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

April 22, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (NIAGARA ESCARPMENT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT (ESCARPEMENT DU NIAGARA)

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (NIAGARA ESCARPMENT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW

EARTH DAY

FOREST MANAGEMENT

WILDLIFE PROTECTION

WOMAN OF THE YEAR AWARD

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

VOLUNTEERS

JUDY REBICK

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

ROLE OF MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

WILL FERGUSON

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY

TAX INCREASES

HEALTH CARDS

CARLTON MASTERS

LABOUR DISPUTE

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

EDUCATION POLICY

ROLE OF MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO IN HEALTH

LONG-TERM CARE

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION RULING

ABORTION

LANDFILL

PORNOGRAPHY

LANDFILL

GAMBLING

POLICE USE OF FORCE

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (NIAGARA ESCARPMENT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT (ESCARPEMENT DU NIAGARA)

Mr Duignan moved second reading of Bill 62,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement à l'égard de l'escarpement du Niagara.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): It's a great pleasure to rise today to seek support for my private member's bill, which is

an act to amend the Environmental Protection Act. I believe successful passage of this bill will help to continue to ensure the preservation of the Niagara Escarpment. As you know, the escarpment is one of our most unique natural resources. We can continue to protect the escarpment, I believe, by prohibiting all further waste management systems and waste disposal sites in the area set out in the Niagara Escarpment plan. Let me point out that this plan is limited to the escarpment itself and does not include the surrounding areas.

As members know, the escarpment is renowned for its inspiring scenery, lush farm land, flourishing wildlife and abundant recreational opportunities. It provides unique access to a natural environment found nowhere else in the world and which lies so close to Canada's most densely populated area. The pressures to clear, pave and develop this area are immense.

If I look at what's happening in my own area of Halton Hills, for example, 80% of all the aggregates mined in Ontario come from the Halton Hills area and we have many large quarries. Right now, there's an application by RSI in Halton Hills to use one of those quarries as a private landfill site. I believe this application in Halton Hills will set a precedent if this company is allowed to fill the Acton quarry with garbage. If that happens, many applications for landfill sites will be introduced in other parts of the escarpment.

This threat does not just affect my riding but residents of many ridings along the Niagara Escarpment. I believe not enough can be said in defence of the goal of protecting this escarpment from any further damage caused by landfills.

There are many key facts that distinguish the escarpment from any other areas in Ontario. First and foremost, as already mentioned, the Niagara Escarpment is a unique and natural beauty deserving protection.

As members know, the Niagara Escarpment stretches some 725 kilometres from Queenston near Niagara Falls to Tobermory at the top of the Bruce Peninsula. It was formed some 450 million years ago, along the shore of a shallow tropical sea that covered vast areas of Ontario and Michigan.

The Niagara Escarpment and lands in its vicinity, some 183,000 hectares in eight counties and regions and 37 local municipalities, are regulated by the Niagara Escarpment plan. Adopted by Ontario in 1985, it is Canada's first large-scale environmental land use plan. It took 16 years to have the plan enacted, and during those lengthy deliberations some 530,000 hectares were negotiated away from the original plan. The plan that we now have ensures that the escarpment will be maintained substantially as a continuous natural environment. It strikes a balance between conservation, protection and environmentally compatible development.

Within five years of the plan's approval, the Niagara Escarpment was recognized by the United Nations agency UNESCO as a world biosphere reserve, one of only six such areas in Canada. The designation confers local and international recognition and confirms that Ontario's Niagara Escarpment is endowed with natural characteristics of global significance.

When I was elected, I pledged to the citizens of Halton North that I would endeavour, as my predecessors have done, to continue to protect Halton Hills' and Ontario's most important natural assets, and with members' help here today I want to expand this protection for this world-recognized area of natural beauty and significance for all the people of Ontario.

I would also like to stress that the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act was supported by all parties, and its purpose is "to provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and lands in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment, and to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment." My purpose in bringing forth this important amendment is to strengthen this resolve.

In the case of Halton Hills, a protracted and expensive landfill search was conducted. Ultimately the Acton quarry, which was one of the sites for the landfill, was rejected as the region's landfill because of the risk to drinking water. The hydrogeologist hired by the company proposing the landfill site, RSI, admitted in August 1988 that leachate from the quarry would get into Halton Hills' drinking water. As all of Halton Hills' water comes from an underground aquifer, we cannot risk any leachate getting into our water supply. If that happens, who is going to pay the hundreds of millions of dollars for piping a water supply into Halton Hills, Milton etc?

Not only must we consider the imminent danger to the water supply and the costly after-effects in terms of health care and endeavours to purify the water. The escarpment currently enjoys an international reputation as a scenic, long-distance hiking trail -- that's the Bruce Trail -- which is visited by over 300,000 people each year and which is a tourism resource for all of Ontario. Strangely enough, this number exceeds the visitation of most provincial parks. There is no doubt that these numbers would dwindle if applications such as RSI's were allowed to carry garbage to the various landfill sites.

The appeal of hiking alongside garbage-laden trucks on roadways or quarries, with the ensuing mass of seagulls, would not entice local or indeed international visitors.

There are over 123 parks within the Niagara Escarpment -- in my area alone we have Crawford Lake, Halton Hills and Rattlesnake Point -- which provide protection to ecological and historic areas, opportunities for outdoor education and recreation, public access to the escarpment and, of course, the world-renowned Bruce Trail. It also has the greatest concentration of cold-water streams in southern Ontario, which at this time are supporting healthy populations of trout. Indeed in some cases the salmon have returned.

There are some 400 historical and architectural sites and 250 archaeological sites, 25 of which are first nations burial sites. One of them is located in my riding in the Crawford Lake area. Also, researchers have recently discovered 1,000-year-old cedar trees growing in the crevices of the escarpment cliffs near Milton and on the Bruce Peninsula.

The escarpment is home for and provides vital habitat for over 300 species of birds, 53 species of mammals, 90 species of fish and 36 species of reptiles. It is also home to 23 endangered, threatened and rare species of wildlife, such as the West Virginia butterfly, the red-shouldered hawk, the spotted turtle, the eastern bluebird and the massasauga rattlesnake.

The lands of the Niagara Escarpment have been internationally noted for the unusual richness of plant species, including 37 species of wild orchids and the greatest concentration of ferns in Canada.

It is also important to note that the southern escarpment formation shelters tracts of rich farm land from adverse weather conditions. I'm talking about the area between Niagara Falls and St Catharines, which produces a thriving tender fruit industry as well as a world-renowned wine industry.

Over the years the escarpment has enriched and nourished not just the people of southern Ontario but people from around the world. We cannot and must not compromise one of the most significantly important natural assets of this province.

For the last 25 years this common goal has been supported by all governments and all parties in Ontario. I am today appealing to all members again to further protect the Niagara Escarpment by supporting the provision to prohibit further waste management systems and waste disposal sites in the Niagara Escarpment plan area. Do this for your children and grandchildren so they too can have a place they truly can call unique: the Niagara Escarpment.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'm pleased to take

part in this debate from the member for Halton North. I think that all members of this Legislature and many, many people outside this Legislature recognize the importance of the Niagara Escarpment and the richness of that area.

But when I hear the member speak in the terms that he does today -- one just seethes. I recognize that there are probably individuals in the community who very much support his position. I'm wondering if the member has told them that he stood in support of his government's Bill 143. And what did that bill do? That bill took away the rights of individuals to participate in an environmental assessment hearing. It took away their rights to participate in matters that were important to them. It took away their rights to say what was important, what is important, and the positions they want.

Where was the member when his government brought forward Bill 143, which took away those rights from my constituents, when his Premier stated in the last election that there would not be any expansion of an existing landfill site, that there would not be any new landfill site without a full environmental assessment hearing? Where was that member when those rights were taken away from my constituents when the Britannia landfill site was extended by your government without giving my constituents and the people in the region of Peel the opportunity to voice their concerns?

That member stood in favour of taking away their rights. That member stood in favour of Bill 143 on second reading and on third reading, and the member has the audacity to come here today and say: "Well, we don't want to take away the rights of everybody. There are other people who should have those rights."

He speaks about the importance of the Niagara Escarpment. Many of the areas we know of. He talks about the leachate problem, he talks about leaking, he talks about the uniqueness of the area, he talks about the wildlife, all of which we recognize as aspects of importance. But his party's bill, Bill 143, takes away the rights of individuals to bring forward those concerns in an environmental assessment hearing.

Where was that member when this matter was debated? That member stood in favour of taking away the rights of all Ontarians that he seeks to try to bring forward for his constituents. I find it hypocritical in the extreme.

He speaks about the importance of not having a landfill site on the Niagara Escarpment. Where was that member when his Minister of the Environment said that the policy of his government is that there shall not be any transportation of garbage outside of the --

The Deputy Speaker: Order for a minute. I would ask you to tone down and choose your words a little more carefully, just a little more carefully.

Mr Offer: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, but I think that you will recognize -- and I can't imagine what words were improperly used -- as many members will recognize, this is a government which took away the rights of individuals to voice their concerns in matters of the environment in terms of the air that they breathe, the water that they drink, the places where landfill sites are situate. It is an area where this party, the official opposition, and I believe the third party stood opposed to the government because of the direction that the government was taking.

You stripped away the rights of individuals to voice their concerns, and when these issues are today being addressed, does the now Minister of Environment stand in his place and give to the people of the province a guarantee that their rights will be heard through an environmental assessment hearing? Does the minister stand in his place, as he could have yesterday, and do that? The answer, Mr Speaker, is no.

This is an issue which has hurt the people in the region of Peel. It is an issue which has disturbed the people throughout the province. It is an issue where the government has operated in a way which strips the rights of individuals to speak on matters which are crucially important to them, to their future and to the future of their children.

Mr Speaker, that is something, with the greatest respect, I will always stand for, in terms of people having the right to voice their concerns, and I will always be as excited as I am today when a government like that strips the rights of people in this province to be heard on matters of importance to them, to the air they breathe, to the water they drink, to the landfill sites where they're situate, to the future for their children.

I would like to know from the member how and why he then supported Bill 143, which in fact guaranteed that people would no longer have rights to voice those concerns.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'm not going to go into the same kind of speech that the member who has just spoken has gone into about anger about other issues. I wanted to talk particularly about Bill 62 and the community of Halton Hills, because I had the pleasure of meeting Russell Miller, the mayor of Halton Hills, yesterday, really at the instigation of the member for Halton North who is introducing this bill, and I appreciated the opportunity to talk first hand with the local people in the area about this issue which is of great concern to them.

