role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 27, 1980

31st Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L124 - Thu 27 Nov 1980 / Jeu 27 nov 1980

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

RADIATION SITES

ORAL QUESTIONS

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

FOOD INDUSTRY PRACTICES

SOVIET INVOLVEMENT IN POLAND

FEDERAL AID TO TRANSPORTATION

GUELPH TEXTILE FIRM

DURHAM REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING

FARM BUILDING MATERIALS

MEDICAL AND DENTAL PROCEDURES

URANIUM MINING MONITORING

ASSISTANCE TO CANFARM

UNICEF CHRISTMAS CARDS

BENDIX CORPORATION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, 1978-79

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BOARD HEARING

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTING

TRANSFER OF BILL

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DEVOLUTION OF ESTATES AMENDMENT ACT

INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED SECRETARIES AND ADMINISTRATORS IN ONTARIO ACT

CITY OF KINGSTON ACT

HAMILTON CLUB ACT

SIOUX PETROLEUMS LIMITED ACT

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

RADIATION SITES

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on an

article in this morning’s Globe and Mail headlined, “New Radiation Tests Ordered by AECB for 148 Locations.”

Perhaps I might begin by saying the only law that refers specifically to the permissible limits of exposure to ionizing radiation is the Atomic Energy Control Act,

an act of the federal Parliament, and more specifically, regulation P.C. 1978-1195 thereunder. However, since 1975, various provincial governments, including Ontario’s, have co-operated with federal authorities in programs to guard against health hazards arising as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation.

We have taken the view that there is little purpose to be served in arguing about jurisdictional responsibilities; rather our concern has been to see that there is maximum co-operation between the two levels of government and that available expertise is shared and effectively deployed. The 148 locations referred to in the newspaper

article are located across Canada. Approximately 70 of these are in Ontario.

The existence of this situation came to light in 1975, following the discovery that a building on Church Street in Toronto had high radiation levels. Subsequently the list of 148 locations across Canada was compiled by the Atomic Energy Control Board from a number of sources.

In February 1975 a group consisting of staff from the AECB, the federal Department of Health and Welfare and the Ontario Ministry of Health conducted a survey of the sites within Ontario to determine whether buildings or sites other than the Church Street location constituted health hazards. This survey did not reveal radiation levels that were likely to result in exposure in excess of the criteria permitted under the regulations enacted pursuant to the Atomic Energy Control Act.

In 1976 the AECB established a federal-provincial task force on radioactivity. In 1977 that task force published criteria or guidelines to assist in deciding whether or not decontamination should be carried out in any of the locations. These criteria or guidelines were followed in carrying out decontamination procedures at the Church Street property in Toronto, at the various properties in Port Hope, Elliot Lake and Bancroft, where work is still in progress, and at Deloro.

Questions have now arisen concerning the remaining sites in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada. These concerns have been brought to the attention of the AECB. My officials have been in close touch with the president of the AECB and his officials to determine the appropriate action to be taken. The president of the AECB proposes that the survey conducted in 1975 now be reviewed in the light of the criteria or guidelines published by the federal-provincial task force.

We are in agreement with this proposal and have indicated to Mr. Jennekens we are prepared to co-operate in such a review. I understand that within the next few days the Ontario government will be receiving a specific written proposal from the AECB as to how this review should be conducted, what further action, if any, might be undertaken, and what further remedial action, if any, might be required.

I might add that based upon tests conducted at the sites referred to in the recent newspaper articles, namely the Malvern subdivision in Scarborough and the property on Davenport Road in Toronto, there is no indication of health hazards to anyone. We shall, however, continue to co-operate in the review that the president of the AECB proposes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my first question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food on the subject of South Cayuga.

Given that the land on which the liquid waste plant in South Cayuga will be located is among the best farm land in Canada, from the point of view of both soil and heat units, the amount of sunlight and warmth that falls upon the land, and given the resolution passed unanimously yesterday by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture demanding a full justification of the South Cayuga site and a hearing on the matter by the Environmental Assessment Board, will the honourable minister explain to this House how he can allow the matter to proceed without such a hearing and what his participation in the decision-making process was?

Did he speak up against this within the cabinet and within those places where the decision was made, or did he meekly acquiesce to let this happen?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the honourable member and the resolution that passed at yesterday’s meeting of the OFA, I have not had an opportunity to read the resolution or to know the actual wording of the resolution.

Mr. S. Smith: Come on.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am being honest. Apparently the member has access to something I do not have, but I do not have a copy of that resolution. However, this morning I was at the OFA meeting along with several of my colleagues from cabinet. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) took 15 minutes this morning and went into full detail. He told the group the background of the environmental hearing, the whole suggestion.

Mr. S. Smith: That is not the question I asked about your participation.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: My response to the question this morning was that we, as the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, identified the type of soil it was. We made the Minister of the Environment aware of what the conditions were. If the member would read the announcements the Minister of the Environment made respecting this, it is the intention there will only be certain types of agriculture grown around this site. They will not be agricultural products that will be consumed directly by the consumer.

Mr. S. Smith: What did you say about it?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It was a full government decision to put this site in Cayuga.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: Since it does appear as though the minister has simply acquiesced in this particular decision, can I ask the minister to confirm what was reported in the Chatham Daily News of August 4, 1980? Concerning the Lambton site, which the MacLaren consultants were very high on and felt was a very close second, could the minister say whether it is true, as reported in that newspaper, that “following a closed cabinet meeting it was decided not to locate the dump in the riding of Lambton”? Is that a fact or not?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The member was never more wrong in his life. One third of the total industrial waste of Ontario is disposed of 10 miles from my house, right in the centre of Lambton, so the member was never more wrong. He really does not know what is going on. There are dry cellars in the centre of Moore township, five miles from Sarnia, as the member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy) can tell him. The member is absolutely wrong. One third of the industrial waste of this province --

Mr. S. Smith: I did not ask the minister about one third of the industrial waste.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, one third of the industrial waste is disposed of within 10 miles of my house. The item is wrong; the member is wrong. He really does not know the situation. He was never more wrong in his life.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the Minister of Agriculture and Food explain the differing treatment of urban residents and farmers in the cases of the proposed industrial waste facility five kilometres from the town of Thorold and the proposed facility at South Cayuga?

Why is it that when the ministry and the government intended to put a liquid waste disposal facility in an urbanized area in the Niagara Peninsula, the government was prepared to have an environmental assessment that would have provided some assurance to people in the area, if it went through, that the environment was protected, but when it is farmers who are involved in South Cayuga there is no such assurance because the government has waived the necessity of having an environmental assessment?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the New Democratic Party had waited until this morning and gone down to a meeting of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, he could have had all his questions answered. I would suggest he ask that particular question of the Minister of the Environment. Everybody at the federation this morning understood it. I will let that minister answer the question.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege: This is not the Ontario Federation of Agriculture; this is the Legislature and the government.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege either.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture and Food is aware that under the old classification, 90.8 per cent of the land in South Cayuga was classified as one and two agricultural land, and that under the new classification, 93 per cent of the land is classified as one, two, three and four. Under the honourable minister’s own guidelines and the recommendations brought in for the Ministry of the Environment, development of treatment or disposal sites for liquid industrial wastes and hazardous wastes should not be using class one, two, three and four land. What is the policy of the minister’s government in response to the quality of the land?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the classification of the land. I can point it out acre by acre to the honourable member if he wishes. This situation was judged by government and it was decided that it was a most appropriate site to serve the people of this province.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: May I ask the minister, in his answer to the initial question, do we understand -- and I assume we do -- that much more than 100 acres will be taken out of agricultural production and perhaps much more than 740 acres? The minister is not going to allow edible food for human consumption to be grown in quite a substantial area around that, and perhaps rightly so. My question to the minister is, how can he justify that volume of good agricultural land being taken out of production when there is an extreme shortage of class one and two land and many of the other sites are on very poor agricultural land?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see that the honourable member has not studied the proposal. The proposal is for 100 acres of land for the actual site for the treatment plant. The area surrounding it will be growing agricultural crops -- not crops such as lettuce and tomatoes, but agricultural crops.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Accepting the honourable minister’s statement that Lambton county accepts its share of liquid industrial waste, is it not true that before the provincial government decided on Harwich township as the recipient of the dump, it had been a toss-up between location in Harwich or expanding an existing waste plant near the town of Brigden in Lambton? Is it not true that the minister used his weight in caucus to say there was no way that was going to come to Lambton county? If the minister’s staff made comments on the site at South Cayuga, would he please table any reports or comments that they made?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to understand that the honourable member really has not studied the situation. Had the honourable member been where the official critic of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food should have been this morning, he would have heard the whole explanation. He would have heard that Huron county was the first choice.

The Lambton site for industrial waste was established in the late 1960s. It is one of the more up-to-date sites in Ontario. Yes, we have had our problems with it. One has problems with industrial waste wherever one is, but about two years ago, Tricil Limited upgraded their plant. None of us likes it and there is no sense kidding ourselves, but it is doing the job. There was no interference on my part with the minister in making his decisions as to whether they would enlarge the Lambton site or whether they would choose other sites.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the same topic again to the Minister of the Environment.

In the honourable minister’s statement on Tuesday, he referred to a new corporation to operate the disposal site. He said this Ontario Waste Management Corporation will be incorporated immediately. He then referred to forthcoming legislation to set up a crown corporation to assume management and development responsibility. Could I ask the minister, are these two different corporations, and if so, could he explain the point of having two different corporations? Could he confirm if it is correct that under his general policy, a private corporation would he exempt from environmental assessment

whereas a crown corporation would not be exempt?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the latter part of that question: First, there is no relationship to that at all; it applies to government activity.

Before I answer the middle part of that question, I would like to tell the honourable members of the House that I have to put a word in to the credit of the member for Lambton and Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, don’t let him wander. You don’t let me get off the topic.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. The question dealt specifically with crown corporations. It had nothing to do with the previous question.

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It is rather sad that the one person who has done the most to deal with the problem should even be remotely criticized. That happens to be the member for Lambton. He has really done his share.

