The House met at 1004.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT

Resuming the adjourned debate on government notice of motion number 16 on consideration of the Charlottetown accord.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I've had an earlier opportunity to express at considerable length in this House my support for the Charlottetown accord and the reasons why I will be voting Yes on October 26. I'd like to use my opportunity this morning to just for a few moments reflect on the process of this campaign, as we are now some 11 days away from what I believe to be one of the most critical votes in our nation's history.

It seems to me that after all the years of debate, of anguish, of negotiation, there has been one point of almost unanimous agreement across the country as this campaign began. That point of agreement was that people have a clear sense that they'd had enough of constitutional negotiations. They wanted this issue resolved. They wanted it to be put behind us so we could all concentrate on other priorities.

Yet, 11 days before the vote itself, after all those years of debate, anguish and negotiation, I believe the campaign itself is proving to have been not long enough. It is certainly not long enough to answer all the questions people want to raise. It's not long enough to respond to that sense of uncertainty that makes people who want to vote Yes just a little bit hesitant, because they don't feel they have enough knowledge of the accord or of its implications.

I've had the opportunity to speak on the Yes side of the referendum at least on a daily basis. I'm impressed that so many people are truly seeking information, that they want to understand what the accord will do and what it will not do, that they want to know how particular provisions have been reached, why they've been reached, whether the accord can be made to work, whether an agreement in fact will allow this central issue to be resolved.

These concerned people do not make the headlines, but there's no question that their concerns are real and that they're looking for the information and looking for the answers. It is a fact that the Yes campaign is literally flooded with requests for speakers who will go out and bring this kind of information to people who are so anxiously looking for it.

These people -- you never see their names in the headlines. You never see their particular perspective addressed in the newspaper or media articles. There's no doubt that the No voices have been the most aggressive voices in the campaign and the most likely to catch attention.

As someone said early on: "It is so easy to be passionately opposed to some part of this agreement. The No side doesn't have to offer any alternatives. They just have to say No."

It seemed to me that at the beginning of the campaign, it was perhaps too frequent that the most passionate expressions of the Yes side focused on the consequences of a No vote. People understandably felt resentful of what they felt to be almost an intimidation. There is no question, though, that the concerns of the Yes side about what will happen if this referendum should fail are sincere and deeply felt.

But for the most part, the Yes supporters have urged people to ask their questions, to give the issues serious thought. The Yes supporters have wanted people to vote Yes, not out of a sense of resignation, not out of a sense of, "Let's get this done," but with a degree of comfort and with a degree even of enthusiasm. The time does seem almost too brief for such a thoughtful and informative discussion.

In many places, the issue becomes divisive. I recognize that this issue continues to be perhaps as divisive for the members of my party as for any other single, identifiable group. That is not because any of my fellow Liberals lack a commitment to our country, but in fact just the opposite.

Many Liberals have found it difficult to give up a long-held vision of what we would like the country to be, in order to reconcile ourselves to the compromises that are necessary to respond to other people's visions, the compromises that to my mind are absolutely essential if any agreement is to be reached.

1010

This has been a truly unique campaign, a campaign in which politicians from all sides of the House, the Premier, the leaders of the opposition and the third party, members of all three parties, have worked together to see that this accord would be approved.

Most of us who support the accord don't have the ownership of having drafted the agreement itself. We would probably all agree that the agreement is not absolutely perfect in anyone's mind, and yet we've risen above our partisan differences to support what, taken as a whole, I believe to be a truly remarkable achievement.

I continue to believe that it requires understanding and tolerance and a capacity for compromise to bring together and to keep together a country as complex and diverse as Canada. We are truly a unique nation, and I think too often as Canadians we tend to forget that.

We are a nation that was founded on a respect for differences, and we are highly regarded around the world as a nation of tolerance. We have in truth become the world's peacekeepers, and this is part of our essence as Canadians. It is also perhaps the most essential challenge that confronts us as we shape a constitutional accord that will assure our future unity.

As I have looked at the accord in detail, I believe every part of the Charlottetown accord responds to a legitimate and deeply felt need, concern, perspective of some region or some group of people in this country, that no part of the accord is unnecessary in ensuring that we can in fact reach agreement.

I certainly continue to believe that the preservation of our nation is a goal worth striving for, and I continue to be, some 11 days before the vote, optimistic that we can emerge after October 26 with the clear and confident knowledge that future generations will continue to take pride in a nation that stretches from sea to sea. I believe a Yes vote will resolve the central issue of whether we stay together in a confederation called Canada.

As each one of us enters politics for one reason only, the belief that through our political involvement we can make a difference, I look on what contributions I most want to leave as a politician. If there is one legacy above all else that as a politician I would like to be able to leave to my children and to my grandchildren, it is the legacy of a strong and united Canada.

I will vote Yes with pride and with a very passionate commitment to the future of this nation.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I am very pleased to partake in this debate on behalf of our party, but more importantly as an individual Canadian and elected member of the provincial Legislature.

I have had the honour, I think, since I've been a member, of having participated in every single committee the Ontario government has had on the Constitution, and during my travels and travails on those three committees I have learned and gained a great deal of respect for members on all sides of the House in all political parties who have served on all those committees.

It's an issue, one's constitution, that I think not many countries have an opportunity to go through. The Chinese people have a belief that in every crisis you have both danger and opportunity, and I think that indeed we have a great opportunity in this country on October 26 if we want to seize that opportunity.

I'm not going to talk about the text and the components of the agreement because I believe enough has been said by plenty of other members, both in the Legislature during this debate and outside by people who, perhaps even more importantly, are not elected representatives.

I will say that I'm somewhat disturbed by what I perceive to be some apathy by the voting public out there. I don't believe that we have communicated to the people in Ontario and in Canada exactly what the Charlottetown agreement or accord means.

I want to say up front that I come at this perhaps from a different perspective than some other members in that I was one of eight members of the Ontario Legislature to initially vote against the Meech Lake accord, and I felt very strongly about that. I also want to say that I voted for the amended version of the Meech Lake accord in this chamber approximately a year later.

I think we've all learned something through this process -- at least I have -- and that is that we should have listened to the people in the first place. Now we are doing, I think, the correct thing in letting the people of Ontario and Canada ultimately have their say as to what they think about this constitutional agreement.

It is indeed unique when you see that the leaders and most opposition leaders of all 10 provinces have unanimously endorsed this agreement. The leaders of all three federal political parties have endorsed this agreement. The leaders of the four native groups or communities represented at the table have unanimously endorsed this agreement. For the first time, the leaders of the territories have been allowed to participate in this process, and they have endorsed this agreement. Such diverse groups as the Canadian Labour Congress and the Business Council on National Issues have publicly endorsed this accord. I think that says something. It should say something to every single Ontarian and every single Canadian.

This is an agreement that was reached over a great period of time. I have this funny feeling, at least from recently talking to my constituents at the Parry Sound District Municipal Association meeting a couple of weeks ago, that they seem to feel that if they vote No on October 26, it really doesn't mean anything, that the leaders will just go away and they'll negotiate a different deal, one that's more to their liking.

I have to say to those people that this is not the case. We have worked 125 years to come to this point in our history. The opportunity is now and we must seize that opportunity now.

I am sure that there are things in this agreement or accord that I personally would like to see changed. I'm sure that every one of us, every Ontarian and every Canadian, can say that, but being a Canadian and being part of a country means compromise. It means appreciating the concerns and problems and cares of other peoples in different parts of this country.

The spirit of compromise has always been an important facet of Canadian life. This country was founded, of course, other than the native peoples, which we often forget, by two basic immigrating peoples. We have always respected that. We've always respected the differences, as we respect the differences in other peoples who have come to this great land from many other nations around the world.

I don't know what we lose or what Preston Manning loses by acknowledging that fact. I don't know what we lose by recognizing the fact that Quebec is indeed a distinct and different culture. Every single province is different. This country is formed on respecting each other's differences and appreciating them and compromising.

I say to people who are considering voting No -- because I think there's also a misconception out there that "This is Brian Mulroney's deal," or "This is Bob Rae's deal," or "This is a political leaders' deal and we don't like incumbent politicians, period, so if they like it, we don't like it, and we're going to vote against it." That's not what this is about at all.

What this is about is that every facet, every area, every region of this country has finally unanimously agreed upon an accord that we all feel we can live with.

1020

I say to the Canadian people out there and the people in Ontario, if we vote No on October 26, there may be great ramifications indeed for our future as a country. That isn't automatic, but it is certainly a great possibility if the result is No in significant parts of this country on October 26. All you have to do is look around at other countries in the world and see what they're experiencing and the difficult times they're going through to appreciate where we might be a year from now, two years from now, five years from now or 10 years from now. I don't believe you can cut out of the heart of this country about 30% or 25% of the population and expect this country to survive as we know it today. I think it's incumbent upon every one of us to seriously consider that possibility before we vote on October 26.

I heard on the radio this morning that there's now a new group out there, a third group. They say they have a third option and that will be saying to vote Yes on the 26th, so they feel they are then saying Yes to Canada, but then marking their ballots otherwise, saying they don't agree with this particular accord. That is a copout, I say to those people; that is an insult to the democratic process. At least, if nothing else, you should have enough personal integrity to say whether you're for or against, not trying to weasel out by trying to have the best of both worlds. Quite frankly, that's what that is, copping out of your democratic right and duty.

I say to those people who want to consider voting No and I say to Mr Manning, I think some of his ads border on -- I want to choose my words very carefully here -- deliberate misleading of the Canadian people for his own political benefit. This is not, as Mr Manning says, the Mulroney deal. It's not anybody's deal. It's a Canadian agreement. I feel saddened that individuals such as Mr Manning would choose the future of this country as something from which to try to gain political advantage, particularly in his home province. I think that is despicable. I think that is politics at its worst. For those Reform Party members out there who think they have something, I think you'd better think again, because if Mr Manning has proven anything during this debate, he has proven that he has sunk to an all-time new low in the politics of this great country called Canada.

I watched the debate the other night between Premier Bourassa and Jacques Parizeau. I respect Mr Parizeau's right to differ; I don't agree with much, if any, of what he said. I find it difficult to take counsel or advice from individuals such as Mr Parizeau or Lucien Bouchard whose primary purpose seems to be to break up this country of Canada. At least they're decent enough to say that up front. We know that's where they're coming from.

I want the people who are thinking about voting No to think about whether Mr Parizeau, Mr Bouchard, Mr Manning, Ms Rebick, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and all the other naysayers or nitpickers out there, if we put those people in a room, could come up with a unanimous concept of what this country is about. Could Mr Manning and Mr Parizeau agree? I find that very difficult to believe. In fact, that is impossible. We know it's impossible.

I don't want there to be any misapprehension or mistake about where the No people stand. They stand against this country, whether they want to admit it or not. I know they hate it and dislike it and say it's improper for someone like me or the Prime Minister or anybody else to say that, but that's exactly what they stand for. Mr Manning doesn't stand for this country the way you and I see it, as a compromise with native peoples and all different regions, respecting the distinct and different nature of Canada. Mr Manning does not believe in that. He doesn't believe in this country the way it is today. Mr Parizeau doesn't believe in it. And Pierre Elliott Trudeau, for whatever reasons he has other than maybe academic senility, has to find something wrong with everything or his day isn't made.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): You're giving him credit there.

Mr Eves: You think I'm giving him too much credit? Well, perhaps I am.

I just want to say to people out there that I don't think you're going to have a second chance. I think your chance to save this great country called Canada and to get it on an even higher plane and get every facet and every area and every region and every people in this country together and go on even bigger and better from here is on October 26. If you say No on October 26, I don't think you're going to get a second chance, and I think that it's only a matter of time before the country as we know it today ceases to exist.

I think that's pretty important, and I think that's pretty significant. I think we should be proud that we have the right in this country to be able to decide that, that the people themselves will decide. It's fine to say that this is not a binding referendum, but I tell you, I don't know how any responsible elected person could not pay attention to the result of the people in his or her own province, or in his or her own country, when they have the right to vote.

I think the people had better think about how important this is. This is more important than any ballot they have ever cast anywhere in their lives. It's their democratic right and it's their democratic duty and responsibility to think about whether they want to keep this country called Canada or not, because it's just that simple. It's Yes or it's No. There's no waffling; there's no in-between. You're either for Canada or you're against it. I'm for it, and I'm voting Yes on October 26.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): In the spring of 1991, together with 11 other members of the Legislature, I had the privilege of sitting on the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. As I believe many members in this chamber have already said, some today, it gave us, I think, a unique perspective on the compromise that was reached at Charlottetown.

Because I see my colleague from York North, I believe it is, sitting across the floor, I think I would be remiss to not mention today that I come from Labrador.

Interjection.

Hon Ms Churley: No, I'm not finished yet. I come from Labrador, which I kept bringing up on our select committee time and time again. I brought it up continuously because it gives me, I think, another bit of a unique perspective, both coming from the north and the east coast. But I've mainly brought it up because the member from York North is here, for his benefit.

What we learned, I believe, from that particular interesting experience -- I think we talked to more than 600 groups across the province; it was quite a whirlwind. We heard a number of different variations on the theme of people's vision of what Canada is all about. One of the things that came across most to me was the particular thrust of the people's concern about aboriginal people in this province. Time and time again we heard, from all over the province, that people were aware of the injustices to our native peoples and that they believed the Constitution should right that wrong. I was so impressed at the number of diverse groups from across the province who brought that up.

In my few minutes here now, I just want to speak specifically and address some of the concerns raised by women about the accord, because I think, like my women colleagues in this Legislature and other Legislatures across the country, I'm particularly sensitive to the concerns that have been raised by women's groups.

As a feminist I was very concerned by some of the opinions expressed by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and the Native Women's Association of Canada. It gave me real pause and I really had to do my homework on that issue. But having done that and having talked to a number of feminist lawyers and other feminists, and not just feminists' but others' interpretations, I came to the view that the Charlottetown agreement, taken as a whole, is a step forward for all Canadians, women as well as men. I really believe that the accord will strengthen and protect equality rights for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal women.

1030

I know that some women -- and not just women again, but I'm speaking specifically to women's concerns -- argue that the wording of the Canada clause is not adequate to ensure gender equality because it only commits Canadians to gender equality and not Canadians and their governments. They say that the Canada clause, by creating a hierarchy of rights, will diminish the equality guarantees of the charter and some aboriginal women fear that the inherent right to self-government will allow aboriginal governments to override the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights. If I thought that were true, I couldn't support this deal. I'm happy to say that I don't believe that is so. The reality is that all Canadian governments are equally bound to all the terms of the constitutional amendments and the Charter of Rights and presently our Constitution contains two equality protections: sections 15 and 28.

In addition to these sections, the Charlottetown accord will extend additional protection to aboriginal women by guaranteeing the equality rights of aboriginal peoples, and the Native Women's Association of Ontario recognizes this and is supporting the accord. We have to bear in mind that the Canada clause does not give rights; rather it affirms fundamental Canadian values and that includes an equality of men and women and respect for all individual and collective rights.

I just want to bring up one other concern very briefly, and I think it's a very important one, and that is that there has been a lot of concern expressed that the new national social programs such as the national child care program will not be able to happen under this new accord. I think that we have to ask ourselves why it is that there has been no new national social program introduced in Canada since medicare some 25 years ago. This has nothing to do with our Constitution. It is because of a lack of political will on the part of national governments and we have to bear in mind that it's governments, not constitutions, that are responsible for establishing new social programs.

I am voting Yes for this accord. I've put a lot of thought into it. I've talked to a lot of people about it and ultimately I came to the conclusion that this is the right step for Canada to take at this time. I want to assure the women out there who may be watching me and whom I have some credibility with as a feminist that I strongly and firmly believe everybody has a right to their opinion but that on examination of this deal equality for women will not be hurt. I do urge women to reconsider and everybody to try to get as much information as they can and come out and vote on the 26th.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to rise today and participate in this debate. There has been much said and I'm very proud of the process that we've gone through and the participation of so many members of the Legislature.

At first, I had thought it wasn't necessary for me to speak but I believe my constituents in the riding of Oriole would not only like to hear from me on their behalf how I feel about this, not only to know where I stand, but also how I arrived at that conclusion.

I'm not going to get into a basic discussion of the provisions of this accord because I think that many people, through the Yes committees, certainly the spokesmen for the No side, as well as TV advertising and all kinds of meetings as well, everybody has had copies of the accord delivered to their homes, is being inundated with information. What I'm hoping is that they will think about that because this has perhaps been the kind of debate where some of that thoughtfulness has been replaced by the kind of rhetoric which often doesn't allow for people to really think about what this is really all about.

A few months ago one of the things I was hearing from my constituents was, "Elinor, why can't all of you politicians set aside your partisan differences and work together for the benefit of society?" I heard this phrased in a number of different ways from individuals and from organizations. This was over the summer and through the late part of last spring. People were saying, "What we want you all, broad-brush politicians, to be able to do is work together on the important issues."

I've been very distressed because in the last little while, in response to what I believe is quite a miraculous achievement, we have had people saying, "One of the reasons we're voting No is we think you're all in cahoots, you politicians, trying to pull a fast one or convince us of something that is not in our interests."

So, for today's debate, to those people who are obviously upset because of the recession, because of the economic situation in this country, because of the process, because they don't like any of the political leaders in this country and are upset because things are going badly, I would like to share with them the words of someone I respect. If they didn't have an opportunity to read his words for themselves, I'm going to give them some excerpts from a column by Pierre Berton, written on Saturday, 10 October, which for me sums up how I'm feeling at this point in time. I hope that people will think about that between now and October 26 and think about what Pierre Berton has to say.

He says, and the headline is "Here's Why I Intend to Vote Yes for Canada":

"On referendum day, I plan to mark my ballot with a resounding Yes.

"I am not going to hold my nose as others have grudgingly said they'll do. I will vote Yes cheerfully, even with enthusiasm.

"I will vote Yes to help celebrate a miracle. Somehow, 10 provincial premiers, plus representatives from the territories and the aboriginal constituency, have managed to bury their differences long enough to achieve a compromise.

"For once they stopped arguing about how many angels can dance on a pinhead or how many politicians we need to make up a largely ineffective Senate.

"So nobody is totally happy with the result. What did we expect? Are there people in this country who actually believe any document can be cobbled together to please the entire nation from Tofino to Joe Batt's Arm?

"I'm going to vote Yes because, even if it doesn't stop the squabbling, at least it will slow it down and we can get on with problems that really concern the people -- the economy and the environment.

"I, for one, am weary of all the same talking heads maundering away, endlessly repeating what they've already written at unconscionable length in the daily press.

"A Yes vote won't stifle them, but it will serve to dampen them a bit.

"Nor will a Yes vote solve all the regional problems that are part of our heritage. But I shudder to think what a No vote would do.

"Do those strange bedfellows on the No side really believe that if the country rejects the proposed Constitution, they'll get everything they want in the next weary round of talks? Come on; get real!

"I do not swallow the hokum being ladled out by Preston Manning, that a No vote will put an end to our constitutional troubles. In fact, it is going to lead us into a worse mess than ever.

"Nor, for an instant, do I accept the twaddle being peddled by Jacques Parizeau that a No vote won't be a boost for 'sovereignty' -- or any of the other euphemisms being used to describe the breakup of the country.

"It has everything to do with the breakup of the country, which is why Parizeau is working for the No side.

"Nor do I accept Pierre Trudeau's warmed-over suggestion that by voting Yes we give in to blackmail from Quebec.

"Blackmail has been part of the process from the outset, but not just from Quebec. Everybody has tried to blackmail everybody else. The west, the aboriginals, the women, have all indulged in blackmail.

1040

"The name of the game is not blackmail, but compromise, an old and honourable word with a special resonance for Canadians.

"This quality -- to bend a little in the hope that the other side will also bend -- has shaped our national character. That's why we're so good at peacekeeping in those corners of the world where a lack of compromise has led to horror.

"For our entire history, we have been prepared, in the national interest, to settle for half a loaf. Now, alas, there are some who think they can get everything they want without giving anything in return.

"The country doesn't work that way. Our geography and our history makes us a unique people, able to survive only by bending with the wind.

"It explains why John A. Macdonald and his bitterest political enemy, George Brown, buried their differences in Charlottetown in the interest of building a Confederation.

"Unlike our neighbours, we have never tried to solve our problems by revolution or civil war" -- and I add the editorial, thank God. "We achieved our independence slowly and bloodlessly. Few other nations in the Americas can make that boast.

"That is why Canadians think their history is dull. What they really mean is that it isn't like American or British history, full of gunsmoke and severed limbs.

"We have yet to match the age-old hatreds of the Balkans, but geographical rivalries do define us. The angry ocean in the east, the Cordilleran wall in the west and the 700-mile Precambrian dam in the centre separate us from each other almost as much as the barrier of the language.

"If we are a Confederation, it is because we are really several countries, fenced off from each other by nature, clinging together for a common purpose, both economic and spiritual.

"And so regional interests -- and regional jealousies -- loom large, producing constitutional wrangles and bitter words on the open-line show.

"This year, somehow, a group of Canadians as different as Bourassa and Wells, Getty and Mercredi were for one magical moment able to bury these regional concerns and, in the true spirit of Confederation, arrived at a compromise.

"Instead of nitpicking we should shout whoopee! This is our big chance; I doubt we will get another one. And that's why I am enthusiastically voting Yes."

I couldn't say it better than Pierre Berton said in this article of Saturday, October 10, in the Toronto Star. I agree with his sentiments. I also doubt that we will get another chance, and it's my hope, on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole, that we will on October 26 be able to stand up for a proud Canada, strong and confident, a country from sea to sea, that has set about to bury its regional differences, the historical passions being set aside for a brief moment in the interest of all of us, to say Yes to a great country.

I want to thank Mr Berton for his effort and his work, because I've been trying to find some way to express the passion and the feeling that I have and I could not have found a better spokesman. He's an author and a writer whom I respect. I haven't always agreed with him in the past, but I was pleased to share his words with the Legislature today and with my constituents in the riding of Oriole.

I commend to them a thoughtful consideration of this accord. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I would ask them to remember, as I remember, what they said to me a few months ago, which was, "Is it possible for all of you to work together for the betterment and the interests of this country?"

I believe that is what happened. It's much easier for those on the No side to speak passionately about all of those things which they see as flaws. I see it as reasonable compromise. I'm voting Yes because I believe this is in the interest of the province and the interest of our country, and I'm voting Yes with pride and with passion and with the hope that we will leave to our children a stronger and united Canada because of our participation in what has been a difficult, anxiety-ridden constitutional process.

I hope we will be able to put all that passion and anxiety behind us. I suspect we will not, no matter what occurs on the 26th. But I do think that if thoughtful and reasonable people, approach this referendum as an opportunity to speak in a positive voice about that which is reasonable for our future, then I believe we'll all feel better on the morning of the 27th.

I am concerned, as well, about the insecurity and the instability that may come. I don't think that's fearmongering. I do believe that if a No vote prevails, the sun will rise on the 27th, and we will have to deal with whatever the ultimate results are. I would say again, in the words of Pierre Berton, I doubt that we'll get another chance such as the one we have now to move forward boldly and confidently into the future.

For my children, as well as my constituents, my family and my friends, it's my hope that we will be able to put this behind us and move on so that we can address the real problems which are on the minds of my constituents today. A few months ago they were saying, "Can't you all work together?" Today they're saying, "Can't you get on with restoring the economy?"

I hope that as a result of the thoughtful debate and discussion we have had here in this Legislature, people will understand that it is in their interest to allow the minds and the energies, as well as the passions, of those in leadership positions in this country to put their attention to the rebuilding of our economy and getting on in a positive way to building a stronger and better future for all of us.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I am proud and feel privileged to have the opportunity in this Legislature to be involved in this debate.

One of the problems I have had during this larger debate which has occurred outside our Legislature is some of the perceptions that, unfortunately, the public seems to have about their leaders, their politicians. I was astounded some time this week, when listening to Canada AM, to hear that part of the No campaign did not support this particular accord because it was not the product of people -- that it was not the product of people. In other words, it's unfortunate, but it seems that a certain segment of our population has come to the conclusion that we politicians do not have feelings and do not have the interests of the people at heart. I only hope that as we go through this process and people think about a fairly complex issue, they will realize that politicians on all sides of the legislatures and House of Commons and Senate of Canada are in fact people who are trying to represent the people who have elected and placed them where they take office.

The other part that I found somewhat astounding in terms of the argument put forward by the No vote is the lack of consultation, or the seeking of the legal text. I voted against the Meech Lake accord. I was one of eight members of this Legislature who voted against the Meech Lake accord in June 1990, in the last Parliament of this Legislature. I voted against that because it was a deal which lacked consultation, which did not give the people of Canada the opportunity to put forward their views before a deal was struck.

No one can say they were not consulted on this deal. I believe the consultation at the federal level, at the provincial level, from town to town, within communities was extensive, and I don't believe it could have been greater.

1050

I was very privileged, along with the member for Parry Sound who spoke to us a few minutes ago, to have the opportunity on behalf of my party to be personally involved in some of the discussions by the first ministers leading to the Charlottetown accord. Our Premier asked Mr Harris and Mrs McLeod, the leaders of the two opposition parties, to be fully informed and to fully participate in the discussions. I have in the past congratulated the Premier on doing that. I think it was a very progressive step. It kept us on the opposition benches informed, and it also allowed us to let Premier Rae and his group know of our opposition to roads he was taking or of particular matters we disagreed with. I must say that I will indicate at a later point just what some of those opposition statements were.

I was lucky to sit in the room behind the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr Wildman, who I believe is going to be talking to us in a few minutes, to sit in the same room with Mr Rae and a host of other premiers from across this country. I guess we get isolated in this Legislature and I think we get isolated in our own communities. We forget about the differences that exist in our country.

We forget about the aspirations of the fishermen in Newfoundland, because that doesn't relate to the area I live in or you live in, Mr Speaker. We forget about the concerns in the Maritimes for their future and their ability to provide their people with the proper social services which we have all agreed are necessary and common to Canada. When we're sitting here now with no national energy program, we forget about the anger, the hostility which the national energy program brought to the west in 1982 or 1983 when it was implemented by the Liberal government under Pierre Trudeau.

We forget about the aspirations of the aboriginal people, who have for over a century now lived in coexistence with provincial and federal governments. Provincial and federal governments have tried and tried to assist, I think in good faith, the aboriginal people to have a better life, to try to cope with the changing world. But we have failed in that challenge and I think we have all recognized that.

When you sat in the room with all these people from the west, from the north, from the territories -- where they have aspirations to be provinces some day -- from the east, from Quebec and from Ontario, you realize that over the past 125 years Canada has been a tremendous compromise. We have lived over that period of time, and as you study our Constitution and the development of our Constitution since 1867, you start to realize that there were different deals made along the way. When Newfoundland became part of Canada in 1949, we gave six Senate seats to Newfoundland. That was part of the deal. No other maritime province has that kind of deal. Consequently, Newfoundland is far overrepresented in the Senate in terms of population; we're talking of course of our present.

You realize that as the Constitution developed, as our history developed, there was a lot of compromise. Politicians had to sit around a table and figure out how we could live together. When I went to the first Constitutional conference -- I believe it was in May in Ottawa -- and then I went along with Premier Rae to one in Saint John, New Brunswick -- quite frankly I often went out of the meetings thinking to myself: "I'm really disgusted with our leaders, because here we have our leaders in this room, pounding away at what they want. They want this for their area." There seemed to be no compromise on their point.

Alberta seemed to be so dogmatic about wanting this reformed Senate. To me, being from Ontario, I couldn't understand why anybody wanted a Senate, period. I just couldn't understand that. But seeing how hard they wanted to fight for it -- and not only Alberta, but Manitoba and the other provinces; Newfoundland, which joined in behind them -- and how important the principle was of having a chamber where equality was the rule made me start to understand that my view of the world was certainly not the view of the world as represented by the people of Canada.

But I was really disappointed and disheartened. We went to these meetings, and there seemed to be more of an interest, at least as I interpreted it at that point, on the part of premiers to go back to their provinces and say, "I won; I won this; I won that," instead of going back to their provinces and to their people and saying, "We gave in order to keep Canada together."

