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

November 20, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L067 - Thu 20 Nov 1986 / Jeu 20 nov 1986

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

DETROIT INCINERATOR

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

DETROIT INCINERATOR

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT AUTOMOBILES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEETING

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

LATVIAN INDEPENDENCE

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSE

MISA PROGRAM

GRANTING OF EXIT VISA

RELEASE OF REPORT

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING HOMES LEGISLATION

LOW-INCOME WORKERS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

SEVERANCE PAY

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RABIES PROTECTION

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CORN TARIFF

PETITION

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ELECTION FINANCES AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

DETROIT INCINERATOR

Mr. Newman moved resolution 66:

That in the opinion of this House, since the state of Michigan has given approval for Detroit to build an enormous garbage incinerator without extra pollution controls, the Minister of the Environment should take steps to ensure that Ontario residents, especially those in Windsor and Essex county areas, are protected from this potential source of air pollution.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any part of that.

Mr. Newman: I rise today to speak about an issue that is not only important to myself and my colleagues from Windsor, but that I hope is also important to all Ontario. This is the issue of a garbage incinerator currently being constructed in the heart of downtown Detroit.

Why should this issue be so important to us in Ontario? It is important because this incinerator is located only five kilometres from Windsor and will affect the entire southwestern Ontario region.

For those still unfamiliar with this issue of the Detroit incinerator, allow me to take a few minutes to explain what is happening. Michigan is rapidly running out of landfill sites. Faced with the increasing costs and problems associated with the landfill sites, Michigan conceived the incinerator out of necessity.

In 1984, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources gave the go-ahead to a company called Combustion Engineering to begin work on a $470-million megaproject -- that is, half a billion dollars -- to alleviate the major problem the area is having with waste disposal. This trash-to-energy incinerator will have one of the largest smokestacks in the world. It will be the world's biggest garbage incinerator and will eventually have the capacity to burn up to 4,000 tons of garbage a day. Think about that. Four thousand tons of garbage each and every day.

I have an

article from the Detroit News, October 2, 1986, which states that five trash-burning projects are planned. This is absolutely astonishing. Michigan has attempted to eliminate one problem by creating another. It is creating a problem that will most assuredly affect not only its citizens but Canadians as well.

The smokestack will deposit some 10,000 tons of acids, dioxins and heavy metals on the surrounding areas in Detroit. The situation will be further exacerbated by the toxic byproducts that will enter the ecosystem and will be carried to more distant parts of the continent.

For situations like this, we are hard pressed to find a reason. We tell ourselves that the Americans are our neighbours and are just as concerned as we are about the health and wellbeing of their citizens. Surely they would not let this project go ahead without adequate pollution control devices. Unfortunately, this is precisely the case. The state of Michigan and the city of Detroit have been shortsighted and have totally ignored the pleas of environmentalists and those who are concerned about the future of the Detroit-Windsor region.

What is probably the worst thing in this case is that the entire affair is predicated on a mistake, a simple case of human error. A supervisor in the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has stated publicly that the decision to approve plans for the construction was made by an employee who misread the environmental impact data. The report that the department originally received stated that the dioxin byproducts from the incinerator would cause two additional deaths per million, when in fact the incinerator will cause more than 38 additional deaths per million in the Detroit-Windsor area.

The error was a result of someone in the department not understanding the difference between a microgram and a milligram.

When dealing with life-and-death problems, the error is inexcusable. What astonishes me is that even after this error was discovered, the project was still being allowed to continue without the necessary pollutant scrubbing devices. We must ask ourselves, is there an acceptable number of preventable deaths? I believe that whether it is two deaths or 38 deaths, the number is still not justified if those deaths could be prevented.

If a mistake has been committed, then it is the duty of a responsible government to correct it. I find it surprising that Governor Blanchard of Michigan, the same governor who a year ago signed an air pollution pact with the Premier (Mr. Peterson), could sanction this project without requiring the necessary emission controls. What surprises me the most about the official state position is that the Department of Natural Resources itself has stated the risks of not using adequate scrubbing technologies on the incinerator. This is a case of the left hand not knowing at all what the right hand is doing. It is simply a case of municipal lobbies having more clout than environmental lobbies.

Detroit officials convinced the governor that the increased cost of adding scrubbers to the incinerator would effectively scuttle financing for the project. This seems a little strange. The project is already costing $470 million. It is estimated that cleaning devices will cost between $17 million and $30 million. We are talking about an additional expenditure of five per cent to save 38 people's lives in Detroit and three or four people's lives in Windsor each and every year, not to mention the other deaths that will occur outside the direct impact zone.

10:10

Surely the state of Michigan and the city of Detroit do not place such a low value on human life. As early as April of this year, Windsor city council sent a resolution about the incinerator to Mayor Coleman Young himself. Windsor city council approved another resolution on May 4, asking the Ontario government to take legal action against the incinerator.

This resolution was also sent to both Mayor Young and the Detroit city council. No response or acknowledgement of either resolution has been received. Alderman Mike Ray, a member of the Windsor city council, headed the city's fight against the incinerator. City council is leading a citizens' petition drive opposing construction of the garbage incinerator without the best possible control equipment. The petition, which has more than 1,000 names at present, will be sent to various levels of government in the United States and in Canada.

Here is an excerpt from a Windsor Star

article entitled "Angry Voices Are Raised At Last," showing how a concerned couple has dealt with the situation.

"`What kind of neighbours are you anyway?' A Windsor couple, Carol and Luc Dumont summed it up perfectly with that pointed question in a letter slamming Detroit's construction of a $500-million garbage incinerator lacking the state-of-the-art pollution controls. Anyone who thinks all Windsor residents are apathetic and listless in the face of the cross-border environmental hazards has not encountered people like the Dumonts.

"The Dumonts did not hesitate. They rounded up 21 other signatures and fired off a blistering letter to the US Ambassador Thomas Niles in Ottawa. Better yet, they sent copies to a host of US and Canadian politicians, including President Ronald Reagan, Michigan Governor James Blanchard and Detroit Mayor Coleman Young."

There was a time when the decision to build industrial complexes was made without reference to environmental concerns. It was usually because we did not know about such things as acid rain, carcinogens and the long-term environmental dangers of unmonitored and uncontrolled industrial emissions. I am thankful those days are over and that we are in the process of correcting the mistakes of the past.

We are passing legislation concerning pollutants and fining industries that do not comply with such regulations. We are trying to repair and rejuvenate land and waterways that have been damaged or, in some instances, destroyed because of ignorance. Today we have the technology to industrialize without at the same time destroying the environment.

The entire issue strikes me as highly contradictory. On the one hand, Detroit needed this incinerator, because all the local landfill sites were full. This seems to be the most effective and economic method of disposing of waste. However, if safety and concern about toxic landfill programs were a major factor in the decision, why is the city building an environmentally disastrous incinerator?

The Canadian concern has been articulated in the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency in the US took up the case and intervened in the courts. It demanded that scrubbers be put into the project. The builders contested this decision and were able to convince the courts of their case.

The Ontario government and the Canadian federal government attempted to assist in this process. We presented a brief that upheld the technical findings of the Environmental Protection Agency. Furthermore, our studies proved conclusively that control technologies were available and feasible and would ensure that this environmental and health disaster could be averted.

Unfortunately, the legal ball was fumbled and the Environmental Protection Agency was forced to withdraw its case. The court decided the Environmental Protection Agency had been given ample opportunity to argue its case and to ensure the best available technology was used before construction began. They failed, and now it seems that most of the conventional legal avenues to prevent this environmental crime have been closed off to us.

The American court has even issued an oral ruling granting Combustion Engineering an injunction to prevent the EPA from taking any further action. This injunction was issued on the ground that the EPA no longer has the right to contest the building permit. This is the most shortsighted ruling I have ever heard of. Think of it: the courts have stated that because the EPA did not object right at the beginning, between 40 and 50 people in the Detroit-Windsor area will have to die from cancer each and every year. Decisions of a life-or-death nature cannot be upheld because of legal bungling.

Construction is not irreversible, scrubbers can still be added; yet in Windsor we are forced to sit back and watch this catastrophe take place across the river.

Legally, the residents of Windsor are a million miles away from the court system of Detroit. Unfortunately, we are physically only five kilometres away. We are captives of a system that is so narrow-minded it is not willing to spend a few more dollars to safeguard the lives of its own citizens, not to mention the citizens of Windsor.

There was a time when people who were concerned about the environment were forced to work outside the system. They were often accused of being against progress, of wanting to turn back the clock to a simpler time before industrialization. They were accused of overexaggerating the dangers of pollution. They were told we did not have all the facts and we could not prove the dangers they were talking about.

Thankfully, things have changed. We have realized environmental concerns are not limited to special interest groups. The effectiveness with which we deal with environmental problems will determine the future not only of mankind but also of every species that relies on the ecosystem for life. Myths of the past are realities of today. We know for a fact that smoking causes cancer. We are just as sure that toxic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls cause cancer. These are not suppositions; they are modern facts.

Everywhere we look, we see the results of ignoring environmental concerns: toxic dump sites with poorly insulated containers that have leaked and have contaminated water systems, families uprooted because their towns have been declared uninhabitable and lakes that have died because of acid rain. These environmental disasters form part of the legacy that we leave to our children. In the past, we did not understand the dangers or we did not care enough. We understand now and are taking belated measures to correct the disasters of the past. We are now playing catch-up.

The industrial world is spending a fortune to clean up the mess it has made. The least we can do is ensure that future generations will not be condemned to repeat our mistakes. We have the technologies and, compared to the cost of repairing the environmental damage, these technologies come at an extremely reasonable price.

Detroit and Windsor have had good working relationships. Every day hundreds of Windsor residents cross the Peace Bridge to work in Detroit. Our futures are linked in many ways. It seems a shame that relations between these two great cities should be strained over an issue that requires collaboration and not confrontation.

I know, and I am sure my colleagues from Essex will agree with me on this, that people in the Windsor area are not feeling very friendly towards our southern neighbours at this moment. We feel betrayed by Mayor Coleman Young and Governor Blanchard. I sincerely hope that both of them will see that the short-term gains of building an environmentally unsafe incinerator are not worth endangering the lives of regional residents.

I hope the governments of Canada and Ontario will continue to exert every pressure to oppose further construction of this incinerator without the best possible controls.

10:20

Mr. Brandt: I welcome the opportunity to join with my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) with respect to the resolution he has put before the House, a resolution that I am pleased to say the members of my party and I support.

