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

October 27, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L095 - Thu 27 Oct 1988 / Jeu 27 oct 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

GARBAGE RECYCLING PROGRAMS ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

GARBAGE RECYCLING PROGRAMS ACT

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LANDLORDS’ RESTRICTIONS ON PETS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO GOVERNMENT

HIRING PRACTICES

TRITIUM

ASSETS DISPOSAL

THOMAS B. MCQUESTEN

HOSPITAL FUNDING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WIFE ASSAULT / VIOLENCE AU FOYER

ADVOCACY

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

RESPONSES

ADVOCACY

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

WIFE ASSAULT

ADVOCACY

WILLIAM HODGSON

TABLING OF INFORMATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD CARE

PROGRAM FUNDING

EXTENDED CARE

RENTERPRISE LOAN

LABOUR DISPUTE

RENTERPRISE LOAN

COMPUTERIZED AXIAL TOMOGRAPHY

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

RACE RELATIONS

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

DRUGS FOR CYSTIC FIBROSIS

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

PETITION

NURSING SERVICES

MOTION

ESTIMATES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

VISITOR

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF REVENUE / CREDITS, MINISTÈRE DU REVENU

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved second reading of Bill 156,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

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

Mr. Mackenzie: I have not timed it so I am not sure how much time I am reserving for the windup.

Bill 156 calls for a minimum wage in Ontario based on 65 per cent of the previous year’s industrial average wage for Ontario, Statscan figures. The bill would set a direction for Ontario and would assume the leadership we should be showing in terms of workers and social legislation in this province. It could also give some real meaning to income redistribution or fairness for our people and provide a clear indication that the income and allowances needs so clearly pointed out in the recent study by Judge Thomson will be taken seriously in Ontario.

In my remarks, I will deal with a number of the issues surrounding the need for a decent minimum wage in this province. I hope to reserve a couple of minutes of my time for summation.

As caucus Labour critic for my party and as an elected member from a working-class riding, I hear a lot about the problems facing ordinary working people, men and women. Before I was elected to this place, I spent many years as a trade union organizer and was privileged to work on a day-to-day basis not only in Ontario but also across this country of ours, helping working people to organize and to deal with some of their everyday problems in a collective way at the workplace. I think I understand the problems and I think I understand some of the frustrations that working people face on a day-to-day basis.

My work at the Legislature, the full time I have been here, has been dedicated to trying to find solutions -- not just patchwork or Band-Aid solutions -- for those problems that let people get on with their lives in dignity and according to their hopes and desires. That is why I am proud to tell the members of this House why we need a better decent minimum wage. Let me tell you what I mean.

I have here an

article from the Sault Star about the efforts of Genosio Paciocco to make governments aware of the plight of the working poor. Mr. Paciocco says in the article, “I have been working for the same company for 12 years now and still I am paid minimum wage.” Asked about the recent increase in the minimum wage, the last increase of 20 cents an hour, he said, “It is a mere slap in the face.”

He wrote to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) and, on September 6 this year, the minister replied. In that letter the minister says, “Raising the minimum wage in a substantial way may not necessarily be the most effective method of improving the income of the working poor.”

Earlier this year, on August 15, the minister told Mr. Paciocco in another letter: “Unfortunately, the problem of poverty is too complex to be solved simply by increasing the minimum wage. The government of Ontario believes that the problem of poverty must be attacked at the root by providing low-wage workers with the education, training and economic opportunities they need.”

I submit that that sort of condescending paternalism is something we are accustomed to hearing from this minister, as we were from some of the previous Labour ministers. Genosio Paciocco does not need homilies about his employability. He needs a decent wage, and the minister is doing nothing about it. Right now, the minimum wage in Ontario is $4.75 an hour. If you figure it out, that is $192 a week or $9,880 a year, less than $10,000 a year. Frankly, I suspect that is less than many members of this Legislature are paying in income tax.

The National Council of Welfare circulates what it calls a low-income line each year. Most of us call it the poverty level in the province. This year, a family of four, living in a metropolitan area, needs $23,521 to be above that line. if we have two minimum-wage incomes -- and I can tell members, as most of them, I am sure, will attest to, that there are many -- they will earn 84 per cent of the poverty level. Things are obviously more desperate if there are not two income earners in the family or if one of the people is only working part-time.