I was very concerned at those stages, but I was completely turned around when I had the privilege of sitting during the hearings on July 6 and 7. July 7 was probably the key day in terms of the development of the Charlottetown accord and all the consultations which occurred across this country. That morning at a breakfast, when we were preparing to be briefed by Premier Rae's officials who were numbering at that stage near 20 or 21 because there were a huge number of issues and there was a great deal of consultation going on, I expressed to Premier Rae my concern over his lack of support for the federal position on section 121, which was the economic union clause.

Quite frankly, I'm still not satisfied with what has been worked out, because I feel that as we devolve powers down to the provinces, we must look for other kinds of glue to keep us together. I saw section 121, that clause which said that there can't be any interprovincial barriers to keep people from crossing borders to do business, to work, to visit etc, as extremely important to provide the glue to keep our country together if in fact we were going to give provinces more power through this arrangement, and I told Premier Rae that as well.

Then I started to realize, as we went through the meeting on July 7, that people were going to have to give, and although Premier Rae didn't agree with my position and didn't espouse that position at the table, I could understand why I had to compromise what I believed in and support a deal which was struck by a Premier who represents a different political party than mine. I have to compromise my views, as does every other Canadian, in seeking to forge a deal which is acceptable to everyone else.

1100

I want to also indicate that I sat two feet from Premier Rae when we were dealing with the Senate issue in the afternoon. I was concerned that we would give in on an equal Senate at that point, because Quebec had indicated at noontime, to many people, that it would not support an equal Senate under any circumstances. I was concerned with our delegation, the Premier, leaving Premier Bourassa isolated on this issue, and I told him so.

Notwithstanding that, there comes a time when things have to be put together and a deal either has to be made or you can't carry on. Notwithstanding the fact that Premier Rae did give at that point in time on the equal Senate, to a model which I think was much more drastic than the model which we now have in the Charlottetown accord of August 28 -- thank God for Mr Bourassa in terms of modifying the model; Mr Bourassa in effect, in my view, bailed us out on the Senate issue -- what I guess is important is that as I sat there in that room and saw people giving, then it came to me. I thought, "All of these people I have watched bicker over months about want they wanted to take back to their electorate are willing to give in on some of their major points, some of their major beliefs, in order to keep this country together."

I guess it was one of the greatest thrills I ever will have as a politician, to see in a room aboriginal people, politicians from across this country, say: "I want to keep this country together. I'm willing to compromise tremendously in order to do that." It was a tremendous experience, to see that much glue between the premiers of this fine country and the aboriginal leaders of this fine country to say: "Yes, Canada is worth saving. We will give tremendously in order to keep this together." That to me was the highlight of all those negotiations on July 7 when that deal was struck.

So there is tremendous glue in this country. There is a tremendous desire by the people to want to stay together. That's what their leaders portrayed in those negotiations.

I don't think a lot of people out there realized -- or realize -- that in 1982 we brought back to Canada a very imperfect document. I think there are two things that, in retrospect, perhaps we should not have done. First, perhaps we should not have brought back the document unless the province of Quebec would participate voluntarily at that time and sign that document. The other thing we did, and I think the people should understand that, is that we bound our future leaders, the leaders who were meeting in those rooms I was talking about previously in my remarks, that in order to change anything in the future, you needed everybody to agree; you had to have everybody sign on the line.

Therefore, I don't think the people of Canada understand that if we turn this deal down, the next deal must also be agreed to by everybody. We can't make a deal any more to change the Senate if we have one province that disagrees. We can't agree to change a lot of other parts with regard to our Supreme Court without the unanimous agreement of all the different provinces. People must understand that the document which Pierre Trudeau brought back here in 1982 was anything but perfect.

I've heard a lot of negative remarks about different parts of this deal. It's very easy to pick part of the deal and say, "I don't like it because Quebec is getting 25% of the seats for ever in the House of Commons." People somehow forget that provinces like Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have guarantees as well.

Prince Edward Island has a guarantee of four seats in the House of Commons. They don't deserve four seats in terms of their population, but nobody's complaining about Prince Edward Island.

Nova Scotia has a guarantee, I believe, of 10 seats; I could be out a little bit. It doesn't matter whether their population falls to 100,000, they will still have 10 seats, but I don't see people complaining about that.

The fact of the matter is that the population of Quebec right now is about 25% of the population of Canada and that it is unlikely over the next 20 to 25 years that the population will fall significantly, so I don't believe that guarantee is germane to any kind of debate or justifies a No vote.

We could talk about a number of other arguments. One of the things I have done is to send around to my constituents a questionnaire, as I did with the Meech Lake accord, which asked them their opinion with regard to this constitutional deal. I don't ask them just the question they're going to be asked on October 26, although I do ask that and say to them if they do not want to respond to that they need not because they may consider that a matter of a secret ballot. But I asked them a number of other questions, because I'd like to know, if this deal does fall, which parts they object to most.

I couldn't deal with it all because it's a very complex deal, but there are three questions I asked at the end. I wanted to instil in the people of my riding of Carleton and eastern Ontario the notion of them thinking about what happens next.

I asked them, "If Ontario says No to this deal, what should we do next?" I asked them, "What should we do next here in Ontario or as an Ontario government if some other province votes No?" "What should we do next if the province of Quebec votes No?"

If anybody wants a copy of this particular newsletter to give their constituents an opportunity to participate, I would be pleased to provide copies; or if they want to just use the text of it and rub out Norm Sterling, that's fine as well.

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): Or just rub out Norm Sterling.

Mr Sterling: Just rub out Norm Sterling, yes.

I think there are three things we get out of this deal, and I think this is what people should understand.

Aboriginal or native people, when you ask them, "Are you a Canadian?" heretofore have been reluctant to answer that question, because I don't think a lot of people outside the native or aboriginal community understand that aboriginals in general have not considered themselves Canadian. If this deal goes through, aboriginal people become Canadians, they become the third order of government in Canada.

It will be the first time in 125 years that everyone who lives here, including the aboriginals, will be under the umbrella of the crown, under the umbrella of Canada. They will become Canadians and they will have to participate in making Canada better. They will not only be getting the powers to govern their own people but will be responsible for living together with those other governments to keep Canada the great country it is.

The second thing is that after 1982, when the west signed the accord of 1982, something happened in this country which was very detrimental to holding this country together: the national energy program of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. As I said earlier in my remarks, the hostility towards eastern Canada and central Canada over this deal still remains in the west. Giving the west an equal Senate says to me, and I think it says to the west: "That's gone. That's the quid pro quo for having done that to us in the west."

Therefore we get the aboriginals within our Constitution, within our country, we get the west back in, because of something that's happened in our political scene over the last 10 years since they signed the deal, and last, I think it's most important that we get Quebec, 25% of our population, a unique part of Canada. We get them within our Constitution, within our country. I think it's a tremendous accomplishment for the first ministers of this country to come together, put together the glue and bring together three disaffected parties: aboriginals, the west and the province of Quebec.

My family has been part of Ontario and Canada for 200 years. I think Canada is worth saving. We must continue to live in a society which compromises from time to time. We have for 200 years. I'm willing to do it this time, I'm proud to do it, and I will proudly vote Yes on October 26.

1110

Mr David Winninger (London South): I too am grateful for the opportunity of participating in this debate today. I've enjoyed hearing many statements from all sides of the House as we've debated the constitutional accord signed in Charlottetown on August 28.

Many members have gone back in time to moments of great historical significance: the battle on the Plains of Abraham in 1763, 1773, 1790, the Union Act of 1840 and the British North America Act of 1867, which brought together those two great French and English statesmen, Macdonald and Cartier, representing the French reality, if you will, of French Canada, Quebec, and the English-speaking reality of Ontario and the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, which had their own concerns regarding their unique transportation and financial needs.

In the few minutes remaining to me, I propose not to go back 125 years in time to determine what we were proud of then, but to go ahead 125 years from now and try to speculate on what we as Canadians in the year 2117 might look back on with pride in this particular constitutional accord.

I know many of us who lead healthy lives may still be around in the year 2117, and I'm sure society will have changed a lot. There will still be an NDP government at Queen's Park and hopefully one in Ottawa as well. Many of us will carry miniature Apple computers in one vest pocket and our fax machines in the other.

But at that time, when my children or grandchildren look back on the constitutional accord signed on August 28, 1992, I want them to look back with a feeling of pride. I want them to look back on what was done by the 10 premiers, the leaders of the two territories, the Prime Minister and the representatives of four native organizations to bring together the necessary healing that was required in August 1992.

The problem with 1867 -- I shouldn't really say it's a problem, but the facts and circumstances were that we had several so-called Fathers of Confederation. The constitutional accord of August 1992 I think is significant in that it brought together not only Fathers of Confederation but also the Mothers of Confederation. I'm talking about Mary Simon and Rosemarie Kuptana of the Inuit Tapirisat. I'm talking about Nellie Cournoyea, representing the Northwest Territories. So in bringing together Mary Simon, Rosemarie Kuptana and Nellie Cournoyea, we had representation for women at the constitutional table. We also had, in terms of process, the broadest possible consultation this country has ever seen. We've had consultation with the disabled. We've had consultation with visible minorities. We've had consultation with environmental groups, students, seniors; the whole spectrum of Ontario society and Canadian society has been represented during those consultations.

My own participation on the select committee on Ontario in Confederation was illuminating, because we met virtually from dawn to dusk in legion halls, in libraries, in city council chambers, in seniors' centres all across Ontario. What was remarkable about that experience -- and I know members on the other side experienced it too -- was the richness and diversity that constitutes not only the people of Ontario but the people across Canada.

I think it's important, as our children and our grandchildren and descendants review the constitutional accord in the year 2117, that they be cognizant that there was a lot of so-called unfinished business in 1982. Inherent self-government had not been recognized for the native peoples of Canada. We finally recognized, as Mr Sterling has said, that our native people constitute a third order of government in Canada, and I'm proud that they can take their rightful place within the context of the Canadian Constitution.

I'm also pleased that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will continue to apply. I'm pleased that we finally accorded Quebec its status as a distinct society in terms of its unique French culture, its majority French language and its civil law tradition. These are all needs that were crying to be met when the Constitution was patriated with the amending formula in 1982. Those needs, unique to Quebec, have been met in this constitutional accord.

Finally, the other salient issue that will emerge from the constitutional accord 125 years from now was the crying need for change, reform and renewal of our federal institutions. Certainly, in travelling to other provinces, we've heard again and again the need voiced by those other provinces for a form of Senate, an upper chamber, that will be more responsive to regional and provincial needs. I think the people of Ontario have told us that they can accept a more equitable, even an equal Senate, and the motto that our representatives came up with in Charlottetown, I think, provides responsiveness. I think it provides flexibility in that a double majority of francophone senators will be dealing with matters of French culture, and I think it's important that there be equality within the Senate but balanced, on the other hand, by representation by population in Parliament.

Overall, I'm confident that 125 years from now our descendants will be pleased with the efforts, the goodwill and the healing that has taken place in 1992. For all of those reasons, I will be certainly affirming a Yes vote on October 26. I'm confident that other Ontarians, knowing that the opportunity is at hand, will also affirm that accord, which respects the rights of women, the rights of visible minorities, the rights of the disabled and all ordinary Ontarians and our native brethren under one Constitution, one Canada, one strong and prosperous and forward-looking Canada with a Constitution that's modern, flexible and responsive to the people of Canada.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I wish to thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate?

1120

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I am indeed glad to have this opportunity to make some remarks on the constitutional question or dilemma, if you will, that confronts us in this month of October 1992.

It is certainly a culmination of events that has led to this point in our history. Other members have recited the history of the constitutional discussions that we've had over the years as a country and I will not go over that. But I want to shed some light on the way I see constitutional debate, discussion and reconciliation coming to this point and why it's essential for us to begin to understand how people out there feel about what amounts to a lot of legal discussion, debate, wrangling perhaps, over the years and why they feel that way about.

In my most humble way, I, as an elected official, can attempt to understand that and begin to put some perspective on it so that I can better understand perhaps where my constituents share their views today with each other and perhaps have an expression of their views on October 26, one way or the other.

It's important to point out that we should not vilify people who differ with us or differ with each other and that there will be a genuine difference of opinion perhaps expressed on October 26. But I want to put on the record how I feel about this deal and why it's important to move forward, why it's important for our country at this point in our history to look beyond this century, to look into the next century, to look forward to a future with some promise as a country that is united, strong and forward-looking.

Perhaps looking at our differences today is like looking at a family that is ripping itself apart, a family that doesn't get along, a family that has been debating and arguing and has differences, perhaps because members of that family do not have respect for one another, perhaps because that respect has been lost.

I think the process we're involved with right now attempts to reconcile differences within a family, reconcile hurt feelings, reconcile the fact that there perhaps was a lack of respect for each other, perhaps for one part of the family versus another, perhaps for one part of the family that was seeking some solace or some comforting or perhaps for one part of the family that wanted to make a point because it felt that it had reached a stage of maturity and it needed to move forward in and of itself and was looking for some self-esteem and was looking to be more assertive in the future.

That is probably the experience that's shared by most of us in our families. Perhaps my own ancestry permits me to speak in those terms because the concept of family has been a centrepiece and a focal point for my way of life and my cultural ancestry.

The essence of family is truly important and I use that as an analogy because I think that's what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with not just a reconciliation for one side to be equal with the other in material ways or for one side to be equal with the other because that hasn't been so in the past; it's more than that. It's the effort to want to belong to that family. It's the feeling of belonging, the sense of belonging. That's what people are saying today about this country: "Where do I belong? How do I fit in?"

I was involved with the Meech Lake process and perhaps there was a negative expression during the last provincial election -- pardon me, in 1987, prior to the last provincial election -- of a rejection of Meech Lake. That too was an effort to reconcile differences. It may not have been as good an effort as this one is -- that's arguable -- but it was a genuine attempt to reconcile differences among people who had some differences that had been shared over a number of years.

I think this is an effort that attempts to look at emotions, not only the finer print that's contained in the document, to look at people who are disconnected at the present time, who do not feel a sense of belonging, who do not feel a sense of purpose, who do not feel they have a meaningful expression in their own country of who they are, where they belong and what they're going to achieve in the future. That's very difficult perhaps to articulate, very difficult to understand. I believe we've seen this over the last number of years. There's this feeling of fracture, this feeling of not belonging to the whole, not belonging to an expression of what can be something better.

Each of us has to make that kind of commitment to a country. It's not easy to understand that, perhaps. I say this particularly with respect to younger people who haven't found their way in their lives yet and are seeking an expression of that understanding, where they will lead in the future, what they'll become and their place in our society. It's more difficult to impose that kind of understanding on people who haven't found themselves perhaps and are looking to become part of the society.

Then you look at what's happening in the whole society with respect to discussions about the Constitution and whether we're going to remain united. Of course there's a considerable degree of heightened cynicism about all our institutions, about the politics we see today. Unless we reconcile our constitutional differences -- because that's the only way, my friends, to do that -- unless we come together and say, "Let's put this behind us because it is important to do that," then I believe the cynicism will continue to grow in our society, particularly on the part of young people, particularly on the part of people who do not feel as of right now that they have a stake in our country for one reason or another. Perhaps they find themselves unemployed, they find themselves having lost their businesses or their farms.

I think it's essential, it's absolutely crucial, that we put this kind of debate, this kind of acrimony, if you will, behind us. I think that has been the backdrop to the politics in this country over the last 10 years, that kind of bitter division which has led us to this point in our history.

I want to say something about those people who have commented on the No side, those people who have said they will continue to pursue their views on the No side. I respect them for that, but I would like to point out another analogy. I would like to say that they view this country perhaps not with the same generosity of spirit as those of us who would set aside our differences, look forward, look at it as though we were part of a family and say, "Look, I have to make some kind of accommodation for this part of the family, that uncle or that cousin or that child who isn't quite the child I thought he would be but has some difficulties or some problems."

I think the people on the No side look at this in the way you would look at a business partnership. Business partners look at a business relationship -- I've gone through this in my own experience -- and say, "Look, you haven't done this, that and the other," or perhaps entering into a partnership would say, "We need to detail and document and perhaps in a partnership agreement list all of the things which need to be done, each of our responsibilities."

Those things are detailed in the last aspect of every detail about that agreement. It's done so because there's a concern for material loss. It's done so because of a consideration of economic questions. Those partnerships are doomed to fail because you can't put everything down on paper that you want to. I defy anybody to do that. You cannot foresee every possible circumstance, and that's exactly what we're saying with this Constitution.

People on the No side are saying they look at this perhaps as an agreement among business partners and have said, "Look, you haven't put this in," or, "You haven't put that in," and, "This detail is missing," and, "I don't see where I fit in," and, "You're going to get this, and I'm not going to get that, and therefore I'm voting No because it just doesn't meet my expectations and we haven't put it down on paper."

1130

I would strenuously argue with those people who think that a Constitution has to and should contain every last detail of every aspect of our lives in this country; it cannot possibly do that. Ultimately, what's important is the common spirit we share about the country we live in. The essence of the country, what we think about ourselves, what our identity will be in the future, if in fact we will have a future together, I believe, are probably far more important than anything we could put on paper.

As many people have said in the past, an agreement is only as good as the people who put it together. Quite frankly, in the end that will probably prove to be more significant than the fact that we've left out this representation or that representation, and I don't believe that's the case with this deal.

Just to touch on that for a moment, I think there is great consideration of a variety of aspects of our society that are contained in this deal. I think those have been adequately met. I don't believe for a moment that a better deal could have been constructed. In fact, if we remained where we were, it would not take into consideration this reconciliation.

It does not say to the separatists, "Look, we're giving in to you." We're not dealing with this in a spirit of providing them with another opportunity in the future to say, "We want more." We're not talking to the separatists; we're speaking to people in Quebec who are reasonable, who want to be recognized, who want to be part of this country with a sense of respect, as all Canadians do, who want to feel that they belong to something that promises a better future for themselves and for their children.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate?

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): Today I want to share with you my concept of Canada and why I will be supporting the Charlottetown agreement. I believe that the referendum to be held on October 26 is of great significance and importance. It will shape our future and certainly will shape the relationships that exist within our country for years to come.

Like millions of other Canadians, I chose Canada as my home, and Canada welcomed me. Canada provides me with the opportunity to live, work and raise my family in a secure and safe environment, and hopefully, like others, to retire with some dignity and security. Canada also offers to my boys, and to the children of those viewers who are watching, a promise of opportunity for the future.

But Canada, as we all know, is much more. Canada is a family. It's a family of individuals, of provinces and of regions. Like any family, there exist within that family differences in roles, different needs and different concerns. In any family, given the fact that we must live together, there are tensions and indeed sometimes crises. What is important in a family is how these tensions and crises are resolved, be it through communication, listening and sharing, through sensitivity, through generosity and, indeed, through compromise. But the end result of this process is family unity. At the end of a process of sensitivity, generosity and compromise is the possibility of community, caring and commitment.

The Canadian family is no different. Indeed, there are differences: differences of vision from one region to another, deeply held convictions of vision of Canada from one region to another. There are certainly tensions and we would be foolish to deny those tensions tearing at the seams of our country. The resolution, the only resolution, I put to you and to the people of our province, comes through understanding and compromise.

I see the Charlottetown accord as a moment of opportunity. I look at what happened there and the leaders, with vested interests, with visions that are very significantly different, in a moment of generosity, in a moment of caring, were prepared to make those kinds of compromises that could indeed build strength into our family of Canada.

Ordinary men and women did something extraordinary. They accepted the responsibility, the leadership responsibility. They put aside that vested interest, that narrower vision that perhaps was from a province or a region, and they took the grander vision. They took the vision of a Canada and they realized that in order for the division of Canada to survive, they had to somehow make compromises to their regional or provincial vision.

Indeed, they proved themselves statesmen in their dedication to the whole reality, not to a region but to the Canadian reality, and somehow or other in that moment of opportunity they balanced differing interests. The end result is community, caring and commitment. There is the possibility with this agreement that our family remains together, united because of a spirit of sensitivity, generosity and compromise.

I will support the agreement and I will urge my constituents and the people of Ontario and Canada to show the same sensitivity, generosity and compromise that was exhibited at Charlottetown.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate?

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I am very pleased to enter into this debate today. Yesterday at Eglinton station in the rain we had an unusual coalition of people campaigning for the Yes committee. We had Conservative MP John Bosley, NDP provincial members Margery Ward and Gary Malkowski, myself as the Liberal member for Eglinton riding and Murad Velshi, the former Liberal member for Don Mills.

These six politicians from three different parties went out together. What momentous occasion could have brought these people together with such different beliefs, different political values, particularly in an atmosphere which is very partisan and often hostile? Well, the occasion and the issue is Canada and our great love and our great passion for this country. We are united in our belief that we must work together to preserve this country.

There will be those who say the Charlottetown agreement is not perfect and they are right. We could not ever reach perfection, but what we reached in a generosity of spirit was a consensus -- a consensus with 10 provinces, two territories, the aboriginal leadership, the federal government -- a consensus that took into account the multicultural community, the distinct society of Quebec, the feeling of alienation from the west, the equality of men and women. It took into account the very multifaceted society that we are in Canada today.

So I agree, this is not perfect, but it is something that can help this country stay together and that can give this country the type of leadership we need to get on with it, to get out there and to work on the issues important to Canada.

We have one of the most important, one of the best countries in the world. Other countries recognize it. Why cannot we as Canadians get together and realize that we cannot take the risk of losing what we have? I am a feminist, I'm obviously a woman, but I don't agree with the National Action Committee when it says that this is not a deal that guarantees equality for women.

1140

I would like to read you two passages from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Section 15: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Section 28: "Notwithstanding anything in this charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons."

This is confirmed in the Canada clause. I hope we will all vote Yes on October 26. Our country is counting on it.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for her participation. Further debate?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): It's indeed a pleasure for me to wind up the discussion on this very important matter before the House on behalf of the government and to express my appreciation to all members of the House who participated in the debate and have put forward their views as sincerely and with such heartfelt feeling as I've heard throughout the debate. I particularly want to thank my colleagues who have accommodated giving me some time, particularly my friend from Durham West who has given up his place in order to make it possible for me to have a little more time.

I approach the debate not from a feeling of fear, as some have done, about what might happen if the accord that was reached in Charlottetown is not voted for across the country and then subsequently ratified, but rather on the basis of what is positive about that accord. I don't think anything can come from negative feelings such as fear. We should be proud of the achievement of our leaders in this country, from every part of the country, and representing both the native and non-native governments in this country for the remarkable achievement that this accord really is.

Think about it. Seventeen different delegations with very different views, coming from very different regions and backgrounds and origins, came to an agreement, despite having very, very strongly held views which often were in conflict. But they came to an agreement, as many members have said in this Legislature, because of their desire to have a united, prosperous Canada that all of them obviously valued a great deal, just as every Canadian values the opportunity and the privilege to live in this country. This indeed was the Canada round.

Everyone in this country, when they look at the Canada clause and read the Canada clause, will find himself or herself spoken about in the Canada clause. No one in this country today, unlike previous examples, can look at this Constitution and not believe that they are part of this country and part of the Constitution. Yet we did respond to the genuine concerns of Quebec and other regions of the country such as western Canada and the Maritimes, as well as the aboriginal people.

It is indeed the Canada clause, and Canadians are now being given an enormous opportunity to express their views directly on whether or not this Constitution and this accord is the way to go for the future of this country going into the 21st century. It's a great opportunity but it's also an enormous responsibility, not only for each Canadian citizen, but also for their children and their grandchildren.

We will be voting on October 26 to express our views one way or the other on whether or not this is an approach that can lead to a new partnership in this country.

I believe this is a chance for an historic reconciliation in this country, and for that reason I'm recommending the Charlottetown accord to my constituents and to Ontarians and Canadians generally, because I believe that this accord can bring Canadians together, that it can heal the wounds of divisiveness that have plagued our relationships in Canada for many, many years.

This is an inclusive accord. It does not create, as some have suggested, a hierarchy of rights. The charter applies to every aspect of this Constitution and protects the fundamental rights and freedoms that all of us hold so dear in this country as Canadians.

Many have said and talked about in the debate that this is not a perfect agreement, that there are things in it that some individuals and members of various groups and regions of the country would prefer not to be in it and that there are other things that might have been in it that aren't, so perhaps we have not reached the kind of accord that should be voted for on October 26. But we all must recognize that this was a matter of negotiation. It was much like collective bargaining, but unlike collective bargaining, where you usually only have two sides involved in the discussion, we had 17, representing Canadians from all over this great land.

So how do you come to an agreement? Well, you come to an agreement by listening to and hearing what the other participants have to say and seeing how their aspirations and needs can be responded to, and ensuring that your needs and aspirations can be dealt with as well. What Canadians can be proud of is that their leaders listened and heard the others around the table and responded and compromised.

There are those who would think that compromise is somehow undesirable, but if anyone studies the history of this country, we will all recognize that Canada is indeed in itself, in reality, a great compromise, and that is something we can be proud of in this accord.

I suppose you could get a perfect deal. Any one of us could think up what would be the perfect deal, the perfect arrangement for this country, in our own view. But that is not possible to achieve if you are really going to listen to the others and what they believe the perfect deal might be. If you all are wed to the perfect arrangement, then you're not going to be able to meet the needs and concerns of the others. The great achievement here is that we have in fact done that.

I'm afraid that in the referendum, this great opportunity for Canadians, this great responsibility for Canadians, there will be others who will decide to vote one way or the other, Yes or No, for reasons that I don't think deal with the merits of the agreement or the accord. Some may decide to vote No because they don't like the leaders who negotiated the accord, or they would have preferred to have other people involved in the negotiation. Some who vote Yes might be voting Yes simply because they want to get this over with and dealt with. I have some sympathy with that view. I would like to deal with some of the other pressing matters facing this nation and I believe this accord will help us to do that, if it's ratified. But that in itself should not be a reason to vote for it.

Canadians must look at the accord, they must study it, they must become informed, and they must discuss it with their neighbours and friends and family and determine on the merits of the agreement whether or not they can support it. I encourage every Canadian to do that.

There have been a number of concerns raised. There have been concerns raised about the agreements with regard to the federal spending power, whether or not this would mean that because in certain areas of provincial jurisdiction provinces could opt out of national programs with compensation from the federal government, we could never have new national social programs instituted in this country. Many have suggested child care as an example of one such program that is desirable and that most of us would want to have instituted in this country that might be difficult under this agreement.

I believe the opposite is true. If one looks at medicare and the history of medicare and how it developed in this country, beginning in Saskatchewan, in a small province that moved forward and led to other Canadians coming to the conclusion that this kind of program should be provided to all Canadians, and then persuading the federal government and the provinces to move together in that regard, as long as, as is pointed out in this agreement, there are national standards that must be met, I think this provides the flexibility that will indeed enable us to move forward with new social programs, not prevent us from doing so.

It will make it possible for a province or provinces to move forward, and in doing that persuade other provinces and the federal government to move forward on a national program.

If there is an individual province or provinces that want to opt out, they will not be able to obtain the compensation, unless they have a similar program meeting national standards. I believe this makes it possible for us to have a national child care program some time in the future. I also support this and recommend it to Canadians because of the inclusion of the social and economic union.

1150

I believe Ontarians should be particularly proud of this provision in the Constitution, because of the efforts of our Premier in bringing this forward early on and throughout the process, and persuading other governments to agree. This social charter, if you want to use that term, commits governments to maintain the social programs that we have all come to realize help to define us as Canadians, as compared to our neighbours in the great nation to the south, for instance. These are indeed part of the essence of what it is to be Canadian and to share the wealth and the opportunity of this nation.

In Ontario, of course, many of us have had some concerns about the accord on the Senate. It's certainly true that as an Ontarian who has been involved in this process for many years, I would have preferred, frankly, not to have had any Senate in a new arrangement in the Constitution. But it became obvious throughout the discussions that if we were going to have an agreement and if we were going to respond to the needs of other regions in this country, we would have to move on the Senate in order to deal with the concerns and aspirations of western Canadians in particular, and also the people of Newfoundland and the government of Newfoundland, but particularly westerners.