However, on the crown corporation, one would flow from the other. It would be necessary to have the appropriate legislation in this Legislature to establish a crown corporation. It does not deny the possibility of having a corporation formed which, when the appropriate legislation was presented, would become the crown corporation with the appropriate terms of reference drawn forth.

Mr. S. Smith: I had trouble hearing the answer to that question. I would ask the minister when he stands again if he would accept that a private corporation would be exempt from environmental assessment

whereas a crown corporation would not be exempt. I want a direct answer to that when he stands again. Specifically, could he also tell us who will be the shareholders of this private corporation? Is it to be a nonprofit corporation? Exactly how is it to be incorporated? Who will hold the assets, and what will the arrangement be in its dealings with the government?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The shareholder, obviously, would be the crown, and any assets would flow to the crown. For the first part of that question, there was no thought that by establishing a private corporation it would be exempt. That was an entirely different question. I made the statement on Tuesday that dealt with the environmental assessment aspect of it. It had no relationship to whether or not it was or was not a private company. The same terms apply to both.

Mr. Cassidy: Could the minister say whether it is the government’s intention, either through supplementary estimates or through legislation, to bring this matter before the Legislature before the House rises about December 12; or is it the government’s intention, having rammed the decision on South Cayuga into consideration with the MacLaren study, now to seek to make the establishment of that liquid waste facility a fait accompli with no consultation whatsoever with the elected representatives of Ontario here in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would be more than pleased to have this discussed in a committee if the members wish. If they want to refer it to a committee for a full discussion, that has been my habit ever since I became minister. I do not think the question is readily discussed in detail in the question period to the degree that a matter of such vital importance to this province can be discussed. If the honourable member is asking if I would be happy to have me and my staff go to a committee hearing, of course I would. I would go any time the members wish it.

As far as coming to this Legislature, I am here every day. The member can ask me about it any time he wishes to in question period. He knows that. I do not know why he would not respond accordingly.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If the first corporation, the one the minister is going to set up right now to get things going, is to have only one shareholder, basically the crown, and that is to be followed by a crown corporation for which he will bring a bill into the House, is the only reason he is setting up the first corporation, rather than coming directly in with a crown corporation bill, simply to avoid the possibility of having a vote in this Legislature on his crown corporation?

They both, in effect, will be owned by the crown. What conceivable reason could there be for doing it in this rather odd way with two separate corporations, rather than simply having the decency and the honesty to come before the House with a resolution for the crown corporation, and a bill that we can then vote on in a democratic manner?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I said no to that question three times already. When the crown corporation is to be formed it will be formed because of legislation that has been introduced in this House, where the members opposite will have their opportunity to vote on it. As soon as I am able to receive a phone call I would like to make a statement here today about the membership of that corporation, or at least a part of it. I want to have that confirmed; I believe it is correct. But I am more than happy to serve notice now about what I think will be a significant statement forthcoming in a very short period of time.

Mr. Speaker: If it is forthcoming we will ask for a consensus of the House to revert to statements.

Mr. Isaacs: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the honourable minister assure us there will be no activities on the South Cayuga site that mean the acceptance of any waste on to that site before the crown corporation has been considered and voted on by this Legislature? Is he going to use the private company as an end run around the House --

Mr. S. Smith: That is exactly what it is going to do precisely.

Mr. Isaacs: -- or will he make sure that nothing is done that involves waste until there has been a vote here on the crown corporation?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It may disappoint the leader of the Liberal Party, but he will have to learn to live with the fact that there will be no activity on that site until a crown corporation is formed.

As I have said for the fourth time, that will be

an act of this House. There will be no activity on the site until after June 30 at the earliest, regardless of what happens; that is, activity meaning the acceptance of waste. I think that was the reference point the honourable member made. Under no circumstances will waste be accepted there prior to June 30.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I want to direct to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in his role as acting Premier in the absence of the Deputy Premier and of the Premier.

Could the acting Premier tell the House whether we can now take it the cabinet has approved in principle the exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act of the South Cayuga liquid industrial waste site? Can he say on what grounds it was that cabinet decided, once again, to overrule its own law which was adopted five years ago and has yet to be applied to any major environmental project of this province?

Hon. Mr. Wells: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am not acting Premier. I am the government House leader and that is the position I am speaking from. I would be happy to have the member’s question directed towards me, but I would answer him by saying he should direct that question towards the minister.

I think any minister of this government who presents a position in a policy statement obviously does so with the full support of cabinet. If the member wishes to have the reasons for bringing forward that policy, the Minister of the Environment is fully qualified and can effectively give him the reasons for what he is doing.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs indicates this action of the Minister of the Environment was taken with the full support of the cabinet, can he say whether the cabinet or the Premier consulted with the advisory group set up to advise the cabinet on environmental questions, that is, the environmental assessment steering committee which is headed by Dr. D. A. Chant of the University of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The same response would pertain to that question as to the first one. I think the member should refer that question to the minister.

I think I made it very clear. First of all, I am not sure where my friend studied parliamentary democracy, but when a minister of this government stands up under “Statements by the Ministry” in this House and makes a government policy statement, it has the support of the whole cabinet. I think he should be aware of that.

That minister takes the responsibility for that statement and will give him a complete answer to any kind of question such as he has brought forward, as to whom he advised and what advice he got and so forth. I think if my friend would ask the minister that question he will get an answer.

Mr. Cassidy: If I can redirect my question to the Minister of the Environment, could the minister tell the House, are we to take it the cabinet has now approved in principle the exemption of the South Cayuga project from the Environmental Assessment Act? Would the minister tell us on what environmental and technical data the cabinet made that approval, to railroad approval and override completely the Environmental Assessment Act of 1975?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The answer, very clearly, is yes, cabinet has made that decision. Information was supplied to cabinet at great length on which it based its decision.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member will have an opportunity. We have spent 23 minutes on this question. I will allow one final supplementary.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: But it is on the matter of who he received advice from, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister confirm that he did not receive advice on this matter from the Waste Management Advisory Board and, furthermore, that he did not receive any advice on the matter, nor did MacLaren, from the Grand River Conservation Authority? As the minister well knows there is a flood plain at the Grand River, at least in the control area of his project. Will he confirm that he received advice from neither of those bodies?

Hon. Ms. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter for the Waste Management Advisory Board to have a referral from the ministry. Basically, they are free to comment on any particular item they wish. But I think it is already understood they are primarily interested in solid waste. That was, has been and will continue to be their major role in advising us on solid waste. I did not go to the committee and ask them for their advice on liquid waste because we have a very comprehensive study, doing that. Whether MacLaren went to the conservation authority, I do not know. At that stage, we were asking the consultants to make their report. It cost us $425,000 and they have done that.

Mr. Cassidy: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of the Environment. Can the minister say what environmental and technical information was submitted to cabinet to justify the exemption from environmental assessment of the South Cayuga project? On top of the MacLaren report, was there any other data or information? What was that data or what were those reports, and will the minister agree to make that information available to the public and to this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think most people know that top cabinet documents are not subject to me releasing them to this House. Of course, there were papers and information for cabinet’s perusal; but they were cabinet documents and they will remain that way.

Mr.

Cassidy: Since what the minister is saying is, “We know best on the basis of information that we have seen but that we are not going to share with the public, the Legislature and the people in South Cayuga or anywhere else,” will the minister not agree that the reason he will not share it is because there are no other technical assessments of any validity on that site; he has not had the time to assess them; and the only comprehensive report he has indicates quite clearly there is a requirement for further field studies to confirm the geological data before it can be decided whether South Cayuga is an adequate site?

How can the minister go forward with South Cayuga when he does not know and has not done the technical studies to justify it, and he will not publish the information he says he has?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: With respect, Mr. Speaker, there is the Morrison Beatty study, which had specific information on that site. I tabled that. Surely the leader of the third party has seen that one, has he not? I know I am not permitted to ask a question, sir. It was tabled and sent to him. I will assume he saw that technical data. That report does say there needs to be further investigation.

But it is also clear in my statement that the crown corporation would be charged with the responsibility of making sure that site was totally suitable for the purposes intended, and that with the public representation on that particular crown corporation they would be able to make that information available for the people.

I think we have said it often -- I hope eventually it will be heard -- that corporation is as open and free with its information as is possible. There are no conditions to be put on that crown corporation with regard to dispensing all -- I mean all -- of the technical data for that site. We have nothing to hide. We want the people to know and they will be given every opportunity to have that information. It is the responsibility of the crown corporation to make those decisions, with local people having a great deal of input into them.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on this subject of documents to be tabled: The minister told us the other day there were appendices to the MacLaren report. Anyone reading the report can tell that all we got was a

summary and that the meat of the report is in the appendices. Could the minister tell us, first, if he has read those appendices himself? If he has, will he make a photocopy of them and give us a copy rather than force us to wait for these to be printed, as he stated on Tuesday?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have voluminous volumes and I will make them available as soon as printed, as I said. We are talking about a matter of days. I am not going to photocopy literally hundreds of pages when they are at the printer and will be delivered here within days, when he can have as many as he wants.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the minister says he has nothing to hide and that all the data will be shared with the public of Ontario, would the minister undertake to start now by tabling all of the information that went before the cabinet, including the political rationale that justified

an act of crass political expediency?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The answer is no.

FOOD INDUSTRY PRACTICES

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. When I asked the minister on October 21 about the action he would be taking concerning the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Discounting and Allowances in the Food Industry in Ontario, he replied that he would not be taking action until he got input from the whole world.

The president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture stated at the convention that the report is completely unacceptable and has asked the government to reject it. Will the minister now assure us that he will reject this report and bring in appropriate legislation such as we proposed or the Ontario Federation of Agriculture proposed to protect the producers and the small processors and grocers of the province?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have received one report from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and I have received one letter from a Liberal Party member supporting the federation. I have had no other input whatsoever. I am waiting for that input.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister would be direct instead of dissembling. When I put the same question to him yesterday, he said the letter for rejection of that report had gone to the Premier and he was leaving it totally to the Premier. Is he still leaving it with the Premier, or is he gathering and soliciting letters before he makes up his mind?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I believe all members of the Legislature got a copy of that report from the federation. That is the letter I referred to the Premier.

Mr. MacDonald: Would the minister respond to the question of whether or not he is rejecting the report?

