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

April 21, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

UNIVERSITY CROWN FOUNDATIONS

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Last November I introduced a private member's resolution in this House on university crown foundations. This motion won the unanimous support of all three parties. Unfortunately, though, no action has been taken as yet by the government and the Minister of Colleges and Universities in particular.

The establishment of university crown foundations will cost the government very little money but reap potentially substantial benefits for our cash-strapped universities. So what is the holdup, Mr Treasurer?

It is time for this government to show support for our institutions of higher learning. The budget date is approaching soon. Let me remind the Treasurer and the Minister of Colleges and Universities that follow-up to my resolution will be one of the items I will be looking for. Rest assured, though, that it won't be just me awaiting legislation on university crown foundations. I have had several contacts from the university community, all asking what developments have taken place since my motion passed and was supported with praise by the government benches.

Treasurer, Minister, the university community is waiting for your budget with eager anticipation. Don't let them down again.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I rise in the House today to bring the matter of a needed change in regulation to the northern health travel grant program. As the Minister of Health will know, there are three requirements which Ontario residents must meet in order to qualify for this program.

First, applicants must live in an area designated as part of northern Ontario for the purposes of the program. The second requirement is one of distance. The last requirement dictates that the general practitioner who refers the resident for specialized medical treatment must be a northern Ontario physician in order for the patient to qualify. As a result of this third requirement, some residents in the district of Parry Sound are currently denied access to the program.

I have held several discussions with the Minister of Health regarding this matter. I want to recognize the fact that it is under her guidance that changes have indeed been made to the northern health travel grant program, allowing most Parry Sound constituents eligibility for the program. However, this third requirement still prevents some constituents from receiving specialized medical treatment because they are ineligible.

The situation has been exacerbated by the closing of the Burk's Falls and District Hospital. Residents of the southeastern corner of the Parry Sound district must now in many instances travel to Huntsville in order to consult a general practitioner. As members of the House will know, Huntsville is located in southern Ontario. As a result, these people are barred from participating in the program because their physician lives in southern Ontario.

The minister has assured me that she will review this requirement prohibiting all residents of the district of Parry Sound from enjoying the program. I would like to know the result of this review.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I would like to bring before the House today the achievement of Durham College in respect to energy conservation.

They have achieved these energy savings through the introduction of an automation system, filtration-of-air systems, and the redesign of all exterior lighting. They have installed 170 motion sensors in classrooms and laboratories and in change areas. Motion sensors are now being phased into all offices. The college has also added reflectors to the lights in hallways and used sodium instead of mercury vapour in the majority of the lighting fixtures.

Since 1985 enrolment at Durham College has increased by 44%, and yet Durham College has decreased its annual energy consumption by 1,538,094 kilowatt-hours. Durham College justly deserves its number one ranking in the college system for energy conservation.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Every member of this assembly with a border community will undoubtedly recognize that gasoline is the big draw for cross-border shoppers. The levels of federal and provincial tax make drivers cross over to the USA for a cheaper gasoline price. This situation is only magnified in communities such as the riding I represent, where a nearby native reserve offers completely taxless gasoline.

In an effort to assist the greater Cornwall area economy, I introduced a private member's bill in the last session of the Legislature which requested that the additional taxes the NDP government's 1991 budget had imposed on gasoline be removed. At the time, I was very disappointed that this bill was defeated. However, it now gives me great pleasure to note that a new local initiative to fight the high price of gasoline will be introduced in my riding on Monday, May 4. This program, called Cornwall dollars, will encourage residents to buy local gasoline.

Essentially, participating retailers will provide shoppers with Cornwall dollar coupons. These coupons may then be redeemed at Cornwall gasoline outlets to reduce the price of gasoline to about 30 cents a litre.

Gasoline is one of the keys to keeping shoppers on this side of the border. I applaud the Cornwall Hotel, Motel and Restaurant Association for introducing this novel idea in cooperation with the Cornwall Gas Association and the caisse populaire.

ORGAN DONORS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): April 19 to 25 is Organ Donor Awareness Week in Ontario. Currently our province is facing a critical shortage of donated organs. Almost 800 people are waiting for a transplant operation, and the consequences are often fatal. For example, up to 30% of people waiting for a heart transplant will die while waiting. But when organ transplants do take place, they are very successful. One year after an operation, the success rate for transplants is more than 80%, and most recipients are able to lead full and productive lives.

There are thousands of documented cases that prove organ transplants save lives. In some cases, one donor can change the lives of up to 11 people by giving them a heart, a liver or eyes so they can see again. A person of any age can be a potential organ donor. In one case, a 10-year-old boy received a liver from a 70-year-old donor. In another case, the corneas from a 90-year-old donor were used to give sight to another person.

I urge the government to introduce incentives into our health care system to ensure that physicians are able to perform transplant operations when organs become available. I also urge all members of the public to sign the organ donor

section of their driver's licence. That simple act may just save someone's life.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): In the throne speech we heard how ministers are working closely with sectors to change the way Ontario provides services. We also heard how plans are being developed in my riding to rebuild St Joseph's as a long-term care hospital and to develop Guelph General Hospital.

Guelph hospital redevelopment has been a contentious issue for 30 years in my riding. It has divided Guelph municipal politicians, doctors, nurses, unions and business people into political, religious and hospital loyalty camps. Under previous governments there were cries from the Guelph community of political interference, favouritism and window dressing.

The honourable Minister of Health met with hospital and district health council officials in Guelph on February 14 and spoke in favour of the report of the Guelph Hospitals Redevelopment Committee. This community-based committee based its report on an objective look at the health care needs of Guelph residents, the available dollars and the expertise of the hospitals.

This example from my riding clearly illustrates our government's determination to preserve public services in tough times. It illustrates our promise to be an open government that listens to people. It also illustrates our commitment to break away from the old style of politics and to do things with a different style. My constituents are saying it's about time.

MINISTERIAL COURTESY

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I would like to thank the parsimonious Treasurer and the Minister of Health for providing some $14.3 million for Peel Memorial Hospital. The hospital has served the needs of Brampton since it was a very small town, now a community of 190,000 people reaching 320,000.

I must say, however, that I am dismayed -- in fact I am angered -- by the fact that this announcement was made through a press release. There was not the courtesy to inform the members of what was going on.

This has been a long-standing issue that I have fought since 1985. My colleague the member for Brampton North, in whose riding it is now being carried out, or would have been carried out, has asked questions in the House, has questioned the minister, has sent letters and had no replies.

This was a cutting-edge proposal which was just about in the ground, Minister. It came that close. You didn't listen to the people of the riding of Brampton South or Brampton North. You simply went ahead and allocated the moneys where you thought you could get the most political mileage out of it. That's not satisfactory, Minister, and I suggest you revisit the issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Callahan: If you can keep those people back there from yelling and shouting like a bunch of loonies, to begin with, this thing was looked at by the district health council. Many, many hours and many, many days were put in by the people of my community to determine that this was the facility. The community itself was wise enough to allocate and buy 46 acres of land on which that facility could be built. Minister, you didn't pay any attention whatsoever to the members representing that area, nor did you listen to the people of Brampton-Bramalea.

COMMUNITY SERVICES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): The Meaford tank range in my riding has just received an influx of money which will create hundreds of jobs for the people of Grey. Aside from construction work, when completed, facilities will provide work for 80 civilians and 140 full-time army staff. It will also attract several hundred visitors each weekend, which is great news for tourism in the area. Because of the local economy, this initiative is one that was badly needed. But now we need something else as well.

The Meaford General Hospital's expansion was approved for funding in 1986, and while the board is pleased that progress is being made, it hopes the minister remembers that it is still waiting for permission to go to working drawings and to tender. They would very much like to have the project started by the end of the year.

The minister will surely understand that partly because of the new industry and population growth created by the expansion of the tank range, the community will be even more anxious to have the promised new day care, ambulatory and outpatient services. The people of Meaford have worked hard to see their dreams take shape. I'm sure the minister won't let them down.

VIOLENCE IN SPORTS

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Another hockey season is coming to a close. Regrettably, the Toronto Maple Leafs, in spite of a good season, did not make the playoffs. Let us hope they have better luck next year.

I was appalled recently when during a hockey game a fan found himself on the ice, and in front of the thousands in the arena and millions of television viewers across the continent, the fan was held against the boards in front of the players' bench by three players while a fourth player, otherwise known as a goon, repeatedly struck the fan in the head, again and again and again. The fan continued to be hit while the referees tried to wrestle him free from the players. They brutally continued to punch him in the head.

Interjections.

Mr Perruzza: This type of violence must be condemned wherever it happens, in a sports arena, on the streets or in homes across the country. Public displays of violence, particularly by those held in high esteem in our society, such as professional athletes, cannot be accepted or protected by our institutions.

Mr Ziegler and the National Hockey League must take swift and decisive action to eradicate brutal displays of violence in the game of hockey. I have written to Mr Ziegler to ask him to act on this matter immediately, and I've also requested that the Solicitor General look into what action can be taken by our government to deal with the issue of violence in sports and to turn five-minute penalties into long-term jail sentences.

I appreciate the Conservatives; they stopped heckling when we talked about violence outside hockey. I think they take this to be a serious issue as well.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and government House leader): Mr Speaker, I'd like to seek unanimous consent that the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General make a statement on behalf of the Attorney General, who is, I believe, unable to get out of Thunder Bay to be here with us today.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous agreement?

Interjections: Agreed.

The Speaker: Agreed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COURT SYSTEM

Mr David Winninger (London South): It gives me great pleasure as the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General to announce to the Legislature today the government's plans to increase the monetary jurisdiction of Small Claims Courts in Ontario.

Starting July 1, residents outside Metropolitan Toronto will be able to bring claims of up to $3,000 to Small Claims Courts. This brings the rest of the province in line with Metropolitan Toronto, which had its jurisdiction increased to $3,000 in 1980 as part of a pilot project. The second stage will see the Small Claims Courts' jurisdiction across the province increased to $6,000 as of April 1, 1993.

The Ministry of the Attorney General will begin consultations immediately with users of the system on ways to make Small Claims Courts more responsive to the needs of the public and ensure an efficient use of court resources. With court staff, lawyers, judges and the public, we will examine ways to improve the quality of service to the public and ensure that standards and procedures are suitable to a people's court. Our goal is to make the small claims system as easy to use and as uncomplicated as possible.