I would like to have time -- and I do not; I can see it on the time that is going now -- to read the

article of David Thornley of the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, where he deals with just what minimum wage means and the number of people involved, but there are a couple of things I think that are worth saying. He goes into some of the arguments against minimum wage and then says:

“This argument ignores several salient characteristics of low-income households in Canada, namely: (1) households with heads under 25, both families and single persons, are twice as likely to be poor as those headed by someone between the ages of 25 and 44; (2) for families with one income earner, the risk of poverty is more than three times as great as for families with two or more earners; (3) female-headed families are nearly five times more likely to be living in poverty than are male-headed families, and (4) for families supported by a head working part-time, the risk of poverty is five times as great as for families where the head works full-time.”

Here we have today two minimum-wage income earners who would be earning only 84 per cent of what is considered the poverty level in a metropolitan area. Since 1975, according to the Thomson report on social assistance, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has declined by 22 per cent. This means that people like Mr. Paciocco, whom I referred to a moment ago, are much worse off now than when I was first elected to this place in that same year of 1975. That, I say to members, is a disgrace, and we should all consider it a disgrace.

Now it is true that the minimum wage has been maintained at the rate of inflation for the last few years. Unfortunately, this seems to be the key argument of the Minister of Labour. It is an argument of a self-satisfied minister and a self-satisfied majority government. All this government has really done is keep the people in the desperate position that its Tory predecessors allowed them to slide into, and it has not improved that position one iota. They have not improved their purchasing power. They have done nothing to get them off the treadmill.

I recommend to all members of this House that they read George Thomson’s report, as most of the members in my caucus are doing, the report and what it has to say about poverty and the minimum wage. Among other things, it says, “In relation to the average industrial wage, minimum wage has declined steadily in recent years.” In other words, we are creating even more of a group of poor people in this province of ours. “Between 1975 and 1985, it dropped from 47 per cent of the average industrial wage to 38 per cent.” That is to be found on page 289 of Mr. Thomson’s report.

In 1975, the minimum wage provided income to a two-earner, four-person family that was 106 per cent of -- in other words, just a little bit more than -- the poverty line. As I have just said, it now provides 84 per cent of the poverty line. Once again, we have gone backwards, not forwards.

Thomson has some other interesting things to say about the minimum wage, and one of them is particularly relevant to the comments the Minister of Labour has made recently. Thomson notes as follows, and I will give his direct quote:

“The low value of the minimum wage has had particularly harmful consequences for two groups in particular: women and young people. A recent report of the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto cites Statistics Canada figures that are generally supported by previous surveys undertaken by the Ontario Ministry of Labour. As of December 1984, 62 per cent of minimum-wage workers were women and 60 per cent were under the age of 25.

“Some people will argue that income supplementation is not the best way to help the working poor. They are concerned that such a program would further exacerbate the disparity between the minimum wage and actual living costs, and that it would enable employers to abdicate their responsibility to pay a fair and reasonable wage.... Those who share this view are concerned that income supplementation will serve, in effect, to subsidize employers, not employees; they believe the preferred method of helping the working poor is to significantly increase the minimum wage.

“On the other hand, many people would strenuously oppose any move to increase the minimum wage substantially. They are concerned about a negative impact on overall employment.”

Judge Thomson concludes: “Although a large body of empirical research exists, the evidence of job losses resulting from increased minimum wages is inconclusive.”

If I had time, I would cite a study or questionnaire that was sent out by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which showed almost the same thing back in 1964, although members will find the arguments on exactly the opposite side of the fence.

This is particularly interesting to me, because in yet a third letter to Mr. Paciocco, the Minister of Labour wrote, on the day of the Thomson report’s release, saying, “Study after study explains that the minimum wage is not an effective means of redistributing income.” I do not know where the Minister of Labour got those figures. They did not agree with what Judge Thomson said the very day he issued the report.

This is an old, pro-business argument. It is an argument that in different forms has been used to argue against the minimum wage, equal pay for work of equal value, equal pay, occupational health and safety laws and even, if we go back a bit, medicare and pensions and many other of the social benefits we have won. Almost anything you can think of that increases the rights and benefits of working people has been opposed as in opposition to the views or the needs and benefits of capital in this province.

We are proud to quote one of the captains of modem capitalism, Henry Ford, who called that argument bunk at the time he brought in the big wage increase in the Ford plants. It goes as follows: If you raise minimum wage rates, then all of the other costs facing people at the low end of the economic spectrum go up as employers pass on their costs. In addition, some marginal employers will be forced out of business by such an increase and such workers will bear the brunt of these job losses.

The minister is convinced, even though Judge Thomson’s review committee, which took more than a year and almost $3 million to look into poverty-related issues, said the evidence is clearly inconclusive. Let me quote once more from the Thomson report, because I think it reveals a lot about the Minister of Labour and his attitudes and orientations. Having said that empirical research is inconclusive, the report continues:

“But even though the research is inconclusive, the business community is convinced that job losses result from increased minimum wages. This argument is advanced, in particular, by advocates of small business like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.” Members can look on page 290 of the report to see that. This tells me a lot about whom the minister and his government are listening to, and it sure is not the poor people in Ontario.