I think that everyone has these kinds of issues in their ridings, in their townships, in their municipalities etc. And I'm not certain that this bill addresses this particular problem in the correct way because I think that what we have in front of us is a planning problem, not only in the Niagara Escarpment area, which is a very special area of our province, but we have a planning problem across the province of Ontario.

In the past 15 years it has become increasingly difficult for a land owner to locate a waste disposal site on his or her land. And as a result of that, the problem is that the value of a registered or a legal dump in the province of Ontario has become extremely high and therefore it is in the interests of land owners to go through a very long, a very expensive process in order to have their land site approved under our environmental laws, under our zoning and planning laws so that they can do this.

We have never really faced this kind of planning dilemma in the province of Ontario before. Usually, when high value is added through a zoning or a land use change, those kinds of areas were located in the downtown core of large metropolitan areas. For instance, in downtown Toronto, if somebody wanted to up their zoning or increase the value of their land by increasing the zoning or the permissible uses of that particular land use, we had a sophisticated developer against a sophisticated and well-heeled municipality.

Now, because of the change in terms of the value of a dump site, we have sophisticated developers still in the game, but we don't have well-heeled municipalities to fend off an assault by that developer or subsequent developers on the same piece of land.

In talking to Russell Miller, he tells me that his small township of 35,000 people has spent about three quarters of a million dollars in the past, I don't know, 8 or 10 years in turning back previous owners of this piece of land to convert this to a waste disposal site. Now, $750,000 to the city of Metropolitan Toronto, or Toronto, is not a lot of money to put out to deal with a zoning matter in a significant part of their municipality, but I'll tell you, for Halton Hills that's a big amount of money.

I think Russell Miller, the mayor, has put forward a very, very compelling argument to me, not only for Halton Hills but for every other township in this province. I feel that the huge increase in value to a piece of land, often a worthless piece of land, by the change of use to a waste disposal site should in fact put this kind of zoning or land use change into a different category, and I'm not certain that this particular act is fair to those other municipalities.

I must also say that because of the kind of process we go through here in private members' hour, we are not giving the other 43 municipalities along the escarpment the ability to come in front of this Legislature and say, "We agree with this," "We disagree with this," "We disagree with parts of it," or "We don't disagree with parts of it," but that's not a fault of the proponent of this bill; that's a fault of the process that we're going through.

Nor does it give the opportunity for people along the escarpment or -- particularly along the escarpment, because it affects them not only in Halton Hills but it affects them in Tobermory; it affects them in the other end. We're not giving land owners the opportunity to make their feelings heard on this, and therefore I would hope that the member would send it out for public hearings so that people will have an opportunity to make those submissions.

What I would like to see, perhaps not by this proponent but by this government or a future government, is a provision placed in our planning laws which would say that after a land owner has made a submission to change the use to a waste disposal site and he or she has lost, or the company has lost, the fight in one instance and the municipality has been dragged through that process, then an order is put against that particular property for a period of time, I don't know whether 10 years, 20 years, 30 years or 50 years.

That owner and subsequent owners of that land would be put on notice that they could not apply for a waste disposal site on that piece of land for a period of time unless they receive some kind of special permission to bring it, because Halton Hills has not only been put through the expense of fending off the assault of this particular owner; it has already fended off previous assaults by previous owners for this kind of land use change, and it is unfair to small municipalities, which are characteristically the townships that have to fend off these kinds of assaults, to put them through future expenses like this.

There also is an equity argument here in terms of Halton Hills. Halton Hills and its municipal councils have said to the rest of the province of Ontario, "We will allow you to take out aggregate from our municipality; we will bear the inconvenience," the problem with huge numbers of trucks going in and out of their community, hauling aggregate from their community down here to the city of Toronto.

I think if there is some kind of equity in terms of how much one particular municipality gives to the rest of the province of Ontario -- and I think there is a very, very valid argument that because 80% of the aggregate to build this city of Toronto in which we are debating this bill has come from the Niagara Escarpment, from trucks that are going through their municipality and in some ways leaving perhaps a blight on the municipality, or that would be viewed that way -- do we really have, or should we as a province be saying, "Well, you've got to take the trucks from the municipality of Toronto taking the garbage back into that municipality"?

Everybody, I guess, is responsible in some way for his brother and has to make a contribution to the overall province, but I would say that Halton Hills probably has made its contribution.

I'm going to vote for this bill because, notwithstanding that I'm not certain of the method with which the member is trying to reach the end, I agree with the end result of what the member is trying to do with Bill 62.

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): It's a pleasure to rise in the House today and speak on Bill 62,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment. The focus of this bill, authored by my colleague and my friend the member for Halton North, is to totally disallow landfill sites within the jurisdiction of the Niagara Escarpment Commission plan.

The province of Ontario is blessed to have 725 kilometres of this geographical feature. This escarpment has received international recognition by being designated as one of UNESCO's world biosphere reserves. The escarpment is a dominant feature in my riding of Wentworth North, and having lived near the escarpment my entire life, I am very appreciative of the escarpment as a scenic and recreational feature.

However, the importance of keeping landfills out of the Niagara Escarpment goes far beyond scenic, social or recreational issues. The primary issue is one of health and preventing pollution. The fact is that groundwater moves through the fractured dolomite of the Niagara Escarpment hundreds of times faster than groundwater moves through other kinds of rock. In fact, the traditional methods of predicting groundwater velocities are inadequate for this kind of rock. In fractured dolomite, only tracer tests give a realistic idea of velocity, and well testing of hydraulic conductivity alone is inadequate.

We would be well advised in this province to learn from the experience in the United States, which, I might add, has exactly the same kind of rock. As I said, Ontario has 725 kilometres of the escarpment, but the escarpment continues beyond the border, and in fact it goes into the Michigan basin and down into Wisconsin.

I'd like to bring to the members' attention a 1992 report to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. It's entitled Hydrogeology and Groundwater Monitoring of Fractured Dolomite in the Upper Door Priority Watershed, from Door county, Wisconsin. Based on well testing of hydraulic conductivity, which is the standard method that's commonly used here in Ontario, it was predicted that the groundwater should move at a rate of 0.039 metres per day. The hydraulic conductivities and predicted velocities found in Wisconsin are within the exact same range as those found here in Ontario in the Niagara Escarpment.

Obviously, this movement is slow enough that it would be easy to contain the flow of leachate from a landfill site.

However, when actual tracer tests were done in Wisconsin, it was found that the groundwater actually moved 19 metres per day; for those of you who are not metric, that's 55 feet in one day. That's 490 times faster than the predicted velocities, and as far as I'm concerned, that's certainly cause for alarm. Very little of this type of tracer testing has been done in Ontario, but the evidence shows that we can expect similar velocities here. It's foolish to think that technology could adequately contain contaminants flowing out of a landfill site into surrounding rock at that rate of 19 metres per day.

The fractured dolomite of the Niagara Escarpment allows groundwater to move through the cracks very quickly and is certainly not an appropriate kind of rock in which to try to contain contaminants from leaking out of a landfill site. We all should be striving for sustainable development here in this province. Putting a landfill site in a leaky basin is not sustainable and will only cause problems with water contamination for the future.

Again, our neighbours in the United States have already learned the difficulty, in costly ways, about the hazards of pollution in fractured dolomite, and ironically, the legislation in the United States regarding land use involving this kind of rock is much more advanced than ours.

This topic hits home with me and the approximately 70,000 people of the riding of Wentworth North. We have a dump site that's been there for years, located on the brow of the Dundas Valley. Only about 50% of the leachate is being collected, and God knows where the rest is going.

To make matters worse, there is a proposed 200-acre megadump just across the road from an existing dump -- 200 acres of fractured dolomite sitting there waiting to become a landfill site. If this proposal is approved, one company will stand to make millions and millions of dollars at the expense of thousands of people in Wentworth North. If this proposal is approved, it will change Wentworth North for all time. And Wentworth North is not alone, because there are other locations in the Niagara Escarpment facing similar proposals. They too, if dump sites are allowed, will change those areas for all time.

I'd like to commend the member for Halton North for having the courage to bring forth this bill. I'd like to urge all members of the Legislature to support Bill 62, because this bill is essential to the protection of our health and our environment, for all people who live within the jurisdiction of the Niagara Escarpment.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise as well to speak on Bill 62. Let me say at the outset that I think we share with the honourable member the desire to protect the escarpment, that that is something of great value to all of us, not only in this province but in this country. I think it would be most useful for this bill to go forward, to go to committee and to allow for a much broader discussion in terms of whether the particulars that you've set out in terms of how this would work could be explored.

The honourable member for Carleton has raised for me, often very useful in these debates, some approaches around how we handle, from a planning point of view, a number of these questions. Clearly, there are a variety of municipalities and other interests that would want to look at it, but I think the principle of protecting the Niagara Escarpment is one that people support.

I say that at the outset because I must then say to the honourable member that he needs to appreciate in particular that for those of us who are from the region of Peel, the region of York or the region of Durham, we stand here today knowing that at noon there will be a major demonstration of groups coming down from our areas that are tremendously concerned about the whole process that was unleashed under Bill 143 and the fact that an enormous dump site is going to be selected, one for each of those areas.

In the government throne speech it was stated on page 12 in the Lieutenant Governor's address the other day:

"Improving the environment is key to Ontario. In this session, my government will seek approval of the environmental bill of rights. This bill will ensure that people and communities have the right to a cleaner and safer environment through a more open and accountable decision-making process."

It is here where we

part company with the whole process that has been unleashed in terms of York, Durham and Peel. Many of the arguments made, both by the member for Halton North and the member for Wentworth North in support of their bill and in support of their proposal, the arguments around health and safety and the movement of water and leachate, all of those are arguments which we have in terms of the proposals in our own areas, and simply because those areas do not have the protection afforded to the escarpment does not make them any less real to the people who live there.

I am a member from the region of York and I want to address my concerns specifically to that area, because it is our area that has, in Bill 143, unilaterally been told, "You will take all of the garbage from Metropolitan Toronto and you will only be able to take it in terms of a gigantic dump."

The member for Wentworth North was talking about a megadump of some 200 acres and expressed a concern about that, and I quite appreciate that. Understand that the Keele Valley dump is larger than that and the one that is proposed for York region would be even larger: some 80 SkyDomes, 13 storeys high. This is what is being proposed in our area, and all that we've been asking is that the Environmental Assessment Act and the ability to look at all of the different options be examined and that the government not simply say, "You can only look at waste disposal through a dump, a megadump."