This resolution effectively asks the city of Detroit to take into account some additional factors with respect to the construction of the incinerator that is being proposed for that municipality. We are not talking about an ordinary incinerator in the case of the one that is being proposed in Michigan at present. The cost of this incinerator puts the matter into perspective when we realize that we are talking about almost half a billion dollars -- I believe it is some $470 million -- without some additional controls, which I will argue for a little later and which the member for Windsor-Walkerville commented on in his presentation, which would increase the cost ever so slightly.

We are looking at what may be the world's largest incinerator. We are talking about a waste-to-energy program that would be constructed in the heart of one of the most highly populated areas in North America. The catchment area where the normal outfall of some of the effluent from this plant would go would certainly cover the county of Essex and perhaps the county of Kent to a somewhat lesser degree. As well, I concern myself with some of the prevailing wind conditions in this area, which could well drive some of these pollutants to the north and east, placing my community and the county of Lambton right in the pathway of a very serious environmental concern.

In addition, the area we are talking about is the prime agricultural area of Canada. I am sure other areas will come forward with similar arguments, but if one takes a look at the amount of cash that is generated through the agricultural crops in Essex and Kent particularly, and only to a somewhat lesser extent in Lambton, we are really talking about the food basket, in many instances, of our great province and our great country.

That fact concerns me because in a recent study that was done with respect to the environmental impact of dioxins in our food chain, it was noted that the typical food basket in Ontario currently contains a far higher level of dioxins than is suggested to be safe or at a reasonable level. That concern can only be compounded by the addition of a plant of the type covered in this resolution and proposed by Detroit.

There are some who would perhaps argue that Ontario should not become involved in what is very specifically a Michigan and a Detroit issue. However, I call to members' attention the situation that occurred in the Atikokan area. Some time ago a Hydro plant was proposed for that area to serve the northwestern part of Ontario. The state of Minnesota, along with the Environmental Protection Agency and many environmental groups in the United States, argued, I think with some justification, that the level of sulphur dioxides that would have been emitted as a result of the coal burning in that Hydro plant would have polluted parts of the United States.

We have the reverse situation here. We have a plant in the United States that may pollute Ontario. The past instance I am citing for the members' consideration is one in which the plant was to be constructed in Ontario and might perhaps have polluted certain areas of our friendly neighbour to the south of us.

What happened as a result of American intervention in that issue? Very simply, the plant was down-sized, as my colleague the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) well knows. He was deeply involved in that issue at the time. The plant was down-sized in order to reduce the concerns of the residents of that area. In addition to being down-sized, the plant was required to burn lower-sulphur western coal, I believe, in order to reduce the quantity of sulphur dioxides that would be emitted.

That kind of co-operative partnership with our American friends is the kind of thing this resolution cries out for. It is not saying, "Stop the incinerator in its tracks." It is saying that when there are major concerns about sulphur dioxide, particulate matter -- which I guess in the vernacular is fly ash to many people -- and carbon monoxide discharges from that plant, as three of the pollutants that are of concern, there are technologies that can control those pollutants or bring them down at least to a more acceptable level .

I concern myself as well with the potential emission of dioxins and furans from that facility. It has been noted in Ontario -- and I mentioned the food chain problem earlier and the level of dioxin that is contained therein -- that most of the dioxins and furans that are contained in our food chain at present are in direct proportion to the percentage of the emissions generated by incinerators. I am talking both about small incinerators in apartment buildings, which burn garbage on a small basis, and some municipal incinerators.

The concern I have is that the technology has not yet reached the point where we can be absolutely certain that we have a fail-safe method. For that reason, this resolution quite appropriately calls out for additional control measures. It simply says we have some legitimate concerns here based on the history of these kinds of developments that have occurred in all other places in the world.

The technology is still, I must say, rather primitive as it relates to these kinds of incinerators. As a result -- and my friend the member for Windsor-Walkerville will find this interesting -- Sweden has for the last couple of years put a total moratorium on all incinerators. It has stopped them flat in their path. Sweden has said, "There shall be no more incinerators until we can develop the technology to a safer level."

Therefore, I support the resolution of my colleague and I do so without any hesitation whatever.

However, I have another problem I want to address in the last couple of moments relating to this resolution, and I want to address it very quickly. At present, some 15 incinerators are planned for Ontario. We cannot have it both ways, I suggest to my colleagues. On the one hand, we cannot say Detroit has an unsafe technology, which may well be even more advanced than some of the technology we are proposing in the 15 incinerators being proposed for Ontario.

We cannot tell municipalities, as is the present position of the Ministry of the Environment, that they shall include a waste incineration program in their environmental planning activities and, at the same time, say all waste incinerators are unsafe or should not be constructed.

What I am arguing is that there has to be a balance in terms of the direction our government takes here in Ontario and what we are suggesting other jurisdictions proceed with in regard to the new technology.

10:30

New landfill sites are becoming increasingly difficult to find, as my friend from Simcoe knows in connection with the Pauzé landfill site. The replacement of that site is becoming virtually an impossibility in his municipality. Now he is being told he cannot have an incinerator and he cannot have a landfill site. How is he to dispose of the garbage in that fine municipality of Tiny township? I am sure we do not want to deliver it all to the house of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). I do not think that would be the proper solution to this particular catch 22 situation.

In the few seconds remaining to me, in regard to incinerators, we have to find a technology that works. I join my colleague in supporting this resolution because I do not believe Detroit has found that technology yet. We should work co-operatively to try to find a safe technology that will work for incineration programs so that some time in the future we can get rid of landfill sites.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I am pleased to be able to join the other members of the Legislature in their support of the resolution of the member for Windsor-Walkerville. For years, people in our community have experienced substantial pollution problems that originate primarily in Detroit. The west end of the community and the Lasalle area, Sandwich west, have experienced considerable pollution from what it known as Zug Island, a large industrial area in the city of Detroit.

Even with some of the new pollution control equipment that has been put in that area, there are many days when one drives through the west end of the city and the sulphur that comes from the production of steel is so strong it is quite difficult for the people in that community to cope.

I remember when, shortly after my predecessor Fred Burr was first elected in 1967, I was involved with him in doing a survey of health concerns of people of Sandwich west and the west end of Windsor, most of which at that time was in Fred Burr's riding. We found a lot of evidence that pollution was causing considerable health problems. Almost without exception, people were having problems with coughing and lung infections and there was even a higher incidence of cancer in that area of the community than in the rest of the community.

It is fair to say that in our community we have experienced an ongoing environmental problem from Detroit, whether it be from private industry or, in this case, with the proposed world's largest incinerator, this one being a public creation of air pollution. I think it would not be an exaggeration to say it has enraged the people of our community that something like this could happen without any consideration to the people who live on the other side of the border. Obviously, very little consideration was given by the mayor of Detroit to his own people.

I guess he can support this kind of incineration even though the statistics show very clearly that large numbers of people will die as a result of the furans and the dioxins coming out of this incinerator, which will not have up-to-date, state-of-the-art pollution abatement equipment.

Last year our community had a crisis; we were very concerned about the pollution problems starting in the Sarnia area with the many spills that were occurring from the chemical companies. That was a crisis in our community as well. In the past couple of years, environmental problems have been at the surface of political and community discussions in Windsor, and appropriately so.

However, the problems related to our drinking water last year did not originate in the United States. Those problems originated right here in good old Ontario. Some discussions have taken place with the Americans, and I think it is fair to say the people in Port Huron on the Michigan side feel as strongly about transboundary pollution as we do in Windsor, because the people in Port Huron have received the brunt of the pollution problems we have created in Ontario in the Chemical Valley.

Agreements have been signed between the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Governor of Michigan about transboundary pollution, but I gather these agreements do not mean a lot. On May 12, Dow Chemical in Sarnia released four tons of vinyl chloride gas into the air. Part of the agreement that had been signed stated that the Ministry of the Environment would notify the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, but that notification did not occur.

We have to be somewhat careful in that if we are going to criticize the Americans and, in this case, rightfully so, we have to set a better example than we have in the past. That example should begin by cleaning up some of the very serious pollution problems that exist in the Sarnia area.

However, today we are here, primarily, to discuss the major proposal for this world's largest incinerator in the city of Detroit. The incinerator will be only 4.8 kilometres away from downtown Windsor. I believe it is probably even a little closer to some sections of the community that are in my riding. We will get a constant fallout unless the appropriate pollution control equipment is put on. We will get the furans and dioxins that come out of the incinerator.

The number of cancer deaths have been calculated. The member for Windsor-Walkerville has outlined those to be 38. I am not sure that anyone can tell for sure. At one point, the calculation was 3.8. Then they found they had made a mistake in the calculation and that it was much higher than that. I am not entirely sure how many deaths will occur, but the number is substantial. In addition, other health problems will result from the incineration of garbage in this absolutely monstrous incinerator.

Some of us would like to see the governments in Detroit and Michigan go even one step further. Even with the state-of-the-art equipment on incineration, we have grave reservations about whether incineration is the appropriate way to go for the disposal of our garbage in North America. Even the state-of-the-art equipment will allow for some furans and dioxins to get into the air. That is simply unacceptable in 1986, since we know how substantial the negative effects of those cancer-causing chemicals that get into the air are on people's health.

I am not entirely satisfied with the response we have had from the Ministry of the Environment to this date. The first notification that this plant was going to be installed was officially given to the Ministry of the Environment on September 24, 1984. It notified the then Progressive Conservative government that there would be public hearings. It did not even get a response from the Minister of the Environment of the time who, I believe, was the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), who just spoke. There was not even a response.

That was surely a clear reflection of the lack of concern by the previous government for protecting the citizens of Windsor and Essex from this monstrous incineration plant. There was no response at all. Even when this government took office, there was no response until April 9, 1986. That was the first official response to the people at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, objecting to the installation of this incinerator. I dare suggest there would not even have been that response if it were not for the fact that this matter was raised in the Legislature and by correspondents and received considerable press in the city of Windsor.

However, we are at the point now where there is a need for the Legislature to go on record today as saying we are not satisfied with the response by the city of Detroit. The amounts of money we are talking about to install the state-of-the-art pollution equipment are minuscule when one considers the consequences of death if those protections are not put in place.

I would like to make two other points. One is that a little bit of politics has been played in the past number of months by the Minister of the Environment in this whole matter. Mike Ray, who is on city council in the city of Windsor, has spoken out on this matter, but it is very clear that he has been receiving information from the Ministry of the Environment that even we, as local members, have not been receiving, so that Mr. Ray can grandstand at city council meetings on Monday nights and show his great concern about this incinerator.

