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

June 11, 1987

33rd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L026 - Thu 11 Jun 1987 / jeu 11 jun 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL-INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY FOR ABATEMENT

REFERENDUM ACT

MUNICIPAL-INDUSTRIA L STRATEGY FOR ABATEMENT

REFERENDUM ACT

AFTERNOON SITTING

VISITORS

BASEBALL GAME

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

PORTUGAL DAY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TRANSIT SERVICES

MEMBER'S ANNIVERSARY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONE-STOP ACCESS

RESPONSES

ONE-STOP ACCESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES

NATURAL GAS PRICING

UNIVERSITY ENROLMENT

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

RENT REGULATION

CHILD CARE

HEALTH FUNDING

ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

TABLING OF INFORMATION

PETITION

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

STANDING ORDERS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BEEF CATTLE MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

INTERIM SUPPLY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL-INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY FOR ABATEMENT

Mr. Gillies moved resolution 17:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government's MISA program, which only covers companies dumping industrial effluent directly into the province's waterways, should be extended to now include the additional 97.5 per cent of water polluters in this province that are dumping into the province's municipal sewer systems.

Mr. Gillies: I am very pleased to have the opportunity of putting this resolution before the House as I believe it is a resolution which, if adopted by the government and implemented by the Ministry of the Environment, could substantially improve the quality of water for our province and I believe in a tangible way improve the quality of life for the people of Ontario.

The basic philosophy of the MISA program, which is in the implementation and design stage by the ministry, is "the virtual elimination of persistent toxic contaminants in municipal and industrial discharges into Ontario's waterways." What are we talking about? The traditional approach to industrial effluent and of past control programs has been aimed at the conventional pollutants such as biodegradable wastes, suspended solids, ammonia, phosphorus, some metals, oils, grease and phenols.

As our knowledge of water pollution has increased and as industrial processes have become more sophisticated and employ a much wider variety of chemical substances, we now have growing concerns about toxic metals such as mercury, lead and arsenic, and about toxic organics or carbon-based compounds, such as dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls and chlorinated benzenes.

The regulations that are being developed currently by the Ministry of the Environment to implement the MISA program are going to require dischargers to monitor effluents and to comply with strict effluent limits based on best available technology economically achievable.

I will resist the temptation in the next number of minutes to get into a long string of jargon. If I might, I would like to put this in terms of some very basic goals, which anyone in the province following this debate might be able to relate to.

The basic philosophy of the MISA program is that industrial wastes should be treated at source. In the past we have had other types of controls placed, but unfortunately the past experience has been that industrial pollutants have been discharged either into municipal sewer systems or directly into our lakes, rivers and streams.

There has been some attempt to clean up. Certainly there is the expectation, or implied expectation, that our municipal sewage treatment plants would have a

part in removing such chemical discharges before the waste water goes back into our province's water system. In terms of direct polluters, perhaps we had little or no expectations at all of what would be done to protect our people from increased water pollution because of industrial discharges.

The ministry's own figures, and indeed the best estimates of anyone working in this field, are that there are some 12,000 water polluters in Ontario in terms of industrial sources. Some 300 of those sources are what we call direct dischargers, discharging directly into the lakes, rivers and streams of our province and finding their way into the ecosystem. The vast majority of these sources of chemical discharge, however, some 11,700 or so, are not direct dischargers; they are discharging into the sewer systems, which are then expected in one form or another to either contain or treat the waste chemical.

The MISA program, which defines and recognizes these two types of polluters or dischargers, is really geared specifically to those 300 industries which are direct dischargers. It has very little to say and very little to offer in terms of the cleanup required for the vast majority of water polluters who are discharging into the sewer systems.

It is estimated that about 50 per cent of waste chemical pollution is originating from those 300 or so direct dischargers and that about 50 per cent of the pollution is originating from the other sources, for the most part smaller but much more numerous, discharging into the sewer systems.

The MISA program philosophy, as I indicated earlier, is basically a good one and one that I am sure all of us in this House would support. The basic philosophy is to clean up these industrial pollutants at the source. In other words, the 300 direct dischargers are to be expected to control and regulate and as much as possible eliminate the discharge of industrial chemicals right there at their plants before they get into our province's water system.

The same philosophy should apply to that vast majority of industrial polluters who are discharging into the sewer systems, but here is where I believe the MISA program being implemented by the minister fails and fails badly. It fails inasmuch as the MISA program's philosophy would have us thinking that a municipal sewage treatment plant is a source of pollution and that the cleanup at the municipal level should be there. I am pleased to say my resolution parallels the initiative currently being taken by the Pollution Probe organization.

Pollution Probe says it best, I believe, when it indicates that a municipal sewage treatment plant is not, of course, a source of water pollution. It is rather a mechanism put in place by society in an attempt to clean up pollution which is originating upstream from that plant. I believe that in order to be effective, the MISA program should recognize that in fact the 11,700-odd polluters who are putting waste chemicals into our sewer systems are the sources, just as much as the 300 or so direct dischargers are sources.

I would like to quote briefly from a document Pollution Probe has released in recent weeks, which very succinctly sums up the problem in terms of the industrial situation within the municipal systems. It is under the heading "No More Dilution," and it says:

"MISA makes clear that one of the main flaws in Ontario's existing pollution control program is that it allows polluters to dilute waste with cleaner water so that the same total amount is discharged in a more diluted form. MISA is supposed to begin capping the total load of pollutants to receiving waters."

I believe this is most important: "Sewage treatment systems are giant dilution mechanisms. The fastest way to lose track of an industrial effluent is to dump it in the sewer. Toxics discharged to sewers may be immeasurable at the sewage treatment plant or in its effluent; yet they are still being discharged. Once in a system, they are indistinguishable from toxics from other dischargers.

"If the effluent were discharged directly," -- in other words, if it were being directly addressed by the regulations in the minister's program -- "it would be unacceptable, but when dumped into a municipal sewer, along with everyone else's cleaner waste water, it flows to and out of the sewage treatment plant mixed in the large volume of other waste water and will be diluted enough to not violate water quality objectives."

There is the problem. These sewage treatment plants in all our municipalities are not sources of industrial pollution. They are but one attempt to treat such pollution and they are wholly inadequate to that job. The same philosophy that industrial pollutants be cleaned up at source must be applied to that vast majority of companies dumping into the municipal systems.

The MISA program speaks at length about the determination of the best available technology and the setting of standards for the regulation of these industrial effluents. While I guess we could go on at length about those standards, about their adequacy or lack of same, I will leave that for another debate. The point I am trying to make through this resolution is a very simple one indeed: simply take the standards and the philosophy that have been developed for MISA and apply them across the board.

When the minister puts before this House a program designed to lead to "the virtual elimination of industrial water pollution in our province," we have to ask ourselves: how can the minister follow through with that commitment when the program he has announced will cover only two and a half per cent of the industrial sources of water pollution? The minister's program does not speak to the vast majority. It does not speak to 97.5 per cent of the sources of industrial water pollution in our province.

I call upon the minister to amend the MISA program directly and as quickly as possible so that the standards which have been developed will apply to all sources of industrial water pollution in our province. I call upon the minister to recognize that it really makes no difference whether those waste chemicals are being dumped directly into our rivers, lakes and streams, or indeed whether they are being dumped into municipal sewer systems where, after a wholly inadequate and technologically basic treatment, those industrial effluents will find themselves, diluted perhaps, but once again in those same lakes, rivers and streams.

I take some encouragement from the response of the minister to a question in this House in recent days on this subject. I take it from the minister's answer to the question posed by my friend the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) that he is, in fact, sympathetic to this resolution. I take it from the minister's answer that he recognizes the very major flaw in his program. The recognition is not enough; we need action from this government.

I would ask all members of the House to put some impetus behind this initiative by supporting the resolution, which I would hope, once passed unanimously, would then give the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) the clout in cabinet he needs to take this very major and positive step.

The Deputy Speaker: The member wishes to reserve seven minutes and 30 seconds.

Mrs. Grier: I am very pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate and to support the resolution that has been put forward by the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies).

I think it is perhaps worth noting that this is the first occasion upon which this House has had an opportunity to debate the MISA program. Anyone who reads the minister's speeches, as I am occasionally forced to do, or listens to his answers in the House, might be forgiven for thinking that somehow MISA was a fait accompli, because the minister has been quoting MISA as the answer to many of the problems of pollution all across this province ever since he first introduced it in 1986.

But, in fact, the MISA program is just that: a program or a scheme. It has as yet achieved no actual reductions in the levels of pollutants entering our waterways. It has a very long time frame before the regulations it contemplates will be put in place. In fact, the first regulation, the one that monitored industrial discharges in one sector, was expected to be available last month, and we have not yet seen it.

When the program was first announced by the minister in June 1986, I raised in this House the question of the 12,000 industries that were uncontrolled by MISA. I asked the minister to tell the House why he is not imposing stringent limits immediately on these 12,000 industries. The minister's reply was somewhat diluted, but the burden of it was that he was essentially leaving it to the municipalities to upgrade the sewage treatment plants.

I find reviewing that answer very interesting in the light of his answer to my question this week when I raised the issue again that there were 12,000 loopholes in the program, at which time the minister replied, "...everyone would agree...that the sewage treatment plants...even with modifications and upgradings, would not deal as effectively with the discharges as if they were dealt with at source."

The minister has come some distance from the position he took when he first introduced the MISA program. But if, as he says, everyone would agree -- and I know the members on this side of the House would agree -- that it is more effective to control these discharges at source, it begs the question. What is the minister waiting for? Why does he not get on with it? Not only are the majority of industries uncontrolled by MISA as it now stands but also 50 per cent of the total discharge is uncontrolled, because it is now being indirectly discharged into the sewers of the system.

If the minister is changing his position and is coming to the point of contemplating pretreatment, then I find it passing strange that as recently as last November he put $1.5 million into a study of the discharges from sewage treatment plants in connection with the MISA program. That indicates to me that the thrust, the impetus and the burden of his funding is going towards controlling the outflow from sewage treatment plants, not, as the member for Brantford has explained, what is required, which is to cut down on the inflow.

The MISA program itself says that industries discharging into municipal sewer systems may be required to pretreat. That is a very weak commitment on the part of the minister. I hope, as a result of the resolution today, that we will see a much stronger commitment and some definitive action, because one of the other things the minister said in response to my question on Tuesday was that by raising the issue of the loopholes I was perpetuating the myth that the MISA program had flaws.