As Ontarians, of course, being the most populous province, we were concerned about the proposal for equality of Senate representation by province and what this would mean for our representation in Parliament as a whole. We raised the concern about representation by population in the House of Commons, that if we were to be underrepresented by population in the Senate, we should not continue to be underrepresented as we have been in the past in the House of Commons, the chamber that represents the population of this country. Other provinces heard our concern in that regard. So while they were presenting their need for an equal Senate, they acceded to Ontario's concerns about proper representation in the House of Commons; again, listening and hearing one another and responding.

We agreed to an equal Senate and then the question was: How would the Senate be elected? There were concerns raised about this subsequently by Quebec and those matters will be dealt with as the Senate evolves, I'm sure, in the future. There were questions about gender equality and the province of Ontario, the province of Nova Scotia and subsequently other provinces indicated that they wanted to move forward to ensure gender equality in the Senate.

We were concerned particularly about how the Senate would operate to ensure that it would not hamstring Parliament, that it would not prevent other legislation from being passed, beyond taxation on natural resources which was a particular concern to the west. The proposal was made for joint sittings between the Senate and the House of Commons which of course then would protect central Canada's concerns as well as the concerns of western Canada and the Maritimes.

I believe that the move on the Senate, on the House of Commons, the representation by population, the 18 extra seats with three more to come in 1996 responds to the needs of Ontario.

I'm concerned, though, about some of the comments that have been made about the guarantees for the province of Quebec in the House of Commons, which had similar concerns about the Senate, particularly in relation to its preservation of its linguistic distinctiveness that is confirmed in the Constitution. So the guarantee of 25% has been given. It is important for us all to recognize, as has been said in this debate, that historically the people of Quebec have constituted 25% to 27% of the population since 1867, and the projections are that by the year 2010 Quebec will still represent in the neighbourhood of 23% to 25% of the population.

For me, as the minister responsible for native affairs and that part of the negotiations, perhaps the most important reason I have for recommending this accord to the people of Ontario and to the people of Canada is the enormous progress we've made on the aboriginal agenda. Who would have believed in June 1990, when Elijah Harper, the MLA for Rupertsland, stood alone in the Manitoba Legislature and said no to not being included, that just two years later all the governments of Canada would have recognized the inherent right of self-government for aboriginal people and been prepared to entrench that in the Constitution? Who would have believed that?

This is an enormous achievement. It makes it possible for aboriginal communities to take over roles that federal and provincial governments have had in the past. It also provides for an orderly transition process for the transfer of programs and jurisdictions. It makes it possible for aboriginal people in Canada to control their own affairs in a way that no other indigenous people anywhere on the face of the globe has the opportunity to do.

I said that I approach this accord and recommend it to Canadians on the basis of pride of achievement. If there is anything that Canadians can be proud of, it's the commitment that their leaders have made to the indigenous people of North America residing in Canada. We can be a model for the world.

Keeping in mind that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply to aboriginal governments, and that is clear, and that the concerns of native women -- the Ontario Native Women's Association has come out in favour of the agreement because it believes that the wording that has been arrived at protects its legitimate concerns -- I believe we've made enormous progress that will make it possible for us to have greater justice and recognition for aboriginal people in Canada, for them to have greater self-respect and pride, and for us all as Canadians to be proud of a more just and equitable society that should come out of the development and the negotiation of the implementation of the inherent right to self-government in that part of North America that is Canada.

I have a tremendous respect for the aboriginal leadership that negotiated this agreement. I wish them well in explaining it to their people and I commend the agreement to all Canadians.

Having said all this, we all must recognize that a constitution is just a framework, just a blueprint. In itself it will not resolve all the problems we face. For those who would look at a constitutional accord and say it doesn't deal with this matter or doesn't deal adequately with that matter, I say to them that whatever is written on paper in a constitution, however well crafted, all it does is enable governments to respond to the concerns of their people and to deal with their needs and aspirations.

It's a blueprint. It enables governments to work together, to cooperate to resolve the problems we all face, but if there is not the political will to resolve those problems, it really doesn't matter very much what is written in the Constitution. We've many examples of that around the world.

I want to close by saying that all Canadians have a choice to make on October 26. I invite every Ontarian to be involved in this process, in whichever way he or she chooses to be involved, but I invite them to be involved, to become informed, to study the accord, to discuss it with their neighbours, and above all to exercise their democratic right to vote for only the third time in Canadian history, to express their opinion on the future of this country.

I will be voting Yes on October 26. I'll be voting Yes for inclusiveness, for generosity, for stability, for balance. Yes, I'll be voting for Canada and all Canadians.

I would at this time like to move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Wildman has moved adjournment of the debate. Shall the motion carry? Carried. It now being past 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 today.

The House recessed at 1201

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TORONTO BLUE JAYS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I stand here today on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole to congratulate the Toronto Blue Jays, the city of Toronto and all of Canada.

Yesterday saw a lot of firsts. On my way home from this Legislature, for the very first time I tuned in to the radio ball game. I listened to the sixth game of baseball's American League Championship Series.

Yesterday, the Blue Jays accomplished a great feat, winning the American League Championship Series. I heard it on radio and then, a first, I tuned it in when I got home. Often it's been my family who have been the fans and sports watchers, but last night I was the one who initiated turning on the television set.

It was a first. A Canadian team has never achieved that before, and I believe it very fitting that it was the Toronto Blue Jays, one of the most successful baseball franchises ever, to be the first to achieve this goal. As Blue Jays fans everywhere watched Candy Maldonado reach for that last ball, we all knew that the World Series dream was now a reality.

I'd also like to praise the Blue Jays fans who've waited for this long-deserved achievement. It's no surprise to me that the Blue Jays fans poured on to Yonge Street last night and exemplified what Torontonians and Canadians are known for: well-mannered behaviour, courtesy and lots of fun. It was a great display of pride in our city, our country and our team.

It doesn't matter if you're a diehard Blue Jays fan or an occasional fan like me: Everyone was proud. We wish them good luck in the World Series.

JUNIOR CITIZENS OF THE YEAR

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): In the midst of stories about crime, violence, riots and school dropouts, this is a good-news story about Ontario Junior Citizens of the Year.

This award program is coordinated by the Ontario Community Newspapers Association, with financial assistance by Bell Canada, and the award is given to outstanding young people aged 16 to 18 who represent the "good kids" we all know.

Every young person who is nominated receives a certificate of congratulations. The dozen or so winners are chosen by a committee of newspaper editors and representatives from Bell. They select the recipients.

The Ontario Junior Citizens of the Year receive a plaque citing their accomplishment, a lapel pin, $200 and a family portrait with the Lieutenant Governor.

Nominees may be involved in worthwhile community service, have overcome disabilities that may be psychological or physical, or have performed acts of heroism, perhaps endangering their own lives.

I take particular pleasure in congratulating Ina Kota, who was named Junior Citizen of the year for 1991. Ina is a resident of Oakville and earned her award for her work in helping immigrant youths and adults integrate into Canadian society. She also makes time to raise funds for charitable and religious works and pursue an operatic career.

I thank the members of the Community Newspapers Association and Bell Canada for their initiative in recognizing the youth of Ontario who work hard to contribute their valuable skills and energy to improving life in their communities.

EVENTS IN PETERBOROUGH

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): In an age where the mass media often dictate culture, the Peterborough community is actively working to define itself, listen to its past and ensure a participatory culture for the future.

This past summer, several initiatives put Peterborough at the forefront of cultural community development. I share them with you as a model of a vibrant society. Grants from the Ministry of Culture and Communications gave assistance to these projects, reflecting the progressive thinking within that ministry.

The Peterborough Festival of Arts gave background support to several projects. The Cavan Blazers, written and directed by Rob Winslow about historical happenings in Cavan township, was performed on his family farm by Fourth Line Players. Due to its success, the play was extended to twice its original run and given prominent national media coverage.

Harvest Moon Rising, written by local author Peggy Semple, was produced by Bea Quarrie of Quarrie Productions and Susan Spicer of Writers Workshop Theatre to wide local and critical acclaim.

Otonabee River Chronicles, performed on Labour Day weekend in cosponsorship with the Peterborough Labour Council and Ground Zero Productions, was the culmination of a summer-long research project to investigate local history through stories borrowed from labour, women, natives and so-called "ordinary" Peterboroughians. The result: A multimedia outdoor presentation captured lost voices in a moving and dynamic exploration of community myths and folk tales.

There are also many other local projects, like the 500 Years Timeline and the New Music Festival that strive to address the search for community and our place in it.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Today, at 4:30, hundreds of merchants and residents will be rallying at the historic site of Montgomery's Tavern in my riding to re-enact the Mackenzie Rebellion of 1837. I will be joining them. We will be marching in protest to the front steps of Metro hall, where we will symbolically hand over the keys to our homes and our businesses.

You may ask what catastrophe is on the horizon that would force the people of Toronto into rebellion. That catastrophe is market value assessment.

This convoluted, tortured scheme was dreamed up by a group of NDP councillors to save their necks in the next election, at the cost of Toronto businesses and ultimately our homes. Even people who support market value assessment in principle are disturbed by this politically opportunistic plan that some Metro councillors are trying to force down our throats.

There are many people who say the current property tax system is unfair and that reform is long overdue. Frankly, I agree with them, but not with this plan and not at this time. In the midst of a recession, this plan could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Under Metro's scheme, Toronto businesses are looking at tax increases of 200%, 400% and in some cases 800%. Estimates in my riding of Eglinton are that if this plan goes through, two thirds of the small businesses will be closing their doors for ever, and our home owners are facing the same devastating picture.

We in the Legislature will soon be forced to take a stand on this issue. I say to all members: property tax reform, yes, but not at the cost of destroying the city of Toronto.

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I join my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel to speak against the latest NDP tax grab, the corporate filing program that began in July of this year.

Burlington companies struggling to cope under the recession were recently hit with yet another hidden NDP tax. In a letter from the Consumer and Commercial Relations ministry, they were ordered to pay a fee in the amount of $50 for profit corporations and $25 for non-profit corporations. The ministry threatened that failure to pay the fee would result in "serious consequences."

Among the numerous letters I have received from outraged constituents is one from Patricia Yurincich, which best summarizes the anger shared by many: "By providing a toy-lending library and a drop-in centre for over 100 families in Burlington, we are providing a service for the community -- and yet they stick it to us!"

Fred Wyeld contacted me to say that the filing fee does not even make opening the books of one of his companies feasible. Peter Sticklee, a businessman who dared to complain by calling the 1-800 number to say the fee could represent a day's net profit for a small company, was told in a callous way by a civil servant that he "could always write it off."

This tax is dishonest, it's hidden and it's excessive. Halton residents saw through the Liberal GTA tax grab and responded by throwing out almost every one of their members in the last election. Ontario residents are seeing through this latest NDP tax grab, and their message is clear: "If NDP politicians write us, the taxpayers, off, then at the next election, Noel Duignan and his socialists can write their seats off too."

JAMES NICHOLAS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm really pleased to be able to advise the Legislative Assembly this afternoon that James Nicholas of Welland has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. His nomination was made earlier this year by Professor Jan Tinbergen, a Nobel laureate himself from the Netherlands.

James Nicholas is a long-time Welland resident who has been a professor at Niagara College for years now, since the beginning of that college's operation in the community. He has been a leader in this country in the peace movement and is the international secretary of the World Council for Global Cooperation, a conglomerate, if you will, of Nobel laureates that he brought together and led to the point where they created the Toronto Appeal. That Toronto Appeal was presented to the Secretary-General of the United Nations in a private audience by James Nicholas in May 1992 and earned the support of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

James Nicholas, I tell you, is a worthy recipient of this nomination. I am confident that all of the members of this Legislative Assembly join me in congratulating James Nicholas and his family for his accomplishments and for that recognition of his work. I extend special thanks because James Nicholas has been my teacher and my mentor, and he and his family are long-time friends. I'm sure we all wish him every success.

1340

OSCAR PETERSON

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I want today to pay tribute to a great Canadian and resident of Mississauga, Dr Oscar Peterson. Many of the members present will know him as Canada's ambassador of jazz, a pianist and composer of international fame. This year he joined that group of exceptional Ontarians who have been awarded the Order of Ontario.

As chancellor of York University, Dr Peterson is inaugurating the Oscar Peterson Opportunity Awards. Dr Peterson strongly believes that education is the key to personal success and to harmony both in Canada and throughout the world.

The Oscar Peterson Opportunity Awards will provide high school students in the Jane and Finch area in Toronto with the opportunity to attain higher education. The awards will provide financial assistance to junior high school students to enable them to continue their studies towards university, to candidates for teacher education, and to first-year fine arts students.

Tonight at Roy Thomson Hall these awards will be launched -- very appropriately, I might add -- with a gala tribute to the man whose vision and dedication made them possible. It is billed as a unique evening of film, music and friends, with Norman Jewison as master of ceremonies.

I extend my congratulations and best wishes for success to Dr Oscar Peterson and his many friends and family who will join together this evening to pay tribute to him.

TORONTO BLUE JAYS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I must admit that at 6:22 yesterday evening I was not in my seat in the Legislature. Like the Premier and the Treasurer, I was elsewhere, seeing for myself, first hand, the first time a Canadian team, or a non-American team, has made it to the World Series.

The Toronto Blue Jays have done what the Premier, the Treasurer and the NDP government can't do, and that is to increase tourism in the province of Ontario. The World Series will bring some $23 million in tourism into the Metro Toronto area and will result in an increase of 50% in hotel accommodation while it's taking place.

The Toronto team, of course, was the first in league championship history to wrap up a series in six games. They overcame the largest deficit ever -- which is something I wish the Treasurer would take into account -- to win the game on Sunday afternoon in Oakland. This will of course give exposure for Toronto, Ontario, and indeed Canada throughout the world.

The franchise is 16 years old, and I've been a season ticket subscriber for some 12 years. I couldn't help but notice a banner at the game yesterday which said, "Our Canada includes the World Series." By October 25, we could well be world champions, and I hope that by October 26, our Canada will include everyone.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr David Winninger (London South): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to recognize work each one of us can do to help our environment. In particular, I call attention to Bell Canada's office complex in London, Ontario.

Two weeks ago, this office began its Zero Waste program. Waste is being significantly reduced by using the 3Rs approach. Reducing waste production has been accomplished by using smaller waste-baskets accompanied by blue box recycling bins. Reuse has been accomplished by using non-disposable coffee mugs. Recycling of all paper, cans, bottles -- and even food waste, by vermiculture or worm composting -- helps accomplish the third R.

These simple means can have enormous results. Bell Canada's office complex in London plans to produce 17.5 times less garbage by the end of 1993, reducing trash output from a present 385 kilograms a day to only 22 kilograms a day by the end of 1993.

I would also like to call attention to the work being done at the London Free Press. Virtually all 800 employees take part daily in recovering waste as well as reusing ink in the printing of this daily newspaper.

These success stories in London are but two examples of the numerous efforts across Ontario to help the environment by using the 3Rs approach. I commend Bell Canada, London and the London Free Press for their initiatives in waste reduction. May other corporate citizens follow their lead in significantly reducing the amount of garbage produced in this province.

PAULA TODD

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On a point of order, the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I would say, Mr Speaker, on a point of interest more than anything else.

It has come to my attention and the attention of a good number of the members that one of the members of the press gallery, Paula Todd, is being assigned to other duties out of Queen's Park. On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I just wanted to rise and extend our warmest congratulations for her elevation to new duties, to thank her for her coverage over the years and the thorough way in which she has done her work.

Without being too lavish, lest somebody thinks she is representing one party instead of the others, we do wish every member of the press gallery, when he or she moves on to other duties, every best wish when we find out about it in time, and I thought I would raise that now for the House's edification.

The Speaker: Would anyone else like to contribute to the point of interest?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point of interest, I have known Paula Todd in her capacity here for some years now. She has certainly been a very direct, forthright reporter, and much more than that, I might add. I've had the privilege of appearing with her on Global TV on a couple of occasions. She certainly is very insightful and has always brought a high degree of professionalism to her profession. I think we hear all too often about the criticism we have sometimes of people in the media. I just wanted to say to her that we extend our best wishes in her future endeavours.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I wasn't aware that one of the leading lights from one of Toronto's leading tabloids was leaving Queen's Park, but I do wish Paula Todd well. Since she writes for the Toronto Star, I wasn't surprised that a Liberal member was the first on his feet to wish her well. I would echo the sentiments of the members opposite in commenting on Paula's qualities as a journalist and wish her well in her new endeavours.

The Speaker: I think indeed, member for Bruce, that you have found in fact a point of order in all this, and I'm sure the remarks by the members are greatly appreciated.

Mr Elston: Will you put this together and send it to her paper?

The Speaker: It might appear in the Star.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like members to welcome to our gallery this afternoon a former member for the riding of Durham North, Mr Bill Ballinger, who is seated in the members' gallery west.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I'd like to welcome Bill Ballinger back to these confines as well.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I am today releasing the Ontario Economic Outlook document, which outlines the state of our province's economy.

The events in recent weeks in Canadian and international financial markets highlight the uncertainty we face in attempting to predict and manage the economy. Despite this uncertainty, we have a responsibility to provide our best understanding of the outlook for the economy and of the policies needed to support recovery. That is the aim of this document.

The outlook document shows that while there has been some growth in the Ontario economy, that growth has been quite moderate compared to past recoveries. The Economic Outlook's figures are testimony to the depth of the restructuring that is taking place in the Ontario economy. The economy has grown 2.7% compared to the 8.3% in the first five quarters following the last recession. Unemployment will decline painfully slowly. Growth in employment will resume only in the fourth quarter of this year, and in 1993 we expect that some 100,000 jobs will be created.

The economic figures also mean a continuing financial challenge for our province. Revenues will recover only slowly. At the same time, our population continues to need increased government services such as training, social assistance, education and health care.

In our April budget we forecast a $9.9-billion deficit for the current fiscal year. While slower-than-expected nominal economic growth will reduce our revenues this year, we remain committed to achieving that budget deficit target.

We believe that government leadership is an important ingredient in helping the economy reach its full potential. I am confident that with the economic initiatives undertaken by our government, working in partnership with the province's adaptable and highly skilled workforce and its dynamic business community, Ontario can build a strong foundation for a sustainable recovery.

Times are still very tough for a lot of people. It is precisely for this reason that it is imperative that we continue to move forward with our economic agenda. That is why I would also like to take this opportunity to report briefly on some of the highlights of our economic plan -- those that relate to jobs.

Major macroeconomic levers -- trade policy, monetary policy, interest rate levels -- lie with the federal government. However, even though a provincial government cannot solve every problem, it does control some important economic levers, and has an obligation to use them.

In our budget last spring we made a substantial commitment to job initiatives which will support some 90,000 jobs in 1992-93.

In June I announced that various ministries would be investing $360 million this fiscal year under Jobs Ontario Capital. The moneys are part of a five-year, $2.3-billion fund designed to invest in strategic economic infrastructure. With the remainder of this year's $500 million allocated from Jobs Ontario Capital, it is expected that a total of 9,800 jobs will be created.

Our $3.4-billion investment in base capital, which is in addition to the Jobs Ontario Capital, will support a further 67,000 jobs this year.

The Jobs Ontario Homes fund will support $2.1 billion in construction, creating 20,000 additional units of much-needed affordable housing. As the program gears up in the coming years, it will support some 30,000 jobs.

This summer, in response to the needs of our young people, our government created the Jobs Ontario Youth fund, which quickly and successfully created 8,800 summer jobs for young people.

Another initiative, the Jobs Ontario Training fund, has commissioned dozens of training brokers serving communities in every corner of this province. Some $1.1 billion in funding will be flowing over three years through these community brokers to employers who in turn will train and employ the long-term unemployed and those on social assistance while providing training credits for an employer's current workforce. Over the next three years, this program alone will support 100,000 jobs, 10,800 of them this year, the program's startup year.

Our government is also funding programs to help older displaced workers. We operate Ontario help centres in 18 major communities and will soon establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.

In our budget we announced a total of $930 million for training and adjustment programs, the largest such commitment in the history of this province.

In addition to jobs and training measures, our government has taken steps to encourage investment, which will also help job creation. The $150-million sector partnership fund and the Ontario investment and worker ownership program are examples of our government's investment initiatives.

Our government is creating and supporting jobs today, and in each case we are doing that with a careful eye to the future and on what government can reasonably do.

We have come through some difficult times and we still face some challenges. But we also have a wealth of assets to help us deal with these challenges. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world, a highly skilled workforce and abundant natural resources. Our culture is diverse, our infrastructure modern.

Ontario has faced economic changes more than once in its history. It has made the transition to a highly industrialized economy based on exports. This transition was accompanied by dislocation and often hardship, but Ontario made it successfully.

The current challenge facing the economy is to increase its orientation to high-skilled, high value added activities in all sectors of the economy. Business services and knowledge-intensive industries based on technology and skills will supply about 40% of our employment growth over the next two years, reflecting the shift in the structure of our economy. With government playing a role as an active partner, I am confident that Ontario can again make this latest transition successfully while easing much of the hardship and dislocation through job support initiatives and through the safety net created by our continuing commitment to social programs.

There will be many challenges ahead, and Ontario is well equipped to deal with them. We have also got a head start on many other countries. The Economic Outlook also points out that our economy is forecast to grow at 3.5% a year over the 1992-1996 period, a stronger pace than any industrialized country. If we work together as partners, I believe Ontarians can continue to enjoy the prosperous and fair society for which they have worked so hard.

The publication of this Economic Outlook marks the beginning of budget preparations and will be part of our pre-budget consultations to come. I have asked that it be sent to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs so that my colleagues will have the opportunity of discussing it in detail if they so wish.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'd respond to the Treasurer's Economic Outlook to say that it's sad reading. I think all the members of the Legislature will be disappointed with the news in it, and I would say to the Treasurer I think it's an admission that the economic plans of the government are not working. We see the unemployment rate in the rest of Canada dropping and the unemployment rate in Ontario going up. In August the rest of Canada's unemployment rate dropped; Ontario's went up significantly. In September's unemployment rate, every single province dropped but Ontario.

I would say that this is one in a series of documents, almost every two to three months. The latest document we had was the one dated June, the Treasurer will remember, Ontario Economic Report. That time it promised that there would be job growth occurring in 1992 and, sadly, we see that we are losing more jobs again in 1992. The unemployment rate will go up; the number of jobs will decline in 1992 in Ontario.

I will say to the Treasurer that the saddest thing in this document is the lack of an economic plan to get the economy going. I think the people of Ontario will remember that the Premier, a year ago, said: "We have an economic program. We have a training program. We have something called the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board that will solve our training needs and we will bring in the legislation" in the spring. We have not seen that. That was supposed to be the cornerstone of your economic renewal plan.

You promised that you would have the Ontario investment fund well under way by now. It is still out for consultation, and by all accounts, at least two of the major potential partners in it have said they don't want to participate in it. That was going to be another cornerstone in your economic renewal plan.

You said that the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments would bring in harmony and partnerships in the workplace. I will say to you and the government, as directly as I can, there has been nothing that has so divided the business community and the labour community as that bill and there is nothing that has done more to harm potential investment in this province than that bill. That's not mentioned in your economic report card.

You brought in the worker ownership program, which was supposed to be something that would encourage participation by the workers in this province, and the major participant in it, the Ontario Federation of Labour, said it will not participate. They won't participate in it. They say they won't do that.

So what we've got now is, sadly, the major cornerstones, the blocks, that were going to be used by Premier Rae and this government to get the Ontario economy going, every single one of them is not working.

What we've got today, as you will see in the document, is that Jobs Ontario is the cornerstone of this. I would say to the Treasurer, as I've said many times, it is telling the people of Ontario about a program that frankly is spending less money this year than you spent last year. I'm not saying, "Go out and spend more money." I am saying, "Be straight with the people of Ontario." The Jobs Ontario Capital fund, and I hope all the members of your caucus understand this, is spending less money in 1992-93 than was spent last year.

1400

I accept you will maintain 90,000 jobs, but you are not creating one single new job. I would say to the Treasurer that your Economic Outlook is a document that will be greeted, I think, with a good deal of sadness in the province, particularly by those people who are out of work, which indicates that rather than your promised unemployment rate dropping this year, economic growth recovering in a very significant way and 125,000 new jobs this fiscal year, you now are saying that's not going to happen. We see our unemployment rate continue to rise.

The most important thing to the Legislature is the promised economic renewal plan with the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, with the Ontario investment fund, with peace and harmony through the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments and with the whole worker ownership. None of those things is here before us. What we've got is not only sad news, but the saddest news is that the economic plan the government had promised, that the Premier a year ago said we would have here, is not here.

I not only am sad about these numbers; I question the future numbers in this document as well.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Responses from the third party?

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I had hoped there would have been some kind of good news or some kind of recognition on the part of the Treasurer with regard to the present problems we face in Ontario and our economy.

He continues to hold out the false figure of $9.9 billion as our deficit. He has no assurance from the federal government that he is going to receive $1.2 billion, which he is counting as revenue. He has no assurance that he is going to sell off assets of this province worth $1.2 billion -- he hasn't found a buyer yet -- which he assumes as revenue in his budget statement for this year. He has also jiggered the books, as we all know, by postponing a $500-million payment to the teachers' pension fund.

We have never had a Treasurer fool around with the books or create bogus accounting as we have with this Treasurer and with this government. When one reads the economic forecast today and reads the budget of this Treasurer some six short months ago, one is shaken by the fact that his projections for economic growth are now admittedly out by 35% from what his budget stated six months ago. If he's out by 35%, how can his revenue projections be in line? He says he's going to hit his target of $9.9 billion.

His projection in his budget some six short months ago as to how much unemployment was going to take place in this province was 9.6% unemployment. Today we find out the sad news that the Treasurer was wrong again. It's going to be 10.8%. That's an error of 15%.

I find it mildly amusing that not only is the Treasurer within this document trying to predict what's going to happen next year; he's trying to predict what's happening five or six years hence. This Treasurer can't even predict six months in advance, let alone six years in advance.

We are shaken by the incompetency of the economic forecasting and the economic planning of this government. The business community, the investment community and the workers of Ontario are looking for stable fiscal management. They are not getting it from this government because report after report corrects previous projections, normally going in a more detrimental direction for the province of Ontario.

There are two things this Treasurer could do in order to help the economy of Ontario. I don't think this document today, quite frankly, helps the economy or helps anybody in this province at all. There are two things this Treasurer can do: Get tough and quit spending; speak to the Minister of Labour and kill Bill 40. That will help more than anything else.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): We've been telling this Treasurer for two years that he can't continue to tax and spend like there's no tomorrow. Tomorrow is finally here and your economic plan has been an absolute disaster. Ontario's economy is the worst of any of the provinces. Your $9.9-billion deficit, you will have to have massive cuts to reach that. This Treasurer, in this day and age when consumer confidence is shaken, says he may raise taxes. This Treasurer worked 20 years to become Treasurer. It's going to take us 20 years to clean up after this government leaves.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): In regard to the announcement today by the Treasurer, these numbers are very serious and very discouraging. The saddest part about the announcement today is that these numbers aren't even accurate. These numbers don't reflect the economic state that this province is in.

This Treasurer has gerrymandered these numbers. He's massaged them to bring them in to look even better than sadly they look today. This Treasurer is using the people of Ontario and he's using them in the saddest way possible: through unemployment and welfare gerrymandered numbers. Mr Treasurer, you should be ashamed of yourself.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome to our gallery this afternoon a special visitor from Germany, the Honourable Monika Griefahn, who is the Minister of the Environment of Lower Saxony, Germany. Welcome.

TRANSPORTATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Before we begin question period, I would ask whether or not the Treasurer would consider making a statement in the House in response to the accusation of Premier Frank McKenna that it is Ontario that is responsible for the failure to go ahead and implement the national transportation program.

I make this request as a point of order because certainly the Treasurer and others of us in this House will be asked to respond to Mr McKenna's statements as we leave the chamber and I, for one, would like to have the benefit of the Treasurer's position on the issue before having to respond.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It would require unanimous consent to revert to statements by ministers. Do we have unanimous consent? No, I heard at least one negative voice.

It's time for oral questions. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: I did not feel that was an unreasonable request since I think that the attempt on my part was to be able to offer an informed response, informed by the position of the government. If the accusation made by Mr McKenna was not accurate, I would appreciate knowing that before I criticize the government for an inaccurate statement.

