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

July 6, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ADULT INVOLVEMENT IN YOUTH DRUG OFFENCES

STORM WATER

ADULT INVOLVEMENT IN YOUTH DRUG OFFENCES

WATER QUALITY

AFTERNOON SITTING

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PUBLIC INQUIRY

RESPONSES

PUBLIC INQUIRY

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENVACC RESOURCES INC

SALE OF PREMIER’S FAMILY BUSINESS

PUBLIC INQUIRY

SALE OF PREMIER’S FAMILY BUSINESS

PATRICIA STARR

SECURITY IN PREMISES USED BY PUBLIC

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SALE OF PREMIER’S FAMILY BUSINESS

ONTARIO NEW HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

FIREFIGHTING

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

PATRICIA STARR

CONTAMINATED SOIL

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

VISITOR

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LABOUR DISPUTE

TAX FREEDOM DAY

RAIL SERVICES

NORTHERN LIGHTS FESTIVAL BOREAL

SKILLS TRAINING

CLARENCE ASH

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

SECURITY IN PREMISES USED BY PUBLIC

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

MOTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LEGAL PROFESSION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

LAND TRANSFER TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ADULT INVOLVEMENT IN YOUTH DRUG OFFENCES

Mr Black moved resolution 15:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that much of the criminal drug activity involving young people is initiated by adults and yet, since the abolition of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which included an offence of “contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile,” there is no adequate legislative provision by which to discourage or punish adults who recruit children for drug-related purposes. the government of Ontario should pursue discussions with federal justice officials concerning an amendment to the Criminal Code to create a specific offence of counselling, aiding, or abetting a youth to commit any offence under the Narcotics Control Act, Food and Drugs Act, Criminal Code, or certain provincial regulatory statutes.

Such an offence should carry a greater penalty than a similar offence committed by an adult in relation to another adult.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation and may reserve any portion of that for the windup.

Mr Black: I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this resolution and to seek the support of all members of this House.

During the time I was doing the Report of the Task Force on Illegal Drug Use in Ontario, I had the opportunity to observe at first hand many of the problems which result from that particular social difficulty. I think all of us are familiar with the problems that result from that, but it is worthwhile that we should review those.

We know the fact that health care costs in this province are significantly higher because of drug-related problems. The taxpayers of this province face additional costs because of additional law enforcement. Productivity in business and industry is lower because of illegal drug use. One cannot adequately describe the amount of human suffering that takes place within our communities, the broken homes, the young people whose lives are destroyed, the marital breakdowns, all those resulting from illegal drug use.

I was told by law enforcement officers across this province that 70 per cent of property crime in Ontario can be directly or indirectly related to the use of illegal drugs. However, perhaps the most damaging statistic of all is that which deals with the potential of young people that is threatened and often destroyed by illegal drug use.

We know that young people are not the only people who abuse drugs. We know that increasingly, people in the adult community are involved in the illegal drug business and in the use of illegal substances, but the fact remains that young people, often at the most vulnerable time of their lives, become involved in criminal activity, in illegal pursuits, and they often do that because of encouragement from people in the adult community.

When I spoke to law enforcement officers from Ontario, from many communities in this province, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Ontario Provincial Police, as well as municipal police forces, I was told that one of the real difficulties they face is in trying to deal with those people who counsel younger people to commit crimes.

It is worth noting that up until 1984 there was a law called the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which dealt with people who counselled young people to commit crime. That act was replaced on 12 April 1984 by the Young Offenders Act.

Returning to the Juvenile Delinquents Act, clauses 33, 34 and 35 dealt very specifically with the problem of adults who counsel young people to commit crimes. It is worth looking at that legislation as it was in 1984.

Quoting from

section 33:

“Any person, whether the parent or guardian of a child or not, who knowingly or wilfully aids, causes, abets or connives at the commission by a child of a delinquency or does any act producing, promoting or contributing to a child’s being or becoming a juvenile delinquent or likely to make any child a juvenile delinquent is liable on

summary conviction before a juvenile court or a magistrate to a fine not exceeding $500 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years or to both.”

That was the law of the land until 1984. At that time, the Juvenile Delinquents Act was replaced by the Young Offenders Act. It is interesting that when the Young Offenders Act came into being, some significant changes took place.

Before discussing those changes, however, I want to talk about the land as it was under the former Juvenile Delinquents Act. I have gathered some statistics here. These statistics were gathered from the office of the Minister of Justice at the federal level and showed the following.

In 1981, 897 adults were charged under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. There were 571 convictions in Canada as a result. In 1982, the charges laid against adults totalled 732, with 509 convictions. In 1983, as the Juvenile Delinquents Act was reaching the end of its lifespan, 608 adults were charged, with 366 convictions.

The point I want to stress is that up until 1984 people were being charged and people were being found guilty under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. As of 12 April 1984 that act was no longer in force and we had new legislation, the Young Offenders Act, and some changes took place.

Those changes removed those clauses which had penalties and particular penalties for people who aided or abetted or counselled young offenders to commit illegal activity. It is interesting to note that under clause 50(1)(

a) of the Young Offenders Act there continues to be a penalty that was in the earlier legislation and deals with people who counsel young people to leave institutions to which they have been committed. But there has been, since 1984, no specific legislation which deals with the question of counselling young people to commit illegal activities.

What has happened in our society since that time is that we have seen a marked increase in the illegal drug trade. Part of the problem with the illegal drug trade is that many of the people who are acting as traffickers and who are acting as spotters and runners for the traffickers are young offenders. They are people who are being counselled by adults to commit crimes. Those people who do the counselling, who encourage young people to commit crimes, do not have the potential for being charged that existed previously.

We have organized crime looking at the question of the illegal drug trade, promoting the use of young offenders, promoting the use of juveniles, promoting the use of children as young as nine and 10 years of age to participate in illegal activity.

They do that for two reasons. They do it, first, because they recognize that under the terms of the Young Offenders Act they themselves cannot be charged and that if the people who are committing the offence are charged, the penalties are likely to be very light. They do it also because having juveniles distribute drugs provides easy access to school grounds and to community and recreational centres across this land.

The purpose of my motion is to bring to the attention of people across Ontario and to the members of this Legislature the problems that exist. We now face a situation where organized crime is promoting drug use in this province as never before. We face the situation that throughout Ontario, in communities as diverse as North Bay, London, Toronto and communities across this province, organized crime is encouraging the involvement of young people in drug-related activities. That is a fact that is known to police forces across this province.

We have a situation where charges that previously could have been laid are no longer being laid; where situations are developing that encourage people in their most formative years to become involved in illegal drug activity.

In concluding the first part of my remarks, and I would like to reserve about five minutes for wrapup but leave some time for other members who may want to speak, I want to stress the fact that I had the opportunity during the Task Force on Illegal Drug Use in Ontario to observe at first hand the participation and involvement of young people in these illegal activities.

I spent an evening with the Metropolitan Toronto Police force and observed in a public housing development in the northwest part of Toronto as people purchased drugs from teenagers -- young people who, I later found out, were 15 and 16 years of age. As we watched cars driving into the parking lot of that public housing development, there were younger people around the ages of nine and 10 who were riding around on bicycles as spotters and as runners, providing protection to the people who were doing the trafficking.

That problem, to me, is one that should be addressed. It can only be addressed by changes in legislation, specific changes which would once again make it an offence in this country for anyone who does counsel a younger person to be involved in criminal activity. I ask all members of this Legislature to support the resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: If I understood, you would like to reserve five minutes for your windup. Do any other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr Hampton: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate, because I think this is an important resolution and because I think there is much that needs to be done and much that needs to he worked upon in this whole area of social policy. Despite the fact that the resolution speaks in terms of the Criminal Code and speaks in terms of a criminal element in our society, I really believe that what we are dealing with here is a very broad question of social policy.

The broad question of social policy is, first, how we deal with the problem of drugs in our society and, second, how we provide the type of guidance and the type of protection that children and young persons need in a society that is becoming even more complex and complicated.

I will not say that I am totally, wholly in favour of the resolution as it is specifically worded. I think the concept of the resolution and what it aims at, that is, involving the province with the federal justice authorities in some rather detailed discussions about how to get at this growing problem, is a very good one.

I am not sure, however, that merely recreating what was in the old Juvenile Delinquents Act in terms of an offence of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile and that measure alone, that single specific measure, will go a long way to overcome or combat the problem that is there now.

I want to explain briefly my reason for taking that position. Basically, it is this: I think what has happened out there, and when I say out there, I refer to many of our urban communities -- this has not happened suddenly, it has happened over time, and I would suggest that we might learn something from the Americans here, because I think they are about 15 years ahead of us, 15 years ahead of us not in a progressive sense but 15 years farther down the road than we are in that they encountered some of these problems 15 years ago.

What is happening is that there seems to be a blurring of values, a loss of values in many of our communities, particularly among young persons. What can and has happened in many cases is that your capacity to make a great deal of money through the sale of drugs or through some other kind of organized crime activity may no longer be frowned upon by members of the young community, but may in fact be glorified.

That in fact is what is going on out there. Whether it is through the sale of drugs or whether through some other criminal activity, your capacity to earn a lot of money, to drive a fast car and to live a high lifestyle in itself has become glorified, and the means you use to acquire that kind of wealth and that kind of material exhibitionism seem to be no longer of much importance.

In that context, if you see the problem that way, and I would argue that that is a fundamental of the problem, merely going back to the Juvenile Delinquents Act and re-establishing some of the elements that were in the Juvenile Delinquents Act will not, I suggest, turn around what is becoming a very large problem.

If I can refer to the experience of the United States in the reign of the last President of the United States, Mr Reagan, the United States declared very openly and very aggressively a war on drugs and a war on crime. Police were given very great powers. Criminal lawyers would argue they are powers that are much superior to the powers which some of our law enforcement organizations have in Canada.

For example, there is the power to seize at customs on an almost unlimited basis where drugs are involved and the power to indict and prosecute an organization as a criminal organization under their so-called Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act; that is, where you have a legitimate business which is fronting for a drug distribution business or some other type of organized crime, they have the power not only to prosecute the criminal elements per se, but also to prosecute the legitimate business.

Despite all of those tools which have been made available to law enforcement agencies in the United States, the drug problem in that country is widely perceived to be out of control.

I think what we must note is that our provincial government and provincial governments from across the country must sit down very quickly with the federal government for a rather detailed discussion about how to deal with this very large problem. It is not just one of law enforcement authority and law enforcement officials having the tools.

It is a much greater malaise than that; it is a much wider malaise than that, a much deeper one and, I would say, much more fundamental to our society in terms that we have a whole subculture whose values have been turned around or at the very least frayed to the extent that illegal activity is not only accepted but in some cases -- I would argue in many cases -- is glorified at the community level.