The only myth that is being perpetuated around this place is the myth that this government is striding boldly forward to protect the environment. In fact, when you look at the reality of the actions of this government, you see that the steps it is making towards protecting the environment are hesitant, faltering and slow, and that in every step it is being supported and pushed by the environmental community and by the opposition in this House. The reality of its performance does not match the rhetoric of its press releases.

Let me remind members of some examples of that. Countdown Acid Rain, a wonderful program introduced in December 1985, was lauded across the continent as being a progressive step forward; but it had a major flaw. That major flaw, of course, was the provision of a banking provision for Ontario Hydro. It took months of pressure in this House, pressure from environmental groups and eventually a recommendation from a select committee before that major loophole was closed and the Countdown Acid Rain program could be given some reasonable credibility.

The soft drink container regulations proclaimed by this minister were supposed to set us on a new road to recycling and recovery of waste. What was the flaw in that program? The flaw was that as well as controlling some of the soft drink containers, it allowed the enormous polyethylene tetrathalate bottles, the big plastic containers, to be introduced into the market. Those containers are not reusable, are not recyclable and are in fact not being recovered. So that program too was not as good in reality as it was made out to be.

We have heard much from the minister about his increased enforcement and prosecutions for violations of the environment. I think my question yesterday showed that in the case of the Lucan landfill site outside London, the minister's officials had not even shown up in court when subpoenaed in a prosecution initiated by a citizen because the ministry had failed to initiate prosecution. This shows that the record of enforcement and prosecution is not as good as the minister would allow us to believe. One is tempted to think the same old gang is running the ministry.

Of course, in the MISA program the loophole of the 12,000 industries that discharge indirectly was not the only loophole. There was the whole question that provincially owned facilities were exempted from prosecution under the Ontario Water Resources Act. The minister was persuaded to close that loophole.

The point I am making is that so many of these programs are flawed that we find it very frustrating. It takes months of raising these flaws and pointing out the inadequacies of the programs before suddenly the minister says: "Yes, I agree with you. Let us do it right after all." How much simpler it would be, how much better it would be for the people of this province if when the programs were initiated they did what they purported to do in the first place; that is, to really cut back on the discharges into the waterways of this province and really force industry to begin to clean up its waste.

That is what we are asking for in this resolution. That is what I hope the government will do as a result of the passage of this resolution. I say to the minister and to those who are going to read his prepared speeches in this debate that I think the people of this province are demanding of their government a far greater commitment to strong action and to immediate action than we have seen so far. The issue we are debating here today is just one example where I think it is time that strong action be taken now and delayed no longer.

Mr. Poirier: I rise to support the underlying principle of this resolution that pollution must be stopped at the source. I support its basic goal that all polluters must be controlled, that there can be no loopholes in any program to reduce the pollution of our waterways. I even support its unstated aim that both direct and indirect polluters be treated equally under any program or policy. No one can or should disagree with those points, but I have some very serious concerns about the wording of this resolution.

The resolution states that the MISA program "only covers companies dumping industrial effluent directly into the province's waterways." This is factually not true and I am sure the member knows it. What is true is that the vast majority of industries in Ontario are indirect dischargers located in municipalities and the practice of discharging into municipal sewer systems is quite widespread.

I remind the member that MISA stands for municipal-industrial strategy for abatement. The municipal sector is one of nine sectors -- eight are industrial -- covered by the program. The municipal sector includes 400 sewage treatment plants that collectively handle waste water from some 12,000 industries as well as domestic and commercial wastes. MISA is a regulatory program that will develop two different regulations for the municipal sector.

Initially, the municipalities will be subject to a monitoring regulation that will require them to identify and measure the toxics in their very own effluent. This self-monitoring program will be audited by the Ministry of the Environment. Municipalities will then be subject to an abatement regulation that will specify clearly what the allowable concentrations are, as well as total amounts of loading of toxin pollutants and which ones are acceptable. The specified levels will be based on the best available technology economically achievable at the time.

The municipal sector has entered the preregulation phase of this program. Regulations will be applied to municipal sewage treatment plants, or STPs, on a staged basis. Municipalities will begin to come under the monitoring regulation in the beginning of 1988, with all municipalities covered by the end of that year. Municipalities will then be covered by the abatement regulation by the end of 1989.

It should be clear to all members that this resolution is absolutely redundant, but because we Liberals are a positive group of people, we regard it as at least one source of Conservative support for our efforts to better the environment and I salute the member for Brantford.

The MISA program does cover industries and municipalities, direct and indirect dischargers, as well as new and established sources of pollution. It is a new and comprehensive approach to controlling point-source water pollution. The real and meaningful issue that should be addressed in this resolution is whether the MISA program can effectively and efficiently control municipal pollution and therefore also the pollution arising from the indirect industrial dischargers. That would be a useful resolution to discuss.

Let me address that question, one also raised by Pollution Probe and addressed by the MISA program. At present, the municipal sector has insufficient data on the quantity of the hazardous contaminants discharged into the sewers and their removal in the treatment process. That fact alone speaks volumes for the inactivity of the previous governments of this province.

There are concerns that the STPs are unable to efficiently remove tonics present in the estimated 12,000 indirect industrial discharges in Ontario's sewer systems. Municipal sewage treatment plants are currently designed for biological wastes and not toxic wastes. There is also concern that sludge disposal could cause harmful effects to the environment.

Comments such as these were explicitly requested from the public by the Minister of the Environment when he announced the program in June 1986. We believe in open and responsive government and we have addressed those concerns; for example, the lack of information. A joint committee -- the Ministry of the Environment, federal and the Municipal Engineers Association -- is currently carrying out several projects aimed at gathering data to support the development of the municipal sector regulations of the MISA program.

A province-wide survey of 40 representative sewage treatment plants is being carried out to identify and measure about 170 toxics in raw sewage and in the final effluent and sludge. The survey will cost an estimated $1.6 million. MOE and Environment Canada are developing a method to control the fluctuation of contaminant concentrations in STP effluents.

Another project is a monitoring program to measure the rate at which volatile trace organic contaminants are removed from the aeration basins during secondary sewage treatment at three to five STPs. The purpose of these studies is to get the information required as quickly as possible so the MISA program can be applied to the municipalities without delay.

Another concern is the use of municipal sewers for industrial discharges. When the abatement regulations come into effect, the sewage treatment plants not complying with the effluent limits will be able to choose from the following: upgrade their sewage treatment plants; or require individual direct dischargers to pretreat their effluents or, better still, adopt process changes that eliminate the production of toxic wastes.

We believe most municipalities will comply by adopting a balanced approach tailored to their individual situations. Historically, the past sewer control strategy, based on a sewer-use bylaw developed by the former government, has been thoroughly ineffective. This government and this Minister of the Environment are committed to finding a better way, a better sewer-use-through-control program.

As a result, the MISA white paper last year clearly committed the MOE to developing more efficient sewer-use control options for the municipalities to adopt and committed the MOE to developing these in parallel with the effluent monitoring and limits development of the municipal sector. The options will be ready when the abatement regulations come into force in the municipal sector.

One of these options is the suggestion of Pollution Probe that on-site treatment before discharge into the sewers be required. The MISA advisory committee, on which a member of Pollution Probe sits, is reviewing the suggestions made by Pollution Probe on how to deal with indirect discharges. The committee's advice on this matter is expected to be tendered to the minister in the near future.

MISA will not tell the municipalities how to meet their abatement requirements -- that is their choice -- but it will ensure that a wide range of options based on best available technology is available for the municipalities to use and this will ensure that the municipalities will have all the necessary government resources available to do the job. This will include all options suggested by Pollution Probe and others.

In conclusion, may I say that MISA is a vast improvement on the way we deal with pollution in Ontario. For the first time, we have a program that will solve the problem. I find it passing strange that the member for Brantford is now criticizing imaginary shortcomings in a program that his own party, when it had the power to do so only a short time ago, never had the stomach to adopt because it was too strong.

However late and however opportunistic Tory support for the environment may be, we are pleased to support this resolution not for what it says but rather for its underlying principles, goals and aims, principles the minister has acted upon, goals the minister has made attainable through MISA and aims this minister actively pursues through effective action, not empty rhetoric.

Mr. Partington: I am pleased to rise in support of the resolution of the member for Brantford, a resolution that clearly sets out the true picture of the MISA program, a program that is meant to control and will control direct dischargers into the river and lake systems of the province, but which, although it appears on the face of to be controlling indirect discharges into the sewer system, in fact will not do the job. If the government follows the intent and the thrust of this resolution, hopefully that weakness in the program will be covered.

Clearly, there is no issue more important in our society today than cleaning up our hazardous waste problems, particularly the persistent toxic substances that are appearing daily and are contaminating the tremendous natural water resources of this province. We see 800 chemical compounds in the Great Lakes system alone. Even in low concentrations, these toxics are posing risks to fish, plants and wildlife through persistent intrusions into our system. They go much further than that. The accumulated contaminants get passed on in our food chains.

Over the long term, the cumulative adverse effects of these contaminants bode ill for our environment. They pose very serious problems, not only to our environment but more particularly to our way of life, and indeed to our very existence.

I noted that Charles Pryer, the president of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, in the summer issue of Seasons magazine, made the comment: "We discharge our wastes, pouring them down our sewers or directly into our rivers and lakes. We do not know exactly how these chemicals are affecting wildlife or humans, but it is imperative that we come to grips with the problem before it is too late."

This concern is even further highlighted by two recent occurrences in the Niagara region. One is the contaminated mist that appears at the great, world-renowned Niagara Falls. Perhaps it is becoming world-renowned for the toxic contaminants it contains, some 60 tons a year. More recently, we have heard of the contamination of sediments in the sand bars at the mouth of the Niagara River, the sand of which is used for many purposes, including sand boxes that children play in. That is another issue of great concern to us.

The goal of the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement is defined as the virtual elimination of toxic contaminants from municipal and industrial discharges into waterways. That goal is consistent with the United States-Canada Great Lakes water quality agreement of 1978, wherein it is stated that Canada, and thus Ontario, is committed under that agreement to a goal of virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes ecosystem.

The goals of the Canada-US agreement and the goals of the MISA program are the same, but if we are to achieve the elimination of persistent toxic substances, the MISA system must be changed and must be broadened along the lines of the resolution the member for Brantford has introduced.

MISA is a reasonable, well-intentioned first step but it really does not go far enough. The loopholes are there to be easily seen. The program covers only 400 companies over eight industrial sectors; 11,700 are left to channel waste through municipal sewage systems and eventually into provincial waterways. The indirect discharging into the sewer systems will continue to rise. Although the breakdown between direct and indirect discharges is approximately 50 per cent in each category, the indirect discharges into the sewer system will continue to create the greater threat to the environment. Of course, there are no standards that have been set for the 11,700 indirect dischargers.