Mr. Speaker: He has done that in his own way.

SOVIET INVOLVEMENT IN POLAND

Mr. Dukszta: I have a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. As a Polish-Canadian I rise on a most urgent matter, Mr. Speaker. In view of the massing of the Soviet troops on the Russian-Polish border and veiled threats of invasion of Poland in the USSR, and in view of the fact the changes in Polish society are a significant development towards democracy and must be encouraged, will the minister undertake to introduce a resolution to the Legislature as soon as possible expressing the support of the people of Ontario for the socioeconomic rights of Polish people?

Would such a resolution also express the concern and opposition of the people of Ontario to the possible Russian intervention in Poland and third, in case of Soviet intervention, the intention of Ontario to exercise whatever political, economic and other sanctions it can against the Soviet Union in opposition to such invasion?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I suppose traditionally it would be said that this is a matter within the purview of the federal government. However, my friend has brought up this question because of his very deep feelings about it. The position of this government and the Premier in the case of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan is well known, and the Premier said at that time all our fellow citizens were convinced the Soviet Union had gone too far in regard to what happened there. He said that as Canadians we must stand with the free nations of the world in drawing the line and making our position known.

2:40 p.m.

I think all of us in this House welcome the moves that have been taken to bring more democracy to the institutions in Poland. I think that move is applauded by all of us and that all of us would deplore any interference, particularly outside interference, to cause those gains to be turned back or to cause interference with them. I think anything that caused that to happen would be the subject of grave concern and would not have our support.

However, I think it is premature to suggest that any resolution such as my friend has suggested be introduced here. Certainly, it is well that we be aware of that kind of thing but, as I say, I think it would be premature for any resolution to be introduced at this time.

Mr. Dukszta: I appreciate and thank the minister for those sentiments but I think an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. If he would accept our resolution, expressing the sentiments of all of us here, I think it would have a beneficial effect and may stop the Russians from considering intervention in Poland. It is within the purview of the powers of the Legislature to do so, or the minister could, on the other hand, move towards sending these sentiments to the federal government, which has been somewhat at a loss to express them. It is better to do it now than regret it in bitterness later.

Mr. Speaker: That was really a statement, not a question.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I was just going to say, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this House ever passed any official resolution regarding the Afghanistan situation. I do not think there is anyone in Ontario or Canada who doubted our feeling about Soviet involvement in that particular country and I think at the present time, from the exchange that has taken place and the support that I sense in this House and that my friend senses, there is no doubt where our sentiments are and what they would be if any action were to occur in Poland.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: May I suggest to the House leader that he inform the federal government of the feeling of the province of Ontario with respect to the discussion that has taken place in here so it would know that Ontario is definitely opposed to the proposed actions of the Soviet government?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to communicate with the Department of External Affairs and inform it that this House certainly supports the kind of progress and progressive things that are happening in Poland and would certainly regret anything that would turn those progressive steps back.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you something on a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: There is really nothing out of order. If the House in its wisdom wants to pass a resolution, it would be my responsibility to transmit it to the federal government.

Mr. Dukszta: May I ask a point of privilege then on a different matter?

Mr. Speaker: Have your privileges been abused in some way?

Mr. Dukszta: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear it, but I cannot think of any conceivable way in which your privileges have been abused since you asked the question.

Mr. Dukszta: I wonder if I could ask the House for unanimous consent for that resolution to pass?

Mr. Speaker: No, you can not.

FEDERAL AID TO TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) I will direct my question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Would the minister relate this question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications? As a follow-up to my colleague the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), would the minister assure us that he would continue with his federal counterpart to ensure the positive supply of federal funds for commuter rail traffic in Ontario? If such funds are obtained, would the minister ensure that they would be put forward for the extension of the GO train system to the city of Oshawa?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to pass that on to my colleague. I can tell you that in this particular matter my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications has the full support of all cabinet and all members of this side of the House and, I am sure, the other side, in drawing to the federal government’s attention that its promises to aid urban transit have never been fulfilled. We want to see a little action in that regard. Once that action occurs, improvements will occur in the system.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the minister is conveying his message to the Minister of Transportation and Communications, will he make sure that both ends of the GO system get equal consideration?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to pass that on, but I just have to get a slight parochial comment in here. I really believe the western end of the GO system has had a lot more consideration than the eastern end out where I live. We are looking for an extension of the GO system to Agincourt.

Mr. Speaker: We have heard from the east and the south. Now we will hear from the middle.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware of the fact that all these questions on urban transportation coming from the Tory back-benchers are just a parroting of what Sinclair Stevens asked in the House of Commons the day before?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that I just had lunch with Sinc Stevens, although he was sitting at the head table and I was not talking with him -- he was two or three seats removed -- I was not aware they were the questions he had asked. I am not sure what the relevance of that is.

Mr. MacDonald: The relevance is it is an orchestrated Tory attack.

GUELPH TEXTILE FIRM

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Could he inform the House what financial arrangements have been made with the former owner of the Guelph textile firm in relation to his ministry and the federal ministry? As I understand from news reports, this firm is going to re-establish effective January 1, and I would like to know what amounts of money the minister is putting into this firm.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will have to get that information for the member. I will report in the morning.

Mr. Worton: I would like to know, if the minister is considering refinancing it -- and the paper does indicate that -- would he take into consideration as part of that refinancing, as part of the condition of this firm getting money, seeing that the former employees of that firm get their holiday pay and the employees who had NSF cheques given to them in lieu of wages get their money back?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That seems reasonable. I will report to the member in the morning.

DURHAM REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment concerning the environmental assessment of the proposed liquid waste treatment facility in Ajax. Can the minister assure us that the report which I understand is to be released tomorrow is the report prepared solely by the three-member panel of the Environmental Assessment Board that sat through the hearing and heard all the evidence, or had some other people who were not at the hearing some influence in the writing of the board’s decision?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that I do not give direction to that board. They will issue the results of their hearing, and whether it is a board decision or the three-man panel that heard the matter, I do not know, nor do I have any inclination to find out. It is their business. They are at arm’s length from our ministry and will continue to exist that way.

I notice that the member’s colleague has already said, regardless of what the decision is, he is opposed to it, and I know the member is opposed to it, another prime illustration where he demands a hearing and then makes the judgement one day ahead. The member does not wait for their decision.

Mr. Isaacs: It is absurd for the minister to say we are opposed to whatever the decision is. What nonsense.

Is the minister aware that if the hearing had been held under the Environmental Assessment Act the legislation would have required that no member of the board shall participate in a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board unless he was present throughout the hearings and heard the evidence and argument of the parties, but because it was held under the Environmental Protection Act, which contains no such guarantee, there is every possibility members of the board who have not heard all the evidence and who did not sit through the hearings have participated in the decision?

Does the minister not think the judge of a matter should be the judge who sat through the hearings and not somebody else who may be influenced by who knows what?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think this is a well known procedure. It is not unusual for it to be followed by the OMB. I would like to comment on the fact that the chairman of that board was complimented extremely highly by the citizen protest group, which said it had great confidence in the chairman and in the board, notwithstanding the fact it was going to oppose it. That is the kind of comment that I think gives due credit to those in opposition. It has confidence in the board. I wish the members opposite would let it perform its function.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister confirm that the chairman of the panel which heard the Ajax matter has resigned? Would he also confirm that the reason the member resigned was given as interference, in the sense that the full board reversed the decision which the panel recommended?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I will confirm the former for sure. Yes, he has resigned, but the letter of resignation makes absolutely no reference to that at all and I would be absolutely amazed if it is true. I will be glad to table the letter of resignation from that particular chairman. It sets out very clearly why he resigned.

FARM BUILDING MATERIALS

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. In view of the confusion that exists at the present time with the information bulletin that went out regarding farm building materials -- the document said the sales tax was to be taken off for renovating and constructing homes and apartments -- can the minister tell us if materials purchased for the construction of farm buildings are exempt from the seven per cent sales tax on this temporary basis?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm all the building materials listed in the bulletin are all exempt, whether they are for agricultural farms or industrial purposes or otherwise.

Mr. Watson: In view of the fact constituents of mine have not been given this, would the minister’s office issue some press release indicating that farm building materials are exempt?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I think what the member is referring to is a small sentence in the bulletin which says, “The following building materials which are used for constructing and renovating homes and apartments are eligible for the exempting.” That is what has caused the confusion. It may be that I will have to send out another bulletin to clarify that.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the minister if this change has been made since the question was asked of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) this morning at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture breakfast.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: No, Mr. Speaker. I think if anyone had called my ministry a week ago he would have been given the same answer I have given today. There has been no change in this particular policy.

MEDICAL AND DENTAL PROCEDURES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) I would like to ask a question of the government House leader. After his glorious foray into the field of external affairs, I wonder if he would join me in interceding on behalf of one of my constituents, a Mrs. Isabelle Smith, who had a medical and dental procedure denied coverage under regulation 43 of the Health Insurance Act. Such a procedure was necessary, according to the medical information I have here, because she did not have a proper food intake. In other words, she could not eat adequately.

Does the House leader not feel that such a procedure is necessary for the health of an individual in order to eat adequately, and would he intercede and see to it that regulation 43 of the act is changed?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, obviously that question should be referred to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Roy: The minister is going to help me and see to it that he gets it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: If the member would like. Is the member not going to be here tomorrow to ask him?

Mr. Makarchuk: He’s not going to be here on Monday either.

Mr. Roy: I think I am in this House more often than he is lately. My record is better than one out of four.

By way of supplementary, instead of standing up there and getting smart, is the minister going to intercede on behalf of this constituent of mine? Is he going to see to it the Minister of Health gets this question and is he going to put some pressure on to amend regulation 43 of the act?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I really believe the duty of interceding with the Minister of Health is one of the things all of us are elected to do on behalf of our constituents, and I am sure my friend does that very well. I suggest he continue to do that with the Minister of Health.

