Ontario. You've got to let people know what's happening with property that's close to them in their neighbourhoods, people's right of ownership, people's right of quality of life in their community." In her role as opposition critic the now minister would then go after the member for St Catharines, who was minister at the time, and say to our friend, "You can't do that."

But now what do they seek to do? They want to just go ahead. "We'll do our public relations campaign, get 1-800 numbers out, have our consultation groups and give you a wonderful list, a menu of all the people we've invited to participate." That's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about information necessarily from a public relations point of view, although that's all well and good. It's important that people be involved in the process. We're not saying that's wrong. We think that's good and we want to give you credit. We laud what you're doing there. I say to the parliamentary assistant, good work, keep it up, keep the public involved. They want to be involved, they want to be part of the solution. But we also say, come forward and lay on the table specifically what you're doing as it would impact their land. Lay on the table specifically what's happening as you begin to narrow down whose land might be affected.

We in this province have enjoyed the right of participation. You members of the NDP sat in opposition for many years. Some were here and some were not, but you were active members of your party no doubt. One of the strengths of your party was that you wanted to hold governments accountable so that people's rights could be protected. We're talking about rights, about people's property, about people's neighbourhoods, about what takes place in communities. That's what you used to fight for. Now you have in place a process that says, "We'll do all the good stuff about consultation, but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty in defining, in specifying whose land might be affected, we don't want to give you that information."

I know why you don't want to give that information: Because people will respond to something like Bill 143 with a fair bit of concern and come before a legislative committee and make their position known in the good faith that maybe the government will respond to some of their positive suggestions. That has come to naught in this case. Notwithstanding what we've heard, the reality is that some of the amendments you brought forward are in large measure cosmetic and don't even really begin to meet the concerns people put forward. Having said that, they believed they had an opportunity to do it. People do that; that's the way we operate in society. But when it comes down to affecting them where they live, you know they get excited.

There are members in this House who know very much about that because they were part and parcel of citizens' group movements and people involved all across this province in the past because it affected them in their neighbourhoods and it affected their land, property and lifestyle. That's what we're talking about. It's an amendment that focuses it and says to people in the province, "You, sir, you, ma'am, families, your farm is going to be affected and here's what's going to happen." We believe they have a right to know.

We recognize that no matter what you do people are going to be unhappy. Nobody wants a landfill site near him. You're going to have to make some tough choices, but that's what you got elected to do. Surely the people who are being considered have a right to know specifically that they are being considered and surely they have a right to know how they can participate specifically with reference to their property. We're not talking about generalities, we're not talking about an esoteric, academic reflection upon a bill, whether it's a good or bad bill. We're talking about people's property and people's land. We believe that they want to know and I believe that after the fact you're going to have outraged citizens across the province of Ontario.

1620

With your indulgence, Mr Chairman, I am going to bring it up as often as I can as we go through this, because I know what is going to happen. Before the next election, if you are able to move ahead -- there is some question about whether you are going to be able to, and that will be fodder for discussion as we move through this bill -- and you begin to narrow it down and start to pick specific sites, you are going to have citizens' groups coming out of the woodwork, coming down here en masse and making your life very miserable.

That is the reality, and you can pay now or you can pay later. You have obviously chosen to pay later, and maybe from a public relations and a crass political point of view, that is the smart thing to do. But I say to people who used to stand in their places and say, "Environmental issues and issues that affect people's lives are too important to play games with," you can't get away with it now. You can't have it both ways. You can't on one hand say, "We were proceeding, but we put on the brakes because we had a tough row ahead of us and we wanted the legislative authority, the bill, to move full steam ahead."

You can't pick and chose in terms of accountability. You either are or you're not. If you're not prepared to come forward and say to the people of Ontario, "Your land is being considered," what is going to happen is that after the fact, after you have narrowed it down, you say, "Your land was considered and it has been chosen and you can make all the noise you want, but that is the way it's going to be." That is consistent with what you have done with this legislation.

That is the thing that gets us concerned, that there is a parallel there. The parallel is that the process you are seeking to impose on the people of Ontario in terms of site selection is very similar to the process that you wanted to proceed with in getting Bill 143. That is why we think that you have got to come forward, lay it on the table and say to people, "Your land."

People in Durham-York will want to know that their land is being considered, and they have a right to know, I say to the parliamentary assistant. They have a right to go to you as their advocate to make sure that their rights are protected or that they are compensated appropriately. That is why we are asking you to reconsider that and be accountable. You may not like the four months. Make it once a year, make it six months, but at least be accountable and let people know that their land is in jeopardy.

The Second Deputy Chair: Prior to proceeding, I have just been advised by our Clerk that indeed we are dealing with an amendment which would create a new section, so I am asking the committee of the whole House here if we could now approve section 2 and then proceed with the debate on the amendment, which effectively is a new section between sections 2 and 3. Is this agreeable to the committee? Agreed.