10:40

The reality is that we know Mr. Ray is interested in seeking a Liberal nomination in the next provincial election. To use this item as a political issue, as Mr. Ray and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) have done, is unfortunate because it is not that kind of issue. It is the kind of issue on which the whole community should unite in opposition to such actions.

One other point I want to make is that one cannot separate this issue from the whole problem of landfill, as the member for Sarnia said. The fact is that we in Windsor ourselves have a very serious problem of not dealing appropriately with our own sewage waste, which is currently being dumped at a landfill site out in my colleague's riding in Essex North.

Some suggestions have come forward about what we should do with our own garbage as well, and we have not properly dealt with that problem. In fact, the waste management committee in Windsor and Essex has suggested that one of the possible alternatives is to truck our waste over to the Detroit incinerator once it is completed. That is completely inappropriate. We in Ontario should be setting an example of proper disposal, so that we can oppose this monstrous incinerator with credibility.

Mr. G. I. Miller: It is a pleasure for me to be able to rise and participate in the debate on ballot item 27, an item brought in by the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

It is a resolution that is very important not only to all the citizens of Windsor and district and Detroit but also to Ontario generally. It is a time when we are dealing with our environment, which knows no international boundaries. I believe this is the appropriate time to bring it to the attention of the Ministry of the Environment, which is well aware of it and has received some criticism from the former government and from some of the other members around the Legislature indicating that we have not been paying enough attention to it.

As an international matter, the resolution should be supported. Perhaps this resolution should be passed on to our colleagues at the federal level, because it is an international situation, combined with the strength of the local municipalities, which have been speaking out and encouraging that the latest technology be utilized, such as putting scrubbers on the garbage incinerators. This should be carried out.

Through the debate in this House this morning and through support from all sides -- and I assume it will be taking place -- I hope we can bring it to the attention of our federal environmental people so that they can negotiate an agreement. By that message we can protect our environment, and I believe we will be able to look back in the years to come with some satisfaction. I believe it is the first time in my recollection of 10 or 11 years in the Legislature that we have dealt with a resolution that involves both Ontario and the United States, and it is something we can be proud of down the way.

The important thing is to leave a future for our young people and to protect our health. I guess another example of where we could, should and perhaps will do so in the future is the Nanticoke generating station. It is one of the largest coal-fired stations in the world. While we have tried to improve the environment by using Canadian coal with less sulphur content to reduce the carbon dioxide and the pollution from that plant, much more work can and should be done. That plant sits on the north shore of Lake Erie, the boundary between the US and Ontario, Canada. By studying these examples, we can show we are trying to improve the environment and protect the future of our natural resources.

I know the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) was planning on speaking on the resolution and giving support to it this morning, but because he is on the standing committee on public accounts and voting on some matters at present, he was not able to take

part in the debate.

Again, it is my pleasure to be able to rise this morning and support the resolution. We hope this debate will spark enough interest to have the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan reconsider and use the latest technology for providing clean air in this incinerator.

I noticed the member for Sarnia was critical of the waste-burning facilities that Ontario is providing at present. As a member of the government, I believe we are dealing and trying to deal with the disposing of our waste. It is a major problem and a concern to every municipality in Ontario. Should we be piling it, burying it or leaving it in huge mounds? I believe the policy of our government is to move ahead on recycling. That seems to be the direction we should be going in the future.

While many people think of waste as an end product and burying it, when it is used properly by recycling there is value there. It can be utilized a second or third time. In that way, we are creating jobs, protecting our natural resources and leaving an environment we can all be proud of. I firmly believe that is the direction we should go. I know the Minister of the Environment and this government are encouraging that.

I intend to support the private member's bill brought in by the member for Windsor-Walkerville. We hope it will prove fruitful in the days ahead and that this incinerator can be properly equipped with the scrubbers that are available at present.

Mr. McLean: I am pleased to speak on private member's notice of motion 66. In response to the resolution of the member for Windsor-Walkerville, it seems that all members of this House might easily support such a motherhood statement. After all, we would all want our constituents protected from any potential dangers that might emanate from a new garbage incinerator in Michigan or, for that matter, elsewhere in the US or Canada.

I suppose we could even legislate against a Ukrainian nuclear plant in Chernobyl. Although it does not do much good to pass laws against pollution, I am sure the Minister of the Environment will want to do something to ensure that those good residents of Windsor and Essex county are protected. Our American friends do not seem to listen very much any more, but we can do something. I am sure that is why we are all here today and will support our friend's resolution.

I have some concerns, however, over this government's real interest in matters of pollution controls and protection mechanisms. After only six weeks, I finally received from the Minister of the Environment a reply to my request for information on how the government might help a major industry in my riding to convert to a pollution-free method of production. This involved cyanide salt waste. We were not talking about some dirty water or some household garbage.

10:50

I mention this event because the slowness of the minister's reply and the content of it demonstrated to me that we cannot expect too much from this government when it comes to action on pollution abatement and control. The letter I received from the minister was simply a brochure that I could send to this constituent on how he could apply for government funds to help him in his factory.

It is a critical and life-threatening matter that should be addressed by the highest authority and something should be done about it and done now. If, however, in a more charitable vein, we might hope for some action from the government on pollution matters, let me remind the members of the problems we face every day and some solutions the government could look at.

In the first place, the bottom line of the problem is not the amount of garbage that has to be disposed of; it is what happens when one disposes of it. What does it turn to? When garbage is incinerated, there is a lot of smoke and ashes and a reduction in the size of solids that are relatively easy to get rid of, but there is also the worst potential killer in the history of mankind. It is a killer known as dioxin.

Dioxin, because of its extremely deadly nature, has come to be the word people use when they want to express the worst in man-made pollutants. Unlike other known pollutants such as DDT, for example, little is known about the makeup of dioxin. All we know for sure is that it is a deadly killer in microscopic amounts and that the major source of this killer is from incinerated garbage, from the gases that go up into the atmosphere and float around wherever the wind carries them. That wind can carry dioxin particles thousands of miles. When it rains or snows, guess what happens to this poison?

It falls with the rain or snow and goes into our food chain, into the animals we raise as food, the wild animals, the fish, the plants we grow, the wild plants that our domestic animals eat, and eventually into the food we eat.

I am sure all of us understand how pollutants get into our food chain, but the real problem is that we do not seem to be too concerned about it, perhaps because this poison is invisible. Yes, we have rules -- and finally, some strict rules -- but it appears that many people think rules are made to be broken, accidentally or otherwise.

I read recently that in Germany there has been a major spill of toxic chemicals into the mighty and historic Rhine river. That river is almost dead now and will remain so for many years. What a tragedy.

Similarly, in Canada's north last year, a native community in northern Ontario suffered from mercury poisoning in the fish. We know all about that. Acid rain and acid dust from chimneys have already ruined many of Ontario's lakes and polluted them with dioxins. The public is now becoming aware of the newest danger, one that has been around for many years. It has existed since man began lighting fires millions of years ago.

In 1982, dioxins were first found in the sources of Ontario's drinking water. About March of this year, for the first time anywhere, dioxin was found in our treated drinking water. It seems we cannot get away from this invisible menace. These dioxins poison us in many ways. At various levels, they cause birth defects, liver damage and cancer. It is believed that dioxins are the most toxic promoters of cancer.

In 1983, the Federal Expert Advisory Committee on Dioxins reported that the largest source of these poisons was primarily municipal garbage incinerators. Twenty-seven kilos a year of dioxins are estimated to go up in smoke from Canadian incinerators of various kinds. Multiply that by a 600 millionth of one millionth of a gram to see how much deadly poison is floating around in the air. If we were concerned about what is taking place, we might address our plans for the coming years in regard to garbage disposal methods and also the proposed Michigan incinerator across the river from Windsor.

First, as I am sure members know, especially the so-called rural members, garbage disposal is a very real problem. What do we do when our landfill sites are filled? Where do we put garbage then? Burning always seemed a reasonable and effective alternative, but maybe it is not necessarily so now.

Sweden has had a moratorium on new garbage incinerators for the past few years. California is about to institute a moratorium until it gets more information on how to handle the emissions. It is too bad that Michigan will not hold off for a while also. Maybe they would if we talked to them.

We should examine recycling garbage, as the Japanese have done. Japan recycles 90 per cent of municipal garbage; Ontario recycles about one per cent. However, burning is not totally out of the question, and there has been some major leadership from Environment Canada on this problem. Perhaps our minister should talk to the Ottawa people.

Pollution from municipal waste incinerators can be cut down by 90 per cent for certain kinds of pollutants now, but we have to use the right equipment. Major tests have been completed that have demonstrated that add-on equipment can and does work in reducing serious pollutants from the incinerators of municipal garbage.

Our friends in Michigan should be aware of these new developments in Canada. Technology does exist to remove pollutants of concern efficiently. Such technology can be incorporated into existing facilities to provide an effective removal of pollutants of concern. It can be done.

A problem exists in the township of Tiny with the Pauzé landfill site and the surrounding municipalities. The Premier has made the announcement that it will be closed in October 1987. They have set up a committee to look into it, but they have not given any alternatives. They are saying: "Yes, you have to have another site. You have to have it approved. You have to have all the environmental hearings and go through the whole process." That process is long, and it is hard to find a land disposal site in any community any more because nobody really wants to accept it.

The ministry should be giving some direction to these municipalities. It should be working hand in hand with them and setting down a criterion whereby they can say: "This is the type of landfill site that will be permitted. This is the type of garbage that will be permitted. Yes, there will be a landfill site for those five municipalities."

The Minister of the Environment has not made that happen. He has not given leadership in this direction. I say he should give leadership to help those municipalities that need the help to find garbage disposal sites.

Mr. Newman: My first words are to thank the various members who have participated in this discussion. I appreciate their valuable information, as well as the concern they have expressed.

We have a problem here that has to be resolved. It will be resolved only by the combined efforts of each and every one of us, both those who are sitting here and those in other Legislatures throughout the province and Canada.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. McFadden moved resolution 65:

That in the opinion of this House, the provincial government should immediately introduce tax reform measures to reduce the property tax burden on home owners and tenants.

Mr. McFadden: The current tax debate in Metropolitan Toronto about the proposed imposition of market value assessment has clearly brought into focus the need for tax reform in Ontario. It is argued that market value assessment should be applied to all properties in Ontario on the grounds of fairness and equity. Some people take the position that market value assessment, when universally applied, will magically bring peace and harmony to the assessment scene and will end all inequities in the system for ever.

