Journal des débats 1993-oct-13 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased and proud to stand in my place today and repeat remarks I made almost exactly one year ago. I would like to congratulate the world champion Toronto Blue Jays on their American League Championship pennant.

In true Blue Jays fashion, the Jays captured the American League Championship last night with a 6-3 victory in Chicago.

As soon as Devon White hit that home run in the top of the ninth inning, I knew we were going to the big show. Joe Carter reinforced my feelings, making it official as he made the final out in the bottom of the ninth. I know thousands of Blue Jays fans let out a huge sigh of relief as soon as Carter made that catch.

Toronto is a city of winners, and the Blue Jays have reinforced that once again.

Blue Jays fans are also true winners. Last night we saw people pour out on to Yonge Street to celebrate, not only without creating any problems but with enthusiasm, which is a tradition in this city.

I would say good luck to the Blue Jays. They now have a chance to repeat the World Series, a feat which has not been accomplished in over a decade: the winning of a second World Series. As we wish them good luck, no matter who they play, whether it's Philadelphia or Atlanta, we believe they're going to come out on top.

On behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole and the rest of the people of Ontario who are cheering the Blue Jays on to success, we know they're fantastic and we know they're going to try their very best to make it two in a row.

BUSINESS IN ONTARIO

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Our Mike Harris task force on cutting red tape and growing small business has met with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Urban Development Institute. Problems associated with government regulations and paper burden impact on all businesses, large and small, from all sectors in the economy. Governments should be sensitive to the fact that more regulations hit smaller firms first. Alongside taxes, government regulations and paper burden are viewed as a major barrier to entrepreneurship, new business growth and expansion. This means it negatively impacts on job creation and Ontario's competitiveness. This is especially concerning in light of the fact that over the past decade businesses with fewer than 50 employees account for 85% of the job creation in Ontario. During the same period, small and medium-sized firms accounted for about one third of the total research and development expenditures in Canada.

Our task force has received many positive suggestions, and our party believes and realizes that regulatory relief will do more to free up entrepreneurial spirit and activity than any government make-work projects. I call on this government to lighten the regulatory load in a meaningful way.

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I'd like to inform the House about something that is happening in my constituency and, incidentally, happening in many constituencies across the province. As you are aware, the government now has a new way of doing business in communities across the province, and that new way is called Jobs Ontario Community Action.

But I'm going to speak to you today not about the policy and reasons behind it, but to let the House know about the MPP challenge associated with this program. This is a non-partisan initiative on the part of MPPs. In Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, I am planning to meet with community leaders and interested people to tell them about Jobs Ontario Community Action. I know that at least seven of my colleagues have already done this, and I would like to encourage all of the members of this House to get out into their communities and organize meetings.

There are a number of worthy ideas and projects in the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. There are some items the community needs, and perhaps people have not been able to find the mechanism to find the private or public dollars to put it together. I'm sure every member of this House can think of something in their riding. As MPPs, we can help facilitate this process by bringing community leaders and groups together.

During constituency week, we will all be at home working in our communities, and during this time we can help by exchanging information with our constituents about how they can help their communities through Jobs Ontario Community Action. The MPP challenge is one way we can all reach out to groups of like-minded constituents who have an idea. This is an opportunity for all of us to play the role of providing political leadership in a non-partisan way as information providers. I encourage all MPPs to participate in the MPP challenge by organizing an information session during constituency week in November.

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I'd like to bring the attention of the House to a very extraordinary event that occurred in the riding of Bruce. In September last, we had the opportunity to host the International Plowing Match for 1993 and there had to be many firsts recognized in the presentation of this great agricultural exhibition to the public.

First, over 150,000 people paid attendance to see the sight and all of the events that were taking place there. That is a new record for attendance at a plowing match in Ontario. While there are a number of people who stand in place as being prominent in making it successful, Jack Cummings, who headed up the local committee, must be given a special round of applause. Indeed, so should Nellie Johnston, who was the first female mayor of the tented city and who acquitted herself quite well in this year's version, the 1993 effort.

There were several other firsts: the Machine in Motion display was an impressive modern-day exhibition of harvesting of crops, spurred on by a whole series of antique demonstrations, including Dan MacDonald's Clydesdales on the treadmill and others working the horsepower-driven thrashing machines. That caused many people to stop and spend more time at the match than otherwise would have been possible.

At the same time, we were happy to invite the Premier, and he attended and gave brief remarks at the opening ceremony, as did Kim Campbell. I think for all of us the most significant first was the fact that the leader of the third party, Mr Harris, actually was seen shaking hands and standing side by side with the federal Progressive Conservative leader, the Prime Minister of the country, Kim Campbell.

1340

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I rise today to bring to the attention of the Legislative Assembly a recent court order concerning the Heritage Front and its hate hotline. Federal Court Justice Marcel Joyal ordered that the ban on the hate messages contained within the organization's recruitment hotline had been broadened. Mr Justice Joyal ruled that the hotline contained "clear elements of racism" that "foment disruption, disunity and untoward fears."

The establishment of a hate hotline for recruitment purposes by the Heritage Front is an example of the extent to which white supremacists are willing to go in order to spread their vile message.

Hate activities present a very real threat to our society and its values. They undermine the dignity and self-worth of us all. People subjected to hatred because of race suffer fear, humiliation, and a loss of self-esteem. As legislators, we must do everything within our power to stop this form of persecution that is intolerable in a just and civilized society.

Tomorrow my private member's bill, an Act to Protect the Civil Rights of Persons in Ontario, will be called for second reading. This legislation provides the victims of hate with the opportunity of having redress against those who, by fear and intimidation, would interfere with their basic freedoms.

I invite all members of the Legislative Assembly to work with me in the passage of this anti-hate legislation so that we can take a positive step forward in the fight against racism in Ontario.

GOOD NEIGHBOURS

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): As we know, this week is recognized and celebrated as Good Neighbours Week. The concept of Good Neighbours is to encourage ideas and responses that will help individuals to live independently in their own communities. Within the last two years, over 40 Ontario communities have launched campaigns to generate public awareness and promote this idea.

In the riding of Cochrane North, Kapuskasing is one community in particular which has taken the initiative to build on existing goodwill of individuals who volunteer their time to help others. These people are what we refer to as Good Neighbours, people who are concerned about the wellbeing of others. Good Neighbours reach out to help someone in a crisis, or to assist with simpler things, like running errands or visiting a neighbour who is isolated. Organized Good Neighbours programs could involve anything from workshops for renewing driving skills and crime-proofing homes to shovelling snow for seniors.

To live in a friendly and caring neighbourhood is an important part of the whole community spirit of Good Neighbours. There's certainly a role for all citizens in the achievement of this.

On behalf of the citizens of Kapuskasing I would like to thank those who have given of themselves to enhance the quality of life for others.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Today is National Students' Day, but in NDP Ontario there is no reason to celebrate for our young people. In fact, Bob Rae is doing to the students what he accuses the federal government of doing to the province: He is shifting the province's debt load off his own books and on to the students of Ontario. He is mortgaging the future of our young people.

Last week, there was an ominous notice in the Financial Post. It said, "Ontario university students face huge increases in their debts almost a year after the provincial government abolished its student grant program...." More than 150,000 students have borrowed almost $800 million in 1993-94 under the Ontario student assistance program.

This figure shows clearly that once again Bob Rae is shifting debt on to other people to make himself look good. We see the same pattern with Bill 17, the capital corporations act. This act will shift millions of expenditures suddenly on to somebody else's books to make the province look good. It's a sad day indeed when the New Democratic Party is following the federal Tory lead: Let others pay so as to make yourself and your own books look good.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): The Minister of Environment and Energy announced last April that the 3R draft regulations affiliated with Bill 143 would become law in August. The new regulations will affect municipalities by requiring blue box recycling, leaf and yard waste composting and home composting programs for all municipalities with a population greater than 5,000. Large industrial, commercial and institutional waste generators will be required to institute annual waste audits, waste reduction work plans and recycling programs. This will include hospitals, schools and many businesses, all of whom have been hit hard by the government cuts to their transfer payments and higher taxes, courtesy of this government.

We are now two months past the announced deadline, with no indication from the minister when a decision will be made. The minister announced these regulations with great fanfare last April, saying they would provide jobs for Ontarians as well as moving the government closer to the 50% reduction target it has set for the province for the year 2000.

Municipalities and companies are waiting for the minister's announcements to make the regulations law before they go ahead with fulfilling the requirements. They would like to be assured there are no last-minute changes being planned and to receive clarification on some of the specifics of the 3R regulations.

In this economic climate, it is understandable that few municipalities and companies are moving ahead with these regulations without some indication from the Ministry of Environment and Energy that it does not intend to further modify the existing changes.

CASTLE KILBRIDE

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today to inform the members of this Legislature about a group in my riding known as the Friends of Castle Kilbride, and their project.

Castle Kilbride was built in 1877 and was a showplace for the area. The stately home is Italianate in design and maintains many original features in its rooms even today. Castle Kilbride is a part of our heritage, and the people of Wilmot township and surrounding areas have shown a commitment to preserving that heritage.

After years of neglect, Mayor Lynn Meyers put into motion an ambitious plan for the town to purchase Castle Kilbride. Now, through joint efforts between individuals, community groups, business, industry and several layers of government, plans for the preservation, repair and restoration of the castle are under way.

Wilmot township receives funding through Jobs Ontario Community Action towards the restoration of Castle Kilbride. This project expands the castle's tourism potential as a major local attraction.

The township will also be relocating the municipal offices and council chambers to Castle Kilbride. Upon completion, the castle will be open to the public and will be available for meetings and special functions.

The Friends of Castle Kilbride have currently undertaken many creative and ambitious fund-raising ideas. The official launch took place on October 3 and was a success, with over 700 individuals in attendance.

You may be wondering who the Friends of Castle Kilbride are. They include everyone who shares a concern for an important historic treasure and is willing to work towards ensuring its future. The contribution and involvement of every person interested in saving and celebrating our heritage is encouraged. There cannot be too many Friends of Castle Kilbride, and we thank every one of you.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Members on all sides of the House are aware of the efforts of this government and its partners in business, labour and communities to create jobs and put Ontario back to work.

One of the keys to economic renewal is trade. Ontario has a trading economy. Fully one third of the jobs in this province depend in some way on trade, and Ontario is a firm supporter of trade policies that promote economic renewal and job creation. That's why we're making great efforts to expand trade.

Last week, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade informed the House of work undertaken to develop Ontario's international strategy. For example, the minister spoke of the government's effective use of travel and telecommunications, the opening of an office of the Canadian Exporters' Association within the offices of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, and programs such as the Ontario Innovation and Productivity Service, which helps Ontario companies develop their international capabilities and export readiness. But in undertaking these efforts, we realize that most of the trade policy decisions that affect Ontario are made by the federal government. That is where our problems begin.

Le gouvernement fédéral a mis en place des accords commerciaux et des politiques économiques qui ont occasionné de grandes difficultés financières à notre province. Les membres de l'Assemblée ne savent que trop bien le prix que ces mesures ont coûté à la population ontarienne. Des dizaines de milliers d'emplois ont été perdus, littéralement, par suite de l'accord de libre-échange, de la taxe sur les produits et services et de la politique monétaire rigide du gouvernement conservateur.

These policies, combined with the global economic downturn, have done serious damage to Ontario's economy. At the same time, the federal government has neglected its responsibility to put in place adequate adjustment programs to help people cope with lost jobs, permanent plant closures and a recession. The effects are still with us today.

1350

Now the federal government has rammed through another harmful trade deal, the North American free trade agreement, which will govern trade between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Our government opposes NAFTA because we believe it will only add to the harm done to Ontario by the original free trade agreement.

I would like to list some of the major flaws in NAFTA and the actions we will be taking to try to deal with them.

Ontarians have expressed concern about the effect that NAFTA will have on Canadians' control over water resources. Many environmentalists and trade experts dismiss the federal government's claim that Canada's water resources are not for sale. Therefore, this government will introduce legislation that will safeguard Ontario's water resources from NAFTA. The new legislation will control the transfer of water and will include an outright prohibition of large-scale transfers of water out of, into, or between Ontario's seven drainage basins. It will also bring small-scale water transfers under much more stringent regulation by the crown.

Our second and third actions concern energy supply.

The "energy proportionality" clause in the FTA and now NAFTA limits the ability of Canadians to restrict energy exports and to protect our energy security in times of shortage. It also guarantees the US access to Canadian energy supplies, undermining Ontario's energy security. This is compounded by the fact that Mexico avoided giving any similar commitment to energy-sharing in NAFTA. Mexico insisted upon and got a better deal than Canada.

Therefore, the Minister of Environment and Energy will contact his federal counterpart to demand National Energy Board hearings on the effects of the FTA and NAFTA on Ontario's security of energy supply. NEB hearings will highlight these problems and provide people with an opportunity to voice concerns on this issue.

In addition, the Minister of Environment and Energy will introduce shortly amendments to the Power Corporation Act to ensure that any electricity exports from Ontario will be allowed only after the needs of Ontario and other Canadian customers are met, despite the provisions of NAFTA.

Our fourth measure addresses a phenomenon called "social dumping," which Ontario considers to be another direct threat to jobs in Ontario. Poor labour laws, low wages, weak environmental standards and lax enforcement are means by which governments create an unfair advantage for their exports and undermine business and workers in Ontario.

Social dumping distorts trade and investment patterns. It is a form of competition that unfairly threatens jobs in Ontario. Businesses are tempted to locate where environmental and labour standards are lower, forcing workers in Ontario to compete for jobs against artificially low standards in other jurisdictions. The NAFTA side agreements on labour and the environment are so weak -- so weak -- that they do not effectively address these problems. However, Canadian trade law may possibly offer a means of combating the unfair competition that results from social dumping.

Le Canada est doté d'un système de protection contre la concurrence injuste résultant de l'octroi de subventions de la part de pays étrangers. Ce système est administré par Revenu Canada et le Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur. Le «dumping social» est une forme de concurrence injuste. Une affaire de «dumping social», si l'on a gain de cause, pourrait mettre en lumière des pratiques injustes de la part de gouvernements étrangers, entraîner des sanctions substantielles et établir des moyens de faire face à ce problème.

Therefore, the government will work with partners in industry, labour and cooperatives, and offer financial support to present a social dumping complaint to Revenue Canada and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

Our fifth action deals with the fact that NAFTA restricts the use of performance requirements to promote economic development.

The Ontario green industry strategy is designed to support Ontario's suppliers in the growing field of environmental technologies, which is projected to be a $500-billion-per-year worldwide market within a few years. Green industries are precisely the kind of high-growth and high-value-added enterprises that Ontario hopes will provide jobs in the future.

Ontario's green technology program currently uses selected performance requirements to ensure that the province and Ontario taxpayers benefit from spending under these programs; for example, by requiring that research and development supported by such programs is carried out in the province. Therefore, Ontario will increase its support of green environmental industries by introducing new performance requirements for domestic sourcing and technology transfers.

Finally, NAFTA represents a significant expansion of the free trade agreement in terms of its impact on the capacity of this government -- indeed, of any government -- to respond to legitimate aspirations of Ontarians. It constrains the development of economic and social policy more than the free trade agreement. Ontarians told the Ontario cabinet committee on NAFTA that they fear this further erosion of provincial jurisdiction caused by federal trade deals.

The Ontario government has decided to challenge NAFTA through a legal reference to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Ontario's decision to challenge NAFTA in court is based on a careful review of the issues. This government believes that NAFTA violates the division of powers in the Canadian Constitution. The federal government is exceeding its jurisdiction. It is using a trade negotiation to intrude directly into important areas of provincial jurisdiction. The court challenge seeks to preserve the powers of provincial governments to act in the interests of their citizens.

The measures I have announced today endeavour to address the features of NAFTA that concern Ontarians most. This conclusion is based not only on the advice and analysis of experts, but also on the messages delivered directly by the people of Ontario. In public hearings last spring, witnesses from every region of the province urged the cabinet committee on NAFTA to use every means to resist it. Since then, public opposition to NAFTA has remained strong in Ontario, and a large majority of the population now fears and opposes it.

The people of Ontario understand that trade is essential to jobs and the revitalization of our province's economy, but they also understand that NAFTA does not represent a sound basis for Ontario's economic future. They know that they need not choose between bad free trade deals and no trade at all. Although we may not agree with all the aspects of the Uruguay round, Ontario favours the multilateral approach through the GATT and Ontario is hopeful of a successful conclusion to this round. We will continue to pursue and promote international trade and investment and we will continue to safeguard the interests of the people of Ontario.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): If I was a cynic, I would think this was a real intrusion by the Premier into the national election campaign. If I can quote from an article that appeared in the Star on October 2, it says, "Federal New Democratic Party leader Audrey McLaughlin, engaged in a life and death struggle for her party's very survival, has made opposition to NAFTA a cornerstone of her campaign."

What we have is the national leader announcing prior to the election that she would go to Mexico to highlight the problems that were there and to highlight the effect NAFTA would have on Canadians. She obviously has had second thoughts and has decided not to go, but the Premier somehow has not got the message and is using this opportunity to flog a horse that is already dead, if I can use that analogy.

The Premier makes great note of the fact that he's going to introduce legislation that will safeguard Ontario's water resources from NAFTA. He should know, if he was in the House right after the FTA was enacted, that we passed that legislation. That legislation is there and the legislation dealing with energy is already there.

Hon Mr Rae: Have you read it?

Mr Kwinter: I have read it and I can tell you that it is there.

The other thing is that when he talks about social dumping, there is a total unawareness on the part of the Premier as to what is happening in the real world. If low labour costs were the only criterion, Haiti would be the industrial capital of the world. There is more to business and there's more to international trade than just those issues that he has brought up.

1400

I would also like to tell the Premier that I think he's doing the people of Ontario a disservice by wasting, and I use the word advisedly, money on a challenge and a legal reference to the Ontario Court of Appeal. It is estimated that you're going to spend $300,000 on an exercise that is doomed from the beginning. You haven't a hope of changing what is going to happen, because the trade deal is in the federal jurisdiction.

But I also want to ask the Premier this question: If not NAFTA, what does he think is going to happen to trade between Mexico and Canada? There is nothing to preclude Mexico from trading with Canada right now: 80% of the trade between Canada and Mexico is now tariff-free. The point is that to suggest that NAFTA is going to stop any of the abuses he is concerned about is absurd, and his opposition to it is not going to help anything.

I should tell you that GATT and NAFTA are not mutually exclusive. Mexico and Canada are both signatories to GATT. The Uruguay round provides various protections, and we do have the ability to challenge that.