In addition, we will consult on new procedures to appoint Small Claims Court judges. An employment equity strategy for the filling of new judicial positions and the hiring of court staff will be developed before the second stage of increase takes effect.

Small Claims Courts have always been considered the people's courts. Because it is designed so that clients can bring their claims to court without the assistance of a lawyer, Small Claims Court costs are dramatically lower than costs associated with pursuing claims in the General Division.

Today's announcement is particularly important given the current economic climate. During periods of recession, demand for Small Claims Courts services increase.

The current jurisdictional limit has failed to keep pace with the rate of inflation. Outside Metropolitan Toronto amounts have not been increased since 1977. The increases announced today will assist small businesses and individual consumers in gaining access to the court system. We anticipate a 25% increase in small claims cases with the first jurisdictional increase and an additional 15% following the second increase.

As part of our efforts to establish a more uniform system and improve service across the province, we are working closely with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union to plan for the conversion of fee-for-service staff to full- and part-time employees.

The cost of these changes will be met by increasing General Division fees, and to a lesser extent, Small Claims Court fees. While fee increases will recognize the importance of maintaining access to the court system, it is important to appreciate that fees have not kept pace with the cost of maintaining the administration of justice.

To conclude, these changes to Ontario's Small Claims Courts reflect the needs of a broad range of people who need access to this low-cost people's court.

The increased jurisdiction for these courts provides equity and access across the province and presents people with a greater opportunity to rely on the justice system to resolve a number of their disputes.

RESPONSES

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Mr Speaker, as you know, the tradition of this House is to make announcements of this type first in the House. This issue has been brought up on a number of occasions. We have a headline from today's Toronto Star indicating "Cash Limit For Small Claims Up To $3,000," an

article by Paula Todd. Once again the Toronto Star has scooped the Legislature. I am just commenting, as a preliminary, that this type of thing has to stop. It indicates that there is little respect for this Legislature by the government.

This announcement has been long overdue and is welcomed as far as it goes. We know that the NDP has long advocated an increase in the limit for Small Claims Court actions. The $3,000 limit, however, is being expanded today for those areas outside Metropolitan Toronto. The significance of the announcement is that between now and next January those people outside Metropolitan Toronto will be able to sue at the $3,000 limit for the first time. The announcement goes on further, to indicate that next year the limit will be increased to $6,000.

I'd like to suggest to the government that it reconsider that particular limit. A number of experienced litigators in the province have suggested that the limit in Small Claims Court perhaps should go as high as $10,000. For example, next January, if there were to be a $7,000 claim that a citizen had against another citizen, that would have to be brought in the higher court. In point of fact, any experienced litigator will tell you that the court costs and legal fees would probably exceed $10,000 or $12,000 in the higher court for that $7,000 claim.

That brings the administration of justice into disrepute, when in fact the legal costs and the legal fees will very significantly exceed the amount of the claim.

I believe the court system can be structured. There could be a cost system structure that will enable all these smaller types of claims, $10,000 and below, to go into the Small Claims Court.

I do want to comment on one other sentence in the announcement and I quote from it:

"The Ministry of the Attorney General will begin consultations immediately with users of the system on ways to make Small Claims Courts more responsive to the needs of the public and ensure an efficient use of court resources."

The Attorney General has been telling us for 18 months that the reason this is being delayed is because there has been ongoing consultation, and yet the statement today says that consultation will begin immediately. This is the type of thinking and the type of action, particularly in the Ministry of the Attorney General, where this government is closing the barn door after the horse is out, on a whole host of issues.

This issue of the Small Claims Court should be put in the context of access of the public to our court system in Ontario. We don't know where this government is on access issues. We have a little piece of news here and a little piece of news there, and there's no comprehensive strategy whatsoever coming from this minister, from this Attorney General or from the government.

They stole a bill on class actions from the then Attorney General, the member for St George-St David. On the question of contingency fees, legal aid access issues, the law of standing, the environmental bill of rights and the expansion of intervenor funding we have no idea where this government is going. They have no game plan for the administration of justice across the board.

I will say that in the absence of the Premier I would like the Treasurer to speak to his Attorney General and tell him to get up to speed because, as I said the other day -- I see the Treasurer is taking out his note pad and I appreciate that -- the legal issues facing Ontario's society are developing in a geometric progression and this minister and ministry are moving in an arithmetic progression. They are simply not up to speed.

I would urge the Premier and the Deputy Premier to really get on the back of the Attorney General, because there are a lot of people out there who are looking for access to the courts. There are a lot of people in the legal profession who are wondering what this government is all about and what this ministry is all about.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I would like to fill in the last little bit of time by saying that we were a little concerned that only the Minister of the Environment was able to go out and help with food banks, and not the Attorney General. We understand he may have been putting together this statement for the House today, but the speech made by the honourable Minister of the Environment was not very helpful yesterday.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): This announcement was a long time in coming. It was a very simple thing to raise the limit from $1,000 to $3,000, and it should have been done a year and a half ago. Nevertheless it finally has been done.

But there are a couple of items in this statement that disturb me. One of them is that there hasn't been anything definitive in this announcement about the judges who are going to man this court. I know the existing Small Claims Court judges are concerned because they are now working without judicial immunity. What is going to happen to those existing judges? Are they going to become permanent judges of the Small Claims Court or are they going to continue to be part of a bench that really no longer exists? The announcement is silent on that.

I am a little bit concerned about the idea that the Ontario Public Service Employees Union take such a large

part in the running of our Small Claims Courts. It is interesting that at the present time, in the town of Fergus in the county of Wellington there are people who run offices and take fees for service as an accommodation to people so they don't have to travel to the county seat to issue a claim. Those people are now going to be out of a job, it appears. It's more important that the union run fancy bureaucratic court offices than for people in the counties of this province to have easy access to issue or defend a claim. This is the important thing that really underlies this whole announcement, and I am concerned about it.

As well, I am concerned that this is the government's whole answer to the problem of backlogs that presently exist in the civil courts. I hope this is not the end of it. I hope that they're going to start to look at the Ontario Court (General Division) and some of the backlogs and difficulties that exist there and that this isn't the end of their access to justice, because problems exist in the other levels of courts as well.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I think it's long overdue that this step was taken in this Legislature. The original expansion of the Small Claims Court jurisdiction from $1,000 to $3,000 came, I think, in 1981, as the parliamentary assistant indicated. I find it rather ironic that now the official opposition, the Liberal Party, stands up and says it should be $10,000 when it had five or six years to do something. They were asked by the chambers of commerce, they were asked by everybody in the province to raise the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court and they sat there and did nothing.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of the Premier, I will direct my first question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Last spring, in announcing the one-year, $50-million credit assistance program, the government talked about its commitment to developing long-range assistance programs which farmers could actually depend on in planning their financial survival. So far this year the government has introduced a minor $1-million commodity loans program, leaving farmers to wonder whether the $50-million base in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's budget that has traditionally gone to credit assistance is being cut this year.

I ask the minister to assure the farmers of this province that the full $50-million budget allocated in past years to credit assistance will be converted into the new long-term financial assistance program he has been promising to farmers over this past year.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I would rather not talk in specific dollar terms at this point in time. The budget will be brought forward by the Treasurer later this month.

What we have endeavoured to do, though, is bring in long-term programs that will benefit farmers. I have addressed this House before in response to questions which talked about spending our money more wisely, smarter spending to make sure the money invested by the taxpayers of Ontario in agriculture is for the benefit of farmers and not simply transfers farmers ultimately have to turn over to lending institutions to cover the cost of high interest rates.

We are looking at ways of developing programs. We have several programs under way that are currently being developed. We've announced one program already and we hope to be able to announce, in the near future, further programs that will address the needs of farmers.

Mrs McLeod: I was not asking the minister to reveal any confidential information about the forthcoming budget in terms of any new funds or programs; I was simply asking him to confirm the commitment to past funds.

For the past year this minister has been talking about the importance of the gross revenue insurance plan and the net income stabilization account and his own commitment to channelling past price stabilization program dollars into these new long-term support programs that will allow farmers to plan for the future.

Farmers are now raising their concerns that the government may be moving to change the existing GRIP and NISA formulas because of the government's overall financial crisis and will be looking at capping or limiting the funding and benefits under these two programs. I ask the minister whether the government is indeed considering this kind of cap, and if so, how can farmers possibly plan for their long-term survival if the government is threatening to change the GRIP and NISA programs in midstream?

Hon Mr Buchanan: We have discussed caps in the past as a way of dealing with the limited amount of funds available for agriculture and trying to make sure the funds the government was handing out to farmers in fact were supporting the family farm, the average-sized farm, and would not get out of control in terms of very large units of production.

I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that we are not in the process right now of considering those caps. What in fact we are considering at this point in time is a way of increasing the support price which would be paid out for this year's crop. Farmers in other provinces have endorsed the concept of maintaining the support price that was in place last year, which will cost Ontario several extra million dollars to do, and we are giving that some consideration.

Mrs McLeod: I would urge the minister to recognize that what farmers need is a commitment to the long-term programs that will make planning possible. It seems to us that this government has still failed to recognize the very serious financial situation the farmers in this province are facing right now. It's a situation so serious that we're faced with a seemingly incredible irony of the recent news reports that our farmers are having to use food banks to survive.

By the time the government announces its budget and any new agricultural programs, it may well be too late for many farmers to arrange the financing that's necessary for this year's crops. I would simply ask the minister why his government continues to put farmers at the very bottom of its priority list instead of announcing the details of those needed assistance programs now, when farmers are being forced to make decisions literally about their survival.

Hon Mr Buchanan: The record of this government is very clear. A year ago we got permission to announce our interest assistance program prior to the budget. We did commit $50 million at that time. During the course of the year we announced an extra $35.5 million, of which $11 million went into the interest assistance program. I would say that very seldom have governments added money to programs in order that everyone who qualified would get his or her money. In the past what happened is that programs were announced with limits, and when the limits were reached that was the end of the money. That was not the case last year, so we do have and have demonstrated a commitment to agriculture.