There are only 400 treatment plants to service our municipal waste, that of 11,700 industries. The Minister of the Environment has admitted that it will take billions of dollars within the next few years to keep the degeneration of the sewer and water systems from developing into, as he puts it, a serious health threat. That is apart from the burden the MISA program, as it is currently suggested, will place on the municipalities. Of the cost estimate of $1.5 billion just to revamp existing sewer systems for current needs, $100 million alone is required in the Niagara region to stop the overflow of huge volumes of raw sewage into local waterways.

We have recently seen in Niagara and Fort Erie the effect that an overloaded, historic, degenerating sewer system can have on our environment. In that case, of course, there was an overflow directly into the Niagara River. At a time when we are trying to impress on our American friends the importance of their being committed, it is even more important that we be committed here.

As the member for Brantford pointed out, the MISA program as suggested by the minister will not properly deal with toxins that will be introduced into the sewer system. All that will have the effect of doing is diluting the pollutants as they enter the lake system, but the same volume of pollutants will enter our system with the same very deadly, very awesome, very terrible results.

The other point is that the municipalities will have a difficult time dealing with this, with their shortage of funds and the shortage of standards and with the commitment they will have to make.

Actually, the MISA program as suggested by the Minister of the Environment reminds me quite a bit of the Countdown Acid Rain program. That was also a program dealing with acid rain. On the surface it looked like a tremendous plan, but in that plan Ontario Hydro had banking privileges which would have permitted it -- probably commencing in 1993, because it will be under the limits until then -- to exceed the standards then set by up to 500,000 tonnes, a tremendous gap in the plan.

After hearings, the select committee on the environment made a recommendation to the Minister of the Environment that the loophole be plugged and that the banking be deleted. The minister, after some consideration, agreed. He saw the light, if I might say, and did delete the banking provisions from the Countdown Acid Rain program.

I would similarly see here that we have MISA, on the surface a very broad, very well-intentioned program, but just like the banking provisions of the Countdown Acid Rain program there is a big hole here, a big weakness. That big weakness is the failure to have these 11,700 industrial polluters required to monitor and abate their pollutants at their source rather than through a municipal system.

Actually, it is interesting that this MISA plan was adapted from American jurisdictions that initiated the MISA program; but in the American jurisdictions, as I understand it, they do not deal with these 11,700 polluters through the municipal system. Just as they do with the direct discharges in the rivers, they have in their program made the other 11,700, as in this case, deal with their pollutants at source.

I wonder why Ontario, as it adopted most of the MISA program from our American friends, did not stick with the American program of directly dealing with these 11,700 indirect polluters at the source of the pollution. I wonder why. I hope the minister will be able to provide us with that answer.

We must stop the pollution of our environment. We must meet the goals of the US-Canada water treaty agreement. We must adhere to the goals set out in MISA. In doing so, l hope the minister will follow the urging of the member for Brantford, take the resolution seriously and amend the MISA program in accordance with the urgings of Pollution Probe and in keeping with the way it was originally intended.

Mr. Charlton: I too rise in support of the resolution before us this morning. I congratulate the member for Brantford for bringing this forward. As my colleague the member for Lakeshore has said, this is our first opportunity in a whole year to discuss in this House the white paper on MISA the minister tabled last June.

I would like to start my comments by saying to the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Poirier) that although I very much enjoy his sincerity and the approach he generally takes to political issues here in the House, I do not like to see sincere people get fooled by the rhetoric of politics.

It is fair to say the former government did not deal with the problems the MISA program intended to deal with. By the same token, it is not fair to say the legitimate problems with the MISA program are myths. There are real problems with this program.

When it comes to the environment, the fact that this government is doing something a little bit better than its predecessor does not mean it is dealing adequately with the problem. As we know, with the environment everything has a threshold.

If the government does not deal with beating the threshold level in terms of the downside, or staying under the threshold where damages result, then its program, even though it has reduced whatever is going into the environment -- perhaps even substantially -- means very little if it does not achieve that goal of breaking the threshold and getting those contaminants to acceptable levels and keeping them there. One of the major flaws with the MISA program is that it has absolutely no way of ensuring that will happen, although it is a step in the right direction.

One of the major problems we found with both the former government and with the present government was that it did not provide leadership in the sense of determining what has to be done, taking that out and presenting it to the public, selling the package; having to overcome difficulties because some economic sectors will complain about the dollars and cents involved and, therefore, some people will complain about the jobs involved, and so on and so forth. We have to start seeing the absolute leadership of government.

What we are seeing in this province, what we saw with the former administration and what we are seeing with the present administration, are some small steps in the right direction and then the government having to be pulled along to the next step by public demand, by outcry, by groups such as Pollution Probe, which will go out and canvass door to door to sell an issue and raise a public profile for that issue, put public pressure on government to take the next step.

That is not the way this system should operate. There is nothing wrong with having public pressure in the system, but we should not be in a position of always having to take the next step only when public pressure reaches the point of forcing us to do that. We have to get to the stage in Ontario politics where we have the courage and the understanding to take the next step ourselves and go out and explain to the public why we have done it and why it was necessary.

One of the things that really bothers me about what is going on here is that on the one hand we had the minister getting up in the House last June and tabling the MISA report and then, as my colleague the member for Lakeshore has suggested, getting up more recently and saying: "You're right. Just regulating sewage treatment plants is not enough." He is now admitting that sooner or later we are going to have to get to that source control.

It is an evolution instead of an understanding of where we have to go, and it is an evolution that is led by a chain of pressure. You start to understand that when you understand that on the one hand the minister can say there are problems with dumping into our sewer systems and on the other hand the ministry is out there actively encouraging some industries, which now dump directly and which under MISA would be directly regulated, to stop dumping directly and to start dumping into the sewer systems, where we are going to have some form of regulation at the sewage treatment plant but no direct regulation on the industry.

Is that the shortcut to our goals of getting below those danger thresholds or is that the long road? Ultimately, we know the government will be forced to go out and check the point sources that are dumping into sewer systems. We have a Ministry of the Environment that says: "We have a landfill site problem on Upper Ottawa Street in Hamilton.

The regional municipality has to go in and monitor that site, and wherever it can collect leachate that is leaking out of that site." What does it tell the regional municipality to do with that very toxic mix of leachate that is coming out of what was, albeit a residential waste dump a dump site that is loaded with very toxic industrial waste? The leachate that is coming out is not the banana peels; it is that very toxic industrial waste. What does the ministry say they have to do with that toxic waste leachate they collect?

"Dump it into the sanitary sewer system," which is totally inadequate to deal with those very toxic wastes. This is the ministry setting that down as a regulation, knowing full well it is not going to adequately deal with that waste.

Then we get into the situation where the Ministry of Labour becomes involved, because all of a sudden somebody discovers we have got really high rates of sickness among sewage treatment plant workers.

Now we are having to do health studies on those people to determine the extent of the effect that working in a sewage treatment plant, where toxics from industry are coming through all the time, is having on their health, the range of diseases being caused; and then attempt to determine how many of those people ultimately we are going to have to compensate because we have not protected them, because we have not thought through properly how we approach the whole question of the environment and control of toxic chemical wastes.

It manifests itself in almost everything we get into talking about in terms of the environment.

There are a number of suggestions which Pollution Probe made in its release, which the member for Brantford referred to earlier, and these are ultimately necessary if we want the MISA program to work, to get us to those goals below the threshold levels where the chemicals are no longer presenting a danger to the environment and to human health. We have got to get into setting the same kinds of standards for the industries dumping along the sewer system as we are setting for those direct dischargers, and that means the best available technology at source.

We have got to get into something other than self-regulation. Perhaps initially it is going to mean some combined form of self-regulation under strict criteria set by the ministry, where the ministry is monitoring at least the approach that the industry takes to that monitoring, but ultimately we have to get to the stage where this government can provide the absolute assurance to the people of this province that the regulations it sets are being met.

We have to arrange for the most effective mechanisms to make that work. One of the problems with MISA is that it is dumping responsibility down to the municipal level where they have neither the expertise nor the funding to adequately ensure that any regulations that are set will be met.

We have got to get into some serious discussions about money, about cost-sharing, about providing not only the authority to municipalities but also the means to the municipalities so they have the capability of enforcement. They do not have that now, and they will not unless the government, in addition to setting up the program is prepared to talk about the dollars that are required to make it work.

Mr. South: We support the member for Brantford's general thrust --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the member for Brantford allowing the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South) to use his time?

Mr. Gillies: I see there is a time problem, Mr. Speaker. If the honourable member could leave me even three minutes or so, that would be adequate for my purposes, if he would like to take the balance.

Mr. South: We support the member for Brantford's general thrust, the general basis. This is already enclosed in the MISA program. We must look on this program as a strategy, as a plan which is evolving. At this point it is not cast in stone. It is still evolving; it is still being developed. We are having public consultation, consultation with industry in making this one of the best abatement programs, certainly in Canada and in North America.

We feel that even with the concerns expressed by the member for Brantford, the approach to date has still been myopic; it is still preoccupied with sewer systems. At this point none of us -- I suggest even the opposition -- knows the answers to one of the basic problems; that is determining the percentages of these toxins and exotic materials that are coming from various sources and are ending up in our waterways.

I suggest that sewers are only one of these sources. We have the wastes from our smokestacks. What amount of the problem is coming from there? We have leaking dumps and disposal areas. What percentage of the problem is coming from there? What the sewers are discharging into our waterways can be considered as only part of the problem.

The members have indicated the need for adequate funding and adequate staff. I would remind the opposition that when this member introduced a resolution with regard to an environmental improvement fund, the opposition opposed it. This fund was going to be based on charging everyone who discharges into our waterways a few cents per 1,000 gallons and using this money to adequately fund a program like this.

Funding is the very essence of all these programs, because when this government starts to introduce a program, whether it is in regard to problems with the industrial sector getting adequate inspection staff to see that safety standards are adhered to or something else, it is that party over there that is immediately harping and yapping about increases in the number of civil servants. They cannot have it both ways. That is real political opportunism at its worst. This program will require staffing.

I submit to opposition members again that if they were not such political opportunists and would be a little more positive, it would not be necessary for this government to seek a majority. We are going to the polls. We are going to get a majority. We are going to do unilaterally those things that have to be done in this province to clean up pollution. We will not have to sit and be beholden to a bunch of guys who do not have the vision or the foresight to play the big game and take the high roads.

Mr. Gillies: We have just experienced a prime example of air pollution, but the subject of this resolution is water pollution. If I had known the honourable member was going to be so gracious, I would never have given him the time.