Here are a few other examples of what ordinary Ontarians working at the minimum wage have to say, some of the witnesses before the Thomson commission. A recipient said: “Manpower refuses to send me to any job under $8 per hour because they say a family of six cannot live under it. I have had employers tell me the same thing.”

The Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers said: “Many working women, particularly those attempting to get off social assistance, are paid minimum wage. As one mother expressed it, ‘To receive $4.35 per hour to work and to pay $4 per hour for babysitting for two children is hopeless.’”

An anonymous witness said: “Even though I’m working, I’m making less than if I’d be on mother’s allowance, which is very discouraging to me. I’m trying to raise four teenagers on a very small budget and I feel I’m sinking lower and lower all the time.”

That is on page 291 of the Thomson report.

I want to speak for just a few minutes about Bill 156 and what it would do. The first important thing it would do is increase the minimum wage. Second, it would create a permanent relationship between the minimum wage and the average industrial wage in this province, so that the wages of our lowest-paid workers are no longer a matter of whim or paternalistic beneficence on the part of the minister of the day.

It does these things by proposing to set the minimum wage at 65 per cent of the average industrial wage for Ontario during the previous year. It excludes overtime pay but recognizes that under Ontario labour law the first 44 hours worked in a week are payable at base rates. That figure, calculated on the basis of Statscan figures for September of this year, would result in a wage rate of $6.94 an hour. That is $278 a week or $14,435 a year. That would give a two-income family of four, the example I used before, 123 per cent of the poverty line in a Canadian metropolitan centre.

Let’s be clear. That is hardly a luxury in relation to where those folks were a dozen years ago. It is not a hell of a lot, but it is a basis for some hope, I believe, and it is a basis on which self-reliance of ordinary working people can build. I think all of us agree the real answer is not the variety of welfare programs we have, but work for people at decent wages.

Last year when I asked, via Orders and Notices, for information from the Minister of Labour on those in receipt of the minimum wage in the province of Ontario -- I will not re-read my question; I was going to -- I got back an answer. A couple of things are interesting about the information I received in reply from the ministry.

First, most of this material was produced by Statscan. We do not seem to have a handle on it here in Ontario.

Second, the Ministry of Labour data that were included contained data from 1979, which I guess is the last time there were extensive data and the ministry staff had a burning interest in this particular issue.

Third and most important, things have got much worse in the 1980s and remain worse despite all the efforts and all the public relations work that this government has done. Let me explain. In 1981, 6.5 per cent of Ontario’s paid workers earned the minimum wage. Of those people, the paid workers, who numbered about 125,000, 59 per cent were women; fully 55 per cent of the full-time workers at minimum wage were women.

In 1984, after the recovery from the great recession was well under way, what had happened? Of Ontario’s paid workers, 9.4 per cent are at the minimum wage, an increase in proportion of almost 50 per cent. Of course, it was a bigger economy in 1984 than in 1981, so we are talking about a total of 358,000 workers at the minimum wage.

Of that number, in 1984, 63 per cent of the full-time wage earners were women. In other words, in three years the proportion of the paid labour force earning the minimum wage increased by almost 50 per cent. Because the labour force has grown in the interim, the number of minimum-wage workers increased by 186 per cent and the share of the full-time minimum-wage workers accounted for by women increased by eight percentage points.

It is worth noting as well that this is what the minister provided when I asked for the most complete information to which he has access –- 1984 data from Statistics Canada -- and it does not impress me very much in terms of our being on top of the particular issue.

Let me finish, if I can, with one of the letters I got from Genosio Paciocco. It is a letter I know he sent to all the Liberal members of this House. For reasons he explains -- and I will not be partisan enough to put them down -- he did not send it to the Tory members, although I think he should have. He sent me one too. It is a form letter. He said:

“Bob Mackenzie recently brought in a bill, Bill 156,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, which said, ‘The minimum hourly wage established under this act shall not be less than 65 per cent of the number obtained by dividing the industrial aggregate average weekly earnings (excluding overtime) for Ontario for the previous year, as published by Statistics Canada, by 44.”

Just remember what the Bible said in Proverbs 21:13: “Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.” I could not end the comments in this Legislature any better than that particular remark from Genosio Paciocco.