The concern expressed by the member for Halton North around the whole issue of dumps and the whole issue of what kind of protection we afford different areas is the same one that we feel. We simply say to him, if he is asking the government to protect his area for a series of reasons, we are asking that the process be fair everywhere in this province; and that when looking at what is going to happen in York or Peel or Durham, not only should the dump that is being proposed in our area be placed on the table but also rail haul to the north, also energy from waste, that all of these are very legitimate options that need to be considered.

When we look at Bill 62, which is asking for certain protections under the Environmental Protection Act, those can be seen. They are clear, they are understandable, but they fly in the face of some of the underlying principles that are in Bill 143, and they certainly fly in the face of the so-called proposed environmental bill of rights. Because what, I ask, does Bill 143 do to ensure that the people and communities of York and Peel and Durham are going to be protected when in Bill 143 the Minister of the Environment has the power, and has exercised that power, to exclude a series of options other than dumps?

If we go back over the past year in discussing all of these questions around dumps, whether in terms of Bill 62 or Bill 143, we have statements and questions, we have had special debates that have dealt with the specifics of this bill and what it proposes to do in a way quite different from what the member for Halton North is talking about doing in his own area. We have to focus very clearly that despite the special characteristics of the Niagara Escarpment, special characteristics that I think everyone here respects and wants to ensure are protected, there are other areas of the province that have equally valid and real concerns in terms of what they want protected.

In the town of Maple today there is the second-largest dump in all of North America. It is proposed that not far from that dump, as one moves up the highway towards the community of King City, a second, even larger megadump is going to be put in place; this in an area of the province where one can argue very strongly that that area has taken its share, that there is equity. The member for Carleton has talked about equity in terms of Halton Hills and Toronto and I think makes a very valid point. What about the social equity in terms of the people in Maple and King City in looking at the existence of one major dump and then another one that is proposed to be placed right next door?

It is this which leads us and which has led my colleague the member for Mississauga North to talk about the hypocrisy between the words that are in the throne speech and what has actually happened in Bill 143.

That is why it is difficult to debate purely and simply the principles around the bill you propose, Bill 62, principles with which I have no argument but where I say, if one can do that, then how is it that you as a member of this same government and others of your caucus can in fact support Bill 143, which has placed upon the people in Peel and Durham and York a system, a process, that is neither democratic nor fair? It is arbitrary, it is unilateral and it continues to cause tremendous stress and tremendous concern to the people who live in those areas.

It is for this reason that today, the day before Earth Day, the day on which we are to protect our environment, people from all over those regions are coming to Queen's Park to protest what this government has not done in protecting the environment in York and Peel and Durham.

So I say to the honourable member that we share with him the desire to protect the Niagara Escarpment. We simply say again that what is fair in the protection of the escarpment and what is fair in terms of dumps should also be applied to our areas. If this goes to committee, that will then provide us perhaps with an opportunity to make the changes that are necessary.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I am pleased to participate in this debate dealing with Bill 62 as introduced by the member for Halton North.

The member for Halton North's riding adjoins my riding of Dufferin-Peel and specifically the town of Caledon, and many of the problems that occur in his riding occur in mine. We have issues of aggregates, we have the issues he's raising today. So I do rise in support of the philosophy of his bill, although obviously, as has been raised to date, there are a number of issues that might be resolvable in a committee or at some later time. But certainly, I will be voting in favour of this bill and do support the philosophy of his bill.

Certainly when one looks at what the philosophy of the Niagara Escarpment is -- and I will refer to some of the sections from the plan telling what the Niagara Escarpment is doing, as has been stated very ably by the member for Halton North -- you look at why you set these areas up. Were these areas designed to place dumps? The answer is that I don't think they were, although there may be certain areas within the plan that maybe shouldn't be within the plan and that perhaps should be taken out. There may be areas in the plan that are suitable for dump sites.

So again, philosophically, if you're going to have a plan, if you're going to designate an area to protect our natural resources, then I quite support the member for Halton North's bill.

Certainly, the Niagara Escarpment has been quoted -- and I'm going to make a similar statement to the member for Halton North which comes from some of the pages from the plan -- "The Niagara Escarpment includes a variety of topographic features and land uses extending 725 km from Queenston on the Niagara River to the islands off Tobermory on the Bruce Peninsula, and a particular combination of geological and ecological features along the Niagara results in a landscape unequalled in Canada. It is also a source of some of southern Ontario's prime rivers and streams and one of the province's principal outdoor recreation areas."

Having said that, I also encourage the member for Halton North and others in this House who are supporting it, and I hope the bill carries; I hope it could be refined, but I hope it carries. But you also look at other areas that are comparable: the province's agricultural policy, the food land policy that designates certain areas to be preserved for agricultural use, the Sewell report which talked about preserving certain lands for agricultural use; in other words, designating certain areas, planning, constructive planning. That's what the Niagara Escarpment's all about.

We're concerned about our natural resources. We're concerned about the beauty of this wonderful area that has been described by the member for Halton North. We're also concerned about the agricultural land, about preserving our food lands.

In my riding, I have the Niagara Escarpment. It goes through my riding and I wholly support what he's saying, but I go one step further and I hope he would look at the dictatorial part of Bill 143 which could apply to the subject you're dealing with, and it's a very dictatorial bill. You supported that bill. That bill says you can do almost anything.

In my riding, in Dufferin-Peel and Caledon, there are two sites which consist of two or three farms that are going to be gone if this site is chosen, prime agricultural land, to say nothing about the problems of the water underneath and to say nothing of the destruction of the community. You put a dump in certain areas, you destroy the area, you destroy the Niagara Escarpment Commission, or the plan that's set aside by the Niagara Escarpment.

He's quite right that you're going to destroy this area that you've built up that you've been trying to preserve for over 10 years -- I think it's 10 years, 10 or 11 years -- and you're going to destroy these farms, you're going to destroy these communities. The planning of this government is contradictory with the whole philosophy of Bill 143, whether you're talking about, as I say, the Sewell report, or whether you're talking about the food land policy.

The food land policy, for example, of the provincial government -- a statement taken from the policy statement of food land preservation, "Where prime agricultural land has been identified, the use of this land, for productive agricultural purposes be given priority in evaluating alternative land use."

Some priority. In my riding, the Interim Waste Authority, which was created by this government, is going to destroy farm land. There's a whole booklet on food land preservation that talks about the need to preserve our farm land, aside from Mr Sewell's report. Mr Sewell says the same thing.

So I congratulate the member for bringing this bill forward. Obviously, both our ridings are similar, we have aggregate problems and you don't fill up areas, pot holes in the ground that have been removed for aggregates, with garbage, because generally you're that much closer to the water table.

In fact, some of these aggregate concerns I'm sure that he talks about -- and I don't know very much about his particular concern, but certainly they go down very close to the water table and in some cases, in my riding, below the water table. If we're going to have a policy of filling up aggregate sites with garbage, that's a terrible destructive concern that we're going to have to the water of this province.

So I support his bill, but I ask that he take another look at your policies on the environment, particularly Bill 143 and the effects that it's having on this province, especially the greater Toronto area.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It's my pleasure to rise here in the House this morning to support my colleague's bill, Bill 62,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment.

I can't think of a better day for the introduction of this bill or to be talking about it, because today is Earth Day. I think we should all really come to think about the planet that we live on. I know that if there are people listening or watching this program this morning who are apparently going to go out later to go shopping in their cars, they should think about Earth Day and about our planet and do their bit and leave the car in the garage or in the driveway and walk, which I did today to come here.

It's a shame that the member for Mississauga North entered into this debate this morning in such a ballistic manner, ripping apart this bill, ripping apart the government. I know, Mr Speaker, as far as hypocrites go -- I'm not going to mention that word, because I know how you feel about language in the House, and I agree with you. But Bill 143, I can support in my riding. Bill 143 says in effect, which is really the main issue here, "You folks in Durham look after your garbage." We do not want the garbage from Toronto in Durham, we do not want garbage from anywhere else in Durham, but we're perfectly able to look after the garbage that we produce ourselves.

I am also surprised that the member for Markham is not here this morning to take up this debate, because he's such an advocate. Perhaps he's away up in the country organizing this show of force that's supposed to take place outside the Legislature at 1:30 today.

I think too that we have to realize here, and the member for Halton North has rightly pointed it out, that we're not talking about a site, a quarry, with the normal clay base or anything like that. This site is fractured dolomite and that speaks oodles for what this bill is trying to do, because that will allow the leachates to rampage through that site and on to the water.

Mr David Winninger (London South): And 500 times faster.

Mr Mills: And 500 times faster, as my colleague says.

We know from the notes that we have from POWER, Protect Our Water and Environmental Resources, that they're concerned about the blasting in this quarry over the last 20 years. Rightly they say, "Who but a fool would assume that cracks don't exist?" I go back to Kirkland Lake. The other party seemed to think that the crisis for our garbage in Ontario could be solved in Kirkland Lake. It's Toronto's problem. You know very well over there that the site in Kirkland Lake sits atop the greatest amount of water in Ontario, almost equal to Lake Ontario.

I can tell you that there's absolutely no way that we can tell if that is a safe place to put garbage. I use the analogy of the space program and the Challenger. Everybody thought nothing could go wrong with the Challenger or the space program, but a 10-cent rubber O ring sabotaged the plan and it took the lives of many of the astronauts. So nothing is absolutely perfect or foolproof. That's why I say we should really look at Kirkland Lake and come to understand all the water underneath that site.

All landfills will leak, says the United States's William Ruckelshaus while in his new position as CEO for Browning-Ferris Industries. He admitted this at a public hearing in Sacramento, California. "As drinking water becomes more scarce and precious," he says, "we cannot afford to risk the irretrievable loss of water." That's why this bill is before us today. We want to save the water that flows through Halton North.

I agree, too, that waste disposal should remain a public responsibility. The public needs the huge revenues from disposal to pay for waste reduction programs. The revenue from the proposed site in my colleague's riding will begin at $150 million a year and escalate upward from there. When we get to the hearings, another thing that bothers me is that private companies can deduct hearing costs as expenses before tax dollars, and citizens must pay for the hearing costs out of after tax dollars with no deductions.

That brings me to my own riding. We have a commercial dump that is in this countdown for the dump for Durham. It's in Newtonville, KK2, and I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that it bothers me there that a commercial company is doing things to try to make sure that dump goes ahead in conjunction with moneys that the ordinary folk in Newtonville haven't got, and I think that's a shame.

If this landfill site in Halton goes forward, it will set a precedent for the Niagara Escarpment which is already riddled with quarries. I know that we all know how we treasure the Niagara Escarpment. It's a development of a park system, so most of us have walked the 740-kilometre Bruce Trail. It contains a corridor of natural habitat and wilderness and it's protected for future generations.