URANIUM MINING MONITORING

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of the problems some of the construction workers and electricians in Elliot Lake are having when doing contract work in the area of the mine and the mill? Are they being monitored for their exposure to radiation? Can the minister tell us what arrangements are made for contracted-out workers in that vicinity to be monitored for exposure to either radon daughters or to the poor uranium or yellowcake in the mill?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It was my understanding when I visited that Elliot Lake mine about a year ago the monitoring was the same as it was with the regular work force. If that is not so, I would be glad to check on it, but I was not aware of any difference in it.

Mr. Laughren: I wonder if the minister could check into complaints by those workers that when they are exposed -- in some cases they are in greater exposure than the miners themselves who are being monitored -- the mine safety branch of his ministry tell them there is no danger. At the same time the branch will not provide them with the appropriate monitoring badges and so forth to make sure they have a way of measuring their exposure. Will the minister look after that, please?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will certainly look into it. I did not get that kind of story when I visited there a year ago about lack of inspectors and the necessity for proper monitoring procedures, but I will be glad to look into it.

ASSISTANCE TO CANFARM

Mr. J. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the fact the federal Minister of Agriculture has reneged on his commitment to financially support Canfarm, will the minister undertake to try to convince the federal government to reconsider this decision?

Mr. Makarchuk: What is going on? Is there an election coming up and you guys are trying to get a higher profile? Or are you trying to prove --

Mr. Havrot: Why do you keep yapping every day? Why do you get up and ask stupid questions?

3 p.m.

Mr. J. Johnson: It is my understanding that Canfarm could continue to operate if it were to receive an outright loan or grant of $2 million from the federal government. Would the minister work with Peter Hannam and Canfarm Co-operative and see if he can arrange to help them in some way to obtain this financing from the federal government?

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the minister says the Ontario government is ready to do its share, does he mean on a per capita percentage basis of the farmers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I believe about half of the farmers using Canfarm are from Ontario, although I do not have the exact numbers. We have not turned them down. We are still appraising it. I believe Alberta has suggested -- and I only believe this, it is not firm -- that they will put up $50,000. I believe that is the only commitment. I am ready to look at the usage of Canfarm as to the total service across Canada.

UNICEF CHRISTMAS CARDS

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, on November 21 the member for Beaches-Woodbine asked me if it is true that the retail sales tax is applicable to handling, shipping and postage charges for Unicef Christmas cards as indicated on the order forms sent out by Unicef this year.

The answer is that the retail sales tax is applicable for handling, shipping and postage charges as part of the fair value where ownership transfers from delivery of goods. When ownership transfers before delivery or shipping, the retail sales tax does not apply to the handling, shipping and postage charges. The sale of Unicef Christmas cards falls into the former category and tax is properly applicable to such charges.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary Mr. Speaker: Since the minister has confirmed that this government in some cases applies the regressive sales tax to shipping, handling and postage charges on mail orders, I would like to ask the minister if he might not get the Christmas spirit and bring in a total exemption for Christmas cards that are sold by charitable organizations in order to encourage this form of fund raising.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I have been known to have the Christmas spirit from time to time, as has the member across the floor and the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell). I think she gets it once in a while too.

It would be a very confusing administrative problem to do what the member for Beaches-Woodbine has suggested. However, for her information and for the members of the Legislature, to show that we are from time to time rather appreciative of these types of charitable organizations, I think it is only perhaps a week or two ago that an order in council was signed giving a remission of over $30,000 in sales tax to Unicef on purchases they had made in order to make the Christmas cards to sell, so they could collect the sales tax on handling and postage.

BENDIX CORPORATION

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Is the honourable minister aware that John Moynahan, the president of Local 195, United Automobile Workers, learned last week that Bendix has called for return to the United States of one set of dies from Central Stampings Limited in Windsor and is in the process of asking for the recall of another set? Has the minister approached Bendix and asked it to stop such practices?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I could not give the honourable member a firsthand report on the discussions with Bendix. I expect I will be able to do that by the morning.

My staff is in weekly contact with Bendix, so I will see if it can give me an update on that situation and report to the House.

Mr. B. Newman: Would the minister use his powers of persuasion and let Bendix know that the withdrawal of such dies is a violation of the intent of the auto trade pact?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will be pleased to comment on that when I get a report.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs) has expressed his dissatisfaction with an answer given by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) concerning the proposed Ajax liquid waste treatment plant. This matter will be debated at 10:30 tonight.

PETITIONS

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, 1978-79

Mr. Cassidy: Pursuant to standing order 33(

b) of the assembly, the undersigned members of the assembly hereby petition that the annual report of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979, which was tabled in the House on December 13, 1979, sessional paper 285, be referred to the standing committee on resources development for such consideration and report as the committee may determine.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of that referral is specifically so that the standing committee on resources development can look into the intolerable way the Minister of the Environment is proceeding with respect to the choice of South Cayuga for liquid industrial waste disposal facilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BOARD HEARING

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition for the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis). Would the Premier rescind a decision of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) and file the province’s own environmental assessment process, which includes a full environmental study under the terms of the Environmental Assessment Act and an independent public hearing by the Environmental Assessment Board before proceeding with any such facility? The petition was signed unanimously by the council of the region of Haldimand-Norfolk.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Riddell, on behalf of Mr. Gaunt, from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Labour be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981:

Ministry administration program, $8,682,400; industrial relations program, $3,499,000; women’s program $993,000; occupational health and safety program, $25,017,000; employment standards program, $3,776,000; manpower commission, $1,466,000; human rights commission program, $3,090,000; labour relations board program, $2,918,000.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment was trying to get the attention of the chair, I think, for purposes of making a statement. Do we have unanimous consent to revert to statements?

Agreed to.

3:10 p.m.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a rather brief but I think very important statement to the Legislature while all the honourable members are here rather than at night.

First of all, I would like to think the debate would be better postponed for a matter of two weeks. I am not asking for that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister is anticipating something that is going to come before the House. If he wants to make a statement he is free to do so.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would like to suggest, therefore, that I have two or three announcements to make at this time which I think are extremely important and will have a profound effect upon that consideration.

The first consideration is we would like to be able to propose the names of the people who will sit as the board of directors of the crown corporation.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: It is extremely hard to hear the minister. I do not believe we have had copies of the minister’s statement, as is the custom. Could the minister either take the marbles out of his mouth or speak into the mike?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I confess to having a rather poor voice today. I have been a little preoccupied in the last 48 hours. I have been doing a fair amount of verbal communication. I will try to speak directly into the mike.

I think the quality of that board will have a profound effect on how it is seen to do its normal functions and duties.

Second, at a meeting of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture this morning, the very respected Dr. C. L. Emery, the director of the Northumberland County Federation of Agriculture, was there. He is a well known and accepted authority on environmental affairs. He proposed the resolution they passed yesterday be reconsidered. The assembled delegates agreed to have that item reopened for further discussion.

Dr. Emery proposed that a concept of a crown corporation and government-owned facility as announced be endorsed, and that in his opinion the hearing process would not resolve the issues. He said what is required at this time is consultation and co-operation because of the severity and importance of these urgently needed waste disposal facilities.

He then recommended an advisory committee to the corporation be set up under the aegis of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, that it be funded by the Ontario government and that it have free access to all information in order to make public its report and recommendations. He recommended it be able to draw on whatever expertise it feels is necessary -- legal, technical and medical.

I accepted the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s suggestion completely. The committee will have full and total access to all documentation and technical details. Along with the corporation itself, it will be able to hold public hearings throughout Ontario. This item was referred to the executive, which will make a decision on December 10. Needless to say, I hope it decides in the affirmative.

Mr. Breithaupt: What executive?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No. I would not say that in the agricultural community if I were the member. The farmers have a lot to do with protecting the environment.

Mr. Breithaupt: So do a lot of other people.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: You had better believe they have a lot.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would also like to announce today that the most eminent environmentalist of our day and of our time, Dr. Donald Chant, will serve as chairman of the board of directors of the crown corporation. Dr. Chant is an extremely well respected environmentalist and current chairman of the Premier’s (Mr. Davis) steering committee on environmental assessment.

After due consideration he agrees that the concept of this facility and the site selection need not be subject to a hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act. However, he also believes that hearings should he held on the merits of the technology under the Environmental Protection Act.

I have also agreed that detailed geotechnical surveys will most certainly be a part of this site development. I said that earlier in the statement today. That is the end of the statement, but I would like to table for members the curriculum vitae of Dr. Chant.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are not debating that.

Mr. Speaker: Is that the end of the minister’s statement?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will table it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. S. Smith: Could I have a copy of that statement, Mr. Speaker? I couldn’t bear it.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot understand why I did not hear some objection from the opposition parties. You did agree to revert to statements. However, you allowed the minister to proceed without having a copy of that statement. If I can anticipate the member for Port Arthur, is it about the lack of a copy of the statement?

Mr. Foulds: No.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it is unusual to have a statement at the end of questions as we had today. It is also particularly unusual in that the statement was germane to questions that were being raised over the course of the question period. I would wonder whether the Speaker would permit perhaps one question apiece from the two opposition parties on the statement that the Minister of the Environment has just given.

Mr. Speaker: In the same spirit in which the minister asked the House to revert to statements so he could bring forward this very important information, and in that there was unanimous consent to allow him to do that, do I have the unanimous consent of the House for one question each from the leaders of the opposition parties having to do with the statement?

Agreed to.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, since I could not hear the statement, it is difficult to know what the man said. For clarification, basically by way of my statement, could the minister confirm that what he has just said is that there will be an environmental hearing on the subject of the technology to be used on the site in South Cayuga, but not with respect to the qualities of the site itself?

Could he clarify that aspect of what he just said? Did he really say Dr. Chant feels there is no need for further consideration concerning the selection of the site? Is that what Dr. Chant said? If so, why is the Ontario Federation of Agriculture now going to have hearings, with the minister’s blessing, about the selection of the site?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, let me put it in these words: Dr. Chant was asked about this just yesterday, and that is why I was not able to give members an answer at two o’clock. He has thought about it very intensively because it is a very important matter for him to decide on. He has given that a lot of consideration and has said he would act as chairman of that crown corporation. He has said he thinks an environmental assessment hearing is not desirable, not necessary on the site itself in the concept of a crown corporation operating that site.