The Speaker: Is this the member's question?

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, there is no end of areas that we wish to ask this government about today so I will have to just respond as I see fit in the absence of information being conveyed by the government, and my first question will be to the Minister of Financial Institutions.

Yesterday I asked the minister very directly whether or not Ontario consumers will face auto insurance premium increases as a result of this minister's Bill 164. The minister responded, "It is my belief -- I repeat, my belief -- based on the studies I have seen, that we can implement these changes without any premium increases."

Today a Coopers and Lybrand study was released which shows very clearly that Ontario car insurance rates could go up by an average of $200 per vehicle once Bill 164 passes.

What does this minister say now? The study shows that individual premiums could go up by $200. Will the minister now admit that this bill could well have a devastating impact on the consumers of this province?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions): The leader of the official opposition raises an interesting question as a result of the press conference this morning. She raised yesterday whether the government has done a study. We have done a very thorough, very comprehensive actuarial study of Bill 164.

This study that was released this morning by Coopers and Lybrand is not an actuarial study of Bill 164. In fact this study doesn't even include any precise conclusions that were reached at the press conference this morning. The conclusions that were reached at the press conference this morning about numbers and percentages were in fact concluded at the press conference on the back of an envelope while the press stood and watched.

This minister does not agree that the press conference by State Farm this morning indicates any serious jeopardy to the drivers of this province in terms of premium increases.

1410

Mrs McLeod: The minister has continually refused to provide any definitive answers as to his estimates of costs, so it's very difficult for us to give his particular studies any credibility. I believe that the consumers of this province will take this new study very seriously indeed.

We continue to have the minister saying that he believes premiums will not rise for Ontario drivers. He's quoted in today's press as saying, "If the industry were to take unnecessary action in terms of raising premiums, we're prepared to take action."

I would again ask the minister, will he not admit that the only way he can stop premiums from rising when his bill becomes law is to step in and freeze the premiums? If that's the kind of action he's contemplating, let him admit that now.

Hon Mr Charlton: Firstly, no, I won't admit that, because it doesn't happen to be the case but, secondly, the Leader of the Opposition stood here and based her comments this afternoon on a press release and a study released by State Farm this morning. The Leader of the Opposition should understand that part of what was said at the press conference this morning was that premiums in this province are presently underpriced 3%, that comment coming from a company that just a few short months ago was bragging about its profitability. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should take the time to look at the most recent profit figures, which still indicate an industry turning over profits of $700 million to $800 million per year, far in excess of any other sector in the economy.

Mrs McLeod: The minister simply is not prepared to come clean about what his legislation will do. It seems very clear that if the minister takes action, if he feels he has to step in to freeze premiums to prevent his legislation hitting consumers directly in their pocketbooks, if the insurance companies then have to absorb even one half of the costs of the bill, the Coopers and Lybrand study says that as many as 2,000 insurance industry jobs could be lost in the province of Ontario.

If this is really, as we fear it may be, the back-door way into public auto insurance, the minister already knows that 10,000 jobs in this province would be lost. This province can't take any more. In spite of the Treasurer's rather creative reporting earlier this afternoon, we know that every working day 547 people lose their jobs in this province and that one plant closes every three days. In light of that reality, in light of what this legislation will do, I ask why the minister is so determined to proceed with this plan.

Hon Mr Charlton: This government made commitments around --

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): What do you mean? It's a complete reversal of what you said they were going to do.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- made commitments about dealing with the problems that were identified with Bill 68, the OMPP. This government intends to proceed to fulfil those commitments, but the Leader of the Opposition, before she gets herself too far out on a limb on this issue, should understand that State Farm Insurance was out there doing this press conference this morning on its own, because the Insurance Bureau of Canada doesn't happen to hold precisely the same position and the industry is quite divided around the numbers that were provided this morning.

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): In light of the Treasurer's earlier statement, I'll direct my second question to the Treasurer, although we have not had an opportunity to read in detail the brand-new, revised Economic Outlook that he has presented us with today. It seems very clear, somewhat not to our surprise, that the Treasurer is saying in this budget statement that our revenues this year are going to be down. From the time this Treasurer presented his original budget, we've said that he had completely overestimated his revenues. I would ask the Treasurer today if he would tell us how much of his projections his revenues are going to be. What can we expect to see when this budget year is finally completed?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I appreciate the surprise question from the leader of the official opposition. Within a couple of weeks, we intend to table the second-quarter Ontario Finances, which will provide some detail that we're now finalizing on our revenues to date and our projected revenues for the rest of the fiscal year. There is no question whatsoever that because of the slowness in the economy -- I might add that despite some of the comments opposite, nobody out there, no independent forecasters, whether a bank or a consulting company, nobody forecasted the slow growth in the economy this year; absolutely no one.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Ask any of us. We did.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): We did.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): You didn't listen to me in the last campaign.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm talking about people with some credibility in this field, and none of them --

Mr Stockwell: And they were wrong.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't intend to get partisan about a matter as important as the Ontario economy or forecasting, but I do want to say that the last people anybody should have to receive a lecture from on their ability to forecast revenues or deficits is the official opposition; nobody should have to take that.

The details that the leader of the official opposition is seeking will be provided in the second-quarter Ontario Finances when it's out in the next couple of weeks.

Mrs McLeod: That response strains credibility, that the Treasurer is not able to look beyond the immediate day to give us his estimate of what the second-quarter budget figures will look like and what his revenue projection is for the end of the second quarter. We have in front of us his estimated revenue picture, his budget picture, for the end of the first quarter. We're not asking him to be partisan. We're not questioning the credibility of the numbers which might be produced. We're asking him to share those numbers with us honestly. How much are your revenues down when you tell us they're down? What is your budget going to look like, Mr Treasurer?

Hon Mr Laughren: It would make no sense to dribble out the content of the second-quarter finances day by day by day. When all those numbers are assembled and put together in a form that's comprehensible, then they will be presented to this assembly and members will have an opportunity to comment on them.

I stated earlier that we were going to have some revenue problems because of the slow growth in the economy, but that we would compensate for those by actions on the expenditure side. Just to remind members, last year, for every dollar we raised in taxes, we restricted expenditure growth by $4. So I can tell you that we have a commitment to restricting the growth in expenditures, and that commitment remains.

Mrs McLeod: The Treasurer is absolutely right. We don't want him to dribble out the information. We want him to tell us what the facts are. We want him to tell us what his projections are of his revenue loss. The trigger for this question is the Treasurer's own statement. I'm simply raising the issues that he's raised by voluntarily bringing this statement to the House today. I quote back to the Treasurer:

"In our April budget, we forecast a $9.9-billion deficit for the current fiscal year. While slower than expected nominal economic growth will reduce our revenues this year, we remain committed to achieving the budget deficit target."

1420

If the Treasurer is not willing to share with us what his estimated revenue loss is, will he at least be prepared to tell us how he expects to accommodate his unknown revenue loss and the fact that he is going to maintain his deficit at $9.9 billion?

I would say to the Treasurer, you cannot dribble out that kind of knowledge to the people who are your partners in trying to provide service in this province. I heard the Premier on television in January say to the people who are the transfer agency partners: "Do your part. We expect you to do your part." Mr Treasurer, the least you can do is tell us who is going to pay the price for your revenue loss. What part of the transfer agency partner is going to have to pay for this price?

Hon Mr Laughren: I really will try and make it crystal clear that I'm not trying to hold back any information. I'm not unwilling to share information we have, but the leader of the official opposition should know that the second quarter fiscally ends the end of September. It takes basically the month of October to accumulate all the numbers and put it in a form that's intelligible.

I don't have the numbers the leader of the official opposition is seeking today and those numbers, when they're available, will be released in the form of the second-quarter finances for the province of Ontario. There's nothing secret about it at all. That's the way it is.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): That's a point of parliamentary privilege, what you've just done. You can't come in and make those kinds of statements and say you have no facts to support --

The Speaker: Order, the member for Renfrew North.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I'd like to go back to the Minister of Financial Institutions concerning the study that was released this morning by State Farm Insurance.

Mr Minister, the independent study that was done by Coopers and Lybrand showed that 2,000 jobs, most of those in small Ontario- or Canadian-owned companies, many in small-town and rural Ontario, were at risk and would likely leave the province. In addition to that, up to $2.6 billion of capital very likely will leave the Ontario economy and go elsewhere.

For months now we've been telling you and the experts in the insurance industry have been telling you what a shoddy bill this was and what the results of that would be. Now an independent study shows job losses, flight of capital and rate increases up to $200 per driver.

We already know Bill 164 plans to limit the right of a company to leave Ontario; you plan to force them to stay here after you bring this bill in. Can you assure me of this, that as a method of preventing rates from going up, because every study including yours says costs will go up, you will not do as the Liberals did and bring in an artificial cap on the increases the private sector industry can charge to meet the obligations of Bill 164? Can you give us that assurance today?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions): Let me first deal with the question of the study which the leader of the third party has yet again raised. I repeat, this document which was released this morning is not an actuarial study of the costs of Bill 164 and the authors of that study openly admitted that at their press conference this morning. This is not a study of the costs of our legislation. It is in fact rather a hodgepodge of questionable assumptions and predictions done by Coopers and Lybrand.

In relation to the question that the leader of the third party ended off with, I have said openly on repeated occasions that this government is prepared to deal with the real consequences of Bill 164 and not to deal with them in an artificial way. Having said that, I repeat what I said yesterday, this minister firmly believes we can implement the package outlined in Bill 164 without any need to increase premiums.

Mr Harris: Coopers and Lybrand states very clearly that for you to implement Bill 164 without any increase in premium rates, several things will happen: (1) You will have to legislate, as the Liberals did, an artificial cap on premiums, not related to the cost of insurance, (2) 2,000 jobs will leave the province, and (3) $2.6 billion of capital will flee Ontario.

Why are you proceeding with legislation that will cost us badly needed capital, and obviously we need the jobs, and that will also require you to bring in capping legislation, artificially telling insurance companies what they can charge if they want to do business in Ontario?

Hon Mr Charlton: I guess the easiest way to deal with the leader of the third party's question in his supplementary is to say that this study I have before me documents no such things.

Mr Harris: By way of final supplementary, let me ask the minister this, since I can't believe this government continues to discredit reputable firms like Coopers and Lybrand and Ernst and Young every time they do an independent analysis that it disagrees with: In the Coopers and Lybrand study that was released today, they confirmed what David Tilson has been telling you and they confirmed what the Insurance Bureau of Canada has been telling you, and told you months ago, and that is that if you proceed with Bill 164, American and other foreign drivers will not have their insurance in their home countries cover them while they drive in Ontario.

Mr Minister, given that this is the opinion of Coopers and Lybrand and is also the opinion of the insurance companies in the United States, will you commit to halt this legislation until you have an understanding and an agreement from the American insurance companies that when their tourists cross the border into Ontario -- which they won't do if their insurance policies don't cover them.

To save what is left of the devastated tourist industry here in Ontario, will you commit to make sure that there is a reciprocal agreement, that every tourist who crosses the border doesn't have to take the bus to your casino in Windsor, that every tourist who wants to drive and come to Ontario, even with the high taxation, even with the high rates here in Ontario, will not have to stop and buy an additional insurance policy as well? Will you commit to that?

Hon Mr Charlton: Firstly, all the best advice we have is that there is no substance to those claims, but secondly, I put a question to the leader of the third party: Is he prepared to sacrifice the safety and wellbeing of the drivers in the province of Ontario around concerns like that?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question?

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Minister. In two and a half years, you can ask the questions and I'll be there to answer them.

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. Mr Minister, a woman named Bonnie Seguin called my office during the summer, claiming she had been fired from her job at the native friendship centre in Cochrane for reporting sexual assaults. Subsequently, the person she reported on was charged. That person will go to court next month.

Bonnie Seguin went to your government for help. She appealed to the Premier, to the Solicitor General, to the Ministry of Labour and to the Ontario women's directorate. She appealed to the Human Rights Commission. She appealed to her MPP. She appealed to Judge Inger Hansen, who is conducting the Bell Cairn inquiry. Nothing happened. Then, Mr Minister, she came to me and I raised it in the media.

My question is, since that time, what has your government done to address Bonnie Seguin's plight that she was fired from her job for reporting a sexual assault allegation against a colleague?

[Applause]

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): I thank the members for that honourable tradition. I know it doesn't last long, so I'll cherish the tradition.

I'm aware of the issue the member of the third party raises. I think he knows that the individual in question was not an employee of this ministry and that any issues surrounding her employment are the matter of the board of directors, and the board's exclusively.

1430

Mr Harris: The individual Ms Seguin reported had a previous conviction for sexual assault, yet he was hired to escort vulnerable women, whose husbands are serving time, to and from prisons. Perhaps you could explain to me how a contract with your ministry was signed for this purpose with the native friendship centre, with this person, the accused individual, identified as the one who would fulfil the contract dealing directly with vulnerable women, when he had a previous conviction for sexual assault on his record. Have you investigated how this could possibly happen?

Hon Mr Christopherson: If I understand the question correctly, then my understanding is that the individual has been charged and the matter is before the courts. I must be careful not to get involved in individual cases that are indeed before the courts.

Mr Harris: That has nothing to do with how somebody with a conviction on his record had a contract and was retained by your ministry. The question is, how could this possibly happen? Have you investigated, when virtually all others who are in these positions have to be bondable before a contract is signed? How could it possibly happen within your ministry that a contract was let with the Indian friendship centre for this individual, given his previous criminal record?

Secondly, how is it that Bonnie Seguin received not one whit of assistance, of help, from your government, from your member who is in the riding, from all the agencies, when she reported the sexual assault on one of her colleagues? How is it that it had to be raised in the media before that could happen? Mr Minister, given that, how is it that you expect any civil servants in this province to feel comfortable in coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault when they do not receive support from the government?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I heard three questions there. I'll deal with the last one first, in terms of the comfort level of employees in this ministry and in this government in coming forward.

There have been a number of serious actions that have been instituted by the previous minister in this regard, not the least of which is the Hansen inquiry, the independent investigations unit, as well as ongoing review of these matters by the Management Board secretariat. There's the Human Rights Commission, there's the Ombudsman; there are at least seven points of entry for individuals who have concerns to raise those concerns and have them dealt with properly.

On the second question, I would again say and remind the member that this individual was employed by an agency that's contracted by the ministry, is not a direct employee of the ministry, and therefore all matters of employment around that individual are the responsibility of the board. On that point, I would also remind the member that when the individual called the previous minister's office, prior to contacting his office that person was advised that he had certain rights under the employment standards provisions of the government and was given information that would allow them to make those inquiries.

On the first question, I would again say that because this matter is in front of the courts, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss the matter further.

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer, to follow up on my leader's question. Treasurer, the problem we in opposition have with your document is that you will have raised a lot of concerns in the people of Ontario about how you are going to manage your deficit, with no answers. That's the problem.

I will say to you, Treasurer, that in your Economic Outlook you have forecast what's going to happen to personal income, you've forecast what's going to happen to retail sales, you've forecast what's going to happen to corporate profits. You've got all those forecasts in your Economic Outlook. This is why we're so upset on this side. It seems to us that you've already done all the forecasting in your Economic Outlook that would have allowed you to come forward today with an estimate of what's going to happen to your revenues, and you could have shared with the House your revenue estimates, your expenditure estimates, and how you're going to manage them. What we're going to be faced with now, Treasurer, is several weeks of speculation.

I wonder, Treasurer, if you can indicate why you could not have used your Economic Outlook to give the Legislature a realistic look at our fiscal situation at the same time as we have this Economic Outlook.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): First of all, there's nothing at all unusual about tabling this document at this point in time. It's been done for years, by previous governments, by this government. It was known affectionately for years around this place as the grey book. So first of all, there's nothing at all unusual about that.

If I could address the member's concerns directly, I suppose --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): What is unusual is setting your deficit and then setting your revenue. That's what unusual.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I suppose we could have stalled and held this document back for two or three weeks until the second-quarter finances were out, but I don't know what purpose that would serve. Then you would be clamouring about why we were hiding this document and not bringing it forward. So I don't understand the member.

Nothing at all has been done that's unusual. I'm sure he knows that when the second quarter ends the end of September, you don't snap your fingers and get all the numbers in in a week, given the complexity of tax revenues all across the province. It's not physically possible to do that.

Nobody's attempting to hold any information back from anyone, and when the second-quarter finances are tabled in the normal course of events, all will be revealed.

Mr Phillips: The thing I would remind the Treasurer of is that in your statement you said, "In our April budget, we forecast a $9.9-billion deficit for the current fiscal year." You expect slower economic growth will reduce revenues and you are going to hit your target. So it was you who raised it in here. I am saying to you, Treasurer, that presumably you've done the numbers. Why will you not share with the Legislature your estimate -- because you obviously have an estimate now -- and how you're going to manage them?

I'm suggesting to you that once again, in terms of managing the fiscal affairs of this province, we're going to have two or three weeks of chaos out there while people are trying to speculate how much you are off and where the cuts are going to take place.

In your Economic Outlook you have all the numbers. Why in the world would you have done the estimate, raised the whole spectre of cuts, and not have come to the Legislature today and outlined for us the magnitude of the problem and how you're going to manage them? Won't that put people in a terribly angst position? Won't people wonder about how you are going to manage this problem?

Hon Mr Laughren: If I said in the statement I read to the members this afternoon that there were going to be some revenue problems, that's obvious; it's obvious to everyone. When you have lower economic growth, you have lower revenues. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that. Therefore, it seems to me common sense to draw from that fact that there's going to be slower economic growth, that there are going to be lower revenues.

You don't have to ask just me. Ask the federal government about its problems with economic forecasting. There's never been a province or a federal government that I've seen that's hit its targets spot on. Therefore, I would just say to the --

Mr Mahoney: So x minus y equals 9.9. What is x and what is y?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga West.

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't want to be provocative, but when the member for Scarborough-Agincourt talks about chaos, I can't help but conclude that the only chaos around us is in the official opposition on this matter. I didn't give you the numbers on revenues because I don't have the numbers on revenues. They will all be brought forward with the tabling of the second-quarter finances in the normal course of events. There's absolutely nothing unusual about this process. It's been done this way for years and we are continuing to do it.

1440

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. In yesterday's Toronto Sun, the minister is commenting on the fact that inmates in the provincial institutions may get AIDS tests. The minister will be aware that there is a very serious concern in Ontario's penal institutions with regard to the high number of inmates who are infected with HIV. The minister will know that the guards in these institutions are living in fear of being exposed to the blood of HIV-positive inmates. In fact, five guards were exposed to the blood of one such inmate, and now those guards fear they may have contracted the virus. There's another incident of a prison guard who died from AIDS, and it's suspected that he may have contracted the disease through exposure to the blood of an inmate.

While these people are incarcerated, the Ministry of Correctional Services is responsible for their welfare and that of the guards. Will the minister provide some details of what action he and his government are taking to address this very serious problem?

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): I respond by advising the member that the approach of the ministry to this issue is one of universal precaution, which has every corrections officer in all of our institutions dealing with every offender as if he potentially were HIV positive. Therefore, regardless of who may or may not be positive, all precautions are always being taken.

The initial policy comes from the communicable disease policy which was implemented in April 1989 by the previous government in response to these growing pressures and these issues. In that policy, there's also a requirement for training to take place at least every two years for all corrections officers. That is being followed, and in fact we're in the process right now of one of the cycles of training. There is also special equipment provided to corrections officers, and again, the whole policy is being reviewed.

There is the issue, which I acknowledge is controversial but is being reviewed, of condoms being distributed, as the federal government has. That is under review, and in my meetings with Dr Humphries, the chief medical officer for the ministry, I am advised that he is comfortable that we are taking every precaution we can for the corrections officers. This is an important issue for the ministry, and it will remain one.

Mr Runciman: As a supplementary, I specifically ask about a testing program. The minister really talked around that issue completely. The press story in the Toronto Sun yesterday indicated that they are going to confine any possible testing I think to provincial jails and provincial detention centres, where accountability is virtually impossible because the residents of those facilities are incarcerated for a very short period of time.

In a test done in Quebec, as I'm sure the minister is aware, 6% of the prison population in provincial institutions were carrying the virus. If you translate that in terms of the Ontario population, you're looking at in the neighbourhood of 4,000 possible carriers of the virus within provincial institutions, so in effect, every day of delay is subjecting guards and inmates to a very high risk of contracting the AIDS virus.

I'm asking the minister again, specifically what is he proposing to do with respect to committing himself and his government to a full testing program of all inmates in provincial institutions?

Hon Mr Christopherson: If the specific question is regarding the article that appeared yesterday and some of the issues around the testing that is being proposed, let me answer very directly. The University of Toronto approached the Ministry of Correctional Services and asked if we would be willing to participate in this study. It was proposed that the federal government would indeed pay for this study. The University of Toronto wanted the statistics to use for part of its ongoing statistical analysis. The federal government, as I understand it, is very interested in funding this.

The question of anonymity is an important human rights issue, and the offenders inside the institutions are being guaranteed that this is anonymous testing. The results would be found through urine samples that are given voluntarily when offenders are admitted into institutions. There's also, I believe, a 5% figure that is thrown away at random so that there's no way to determine who the individuals are. That's consistent, I would hope, with the beliefs of the honourable member across the way. That is certainly consistent with the policies in other institutions across Canada and North America.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, my concern relates to the treatment of people with head injuries. You have stated that it's your genuine intent to ensure, as a last resort, that treatment can be obtained in the United States until appropriate facilities are available here.

I've been told that the health insurance division was arbitrarily overruling assessments and recommendations of clinical staff regarding survivors of head injuries and on several occasions unilaterally made decisions to discharge patients despite sound clinical advice to the contrary.

Obviously, the decision to begin or terminate treatment should be assessed from a professional medical perspective and not an economically driven administrative standpoint. Madam Minister, will you provide assurances to the people with head injuries and their families that assessments and recommendations made by Ontario clinicians, recognized by the health insurance division, be approved and not overruled, as has been happening, I'm told, in the past?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): First of all, let me assure the member that decisions are not being made simply on the grounds of economic or fiscal considerations. The decision-making process with respect to these courses of treatment is done from a medical and clinical point of view, and the individuals involved in that within the ministry and the health insurance division are in fact medical professionals themselves.

I think the issue of concern though that has been raised by members of families of individuals with head injuries and the association membership has been with respect to the level of expertise around these courses of treatment. It's an area we don't have a lot of experience with in Ontario. The experience in the States and the expertise there is greater.

It's a question of how we make these judgements. We have contracted now with Chedoke-McMaster, which is our centre of excellence and expertise here in Ontario, to help us with those clinical judgements, and we are taking its advice with respect to courses of treatment and out-of-country treatment plans at this point in time.

Mr Hayes: I would also like to ask that the recommendations of a US review panel, which the committee formed to provide a list of preferred American providers in the absence of adequate treatment centres in Ontario, be fast-tracked to reduce the bureaucratic delay faced by those awaiting treatment for a head injury.

Hon Ms Lankin: When we made the announcement about the changes to the out-of-country OHIP application, we made it clear that we would be establishing a list of preferred providers with respect to certain courses of treatment, and head injury is one of those.

That process has taken us longer than we initially anticipated. The panel has been doing onsite selection visits and it's in the process of compiling that information. I am hopeful we will have that in the near future. I had hoped we would have it by the end of September but it's still being worked on at this point in time. Pending completion of that, the decisions that are being made are being made on the best clinical advice we can get, and we're getting that from the head injury unit of Chedoke-McMaster. I'm quite confident at this point in time that we'll be able to address the kinds of concerns that members of the association have been raising.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Last August, in promising special assistance to peach farmers who had been hit by a recent hailstorm, the Premier said: "We are going to have to respond quickly to this current hail situation. We've got to make sure that help goes to those who need it."

The Minister of Agriculture has now sent a letter saying, "The government will not be introducing any additional financial assistance programs to the farmers in Niagara affected by hail."

Given the Premier's previous very clear commitment, I would ask the minister how he explains his decision to break his Premier's promise. Whom should the farmers believe, the minister or the Premier?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I want to clarify what I said last August and what the Premier said last August, and they are very consistent here. According to the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier said that those farmers who were in most need would receive assistance or would receive some consideration. Those are exactly the same words that I said the day before, when I visited Niagara, that there would not be across-the-board assistance for the peach farmers but we would look at addressing those needs of the farmers who were in serious financial difficulties so that they would not lose their operations because of the hailstorm.

But the Premier and I were both consistent. We did not promise across-the-board assistance to farmers who did not have crop insurance. That was very clear then, and it's still very clear, and the Premier and I have agreed on this.

1450

Mrs McLeod: Mr Minister, whatever attempt you make to explain the consistencies or inconsistencies, the fact remains you have not given these farmers any assistance at all. You have not done anything for them that you told them you would do. When the Premier met with those peach farmers, he was told about the problems with the crop insurance program in Niagara over the last few years. He was told how the coverage has declined after a number of years of crop damage. He was told that the current crop insurance program does not cover the kind of spot damage that you can get with the kind of hailstorm that Niagara experienced. The Premier admitted that it is crucial that we have an insurance plan that has the support of farmers.

Mr Minister, you have known about these same problems in crop insurance from last year's drought in Essex. You've allowed them to continue. You've cut off any hope of assistance and long-term support, and now you've cut off any hope of short-term assistance. I ask you, Mr Minister, what hope is there now for farmers who've been telling their bankers to hold off calling their loans because the Premier had promised that some form of additional funding would be coming?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Just to clarify what the Leader of the Opposition was saying, in her opening question she talked about assistance for those in greatest need, and then later on in the second question, she mentioned the Essex-Kent situation with the drought last year. There was some money set aside on an emergency basis for those farmers in greatest need, and that money is being delivered in Essex-Kent. It's not as much as people would like; it's not as much as I would like or the farmers would like, and she mentions that area. The same kind of assistance the Premier was talking about and that I've talked about will be made available for the Niagara farmers who were hurt by hail.

When she talks about crop insurance, the commission has talked to the Tender Fruit Producers' Marketing Board about what kind of improvements it would like in crop insurance. At this point in time, the tender fruit board is bringing in its own consultant so that it can decide what kind of improvements it would like in crop insurance for tender fruit. When they have their report from their consultant, then we will sit down with the commission and look at the recommendations which will come from the tender fruit board. But until the tender fruit board comes up with recommendations, we cannot make changes until it has agreed on what kind of improvements it would like.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, children's aid societies are tragically being forced to cut child welfare programs and supportive assistance to children in spite of high demands for their services at this time.

Since January of this year there have been 135.8 staff positions cut from CASs, and they have been cut despite the fact that all of their case loads have increased and all demands have been increasing. The demand has been reaching unprecedented levels. Minister, this will mean further pressures on our social assistance and pressures elsewhere.

But most important, Minister, we are talking about children not receiving care, children who are sexually abused, physically abused, are involved in substance abuse or are in families where substance abuse is a prominent feature. Minister, services that CASs provide are mandated by provincial law, by the laws that you as minister are charged with the sole responsibility of upholding in this province. Why is it that your government and your ministry's spending priorities do not reflect that these children who are at risk are a priority for your ministry and your government?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): I totally reject what the member suggests. In fact they are a priority. We are concerned, obviously, with the kind of slippage that there is between the resources that we are able to allocate and the needs that communities are identifying.

One of the issues for us, and one of the things we've been working very hard with our partners in the children's aid societies in doing, is looking at how we can provide services in a more effective way. There is a wide range of different procedures that are used in children's aid societies to fulfil the same mandate. Some are much more expensive per child than others, and we are working with the Ontario Association of Children Aid Societies to try and work out funding formulae that more correctly deal with the problems as they arise. The funding formulae were never changed when the current CFSA was put in place and we are working with them to change those formulae.

In the meantime, we are working with them to ensure that mandated services are provided even though, to our regret, that is involving some lessening of the non-mandatory services that some children's aids have been creative enough to provide.

Mr Jackson: That just is not the fact of what's going on in this province. Your government said yes to the tune of $100 million to help build redundant, non-profit day care centres in this province and yet, two days ago in estimates, you confirmed that your government has closed the door on a $1-million deficit being faced by the Metro Children's Aid Society. It is going to be faced with cutoffs, layoffs and reductions in service to hundreds of children in this city, and in services all across this province, as a result of your offensive priorities.