So I would suggest, Mr Premier, that this is crass political posturing. That is all that it is. You are making a statement that is meant to try to calm Ontario's fears of NAFTA, and it is not going to do any of those things because the provisions you have put forward are meaningless. They have no relationship to fact, they have no ability to change anything and I would suggest that you would be far better off spending your efforts on making Ontario far more competitive.

We've had recent instances of BMW going to Kentucky, we have Mercedes-Benz going to Alabama, we have Audi deciding not to come to Ontario at this point and you are out there flailing away at situations where you have no chance of having any impact when you should be spending your time getting Ontarians back to work, getting the climate in Ontario to the point where we're attracting investment and putting your efforts to more productive use than what you're doing now.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I too want to comment on the Premier's statement. I think the member for Wilson Heights has correctly zeroed in on the reason why we have this statement today, and two weeks from now this will all go by the by and we won't hear anything more about it.

First, when I read the statement and I read the part about social dumping, I thought it was a typo. I thought he meant "socialist dumping," and quite frankly we don't need legislation for socialist dumping because that's what's happening all across this country, including right here in Ontario, due to the natural laws of the election that's taking place on the national scene.

However, I read further and I found out that it wasn't a typo. You actually want to take Ontario taxpayer dollars and you want to give the money, in a make-work project, to a whole bunch of NDP-Liberal, left-leaning, vested-interest consulting groups to prepare cases to lay a complaint to Revenue Canada, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. If ever there is an exercise in futility and a waste of taxpayer dollars, this will be it.

I also noticed, in the Premier's efforts to justify, I suppose, what he's doing, there was a kind of innocent-looking statement on page 1 and it says this, quoting the Premier, "But in undertaking these efforts, we realize that most of the trade policy decisions that affect Ontario are made by the federal government." All I want to say on that is: Thank goodness, whoever the federal government is, these decisions aren't provincial decisions, because that would have been another area that you and your cronies could have fouled up for the province of Ontario. The fact of the matter is that you have mismanaged virtually every issue that you have responsibility for; in investment decisions and job decisions, the factors that you can control, you have put them to every disadvantage for investment and for jobs in Ontario. All I can say is, thank goodness you don't have jurisdiction over the area of international trade, because you would have fouled that up as well.

Further, I am in one sense pleased that the Premier made this statement today, because I, in responding to the statement, also want to bring to the Speaker's attention the recent newsletter. I have in writing today to the Speaker to call for an investigation into abuse of Ontario taxpayer dollars, the flagrant abuse by the Premier himself in the newsletter he has sent out to all his constituents, that has nothing to do with Ontario, that is a federal election campaign piece, Bob Rae and the Ontario New Democratic Party, "Look at what happened under the federal Conservatives," he said. This is paid for with provincial tax dollars.

As well, as part of this package, going out in the middle of a federal election to your constituents, we have statements such as: "As you know, the federal Conservative government" -- in the middle of a federal election -- "the federal and provincial Tories," he says, "support NAFTA. The federal Liberals won't say clearly where they stand on this issue." Bob Rae says, paid for by provincial tax dollars on his franking privilege, about what's happening in Ontario, Bob Rae says to his constituents, "We need a federal government that understands the needs of Ontario."

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): All right, stop the clock.

The Speaker: Very helpful. Would you reset the clock at 30 seconds, and the leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: In addition to the $300,000 of taxpayer money you wasted on the cabinet committee, in addition to the $80,000 of Ontario taxpayer money you wasted on this video about free trade, a federal issue -- I am writing today and asking you, Mr Speaker, to investigate the violation of the spending rules of the province of Ontario with this franking literature that he sent out.

Interjections.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You go tell that to the people out of work.

The Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr Harris: I am also writing to ask for an investigation of the Premier's violation of the federal election expenses act.

The Speaker: It is time for oral questions.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I think we'd asked, Mr Speaker, for unanimous consent to pay respect to Dr Wilson Head, and I think we had unanimous consent on that.

The Speaker: We have unanimous agreement? Agreed.

1410

WILSON HEAD

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Today I rise on behalf of my party, the Ontario Liberal Party, and I'm sure on behalf of my colleagues here, to pay respect to the late Dr Wilson Head, a man of outstanding integrity and courage.

I knew Dr Wilson Head personally for over 20 years. As an associate professor at York University for many years, it is his avid students who exalt him highly, fondly reminiscing about his inspiring lectures, complemented by stimulating class interaction. He challenged us and many of the students. He challenged their thought and also taught them how to think.

Wilson Head was undoubtedly one of Canada's most outstanding race relations pioneers. He was instrumental in placing racism on the public agenda, especially at a time when Canadians even doubted that racism existed in this society. His fight to eradicate racism culminated in the establishment of the National Black Coalition of Canada and later the Urban Alliance on Race Relations. Through these organizations over the years, he spearheaded efforts to heighten the awareness of racism and bring the black community closer together. More recently he advocated a global approach to our problems, an approach which allows us to take the struggle for equity further.

Despite the growing tensions in urban race relations in recent years, Wilson Head never wavered, nor did he at any time become disillusioned. He is described by friends as "a visionary and a realist...with a vision of the world as it should be, but knew the world as it was." I quote from Kamela Jean Gopies, who stated that. She spoke on behalf of Dr Wilson Head with such compassion.

Wilson Head also emphasized the importance for us to be committed to the struggle, for without careful monitoring and education, social justice, he said, will slip away from us.

He will be remembered as an individual who has contributed to make the country a better place for all of us, whether we are black or whether we are white, Jew or Gentile, whether we are Muslim or Hindu.

A memorial service will take place November 13 in the senate chamber at York University. That university has set up a scholarship in his name to help support an undergraduate student studying race relations. May God rest his soul in peace.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus, I too want to pay tribute to Wilson Head today. I know much has been written and much has been said and will be said about his academic and community work. Wilson too was a family man who, like so many others from around the world, came to this great country and to this great province in search of new hope and opportunity. On overwhelming balance, he found it here in Ontario, Canada.

Wilson Head also found that along with the tremendous blessings that this country had to offer its citizens came a responsibility to return something back. That's why Wilson Head, a university professor, a social worker, a community activist and a black man, took up the cause of race relations. Wilson was a pioneer in terms of putting race relations in Canada on the public agenda. He was a prime mover in terms of fighting for racial harmony and equality of opportunity in this country. He met quietly but most effectively -- all of those whom he met with will tell you -- with bankers, with newspaper editors, with cabinet ministers and with others to get his message out.

In 1975 Wilson Head founded a multiracial advocacy group in Toronto, the Urban Alliance on Race Relations. Some have called him a pragmatist, others a visionary, and surely, in many ways, he was both. His many and valuable contributions to his adopted country surely serve as a lasting tribute to the work and to the life of a great Canadian.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I rise on behalf of the NDP caucus, and it's my honour to pay tribute to Wilson Head and to remember a great pioneer, a community leader, an advocate, an activist and a person who struggled for racial justice his entire life.

That struggle started in his own home country of the United States. With that struggle, he looked for a place that he could call home, a place that he could raise his family to make sure that they had a better life. We are pleased that he chose Ontario when he chose Canada to come to, to fulfil his moments of fighting for a better and just society.

In those struggles and in those ways of trying to make this a better place to live, he was a member of many organizations, an organization for world peace, and through religion and through the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, he found an outlet for trying to bring about that peace and justice we all strive for. But he saw there was a need in Ontario and in Canada, unfortunately, to look at how racism and discrimination also were raising their ugly heads in this wonderful new place he called his home, so he founded and became the first president of the Urban Alliance on Race Relations and was a member for 16 years.

Although unfortunately he had a struggle with cancer, he still considered that his work was vital and that he must end racism and that he must be on the forefront. I was very pleased, when we celebrated United Nations Day, which is committed to ending racism, in Nathan Phillips Square last March 21, that Wilson Head came on a very cold and blustery, rainy day. He spoke to the audience that was there in Nathan Phillips Square about the struggles that he had faced for the last several years and that he saw were still needed in Ontario and in Canada. He asked the audience to do the struggle in peace and to look for a way of ending racism and disharmony in ways that would bring about a different society in a way that was peaceful.

Yes, he was a visionary, he was a pragmatist and he was a realist, but he also was a friend. He was a friend to many different people. My colleague Zanana Akande spoke in this House yesterday about his contributions to our society and to how we will miss him. If we are to commemorate his memory and if we are to make sure that he is not forgotten, the thing that all of us in this place and in this House and in our society can do is to continue the work that Wilson Head started, to continue the struggle and to make sure that racism and discrimination are completely ended in our society and in this province of Ontario. I know we all share the efforts that he made, and want to make this a better place for our families as well.

To his family, to his wife, his children and his grandchildren we send our heartfelt sorrow and say we will try to honour his memory in a way that he would want us to, and that is to work hard to end racism.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The kind and thoughtful comments by the honourable member for Scarborough North, the leader of the third party and the Minister of Citizenship will be sent to the family of Dr Wilson Head.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Premier. It regards recent media reports that family members of the Somali warlord, General Aideed, are in fact receiving welfare benefits in the province of Ontario. I know the Premier is aware of this, as he said yesterday that it was important that these people be treated fairly, and I agree with him. However, I also believe that the people of Ontario have a right to know that their tax dollars are being used appropriately.

It has been reported that Khadiga Gurhan continued to receive welfare benefits while she was on an extended trip home to Somalia. For many people in Ontario, this is particularly disturbing. At a time when every tax dollar is precious, these kinds of stories, I can tell you, make people's blood boil. The fact that Ms Gurhan could afford a $2,000 ticket to Somalia indicates that she may have other means of support. You have the authority to launch an investigation where there is evidence that a social assistance recipient is either no longer eligible or never was eligible. I'm assuming that you have launched an investigation and ask you, Premier, to please indicate to us what you have found as a result of your investigation.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'd refer that to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the question. I think the member will appreciate as well that whenever any issue like this is raised, we have a responsibility, as I think the Premier has indicated publicly as well, to be fair to all individuals concerned.

I can tell her without commenting, and I hope she will appreciate my inability to comment on the specific situation, that the policy we follow in these issues is that whenever there are allegations of this nature that are made against any individual, that information is passed on, if it hasn't already been passed on, to the appropriate officials in the ministry, and that matter is then dealt with in terms of whether there is a need for an investigation to take place. That is done, and those actions are done as a matter of course. That is certainly what would happen in any circumstance such as the one she's described.

1420

Mrs Caplan: To the minister, this is not a question of "a matter of course." I'm frankly surprised and appalled to hear that there has been no specific investigation that has begun. There is clear evidence that Ms Gurhan may not have been eligible for social assistance. The Family Benefits Act gives social workers and the minister clear authority and responsibility to ensure that any person receiving social assistance is eligible.

You are the guardian of the taxpayers' dollars in this province, and it's obvious from Ms Gurhan's own words that there may be a question as to eligibility. The people of Ontario have a right to know that the welfare system is not being abused, and you, sir, have a responsibility to act. I'm asking you if you will launch an investigation and if you will guarantee us today that the results of that investigation will be made public.

Hon Mr Silipo: What I was trying to remind the member of, as I'm sure she would well know, is that there is legislation in this province, including the freedom of information legislation, which prevents me and any other minister from responding specifically to individual situations of this kind.

What I was also trying to explain to the member was to assure her that we take our responsibilities quite seriously, and whenever issues such as this one are raised with us, we ensure that the appropriate course of action is taken. That is certainly what would be happening in this instance, as it would be happening in all other instances.

Mrs Caplan: Unlike the Tories, the Liberal caucus has never been understanding about people who would abuse the welfare system. I want to know from you today, is there an investigation? When will the results be complete? Will the heavily burdened taxpayers in this province have the information on this particular case, and will you commit to us today to make that public? Questions: Is there an investigation? When will it be completed? Will you give us that information?

Hon Mr Silipo: Either I'm not being very clear or, I suspect, the member opposite doesn't really like the answer I'm giving her and therefore is persisting in a line of questioning which she knows places me, as a minister, in a position where I can't give her the direct answer. If there is an investigation going on, I'm not at liberty to say that there is or there isn't, and I'm not at liberty to indicate to the member that there would be a public statement made by me or anybody else at some future point indicating what might happen. Things ensue in the normal course of looking after these issues.

I can assure her, however, that issues like this are treated very seriously. We take very seriously our responsibility to ensure that in the area of social assistance, the funds and the benefits are provided to those people who need them, and therefore issues of abuse are treated very seriously. Therefore, I can assure her that issues like this are treated quite seriously.

In fact, I could say to her that we are looking in a more general way at what things we need to do in the system, beyond the measures that are already in place, to ensure to an even greater degree that the funds we spend in the social assistance area are being spent in the wisest way possible. But I can assure her that these issues are taken quite seriously.

BUSINESS PRACTICES

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, you no doubt saw and heard the demonstration this morning by Pizza Pizza franchise owners outside this Legislature.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You raised this a couple of weeks ago.

Mr Mahoney: I did raise this a couple of weeks ago. They're protesting unfair treatment by the Pizza Pizza head office, which they have been battling for months. Their allegations include the squandering of about $8.5 million of franchisees' money on lavish things like parties and trips to Puerto Rico. Now, 52 of these franchisees and their families are being threatened with imminent seizure of their stores. There is seemingly no protection in the province of Ontario for these franchisees. As I said before, it is the wild west of the business world.

I raised this issue originally on September 29 and the Premier said, and I quote from Hansard, "I know the minister will also want to be meeting with the particular people you've mentioned." Yet in the last two weeks, according to the people affected, no such meeting has taken place. Minister, why have you failed to meet with these Pizza Pizza franchisees even though the Premier, two weeks ago, promised that you would?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Officials from my ministry have, over the past several months, met with both sides in the dispute to facilitate communications between both sides. Working with the Canadian Franchise Association, I have scheduled meetings to meet with representatives from various franchise groups, coming up I think in late October or early November. I have in the past not met specifically with this group but with another group made up of representatives from that community who have concerns. As well, of course, a number of members from all sides of the House, including yourself, Jim Wiseman from Durham West and others have raised these concerns with me.

I can't speak specifically about the Pizza Pizza dispute, because as you know, it's before arbitration proceedings at this time.

Mr Mahoney: Broken down; nobody's talking.

Hon Ms Churley: Oh, no, not necessarily.

In general, my ministry is trying to keep both sides together. Legislation at this time, as you know, would not resolve this particular situation. It would be very complex and very lengthy, with a lot of consultation involved. We want to see this arbitration process continue and hope there will be results as a result of that.

Mr Mahoney: I'd like to send you a copy of the Hansard where the Premier says, "I know the minister will also want to be meeting with the particular people you've mentioned." "The minister"; that's you. Maybe I could get a page to take you a copy. I've highlighted it for you so it's easy to read. It doesn't mention officials in your ministry; it mentions you. You're the minister, you've got the limo, the Premier promised you'd meet with them and you haven't done it.

According to the franchisees we spoke to as recently as this morning, the only contact they've had from Queen's Park since September 29 was a letter from my Liberal colleague the member for Oriole. They've heard nothing from you, Minister. In the meantime, the mediation between the parties that you refer to has completely broken down and hostilities are escalating.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Is this a question or is this a speech? If you're going to make a speech, you should at least allow us to have supper first.

Mr Mahoney: You don't care about these people, Minister of Environment and Energy? That's your problem. These small business people are about to lose their businesses, their homes and their life savings because of this ruthless treatment, and your government just sits on its thumbs. In over three years of NDP government, you've done nothing for consumers, for small business people. All we've seen is casino gambling from this minister.

Minister, will you meet with Mr Dave Michael, very specifically, the president of the Southern Ontario Pizza Franchisees' Alliance, today, and see what you can do to help these people before their lives are ruined?

Hon Ms Churley: I already assured the member that I will be meeting very soon with some of the people he's referring to. That's all I can promise. Let me say again that I think there are two different issues being raised here.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Churley: Would you like to come back to your old office? Is that the problem over there?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat.

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: Time's a-wasting.

Hon Ms Churley: Yes, Mr Speaker, time is a-wasting. I want to get back to what I was saying earlier. There are two different issues the member is raising.

1430

If, when the Liberals were in power, they had moved ahead with legislation, possibly the problem we're looking at now wouldn't be happening. The issue is that even if we passed legislation today, it wouldn't resolve this specific problem. That's why I think there have been difficulties in keeping the process that is in place together, but we should work to keep that process in place.

In terms of future legislation, I know the Liberals had looked at it at one time and didn't proceed --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Marilyn, we could have solved this between innings.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Hon Ms Churley: I have looked at the possibility of legislation. There's only legislation in one province in Canada, as I'm sure the members across the floor know, and that legislation is very weak. It's in Alberta. It deals with disclosure --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response.

Hon Ms Churley: Yes, Mr Speaker. It deals with disclosure and it deals with mediation processes which we have in place right now. The whole area, as the member knows, is very complex. It doesn't just deal specifically with Pizza Pizza; it deals with a whole array of franchisees. It has to be looked at very, very carefully.

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Ms Churley: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mahoney: There are two issues. There's the first issue of the 52 franchisees and their families who are going to be put out of business, who are going to lose their life savings. That is a very real human issue that anybody in this province would have thought an NDP government would show some concern for. We see nothing. We hear bafflegab about, why didn't the Liberals do it? You're the minister. The problem is now. Why don't you meet with these people? That's the first issue. You personally and your boss, the Premier, promised you would, and you haven't done it. I ask you on their behalf to do it.

The other issue is this report, which is of the forensic and investigative accounting firm of Lindquist Avey Macdonald Baskerville, a very renowned accounting firm. It's quite a thick report. They have analysed all of the ongoing accusations. They have found that in one example, out of the $8.5 million squandered, $80,000 was paid to Mr Lorne Austin out of the advertising account when they couldn't even justify 50% of that. They've taken trips to Puerto Rico, they've --

The Speaker: And the supplementary?

Mr Mahoney: -- given out free pizzas, all at the expense of these small business people.

We want legislation; we want you to look at that, but more importantly, today we want you to meet with the representatives of the 52 families that are affected, show that you care and try to help them save their businesses and their life savings. Will you commit to do that today?

Hon Ms Churley: I will be meeting shortly with representatives from many of the franchises. In the meantime, I will do everything I can, as we have been doing in the ministry over the past few months, to keep together the process that's in place so that a resolution can be found. I certainly will commit to making sure that process is kept in place and there is a resolution to the problem.