If I may, I will very briefly recap several points and draw members' attention to several points. First, I thank all members who have spoken, including the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, have indicated their support for the resolution, with various reservations that have been expressed. I can only hope that the support offered by the parliamentary assistant is indicative of the direction that his minister will be moving in. Then we will know indeed that the passage of this resolution will have accomplished something.

Very briefly, I want to quote to the members something that Pollution Probe has said on the subject of sewage treatment plants. I could not say it more succinctly than Pollution Probe has done.

"The current MISA plan treats sewage treatment plants as sources of toxic water pollution. They are not. Sewage systems are gigantic conduits and collection systems which carry toxic pollutants from thousands of different sources to one giant outfall pipe at the sewage treatment plant. The sources are the companies upstream which dump toxic chemicals into the sewers. This is where the controls ought to be, if MISA is to be most effective."

That, very simply put, is the point. The philosophy of the MISA program is one we can all support: treat at source. The great failure with the government's program is that it treats a sewage treatment plant as a source, which it is not.

Very quickly: in terms of health problems, as Labour critic for the opposition I recall raising the question of problems being experienced by sewage treatment plant workers at the Ashbridges Bay plant here in Toronto. The workers there were experiencing various kinds of health problems and discomfort. Work was stopped at that plant on several occasions, and it is very difficult at that end of the conduit, if you will at the sewage treatment plant, to determine what the chemical problems are that are causing these negative health effects. So it makes entirely good sense to eliminate the problem before then.

In conclusion, this government cannot foist a large part of the problem over to the municipalities. They do not have the money. We have talked about the hundreds of millions of dollars that are needed so that towns like Fort Erie are no longer dumping raw sewage into the lakes every time it rains. If we do not have the money and resources to bring those sewage treatment plants up to a very minimal standard, how can we expect those sewage treatment systems to treat very hard-to-detect chemical problems?

I thank honourable members for their support. I urge the minister to act on this resolution, once passed.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for debate on ballot item 12. It will be dealt with further at 12 of the clock.

Ballot item 13.

Mr. Runciman: I must say I am not thrilled by the number that my ballot ended up with. It may not augur well for the fate of it.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member would move second reading.

REFERENDUM ACT

Mr. Runciman moved second reading of Bill 75,

An Act to provide an Opportunity for the Electorate to express its views by means of Referenda in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes, and if you wish to reserve any of that time to conclude to debate, that is up to you.

Mr. Runciman: I am not sure of the timing, so we will just see what happens.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on what can only be described as significant and far-reaching legislation, Bill 75,

An Act to provide an Opportunity for the electorate to express its views by means of Referenda in Ontario.

At the outset, I want to stress that Bill 75 calls for nonbinding referenda. I will repeat that: nonbinding referenda. Based on my experience in the past few weeks, I am prepared to wager that I could mention the nonbinding provision a dozen times, yet any opposition that might be expressed here today will more aptly apply to binding referenda. I am resigned to that fact.

In Bill 75, I have opted for nonbinding referenda because the mechanics of binding referenda legislation are difficult, to say the least, and because there is a strong case for the purely consultative character of nonbinding referenda. The moral impact will be enough.

I am going to try a bit of a pre-emptive strike here and discuss briefly some of the predictable concerns that some honourable members may be expressing during this debate.

1. Referenda legislation could disable the Legislature from exerting its legal authority. This does not apply, as Bill 75 mandates only nonbinding, consultative referenda.

2. We will be subjected to frivolous referenda.

Section 4 of Bill 75 reads: "A question shall not be placed on a ballot unless the petition contains the signatures of a number of electors equal to eight per cent of the electors who voted in the last election." Based on the turnout in the 1985 election, we would be looking at a requirement of approximately 300,000 signatures. I believe that requirement eliminates the concern about frivolous questions ending up on the ballot.

3. A general election is the only referendum required. If we believe that, ask ourselves how much input voters have into the selection of candidates or into the choice of issues that divide parties at elections. It just does not hold water.

4. Referenda legislation will erode the influence and authority of ordinary members. That is a good one. How much influence do we as private members have; and as a result, and more important, how much do our constituents have through us? I suspect not as much as most people think. One of the reasons for that is rigid party discipline. To imagine that members of this Legislature are in some serious sense independent is to fly in the face of political reality. Bill 75 can help to turn this situation around.

Moving away from possible concerns, I would like to inform you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, that I have introduced this legislation because of a very real concern I raised some time ago in a speech at Queen's University; a concern that has not been allayed in the intervening years, and that is the growing menace of the missing vote.

It would appear that our political parties are turning off the electorate at an increasing rate. We are frustrating the undecided voter and making the hard-core voter less sure of his or her allegiance to any particular party. It has to do with credibility and voter trust of the politicians, as our parties in this assembly too often play eeny, meeny and me too.

Let us take a look at some of the no-show statistics. In the 1971 election, 27 per cent of the electorate did not bother to vote. In 1975, 33 per cent stayed at home; in 1977, 37 per cent. In the 1981 and 1985 elections, it levelled off at approximately 40 per cent. We are getting close to almost half of the electorate failing to exercise the franchise. That should be a disturbing bit of information for all members.

Those statistics do not provide much solace either for those who believe in majority rule. In 1981, a majority government was elected with a little over 25 per cent of the total eligible vote. The current government holds office with about 23 per cent of the eligible vote.

It is safe to say that many citizens do not feel they are getting fair representation from those they elect and are turned off by politics and by politicians and see no point in participating in the electoral process. I for one believe that far too much of their disillusionment is justified.

As a member of this Legislature, it does not take long to learn that one of the problems with representative democracy is that it is not always representative. Free votes are rare indeed. Newcomers to this House are in for a rude but early awakening. Earlier this year, in his first term, the Liberal member for Humber (Mr. Henderson) very eloquently expressed his frustration when dealing with the question of party discipline. I quote from Hansard of January 22, 1987:

"Feelings of intimidation are not uncommon. That type of pressure does not belong in a democratic Legislature. All legislators are elected to represent constituents in this assembly. People doing what they are told are not involved in democratic government."

Another quote from that same speech: "Electors might be surprised to know how little their elected representatives feel free to represent their views."

No doubt all members can empathize to some degree with the comments of the member for Humber, but perhaps no one in the current House any more than me. Some members will recall that in my first term I disagreed with Mr. Davis's decision to acquire an interest in Suncor. I was opposed to the purchase, but I was even more opposed to a decision-making process which saw much of the cabinet and caucus, let alone this Legislature, bypassed and ignored, with virtually no consultation with the people's elected representatives prior to a decision that cost taxpayers in this province millions and millions of dollars.

Regrettably, my opposition to the Suncor purchase accomplished nothing: not for me, not for the beleaguered taxpayer and not for the decision-making process.

Party discipline and whipped votes remain the reality around here. All too frequently, on controversial issues, we see all three parties singing from the same hymn-book. Separate school funding, Bill 8 and now Bill 154 are recent examples. On these issues and others, large segments of the electorate feel shut out. They feel that no one is speaking on their behalf.

Bill 75,

an act to provide for nonbinding referenda, has the potential to lessen that sense of alienation from government which many Ontarians now profess. No doubt my friends to the left are fully aware that one of their gurus, Ralph Nader, is a strong advocate of public referenda. Nader believes, and I share his belief, that referenda can politically activate people who ordinarily would not be part of the political process.

Members of the New Democratic Party will no doubt also be interested in a pertinent quote from a publication, The Citizens' Guide to the Ontario Legislature, whose author and also a special contributor are not strangers to the NDP: Paul McKay and a fellow by the name of Donald MacDonald. I quote from the publication:

"Certainly reclaiming public control of our government is a formidable task. It will require a virtual revolution in the way people think of politics and in the role citizens have traditionally played in the political process. It will also require wide-reaching structural reforms to ensure that we have a government which allows, and demands, real participation. Active citizenship is the greatest challenge and the most compelling obligation for Ontarians to meet in the future."

Donald MacDonald and friends convincingly call for real, active citizen participation in the political process. Ralph Nader contends that referenda will accomplish just that.

Based on the views expressed by Messrs. MacDonald, McKay and Nader, and based on the NDP's own history of attempting to have questions placed on municipal ballots, I am very optimistic that members of the third party will support Bill 75.

As for the temporary governing party, I hope there are enough populists and free thinkers over there to recognize the merits of this innovative initiative and, despite what their whip might advise, give Bill 75 their support. Time will tell.

In conclusion, I am not suggesting that nonbinding referenda will provide a cure-all for the deficiencies of the current system. However, consultative referenda can help in a significant way. It can make democracy more democratic. It can make representative democracy more representative. It can make people, by having responsibility given to them, become less apathetic and more responsible.

I urge the careful consideration of Bill 75 by all members of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Do you wish to reserve the eight minutes or any part thereof?

Mr. Runciman: Perhaps three minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Fine.

Mr. Breaugh: Before I begin, I must say I have been solicited many times before in my life, but I always find it wise not to accept the kind of blandishments that have just been put forward to the NDP to support the bill.

I want to confess that when I initially read the bill, my first instinct was to say: "This is not a bad idea. What is wrong with a referendum? What is wrong with letting people voice, on a ballot, their opinion about something?"

What is wrong with the bill is the specifics of it. Members will know that I am a bit of a junkie on the political process. I have a tendency to study, talk and listen a great deal about how political systems work and do not work. One of the things that has been brought really vividly to my attention is that in the United States, for example, where without question this concept would be very popular and is used a great deal, they have encountered some difficulties with it.

In Massachusetts, for example, any citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a constitutional right to cause legislation to be brought forward. Of course, that ends up, usually every year in their state Legislature, as being 2,000 or 3,000 pieces of legislation that never go anywhere; but they do have a right to get it started.

In many of the states, of course, they have this type of concept worked into their political system where virtually any citizen can start a referendum or a proposition, the most famous of which is proposition 13 in California. Usually it starts with something that would fall right nicely into this mould, where one puts on a ballot paper a question to which one must be able to answer yes or no. Of course, that dictates that the question is put in very simple terms. "Are you in favour of a reduction in taxes?" Find me a citizen out there who is not. Find me a member in here who is not in favour of cutting taxes in some way.

The problem is that politics is not about yes-or-no questions. It is about decision-making. It is about defining the grey areas. It is about making the political choices. If one asks people on my street, "Do you want your taxes reduced?" they all say yes; but if one explains to them that means the taxpayer does not get the road paved in front of his house, we do not remove the snow in the winter or the garbage in the summer, then they might have a different answer. If one puts it in a context of a political choice, one gets a totally different answer to the question.