We are committed to long-term programs. I think the GRIP and the NISA, which are federal-provincial programs, are good programs and we continue to be supportive of those. We are now in the process of developing interest assistance programs that are long-term in nature and we will bring those on stream in due time.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of both the Premier and the Minister of Community and Social Services, I would direct my second question to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer. Our House leader has noted a little bit earlier today the fact that at a throne speech by the poor sponsored by the Daily Bread Food Bank, the representative of the provincial government blamed the federal government for increased use of food banks rather than acknowledging what the province could do. We on this side of the House continue to be concerned that the provincial government actually fails to take the action it says it intends to take.

It was on November 29, 1990, that the government announced, or reannounced perhaps, a $54-million fund that would, in partnership with municipalities, provide training and support to people receiving social assistance to get them back to work. I would ask the Treasurer if he will tell us whether or not the $54-million fund is still available for municipal employment programs, or is this a program that has effectively been cut?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Perhaps I could respond in a rather general way, rather than falling into a trap set by the Leader of the Opposition that would imply we've cut this kind of program. I would remind the leader of the official opposition, when she asks us a question on a very serious matter, that a year or so ago, a little over a year ago, this government announced a 7% increase in social assistance benefits and a 10% increase in accommodation or residency assistance. This year we announced a 2% increase in benefits and a 3% increase in residential shelter costs, and another 3% on July 1.

I think that, to be fair, the leader of the official opposition should acknowledge the fact that we have done a great deal, given the very restrictive circumstances in which we find ourselves, and I think the leader of the official opposition would also admit that we do have the highest social assistance rates in North America.

Mrs McLeod: There was no trap in that question. I continue to simply be wanting to take back to the government the words, its stated commitments in the throne speech, and relate them to the reality of what's happening out there.

The Treasurer will be well aware, as he prepares for his next budget, that the need for training, and particularly training for social assistance recipients to help them get back to work, was one of the main themes, one of the main commitments, of that throne speech. We already have raised an example of one of those exact kinds of training programs which the government has cut.

Let me share with the Treasurer, so he won't feel I'm trying to trap him, the details of this particular program. The facts are that in 1988, under a previous government, $54 million was set aside for these specific training programs for social assistance recipients. In December 1990, instead of allocating these funds to municipalities across the province, the Minister of Community and Social Services reannounced the same funding.

In May 1991, while speaking at an Ontario Municipal Social Services Association annual convention, the minister reportedly said -- this is a quotation -- "Even as I speak, these funds are on their way to the municipalities." Incidentally, she followed by stating that if the funds didn't arrive she would ensure that heads would roll.

My question to the Treasurer is, why was this money not spent? Why was the money that she said was flowing to the municipalities never received and why is his government forcing these same social assistance recipients to stay on social assistance when they would rather have the training opportunities and get back to work?

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the official opposition is being unfair in her categorization of these programs. Having said that, I would agree with the leader of the official opposition about the need for training of people in social assistance, because we believe very strongly that the day is gone when governments should simply implement make-work projects in which people qualify for unemployment insurance. When the unemployment insurance runs out, they then apply for social assistance again, and there's never any real attachment to the workforce developed. That is the kind of thing we want to avoid.

We're working very hard to come up with a program that will meet those criteria. All I can assure the member opposite is that when it comes to the budget there will be more information forthcoming.

Mrs McLeod: The Treasurer doesn't have to work hard to implement this particular program. The work's been done. The programs were there. We've given you now two examples of exactly the kind of programs you say you want to implement. All you have to do is implement them.

The concerns I raise in raising this particular issue today are not ours alone. Recently there was a letter sent to the Minister of Community and Social Services, or rather to the ministry, from the commissioner of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

In that letter, the commissioner said that despite the municipality's continued efforts to access that funding and in fact to set aside moneys from its own budget as its share of the program money, "We get nothing but excuses, vague promises and broken commitments from your ministry." Municipalities are going to play a vital role to any changes in social assistance, yet they're finding that the promises made by the government are not fulfilled and this $54-million broken promise is just one example of that.

Let me ask the Treasurer very directly, very frankly, is the province's financial situation so grim that you're holding back this particular funding and this particular program that was first announced in 1989 so that your budget next week can seem to offer at least something to the unemployed people of this province?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Smoke and mirrors.

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't want to be provocative, but this government needs no lectures on smoke and mirrors from that party opposite, none whatsoever.

It seems to me that one of the basic differences between the position of this government and the position of the leader of the official opposition is that she seems to be satisfied with the status quo. We're not. We want to do even better than we've done in the past.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Last week my leader met with the president of Local 75 of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. I was shocked to learn that there would be no new major conventions in Toronto until 1995. In fact, many Canadian organizations are looking to American cities because the average cost of holding a convention in this city is 40% higher than in the US. Would the minister tell us what specific initiatives he is taking to stop this tide of cross-border convention shopping?

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): We've had a number of opportunities to speak to some people about the problems with conventions and trade shows in Ontario. We've been working very hard to induce people to come to Ontario, to have their conventions here. We've put some dollars into London, Ontario, in the investment of a convention centre, which I am sure is going to be a real asset to the people of London. We continue to look for opportunities to bring conventions here to Toronto and to other parts of the province.

We've invested in different convention centres in other parts of the province as well, and we invest in marketing programs that we hope will induce people to come to the province and have their conventions here.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I haven't heard a response to the question as to the action plan, but I'd like to tell the minister that the restaurant industry in Ontario has lost 50,000 jobs since your government took over, and now this government, in its insatiable hunger for more tax revenue, is reportedly looking at removing the sales tax exemption on meals costing less than $4. This could cost up to 12,000 more jobs in this province and it's going to further decimate the tourist industry.

Mr Minister, will you give your personal assurance that these jobs will not be lost and that this exemption will not be removed in the Treasurer's next budget?

Hon Mr North: Maybe I could address a couple of the different questions you asked. First of all, on the question of 50,000 jobs lost, I've spoken directly to the industry concerning these problems. The industry has also had an opportunity to speak directly to the Treasurer, I might add, on these basic concerns.

We've had a tremendous opportunity to work with the tourism industry since I've been the minister, and I've found that they're easy to work with. They want to look at partnerships between business, labour, the government and the community. We've tried to do those types of things. The central reservation information system is one of those opportunities. We've tried a marketing plan that involves all aspects of the private sector and the public sector working together. We've made that commitment; the industry has made that commitment. I understand that there have been jobs lost. There have been jobs lost in a number of other industries as well.

One of the questions you might want to take back to your colleagues and want to take a little further down the road is the question of the GST. I don't want to blame anybody for anything, but I'm telling you what they're telling me, and a big problem in the tourism industry in this province as well as other provinces is the question of the GST. If we can solve that problem, we can solve problems we have with our own tax. We've had an opportunity to speak to the Treasurer. The Treasurer makes decisions on taxes. We try to bring those issues forward. That's all we can do.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The Minister of Tourism and Recreation is telling us he's investing in new convention halls. The problem, Mr Minister, is that we're not filling the ones we have right now. Second, he's suggesting he's meeting with business for partnership. The people I meet with in the tourism and restaurant trade aren't asking for partnership; they're asking for a tax break.

The bottom line in his response is that he blames the federal government for the GST. Your party sat on this side of the House some two years ago and condemned the Liberal government for the commercial concentration tax. It's killing the restaurant business. It's killing the tourism business in Metropolitan Toronto. Your party promised to withdraw it. For a matter of a year and a half you've collected $110 million in revenue. Have you forgotten your promise? When do you plan on going to the cabinet table, fulfilling that promise and giving this industry that is decimated by this recession an opportunity to fight back?

Hon Mr North: That's a very good question, and I appreciate that question. I've had lots of opportunity to come to the cabinet table and have all kinds of discussions about tourism in this province, and we've had the opportunity to speak to the Treasurer about a number of different tax issues. As a matter of fact, the industry itself has come forward with a paper on taxes saying where it would like to change some taxes, where it would like taxes to be removed and where it would give us a very balanced approach to taxes in general in this province. We've had those opportunities and we've had those discussions. Those discussions have come to the Treasurer --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr North: I'm sorry you can't hear me; I apologize for that. I'm telling you that we're trying to do what we can. This is not the easiest thing in the world to do -- anyone can tell you that. We've talked about the commercial concentration tax; you've talked about the commercial concentration tax. They've talked about infrastructure; they want infrastructure built in this province. Sometimes when you want to build something, when you want things, you have to pay for them, and there has to be some way to pay for them. We'll have those discussions with the Treasurer, and that's the way it is.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Mr Minister, 12,000 high school students in the Ottawa Board of Education have been out for 28 days now. In the Carleton Board of Education they've been out for 19 days. When are you going to show some leadership?

Hon Tony Silipo (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and Minister of Education): I have been following the events very closely and have been having a number of discussions with the Education Relations Commission. It may be useful to read to the House a brief press release which was just put out by the Education Relations Commission, which met this morning to deal with this matter.

The release indicates: "The Education Relations Commission met today and seriously considered the question of whether an advisement of jeopardy should be made to the minister with regard to the dispute between the Ottawa Board of Education and its secondary school teachers. The commission has deferred the decision on jeopardy pending the results of meetings scheduled between the parties and the mediator to commence in Toronto at 9 am on Wednesday, April 22, 1992." That's tomorrow morning. "The commission will remain in constant contact with the mediator.

"Failing resolution, the commission will be reconvening for further consideration of the question on Thursday, April 23, at 11 am." That's this Thursday.

I think the sense is quite clear: As a result of this release, the actions the commission has taken and discussions I've had with them, there is a sense that there's a real possibility of the dispute being resolved between the parties. I think as long as that possibility is there, we need to be doing everything possible in that vein. But quite frankly, we're prepared to take our responsibilities very seriously if the dispute isn't resolved.

Mr Sterling: We've had 28 days of this bafflegab by the minister. Mr Minister, in spite of your threat late last week to the Ottawa press that you were going to legislate the teachers back to work, the teachers and the boards are not talking as of noon today. When are you going to take some real action?

Hon Mr Silipo: Either I wasn't reading very clearly or the member wasn't listening. The parties are meeting tomorrow morning with a mediator who is going to be in constant contact with the ERC. I think the member understands enough about the process to know that if that is happening, that is the appropriate way in which this dispute should be allowed to be resolved.