SCHOOL TRUSTEES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. The Ottawa Board of Education trustees recently voted to reduce their number from 18 to 10. Four Metro school boards are also considering a reduction in their numbers. As you know, the number of trustees in any area is determined by the Education Act; therefore, any significant change to that number of the type we hear being talked about -- certainly Ottawa, and we hope Metro is that significant -- will require your approval.

Given the cost savings associated with these proposals, will you amend the Education Act to give the green light to all school boards in this province that wish to cut their numbers of trustees?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): It is my intention to bring in amendments to the Education Act this fall, and one of the sections of the amendment will deal with this exact issue.

Mr Harris: While we're looking at the Education Act and dealing with this, the minister would know that according to the Education Act, until 1989 outgoing school boards couldn't set their own salary. They had to set it for the next board and then defend that increase, if it was an increase, defend that salary level at the next election. That made them accountable to parents and it made them accountable to taxpayers at election time for the remuneration they were to receive, the honorariums.

However, in 1989 the Liberals changed this system to allow school boards to set whatever they wanted to pay themselves, any time, anywhere during that current term, in between elections. As a result, we have seen huge increases at a time when expenditure control programs have been ongoing.

While you are bringing in your changes to the Education Act to allow for a reduced number of trustees, will you also bring an amendment forward this fall, before the next election, to amend the Education Act, back to where it was before the Liberals got hold of it, so we can put an end to this nonsense of trustees voting themselves increases during the current terms?

Hon Mr Cooke: I certainly agree with the member that what the Scarborough Board of Education did -- and I think one of its greatest proponents in the salary increase it took is a trustee by the name of Bill Davis, who used to be a member of the Tory caucus -- was a disservice to all trustees and all school boards across the province, because most trustees have dealt with this whole issue in a very responsible way.

However, the bottom line is that there is an election every three years, and I believe that in a democracy the voters should decide. The voters will reward trustees who unfairly take advantage of their ability to set their salaries by defeating them in the next election. That's the appropriate way for these matters to be dealt with.

Mr Harris: We should have an election every three years around here, Mr Speaker.

However, I would think, Minister, that most parents share my view that the more education dollars we actually spend inside the classroom, the better it is for our children. There are 172 school boards in Ontario and 2,132 trustees. In Metropolitan Toronto alone, there are 112 trustees of nine boards. In fact, we have two layers of school boards. The costs associated with these boards, it is obviously becoming apparent, is money that does not end up directly in the classroom educating our children.

Minister, you're spending millions of dollars on an education commission that you currently have travelling the province. Will your commission be looking into whether this system we have in place, with layer upon layer and the numbers of trustees, is in fact an efficient way to educate our children in 1993?

Hon Mr Cooke: We specifically, in the terms of reference for the royal commission, asked it to take a look at the whole question of governance. That issue will be dealt with.

In the meantime, there are lots of opportunities for school boards to share services between boards that share the same boundaries. If you take a look at the fact-finder's report down in Essex-Windsor that Tom Wells did for us, he identified where literally millions of dollars can be saved by cooperative services between coterminous boards, or boards that share the same boundaries, so there's no need to wait for the commission. Boards can do lots to save taxpayers' money and take money and put it into the classroom. We're encouraging them and working with them to do that now.

1440

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Minister of Housing. Two weeks ago, I raised the example of a government-owned housing project on Waverley Road. You blamed the Liberals, then you blamed the residents, and I think you would agree with me that, in general, you indicated that if you had known everything then, when it was started and through the process, you probably wouldn't have proceeded. That was an unusual example.

Minister, I would like to raise with you 10 Ashdale Avenue. This is not an unusual one. This is typical of all the projects that the Liberals brought in and that you keep pursuing.

Ten Ashdale Avenue was presented to you, and we have the data on 10 Ashdale Avenue here. Purchased for $220,000, it was renovated at a cost of approximately $35,000. With taxes and landscaping, the total cost was $285,695, according to your ministry figures. But this building is for only two apartments. Minister, could you tell me -- never mind the fact that the Liberals started this one too -- do you think it makes sense today to spend over $140,000 for a two-bedroom apartment when we have so many families on waiting lists for affordable housing and so many vacant units sitting here in Toronto waiting for them? Do you think that makes sense?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): What I'm going to do is go back into the Ministry of Housing files and examine what has happened at that particular property and take the opportunity to report later to the Legislature, if I may.

Mr Harris: The minister must be aware of this. This example, I believe, was raised in the estimates during the summertime with the minister. It's very typical of how you're wasting our dollars. My office spoke with the housing firm which runs 10 Ashdale Avenue. There are no special requirements to these units, yet the average monthly subsidy is $1,418 per unit.

Now, listen to what you can rent in the Greenwood-Danforth area for about half of that: "Danforth-Greenwood, $650, two-bedroom, clean, non-smoker units"; "Danforth-Greenwood, two bedrooms, laundry, $800."

Here we have "Coxwell and Queen, luxury two-bedroom, skylight, available November 1 for $780 per month."

These apartments are currently on the market. There are thousands more like them all across this province. You know that. They are renting for about half of what it is costing for 10 Ashdale in Toronto. How can you continue to defend a policy -- even though it was started by another government, you're carrying it on. How can you continue to defend this? It's costing the taxpayers twice as much money as simply giving shelter subsidies to those on waiting lists into existing vacant units here in Toronto.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I think it's important for the leader of the third party to understand that there's a difference between a particular project, which I've told him I'd be glad to check the details on and report back to the Legislature, and a policy.

I'd like to point out to the leader of the third party that even in this instance, which I can't at the moment verify what he is saying in terms of the figures involved, in the arrangements in the non-profit housing program this property will stay at the same cost over 35 years. Can he tell me that the apartments that are now vacant, which he has just cited, will stay at the same cost over 35 years? You bet they won't.

Mr Harris: I'm glad the minister raised that, because Clayton Research Associates, considered to be one of Canada's most respected housing economists, released a study last week on the cost of Ontario government-owned housing built or committed by you and the Liberals. They concluded that even after 35 years, even after the mortgage is paid off, it will cost nearly $100 billion more in the long term for 45,000 government-owned housing units than if we provided shelter allowances for the same number of needy families.

Sorry; that's $1 billion more.

Will you place a moratorium on all of this wasteful spending, this duplication of effort, to build unneeded, unwanted, surplus units at double the cost of what exists in the marketplace in towns and villages and cities all across Ontario until we can get a handle on how we're going to provide twice as many units to twice as many people for the same number of dollars? Will you do that?

Hon Ms Gigantes: If we were to place a moratorium until he gets a handle on this kind of policy, we would never be moving forward at all in this province. He can't keep his billions straight from his millions.

I want to repeat to the leader of the third party that when you make an investment in non-profit housing and you do good land purchase and you do it circumspectly, which the Ministry of Housing is engaged in doing, and when you work out construction costs as the very bottom costs you can pay, which the Ministry of Housing has engaged to do, then you can provide units which remain affordable as a public asset for the use of the public, for public needs in housing over 35 years. That is not what is offered by either the report to which he refers or indeed his easy claims that you can solve the housing needs of Ontario now or in the future by putting in more than the $2.5 billion, the 25% of total rent paid in the private rental market last year. Have you got that? Of the rents that we paid in Ontario, that the public paid, 25% were subsidized through the social assistance system.

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

Hon Ms Gigantes: How much would be enough? Fifty? Seventy-five? It doesn't build any new housing. It doesn't provide an asset for the future.

Mr Harris: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if I could just correct the record. I think I indicated that the difference was $100 billion over 35 years. The Clayton research figure is over 50 years. The difference is $100 billion. That's what they say, and I would like to correct the record.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Documents that were leaked to us a little over a week and a half ago contained a table analysing all proposals received by the government.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr McClelland: Thank you, Speaker.

I was referring to the documents that were leaked and have taken on a bit of a life of their own around this place with respect to the casino project. Those documents contained a table setting out an analysis of the bids or the proposals received by the government with respect to the Windsor casino project. That analysis is the result of a review of the bids by the bureaucrats and experts charged with the responsibility of making a decision. That analysis was also prepared to help them in deciding who would be on the short list.

Minister, I am wondering if you can tell me and other people who are interested why this table includes significant material inaccuracies and errors regarding at least two of the casino proponents. One of those proponents did not make the short list. Can you explain why the equity figures on at least two of the proponents' numbers are out by as much as $50 million?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): As I have mentioned many times in this House, I am not involved in the selection process, so I cannot --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): You're not involved with anything that's involved with your office. Nothing. Zero.

Hon Ms Churley: There you are; you're jealous again that you're not back in your old office.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre is out of order.

Hon Ms Churley: Settle down, settle down. The process that we put in place is a non-political process. I'm sure that if I were to be involved in any way, the members across the way would be complaining that there is political involvement. Let me make it perfectly clear.

Mr Sorbara: That's what Richard Nixon used to say.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre is asked to come to order.

Hon Ms Churley: This process is very important. We're not rewarding any of our old friends, like the parties over there in the past. There's no patronage involved. We have set up a very clear, independent, fair process with respected deputy ministers in charge of the process.

Mr McClelland: Minister, I'm afraid you don't understand the difference between political interference and political responsibility. You are the minister. You have a responsibility and are charged with the responsibility of managing the affairs under your jurisdiction. Minister, you can't keep dodging out of it and saying: "My hands are clean. I don't want to get involved." You are the government and you are in charge.

According to the information we have received, your documents, and they are your ministry's documents, show the Windsor Argosy casino group's having $25 million in equity in its proposal. Their proposal said that they had $75 million in equity. That's a difference of $50 million. Grand Casinos is shown as having $25 million in equity in the chart. Their bid in fact showed that they had $64.6 million. You're out by almost $40 million in that regard; $50 million in one and $40 million in another. Clearly, these material errors would have affected the outcome of the bidding process, and not surprisingly, these groups didn't make the short list.

1450

The integrity of this entire process is now called into question. What do you have to say to the people who were involved not only on this project but on subsequent casino projects? Is your ministry guilty of gross incompetence or worse? Minister, explain the inaccuracies. Your figures are wrong.

Hon Ms Churley: They are not my figures. I am prepared to discuss at any time, as the minister, the process. In fact, when we announced the short list, we made public all the material to the proponents and to the public on the process, and this information was understood by all of the bidders. Naturally, those who didn't make the short list are disappointed, but that does not mean the process was in any way unfair.

He has one draft over there that he is looking at and is helping spur on rumours. I can assure the member that this process has been followed to the letter as to the criteria, very tough criteria, which this government set out. It has been followed to the letter. But let me say again, I will not get involved in the process of the choice in this selection.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member for Mississauga South take her seat. I must caution the member for York Centre: He is causing a disturbance, and if he continues, he will be named. The member for Mississauga South has the floor.

Mrs Marland: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister knows that I have frequently raised the plight of developmentally handicapped youth and their families when these young people turn 21 and are no longer eligible for children's services.

He may also remember responding to a letter from Ms Lois Mercer of Hamilton, whose autistic daughter Shawna is about to turn 21. Shawna presently spends weekdays in a children's group home. However, there are no adult group home openings for her. According to the Hamilton Association for Community Living, its waiting list for adult group homes was closed in 1989. At least 300 adults in Hamilton need a group home placement, but only 91 can be served now. If a group home cannot be found for Shawna, her mother, who is a single parent, will have to quit her job, go on social assistance and stay home to look after her daughter's intensive needs.

Minister, there are thousands of families facing similar dilemmas. My question to you then is, why did you say in your letter to Ms Mercer, "I am confident that with a concerted effort from all the people involved with Shawna, a suitable placement can be found for her"?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I said that in that letter. I don't recall the specifics, but I'm sure that I would have signed a letter to that effect simply on the basis of the process that's to be followed locally with each of those instances in trying to work out locally the level of service.

In a general way, I can tell the member that certainly we know the pressures and the problems there are in this area, which is why, despite the fiscal situation that we're in, I recently announced the fact that we were adding $20 million to the whole area of supporting people with developmental handicaps to live in their own communities, and that both through that and through some of the special services at home we hope to be able to add to the range of services that are available to families such as the one she's described.

Mrs Marland: Mr Minister, I wish you would speak to Lois Mercer. There are fewer things in this House that I feel as passionately about as these young people, and I wish you could feel the same kind of passion. What kind of logic is there in asking this mother to quit her job to go on social assistance to stay home to look after her daughter and care for her because of her special needs? I think it's regrettable that you are asking her to do this.

This is a mother who already has looked after herself. She got herself off welfare. She educated herself. She raised four children on her own. Now you're asking her to go all the way back, and I think it's grossly unfair. You obviously have no understanding of what it's like for these families in these desperate situations.

What is it that you feel about these disabled adults? What happens with a birthday? One day they're disabled children and the next day they're disabled adults and you have no programs for them. Your government's long-term care reform has no programs for adults with developmental handicaps; it doesn't even talk about them. I ask you, Mr Minister, when you look into the case of Shawna Mercer and the thousands who are like her in this province, where is your economic responsibility when you're going to put them on welfare and cost this province more money than letting the mother work and having a program for the child that she is otherwise wholly responsible for?

The Speaker: Could the member conclude her question, please.

Mrs Marland: Yes, I will, Mr Speaker. Minister, what will you do to help Lois Mercer, her daughter Shawna, and the thousands of other families that are in similar crises? Tell us now what you will do, because you have to do something. It's your responsibility.

Hon Mr Silipo: I think our responsibility is to be as helpful as we can be in dealing with these very real problems. When I am able to stand up in this Legislature, in the face of everything that we are doing as a government to try to contain costs, which the member and her party have continued to tell us we need to do, and tell the member that in the face of those decisions we have added this year $20 million to assist exactly with these kinds of situations, to assist in providing additional spaces, additional group homes so that people can live in their communities to a greater extent than is the case now, I think that's a very real example of how seriously we take these kinds of issues.

The details of that are being worked out --

Mrs Marland: Talk to the parents.

Hon Mr Silipo: It's not simply talk. Dollars are being put out there that are being used locally through the planning processes happening through each of the area offices with the agencies that provide support to the individuals such as the one you've mentioned. That's the way we can continue to improve, and need to continue to improve, the services in this area, which we all agree are wanting and which we all agree are not meeting the needs that are out there.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): If you know so much -- you are supposed to be the great party.

The Speaker: Order, member for Mississauga South.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Durham West with his question.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Last week there were a number of startling occurrences that have a dramatic impact on constituents in the north part of my riding.

This House will remember that a delegation of my constituents came to Queen's Park to hold a press conference, as they were concerned about the federal government's plan to firesale 5,100 acres of prime agricultural land. Three of our cabinet ministers joined this delegation to make very clear their view on this sale and to call upon the federal government to make a public statement postponing the sale of these lands.

Can the minister tell me if he has had any response from the federal Minister of Transport concerning these lands?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): Despite the fact that we have indicated to the federal government on many occasions and in many different ways our concern that the federal lands north of Pickering be dealt with in a responsible way, that there be some concerted land use planning, we have had no response from the federal government to any of our queries at this point in time.

Mr Wiseman: I can tell you that the residents on those lands who are facing eviction are saddened by that response.

Last week also, the federal government signed a sweetheart deal with its friends to take over the ownership of Pearson airport that will probably cost the taxpayers $60 million. Many people might not see the relationship between the deal and the Pickering land sale, but there clearly is one. You see, this deal, the one that will make many Tories very wealthy, also has some interesting implications for the federal landholdings in my riding.

The deal says no new airports within 75 kilometres of Pearson. As reported in the Globe and Mail on Monday, "Pearson Deal Death Blow to Pickering," meaning of course that the deal puts a stake through the heart of the ill-fated Pickering airport, an ironic twist to such a terrible deal.

My question is this: Because of the federal government's wheeling and dealing with the Tory and Liberal élite, there will not be a Pickering airport. How does the minister feel that this information will impact on the strategic plan that this government called for just last week?

Hon Mr Hampton: We are concerned about the events that have been revealed over the past couple of weeks. Until now, we had been led to believe by federal Ministry of Transport officials that a Pickering airport was still in the works and would still be a part of a greater Toronto area plan. The revelations of the past couple of weeks indicate that that now may not be so.

Our concern is that this land, which is valuable agricultural land, is valuable ecological land -- it has implications for the Rouge Valley park, it has implications for the very valuable Oak Ridges moraine -- will be simply put up for sale and all of the agricultural value and all of the environmental value will be ignored, so we continue to be very concerned by what the announcement of the last few weeks has shown.

1500

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance, and I'd actually hoped to ask the Premier this. I've heard and seen comments by the Premier over the last few weeks that in his opinion the finances federally are in far worse shape than have been reported so far. I think it's his expectation, looking, I gather, at the economy as he sees it, that as the numbers are developed that they will be, as I say, far weaker than the ones in the budget and that shortly we will, as they update their numbers, be informed of that. Clearly that has a major impact on provincial revenues.

The purpose of the question is to ask the Minister of Finance, when you announced the $800-million to $1-billion revenue shortfall, did you take into account the expectations the Premier has, and I gather you have, for where the finances of the federal government will be? If you didn't take those into account, what impact do you think they might have on the provincial revenues?

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): That's a good question.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): That is indeed a good question. When I announced that the provincial revenues were going to be off somewhere between $800 million and $950 million, that was based largely on the settlement of the provincial income tax returns for the year 1992, which were 97% completed, and our own source revenues that made up the balance. I think it was roughly $600 million on the PIT, the income tax from the federal government settlement, and the balance on our own source revenues at the provincial level. There was absolutely no calculation done based on whether or not the federal government was telling the truth, or "coming clean" is perhaps a more discreet way of putting it, with the level of deficit that it might very well be facing at the end of this fiscal year.

Mr Phillips: I'd like to pursue that a little more because, as I say, the Premier -- and I've heard him personally and I think I've read where he's indicated that he has some, I think it's fair to say, substantial concerns about the numbers. The reason I raise this is because, as you know and we all know, we're well over half the way through the year. If I heard the Minister of Finance correctly, it sounded to me like he was indicating the expectations were that we might see a further revenue decrease in this fiscal year as the federal numbers firm up.

The reason for raising the question: Is it the government's intention to deal with this additional revenue shortfall through additional reductions in expenditures to hold your deficit under the $10 billion, and if so, when will we have from the Minister of Finance an indication of the size of the problem and the plan for dealing with it, because we are now less than six months from the year-end. Any fiscal moves will have to take place very quickly.

So the question therefore is this: When will we have the indication of the size of the revenue shortfall and how the government plans to deal with that revenue shortfall?

Hon Mr Laughren: The size of the revenue shortfall is, at this point in time, as we laid it out a couple of weeks ago. I have no reason to believe that that number, at this point in time, will be different than what I indicated at that point.