In spite of such claims, the imposition of market value assessment does not and will not bring a tax heaven to Ontario. All one has to do is look at the controversy over tax assessment now raging in Mississauga, where market value assessment is currently in effect, to see that a market value scheme does not bring tranquillity or a universal feeling of equity in the tax system.

I have already spoken to this House on several occasions about the terribly negative impact the imposition of market value assessment would have in north Toronto and in similar areas of older housing throughout Metropolitan Toronto. If the system of market value assessment were imposed as proposed by the provincial government, 83 per cent of the homes in ward 10 and 75 per cent of the homes in ward 11 of the city of Toronto would face a tax increase.

In fact, the study prepared by the Ministry of Revenue on this matter indicates that 50 per cent of the home owners in these two wards would face tax increases of 20 per cent or more as a result of reassessment. This rise in taxes would be repeated in one neighbourhood after another throughout Metro. It should be remembered that these increases will be over and above the normal annual increases in taxes imposed by municipalities for education and local services.

If such a reassessment were imposed in one year, it could be devastating to many families. Even if market value assessment were implemented over four or five years, it would create a major hardship, since the effective rate of a property tax increase on a majority of such homes would be at least nine or 10 per cent each year during the implementation period.

What is even more devastating is the type of people upon whom reassessment will have a negative impact. Older neighbourhoods, which will face the largest tax increases, are the neighbourhoods where there is the highest percentage of senior citizens. At a time when the government is encouraging seniors to stay in their homes, the imposition of market value assessment will force many seniors on fixed incomes out of their homes, since a significant property tax increase, when combined with all the other increases in operating costs, will make home ownership unaffordable.

The same problem will be faced by many young families now struggling to make ends meet. A significant property tax increase, when combined with all the other expenses incurred in financing and maintaining a house and raising children, will force many young families to sell their homes at a time when there is a chronic shortage of satisfactory rental accommodation in the neighbourhoods affected.

In the face of such a negative impact of reassessment, the time has come for the province to consider tax reform that will reduce the property tax burden on home owners and tenants. Much of the controversy surrounding property taxes stems from a number of fundamental flaws in the whole concept of the taxation of property, particularly as a major source of revenue for education costs and municipal services.

Other major taxation methods apply either to income earned or to a transaction that has taken place. The largest single source of provincial revenue is personal income taxes. This form of taxation is essentially fair, because it applies to money earned by the taxpayer and is therefore related to the ability of the taxpayer to pay. If little or no income is earned, the taxpayer effectively owes no personal income tax. The same thing applies to corporation taxes, which are imposed on the net earnings of a company.

Most other taxes applied under provincial authority relate to specific transactions. The various sales taxes apply to goods purchased, from meals to kitchen appliances and from motor vehicles to gasoline. The land transfer tax is imposed when the ownership of property is transferred. In effect, the taxpayer must act by buying or selling something to attract sales or other transaction taxes.

Property taxes are very different from income or sales tax. Property taxes do not relate to the ability of the taxpayer to pay and are not related to any transaction that has occurred or any specific service that is received. For example, an elderly couple on a fixed income and living in an older home, where they may have dwelt for 20, 30 or 40 years, would pay about the same property taxes as another family with triple the income in a similar home on the same street. You could say to the older person, "Get out of your house if you cannot afford it and find somewhere else to live."

That attitude is not consistent with the compassionate and humane society we seek to build and maintain in this province. Indeed, it has been the policy of government for a number of years to encourage seniors to stay in their own homes, because they can live happier and fuller lives for longer if they are able to live independently in familiar neighbourhoods and surroundings.

The same kind of unfair circumstances arises for a young couple with children who scrape together every dollar they have to buy their first home and then struggle to keep up their payments for mortgages, food, heat, light, day care and the other necessities of life. This couple would pay property taxes similar to those paid by a couple in a comparable home on the same street with no children and making double, triple or quadruple the disposable income. This is hardly fair or equitable. This kind of circumstance also sends a negative message about our society's attitude towards family life and the priority we give to the proper raising of children.

Property taxes are not only a regressive form of taxation, bearing no relation to the taxpayer's ability to pay, but they are also imposed in a fashion that effectively works against community improvement. Because the level of property taxes is related to the value of a property, the amount of tax increases if a house is renovated or enhanced in some way. What a bizarre situation we now have where a home owner is taxed or, in essence, penalized for improving his or her house by adding a bathroom, finishing the basement or increasing the size of the kitchen.

11:10

I have met many young couples who have purchased older homes, perhaps in run-down condition, with the intention of renovating them. They go into the house and do much of the construction and decorating work themselves, with the help of skilled labour where they lack the ability to do a particular job. The couple do the work themselves because they cannot afford to hire a professional contractor to do it.

When the work is all done in accordance with the building permit, for which they must pay to receive it from the municipality, a tax assessor will show up in due course to look at the house and inspect the improvements. What happens then? The couple are not congratulated for improving the neighbourhood or helping the economy by purchasing building materials or providing employment for some workmen. Quite the contrary. They are required to pay more taxes because they improved their property. This has to be one of the most inane results imaginable in any tax system in any society.

In effect, property taxes are organized to penalize people who wish to improve the quality of their homes and, indirectly, the quality of their neighbourhoods.

These various negative aspects of property taxes require us to consider the ways in which the tax system can be reformed to reduce the dependence of municipalities on property taxes on residential properties.

Originally, property taxes were relatively minor levies to cover municipal services. In the early days of Ontario, there were relatively few municipal services and a very limited system of public education. After all, it did not cost a great deal to keep a dirt road or to maintain a one-room schoolhouse. Today property taxes are expected to cover a vast range of services offered by the municipalities, together with a large proportion of the cost of elementary and secondary education.

Consider the number of services the municipalities have assumed during the course of this century, from parks to welfare, day care and cultural activities. In view of this, property taxes have assumed an increasingly heavy burden as municipal services and the education system have expanded. This, in turn, has created growing pressures and inequities on property.

It is not reasonable to expect that we could eliminate property taxes on residential properties. It is probable that property taxes under any type of tax reform would continue to represent a significant source of revenue for municipalities. However, what we must do is reduce the proportion of municipal and education costs that are to be covered by property taxes on residential properties in order to alleviate, if not eliminate, the kind of pressure now faced by home owners in many municipalities.

Reports I have read indicate that property taxes in countries throughout the world are small and, in some cases, negligible in comparison to Ontario and other provinces in Canada. I submit that this is an unhealthy situation.

The resolution before the House today seeks to have a declaration made that we need tax reform to reduce the burden of property taxes on residential properties. There are various alternatives that could be pursued, including some form of income tax geared specifically to cover the cost of local services. Whatever ultimate reforms might be considered in the end, it is surely not beyond the realm of human intelligence and ingenuity to deal with this kind of problem.

I therefore ask the House to declare its support for reform of the property tax system by passing this resolution. Then I would ask the government to get on with the job of considering and developing an alternative system that would be fairer and more equitable.

I will reserve the remaining time for further comments at the end or for rebuttal of anything else that might be stated.

Mr. Breaugh: I read this resolution with great interest when it first appeared in Orders and Notices. I examined it for a few days and I thought surely we are all in favour of lower property taxes; surely this will get unanimous consent and wonderful things will happen. However, the more I read it, the more I began to wonder what in the world the member means. Would it not be more helpful if we had a sweet, faint clue as to how he was proposing to go about lowering taxes?

I could not find it in the resolution. I will be shocked today if the Legislature does not say, "Yes, we are all in favour of lower property taxes." I will be even more shocked if somebody is stupid enough to stand up in here and say, "No, I want higher property taxes." I have not seen a politician do that in Canada since I have been involved in politics.

I was confused about precisely what was meant here and I did some research. On my desk, I found a riding report from the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden). On the first page, it says, "Eglinton home owners oppose market value assessment." I thought: "That is true. That is probably not news." Anybody who has had any form of market value assessment inflicted on him anywhere in Ontario knows this is not exactly what it was originally purported to be and not exactly a new, fair system.

In most municipalities where it has been put in place, the trend has been that the punishment is pretty severe on somebody who is unfortunate enough to have even a small house in a neighbourhood where property values have escalated. Tragically, it is usually the older, retired couple with a little bungalow on a street that, all of a sudden, has become trendy who pay the worst price when market value assessment is put in. God forbid that anybody should happen to have a lumber yard in a city, because that really gets zapped.

The instances of unfairness in market value assessment are pretty well documented now. The pattern for implementing it is not quite the way it was originally put forward. The pattern has been that just before a municipal election, a bill of goods is sold to a local council, saying, "This will be fairer." Although that is usually said, the critical point is, "This will put more money in your municipal coffers." Then they advise the council: "It would not be too smart for you to put out all this information.

You should keep this within the council, pass your little resolutions and have it happen just after the election. You have a couple of years in there where people can forget who did this to them."

As I read further in this riding report, which I found very interesting, I found somebody else is now opposing market value assessment. Guess what? The people who inflicted Ontario with this dread disease have decided to do a recall. The people who, supposedly by law, brought in market value assessment province-wide have now decided it is a foul idea. That is despite the fact that since its inception some of us in this chamber said to the Tories, who were then in power, "This is a real dumb idea, folks."

In a sense they acknowledged it, because they originally started out with a law which said, "We are going to have market value assessment province-wide now." The outcry was so great from municipalities and citizens across the province that every year I have been a member here we passed a law which said, "But not this year." We are going to do it again this year, because on the books it says, "Market value assessment will go province-wide," but in reality nobody was stupid enough to try to inflict it province-wide because of the unfairness of the system.

I suppose we should be grateful that the Tories are born again, but I have to admit that for me it is a little hard to stomach the former Minister of Revenue, who steadfastly withstood my pleas over the years to release the studies on market value assessment. We did a study on Metropolitan Toronto and we tried everything in the book. We had oral questions, an emergency debate and written questions. We got down on our knees and pleaded with this guy to release this information.

Each day when he stands in question period now and asks the current Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon) to release that information, I have to admit I get a pain somewhere in my back. It is in the lower part of the back too. It hurts to see that kind of demonstration. I am not allowed to say that is hypocrisy. It is a shame I am not allowed to say that. It is pretty hard to explain that when he was Minister of Revenue and had the opportunity to make this information available to the people in Ontario, it was a sin. He could not and would not do it.

He would not answer the written questions or table the documents here. He would not give us any information on it. Now he feels everybody should get the information.