I think that is the problem that is involved here. It is not that there is a great fault in the principle. It is just that it runs against the parliamentary system. It fits nicely into a congressional system. It is not comfortable there and it poses immense problems. For example, in California, when we visited there last year, they are still feeling the ramifications of that very simple question, "Do you want your taxes reduced or not?" because that question carries with immense resonance among the population.

Where it does not have the resonance is in the aftermath when the government starts to close the hospitals because it does not have the funding to run them. When it stops building roads and bridges collapse, people start to say: "But that is not what I meant. I just meant I am fed up with paying taxes."

If there was a crying need, for example, to elicit opinion from the general population, this would be a technique; but as one who regularly reads public opinion polls, as one who regularly mails to my constituents, who listens to them as I walk down the street in Oshawa; I sit in my constituency office and hear them there, l listen to them on the telephone, I have a whole lot of devices for telling me what people think in my constituency. I use them all and I do not need this one to embellish that process.

For example, in my latest little riding report I did a questionnaire to ask them about driver-owned auto insurance. I am amazed that only 90 per cent of the people who responded to that in Oshawa are in favour of a driver-owned auto insurance plan. I do not know what is the matter with other 10 per cent, but it points out to me that I have a problem. Ten per cent of my constituency has its ideology in front of its common sense. I will have to go to work on them and explain to them what the problem is here.

Why do they not understand that three of our 10 provinces do this and do this well and we could do it well here? I have lots of devices at my disposal to gather up information. I have all kinds of public opinion polls that are published and that are done by my party, newspapers and everybody else, to tell me this kind of information.

What is wrong with the proposal here is really the specifics of it. The member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) is one whom I usually admire, despite what the mayor of Brockville says. He is one of the last people in here with that fervent 17th century ideology on his sleeve all the time. We know where he stands and I like that kind of political enemy. He is never confused with facts or anything like that. He has a straight opinion. Right there, one knows where he is coming from all the time. Did he really mean to say in this bill, as he did, that he wants this Attorney General (Mr.

Scott) -- this one -- to decide whether or not something can legitimately be put on the ballot for a referendum? I do not think he did.

Mr. Runciman: Subject to the courts.

Mr. Breaugh: I would not, and of course he is enjoining with the interjection that, "Well, it is subject to the courts." He wants this to go off to the courts again. That is precisely what is happening in American politics these days. The courts are mired with people who make political decisions. You can intervene in front of a court and you get that whole process going. Is that really what he wants? I would remind him that according to the specifics of this bill, the Attorney General makes the first decision and then the public is free, rich and poor alike, to hire a lawyer and go to court.

How will that work? Will people in my riding who are unhappy with the amount of money they get on social assistance programs be equally able to hire a lawyer and go to court, as would Imperial Oil, the tobacco companies or any other major corporations? In the eyes of the law, the rich and the poor have equal access to the courts; but in reality, do they? No, they do not. We all know that.

The basic problem he has put in front of us this morning is an American concept; and I am very much a pro-American member in my own party, probably one who would be criticized as being too positive towards the United States. I admire their political system, but it is not ours. We have a different system at work, I believe the parliamentary system is a better system. There are some things that the Americans do in their congressional system that I think are usable for us, are useful lessons to be learned, but this is not one of them. This is one that I would point out as a flaw in the American process of government.

It is theoretically nice to be able to say to the American people, "You have the constitutional right to do all these things; to cause a proposition 13 to be put on a ballot; to instigate legislation; in this instance to start a referendum." He is right. Ralph Nader would be a proponent of this, I suppose, because in the American political system this would fit very nicely. But I believe it is a flaw in that system.

In our parliamentary system, we elect political parties and politicians to listen to the population and to make the fine determinations of political choices. They are not easy all the time. They rarely come to the point where we can put a simple yes or no question in front of the Legislature. We often do that, but then we often spend days, in fact weeks, discussing all the niceties of what a no vote means and what a yes vote means. Most of us who have been in the Legislature for a while wish it was this simple, but it is not.

It is almost deluding the public when we put questions on a referendum and say: "Give us a yes or no. Do you want us to build this road? Do you want us to build this arena? Do you want us to build this school?"

In American jurisdictions where this is prevalent -- and this is done a lot through a variety of techniques in the United States -- the problem really becomes simply this: people say, "We do not want to pay taxes and so we do not want to build a new school unless it is a new school that my child goes to." The problem is that each time the question is put we are talking about something which is not real, and so people say, "I want you to cut taxes;" but the schools do not get built, the roads do not get built, the hospitals do not get funded and the universities are under siege.

That is the problem with this particular bill. It offers in a sense almost a false promise, that people could vote on a referendum and they could actually resolve issues. They cannot. As much as I would like to support the bill, I cannot. I believe it is an American idea, which does not work in our system of government at all. I believe it would cause more problems than it would resolve; it would raise a good many false hopes; and it would serve no useful purpose. For those reasons, as much as I would like to help an endangered species this morning, I cannot support the bill.

Mr. Polsinelli: I have decided to speak to the private member's bill put forward by the member for Leeds today because, although I believe his purpose and intentions are honourable in allowing for a more common use of referenda in mandating public opinion, I am not convinced that the mechanisms proposed by this bill represent a viable approach to determining the public opinion and will on general matters in our system of democracy.

In expressing my point today, I thought I might research the use of referenda in other jurisdictions, and what I found were some interesting facts I would like to share with this House.

The use of referenda for approving constitutional amendments has been extensive in other countries, in Australia, Denmark, Ireland and Switzerland. Even the United States, as pointed out by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), in the case of amendments to state constitutions, provides for the use of referenda in determining constitutional amendments. However, the use of referenda for general issues of concern really has little precedence.

Aside from the occasional examples of referenda used in determination of boundaries of a new state and those mentioned above for constitutional amendments, the only other significant use of the referendum has been in the decision to join or withdraw from a federation, and I am sure that every member of this assembly will recall that exact situation in a referendum in Quebec a number of years ago.

Notwithstanding this, some countries like Switzerland permit referenda on practically any subject as does the state of California. Members may ask where else would this be allowed. But, in general, the practice in many countries has been to limit the possible subject of referenda questions to questions on the constitution, political institutions or political sovereignty. Historically, ancient Greece is often cited as an example of a state governed by direct democracy. Citizens actually proposed, discussed and voted on all issues of public concern.

However, our western democracies are governed by the principle, as mentioned by the member for Oshawa, of government by representation. We choose our representatives, who then develop policy based on the interests of their constituents, the interests of their province and the interests of their country. It is because we govern by the principle of government by representation that referendums in general on matters are unacceptable.

Referenda provide for a system of majority rule. On the contrary, government by representation provides for a system of government by consent. C. O. Sharpe in his book, The Case against the Referendum, states:

"Under a system of majority rule, the only right possessed by a minority is that of complete submission. A system of government by consent, on the other hand, recognizes the claim of any minority to be granted all such rights as do not seriously conflict with the rights of an equally important nature of the majority."

Governments often reach a policy decision after having listened to both sides. Often the decision represents a compromise. A good example of this is that given by Richard Theoret in his article, "Experience with Referendums Elsewhere." Theoret says that if you take the issue of smoking, one that most members of this assembly are familiar with, then the minority, the smokers, will be deprived of their pleasure if the majority decides against smoking.

Government by consent, however, can provide for the accommodation of both, the result being that we have smoking bylaws which provide for both smoking and nonsmoking sections. Theoret points out that both solutions are democratic; however, the government-by-consent decision is better as it recognizes both the interests of the majority and minority groups.

Referendums also threaten responsible government. For example, what would happen if a measure adopted by the Legislature is then rejected by the people in a general referendum? Does the government have to resign or should it continue, given that referendums under this bill are in effect nothing but nonbinding consultation?

Also referenda are potentially divisive mechanisms. Theoret cites the example of the 1942 plebiscite on conscription. Instead of giving the government a mandate, what, in fact, that referendum did was merely serve to divide the country even further on a very highly emotional issue.

It is also to be recognized that the question that is put to the people in a referendum, once it is decided, cannot be modified. An ordinary bill or even legislation can be altered or amended to deal with the various concerns once review begins.

What happens if the question put in a referendum is vague or contains an error which is not realized until after the question is put to the people? This bill and indeed referenda by their very nature have no way of dealing with this kind of problem.

Finally, it has been argued that referendum is a very expensive way to find out the opinion of the people. Often, it is clear from the start what side the majority will support and the potentially costly process proposed by this bill will more likely than not become a redundant exercise.

I hate to get partisan and political in this, but as I recall in the previous Conservative administration, there was a saying that it used to govern by polls. That is not the way we want to do things in this government. We want to govern by consent and we want to govern by compromise. It seems to me that the position put forward from the Conservative member for Leeds is a natural extension of governing from polls because rather than taking a public opinion poll, its natural conclusion is to ask every citizen in this province what their opinion is in perhaps a very simplistic way, and then try to follow that decision.

I have come to the conclusion that regular use of referenda can sometimes do more harm than good. As a matter of fact, I believe that regular use of public opinion polls often does more harm than good. I believe there is evidence that in a modern, democratic society, consultation may be warranted at times, but regular use such as that proposed by this bill is costly, inefficient, redundant and I am sure harmful to our ability to govern effectively.

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to rise and speak in favour of the bill proposed by the honourable member for Leeds, Bill 75,

an act to provide an opportunity for the electorate to express its views by means of referenda in Ontario.

Having listened carefully to members opposite and in the third party to what they had to say about this bill, I realize that there is a sense of history that we have to realize, that we are proud of here in Ontario. We go back many, many years to the beginning and origins of democracy. We certainly have to be proud of the fact that there were people who stood up and could be counted and through a direct form of democracy and through their own way of dealing with issues in Athens, Greece, it was the beginning of a democratic government.

Many things have happened since those early days because, either through evolution or revolution, we have come to where we are now in Ontario, basing our parliamentary system very much on the British model. But we also know that this whole business of referenda is something that is important to the people of any kingdom and any jurisdiction because through referenda -- as Webster defines it -- it is "an initiative as to the procedure or device by which legislation may be introduced or enacted directly by the people."

A referendum is defined as "the principle or practice of referring measures passed upon or proposed by a legislative body to the body of voters or electorate for approval or rejection." There are a number of governments today that use this form of referendum. In Switzerland, it is almost the exclusive way in which government business is processed and it has referenda on whether there is going to be an addition to a hospital, a new road or on different financial matters.