I of course have no way of knowing to what extent the federal deficit is going to be greater and to what extent the revenues will subsequently be lower this year. I do not know when the federal government will make that known after the election, whoever's elected at the federal level. But it's my expectation that the revenue projections that we have there now are the ones that we will achieve this fiscal year, because we were very, very cautious in our revenue projections last spring.

Interjection: Not cautious enough.

Hon Mr Laughren: "Not cautious enough," someone said. That's quite correct, and no one else was either.

We already had discounted what the federal government said we could expect in the form of income tax sharing from the federal government and the returns were even lower than we had expected and we had discounted what the federal government said we could expect, so at this point in time, there's no reason in my mind to adjust our anticipation of revenues, because we've already done that.

CLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and it concerns his closing of the ministry office in Orillia.

Mr Minister, I've been told the Orillia office has three years left on a five-year lease at an annual rent of $48,000 with no buyout provisions. You've spent $30,000 in 1991 on renovations, plus an additional $40,000 for new furnishings. You will need to rent more space in Willowdale at a higher rate, plus incur renovation expenses to accommodate the transfer of staff. The cost of moving staff from Orillia to Willowdale is estimated to be a minimum of $25,000 per person and there will be increased travel accommodation expenses for staff from Willowdale to service Simcoe county in the future.

Minister, I defy you to justify how the costly move from Orillia fits in with your feeble attempts at economizing and delivering services more efficiently.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The studies that we did as part of our cost-sharing and cost savings indicated some substantial savings as a result of providing services and consolidating some of those offices. We met with the staff in all of the offices and received their suggestions of ways in which we could save a considerable amount of money.

We've been able to save a certain amount of money by being able to place some of this staff in positions which they wanted and which they found satisfactory. Indeed there are cost savings and we'd be happy to provide him with the exact figures on those cost savings. I'd rather not give those figures right now off the top of my head; I think I'd rather provide them to him in the exact amounts, but they are considerable.

Mr McLean: I'd like the minister to table some of those studies and those figures. I have a copy of a Ministry of Municipal Affairs field management branch office consolidation report, Orillia and Willowdale. The Sewell commission is talking of providing more services through the ministry's regional offices. In this report, it appears the Orillia office would become involved to some extent with aboriginal land claims in the Golden Lake region, and its recommendations say, "A regional office in Orillia, while maintaining a service delivery office in Willowdale, will make good geographic, economic and corporate sense in addition to providing any relocating staff with an economically viable lifestyle which will help minimize the human cost."

Minister, this is your study. This is what your ministry staff are telling you. Why will you not leave that office open and save the taxpayers some money?

Hon Mr Philip: Leaving that office open would not save the taxpayers money. Indeed the studies that we did, and I'd be glad to give him a breakdown, amount to a savings of some $450,000. That's a considerable savings to the taxpayers and I'd be happy to give him an itemized breakdown --

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Must have been written in the Willowdale office.

Hon Mr Philip: The member doesn't want to hear that because he would rather cast allegations.

Mr Jim Wilson: It defies common sense.

1510

Hon Mr Philip: The common sense is that I am saying to the honourable member, who doesn't want to pay attention, that we will save $450,000 through this saving. We'll be happy to table all the information for him. We'll be happy to give him every bit of information he wants. Then I trust that maybe the honourable member will stand up and apologize, because it will be a saving.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Apologize for what your staff said?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): What do you want them to apologize for?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Philip: The Reform Party of Ontario doesn't want answers like this.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Ed, do you want to know something about the Reform Party? They are going to have about 65 more seats than your party, pal.

Hon Mr Philip: A number of the savings will be found and the job losses will be minimized through early retirements. Customer service remains a key consideration, and we're working through municipal elected officials to provide some extra services and to work with them in providing services to those communities.

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

Hon Mr Philip: So we will have effective service and a saving of close to $500,000. That's what I call efficient government.

RECYCLING

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, as you know, we will be debating Bill 7 later today. One municipality in the county of Oxford, the town of Tillsonburg, has expressed concern about having to implement a mandatory blue box recycling system. They currently have a voluntary recycling program going that by all accounts is fairly successful. Even though most of the other municipalities in the county of Oxford have a blue box recycling program and have had one for many years, the municipality has expressed concerns about having to put in a blue box recycling program. Minister, could you please respond to their concerns as to the benefits of having this blue box recycling program in?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The member is quite right: We are debating in this Legislature Bill 7, which will delineate the powers that various municipalities, the regional governments or lower-tier municipalities, would exercise with regard to the 3Rs activities.

The blue box to which he's referring is related to the 3Rs regulations that I announced for consultation. He's quite right: The community of Tillsonburg expressed serious concerns. Subsequent to their resolution that they passed, officials from the Ministry of Environment visited the council and expressed our desire to work with the municipalities and to be flexible in determining how municipalities can comply with the 3Rs regulations.

The blue box program is a very important one in terms of assisting us in meeting our target of 50% reduction in waste going to landfill, but it is not mandatory. There are other methods that could be used. I think Tillsonburg was advised that if they were interested in a blue bag program, we'd be prepared to talk to them about that.

LANDFILL

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Environment and Energy. It's a question around your Interim Waste Authority project. As you will know, there was a press conference held today by the mayor of the city of Vaughan. Minister, you will know that in 1991 your Interim Waste Authority promised "to provide the public with ample opportunity to participate in the planning process and ensure that adequate resources and expertise are provided to participants throughout the project's duration."

After originally saying that a particular site, the Superior-Crawford Sand and Gravel site, was unsuitable, your Interim Waste Authority has been engaged in secret negotiations with Superior-Crawford to have that site put back on the list. What do you say to the mayor of Vaughan and to the residents of Vaughan, who have not had any opportunity to comment on Superior-Crawford's proposal? Why are you allowing your Interim Waste Authority to go back on its word and conduct secret negotiations with Superior-Crawford?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): We haven't done that. The member will know that Superior-Crawford came forward with some information to the Interim Waste Authority, indicating that their site might have sufficient capacity to be included in the IWA's site search process. The IWA, as I understand it, has some serious technical concerns regarding the feasibility of the Superior-Crawford proposal, and as a result of that, it's advised Superior-Crawford that it should carry out technical studies at its own expense.

Mr Offer: By way of supplementary, the Interim Waste Authority was created by your government's legislation. The Interim Waste Authority has but one shareholder, and Mr Minister, you are it. You're responsible for the goings-on of that authority.

You will also know that the Interim Waste Authority has publicly identified several sites throughout the province and that the Superior-Crawford site is not one of them. The people, the mayor, the residents around that area have not had the opportunity to comment on a site that is being secretly negotiated between the owners of Superior-Crawford and the Interim Waste Authority. You know that. We showed you the letters of July which indicated that. In your response in the first question, you have acknowledged that.

You have been gathering data on the IWA-selected sites for two years. Now along comes Superior-Crawford to provide its own unscrutinized data, which are not based on the same criteria as the IWA data.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Offer: How is this fair to the residents affected by the process? As the sole shareholder of the IWA, you are its owner. Do you not think that the residents of Vaughan and York region have had enough to put up with your bungling? Why are you allowing Superior-Crawford's site to be compared with the IWA final candidates' site? Why are you not giving to the residents the same rights as others? Why are you allowing secret negotiations --

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Offer: -- to be undertaken between your authority and the owners of Superior-Crawford?

Hon Mr Wildman: I think I counted about three or four questions there. There was, I think, one theme throughout the list of questions, something to the effect that there were secret negotiations going on. The member is completely incorrect. I guess he has some sort of conspiratorial view of the world. In fact, the Interim Waste Authority will continue --

Mr Offer: You're going to have to correct the record.

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, I point out that I listened to the member's list of questions. Perhaps he could give me the courtesy of listening to my answer.

The Interim Waste Authority will continue to evaluate the short list of sites. It will use the same criteria for all of those sites. If the Superior-Crawford group is able to demonstrate that its proposal has sufficient capacity and that it is technically feasible, then the Interim Waste Authority will proceed to evaluate that site, and it will use the same criteria in that evaluation that it will apply to all of the sites.

1520

PETITIONS

RECREATIONAL VEHICLES

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'd like to present a petition on behalf of my colleague the member for Frontenac-Addington, who because of his position isn't allowed to present a petition. It's signed by 2,202 residents from eastern Ontario and it's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas we, the undersigned, being the owners-operators of all-terrain vehicles, hereby request the same rights/privileges as snowmobile operators, enabling us to travel on secondary roads, concession roads, crown land, trails etc."

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 37 names from a number of senior citizens in my riding of Dufferin-Peel from the area of Caledon East, Orangeville and Bolton. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it's with respect to reform to the Ontario drug benefit program.

"Whereas we, the undersigned, members of Caledon East Seniors' Club 588, are opposed to the revamping of our drug plan to initiate user fees;

"Whereas we feel this change is discriminating between those who have and who have not."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has stated that multiservice agencies, the new single local point of access for long-term care and support services, must purchase 90% of their homemaking and professional services from not-for-profit providers, therefore virtually eliminating use of commercial providers;

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

"We protest the action to drastically reduce the service provision by commercial providers and respectfully request that the impact of this policy decision, including a cost study, be performed before any further implementation."

I concur with this petition and have affixed my signature thereto.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's eighth report.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): No, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr35, An Act to revive Owen Sound Little Theatre;

Bill Pr47, An Act to revive Cambroco Ventures Inc.

The committee recommends that Bill Pr49, An Act respecting the Association of Hearing Instrument Practitioners of Ontario, be not reported.

The committee further recommends that the fees, and the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr35, An Act to revive Owen Sound Little Theatre.

The committee further recommends that Bill Pr12, An Act respecting the City of Toronto, Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the City of Etobicoke, Bill Pr16, An Act respecting the City of North York and Bill Pr20, An Act respecting the City of Scarborough, be not reported, they having been withdrawn at the request of the applicants.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT (RE CLEARY ESTATE), 1993

On motion by Mr Lessard, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr51, An Act respecting the City of Windsor and the Will of Edmund Anderson Cleary.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management / Projet de loi 7, Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives aux municipalités en ce qui concerne la gestion des déchets.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): To pick up on the debate from last week, I'd like to say that Ontario needs a waste management policy that stresses waste reduction, reuse and recycling, and that considers all alternatives for the disposal of remaining waste in an environmentally friendly manner and in a fashion that is efficient and affordable to the people and the business community of this province.

I would also like to say that when a user-pay system for waste is implemented, there must be an assurance that municipal taxes are decreased accordingly so that the people are not taxed twice. This government has implemented too many tax increases already. Ontario cannot afford more taxes.

What I was attempting to convey on Thursday of last week was that we have a serious problem in terms of the funding of waste management in the province of Ontario. This government has promised to come forward with a report to outline how waste management will be funded in the future, but we have yet to see that report. I can tell you that municipalities are waiting for that report, the private sector is waiting for that report and the people of Ontario are waiting to see where the money is coming from to pay for the enormous costs of waste disposal in the province of Ontario. That is a very important report.

This Bill 7 that's before us is fine. It deals with a few issues that need to be clarified but it doesn't deal --

Interjection.

Mr David Johnson: Well, it may not be fine, then. But at any rate, this bill does not deal with the major problems, some of which already have been debated here this afternoon: the major problems of determining a next landfill site in southern Ontario and the major problem of financing waste management. The waste management costs that are experienced by the municipalities and by the people start right with the collection of regular waste at the curbside. That would be mixed waste.

In Metropolitan Toronto, for example, there are almost 1.5 million tonnes a year from the residential communities that are collected and that find their way into two disposal sites, either at Brock West or at Keele Valley. The blue box system accounts for another 100,000 tonnes of waste in Metropolitan Toronto. I'm only talking about Metropolitan Toronto; magnify that for the rest of the province. In total, if you count the blue box waste, yard waste, white goods, heavy goods, hazardous waste and remediated soil, there are about 270,000 tonnes a year within Metropolitan Toronto that are collected.

There is a cost associated with that. As to the cost associated with waste collection in the city of North York -- I'll give you one example -- it costs $17 million a year to collect waste: the mixed waste, the blue box waste, yard waste, white goods, all of the materials that I've mentioned. The municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, to dispose of that waste, runs up a bill of about $85 million a year to take the waste from the local municipalities, to process it through a transfer station and to ultimately dispose of it either at a landfill site, Brock West or Keele, or else to direct it to the private industry which would recycle the blue box contents.

If you factor the North York component of the cost out of Metropolitan Toronto, it probably costs in the vicinity of $40 million a year just to collect and to handle the waste in one city alone, in the city of North York, and that's with the system that's in place today. The system that's in place today does not meet the goals that the minister has set for the year 2000. That particular goal is that waste going into the landfill site should be reduced by 50%. With the system today, certainly not Metropolitan Toronto and I doubt very few locations across the province of Ontario would meet that goal of a 50% reduction. Even so, the cost in one city would approximate $40 million in terms of collection and disposal.

It's interesting to speculate on the user-pay system. If we are to determine that within the province of Ontario this cost, this perhaps $40-million cost in one city alone, is to be borne by a user-pay system, which means that people who put out garbage bags pay directly, then my guess is that we would have to extract in the order of perhaps $150 to $200 a year from every home owner and every apartment within the city of North York, for example, to pay for that cost, about $150 to $200 a year.

1530

What I'm saying is, let's be up front with the people. If this is going to be the cost, if this is going to be the technique, if we're going to expect the home owner to pay this sort of cost, let's be up front about it when we're dealing with waste management and let's let them know that this is the kind of cost they're going to be expected to bear.

As I mentioned, that's only the cost if the system was in place today. What we're expecting is a better system, a system that in fact will pull out more recyclable material, a more sophisticated system, a more costly system.

Before I get into that, I wanted to mention one article which I found very interesting. I read just recently the Ontario Recycling update, which crossed my desk within the last week, and on the front page there was an article that I thought was of great interest in terms of this particular debate. This article mentioned the Bluewater Recycling Association. I must say I hadn't heard of the Bluewater Recycling Association before having read this article, but I'm very impressed with this particular operation, which functions in southwestern Ontario and includes counties such as Huron, Lambton, Middlesex and Perth.

It represents about 44 municipalities and collects recyclables from about 38,000 households in southwestern Ontario. It collects cardboard, newspaper, fine paper, box board, phone books, steel and aluminum cans, plastics, films, aluminum foil, pie plates. It must be one of the most sophisticated systems in Ontario. They've had great organization. They have a board of directors. It's a non-profit corporation and it's called a recycling cooperative.

Here is a recycling association that has attempted to be as efficient as possible. I believe, from what I see in this article, you wouldn't find a better-managed system than the Bluewater Recycling Association system in southwestern Ontario. Their costs have fallen by 46% in the last four years. The fee -- now I'm getting to the nub of my point. They do charge a fee, a levy, against the people they collect from, and this fee has gone down from $46 to $32 in the last year or two. That fee represents 53% of the revenue of this recycling association, while 28% of the revenue comes from government grants, 14% comes from the sale of the recyclables and 5% comes from other fees.

Here we have an organization that's as efficient as it could possibly be, that's searching out markets in the United States, that's selling aluminum in the United States for $950 a tonne when the market here in Canada is only $700 a tonne. It's finding these better markets, yet it can only derive 14% of its revenue from the sale of recyclable materials. The rest of the cost has to come either in terms of a user fee or in terms of a government grant.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Speaker: A quorum call, please.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Would the Clerk determine whether there is a quorum present, please.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of clarification, Madam Speaker: Do members have to be in their seats to be recognized as constituting a quorum, or simply present in the assembly?

The Acting Speaker: They should be in the chamber. The member for Don Mills has the floor to resume his debate.

Mr David Johnson: To wrap up on that particular point, we have instance after instance where we see that, number one, the people of Ontario love the blue box system. It's the most visible sign of waste reduction, reuse, recycling that we have within the province of Ontario, and it's a very important system.

But it's a very expensive system any way you wish to describe it. Earlier in the debate I indicated that within Metropolitan Toronto the revenue amounts to $34 a tonne and the costs amount to $223 a tonne for the blue box system, so there is a revenue shortfall, for each and every tonne, of $189 that it costs in terms of grants or subsidies of some form.

I just mentioned the Bluewater Recycling Association, an excellent association in southwestern Ontario, again to show that there's a severe revenue shortfall, and there needs to be an addressing of this serious funding issue. For the life of me, I can't understand why, at a time when an important bill like Bill 7 comes forward, the government wouldn't lay forward its plans for funding waste management in the province of Ontario.

Those plans, we know, will escalate in future years. As we come up to the year 2000 and as we come towards the time when the 50% reduction target kicks in, I would think across the province of Ontario it would mean a reduction of twice as much, at least, as what's been accomplished to this point; we have to accomplish again what we've already accomplished over just barely six years now in terms of waste reduction. The way to do that will be through very expensive facilities. Tens of millions of dollars will be required and again will have to be funded somehow. I mentioned material recovery facilities; I mentioned compost facilities earlier in my speech.

I'd like to just mention briefly that the wet and dry approach, which I was interested in, is now being suggested on a medium scale -- I won't say a large scale, but a medium scale -- here in Canada, particularly in the city of Montreal. A pilot project has been under way in Metropolitan Toronto, in North York and Etobicoke, for the last couple of years, but it involves a reduction of some 3,800 tonnes. Now, 3,800 tonnes may seem like a lot of waste, but when you compare it with the 1.5 million tonnes going into the landfill sites today, it is literally a drop in the bucket.

I see in the Toronto Star of yesterday that in the city of Montreal there's consideration given to a wet and dry project. When I talk about wet and dry, what I mean is that there will be two components of garbage. One component will include all the dry garbage, which is paper, cardboard, cans, glass and that type of material that could be considered dry. The other component is called wet, and that would include kitchen scraps, perhaps meat scraps, that sort of thing, vegetable and what's generally considered to be wet material. The two will be separated, and put out and collected separately.

The dry component would be fed into a plant that would pull out the recyclables, and they would be processed in various markets. The wet component of course would be composted, and that compost, over a period of time, presumably would be marketed if it meets environmental standards.

1540

In Montreal, in the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu region, to be exact, there is a project that is being planned for next spring at a cost of $12 million. This is one plant to look after the wet and dry stream; $12 million, we're talking about.

You may wonder how much such a plant would process, because $12 million is a lot of money so you must process a lot of waste. The answer is that this plant will treat 44,000 tonnes of garbage a year, which would accommodate a population of about 92,000 people. That's not even the population of the borough of East York, the smallest municipality within Metropolitan Toronto. That's $12 million for 44,000 tonnes; in Metropolitan Toronto, we deal with 1.5 million tonnes a year.