I regard this resolution as an important first step, but let there be no doubt that I think the measures that need to be taken are much greater. Let me just detail, for instance, some of the recent events which I believe touch on how large the problem is. The federal government has cut its contributions to education. It has cut its contributions to child care. It has cut its contributions to the kinds of social service mechanisms that we need to enrich if we are to deal adequately with the problems of young people in society.

This province has simply not done enough because the fact of the matter is that when you get done juggling all the formulas, this province has cut its portion of funding to education. Let me leave no doubt about it. I think we will accomplish as much through education in these measures as we will through empowering the police with greater prosecutorial authority or with greater investigative authority.

I am in favour of this resolution. I think it is a good first step, but it is a good first step in what needs to be a very well thought out, broad plan of action on the part of the federal government, the provincial government and even municipal governments, I would argue, and certainly would involve the whole sphere of child care, youth education and education in general.

As I say, I will be supporting the resolution. I think it is a good one but I think it is only a good first step in a very long process.

Mr Runciman: I am pleased to participate in the debate this morning as well and to indicate our support for the member’s resolution. I hope this resolution has a little more impact than his study on the drug problems in the province, which was an excellent study and I have commended him for it in the past. But the problem is that we have been dealing with, in effect, an antipolice tag team in the government of Ontario with the Premier (Mr Peterson) and the former Solicitor General, the member for London South (Mrs Smith), and we have had a great many problems --

Interjection.

Mr Runciman: Well, when we talk about crime in this province, much of it is drug-related. I will just put a few statistics on the record.

In Toronto between 1984 and 1988 the number of reported crimes of violence increased dramatically. Attempted murders rose by 35 per cent; sexual assaults increased by 38 per cent: other assaults were up by 68 per cent; robberies increased by 43 per cent, and weapons possession charges were up 33 per cent. I think these figures indicate very clearly that the crimes against individuals, many of them fuelled by drugs, have increased significantly and that police are faced with more criminal acts to deal with than ever before.

Of course, one of the problems the member’s resolution deals with is the problem of drug abuse and drug-related crime. This ties in with the street gang problem, and there is evidence to suggest that some street gangs are being solidified by the increasing public demand for drugs such as crack cocaine.

The member has indicated that his party has been more active in the past in terms of trying to address the very real concerns of the policemen and policewomen across this province. I want to put another example on the record.

As the member will know, the major tool available to government to control drug use and drug-related crimes is increased drug enforcement by police. The Attorney General (Mr Scott) recently showed an amazing insensitivity to the plight of police when he criticized senior officers, who had expressed displeasure with one- and two-week jail sentences a judge had handed out to drug users and sellers.

The policemen in question, who said they were going to monitor future sentences, were only expressing a frustration about the revolving door syndrome and did not deserve to be rebuked by the Attorney General of this province. That is the kind of attitude that I think is sending out very much the wrong messages to the people of this province in respect to law enforcement, and certainly the wrong messages to policemen and policewomen.

I think the action of the former Solicitor General in respect of the Lucan incident is another unfortunate situation because of the messages it sent out to the police forces. We look at the Solicitor General having an in-house investigation done by the Ontario Provincial Police of her activities that evening, but if you look at a police officer, a cop on the beat, having an allegation laid against him or her, that would require a separate, independent force to come in and take a look at those allegations.

In this incident, we had the former Solicitor General having her own force, as the top cop, taking a look at her activities that evening. It was terribly inappropriate and sent out the message that there is one requirement for the cop on the street and very clearly another requirement for the Solicitor General of this particular government

Another area I want to talk about as well is the question of the recent Race Relations and Policing Task Force. I had some difficulty with a number of the recommendations in terms of the impact they would have on police forces across this province. Again, I want to talk about some of those recommendations briefly, if I can, which have not received too much attention but will give members an indication of the kind of impact they are going to have on police forces across this province.

Permitting officers to draw their guns only when threatened with death is one of the recommendations. Previously, they could draw their guns if they were threatened with grievous bodily harm, but now, if this Liberal task force has its way, they have to be sure they are going to die.

Another proposal is to prohibit police officers from shooting at fleeing suspects. If a murderer flees the scene of a crime, he can do so with a smile and a wave at a defenceless officer.

The report also recommends that it be easier to charge officers who fire their weapons. So an officer not only has to consider the restrictions on drawing a revolver but also the consequences of firing it, if drawn -- all in a split second, of course.

The report also recommends that the race or skin colour of at-large suspects not be released. This would reduce the chances of apprehending criminals and would cripple effective programs such as Crime Stoppers.

I could go on with a whole range of recommendations that cause me concern in respect to that report. I do not think there is any doubt that all members of this Legislature would like to see police forces reflect the composition of the communities they serve. But using this report as justification for some rather dramatic changes in the way police forces operate across this province is worrying, to say the least.

I do not blame the task force especially. Establishing it was a knee-jerk reaction without giving proper time to carry out a thorough job in such a sensitive area. A concern with respect to that task force is that it was using hearsay evidence and witnesses were not subjected to cross-examination. If members have read the report, taken a look at it, some of the hearsay evidence, which is unbelievable to anyone simply scanning the pages of the report, the task force used as justification for some of the recommendations.

I will give members an example. One chap appeared before the task force in Windsor and said if there are five people walking across the street against a red light, three of whom were white and two coloured, then the two coloured pedestrians would be charged with jaywalking. That was accepted as a reason by the task force for some of the problems it perceives to exist in respect of police forces across this province in terms of their treatment of minorities.

I have a lot of difficulty with that and I am sure most police officers across this province do. But it is not surprising to see the approach of this government. Time after time, we have seen police officers killed, wounded or injured in the line of duty. I cannot recall the Solicitor General on one occasion standing up and expressing condolences or sympathy to the family of an officer killed or wounded in the line of duty. At the same time, we have witnessed the appearance of two Liberal cabinet ministers at the funeral of Wade Lawson, an individual who was shot by a police officer while driving a stolen car.

I would ask members to ponder the fact that two cabinet ministers can attend the funeral of someone shot driving a stolen car, yet the Solicitor General of this province, the top cop, cannot get up in this House on any occasion and express condolences about an officer injured in the line of duty.

No doubt the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr Black) is well intentioned in respect to this resolution and other activities he has conducted himself in regard to the drug problem in this province. We are hopeful in terms of the upcoming cabinet shuffle that perhaps he will have increased responsibilities in this area and that perhaps we will see something meaningful done in respect to improving things.

Mr Furlong: That’s a death blow.

Mr Runciman: Well, as long as Patti Starr is not on his list of contributors he has a chance. There are not too many in that group who do not have Mrs Starr on their contribution list. So on that basis, they have got to be in the running.

I am going to be optimistic. If indeed the member is fortunate enough to find himself sitting in the executive council, then I hope he is in that role because I believe he has expressed very genuine interest and concern in respect to the drug problem, especially as it affects the south of this province. So I wish him well. I am certainly trying not to be terribly partisan with respect to my concerns about the drug and crime situation in this province generally.

I promised to save a minute or so for my colleague the member for London North (Mrs Cunningham). So again, I compliment the member and wish him well with his resolution.

Mr Offer: It is a privilege and an honour for me to rise and speak on this resolution because I believe it is an extremely important resolution and one which I support, not only in its wording, but in its principle and in its objectives.

I would like at this point to compliment the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay not only on this resolution, but of course on his work to date on this matter. In his report, which is widely acclaimed and well received across this province and beyond, he has made important recommendations dealing with a problem that all persons share.

Everyone has a part to play in stopping illegal drug use: politicians at all levels, community groups, associations and individuals throughout this province, by talking together, discussing, sharing, understanding, addressing and attacking this concern, this cancer on our society. This is a resolution which has as its focus drug activity and young people.

I would like to just read part of that resolution, because it states, “That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that much of the criminal drug activity involving young people is initiated by adults...” I think that is important; it is an important focus to this resolution.

As members of this Legislature, we have both a responsibility and an opportunity to address this problem, not only by carrying on the work and recommendations of the report of the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay but in supporting this resolution. We are living in complicated and challenging times. I know that many will and can say that the complicated and challenging times today are no more or less than that of years ago, just as the challenges of the future will be no more or less than we have before us today.

Of the future, who can say? However, I believe that the pressures and challenges of today are greater than those of the past. There are greater peer pressures; there are messages from all sorts of media: television, radio and print media; there are socioeconomic factors. All play a role of unending stress and strain on many persons -- in particular, on our youth.

As a father of three girls, none of whom is yet over the age of 10, I too see and understand the stress and strains, even at that age, from so many quarters in our society. This does result, in my view, in some being more vulnerable than others, and those who are vulnerable are vulnerable to a greater degree than they otherwise would have been. It is this vulnerability which has in part resulted in a growth of drug-related activities, the likes of which I do not think we have ever seen before. This is a growth across this land; it knows no boundaries. It is not only a city problem.

It strikes the cities, the suburbs and the rural areas; all have been touched. It must be viewed as a threat not only to our youth, to whom this resolution directs its mind, but also indeed to the very underpinnings of our society.

It is through this vulnerability that some people -- and I use that word reservedly -- prey on others: our youth. They exploit weaknesses. They ruin lives, either through death or dependency. I sometimes feel, in discussing and thinking about this issue, that the immensity and gravity of the problem itself is only surpassed by the cruelty of its consequences: young lives lost in many ways to all of us.

We have an opportunity to attack this problem. I say “attack” because there is no room just to address it. It must be attacked: attacked through education, police activity and resources, and the consequences of law-breaking activities. This resolution speaks, in the main, to improving the severity of consequences of law-breaking activities, and it is one which, as I have indicated earlier, I wholeheartedly support.

The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay has previously alluded to the Juvenile Delinquents Act which, prior to its repeal, included an offence of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile. We know that act has been repealed. We know that it has been replaced by other provisions as well as, in the main, the Young Offenders Act.

Through previous discussions in this very House, we are aware of some of the problems with the Young Offenders Act. For instance, we are aware of the initiatives of the Attorney General in seeking change to the Young Offenders Act, change which has been well documented already.

I can only reiterate my support for this resolution. Clearly, unlawful activities by a fully mature adult, which involve leading a susceptible youth to crime or to ingest drugs, should be viewed harshly and dealt with severely by the criminal law. They pose one of the greatest threats to the protection of the public, because that youth may, as a result, become involved in criminal or other antisocial activities on a long-term basis.