Perhaps you lost your social democratic values somewhere along the road to power, but the fact of the matter is, you told members of this Legislature that to your knowledge only 56 positions had been cut in children's aid societies in this province. Yet I have a document dated September 25 from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies that shows 135 positions have been cut, 100 of them in front-line services to children.

Again, I have to ask you, in spite of the fact that your staff have not given you the facts, will you please understand the magnitude of this problem? Will you please understand that the crack- and cocaine-dependent children who are being born in this province are on the increase --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member complete his question, please?

Mr Jackson: -- that you will consider their funding needs and not put them at the bottom of your priorities as you've done with your estimates --

The Speaker: Would the member please complete his question?

Mr Jackson: -- and make that a priority for your government and not go out and build redundant day care centres?

The Speaker: No. The member take his seat. The question was asked a while back.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member continued to ask question after question and to repeat the speech that he made in our estimates debate. Basically, what he is trying to convey is that we have different priorities than he does, and that's true. We see the formulation of a child care system as extraordinarily important as the front-line defence for children. It is a major preventive issue. It involves early identification of the kinds of problems he is talking about, and that is part of the balance of what we are doing.

Mr Jackson: You gave them one-half of 1%.

Hon Mrs Boyd: In terms of the difference in the numbers between what --

Mr Jackson: You are the worst offender, Treasurer.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Leave me out of this.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take her seat. The member for Burlington South posed a question. He took a great deal of time posing his question. If he would like a response, I would request that he sit and listen for a response.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Mr Speaker, you should know that this member has had this response several times over the last couple of days in the standing committee on estimates, so believe me, he doesn't want the response; he doesn't like the answer.

The answer is that we are working with our communities to try to balance interventive and preventive services.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Burlington South come to order. New question.

1500

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): My question is to the Minister of Skills Development. I know the member for St Catharines is interested because he has indicated that just now.

Mr Minister, you and I and a number of colleagues from Niagara were in Niagara College to hear presentations around OTAB. I know there's a lot of interest, particularly among some of my friends at Niagara College, in hearing about what has happened to the proposed local board situation, particularly the delivery system. I would like, at this point, to find out what has happened to the findings of the panels that have crossed the province. Can you tell us, myself particularly and my colleagues at Niagara, what has happened to those recommendations?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): I gather this was asked on behalf of the member for St Catharines, so both of the members will at least be attentive to my answer.

A great deal of interest was generated around the province by those local board visits by the labour market partners who went around the province in teams to the various centres to discuss the question of the future of local boards for training purposes. They completed their visits at the end of May. In the middle of June they began looking at the report they would put together. Over July and August they wrote a report which has now been published and released in French and in English, in mid-September, called Community Discussions: Training and Local Boards.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Where is the legislation? You've yammered on about these boards. You should have the legislation.

Hon Mr Allen: That has been sent out to all local agencies involved in that discussion process, and people who have not received it should write to my ministry and ask for it. We will supply them with a copy of that.

I'd also like to tell the member that in addition to that we have prepared, through the OTAB project team, a series of site visit reports which are rather more specific around the issues involved and also in proposing some alternative labour market boundaries that might be debated in local regions as alternatives to the boundaries --

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

Hon Mr Allen: We'll be looking on now to the implementation process that will follow immediately.

Mr Stockwell: Do you still have carbon paper in your office? You could have typed your legislation 600 copies faster.

Ms Haeck: I understand that the member for Etobicoke West, particularly with all of his yammering, would really like to know where all this is going, as would a whole lot of members within caucus and within my community. Possibly the minister could give us an idea of what the next steps are, so I can keep my community informed and involved.

Hon Mr Allen: I'll do my best as always. The next steps entail the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission -- Ontario, the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, the Ontario government and the Ontario training and adjustment interim governing agency working together in order to develop a series of proposals as to how local regions might go about the implementation process.

Guidelines to that effect are being prepared at this moment. They will be sent out to each of the regions to work over to submit a proposal to us which then can be evaluated, and then we can get into the interaction with that region about the implementation process.

I would only say that this process will be speeded up the faster that we can get the interim governing agency for OTAB up and running while we wait for the final legislation and the final board.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): In view of the prolonged absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I will ask my question of the Treasurer. Treasurer, in 1988 the Liberal government put in place the eastern Ontario community economic development program. This $25-million fund helped chronically depressed areas of eastern Ontario find long-term solutions to their economic problems.

Last May I wrote to the ministry asking about the future of this program and was told then that a decision was pending. Treasurer, what is happening with this decision? Are you going to extend the life of this important program or are you going to cut one of the few government initiatives that specifically supports eastern Ontario, where unemployment runs at around 10% right now?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I would agree with the member opposite about the importance of eastern Ontario and this government's commitment to it. I think that despite the fact that the previous government had that program, it obviously didn't solve the long-run economic problems of eastern Ontario. I'm not blaming the former government for that. That's not on the top of my list of faults of the previous government, but it is one of them.

I do understand what the member is talking about and I will make a commitment to sit down and talk to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology when he returns from his very aggressive investment and trade visit across the pond.

Mr Daigeler: I'm not sure what David Agnew is going to say to this particular answer or whether he's going to give political or civil service advice to the Treasurer on this question.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Political.

Mr Daigeler: I'm quite agreed with the member for St Catharines that it's going to be political, given his previous life.

Be that as it may, Treasurer, since you obviously do not know what is happening to that $25-million commitment and whether it's going to be continued or not, do you at least know what your economic plan is for eastern Ontario? You have two cabinet ministers from eastern Ontario. We have seen very little from them in terms of advocacy for eastern Ontario. What is your strategy for the economic renewal of eastern Ontario, Treasurer, or do you have any?

Hon Mr Laughren: I wish that the member opposite would stop dragging into political debate impartial civil servants in the province of Ontario. This province has a long history of being very well served by a very professional and objective civil service and I can assure you that nothing has changed because the secretary of cabinet has been appointed. That really is a red herring.

Whenever the member opposite gets on his feet to ask a legitimate question, he clutters up the legitimate question with a silly preamble and very often by the time that we on this side get to answer the serious part of the question, the Speaker is telling us to sit down because we've run out of time.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Solicitor General and it relates to some information that was just brought to my attention. Hopefully, the Solicitor General can allay some concerns among the policing community and perhaps the whole municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in respect to the veracity of these rumours that are now circulating among the policing community.

We've been advised that all OPP senior staff as of today have had their vacations cancelled, that the meeting planned for this evening with the Ontario Provincial Police Association has been put on hold and that there are plans under way that if a decision is not taken in favour of the governing party, if you will, this next weekend, the government is prepared to lock out Metropolitan Toronto police officers and replace them with officers from the OPP and the RCMP.

I think it's appropriate that the minister comment on this today. We could be placing the public of Metro Toronto in danger. These individuals do not know the streets of this community and they have a secondary communication system. I'm asking the minister to respond to this today.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): The information, by way of the question that has been asked, is not correct.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon a former member of the House, Mavis Wilson, who was the member for Dufferin-Peel. Welcome.

1510

VERN HARALD CINIS

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): Mr Speaker, since the House is not sitting tomorrow and tomorrow happens to be the last day of a valued member of the security service of this House, I would just like to ask all members here to give a rousing ovation to Mr Vern Harald Cinis. He came here from Latvia in 1955, came to the Queen's Park detachment in 1976 and has been a valued servant ever since.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Indeed Mr Cinis has served this assembly with distinction for some 16 years and he will be missed both by his colleagues and by members and the staff who serve the assembly.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 33(a), I wish to advise you of my dissatisfaction with the response from the Minister of Community and Social Services and would like to serve notice through the Chair.

The Speaker: If the member will submit the necessary document to the table.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Also pursuant to standing order 33(a), I wish to advise you of my dissatisfaction with the response of the Solicitor General to my question on policing in Metro Toronto.

The Speaker: Again, I trust the experienced member will file the necessary document at the table.

MOTIONS

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I have a substantive motion that's been discussed with the opposition House leaders and I'd like unanimous consent to move it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

APPOINTMENT OF PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I move that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of Erik Peters as auditor for the province of Ontario, as provided in section 3 of the Audit Act, RSO 1990, to hold office under the terms and conditions of the said act,

"And that the address be engrossed and presented to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker."

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

For the benefit of members, I would first of all invite members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon, and seated in the Speaker's gallery, our newest officer of the assembly, now the auditor, Mr Peters, and he's joined by his wife. Welcome.

I might also share with members that Mr Erik Peters has been selected by the standing committee on public accounts for the position of Provincial Auditor. This is the first time that the standing committee has conducted interviews for this position.

Mr Peters has worked with the internal audit branch of the CBC since 1983. He also has experience working with the Auditor General's office and was assistant auditor general of Canada in 1980. In 1981, he joined Alcan Aluminum, where he was functionally responsible for EDP and audit in Alcan's European operation.

Mr Peters will bring a wide variety of expertise to the office of the Provincial Auditor and all of us look forward to working with him. Welcome, Mr Peters, to our assembly.

PETITIONS

LANDFILL

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): "Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 57 potential sites in the greater Toronto area as possible candidates for landfill;

"Whereas the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the Environmental Assessment Act, section 5(3);

"Whereas a willing host community such as Kirkland Lake will not be allowed a proper hearing to consider the Adams mine site as a possible solution to the greater Toronto area garbage issue,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario remove sites W4B and W4C from any further consideration as a candidate site for waste disposal in the greater Toronto area;

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future disposal options for greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area where a willing host community exists who is interested in developing new disposal systems for greater Toronto area waste."

This petition is signed by some 2,000 people, and I present this henceforth.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to present a petition to this House on behalf of a number of residents of my riding of Dufferin-Peel, and specifically the town of Caledon. This is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 21 proposed sites in the region of Peel as possible candidates for landfill, 15 of which are located in the town of Caledon;

"Whereas the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act, subsection 5(3);

"Whereas the government has promised each person in Ontario the right to a full environmental assessment, including the right to a review of all options as it pertains to waste disposal in Ontario,

"We, the undersigned, protest and petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future options for the disposal of greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of disposal sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area where a willing host community exists who is interested in developing new disposal systems for greater Toronto area waste."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have got a petition here signed by 87 constituents of mine. A majority of them are from the town of Uxbridge.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition to wide-open Sunday business. I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality time and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day would be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship among retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act of Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except for Easter (51 a year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

It gives me pleasure to sign this today while I have here the mayor of Uxbridge, Mayor O'Connor, and the mayor of Whitchurch-Stouffville, Mayor Sainsbury.

LANDFILL

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 57 potential sites in the greater Toronto area as possible candidates for landfill;

"Whereas the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act, subsection 5(3);

"Whereas a willing host community, such as Kirkland Lake, will not be allowed a proper hearing to consider the Adams mine site as a possible solution to the greater Toronto area garbage issue,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario remove site W4B and W4C from any further consideration as a candidate site for waste disposal in the greater Toronto area;

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future disposal options for greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area where a willing host community exists who is interested in developing new disposal systems for greater Toronto area waste."

That petition has been signed by approximately 2,000 individuals, and I affix my signature there, too.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 54 residents of Middlesex county who petition the Legislature of Ontario to set aside the arbitrator's report as it pertains to the greater London area because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in arbitration hearings, it has awarded too extensive an annexation to the city of London, and it will jeopardize the viability and the vitality of the county of Middlesex. I have signed my name to this petition.

PROPOSED HIGHWAY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On a slightly different subject, I would like to present a petition to the Legislature signed by concerned residents who live in the Red Rock area. The four-laning project of Highway 11/17 could go through their neighbourhood, or the project could take an alternate, northern route. The petition reads:

"We whose signatures appear below believe that the north alternative, having the four lanes bypass our neighbourhood, is the only viable alternative, and ask that you interact on our behalf in this matter."

I have affixed my signature to the petition.

1520

PENSION FUNDS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it's signed by members from my riding in Dufferin-Peel, specifically the towns of Orangeville and Bolton.

"Whereas we, the undersigned members of the Ontario municipal employees retirement system, do not want our pension funds invested in the Ontario investment fund; and

"Whereas we cannot jeopardize our retirement income by allowing the government to decide where our hard-earned capital should be invested; and

"Whereas it is very tempting to dip into our piggy bank without using the democratic process; and

"Whereas this is not how you protect the welfare of the worker;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to listen to our concerns, and hands off our petition funds."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition to the members of provincial Parliament that regards the amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

There are about 130 signatures on these petitions, and I affix my name to it.

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly which reads as follows:

"Whereas the official plan of the township of King states that the township of King has traditionally been a rural municipality within the region of York and that the township possesses a significant amount of land which has historically been and remains devoted primarily to agriculture; and

"Whereas this document also states that agriculture is an important land-based activity within the township;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We oppose the provincial government's proposal to take prime agricultural land in King township and turn it into Metro and York region's megadump."

This petition is signed by some 4,000 persons. I have affixed my signature thereto and note the presence in the House of the mayor of King township who is also here in support of this petition.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition that was just presented to me by a member from my riding of Dufferin-Peel who is opposed to the 15 dump sites in the town of Caledon. This petition consists of 206 signatures. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 21 proposed sites in the region of Peel as possible candidates for landfill, 15 of which of are located in the town of Caledon;

"Whereas the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act, subsection 5(3); and

"Whereas the government has promised each person in Ontario the right to a full environmental assessment, including the right to review of all options as it pertains to waste disposal in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, protest and petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future options for the disposal of greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of disposal sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area where a willing host community exists who is interested in developing new disposal systems for greater Toronto area waste."

I have affixed my signature to this petition as well.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition as well, addressed at the top, it says, "Say no to a dump in York region."

"To the Interim Waste Authority, York region has been selected for 19 potential dump sites by your committee. Minister of the Environment Ruth Grier has stated that garbage will not be transported to other municipalities, yet we are being asked to possibly accept Metro Toronto's trash in York region. We find this unacceptable and are hereby registering our objections."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I affix my signature.

LANDFILL

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Later today we're going to be debating an opposition resolution. I have a number of petitions, signed by literally hundreds -- and I should say, perhaps over 2,000 people. I will read the first one. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 57 potential sites in the greater Toronto area as possible candidate sites for landfill;

"Whereas the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the Environmental Assessment Act, subsection 5(3)" -- and that certainly is true.

"Whereas a willing host community such as Kirkland Lake will not be allowed a proper hearing to consider the Adams mine site as a possible solution to the greater Toronto area garbage issue" -- that also is true.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario remove sites W4B and W4C from any further consideration as a candidate site for waste disposal in the greater Toronto area; and

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143" -- what a good idea -- "in its entirety and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future disposal options for greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area where a willing host community exists who is interested in developing new waste disposal systems for greater Toronto area waste."

I'm going to affix my signature to this and include with it the petitions of several hundred more residents of the areas of Vaughan, King, Markham, Aurora, Newmarket and other areas in the greater Toronto area.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition here:

"Whereas the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville has traditionally been a mixture of agriculture and residential land, both areas would be drastically affected by a megadump;

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has identified sites in the town that would consume large tracts of class 1 and 2 farm land, the areas identified by the Interim Waste Authority would severely disrupt the vibrant agricultural communities. The farm families in those areas have continued to invest large sums of money in their farms. These communities would be destroyed by the Interim Waste Authority putting in a megadump;

"Whereas the people of Whitchurch-Stouffville depend on groundwater for their drinking water and a dump would threaten their supply of clean water;

"Whereas the effects of a megadump would destroy the local economies of the communities;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"We oppose the Interim Waste Authority taking prime farm land into the heart of town and turning it into Metro and York's megadump;

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew efforts to seek and entertain alternatives to landfill; to implement aggressive reduction, reuse and recycling programs."

This petition is quite similar to the ones I have presented from East Gwillimbury and Georgina and I affix my name.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I've a petition to the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment for the province of Ontario has shown a marked disregard for the existing ecological, agricultural, tourist, business and residential environments in the region of York; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment for the province of Ontario has abandoned her own directives concerning local municipalities accommodating their own waste; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment for the province of Ontario has neglected to investigate alternative methods for waste disposal;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario as follows:

"We oppose any further designation of waste disposal sites meant to accommodate waste produced outside the borders of York region;

"We oppose any move to create a megadump in York region;

"We encourage, in the strongest means possible, that the province pursue the development of new technologies for waste disposal and that new guidelines on packaging of products be developed which will reduce waste."

That is signed by several hundred residents and I have affixed my signature thereto.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 33(a), the member for Burlington South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Community and Social Services concerning children's aid societies. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Pursuant to standing order 33(a), the member for Leeds-Grenville has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Solicitor General concerning policing in Metropolitan Toronto. This matter will be debated at 6 pm.

1530

OPPOSITION DAY

LANDFILL

Mrs McLeod moved opposition day motion number 1:

Whereas the New Democratic Party government has initiated a landfill site selection process for the greater Toronto area through its Interim Waste Authority, and

Whereas many citizens of the regions of Peel, Durham and York do not have confidence in the integrity of the Interim Waste Authority and are appalled at the inconsistencies involved in the process, and

Whereas this government made a promise to the people of this province that they "would get tough on protecting irreplaceable farm land," and

Whereas this government made a promise to the people of this province that any new landfill sites would be "subject to the fullest kind of environmental assessment," and

Whereas 76 landfill sites are expected to close within the next 12 months across the province, and

Whereas the New Democratic Party government is not meeting its promises for waste reduction,

Therefore, the government should table a rational and effective plan complete with regulations, a timetable and clearly set out schedule, which will provide immediate and measurable progress for waste reduction in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you like me to repeat the motion? Dispense? You have the floor.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I rise to speak to the motion. I'm very much aware of the fact that there are many visitors present in the Legislature today who have come particularly to hear this debate and who are particularly concerned about the Minister of the Environment's mishandling of this issue of waste disposal and who are very directly affected by the matter.

I spent a good part of my summer travelling through Durham, Peel and York regions, the regions which are the most immediate targets of the Environment minister's garbage attacks. I visited many of the 57 sites that the minister's Interim Waste Authority has identified as potential areas for dumping garbage. I saw the farms that are supposed to be non-productive because the ministry has decided that they're in something called an "urban shadow," but they certainly looked like productive farms to me.

I'd like to take a moment to read just two of the responses of the many concerned citizens who have written to us, citizens of Tottenham, Ontario, who say: "This is good farm land. These farms produce quality products, and the people who own them are making a living. We should do all we can to keep these farms."

From residents of Caledon East: "We have a 200-acre, 145-year-old, seventh-generation dairy and cash crop farm, a farm house, a retirement home for ourselves, and two houses for a son and a son-in-law who work part-time on the farm."

I saw the farms that are supposed to be non-productive. I saw the farms, and I understood the scorn and the frustration of the farm families who told me that the Interim Waste Authority took aerial photographs of their farms in wintertime before deciding that nothing was growing there. I met families who had put their life savings and their dreams into building their new homes, only to find that they were now next-door neighbours to potential dump sites. I had no explanation to those who said that their land had already been rejected as unacceptable, for environmental reasons, as a dump site, so why were they being studied again?

Again, I'll read into the record just one of the concerns that has been expressed to us, in this case from a Mr Keast. "Previous drillings and soil samples have indicated that the soil here is highly permeable and that rock is too close to the surface." Incidentally, the area presently is used for agriculture.

All of these people hoped there would at least by now be a short list of the sites so they could begin to focus their attention on the sites that the minister was seriously considering for dumping garbage, but now their lives are on hold again as they wait for that short list to come out.

I have never seen a group of citizens who have rallied so strongly behind one another to challenge the sheer craziness of what this government is doing. At least the minister is no longer perpetuating the charade that the Interim Waste Authority is somehow at arm's length from her own ministerial responsibilities. It was hardly a credible claim, as three assistant deputy ministers sit on the IWA board.

There is no question that the minister is responsible for this mess. It is completely unacceptable that she has stopped the process that each region was pursuing to make its own plans for sound waste management. It is unacceptable that York region has been arbitrarily delegated as the recipient of Metro Toronto's waste. It is completely unacceptable that the minister has refused to allow all alternatives to be considered within a full environmental assessment. It is unacceptable that the minister has given herself unilateral powers to expand existing sites with no environmental assessment. It is unacceptable that this government is in full retreat from its commitment to protect the productive farm land of this province.

The frustrations and the anger of the people of Durham, York and Peel are being experienced by others right across the province. We are facing a crisis that has been created by mismanagement, a crisis that has been created by a minister who has backed herself into an ideological corner she just can't get out of.

We would urge this minister, through this motion today, to go back to the drawing board, to set aside her biases, to develop an effective plan to deal with the issues of waste management in this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I'm delighted to have an opportunity to participate in this debate and to have an opportunity to discuss the waste management policies of our government and the very real progress we have made towards implementation of our waste reduction action plan.

As I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition and others will suspect, I disagree profoundly with the "whereases" that preface the member's motion. But let me say that I certainly understand the frustration and the anger and the pain of many people, many of whom are here today and some I was talking with earlier today, about the fact that the search for a landfill site within the greater Toronto area is directly affecting them and their community.

When the Leader of the Opposition speaks about her tour of landfill sites this summer and the people with whom she met, I hope she will recall that the summer of 1990 was also a summer of protest. Many people toured landfill sites and potential landfill sites all across this province then and met with countless demonstrations, protesters and groups that were saying, "We do not want the garbage of the greater Toronto area in our community."

Whether it was Plympton, whether it was Halton, whether it was Marmora or whether it was northern Ontario, that was happening. The very clear message that was given was that communities are responsible for looking after the waste that is generated, and solutions to this crisis -- which even then was a crisis and had been a crisis for seven or eight years -- have got to be found.

When the Leader of the Opposition says that I have backed myself into an ideological corner, let me disagree with her most profoundly, because what I and my government have done is to set out very clearly, step by step, a process for resolving this crisis. In talking about that, I want to focus on the substantive part of the member's resolution that says, "The government should table a rationale, an effective plan complete with regulations, a timetable and...schedule, which will provide immediate and measurable progress for waste reduction in Ontario."

That is precisely what this government is doing, and that is precisely the kind of plan that is showing real and measurable progress towards waste reduction and that is the fundamental way to deal with our waste management issues.

We are a consumer society, not a conserver society. Until we begin to realize that, until we begin to make some of the shifts in behaviour, in markets and in the economy that are required to do that, we won't be able to resolve the problem.

1540

The resolution before us today calls for us to do things that, let me remind you, had not even been initiated in the five years preceding October 1990. What I found when I became minister was a target -- 25% diversion of waste from landfill by the end of 1992 and 50% by the year 2000 -- but no legislation, no regulations and no plans or policies to reach that target. So when the resolution before us today calls for those plans and calls for those solutions, let me tell the House what has been achieved.

In February 1991, I announced our comprehensive waste reduction action plan and laid down the principles it would follow. The very first thing we did was create a waste reduction office within the Ministry of the Environment and give it the resources, the funding and the personnel to enable it to begin to set forward fair and rational plans and projects for waste reduction.

We said the basis of that plan had to be introducing effective laws that make waste reduction a higher priority than waste disposal. That was what I said in February 1991. In 1992, we passed legislation to do just that. We passed the Waste Management Act of 1992, and I very much regret that the members opposite didn't vote for it. They didn't vote for it because they didn't like some elements of it, but they didn't make any effort to deal with the element in that legislation that gives us the powers to pass the kinds of regulations which the member is calling for in her resolution today.

As a result of the passage of that legislation, we have issued a series of initiative papers that will be the forerunners of the regulations she is calling for. Initiatives Paper No 1, in which the regulations are very soon to be promulgated -- we hope to have them phased in before the end of this year, and let me tell the House what they include.

They include mandatory recycling in municipalities in Ontario. They include mandatory recycling in the workplace, community leaf and yard composting programs, waste reduction plans in the workplace, packaging reduction plans; all the kinds of regulations that have to be in place to create the foundation for serious waste reduction. Those regulations will be law before the winter of 1993.

We have also made significant progress on streamlining the environmental approvals process. We've seen demonstrations of what that can do: for example, the partnership I announced last month with the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, where recycling of oil can now occur easily, simply and quickly. The result is that that oil no longer has to go to disposal.

The second element of our waste reduction action plan, which I announced in February 1991, is that we would work in partnership with business, environment groups and institutions to reduce waste and to use and make products containing recycled materials. The partnership with the CPPI that I just mentioned is a very good example of that. The consultations that have been ongoing have been participated in by industries, trade associations, environmental groups and municipalities.

The third tool I enunciated in our waste reduction action plan ensures that municipalities have the tools they need to plan and make waste reduction work. The reform of the waste management master planning process, the reform of the power structure for waste reduction and waste management, is very much part of that.

It's easy for the Leader of the Opposition to say: "Bring in regulations. Bring in schedules." She would be the first to say: "Where's your legislation? Where's your consultation?" Her resolution says: "Bring in those regulations. Where are they?" Step by step, our waste reduction action plan is leading towards very significant progress on the reduction of waste and meeting, if not exceeding, the targets that were set by the previous government.

This summer I also had the opportunity to visit very many communities, many with waste disposal problems, different in degree from those in the greater Toronto area but just as serious for those communities. This is not a problem that is unique to the greater Toronto area. What is unique about the problem here is of course the volume of waste that is generated given the size of the population, and the long history of failure in efforts to find a solution. I know some of my colleagues later on today will speak to that most eloquently.

The fourth element in the waste reduction plan I announced was that we would make waste reduction plans financially healthy. Not easy in tough times but I think significant is the contribution towards that goal that has been made by our government even in these tough times: $55.3 million to fund municipal 3Rs programs; $16.2 million to assist businesses in developing new technologies for diverting waste and creating new uses for these materials. The effect of that kind of investment is not merely to reduce waste, which is, of course, its primary objective, but it contributes to the growth in our economy.

I spoke earlier today to the Canadian Environment Industry Association, a burgeoning growth sector in our economy with 14% growth predicted over the next five years. Why? Because there is a government that is beginning to put in place not only the support systems but the policies that will contribute to industries finding innovative ways to deal with our waste.

The opposition to my policies is fond of saying, "Where are your new ideas?" Our new ideas are out there in the businesses, large and small, that are taking advantage of the opportunities created to create new products, to develop new and more cost-effective ways of doing things, to develop new technology and to market those technologies, not just in North America but around the world.

The fifth element of our plan was that we would give people the information they need to act on waste reduction. We've done that with both educational programs and the funding of educational programs, with the promotion of awards for businesses among their peers, so that we can spread the good word about the success stories, about the promotion of Waste Reduction Week, Zero Garbage Day and the events that are sponsored by the Recycling Council of Ontario.

I think the members opposite underestimate the degree of support that ordinary people all around this province have for the policies I'm enunciating today. Of course people in a community that is a likely candidate for a landfill site don't recognize the progress that is being made in other places, because their focus is, of course, on what it's going to mean to them. These are not easy decisions to make, but if we are to have a healthy economy and if we are to have a healthy environment, they are certainly decisions that have to be taken and have to be taken in as fair and open a way as possible. Involving people in the process is painful. People who've spent a lot of their volunteer time and have a lot of worries about what has been happening in their communities know how much time it takes.

The ways of the past are not the ways to resolve these problems, the ways of the past when decisions were made behind closed doors, when people found that instead of being a candidate site for a landfill, with an opportunity to contest the criteria, to participate in the decision, to have their say -- now, when we're a long way from the final decisions -- if they had woken up one day to find that, lo and behold, their community had been selected, suddenly, out of the blue, and also a candidate for an exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act, I can assure you, Mr Speaker, we would be seeing the same degree of protest that we saw in the summer of 1990, when people said very clearly that was not the way they wanted things to happen.

Many people have said that all of our waste reduction efforts aren't working, that there aren't markets, that it isn't having an effect. I was very pleased to announce last week that our target of 25% was well within our grasp. In fact, we had already reached 21%. Let me give the House some specific figures so that people understand the magnitude of what has been achieved over the last two years.