You can see that if you were to extrapolate this kind of facility across Metropolitan Toronto, for example, we would need about 20 plants at a cost of $12 million apiece to handle the waste just in this one municipality alone. That perhaps will give you the kind of scope we're talking about, the kind of cost we're talking about to meet the target the government has imposed for the year 2000. It is going to be an enormous cost, the question being: Just where is the money going to come from?

I might add, one answer that is being pursued is the private sector. Perhaps we won't require all the money from the user-pay system; perhaps we won't expect the home owners and the tenants to ante up all of this money. That's an enormous cost, to meet the government targets. Perhaps we will put the burden of the cost on the private sector. In that regard, government has had talks with the private sector. The concept is called product stewardship. What it means is that those who create the waste pay for the disposal of the waste in the final result.

They're talking with the packaging industry, for example, the manufacturers of various packages, and they're saying, "You should contribute to the waste disposal system." If you look at the blue box -- the negotiations in place have taken place particularly around the blue box system -- 25% of the waste in the blue box is packaging. That's who the government is dealing with. They're dealing with the people who generate about 25% of the waste in the blue box program.

I was surprised at this, but 10% of the waste in the blue box system is associated with the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. There are alcohol bottles or wine bottles or whatever, and for whatever reason, the government has decided not to tackle the LCBO. So far, there's no commitment from the LCBO and apparently the government, as I understand it, is not pressing this point to have the LCBO contribute to waste management funding in the province of Ontario.

The remaining 65% in the blue box is primarily newspaper and magazines. The newspaper and magazine industry has already contributed large amounts of upfront capital costs through Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc to pay for the blue boxes and to pay for the infrastructure in the first place. They are a little bit concerned, as I understand it, about having to pay not only for the capital costs up front, but then to provide an ongoing operating subsidy, and we are talking about a major subsidy here if we're talking about recovering all the costs.

They're a little bit concerned about having to pay twice, particularly, for example, if the LCBO is not prepared to contribute even once.

So that approach in terms of attracting the private sector is not going too well, and it's just begun; this at a time, I might add, when the commitment from the province of Ontario expires in April of next year in terms of the funding of the blue box system. The commitment from the province of Ontario expires and municipalities do not know if the provincial government is prepared to fund the blue box system beyond April of next year.

So you can see the uncertainty that's out there. The private sector is uncertain because they're being approached. They think they're not being approached in a level and fair manner. The municipalities are concerned because enormous costs, potentially, are going to be dumped upon them for the blue box program next year, and now I would suggest that the people of the province of Ontario have reason to be concerned because we may well have a user-pay system that will have to be implemented and the people will have to pay twice, more than likely, in the sense that they will pay a direct user fee for every bag of garbage they put out and there will also be a continuing component on their property taxes that they may well have to pay.

That will not be a pretty sight for the people in the province of Ontario in a time of recession and, I might say, it will not be a very attractive proposition for the businesses in the province of Ontario to have to ante up money for waste reduction and the blue box program at a time when many businesses are struggling financially. They're having a very difficult time meeting their payrolls. They already feel they're overtaxed. They feel that in this province of Ontario, even before the provincial budget earlier this year, the taxes are too high. Now they've been hit with more taxes, and now they may be hit with a requirement to fund the blue box program or other waste management initiatives.

I would like to shift perhaps to the last area that I'll comment on today, which is the other main issue that needs to be resolved, and the debate earlier today focused on it as well: the location of the next landfills, three landfill sites, to serve the greater Toronto area.

We saw in the newspapers just recently that the province of Ontario has committed to paying out millions of dollars in compensation to people who will live on or near the next three landfill sites that this government will announce shortly within the greater Toronto area: one in York, one in Peel and one in Durham. People who live on or near those sites apparently now will be compensated to the tune of millions of dollars. I might say that these millions of dollars that will be paid will be small consolation for people who live on those sites, people who have farms, perhaps, people who have lived there for many years, people who have lived in that community for many years. The money will be used for the expense of relocating, for legal fees, for property appraisals, and to relocate people within a radius of 80 kilometres of that particular site. But the people quoted, certainly in the press, feel that this is small consolation. They're not happy about it.

At the same time, the costs associated with this whole program are spiralling out of control. Metropolitan Toronto and the regions were actively pursuing a site selection just a couple of short years ago and were well on their way in an environmental process to select a site. They were working jointly together to find a site that would be suitable.

The province of Ontario, this government, has taken over that responsibility, snatched it away from the municipalities, after the municipalities had spent several millions of dollars, over $10 million, in terms of the environmental process and testing of various sites. The provincial government snatched that responsibility, took it over, and now reportedly has spent up to $40 million, a good deal of it duplicating the very efforts the municipalities had already gone through. So here we are, just short months later, $40 million spent, 15 sites that are under scrutiny.

1550

This afternoon we heard the debate about the Superior-Crawford site near the city of Vaughan, and I might say that if any municipality has reason to feel this particular system is not working to its advantage, I suspect it's the city of Vaughan. I have every respect for the mayor and I share her concerns with regard to the situation of the city of Vaughan. That particular city may well in the next two years receive all of the waste of the GTA in the existing landfill site, the Keele Valley landfill site located at Vaughan.

The Metropolitan Toronto area has two main sites. The one at Brock is almost full to capacity. Reports from Metropolitan Toronto indicate that more than likely the Brock site will have to be closed in about April 1995, less than two years from now. That site will have to be closed. That will leave one site left in the greater Toronto area. That's the site at Vaughan. That will mean that all the waste from the greater Toronto area will have to focus on that particular landfill site. All the trucks will go to that particular landfill site, and that's not a very attractive proposition to the mayor of the city of Vaughan or to the people who live in that particular area.

I might say that, yes, the Interim Waste Authority is looking at 15 sites. It's caused a great deal of consternation across the greater Toronto area by looking at about 50 sites to start with, now down to about 15 sites, and the people who live around those 15 sites of course are most concerned. In the near future there will be an announcement of three sites, but there will be legal challenges, there will be tests, there will be environmental assessments that will have to be conducted before any one of those three sites is ever ready to accept any waste. If any of the sites are ever ready to accept any waste through the long process, there'll be many, many years that will pass by. As a result, just about all of the waste from the greater Toronto area -- I'm talking about residential waste -- will focus on the city of Vaughan over the next several years: probably to the end of this century, maybe beyond. So I have a great deal of sympathy for the city of Vaughan.

I should say that what is actually saving the bacon of this particular government at the present time is that waste that's going to those two sites, and soon will only be going to the one site in Vaughan, is primarily just residential waste. The waste from the industrial, commercial, institutional sectors, which could be again as much as the residential waste, is largely going south into the United States. That waste is avoiding the tipping fee at Vaughan and the tipping fee at Brock, which at one point was $150 a tonne and which now has come down to $90 a tonne, but still the waste can be disposed of in the United States for perhaps $50 to $60 a tonne, and consequently that's where it's going. It's going into Pennsylvania; it's going to Detroit. It's going to Seneca Meadows landfill site in New York and to Lewiston, New York. It's going to Ohio, to Grand River in Detroit. It's going to a number of locations in the United States.

That's saving the bacon of this government, but it is interesting that at a time when this government has stressed that we should deal locally with our waste problems, the government is turning a blind eye to the fact that about half the waste of this metropolitan region is going to the United States. Not only are they turning a blind eye to it, but they are benefiting greatly from that fact, because without that waste going to the United States, the problem would be unmanageable. Not only would the Brock site be full within the next short period of time, but the remaining site at Keele Valley would also be full to capacity. We would literally have nowhere in the greater Toronto area of southern Ontario to put the waste. That would be the result, and the government's Interim Waste Authority, which is attempting to find three sites, would drag on and on.

I can tell you, just reading from some of the quotes of some of the people who are involved, that the attempt to find another landfill site in the vicinity of Metropolitan Toronto will run into severe resistance. For example, if I quote the chair of the Pickering Ajax Citizens Together, he has accused the Interim Waste Authority of practicing the "three Cs," which is finding sites that are cheap, close and convenient.

One of the members of the Environment Not Economics Association has stated, "It's time to take the gloves off....The fact that there is a shorter list doesn't make it any better," and he's referring to the short list of sites for a new landfill site. "The process is still flawed....Now the government will really find out what is in store for them....civil disobedience, it's a foregone conclusion." That is the kind of resistance the government is going to encounter.

The government is going to find that the groups that are opposing the landfill sites are going to be well funded, they're going to have excellent legal advice, and every avenue is going to be pursued that will involve killing any site in the Metropolitan Toronto region, in York, Durham or Peel.

What should the government do? Instead of pursuing that tremendous resistance from the citizens of Durham, the citizens of York, the citizens of Peel, instead of putting them through that agony, what should they do? It's been our contention all along, and the contention of a great number of citizens across the province of Ontario, that the government should look at all alternatives for waste disposal. Now, I'm not saying just automatically do them. I'm saying put them to the environmental test.

Those alternatives include, for example, incineration, which is pursued to a great extent not only in the United States but in Europe. Many countries in Europe have very environmentally friendly incinerators, very modern, state-of-the-art incinerators. Japan has such a system, and of course the United States. I don't think, perhaps, the standards in the United States are quite as strict, but certainly in Europe this is the case.

The government should also pursue an environmental study and allow the Kirkland Lake site to be considered. We're not saying, "Go in there tomorrow morning and start laying down the liner and start engineering the site." We're saying there is a proposal that's come forward from the Adams mine, Kirkland Lake, a proposal that would involve resolving this issue of waste disposal for decades. It's a huge site.

Let's just look at it. Right now, waste is going to Ohio. We are turning our back; we're turning a blind eye to the fact that waste from Metropolitan Toronto is going to Ohio and Pennsylvania and New York. For Pete's sake, if this government can allow that to happen and benefit from that situation, why is it not possible to look at an environmental analysis of the Kirkland Lake site? If it doesn't stand the test of an environmental assessment, then fine, rule it out. If it does stand the test, and the economics appear to be attractive from the reports I've seen, then why shouldn't we consider that alternative?

But there's some philosophical bent. This government feels that it must deal with all waste matters right here on the spot, even though waste is going to Ohio. I don't understand that, but I guess there must be some logic there somewhere.

1600

That pretty well brings to a conclusion my comments on Bill 7. I think it's going to be known for what it didn't do more than for what it does. What is does is some housekeeping items that I know are accepted in the private sector and that indeed some municipalities think are required to clarify situations that they are involved with today, so in that regard I wouldn't be obstructionist. But I think in the long run we'll probably look back to this point in time and say that we really didn't grapple with the major issues that are before us in waste management. We didn't grapple with the issue of who's going to pay the enormous costs associated with the program that is in place here in Ontario, and we didn't grapple with the issue of alternative sites.

We have tried to clean up this bill as much as possible. The government has put forward amendments, I know, and I've put forward amendments, our caucus has put forward amendments and the Liberals have put forward some amendments. One of the amendments we put forward and that I insisted on was to allow the local municipalities in the region of Niagara and the region of Metropolitan Toronto, which had been treated differently than all other regions in the province of Ontario for some technical reasons, to have a say in terms of the collection of waste within their municipalities.

As the bill was originally drafted, the regions -- Niagara region and Metropolitan Toronto region -- could have unilaterally taken over not only the disposal of waste, which I agree with, but also the curbside collection of waste. It could have been assumed by those two regions without any consultation with the local councils. We identified that and we insisted on changes, and we now have a situation whereby the wishes of the local municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto and within the Niagara region will be considered if the region is considering taking over the collection of curbside waste.

We particularly had a delegation from the city of North York very concerned about that provision. That's been accommodated, and I think that's only fair. It could still be that the regions and the municipalities agree, and that the regions would take over that service, but at least that would be a joint decision.

I think with those comments I will bring to an end my views on this particular bill.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for Don Mills. Do we have questions and/or comments?

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Why is it that every time the government does something that people like out there and that people react to in a positive way, we get criticized by the opposition? They always find a way to criticize something that they shouldn't really be criticizing.

An example might be North York. North York came in front of the committee that dealt with Bill 7 and asked for particular amendments. Those amendments were accommodated. We passed those amendments; I believe it was unanimous. Of course the previous speaker spoke about North York and how it got the amendments through. Yes, they got the amendments through. I put that package together for the committee to consider. Of course we passed it. I got a note after that, saying -- and this was from councillors at North York -- that for the first time in the history of them being councillors they felt listened to by a committee at the Legislature. And for me to listen to the criticism after a comment like that is mind-boggling. I can shake my head a number of times. I still can't understand why the criticism has to be thrown this way.

Look, the municipalities like this thing. The municipalities like to have some control, especially when we talk about recycling, especially when we talk about giving them the rights and the authority to make those decisions.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It's called an open process.

Mr Mammoliti: It's called grass-root politicking. It's called grass-root decision-making, something that we're proud of in terms of commitment and --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Are there any other members who wish to participate? The member for Ottawa East.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I want to make it very, very clear: We are not supposed to criticize the government in the opposition. We're very sorry; we apologize. But I think the member for Yorkview must remember that it is our responsibility to help the government to improve what is before us, and this is exactly what the opposition is trying to do. We'll be talking very shortly on Bill 7, a very important bill.

But the question asked by the member for Yorkview I think needs to be answered. This government has been going around this province on Bill 7 asking people, asking municipalities, what they thought of it, what they think of it today, and after four, five, six months of consultation, they come back in this House and introduce a bill that is not acceptable. I agree with the member that most municipalities say that it is a good bill, but it is a start. It's not a complete bill for the simple reason that municipalities are asking themselves who will pay the shot, and that's very important. Is it a downloading process? If it is downloading on municipal governments, they will not accept Bill 7 as it is.

It's a good move, but it's an incomplete bill which will have to be improved in the months to come if we expect municipalities to respect Bill 7. Again, we must apologize to the member for Yorkview. We didn't mean to criticize you; we're simply trying to help you.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate? The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I just want to be clear to the members in the House that this is not unanimous; it will not be a unanimous vote in support of this piece of legislation. The member opposite from Yorkview outlines the good things about this piece of legislation. I think that some points were made by the member for Don Mills, some he said were good about this and others that weren't so good. The ones that weren't so good are the ones that concern me specifically.

I speak about the cost and the cost-sharing. It's not a long-term commitment. It's a very short-term horizon that this provincial government will get into with respect to the 3Rs blue box program. That money, as I learned in Metropolitan Toronto council, gets cut off. The responsibilities for reduce, reuse and recycle then get foisted on to local municipalities and there they don't have a lot of capacity to deal with the increasing costs of recycling, I say to the member for Yorkview.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): They have none.

Mr Stockwell: They have none, says the member for Brant-Haldimand. It's very true. In a lot of instances they don't have any capacity to see the program grow.

Furthermore, and I know I'm out on a limb on this, because I doubt very many members in this House would agree with me, I will say the 3Rs program, the blue box system, is very, very expensive and an inefficient use of taxpayers' money. If we truly wanted to go ahead and look for reasonable and concrete ways to recycle or change the way we deal with garbage, we could do so by investigation and by spending this money alternatively, which will be excessive, that can find real ways to reduce, reuse and recycle. To collect the blue box per tonne is hundreds of dollars per tonne more expensive than collecting it just in a simple curbside pickup.

I'm going to speak to this. I'll give you my concerns in order and I will speak to it like I spoke to it 10 years ago or maybe eight years ago when it was introduced municipally and I said you'd be better off spending the money looking for alternative ways of recycling than just putting a blue box system in that only makes people feel good but doesn't solve the problem.

The Acting Speaker: Any other members wishing to participate?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have just a few comments with respect to the presentation by the member for Don Mills. This legislation, as the member has said, will provide municipalities with the legislative jurisdiction to implement programs and strategies geared towards waste reduction. I think, as has been said, many of the municipalities and private enterprise individuals have supported those concepts after amendments that were made, I believe, in the general government committee or one of the committees this summer.

1610

The difficulty and the major issue with respect to this bill is that we don't know how this is going to be paid for. We have no idea. We're going to be telling the municipalities to get into various types of recycling programs. We're not going to allow them to even discuss incineration because the former Minister of the Environment, as confirmed by the present Minister of Environment, has said: "We can't get into incineration. We won't even allow it to be debated."

So we're restricting municipalities to do certain things and we're not telling them how they're going to pay for it, which means perfectly well there are only two results that can happen: One, property taxes are going to have to go up because municipalities will be mandated to do certain things by provincial legislation; secondly, I suppose municipalities will be forced to get into user-pay, and they may well get into user-pay. Some of them are already getting into it, probably illegally at this stage, but there's no question that that appears to be on the horizon.The question is, of course, how high are those user-pay systems going to be?

Mr Stockwell: You can't afford to put your garbage out.

Mr Tilson: Exactly. It's going to get completely unmanageable. This government is piling regulation after regulation, downloading policy after policy on to the municipalities and yet they're not offering any financial assistance and they're not even giving a hint as to how in the world this legislation's going to be paid for.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Don Mills has two minutes to reply.

Mr David Johnson: I thank the members for Dufferin-Peel and Etobicoke West. I think they've encapsulated my major concerns and they've done so in two minutes. It took me a lot longer than that. I also thank the member for Ottawa East for responding on my behalf to the member for Yorkview -- I thank him as well, but I'm sorry if I hurt his feelings.

Mr Mammoliti: I'll get over it.

Mr David Johnson: He'll get over it. I did mention that in the final analysis the city of North York was satisfied in the first instance, but I was delighted that at my recommendation, actually, the city of North York was invited to attend and participate in the first instance, and in the first instance the bill as it came forward was not acceptable to the city of North York, nor to a number of other municipalities. But yes, we did straighten it out, and in the final analysis they went away happy.

But the nub of the concern again is the cost. The provincial government is establishing very costly programs in the area of waste management: blue box programs, waste reduction programs, targets -- 50% waste reduction by the year 2000. These are very expensive programs and there's not an accounting of the cost that's associated with them.

What is happening is the costs are being downloaded, first on to the regions, and the regions are downloading because they are being allowed to charge a fee for every tonne to the local municipalities. So the costs are going down from the province to the regions down to the local municipalities, who then have to raise the money either through a property tax system or through a user-pay system. If it's the user-pay system, guess who pays? It's the people of this province. Every bag they put out, they're going to have to pay a significant amount, every home owner and tenant. I think we should just be up front with those costs, and that's what I'm saying.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you to the member for Don Mills. Are there are any other members who wish to participate in the debate? Any other members? The member for Ottawa East.