There have been some very key referenda in the world front. In Spain, the Spaniards voted, through a referendum, to stay in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Denmark had a national referendum on whether it would block the European common market, and it decided not to.

For those who have said it is not a model that can be at all based on the British Commonwealth procedure and the British parliamentary procedure out of Westminster, there was a referendum in Britain in 1975 on whether it would enter the European common market. There was a second referendum in Britain in 1979, and that had to do with whether they would have the devolution of Scotland and Wales. So there is a precedent in the British parliamentary procedure for referenda.

We, in Canada, witnessed a very significant and important referendum that was announced by the Parti Québécois in 1976 as a method to resolve whether they would go for a sovereign state. We watched that, we witnessed it and we were part of it as the rest of Canada looked on and saw Quebec going through this very difficult yet important procedure in which the people had a voice.

There are problems with our legislative process right now. As the member for Leeds referred in his own speech that more and more people in this province are feeling disfranchised. They feel they are shut out from the parliamentary process, from the decision-making process. They believe that when they elect someone they are there to do what they want. It is almost as it was in 1912, when Mr. Henders, who was president of the Manitoba Grain Growers Association, made this statement about referenda. I think it applies today.

He said: "The sovereign people have no direct efficient control. They are sovereign de jure but not de facto, except at election time. The actual powers experienced by the people consist chiefly in the periodic choice of another set of masters who make laws to suit themselves and enforce them until their term of office expires, regardless of the will of the people. We are governed by an elective aristocracy of wealth. Behind the government and Legislatures are the corporations and the trusts. Behind the political monopolists are the industrial monopolists, and the principal remedy is direct legislation."

He goes a little far, but he brings out the point that the people have somehow been disfranchised and do not feel a part of it. As the member for Leeds said, the statistics point to the fact that 37 per cent or 40 per cent of the people of Ontario --

Mr. Speaker: Were you referring to the member for Leeds?

Mr. Cousens: The member for Leeds, the same honourable, good man who presented this bill, Bob Runciman.

As one who has sat in this House for the last six years, I have come to realize, from my three different seats, as I sat as a back-bencher in the government, as I sat as a cabinet minister for a short time and I now sit in opposition, and in all three seats --

Mr. Andrewes: You sat in the Speaker's chair too.

Mr. Cousens: Yes, I sat in the Speaker's chair, that is right. That was the most uncomfortable.

The concern that I had was that there is more power in that chair than there is in any of the three that I am talking about. It has to do with the fact that how much does a back-bencher, either in opposition, or within the government, or even a cabinet minister effect change and make change. We can affect it more than the general population, but I think our own voters and our own constituents sometimes bestow upon us the honour that they think we have more power than we really have.

We in this Legislature have tried to make some minor revisions to the House, but they have been so minor that they have not really come to the thrust of allowing people to speak out. We are in a position where more and more governments are using polls, but who knows how scientific and how accurate they are. There really has to be a better system to address the needs, to respond to the desire by the people of this province to be heard and to influence change.

The reasons against having a direct referenda, to me really boils down to the fact that some people do not trust the people to make a good decision, and that is poppycock. Some people think that ordinary people may be too stupid, ignorant or lazy, and I have not heard that said by any of the speakers this morning, but behind their words I sense that lack of trust in the general population.

Possibly the main reason for people in this House opposing, and I hear the other two parties opposing this motion, has to do with Howard Jarvis, the Californian who, in 1978, presented proposition 13, a bill that had something to do with property taxes, a bill that was opposed by both parties in the Legislature of the State of California. In the teeth of that opposition by the two parties in government, this referenda took place and forced government to change its thinking. Now I think that we in this province should be prepared to change our thinking by virtue of allowing the public to speak.

Referenda can pass a judgement and help laws to be more in tune with the thinking of the people. They can require the Legislature to create laws that more respond to the needs of the people; such referenda become an important thing in that they consult the people. People now are left out of that parliamentary process.

I believe that if this bill presented by the member for Leeds is passed it will allow the public to be more democratically involved. Representative government will become more representative. People will become less apathetic.

Newfoundland would not be part of this Confederation had it, with its parliamentary background, not come together. In 1948 it had a referendum on whether it would join Canada. That vote was taken and people voted against joining Canada, but on July 22, 1948, they decided to become part of this great Confederation.

The western provinces have used referenda a great deal. Seven were used in Alberta from 1915 to 1971. British Columbia has had two referenda. Manitoba has had seven of them. Nova Scotia has had two, one in 1920 and one in 1929, both dealing with liquor sales. Ontario has had two referenda, one in 1902 regarding the prohibition of liquor and another in 1919 regarding the Temperance Act. So have Prince Edward Island, Quebec as we just described and Saskatchewan.

We are at the crossroads of allowing democracy to move with the times. Let there be more evolution. Let there be more of an opportunity for the people who care about this province to speak out and have an effect on that change. Through this kind of bill, that change can take place.

Mr. Warner: I am afraid that for the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens), a referendum is not going to rescue his insecurity in this democratic system of ours. In a few moments, I want to talk about some of the problems both he and the member for Leeds have raised. They are indeed problems we should consider but I think they are better addressed in some other way than a referendum. In fact, knowing a little bit about the area the member for Leeds represents, I suggest that probably a good United Empire Loyalist would turn over in his grave at this latest American invasion. This is an invasion of an American idea as to how to run government.

Out of a little curiosity, I wonder whether the member who has put forward Bill 75 can tell me whether this bill is the result of a referendum he ran in his riding. Perhaps when he has a few moments at the end, he can tell us.

I think we need to separate the two major suggestions that have been put forward. One is the idea of a referendum, which of course runs somewhat counter to the notion of representative government and to the evolving of a party system, which we have in this country. In fact, some may argue we do not have enough political parties. We have three major parties in Ontario. Across the country, of course, you can add Social Credit in British Columbia and the Parti Québécois in Quebec.

Coast to coast we are looking basically at five parties and perhaps our political scene would be enhanced by the addition of other parties. Rather than watering down the party system as the member is suggesting, reducing the role of representative government and moving away from a British parliamentary system, perhaps we should look at ways of strengthening our system.

The member raises some very legitimate points about the role of MPPs and the concern that is expressed by many members around the whole area of party discipline and the whole area of how members can participate and to what extent they can participate in debates. Just as a candid observation, it is no secret that when the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan), who is a member of the government party, gets up in this House to ask a question in question period, a lot of people start hooting and hollering. Quite frankly, that is inappropriate. The member has every right to ask a question.

Whether the question is sensible is something else, but he has every right as a private member to get up and ask questions. People should not make fun of that.

To a large extent, I think the system in Britain is more mature than what we have here. I recall quite vividly that one time when I was visiting Britain, I listened to a heated debate on the radio between two members of Parliament who were diametrically opposed on an issue. At the end of the debate, I learned that both MPs were from the same party; both happened to be Conservative MPs. They were engaged in a public debate on radio, taking opposite positions on an issue. I think that is very healthy. It is something that seems to scare a lot of members in Ontario.

I doubt that we have ever really had a debate between two members of the same party in a public way. It is always done behind closed doors. Maybe that speaks a bit to our insecurity as members.

We have a party system and it is a good system. We could find ways of strengthening it, but party discipline is important. The public wants to know what a party thinks about an issue. It wants to know whether a party is prepared to make a commitment on an issue and to stand by it, or when the issue is put to a test, whether certain members do not have the courage to follow through.

Party discipline is important but we have to have party discipline and at the same time find a balance that allows members to speak their own minds, particularly on the really serious issues that are matters of conscience; I suggest around the issue of abortion or of capital punishment. These are issues on which members have to have the opportunity to speak their minds.

If the member for Leeds is seriously concerned about strengthening our system so the public has greater access, then perhaps he should turn his attention to how we can have greater access for the public to our committees and to the legislative process. One of the things that needs to be considered is the opportunity for committees to formulate legislation. Maybe our committees should have that opportunity and should do so by way of public hearings, so that committees of this assembly could deliberate over the formulation of legislation and during that process take their little travelling road show to various communities around the province.

Perhaps there should be some way for private individuals to propose legislation that would be debated. I am not suggesting we should have it as wide open as they do in Massachusetts, which my good colleague the member for Oshawa has mentioned. In fact, I believe they have a total of 10,000 bills per year that must be processed because if a citizen walks in off the street with a proposal, there is an obligation to deal with the bill from start to finish. I am not suggesting it be that wide open, but perhaps there should be some avenue whereby citizens would have an opportunity to propose legislation to their legislators and have it dealt with in a serious way.

The member for Oshawa is right. If members were to be totally candid, we have at our disposal a lot of ways of finding out how our constituents feel about issues, whether it is through newsletters, questionnaires that are sent out regularly or through riding office hours or the telephone. I remind members -- perhaps they do not need reminding -- that in Ontario we have one of the most accessible Legislatures that exists anywhere. Members are accessible. If they are not accessible to their constituents, it is the members' fault; it is not the constituents' fault.

In

summary, the idea of moving away from a representative form of government and moving to a populist, referendum form of running government bothers me. I find it very unsettling. Quite frankly, l find it a bit scary because it means that very simple yes-or-no questions, run on a populist front, can rule the day. Instead of deliberate, thoughtful discussion with an opportunity to bring forward all the nuances, all the details and deal with all the complexities of whatever suggestions are put forward, that goes by the board and that bothers me.

I would like to see our system enhanced so that members of the general public have a greater opportunity to bring forward their suggestions, but I think we are well served by a party system and by a representative system. I am opposed to the bill and yet I appreciate the sincerity with which it is brought forward, and of course, the risk that the member for Leeds is running by this American invasion, being from a territory that is well known for its United Empire Loyalist roots.

Mr. Offer: It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to partake in debate this morning, especially with respect to resolution 13. I have had the opportunity to listen to some of the comments made today with respect to the use of referenda or plebiscites in the province. When one first reads the bill, it does not sound too bad. It seems another way the people of the province would have of voicing their opinions with respect to certain matters, through plebiscites or referenda. But when one looks not only to the bill but rather takes into consideration the impact of such a device, I think there are some concerns that ought to be raised and determined.

We as legislators have been elected to represent the people in our ridings. We have been entrusted by them to act on the questions and issues of the day. We have that obligation. I believe the use of referenda would, not only in the long run but also in the short run, very much erode the trust the electors put in us or give to us during elections. They rely on us. They rely on us to meet their needs and to be there, not in any partisan manner when we are talking about our constituencies but in a manner that is sensitive, reflective and compassionate to their needs, to be accessible at all times. If we are not, we of course are accountable to those people who have exercised their votes.