In other words, the site location is finalized. Dr. Chant believes it is best that it should be. He has viewed in those 24 hours at great depth the MacLaren report. Based on that assessment, he thinks the site discussion, the need and all of those aspects of an environmental assessment proposal, and no doubt a hearing, should be waived.

He rightly asks that the technology of that facility be subject, of course, to the scrutiny of the board. That was already agreed to. There was no question there at all. The technology will be subject to the scrutiny of the board. He wishes that the scrutiny be done at public hearings. I agree. It can be done under the Environmental Protection Act, or some similar assistance can be given to him in having the public hearings.

He asked -- and we had already agreed to that at the federation meeting this morning -- that there be a geotechnical survey of that site. Again, it was obvious it would be part of the board’s original and first activity.

3:20 p.m.

Those are the two conditions that Dr. Chant wanted clearly identified. He will serve as the chairman of the crown corporation. I think we are unbelievably fortunate to have a man of that great calibre serve in that very vital role.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr.

Speaker, would the Minister of the Environment explain why the ministry is so obsessed with its desire not to have an environmental assessment and environmental assessment hearing on this particular project to the point that the chairman of the steering committee, who would normally recommend as to whether or not the exemption should be granted, has now been brought into the crown corporation and to the extent that the minister keeps on trying to pretend that the environmental assessment would take such a long time, when we have learned from the people of MacLaren that they could, now, with what they have in hand, prepare the environmental assessment in a matter of two or three months?

In other words, the environmental assessment and the hearing could be completed by the June 30 date, before which, the minister says, “Nothing is going to be done on that site.”

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the leader of the third party does not understand the full implications of applying that act. One must look at a lot of other considerations as part of that assessment hearing. It is Dr. Emery’s belief -- and I thought he said it very well this morning; I am sorry some of the members of the third party did not take time out to go to the OFA meeting, or maybe one or two did, I do not know --

Mr. Riddell: Were his proposals endorsed by the OFA?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: He asked that his proposal be referred to the executive, who will make a decision on endorsing his proposals at the December 10 board meeting.

Mr. Breithaupt: You put him on the board too.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will come to that. The meeting appropriately, after having passed quite a contrary resolution yesterday -- it is a little difficult to be heard’, Mr. Speaker -- obviously wanted the time to consider and wanted its executive to have the time to consider.

I think Dr. Emery, in his statement this morning, put it extremely well. I have read this statement to Dr. Emery because I did not want him to have any doubt about what was being said on his behalf. I have just finished speaking to Dr. Emery. He makes it very clear -- and he made it extremely clear down there -- that this is not the time to question that site; now is the time to get on with full discussions of solving that problem.

It is a very serious environmental health problem. It is not the time for the debate of hearings but for the spirit of co-operation. I will rest that verdict with the OFA. What they are proposing, Mr. Speaker, is that --

Mr. Breithaupt: What have they to do with it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the minister have anything further to add to the original question? Let us just ignore the interruptions.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Right. The question was what would the role of the federation be? They will organize that committee and then be an advisory committee, because what Dr. Emery said is so true. There will be four people on the crown corporation representing the public. I am pleased that they should make up the corporation with only two technical experts.

In their wisdom, the OFA said that what they need is more technical advice. I think that is eminently logical. Based on that, we have agreed to work in the spirit of co-operation with the federation and have them advise the corporation on all aspects of the technical considerations for that site. I think they made a very important move this morning. I endorse it and I hope it follows through.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I think the rights of the citizens in my riding have been taken advantage of by the fact that they are being treated as third-class citizens by not being given a proper environmental assessment protection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have nothing to do with protecting the rights of citizens of the province. I have a responsibility to protect your rights as a member.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have been very disturbed about this process of the government automatically asking for leave to revert to ministerial statements and so on. As a private member, any time I am here for the rest of this session and the government asks for permission to revert to statements, I will object.

Mr. Speaker: That is an option and a prerogative that is open to the honourable member. I hope he is not suggesting there was anything irregular. I asked for unanimous consent and I got it.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to sit on the afternoon of Wednesday, December 3, 1980.

Motion agreed to.

TRANSFER OF BILL

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that Bill Pr45,

an Act respecting the Powers of the Jewish Family and Child Services of Metropolitan Toronto, be transferred from the standing committee on social development to the standing committee on general government.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DEVOLUTION OF ESTATES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Walker, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved first reading of Bill 210,

An Act to amend the Devolution of Estates Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a bill to amend the Devolution of Estates Act. Within the past year, certain problems encountered in attempting to deal with the estates of persons dying in Ontario who leave beneficiaries in the Soviet Union have been brought to the attention of the minister.

It appears that exorbitant charges by the Soviet government, or its agents, and the low exchange rate for conversion of dollars into rubles result in a beneficiary receiving less than the amount he should receive. While it is clear that Ontario legislation cannot completely rectify such problems, we should attempt to prevent such abuses to the extent this is possible.

The Devolution of Estates Amendment Act, 1980, contains a provision whereby a court order is required before money can be paid out of an estate in Ontario to a beneficiary in certain countries to be designated by regulations before it is received by the beneficiary. This provision is based on legislation in the United States, such as

section 2218 of the Surrogate Court Procedure Act of New York. Under that section, surrogate court may withhold payment of money unless it is satisfied that the claimant will have the benefit or use or control of it. The money can properly be withheld if it appears that its full value will not reach the beneficiary by reason of various fees and taxes and an unrealistic exchange rate.

A further provision in the Devolution of Estates Amendment Act, 1980, requires a person who receives property in respect of which an order has been made as agent, solicitor or assignee, to file a report with the surrogate clerk for Ontario in a form and containing such information as will be prescribed by regulation. Where the property is transferred directly to a foreign beneficiary, the personal representative must file such a report

INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED SECRETARIES AND ADMINISTRATORS IN ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Belanger moved first reading of Bill Pr41,

An Act respecting the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

3:30 p.m.

CITY OF KINGSTON ACT

Mr. Ashe, on behalf of Mr. Watson, moved first reading of Bill Pr50,

An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

Motion agreed to.

HAMILTON CLUB ACT

Mr. S. Smith moved first reading of Bill Pr51,

An Act respecting the Hamilton Club.

Motion agreed to.

SIOUX PETROLEUMS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved first reading of Bill Pr47,

An Act to revive Sioux Petroleums Limited.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answer to question 403 standing on the Notice Paper.

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

Mr. S. Smith moved, pursuant to standing order 34(a), that the business of the House be set aside so that the House may debate a matter of urgent public importance, that being the statement made by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) regarding the establishment of a toxic liquid waste dump in South Cayuga to be approved without environmental assessment.

Mr. Speaker: Proper notice has been given of this, and I will hear the honourable member for up to five minutes as to reasons why he feels the ordinary business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on Tuesday a somewhat similar motion roughly bearing on the subject of liquid waste was presented by another honourable member of the House. But at that time you ruled, correctly in my view, that the matter had not yet been presented by the honourable minister at the time you had received the notice, and that therefore that particular subject would not have been a fit subject for the emergency debate.

This would appear to be the first opportunity that has presented itself for us to have that urgent debate on this matter, which I said then and believe now to be in the public interest -- an extremely important matter inasmuch as the people of Haldimand-Norfolk are going to be subjected to this particular facility being thrust into the property that has been described in South Cayuga without proper environmental assessment hearings.

The concern we have is that there is no neighbourhood in Ontario that can consider itself safe. If the largest environmental project of its kind can be placed into one area without a proper environmental hearing, how can one justifiably demand such a hearing in any other situation which will undoubtedly be less massive than this one?

We feel this decision represents an important precedent, an important milestone, and is one which should not be allowed to pass without our taking every opportunity to show the people of Ontario that what seems on paper and on the books to be good environmental legislation protects no one when the government of the day wishes to be high-handed and wishes to impose its will on the people.

We believe that in the emergency debate we are recommending to you, Mr. Speaker, it would be important for the minister to speak first for his party to explain his point of view and also to give further clarification of some of the statements he made at the end of question period today. We feel he might even be allowed to speak more than once if there is concurrence in the House on the matter, because we believe the information he brought on Tuesday is of extreme importance and has been somewhat confused, rather than clarified, by the statements he made a few moments ago.

The fact of the matter is this: Irrespective of whether the minister has been able somehow or other to convince a prominent individual to become chairman of this particular body, and irrespective of whether some particular member of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has accepted the job of looking at site selection, even though the site selection apparently has already been finalized according to the person who is newly appointed, the people of Ontario are not going to be totally fooled by this.

They can see as clearly as anyone else that the land in question is held by the government because of a foolish and politically embarrassing decision by this government to acquire at very high cost a large parcel of land in one of the areas of Ontario thought to be suitable for an idyllic, pollution-free housing environment just a few years ago. Left with this political embarrassment on its hands, the government has plainly decided to push ahead to try to solve its toxic waste problem.

In the old saying, if you have a lemon, you at least try to make lemonade. They were stuck with this piece of land and, to try to make the best of a bad situation, they have decided to try to push through this toxic waste facility against the wishes of the people in Haldimand-Norfolk and to do so without any opportunity for proper examination of the MacLaren report or its appendices which, after all, are terribly important. I wonder if even Dr. Chant has seen the appendices to the report.

They have done it without any opportunity to see any of the hydrogeological studies that may have been ordered in other areas and, particularly, without any opportunity for contrary opinions to be expressed in front of a neutral hearing officer.

If the environmental assessment legislation in Ontario is to be set aside in this case, if it is inadequate, if the minister feels the board cannot do the job and a group from the OFA --

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. S. Smith: -- should do the job, I say no site in Ontario is safe from this highhanded method of imposition by the government. We must have this debate as soon as possible.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I also want to urge that we hold an emergency debate today on what the government intends to do, not just with respect to the choice of the South Cayuga site but also with respect to the rationale that led the cabinet to endorse the Minister of the Environment’s proposal and thereby to jettison the Environmental Assessment Act, as it was passed in 1975. The fact is -- and this is now an emergency -- the Environmental Assessment Act is effectively a dead letter today if the government is allowed to continue with the decision it announced in the House two days ago.