Mr Grandmaître: I think this is a very important bill, maybe one of the most important bills that we've had to deal with since the new session. I just want to remind members how important it is, because it is amending a number of statutes of the province of Ontario. It amends the Municipal Act, the Regional Municipalities Act, 13 regional acts and the Municipal Affairs Act.

I think it's very important that members of this House and also people listening in know what this bill is all about.

The Municipal Act will be amended to establish and operate facilities for all waste management activities, reducing, reusing, recycling and waste disposal, require source separation of waste and recyclable materials, allow municipalities to establish user fees, and I'll be addressing the user fees issue later on, also enter property to conduct surveys and soil tests for waste management purposes and increase fine levels, which I agree with, for breaching municipal waste bylaws, and market products for waste materials.

At the present time, most of our municipalities that engage in waste management and especially in the 3Rs program do not have provincial authority to do so. They have done so for the simple reason that AMO and our municipalities in the province of Ontario have recognized the need for their participation if we are to attain the magic percentage of 50% by the year 2000.

I remember that when the former Minister of the Environment, Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines, introduced this very important program, the blue box program, in the province of Ontario, at first it wasn't too well accepted for the simple reason that, as pointed out by my colleague the member for Don Mills, it was a very expensive program. But I think municipalities in general have done a very good job and we have reached the 25% magic number.

Having said that municipalities have done a good job, now we have reached the second stage of waste management in the province of Ontario. It is true that regional municipalities, the upper-tier level of local government, have asked the minister of Environment and Energy and have asked the provincial government to provide them with, give them the tools, the enabling legislation so that we can proceed with the second stage, and that is to attain the magic number of 50%.

But again let's go back to the cost of this needed program. On April 29, 1993, the Minister of Environment announced the government's intention to pass the new 3Rs regulations. These waste reduction regulations emanate out of the famous Bill 143, the Waste Management Act. Since that time, municipalities are still waiting for this government to respond to the needs of the municipalities wanting to engage and to put in place a bylaw to respect Bill 7. This government is reneging on its former commitment to helping municipalities, providing municipalities with adequate funding.

When the blue box program was first instituted, a grant program was provided --

Mr Stockwell: Point of order, Madam Speaker: I think in this instance there should be a quorum to hear the salient points of view offered by the member for Ottawa East.

The Acting Speaker: Would the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1620

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. Would the member for Ottawa East resume the floor.

Mr Grandmaître: As I was saying, when the blue box program was first introduced and accepted by most of our municipalities, municipalities were encouraged for the simple reason that the provincial government was providing them with adequate funding. But now, in the second stage of the waste management program, I think it's very important that this government should be up front. Who will pay for the next phase of waste management in the province of Ontario? The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has told the minister and the government that the taxpayers in its municipalities are sick and tired of increasing the municipal tax load while the provincial government is trying to reduce its tax load. This is called, as you know, downloading.

Also, this bill permits municipalities to charge user fees. This tells me that giving municipalities that option means that the government is not willing to provide them with adequate funding. This is why most municipalities -- I think 75% of our municipalities at the present time are taking advantage of the 3Rs program, the blue box program -- will start charging user fees. I don't think it's right to download on municipalities. I think this government should be providing or investing more dollars in what we're collecting at the curbside.

As pointed out by the member for Don Mills, we must invest in those plants if we want to attain the 50% magic number. This bill applies to all municipalities with a population of over 5,000. I know that in some municipalities, in northern Ontario, for example, it will be very difficult, and this bill does make an exception for northern Ontario municipalities. They have until 1995 to join the program.

But we know that this program will not be sustainable in 1993 and that user fees will be used. I know of a municipality in my own regional municipality that is thinking of introducing a user fee bylaw, charging $1 per bag, for anything in excess of three bags, if I'm not mistaken. I think this is wrong, because we're not taking into consideration families with three, maybe four children, where more waste is being produced. Also, the private sector should be more involved, especially in its packaging. I know the minister promised us some months ago that he's working very closely with the private sector, but that's all we hear, that they're working with the private sector, but not too much about success.

I think that until we resolve the cost of this program municipalities will join in, but when the grants for the blue box program come to an end, and I am told that within three years this program will no longer exist, municipalities will want to discontinue the 3Rs program for the simple reason that they won't be able to afford to do what this bill is doing. We have to find alternative ways to deal with our waste. It's okay to say that on that specific site we will accept a dump site, but I think we have to use alternative ways to recycle the materials being picked up at the curbs.

Also, I think the city or town of Kirkland Lake has made a genuine offer to this government. I realize that the government is not interested in transporting waste from Metro to Kirkland Lake, but at the same time, our dump sites, our waste sites, are filling very rapidly and if we don't move, if this government doesn't move rapidly, then I don't know what will happen with our waste. A lot of people are saying, "If they're going to use user fees, there's only one way I'm going to get rid of my extra two or three bags: That's to get rid of it." Especially in rural Ontario, where homes are not built too closely together, you will find garbage or waste on our roadsides. This is not the purpose of this bill, but if municipalities are given the power to use user fees, we will find waste on our roadsides. Again, this is not the purpose of this bill.

I was reading with great interest what will happen in my own regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton in Bill 7. Sections 208.1 to 208.4 of the Municipal Act will be amended, and the regional act, and it says, "the regional corporation may contract with a local or regional municipality in Ontario or Quebec." I find this exception unacceptable for my regional municipality when Metro is prevented from having the same deal as Ottawa-Carleton.

What I'm saying is that there are unacceptable exceptions in Bill 7. If it's good enough for Ottawa-Carleton, I think it should be at least considered outside the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Again, especially in the province of Quebec, you will recall only a few weeks ago the Premier talked about the possibility of closing our borders to the province of Quebec. Now we're saying that Ottawa-Carleton can have a site, maybe, in the province of Quebec. In the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, it's very easy to cross the bridge and use a dump site in the province of Quebec.

I'm just wondering about the proposal made -- I didn't say "legislation" -- by the Premier in this House about the possibility of closing our barriers or closing our bridges to prevent Quebec construction workers to have access to our jobs in the province of Ontario while Ontarians are prevented from having the same access to Quebec jobs.

I'm just wondering about that section, and I would like the minister to address clause 3.1(b). That's the amendment to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act, the amendment for the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. I think the minister should take a serious look. If it's permitted for my region to do business with the province of Quebec, with the introduction in this House of possible restrictions, I don't think it would be possible to deal with the province of Quebec, especially clause (b).

1630

I didn't want to take too much time, but I think the most important aspect of this bill is the cost involved. You've heard me say that a lot of our municipalities, maybe 75%, will not be able --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: This is an excellent speech, and I'd like to see if there is a quorum around.

The Acting Speaker: Would the Clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): A quorum is now present.

Mr Grandmaître: As I was saying, 75% of our municipalities will not be able to afford this program three years down the road if additional grants or subsidies or more money are involved in the 3Rs program.

I would also say that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is completely on side on this one. I do have a news release dated April 29, the very same day the 3Rs regulations were introduced in the House. I have a news release from the president of AMO saying, "However, we are very concerned about the introduction of mandatory 3Rs regulations without ensuring that there is a fair and sustainable means of financing these initiatives." Again, AMO is on side. They want to do their part. I think most municipalities have done a good job in waste management, but they want to continue the program, with the assistance of the provincial government. "This is even more crucial, given the financial pressures on the property tax base resulting from the recession and the recent financial cuts to municipalities." This is from Joe Mavrinac, president of AMO.

You will recall that with the social contract, our 834 municipalities were directly affected, and with the expenditure control, I understand that the government has to cut back. They have to cut back on their own expenditures. But at the same time, I think that closer consultation with municipalities is very important, because you know as well as I do that whenever the federal government cuts back on its transfer payments, the provincial government does the very same thing to the local government or municipalities. I think we need to understand each other. Municipalities need to know what the future holds for them before they embark on this worthwhile project.

Also, another news release by AMO: "We support the province's legislation, which represents a close fit with the recommendations AMO has made in the past for additional municipal legislative authority for waste management activities."

Again, I think AMO is very favourable, but more needs to be done. When I say more needs to be done, I mean alternative ways of dealing with our waste in the province of Ontario need to be examined. More investment has to be made in the province of Ontario to meet all of the municipal waste.

I think this government should come clean. The minister should be in the House and tell us exactly what the 3Rs program regulations are all about and whether more moneys will be invested in this program.

I will end by saying that until we hear from the minister, if he can answer all of our questions, we will support this bill in principle. As pointed out, the minister will not receive full support on this bill, but my party will accept or support this bill in principle until all of our answers are responded to.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Eddy: The member for Ottawa East drew attention to some matters that I just want to comment on briefly. One was to note how many municipalities have proceeded to carry out recycling programs and how successful they've been. That's very true.

Second was the cost of recycling programs and worry about the future. Although he stated that in three years' time, the recycling programs would be endangered probably in many municipalities, I have a strong feeling that many municipalities will be facing that much sooner through several provincial measures: the social contract, the expenditure control program, certain programs that have been downloading to municipalities, and the fact that unpaid taxes in municipalities are indeed at an all-time high, which certainly affects the financing of municipal programs.

The final concern I noted was the disposal of garbage in rural areas. It's one thing to dispose of used tires and bagged garbage and that sort of thing. It's a nuisance and it's a cost, but it's not as bad because you can see it. I have a further serious concern about the unseen types of garbage that are dumped along rural roads and in fields. I'm thinking of hazardous liquid waste. This is occurring in some places and it's very serious, and it's very serious when you think of our groundwater. Ontario has the purest water in the world and it's being contaminated in certain areas. I'm afraid this is one of the causes, the illegal disposal of hazardous liquid waste.

Mr David Johnson: I'm happy to stand and comment on the member for Ottawa East as well. In terms of the issue of the tires which has been raised, I mentioned in my speech that a friend of mine who owns a property north of Metro had some 200 tires dumped on his property because, as we know, it's very difficult to get rid of tires in the province of Ontario. There are some 10 million tires that are apparently discarded annually in the province of Ontario, and about 40% of them are actually processed. Some of them are recapped. Some of them are sent to Third World countries where they actually carry on using them, because the tires still have some life left in them. But some 60% of the 10 million tires, which I guess is six million tires a year, are piling up in various locations around the province of Ontario.

I think the member for Ottawa East has done us a service to bring this to our attention. I don't recall him mentioning the fact that it was the Liberal government, though, and perhaps he may want to comment on this in his closing comments, that brought in the tire tax -- I guess that's going to be later -- of $5 a tire, to look into this problem, to do research, to solve this problem. They collected from the people of the province of Ontario over $100 million. Well over $100 million was collected, and a very small component of that, I think maybe $20 million, was spent.

1640

I was encouraged, though, that just within the last week there was a proposal to fund a project in the city of Toronto down near the lakeshore in terms of crumbing the tires, as they call it, and recycling the steel and rubber components, but there's a great deal of doubt if that will transpire. The member may want to comment on the tire tax that was introduced by the Liberal government.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? Any further questions or comments? The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: Just a few comments. Obviously the recurring issue that develops throughout this debate is the issue of cost. I think we all remember back in April, and I made a statement in the House this morning, how the Minister of Environment stood up and announced that he was going to be introducing regulations for the municipalities to proceed with, and these regulations would take place in August. It's now the middle of October and we still haven't seen these regulations.

These regulations would require such things as blue box recycling, leaf and yard waste composting and home composting programs for all municipalities with a population greater than 5,000. Then it went on to a number of other things. It talked about annually updated waste audits, waste reduction work plans and recycling programs for large industrial, commercial and institutional waste generators.

The point is that when you read all these things the Minister of Environment is doing, it all sounds wonderful. He talks about packaging audits updated for every two years and packaging reduction work plans for Ontario manufacturers with more than 100 full-time employees or their part-time equivalents in food, beverage, paper and allied products and chemical products.

Municipalities are ready to do things. The difficulty is, as with this legislation, that they don't know how they're going to pay for it. The government promised a financial paper I believe two years ago and it still hasn't been forthcoming. So they're passing all this legislation, they're dumping all this stuff on to the municipalities, they're telling municipalities to do all of these things, and yet they won't indicate to the municipalities how they're going to pay for it.

All of the speakers are standing in their place and are raising this concern, the issue of cost. There's no question that different groups came before the general government committee and supported it, but all of them have that one fear: How is it going to be paid for?

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? The member for Ottawa East, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Grandmaître: I think everybody is on the same frequency. As the member just pointed out, the cost is the ticket item of this bill, and to my colleague the member for Don Mills who's asking me who brought in the $5 tire tax --

Mr Stockwell: Yes, who brought that in?

Mr Grandmaître: -- it was a Liberal government. What we are trying to tell the government today is to use our experience and do better. This is what I told the member for Yorkview, "Don't be concerned about the opposition; we are trying to help the government," and this is what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to help the government to not repeat the same mistakes.

This tax was introduced back in 1988, if I'm not mistaken, or 1989, when I was Minister of Revenue, and I'm not sorry for it. I think it was the right tax at the right time. But the problem is that the plants, the alternative ways that I mentioned in my speech of dealing with the 3Rs, were never developed. I think if we had done this back in 1989 and 1990 and 1991, municipalities and members of this House would willingly accept Bill 7 and municipalities would not question the cost of this program two or three years down the road.

I'm not shying away from what the Liberal government did in the past. I think we did it openly and honestly and we didn't hide any factors.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: I'd like to add a few comments with respect to Bill 7. I did attend some of the sessions, I believe, with the general government committee and there did indicate to be some support after a number of amendments were passed, and the municipalities, AMO, and some of the private carriers indicated their support for the legislation.

This legislation, as the previous speaker, the member for Ottawa East, indicated, contains amendments to a number of pieces of legislation: the Municipal Act, the Regional Municipalities Act, 13 regional acts and the Municipal Affairs Act.

As I believe I indicated before in one of my responses to one of the previous speakers, this legislation will provide municipalities with the legislative authority to implement programs and strategies geared towards waste reduction. All of that is very admirable, and I got the feeling from the groups that came before the committee that, generally speaking, with some of exceptions, most of which I will be referring to in my comments, the issue of how it's going to be paid for, it was supported.

There was one letter that was drawn to my attention which I'm very surprised that the government hasn't referred to, for some reason. Normally, the Canadian Bar Association makes presentations at some of these committees and gives excellent presentations. I don't believe they attended at the committee. I don't think they made a presentation at the committee, oral or in writing, but there was a letter which was written on August 16 to the Minister of Municipal Affairs from the Canadian Bar Association, environmental law section. This letter put forward a number of technical issues which I would like to draw to the attention of the House before this bill is passed.

These are questions that probably should be looked at in some detail. I won't read the letter, but I will refer to it extensively. The Minister of Municipal Affairs certainly has the letter, as does the Minister of Environment and Energy, and if any members wish it, I would certainly make it available to them. I don't believe this letter came to the attention of the committee.

As they indicate, the amendments to these various pieces of legislation that I just referred to are supported in that they provide municipalities with powers that previously had been assumed but were always open to legal challenges. That seems to be the general tenor of Bill 7, and for that reason I think the majority of members in this House, on both sides, with few exceptions, will be supporting this legislation.

I'm referring to the letter periodically. I will be reading from various sections because I think it's important that it be drawn to the attention of the members of this House. "These explicit powers provided for in the bill include the establishment and operation of 3R facilities, the processing of waste and the use of grant incentives and fees to achieve policy goals."

Again the whole emphasis is with respect to the municipalities, and I can't express the concern that I have in two or three responses. I don't understand why the government is getting into this thing, this process of passing on these requirements to the municipalities, all of which are good policies -- I don't think any of us are challenging that -- but we're asking the municipalities to implement things when we don't have any idea as to the funding of them. We don't know the percentage of funds that are going to come from the province, what emphasis is going to be put on the municipalities to pay for.

The previous speakers have indicated that many of these processes are very expensive. I think that before municipalities get into it, they're entitled to know the financial process, so I would like to read three points This, as I indicated, is from the environmental law and municipal law sections of the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario:

"There is a potential overlap in the waste management powers between the upper- and lower-tier municipalities. For example, a regional municipality could take over recycling while an area municipality maintains control of collection. There is also potential for conflict to the extent that collection includes separation of recyclable materials."

1650

There's no question that this issue of jurisdiction between different tiers of a municipality is going to be of concern, particularly when you're talking different ways of disposing of waste.

The second area of general concern was:

"The bill does not allow for flow control of waste," and this was referred to in the presentation by the member for Don Mills, "from the private sector. There is nothing that would allow a municipality to regulate collection from most private sources or processing or disposal at existing private facilities. This leaves a gap in the extent to which municipalities are able to plan for the total waste in the municipality."

The third point is the point that I am concerned with and on which almost every speaker to date has expressed a concern. That is, again to quote from the letter, "There is still some considerable doubt as to how waste management activities are to be funded, particularly in these times of fiscal restraint."

We've got social contracts, we've got cutbacks in funds that are going to the transfer people, the municipalities, the school boards, and yet this bill is going to be saying that municipalities "must" do certain things, they "must" do them, and I think they will have the support of the public until the public finds out, particularly the property taxpayer, how it's going to be paid for.

If I watch the record of this government, that is what this government is going to do. I would predict, and I'm saying this with due respect -- if someone can challenge me, that's great, but watching the record of this government, this whole process of funding it will be dumped on to the municipality, and that will have grave consequences with respect to the property taxpayers who have had it up to here as far as property taxes are concerned. They simply cannot sustain any further tax increases.

Yes, the municipalities will be forced to get into a user-pay type of system, a cost per bag or some other type of thing. The member for Don Mills referred to such things as product stewardship and packaging industry, taxing those people and that sort of thing, but the two main things are going to be taxing the property taxpayer and the implementation of some user-pay type of process. Not knowing the implications of that, the general public will be in support of this bill until it finds out after it's been passed how it's going to be paid for.

It's sort of like Bill 143. Bill 143 went around this province and there really wasn't much ado. Yes, there were some public hearings all around the province and --

Mr Perruzza: Which one was that?

Mr Tilson: Well, it was the most dastardly piece of legislation outside of Bill 40 that your government has ever passed. It created the three superdumps of this province, and with very little public input. I can tell you that the public --

Mr Mammoliti: Super what?

Mr Tilson: Superdump, George; that's what it is. It's a superdump in all of the three regions of this province, in the greater Toronto area. If the people of this province knew the implications of Bill 143, I can tell you that if they knew the lists, 54 or 57 lists originally, all heck would have broken loose at those terms. It would have been worse than fireworks.