We have at our disposal a number of ways in which we can better get in touch with our constituents on any issue. We have the use of newsletters, for instance -- "householders" as they are called -- with which we can not only inform our constituents of some of the issues of importance but also elicit from them, if they want, their opinions with respect to those same matters, or if we wish, any other matters they may wish to use.

We have better-equipped constituency offices than ever before. We have more funds available. All the members have more funds available to them to run more efficient, more adaptable constituency offices for the purpose for which they were created: constituents; for constituents to call, to write letters to, to voice their concerns to their member and to elicit from their member his or her opinion, his or her position on the issues of the day.

We have our own creativity in going from community to community. There are public meetings, called to hear from those people what is of concern to them and to us, and why we want to hear them. We have all these items at our disposal to be used as we want, to be used to create a greater representative capacity for the people we ought to represent, our constituents. I see this as a way of eroding that, a way of almost absolving the members of that responsibility by saying to the constituents, "This will be part of a referendum." I think this could cause a lot of harm.

In the history of this province, there has been a time and a place for referenda, but we are not a plebiscitary type of democracy. We never have been and I suggest never will be.

In deciding whether one ought to or ought not to support this bill, we have to ask what our responsibility is to our electors. I believe the responsibility that we as elected officials have to our constituents is to be accessible at all times, to provide to them the forum for them to come to us or for us to go to them, to hear their comments and concerns. That is a personal relationship between the member and his or her constituents. I think the constituents very much judge the member on how he has attempted to provide these public forums, how he has attempted to elicit responses on a myriad of issues.

I am speaking against this bill. I believe we are not a plebiscitary democracy. I believe this runs counter to protecting, maintaining and safeguarding the interests of minority groups across this province and as such I vote to oppose Bill 75.

Mr. Runciman: At the outset of my comments, I mentioned I was prepared to wager that I could mention the nonbinding provision of this legislation a dozen times and that the opposition that might be expressed here today would more aptly apply to binding referenda. Obviously, I would have won that wager because that is precisely what has happened.

One of the gentlemen across the floor was talking about cost, that the cost would be assumed by the petitioners, when we are talking about it taking place only at a general election.

Much of the argument and the views of the member for Oshawa can only be described as inane. I am not going to comment on them at length but there are a number of points. He described himself as the most pro-American individual in his caucus. I think that is like describing Caspar Weinberger as the most pro-Russian in the Reagan cabinet. The reality is that many people on the left are well aware that a referendum is likely to reflect the conservative instincts of the community at large and they are very fearful. As in most New Democratic Party positions, there is a strong element of hypocrisy.

The people running around this province urging municipalities to place questions concerning nuclear-free zones on their ballots were members of that party. I guess referenda are okay if the NDP can shape the questions; otherwise, forget it.

I think all of us in this House know that large segments of the electorate feel shut out and feel that no one is speaking on their behalf. My bill, Bill 75, has the potential to lessen that sense of alienation from government which many Ontarians now profess.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere was talking about representative democracy. Bill 75 has the potential to make democracy more democratic, it can make representative democracy more representative and it can make people, by having responsibility given to them, become less apathetic and more responsible. I urge that members not vote in party blocs. Let us show some independence and free thought here. They should ignore their party whips for a change and support Bill 75.

The Deputy Speaker: We should probably wait the 12 seconds remaining and then officially at 12 o'clock we can start the vote.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: It being 12 o'clock, we will deal first with Mr. Gillies's resolution. If any members are opposed to a vote on this resolution, will they please rise?

Mr. Breaugh: Don't you think he should be here before you deal with it?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. No members having risen, Mr. Gillies has moved resolution 17

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it in order to take the vote on this resolution in the absence of the member who sponsored it?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, it is.

MUNICIPAL-INDUSTRIA L STRATEGY FOR ABATEMENT

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Gillies has moved resolution 17.

Motion agreed to.

REFERENDUM ACT

The House divided on Mr. Runciman's motion for second reading of Bill 75,

An Act to provide an Opportunity for the Electorate to express its views by means of Referenda in Ontario, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Barlow, Cousens, Dean, Eves, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Lane, McCague, McLean, Partington, Pope, Rowe, Runciman, Turner.

Nays

Breaugh, Bryden, Caplan, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Fontaine, Fulton, Gigantes, Gillies, Grande, Grier, Haggerty, Hart, Hayes, Knight, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Mancini, McClellan, Newman, O'Connor, Offer, Philip, Poirier, Polsinelli, Smith, E. J., Warner, Wildman.

Ayes 16, nays 31.

The House recessed at 12:11 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join with me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery a parliamentary delegation from India, led by the Honourable B. Shandaranand, Minister of Water Resources. Other members of the delegation are the Honourable Dr. Durai, MP, Deputy Speaker, Lok Sabha; Anil Basu, MP; Singh Deo, MP; Mr. Manhar, MP; and Mr. Vajpayee, MP. Also accompanying the delegation is Paul McCrossan, MP for York-Scarborough. Please join me in welcoming them.

I would also like to inform the House that we have another guest who has not travelled quite as far. I would ask all members to join me in recognizing and welcoming the Minister of Agriculture from Prince Edward Island, the Honourable Tim Carroll.

BASEBALL GAME

Mr. Harris: I think it is appropriate on days following big occasions that somebody reports the results of the big baseball game last night. I am wondering whether I could briefly do that.

Mr. Speaker: It sounds like a member's statement to me, but it is not that.

Mr. Harris: No. Not having heard an objection to my unanimous consent, I am going to barge ahead here.

In my previous six years in this Legislature, we have annually had a meeting of the press gallery with our caucus and, as always in those previous six years, the press gallery has come out on top. As well, we have daily gatherings with the press gallery and they consistently come out on top of those as well.

However, last night there was a trend perhaps developing as part of our comeback. For the first time in six years, the Conservative caucus defeated the press gallery in the great ball game of the year. I would like to report that the star of the game was the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), who redeemed himself for some fielding problems when he drove in the winning run in the bottom of the ninth.

As members know, the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) was on the disabled list last year. I want to report that this year the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) is on the disabled list, as members will notice.

We send our very best to Stan Oziewicz, who was involved in the play of the game, the run of the game that tied the score, that forced us into that dramatic ninth inning. As a result, he is now on the long-term, permanent disabled list with a badly broken wrist, and we send our very best to Stan.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Mr. Stevenson: I stand today to announce the strong support of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Pures, farmers must look for all possible ways to consolidate their position. In western Canada, farmers are finding ways to get feed grains covered under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. In addition, farmers in the west are being paid $13 a metric tonne for feed grains fed in the west. The western programs are having a profound effect on the Ontario feedlot industry. Their long-term effect could be devastating, particularly in western Ontario.

Inclusion of feed grain under the stabilization program in Ontario would at least help counteract the current unfair situation. If this program is not approved provincially and federally, we will see some arrangements being made among farmers which will not be in the best interests of agriculture in Ontario, but will allow them to qualify in some way or other for existing programs.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Laughren: A week ago today, the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay), the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, stated while in North Bay that Highway 11 would be four-laned to North Bay and Highway 69 would be four-laned to Sudbury. When he was talking in North Bay he indicated that money would be committed to restart the planning for the four-laning of both Highway 11 north from Huntsville and Highway 69 north from Waubaushene to Sudbury. It was estimated it would take at least 10 years and $150 million to complete the four-laning of the Huntsville-to-Callander route and $480 million for the Waubaushene-Sudbury project.

The problem is that when I came down here this week and asked the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Peterson) about this project, he indicated he knew nothing about it. The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) seems to know about the same amount about the project.

What we would like to know on this side of the House, and have been trying to get some answers about, is whether the government is intending to launch a massive planning project for these two highways or whether it intends to announce a project to four-lane the highways. At this point we do not know whether the government intends to simply do some long-range planning or whether it intends to build some highways, and we are not getting any answers from the government ministers.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to raise the issue of highways and problems with highways as well. It has to do with the reconstruction of major thoroughfares.

We all know there is work being done on Highway 401 and the Gardiner Expressway, but this morning I saw the way this government is accelerating the refurbishing and repair of the Don Valley Parkway. As I was travelling southbound -- of course, the parkway is narrowed down from three lanes to two -- l could see 12 people around the site, three people were working and the other nine were walking around, a ratio of four to one.

Is it any wonder we had a traffic backup that went halfway up the parkway? This government says it is an accelerated job. Here is a highway that is a major thoroughfare in and out of Metropolitan Toronto and there is just nothing happening on it. It is narrowed down to two lanes and there are three people working on it.

I cannot believe the minister is taking that little interest in the communications problems, the driving problems and the travelling problems of the people around Metropolitan Toronto who want to come in here for some crazy reason such as to make a dollar or to run a business. What is this minister doing to help them? He has three people working on the Don Valley Parkway; meanwhile, it is closed down. The number of man-days that were lost this morning by people sitting in their cars is more than we should tolerate. I am getting sick and tired of it.

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. Mackenzie: There is a very real concern among Firestone workers in Hamilton over the future of their plant. Rumours of shifts of production to the United States, cutbacks and even the plant's closure are causing concern.

Firestone workers have lived with these recurring rumours of the plant's demise for years. The heavy federal investment in this plant, $15,250,000 million of taxpayers' money in 1983, as well as the acknowledged efforts of the workers themselves to improve and increase production, was intended to protect the future of the plant and the workers.

Some of us, myself included, raised concerns over the deal that was negotiated because we bought a bias-ply operation when the move was to steel-belted radials. We were also concerned about the job guarantees.

There are 1,300 jobs involved in this plant, and this Liberal government must decide now whether the Goodyear pattern is to repeat or whether it has the guts once and for all to do something to protect these workers.

With the advance warning we have, what is the Peterson government prepared to do in terms of the 1,300 Firestone workers in the city of Hamilton? Is it prepared to protect these workers' jobs?

PORTUGAL DAY

Mr. Callahan: It gives me great pleasure to rise in my place and to relate to the House the evening I had in my riding yesterday. It was Portugal Day in Brampton. It was sponsored by the Voice of Portugal, a paper that serves the Portuguese community to a great extent. It is also very supportive of measures by the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) and such things as Crime Stoppers and Neighbourhood Watch.

The event itself was focusing on Portugal Day. The music that was provided was excellent. The turnout was excellent. I commend the people who put it together as a recognition of the very strong and very vibrant Portuguese-Canadian community that I have in Brampton.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. McLean: I have a statement for the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) regarding the expansion of a hospital in my riding. As he is aware, I wrote him a letter on May 20 regarding his plans for the Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital. It is now June 11 and I am still awaiting a reply.