Mr Sterling: The appropriate way to take action is what I introduced two weeks ago, and that is to legislate the teachers back to work. Last week, Mr Minister, you said you would ensure that the school year for the students would not be jeopardized. How are you going to ensure that?

Hon Mr Silipo: By not being hesitant to take whatever action will be necessary when this dispute is resolved to ensure that the time that's been lost is appropriately made up. That's something I've indicated very clearly to the commission, that's something I know it will be looking at in terms of how this dispute is brought to a conclusion and that's something, quite frankly, which I intend to deliver on.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is also to the Minister of Education and it also concerns the two strikes in the Ottawa-Carleton area. First of all, we have to make very clear that it is the minister who has twice, over the course of the last number of weeks, intervened in this dispute, first by saying he felt that the school board in Ottawa could bargain in a more creative fashion. He then last week, four or five days ago, said, "We now begin to measure everything by days."

If you look at the comments that were in the press, on TV and on the radio over the weekend, there was a clear sense that if the parties had not resolved this issue by this morning the minister was going to move. What is worse is that by now trying to distance himself again and saying it's up to the Education Relations Commission, in effect both parties can say, "We don't really need to do much because the minister has indicated that he's going to step in and resolve this."

Minister, what faith do we have that this is going to be resolved and what are you directly and personally prepared to do if those discussions fail?

Hon Mr Silipo: If the member had taken all the comments I made when I indicated what he quoted to me and to the House, I think he would know that I continued to reiterate within my response then, as I do now, the role that the Education Relations Commission has to play in this process and that in fact it's not appropriate for me as minister or for the cabinet to act without that advice coming from the commission. That's a law that was in place long before we came to exist and even before the previous government existed. So that is there and it's the process we need to follow. Whether we like it or not, that's the process we have in place now.

Again, what I can say to the member is that I'm satisfied, as a result of the actions that are happening now, that there is a possibility that the dispute can be resolved and resolved quickly this week. Clearly, if that doesn't happen then there is a responsibility on the commission, on me as minister and on the government to take other appropriate actions.

Mr Beer: I think everyone in this House, and certainly all the parents and students in the Ottawa-Carleton area, hope fervently that that in fact will happen, but I think we have another question to ask: What have we, and more specifically what have you, learned from this particular strike? We know there are others on the horizon. It goes right back to the management of the education system by you and your government, it goes right back to the 1% in transfer payments, and it goes right back to the kind of direction you are giving to school boards and to the secondary school federation and other teachers' federations.

The question is this, Minister: Are you prepared to come back into the House at the end of this week -- when this has been successfully resolved, we hope -- and indicate clearly to all school boards, to all the teachers' federations, just what the government is prepared to accept in terms of wage and benefit settlements for the rest of this year?

Hon Mr Silipo: I think I have indicated on more than one occasion that I don't believe it's appropriate or necessary for us to bring in wage controls, if that's what the member is asking for.

Having said that, I think I and other ministers have indicated clearly that we're in a time when in fact there have to be more realistic expectations on the part of teacher and other employee groups in terms of wage expectations. I think the indications we've seen in some jurisdictions and the indications we've seen in our own negotiations with the provincial school teachers are an example of that kind of approach, coupled with, I might add, an approach by the employer, the school boards, in the provincial schools and us, the ministry, in terms of addressing some other issues that were important to the employee groups.

I think that's the approach that needs to be taken. As I indicated earlier in the House, over the next couple of days we will also be indicating further ways in which, through the transition funds that we have yet to allocate with respect to education, we can be of a little help in that respect.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, you and all the members of your government should be aware that April is Parkinson's Disease Awareness Month across Canada. The minister will also be aware that people with Parkinson's disease are forced to pay an outrageous $2.31 for a six-cent pill which is sold in Canada under the name of Eldepryl by the company Deprenyl Research Ltd.

Since 1990, the Ontario government has funnelled $5.2 million of taxpayers' money towards the purchase of Eldepryl for patients under the Ontario drug benefit plan. Could the minister tell this House what steps she has taken to ensure that Ontario taxpayers and people with Parkinson's disease are not being gouged by an unscrupulous private company?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I think that question is more appropriately addressed to my colleague the Minister of Health.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health and minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy): There was an

article in the newspaper over the weekend which brought to light some of the statistics the member opposite used in his question. In fact, in today's paper there is some rebuttal of those numbers from the company, quoting the executive vice-president, Dr Martin Barkin. There are some other numbers that come to light, and as I understand it, the company will be holding a press conference today. If I look at what was in the paper today, they talk about the costs actually being $1.51, not 6 cents.

But let me step back from that for a moment, because I think the member raises a very important issue around the cost of drugs. He will know that one of the things we have been facing with the increased cost of the Ontario drug benefit plan is the increased cost of drugs themselves, and most particularly new drugs coming on to the market.

We do have an ongoing issue with respect to all of the provinces and the federal government around this issue, particularly in light of recent suggestions that there may be a move to extend patent protection and do away with compulsory licensing, which I know the member will know about. We will probably face even more serious concerns in this area, and there is a need for a comprehensive national pricing policy --

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

Hon Ms Lankin: At this time I can tell you that with the drug reform secretariat that has been set up and some of the policies we are developing, we are attempting to deal with this kind of issue both with respect to manufacturers and with respect to distributors such as the company in question.

Mr Jim Wilson: Thank you for your statement. It is interesting that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations won't comment on an unscrupulous business practice. The minister is aware that the company that distributes Eldepryl is owned by a former NDP member of this Legislature, Dr Morton Shulman. Dr Shulman's company has reportedly made a profit of $10 million on the backs of people suffering from Parkinson's disease. Minister, you and your government came to office wrapped in the flag of social justice. Eldepryl is being sold at an incredible 3,750% markup. Is this the NDP's idea of social justice?

Hon Ms Lankin: Again I would suggest to the member that at this point in time I am not sure he has his numbers right. I would like some further clarification, as I understand will be in the press conference that is taking place today.

I think I have been very clear around the issue of the problem of drug costs and the increase in drug costs that we have been experiencing in this province and in this country. I don't support profits that can't be explained as a result of the cost of research and development, with respect to what a fair profit is.

When the drug plan, the Ontario taxpayers and individual consumers are facing that, with what is essentially a very important, lifesaving product with respect to medications, it is a serious problem for all of us. I think he would agree, and with his past experience with respect to the federal government he would know the problems we face with this on a national level.

Let me simply say that I continue to be concerned and I appreciate the concerns he has raised. We will attempt, in the actions we are taking, to follow up on them.

GAME AND FISH BILL

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Late last year, Mr Minister, I recall that you introduced amendments to the Game and Fish Act. Since that time, I have received a lot of correspondence on several particular sections of the act. Today I would like to ask a question on one.

Perhaps most notably, there has been a concern raised with regard to the changes around hunting and sporting dogs. I am concerned that the change will allow conservation officers the authority, with no liability, to shoot hunting dogs that are trespassing or running at large. Can the minister clarify for me whether this is the case, and if it is, why?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and minister responsible for native affairs): I appreciate the question. This has been the subject of a great deal of concern expressed particularly in rural Ontario.

As the member would know, these amendments to the Game and Fish Act have been introduced by three successive governments, and hopefully they will be passed. There are two matters here, though: dogs running at large and the question of trespass. There are two separate issues and two separate sections of the bill.

In the bill, the matter of trespass does not allow for a conservation officer to shoot dogs. However, there is a separate

section of the bill that does deal with dogs running at large and running deer. If the conservation officer is satisfied that there are dogs running deer and that are harmful to those deer, then he can shoot. In the current bill, the legislation now in effect, conservation officers are able to do this during the hunting season. The change in this bill would allow conservation officers the same right and responsibility in closed seasons as well.

Mr Waters: While this clarifies your intention somewhat, I still feel there's an awful lot of confusion, even after understanding that different sections of the act are separate. Is the minister willing to make an effort to improve the knowledge of the act and what the amendments mean?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Oh boy, an advertising campaign.

Hon Mr Wildman: While not exactly an advertising campaign, as suggested by the member opposite, we are preparing a fact sheet for all interested parties. It will be distributed to all members of the Legislature as well, which will make it possible for members and their constituency assistants to explain the different sections of the act.

Also, we are prepared to look at changes to the

section dealing with trespass to ensure that the intent of the clause is actually put in place. On

section 80, we're prepared also to look at clarification of the term "running at large," which can be dealt with through the regulations.

These are important matters. I agree with the member that all members of the House and members of the public should be aware of the issues. That's why we're preparing the fact sheet.

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Attorney General, concerning how he continues to fall far short of the standards expected of his office. In addition to the embarrassing Mary Hogan affair, we now have the embarrassing Emily Carasco affair.

The minister knows that in 1988 the former government, under then Attorney General Ian Scott, established the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Judicial Appointments. One of the expressly stated goals of this committee was to remove any unwarranted criticism of political bias or patronage in appointments to the judiciary. Legal observers were therefore astonished last week to find that committee member Emily Carasco, now a federal NDP candidate and an NDP appointee to the committee since 1990, had been promoted by the Attorney General to chair of the committee in the midst of a Windsor-area NDP nomination convention.

This appointment was announced only four days before the NDP nomination. The evidence also suggests this appointment was used for partisan purposes at the nomination meeting itself to better Ms Carasco's chances of winning.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a question?

Mr Chiarelli: My question is this: It is obvious that the Attorney General, or Ms Carasco, used the sensitive and non-partisan chair of the advisory committee on judicial appointments for crass partisan purposes. Will the Attorney General immediately ask for her resignation in view of the obvious political tainting of the judicial appointments process in Ontario?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): It's unfortunate the member opposite didn't put all the facts before the House. First of all, the committee itself selects its chair. I did not select the chair of the committee. The committee, the majority of whom are still members who were appointed by the former government of Ontario, selected Ms Carasco as the chair of the committee.

The member does not do the committee justice. The committee is an advisory committee, as I said. The majority of the members on the committee are still members appointed by the former government. The role of that committee is to advertise openings on the provincial bench. It is to solicit applications and conduct interviews. The committee decides by majority vote and, I might say, in almost all cases decides on the basis of consensus who will be recommended to be appointed as a judge.

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

Hon Mr Hampton: The fact that many of the members on the committee were appointed by the former Liberal government of Ontario and that they decided that Ms Carasco should be the chair, to me says that this has nothing to do with politics except in the mind of the member opposite.