In the few minutes remaining to me, let me say that I have had occasion to look through the Criminal Code of this country. It brings to light first that there are provisions which come to grips in some fashion with the subject matter of the resolution, but most important, I think it clearly shows that there is room for improvement and there must be improvement. That is why this resolution which speaks so clearly in terms of the government of this province pursuing “discussions with the federal justice officials concerning an amendment to the Criminal Code to create a specific offence of counselling, aiding, or abetting a youth,” is one which is so very necessary.

For instance,

section 21 of the Criminal Code states in part, “Every one is a party to an offence who (

a) actually commits it” or aids and abets, helps or encourages another person to commit a crime. In that instance, for a person who helps or encourages it is as if they have committed the crime.

The Criminal Code goes on in the very following

section 22 to talk about a person counselling another person to be a party to an offence, and if that offence is committed, then that person is also guilty of that offence. Further, a third example within the code is

section 464. which talks about counselling an offence which has not been committed. It talks about where a person had counselled another in the commission of an offence, whether that offence has or has not been committed, the person who has counselled is guilty of an offence too.

There are provisions in the Criminal Code that come to grips in some way with the subject matter of the resolution at hand. I read those provisions to bring forward a greater need for this resolution to be passed by all members of the Legislature, because of the encouragement, the obligation, the responsibility, the need to look at the code, to look at it in terms of addressing amendments to the code, so that there is clear criminal responsibility in terms of adult persons aiding, abetting, helping or encouraging young people in terms of drug-related activities.

This is a resolution which is important in its principle, in its objectives and its wording, not only to all members of this Legislature, but to everyone in this province, and I ask all members to support this resolution of the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay. It is one which needs and deserves our support and I look forward to this House doing so.

Mr Philip: I had a certain emotional reaction not to speak on this for the simple reason that the member for St Catharines-Brock (Mr Dietsch) feels very strongly about this matter and I know he wanted to speak and cabinet ministers are not allowed to speak or do not generally participate. This may be his last opportunity to speak in private members’ hour before the Premier appoints him to the cabinet.

Mr Dietsch: That’s it for that guy too. Thanks very much.

Mr Philip: If the Premier has any sense and knowledge of talent, then he certainly will look at that appointment.

Coincidentally, last night I received the following note -- I will not read the person’s name, but Mrs So-and-so lives in a particular housing development, and it is mentioned. The note says: “She cannot come in to see you this evening as she is working this evening, but she is afraid to come home at night because of the drugs on the street. She is afraid of her children. Can something be done?” That is a phone call that I have to return later in the day to speak to her.

In out community, we are trying to do a number of things about the drug problem. We just recently had a march against drugs. We have had some rallies, including some rock bands and various people trying to create both an intellectual and an emotional reaction against drugs.

Anything that can be done that will send out the message that there is a problem and that we have to act severely on those who are making money by exploiting young people and other people has to be supported.

I am told by one of the people I have been working with in a particular Ontario Housing development that certain young people there are actually dropping out of school because they are being paid $10 an hour to act as spotters. Spotters drive on their bicycles around the neighbourhood and when the police or the detectives are seen, they have certain whistles and codes and the drug dealers disappear.

To a young person living on family benefits in a single-parent home in Ontario Housing with very little spending money, $10 an hour means $120 a day times six, which means an awful lot of money to that young person. It means that he or she can drop out of school, buy a car and do all the kinds of things that he or she sees on TV and that are so glamorous.

Part of the problem is not just the matter of enforcement, not just backing up our police, our courts and our prosecutors, but also in looking at the problems that motivate young people to go after that fast buck, in correcting some of the problems.

There is nothing worse, in my mind, than the exploitation of children. Probably the worst case, to me, is the kiddy-porn phenomenon where young children are being exploited sexually.

There is, as has been pointed out, under the Criminal Code a fairly clear

section on aiding and abetting, and under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act, there was a section. However, there were some problems with it. If the members read in the Law Society of Upper Canada Criminal Code Procedure 1983-84, it deals with that.

It says that., “If the accused can establish, for example, that the physical attributes of the child, or the general conduct of the child, or the circumstances of the particular case were such that a reasonable person could probably not know that the child was under 16 years of age, such evidence will amount to a complete defence.”

Of course, the pimps, the johns and those who exploit young children for various types of offences that I will not describe here, but which I think all members would agree are reprehensible, have used this.

None the less, what this resolution does is say, in addition to the Criminal Code, let’s add as many things as we can, give as many tools as we can, as many weapons as we can, to the police and to the crown attorney to catch those people who are using young children not just for the sale of drugs, but for other various types of illegal purposes. Therefore, one has to support that.

When I was recently in part of Latin America -- not recently, a couple of years ago -- I was kind of shocked at the number of times I was offered drugs by some young people on the street. Naturally, I did not purchase any; none the less I was quite shocked that I was offered them so many times just walking along the street. When I asked one of the guides why all these children were out there, he said the real pushers hide behind the children because the children get off and do not have anything happen to them.

We can see that in a very poor Latin American country where people will do practically anything in order to survive. We do not accept it, but we can at least see why it may happen. When it is happening here in a rich society, we have to be ashamed that such things are going on and take some steps to resolve them.

I am in support of this resolution. I think it adds an extra tool. It is not the only solution. I think if this government would spend more of its advertising dollar on lifestyle advertising attacking the drug system, the quick fix, the easy way to solve one’s problems, and showing that it is not a quick fix, that is the fastest way to degradation and to death, rather than spend its advertising dollar on what some of us might consider propaganda rather than legitimate advertising, then that would be another solution.

None the less, this is a step, and any step that can be taken that will reduce this terrible problem should be supported. That is why I urge all members of the House to support the member’s resolution this morning.

Mrs Cunningham: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak to this motion by the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay this morning. I would like to start by thanking the members, especially the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, for leaving me some time.

We are all very much aware of the Report of the Task Force on Illegal Drug Use in Ontario. It is somewhat of a concern to many of us that we must come forth with these kinds of resolutions to support, enhance and give credibility to and to seek more action from this government with recommendations that were very well thought out and that are very necessary in support of stopping, banning and dealing with the problems of illegal drugs in Ontario.

I think all of us are very concerned about this problem, which has been described by parents as the greatest one of all in dealing with our young people. To think that in this province one would have to have a resolution such as the member’s advising us that there is no adequate legislative provision by which to discourage or punish adults who recruit children for drug-related purposes says something about our society.

First of all, we are basically openly recognizing in a very real way that this is a real problem, and that is to think that adults would use children for drug-related purposes at all is something we should all be very much ashamed of.

To have to move now, just a year after the report was released, and come forth with this notice of motion, I think, for a couple of reasons certainly, to draw more attention to the very real problem we have in Ontario and the very real concern that members in this House, and especially the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, have for this problem, is a real issue for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Paper does not solve problems, and laws do not always solve them, but in this instance, if it gives more clout to police officers to enforce legislation, then that is exactly what we have to do, if that is the only way we have to deal with these abusers of young people. That is what they are.

So, of course, I am in support. I was very much concerned some four years ago when we saw the

section in the old Juvenile Delinquents Act repealed, and when we had great discussions in the writing of the Young Offenders Act that said that this automatically and over a very short period of time would be a clause within the Criminal Code. Most of us working in the field thought that this really would have happened a long time ago.

So if it is Ontario, because of this particular resolution today, that will provide the clout to get this particular amendment into the Criminal Code so that the police will hopefully have more legislation behind their work and so that adults will find out that in fact the offences will be dealt with appropriately either by imprisonment or tremendous fines, hopefully imprisonment, then certainly this will give our young people one more opportunity, I think, to be dealt with fairly in the fact that we will be taking away one of the causes. These are adults who would do such a horrible thing as use young children to distribute drugs.

I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay in another area that I think we could be helpful in, and that is taking a look at a set of guidelines to go along with the Education Act in dealing with truants. He knows from his experience with young people and as a former administrator in a very important school system in Ontario, that what happened when he and I were working in those school systems in dealing with young people who habitually stayed away from school was that they were given counselling and guidance. Preventive matters for future truancy are not allowed to happen nowadays and in fact it is not happening.

It is fine for us to sit here and say that the school systems are dealing with it when they very clearly have advised this government that they cannot. So the home and school councils, as well as the school boards, are asking the Minister of Education (Mr Ward) to take a look at a set of guidelines or amendments to the act to assist him with the problems of truancy.

It is a pleasure to speak in favour of the resolution this morning.

Mr Black: I want to thank all members of the Legislature who have expressed their support for the resolution. I want to make one or two comments about some of the comments made by those members. I agree 100 per cent with the member for Rainy River (Mr Hampton) when he suggests that this resolution is not the total answer. All of us in this House would recognize that no single resolution, no single aspect of the problem or attempting to deal with a single aspect of the problem is the total answer. But I do believe it is one small part of the solution.

We know from our experience that controlling the problem of drug abuse is one that requires attention both to the supply aspects and to the demand aspects. We have to work at trying to reduce demand for the product and we are doing that through sound educational programs which will be improved over the next year or so. At the same time, we have to work on controlling the supply and we have to take whatever steps are necessary to allow us to do that. This resolution is one small part of that.

I am pleased with the support of the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr Runciman). I appreciate his comments. I have to say that I feel a little bit like I have been touched with the kiss of death, but hopefully that will not be the case. I must say that I categorically reject two of the things that he perhaps suggested in his comments. Since our party came to power, the solicitors general in this province in the past have done excellent jobs of providing leadership. We have one of those men in the House this morning.

The most recent former Solicitor General is not here, but I want to say very clearly and without equivocation that all of us who sit on the government side of the House are proud of the performance in that role by previous people.

I also want to say that this government is taking action on the Task Force on Illegal Drug Use in Ontario, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply not valid. We have seen recommendations being implemented by the Ministry of Education. We have seen major steps taken forward in terms of providing funding for in-service programs for teachers. We have seen committees working hard to develop guidelines for board policies. Under the leadership of the Minister of Health, we have seen tremendous strides taken towards looking at treatment and counselling programs in this province.

Our Attorney General has met with his provincial counterparts and with the federal Minister of Justice; they have been discussing, and I hope will continue to discuss, possible revisions to the Young Offenders Act.

Once again I want to go on the record in stating very clearly and very emphatically that this government has acted in terms of trying to address the problems of illegal drug use. Certainly, much more remains to be done. We face a very serious problem. It is a social problem that is going to be with us for some time, I would suggest. No single action by government will solve the problem. It is a problem that will require the contributions and efforts of many people in our society.

We need to involve people from all sectors. We need to involve the government sector certainly -- we can provide the leadership -- but we need to turn to the corporate or private sector and to trade unions. We need to look to service clubs, to church organizations, to parents’ groups, to health care professionals, to people throughout our communities, to unite together to form action groups which can begin the long road towards finding a solution.