So on Earth Day I urge all members to support my colleague's bill. It's needed and we need to protect that particular area to ensure that the Niagara Escarpment continues to serve the people of Ontario as a natural beauty. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Halton North, you have two minutes.

Mr Duignan: I appreciate and I thank the members for Carleton and Dufferin-Peel for the kind comments on my private member's bill. If I was 20 years younger, I know how I would reply to the member for Mississauga North, but however, he hasn't the courtesy to be in his place to hear my reply, so I don't intend to waste my two minutes in replying to some of his silly comments.

However, I have a petition signed by 12,500 people in my riding, I have petitions signed by over 2,000 people from right across Ontario who support Bill 62, on this special day, Earth Day.

I also want, at this point, with a minute left, to pay tribute to my constituents in Halton North, indeed in Halton region, who over the course of 16 or 15 years took care of the garbage. That's why they're excluded under Bill 143, because they saw that there was no point in shuffling their garbage off to Kirkland Lake or anywhere else. They took it upon themselves and established a regional landfill site in the Halton Region. It took them 15 years and some $150 million to establish that, and that's what needs to be done.

We're also the leader in the 3R program. We recycle some 24% of our garbage going into the landfill site. That speaks volumes for the people of the Halton region. And I pay tribute to Mayor Russ Miller who has led the fight against RSI and various other proposals in putting garbage on the escarpment, and indeed to POWER and FOAD and a number of the other organizations in our riding that have taken up the fight and will continue, and we will make sure that no landfill site will take place in the Acton quarry or indeed anywhere along the escarpment.

Again, I wish to pay tribute to my colleagues who made thoughtful comments on my bill and I look forward to seeing this bill in committee.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for ballot item 1 has expired.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW

Ms Poole moved resolution number 3:

That, in the opinion of this House, since in an increasingly violent society we as legislators have publicly condemned violence against women and children; and

Since slasher films brutally and graphically depicting the torture, mutilation and death of young women are now being distributed throughout Ontario in neighbourhood video stores; and

Since slasher films can be sold and rented with no indication of their content or classification; and

Since the government of Ontario does not have a policy, nor enforcement mechanisms, in place to effectively deal with slasher films;

Therefore the government of Ontario should immediately complete its review of the mandate, jurisdiction, enforcement mechanisms and classification system of the Ontario Film Review Board, including the following recommendations:

That the Theatres Act, which currently requires that all films sold or rented in Ontario be reviewed and classified by the Ontario Film Review Board, be exercised to its fullest;

That inspectors be hired to monitor videos which are sold or rented in Ontario to ensure all films have been reviewed, classified and approved by the Ontario Film Review Board, with particular concern for the wellbeing of our children;

That substantial and appropriate penalties be imposed on unlicensed distributors, and on retailers who carry videos not reviewed, classified and approved by the Ontario Film Review Board;

That stickers showing classification by the Ontario Film Review Board be attached to all videos for sale or rent in Ontario, both on the videos and on their covers, together with a requirement that an explanation of these classifications be displayed to the public wherever these videos are rented or sold;

That the rating system be strengthened and the guidelines set out in the Theatres Act be strictly adhered to by the Ontario Film Review Board, to ensure that films which blatantly celebrate violence are considered unacceptable in accordance with community standards.

Upon completion of this review, the government of Ontario should enact policy initiatives and, if necessary, introduce legislation to ensure the protection of women and society against the proliferation of slasher films in this province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Ms Poole, I just want to remind you that you have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Today we're going to talk about slasher films, films which brutally and graphically depict the torture, mutilation and death of young women. It isn't a very pleasant topic, but we have to talk about the horrendous impact of this genre. We have to commit ourselves to dealing with the problem and we have to act to protect women and children in this province.

On numerous occasions, we as legislators have spoken out about and condemned violence against women and children, but if we fail to act on this, the most abhorrent of examples of violence, then all our words will be nothing more than lipservice and all our words will be meaningless.

The issue of slasher films came to public attention through the efforts of two women, Pat Herdman and Valerie Smith, who were appalled to find slasher films in neighbourhood video stores, readily available to children. They found that slasher films just fell through the cracks.

First, slasher films are not considered obscene under the Criminal Code because sex is not portrayed together with the violence.

Second, slasher films don't fall under Canada's hate laws because hate laws don't apply to gender.

They also found that videos produced prior to the mid-1980s are exempt from the requirements in Ontario that all films be reviewed, classified and approved by the Ontario Film Review Board.

They found that movies that have been shown previously on the air waves, for instance, television, are also exempt from having to be approved by the Ontario Film Review Board.

They found that enforcement was a real problem, with distributors bypassing the OFRB and getting away with it. By the way, the OFRB, for your information, is the Ontario Film Review Board.

Finally, they had serious concerns as to whether the OFRB was exercising fully its mandate to review and edit inappropriate material.

So these two women decided to do something about it. They went on a modern-day crusade to ensure that this material would not be available to our children. They founded the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters. They appealed to Premier Rae, himself the father of three young daughters, to act. They tried to get the media involved but ironically found, with a few exceptions, that the media didn't want to be involved because they saw this as the thin edge of the wedge of censorship.

They appealed to the Ontario Human Rights Commission to have slasher films considered as hate material against women and got nowhere. Then they invited community leaders, including politicians and people from the media, to a screening of Reel Hatred, a collection of clips taken from readily available movies which celebrate the gruesome slaughter of young women.

Mr Speaker, I apologize in advance for some of these graphic descriptions, but I don't think, unless people understand what we are talking about, they can deal with this issue.

That night we watched in horror scenes from movies such as Bloodfest, where one woman had her tongue torn out, another had her eye gouged out and was dismembered. I only made it halfway through the film Snuff, where a woman had her fingers snipped off with metal cutters, her hand cut off with a jigsaw and her intestines ripped out. I had to leave the room because I was sick to my stomach.

One of the people who spoke at the end of the showing of Reel Hatred was Debbie Mahaffy, the mother of young Leslie Mahaffy, a 14-year-old young girl whose brutal, tragic death two years ago sent the community of Burlington into shock waves. Debbie Mahaffy gave this eloquent and moving plea:

"Can we afford to ignore this destructive trash? Please take action against this hatred. There's little comfort once the violence and murder have taken someone you love."

Today those three very courageous women who are fighting to stop the proliferation of this horrible violence are with us in the members' west gallery -- Pat Herdman, Valerie Smith and Debbie Mahaffy. I would like to thank them on behalf of the people of Ontario for their tireless efforts to bring this issue to the public's attention and to make our communities a safer place. Thank you for coming today.

Catherine Thompson of the Kitchener-Waterloo Record was one of the journalists who attended Reel Hatred and did speak out. This is what she wrote:

"As a journalist, the idea of banning anything goes against the grain, but these pictures offer nothing redeeming or artistic and much that is deeply disturbing. They're made for one reason only, to make money, and they offer one simple message: Killing and mutilating women is not only okay, it's actually kind of neat. Come and watch.

"Ontario is not protected. It's a place where young women like Kristen French, Leslie Mahaffy and Lynda Shaw really do die horrible deaths at the hands of real people. In such a world, how can it be acceptable to celebrate such brutality?"

I too am not generally a big fan of censorship, but surely these films go far beyond the limits of even the most tolerant of societies. This sickening filth must be stopped. How can we purport to be a compassionate, a caring, a sensitive society if we tolerate this kind of message? How can we possibly claim that we are addressing the issue of violence against women and children if we allow this perversion to continue?

I felt that I had to do something to try and help, so I prepared excerpts from Reel Hatred and brought the case before my Liberal caucus. The reaction from my colleagues in the Liberal caucus was clear and unequivocal: This is sickening and disgusting and something has to be done.

I met and talked with people from the Ontario Film Review Board, from Project P of the OPP's anti-racket porn squad and the entertainment standards branch. In mid-February, I wrote to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who I believe genuinely shares my concern. I offered suggestions to deal with the problem and asked to meet with the minister to pursue the matter. In fact we are going to be meeting next week. I did my last cable show on slasher movies to help bring the matter to the public attention.

But, Mr Speaker, it's not enough, and that's why I brought the resolution to the House today. I am hoping that in an all-too-rare, non-partisan spirit of cooperation, all members of this Legislature will give their support. Strong support from both sides of the House will send a clear message to the government and to the public that we in Ontario are not prepared to condone and accept such violence.

A person who is exposed to violent sexual material will be more predisposed to tolerate violence and more inclined to act out his violence.

As a parent of two teenagers under the age of 18, I am all too well aware that video stores routinely rent out restricted movies to those who are under age. I would say to you, remember, in Ontario "Restricted" is the most restrictive classification we have and includes adult films. It includes these slasher films. We do not have an X-rated system in Ontario, and our children are having this material available to them at the local video store.

As the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters has said:

"Surely we should not allow our children to be encultured into blandly accepting violence as entertainment. We must work for reasonable and responsible solutions. Averting our eyes, pretending the celebration of violence doesn't hurt us, will not solve the problem. We have a right to be offended and a right to take action."

I believe that this government is in a position to act and should act quickly.

The Ontario Law Reform Commission released its report on the powers of the Ontario Film Review Board in November. While I agree with many of the recommendations, there is one in particular that gives me great concern and I shall discuss that a little later.

The fact of the matter is the government has now had the commission's report for the past six months. The government has a working document containing very specific recommendations, some of which, such as the sticker system, are included in my resolution.

I would beseech the minister and the Premier to urge, support, prod -- whatever it takes -- the federal government to act quickly to amend Canada's obscenity and hate laws. Let's ask, what are the priorities of this government? Is it going to be removing sexism from beer commercials or doing something about slashers? The women and children of this province are depending on you and they're depending on us.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): As I rise to speak to this motion this morning, I think it's very important for each and every one of us in this Legislature today to recognize that this subject would not be before us if it had not been brought to our direct attention by Valerie Smith from Brampton and Patricia Herdman from Guelph in their establishment of the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters. They have been working tirelessly to try to get a remedy to something that, in my opinion, doesn't even bear a sticker system. As far as I'm concerned, this material should be prohibited in our province and our country.

I happened to hold a personal safety forum last night in my riding, not necessarily directed at women and children, but people. We had standing room only at that forum. We all in Ontario today recognize that violence is increasing. We all know that, in particular, violence against women is the major concern.

In virtually all slasher films, men perpetrate the violence and women are the victims. While the films may incite hatred against women, federal hate laws define "hatred" on the basis of creed or racial background, not on the basis of sex. Therefore, they do not apply to slasher films.