I guess we have different days and different stories. I do not mind that the member has put forward a motion calling for lower property taxes and then talks about market value assessment. That is fine by me. I really do not mind that the Tories are born again on the matter. They now see the error of their ways. They have said their four Our Fathers and five Hail Marys and repented on the matter. It may be a deathbed repentance, but I do not care; I will take it in any form it comes.

11:20

It is true that when they were in government, they systematically loaded new programs on to municipal governments every year over a lengthy period. They put incentives at the front end of the programs so that municipalities would take them under their jurisdiction. They kept putting forward funding arrangements to make it attractive for municipalities to take on more responsibilities.

They had learned the political secret that the maximum political mileage -- the big buck, so to speak -- on any program in health, welfare and social assistance, housing, child care or anything we name, is right at the beginning. That is where the fun is. That is where the minister hands over the initial cheque. He cuts the ribbon on the child care centre and then he walks away. That is the cheap part and the easy part of any program. The hard

part is to keep the thing going for 20, 30 or 40 years.

They also know -- they learned their lessons well -- that when a municipal council begins to run child care programs, for example, at the request of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, no one from the ministry will come to the council chamber when they start to talk about cost. The local council will have to say that it started it with startup funds from the ministry, that it thinks it is a good program but that it is tough to finance from a municipal property tax base.

They have learned the wonderful lesson of putting the responsibility on another level of government. It will be the other level of government that pays the unhappy price. The ratepayers will not likely come to Queen's Park and attack the minister. He will say he has nothing to do with it any more; it is run by North York, Toronto, Oshawa or wherever. They consistently and steadily loaded that on to the municipal level of government over the years and now the system is creaking.

We all know that the assessment program around Ontario is truly bizarre. We also know that is not the real problem. The real problem is that municipalities have that as their only source of real, local funding. They are dependent on the province, the federal government and various means to provide them with additional funds.

To do something concrete to assist municipalities, the government should provide them with some of the things the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has begun to do. It should tell them what they are going to get for funding next year. That does not sound like much, but it is an unbelievable thing that most municipalities never knew what moneys they would get from the province until after their entire budgetary process was pretty well locked up and put away. At least he is telling them what the pain will be ahead of time. That is one small step.

Most of us who are observers of the municipal scene would understand that the problem is chronic. It will take some time to reverse that trend. Most of the taxes in this country are hidden. Governments have become really good at hiding even municipal property taxes. I am amazed at the number of people who have no knowledge of how much money they pay in municipal property taxes; but it is readily explainable: most of them do not pay it directly; they pay it indirectly through a mortgage company. Very few people walk into the municipal office and hand over a cheque. Most of them pay it by some indirect means.

They do not have the sharp, working knowledge they should have, and municipalities are wavering along, struggling under a heavy financial load.

This little resolution is not going to help very much. I am happy to see that the Tories have repented on market value assessment. I wish they had done so a little earlier. I might have changed my mind about them. I witness the pain each day as they say things they would not have said when they were the government.

I hope the government of the day is listening. There is a massive financial problem at the municipal level and it is getting worse instead of better. It requires a commitment on the part of this government to do some long-term financial planning for municipalities. I only hope that some day in the foreseeable future the municipal property tax will be what it ought to be: a tax that is limited to certain services and not an excuse for the provincial government.

Ms. Caplan: I rise today to enter this debate with considerable experience on a local council. Perhaps some historical perspectives would assist in this debate. I entered municipal council in 1978, shortly after the provincial government announced market value assessment as the be-all and end-all for a fair and equitable property tax system. The government announced the system would be province-wide and it would be implemented in short order.

That was in 1978. The announcement followed a study that was done over the years from 1963 through 1967 and an additional study after that. The Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue at that time brought this forward, really without consultation with the local municipalities, and the municipalities rightly responded by saying: "What exactly are you talking about? What will this mean? Where are the impact studies? What will this do?"

The issues of fairness and equity, clarity, understanding and justice in that system were not lost upon the local municipal councils, which were facing the financial pressures my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) referred to.

The member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) stated that property tax is not in any way equated with ability to pay. It is my feeling that the motion we have before this House is somewhat simplistic. It is motherhood. It is something everyone in this House would support. We would all like to have lower property taxes at the municipal level. I say it is simplistic because it does not address any of the available alternatives.

This was debated when I was at the local municipal council. Time and again we talked about the need for better and more unconditional grants from the province, because the municipalities are funded by both property taxes and conditional grants which say, "In order to get provincial money, you must do this." Then there are the unconditional grants from the province which say: "Here is the money. Do with it as you please."

It raises the issue of local autonomy and accountability at the local level for those services that are perhaps different in that municipality from other areas around this province. That is the reason total reassessment of the province at market value was never possible, beginning in 1978.

I would like to state in this House, as I did on numerous occasions after speaking with my constituents in the east end of North York, that if one lived in North York and received the same services from the municipality -- and in 1978 the average price of a home was approximately $100,000 -- I would ask, "Do you think someone who has a home in North York valued at $100,000 should be paying the same property tax as someone else in the city with a home valued at $100,000?" The answer unanimously was yes.

I said to them, "Tell me, when you look at your tax assessment bill and see the value of your home assessed at $10,000, $15,000 or $13,500, what does that mean to you?" The answer was: "We do not know what it means. We do not know because of the complicated formula." As I investigated, I found this was established in the 1940s. The assessors came in and counted the bathrooms and determined the square footage and whether the basement was finished.

What developed in this process was that people did not understand what their assessment meant. Because they did not understand it, they assumed, in many cases correctly, it was unfair that their next-door neighbour was assessed at $12,500 while they were assessed at $14,000. They would go through the process at the local municipal level to appeal their taxes, if they chose, and I do not think it was clarified there either.

At the municipal level, from 1978 until 1985, I said, "One of the fundamental important things we must do in any taxation system, whether property tax, sales tax or income tax, is to make sure people understand how we arrive at the base, how we arrive at the calculations and what the formula means. I always supported it. I was in a minority. Four of us supported market value as a measure in the late 1970s. At that time the value of a home was $100,000; today it is perhaps $150,000. I use that because it is important to note that it does change.

Generally, housing is an inflation-proof investment and one's equity in housing remains strong and firm in our great province. People understand this.

11:30

On a personal basis, we have a house in the Huntsville area and it was subjected to market value assessment. When I received the assessment notice, it made sense to me. I knew everyone in the area whose home was assessed at the same value was paying the same tax rate.

If the member for Eglinton is suggesting -- and I do not think he is -- that we do away with property taxes, then I ask, is he suggesting a municipal income tax? Is he suggesting a municipal sales tax? Is he suggesting that the local council, in setting its tax rate, not have the ability to explain the cost of municipal services, the difference of services in its municipality compared to the services in other municipalities and why its taxes are higher because of the level of services it provides?

I will speak for a few minutes about my feelings on local autonomy and local option -- I guess that is one of the words -- and the ability of a local municipality to provide the services to its constituents. This is where the whole reason for a local council comes into being because the local council can institute a program that is funded by local municipal property taxes.

Unless we have some suggestion as to how we will change the funding of municipalities, it is not enough to say there should be lower municipal property taxes. We must look at what the impact will be if we say there will be a municipal income tax. We must say what the impact will be if a local municipal sales tax is permitted. We must say how we are going to do it.

I wish to point out, as my colleague the member for Oshawa did, that the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue has done for the first time what I demanded time and time again, year after year, on local council, "Give us the information as to what the grant structure from the province will be so that we can do the long-term planning that is required for sound fiscal management at the local municipal level."

It is very important that we not just have the province, Big Brother, send a cheque annually to the local council to spend. Municipal councillors must stand up at election time and say: "These are the services. This is what they are going to cost. This is what we intend to do." Unless we give them the opportunity for fiscal management and fiscal responsibility at the local level, we will create a situation where, because the councillors are not accountable for their spending, they will not have the local autonomy and strength that is important.

The Metro issue is a wider one. We could spend a lot of time debating the assessment of Metropolitan Toronto. I do not want to get into that debate, except to say that I believe people fundamentally support the policy that the services received in Metropolitan Toronto should be similar and that homes in Metro should be assessed, I would say, equally.

In closing, this motion is simplistic because it does not offer alternatives and options. It is motherhood and meaningless.

Mr. Partington: I am pleased to speak in support of the resolution of the member for Eglinton that the provincial government should immediately introduce tax reform measures to reduce the property tax burden on home owners and tenants.

"A man's house is his castle" and "In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes" are two often-quoted statements. However, in recent years it has become readily apparent that the scourge of taxes is seriously undermining the ability of many to acquire or retain a home, their castle. For most Canadians home ownership has been an important goal. Family members work hard and save their money, all in an effort to reach the goal of a family home.

Canadians, led by the promises of their federal and provincial governments, have come to regard home ownership as a fundamental component of our society, tantamount to a right. Over the past decade, however, this most laudable goal of home ownership has been under siege. Our tax system, particularly the increasing burden of property taxes, has served to undermine the dreams and hopes of many Ontario residents. Ever-increasing property taxes ensure that more and more of our families are unable to own their own homes.

Our tax system is vital from a number of perspectives. It influences our economic growth, employment prospects, international competitiveness and the distribution of income throughout society. On a more basic level, our tax system plays an important role in regulating disposable income. The tax structure of the day not only significantly affects the amount of money each of us may have or earn but it can also determine how we spend those dollars the tax man leaves us.

It is clearly evident that our current tax system places an undue burden on property owners and as a result is threatening the ideal of home ownership. It appears that the most serious flaw in our tax system, as it relates to home ownership or rental real estate investment, has arisen because the costs associated with this type of investment are paid in after-tax dollars. In effect, these expenditures attract double taxation. The most obvious and onerous example of this is property taxes, which are paid with post-personal-income-tax dollars.

Those who invest their money in the purchase of a home rather than acquiring other consumer items are financially penalized as they must then pay property taxes.

To take this example a step further, those who take the initiative to upgrade their homes, perhaps by adding a room or a fireplace, or more important, in an effort to bring their homes up to current standards, find that because their homes have increased in value they must now face increased property taxes. Once again their investment of funds has attracted increased levels and amounts of taxation. Furthermore, this expenditure is not just taxed twice, once through income tax and then through property tax; instead, this investment is taxed year after year, every time property taxes are paid on this home.

A number of groups are already on record as suggesting that significant changes to our tax system are required in the housing sector. The Canadian Real Estate Association in its recent brief to the federal government emphasized the need to re-establish neutrality in the tax treatment of home owners and real estate investors. They also pointed out, for example, that home ownership is a major form of savings for most Canadian households, which the tax system must not be allowed to undermine.