Mr Chiarelli: None of the appointees by the Liberals were appointed four days before a very high-profile nominating convention. The minister told last Thursday's Windsor Star, "I want to look at it to see if there's an issue here," adding that he would make a decision in about two weeks. He obviously has made his decision. In the same article, Ms Carasco said, "Surely there are more important things in the justice system for a justice critic to be looking at."

When the Attorney General and the new chair of the judicial appointments advisory committee cannot see the significance of how their conduct will increase public cynicism in the administration of justice and in government generally, then maybe it's time they both resigned. Will the Attorney General agree that the circumstances around the appointment of a high-profile active NDP candidate as chair of this committee creates the appearance of political bias in appointments to the judiciary, and will he now ensure she is immediately removed?

Hon Mr Hampton: Again, to set the facts before the House, the fact of the matter is this: This is not a partisan activity in any way. This is a committee which receives applications and interviews candidates and then makes recommendations.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member for York Centre come to order.

Hon Mr Hampton: I'll attempt over the din on the other side to complete the answer. The committee has selected a chair of its committee. My understanding is that this process was completed some weeks ago. I merely made the announcement following the request from the committee.

There are very high-profile members of the Liberal Party on this committee. Some of the members of this committee have even given, if I might, extensive policy advice to the Liberal Party federally and provincially. It's interesting: I do not hear the member opposite calling for those resignations.

I believe the chair of the committee should have the freedom to participate in the political process. I believe the chair of the committee should have freedom of speech and freedom to express herself. In my mind, the chair of the committee has done nothing wrong.

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

Hon Mr Hampton: The chair of the committee continues to do very good work on the committee. I believe that is where the matter should rest: with the committee.

TRILLIUM BOOK AWARD

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. Madam Minister, your ministry took

part in the Trillium Book Award to Margaret Atwood just over a week ago. At that time she received a $12,000 cheque and your ministry, according to Brian Beattie, paid the $3,300 round trip business class airfare at the request of Ms Atwood.

Our concern is that while we applaud her being recognized for her literary talents, we are concerned about what alternatives your ministry considered before booking and paying for this airfare. Could you not have considered having the ceremony at some time when Ms Atwood was back in Canada or indeed in Ontario? Would you not have thought of asking her publisher, perhaps, to pay? Finally, do you agree that the taxpayers of this province should pay the airfare for a recipient of a $12,000 award?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): The Trillium Book Award is one of Canada's most prestigious literary awards, comparable to the Governor General's Award, and we are proud to showcase Ontario writing and publishing. Since the award was established in 1987 the practice has been to pay expenses for the Trillium jury, finalists and winner to attend both the news conferences to announce the short list and the reception to announce the winner. The cost of the ticket was accommodated within the Trillium award budget. The award budget was scrutinized and adjusted to compensate.

For example, for the first time there was a cash bar at the reception. We did scrutinize the budget to make those accommodations.

Mrs Marland: I am floored that this minister, who has been in this House a year and a half, had to read that answer. That is unmitigated gall, in my opinion. You should at least know what is going on in your ministry. Perhaps, Madam Minister, you can answer the next question. Perhaps you can tell us --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs Marland: This is the same ministry which is rejecting hundreds of requests for grants from small performing and visual arts groups around this province at the same time it saw fit to approve a $3,300 airfare round trip from Paris for this recipient.

I have here a copy of the Management Board guidelines for international travel and I would like the minister to tell this House under which of these guidelines the payment of that fare qualified, because according to my review, there is nothing in the Management Board guidelines that would either approve beforehand or retroactively the payment of that fare for Ms Atwood. In fact, the guidelines actually specify that approval cannot be given retroactively, which in our understanding is what had actually happened in her ministry without her knowing anything about it.

Hon Mrs Haslam: I can only reiterate how important Margaret Atwood is to the writers of this community. The Trillium Book Award is a major award. We are very pleased we were able to offer this so that Ms Atwood could attend. I will agree that we scrutinized the budget, checked over what we could and could not do and offered a cash bar. We did not pay for any of those things in order for us to allow Ms Atwood to attend this very prestigious award.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Energy. The recession has destroyed many jobs in my riding. Because of free trade many companies have closed their Canadian subsidiary operations regardless of their profitability and efficiency; for instance, 2,300 jobs at the General Motors foundry in St Catharines.

I would like to look at Niagara Falls and tell you what is happening there. We have many major power users, large, heavy industries that have located there since the turn of the century because of cheap power from the falls. Some of these companies I have toured, such as Carborundum Pulpstones, Cyanamid, Norton Advanced Ceramics and Washington Mills. I have spoken to the business people and the union people, and they have told me of their concern about the rising power bills, which they feel may result in plant closures.

Mr Minister, what can you tell me and my constituents that will help keep the power bills down and these jobs in my riding?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions and acting Minister of Energy): The member raises an important question because the kind of companies she is referring to find themselves faced with a contradiction, a contradiction that says on the one hand -- they've been pushing this through their organizations over the last number of years -- that Ontario Hydro should be allowed to proceed to build large new supply options across the province to keep the energy supply secure in this province.

On the other hand, they are very concerned about the price increases we've seen in the last couple of years, price increases which result from that old philosophy of build everything you need and might need into the future.

The answer for the future has to be that we build a much more efficient society in this province, a society that uses energy in a much more efficient way than in the past. Hydro and the Ministry of Energy have a number of programs that are designed to help industries right across this province to use energy much more efficiently and to start the process of reducing their energy bills.

Ms Harrington: I firmly believe that in the long term we have to have stable and attractive power rates in this province. Right now I must ensure that these major power users take advantage of the efficiency programs being set up and that they know our government is here to help them. Mr Minister, how do they find out about these programs you are offering?

Hon Mr Charlton: The programs, which are offered by both Ontario Hydro and the Ministry of Energy, deal, specifically for Ontario Hydro, with electricity consumption. Ontario Hydro has a number of programs that deal with electricity consumption and the Ministry of Energy also has programs that deal with all the other energy fuels, so it would depend in part on whether they are concerned about just electricity or the overall consumption of energy in their operation. My advice would be that they contact both the Ministry of Energy and Hydro so that we can attempt to coordinate the best advice overall in terms of energy-efficient use in the particular industry in question.

RYERSON POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. We know that Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, headed by your cabinet colleague's husband, has lobbied for full university status for some time. We also now know that the Council of Ontario Universities advised you last year to conduct an external examination of Ryerson's request, including a review of the faculty's academic qualifications.

The minister will know that the doctorates of several faculty members have come under serious questioning in the last few days. Mr Minister, why did you refuse the proposal of your own advisory body and why did you reject an external review of Ryerson's academic and other credentials?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities and Minister of Skills Development): About a year ago I asked the Ontario Council on University Affairs to advise me on the advisability of exploring university status for Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, and also Nipissing University College in North Bay, and I did get advice back from it, which was of a twofold nature. The first was that the council had no particular objection to moving with regard to those initiatives, and in particular with regard to Ryerson, and that this should be a limited mandate institution at the university level devoted to applied affairs.

Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, as you know, is a long-standing institution in this province about which we know a great deal and whose reputation is well founded and for which we have a great deal of respect. It seemed to me that what was proposed by the Ontario Council on University Affairs as advice to me as minister -- and I underline, as advice -- was too far-ranging and too comprehensive with regard to an established institution in the post-secondary system.

I did not reject specific initiatives of review that might pertain to particular aspects of the institution, and indeed we have a good deal of information coming from that institution now in a preliminary examination of the acceptability of the proposal. I certainly did not reject out of hand in any respect the investigation of degrees.

Mr Daigeler: Minister, it is you who has put the Ryerson institute in a rather embarrassing situation right now. If you had accepted the recommendation of your own body last year, I'm sure the matter of the faculty qualifications would have been brought up and investigated. That's at issue here.

You did not follow through on the suggestions -- and wise suggestions, I would like to say -- of your own advisory committee, so I would like to ask again, Minister, why are you so intent on pushing through the review of the Ryerson qualification for full university status? Are there any special reasons you're hiding from us?

Hon Mr Allen: The suggestion that I am pushing through Ryerson's university status regardless of all considerations is a bunch of hogwash. It really is.

The critic may well know that what is happening across the university world, for example, in Great Britain, is that polytechnical institutes are across the board being given university status in recognition of a new status of applied studies at university levels. That's not an uncommon thing today.

I am not pushing something. Something is happening in the larger world of higher education that I am trying to accommodate in Ontario for the best benefit of those people who follow technology studies in a rigorous way in our system. That's all I'm trying to do. I'm sure it's all the member would want me to do.

GAME AND FISH BILL

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Natural Resources: Last week, Mr Minister, in reply to one of my questions, you stated that you had consulted with organizations such as the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the deer hunters and a number of other groups concerning wildlife and Bill 162. Can you explain why farm groups, and even the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and probably the minister himself, don't really agree with your claims in trying to define what a farmer is? Do you feel it's your mandate to define what a farmer is, Mr Minister of Natural Resources?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and minister responsible for native affairs): Last week I indicated that the Wildlife Working Group, in preparation of the wildlife strategy, had consulted widely and had representatives of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on it.

I'm not sure the member meant to indicate that I as minister did not agree with myself, but I would point out to the member that in the current Game and Fish Act there is a definition of "farmer." This is not something new. This is in the current act.

The proposed changes in Bill 162 are a matter of concern to farmers. I met with a group of deer farmers this morning and they explained that to me. I indicated that we would consult with the Minister of Agriculture and Food and with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on how we might rework that wording, because we don't anticipate that we should be defining "farmer" any differently than it is in the current act.

Mr Villeneuve: I really appreciate that the minister will not change the definition of "farmer." He has just said that, and I will accept that. I think the minister knows full well that the only consultations the ministry undertook were typical of this government. They were by invitation. Indeed, the federation of agriculture and the deer farmers have not had a great deal of input into Bill 162 to this point. I'm pleased to hear that the minister will indeed be consulting.

Can the minister explain why it's necessary to give his ministry power in Bill 162 to ban without appeal such animals as rabbits, goats, bison, beefalo and fish? This bill, unless it's changed, will put them under your jurisdiction. Tell me why that's happening.