I want to say that anyone who looks for quick and easy solutions will be disappointed. This is part of a major problem that faces our society today. It is not one that is limited to Ontario; it is one that is international in its scope, and its complexity is significant. But we have made progress and we will be making progress, and I can tell all members of this House that the government is and will be responding.

In conclusion, I want to simply quote one small paragraph from the report of the Task Force on Illegal Drug Use in Ontario:

“Much of the criminal drug activity involving young people is instigated by adults. Yet since the abolition of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which included an offence of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile, there is no adequate legislative provision by which to discourage or punish exploitive, pernicious adults who recruit children for their sinister purposes.”

For that reason, I strongly urge the support of all members for this resolution.

The Acting Speaker (Mr M. C. Ray): The time allotted for this ballot item has expired.

STORM WATER

Mr Philip moved resolution 16:

The Acting Speaker (Mr M. C. Ray): The member will know that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion thereof for a windup.

Mr Philip: There are federal guidelines for the discharge of effluents from airport facilities. These are set up by the federal Department of the Environment and accepted by the federal Department of Transport.

Pearson International Airport is discharging oxygen-demanding effluents hundreds of times in excess of the federal guidelines, particularly during the winter deicing months. These discharges end up in Mimico and Etobicoke creeks and they later end up in Lake Ontario. These pollutants are similar to the effect of untreated sewage from a city of 35,000 to 40,000 people.

We should commend the airports authority group of Transport Canada for a very frank and objective assessment of the existing water pollution problems due to deicing at Pearson International Airport. This report details a very serious problem, and I shall refer to it later. However, if I may, I will summarize the major issues that are before us in this resolution.

Staff-level reports from both Transport Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment recognize that the present discharge of glycol-based deicing fluids at Pearson International Airport greatly exceeds environmental guidelines and that water quality impairment similar to that caused by sewage from a small city is resulting in Etobicoke and Mimico creeks as well as in the surrounding shoreline of Lake Ontario. This adds to the already overburdened aquatic environment problems in this area.

Recent news reports, which the members will probably have read, cite how municipal councils are concerned that storm water drainage contains fuel handling runoff from firefighting activities at the airport. One must admit that property containing any kind of industrial activity and significant areas of pavement can contribute to water quality and quantity problems, particularly when there is runoff into a storm sewer system. But the airport is a particular problem in the Mississauga and Etobicoke areas, and that is what we are addressing ourselves to this morning.

Transport Canada reports have demonstrated that the problems have been clearly identified and that corrective measures have been evaluated and are available. Transport Canada’s ranking of the deicer problem at Canadian airports also shows that the need for mitigation action at Pearson International Airport is great.

Treatment and, hopefully, recycling of these materials from deicing activities should not be undertaken in isolation from other existing and potential water management issues at the airport.

A comprehensive approach to storm water management planning and implementation would ensure that effective mitigation of all of Pearson International Airport’s significant water quality and quantity impacts on the Mimico and Etobicoke creeks and the Toronto waterfront can proceed.

What we are facing is a major concern of the residents of Etobicoke. The city of Etobicoke has been particularly concerned about improving control from spillage into the Mimico Creek from what has been termed as “an outdated refuelling system at the airport.” The following clause, 177-W-89, of the 10th report of the works committee, 1989, was adopted by the council at its meeting held Monday, 15 May 1989:

“That a report dated May 2, 1989, from the director, utilities division, engineering works department, advising of the appearance of contaminants in Mimico Creek resulting from jet fuel being accumulated in the storm sewer which discharges into the creek as a result of sloppy fuel handling practices, and summarizing the action taken to eliminate the contaminants, be received;

“That the city solicitor, in conjunction with the director, utilities division, works department, forward an official letter to the general manager, Pearson International Airport, putting them on notice regarding this situation;

“That the Minister of the Environment, MPs and MPPs for Etobicoke and the trimunicipal committee be apprised of the problem, the arrived-at solutions and the timetable for rectifying this problem;

“That if further violations occur, the provincial Minister of the Environment be requested to press charges against the airport under the Environmental Protection Act; and

“That a copy of the aforementioned correspondence be forwarded to the city of Mississauga with notification of Etobicoke’s displeasure regarding this matter.”

There may be some problems with the second-to-last resolution concerning whether or not there is the jurisdiction for the provincial ministry to take action against the federal authorities. We have not been able to get any clear answer out of the provincial ministry’s legal staff on this matter. Notwithstanding that, the solution is not for the federal government to wait until the province, in desperation, has to take it to court, or try to take it to court. The solution surely is that this Parliament let it be known to our federal colleagues that action must be taken immediately.

Let me speak for a moment about the deicing at Pearson International Airport. Anyone who travels out of Pearson during the wintertime has experienced what I experienced only a few months ago. I sat in an aeroplane and watched six other planes being deiced and all of this material, gallons and gallons, poured into the drain sewers.

Transport Canada, which operates Pearson International Airport, is fully aware of the extent of river and lake contamination from using deicing compounds at its facilities. The agency has recently completed two significant documents which examine the problem. The first is an environmental impact assessment which considers the environment’s fate and the toxicity of glycol-based deicers in general and examines specific impacts associated with their use at Pearson International Airport.

The second is a consultant’s report describing the feasible solutions to control the contamination of storm water drainage with these compounds. The major characteristic of the deicers is that it makes them a pollutant in their exceptionally high oxygen demand, measured as a five-day biochemical oxygen demand. When discharged into the receiving waters these deicers, like other organic materials such as sewage, degrade -- in other words, use up -- available oxygen in the aquatic ecosystems.

The actual toxicity is quite low, but the removal of the oxygen creates a major environmental problem. It is a major problem to plant, animal and fish life. During 1984-87, an average of 1,179,797 litres of this deicer was used each year by the airlines at Pearson International Airport. By 1996, Transport Canada predicts that from 1,517,000 to 1,890,000 litres will be used during the winter and spring when aircraft deicing is done. Oxygen demands in the storm water from Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 are, on average, several hundred times greater than the acceptable level suggested by federal guidelines.

The effects of the deicers were also recorded in waters downstream of the airport. Transport Canada staff reported that their evidence conclusively shows these deicers are the source of these high oxygen demands and that the oxygen-depleting capability is the worst significant contaminant in the storm water from Pearson International Airport.

While Etobicoke and Mimico creeks are not exactly wilderness streams but rather highly modified urban water causeways, the fact is that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has recognized that just because streams are already contaminated is no reason for us to allow further contamination and in fact that we have to start reducing contamination rather than simply writing off certain waterways.

A study undertaken by consultants for Transport Canada reviewed the treatment and control measures which are currently available to deal with these deicers. Four options out of six which are feasible for implementation at the airport were reviewed in great detail, with preliminary designs and cost estimates provided. These were a centralized deicing facility with recycling and reuse, treatment of the runoff in an aerated lagoon, treatment of apron runoff on site with a rotating biological factor and treatment of the porous pad runoff using wet air oxidization.

What I am pointing out is that the federal government, in its various measures of having independent studies, has shown that we have a problem. The federal government has admitted that we have a problem. The provincial government, in its own internal documents and studies, has admitted that we have a problem. What we need now are the solutions.

The solutions, however, have been identified already by the federal authorities. Indeed, we know that such solutions are working in other airports elsewhere. So we have a problem; we have the admission by both federal and provincial governments that it is a problem; we have identified ways of solving the problem; these ways have worked elsewhere. What we need now is for the federal government to act.

I ask all members to support this resolution in the hope that we will encourage our federal colleagues to take the action necessary to stop the contamination we are presently experiencing from Pearson International Airport.

The Acting Speaker: May I ask the member if he is reserving seven and a half minutes?

Mr Philip: I would like to reserve four minutes of that to respond to members’ questions. I believe the member for Brampton North (Mr McClelland), the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley), would like to speak, and I would like, with unanimous consent, to give him some of that time.

Mrs Marland: I am pleased to speak today on this resolution calling for the implementation of effective storm water quality management measures at Pearson International Airport to eliminate potential water quality impairment in Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek due to airport runoff containing deicing chemicals, spilled fuels or other waterborne pollutants generated by airport operations.

May I say at the outset that the Progressive Conservative Party will be supporting this very practical resolution.

Pearson International Airport is one of Canada’s busiest airports, serving hundreds of thousands of aircraft every year. With this activity comes the very real concern that pollutants from an airport operation of this size must be affecting rivers and creeks that drain the airport property.

We already have strong evidence showing that spilled aviation fuel has been entering sewers at the airport and entering nearby creeks. A recent incident involving an accidental discharge of firefighting foam in a hangar area also led to contamination of a nearby creek. During the winter months, a very substantial amount of deicing fluids has been entering both the Etobicoke and Mimico creeks.

The significance of what goes on at Toronto’s international airport, of course, is particularly close to my own responsibilities since the airport falls totally within the geographic jurisdiction of the city of Mississauga.

Other potential water quality concerns include leaking fuel-storage tanks, contamination of ground water by solvents and other chemicals used by aircraft-related industries on airport land, runoff water quality problems related to suspended solids, runway deicing and rubber removal.

The volume of storm water drainage from such a large area must have special handling to prevent the flow of toxic chemicals into the receiving waters. I see the problem as twofold.

The first is that there are chemical handling problems at Pearson airport that need to be addressed. Outdated equipment and poor handling of chemicals has been part of the problem. Part of the solution is to deal with the discharge and contain it in a responsible manner, not just flush the problem downstream and into Lake Ontario. What we need are proper recycling and treatment facilities on site to deal with the daily pollution coming from the airport.

However, let’s look at this problem on an even broader basis. Three years ago, the Minister of the Environment announced he would bring forward an urban drainage management program to regulate the treatment of storm water. To date, he has still not told us when we will see these regulations.

The minister knows that a storm water treatment strategy is essential to keep Lake Ontario clean, as well as the beaches. It is my understanding that the urban drainage strategy has been before the minister on several occasions but has not yet been approved. The Liberal government is once again dragging its feet on a very important program that should have been initiated years ago.

The Minister of the Environment talks about his municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program and his LifeLines program. However, neither does anything for storm water management. MISA is several years behind

schedule and LifeLines has been criticized for not including enough money for the municipalities.

Mr Faubert: Why don’t you blame the right jurisdiction?

Mrs Marland: The budget allocated over $40 million for water and sewer projects, but capital projects under LifeLines for infrastructure renewal will only receive one-third funding from the province--

Mr Faubert: Because the feds won’t cooperate.

Mrs Marland: -- leaving the other two thirds to be paid by the municipality.

Mr Faubert: No, it’s one third-one third.