The blue box, cornerstone of the recycling program, introduced by the members opposite, built upon, strengthened and extended by our policies: three million Ontario households help divert 400,000 tonnes of resources every year from landfill sites, up from 1 million households at the end of 1988. There is a market for 95% of those materials.

1550

More than half of Ontario's newsprint is being recovered from the waste stream. Our current recovery rate for old corrugated cardboard is 40%; for container glass, 33%; for PET plastic, 52%; and 20% of our gypsum is recovered, 52% of our wood waste.

People who didn't know what composting was are now composting, and many people who've been composting for generations are composting even more. Nearly one million Ontario homes have backyard composters and many communities are looking at collective systems, wet-dry separation, many experiments that our ministry is funding that will help take us towards that 50% reduction and, at the same time, remove from landfill the kind of organic material that has created so many problems with the obsolete and ill-constructed landfills of the past.

And it's not just home owners. Seven out of 10 Ontario companies have office waste reduction programs. Very few had them in 1990. Hospitals, government buildings and more than 3,000 schools and hundreds of industries are doing their part to reduce waste.

The 21% per capita reduction that we have achieved is the result of many success stories. A company in Scarborough has developed a rubber collar for holes in catchbasins, helped with funding from my ministry, helped by a policy that says we won't allow the incineration of tires. We'll find a way of reusing those resources and putting them back into the market.

Ortech International and the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association, supported by ministry, has launched a build green program. Bluewater Recycling near Grand Bend is one of Canada's leading examples of success with small-town recycling.

In Ottawa last week I visited a group of charities that have come together to recycle textiles and clothes picked up in the blue box: something unheard of a couple of years ago and something that has the potential not only to provide good used clothing to the Third World or to thrift stores but also a potential of taking vast amounts that are currently going to landfill. Companies like Bell Canada have instituted zero waste and reduced its waste by 97%.

The motion before us today calls for a waste reduction action plan. I contend that we have in this province for the first time a waste reduction action plan, an action plan that is fair, an action plan that includes participation by businesses, industries, institutions, municipalities and, most important, a waste reduction action plan that is working.

Even with that, we are not relieved of the obligation of finding disposal sites. But what is so critically important to all of the people here today and all of the people not here today is that they can be assured that the way in which those sites are found is open, is fair and is the best for the environment. That is my commitment and that's the commitment that I'm proud to fulfil.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment today on the opposition day motion and I congratulate the Liberal Party for bringing the motion forward and providing this forum an opportunity for us to express some viewpoints. I would like to also say that I agree with all the preambles and "whereases" in the motion.

However, the "therefore," the request of the Liberal Party to the government as a solution to the whereases, for the life of me I'm not sure is even in order, because it has nothing to do with the significant concerns that we have with the Minister of the Environment, with the NDP government and the way that you are proceeding with these landfill sites.

The minister, quite frankly, has spent some considerable time talking about how the New Democratic government is meeting its promises for waste reduction. Let me say unequivocally, because the minister said, "The members opposite don't agree with us," about 10 times, "The members opposite don't like this," and quite frankly I want to make it clear on behalf of my party and my caucus, we do agree with the minister on the 3Rs. We think the New Democratic Party government is doing a good job in the reducing, reusing and recycling areas.

We had a hiatus there after the blue boxes were introduced by the Progressive Conservative government where not much happened, but I do congratulate the minister and the government on their commitment to reducing the amount of garbage necessary to ultimately deal with.

The final part of the resolution says, "Therefore, the government should table a rationale...." The government has tabled a rationale, as the minister has pointed out, in February, I believe, of 1991. They announced an effective plan. I thought it was an effective plan. I think it's a good plan. I think it's being followed. I might add that your disastrous economic policies contributed to the recession and are also responsible for an amount of reduction, of garbage not going into the waste stream. I'm not too supportive in that area, as the minister knows, but, complete with regulations, I'm supportive of the route the government is taking in that.

"A timetable, a clearly set out schedule": We're comfortable with that. We think the government is moving expeditiously in that area, which will provide immediate and measurable progress -- we're comfortable with that -- for waste reduction in Ontario. So the motion asks the government to do something that I think the government, as the minister has spent a considerable amount of time pointing out, is doing quite well.

But the "whereases" are what I agree with. "Whereas the New Democratic Party government has initiated a landfill site selection process for the GTA through its Interim Waste Authority." We know they did that.

"Whereas many of the citizens of the regions of Peel, Durham and York," including many citizens of this province of Ontario, by the way, "do not have confidence in the integrity of the Interim Waste Authority and are appalled at the inconsistencies involved in the process." We agree with that and we're going to support that. That is a significant problem.

"Whereas the government made a promise to the people of this province that they 'would get tough on protecting irreplaceable farm land.'" That was a quote. This doesn't demonstrate toughness on irreplaceable farm land, and we're appalled at that.

"Whereas this government made a promise to the people of this province that any new landfill sites would be 'subject to the fullest kind of environmental assessment.'" These sites are not subject to the fullest kind of environmental assessment, and we are appalled at that.

So were I to have presented all these whereases and correctly, as the Liberals have done, identified the problems, I would therefore have suggested solutions to those problems, not a solution that is already being addressed with the 3Rs. The immediate issue is not the reduction of garbage. That is being addressed. The issue is the establishment of long-term landfill sites or alternative facilities to deal with the residual waste stream, that part of the waste stream that remains after the 3Rs.

So I want the minister to be clear, because she made several references to the opposition that we "don't agree with." I and my party, my caucus, do agree with the reduction program. We are supportive and we will continue to be supportive in that area.

But we do not agree with your process for the establishment of long-term landfill sites. Were I presenting this motion, I would have said at the end of the motion:

"That, therefore, this government:

"(1) Immediately repeal Bill 143;

"(2) Implement a more democratic process to explore all alternatives for the GTA garbage;

"(3) Commit to full, not partial, environmental assessments of potential landfill sites."

Since this is a Liberal Party motion and since I don't have the authority, without the consent of the Liberal Party, to propose that amendment, I would now ask the Liberals for their consent to move the following amendments:

"(1) Repeal Bill 143 immediately;

"(2) Implement a more democratic process to explore all alternatives for the GTA garbage;

"(3) Commit to full, not partial, environmental assessments of potential landfill sites."

I would ask for the consent of the Liberal Party and the Liberal opposition to be able to move that their motion be amended by striking out everything following "therefore" and adding those three steps that I have added. If the Liberal Party would agree with that, then I would like to proceed on that basis. Are we agreed?

1600

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): We would agree to the adding of the suggestion. Our leader would be delighted.

The Deputy Speaker: That's very unusual. The motion has been introduced, and this is what you have to debate.

Mr Harris: I have the consent of the Liberal Party to amend its motion. Is that enough for the Chair?

The Deputy Speaker: It's very unusual to amend it, as I just said, but if there is unanimous consent, of course you can do anything. Is there unanimous consent?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, we don't support the motion that's before us and we certainly wouldn't support any amendments that make it even worse.

The Deputy Speaker: There is no unanimous consent; therefore, we will continue the debate as we started.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Let it be shown on the record that I support the 3R initiatives. I support that the government has an effective 3R plan. We will support the resolution, although it's meaningless, because it's asking the government to do something that it's already doing very well. We'll vote for that in our vote: Carry on with what it is the resolution asks you to do.

However, let me clearly get on the record what you are not doing and what we object to. You did not live up to your commitment that any new landfill sites would be subject to the fullest kind of environmental assessment. You will not consider all the alternatives. You will not allow to be considered alternatives that may be vastly superior for the environment to those which you have ordered to take place through your Interim Waste Authority.

You will not even permit Kirkland Lake to consider (a) proceeding with an environmental assessment and (b) then to be considered. Does that make more sense? Is an abandoned mine site more environmentally acceptable than prime farm land in the regions you have picked? You won't even allow that to be considered. We object to that, and I want that clearly on the record.

Were I producing a motion, I would be calling on the government to live up to its promises and live up to its commitments to consider all alternatives, including the Kirkland Lake option, including any other option that may be inside or outside the GTA, including any other option of technology that may come along in the future.

To have passed Bill 143 and put the blinkers on and turned a blind eye to any future technologies is absolutely ludicrous. To suggest that if the most environmentally sensitive and correct site is a half a mile outside the GTA and in the GTA all the sites are half as good but you can't go that half a mile is ludicrous for the sake of sound landfilling, for the sake of sound disposable, for the sake of the environment. We object very strongly to that. I wish this resolution had called upon the government and insisted that it have to live up to those commitments and do that.

We've seen this government, this party that ran around this province. I remember in the 1990 campaign, because I travelled this province as well on behalf of my party, I can recall going to Durham and York regions. Along the way they said: "Will you promise, as Bob Rae promised, no dump here? Bob Rae promised, Mr Harris, never a dump here. Will you make that promise?" I said: "No, I can't lie to you. I will commit that there will be a full environmental assessment, that all alternatives must be considered." But, you see, the people believed Mr Rae, who said, "No dump here."

Now I am asking you to live up to my commitment, which wasn't good enough. It wasn't good enough in Durham in the campaign, it wasn't good enough in York, it wasn't good enough in Caledon, because there was another leader out there campaigning, promising: "No dump here. Elect me, my promise."

Now I'm asking you to live up to my commitment of a full environmental assessment and you won't even live up to that commitment, but you now say, "Dump where we tell you, full environmental assessment or not."

That betrayal of the people of this province -- specifically, of course, the people around the 51 sites but the whole people of the province who were betrayed -- is what is intolerable, is what is insufferable and is what I am speaking against today.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): It's dancing time again: Here the Liberals are back trying to convince us that they're the white knights of the environmental assessment process and we here are the people who do not have the environmental assessment process.

I would just like to take us back a little bit in time to where this all began. It began behind the closed doors of David Peterson's office when the chairmen of the regions got together and created this cynical organization called SWISC, right here, where they decided that they were going to put across this province in Pickering, in Brampton, in Kirkland Lake and in Keele Valley landfills under the Environmental Protection Act.

They didn't even have the decency to come before this House to make the changes that they accuse us of having put into place. They said that P1 in my riding was going to be under the Environmental Protection Act. It was the only site, there were no comparisons and they did not care that it was on prime agricultural land.

In contradiction to what the Tories have to say, their leader went around the province saying that he was going to change the Environmental Assessment Act. Here is your press release. This is what it says:

"Harris said the new Progressive Conservative government would simplify the approval process and save money by allowing class environmental assessments, amalgamating the government and public review stages of the process, limiting appeals to cabinet to issues of policy alone."

This is what your government said. He didn't say in Whitevale, on the corner of Whitevale and Altona Road, that there would be a full environmental assessment. He said that there would be an abbreviation, which was no different than what we were getting from the Liberals.

Under this process, there is a full environmental assessment. The changes to the Environmental Protection Act that this government has put in place went through this House in a democratic process to change the way the environmental assessment would be applied. That was not done by the Liberals and for them to come before this House and say that they are the protectors of agricultural land is a cynicism that I find very hard to handle.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Why didn't you tell them that before the election? Why didn't you tell them you were going to change it before the election?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to point out this document that was published by Pollution Probe in August 1990: Five Years of Failure. Five years of failure would make it 1985 when they were in power. If you take a look at the graph in this document, you will see that waste was going up at a geometric progression and they did nothing about it.

They did more than nothing about it; they ignored one of the very best people in this province on waste management issues and caused her to lose her seat. Norah Stoner knew the solutions and you ignored her and you have the gall to come in here and make this kind of a resolution in this House. You hung her out to dry in P1.

You put it in the riding without a full environmental assessment and you come in here and say that you're protectors of agricultural land. Well, shame on you, because at the same time as you're saying that, you were the authors of what is called Project X, which was an attempt to change the environmental assessment process.

Mr Stockwell: Déjà vu, Wiseman.

Hon Mr Cooke: You don't understand the issue.

Mr Stockwell: I don't understand the issue? Holy smokes. What a joke.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): If there is a joke in this House, you are it.

Mr Stockwell: I don't understand the issue? Eight years we spent at council fighting about it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Downsview, the member for Windsor-Riverside, the member for Etobicoke West. Please take your seat. The member for Durham West.

1610

Mr Wiseman: Let's talk about the protection of agricultural land. I see some members of the gallery who have come before committees in this House, who have talked about the protection of agricultural land and I applaud you for your efforts, because I agree with you that the protection of agricultural land is important.

But let me just put it to you like this: The town of Markham alone has a plan before it done by Lehmann and Associates which calls for a minimum of 3,000 acres of land to be flipped into the urban shadow. This plan goes from 3,000 to 6,000 acres. Under the 6,000-acre plan, M6 would be destroyed by an industrial subdivision, so I think it's important to recognize this.

Durham region has before this government an official plan that would destroy 23,000 acres of agricultural land. I think it's time we take a hard look at where the real pressures on agricultural lands are.

I'd like to deal just for a minute, because other members want to speak, with the issue of incineration and I want to say it very clearly, I will never support the burning of people's jobs. There are more jobs available through reuse, recycle and reduction than there are through incineration. Those jobs are being created while we speak.

I have had in my office members of the community who are ready to invest upwards of $50 million in the economy of this province to divert waste in material recovery facilities, who are prepared to do this because of Bill 143. When you start to incinerate, you burn people's jobs and this is something I will never accept.

Time is of the essence and I will just close by saying that I find this kind of resolution, which is such a total flip-flop from what the Liberals were doing in power, is cynical at best and sets a new standard for what I consider to be hypocrisy in this House.

I will also come to the defence of the Premier, who never said, "No dumps." He said there will be no dumps on greenfield sites without a full environmental assessment. That's what this government is doing and that is what I am proud to be supporting.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you. Further debate?

Mr McClelland: The member from Etobicoke says, "What a joke," and indeed it is. I find it almost absurd to try and respond to the member for Durham West and some of the absolutely incredible things he's put before the House today.

It seems to me that a person who has not the ability to deal with his own constituency and to face the issues square on in terms of the people he represents, some of whom are here today and have said directly to him that they have absolutely no confidence --

Mr Wiseman: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I have been dealing with my constituents in a way that is --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Wiseman: Just a minute, Mr Speaker. That party mailed this into my riding --

The Acting Speaker: Order. Take your seat, please. It is not a point of order, it's a point of view. The honourable member for Brampton North.

Mr McClelland: The point of view of the people of the province of Ontario, which it seems the member has forgotten, the minister has forgotten and surely the Premier has forgotten, is very important to this.

Minister, you said at the outset of your comments that you disagreed profoundly with the whereases. You may disagree with them, but the people up there, the people here, the people above you and all across this province agree with the whereases set out in this statement today.

Minister, your integrity is shattered, it is gone. Ask the people what they think. Ask the people who have showed up countless times to demonstrate in your presence and tell you what they think about your integrity, your ability to live up to what you said you were going to do and your absolute failure to do what you said you were going to do.

You know very well that you and your Premier promised there would be no expansion of landfill sites without a full environmental assessment and you know very well that you reneged on that commitment and reneged on that promise and did just the opposite.

The rules of the House, Mr Speaker, prevent me from telling you what that is, but the people of the province know what it means when somebody says they're going to do one thing and they refuse to do it and in fact do completely the opposite --

Mr Wiseman: What are you doing now?

Interjection: Martelling.

Mr McClelland: My friend says it's Martelling and I'll leave it at that. The people of Ontario know very clearly what that means. Talk about lack of confidence in the process. Let me just share with you a little anecdote, if you will, about what's happened with the Interim Waste Authority in terms of integrity and confidence in the process. This summer I visited some potential sites with my leader; she alluded to that. We visited a site just south of Whitville --

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Whitchurch-Stouffville.

Mr McClelland: Whitchurch-Stouffville. Thank you to the member for Durham-York; his area. We visited that area, and we came to one of the sites and the gentleman who owns the farm said the following: "The people in the Interim Waste Authority and the Ministry of the Environment say that I don't have agricultural land in productive use. It's just not happening. You know why? Because they drove by in February and took pictures and said that my land wasn't in agricultural use."

Being a former -- I think you still are farming. I want to advise the member for Durham-York, the Minister of the Environment and the Premier of this province that in Ontario during February we don't grow a lot of vegetables. It doesn't happen here.

I make that point simply to indicate the absolute absurdity and the lack of professionalism with which this government has undertaken the waste and site selection process. That, I think, speaks volumes, and there are countless other examples of the way the government has blundered from point to point in this process.

It comes back to something I want to talk about that I think is absolutely important when we come back and look at the very beginning of this government. Think back to the throne speech and the government that stood and said, "We are going to be different, and we are going to conduct ourselves and return to some principles of integrity." I say this; I hope to make a point.

I was speaking to a group of people, some of whom are here today, and told this little story about a youngster who asked his father if all fairy tales began with, "Once upon a time." The response was, "The Bob Rae-Ruth Grier fairy tale begins with, 'If you vote for me.'"

Madam Minister -- I say through you, Mr Speaker -- if you think that the people of Ontario profoundly disagree with the whereases in this amendment, you are living in la-la land. Look around, wake up and look at the people and listen to what the people of the province are saying. Remember them? The people you used to fight for, the people whom you used to stand in your place and say had the right to a full opportunity to participate in the process.

Now what do you do? You create the Interim Waste Authority. You say: "It's them. It's not me." We know what happens with the Interim Waste Authority. it's your agency, Minister.

Minister, do you know what they're saying out there when questions are put to the Interim Waste Authority about why it doesn't do certain things? The response is this, "We understand who's pulling the strings." They don't say it in so many words. They say: "We understand the policy of the government. We understand what we are supposed to do. We understand what the Minister of the Environment wants us to do."

So don't try to hide behind the Interim Waste Authority and say it's not your responsibility. The people of this province are not that gullible, and I say with respect, Minister, they are not that stupid. Don't try to fool them, because you're only fooling yourself. Everything that's happening here with respect to waste management and what you're doing around the greater Toronto area rests squarely and solely with you as Minister of the Environment. Accept that responsibility and don't try to pass it off.

During the election, it's been admitted that the Premier of the province stood and said: "I will not proceed with the location of new landfill sites, I will not proceed with expansion without full environmental assessment." What do we see now? What we see now is a government that says, "We're going to be consistent with the principles of an environmental assessment."

People are tired of word games, Madam Minister. Yesterday, during estimates, we said, "Let's try and do this process with a sense of forthrightness and integrity and maybe return some of that civility back to this process." That will not happen until governments and people in leadership, such as yourself, accept the responsibility that you can't play word games. Come out and tell it as it is, and at least live with the consequences. To try and dance around the issue and say, "We're now playing with principles instead of the process as it was," is, I think, absolutely disgusting to do to the people of Ontario. They do not buy that, Minister. Recognize that fact.

I want to touch base very briefly with some of the comments made by the leader of the third party. Minister, I'm talking about your plan, and our friends at the Recycling Council of Ontario who operate the waste reduction information service have the following to say about your plans in terms of waste management and reduction, a quote from their editorial put out in their newsletter of June 1992, "We wonder whether the consultative processes that have been conducted over the past year have had any meaningful impact on the government's specific actions." They go on to conclude, "It's a process that has in fact been largely superficial."

1620

Madam Minister, what you said before you were elected and what has transpired in reality has been entirely superficial. Please, don't ignore the people of the province of Ontario. Don't ignore the organizations that are represented here. Many of them have come here today and have been out in front of the Legislature. They have written you. They have brought petitions here.

They ask me the question, "Does what the opposition do make any difference?" Sometimes it makes no difference whatsoever. I don't expect the government, quite frankly, given its record over the two years it's been in power, to really listen to what we're saying, but I do expect the government to listen to the people of Ontario. I urge, I plead with the minister, if you're not going to listen to what what we're trying to share with you, will you please listen to the people of Ontario? Will you please return a sense of respect to them, so that they can believe that you will listen to them, that when you come up with a formula and a process that is so utterly flawed as the Interim Waste Authority process, you will admit it, you will have the courage of your convictions and restore the confidence in people by saying, "We made a mistake," that there are things that have gone wrong here?

The Interim Waste Authority -- with respect, good people; they're doing the best job they can under a system that was driven by political expediency right from the start -- has said it made tremendous mistakes in the initial processes. They've delayed the release of the short list sites to try and clean up some of the problems. They're working with formulae in Caledon that have more acreage than exists up there. Their numbers are wrong. They're using census data that are irrelevant to the process involved to try and come up with a formula, another example -- countless examples -- that just indicates they don't know what they're doing in this process because of the way the minister has mishandled what has taken place here.

I conclude with this, so my colleagues can share some of their concerns: Last night I met with one gentleman following a meeting. His name is Tony and he represents many people, men and women, with whom I've spoken over the past number of months in Ontario. Minister, I want you to listen to this because I don't want to be accused of being hysterical in raising this. Listen to the people of Ontario.

You say you don't agree that they have concerns about integrity. You say you don't agree that people are concerned about promises. Tony told me this, that he left the country he used to live in because he was tired of living under a dictatorship, and that he felt he was as bad off now as he ever had been. He said that this party that is now in power is anything but democratic, that would presume to come in and put at jeopardy his livelihood, his life and everything he has worked for in terms of his land and his lifestyle, put it in jeopardy without giving him an opportunity to have the straight goods up front.

Madam Minister, I didn't say that, Tony said that, and a lot of other people have said that and they continue to say it. You will, I know, continue to disregard what members of the opposition are saying, but listen to the Tonys of the province of Ontario, listen to the people who are represented here today who are saying to you today by their very presence that they don't have confidence in what you are doing, that they do not have confidence in the process you have initiated.

Back off, look at the total consequences, rethink it before untold damage is done, and seize the opportunity to do the right thing, please, for the sake of the people of this province and for the sake of the land and the environment of this province and future generations. It's for them that we plead this to you.

Please, rethink, listen to the people. They have a message for you, Minister. It's an important message. Hear them. Don't pretend to hear them; hear them and deal with what they are telling you.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you for your participation. Further debate?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise today as the member of this Legislature representing the people of the town of Caledon, who have 15 of the 57 sites that have been chosen.

It is regrettable that the government wouldn't allow the amendment that was proposed by the leader of our party, Mr Harris, because the immediate issue isn't the reduction of garbage. As the Environment minister has said, she appears to be addressing that in her bill, Bill 143. That appears to be one of the areas she seems to be working on, and there is, as Mr Harris indicated, a reduction that has been taking place. It's starting to be addressed, at least.

The issue, quite the contrary, I believe, is the establishment of long-term landfill sites, or alternative facilities to deal with the residual waste stream and how we're going to handle that, the part of the waste stream that exists after the 3Rs, after the 3R activities.

There are a number of people from my riding, from the town of Caledon, who are with us in the Legislature who are concerned with all these issues and have been following the debates and the discussions that have been going on since the implementation of Bill 143.

Specifically, Mr Al Frost is a councillor for the town of Caledon, who attended with me to Kirkland Lake when he and I visited the Adams mine site as a possible alternative. I know the minister has ruled that out from the outset. She won't even consider it. She hasn't even looked at it.

Mr Jim Cassels represents DARE -- he's the chairman of it -- which is the group Don't Assault Rural Environment, which represents the people of the town of Caledon.

There is a woman by the name of Nancy Stewart who is also present in the Legislature. Her family owns part of one of the sites, and some of us have visited that site, which is prime agricultural land, has been for years, has been in her family for years. Included in that site is an area which is owned by the Metro conservation authority. It's rather remarkable, but that site includes that area. On the other side it's bordered by the Oak Ridges moraine. In the middle of the site is a cemetery, an old cemetery going back to the turn of the century, surrounded by prime agricultural land -- a most astounding position.

Minister, it is rather a strange process to pick these sites, and that's just one example of one of the sites in our farming community. The people of Caledon certainly have a most difficult time understanding the rationale as to why we've arrived at that process.

It's fine to talk about recycling, that the garbage is all going to disappear. But it's not going to disappear. You're going to need other alternatives. Incineration has been ruled out, but you're not even considering it; you're not looking at it.

Interjection: Why?

Mr Tilson: I don't know. Are the Europeans wrong? Are the Americans wrong? Are the Japanese wrong? All these other countries are using incineration, but we won't even look at it, mainly because of a position of an environmental minister that goes back to her history as a municipal councillor, who has said, "I'm going to run and I'm going to be opposed to incineration for ever." So she's not going to consider it. She's not going to consider the long rail-haul option, which has been discussed, which has been voted on by the people of Kirkland Lake as a possibility, and I will deal with that in a moment.

As I said, the issue that really is before us in 1992 is Bill 143, which says we have to establish one landfill site within the boundaries of Peel, York-Metro and Durham. Our party, the Progressive Conservative Party, opposes this draconian legislation, which certainly, Madam Minister, you will agree is contrary to the purpose of the Environmental Assessment Act. If you've been listening to all the petitions that have been read to you, including today, section 5 of the Environmental Assessment Act states that a proponent must look at all the alternatives to a potential undertaking. A full environmental assessment would allow us to look at all the options. There are all kinds of options that could be looked at in this issue that you have developed today, this crisis that you have developed.

For example, could there be one landfill site for all three regions? Could there be one landfill site for two regions combined? Could there be the establishment of a landfill site beyond the confines of the greater Toronto area, whether the type that has been suggested in Kirkland Lake which Mr Frost and I viewed or other similar sites, or other alternatives to landfill, and yes, incineration? Why can't we look at all of these alternatives?

1630

It's a very serious social issue that we have in this province. Why can't we look at everything? Why, for example, are you saying that only the GTA must get rid of its own garbage? Half of my riding is just outside the GTA, and I can assure you that people in the county of Dufferin who work not only in the town of Caledon but even further south create garbage in the GTA, people outside the GTA. That happens all over this province; it's a provincial problem.

Why are you simply saying, "Get rid of the garbage in the GTA"? There are other alternatives. Why are you putting your blinders on? Why won't you consider the other alternatives?

People like Nancy Stewart simply can't believe it. She wakes up one morning and there's going to be a superdump opposite her farm, on an area that includes a conservation area and another area which includes the Oak Ridges moraine and which has a cemetery. She can't believe it.

How did you pick that site in the first place? Why didn't you have an environmental assessment to pick the 57 sites? Did you just close your eyes and say on a map, "I'm going pick one of those sites"? Is that how you did it? Because there's been no rationale.

You wouldn't present those sites before the introduction of Bill 143. We on this side pleaded with you, pleaded with you to tell us the sites. I can tell you, the hearings on Bill 143 would have been absolutely chaotic if people in this province had known where those sites were going to be, but that's the style of this government.

Bill 143 is not a full environmental assessment. It's a Ruth Grier environmental assessment. That's what it is. It's completely different from anything we've ever seen before. It states: "This is the best solution, and don't let anybody interfere with it. This is the solution and this is the way it's going to be. We're tough."

We are not ignoring the principles of waste reduction in the development of new landfill sites. The capacity of new sites is based on projections developed after extensive application of the 3Rs; there's no question about that. We agree that valuable class 1-3 farm lands should not be considered as landfill sites. Do you? Because all of the sites in the town of Caledon, all 15 of them, are prime agricultural sites.

Mr Wiseman: The urban shadow.

Mr Tilson: Oh, the urban shadow. You don't even know what the urban shadow means. None of you knows what the urban shadow means. It's mumbo-jumbo. It's an excuse to put a superdump in the town of Caledon.

I would like to make some comment with respect to the Adams mine site. If a landfill site is not established at the Adams mine, that land will remain dormant. There are other alternatives in southern Ontario. It seems you say, "There's a perfect site up there; it's got a natural clay liner," but you're not even going to have an assessment to see if it's possible. Meanwhile: "What a great idea. We'll put a superdump on prime farm land. That's what we'll do." So that's our plan. That's the plan the minister has.

The minister says that garbage used in incineration is a burning off of our resources which could never be replaced, that we should recycle it. However, Madam Minister, at present there are very limited resources available to recycle plastics into a useful product. What are we to do in the meantime? Where are all these recycled products to be kept? Because there are recycled products being kept all around this province; they're being warehoused.

Mr Wiseman: Good.

Mr Tilson: You say "Good." How long are they going to be stored there? When will something be started for this? Will it go on ad infinitum that you're going to gradually store all these recycled products?

While the blue box program is successful in most municipalities that have instituted it, these same municipalities, it's coming out more and more, are finding it very expensive to maintain, and some have considered dropping it because of the programs of financial restraints this government is putting them on.