The problem is similar in this bill. I saw very little and I wasn't at all at the committee meetings, but there was very little opposition to this bill at the hearings, particularly after some of the amendments went through. But I think once the municipalities and the property taxpayer find out how it's going to be paid for, that's when it's going to be very difficult. Again I would recommend they go through clause-by-clause on specific sections.

I'd like to refer to some of the clause-by-clause comments that they've gone to the trouble of -- it is strange. The ministers received this letter on August 16 and for some unearthly reason it didn't reach -- the two ministers, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Environment and Energy, chose to keep it in their own little files and chose not to release it to the committee, which I believe was in the process of discussing this particular bill at the time the ministers had this letter.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It was on the assistant's desk.

Mr Tilson: That's probably exactly what happened. In any event, I'd like to refer to several concerns that the Canadian Bar Association referred to. They referred to subsection 208.3(5), if I can just find that -- just bear with me -- this is the section that says, "The municipal board may, as a condition to giving any approval, impose such restrictions and conditions respecting the acquisition or use of the land as the municipal board considers necessary."

The question was, what is the rationale for requiring a public hearing for the acquisition of land? Because that's what this section's going to be doing. There must be a public hearing. There isn't for anything else. Why is there for this?

The other question they have is that when they refer to the conditions and restrictions, what sort of conditions and restrictions are being contemplated?

It's unfortunate that the committee wasn't able to ask the ministry those questions, because it may well have been that appropriate amendments may have been put forward. Now these are being put forward, which are legal, technical amendments, albeit -- and I'll agree they sound technical unless you know this stuff backwards. The problem as I see it is that if you pass the legislation in its present form, without having reviewed these technical changes, it is going to lead to legal problems as we go on with respect to the municipalities. That gives me concern because that means more property tax dollars being spent.

Subsections 208.5(1) and (5): They suggested, "It would be less confusing if these sections were combined or followed after each another." Again, without reading the section, I realize that this does sound technical, but it's something that certainly the ministry should be looking at -- these and other amendments -- before this bill is passed.

One of the sections, 208.8, talks about damage. There's a subsection in this section that talks about entry and inspection of property by municipalities, and it says: "The local municipality shall provide compensation for any damages caused by inspection."

The Canadian Bar Association says, "What constitutes damage?" A very good question. "Does damage include economic loss? If damage is caused by inspection, what is the procedure for obtaining compensation? Who decides what the compensation will be? There is no provision for appealing fees, rules, etc. Should there be one? Clarification is required about the application of this provision to private sector facilities."

I am not going to go any further into this letter, a four-page letter of extensive comments on a number of sections in the bill, except to say that when you pass this stuff and it does become rather clear that there's going to be litigation down the line, that people are going to be proceeding to the courts -- if you're going to pass legislation, make sure it's right in the first place.

Both ministers had this letter before third reading. They had this letter while the committee was debating clause by clause and in fact undertaking hearings. So it is a very strange thing that this letter wasn't drawn to the attention of the committee, and in fact wasn't drawn to the attention of members of this House before third reading came in.

It may well have been that a committee-of-the-whole process might have resolved many of these difficulties, very serious concerns put forward by the Canadian Bar Association. That's one group that wasn't listened to.

1700

With respect to the issue of the local municipalities dealing with things, that's what this legislation is going to do. The legislation gives the municipalities the jurisdiction to implement programs and strategies geared towards waste reduction. It's contradictory when this government retains David Crombie to go around and talk to the municipalities now -- I assume his consultations are over with in the GTA -- about who's going to administer these superdumps in the three regions. It's a very strange process to be going about that now, after going through a very expensive process which to date has cost $33 million, as has been spent by the Interim Waste Authority, to decide who's going to administer these things, who's going to run them: Are the municipalities going to do it? Do they want to do it? Presumably if they do, they're going to have to assume the debt, and what are the implications of all of that?

I appreciate your allowing me to veer a little bit from the topic, Mr Speaker.

On the one hand, through this bill, Bill 7, the government is saying, "Well, municipalities, you're going to be responsible for all of these things," but, "You're not going to be allowed to get into that subject. We're going to decree what is going to go on there. We're not going to allow you to get into the topic of incineration."

Let's say that in a particular municipality there's no land available; there's no suitable land available or no land available period with respect to disposal of waste in a landfill site. They're not going to be allowed to debate or to inquire or to discuss the whole subject of incineration. This government has said, "No, you can't do that."

I hope members of this place heard the presentation that was given by the mayor of Vaughan and one of her councillors and I think a chair of one of their ratepayers' groups this morning on the problems with respect to the Keele Valley site and the three sites just to the northwest of it and the Seeley and Arnil proposal and all of that. I think there was a question in the House today on that topic.

We're saying on the one hand that we're going to give you the right to get into the 3Rs and do all these things; that's where it should be. Yet in other things we're not even going to allow you to debate it. We're not going to allow you to get into the whole issue of incineration. We're going to send Mr Crombie around to ask the municipalities: "What do you want to do? Is there going to be a permanent waste authority? Are the municipalities going to run it? Is the province going to run it? Is there going to be a partnership?"

The other issue, of course, which the municipalities -- if I read this bill, it leaves open the whole issue of waste export. The former Minister of the Environment and the current Minister of Environment and Energy has said you can't have long rail haul to Kirkland Lake. Each area must get rid of its own garbage. The difficulty is, I suppose, if you looked at one specific municipality -- well, I represent the north half of the region of Peel, and the bulk of the population lives in the south end. So the proposal by this government is: "Fine, we're going to take all the garbage that's down there. We're not going to allow incineration. We're going to dump it on the farm lands in the north part of the region of Peel." The same process goes with the other regions. We're going to put it on farm lands.

The whole process of consultations has been watered down. Yes, the IWA has had little hearings where people have come and spoken to Mr McIntyre and his colleagues, but there really hasn't been the consultation process that this government boasts about. It's been a were, if you knew all the facts -- if we knew all the facts, would we be voting on it the way we are? Yes, you look at all the wonderful things that municipalities can do, and I started to list off some of them from this. I made a statement in the House this morning, where the Minister of Environment said Ontario is going to be closer to its minimum 50% waste diversion target by the year 2000, a very admirable process, a very admirable target to set. At that time, in April, he said these regulations will come into effect in August. Of course here it is the middle of October, and municipalities -- some of the municipalities, of course, have got into certain things illegally. Some of them have held back. They know exactly what the regulations are going to be doing but they've held back because they don't know whether they're going to be coming out or not. Now two and half months have gone by since these regulations were to come out.

So you read these things, and this is what the municipalities are going to have to do. I've read some of this before in my responses, but I'm going to read them again, because I think they are admirable. We all agree they're very admirable.

"Blue box recycling, leaf and yard waste composting and home composting programs for all municipalities with a population greater than 5,000.

"Annually updated waste audits, waste reduction work plans and recycling programs for large industrial, commercial and institutional waste generators. Those affected include large construction and demolition projects, retail complexes, hospitals, schools, hotels and motels, restaurants and manufacturing establishments."

This is a press release of April 29 that the Minister of Energy announced.

"Packaging audits, updated every two years, and packaging reduction work plans for Ontario manufacturers with more than 100 full-time employees or their part-time equivalent in food, beverage, paper and allied products and chemical products."

Finally, "In addition, approvals for recycling facilities will be streamlined."

And then the minister in his press release said, "The regulations will become law in August 1993, but most of the provisions will begin to apply six to 12 months later."

How can anybody disagree with that? I think every person in this place and the members of the public think these are wonderful things.

It still comes back to the same question that was asked when we had Bill 143: Produce the lists. Tell us what you're going to be doing with the garbage in the GTA. Don't give us some of the information now and, "Pass the legislation and then we'll tell you what we're going to do. Then we'll announce the 57 sites," in sort of a teasing function which will be broken down to, what, 15 and finally down to the final three sites, and who knows when that's going to take place? The minister said a week or so ago that it was going to take place in autumn, which means, I suppose, up to December 20. I suspect that is realistically when those sites are going to be chosen, because they have no idea. They're still debating whether they're going to have the Armstrong site up north of the Keele site. They're still debating that.

The same questions are being asked with respect to Bill 7. The municipalities are going to be mandated to do certain things. A financial paper was promised two years ago, I believe, some time ago, on this topic. It's been requested by the municipalities. The municipalities want to know how they're going to implement these matters. The member for Don Mills, our critic, spent a considerable amount of time in his presentation speculating as to how it's going to be financed.

The fear we all have is that -- do you remember when you were in opposition? Do you remember how you used to criticize the Liberal government for its downloading on to municipalities because of the unbelievable property tax increases? This is going to be just a dandy, because this legislation is going to be passed, the regulations will come forward, and then some time later they'll tell us -- when I say "they," the New Democratic government -- how it's going to be paid for. I'll tell you, I fear for all of you out there who hold properties and are paying outrageous property taxes now as a result of policies that have been put forward by the Liberal government in the past and now by the New Democratic government. This bill, which has, in general, support of the people of this province, and I suspect the majority of our caucus will be supporting Bill 7 -- I think, how can you not support these principles? The difficulty is, we're putting something forward, we're mandating the municipalities, we're clearing up areas that were uncertain before as to the jurisdiction of certain municipalities, and yet it is unclear as to who in the world is going to pay for it. The province is broke.

1710

Mr Laughren has informed us that he may be a little short as far as revenue is concerned. He's indicated that, so things are getting tight. We've got social contracts, we've got laying off people all over the place, in the government we've got job layoffs, we've got Rae days. We've got some real problems, so I can tell you, the provincial government is not going to be giving the funding to the municipalities that the municipalities expect. So where is the money going to come from? That's the question which I will repeat over and over, and I can almost promise you that if I have an opportunity to make a response, I will be asking that same question again.

As you're voting for this bill, ask yourself this question, members of the government: Where are the municipalities going to get the funding to implement these wonderful policies? And they are wonderful policies, these recycling policies. We have to get rid of our waste somehow; very difficult decisions. How is it going to be paid for, particularly at the same time when you're restricting the municipalities to even debate other areas? The whole issue of tires, that wonderful subject that was created by the Liberal government, and it really was, and now your current minister has said you can't bury them, you can't burn them and you can't ship them anywhere. I really fear the whole issue of tires needs to be resolved and it's not been. Is that policy going to be dumped on municipalities? Probably will be.

The whole issue of incineration is being left vague. As I have indicated, both ministers of the Environment for this government have said there'll be no new incineration plants allowed. That may or may not be a good decision. I'd like to debate --

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): You're debating it right now.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'd like to debate that topic more in this House, and yet this government isn't allowing us to debate it. And yet we had the mayor of Vaughan come to a press conference this morning and tell us the fear as to what's going to happen to the water in this province, particularly when you look at the area around the Keele Valley site and the other superdump that you're going to create just northwest of it; the drying up of rivers. You're building dumps on top of aquifers. You're building a dump on top of a potential aquifer in my own riding of Caledon.

I'll tell you, these concerns you're dumping, to use a play on words, on the municipalities are inexcusable when you're not revealing all of the information. So I close. I thank the members for the opportunity for allowing me to give my concerns. It's too bad, however, that we're going to vote on a bill without seeing the entire picture.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments? The member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: In commenting on the bill, I would like to reiterate a fact that the member has brought before the House, and that is the fact that what you require to implement any legislation in this province is the necessary financial resources. We have seen some rather interesting legislation coming forward. I remember a couple of weeks ago we had the so-called Environmental Bill of Rights, which had the same name as it started out with but by the time it reached this House it was hardly an environmental bill of rights; it was substantially changed.

But what I said on that occasion applies to this particular piece of legislation, and the member has appropriately suggested this, and that is, if you don't provide the municipalities, those who have to implement the provisions of this bill, the necessary resources to do so, then of course we're not going to have legislation that is going to work.

Hon Mr Cooke: A first: a defender of the municipalities, the first time Jim has ever done this.

Mr Bradley: The member for Riverside in Windsor, where the NDP is having a very difficult time, although I know Steve Langdon, the good friend of the Premier of the province of Ontario, may be helped today by the Premier's deathbed repentance in the field of free trade, where the Premier has intervened in the middle of a campaign.

I do want to emphasize to all members of the government, particularly the members of the cabinet who are not directly involved in this issue or the members at large of the caucus, that what I'd like to see them do is put the necessary pressure on the Minister of Environment and most particularly on the Treasurer to ensure that there is adequate funding to implement the provisions of this legislation. If you do not have that, it's simply a piece of paper. If you have that adequate funding, it can work because there are some positive implications for this piece of legislation.

Hon Mr Cooke: Who is this speaking?

Mr Bradley: I know that the member for Riverside, who interjects, would agree entirely with me that that money is required.

Hon Mr Cooke: You have never defended municipalities in your life.

Mr Bradley: I love municipalities.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I just want to compliment the member for Dufferin-Peel with regard to the remarks he's made here today. He's very knowledgeable about what he so forthrightly speaks about.

Bill 7 is of concern to a lot of people in this province. It's of concern to the people in my riding, because in Simcoe East when we look at the recycling, we look at the downloading on municipalities that's gone on and we look at site 41, which has cost millions and millions of dollars in this province to re-establish a landfill site. There are some 14 to 17 landfill sites in the county of Simcoe that are under their jurisdiction. The bill, the new county act, now has allowed any municipality to accept waste from another without going through the minister's approval.

When we look at the recycling with regard to tires that has taken place, when we look at the recycling that's going on with regard to plastics, people in my community are telling me they can't find a home for all the plastic that's there. The very important issue that the member has raised with regard to incineration has not thoroughly been addressed by this government. With regard to the rail haul, it has not been addressed other than, "No, no."

When we look at the whole aspect of municipal waste, the concern that the municipalities and the counties have with regard to the downloading, as the former speaker has just mentioned, is: Is the funding from the ministry going to be there to cover the costs that this government is putting on to the local municipalities? I can assure you that will not be the case. It will be the local municipalities that will be picking up the total cost along with the counties in order to fulfil a commitment that this government is laying on them.

Mr David Johnson: Just briefly, I'd like to commend the member for Dufferin-Peel. I think he's added a great deal to this debate. He's raised a number of issues, because of his background, that needed to be said. He particularly has introduced the concerns with regard to litigation, and I think if waste management had a middle name that middle name would be litigation. We've seen that in terms of attempting to find landfill sites. The member has pointed out that entry to various properties for inspection will be a problem. I think he has made an excellent point, one I believe should be investigated.

The member has also raised the concept of the running of the superdumps, as he calls them. These are the three landfill sites that the Interim Waste Authority's attempting to find. I think the intention is that they be good for about 20 years and have about 30 million tonnes of capacity, as I recall.

He's raised an excellent point: Will the province run these superdumps? If it does, what sort of tipping fees will it require of the municipalities? Will they have what is called flow control? Will they demand that all waste, whether residential or collected by the private sector for the commercial, industrial and institutional sectors, be required to go into these superdumps and will it all be required to go in at the fee charged by the province? If so, what will be the impact on the municipalities and what will be the impact on the private sector?

If the municipalities are to run these superdumps, what charge will there be from the province to the municipalities? Will it again be in the form of a tipping fee or will it be some other sort of charge? If it's expected to cover the costs of the Interim Waste Authority, then unfortunately that expense could be quite high.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? The member for Dufferin-Peel has two minutes.

1720

Mr Tilson: I must confess that when I listened to this bill as it was first introduced and looked at the general intent, which was for municipalities to have the jurisdiction to deal with some of these problems, programs and strategies, which no question should be perhaps mandated by the province, and I submit will ultimately be paid for by the property landholder of this province, I then looked at what is going on today.

We have in this province, where the bulk of the population lives in the greater Toronto area -- I hope I'm not offending too many people, but there's no question a substantial amount of the population of this province lives in this area -- the waste issue being dealt with by the province, almost unilaterally, by its puppet, the Interim Waste Authority, which has spent to date about $33 million and it has no idea where it's going to end. I've asked questions of the current Minister of Environment and he has no idea how the IWA is going to spend this money, where it's going to get the money or how much is going to be spent. They have no idea.

Just very briefly, there was a press release put out recently, on October 6, by a coalition called the Watershed Ecosystem Coalition. I recommend members of the House read this, because they talked about what the IWA is doing and how it's as if they put a blindfold on their heads and are just proceeding with respect to a whole process which should be dealt with by the municipalities, and yet the province and its puppet, the IWA, are blindly and recklessly and negligently spending the taxpayers' money on a process that should be dealt with by the municipalities with all the experience the municipalities have.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Eddy: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management. I think this is another example of the government running to catch up to the past, because indeed many municipalities are carrying out the responsibilities that will be permitted under the act.

I note, as has been mentioned before, that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is very much in favour of the legislation, promoting it, supporting it, with an exception, concern about the funding. That's been mentioned several times today and cannot be overstressed, because the cost of the recycling programs is very high. They're going to be at the top of the list for serious cuts in forthcoming deliberation of municipal budgets, I feel, if not the coming year certainly the year afterwards, as many cuts and downloading of costs -- and I've mentioned those before -- continue, along with a very serious situation that many municipal councils find themselves in these days with tremendous amounts of unpaid taxes.

We note that Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc has said that the highest level of recycling in the world occurs in Ontario because of the blue box program. That's really good, because millions and millions of metric tonnes of materials have been diverted from landfill, so that allows the capacity to be available for later use. Since the blue box programs were started in 1986, more than 90% of the people who use them use them all the time, and that's a real advantage. However, there are many other items of waste that must be dealt with and should be dealt with very soon, because it is such a concern.

I just want to mention briefly, that many municipalities under 5,000 population have proceeded to participate in the blue box program, and I think that's a good thing. It's especially true in my own municipality, which is around 4,000. It was started many years ago at the insistence, I might say, of the members of the St George Women's Institute and the Blue Lake and Auburn Women's Institute, who made several presentations and had a letter-writing campaign and pushed the members of council to proceed. So, jointly, we did it with the town of Paris.

The town of Paris will be familiar indeed to the Minister of Environment and Energy, because the town of Paris has a very serious problem with the ministry. I would classify it as an unpaid bill. I have a letter from the mayor of the town of Paris, His Worship Jack Bawcutt, to the Premier, dated April 29, 1993:

"I am taking the liberty of writing to you directly on behalf of the residents of the town of Paris, and also on behalf of all the small municipalities in Ontario.

"My concern is that the Ministry of Environment has a policy that is unfair and unequitable, and indeed downright discriminatory to small municipalities which are not part of a region or so-called 'upper tier'.