The Simcoe District Health Council has completed its health needs and services study and submitted a list of recommendations to his ministry. Since that time there has been much discussion and speculation regarding the future of the hospital, or if there is to be a future at all for this health care facility.

A phase two addition to the Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital was initially approved in 1985, but since that time, discussions have centred on the possibility of funding an entirely new facility because there is no room for expansion on the existing site in Orillia.

I believe the time has come to instruct the hospital's board of directors to proceed with the new facility or at the very least to get the new addition under way if this government does not want to put health care at risk in Simcoe county.

The time for an announcement regarding the ministry funding or a new or expanded hospital in Orillia is long overdue. The hospital's board of directors and administration are ready, willing and able to launch a major fund-raising campaign to cover part of the anticipated costs of construction, but direction is needed from the Minister of Health before anything can proceed.

The time is now for the minister to approve this facility in the Orillia area for the necessary treatment for the people there. I urge him to proceed immediately.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Breaugh: The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) was in Oshawa recently. He was beckoned by the chamber of commerce. Unfortunately, when he got there, he was a little grumpy that day; he must have been asleep in the back of the limo on the way out because he missed all the big government signs announcing the GO Transit extension. He must also have missed all the millions of dollars that have gone through the government's coffers for consultants, appraisals, engineering reports and options on properties because, when he was there and questioned by reporters, he did not seem to know anything about it.

Oshawa This Week, the newspaper, always sensitive to the needs of our community, knows for sure there is that need. They were appalled at the ignorance of the Treasurer, who seemed to know nothing of all the petitions and questions and statements and speeches that have been made in here.

They are good communicators and they are going to help the Treasurer overcome his ignorance. They are going to collect a petition informing the Treasurer and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) that there is a need for GO Transit to Oshawa which will allow the government to use all the land it has optioned in that area and to make use of all the engineering studies it has done and all the busy little things the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has been doing all these years.

I would like to be the first to present the Treasurer, since he forgot, with this petition. Just in the interest of better communications in the cabinet, I will give any member of the cabinet a copy of this petition as well.

Mr. Speaker: There are 18 seconds left. The member for Essex South.

Mr. Mancini: I do not believe I have enough time to make this statement.

Interjections.

Mr. Mancini: Before the members across the way embarrass themselves, I want to take this opportunity --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I waited a few seconds, and we went past the allotted time. I am sorry; the time for members' statements has expired.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House for consent to offer congratulations to my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) and to acknowledge his 28th anniversary in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mr. Harris: It is too bad you are so stupid, the way you went about it; a perfectly marvellous and wonderful occasion.

Mr. Mancini: As I said earlier, I would hope no one would embarrass himself.

MEMBER'S ANNIVERSARY

Mr. Mancini: It is very important today for me, as a member from the Windsor-Essex county area, to bring to the attention of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and to other members of this assembly a very special occasion, the 28th anniversary of the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman).

Over the last 28 years, my colleague has faithfully served his constituents and has been faithfully returned by his constituents to this august assembly. I know all my colleagues would wish to join with me and honour my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville, and let him know how much we have appreciated the work he has done in this assembly.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONE-STOP ACCESS

Members will recall that one year ago this month the government released its white paper entitled A New Agenda. Much of the thoughtful advice we received from seniors during the consultation process on the white paper had a consistent theme, namely, the pressing need to simplify and improve access to community services and to provide a more comprehensive approach to service delivery. In short, we were challenged to replace fragmentation with coordination, and in so doing, to strengthen the government's commitment to enable seniors to remain in their own homes and to reduce the prospect of unnecessary institutionalization.

As a result of further consultation this spring in 24 Ontario communities, I wish to announce today that the government is introducing a community-based program known as one-stop access. It is a fact of life that many seniors who now seek out community services must do so on their own. This can be difficult, time-consuming and frustrating for seniors and their families. Too often, the result is that their needs are neither properly assessed nor fully met.

This problem is due to two factors: community services are not sufficiently developed, and delivery is often fragmented and inadequately co-ordinated. However, this government is now moving to address both of these issues. We are continuing to expand and improve community services and care alternatives. We also intend to address the problem of fragmentation and coordination by providing a comprehensive approach to community services through one-stop access.

One-stop access will offer appropriate functional assessment and will take responsibility for bringing community health and social services to senior citizens in their own homes. To put it another way, one-stop access will do the legwork in obtaining services on behalf of seniors. Further, responsibility for planning, development and delivery of these community services will be vested with a designated local authority such as regional government or expanded boards of health.

Our intention is to introduce one-stop access in two phases. In this fiscal year, pilot projects will be established in the regional municipality of Waterloo, in Huron county and the district of Cochrane. In the next fiscal year, pilot projects will be introduced in the borough of East York in Metropolitan Toronto, and in the counties of Prescott-Russell and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

To facilitate this second phase, I am announcing today on behalf of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) that the integrated homemaker program will be introduced into East York and the counties of Prescott-Russell, and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry this year. I understand that the Minister of Community and Social Services, in keeping with the throne speech, will be announcing additional integrated homemaker sites in due course.

While one-stop access primarily will serve the needs of seniors, it will also benefit other population groups, such as disabled persons, who are now eligible for home care and the integrated homemaker program.

Before proceeding with one-stop access, we consulted widely and listened to the comments we received. We were told constantly that local needs vary across the province and it was not feasible to take a cookie-cutter approach to this new development. Accordingly, each pilot community will be invited to develop its own plan for one-stop access within the context of provincial criteria. Consumers and service providers will be involved in the local planning process.

This government recognizes that the development of a one-stop system requires new expenditures and that there will be a need to improve and expand community services in these communities. Consequently, our intention is to provide enrichment funding to meet these needs. At this time, we estimate the initial cost of the five pilots will be more than $5 million in new money. It is also our intention to evaluate these five pilots.

This initiative will be undertaken in close co-operation with and with the assistance of my colleagues the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Ruprecht). It is yet another first for Ontario and a major step forward in the delivery of quality community service to Ontario's seniors.

RESPONSES

ONE-STOP ACCESS

Mr. Cousens: There is nothing bold today except that the Liberal colours are waving over this announcement. There are six ridings mentioned in this brief: Huron county, held by the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston), Cochrane, held by the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) --

[Applause]

Mr. Cousens: Keep clapping. The province of Ontario will not be clapping.

-- Waterloo, held by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp),the riding held by the member for York East (Ms. Hart), the riding held by the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Poirier) and the riding held by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve).

Five of the six ridings get Liberal money. Five of six ridings are receiving this Liberal money. Did members hear me? Five out of the six places are getting this Liberal funding.

What is the minister trying to do? What happens to the seniors across the rest of the province? What is the minister really trying to do? I cannot believe he would say this is bold, except that he is feeding his own riding associations. He is feeding only some Liberals, only some people, only those who happen to live in Liberal ridings.

I have never seen such a blatant statement. It is going right into the coffers of their own voters in their own areas. What about the people who are seniors in other parts of the province? There is not one New Democratic Party riding mentioned in the announcement -- and the New Democrats are his friends, up until June 25. They are his friends and he does not even have an NDP riding in it. Why does he not? No wonder they are becoming unhappy with him; we always were.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member for York South (Mr. Rae) is smiling.

Mr. Cousens: Come on. It is nothing to laugh at. The seniors of this province want to be treated fairly. They want one-stop access. They want to be cared for, but they do not want to have this kind of political thinking brought to bear on a very major social problem. It is a flagrant disgrace. There is no excuse for it.

I say that for the minister to come along and list only six -- and he is starting off -- when he could be doing 16, and five of the six are Liberal ridings, is a disgrace of the first order. I do not know who put him up to it, because he is too good a man to do this kind of thing. Everybody around the province likes him, but they are not going to like this. They are not going to like that kind of approach to it.

Who is the Liberal in there who is forcing this kind of thinking on the member for London North (Mr. Van Home)?

Mr. Gillies: Bob Nixon.

Mr. Pope: Bob Nixon.

Mr. Cousens: The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is doing it to him.

We cannot afford this kind of political grandstanding, flim-flammery, doing it for only one party. What happens to all the rest of the province? I would like to know. I want to do something for my riding. I want to see something happen in my neighbour's riding. I would like to see something happen in the riding of the member for York North (Mr. Sorbara), but he is a Liberal, so that would mean six out of six.

Let us see what we can do to help all the people of this province. The seniors are looking for leadership. If they are going to see leadership that only looks after Liberal ridings -- is that what the minister is saying? Does he only look after Liberal ridings?

I could go for 20 minutes on this subject. This is a party that is leading this province to a misconception of what it is really capable of doing. It is not understanding the people of this province. Our seniors are the most important people we have in this province. They have built the province and made it what it is today. Here we have a chance to give something back to them and the government is giving it back only to Liberal ridings, except for one little Conservative riding, and it does not even come into effect till the second year. It is going to do it for one Conservative riding in the second year.

This is the best reason I have ever seen for the Liberals to lose the election. At last they have shown their colours and they have shown why the Conservatives -- who would at least include a couple of NDP ridings and a few of the Liberal ridings; there would be a mixture -- would never be as blatantly obvious about something that is as devious --

lnterjections.

Mr. Cousens: Worse than that.

As a group, we will do it to serve seniors and to be fair to all seniors. To come along with that blatant, obvious move that the government has now taken of serving only itself is something that should cause it to think again or maybe even resign.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has filled in his five minutes.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Very briefly, I might start by saying there is only one thing worse that I can think of for a minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs than we currently have, and that is the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens). That display, in which he did not even talk about the issue of community supports for senior citizens in this province, demonstrates why, after 42 years of government, the only solution for seniors when they became frail was to go into privately run, poorly run nursing homes in Ontario.

I would like to make just a couple of points about this government's lack of progress. We welcome today's announcement. Six pilot projects is very, very small -- very, very modest; but none the less we accept the fact and we congratulate the minister for moving on this, finally.

I particularly want to congratulate the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner), who brought this matter to the Legislature a couple of years ago with a private member's bill and really got the communities talking about the need for one-stop shopping, which then forced the government of the day to act.

But we will never make adequate progress on developing and emphasizing community support programs until we put the dollars into the system and properly pay the employees who are in the system on the same kind of scale we pay the institutional employees.

As long as we continue to take the approach of "If you are in the community, we do not care as much, we do not pay as much, we have staff turnover, we pay at minimum wage," then the reality of the situation is we are going to continue to have a system that is dominated by the institutions. We need to increase vastly the community-based services, not just on pilot projects but so that the one-stop-shopping approach actually has something to refer people to so that there are services to access.

We also need to look at the whole area of proper