Last February, when the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters arranged the showing of some typical excerpts from these films in a collection they called Reel Hatred, I attended this screening along with approximately 50 interested women and men. Everybody who attended was very disappointed and, I would say, surprised that not a single member of the NDP government caucus in this province would find time to attend that screening.

The House of Commons communication and culture committee is considering an appropriate amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada with an aim to making the Criminal Code apply to slasher films. Upon the urging of the Prime Minister, who received a petition last year signed by 1.3 million Canadians calling for restrictions on TV violence, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission spearheaded a debate on TV violence.

As a result, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has submitted to the CRTC a set of amendments to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' voluntary code to control TV violence. However, there has been no action on the part of the Ontario NDP government, which does control the dissemination of videos through the regulatory powers of the Ontario Film Review Board under the Theatres Act.

Mr Speaker, do you realize that some of the grisly videos excerpted in the Reel Hatred collection are rated AA-14, meaning that children under 14 can watch them in the company of an adult? In studies conducted by Sandra Campbell of Viva Associates in Toronto, children as young as five have reported extensive viewing of the slasher movies. There are also slasher videos available that have not yet been reviewed by the OFRB, yet there appears to be no action by the Ontario NDP government, through the Ontario Provincial Police, to remove these illegal films from the shelves.

A response from the then Attorney General, Howard Hampton, to Valerie Smith of the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters referred Ms Smith to Project P, even though slasher films do not constitute pornography and therefore do not fall within the jurisdiction of Project P. Mr Speaker, wouldn't you have thought that the Attorney General for Ontario, Howard Hampton, might have known that on such a serious subject?

I would like to place on the record the following sections of the Theatres Act, which do give the Ontario Film Review Board the authority for refusing to approve slasher films, because I'm not interested in any category that allows slasher films in this province.

Under

section 14(2):

"(

a) A graphic or prolonged scene of violence, torture, crime, cruelty, horror or human degradation;

"(

b) The depiction of the physical abuse or humiliation of human beings for purposes of sexual gratification or as pleasing to the victim;

"(

f) A scene depicting indignities to the human body in an explicit manner."

Without doubt, refusal by the Ontario Film Review Board to approve slasher films would be subject to appeals under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, given the Supreme Court Decision last year with respect to the need to put the rights of society ahead of the rights of the individual when it comes to the viewing of pornography, I am sure that restrictions on the distribution of slasher films would also hold up to judicial scrutiny.

I am also very disturbed by the Ontario Film Review Board's statement, in response to the human rights complaint, that its first service is a direct service to exhibitors in relation to films submitted for classification and approvals, while its second service -- get this, Mr Speaker; its second service -- is an indirect service to the public in the form of information pieces. This is ridiculous. The Ontario Film Review Board's primary responsibility should be to the Ontario public.

If the Ontario Film Review Board's mandate is to serve exhibitors, does it not follow that the Ontario Film Review Board could be pressured by the industry to rate films AA-14 rather than R, since films make much more money when they have a less restrictive rating? Obviously there needs to be a review of the Ontario Film Review Board's mandate, and I ask today, in this House, will this NDP government undertake such a review? The Ontario Film Review Board, as it is currently operating, in my opinion is an absolute farce.

I attended a public forum in Mississauga which was organized by the Mississauga Committee on Obscenity, chaired by Councillor Maja Prentice. At that meeting, the current chair, newly appointed, Dorothy Christian, of the OFRB admitted in response to my questions that the Ontario Film Review Board had reviewed 1,847 pieces of material in 10 months, and in order to do it, guess what they do? They fast-forward and turn the sound down.

So if we think the answer is really dependent on this board in its present form of operation, then I plead to this government to recognize that to fast-forward films that are being reviewed for content with the sound turned down is an absolute, total lack of responsibility and effectiveness.

In my opinion and in the opinion of our caucus, we feel that there is a direct correlation between the increase in violence against women in this province and the tragedies we are hearing in an increasing number of incidents, and we plead with this Ontario NDP government once and for all to make a revision that will be effective in controlling the distribution and availability of this material in this province immediately and to review the mandate and operation of the Ontario Film Review Board.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): The resolution introduced by the member for Eglinton suggests that the government does not have a policy or the enforcement mechanisms in place to effectively deal with slasher films. While we agree in principle with several items in that resolution, the government has indeed initiated action which parallels the member's concerns.

I know the member for Eglinton is calling for an immediate review of the Ontario Film Review Board. A comprehensive review of the powers of the Ontario Film Review Board was published in November of last year and was prepared by the Ontario Law Reform Commission, and the member's resolution seems to speak directly to some of those recommendations in the law reform commission's report.

The member also suggested that the government is not dealing specifically with the issue of slasher films. However, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations staff is currently working towards the adoption of a number of recommendations which will specially address the issue of slasher films. The film review board and ministry staff are meeting with counterparts in other provinces and federal representatives to discuss the issues of mutual concern, including classification systems and how to respond to the communities' concerns, especially about slashers.

The minister has made it widely known that she favours the adoption of a specific information piece to address the issue of violence against women and has suggested to the film review board that it consider ways of letting viewers know when films contain scenes of violence against women. The OFRB is reviewing its use of information pieces, including the minister's suggestion to include an information piece regarding violence against women.

The Theatres Act regulations are currently being reviewed in accordance with the law reform commission's findings in an effort to further restrict children's access to disturbing and/or violent videos.

Many of the films in the slasher genre actually pre-date provincial government authority over video releases. The Theatres Act did not encompass home video rentals or the retail video distribution network until the staged proclamation of the Theatres Amendment Act in 1985 and indeed in 1988. Videos which were in distribution prior to that time are not subject to review by the film review board. Films that have been available on television in Ontario are exempt as well. This includes so-called slasher films viewed on late-night TV.

I believe the minister has taken a very active advocacy role by urging the federal government to address the materials, like slasher films, which glorify human mutilation. A lot of the problem lies in the federal Criminal Code. Until the federal government gets off its rear end and does something, we can do nothing about it in this province. Without a federal law to guide them, provincial police forces have no authority to seize or prosecute materials which celebrate torture.

I know our current minister is currently urging the federal government, and I would urge all members of all parties to do the same, to change the federal statutes, to enable provincial authorities to better control films such as slasher videos.

I know that, for example, the member also talked about an elaborate sticker program. The previous government embarked on an elaborate sticker program and abandoned it -- why? -- before it could actually be implemented. I want to know why. Our ministry is currently examining a modified sticker program to specially address pornographic and/or violent materials. I know that the previous government has disbanded the investigative team dedicated to theatres and video stores because the cost of monitoring video stores outweighs the social benefit that the service provides.

Towards the end of the previous government's mandate the investigation staff assigned to the theatre

section were eliminated. Staff in the entertainment standards branch, with responsibilities to other sections, were assigned to cover the work rising out of the theatre section. Disbanding the theatres inspection system was, I trust, by way of the exercise we're going through, a very difficult decision. I guess the questions of resource allocation always are.

At this point, I know many of our members would like to speak to this particular subject, so I yield the floor.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): First of all, it's a pleasure to join in this debate. I congratulate the member for Eglinton for bringing forward --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Callahan: It is certainly an issue that is very important. I find it interesting that we stand in this House and actually have people trying to defend government inaction of whatever political stripe. I think that's totally unbelievable. It's kind of like saying, "I surrender. We recognize that these films" --

Mrs Marland: If you don't respond to this resolution this morning, you will regret it for the rest of your time in office.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There is one speaker who has the right to speak. Let's make sure that he has that right. The member for Brampton South.

Mr Callahan: I wonder if I could have a few minutes added to the clock, Mr Speaker.

I want to say I find it absolutely incredible that what's happening is that this would not have the support of everybody of this House. It's kind of like the government of the day, the New Democratic Party government, is saying: "I surrender. We can't do anything about it and there is in fact no ability of a remedy."

That couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, what has been said by the member for Halton North is totally incorrect. The province is the only one that has the power at the moment to deal with this very pressing issue, and I refer you to the regulation which simply says that the board -- and I'm paraphrasing it -- may refuse to approve a film for exhibition or distribution in Ontario where the film contains a graphic or a prolonged scene of violence, torture, crime, cruelty, horror or human degradation.

It doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer or a rocket scientist to recognize that this in fact clearly gives to that board the power to do what is not even available to the federal government. I do agree with the member for Halton North that the answer to this entire process is that subsection 163(8) of the Criminal Code of Canada should be reviewed, just as they did with pornographic literature in the Badgley report, because what that

section says is, "For the purposes of this act, any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex in any one or more of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to be obscene." For some reason, the federal government -- and I'm not going to concentrate on it today because it's not relevant to this, but it is relevant parenthetically -- puts the emphasis on sex. Unless you have sex and violence, it's not obscene.

Now, I suggest to you that the provincial government is the only available government to the citizens of this province to deal with this very important issue. If you don't deal with it, what in fact you will do by leaving these predators out there who produce this smut, what you're going to do is you're going to leave it out there and eventually people will become desensitized to the fact that women are brutally mutilated and so on.

The net effect of that is that because a defence against a charge of obscenity becomes defensible as the acceptability of society becomes greater, in fact you'll find that if you stay asleep at the switch, eventually you won't even be able to prosecute somebody should the federal government change the sex and assault

section of the obscenity rules; you won't even be able to prosecute successfully that type of film. It will be a free market for these predators to continue to do this.

Don't kid yourself: These people are smart people. They're in a multimillion-dollar, sick industry, but they're actually producing films where they know just where they can get around the corner. They know just where they can get around the corner. They skirt the federal legislation by perhaps not including sex but maybe just an incitement that that's what's on the horizon along with the assault.

I think it's time that we recognized the fact as politicians, both provincially and federally, that this type of conduct is unacceptable in our society. We did it with children. We perpetrate and we continue the myth that women are simply objects to be used at the will and whim of men. We wonder why there are so many abductions in this city and throughout this country of young ladies, that they're no longer safe to walk the streets.

I mean, if you constantly shoot at kids, particularly through a medium that is important to them and one which influences them significantly -- television or videos -- if you constantly shoot at them the question that these women are being mutilated and it doesn't matter, it's not of importance, you may very well desensitize them to the point where it doesn't become a concern for them any more.

I think it's been established during the tragedy of world wars and other conflicts that a soldier or a person in combat, on having to shoot the first person, has great problems. After he's shot the first person, it becomes a little easier to shoot the next person, there's less pang. As human beings, we do in fact find things to be objectionable, but the more we do them, the more we become desensitized. I suggest that's exactly what will happen to the young people in our community.