We are faced with a fait accompli about the choice of a site when the residents and people in the Cayuga area had no idea until a month ago they were even being considered as a site for liquid industrial waste disposal. We have seen a systematic effort by the government to dismantle all the normal procedural devices that exist to ensure there is public consideration about a project as major and all-encompassing as this one.

The cabinet has now approved the project. The cabinet has waived the process not just of a hearing on an environmental assessment, but also the environmental assessment itself. I really wonder what the government is trying to hide in this fantastic effort to avoid the process of environmental assessment, a process by which one questions whether there are alternative sites, what the technical considerations are and what the environmental consequences could be.

3:40 p.m.

We could be sitting on another environmental landmine at South Cayuga without knowing what those consequences are going to be, because the government has decided to waive these particular provisions of the act. That is what is happening right now and that is why we need to debate this as a matter of emergency.

Not only that, this is an emergency because, from the way the government is proceeding, it seems clear it is prepared to move heaven and earth to try to eliminate any public consideration through the Legislature, the Parliament of Ontario, about this particular procedure or development until it is well down the road. The government has not announced an intention to bring in legislation to set up the crown corporation before we rise about the middle of December. There is no indication it will bring supplementary estimates in before we rise at the middle of December.

In other words, there is no indication it will be bringing to this Legislature, apart from an emergency debate, what it actually intends to do.

On the other side, there is tremendous concern in the area. Two hundred people turned out on November 13 in the area because they did not know what the devil was going on and they felt they had a right to know. We have a minister and a ministry whose behaviour in the past have consistently been that “we in the Ministry of the Environment know best and anybody out there who questions our expertise is simply wrong.” The minister has once again repeated that particular position in the attitudes he has struck in the Legislature today.

Finally, another reason for having an emergency debate is the bizarre announcement today that the watchdog of the environmental assessment steering committee, Dr. D. A. Chant, a respected and eminent environmentalist, is now being put into the crown corporation and is therefore not in a position where he and his steering committee could objectively advise the government over whether or not an environmental assessment was to be held or not.

I know the reason for that. I suspect Dr. Chant, having had his committee’s advice rejected in the case of the Darlington nuclear power plant and in the case of the Elora Gorge decision, has just simply thrown up his hands. Dr. Chant has said, “Look, if you can’t beat them, I am going to have to try to join them and see whether there is not something I can do to prevent the most harmful consequences of this particular proposal.”

The Morrison Beatty hydrogeological report says at least another 12 months of hydrogeological studies are required before it is possible to go forward with that proposal. The MacLaren report likewise says very explicitly: “It is recommended that the ministry undertake field studies, such as confirming geological data by a series of soil borings, et cetera, on the Huron and South Cayuga sites to confirm their suitability. Should these sites prove to be geologically unsuitable, similar investigations are recommended for the Lambton and for the Bruce sites.”

In other words, the document the ministry has offered as the proof that South Cayuga is the appropriate place to put this liquid waste disposal facility is not confirmed by the MacLaren consultants. They say there remains a possibility, which can only be explored by means of further tests, that the site will be unsuitable.

I am saying we need an emergency debate because the government should not be allowed simply to dispose of all of the devices that have been put into place to protect the interests of this Parliament, of the people of Ontario and of South Cayuga. It is time the minister agreed to have that assessment and he can get it done in good time.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I argued a few days ago against an emergency debate on a matter very much related to this and, at the time, you found the case had not been made for an emergency debate based on the particular motion that was put forward. At that time, I indicated to you there were several reports which had just been received by members and which we had not had time to consider fully -- the MacLaren and Morrison Beatty reports. Those reports have now been received and I am sure the honourable members have had time to consider them.

Members have also had time to consider the statement made by my colleague the Minister of the Environment. I think, in making a ruling today on this motion, several facts should be taken into consideration. The first fact is that the Minister of the Environment has made a very courageous statement and has come to grips with and brought forward a solution to a very vexing problem in this province and one which no one else seems to want to come to grips with. That is the first thing.

The second fact that must be considered is that the statement the honourable minister has made has been misrepresented by many of the people sitting opposite and that misrepresentation is carrying on out to the general public and needs to be corrected. I think the opportunity to correct that rests in a debate in this House today. In other words, what may not have been an emergency a few days ago is now an emergency because a courageous act by a minister of this government is being misrepresented in a manner that is causing it to be misunderstood by many of the people of this province.

It can be argued that the misunderstanding is sufficient to cause us to say that the minister and the members of this government should be given an opportunity -- and they can do it exceedingly well -- to explain all the ramifications of this decision and to challenge members opposite, if they want to criticize this particular solution to a very vexing problem, to come up with some alternative solution. They should not just argue about negatives. They should not just put roadblocks in the way of progress. They should not just belittle names of people. They should just sit there and come up with some positive solutions as to what they would do.

Because we have had an opportunity to consider the reports, because this is now a matter of public knowledge, because there is misunderstanding about it, and because there is legitimate concern in some quarters that can be very adequately cleared up by the minister and other members of this party during this debate, we would not oppose this matter being considered. In fact, we believe that a case can be made for us to debate this today and that it does fall within the parameters of rule 34(a).

Mr. Speaker: I have listened with great interest to all the members who have spoken. There is unanimous accord that it is of urgent public importance. I think it is quite obvious that due to the nature of the debate, it has province-wide implications. It deals with a specific incident of recent occurrence.

Lest I be accused of being inconsistent in the light of the fact that I turned down a similar debate, the specific request to set aside the business of the House was with reference to a specific occurrence that did not have the obvious implications it does now, since members have had 48 hours to discuss the implications of the statement made by the Minister of the Environment. I am going to say that it does fall within the four walls of standing order 34.

Now the only question before the House is, shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The debate will proceed. I want to remind honourable members that each one who wishes to speak will be limited to 10 minutes and the debate will conclude without any motion before the House at six o’clock.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would be very glad to hear the minister first if he cares to say anything or add anything, and also to hear him wind up. If not, I will be happy to start. It is up to the minister. I just want him to have that privilege if he wishes it.

Mr. Speaker: It is normal procedure that the honourable member who moves the motion will speak for 10 minutes and, unless there is some agreement to do otherwise, we will be guided by past practice.

3:50 p.m.

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, we have been told repeatedly in this House that Ontario enjoys the benefits of some of the most advanced environmental protection legislation on the books anywhere. I agree that we have, on the books, the best environmental protection legislation. The problem is that we seem to have an aversion to utilizing it to protect the citizens of Ontario.

Never has there been a more blatant case, however, than this one. The minister found himself with an interim report from some consultants who had looked at some 17 sites around Ontario. They had rejected a good many other places in the province and had looked at 17 and come up with about five they thought should be further studied because they would be suitable to receive liquid waste.

Plainly the minister, or some other agent of government, then instructed the consultants to go back and look at another site. This was the site, held by the government as a consequence of some exceedingly foolish and ill-considered expenditures of some $30 million to purchase land for an alleged town that was going to be built in a district called South Cayuga. As a result of that, the consultants were put in a dilemma. They found themselves having to go back on what they had done.

The meat of this report is contained in appendices which none of us in this House has had the opportunity to examine yet. But even in the

summary we have been given, they say they did not look at South Cayuga in the first place because it did not meet their criteria. These criteria included the avoidance of using excellent agricultural land.

Then a funny thing happened. They say that while processing data collected during site visits, they came to realize that none of the areas studied really met the original spirit and intent. A lot of the places they figured were grade five and six agricultural land had been upgraded from time to time and some of it was up to grade one and two agricultural land. Conversely, some of the one and two land had fallen into disarray and disuse and was now down to five and six.

That is what they said. I don’t blame the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) for laughing; I found it funny as well. But that is what they say -- it is on page 3-15. They say certain lands had been significantly upgraded by local drainage work and had become very productive while other lands had been allowed to deteriorate. Logic dictated they should not be that concerned with agricultural productivity and so they decided to forget about that and look at South Cayuga.

They had what they called revised or refined agricultural criteria, which are never explained. Using those, the Huron area was identified as the most suitable of the five, with Lambton and Bruce being the best alternatives and very close seconds. That is what they found once they ignored the agricultural criteria. But, they say, the primary constraining factor in Lambton is that there is existing agricultural use on the land.

So what they did first was eliminate agriculture as a consideration so they could look at South Cayuga. Having then looked at South Cayuga, they found Huron was the best and Lambton a very close second. They decided then to eliminate Lambton on the very agricultural criteria they had set aside in the first place to enable them to look at South Cayuga.

It is obvious the kind of backflips and somersaults being done by these consultants have plainly been done in an effort to keep whatever is left of their scientific reputation while meeting the minister’s order, which is to find some way to get South Cayuga accepted as the place to dump the toxic waste.

All right. All that has been said. But, Mr. Speaker, look at the situation. We find ourselves with the environmental protection legislation being set aside by the government. So keen are they to avoid their own laws that they have created two corporations instead of one. There will be one corporation to get them through until possibly the next election, certainly until this House rises at Christmas, and then a second corporation some time in the future which the House will have to vote on.

It is evident there is no need for two corporations when one will do. Both will be owned by the crown. There is plainly not the slightest difference between the two, but the minister wishes to avoid a vote by the elected representatives of the people. Not only is he avoiding his own laws, which apply to everybody else -- and let me tell you, if you are an ordinary citizen, you cannot even expand a pig barn in Ontario without getting some environmental approval -- but the minister can create this corporation and dump this liquid waste without any consideration of the kind of legislation that is supposed to be protecting all of us.

We are told today of some very interesting developments. First of all, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture condemned the ministry for its actions. Then, apparently, some particular fellow of this federation, some chap from Northumberland, undoubtedly a fine gentleman, came up with some proposal off the top of his head that said --

Mr. Cassidy: Probably a Tory.

Mr. S. Smith: We can speculate as to whom he was trying to rescue and for what political purpose, but I do not have to say that.

He came up with a marvellous idea that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture -- not the National Farmers Union, not the Christian Farmers Federation, not the Ontario Federation of Labour, not any of the environmental groups, not Pollution Probe, not any of the special interest groups, not any of the conservation authorities -- a particular group called the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, for which I have the greatest of respect in agricultural matters, should set itself up somehow by means of a subcommittee. This has not even been approved by the OFA; it is just the idea of one guy.