Mrs Marland: The fact is that staff-level reports from both the Department of Transport and the provincial Ministry of the Environment have recognized the problem at Pearson. Discharges greatly exceed environmental guidelines, so much in fact that I understand the water quality impairment is similar to the impairment produced by a small city.

While Pearson International Airport is a very specific example of an industrial-type site in need of storm sewer management, we must not lose sight of the great need for a comprehensive approach to storm water management planning and implementation throughout Ontario. Special attention is required immediately where there is a proven need. Densely populated areas and industrial zones are of real concern.

I am certainly happy to notice that the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr Faubert), who never seems to get a chance to speak on his own behalf, is now across the floor of the House tutoring the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr Henderson) who I assume will be the next speaker on this motion. It is good that kind of coaching goes on because I always find that the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere is great at sitting over on this side with us and giving his interjections out of his frustration about not getting to speak on his own behalf, but I am sure eventually his House leader will give him that opportunity.

Nevertheless, I am sure the member he is now instructing will be able to convey his message on his behalf.

Today’s resolution does address a specific concern, a concern that cannot be ignored. Our rivers and creeks, as well as Lake Ontario, must be protected from further deterioration. Through a carefully planned and implemented environmental management program at Pearson International Airport, we can at least make a start in dealing with our water quality. Pearson airport, like any large industrial site, must have plans and facilities in place to deal with pollutants produced. We know these pollutants must be used during the operation of the airport, so why not move now to deal with the problem.

I would call on all responsible members of this Legislature to support this resolution, as I will be today. A more active role by industry, government and individuals must be taken if we are to make inroads in cleaning up our environment.

In closing, I would like to commend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr Philip) on his bringing this resolution before us this morning and in recognizing the fact that Pearson International Airport or Toronto International Airport or Mississauga International Airport, as Mayor Hazel McCallion likes to refer to it, is obviously a huge problem in this area, one that has to be recognized as the airport traffic and associated business increases.

We are now going to have our third terminal open soon. It is presently under construction. Obviously, with the growth of air transportation, commercial, private and passenger, we are looking for these plans to be in place to protect the environment before that expansion continues.

Mr Henderson: I am very happy to speak to this resolution put forward by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. There are very good reasons for supporting this resolution quite apart from the acknowledged wisdom, breadth and social conscience of the member. The Etobicoke and Mimico creeks are important waterways in and near my constituency. It is of course good to know that a fellow Etobian has chosen to seize the initiative on this matter.

I shall be supporting this resolution. I may say that I am going to bypass for the moment some of the atrocious allegations made by the member for Mississauga South (Mrs Marland) and hope we can leave a little time for the member for Brampton North, who I am sure will want to respond.

Honourable members who make frequent use of Pearson airport will have watched, as I have watched, the deicing of aircraft in progress, watched the deicing fluid sloshing off the wings and wondered whether that fluid finds its way to storm sewers in the area.

Etobians who have seen the Etobicoke and Mimico creeks in the winter, in January or February, may have wondered why the creeks were not frozen. Only very recently did it occur to me to connect these two observations. Chemical runoff from Pearson airport is a factor in lowering the freezing point of the assorted contents of the Etobicoke and Mimico creeks. The used deicing fluids from the airport drain into storm sewers, which in turn find outlet into one or other of these waterways.

No fewer than six sampling runs of the contents of those creeks have been taken, a couple of winters ago, by our Ministry of the Environment. These samples from the streams and storm sewers were tested for various deicing and other chemical contaminants.

Ethylene glycol and associated chemicals were indeed higher in the storm sewers draining areas used for aircraft deicing. Certain of the potential contaminants much exceeded federal guidelines, and there is of course every prospect that traffic at Pearson airport is going to increase, not decrease and that the amounts of these contaminants and deicers will in turn increase as well.

Ontario’s Environment ministry accordingly recommended that the federal authorities find some way to treat the used glycol-based deicing fluids and that pending that, careful monitoring of storm sewer contents be carried out to assess the impact of these airport operations on the water quality of these two creeks.

Glycol-based deicing fluids are not the only cause for concern, however, in the airport area. Spilled aviation fuel, spilled firefighting foam and various other nonsoluble organic chemicals associated with airport machinery and maintenance have been cause for concern as well.

Leaking fuel storage tanks, leaks of various solvents and chemicals used in aircraft-related industry on airport lands, engine exhaust components, runway cleaning materials and many other substances require a real commitment to the effective management and treatment of storm sewer access and drainage and suitable measures of enforcement.

The city of Etobicoke has already expressed its concern about fuel spillage at the airport because of what it calls an outdated fuel filtering system at Pearson airport. Indeed, only this past May, the Etobicoke works committee decided to draw to the attention of the general manager of Pearson airport the presence of jet fuel and other contaminants in Mimico Creek as a result of what it calls sloppy fuel handling practices.

The city of Mississauga was notified and the provincial Minister of the Environment was asked to press charges under the Environmental Protection Act should further violations occur.

Incidentally, honourable members may be interested to know that the Department of Transport estimates that the oxygen consuming capacity of the deicing fluid presently discharged into the Etobicoke and Mimico creeks to be about equivalent to the amount of untreated sewage that could be generated in a city about the size of Barrie.

The continued release into these two small waterways in and near my constituency of glycol-contaminated storm sewage water with an oxygen demand equivalent to the sewage from about 40,000 people is, clearly, highly unacceptable. What can we do about all this?

A centralized deicing facility could be prepared with deicing fluid recycling and reuse provisions, special treatment of the airport apron runoff and an aerated lagoon could be undertaken as a standard procedure. On-site treatment of apron runoff in a suitable biological process and the treatment of porous pad runoff using a form of oxidization process have also been considered and recommended.

I am very happy to be able to offer these various observations and comments in support of this very worthy resolution put forward by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. I shall be voting in support of his resolution and I encourage my legislative colleagues of all parties to urge the Department of Transport to give these kinds of strong measures the very careful attention and consideration they deserve.

Mrs Grier: I, too, am very glad that this issue has been brought before the Legislature and that we have an opportunity to speak to it, because it is an issue, while primarily one of federal jurisdiction, that certainly involves the provincial government and the Ministry of the Environment because of the impact the airport has on provincial facilities, if that is the right word, such as the Mimico and Etobicoke creeks.

As a representative of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, I am very familiar with the airport. It is impossible to knock on doors in my riding when a plane is going overhead because you cannot hear yourself speak. My constituents find Pearson International Airport to be something of a mixed blessing. We appreciate its convenience and we appreciate the industry and commerce that has been attracted to northern Etobicoke because of the location of the airport, but the noise bothers us. We worry about a proposed incinerator to dispose of international waste and we have worried for a very long time about the contamination of the two creeks that are mentioned in the resolution before us this morning.

When I was a member of city council in Etobicoke, we had to close down the natural ice-skating ponds in Centennial Park just south of the airport because the creek that flowed in and created those ponds never froze because it was contaminated with deicing fluid. That was, I think, 10, 12, or 13 years ago, so the problem is not a recent one.

It has been highlighted by recent spills that have been alluded to by previous speakers, and in fact by increasingly bad housekeeping on the part of the federal government because the problems that have been identified are resolvable if somebody has the will to resolve them.

The problems are due to excessive amounts of deicing fluid being used and just being allowed to run into the storm sewers and thereby into the creeks, by spills that ought to be contained, by obsolete facilities that ought to have been replaced some time ago, and by firefighters, either in practice or in reality. I guess you cannot say that they cannot put whatever they spray on a fire on the tarmac, but surely there should be some way of making sure that what is sprayed on a tarmac does not reach the creeks.

The airport lies directly between both Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek, so they are directly and immediately affected when there is a spill or when there is contaminated runoff from the airport.

Two years ago, I prepared a report on the condition of Etobicoke’s waterways that I called Fishable, Swimmable, Drinkable. It was a collection of information that had been prepared by the Ministry of the Environment and other jurisdictions on the state of the waterways that run through Etobicoke and of the waterfront, which is the southern boundary of my riding.

We were surprised, when we pulled together all those data, to find how contaminated Mimico Creek was, because the watershed, while developed, is not primarily an industrial area. It is a residential area surrounding the creek on all sides.

What was found was that the Mimico Creek water quality was generally worse than had been reported for the Humber River and was comparable to the results for Black Creek, in spite of the combined sewer outflows to the latter watercourse. The report had found that the Humber River and Black Creek, being highly industrialized waterways, were severely contaminated.

For most parameters examined on Mimico Creek, the average values for wet weather were higher than for spring runoff. In wet conditions, faecal coliforms, total phosphorous, suspended solids, cadmium, copper, lead and zinc all exceeded the provincial water quality guidelines. Trace organic compounds were found more frequently in Mimico Creek than in other Toronto watersheds. The compounds detected included benzene hexachloride, chlordane, dieldrin, oxochlordane, polychlorinated biphenyls, dicholorodiphenyldichloroethylene, 2,4-D, dicamba, HCB, tetrachlorophenal, trichlorophenal and pentachlorophenal, all organic compounds that are known to be carcinogenic.

Similar findings were found for Etobicoke Creek, which we knew was industrialized, but we were really surprised at those findings in Mimico Creek. Obviously, the primary source of those compounds has got to be the runoff for the airport, which is why I support this resolution so strongly.

All of those contaminants that flow into the Mimico and Etobicoke creeks end up in Lake Ontario and many of them remain in the sediments that are at the mouths of those creeks. If you drive along Lakeshore Boulevard, you see the silt that is built up in the mouth of Mimico Creek. When the conservation authority attempted to dredge that silt and remove it, it was told it was hazardous waste and that there was no acceptable disposal area for that sediment. All of that sediment is on a shoreline that is going to be very heavily developed in the near future.

It is on a shoreline where there has been excessive landfilling to create parks, but also creating embayment so that the sediments build up.

When I said the problem we are discussing today is primarily of federal origin, my reason for pointing out that there was a provincial jurisdiction was because the jurisdiction relating to that waterfront and to the sediments that are found at the mouths of those creeks is provincial. The fact that action has been so very slow in developing a remedial action plan for the waterfront of Metropolitan Toronto is a source of great distress to me and to many people who care about our waterfront.

The Minister of the Environment has a direct responsibility to get on with a remedial action plan. It was supposed to have been completed by 1986, and here in 1989 there are still consultants, civil servants and committees looking at the nature of the problems and identifying objectives, but not moving to do anything about a very identified problem, contaminated sediments all along the shoreline of Metropolitan Toronto.