Hon Mr Wildman: I think the member for the united counties is confused. First, there is nothing in the bill that bans animals. The fact is that the bill is designed to deal with wildlife and to ensure that the Ministry of Natural Resources can carry out its mandate to protect wildlife species in this province. The concerns that were raised this morning when I met with the deer farmers related to consultation. They and the member are confused in that the consultation he's referring to was on the wildlife strategy, not Bill 162.

As he knows, Bill 162 is just an update, a more modernized wording of legislation that was first prepared by his government, then subsequently by the Liberal government and now by us. This is nothing new. It's been around for five to six years.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Cooke moved that Mr Arnott exchange places with Mr Murdoch (Grey) and Mr Harris exchange places with Mr Carr and Mr Martin exchange places with Mr Wessenger in order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a couple of petitions to present today. The first one reads:

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

"Whereas the French Language Services Act, 1986, Bill 8, continues to elevate tensions and misunderstandings over language issues throughout the province, not only at the provincial but also at municipal levels; and

"Whereas the current government disputes its self-serving select committee and intends to encourage increased use of French in the courts, schools and other provincial services to ensure that the French Language Services Act is working well to the best of their concentrated efforts; and

"Whereas the spiralling costs of government to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the duplication of departments, translations etc to comply not only with the written but also with the unwritten intent of the French Language Services Act; and

"Whereas the spiralling cost of education to the taxpayers are being forced even higher due to the demands of yet another board of education -- French language school board,

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have another petition here.

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91 made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right,

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

KRISTINA D'ANDREA

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"The Minister of Health for the province of Ontario review the case of Kristina D'Andrea, a member of our faith community who suffers from mucopolysaccharide disease. We feel that the bone marrow transplant that she requires to live should be done here in Ontario rather than forcing the family to go to the United States. If this little girl is forced to go to the United States, we feel OHIP should pay for the full cost of the operation, as Toronto Sick Children's hospital said they would do the operation and then they refused.

"In justice, we feel you should do whatever you can to give this child a chance to live. We thank you for your time and cooperation."

This partial petition, because I understand there are a great many more, probably thousands more, is signed by over 600 citizens of London, Ontario. I have affixed my name to this and I'll put it to you for your consideration, Mr Speaker.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr David Winninger (London South): I'm pleased to table a petition signed by 82 concerned members of the parent-teacher association of St Francis separate school in my riding of London South. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas St Francis separate school in London has been overcrowded since it was constructed some 20 years ago; and

"Whereas we have had portables on this site for almost all of these years and these portables now are in poor condition; and

"Whereas many of our students face the prospect of spending almost all of their elementary school career in portables,

"We, the undersigned members of the parent-teacher association of St Francis school, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that the Ontario government continue to allocate funds for capital expenditures for school buildings and that the Ministry of Education allocate funds for new construction at St Francis school in the current year."

I submit this petition and I have affixed my name to the petition.

CHILD CARE SERVICES

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, request that the minister take action immediately to rectify the further salary inequity announced December 2, 1991, for early childhood educators. We believe that the principles of freedom of choice, pay equity and non-discrimination form the backbone of our democratic society. Furthermore, parents must retain the right to select the day care of their choice."

This petition is submitted by 53 parents from Burlington, residents of Halton Centre, and I've affixed my name to the petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a number of petitions signed by 64 Ontario residents representing both the management and employees of a number of Ontario companies, including Ronson Paving and Construction, Fauteux Building Supplies Ltd, M&G Steel Co, Gillanders Construction and McConnell Contractors Ltd, which read:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

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

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

I here affix my signature as well.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA GESTION DES DÉCHETS

Resuming consideration of Bill 143,

An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act / Projet de loi 143, Loi concernant la gestion des déchets dans la région du grand Toronto et modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Just to remind the House, this is the second sessional day. All amendments proposed to be moved to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the assembly by 4 o'clock on the last day, which is today. At 5:45 pm on that day, today, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House.

Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession.

I also remind the members that if you wish to divide on any question or any amendment or any section, you must have at least five members standing.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Just for clarification, I've tabled this afternoon some motions we have. It didn't do much good when we were in committee, but I've got them at the table. I have the Liberal motions here and I just want to be sure whether or not there would be any further motions coming from the government. Does the government have any amendments to bring forward today?

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): At this point in time, no, we don't. There were quite a few amendments made when we were in the committee process in clause-by-clause, and the bill as it's reprinted is the way the government is bringing it forward today. I haven't got a copy of your proposed amendments, so I suppose the table will provide them for all members.

Mr Cousens: The process is one that continues to amaze the public at large and it happens to be the way an old-fashioned Legislature works. The government, which has the greatest number of seats, will at the end of this afternoon's session pass into law Bill 143.

We have gone through weeks and weeks of hearings, and to my mind there has just been no listening from the government. I am saying this before we start the afternoon: Anything we have to say this afternoon helps clear our chest. The tragedy is that there are many people outside this House who have tried to make their views heard and understood by the government. I'd just like to remind the House today as we begin this session that there are no further amendments by the government; I would be willing to put up a wager that there isn't an amendment of any meaning that could be put forward by either ourselves or the Liberals that this government would support.

It's a tragedy. It's one of the worst things I've seen happen. Right from the very beginning this is a government that has gone and done its own thing, without consideration of either the promises it made before it won the election on September 6, 1990 --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: I'll tell you what's different about it: It's that you're so sanctimonious about it. If there's anyone who's more sanctimonious, it's the Premier, the Minister of the Environment and the New Democrats, who said they would have a full environmental assessment for Keele Valley, and you haven't done it and you won't do it. If you vote for this, you're voting for the lies that have been said before. I shouldn't say "lies." You're voting for the misinformation that you and your government came out with.

What we're into this afternoon is another bit of a sham. I will participate in it reluctantly. I wish there was more I could do than just shout, raise my voice and make points, because the fact of the matter is, once a government has won, as this one has, it seems to stop listening. They don't need to listen. They just go and do what they want.

Mr Chairman, before you begin the session, I just thought it would be worth while to make a few --

The Chair: Order. I just want to remind you that the more time you take in debating, the less time you have to debate the amendments.

Last Thursday we were debating

section 2.1, which was introduced by the member for Brampton North and then was withdrawn; he is withdrawing it today. We have

section 2.1 from the member for Markham. Would you please read your amendment.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): On a point of order, Mr Chair:

Section 2.1 was the subject of debate on Thursday last. I thought we had proceeded with that and that debate had not concluded with

section 2.1. Just by way of explanation, I had submitted a new package of amendments today with the understanding that any subsequent amendments in the package that was presented on Thursday would be withdrawn.

In short, as a result I would like to proceed with a vote or a call of the question on the amendment as introduced by myself last Thursday. So the amendment for

section 2.1 is not withdrawn; subsequent amendments are withdrawn in lieu of the amendments tabled today.

The Chair: My understanding was that you were withdrawing it today, but we'll pursue the debate. Please go on.

Mr McClelland: I have nothing further to say on

section 2.1. I'm prepared to have a vote on the amendment. It will be deferred, of course, but you may put the question now.

The Chair: Are there any other questions on the amendment introduced by the member for Brampton North? We're ready to put the question.

Mr McClelland moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"2.1(1) Within four months after the coming into force of this act, and every four months afterwards, the corporation shall prepare a written report setting out descriptions of all the sites the corporation is considering as possible sites for landfill waste disposal sites.

"

(2) The corporation shall give a copy of the report to the Minister of the Environment and shall make copies of the report available to members of the public at no charge."

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote deferred.

The Chair: Mr Cousens.

Mr Cousens: I'm not going to proceed with the amendment I have; we're so short of time. The amendment that has just been deferred is very similar in many ways, so in order to proceed expeditiously on other matters before us this afternoon, though I have an important motion the fact is that many of the elements of it have already been discussed and are inherent to the wording the member for Brampton North put forward. I will not proceed with my amendment 2.1.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments on this statement? If not, then we'll proceed to the next amendment you have, which is to subsection 13(1).

Shall sections 3 through 12 carry?

Interjections : No.

The Chair: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote deferred.

Section 13:

The Chair: Now we're dealing with subsection 13(1).

Mr Cousens moves that subsection 13(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Application

"

(1) This part applies to,

"(

a) landfill waste disposal sites located in any one or more of the regional or metropolitan municipalities described in subsection (1.1), the primary function of which is the disposal of waste generated in one or more of the regional or metropolitan municipalities described in that subsection over a period of at least twenty years; and

"(

b) environmental assessments of landfill waste disposal sites referred to in clause (a).

"Regional and metropolitan municipalities

"

(1.1) The regional and metropolitan municipalities referred to in subsection (1) are the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the regional municipality of Durham, the regional municipality of Peel and the regional municipality of York."

Are there any questions or comments?

Mr Cousens: In the document before us, which is Bill 143, the government has in its

section 13 three key decisions it would like to see done: that there be a landfill waste disposal site located in Peel, one in Durham and one in the region of York.

This logic that the honourable minister has brought forward is flawed in so very many ways. I know my colleague the member for Mississauga South will comment on this as it relates to Peel. I can certainly relate as it affects York region, and you would expect the member for Durham West to deal with it as it affects his riding in Durham, but the fact is that the member for Durham West is keen to see something that I think his own constituents would have alarm over.

Why, in the first place, would the government want to have the most expensive land in Canada allocated for use as a landfill site? Why would we do that when there are opportunities for landfill sites outside of the greater Toronto area? Why would you choose the greater Toronto area when there is a site near Kirkland Lake where there is at least some possibility of interest in that site? Why do we have a wall around the greater Toronto area in dealing with our garbage and say we will solve all our garbage problems within the GTA?

We start from the wrong premise. First of all, let's begin to be very creative in dealing with the 3Rs. Let's all of us make a conscientious effort to make sure we are doing everything possible to reduce, reuse, recycle -- everything possible. Let us also have minds that are open to possibilities that can solve the long-term problems for the greater Toronto area.

I am dumfounded that just over a year ago, the Minister of the Environment sent a letter to the then Metropolitan Toronto committee that was looking at it, giving it encouragement to try to find a site outside of Metro Toronto. The Minister of the Environment said, "You're on the right direction; see if you can find another site," so they did. They went to task, spent millions of dollars -- close to $10 million, I think; it might be more -- and identified a possible site.