Section 2 agreed to.

The Second Deputy Chair: We now proceed with the debate that was currently in process, Mr McClelland's amendment.

Mr O'Connor: I listened again intently, as always, to the member for Brampton North opposite as he talked about the need to make sure citizens are keenly aware of what is happening. I don't know whether I talked a little bit about the information centres that the IWA has proposed in the draft approach and criteria document, the document that perhaps not all the members of the Legislature have had a chance to take a look at and read, but I am sure they would be really keenly interested to hear a little bit about it.

The information centres are going to be put out in every community, every municipality. They are going to be set up in municipal offices and libraries in all the affected communities so that when the long list that we have been talking about is identified, there is a representative from the IWA available there for consultation with the public so that we can get them involved and allow that involvement to take place.

The member for Brampton North is right; it is important to let people know exactly what is going on. The centres are going to be open for a few hours every week to try to encourage people to come in, and a full set of documentation will be available at these information centres, at municipal offices and at libraries. They are going to have workshops too. They are going to have a number of workshops to try to encourage people to come in and to discuss it. They are going to have people included as much as possible, long before we ever get down to the short list that the member opposite has been speaking about. We are trying to include people in every bit of the process.

The member is right when he says that informing the public, the people who are going to be affected, is important, and that is exactly what the IWA has been doing. Maybe some of the members just haven't had an opportunity to read right through the draft document. I'd suggest they take a look at section 5 of it because it lays out some of the consultation that's got to take place. I am sure the concerns of the member opposite about public information are important and they're addressed very well in this document.

Mr Callahan: It's somewhat analogous to what is in place for planning legislation or rezoning legislation, where people who are going to be affected by the particular rezoning have to be notified within, I think, 400 feet of the affected area. I don't see this as being anything different. This question of landfill and the potentiality or the possibility of your site, your farm, your neighbour's farm, your next-door property, being designated as a landfill site or a potential one probably causes more anxiety and heartburn for individuals.

We had a landfill location. A number of sites were identified in the Peel region, actually in the Brampton area. I can remember people coming to me and saying: "Mr Callahan, I can't even fix my rec room. I'm not going to fix my rec room because I don't know whether the site that's been designated is the site that's going to eventually be the landfill site."

To put people of this province under that gun and under that anxiety is most unfair. It flies in the face of natural justice. I would think the NDP would be jumping all over the section that's being proposed, because you people have always said you look after all the little people. By rejecting this amendment you're suddenly sounding like the closet government; do everything in the dark, don't let too many people know about it.

For crying out loud, you can put out all sorts of gobbledegook; you can send the member for Scarborough-Agincourt a letter -- I'd love to know where the mailing came from -- asking him to join the NDP. Surely to God, if you can send that kind of stuff out to members in this House you know surely are not going to join your party, there's no question, no reason on this earth why you can't possibly take this amendment and say, "Every four months we're just going to let the folks know what sites are being looked at."

Is that a secret? My friend the member for Durham West says, "Oh, it'll be in the newspapers." I know where it'll be in the newspapers. You're going to spend big bucks in the newspapers every time after the fact and people won't see it. When the poor person comes along and says, "Hey, what are they doing drilling over there? What's this interest they've got in my property?" the answer from the bureaucrats is going to be: "Well, it was in the newspaper. You should have seen it and if you didn't see it, too bad."

I don't think there's anything wrong, Madam Minister, with this amendment. In fact it's an amendment that gives this bill a sense of justice. If you don't vote for it, then you people over there aren't in favour of the people knowing what's going on in this province. Just keep it hidden and if you keep it hidden you can sneak it through. Actually you're going to have to sneak it through in a disaster area, because by the time you get around to doing it we'll be up to our elbows -- they say, "Up to your armpits in alligators." We'll be up to our armpits in garbage.

So, Madam Minister, I can't see anything wrong with that amendment. It would be gracious of you. It would establish my belief. As you people have always said, you're the guardians of all the people. It would show you are the guardians of all the people by accepting that amendment. I urge you to do so.

The Second Deputy Chair: By all-party agreement it was agreed that we would actually be terminating at about this time. The honourable government House leader, please.

On motion by Mr Cooke, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and government House leader): I would like to indicate the business of the House for next week. On Tuesday, April 21, we'll continue in committee of the whole House on Bill 143, with votes being held at the end of the day. Wednesday we have an opposition day standing in the name of Mr Runciman, and Thursday we will do third reading of Bill 143.

I move the adjournment of the House.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Mr Cooke has moved the adjournment of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjection: No.

The Speaker: No? All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

The ayes definitely have it.

The House adjourned at 1631.