That is why I hope that in supporting this resolution today -- it is easy to do; it is easy to blame another jurisdiction and to say, yes, the federal government ought to do something -- the parliamentary assistant to the minister and other members on the government side will recognize that they too have a responsibility to move with remedial action plans and to question why, when an environmental assessment advisory committee recommended that there be an environmental assessment on the shoreline between the Humber River and the Mimico Creek before development and more lakefilling occurred, the minister refused to accept that recommendation and instead has come up with a Mickey Mouse plan that he calls an environmental management master plan, which does not even provide opportunities for public debate or public participation in the resolution of the problem.

We know there are solutions to the problems caused by the airport. The consultants have identified what could be done. They include the construction of a centralized. deicing facility, treatment of apron runoff, treatment of apron runoff on site with rotating biological compactors and treatment of porous pad runoff using wet air oxidization.

We know how to solve those problems. It is appropriate to urge the federal government to get on with it, but it is also appropriate to recognize that the fact there are problems at the airport has contributed to downstream problems, and it is the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment of Ontario to do something about the downstream problems, to begin to deal with the contaminated sediments at the mouths of both of these creeks and to make sure that future developments, future plans for lake filling and expansion of existing lake fills do not make the problems worse and are not allowed to occur until we have cleaned up the problems that have been created in the past.

I welcome the support for this resolution and I hope it supports the efforts of the city of Etobicoke in getting the federal government not only to clean up but to compensate the city for the cost of the cleanup which the city has already had to undertake when spills have occurred. While the bill was sent to the federal government five or six weeks ago, the cheque, I presume, is in the mail. I hope it is, seeing that the federal Minister of Finance is also a representative of Etobicoke.

We welcome the support from members in Mississauga for this resolution and we hope the debate today will lead to some action, not just the sending of another resolution to Ottawa.

Mr McClelland: I want to say at the outset that I appreciate the courtesy of my friend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale in providing me with the opportunity to speak on this matter and giving me a bit of his time. I appreciate that and thank him for it, although I may not use the full time allotted.

It has been mentioned by most if not all speakers this morning on this resolution and drawn to the attention of the House that there is a significant jurisdictional component to this resolution. Indeed, the responsibility for the airport and issues surrounding the airport falls largely with the federal government, and more particularly, the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment.

I want to say for the record, with respect to this resolution, that the Ministry of the Environment has undertaken to work very cooperatively with those two bodies over the past number of years. We have sought to encourage them to resolve this very serious matter, certainly bearing in mind that each of us has a concern about water quality and the impact that it has not only on the tributaries leading into Lake Ontario, but as has been indicated by my friend the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the impact on the Great Lakes water system as a whole, as well.

We began working with Environment Canada and Transport Canada on this and other matters, of course, shortly after taking office in 1985. Between 4 December 1986 and 14 March 1989, we have had 16 pieces of correspondence and memoranda which we have exchanged with officials at the federal level seeking to address this problem, deal with it and get on with the solution. We feel we have co-operated extensively with them.

I might add, in fairness to our colleagues in the federal House, that they have been co-operative to the extent that they have facilitated Ministry of the Environment officials in Ontario to do water quality monitoring along the tributaries in question.

It has been said that it is a federal responsibility and the fact remains that we have very little enforcement capacity in this particular matter. But the Ministry of the Environment has done some testing in both creeks and has determined that a problem does exist. We believe very strongly that Transport Canada should take affirmative steps to address these problems. Some of them have been referred to and previous speakers have talked about possible ways of dealing with it.

Transport Canada, happily, has acknowledged that there is a problem of some severity and that corrective action and corrective measures need to be taken with the existing two terminals. I suppose if there is some good news in this scenario, it is that with the construction of Terminal 3, Transport Canada officials have indicated they will be insisting that part of the design will have holding tanks for runoff so that the contaminated runoff will be taken offsite for treatment before it is disposed of.

My friend the member for Mississauga South made many comments and I think was, in her nonpartisan way, castigating the provincial government. I want to mention again that the airport lands are primarily a federal responsibility, but we also have a tremendous concern.

My friend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale mentioned a remedial action program with respect to the waterfront and the Great Lakes. Mr Speaker, as a member representing a community that borders on the Great lakes system, you would know, as would many other members -- I believe all members are aware of the fact -- that we have a Great Lakes water quality agreement with our friends in the United States.

We in the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario take very seriously our obligations and responsibilities under that agreement, bearing in mind that it is an agreement between our federal colleagues and the federal government to the south. We are partners in that agreement in terms of the principles, and objectives set out in that water quality agreement.

It is difficult for us at the Ministry of the Environment to approach our friends to the south when we have concerns with respect to pollution issues arising in the Great Lakes states, when we look, as it were, in our own backyard and recognize problems such as runoff created at the Pearson International Airport running into Lake Ontario and contaminating the Great Lakes system.

I had the opportunity a few months ago in my capacity as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, to participate in a dialogue on the Great Lakes water system in Montreal. We had in attendance representatives from the United States, the Great Lakes states, the Mohawk Nation, Environment Canada, the Quebec Ministry of the Environment and other interest groups concerned with water quality in the Great Lakes and St Lawrence systems.

We have a shared responsibility at all levels of jurisdiction. Water pollution does not know boundaries; it does not recognize legislative jurisdiction. We have tremendous concern with our friends at the federal level that they get on with the serious problem before us.

I mentioned at the outset that we had considerable correspondence with our friends at the federal level, with Transport Canada and Environment Canada and airport officials. I quote a memorandum dated 29 December 1986, wherein the airport staff is recognizing the desire of the Ministry of the Environment to test and monitor what is going on and saying they would co-operate in facilitating our field trips and allowing us to work on studying the impact of airport deicing operations on the water quality of the receiving streams.

I think it is important to recognize that early on we began working with them in trying to determine, so we could bring a case to them and say we do have a problem. We set up monitoring systems along the tributaries to determine the impact of the runoff. Again, I do not think that pointing fingers and saying it is somebody else’s responsibility solves the problem. We want to work with our friends at Transport Canada and Environment Canada.

I want to make a comment with respect to a portion of a letter dated 8 January 1987. It is from Transport Canada and says the following: “Aircraft deicing is the sole responsibility of the airlines or their agents. Transport Canada, as land owners, in consultation with Canada’s airlines, through the Air Transport Association of Canada, is currently studying the environmental impact of glycol-based fluids at major federal airports, including Toronto’s Lester B. Pearson and Ottawa International.”

They have been studying that for some time, with the assistance, I might say, of the Ministry of the Environment. They have been able to determine that there are substantial problems that need to he dealt with.

It was mentioned, as well, that the city of Etobicoke has an interest in this. They too have been working with us at the Ministry of the Environment and with our federal colleagues.

This is a problem that will not go away until some significant action is taken. I join my friend from Etobicoke-Rexdale in urging our federal colleagues to work with us to continue the co-operative spirit and to ensure that a manageable process of dealing with deicing agents be undertaken immediately and this problem be dealt with in a substantial and appropriate manner.

The ongoing effect is something that is of great concern to us. I want to indicate to you that Environment Canada has said it has agreed with the conclusions of the report of the Ministry of the Environment and that it is prepared to set up a monitoring program it hopes will be under way shortly to do a daily quality testing for Terminals 1 and 2, in that area.

I want to again remind members that we are pleased with the commitment of our federal colleagues, who have said that at Terminal 3 they will ensure the runoff will be held in holding tanks and taken offsite for treatment.

As we vote as private members on this resolution, I want to again emphasize the fact that we all have a role to play. I am encouraged by the initiative taken by my friend from Etobicoke-Rexdale, thank him for bringing it to the attention of this House and hope it would help us as we proceed to work with our federal colleagues and the respective departments to have this matter dealt with and dealt with in an expeditious manner.

Mr Philip: I want to thank all members for their constructive participation and support of my resolution. I would also like to thank Lewis Yeager, who is a researcher in the employ of the legislative library. I had worked with him, expressing my concern. He pulled together a great many studies and was of great help not just to me but to the other members who had indicated they were interested in speaking; I was able to provide his excellent research to them, which was of assistance to them, and some of them have expressed to me their particular satisfaction with the work he did in this regard.

I want to thank the member for Mississauga South. I agree with her concern regarding the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement; there is no doubt that the implementation of MISA would have a positive impact on Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek. However, it would not affect this immediate problem, namely, the discharge from the airport; therefore, notwithstanding MISA, we still need the present action by the federal government.

I want to thank the member for Etobicoke-Humber, my colleague. He has always participated in these various debates in a nonpartisan manner, and he has added some interesting technical arguments from the Ministry of the Environment.

I want to thank my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. The member always has a great deal of information on the environment, on which she is the critic, and has performed so ably in this House. She brought particularly interesting insights stemming from her long and successful experience as a member of Etobicoke council. She points out that this is not a new problem but one that has existed for a number of years, dating back to when she was an active member of Etobicoke council. One has to ask why we have had to wait so long for a cleanup. She points out that the silt at the mouth of Mimico Creek is so disastrous that now it cannot even be disposed of elsewhere.

The remarks of the member for Brampton North were particularly appreciated. The member points out that this is a problem that affects more than the residents of Etobicoke and Mississauga.

He makes a very interesting point to our federal colleagues: “How can you ask for pollution controls by the Unites States when you have such an obvious source of pollution which is directly under your jurisdiction and which you have not yet acted on and that we have waited so long for you to act on?” He deals with the issue of the credibility of the federal government in negotiating over the reduction by the Americans of environmental problems on their side of the border. Let’s clean up our own house and then we have a stronger argument to ask our friends in the United States to clean up theirs.

In conclusion, the passage of this resolution will send a clear message to our friends in Ottawa. The message will be that we have waited too long to clean up the airport pollution; the city of Etobicoke and the city of Mississauga have waited too long, and the people of Ontario have waited too long.

It sends the clear message that we accept the fact that the federal and provincial governments have done research, that the research conclusively shows that this is a major problem, and that there are solutions which are workable and which can be applied today to that problem.

In passing this resolution unanimously, we send a message to our federal government fairly clearly. I thank members for their support.

The Speaker: That completes the allotted time for discussion on these two ballot items. According to standing order 71(f), it states that no vote shall be taken until the clock strikes 12. However, if there would be unanimous agreement to go ahead?

Agreed to.

ADULT INVOLVEMENT IN YOUTH DRUG OFFENCES

The Speaker: Mr Black has moved resolution 15.

Motion agreed to.

WATER QUALITY

The Speaker: Mr Philip has moved resolution 16.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 1156.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1315.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mr Conway: On this special day, with the Queen Mother visiting very shortly, I seek the consent of the House to reorganize routine proceedings for this day only.

The consent being requested is to allow us to have a minister’s statement, namely, that of the Attorney General (Mr Scott), with responses from the opposition, after which we will move immediately to question period and complete as much of question period as we can before our recess at 2:15. Upon the resumption of the House at 3:30, we will complete question period, revert to members’ statements, move through the remaining part of routine proceedings, then to orders of the day. That is the consent I now seek.