"In order to obtain a temporary licence to continue utilizing its landfill site, prior to an application for expansion, the town of Paris was informed that it must undertake an environmental assessment study. This we did fully believing that we would be receiving funding assistance." It's my understanding that such funding was assured.

"We commenced our study in March 1992 and have been horrified at the cost of the project. In April 1993, we were advised by the Ministry of Environment that they would not be assisting us with any funding as their policy is only to assist upper-tier municipalities." The Waste Management Act allows counties to decide to go into waste management, but it does not force it to the upper tier. It's completely optional.

The letter goes on to say: "We find this very difficult to comprehend, particularly as for a number of years we have had a cooperative arrangement with the township of South Dumfries to receive their household waste into our landfill site.

"Mr Premier, I most sincerely request that you take time to look into this discriminatory situation and that you will be able to arrange for the Ministry of Environment to have a more equitable policy towards smaller municipalities.... I am enclosing a resolution of the council."

The reply came from the Minister of Environment; the Premier forwarded it to the minister for reply:

"The Premier has asked me to respond to your April 29, 1993, letter" -- this was dated June 24, 1993 -- "and resolution on ministry funding policies for individual environmental assessment studies and studies under a waste management master plan.

"I assure you that I recognize the points you have raised in your letter to the Premier and understand the complexities of your region's waste management challenges. However, I believe that the Ministry of Environment and Energy funding policies for waste management planning studies are fair, fiscally responsible, practical and in accordance with the province's commitment to economic restraint.

"I cannot agree with your resolution suggesting that MOEE's funding policy is 'discriminatory' towards lower-tier municipalities. Indeed, ministry funding for the development of a 3Rs waste diversion strategy for five municipalities in Brant county supports the individual landfill environmental assessment study being conducted by the town of Paris."

I read those letters into the record to show you what can happen to municipalities. Local governments can be in the waste management business and in recycling programs, and indeed many of them are. I think of the Bluewater Recycling committee, which serves a number of local municipalities and spreads over at least three counties -- Middlesex, Huron and Lambton -- working very well.

I cannot understand the viewpoint of the minister on this particular request and, indeed, assurance of funding. There are other lower-tier municipalities in the province that are in the same boat, as I understand it. The town did everything required by the ministry: The time, the meetings, the energy, the money were all expended to do exactly what the ministry wanted in order to expand a sanitary landfill site which met all the requirements, had been operating for years, and it had the door slammed in its face.

1730

I use this as an example of what I consider inequitable treatment and to show what can happen perhaps in other programs. It's not right, and as a consequence there will be a number of petitions presented to the House dealing with this matter.

As I mentioned, there are concerns with the bill, but I'll concentrate on the matter of cost. Certainly that is the big problem as municipalities see it, as the association of municipalities sees it, and I hope the ministry will recognize it.

I very much appreciate hearing the views of other members on alternative ways of recycling. We must never lose sight, however, that the way to control waste is first of all to reduce the amount of waste at source, cut it down and not have as much, and reuse as much as possible and recycle as much as possible after that.

I advise that I'm in favour of the legislation and will be voting for it, but there is a great concern and we will be raising the matter of cost-sharing subsequently on many occasions in this House.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Brant-Haldimand for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I just want to commend my colleague for his excellent presentation. Whenever he speaks on municipalities, I am always as close to him as possible and listen to him as attentively as possible. I don't think there are any other members here who have known the municipality politics and their administration as my colleague has spoken about. He expressed some concerns, and I hope, of course, as he said, that some of the municipalities that would like a bill like this come forward because they have requested it. He has warned them about some of the things that are needed, and the tradition of this government of not consulting properly, of not listening properly, could run them in some very difficult situations.

I urge those who were maybe not paying attention as attentively as possible, because of course they may have other matters that they may feel are of great concern, to read those Hansards as he has expressed in his words here, because I think the caution that he has laid out before the government should be followed very closely.

I just want to say again that as the member expressed those concerns, I myself will be speaking a bit later on this bill because I have great concern on how the matter of handling the radioactive soil in Scarborough North is being done and the pressure that may be placed on the municipality of how this will be handled. But again, thank you for your wonderful and excellent and intelligent presentation. I look forward to speaking a little bit later on this matter.

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If not, the honourable member for Brant-Haldimand has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr Eddy: The bill will be proceeding and many municipalities will be very pleased to see it pass. There's no doubt about that. It's permissive powers that are overdue. But the serious part of the whole thing is the matter of funding. Those are our concerns. The matter of funding -- when the funding programs will be announced, what they will be and how soon they will be announced -- is a great concern.

I would hope the government takes this into consideration, because waste management is very important. It's very important to the province, it's very important to the municipal councils that are engaged in it and it's certainly very, very important to the citizens. I want to commend the citizens of the province in participating to the extent that they do. I know there are many others who wish to and will be, and in many other areas.

The Speaker: Is there further debate? I recognize the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Mammoliti: Is this going to take long?

Mr Stockwell: Yes. I'm up to debate this bill because I've been around this issue for a number of years. I recall vividly when the Liberal Party brought in the blue box program and the game plan it had in mind with respect to the cost-sharing and the municipalities' involvement in the process and the decision-making etc. I remember at the time I felt this thing was going to be one of those typical government programs that's sort of a two-stage loan. In the first stage they get into the game, and in the second stage, when the municipalities have now bought the trucks and bought the boxes and delivered them and so on, they get out of the loan. It becomes a very short-term, piecemeal kind of operation that leaves municipalities holding the bag for blue box and recycling.

I didn't like it at the time, and as time has gone on -- I don't think anyone would say this, because it doesn't seem to be politically correct these days -- the blue box recycling program has been a complete failure, an absolute, categoric failure. It's been --

Mr Mammoliti: Oh, don't say "complete failure," Chris.

Mr Stockwell: Well, I say to the member for Yorkview, if you want to measure it in dollars and cents and what's been recycled and how better that money could have been spent, it has been a failure.

Mr Mammoliti: It's been educational.

Mr Stockwell: Now, if there is any issue that this government has butchered more than landfill and garbage and the environment, I'm not sure what it is. They have absolutely butchered this issue from the time they got in.

The arguments at the time were much like the arguments today, and as I heard the member for Yorkview suggest, it becomes educational. Surely to goodness we are not going to spend literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars educating them on the benefits of the 3Rs. I think they know what are the benefits of the 3Rs. They know the good things about recycling, reducing and reusing. But to suggest that we get together for some kind of big group hug and a big feel-good position to introduce this kind of blue box recycling program at great expense to the taxpayers is not serving the people we were elected to serve.

If you go down to a curbside pickup in Metropolitan Toronto, I'd suggest that the curbside pickup would cost you about $25 or $30 a tonne.

Mr Grandmaître: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is there a quorum?

The Speaker: Would the table count to determine if there's a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Speaker: Quorum is now present. The honourable member for Etobicoke West may resume his speech.

Mr Stockwell: So what happens is that municipalities and provincial governments entertain programs that have nothing more beneficial -- not nothing, but the primary point of the legislation is to make the constituents feel better. The dollar factor is never measured. As I was saying, if you went to a curbside pickup, I would think the expense of a curbside pickup probably is no different in other areas of Ontario from what it is in Metropolitan Toronto: maybe $25 or $35 a tonne to pick up at curbside. When you pick up recycled waste, you're well over $100. You're well over $100 on recycled waste when you pick it up at the curbside.

What happens to that waste? Lots of people would like to tell you that waste then gets diverted from the landfill site and gets put back into the system via paper and plastic and glass. The sad reality of the situation is that not all that garbage gets diverted from the waste site. A significant amount of that garbage simply gets hauled to transfer stations, sits there until everyone figures out that nobody wants to buy it, gets put into a truck and taken to the same landfill station. It would have cost $25 a tonne to collect at curbside.

1740

The only reason we did that was to make the taxpayers feel better about using their blue box. That's absolutely insane, but we pass these things, along with local municipalities, because we're kidding the troops by making them feel better, because they think they're recycling. They're not recycling, and if they are recycling, the cost is so prohibitive, they would have been better to put it out at the curb, take the money they use to collect the blue box and invest it in ideas and programs that could actually do some good about diversion or landfill or incineration.

We have another piece of legislation that allows local municipalities to expand their needs, expand the uses of the blue box program. By allowing them to expand, we therefore increase the cost and we put more recycled goods on the market. The marketplace can't even deal with the recycled goods that are on the market right now, let alone with any more being put on because more municipalities are going to get involved in recycling.

Personally, and I know I don't speak for my party on this issue --

Mr Mammoliti: You don't speak for your party on any issue.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Yorkview suggests that I don't speak for my party on any issue. I would think there are some on which I certainly do, but I know on this one I don't speak for my party. I know my party will support this piece of legislation, but I will not, for those reasons outlined. I will not, because one of the real, good ways we could cut down the amount of waste in our system is not even being explored. We won't even review incineration. We can't even look at incineration.

I understand that some of those members opposite don't agree with incineration, but there are a lot of people out there who can provide you with technical evidence and scientific fact to say that incineration is one of the best ways to go about taking care of the waste stream, a lot of people who can say that, but we can't even look at that because this government says, "I don't care what kind of technical advice you have, I don't care what kind of proof, what kind of reports or what kind of studies are involved; we won't even review that issue."

We can ship our garbage to the United States of America and we can ship our garbage to Quebec and we can ship our garbage outside our borders, but we can't ship our garbage to Kirkland Lake. Tell me what makes sense about that kind of policy that this government has. You can cross borders and cross countries, but you can't cross jurisdictions within municipal boundaries. That makes no sense at all.

Mr Mammoliti: At what cost?

Mr Stockwell: At what cost? I'm asking you, why can you now ship it to the US or to Quebec, but you can't ship it to Kirkland Lake? This makes no sense.

Mr Mammoliti: How much would it cost?

Mr Stockwell: The argument is, how much will it cost? I will say to the member across the floor, you could ship your garbage to Kirkland Lake and back for the amount of money that it costs to recycle it under the blue box program and that you're wasting today. I can tell you, you could do that.

Mr Mammoliti: Give us the figures.

Mr Stockwell: I gave them to you earlier, if you were listening, member for Yorkview.

Mr Perruzza: Shoot it up into space.

Mr Stockwell: Well, that may be interesting.

This is how we continue to go along, convincing the people in Ontario that the best way they can go about reducing, reusing and recycling is through an antiquated blue box system that costs the taxpayers significant amounts of money and doesn't get at the root cause.

One thing on which I did agree with this government when it got elected with respect to recycling and reusing was their ban on pop bottles and their ban on the one-litre glass containers. You could cut out a whole lot of this recycling business if you just went ahead with your election promise about pop cans and one-litre glass containers. You wouldn't have to deal with these kinds of megadollars at a municipal or provincial level if you just went ahead and fulfilled that campaign promise you made.

That's the kind of thing that could go about reducing the amount of recycling we'd need and that would have a double-edged sword to it that would affect the taxpayers' expense. Not only would they be doing the recycling, not only would they be taking those pop cans and bottles back to the stores like you do with beer bottles; they would also divert all that from the blue box system. You wouldn't need to put those in the blue box and thereby charge $125 a tonne to collect it at curbside.

That was one of the better ideas I thought you people had with respect to reducing and reusing and recycling. But you see, the only approach you have to the 3Rs is expanding the blue box program. I defy you to go to any municipality and point to one that recycles and unloads 100% of its recycled product. I defy you to go to one that recycles and can do it for less than $100 a tonne recycled. I defy you to go to one municipality that can afford to expand its blue box program in future years, with greater needs, with the limited tax base they have today. It's a loser, bottom line. The blue box program will be a loser 15 years down the road because municipalities, once you as the province opt out of the funding plan, won't be able to afford to continue to run a blue box program on the back of home owner taxes. It will end up collapsing under its own inefficient weight.

I know the arguments that people use who would like to see the blue box expanded, and I dealt very quickly with it in the beginning and I'll deal with it again.

What the benefits of this program have to do with are basically formed in education for the consumer. People in the province of Ontario who use their blue box and take it to the curb think in their minds that they're recycling. They think in their minds that they are being environmentally conscious and they think in their minds that this is going a long way to reducing the problem we have in the waste stream. I understand it has been one of the greatest public relations tools that any government has put forward in the last 15, 20, 25 years. It has been extremely successful in showing the people what we need to do with respect to reducing the waste stream and stopping all these superdump sites going in, hopscotching and pock-marking across the province of Ontario. It's been a good educational program. It's been an expensive program but it's been a good program.

I ask the government to give some thought to a couple of ideas that I have. The first idea would be that you take the money you use in the blue box program that goes to waste, and literally goes to waste, and invest it into programs, invest it into building plants, invest it into higher technology as far as incineration, invest it into plants that can fix the problem with respect to the $100-million tire problem, it would be better spent. But seeing as how you're going to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars in a recycling program, you don't have any money left over to really put it where it should be used, in ideas and plants and programs that will go ahead and really begin to solve the problem.

Mr Mammoliti: So burn it?

Mr Stockwell: I see the member for Yorkview says, "Burn it." I don't just say burning it is the only avenue of exploration. There are all kinds of ideas. I'm not opposed to incineration. I'm not opposed to investigating the merits of incineration; I'm only saying that right now, today, there is so much technology out there with respect to the reduction of the waste stream that you could be funding projects right across the province. Out of those projects you'd get winners and you'd get losers, but the winners you could implement and really begin to solve the landfill issue.

1750

But what you're doing now is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain, collecting recycled goods that nobody wants to buy that end up back at the landfill site anyway. What good is that? Where's the sense in that? What's the taxpayers' benefit there?

These people use the blue boxes thinking it's being diverted, and in some instances, in some cases, it's not even being diverted. It's going to the same landfill site had they just thrown it into a green garbage bag. What's the benefit there? What makes the system credible, accountable, reasonable? Where's the benefit to the taxpayers of the province of Ontario?

Here we're expanding it. Metropolitan Toronto has got more paper than it knows what to do with. They can't sell it. They have more glass and plastics than they know what to do with. They can't find a market for them. For heaven's sake, presently you can't find a market for what you recycle, and you're recycling more. Where's the sense?

It's obvious that this is going to pass, because you've got a tremendous amount of support here for this piece of legislation, and the costs this government is passing on to the municipalities are very limited. You know as well as I do, particularly if you sat on the regional council, that the moneys you're offering up are not going to cover the cost of the program and you won't offer them up ad infinitum. They've got to sunset and then those costs are going to be passed back to the consumers or the local taxpayers, who have very little room to increase their taxes to run an inefficient, ineffective blue box program.

I know it's not one of those popular issues, because I know today it's politically correct to talk about the 3Rs, it's politically correct to talk about the blue box and it's politically correct to talk about expanding these programs, but the last thing is, it's not practically correct, it's not financially correct and it makes in a lot of instances absolutely no sense.

The only thing it makes you do is that it makes you believe that the taxpayers feel good when they put their blue box out at the curb. It's not doing what it was planned to do and it costs you, in some cases, $100 more a tonne, curbside, to pick up a recycled blue box than it does to pick up a green garbage bag. God help us; what we could spend that 100 bucks per tonne on to really go about solving this crisis, solving this problem. If you did spend the money wisely in the next 10 years, I don't think you'd need your three superdumps. I don't think you'd need them. I think you could actually find a solution that would reduce the three superdumps to a number something less than three.

But we have kidded the folks into saying, "This is the panacea that's going to solve the problem." Nobody is going to get to 50% recycle by the turn of the century. We'll still have a problem with respect to landfill sites and we'll still be going curbside with the blue box. No one will be at 50%. We'll be literally a billion dollars shorter on our taxpayer base and we won't have the problem solved.

If that's what you're trying to achieve, if you're trying to make people feel good about putting a blue box out, then support this. If you really want practical solutions, take a long, hard look at this, because this is not going to solve your problems. This is just going to exacerbate them.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Etobicoke for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): As usual, my friend the member for Etobicoke West has brought an interesting perspective to this debate. The interesting thing is that when we start talking about recycling, it has become a third-rail subject. When I first heard that expression, "a third-rail subject," I said, what are they talking about? It's the third rail in the subway: Touch it and die.

It's one of those things that we're not supposed to talk about because we all know how good blue boxes are. It makes us feel good. It makes me feel good. But the wisdom my friend brings to this debate is the fact that it isn't working. It's costing so much money that could otherwise be spent on solving the problem.

This should not be a political question. This should be something that we're all working on together to solve, and the solutions that the government is bringing forward aren't working. Why can't we send our garbage to Kirkland Lake, a willing recipient? Why can't we at least look at the evidence, the statistical, the empirical evidence, as to the viability of using energy from waste? That's a different word for incineration, but nevertheless we can get energy from it.

My friend brings this forward for serious debate for people to consider and all we get is heckles from the government. They don't want to seriously come to terms with the fact that he speaks a lot of truth and he has a lot of experience in the municipal area, looking at these problems over many more years than most of the members in this House have been in politics. Let us listen to that and let us have an open mind and consider the ability to solve our crisis, and it is a crisis, with innovative approaches, not closed minds.

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If not, the honourable member for Etobicoke West has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr Stockwell: I thank the member for York Mills. I appreciate his comments. I may well use them in my campaign brochure, as a matter of fact.

I'm not suggesting, as the member for Downsview shouted out, that you just kill it. I'm not suggesting that just killing it is going to make --

Mr Perruzza: Did I say that?

Mr Stockwell: Maybe it was the member for Yorkview. I apologize if it was.

Mr Perruzza: Credit me for what I say; don't credit me for what I don't say.

Mr Stockwell: I'll credit you for what you say from now on.

If you just gave an option in this package, an option to review incineration with a financial commitment, I don't think I'd have as much opposition to this, because at least I'd know you're going down two roads. But you're not. You're going down blindly one road, the blue box recycling program. I can quote you chapter and verse where the blue box recycling program has been excessively expensive; it hasn't captured the kind of reuse that you thought it could capture; it's not going to get up to the 50% you think it will get up to; it doesn't have any prayer of recycling what you thought it would recycle; and in fact when you did recycle it, there was no market there to sell it to.

Now, if that's the truth, and I know it happens, if that's the case, then why would you not look at one or two other alternatives? If only one thing was the case, that you recycle it and there's no market out there for it, which happens, it sits at way stations and gets taken to dumps after you've recycled it. If that was the only case to be true, which it is, why can't you look at one other alternative instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars down this road that's proven not to work?

It may take a little more guts than I called for and a little more guts than I expect of you, but I think it would be a far better idea than committing these taxpayers to hundreds of millions of more dollars they can't afford.

The Speaker: It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1758.

13 octobre 1993