The ministry leaped at the proposal and said, “Whereas the board of experts appointed by law and the statutes of Ontario shall not be permitted to examine the matter and to have public hearings, this group of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture shall be entitled to go about the province and have public hearings of some kind.”

Will it be able to compel people to testify under oath? If so, how can it possibly happen unless the members of the group are made royal commissioners? I ask the minister this. Would he kindly attend to this question for a moment? Will he listen for a moment, please? Is he intending to make the OFA group royal commissioners or, under the Public Inquiries Act, will he be intending --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. S. Smith: I yield to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: What I have said to the federation, and I make that statement again --

Mr. S. Smith: Just say yes or no. Will they be under the Public Inquiries Act? I am sorry, I do not yield the floor.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Does the member want the information?

Mr. S. Smith: Just say yes or no. Are they going to be under the Public Inquiries Act or are they not?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Does the member want the information?

Mr. S. Smith: The answer is yes or no, Mr. Minister. There is no other answer.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the honourable member yielded the floor?

Mr. S. Smith: No, I have not yielded the floor. I will not yield for a filibuster. We will hear when the minister speaks, Mr. Speaker. We will hear whether or not this group from the OFA will be given subpoena power, whether groups will be able to appear in front of the OFA and be funded to bring in experts and to have money to pay for these experts. We will find out whether testimony will be compelled under oath, whether they will have the power of the Public Inquiries Act or its equivalent.

We will find out when the minister speaks, and then we will presumably find out something that I am certainly waiting to hear, which is why some particular individual from the OFA is to be permitted to do what the Environmental Assessment Board is not to be permitted to do. What conceivable rationale can there be for this to happen?

4 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. S. Smith: I finish with simply one sentence. Irrespective of whether the minister has been able to create a certain propaganda for himself by getting Dr. Chant by some means or other and for some purpose or other, by getting an environmentalist seemingly to agree -- and we will wait to hear from him -- the fact remains, if South Cayuga can go without an environmental assessment, no neighbourhood, no town, no piece of farm land in Ontario is safe from this arrogant group of ministers and sooner or later, preferably sooner, they will be turfed out as a consequence.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader said just before we had this debate that he felt it was appropriate to have it because there had been misunderstanding of the government’s position. I cannot imagine how that accusation can be made, because the public, the people I have talked to since the minister’s announcement on Tuesday, understand very clearly what has happened.

They understand this is an arrogant government; a government which is high-handed; a government which has moved from the basis of political expediency and, in the process, a government which has torpedoed a piece of legislation, the Environmental Assessment Act of 1975, which has been the mainstay of the speeches of Ministers of the Environment over the course of the last five years, in defending the environmental record of the government of Ontario.

What is happening in this regard is similar to the behaviour of the government in many other areas as well. We know what is happening with doctors opting out. We know what is happening with the financial plight of hospitals trying to serve the people of Ontario. This government has tried to pretend no problems exist. We know about the government’s refusal to provide adequate day care facilities across the province. They have tried to come up with $1 million and say that solved the problem. We know the difficulties in getting equality for women in the province. The government pretends there is no problem.

It simply ignores the realities of Ontario right now. We know the problems of laid-off workers. The government comes up with a bit of papier mâché and tries to pretend that is a full and final solution, when 50,000 workers have been laid off.

We know in South Cayuga the people in that particular community had no foreknowledge at all, prior to August of this year, that their community was even being considered for this liquid waste disposal facility. They did not know for sure until October 27 that the matter had been referred to the MacLaren company for it to report upon. It was not until two days ago that they learned the finger had descended on South Cayuga and that the government had decided to put the liquid waste disposal facility in South Cayuga.

I have to say that the whole manner in which the government, both the cabinet and the Minister of the Environment, has treated this particular affair raises enormous questions in my mind about a minister, a ministry and a government which already had enormous credibility problems with respect to the matter of the environment.

The MacLaren report was meant to be an independent appraisal of what sites were appropriate for liquid industrial waste disposal across the province, but in the end, because the minister said, “I do not care what you suggested in your interim report; you have to look at this one,” it no longer can claim to have independence. It is a $425,000 justification for the site that the minister wanted to have chosen. Even there, let us make it clear, the MacLaren report has not said it is the only site. It has not said it is the preferred site.

It has said that further geological studies are required and it has said that those studies may in fact, indicate that South Cayuga is not the appropriate site to go on.

The ministry paid some more of the taxpayers’ money to Morrison Beatty Limited to do a hydrogeological study on South Cayuga. They too say that another 12 months are required. The ministry, however, has taken a railroading approach through cabinet and through the community, regardless of the fact that further studies are required.

It is not just the overriding of our laws that concerns me, it is also what I feel is the very compromising approach that is being taken to a respected environmental expert, Dr. Donald Chant, in appointing him to the crown corporation. I feel extremely uneasy about what is being done.

If I can put it on the record, Dr. Chant is the chairman of the environmental assessment steering committee. That is a committee which advises the Premier, not just the minister, on questions respecting the environment and which is specifically charged with advising the Premier and the cabinet from time to time about whether environmental assessments should take place.

The government knew that in this particular case the question of the overriding of the environmental assessment was going to be a very clear issue in the minds, not just of people in South Cayuga but all across this province. What it has done is effectively to remove Dr. Chant’s ability to act objectively in recommending whether the environmental assessment should take place. There is no way we can get around that. From the moment Dr.

Chant was asked to take on the position in the crown corporation, he no longer could act impartially as far as the environmental assessment steering committee’s functions were involved. It seems to me that is another example of this government’s willingness to go to any lengths to try to steamroller over the procedure which has normally been followed in the past.

I call on the minister to explain in this debate why it is he has gone to such lengths to try to avoid the environmental assessment process. He keeps claiming it will take year after year. The facts are that in the case of the Thorold dump of Walker Brothers Quarries, the minister had a company which was engaged in breaking the law and which has now been charged by the Ontario Provincial Police --

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Is that correct? Do you want to put that on the record?

Mr. Cassidy: The company has been charged by the OPP. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and others have engaged in activity which by any definition of the law -- although the courts will have to decide -- look like prima facie cases where the law was not being followed by that company. It has been acknowledged by the ministry that the company was accepting liquid industrial wastes in contravention of its own permit for that particular site. Down at Harwich --

Hon. Mr. Parrott: What company has been charged? I want to know.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister will have his turn.

Down at Harwich, the government got itself at loggerheads with the local council. The fact is there have been no hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act. The fact is it is not the hearing process which has caused the delay. It has been the approach of this ministry, the confrontation this ministry has consistently sought regardless of its assurances to the contrary.

The minister and the government have a credibility problem with respect to the way they are handling this particular process. Now I think it is up to the minister to explain why he is rejecting the environmental assessment process.

Does he reject the consideration of alternatives which is in that act? Does he reject the measurement of effects on the environment which is called for in the assessment required under that act? Does he reject the need to put forward plans for protecting the environment which is called for in that act? Does he reject the need to evaluate alternatives which is required in that act? Does he reject the requirement of the act that no funding and no licence shall be given until the environmental assessment process has been completed? It is clear that he does.

Under those circumstances one has to ask, what good is it to have a piece of legislation if the government is never prepared to use that particular legislation?

Experience in the past where environmental assessment hearings have taken place has further put into question the capacity of the Ministry of the Environment to get the story straight even with months of preparation. In the case of the Nanticoke project and in the case --

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No assessment act applied there. Get your facts straight

Mr. Cassidy: All right. In the case of Nanticoke, the Environmental Assessment Board recommended against approval of the proposal. It said, among other things, that the Minister of the Environment had accepted data and figures from the applicant without inquiring fully into the validity. It indicated the ministry had neither the experience nor expertise properly to evaluate the technology which was being put forward in that case.

It established that although the minister had a responsibility to evaluate the assessment, the ministry had blown its evaluation of the assessment and missed salient data which was very important and which led the assessment board to reject that application. That was the case of a proposal which went through the whole assessment procedure. I ask myself in a case where -- Dr. Chant had this for a day -- the cabinet had this for a period of a week --

4:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: A point of order, Mr. Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: What’s your point of order?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would simply like to correct the record to this point. I believe the member said it was an environmental assessment hearing for that project. Is that his statement? Was it under the Environmental Assessment Act? I just want to know whether that is being put on the record or not.

Mr. Cassidy: The Environmental Assessment Board under the Environmental Protection Act. The minister is picking at straws. The minister is being picky.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It is an entirely different procedure.

Mr. Cassidy: The fact is that the ministry’s own evaluation did not stand up in that case. The minister is now suggesting that the Environmental Protection Act should be thrown out the window in addition to the Environmental Assessment Act. If that is the position of the ministry, I suggest they bring in a repeal act for the Environmental Assessment Act. If that is what he wants to do, he should do it up front and not weasel around with regulations --

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Cassidy: I was here in 1975 --

Hon. Mr. Parrott: You just know the decision. You don’t understand. It’s sad.

Mr. Cassidy: I certainly do understand. I understand that should apply to every project, large and small, and the minister should not exempt or waive the application of the act every time there is a major proposal coming before the people of the province.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, in rising to discuss this action of the honourable minister, I want to start by commending the minister for taking such action. I think we all realize the problem we face in this province in handling liquid industrial waste.

Mr. Kerrio: Who has been running the store for 37 years?

Mr. Eaton: It’s a problem that probably every jurisdiction in North America is faced with at this time and one that some jurisdictions are taking action on. This minister is taking the leading action in North America to solve this problem. He is a minister who is dedicated to seeing the job is carried out properly.

Some of the actions of the opposition at times make the job almost impossible. I always felt the role of the opposition was to be critical, to put forth suggestions on what could be done in given situations. But it has become obvious the only role the opposition is playing in this province is one of obstruction. Any time there is some suggestion a site might be located in a particular area the opposition has gone in and tried to create a scare before the fact. They have utterly destroyed the process of trying to carry through on assessment hearings.

Mr. Cunningham: Why isn’t it in Middlesex?

Mr. Eaton: Somebody said why not Middlesex. Middlesex was on the list in the MacLaren report.

Mr. Cunningham: You screamed and cried.