Adults have chosen in their society -- and I certainly don't subscribe to it. Unfortunately, I think we've destroyed our society by some of the laissez-faire attitudes we've taken about a whole host of things. I mean, I can remember Toronto in the days when you could walk the street at night without being held up, mugged, raped or whatever. I guess I'm in the minority in that regard. It seems as though the approach to it today is a much broader aspect, and you can do almost anything on television or in the movies, even if it interferes with families and so on. But in any event, that's not what I'm addressing here.

I'm addressing the question, what value is there really in these films? To sit there and watch a human being and be able to go, "Ho-hum. Well, it's a woman, so it doesn't matter" -- what value is there to us? I say to you that the provincial government, which now has the only authority, because of the rewording that's required in the obscenity

section of the Criminal Code, has the only power to stop this crap, this smut, this intrusion into the lives of our children, the rearranging, brainwashing of our kids, so they can make a buck, it's time we stopped it.

It's time we said the government of the day, the New Democratic Party government, is going to enforce it. Now, I figure the reason you're not enforcing it is because you're not prepared to put your money where your mouth is. You're not prepared to put inspectors out on the road, with the budgets that are required, to inspect these stores.

If that's the case, that is a real tragedy. That tells me that your government, which espouses all these attitudes that it's in favour of protecting women and against spousal assault and all the rest of it, is really just a blank, blind statement. You don't mean it at all, because unless you enforce the regulations, unless you enforce the regulatory powers that you have, you in fact are just simply denying to the women and the young ladies of this province the opportunity to gain in terms of being meaningful human beings instead of simply going back to the caveman routine where they would be dragged by the hair into the cave.

We're trying to teach our young people, we're trying to take guns away from them, not give them guns for Christmas, and yet we're allowing these predators -- and I call them predators -- who are doing nothing more than making a buck at this by demonstrating and denigrating women, to sell these products, to rent these products and to virtually brainwash our children.

So what can we expect in the future? What we can expect in the next generation will be many more young people who become adults who will grow up with this mentality that women are second-class citizens. This government is doing nothing by its inactivity with reference to exercising a power it has -- and the only jurisdiction that has that power. They're doing absolutely nothing to help our next generation.

I read in my community of Brampton, and it's simply an allegation, that a number of young girls are reporting that they were taken into homes and sexually assaulted. We read about that every day. We read about young women who are not able to walk home safely without being abducted. Do you think that's happening because we're becoming a more advanced society, or is it happening because governments of the day haven't got the guts to put their money where their mouth is to exercise legitimate authority they have and are prepared to allow those predators out there to bypass, to cut corners?

In fact, I'm told, in reading some of the material my colleague provided speaking on this matter, that certain of these videos receive an AA-14, I think it is, a rating which is acceptable for children. You've got to do it; I'm suggesting you've got to do it. But if they're going to do it, they should do it right. First of all, they should exercise their powers and reject the ones that fail to meet the criteria. But at the same time, why put labels on something, labelling like on Bambi or Pinocchio, and it's actually the brutality and the assault on women?

So wake up over there, New Democratic Party. You're prepared to support all sorts of things, bring in injunctions and so on when it's in your interests, but when the chips are down and you're required to support the question of supporting women, you just sit on your laurels and you'd prefer to spend your money on other things rather than spending it where it should be spent.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): At the outset, let me say that I'd like to commend the member for Eglinton for bringing forward this resolution so quickly to the House for the purposes of today's debate. I'd also like to commend my colleague the member for Mississauga South, who has been doing considerable work in this area. For those members opposite, I'm afraid I'm looking at the government side and there is not a single member over there who has been in this chamber more than two years.

For that reason, they would not be aware of the rather lengthy discussions and debates which have gone on in this House about the subject of women's rights, pornography, the degrading aspects of pornography. They've not been privy to that discussion and maybe that is why some of it is reflected in their comments in this debate.

But it's been no secret that there has been a devolution for us as a society and for the subject generally of pornography and how it's being handled in this province. It's no secret that the previous government moved us from an Ontario censor board to a film review board. There's no secret that we moved from simulated sex acts to actual sex acts and that this definition is being broadened and more acceptable in this province. That is the nature of the evolution.

This motion tends to bring a dramatic halt to that and to suggest that we review and reflect and maybe turn back and examine properly what should be changed about explicit films that are degrading to women generally. The resolution speaks specifically to slasher films, but it is only one of a series of very sick items which are being allowed to move freely and affect society. Child pornography has been mentioned, bestiality; there is a whole series of very, very degrading situations which tend to always be focused on women. Slasher films are just one more example of that.

I recall that on February 27, 1989, I raised in this House, after I too had a visit to the Ontario Film Review Board to witness a very, very disturbing series of clips, or outtakes, they're called -- it is probably the most disturbing day I've ever spent as a legislator and it deeply moved me with respect to how sick things really are on the street when people have access to it. When I asked the then minister if there was, in his mind, a link between violence against women and pornography, he said he wasn't sure.

Obviously we've come a long way since 1989 in terms of the understanding of at least the government member responsible for women's issues and responsible for Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Again, on March 25, 1991, I raised this issue in the House about the proliferation of triple-X videos when the police had informed me that they had in their custody specific videos which, in their view, were pornographic. I raised it in the House, as I said. I asked the NDP Attorney General what he was prepared to do. He said it wasn't his responsibility. In fact, the police told me that the Attorney General's office had informed the police in Halton that if they proceeded with charges, the Attorney General's office would not support for them to proceed to take it to court.

That was the level of support we were getting from the Attorney General's office in this province two years ago, and the Consumer and Commercial Relations minister, Ms Churley, in response to my question that day said, "The member will see some action in the very short future on this." That was over two years ago and yet the member for Halton North has the audacity to stand in his seat and suggest that they're working on it.

The fact is, as Robert Payne, the past chairman of the film review board said, this is a political problem. Politicians have to come together and resolve to do something about this. The solutions lie in changing the law and the

definitions of pornography. The solutions come in supporting our police in the laying of charges, because police will not lay charges just to have an Attorney General say, "We're not going to proceed to put that person behind bars or to charge them with proliferating pornography in this province." The judges are ready to make those

definitions of pornography, but they have to get the signals from this body, this Legislature, that in fact that will occur.

I represent a community which has, along with the families, suffered the loss of young women: Leslie Mahaffy, Nina de Villiers. I ask the members of this House, at least in their memory, to understand the impact of violence on women and to do something positively today and support this resolution.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): In the few minutes allotted to me, I'd like, first of all, to express solidarity on this issue with the member for Eglinton. This is a serious issue for all of us and we are all on side, I believe, in condemning the widespread availability of slasher films.

I do not believe in censorship in a general way. Any book, film or work of art that's produced in good faith has a place in our society. We cannot and should not condemn everything that offends somebody. Shakespeare, D. H. Lawrence, Salman Rushdie and our own Margaret Laurence have all had their brushes with prejudice. Intellectual freedom and freedom of expression must be upheld.

We become tolerant partly by being exposed to a conflicting range of prejudices, past and present, but what we are looking at here are not works of art but deliberate exploitation for profit of some of man's very lowest instincts. There are also very obvious problems with the production of such films, since the violence can be real even to the point of murder. These extreme movies should, I believe, be illegal. However, the will of the government to deal with the problem is not in question, and action is being taken.

Members of the Ontario Film Review Board do understand the importance of this issue and are taking their classification duties seriously. I believe, however, that they should be able to eliminate rather than classify the extreme material we're discussing.

Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, their power is limited because many offensive videos are outside the provincial government's jurisdiction altogether. Videos distributed before the staged passage of the Theatres Amendment Act in 1985 and 1988 are not subject to review by the film review board. Neither are films which have been available on television in Ontario, and this does include slasher movies seen on late-night TV.

This situation is not acceptable and the minister is urging the federal government to take action. A federal law is needed so that provincial police can seize or prosecute materials which celebrate torture. There was an investigative team dedicated to theatres and video stores, but it was disbanded by the Liberals when in power because it was not considered cost-effective. There are indeed 4,000 video retail outlets in the province. It would seem more fiscally effective to expand and strengthen the jurisdiction of the review board rather than re-establish an inspection system.

I'm convinced that violence on our screens is a danger to the continued civilized functioning of our society. I commend the member for her resolution and I am going to support it because of the gravity of the situation, although I am satisfied that the ministry is pursuing solutions to this problem with the urgency it deserves.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I thank the member for Eglinton for bringing this resolution forward to effectively deal with slasher films. What is a slasher film? She has explained it is the most extreme, I would say, end of a whole spectrum of violence against women which results, I believe, from a marginalization of the role of women, an inequality in fact that we know is there in society, an objectification of women even seen in beauty pageants.

Women are seen as secondary roles in many types of our society. You just think of an office setting, even our constituency offices, where all of our staff are equal. If there is a man and there's a woman, then people naturally go to the man as being in charge. I've even seen men have difficulty dealing with women cabinet ministers. Because this type of thing can happen, the extreme of violence against women, such as these slasher films, can happen.

We must deal with it. I know the minister is very concerned about violence against women and I personally, as well as my caucus, will carry this concern forward to the minister. We must not let this particular category -- because it's been hidden for so long, most of society just doesn't want to know about this, doesn't want to deal with it -- fall through the cracks. I agree that we must have regulations in place as soon as possible. The board that we're dealing with here must ensure that it fully understands the importance of this issue and the consequences and the roots of this issue.

We also must have federal changes to statutes to enable our provincial authorities to better control the proliferation of these slasher videos.

I thank the member for the urgency with which she has brought this forward. We must make people aware, whether it's the board members, whether it's the federal government, whether it's women's groups. Let's get together and raise this issue. It cannot and should not be hidden. Let's face up to the reality of our society, that this can actually happen in this day and age, the objectification of women, the inequality of women.

Also, I ask everyone to make sure that women are seen in all roles, even in the preschool level, when dealing with little boys and girls, that they are in fact seen as equal and, as men and women, that we treat each other equally in the home, in the office, in the factory and even around the cabinet table.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I'm pleased to be able to join in this debate on the private member's resolution. I want to say that I think you've heard a lot of the discussion of the elements of this complex issue. I think the mover of this resolution would agree that her own government had problems with addressing the issues here. In her own resolution she mentions the stickers and inspectors to deal with the problem. In fact, their government abandoned those efforts as being unrealistic and not dealing with the issue in a way that they thought would happen, so it is definitely a complex issue.

The other thing about it is the immediate review that she's calling for in her resolution. There already has been a review by the Ontario Law Reform Commission and that is now being looked at by the film board as well as the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

As far as the member requesting that the government enact policy initiatives and introduce legislation is concerned, we can say that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is working on this issue and action will be taken when its work is complete. As I say, the issue here is very complex, and other jurisdictions are working on it and it must be done in a comprehensive way that will get to the heart of this issue.