Having recognized that a serious problem exists, it appears clear that the government must act without further delay to remedy this inequity currently facing home owners or those who invest in rental properties. By implementing a tax structure that provides for the deductibility of items such as property taxes or mortgage interest from income tax, the government would be removing a significant disincentive to home ownership. Indeed, the fact that United States home owners have enjoyed the benefit of mortgage interest deductibility for a number of years probably explains at least partially the different levels of home ownership in Canada and the US.

11:40

Encouraging home ownership would provide many spinoffs. First, it would relieve the excessive burden that is currently being placed on our rental accommodation stock. The inability of many lower-income families to locate suitable rental accommodation has had a serious social impact, which could be alleviated. Increased home ownership would also stimulate the housing industry and thereby create jobs.

It is estimated that each additional house generates two and a half person-years of work; so while the Treasurer may be forgoing certain tax revenues by making property taxes deductible, such a step could result in a positive net tax benefit because of the increased economic activity generated.

Furthermore, it must be remembered that home ownership is an important mechanism for saving for the future. In many instances, the equity one builds up in the home provides a significant portion of the money available to an individual during retirement years. As the pressure on our pension system increases in the years ahead, the funds generated by the sale of the family home will play an even more important role in ensuring adequate financial resources for our seniors. As well, the existence of a debt-free home provides fixed-income retirees with a source of low-cost housing that does not place an undue burden on their financial resources.

The unfair property tax burden not only affects home owners; it also hurts renters. Increased property taxes are obviously passed on to renters in the form of higher rents, notwithstanding the presence of rent controls. At the same time, high property taxes and the inequitable tax structure facing investors in the housing sector discourage the construction of rental units. This in turn has led to low vacancy rates, which also hurt those who must rent.

In short, the situation cannot and must not be allowed to continue. Home ownership must be encouraged, not discouraged. Any tax system that financially penalizes home owners must be changed without further delay. Our current tax system does not even treat those who invest in a family home or rental unit equitably; instead, it seriously penalizes those individuals year after year.

Raising property taxes and the current taxation methods for property-related investments provides an unnecessary impediment to economic growth in this province. A restructured tax system would encourage home ownership and investment in property. Not only would the purchase of a family home return to being a sound financial investment, but there would also be increased construction in the rental housing market. In the end, more people would be investing in and upgrading their own houses, acquiring an equity that would be available to them in their retirement years.

At the same time, the burden on our rental housing stock would be lightened by decreased demand and increased construction of these units. Those who, for whatever reason, were unable or who did not wish to invest in a home of their own at least would be able to locate suitable rental accommodation.

The problems I have just outlined are sure to continue unabated if immediate tax reform does not occur. This situation cannot last any longer. The government must act now, and act without further delay.

Mr. Warner: We are discussing property tax and the entire property tax system. Of course, we all know who put it in place. We also all know that the Tories, when they were in power, with respect to the property tax system, accomplished for tenants and home owners about the same thing as Colonel Sanders accomplished for the chicken population.

What we have in Ontario with respect to property tax, quite frankly, is a mess. I do not think any reasonable person could say the tax system is fair. It is not fair. There have been fumbling and bumbling attempts to bring in some form of market value assessment. I respectfully suggest that, rather than debating whether one street or the next has the right amount of tax levied on it or whether the market value system is reasonable and fair enough to extend across the province, we should start by taking a look at the basic structure.

The basic structure has three components, the first one of which I always thought was the basic reason for a property tax; it is a tax for water, hydro, police services, fire protection, ambulance services -- the basic services provided to property. The previous government decided that was not enough. They thought: "Why do we not load a whole lot of other things on the tax system for both home owners and tenants? Let them pay for social programs. Let them bear the cost of education." The city of Toronto does not receive a single penny from the province for education.

It pays the whole shot itself out of the property tax. The city of Scarborough is not much further ahead; l think a grand total of eight per cent of its education costs comes from the province and the other 92 per cent comes out of the property tax.

The government's idea was to load the system of day care service, public health -- whatever program we want to name -- on the property tax. That was the Tories' approach for 40 years. Now, sitting in opposition, they suddenly realize they have created a monster, and they want somehow to slay the monster. The best we have before us this morning is, "That in the opinion of this House, the provincial government should immediately introduce tax reform measures to reduce the property tax burden on home owners and tenants." That is it. That is zippo. That is not very helpful.

I try to be a normal, reasonable person. As most people in the House realize, I am not given to mean and vicious attacks on other members of the assembly, but frankly I would have expected a great deal more from the member for Eglinton.

An hon. member: Particularly with the kind of trouble in his constituency.

Mr. Warner: I fully realize the pressure the member is under from his constituents, many of whom want him to resign. Surely to goodness he could have come up with something a little more helpful.

For example, a few years ago, in what some would have described as a somewhat transparent attempt to purchase seniors' votes, they introduced a property tax cheque. Not the credit: all of us under the age 65 fill out a little form and we hope to get a few dollars back from the province through the property tax credit, and seniors are entitled to up to $500. That was issued in an election year. However, that amount has not been altered in 10 years; but does the member for Eglinton include in his suggestion that we should alter and enrich the property tax credit to seniors? No.

Is there anything in the member's resolution to say we should ensure that the province's share of education tax is at least 60 per cent? No. Is there anything in his resolution to say social services are the responsibility of the province and thus should be removed from the property tax? No. Does he suggest only services to property should be the basis for property tax? No, he does not.

Unfortunately, we are being asked this morning to support something that is nothing. I am puzzled as to what this resolution is going to accomplish. I would have been a little happier had the member for Eglinton stood in his place and said: "I apologize on behalf of the Conservative Party for having created this monstrous mess. Now I have a series of items that will correct the mess we created." I listened very carefully to the member for Eglinton, and I did not hear a single apology.

I did not hear one acknowledgement that he and his little band from the Royal Ontario Museum created this monstrous mess and were prepared to address each item in the mess that was created. I am really disappointed.

11:50

Property tax reform is a serious matter. If the government of the day has the political will, it is going to take a long time to unravel this and to bring in the reform measures that are needed to clean up the system. I suggest that at the bottom of it are two basic principles that must be addressed but are sadly lacking from the resolution. One is that a tax on property should be for services. The other is that whatever system you introduce must be fair to individuals and surely should reflect in some measure their ability to pay. We do not do that in our tax system, but that is what we should be addressing.

Obviously, we are going to be asked whether we support this measure. It is so ineffectual that it is easy to support. However, it disturbs me that we do not have a very considerable resolution in front of us, one that itemizes step by step the reform that is needed so we can get on with the job.

Finally, the government of the day does not escape unscathed. It has been in office for slightly more than a year and a half. I have not seen a single item that would address basic tax reform. The government cannot sit idly by and say, "The Tories messed it all up and that is too bad." The government has not done a thing.

I am pleased to report that my own party has spent a considerable amount of time on this and has put together some very thoughtful documents on tax reform. These documents were not well received by the previous government and apparently are not terribly well received by the present government. We will bring in tax reform when we are the government.

Mr. Speaker: I think the member for Eglinton has 355 seconds remaining.

Mr. McFadden: Thank you for those seconds, Mr. Speaker.

I listened with great interest to the comments this morning of the member for Oshawa, the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan), the member for Brock (Mr. Partington) and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner). It has been mentioned that this resolution is quite general in approach. It was intended to be that way, because I was seeking to start off with a first principle from which we could move on to more detailed tax policy in the future.

By submitting this resolution to the House today, I was seeking to get a declaration from the House that in principle it favours the reduction of the property tax burden on residential properties. By agreeing to that at least in principle, we can move from there to consider the ways in which it can be done.

However, I agree with previous speakers that the current system has developed over the years to meet all kinds of changing demands at the municipal level for all kinds of services that were not originally envisaged when the whole system of property taxes was evolved decades ago.

I would suggest that from here we should move on, perhaps by referral to a select committee of this House, to a standing committee or by whatever other means is available, to consider all the alternatives that would be available in the tax system to achieve this objective. There could be a whole variety of those, but I would like us today at least to declare our support in principle for reducing the property tax burden on residential properties. From there we can move more specifically to the ways in which that can be done.

With regard to the whole market value assessment scheme, this is private members' hour, and I should tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was never in favour of a compulsory imposition of market value assessment throughout this province. I felt it would create some very severe dislocations and hardships in neighbourhoods throughout this province. I remain convinced there should never be a compulsory imposition of market value assessment in Ontario. I would prefer us to look instead at ways to reform the property tax system.

Some of the serious problems that have been referred to by the honourable members here have evolved over the past number of years in particular as demands on municipalities for services have gone up and as the demands have gone up for government generally. The anomalies have developed as the price of property has inflated so dramatically over the past 10 years.

As the member for Oshawa has stated, you can have a situation where somebody in a very modest home winds up living in an area that is subjected to extremes of property speculation or in an area that is particularly attractive to live in for reasons that in no way relate to the home owner who is living in that modest home. Yet if we went to market value assessment, those properties would experience sudden and dramatic increases in property taxes.

As I mentioned in my remarks to this House, I have no illusions about the difficulty of achieving some kind of tax reform that would make the system a little fairer and a little more equitable. I also do not believe we can eliminate property taxes altogether, because very clearly they are needed for local services. Our problem now is an imbalance in the system that has to be remedied.

I support the concerns raised by the member for Oriole with regard to local autonomy. I would not want to see a reduction of the tax burden on residential properties lead to any form of destruction or undermining of the autonomy of our municipalities, because the kinds of services that municipalities are delivering should properly be in local hands, and the municipalities, as far as is possible, should have the taxing power to deliver those services.

It is a very delicate balance we are seeking to develop here in Ontario, and I hope this resolution can be a first step towards a system that would be fairer and that would reduce the overall tax burden on residential property.

DETROIT INCINERATOR

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Newman has moved resolution 66.

Motion agreed to.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McFadden has moved resolution 65.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12 noon.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT AUTOMOBILES

Mr. McLean: There is a very important statement that I want to make today. I had hoped there would be more than five members on the government side to listen to it. In fact, I would like to have some ministers here to listen to it because it pertains to them. Is there a quorum, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The member has asked for a quorum count. There is a quorum.