Mr. Eaton: I did not say a word against it. I took the facts as we had them and at that point there were very few facts because the MacLaren report just indicated possible sites in this province. But one of the NDP members came into the riding and created scares. The NDP came in and gave complete misinformation. They put figures at 500,000 times what they actually were, as we raised it in the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment. It was just atrocious misrepresentation of a situation.

Without the facts, without starting on any assessment in the area, they came in and suggested circulating a petition -- “Let’s get a petition going against having the site come here.” That utterly destroys any process that can take place in assessing a problem and assessing what the impact might be, having any environment hearings, because scare tactics are carried out before any process ever takes place. This is a problem that faces everybody in Ontario and everybody has to deal with it responsibly.

It was refreshing to hear some of the people at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture this morning when they moved a resolution to try to work with the minister, to have people involved in some way so that they could know exactly what was going on in the process and exactly what was to happen. It was obvious in discussions that the minister had with them this morning they had already been fed misinformation again and someone was already trying to get a scare tactic going in that area to reject outright any location of an industrial waste plant.

Before any assessment could take place or before any hearing could take place, they wanted to have people scared so they would object to having it there; yet at the same time they want the problem dealt with.

This minister is taking steps to deal with the problem. He is taking steps to work with the people, wherever the plant might be located, and there is not even an assurance at this point that it will be located at the South Cayuga site. That is the site the minister has chosen. There will be a lot of work going on before it is finally said that this is where it will be located. That scare tactic still goes on among the members of the opposition.

It is the responsibility of the opposition, as well, to try to take a look at the facts properly, to try to assess what is needed, to try to assess the technology that is going to be applied. Probably the best technology in the world will be applied to this site to handle liquid industrial waste in this province. Surely this is what we want; this is the way we want the waste handled. If we continued the way we were, with an area suggested and immediately an attempt made to block it, we would never get this technology developed in Ontario. There were certainly people at the federation meeting this morning who said, “We must get on with the job; we have a lot at stake.”

The agricultural industry uses a lot of chemicals in producing food in this province. Those chemicals produce some of the industrial wastes that have to be disposed of here. It is in that light they are concerned. They want to see industrial waste treated. Certainly there is going to be emotion involved in whatever area it will take place. But I think that type of suggestion today shows the responsibility, particularly of the agricultural community, and they were not limiting it to their own organization to be involved in a committee.

They were suggesting they would take the leadership to promote the committee, but that lawyers, environmentalists and engineers be involved in it, people who would take a responsible look at it. Those people could then pass on their comments and their facts to the public and could deal with the public so there is not suspicion cast by the opposition that it is the government that is doing it.

It really is a belittlement by the Leader of the Opposition when he suggests that it is a political ploy of any kind on the part of the government to have people like that involved. Surely all the citizens of this province want to see people involved in it, who are interested in seeing that the job is carried out correctly. Members opposite destroy the process by the actions of people going out and starting their scare-mongering before that process can be followed through.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Eaton: This process can be a leader in North America. It can be an example for other jurisdictions to follow in treating their waste, and we need that.

Mr. Swart: On prime land?

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Eaton: I think anybody in this province should be prepared to sacrifice 100 acres of prime agricultural land to see that industrial waste in this province is treated. The importance of this treating of industrial waste far outweighs 100 acres of land. The industrial waste that is being spread around this province at this time by irresponsible people and the blocking of the process of being able to treat it by irresponsible operations could do a lot more than damage 100 acres of land in this province. It could put all kinds of acres out of production. This is what has to be considered at this time.

I would hate to see the members opposite do it because where would they put it? They would go to every community and say, “We can’t put it in your community.” On the basis of facts, on the basis of information, this minister is taking leadership in doing what needs to be done in this province in regard to treating industrial waste.

He deserves the consideration and support of the people of this province to do it, and to do it in a rational way. I am sure if people look at it rationally and not just for political purposes, as some people on the other side are doing, not just for scare-mongering, this job will be done, and it will be a landmark in North America for the treatment of industrial wastes.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak in this emergency debate this afternoon. We have come to the crossroads in the history of Ontario when we are beginning to deal realistically with our wastes and trying to manage them properly. I think that is a step in the right direction, and I would be the first to agree we should be doing it in a proper manner. We have been trying to deal with this matter ever since I came into the Legislature in 1975. Because the government would not bring forward proper policies and guidelines to deal with it, we have got into a position at this time where we are in a panic position.

We are talking about an area in the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, along the northern shores of Lake Erie, which happens to be represented by a Liberal member at the present time. I am proud to be a representative of that area. I was born and raised there and have made my living there. I have worked with that soil from the time I was 12 years old, and I think I understand it as well as anybody in this House, and maybe as well as anybody in Ontario.

We are talking about 12,500 acres of soil that is number one and two class land as classified according to the old classification -- 90 per cent of it. It is a resource we can make no more of. We have no more access to it. If we do not guard it properly, it goes down the drain, never to be retrieved. As I drive from home to Toronto every day, I see the good land being utilized along the QEW. When I was a boy it was beautiful orchards, beautiful farm land. It has disappeared; it has been paved over. We have no more access to it.

The same thing could happen with this particular piece of land we are talking about in Haldimand county: 12,500 acres of class one and class two land. We have already established a steel plant in my area, which is coming on stream. They own 6,500 acres of land. They have not even got one plant there at the present time, with the exception of Charles Jones Industrial Limited and Marsh Engineering. They have the oxygen plant. But there are 3,500 acres of land there not being utilized.

If the government really wants to take a look at some place to be utilized as a waste disposal site, that land is already zoned for heavy industry. It is already being properly utilized. Why not take 100 acres of that land and put the proper equipment in and deal with it? Why should the industry of our province not take some responsibility for dealing with its wastes?

Farmers recycle their waste and put it on the fields. It makes the crops grow better. We do not ask for support. The Minister of the Environment, living in the great county of Oxford, must understand that. But he has not cared to look at it. The government has 12,500 acres of land for which it paid $2,000 an acre. The Minister of the Environment thinks it is dear; he is getting criticized for it. Down the road a few years that land may well be worth $5,000 an acre for agricultural purposes.

I will give the honourable members an example. In Norfolk county -- again going back 50 years -- one could buy all the land one could get one’s hands on for $2,500 for 100 acres. What does it cost today? I just had a call from one of my constituents who was buying 164 acres, and how much was he quoted for a farm credit loan? Does the minister want to guess? It was something like $750,000, which works out to $5,000 an acre. I am telling the minister this because it is properly managed.

If he lets them come into that area and start this plant, although it only takes 100 acres as the member for Middlesex said, what happens to the land around it? Can crops be grown around it? My understanding is that that land goes down the drain. The food cannot even be eaten.

I agree we need a bridge there. That is being held out like candy to us. I agree we need a bridge there, but do we need the bridge to get from Port Colborne to the industrial park? I have pointed out to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) many times, because we have access to an industrial park, we have access to Dunnville and we have access to Port Colborne. In the meantime, leave it as agricultural land.

They should spend $425,000 for a drainage study to improve the drainage. I have been trying to get the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) to do just that, to put it under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion program, because I understand Haldimand needs some improvement in drainage. It needs some special attention because they are not getting a return for their dollar. If they could get a return on the dollar from the land, they could compete with industry any time.

The minister is making a mistake. As I indicated to the Speaker today, the minister is treating the people as third-class citizens by not even providing the rights of law established in this House. He is going against that very grain.

Now he says that we are going out on the street and misleading people. We are not misleading people. I would like to read my press release:

“The government’s decision to locate a liquid industrial waste site in South Cayuga is irresponsible and totally unacceptable. Any attempt to bulldoze this decision through this Legislature in the same way that regional government was forced down our throats must be fought every step of the way and I intend to do that.”

As the member representing the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, I do not just consider my riding but the rights of everybody in Ontario. The government of Ontario does not accept its responsibilities when it tries to locate those sites within Liberal ridings to its own political benefit.

I received a resolution from the region of Haldimand-Norfolk today and I would like to read it to the minister. The reason I did not put it to him in question period was because it was addressed to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and I knew the Premier was not here:

“Would the Premier rescind the decision of the Minister of the Environment and follow the province’s own environmental assessment process, which includes a full environmental study under the terms of the Environmental Assessment Act and an independent public hearing by the Environmental Assessment Board, before proceeding with any such facility?”

That was supported unanimously by the council of the region of Haldimand-Norfolk. That is not mine. It is from the people who represent that area. They are just asking for justice, the same as anyone else in the province and, as I said to the Speaker, they are not third-rate citizens. We have people who live on the other side of the Grand River. We have a parcel on the Grand River which is being used by the public -- a public park, run privately. Doesn’t the government think they should have some protection? How can they justify spending these hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect their own seats over there?

I think the minister is on the wrong track and if he does not reverse it, he is going to have to go to the people of Ontario and explain it, because he is wrong. The Minister of Agriculture and Food is not meeting his responsibilities to protect the land. We have asked him, in all fairness, to stand up for agriculture because agriculture is good for the steel company of Nanticoke. Agriculture is good for that hydro plant at Nanticoke. Agriculture is good for the Texaco oil refinery there. Agriculture is good for Port Maitland, which is making plans to put up holding areas for storage of our grain to give it access to the St. Lawrence Seaway.

4:30 p.m.

They are taking away from that area any possibility of developing agriculture in the future just because they paid $2,000 an acre. It may be cheap down the road. They are going to have to stand up and take the flak. We did not make that decision. They are the ones who did and they are going to have to stand by it.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the decision made by the honourable minister. In doing so, I recognize he has made a couple of moves in the right direction. First, the waste is going to be handled by a crown corporation; second, the location is somewhat removed from large and perhaps even small urban areas.

What the minister has done is objectionable for two fundamental reasons around which everybody else’s remarks have revolved. First, he has abolished the environmental assessment procedure, has bypassed it; second, he is locating this on prime farm land.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: You are the guy who, more than anyone else, destroyed it. You should be ashamed to rise in your seat and say that.

Mr. Swart: The reason the minister gives is that there is such urgency at the present time and that is why he must abolish the environmental hearing. There is some validity to saying there is urgency at this time but we are at this point now through the fault of his mi