There hasn't been anyone on this side of the House -- unless the Liberals have; you never know what they're going to do. We certainly would not want to force any community to be an unwilling host for someone else's garbage, but Kirkland Lake, at the Adams mine site, had a feeling that there was a possibility of considering that. There was a referendum on the November election of 1991 giving the people a chance to express their feelings about it, and 69% of the people in that community said, "Let's at least look at it."

It would mean there would be jobs created in Kirkland Lake. It would mean that the rail line going from Metro Toronto, somewhere in the MacMillan yard in Vaughan, could be used as a depot, and that the garbage would then be shipped up via rail to the north country. It would mean that the rail lines would have increased viability in a depressed market. The railroads were very, very busy years ago, bringing the ore from the north; now, with the mines closing down as much as they are and the economy as depressed as it is, the railroad would have an extra reason for its existence.

So there would be jobs made available to those people in Ontario Northland and in the other rail networks involved in shipping the waste through to the Adams mine site.

The Adams mine site, when you look at it, is an impressive site.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): For a hole in the ground.

Mr Cousens: For a hole in the ground. Anyway, it is. When you're in charge of garbage, you'd love to have a place like this that seems, to someone who doesn't necessarily know all there is to know about holes in the ground -- we're getting deeper and deeper in another hole created by the New Democrats, but that's another kind of hole. The economy is bad. Everything you guys have touched has turned to something that's a four-letter word: dirt.

The Adams mine site has the potential of being a 20-year hole in the ground -- there are three holes there -- that could service the needs of the greater Toronto area, but the bill as we have it makes it impossible to look at a solution outside of the GTA to dispose of our garbage. What are we stuck with? We're stuck with a bill by the minister that says, "We'll have one in Peel, one in York and one in Durham."

As it stands, what this bill really means, ladies and gentlemen of the House, is that York region, with Keele Valley, is going to be the primary dump site for Metropolitan Toronto. I don't like it, the people there don't like it, but it's going to happen, when you know full well there are opportunities to get rid of our waste outside of the greater Toronto area.

We're dealing with a fundamental breakdown in thinking and in the possibility of finding a practical solution to Metro's waste. That is closed off by other parts of this bill. We're now faced with what we really do with this act.

Bill 143 is really putting the onus on Peel to come up with this landfill site. I sincerely hope the member for Mississauga South will take some time to discuss the problems around the Peel sites that have been selected and the cost that's gone into it. The feeling from the community about the way this government has mismanaged the search for a site within Peel is really an example of how not to do business. I sincerely hope the member for Mississauga South will do that.

With York region, I have never in my experience seen the tame and mild Eldred King, the chairman of our region, come forward in such --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: He is. I mean, you're talking to a gentle man. The presentation he made with legal counsel on behalf of York region was a strong statement of anger and indignation about the way this government is dealing with the issue. You heard representatives from my riding, the riding of Markham, you heard the mayor of Vaughan, Mayor Jackson, along with her legal counsel, and you heard from the mayor of King; you heard from representatives from just about every community in York region saying, "Don't do it to us," and it's happening.

I find the bill offensive and would like to find ways where we could move away from certain sections of it that are going to make it necessary to find a landfill site in York region or in Durham or in Peel when in fact you know the better solution is found outside the geographic area to which the garbage site for Toronto is being confined. The most expensive land in Canada is here. The land has a value far greater than other parts of the province. Even in a community such as in Kirkland Lake, where there is a sense that enough people in the community would take that as an alternative site to be considered, it is ruled out.

We started talking about this bill on October 24, and at that point most municipal politicians who wanted to get re-elected were out on the election trail, trying to speak to their constituents to get ready for mid-November. As a result, it wasn't until after they were elected that they had a chance to study the bill.

When finally it became very obvious to people, more than just those of us who were on the bill examining it all the time, that this was a problem, there was enough of a reaction that myself and our House leader, in cooperation with the Liberals -- when you're in opposition and there're only a small number of you, you end up making friends even with the Liberals. If you go back a few years ago and you realize that they helped get us into this mess, and you go back a few years before that and realize the Conservatives helped make the mess, I think there isn't anyone who can say their hands are clean in dealing with the garbage issue.

But the fact of the matter is, and it's worth saying and putting on the record, that the critic for the Ministry of the Environment in the Liberal Party, the member for Brampton North, and myself, with the support of both our caucuses, said when the House recessed at Christmastime that we would not allow this House to rise without at least having several weeks of hearings on this bill so that the public would have a chance to respond to it.

I would like to thank the Liberals for their support of this initiative, because those were some of the most painful weeks I've ever put in, to sit in committee and see what was happening. There was nothing wrong with the presentations that were presented, but the stonewalling by the New Democrats was something that left an awful lot to be desired. What happened at that time was that although recommendations were brought forward by the communities at large that would support the amendments I have before the House right now, every one of those suggestions and recommendations was defeated.

All I would hope for is that out of the wasteland of five weeks -- one week listening to each other make amendments and have them voted down, and another four weeks in which we had a chance to look at other options -- there may be some way in which the public at large would at least sense that the government is taking power away from them in the process of setting up a new administration to look after our waste.

Our feeling here is, let's just begin to have a plan that doesn't mean that waste sites have to be in Durham, Peel or York. Let's see if we can come up with something. If this minister had done what she had promised to do so that we would have known where the potential landfill sites were going to be, it might have changed the hearings quite a bit. Then people would have had a sense of knowing the possible locations, whether in Whitevale or the Rouge Valley or some other part of each of our municipalities, that that was where the landfill site was going to be.

But the Interim Waste Authority has not come forward with its list of potential sites that are being considered for landfill, and because of that the public has become rather apathetic about what really is going to happen with garbage.

I'm not apathetic. I'm really proud of the way in which our own caucus is supportive of other initiatives. I don't think our amendment here today begins to solve the problem. I don't think the bill as a whole solves the problem.

The legislation that's going to be tabled by the Minister of the Environment to speed up the environmental assessment process might, that one thing alone, negate the whole need for Bill 143. If there was a way in which people could participate in a process to appeal environmental assessments and do it more expeditiously so that some people couldn't delay the whole process and protract it for long periods of time, we would be further ahead. The fact of the matter is that I have not seen that legislation.

It was referenced in the speech from the throne and I look forward to seeing it because maybe within that -- did you not indicate there are going to be changes to the Environmental Assessment Act?

Mrs Marland: Yes, she did.

Mr Cousens: I left with that feeling from the speech from the throne. The minister was looking as if she hadn't heard about it before, but I know she has. She's got a lot on her mind; I don't know what it is.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and minister responsible for the greater Toronto area): The minister is remembering a statement she made in this House last week, so presumably --

The Chair: Order.

Mrs Marland: She did announce it last week, that there will be revisions --

Mr Cousens: The whole bill has been tabled.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: No, I know that it will be tabled, and I haven't seen that.

Mrs Marland: It's only a statement.

Mr Cousens: It's only a statement. We haven't seen the bill yet. A bill to change the whole environmental assessment process would go a long way to improve the system we're into now, but this government still doesn't know when it is going to do that. Broken promises, broken hope and great disappointment: I haven't talked to anyone who is thrilled with the actions that are being taken by this government.

I understand that the member for Durham West feels it's just a great bill. I hope his constituents will have a real good look at what he has said in committee and how he has supported this, because what he is really saying when he supports the government's motion on this

section is that he wants to have a garbage dump in Durham. I have to say he would be doing a bigger favour if he said to his constituents, "I'm prepared as well to look at a site outside the greater Toronto area so that we might be able to look at a place that isn't necessarily as unsound as this is or we might find a spot that would be better."

Anyway, we present this for the concern and consideration of the committee and I indeed hope there is some willingness to take away the sense in which there would have to be a landfill site in each of those three areas. It may be the beginning of a crack that says maybe we can look elsewhere outside the greater Toronto area. That is the kind of intention I have behind this amendment, and as well intended as it might be, I also have the sense of knowing it's not going to go too far, but you have to try or they wouldn't send us down here to at least put the case forward.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I would like to make a couple of comments to bring another perspective to the record we've heard so far. I'd like to begin with the Adams mine site and the whole concept about the willing host.

What we heard from the member is that there was a referendum in Kirkland Lake, Engelhart and Larder Lake for the landfill site to be in the Adams mine site. In fact the Adams mine site is in Boston township and the people who live in Boston township were not allowed to participate in the referendum, were not asked and were in fact --

Mr Cousens: That is not true.

Mr Wiseman: That is true.

Mr Cousens: "Not allowed" is not true. They don't live in the municipality in which the referendum was.

The Chair: Order. The member for Markham, please take your seat. When you wish to take the floor, all you have to do is to stand up after he is finished.

Mr Wiseman: In fact I would agree with the member. In fact they were not allowed to participate because they did not live in Kirkland Lake or Larder Lake or Engelhart. He is correct about that. So what we have here is a group of people who live around the township making a decision for the people who live in the township. To that I think we would all have to agree, because you've just stated that. That's the truth.

What we know is that there was a poll done in Boston township, Catharine township and Pacaud township, which is south of the Adams mine site; 164 homes were phoned and 162 opposed the use of the Adams mine site for waste disposal. I think we have to consider that.

Coming from the region where I do, where landfill sites have been located in Pickering, with the majority support of the rest of Durham region against the support of the local council, I have a great number of residents who are sympathetic to the notion that you must be consulted.

I'd also like to speak about the transportation. You made the point. What in fact would happen is that about a million and a half tonnes of Metro garbage would be driven to Vaughan, compressed, put on rail cars and shipped up to the Adams mine site, where it would then be sorted, separated and 8% of it would be recycled, with 92% going into the hole. I want to deal with that in a minute.

The projected cost is $600 million, and I think to myself, what would $600 million do in the recycling programs of southern Ontario to get them off the ground? Yet the idea here is to just put it on a train and ship it north. To me, that's false economy and the lost opportunity to invest the $600 million in the plants, in the recycling centres and in the whole of the recycling industry. We'll see how that works out a little later on.

The Adams mine site could not take all of Metro's garbage. It was to take a million and a half tonnes for 20 years, for a total of 22 million tonnes or so of Metro's garbage. There would still have been a need in the GTA for a site for another 3 million tonnes per year.