The question is, given this set of facts which you can't disregard, are you going to consider any financial assistance to these and other municipalities if you are successful in your bid to have 50% of all our garbage recycled etc, which is what you've been stating, by the year 2000?

I would like to refer you to an article in the Mississauga News which came out in July. It talks about the plastics recycling program not working. The article states:

"Mississauga's beleaguered mixed plastics recycling program has received an 11th-hour, one-year reprieve from cutbacks announced last week.

"At a city general committee meeting earlier this month, councillors reluctantly scrapped the major portion of its progressive blue box plastics recycling program because there was simply nowhere to process the material and collection costs were soaring.

"Mayor Hazel McCallion told the Mississauga News Friday that she immediately called Grier to explain the demise of the recycling program and the ministry put three people to work to save the program."

So some of the recycling programs, it appears, are having considerable trouble.

Now I'd like to refer to a letter which was sent by the Minister of the Environment to a constituent of mine in Bolton, if I can find it.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Why don't we take a 10-minute break?

Mr Tilson: Yes, take a minute; take a break.

The letter was addressed to a Mr Philip King. The residents there were being asked if they were in favour of a full environmental assessment of the Adams mine site; of course there was a referendum which indicated overwhelmingly that the people of Kirkland Lake were in favour of that. The minister said to the constituent:

"These are our resources. If properly diverted from the waste stream, many solid wastes like paper and plastics can be recycled into useful products. Diverting waste from disposal to recycling facilities can mean new markets, jobs and economic benefits."

There's no question that if we get into a type of project at the Adams mine site, that's exactly what would happen. Kirkland Lake currently has about 40% to 45% unemployment. They want it up there. They want all the spinoffs. It is estimated that there would be 200 jobs on this particular site as a result of this project, which was a done deal and was simply canned by the Ministry of the Environment for no reason whatsoever other than her personal aversion to shipping garbage to the long rail haul site. Aside from that, there are all the many spinoffs that develop from recycling which would take place in that place.

Mrs Grier made a statement in this letter in answer to the question, "Can an environmental assessment be done at the Kirkland Lake site?" Her statement simply was:

"An environmental assessment can't be done on just one site.... All potential sites around the province would have to be considered. Such a province-wide search would threaten many communities across Ontario and would have no guarantee of success." Amazing.

How did she come up with the 57 sites? She's not going to have an environmental assessment at Kirkland Lake, simply because she says: "We're going to have to have an environmental assessment on all these different sites, but we're not having any environmental assessment at these sites in the three regions. We're simply going to go ahead. We're going to probably make a short list and then we'll have an environmental assessment."

1640

Again, I emphasize to the minister, why did she not proceed with an environmental assessment prior to instructing the IWA to commence a search for dump sites in Peel, York and Durham? Why would she not do that? If this is what she's saying to the constituent from Bolton, why would she not be consistent and do the same for these others? Why is she just putting on her blinders and picking 57 sites? It doesn't make any sense.

She also said in that letter, "An environmental assessment can't be done on just one site," that other sites within the search area must be looked at. She indicated, "A province-wide search would threaten many of the communities across Ontario and would have no guarantee of success," and that of course is the portion I just read.

What do you think you've done to the communities and the people of the 57 sites that you've already chosen, that have been chosen by the IWA? You say the IWA, but in fact by you. Don't you think that these people's homes and livelihoods are being threatened unnecessarily? You're putting them through hell, absolute hell.

Why wouldn't you have an assessment done and then determine whether those are going to be the sites? These people are all at wits' end. They can't believe what's happening to their lives. They can't sell their property; who's going to buy property that's on a dump site? They can't mortgage it; who's going to lend money to those people? These people's lives are being destroyed. They don't know what to do. How are these farms going to plan for the future? They're at a complete loss.

You also said that this would be an enormous cost to the taxpayers. Again, exactly what do you think this present process is, if it isn't costly? In Peel region they'd already spent $8 million, at your request, in search of a dump site. Now you tell them, "Too bad," but another search is on under the auspices of the IWA which will ultimately cost $19 million, at a minimum. We don't know what it's going to cost; my guess is that this is a low estimate.

If, as you have stated, the municipalities are responsible for their own garbage, why does the region of York have to take Metro's garbage, why does Caledon have to take all of Peel's garbage? The rationale doesn't make any sense.

I could go on and on on this subject. It gets most of us in this House excited. I'm surprised that members of the government aren't rebelling against their minister and getting excited as well, because it's a flawed process, it's a flawed system, it's a system that's not going to work.

I will be supporting the resolution.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate?

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I'm very pleased to participate in today's debate on the motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. I'd like to begin by telling the House that I regard it as a privilege the opportunity to work with the Honourable Ruth Grier for the environment of Ontario.

Though we as a government and the Minister of the Environment have just begun, a great deal has already been achieved. In response to some of the horrendous problems in waste management that have evolved in the last few years, our government has a comprehensive waste management-waste reduction action plan that is working.

Our plan is designed to move the province from a consumer society to a conserver society. This plan places emphasis on reduction and reuse of materials. It is a clear statement of something that the people of Ontario are embracing and making part of the way they work, live and play.

The waste reduction action plan has five major components. The minister has mentioned these, but I would like to reiterate them: effective laws that make waste reduction a higher priority than waste disposal; partnerships with businesses and institutions to reduce waste and to use and make products containing recycled materials; waste reduction programs that are financially healthy; provision to municipalities of the tools they need to plan and to make waste reduction work, and, finally, the information that people need to actively reduce waste.

I'd like to tell you, Mr Speaker, about specific examples of those five components of waste reduction. Real waste reduction begins with the determination to divert materials from landfill, a determination strengthened by law, Bill 143. In order to develop new and effective laws, regulations, policies and programs to promote the 3Rs, the waste reduction office was established within the Ministry of the Environment.

In October 1991, after preliminary consultation, the ministry circulated Initiatives Paper No 1. Its purpose: to propose regulatory measures to help achieve Ontario's waste reduction target by significantly reducing at source the flow of valuable resources from disposal sites. Interested individuals and groups were invited to comment on the proposed measures in writing to the waste reduction office. We knew that we would receive valuable advice from Ontarians to help reduce Ontario's waste management problems.

Initiatives Paper No 1 helped in the framing of Bill 143, the enabling legislation that put in place the needed amendments to the Environmental Protection Act. Specifically, the Minister of the Environment was provided with the power to regulate the various waste generators and require them to prepare waste audit and waste reduction work plans, establish and operate source separation systems and establish and operate composting systems. The minister can also set standards for a municipal waste management cost accounting system. These amendments to the Environmental Protection Act have provided this provincial government with the authority needed to regulate and ensure waste reduction.

In the past, governments have dealt with waste -- and pollution, for that matter -- after the fact, after it had been created. An overriding principle of our government is pollution prevention. It is simply common sense to deal with waste and pollution before they are created. If you don't create them in the first place, you don't have to dispose of them. Remediation and disposal are the difficult and expensive parts of the equation, and that expense has always fallen to the municipal taxpayer.

Despite the basic and obvious commonsense approach of prevention, we as a society need to help incorporate this principle into our practices a little better than we have. For far too long we've failed to realize that it's uneconomical to continue producing and disposing of unnecessary waste. Companies that have reduced the amount of waste they produce are finding out that waste reduction has proven cost-effective and has helped them to decrease their operating budgets. This speaks volumes in terms of the second component of our action plan: to work in partnership with businesses and institutions to reduce waste.

A more immediate example of this partnership comes from my own riding. Recently, I met on behalf of the minister with the committee of the London Chamber of Commerce that has developed a business plan for the proposed London Chamber of Commerce environmental resource centre. The mandate of the resource centre is to achieve, through ongoing and direct communication with government and affected businesses, the effective delivery of educational programs and resources to existing and new businesses. The centre hopes to form a positive support network that will assist business with waste reduction and energy conservation audits, waste exchanges, promotion of new technology and environmental business opportunities and a central purchasing coordination for environmentally friendly products. I've discussed this London proposal with the minister, because we are all working towards the benefits that will ultimately help everyone.

We know we've seen some real success, because there has been a dramatic increase in the number of tires, for example, going to alternative uses. Currently, it is estimated that approximately 40% of the tires sold in 1992 are finding alternative uses, and it's expected that this number will increase to 60% by 1993. That's a significant diversion from disposal. Most recently, as the minister already mentioned, she and members of the Canadian retail petroleum industry opened the first in a series of used oil depots to be set up across the province as part of the province's waste reduction action plan.

1650

The third component of our waste reducation action plan is the financially healthy waste reduction programs that the Minister of the Environment has committed to. These programs will assist municipalities with their waste reducation. The total funding commitment for municipal 3Rs initiatives in Ontario for 1992 is more than $20 million.

Ontario is a world leader in recycling and now in home composting. To date, the government of Ontario has distributed $12.5 million to home composting programs. This has resulted in the province funding close to 500,000 home composters. Another 250,000 composters have been approved for funding. Home composting programs can reuse as much as 400,000 tonnes of kitchen and yard waste.

During Waste Reduction Week, the Minister of the Environment committed more than $1.1 million towards model home composting projects in seven municipalities. In fact I'm confident that the Leader of the Opposition will be familiar with the project being run by the Northwest Ontario Recycle Association, NORA, for 26 municipalities in the Dryden area.

Of course municipalities need these tools to plan and realize waste reduction. That is the fourth component of the provincial action plan. The Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs have released Initiatives Paper No 2, Waste Management Planning in Ontario. The purpose of this round of consultation is to find an effective new planning process that emphasizes the 3Rs, that makes waste reduction rather than disposal the focus of planning.

The paper also examines the powers municipalities will need if they are to manage waste and implement provincial policies. Clearly it is in the interest of all governments and taxpayers of this province to manage waste. The costs of disposing of that which we despoil are, as we are finding over and over again, horrific and increasingly unmanageable.

Finally, the fifth component, giving people the information they need to act on waste reduction. The Ministry of the Environment is developing province-wide education and information programs to help all members of Ontario society find the materials they need to make responsible 3Rs choices.

A very important part of that is the TAG initiative or teaching about garbage. TAG will provide education kits for students in kindergarten through grade 6. The plan is to integrate waste management topics into a variety of study areas, including science, math, visual arts, music and literature. Eventually, the hope is to teach the students right through to senior high school. As a former teacher I applaud this approach. I'm sure everyone in this chamber is very aware of how effective this kind of teaching program is in terms of positive results.

That was brought home to me quite recently when I made a visit in early October to the environmental fair and exchange held at the special events building at the Western Fair in London. Apparently in September, there were two concerts at fairgrounds.

The first featured an artist who appealed to patrons of an older vintage. I'm certain that perhaps you may be familiar with that, an age group somewhat over 40. The cleaning crew remarked that despite the advanced years of the concert crowd, they had managed to leave a mountain of garbage behind once that concert was over. They had all but ignored the recycling containers.

The next evening, there was a second concert that featured a group currently popular with a significantly younger crowd. This group, of which I think the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere is a great fan, is called Bare Naked Ladies. At any rate, after that concert the cleaning crew at the fairgrounds were astonished by what they found in the aftermath of this lively concert, because they had very little to clean. The audience had indeed made use of the recycling bin and had been responsible with its waste. I think this is a clear signal of the importance of education, the power of education, and is a very hopeful sign for the future.

By way of conclusion, I would like to say to the members of this House emphatically, most emphatically, that I cannot concur with the motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly, the Minister of the Environment has delineated a workable plan, a conserver action plan for waste management in the province of Ontario. She and this government have accomplished a great deal in the last two years.

The actions taken by this government have significantly reduced the amount of waste that is ending up in landfill. Quite clearly, this government, this minister does have an effective and comprehensive waste reduction plan, waste reduction initiatives that are working.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for her participation in the debate. Further debate? The honourable member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: I'm not only pleased to be able to speak on the resolution today, I am very glad that this Legislature is now back in session and debating this resolution. Frankly, it appeared to me, for a while at least, given the way in which the headlines have been dominated by the referendum that is currently being discussed and upon which we will soon vote around Canada and the good news, the winning of, first of all, the American League Championship Series and then the pennant, as a representative from York Centre and of York region, that the real issues of the day, of the people at least of my area, somehow had been forced to the back pages of not only the local newspapers but the daily press as well. Certainly in this Legislature those issues haven't been directed.

For the people whom I represent, although most of them are happy about the results of yesterday and most of them will cast a vote in the referendum, the things that really bother them are the terrible state of the Ontario and Canadian economy and, locally, this continuing, nagging, pressing problem of Bill 143 and the fact that Ruth Grier somehow decided in the privacy of her office -- Ruth Grier, the Minister of the Environment, who has not had the courtesy to stay for the rest of this debate. Ruth Grier -- I'm sorry, there she is, up there. I apologize to the minister.

The Acting Speaker: I would like to remind the honourable member that we refer to other honourable members by their titles or their ridings, please.

Mr Sorbara: I say to the minister, sitting with her former parliamentary assistant, that notwithstanding that the headlines are of a somewhat different nature now, the real issue for the people of York region, as well as Durham and Peel, is the war that you waged on them when you unilaterally decided -- I guess almost a year ago now -- without consultation, without justification, without any rationale based on environmental principles, that the best way to solve Metropolitan Toronto's garbage problems was to place a landfill site somewhere in the heart of York region.

Frankly, notwithstanding the wording of this resolution, which does have a number of whereases and does refer to the famous 3Rs, the real issue that we're debating in this Legislature today once again is the terrible impact that the minister's decision, and the bill that followed out of that decision, is having on the people of the province and specifically the people of York region, of Durham region and of Peel region.

In the time allocated to me, I want to say, particularly to the people from York region who have come down to hear this debate, that notwithstanding that we are in opposition and notwithstanding that the Progressive Conservative Party is in opposition, there is one thing I'm absolutely certain about, and that is that the effect of Bill 143 and its propositions, which is to place a megadump in York region and other dumps in Peel and Durham, will not come to pass. It will not come to pass.

I want to tell the people in the gallery, I want to tell the people in the members' gallery and I want to tell the people who are watching this debate that it will not come to pass, because one way or another the minister and the government will withdraw the bill or the government will be defeated. That's it, clean and simple. It is not going to win this one.

You know why it is not going to win this one? I'm going to tell you why: Because the plan itself, as scandalous as it is -- a minister decides on her own accord that the best place for a dump is York region -- as scandalous as that plan is, there have already been a couple of months' delay in going from 57 sites to some 9 sites; there's already been a two-month delay there. But the plan, as laid out, goes well beyond the mandate of this government.

1700

If I have ever seen a one-term government in the 125-year history of this province, I am looking at one as I look across the floor. Whether it's economic issues or social policy issues or cultural issues or managing the economy or education or any other aspect -- you can just go through the list -- the way in which this government has arbitrarily handled environmental issues, and particularly waste management issues, is going to be one of the things where I predict here and now the commentators on the next election night in Ontario will say, "One of the reasons they were defeated is that they persisted in their determination to make York region the garbage capital of Metropolitan Toronto and the province of Ontario."

All the commentators will agree on that. They'll say: "That was one of the mistakes that they made back in 1991. That was one of the mistakes they made that set them on this course. What was exemplified in that decision was a kind of stubbornness and a kind of 'two hell with the people' attitude that characterized most everything else they did: labour legislation, the inability to deal with unemployment, the inability to deal with the depression. But somehow that one stood out," the commentators will say as they announce that Ontario's first socialist government has just been defeated.

Fortunately, whether that election comes in the fall of 1994 or in the spring of 1995 -- or if they're in real trouble, they'll wait till the fall of 1995; they'll go the full five years of this socialist poison that we're getting from this government -- whether it's 1994 or 1995, the government will be defeated.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I would like the honourable member to address his remarks to the Chair, please.

Mr Sorbara: I am addressing my remarks to the Chair, sir. One of the things the commentators will say is that the government's inability to handle the environmental issues --

Hon Mr Cooke: He thinks he's the greatest thing in the history of Ontario. He is the most egotistical person in the Legislature.

Mr Sorbara: Why doesn't the government House leader just allow me the time to make my speech?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Interjections are out of order. The government side will have its opportunity. The member for York Centre has the floor.

Mr Sorbara: I would have thought the government House leader would have just paid me the courtesy of letting me make my speech even though he's not enjoying it.

The government is going to be defeated, whether it's in 1994 or 1995, in the spring or in the fall. The fact is that the Minister of the Environment is not going to be able to complete these disastrous Bill 143 plans before she and all her cabinet colleagues leave office. The York region court challenge will delay it some more. The inability to complete the minimal assessment that is being proposed -- it can't possibly be completed in the time frame the minister proposed under her bill. The people of York region will have something very special to celebrate as this province's first, and I hope last, socialist government goes down to defeat.

I just want to remind the people who are here to hear this debate and the people who are watching that whether or not we're elected -- and I'm hoping we're elected but this is a democracy; it may be the Tories -- I'm confident of one thing. The first thing the new Premier will say -- I hope Premier McLeod, but it could be Premier Harris -- one of the first acts of the new Legislature of the 36th Parliament will be to repeal Bill 143. That will be one of the first acts, because it hasn't yet been implemented. We still have time.

Bill 143 represents a closed-mind approach to waste management. Sure, the 3Rs are being implemented. Any government in power right now would be doing its best to implement the 3Rs. Sure, we are reducing effectively with the blue box program and the other programs the minister listed, but we still have to deal with disposal issues.

This government said in its bill: "We'll close our eyes to new technologies. We will not even utter the word 'incineration.' And we'll close our eyes to any other site in the province. We will choose the most fertile land in all of Ontario, Ontario's best farm land" -- and frankly, if you go by assessments, the most valuable farm land in Ontario -- "and we will use a classic outhouse technology: We'll dig a hole and we'll bury it."

If that isn't a head-in-the-sand approach to challenging issues, I don't know what is. They wouldn't even look at proposals being mounted by Kirkland Lake and others who are proposing other technologies. Those proponents of those technologies have come to my office and said to me, "I have been writing the minister for six months asking her just to look at this technology, and I don't even get an answer."

The fact is that a democracy is stronger than the pigheadedness of one government, and so Premier McLeod or -- I hope not -- Premier Harris, in his or her first speech from the throne, will announce that one of the first measures will be the repeal of Bill 143.

That's not to say that we'll have solved the problem. No, we won't have completely solved the problem; we'll have ended the war in York region. I want to tell my friend the member for Durham West that if he doesn't think this war in York region is going to continue to rage until Bill 143 is withdrawn or repealed or defeated through an election, he has not recently visited the neighbouring community to the community in which he lives.

Mayors are saying they will move heaven and earth to make sure it doesn't happen. The chairman of York region is saying, "We will challenge in the court." The people are out holding pancake breakfasts and having rummage sales to raise money to put out their flyers. This is a grass-roots movement to defeat the insanity represented by Bill 143.

The great thing in a democracy is that, generally, the people prevail. So this debate simply gives us an opportunity, as we begin the fall session of the 35th Parliament, to be here to continue to fight. We who represent York and Durham and Peel represent 500,000 people who are saying in a clear, loud voice, and in unison: "We will not have it. We are stronger than you because you get your authority from our vote. And if you do not repeal the bill, we will repeal your mandate." Frankly, I prefer the latter and I can't wait for that day to come.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate?

Mr Stockwell: I'm glad I have this opportunity to once again remind the government of exactly why the people in the GTA are so upset with you and your policies with respect to land, landfilling, dumping, garbage. You see, this government doesn't seem to understand why the public out there is upset, why Mr Wiseman is going to lose his riding and why Mr O'Connor is going to lose his, and so on and so on. Let me try to explain briefly, because I know our Environment critic would take an opportunity to comment on this motion.

Briefly, this is a plan that the Ministry of the Environment has brought forward. There's no debate. It's a plan: 57 dump sites, a shortened environmental process -- maybe three years. It's a plan. The problem with the plan is simply this: Before the election, this wasn't your plan.

Mr Wiseman: Yes, it was.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, Mr Wiseman. Thank God we're inside so the lightning can't get us, suggesting that this was their plan. The plan of the party across the floor was enunciated very clearly by the Premier, then leader of the opposition, at Keele Valley, at Brittania, at sites around the province. "No landfill site will be expanded or approved without a full environmental assessment hearing." That's what he said.

How long did it take for the last environmental assessment hearing to be approved? How long, you ask? Seventeen years, in Halton. How long will it take under this process? Two or three. You see, that's the problem, that's the rub, that's where you weren't squaring with the public, because you said -- and I look at the member from Durham right in the eye -- that any site would be given a full environmental assessment hearing, thereby implying 17 years, and a full hearing meant every possible alternative from Kirkland Lake to Lake Ontario.

What do we have today? Fifty-seven sites in the GTA, some resting on prime farm land -- another promise they broke -- that are being examined for a megadump site in three regions to be approved in three years. There's the trouble.

1710

Mr Wiseman: The site in Durham is the size of 20 years.

Mr Stockwell: The member can keep cackling. He can only cackle for two and a half more years, thank God, but he can keep cackling. But that was the promise. And there's the Labour minister. Probably you didn't understand the promise before the election, so I don't blame you as much. But we have this government sitting here today trying to tell the good people of the GTA, "Before the election this is what we promised you."

The electorate isn't dumb. The electorate has a memory. The electorate has newspapers that record these pearls of wisdom dropping from the now Premier's mouth. They recorded them, and he said categorically, without debate, "You won't have a dump without a full environmental assessment hearing." There's the rub. That's why these people are here today. That's why you get thousands of people in auditoriums fighting this government, because it is not fulfilling its campaign promise.

What we have is my favourite article, from Tuesday, July 31, 1990, in the Toronto Star, page A10. Then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bob Rae, accused then Premier, Mr David Peterson, of being -- dare I say it? -- a liar. Can you imagine an opposition leader saying a Premier is a liar because he didn't fulfil his campaign promises? Unbelievable. But as I live and breathe, I stand here today and we have an expansion at Keele Valley, we've got an expansion at Britannia, we've got 57 potential dump sites, we've got three megadumps, and you didn't tell anybody you were going to do it before the election. So why does this make the electorate angry? Why do things like this when in opposition and once in power do exactly what they accuse the government of? Why does this make people upset? It makes them upset because they believed you. They thought that when you promised them "No dump" you were being sincere. That's worse than making no promise at all. That's worse, so pardon me for getting a little exercised when I hear the member from Durham stand up --

Hon Mr Cooke: We're used to it.

Mr Stockwell: And there's the House leader cackling, who, being from Windsor, suggests that I know nothing about this issue. I would suggest I've forgotten more about the landfill issue than he ever knew.

Mr Wiseman: You were the one who was going to dump on all the neighbours.

Mr Stockwell: Here goes the cackle again.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Durham West, come to order.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Durham West is cackling again. The problem that this has foisted on the people --

The Speaker: It would be very helpful if not only would members just listen, but if the member for Etobicoke West would address his comments to the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, Mr Speaker. The problem facing the people in the greater Toronto area is that with this announcement --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: -- you've depressed land values, you've ruined neighbourhoods, you've ruined family homes, you've ruined farm land. For what? For a plan that you didn't tell anybody about, because if you did I wouldn't have to put up with the member for Durham West.

I'm frustrated, the people in the GTA are very frustrated, our party is very frustrated and I am in full agreement with the member from York. When the next election rolls around and the people in these regions go to vote, they're going to remember what you said before September 6, 1990, and they're going to remember the actions you took subsequent to September 6, 1990. The people are never wrong. I'll be very pleased and very happy when they elect a Conservative government and we can begin the environmental assessment process on Kirkland Lake.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Etobicoke West for his contribution to the debate and recognize the member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): It's somewhat daunting to follow such a thunderous oration, but I suggest it's full of sound and fury and signifies not too much.

I want to refer to his colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel, who raised the issue of the Bill 143 hearings, and to point out that many groups sent representations to that committee to say that they were dead against transporting garbage and also against incineration. In fact, I have a covering letter from the Ontario Waste Caucus of the Ontario Environment Network that refers to this. They surveyed 45 groups, and they found that of the 45 groups that had established a position on transporting garbage, 100% endorsed the "no transport" statement; of the 42 groups that had established a position on the incineration issue, including energy from waste facilities and energy-derived-fuel projects, 98% endorsed the "no incineration" position.

From the "no incineration" position, another statement to the Bill 143 hearings had a couple of paragraphs that I think we'll find instructive.

"Incineration poses serious health risks, environmental damage to air, water and land, and goes against the principles of conservation and responsible waste management.

"With incineration removed from the list of options, we can move forward with more innovative waste reduction strategies and explore environmentally more acceptable disposal methods that do not include incineration, energy-from-waste or refuse-derived-fuel facilities."

On the "no transport" position, again a couple of paragraphs from the submission to the Bill 143 hearings:

"In our view, transportation of solid waste from the area of generation of the waste is not an acceptable alternative to be considered either in the waste management master planning process or in an environmental assessment. We support that particular section of part II in Bill 143.

"We believe that such transport of waste is counterproductive to the establishment of aggressive 3Rs programs and facilities in the area in which the waste is generated and goes against the principles of conservation and responsible waste management."

More than 30 groups support this statement, again from the Ontario Waste Caucus. Among them is one on the Bruce Peninsula; the member for Bruce might be interested in talking to them to find out some of the details on this.

However, I would like to go on to what our government is doing, as that's a question that's raised in the opposition resolution. Our government has a plan to achieve waste reduction in five ways: by introducing effective laws that make waste reduction a higher priority than waste disposal; by ensuring that municipalities have what they need to plan and to make waste reduction work; by working in partnership with business and institutions to reduce waste and to use and make products containing recycled materials; by making waste reduction programs financially healthy; by giving people the information they need to reduce waste.

I focus on the last one, "by giving people the information they need to reduce waste," because I think that's an essential item in finding the ways that we want to reduce waste, which I think is the answer to the question of how we manage waste in this province. I'm pleased to say that the ministry found over $400,000 to grant to an agency in my riding, the Kingston Area Recycling Corp, which has had vast success in diverting waste from landfill into recycling projects.

1720

In particular I want to mention composting, because that refers to a resolution I introduced in the House in the spring that got all-party support, as I was pleased to find. I think everyone agrees that that is a very effective way of diverting waste, but again, it has to get out to the people.

Part of the proposal of the Kingston Area Recycling Corp is to hire people to go through the streets knocking on doors to see what people know about composting and how they can get involved. They're finding a very good reaction to that. It's been in operation some five weeks. They're going to base those five weeks to see how they carry out the last weeks of the program, and this will become information for the rest of the province. I see a very hopeful development here in what the Kingston Area Recycling Corp is doing. I got much information on it from Janine Papadopoulos, the education and public relations officer of KARC, who is monitoring the project and will give us back the information.

There are several other areas. They have a pilot project that goes from the six items that can be recycled in the greater Kingston area to a pilot project that deals with 16 in a smaller community to see whether that can be adapted to the rest of the riding. I want to say that there are some very hopeful developments taking place. I think our government is certainly putting money where it counts. We'll have the information out to the people, get it back and be able to work on these kinds of developments.

I find that the opposition resolution on this matter is completely out of order and I will not be supporting it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the member for Kingston and The Islands for his contribution to the debate and recognize the honourable member for Markham.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I hope we can survive till 1995, when at that time we can do something about this motley crew of New Democrats running the government. I happen to agree with my friend the member for York Centre that one of the first things that will be done -- if the Liberals would do it, I can tell you we were saying it as well -- is that we will be revoking Bill 143 as much as is possible. It stinks, it's bad, and if you think garbage is bad, what this government is perpetrating on the people of the province of Ontario is as bad as anything I've ever seen.

The frustration level is growing from all the people out there who are having to suffer through the decision-making process the New Democrats are placing upon the people of the greater Toronto area and the rest of the province. Every issue they're touching is turning sour. It's the opposite of the Midas touch when things could turn to gold. What you people are doing as a government and what you try to justify to the people is scandalous. The people out there will remember it and remember it well.