Certainly, as has been mentioned here, the minister has expressed her concern about videos and scenes depicting violence against women, and the Ontario Film Review Board is looking at how such scenes can be identified and let viewers know when films contain such scenes. This has to be done. I think we all agree with this. But I think we have to recognize that these slasher films are in fact a symptom of an underlying problem that my colleague the member for Niagara Falls mentioned -- and certainly others have pointed to this as well -- that it is the devaluing of women in our society that allows for this kind of depiction to go ahead.

That's why I think there are not only these very specific things that can be done that the Ontario Film Review Board is looking at, but also more general attempts to improve the status of women in our society. I think of pay equity, for instance, and employment equity, two initiatives that we will be pursuing that have to make sure that women have the position in our society that will prevent this.

After all, many people point to violence on TV in other ways, for instance, in sporting events, hockey, for instance, the violence that occurs there, and say, "What does this mean for our society as far as the values in our society encouraging cooperative and humane values are concerned?"

Think of other films, too. Where do we draw the line, for instance, on films like The Terminator?

There are all kinds of elements in society. For those of us who live with females -- and I have a wife and two daughters. I'm well aware of the issue of violence against women. This thing is deeply rooted in our society.

What I'm suggesting is that slasher films are a symptom of this underlying problem that we have to get to the root of. It isn't just a question of putting stickers or inspecting video stores, which because of the widespread distribution network is very difficult in any case. What we have to do is get to the underlying nature of our society that allows women to be devalued, and as I say, I have a very direct relationship with this and I intend to pursue with all my effort initiatives like pay equity and employment equity.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Eglinton, you have two minutes.

Interjections.

Ms Poole: I think I have some time left from the Liberal speakers.

The Deputy Speaker: How much time is there left? Four minutes, plus two minutes; you'll have six minutes.

Ms Poole: Thank you. I'd like to begin by thanking the members today for participating in the debate, the members for Brampton South, Mississauga South, Burlington South -- there's a lot of action in the south today, you can tell -- Peterborough, Kingston and The Islands and Niagara Falls. I very much appreciated your comments and your measures of support.

I'd like to specifically address a few of the issues that the member for Halton North raised. I deliberately tried to keep this a non-partisan issue because in my belief partisanship shouldn't enter into it, and unfortunately I think a few members did get a little excited there.

I'd like to tell you that it's a very complex issue, and quite frankly all three governments have had their paw prints on what's happened with censorship, what's happened with pornography, what's happened with the board in this particular province. It was in fact developed under the Conservative government and the amendment to the Theatres Act came about in 1984, then it was proclaimed over a three-year period, which happened during the Liberal tenure, and now it's the NDP's turn to try to deal with this very, very difficult issue. So rather than finger-point, I think what's important to understand is that this is an issue of importance not only to women and children, but to society.

We are an increasingly violent society, and when you see what's on the television, when you see what's on the video machines -- and those two outlets are of extreme importance to me because they're the ones that are of paramount importance to our young people. Unfortunately, a lot of young people don't read as much as they used to, but they are absolutely glued to the television set and to the video machines. I think it's very important that we protect them in what they're seeing out there.

The member for Mississauga South mentioned the fact that the OFRB, the Ontario Film Review Board, does a fast forward with no sound. Quite frankly, when this first came up, I was really concerned as well because this, to me, sounded terrible. But I would like to invite members to call the Ontario Film Review Board and go up for a visit. I spent several hours there and it was actually quite enlightening.

They have extremely sophisticated, sensitive equipment, and their fast forward isn't like the fast forward you and I are used to on a video machine. You can see all too clearly. Believe me, my face was very red when I sat through 20 minutes of a pornographic film which I would consider to be pretty close to hard-core porn, and I could very clearly see what they were doing on the screen even in fast forward because it wasn't as fast or as indecipherable as on our VCRs.

Secondly, the point they made to me about the sound is that in these sex movies, a lot of the time there isn't a whole lot of sound other than maybe some grunts and groans and things like that. But they can tell when there is, for instance, dialogue. They can stop the machine, can indicate on their sheets exactly at which stage it was, can go back and review, and at that stage they do turn on the sound and they do review it.

So while I share the concern of the member for Mississauga South, I invite all members to go up because I think it really does help you understand the issue and some of the problems around it.

I don't think at any time I implied that this government was not doing anything, which Mr Duignan, I think, the member for Halton North, seemed to feel. In fact, I specifically said that the minister was very concerned about it. I brought up the report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission and the fact that the wording in my motion was that the government of Ontario should immediately complete its review. The review is well under way. We've had the report for six months, and I just don't think we can delay.

It is of paramount importance that the federal government act as well to change the obscenity laws, and I'd also like it to strengthen the child porn laws at the same time. I think we all agree that child pornography is something that is evil and that we do not want to see.

One last issue I'd like to address is the issue of censorship and freedom of speech.

The Butler decision, which was a decision of the Supreme Court in 1992, was a unanimous decision which stated that the right to freedom of expression must be balanced with a woman's right to live without fear and without the threat of violence. In this regard, it states that sex with violence was "almost always obscene," and that sex with children was always obscene.

Canada has hate laws, libel laws, patent laws and obscenity laws which state that people just simply can't say whatever they want whenever they want, particularly if it might affect somebody's personal safety, financial investment or personal integrity. I think it's very important that the province of Ontario urge the federal government to move as quickly as possible. I believe the federal government has given indications recently that it is prepared to move. I think it's paramount that they move before we go into the next election and it gets lost in study for another year or two.

I would like to conclude by reading a passage from a letter by Debbie Mahaffy, the mother of Leslie Mahaffy who was brutally murdered. She writes:

"How can you not realize that the real victims, their families and loved ones in Ontario pay the ultimate price of the free expression to make profits from the pain and deaths these violent, hateful, obscene films bring with them? Slasher films do not advocate, illustrate nor do they demonstrate any positive social values. The preciousness of life is clearly irrelevant, and torture and murder is portrayed as entertainment and excitement. Will these videos help our children's social, emotional and moral development? I think not."

Mr Speaker, I ask for the support of all members of this House on this important resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (NIAGARA ESCARPMENT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 1, standing in the name of Mr Duignan. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Duignan has moved second reading of Bill 62,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I move the bill be referred to the committee on resources development.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development? Agreed.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 2, standing in the name of Ms Poole. Are there any members opposed to this vote?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms Poole has moved private member's notice of motion number 3. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Ayes

Abel, Bisson, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carter, Cooper, Cousens, Daigeler, Drainville, Duignan, Eddy, Fawcett, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hope, Huget, Jackson, Kormos, Kwinter, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marland, Martin, Miclash, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Perruzza, Poole, Rizzo, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Villeneuve, Waters, Wessenger, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

The ayes are 42; the nays are 0. I declare the motion carried.

All matters relating to private members' business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1211.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EARTH DAY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): It's a pleasure for me to rise today and commemorate Earth Day on behalf of the Liberal caucus.

As members will know, the first Earth Day celebration took place on April 22, 1970. In the 23 years that have passed since then, significant progress has been made in creating a greater awareness of the fragility of our natural environment.

This awareness has been fostered throughout all sectors of society: business, the education system, throughout our communities and within larger government structures. It is important to recognize this today and to continue to build upon it as we move into the 21st century.

The focus of Earth Day 1993 is on personal action. Today, as tree-planting ceremonies, educational displays and local cleanup projects take place, it is important to remember that our individual actions can and do have significant impacts on our environment.

While it is important to examine our current personal activities, the Earth Summit held last June in Rio de Janeiro reminded us that the issue of environmental protection is truly global in nature.

While it must be mentioned that every day should in fact be Earth Day, today affords us time to acknowledge and congratulate those thousands of individuals, communities and organizations in this province and throughout all countries who work very hard to preserve and improve the quality of our natural environment.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Earth Day is a time for each of us to take action to ensure that we protect the environment for future generations. As native friends are inclined to say: "We do not inherit this earth from our parents. We borrow it from our children."

Simple actions such as conserving energy in our homes, reducing the garbage we create and planting a tree for future generations will help us protect this world for future generations. Many schools and organizations within Ontario highlight Earth Week activities by planting trees in their neighbourhoods. Trees and shrubs help reduce air pollution, moderate the greenhouse effect by absorbing carbon dioxide and enhance our property values.

The NDP government and the Ministry of the Environment have made many promises and commitments to make sure our environment does not continue in its downward slide. The Minister of the Environment has stood in this House yesterday and made a statement about how Ontarians had reduced their waste by 25%.

Considering that this is Earth Day, would it not be appropriate to have finally introduced the environmental bill of rights? We have seen drafts of this much-talked-about bill since the NDP came to power two and a half years ago. Is it not time to stop promising it and finally introduce the bill so that we can debate it in this House?

The unfortunate side of Earth Day celebrations is that they also highlight the many things that this government hasn't done to protect our environment. This very day I attended a rally on the steps of the Legislature to focus on the complete shambles the NDP has made of the site selection process by the Interim Waste Authority and the stress and concern forced on individuals involved.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): Today is Earth Day, a time when people all around the world are taking a special interest in the environment. It's a time for all of us to reflect and ask ourselves if we're doing our share to protect our natural resources, a day to remind ourselves to think globally and act locally.

In Windsor, students of Concord School are great examples of young people who are putting their beliefs into practice. This past Saturday, they kicked off Earth Week by continuing their cleanup of Little River, which drains into the Detroit River. These same students are participating today in cleanup work at the Peach Island woodlot. Another event, Earth Day '93, will be held at the Ganatachio Trail. It will be featuring wild flower planting, guided bird-watching tours and various environmental exhibits.

I extend my invitation to all to attend on Sunday afternoon. I know there are countless other events going on across Ontario. I invite everyone here to join me in honouring the considerable effort that has gone into today's public events. I'm sure that many of my colleagues in the Legislature are involved in the celebrations in their ridings, and I encourage everyone to be environmentally aware not only during Earth Week but throughout all of the year.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Today is Earth Day, and today is an appropriate day to bring to the attention of members of this House and the people of Ontario the deplorable record of the NDP government regarding forest renewal. Since 1990, planned regeneration of cutover forest areas in the province has fallen dramatically. Forest-tending activities, for example, have declined by 50% from the days when Lyn McLeod was the Minister of Natural Resources.

The result of this mismanagement of our forest resource has been a loss of nearly 1,500 student and seasonal jobs in 1992-93. Moreover, the integrity of the forest ecosystem has been threatened by this government's cavalier attitude towards forest regeneration.