What we heard from the member is that he wants that all over Ontario. He wants everybody to be on the table. I think the new member for Brant-Haldimand would be interested to know that if he passes this piece of legislation, if he votes for it, then he is voting not just for a landfill site for Metro's garbage, maybe in Dunnville, but he would be voting in favour of that incineration plant in Cayuga to burn Metro's garbage. What the member is saying is that he wants to put all of Ontario back on the table for Metro, and that Metro is the only municipality in all of Ontario that has the right to expropriate property in another municipality's jurisdiction.

Mr Cousens: Whoever said that?

Mr Wiseman: That's what is in the --

Mr Cousens: That's a crock.

Mr Wiseman: It's implied by what you're saying.

Mr Cousens: You take the implication, you blow it up and you make a lie of it, or you Martel it.

The Chair: Please address the Chair.

Mr Wiseman: What in fact he wants to do is go back to the Solid Waste Management Steering Committee process that would put Marmora, Plympton, Essex, Lambton, all of these places, back on the table.

Mr Cousens: Mr Chair, I object.

The Chair: Is this a point of order, or do you object?

Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Let the honourable member stick to the facts. He is making up things that have nothing to do with what I said or think and is not -- objection. He has no right to make implications or imply things as to what another member has to say. Speak from what I've said or don't speak at all, and speak the truth.

The Chair: Order, please. Take your seat. I just want to remind members that there is a procedure to follow. You're each given a turn to debate, so when it comes your time, you will be given that opportunity.

Mr Cousens: Don't deal with innuendo.

Mr Wiseman: This is not innuendo. The facts of the matter are that if this bill is defeated the way the member is asking, you have to look at the ramifications and the implications of that in terms of where the direction would go. This bill, very clearly brought to this House in a democratic process, if defeated would mean that all the things I have said would have to be back on the table, because the defeat of the bill would return it to the status quo, and as to the bill, to begin with.

Mr Cousens: Objection, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Order. Please take your seat. This is not a court of law. I don't take any objections; I take points of order. Do you have a point of order?

Mr Cousens: Very much so. The honourable member, if he was listening to me, is already misinterpreting what I said. If he's going to make statements in this House then he should speak --

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): That's not a point of order.

Mr Cousens: Well, come on, it's on the record. The one thing I have made very clear is a willing host. You talk about Marmora and other sites. They are not willing hosts. So there's no way you're going to start shoving someone's garbage in someone's backyard who doesn't want it, and I have never said that. When you start saying that I'm intending that, that is wrong and I want you to correct yourself.

The Chair: I'd just like to make a suggestion. If you object to some of the comments that are made by the member for Durham West, take notes. After that, you will have a chance to debate it.

Mr Wiseman: Having said the above and not having any cause to retract or change any of the things I have just stated, I would like to move on to the next items I would like to talk about in terms of this bill.

That has to do with the potential for recycling and the potential for recycling to be the solution to a large part of the waste problem. Just to give a couple of examples, when we were in Kingston we heard from Alcan Recycling Canada that over the last two years somewhere in the neighbourhood of $40 million of aluminum was thrown into the landfill sites. This was really quite unfortunate in terms of the potential this aluminum had for jobs, competitiveness, reduction in the amount of electrical energy that would be necessary to produce new aluminum and the fact that he said it's worth $1,000 a tonne.

Just for the information of the House, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 31,000 tonnes of aluminum is lost every year to the waste process.

When we were in Kingston we also heard from a tire recycler who put a tire in front of the table and showed us three jars of oil, tar and carbon black, all derived from a tire that he said could be recycled. So throughout southern Ontario people are being very innovative.

We also heard in this committee on a regular basis that there are more jobs available through recycling than there are through disposal.

In terms of cost, what we're looking at here in terms of cost is $150 a tonne; actually it's $152.50 that Metro's charging. Anybody who's recycling will recoup that right from the very start, but that money potentially is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $8 billion to $12 billion, which would be very useful in the development of recycling and the positioning of Ontario industries in the international market for recycling and reduction and being able to then transport and sell those technologies overseas.

I want to clear up my last point, and the reality is that there is going to be a landfill site somewhere in Durham for Durham's garbage. It could be in anybody's riding, but the point to be made here is that for the first time in history the landfill site is going to be sited against criteria that have been developed and established by the Interim Waste Authority and that take into account agricultural land, hydrogeological state, proximity to social environments and a whole host of other criteria never evaluated before.

My closing point is that, unlike the previous government, which used an order in council to locate a landfill site in north Pickering and circumvented all of the democratic processes to do that and would not consider it against any other site in Durham, this process offers the opportunity of involvement of the people, the local municipal politicians and the IWA. Every site will be defined against the criteria established and brought into force when this bill is passed, because it established the crown corporation of the Interim Waste Authority.

Hon Mrs Grier: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I know you tried to direct the debate to the amendment before us. I would like to point out to the member for Markham that while we seem to be debating whether the waste should go to Kirkland Lake or somewhere else in Ontario, as I read the motion before us it refers to landfill waste disposal sites located in any one or more of the regional municipalities. Therefore, I suggest that the submission we heard from the member for Markham and the subsequent debate are all out of order.

The Chair: The point of order has been made. The member for Markham, do you have a point of order?

Mr Cousens: In response, the fact is that the whole bill is out of order. If we were to deal with it correctly you really have to put the larger picture in place. The bill is forcing us to have our garbage, our landfill sites, within the greater Toronto area. What you have to deal with is the whole picture. To that extent the motion is not out of order at all and my comments are not out of order. If anything is out of order, it's Bill 143.

Mr McClelland: Not having the language of the amendment, I might ask if the third party critic has a copy of his amendments available. I would appreciate having them so I can follow the debate.

Having said that, I have two questions that relate to the

section under debate that I'd like to put to the minister for her comment. The

section says that each of the three regions will find a landfill site for dealing with waste generated for a period of at least 20 years. Is there any cap on the potential time limit, by way of example, with respect to what the member for Markham is saying in terms of having a more expansive view as far as geography is concerned? In terms of the time frame as well, is it possible, by way of example, that the Peel site could be 40, 50 or 60 years potentially?

The other question that relates to this particular

section and I think ties in with the amendments is this. The minister says the

section deals with the Environmental Assessment Act, but is it not true that subsequently, by delineating the geographic boundaries, she effectively eliminates one of the very provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act, which is to look at a broad range of environmental criteria to arrive at the best -- not a better, not a good, but potentially the best -- environmental solution? That is really an ancillary question. The one I would like to have, if I could, as a direct response is the cap on the time limit.

I have a further question in terms of the York site. We know it will end up in York through the municipality of Metro Toronto. I asked this question during committee and did not receive a response, to the best of my knowledge. I reviewed the responses last evening that were tabled during committee. Is there anywhere you are aware of in North America that would have the potential capacity of a Keele Valley and a potential additional site that would last for at least 20 years, possibly 40, 50 or 60?

Is there anywhere in North America that has that kind of burden put on the ecosystem in an area as small geographically as York? My understanding is that there is nowhere else in North America that would have that concentration of landfill. I wonder if you might be able to respond to that question, which was put to your staff and the ministry during committee.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me make a couple of responses to the points made by the member for Brampton North and in fact to some of the less extraneous comments made by the member for Markham.

With respect to the 20 years, I think that if the member looks at this

section of the legislation, he will see that the site for new landfills is for landfills that will have as their primary function the disposal of waste generated within the regional municipality over a period of at least 20 years. I think what you will find in the hearing before the Environmental Assessment Board is a great deal of debate about how long those landfills will last and how much waste those landfills will have to accommodate, because as the member is aware, the alternative to the landfills is increased reduction, reuse and recycling.

The debate before the board from some people will undoubtedly be that if we were more aggressive in the 3Rs we would need a much smaller landfill site or no landfill site at all, with other people saying that the objectives we have set ourselves of a 25% diversion from disposal by the end of 1992 and, at the time of the hearing, working on a 50% diversion from disposal by the year 2000 are in fact too ambitious and cannot be met as the economy, as we hope, is rebounding. That will be the debate before the board. That decision will be made by the board.

For the purposes of the site search, the legislation is quite clear that the Interim Waste Authority begins and conducts its search and prepares for the environmental assessment a site that will accommodate the disposal of waste in those regional municipalities for at least 20 years.

I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about the delineation of boundaries. With all due respect to the member for Brampton North, I think he is quite wrong in his characterization of the fact that boundaries are set in opposition to the Environmental Assessment Act. In fact, municipalities all across the province have said for many years: "Within this municipal boundary we are searching for a site. Here are the criteria. This is what we present to the board." In many cases they have come together with adjoining municipalities and conducted a joint waste management master plan.

In many cases a city and a rural municipality have come together and jointly undertaken to find a disposal site. That is how the act has traditionally been interpreted. There has never been any question of whether that was an appropriate way.

Let me say that never has a municipality or a proponent gone before an Environment Assessment Board, to my knowledge or recollection, and said that it wanted to ask for an environmental assessment approval of a site in a municipality somewhere else on the basis of a resolution from the council of that municipality saying that it wanted somebody else's waste.

The "happy host" criterion that was the foundation of the SWISC process and is cited by the member for Markham in his justification of going to Kirkland Lake is, I think, very dubious legally and might well have resulted in an Environmental Assessment Board deciding that that was not a sufficient criterion on which to decide where a landfill site was to be located and might have resulted in the entire process being tossed out by the board. I think the results of that happening at the end of the day are too serious to contemplate.

Let me again make the point, as did the member for Durham West, that Metro Toronto has a very special right within this province. It has the right to seek a landfill site somewhere other than within its own boundaries. It's the only municipality allowed to pinpoint somebody else's backyard and say, "We'll have a landfill site in your backyard, thank you very much."

What we are doing by this legislation is, to use a phrase I'm sure the member for Markham is very fond of, levelling the playing field and saying to the regional municipalities within the GTA, "You don't have the right to dispose of your waste in someone else's backyard; you have the obligation and the responsibility to dispose of your waste within your own political, geographical boundaries and you have an obligation, in determining where those landfill sites will be" -- and this is what the Interim Waste Authority is doing -- "to use not political criteria, not resolutions from a municipal council, but environmental criteria."