Mr. McLean: Some time ago, I asked the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) a question pertaining to the number of persons in the provincial government who have automobiles assigned to them. The question was: How many civil servants and members have cars assigned to them? This is basically a simple question, and I was looking for a straightforward and uncomplicated answer. This week I received a reply that there is apparently not enough time to reply to my question and that I must wait until January 15, 1987, for a reply. I had asked the question some months ago.

It is rather odd that a minister of transportation does not have at his fingertips on a computer printout a listing of such major assets as the government automobiles and the ministers, members, those in the civil service and other government employees to whom they are assigned.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: On Tuesday the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter), in answer to a question from me, said that the Manitoba public insurance plan will lose $4 million this year and that premiums in British Columbia for one million motorists will rise by $1 to $25 and for 250,000 drivers by $25 to $50.

He neglected to mention that the premiums in BC had dropped by six per cent in the previous two years. He also neglected to mention that in the same three years Ontario's rates will have increased by five to eight times as much as they have in British Columbia. He also neglected to mention that, according to his own figures in defence of the insurance companies, they paid out in claims $1.31 for every dollar of premiums and that auto insurers in Ontario lost three quarters of a billion dollars last year alone.

If the minister asks the people of Ontario whether they would rather have a public auto insurance system that increases their rates by an average of less than $25 in three years compared to the private system here that increases them by an average of $200, he will get a resounding yes. If the minister asks the people of Ontario if they want the kind of Manitoba public insurance system that has a six-year surplus of $54 million instead of a system here that says it has lost $1 billion, he will get a resounding yes.

If the minister asks the people of this province if they want to get rid of the minister who defends the giant insurance companies here and bring in a minister who will implement a people-oriented public plan such as the Manitoba plan, he will get the greatest resounding yes of all.

FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

Ms. E. J. Smith: I would be remiss in my duties as a representative of the city of London if I did not offer my best wishes and strong encouragement to the University of Western Ontario Mustangs as they battle for the Canadian university football championship this Saturday.

The Mustangs have had an outstanding year, going undefeated through the regular season and beating McMaster, Guelph and Acadia in the playoffs. Two outstanding players, Blake Marshall and Matt Janes, have been nominated for national awards. Obviously, Western is living up to its tradition of excellence. A few years ago, Western faced the University of British Columbia Thunderbirds for the Vanier Cup. I am confident that this year these western birds will be no match for our eastern Mustangs.

On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne), myself and the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft), I offer my best wishes to Coach Larry Haylor and the UWO Mustangs for this Saturday. I know the House will join me in wishing them well.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEETING

Mr. Pierce: I would like to bring before this House a serious injustice against the population of northwestern Ontario by the Liberal government, specifically the Premier and his cabinet. The Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce have been refused by the Premier enough time with cabinet to discuss their 24 resolutions at a scheduled meeting on December 1. Historically, every year this group has always had the amount of time required with cabinet to present its concerns and resolutions.

Of the 24 resolutions the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce would like to present for review, the Premier and his cabinet have informed this organization that they have time to review only approximately 10 of its resolutions. The Liberal government, which is a government that says it wants to hear the concerns of the north and is prepared to be available to listen to these concerns, is actually not available.

The Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce represent a broad sector of the northern population. I feel they should have the time needed to present all their resolutions to cabinet. Considering the amount of time and the money each individual chamber member is prepared to spend to familiarize the Ontario cabinet with the issues in the north, I respectfully request the Premier to reconsider the amount of time that has been allocated for this group to present its resolutions.

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Ms. Gigantes: Yesterday I questioned the minister responsible for women's issues (Mr. Scott) about statements he was reported to have made concerning whether private employers would have to provide equal pay adjustments in addition to annual wage increases. He assured me in this House that he had merely been explaining to business representatives that equal pay adjustments would cost employers "less than the inflationary increases that employers normally have to bear in normal market circumstances."

I have listened to a tape of what he actually said. He told the employers: "We are going to try and help you in this way by saying that, of the amount that you allocate annually to wage increases, a certain proportion should be devoted to dealing with this adjustment."

He continued: "Inflation is at four per cent. If you are increasing wages two per cent, a certain proportion of that two per cent should be directed to solving this discrepancy over a period of time."

Yesterday afternoon I accepted the minister's statement to this House that he had not told employers that workers, rather than employers, would pay the cost of equal pay adjustments. I know now that the minister was not misunderstood by the media, as he told us yesterday. Rather, we misunderstood him if we believed his words yesterday.

I believed him. I was wrong. He lied.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member for Ottawa Centre reconsider the last word and remove that from the record?

Ms. Gigantes: Sir, I do not feel I can.

Mr. Speaker: I have no other choice but to name the member.

Ms. Gigantes left the chamber.

FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr. Ferraro: After that performance, I was a little reluctant to stand up.

I join with the member for London South (Ms. E. J. Smith) in wishing the University of Western Ontario luck this weekend. I really want to make sure the record indicates that the only reason the University of Western Ontario is there is that the most outstanding player is a Guelph boy by the name of Blake Marshall, who is leading the nation in rushing. Indeed, if he does not win the Hec Creighton trophy, that will be a real injustice.

I add my best wishes to the University of Western Ontario. In particular, I know I speak on behalf of all of Guelph in wishing Blake Marshall the best in this coming game on Saturday.

LATVIAN INDEPENDENCE

Mr. Shymko: On a more moderate tone, today I remind the honourable members that November 18, last Tuesday, marked the 68th anniversary of the proclamation of independence of Latvia, which was recognized by the British government in November 1918.

I had expected the Minister without Portfolio responsible for citizenship and culture (Mr. Ruprecht), the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) or perhaps the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to make a statement in the House on this occasion. We have had proclamations to that effect in the past; we have had statements from ministers in the House. I just hope the tradition of the resolutions that are binding on all Premiers to proclaim these days, passed some years ago by this Legislature, will continue.

Therefore, I remind honourable members that these special days are very important in reminding us of the cause of freedom, justice and peace for which these peoples proclaim their states independent and democratic.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: As a graduate of the University of British Columbia and in the interests of Canadian unity, I think there should be some expression of support for the UBC team at the football game this weekend. I want to indicate that this Legislature is not a narrow, parochial, provincial legislature.

Mr. Speaker: That is certainly a new point of privilege. It is very interesting information. The Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Andrewes: Give the minister 30 seconds to catch his breath.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to breathe because, as the members know, the weather conditions today are such that it is very difficult to move quickly.

Mr. Stevenson: If the minister were to clean up the air in Ontario, he would not be so winded.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: All these disparaging remarks from my friends on the other side give me an opportunity to catch my breath.

13:41

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSE

MISA PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Last June, in tabling our white paper on the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, or MISA, I advised the House that a committee drawn from the public would be established to provide advice on the program's regulations.

Today I am pleased to announce the membership of the MISA advisory committee. The committee will help ensure that MISA achieves our objective to choke the flow of toxic contaminants into Ontario's waterways.

We have assembled for this committee some of the finest, independent, technical and environmental people in Ontario. We have chosen people with expertise and experience, some of whom have been forceful critics of the government.

The committee chairman is Douglas Hallett. Dr. Hallett is an environmental biologist, biochemist and analytical chemist. He brings to this committee a wealth of knowledge and experience and a passionate concern for Ontario's environment and for the health of future generations. The vice-chairman is Toby Vigod, counsel with the Canadian Environmental Law Association. Ms. Vigod possesses expertise in environmental law and a history of dedicated service in this field.

The remaining members are Monica Campbell, a toxicologist at the University of Toronto; Harvey Clare, a retired environmental protection co-ordinator for Imperial Oil Ltd.; Dr. Paul Hebert, professor of biology at the Great Lakes Institute in Windsor; Dr. Donald Mackay, a University of Toronto professor in the departments of chemical engineering, applied chemistry and the Institute for Environmental Studies; James McLaren, a consultant who specializes in environmental engineering and policy management, and Kai Millyard, a researcher with the Pollution Probe Foundation.

I am confident that the advisory committee will serve as an effective complement to the eight joint industry-government technical committees, four of which are already in the preregulation consultation and pilot monitoring phase, and to the municipal-government technical committee.

The advisory committee will review the draft monitoring and abatement regulations formulated by the technical committees and provide advice and recommendations to me on their contents.

In addition to the members I have named, a rotating industrial representative from each sector will be a member of the advisory committee when the matters pertaining to this sector are being reviewed. This will apply to the municipal sector regulations too. As well, a public member will be named to each of the joint technical committees.

We expect our MISA program, and thus our environment and the people of Ontario, to benefit from the committee's contributions and advice.

I know their views, along with the excellent work already under way in several of the technical committees and within my ministry, will help this government turn the tide at long last against water pollution.

Mr. Andrewes: We would like to respond in some detail to the minister's statement but, like the minister, the statement arrived quite late. However, I believe my colleague the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) is prepared to respond in some greater detail.

Mrs. Marland: In trying to catch up with the minister catching up with his own breath, I am trying to follow his statement. I recognize that the purpose of the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement is, as it says, to choke the flow of toxic contaminants into Ontario's waterways. I do not know whether Ontario's waterways are limited to those that flow out of Ontario; I wonder whether they also include those waters that flow along the northern shores of Lake Ontario.

That is a problem for me, as the member for Mississauga South. The entire southern boundary of my riding is the north shore of Lake Ontario. Will the minister see that a concern about the condition of the water of Lake Ontario is addressed by MISA? Although Ontario's waterways contribute to the problem, certainly no less a contribution is made by what is coming out of the northern shore of New York state and the Niagara area.

Mr. Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder whether I might seek the unanimous consent of the House to acknowledge an important event for a moment or two.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement? Agreed to.

GRANTING OF EXIT VISA

Mr. Rowe: All members of this assembly will recall the case of Kaisa Randpere, the young child kept from her parents in Soviet-controlled Estonia. I am pleased today to inform all members of the House that last evening little Kaisa was granted an exit visa and will soon be reunited with her parents.

We in this House sometimes feel that many of our efforts are in vain. I want to take this opportunity to say to my colleagues, not only have our voices been heard but also our efforts have not been in vain. I thank all my colleagues who wrote to the Soviet Union on behalf of Kaisa, urging that country to reunite her with her family.

As well, I thank all members of the media who assisted greatly in making this case so well known, not only throughout Ontario but also across our great country of Canada. As an honorary member of the committee to free Kaisa, I personally thank all those in the province who participated in one way or another to help reunite this little girl with her parents.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to join with the honourable member in expressing our joy at this news. I remember very well when the matter was of direct concern to many members of the Legislature.