The Minister of Natural Resources announced earlier this year that the province's approach to forest management was changing. Indeed, he mentioned that there would be even further cuts to forest regeneration. It is difficult to see how this change in focus will improve either the environment or the economy of northern Ontario.

On this day it is so sad to note that the NDP government is compiling not only the largest economic deficit in the history of this province but the largest environmental deficit as well. Furthermore, it is shameful to see that the NDP's forest renewal strategy includes mulching as many as 11 million tree seedlings this year. It is ironic, on this day when hundreds of people will be planting trees across the province, that the government will destroy millions more.

WILDLIFE PROTECTION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Staff at the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre in the Midland-Penetanguishene area recently spent a weekend searching for dead and dying trumpeter swans that were poisoned by shotgun shell lead. It has been confirmed that three of the birds, which are great indicators of wetland health, had swallowed fatal doses of lead. The pellets lie in the marsh mud for years after hunters shoot at ducks and geese.

Trumpeter swans, which once were common to the Great Lakes region, were hunted to the edge of extinction in the last century. The recent poisonings, which affected at least half of the birds that have been flying free in the marsh, are a major setback to a publicly acclaimed program to reintroduce the spectacular birds to southern Ontario.

Lead poisoning scrambles the birds' nervous system, and eventually they are unable to fly or walk. An estimated 3,600 tons of lead pellets were fired over and into the wetlands of North America during the late 1980s. The United States implemented a nationwide ban on the use of lead shot last year. Minister, I would urge you to protect our wildlife and the waterfowl from lead poisoning by implementing a province-wide ban on lead shot and promoting the use of tungsten or steel shot.

WOMAN OF THE YEAR AWARD

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Every year the Women's Incentive Centre in Windsor, with director Janet Greene-Potomski and staff, call together a dinner and awards ceremony. The ceremony this year marked the 11th annual Woman of the Year Award, and this past weekend the dinner was held at Vanier Hall, University of Windsor, and 300 people attended.

A committee is struck and its aim is to find women who are helping to change society and improve life for others. This year three superb candidates were found, and the celebration focused on the vitality and the love given by three incredible women. Representation of several groups in the Windsor area elected these women. Qualities had to be work in advocacy, areas of support and education. The selection was nothing short of excellent.

Marianne Angus has been a long-standing member of the Third World Resource Centre board of directors. Marianne has contributed to the United Way and been president of the Hospice of Windsor.

Secondly, Kay Kavanaugh spent her entire life in improving the wellbeing of others. Kay has been the past president of the CUPE council in Windsor, has given time to Crime Stoppers, the United Way, Hiatus House and the Sandwich Community Health Centre. She has won the Canada 125 medal recently. Kay Kavanaugh, a widow, mother and grandmother, epitomizes the changing role of women in a changing society.

Finally, Elaine Woluschuk has devoted a life to family, community and education. A recipient of the Canada Volunteer Award, Elaine is committed to women's issues and of course the advancement of women's causes.

These are Windsor's women of the year: Elaine Woluschuk, Marianne Angus and Kay Kavanaugh. Women's Incentive Centre, Janet Greene-Potomski and staff have worked hard to put this dinner together and should be congratulated.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Earth Day is a time when we celebrate our lives on this planet and resolve to better protect it.

Sadly, in the regions of York, Durham and Peel, there is little reason to rejoice. Today hundreds of residents from these areas came to manifest their opposition to Bill 143, the NDP megadump legislation, and the whole autocratic process that this bill has spawned. We have wasted millions and millions of dollars on a process that will end up doing the government's bidding, not listening to the residents of the province.

How, people continue to ask, does a government that sees itself on the cutting edge of environmental reform proceed with a plan to use 19th-century outhouse technology as the solution to the problem of waste? Their policy, their bill, their actions defy comprehension.

Bill 143, the Interim Waste Authority and two NDP ministers of Environment have led us to a point where their only response to the waste problems of the greater Toronto area is simply to establish more dumps and, in the case of York region, a megadump the size of 80 SkyDomes.

Many people had hoped that with a change of minister, the government would change direction and allow a true environmental assessment of all the options. How sad we all are that this has not happened.

As long as Bill 143 remains intact and on the books, we cannot fully celebrate Earth Day. NDP policy makes a mockery of its proposed environmental bill of rights and of Earth Day. Bill 143 must be withdrawn, and it must be withdrawn now.

VOLUNTEERS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On this occasion of National Volunteer Week, I am honoured to pay tribute to the millions of Canadians whose volunteer efforts are vital to our communities.

All of us benefit from the work of volunteers, whether they are Brownie leaders and hockey coaches, the unpaid members of community boards or the kind people from Meals on Wheels who help us when we are sick. But how many of us know that more than five million Canadians do volunteer work regularly? If we paid our volunteers, voluntarism would be Canada's biggest industry.

In these hard times, many organizations simply could not exist without volunteers. In return, volunteers benefit from superb opportunities for community service, personal growth and social enjoyment.

According to Suzanne Christie, executive director of the Volunteer Centre of Peel, more and more volunteers are young adults, unemployed persons and seniors. Volunteer work can provide skills and experience to land that first paid job or return to the workforce. Seniors find that volunteer work keeps them active, uses their valuable experience and prevents loneliness.

May I urge everyone who is not a volunteer to experience the satisfaction that comes from voluntary service. Many communities have volunteer centres that will help you match your skills and interests with an organization that needs your help.

Most importantly, today we express our heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to Ontario's volunteers. Like this year's 170 new volunteers at the Hospice of Peel, you are exemplary role models for us all.

JUDY REBICK

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Earlier this week we learned that after serving two terms, Judy Rebick will be stepping down as president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous contribution that Judy has made in the advancement of women's issues throughout Canada.

During her three years as head of NAC, Judy has fought tirelessly for the rights of women. She has condemned violence against women and children, has lobbied for a national child care program and for pay equity legislation and has defended women's right to reproductive choice. More recently, she has worked to make Canada a safe haven for immigrant women fearing persecution in their homelands because of their gender.

Judy's efforts to make NAC a more inclusive and diverse organization have paid off as women who have traditionally been excluded from the decision-making process -- namely, visible minority, immigrant and aboriginal women -- have become an important voice within NAC. The news that the organization's next president will be, for the first time in NAC's history, a woman of colour attests to Judy's inclusive vision of the future of the women's movement within Canada.

NAC's incoming president is Sunera Thobani. Now living in Vancouver, Ms Thobani, a single mother, immigrated to Canada from Tanzania and comes from a family originally from India.

I want to congratulate Ms Thobani on her new post and I want to wish her well as she continues the fight on behalf of Canadian women.

In closing, I would like to express my admiration for the commitment and courage with which Judy Rebick brought the concerns of Canadian women to public attention. While we did not always see eye to eye, it was always clear to me that Judy's convictions were sincere and that she fought for what she believed was of ultimate benefit to the women of Canada. I wish her all the best in her future endeavours and know that her work on behalf of women will not end with her leaving the NAC.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Charles Beer (York North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My point of order is that this morning members' offices are being called from all over the province by teachers, trustees and parents, saying that it is now the policy of this government that it is going to change the pupil-teacher ratio for kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2. I don't understand why the Minister of Education and Training has not risen in his place today with a statement. There is great concern in the province --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat, please. The member will know that he does not have a point of order, but perhaps I will not be surprised to see him rise in his place during question period.

ROLE OF MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Tuesday last, the honourable member for Renfrew North, Mr Conway, was in the process of placing the second leadoff question for the day when I interrupted him. The reason I did so was that I was preoccupied by the fact that the Minister without Portfolio to whom he was attempting to place the question is of a definition that has never existed before in Ontario and I wanted to assure myself that putting questions to them respected the letter and intent of our rules and practice.

After my interruption, the same honourable member, as well as the members for Parry Sound, Mr Eves; Carleton, Mr Sterling; York Centre, Mr Sorbara; Parkdale, Mr Ruprecht; Etobicoke West, Mr Stockwell; the honourable government House leader, Mr Charlton; as well as the member for Mississauga West, Mr Mahoney, took

part in the arguments on this point of order, for which I thank them.

The main reason for my intervention can be found at page 120 of Beauchesne's 6th edition in Speaker Jerome's 1975 ruling to the House of Commons, Canada, on the subject of question period, where he enumerates a certain number of principles that have always guided the Speaker in the context of question period:

"A brief question seeking information about an important matter of some urgency which falls within the administrative responsibility of the government or of the specific minister to whom it is addressed, is in order."

The important word here is "responsibility," and I will come back to that later.

As I have said, the situation before us is a new one in Ontario. We have never had in this Legislature, as members of the executive, ministers who have been styled ministers without portfolio in brackets, who do not sit at the cabinet table. These members have been sworn in as ministers but do not participate in the cabinet process. I think that point was made very clear the other day by the honourable member for York Centre, Mr Sorbara.

We have had ministers without portfolio before in Ontario but, to my knowledge, all of them have had a seat in cabinet, have had a specific designation of responsibility, a specific budget in the estimates and specific public servant staff to help them in meeting their responsibilities.

The six members presently described as ministers without portfolio, to my knowledge, have a general designation but do not have the other important attributes of their colleagues who sit at the cabinet table. So, as far as question period in the House is concerned, to come back to the matter at hand, the Ontario practice to date has been very clear and can be described in the following sentence: Ministers without portfolio may answer questions if they have a program responsibility with all of what that responsibility implies in this case.

In the past it was perfectly normal to address questions to these ministers because everyone knew exactly what responsibilities they had within the executive and so the House and the Speaker could know what the parameters of those responsibilities were.

During the presentations made to me in the House, members referred to the status of ministers of state in Ottawa and junior ministers at Westminster and made the point to me and to the House that in those two parliaments those ministers without portfolio did in fact answer questions. The members in this case were absolutely correct, but the situation both in Ottawa and at Westminster is very different.

In Ottawa, the ministers of state referred to all sit at the cabinet table. Secondly, in Ottawa the referral system during question period does not function at all the way it does here. For example, the Minister of Transport could very easily choose to informally indicate to the Minister of State (Transport) to answer a specific question and, conversely, the Minister of Transport could choose to answer, if he or she desired, a question which had been addressed specifically to the Minister of State (Transport) without there being any need for an official referral as we have here.

At Westminster, the whole oral question situation takes place in a completely different context than it does here, and for that reason it is very difficult to take guidance from them. Members will know that all questions at Westminster have to be submitted in writing a good time before the appointed day for an oral answer to be given in the House. In that case, the senior minister will decide who answers questions on the appointed day because a