The Speaker: It has been requested by the government house leader that we put members’ statements between oral questions and petitions today. Is that agreed?

Agreed to.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PUBLIC INQUIRY

Hon Mr Scott: Today I am pleased to announce that Mr Justice Lloyd Houlden of the Ontario Court of Appeal has been appointed by order in council to conduct a judicial inquiry into, among other things, the relationship between Patricia Starr, Tridel Corp and unelected and elected public officials. In addition, today I am releasing the terms of reference for this inquiry which have now been approved by the Chief Justice of Ontario, as is required, as well as by Mr Justice Houlden.

Mr Justice Houlden will investigate and inquire into the circumstances that are set out in the terms of reference to determine whether a benefit, advantage or reward of any kind was conferred upon any elected or unelected public official or any member of his or her family.

The terms of reference contemplate a full inquiry encompassing the role of all MPPs, members of cabinet, municipal politicians and unelected public officials at both the municipal and provincial level, in any of their dealings with Patricia Starr or Tridel Corp. The inquiry will also investigate the relationship between any other individuals or corporations and Patricia Starr or Tridel Corp in relation to elected or unelected officials.

As members may know, Mr Justice Houlden has been a distinguished member of the bench for 20 years. His experience includes an appointment as arbitrator of the York county teachers’ strike in 1972 and as the mediator in the dispute between the auditors and liquidators of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank. I am confident that his expertise and experience will serve the people of this province well.

I think one additional matter of great importance should be addressed now. In the last few weeks, in connection with these matters the names of a number of individuals have been prominently mentioned in the press and in the House. Some of them are public servants who made long and distinguished contributions to the life of our province. Others are private citizens who are entitled by law to their good name and reputation.

As a result of the allegations made, an extensive police investigation involving the Ontario Provincial Police and the Metropolitan Toronto Police is under way, and a commission of inquiry chaired by a judge has been appointed.

Under the Anglo-American system of justice, which is as old as Magna Carta and every bit as important, there can be no presumption of guilt without evidence. Reporters and politicians, whatever else they may be, are not judges or juries. Fairness and therefore basic human justice requires that we allow the police and the judicial inquiry to do their work and make their judgement.

The government regards it as a duty to see that the process of fairness to both those who make the allegations and those who resist them is achieved and to ensure that judgements are made not on the basis of allegations, but rather on the basis of facts proven in the way that our law for centuries has required, and we intend to see this done.

RESPONSES

PUBLIC INQUIRY

Mr B. Rae: This is the inquiry the Premier (Mr Peterson) wanted, but I want to make it clear that it is not the inquiry that we have asked for and that we ourselves want.

I wish Mr Justice Houlden well in his inquiry with respect to the activities of Mrs Starr and Tridel Corp, as well as in the terms of reference that have been described by the Attorney General (Mr Scott), “to inquire into and report upon any such circumstances or dealings where, in the opinion of the commissioner, there is sufficient evidence that a benefit, advantage or reward of any kind was conferred upon an elected or unelected public official....”

I want to make it clear that in our view and in my view, unless the commissioner has the responsibility and power to deal with the economic framework and development framework in which these activities have taken place, his inquiry will be unduly restricted and unduly limited.

I regret profoundly that the Premier and the Attorney General have decided to limit the terms of reference of this inquiry as it has been limited, because in my judgement we are not going to get the kind of airing of information -- I am not referring here to allegations; I am referring to an understanding of how the structure of this society of ours operates and how it is possible that an essentially private system of power would have grown up so extensively as to influence municipal, provincial and federal levels of government.

What we are dealing with essentially is a question of the accountability of government, the capacity of a democracy to deal not only with the formalities of debate in the Legislature, but with the realities of economic power. That in my view is the central question in this debate and in this issue and it is not the issue Mr Justice Houlden has been asked to look into. As I say, this is the Premier’s inquiry under the Premier’s terms of reference and it is not the inquiry we ourselves wanted.

I have nothing to add to the comments the Attorney General made at the end of his remarks, except to say this: We have questions that we have a right to raise in this Legislature and that we will continue to raise, as difficult and tough as some of those questions are. When information and documentation are brought to our attention and when allegations about the conduct of public business that are extremely serious are brought to our attention, we will not be put off by the Attorney General, by lectures from the Premier or by anything else, in order to bring these facts out into the open and let this democratic House itself consider and debate questions of public policy.

That is our right as the opposition. No amount of lecturing by the Attorney General and by the Premier is going to put us off our job and our task. We on this side respect the law profoundly. We respect the principles of our Anglo-American system of jurisprudence profoundly. We also respect the right of debate and the right to information.

I might point out that had it not been for a free press and for an effective opposition, these facts that have led to this inquiry never would have come to light. That is the fact of the matter. Members should not think for a moment that the Attorney General or the Premier himself would have brought these facts to light. It took a free press and an effective opposition to do that, and that is something of which I am proud. That is why we are here today.

Mr Harris: I, too, want to comment on the terms of reference of the inquiry, which are not the terms of reference my leader requested of the Attorney General at the very least, which my leader indicated in the meeting with him last week ought to be included in the terms of reference and in the scope. My leader indicated at that time, on 30 June, that this inquiry must be wide enough to restore public confidence in the government of Ontario. We believe the details announced today by the Attorney General are not wide enough to restore public confidence in the government.

I particularly say that because these are indeed the Premier’s terms of reference, or the Attorney General’s terms of reference in consultation with the Premier, to exclude those things that touch the Premier himself. I, my party and my leader have suggested that as these issues have been raised over the past four years -- this is not something that is new. This is not something that ought to come as a surprise to the Premier or the Attorney General. The Premier’s standards, his standards of ethical behaviour for members of his party, his cabinet and his caucus have been at issue ever since he has been Premier of this province.

I refer specifically to the fact that the terms of reference exclude a number of allegations that we believe ought to be put to rest, answered or explained to meet the objective of restoring public confidence in the government of Ontario.

Those allegations involve the Premier himself. They involve Heather Peterson, Jim Peterson, David Peterson and C. M. Peterson Co. They involve big, large, heavyweight, heavy-duty companies that have had special access to the Premier, as has been brought out in this House and in the media over the past month or so in dealings, contracts and negotiations with this government.

Certainly, I do not think anybody can deny the allegations of special access to the Premier and to this government in the negotiation of contracts that some have suggested are worth billions of dollars when they are finally let. My leader indicated to the Attorney General that if he is going to restore public confidence, then at the very least these matters should be included under the scope of the investigation.

As well, with regard to the lecture from the Attorney General, I would suggest and agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae) that over the past period of four years, time after time after time, the methods of fund-raising, the message that has been sent out by members of this cabinet and indeed by the Premier himself and the Premier’s office has been questionable at best. That impression out there is not one that my party approves of, nor does the New Democratic Party approve as well.

I would suggest to the Attorney General that I agree that had these matters not been brought forward by the opposition parties and by the media over a sustained and lengthy period of time, these matters would have continued to have been covered up and we would not have got anywhere close to the bottom and to the answers on what actually has been going on with this government. I suggest this as well to the Attorney General on the lecture: I ask him whether the Magna Carta and the principle of innocence until proven guilty applies to Mrs DelZotto.

These people are great on lecturing. They are great on their moral, high-horse standards when they are lecturing members of the opposition and when they are lecturing members of the media, but the Attorney General and the Premier are very selective as to how they apply whatever moral standards. Obviously, the people around them and even their cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants have not been able to determine where the line is. We are disappointed with this announcement.

The Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr Harris: We think it is a whitewash and it will not do the job of restoring confidence in the government of the day.

The Speaker: Thank you.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENVACC RESOURCES INC

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier will know that J. M. Beatty, QC, is a senior counsel to the law firm of Gardiner, Roberts and also one of the principal advisers to Envacc Resources, and that he has met with the Premier on a number of occasions. On 10 August 1988, Mr Beatty dictated a memorandum in which he discusses a meeting he held with Mr Muzzo, himself, Donald Matthews who is the Premier’s father-in-law, Mr Matthews’s son John Matthews, and an adviser named “Maklehaney.”

This memorandum says, “We discussed our meeting with the Premier... Marco advised that he’d spoken to the Premier to tell him of the Matthews interest and asked the Premier if this would constitute a conflict of interest down the road.”

I wonder if the Premier can tell us if this is in fact the case. Did the Premier discuss the possibility of Mr Matthews investing in the consortium?

Hon Mr Peterson: As the member knows, we had two meetings with some of that group and others and there was some conversation with them. I was asked the question if Matthews should be involved and obviously I cannot support anything that would bring any kind of a conflict of interest whatsoever, under any circumstances, and I conveyed that in response to a phone call.

Mr B. Rae: According to this memorandum:

“The Premier said he would consider this and Marco advised that before making a deal with Matthews, we would clear with the Premier. This was a wise move by Marco and drew out of Matthews that he had spoken to the Premier before Marco did. The subsequent discussion confirmed that the Premier and Matthews had agreed to his involvement subject to Marco’s call and that Matthews knew of the project through the Premier.”

I wonder if the Premier can tell us precisely, what discussions did he have, not simply with the Envacc group but with his father-in-law, Mr Matthews, about this deal?

Hon Mr Peterson: I make a point of not discussing business with my father-in-law, who as my honourable friend knows is a developer. He is involved in a number of companies, as many other developers are, and obviously in my opinion it is highly inappropriate that I would discuss any business matters with him at any time.

My friend is also aware from the conflict-of-interest filings that my wife has a very minor

part in some of those interests. Therefore, it is appropriate that I do not discuss these matters. I would never encourage him or anyone else to be involved in any kind of a business situation.

I can tell the member that the question was put to me in a phone call and I said very clearly that I cannot support any kind of situation with any benefit, real or perceived, to any member of my family, direct or indirect. That is the answer to my friend’s question. There was never any suggestion from me that Matthews should be part of that group.

Mr B. Rae: I wonder if the Premier can tell us, who did he have this telephone conversation with and when did he have it?

Hon Mr Peterson: The member probably has the date in front of him on his memo. I do not know exactly.

It was Marco Muzzo who phoned me and it would be some time after those meetings. As you know, there were various changes in various groups that were putting together bids on the entire matter, various different people involved. But, to the best of my knowledge, they are not involved at this time or were not at that time.