If I may, I will take a moment and inform the honourable member that I had the extremely interesting experience, not of visiting Estonia but of going to Latvia, which was referred to in a statement a moment ago. Latvia is suffering similar circumstances in the oppression of some minorities, particularly some of the Jewish people in that area. At that time, along with a group of people from Canada, we visited a number of Jewish families.

I sincerely hope the announcement the honourable member has made to the House and which was greeted with so much joy by this House is a further indication that the government of the Soviet Union is relenting on some of its oppressive policies. I believe there are many indications that this is so. I, for one, will be looking for further announcements of the type the honourable member has made to this House. We earnestly hope for them.

Mr. Rae: It is important for us to remember that the victims of oppression are not nameless and that one of the great friends of totalitarianism is the attempt to erase names, identities, memories and families. The kind of campaign we have been involved in as a Legislature on behalf of little Kaisa is an indication of our determination as a people to remember the victims of oppression inside the Soviet Union and to continue to take whatever action we can to make sure they are remembered and, as in this happy case, successfully reunited with their families.

RELEASE OF REPORT

Mr. Andrewes: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: This morning, at a press conference in the media studio, I was able to obtain a copy of a draft document entitled

An Act to amend the Nursing Homes Act. I understand this document has been shared with members of the media and members of the New Democratic Party. I find my privileges have been offended, because neither this party nor its critic has been able to access this document until this morning at a public press conference.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I want to make the point to the Conservative caucus that the government has not shared that document with us. We released the document a few weeks ago when we came upon the document from other people. It certainly has not been the government that shared any of that information with this party.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Each of the parties knows we have been consulting rather widely in this matter. We have been meeting with a number of community-based groups and people interested in the needs of the nursing home sector. It may be of some difficulty to the member who speaks on behalf of the official opposition when he acknowledges that it has no friends with respect to that group. The people had indicated they got the information through some of the groups with whom we had been sharing the information and from whom we had been collecting their returns.

I can tell the honourable gentleman we will in due course release the approved amendments to the Nursing Homes Act from our point of view and bring them to the Legislative Assembly in their final form. The material that was released today was not the final form, which we will share with all members of the Legislature. I am sure the member will be happy to support them in every respect, because he will want to advance the rights and benefits to the nursing home residents.

Mr. Speaker: Having read many of the previous Speakers' rulings on very similar points of privilege, I must say that on previous occasions Speakers have responded to such a point of privilege by stating that the Speaker has no responsibility for what takes place outside this House and have on many occasions suggested it possibly would be common courtesy, if there were announcements, etc., made outside, that other members should be informed. However, it is not up to the Speaker to make that decision. The only thing I can say is that I cannot consider it a point of privilege.

Mr. Andrewes: Common courtesy is perhaps the proper terminology for it. The minister is becoming as unctuous as the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

13:53

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING HOMES LEGISLATION

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Minister of Health. Now that we have had an opportunity to review this document, which again is clearly labelled a draft document,

section 17b of the draft amendments to the Nursing Homes Act calls for the appointment by the minister of a nursing home residents' representative who shall report to the minister. Does the minister not agree that for an advocate to be truly free and to act on behalf of residents of nursing homes, the advocate must be independent of the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Elston: From my point of view, advocates, those people who have at heart the interests of the residents, can perform in a number of fashions and in a number of forums. From my standpoint, the draft which the member is reading from provides one of those options. We will be considering it in the final form of legislation here in the Legislative Assembly. For the member to presume that draft speaks to the final shape of the amendment is presumptuous.

I think all of us will want to move rather quickly when we have the Nursing Homes Act amendments in front of us. Since the honourable gentleman has already obtained a copy of those amendments in that form, I am sure he will provide me with written submissions with respect to what his interests are on the various sections. I will welcome those. When the proper time comes, I am sure we will have several people who will want to provide us, through committee, with input to make the legislation very good in the interests of the residents of the nursing homes of the province.

Mr. Andrewes: The minister's flexibility is somewhat heartening. On the other hand, perhaps he will have to access our documents by the same method that we access his.

Clauses 2(

a) and (

b) of this draft bill set out the role of the proposed nursing home residents' representative. I fail to see in any of these sections a mechanism whereby the residents' representative can take a complaint on behalf of a resident, have it adjudicated and have that decision enforced. Can the minister describe how the proposed amendments to the Nursing Homes Act will provide a mechanism to respond to complaints lodged by residents through the residents' representative?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have a number of ways already of adjudicating those complaints. There is the inspection process, and if there are more serious violations, there are opportunities to access through the courts. The member knows that.

The reorganization of the nursing homes branch will provide us with a much quicker way of getting access to the difficulties that cause complaints to be lodged in the first place. All of us would like to see an enhanced role for the residents' council to provide some building up of the opportunities to achieve early resolution of the problems that may persist in the nursing home where the complaint originated.

Mr. Andrewes: The minister is a complete captive of his bureaucrats.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Andrewes: Does the minister not agree that the time has come to implement an Ontario-made patients' bill of rights, an independent office of patient advocate with adequate financial resources and an effective mechanism for enforcing the provisions of the patients' bill of rights that is independent of the Ministry of Health?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman will probably acknowledge that because this deals with the residents of nursing homes, it cannot be fully independent from the Ministry of Health in terms of a bill of rights. The bill of rights, or whatever might be included in a later draft, might very well be nothing but independent because those rights go with the resident. I cannot see how the bill of rights can be tied to the Ministry of Health, but if the member will provide me with his thoughts on that, I will be pleased to consider them when the final draft is brought forward.

LOW-INCOME WORKERS

Mr. Shymko: I wanted to address my question to the minister responsible for women's issues (Mr. Scott) or to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye). In their absence, I am stuck with asking the question of the acting Minister of Government Services.

How can that minister justify his government's concern about pay equity and sensitivity to women's issues and minority issues when right under his own nose, his government refuses to apply even the principle of equal pay for equal work in its shameful exploitation of immigrant Portuguese women? They are paid only $5 per hour to clean members' offices in the Whitney Block and the Frost Building, while the staff in the Legislative Building clean offices, do the same work and are paid $9.01 per hour. How can he justify this shameful exploitation?

14:00

Hon. Mr. Conway: I know it is a stormy day, but to have my friend the member for High Park-Swansea start his question by lamenting that he is stuck with me is not an encouraging sign.

Mr. Davis: Stop playing around and answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am trying to respond to the question. If the member for High Park-Swansea could contain his exuberant colleagues the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) and the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon), it might be easier.

I would like the opportunity to check very carefully the information that the honourable member has so dispassionately put before the assembly. My experience with this kind of information is that it bears very careful scrutiny and examination. I will be very pleased to assure the member that, in my understanding of the practices of the Ministry of Government Services, we are very fair; we apply the fair labour practices of the Ministry of Labour. However, I give the member an undertaking that I will receive his information and look very carefully to understand what precisely is going on.

Mr. Shymko: It is unbelievable that after two years the minister is saying he will try to find out about or check on this issue. He knows very well he is contracting out these jobs in a shameful way whereby contracting-out policy has become a means of social and economic injustice reminiscent of the 19th-century sweatshops. He should stop posturing with his sanctimonious statements. Let him explain to me why half the salary --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Was the question, "Do you agree?"

Hon. Mr. Conway: One could be provocative and say that, given the practices of an administration of which the member counted himself a supporter from 1981 to 1985, that position from that member on that side is nothing short of breath-taking.

If the honourable member was unhappy about the contracting-out policy his Conservative administration embraced with an increased enthusiasm in the early years of the 1980s, I am sure he made that point to his colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), who was then the Treasurer, to say nothing of what he might have offered to his friend the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller).

We in the ministry are ensuring that we provide the fairest possible treatment; and not just to our permanent complement, we also see that those contracted-out employees are employed in accordance with the fair labour practices of the Ministry of Labour.

I repeat that I will take the member's question in his speech as notice; I will check it against the facts and report back to him.

Mr. Shymko: The Minister of Labour has just arrived. Maybe he can answer the question more fully.

Having discovered the so-called $400 million in the minister's coffers, even when he contracts out one would think that when one has Bill 105 on pay equity, when one has a private member from Hamilton East trying to redress social injustice, they would at least find some money to give equal pay for equal work for these few women. This bill will not redress it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am at a loss. Are we talking about Bill 105? Was that a question?

Mr. Shymko: I said in my question that there is legislation before this House addressing the issue of pay equity.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the minister aware of that?

Mr. Shymko: I am upset because you did not allow me to complete my question.

Mr. Speaker: I could advise the member of the time.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The best response I can offer to the histrionics of the member for High Park-Swansea is the one I have already given. This government has ensured that those employees who are working within the government on a contracted-out basis are working within the fair labour practices of the Ministry of Labour.

I repeat that I will take the member's submission this afternoon, review it very carefully and report back to him shortly. I do not want to see the apoplexy of my good friend from west Toronto continue in this almost-Christmas season.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In fact, I have several questions for him. I am sure the minister is aware of the testimony given today by Mrs. Larcher, a 77-year-old widow from Timmins whose husband died of lung cancer. He was a gold miner for several decades in Timmins.

Literally hundreds of women and children are in the same position as Mrs. Larcher, without any form of compensation whatsoever after their husbands have died of cancer. Dozens of miners with lung cancer are still alive and receiving no compensation at present. The ministry has had studies for more than a decade indicating the relationship between exposure to substances underground and cancer.

Given these facts, can the minister justify to this House the incredible delay in affording compensation to the survivors of miners who have died of cancer?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: There are two issues here. There is the issue of whether a causal relationship, an occupational relationship, has been established. In presenting the second Muller report, it was made clear that we had reached a point in Dr. Muller's findings where there was a relationship. The next issue then becomes the criteria that ought to be established, whether they should be that anyone who worked underground in gold mines or uranium mines or mixed ore mines at any time and for any length of time during the past 50 years ought to receive compensation for certain kinds of cancer or whether there ought to be limitations and standards.

That is why the findings of Dr. Muller have been sent to the Industrial Disease Standards Panel, which has representation from business, from labour and from the scientific community. The panel has set about trying to define what criteria, if any, and exactly what standards ought to be set. It was to the panel that this unfortunate widow spoke -- last Friday, I believe, certainly last week. I look forward to hearing the findings they come up with.

Mr. Rae: The minister has been in office for a year and a half. During that time, scientific information to the representatives of those widows and those survivors has systematically been denied by his ministry. They have been denied access to reports they had been promised literally months ago. The minister has failed to meet even the most modest request for information and assistance.

Given that incredible litany and the core fact that to date no one has be