The preamble to the Liberal motion makes an awful lot of sense and explains well how the New Democrats have initiated the landfill selection process; how the confidence and integrity of the government has just been dissipated in York, Durham and Peel; how the government has broken its promise about how it was going to get in place to protect irreplaceable farm land. We know what a farce that is when we see what they've done in York, Durham and Peel. When they say they're going to have the fullest kind of environmental assessment, we know that Bill 143 abrogates the right to a full environmental assessment, and yet they won't acknowledge that when they come along approving other landfill sites.

The Liberals have made a mistake with their motion, though. I challenge Ms McLeod and her members to stop and reflect on waste reduction. You closed your motion. I wish you'd been far more refined in defining --

Mr Wiseman: Why don't you two get together?

Mr Cousens: I think they've raised a point about waste reduction, and it's a credible point. What'll happen is that we're going to reach the 25% reduction by the end of 1992, this year, as explained by Ms Grier, but I wish the Liberals, who brought forward this motion, had looked at their conclusion. It could have been far more to the point, according to the preamble.

The problem we've got is dumps, dumps, dumps. This government has dumped on the people of York, Durham and Peel. I'm not sure if there's any way we can get the attention of the Honourable Ruth Grier. The people have tried. The minister has failed to respond in a significant and meaningful way to the issues that have been raised in this House.

There is no rationale at all for the government to preclude consideration of options other than just landfill. This government will not allow rail haul to be subjected to a full environmental assessment. They will not allow incineration to suffer through a full environmental assessment. Instead, you've got an ideological decision made by the minister and you don't permit the free thought and the free process of allowing these things to be subjected to technical considerations, scientific considerations, economic considerations. It's closed-minded.

The minister has not come back and explained why York region must be the recipient of Metro's waste. That is not at all --

Mr Wiseman: That was the deal.

Mr Cousens: It's not a deal; it's a wrong deal. York region never accepted -- I'm telling you, Mr Speaker, if you could shut this person up you'd do the world a favour. I get sick and tired of his interruptions. He doesn't listen, he interrupts, he's stupid, ignorant and I find him repulsive. Tell him to be quiet.

The Speaker: Order. First of all, the member for Markham, I think, if he reflects on the words he's just spoken, would realize that they're not parliamentary in nature and I would ask him to withdraw. While he's considering that, I would request the member --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm asking the member for Durham West to exercise some restraint. I realize this is an emotional issue, but I ask him to exercise restraint. At the same time I'm asking the member for Markham, an experienced member of the House, to show respect for the parliamentary language and to withdraw the remarks he has made.

Mr Cousens: If I have in any way offended the member, I withdraw those remarks as being unparliamentary. I did not heckle him when he had the floor and I would appreciate the same courtesy, which is lacking from that member. If the Chair is not going to do something about it, what can I as a member do? If the Chair isn't going to take control of people who are interfering and interrupting others' speeches, I have to take offence at something. If you're not going to act on it, Mr Speaker, then I have to act on him.

The fact of the matter is, the other issue that stands before this issue has to do with Premier Bob Rae himself. Where is Bob Rae when we're coming along and looking for him? I ask you, if there's a refrigerator opening, he'll be standing there ready to help himself to it, but if there is something happening where you've got a need for the Premier to come out -- he's been out with Dudley Laws; he's been at the front steps of the Legislature when there have been rallies on and things like that; he goes out on Labour Day for a labour march, but we've had several demonstrations here at the front of the Legislature when he's been in the building and he would not so much as come out and speak to the people of York, Durham, Peel and Metro.

When he was in opposition he was everywhere, talking and promising, and yet now, when this issue comes out, the Premier himself has been absent. He has not participated.

That is a different person than we saw when he was leading the opposition. He was crusading and criticizing everybody else. I hold him up now for the judgement of the people of the province of Ontario that you have a different Bob Rae today as Premier than you had in Bob Rae as the Leader of the Opposition. When he was in opposition he was making all kinds of promises and he was going to do something about it. Now that he is Premier he has forgotten those promises. He is not living up to them; that is what has happened.

Where is the Premier, then? What he has done is put a circle of people -- he has had the honourable Minister of the Environment, who has been absolutely stonewalling people in the regions on this issue. Then now, in order to protect her, she's had Pitbull Pitman put in charge of the whole Interim Waste Authority. Therefore, you've got someone else as another layer of protection. So when you send a letter, you go through layers and layers and you don't know whom you're going to hear from and seldom do you hear.

It's a fact that the people out there in Ontario feel they've elected a government and no one knows how to get through to them. It's impossible to get sense out of them if they're not going to look at options. If they're not going to give honest feedback to people, the frustration level builds. People have no way of communicating with Bob Rae's government, his ministers and his people. They have set in motion a series of actions and it would seem they have closed their minds not only to their promises but to the other parts of the population that didn't vote for them.

On September 6, 37% of the people voted for them. I'll tell you, there were a number of people who didn't vote who wish they had now, and it wouldn't be an NDP government. If it were a minority government, you would never have seen Bill 143; you would never see this bill before the House; you'd never see this resolution having to be debated.

1730

It's a level of confidence, and I'm going to support the Liberal opposition motion because as for confidence in this government, I have none, absolutely none: none in Bob Rae, none in Ruth Grier and none in the people who support them.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: If you don't have anything to say that's useful to say, if you're to start interfering --

The Speaker: Order. I ask the member for Markham to come to order.

Mr Cousens: Well, then, tell him to behave, Mr Speaker. He's not in his own seat. He's making all kinds of remarks.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Markham to come to order, and the member for Downsview as well.

Mr Wiseman: You're a hypocrite, Don.

Mr Cousens: What did you just say? Point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a point of order.

The Speaker: Take your seat. The member for Durham West, you cannot use unparliamentary language in here. I ask the member to withdraw his unparliamentary language.

Mr Wiseman: You are absolutely right, Mr Speaker. I should not have called him a hypocrite, because that is completely unparliamentary, even though over the last two years he has totally heckled me --

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat. I asked the member to take his seat. The member should be reminded, as I remind all members, that when asked to withdraw a comment, all that's needed is a simple "I withdraw." I thank the member for Markham for his contribution.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I've waited patiently all afternoon to speak to this motion and I want to speak to the motion, but I notice that the members on the other side haven't really spoken to it as well as they should have. They talked about other things.

For example, the member for York Centre said that the Minister of the Environment personally decided that there was going to be a dump in York. That's not true. The Interim Waste Authority will, through its environmental assessment, decide where the best place to locate a landfill site will be. I think that's a little different than the minister saying there will be a landfill site in York.

I want to say too that the member for York Centre was very quick to get up on his feet when the minister actually wanted to talk to another member in the House. She got out of her seat and went to another place, and he was very quick to point out her absence. I think what I should point out is that the leader of the official opposition is not here. It's her motion, and I would have thought she would have been very interested to hear the debate in the House today, but she wasn't here to do that.

No one on the other side has actually spoken to the motion. That really concerns me. I want to speak to the motion and I want to say that what the motion asks of the Minister of the Environment and of the government of Ontario is being done in my constituency of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. The South Hastings recycling centre is located in the honourable member for Quinte's riding, but it services a broader area. It's located in Trenton. The name is a misnomer because it does service Prince Edward county, part of my constituency, and it also services Napanee, which is outside of the Quinte and South Hastings area.

However, I just want to talk about the blue box 2000 program. It's a year old. There was a lot of excitement back in my riding a year ago when this was first implemented, a very good response from the public. It collects all the basic blue box items like glass, cans and newsprint, but it also collects rigid plastic, foam plastic, film plastic, magazines and catalogues, aluminum foil and trays, boxboard, textiles -- and that's clothing; I think we heard the minister speak of that earlier today -- and mixed household paper.

When all these things go into the blue boxes, there's not much left that has to go to a landfill site, especially if those households compost as well. I want you to know that not only is this just households, but schools, hospitals and apartments are also serviced by this program; 80% of the households in the catchment area are serviced, and that's 21,000 households. Local dumps have reduced their volume of garbage by 35% to 50%, and I think that's very significant.

What does that say? That says that part of the motion the Leader of the Opposition has introduced is in fact happening. They're asking for "measurable progress for waste reduction in Ontario." It's happening. It's happening in my riding; it's happening all across the province.

Let me tell you that the people in my constituency don't want garbage to come from the greater Toronto area down to their area. The people in the Marmorton mine, the people in Marmora, are totally opposed to this. You may have heard, Mr Speaker, about the TNT group from Marmora, Take No Trash?

Let me tell you, the leader of the third party stood at the rim of the Marmorton mine and said there would be no garbage in this mine ever. Why does he think now it would be good to send it to Kirkland Lake? It's a very similar circumstance, yet he's saying there'd be none in Marmora, but it's okay for Kirkland Lake. I'm a little confused. I suggest maybe the leader of the third party is also.

Not everyone is opposed to Bill 143 on the other side, especially with regard to incineration, and two people who come to mind specifically are the member for Ottawa West and the member for Mississauga South. They both know incineration is not good. It doesn't encourage people to become conservers. It encourages people to become consumers. I know the member for Ottawa South doesn't want that incinerator across the river in Hull, so he would find Bill 143 most acceptable, no doubt. Also, the member for Mississauga South doesn't want to see an incinerator down on the shores of Lake Ontario, not at all.

There is always room for improvement, and I think the Minister of the Environment would agree with that, but in order to improve something that exists, you have to have suggestions for improvement, and quite frankly I haven't heard today any suggestions for improvement in the process that exists within the Ministry of the Environment.

Time's running out, Mr Speaker, and I know you're going to ask me to sit down soon. I don't agree with this motion for a minute and I don't support it, as I'm sure all my colleagues don't.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings for his contribution to the debate and recognize the member for York North.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): In closing this debate, I want to do a couple of things: first of all, to bring the circle round and to explain why we are dealing in effect with two issues within this resolution and why it makes sense, and I want to thank the members of the third party who are supporting it, even if they have mentioned some concerns around the final part of the motion. But I think it does fit together and it's important to understand how.

We have had in this Legislature, over the last number of years, both when we were government and since the New Democratic Party became the government, discussions around the need for the 3Rs and how to go about better programs for recycling, better programs for reducing, better programs for eliminating waste. The problem, as always, is not in the words that are used in setting forward these principles and objectives but in ensuring that in fact we get on with the job.

My colleague the member for Brampton North referred to an editorial that appeared in the Ontario Recycling Update in the summer. What was said there in terms of the lack in effect of a plan and a rationale was not that there aren't words there and that the intentions aren't necessarily good, as I believe was the same with our government and would be the same with the third party, but that unless we really get on with it and begin to see concrete results, we are going to have increasingly the kinds of problems that have emerged in the greater Toronto area, and in particular the feelings, the emotion which people now have in those areas around the core of the government's solution to all these issues of recycling and reducing and reusing, which is that somehow the cornerstone of that is going to be the creation of a huge megadump in York region.

What we're saying to the minister is, whenever this issue arises, no one, including the minister, has ever explained why the creation of a landfill site the size of the one that is proposed for York region can possibly be at the base of a forward-looking environmental policy, not just for the 1990s but for the next century.

It is the juxtaposition of the words around what this government says it's going to do in terms of the 3Rs against what is actually happening, and more specifically, what is now going on in Peel, Durham and York region, where hundreds of people since June 4 have been subjected to a process gone mad, where what they're looking at is their lives on hold and where they don't know what is going to happen. It is made worse by the fact that earlier in September, the deadline for the establishment of the short list was put off until some time in November. Who knows ultimately what time that will be.

1740

If there is to be credibility in an overall environmental policy, we have to see not just good planning documents, not just the setting out of percentages and timetables, we have to see action that is beginning to follow those plans; not individual, separate things that are happening in different parts of the province -- that's all good; no one is opposed to that -- but we need something much more specific and clear.

My colleague from Durham York will recall that earlier in this session we had a group of people down from Georgina known as Georgina Against Garbage. Their key issue was that of reduction. They had a whole series of different kinds of containers and plastics in front of the Legislative Building and they were noting: "We don't need these. We can do this in a much different way." They were really saying, "Government, let's get on with it." That means all of us in this House.

Generally speaking, people are ahead of us on these issues, and that's what we have to see if we are to go back and deal with some of the real landfill issues that are still with us, because as has been said by many on this side today, even with the 3Rs, we know we have problems around landfill. If we're going to deal with those, we have to deal with them in a process that people can feel comfortable with and can believe is genuine and fair.

The last time we debated this issue was a private member's motion which the member for Markham, myself and the member for York Centre put before this House. We began by dealing with Bill 143. Members opposite like to tell us: "That bill went through a very fair process. There was discussion, there was debate and finally there was a vote." And there was a vote. The government had the numbers and it went through, but what so many of us pointed out in looking at that bill was the kind of arbitrary authority that was granted to the minister and to the Interim Waste Authority, which as my leader pointed out and the minister has to admit, is not an arm's-length authority when the board of directors is made up of deputy ministers from the government. It is also an authority where the minister said she was going to appoint civilian members of that board. We have never seen that as well.

What people in York, Peel and Durham are facing is a process the end of which we know is going to mean, in the case of York region, a dump that is bigger than Keele Valley, that will be the largest landfill site in North America. The question that comes back time and time again from people in York region is why. Why is that the solution?

Several members on the government side have even said during the debate today: "Look, we're doing all these wonderful, marvellous things in the 3Rs. We're not going to have that much garbage." If that is true, then why are we looking at a process that's going to bring about this 80 times SkyDome-size dump, this 13-storey dump that is going to rise out of the ground and on which, in a real sense, people are having no say?

I have often used the analogy as I've gone around York region and into other parts of the GTA that what has happened here in this process is that this government loves process. They like to establish elaborate processes in which they think that somehow out of all that something good is going to come. So what have they done with this one? The analogy again is to say simply: "We want you to be able to come forward and express your views, but at the end of the day, there's no question there will be this megadump. You're not allowed to look at any other options or alternatives. Those are not on the table."

That was made clear in Bill 143 and the minister has made that clear since: "You can't look at it, but by all means come out and talk. We want you to develop your thoughts and ideas. We want you to go through all the criteria that are being brought forward on which we're going to base our decision to select both the short list of sites and finally the one site."

Again, it is just as if you were talking to a condemned man who is going to hang and you said, "Yes, we want you to join with us in determining where you're going to hang, the colours of the room, all the accessories," but at the end of the day your short list is simply that you're gone. You will hang.

For the people today around those 57 sites, what has been excruciatingly frustrating for them, particularly since September, is not knowing what is going to happen, not being able to get on with their lives. You only have to go out and talk with people. You only have to go out, as so many of us did during the summer, to the countless barbecues and picnics that the various organizations -- and I speak here of the ones in York region, whether it's Georgina Against Garbage or the organizations in King, the King-Vaughan group RORES, Whitchurch-Stouffville, Markham, Vaughan CARES, all of the different groups that are trying to maintain a sense of positive outlook that somehow this nightmare would end and this giant megadump would never see the light of day.

The one thing that was there was, "Well, at least if we can get to the short list, we can group around those who are left and really begin to fight that." But of course that hasn't happened. If you go on to the farm lands -- and we spoke of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food earlier in questioning -- what has the Minister of Agriculture and Food specifically been doing in talking to the Minister of the Environment and saying, "Minister, when we were in opposition we made a firm and strong commitment about the protection of agricultural land"?

I think what so many people are asking, certainly in York region and indeed in Durham and in Peel, is: Where is that protection for agricultural land? Because whether you're going up in an airplane in February to try to take infrared shots of snow or you're going out in the middle of the summer on to what clearly are agricultural lands, many of those acres being prime agricultural land, and somehow insisting that can be a dump site -- people can't accept it. It's not credible, and there is no integrity in a process that says that is going to happen. So we shouldn't be surprised that the kind of emotion that erupts in this House or the kind of feeling and emotion which is expressed in the various demonstrations we have had in front of this Legislature are real and that they exist in the communities I represent and in other communities throughout the greater Toronto area.

The other thing that is important to underline in terms of those feelings is that many of the people who are directly involved in protesting this flawed process, Bill 143 and what it leads to, are themselves environmentalists of the strongest order. One of the things I take great exception to is when people will look at some of these communities, at the local government leadership, at the leadership of the people who are putting together the citizens' coalitions, and say, "Oh, well, you just don't want it in your own backyard."

I would remind everyone that York region has had an enormous dump in it that has taken the garbage of Metropolitan Toronto and York region for many years, so don't talk to us about what is in our backyard. We have said -- the local communities, the region of York -- that we have a responsibility for our garbage and that we have to work out how we will deal with that.

But when unilaterally we're told, in Bill 143 itself, by legislation, that the garbage from Metropolitan Toronto will come into York region and, "We're going to grant to you this enormous dump," people simply say, "No, that is not fair, it is not reasonable, it is not just, and there is no process that can be developed which by any way or shape of the imagination can be seen to be fair, can be seen to be reasonable, can be seen to be democratic."

1750

This is why the members of the third party and the members of my party are saying that Bill 143 cannot stand. It puts power in a place where it ought not to be. It says there is not due process because that bill says there shall be a landfill site in York region which is going to have to take the garbage of Metropolitan Toronto and York region, and nothing else can be looked at as an option or an alternative.

Whatever the feelings are of certain members opposite around incineration or around rail haul or around any other form of waste disposal, we have all said, and it is in the Environmental Assessment Act, that when you are considering what to do with waste disposal, you must look at all the options. That's what we've been asking for, that's what we asked for during the debate on Bill 143, and it is that which consistently this government has refused to grant, not to us in the opposition but to the people who will be most directly affected by the imposition of these three dumps, and the one in particular of direct concern to York region, the megadump.

I ask the members of the government not to go back and say to themselves what the plans are around the recycling and reducing programs, where a great deal of words have been spewed forward, but to ask how real is it, is it happening, and to measure that off against what Bill 143 has asked be done and the concerns that are being expressed in the areas around Metropolitan Toronto, because clearly the two can't go together.

The process of Bill 143 is flawed. The bill itself is flawed and the end result is unacceptable. It is this which we have tried to put forward to the government and to say that we must stop this madness before it is too late and put in place a much more responsible process that will be able to look at all of the options that are available to the government and that are available to the province.

It is for this reason that we say these two issues are absolutely joined in this motion and that the government has failed us in terms of its long-range planning on the environment and it has completely failed us in terms of the specific issue of waste disposal in the greater Toronto area.

I would urge all members to support our motion because if we do that, we can go back to the drawing board and come up with far more sensible waste disposal plans and, in particular, end the madness in York region, in Peel and in Durham.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for York North for his contribution to the debate.

Mrs McLeod has moved opposition day motion number 1 which stands in her name. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will please say "aye."

All opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1754 to 1759.

The Speaker: I ask the members if they would please take their seats. Would all members please be seated.

Would all those who are in favour of Mrs McLeod's motion please rise one by one.

Ayes -- 24

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Cousens, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Henderson, Jackson, Mahoney, Mancini, McClelland, Morin, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Sola, Sorbara, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve.

The Speaker: All those who are opposed to Mrs McLeod's motion please rise one by one.

Nays -- 54

Abel, Allen, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward (Brantford), Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: The ayes being 24 and the nays 54, I declare the motion lost.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 53, I'd like to indicate the business of the House for next week.

On Monday, October 19, we will do third reading of the Building Code Act, Bill 112; second reading and committee of the whole House, if necessary, and third reading of parking offences, Bill 25; and second reading of the London-Middlesex bill, Bill 75.

On Tuesday, October 20, we'll continue with second reading of Bill 75.

On Wednesday, October 21, we will have committee of the whole House consideration of Bill 40, the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

On the morning of October 22, during private members' public business, we will deal with ballot item 25 standing in the name of Mr Owens and ballot item 26 standing in the name of Mrs O'Neill.

On Thursday afternoon, we'll continue with committee of the whole House consideration of Bill 40, the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 34, a motion that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

Pursuant to standing order 33(a), the member for Burlington South filed dissatisfaction with a response to his question asked of the Minister of Community and Social Services, and the member for Leeds-Grenville filed his dissatisfaction with the response to a question he posed of the Solicitor General. I recognize first the member for Burlington South, who has up to five minutes, and the Minister of Community and Social Services has up to five minutes for her response.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Unfortunately, in the seven and a half years I've been in this House, I've had occasion only a few times to bring one of these late shows. It flows from the question and the response I got from the Minister of Community and Social Services about her complete lack of awareness. I'm entitled to my opinion that it's a complete lack of sensitivity, and that's an opinion, but the facts are that she came to the House today completely unaware of how serious the crisis is facing children's aid societies in our province.

I attempted, during the course of question period, to share with her documentation which is available within her ministry. She chose, not only on the occasion of estimates hearings two days ago but also the occasion of being in the House, in the presence of all members, to suggest that these figures were not accurate. I take those matters very seriously.

It's very clear that our children's aid societies are on the front burner of this government's funding cuts and the children they serve are the least on its list of priorities, and I'm quite distressed at this growing trend.

I want to quote briefly from this government's first throne speech. At that time they were still parading around as social democrats. They indicated that they were going to be more supportive of communities' needs and special needs of vulnerable people, and they said that in doing so, "We recognize that saying yes to their concerns will mean saying no to others whose claims are presented more loudly," and "These decisions will not be easy ones to make."

In the two years this government's been at the helm, children's aid societies have suffered badly. I remind the members of this House, as I did earlier today, that these are provincial laws governing the welfare and the safety and security of children in our province. These laws are provincial laws. Therefore, the Minister of Community and Social Services is the single most important individual responsible for making sure that the law is upheld and that those children are protected.

But what do we get from that minister? We get today, as we have on the previous occasion of estimates, her mouthing some reference to cooperative efforts to look at better ways to meet the challenge of these economic times.

I want to let the members of this House know that the problems facing children's aid societies are serious ones and that this government is burying its head in the sand.

In particular, the minister and her staff brought to estimates and to this House the fact that some 56 personnel had been laid off by children's aid societies in this province; that document was October 13, earlier this week. I presented a document in this House from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies which clearly showed that, as of July 31, over 132 individuals had been laid off at children's aid societies, and that not hundreds but thousands of children in this province are not getting access to the treatment that clearly the law says they must have to be protected.

We are talking about children who are being sexually abused and physically abused at home. There are dramatic increases in my region of Halton: In 18 months we've seen an 82% increase in the number of children who are physically and sexually abused. This government responds with a 0.5% increase, and it has the audacity to blame Brian Mulroney for a 5% cap on the Canada assistance plan. At least he gave 5%. You're giving 0.5% to children's aid societies.

So what has happened? A not surprising deficit after deficit after deficit in children's aid societies all across Ontario. The minister's own riding of London: a $1-million deficit. In communities like Halton, $1.3 million; Hamilton, $1.6 million; Metro Toronto, $1.7 million, and it just received correspondence from the minister saying that its last year's $1-million deficit will not be picked up.

More cuts to children are coming as a result of this government's decision. Can they find the money? Yes, Mr Speaker, in the short time I have left. They had $500,000 to renovate some executive suites at Hydro. The children's aid society could have used that. They had $15 million for the symbolic gesture of bilingual road signs, but they could have given that money to children's aid societies.

That's my point, that's why there's a late show, and I wish the minister was here today to hear these comments.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired. The Minister of Community and Social Services not being present in the chamber, I will now recognize the member for Leeds-Grenville, who has up to five minutes to present his arguments.

1810

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I want at the outset to acknowledge the presence of the Solicitor General and thank him for appearing here, unlike the Minister of Community and Social Services.

I raised a question in the House earlier today about rumours -- and I certainly identified them as rumours -- that were circulating among the policing community in respect to the possibility of plans within this government, within the Ministry of the Solicitor General and within the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board in terms of a contemplated response to the work action of Metro police officers who are not wearing their hats and not wearing badges -- and are certainly in no way, shape or form, in my view, jeopardizing public safety.

But the rumours that were circulating dealt with contingencies, if you will, to respond to a decision that will be taken by the police association this Sunday following a general meeting on whether to continue with their job action, escalate it or to go back to work. All they're looking for is a meeting, simply a meeting, with the Solicitor General and the Premier to discuss the regulatory changes this government has imposed upon them, but up to this point they have been unable to reach an agreement with the government to sit down and talk to them about their concerns, very legitimate and valid concerns.

The rumours of course deal with the fact that the government is prepared to bring in the OPP, the RCMP and the military to police Metro Toronto and in effect lock out officers, because of its concern about what we refer to as the blue flu, that a great many officers are simply going to book off work and the only way the government can respond to this is to bring in the military, the RCMP and the OPP.

Backing up some of these rumours was the fact that senior officers were advised and the OPP have been told that all leaves and vacations have been cancelled indefinitely. We were also advised that the meeting scheduled for this evening with the Ontario Provincial Police Association was put on hold, and individuals who were expecting to attend were told to be prepared to attend on a minute's notice, if you will.

Those are the kinds of concerns that came to me at the last minute. We're going to break for the weekend. These kinds of decisions could be taken while the House is not sitting, so I felt it was important to raise the issue with the the minister while he was here before we took the break for the weekend. His response was simply, "No accuracy, no truth to that at all."

I felt, as those concerns were so widespread within the police community, and within the media as well, I might point out, that we were owed, the people of this province were owed, certainly the police of this province, specifically Metro Toronto police, were owed and the citizens of Metro were owed a full and complete response in respect to this concern that's now circulating.

There's a great deal of frustration out there among police officers across this province, but especially in Metro Toronto because they've had to bear the brunt of this government's treatment of police in a negative sense. We've seen the appointment of Susan Eng as the chairperson of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board. Her approach to policing has not been very supportive.

We've seen the Attorney General intervene in the Brian Rapson case, where a preliminary inquiry said there was no reason to proceed. The Attorney General under political pressure intervened with a preferred indictment, with a charge of manslaughter against this constable. He was subsequently found not guilty, but the pressure this government placed on that man and his family certainly sent out a clear signal about this government's priorities and where it's coming from.

Then we saw Constable Robert Rice involved in a shooting while he was chasing a suspected drug dealer through an alley; stopped this man and, confronted with a knife, drew his revolver and this man was shot down. It was later found out that he was not only carrying the knife, he was carrying three phoney IDs and was an illegal immigrant.

Yet we had a very quick meeting with vocal anti-police interest groups. The Premier was prepared to meet them on a weekend, and came out of that meeting and made very derogatory comments about policemen and policewomen in general, said there's a disturbing pattern of violence against blacks. No proof whatsoever; in fact, it's dead wrong, a smear against all police officers in Metropolitan Toronto. The facts are that there were 59 police shootings between January 1980 and May 1992; 12 blacks were shot by police and 47 whites. That's the sort of thing the Premier of this province was doing.

Later, the parliamentary assistant to the Premier came out and said at a public forum, "Police can identify us when they want to shoot us" or people in this province. Again, the police were very much concerned, and what did the Premier do when I raised that issue in the House? He got up and defended his parliamentary assistant for those comments; no apology to the policemen and policewomen who are out there on the line defending and protecting all of us on a daily basis.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Solicitor General has up to five minutes for his response.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): The member for Leeds-Grenville raised certain questions and assertions this afternoon. I believed that they deserved no better than a very brief answer, so I gave him a very brief answer.

I wish I could say I was happy to be at this late show after being compelled to be here by the member for Leeds-Grenville, but unfortunately I cannot say I'm happy to be here, because I am now late for another meeting which the member opposite insinuated was cancelled.

In the member's question earlier today he made three assertions. I'd like to deal quickly with each one of them.

The member stated that as of today all OPP senior staff had their vacations cancelled. The member is totally and completely wrong. I have been assured by the Ontario Provincial Police that this is absolutely false.

Secondly, the member stated that a meeting this evening with the OPP union had been put on hold. Once again, the member is totally and completely wrong. The members of the OPP union are probably sitting in my boardroom as we speak, waiting for me to arrive for the meeting.

Thirdly, the member stated that the government is prepared to lock out Metropolitan Toronto Police officers. This time, the member is not only totally and completely wrong; he is also totally and completely out to lunch. This is an absurd assertion. I question that member's judgement that he would repeat such a statement, if in fact he didn't make it up himself.

My answer today in the House was totally accurate. The information that the member opposite had was not correct when he asked the question and it isn't correct now. I must cut my statement short, however, because, contrary to the statement by the member opposite, I have a meeting with the officials of the OPP in my office.

The Speaker: There being no further matters to be debated, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock Monday next.

The House adjourned at 1817.