Mr B. Rae: I am interested that the Premier’s information and knowledge of this is somewhat more detailed than when I first began asking these questions some seven months ago. It is quite a remarkable change of heart on the Premier’s part. The memo also states on page 3:

“Doug: You have told me before we do not know how big a catch we have. Marco confirmed to Matthews that there is more than enough for everybody, whereby we can negotiate on our terms each party’s involvement. We now have in Marco and Laidlaw the two most powerful developers in Canada, who recognize that there is more money in burying garbage in land than building urban development on land.”

That is precisely what I told the Premier back in January and February when we began raising these questions.

I wonder if the Premier can tell us specifically how many meetings and telephone conversations did he have with Mr Muzzo and precisely what was the date of each one of these conversations?

Hon Mr Peterson: As you know, there were two meetings with the Envacc group. There were a lot of meetings with a lot of groups. There are roughly 12 groups that are interested in some way or other in putting forward a garbage proposal. I met with a group in London called the--I believe the Norwaste proposal has some ideas on the distribution of garbage. I met with the Envacc group on two occasions. I would have to refresh my memory with respect to the specific dates.

There was one other phone call my honourable friend refers to. The meetings were in June 1988 and 12 January 1989, apparently, according to my notes. I also met with Norwaste 12 September. There was a list of meetings, very, very long, with 12 different groups who are interested in waste disposal from some point of view or other.

I should remind my honourable friend again that this is not a decision that the provincial government is going to make. As you know, this is one that is in the hands of the regional chairmen. I am sure you have seen the proposal from the five regional chairmen in the greater Toronto area. This is a plan that will be subject to an environmental assessment and with a great deal of transparency.

So my honourable friend is trying to create the impression, time after time, that there is some special “in” here and that is not the case, because it is all there in front of the public and will be. There is no decision at this point, very frankly, to proceed or not, whether it would be a public or private matter. You have listened to the regional chairmen speak on this matter, they have various different points of view on those subjects. So that a determination has not been made and I repeat to my honourable friend that it is not the provincial government that will make the final decision, it s the regional chairmen and the regional council.

Mr B. Rae: Let me be very clear. We know from a series of memoranda, which have not come to us from the Premier of Ontario, how extensive the involvement of members of his government with Envacc Resources has been and we can document this. But he says it is all out in the open. If it is out in the open, it is because we have tried to put it out in the open, not because the Premier has told us anything.

When I asked the Premier back in January and February what he knew about the principals of Envacc he did not even tell us that he had met with them in June, that he had phone calls with Marco Muzzo and that he had met with him again in January. He did not even tell us that back in January and February. So do not talk to us about how open this process is. It is a process which he has tried to cover up and close up.

That is exactly what has happened, that is exactly what has happened.

Hon Mr Scott: Follow the rules.

Mr B. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier this question. Let me repeat again, “We now have in Marco and Laidlaw the two most powerful developers in Canada, who recognize that there is more money in burying garbage in land than building urban development on land.” The Premier must understand this. This is an extraordinarily lucrative contract to be giving to a private property developer.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr B. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier why has he consistently rejected the idea that this should clearly be done in the public sector and clearly be done for the public interest and not done for the private interest of anybody in the province?

Hon Mr Peterson: The member is getting quite excited about Coming upon with a memo from somebody which I have not seen. He has every right to share it in this House, their

interpretation of a particular set of events. I have no problem with that, because there is nothing that happened in those meetings or any other meeting that we are not prepared to share.

We said at those meetings -- the member should check his notes -- that everything we do will be in public. It will have to involve all sectors. It will have to involve the environmentalists. It will have to involve the regions. It will have to involve all politicians. Whatever we do will be tendered. Ultimately, it is not our decision. No decision has been made yet, whether it be private sector, public sector or what the mix will be, as I assume my honourable friend knows.

I think it is unfair of him to stand in this House and present the matter as if a decision has been made by this government. That is clearly not the case. If and when a decision is made by the regions, it will all be there. It will all be transparent. He can look at it. He can put in his views. One of the intellectual leaders in this whole matter was Richard Gilbert, who understands the nature and extent of the landfill problem. We are assuming our responsibilities to assist the regions but recognize that it is their responsibility and they have to make the final decision.

My honourable friend would not want to characterize it any other way. No one, including the Norwaste group that I met with in London to discuss its ideas has any special inside track. I say to my honourable friend that, yes, I met with them. I meet with others. I meet with labour leaders, teachers, thousands of people from time to time on all sorts of issues, and I will continue to do so.

Mr B. Rae: The memorandum states very clearly Mr Muzzo’s views with respect to the lucrativeness of the contract. He was certainly aware of how lucrative this contract was.

I want to ask the Premier this question: At the time of his conversations with Mr Muzzo -- the two meetings that were held, as well as the phone conversation that he had with Mr Muzzo in which Mr Muzzo explored the possibility of Mr Matthews being involved -- can the Premier tell us, was he personally aware of the financial interest that Mr Muzzo had in the sale of the Premier’s family company?

Hon Mr Peterson: The answer is no, because all of my shares were in a blind trust, as my honourable friend knows. I cannot tell him -- I read it in the newspaper at some particular point along the way, but I am told by the people involved that his name never came up. He was never involved in the whole matter.

SALE OF PREMIER’S FAMILY BUSINESS

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Premier as well and deals with the sale of his family business, which I asked him about last week. I am sure he will recall. At that time, he suggested that it could be referred to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. We are having some difficulty with that since the legislation was not in place at the time of the sale of his family business and he has now ruled out that transaction as part of the judicial inquiry. The Premier will be aware, I am sure, of the increasing concerns about that transaction and the involvement of Mr Muzzo. I am wondering if he is prepared to table the company’s financial statements with the House.

Hon Mr Peterson: I have an idea. Why does the honourable member not refer the entire matter to the conflict commissioner? If, by chance, he is right that the legislation does not apply, I would gladly waive that and he can take all of his concerns to the conflict commissioner. He will have the power to look into all the records of the company and anything else that went on.

I would be delighted if the commissioner, on the member’s request, would look into that and if the member would lay before the commissioner any allegations or charges he has. I think that is fair, and I think, as a man of integrity, he would want to do that.

Mr Runciman: I think the Premier may be overemphasizing his authority in respect to overriding legislation. I am not sure that is appropriate. We will certainly follow up on it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Runciman: A loan agreement dated 28 July 1987 was entered into between the Cambridge Acceptance Corp. a family company in which the Premier (Mr Peterson) has a one-third interest, and Consolidated HCI Holdings Corp, the large development company headed by Marco Muzzo. This agreement gave a $3-million, 11 per cent interest-only loan for six months from the Muzzo company to the Peterson company. It is a matter of public record in the London land registry.

Can the Premier tell us when he first became aware of this loan and why the Peterson company would seek financing from Muzzo’s company rather than a bank or trust company?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think my honourable friend’s facts are wrong in this matter, but my honourable friend’s facts are frequently wrong. I think he owes it to himself to make sure that he knows all the details. Frankly, I do not know all of the details of this particular matter, except what I have read in the paper, and, as I told my honourable friend, my shares are in a blind trust.

But I can tell my honourable friend this: I have absolutely no reservations whatsoever in letting him take this to the conflict commissioner. He should take him his allegations and suggestions and what he thinks is wrong, because I think that is only fair, rather than standing in the House, as he does, day after day after day, making unsubstantiated allegations. He should take charge of the matter; he should take it to the conflict commissioner; he should tell him what he thinks is wrong. I would be very happy to have anybody who had anything to do with that sale there to answer to him or anybody else.

Mr Runciman: Back to the loan: A loan of this size from a large land development company to the Premier’s family totally destroys the essential appearance of an arm’s-length relationship between the Premier and those with whom he must do government business.

Again, is the Premier prepared --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Runciman: -- to table full details of this loan transaction in the Legislature, and is he prepared to direct his trustee to support only loans from banks and trust companies in the future?

Hon Mr Peterson: The member says there was a loan. That is not any information that I have on the particular matter. It was a sale; it was not a loan. But my honourable friend stands again and makes unsubstantiated allegations. He owes it, as a gentleman and a man of honour, to take his charges to the conflict commissioner.

I think he should do that because, to the best of my knowledge, my honourable friend’s information may not be correct in this matter. But if he is concerned about its transparency. he should take it there and look at all of the details. I think my honourable friend will find out that, once again, he has descended to a level that maybe he is comfortable at but most members in this House are not comfortable at.

PUBLIC INQUIRY

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier, who is quick to accuse the media, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B Rae) and the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr Runciman) of making what he says are false allegations.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Scott: The media can’t take it to the commissioner; you can.

Mr Harris: The Premier has indicated -- and if the Attorney General (Mr Scott) would like to listen to my question instead of interrupting the proceedings, I would be happy to continue -- that he wants people to take these allegations to the commissioner. The Premier knows full well that what we are talking about here is confidence in the government. He also knows full well that all of the facts are not out. He also knows full well that nobody is making any accusations. We are saying that in the media --

Hon Mr Scott: Turn around and look at Runciman. You just haven’t got the guts to do it. You can do it in one letter but then you’d have to shut up if you were proved wrong: a terrible price to pay.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Does the member have a question?

Mr Harris: Control the Attorney General, sir.

Hon Mr Scott: The poor Attorney General can hardly stand this. Just write a letter.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member place his question?

Mr Harris: The Premier keeps making these challenges -- and I do not think the issue is a challenge -- to make an allegation. We are not here to make allegations; we are here --

Hon Mr Scott: This is unbelievable. You’re out-Runcimaning Bob.

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question?

Mr Harris: No, Mr Speaker, if you cannot control the Attorney General so I can ask my question, that is not my fault.

The Speaker: Order. I think we should pause for a moment and remember that this is question period. Would you place your question?

Mr Harris: I will attempt it once again, if the Attorney General can control himself. I would like to ask the Premier this: Nobody is making allegations, we are after the facts. In order to take something to the commissioner, as the Premier knows very well, one must know all the facts to be able to make an allegation. The way to get at the facts --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could we discontinue the debate and the interjections and have the question, please.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

The way to get at the facts is to bring all of the information that is being questioned in the media by a number of people into the judicial inquiry. That is what the judicial inquiry is for. It is to get at the facts. Why --

The Speaker: Thank you. Fine. Finally there is a question.

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend does not know whether it is based on facts or allegations or what he is dealing with at this particular point, which is understandable. He says he does not know the facts but he is prepared to make allegations, but let me not get into that.

Let me say, look at all the facts. His friend from Ottawa has made an allegation under the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act against the Attorney General. It went there for a determination.

The member supported that act. So did we. That is what the commissioner is there for, and believe me, I have nothing to hide from my honourable friend and his allegations, be they ill-founded or not.

Why does the member not request that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner look at this? The member can take anything he knows or his

interpretation of the facts and the circumstances and let it all be there. I am most comfortable with that and I think h