We have an inadequate minimum wage in this province. We are going further behind. It is a disgrace to a province, which is Ontario. The scare stories will not work. The truth of the matter is that we give people some dignity. We have a much larger purchasing base which will offset some of the shortcomings we may have, and nobody in this party, certainly, would be against looking at ways and means of some phase-in or, in smaller communities, a temporary tax assistance for small business. All those things can be looked at, but this kind of direction has got to be taken, and has got to be taken soon, or we have no credibility in Ontario.

Mr. McLean: I am very pleased to have the opportunity of participating in the debate on this private member’s bill, Bill 156,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act. Debate provides an excellent opportunity for the interchange of ideas, and I feel that this one has particular significance for those Ontario residents who are moderate-income earners.

Bill 156 seeks to establish a minimum wage which cannot be less than 65 per cent of the previous year’s industrial aggregate average wage for Ontario, as published by Statistics Canada.

Ontario’s minimum wage is currently $4.75 per hour, based on the available Statistics Canada data for 1987. The formula spelled out in Bill 156 says this wage level would be increased to something in the order of $6.74 per hour under the proposed legislation, an increase of some 41 per cent.

Each province in Canada established its own minimum wage level, and not always for the same reason. While some provinces seek to curb poverty among the working poor, others attempt to prevent unfair low-wage competition. Many attempt to prevent the exploitation of the unorganized nonunion sectors of workers. While the rationale behind minimum wages is very commendable, I caution members that the actual impact of wage legislation often differs from its intended impact, producing many unintended side-effects.

Minimum-wage legislation is social legislation and it is all too often used as a quick-fix solution to a very serious problem in the marketplace. Competitive economic theory predicts that, in the long run, an increase in minimum wage levels will actually harm the employees it was designed to help through an adverse employment effect; that is, employment will be reduced relative to what it would have been in the absence of the minimum-wage increase. Firms will substitute other, relatively cheaper input for higher-priced labour. As well, output will decline due to decreased demand, a direct result of higher cost.

The magnitude of the adverse employment effect depends on the shape of the demand curve for labour. If demand for labour is high, the effect is small. Such might be the case for skilled tradesmen such as carpenters or electricians. These sectors, however, are not the ones most likely to be affected by minimum-wage legislation. Low-wage industries such as tourism and recreation, textiles and retail trade will be the ones where adverse effects are greatest. The demand for labour is low and will be decreased even further in the long run as firms substitute inputs and consumers look for cheaper substitutes.

Coming from a region in the province which relies upon tourism, I can tell members that labour accounts for a large portion of total cost in this industry, and competition is already fierce. Employers will not be able to observe the wage increases. Workers will be made to suffer, particularly the unskilled who are most vulnerable. Younger workers and women who need employment, even at low wages, as a means to acquire on-the-job training and labour market experience in order to move on to higher-paying jobs, will be most affected.

The benefits of wage increases to some workers must be weighed against the cost to reduce employment opportunities to others. The minimum-wage theory works well if all workers have the same levels of skills and productivity. However, this is not the case, and that is where the proposed legislation, I believe, is flawed.

The labour market in Ontario is composed of numerous submarkets for labour of different types, each with its own demand-and-supply curves. Skilled workers have a higher demand curve due to their higher productivity. Minimum-wage legislation has proved to be a useful policy tool in certain key industries, such as the hospitality trade. Here, it has been used to subsidize the earnings of workers who would otherwise rely solely upon tips and gratuities as income.

The wage which equates supply and demand for labour will be greater for the skilled than the unskilled worker. Establishing a minimum wage of approximately $6.74 per hour for skilled workers will have little, if any, effect, because this wage level is lower than the average wage for the industry. Establishing a new minimum wage of approximately $6.74 per hour in the unskilled sectors of the labour market will harm the very workers targeted for assistance, because this wage level will be greater than the industry average.

Two things will happen. Employers will be forced to lay off workers they could have hired at a lower wage level. As well, other workers will be attracted by the above-average wage offering. Supply of labour will greatly exceed demand and the employers will find themselves in a situation where they are able to pick and choose among the most desirable workers where they are in an excessive supply of demand. Employers will naturally single out the most productive workers in the unskilled labour pool.

It is true that these workers who retain their jobs will be better off with the higher wage. However, no recognition is given to those unskilled workers who will lose their jobs when the surplus labour, the least skilled, least productive and least desirable workers in the eyes of the employer, are left out in the cold by Bill 156. These are the very individuals our party is seeking to help and whose interest will not be overlooked.

Supporters of Bill 156 argue that factors exist which might offset the adverse employment effect. They argue that an increase in demand for a product or an increase in the price of substitute products will spur the demand for labour and thus cancel the negative side-effects of this legislation.

However, it is wrong to legislate on expected events. Proponents of Bill 156 argue that employers could utilize cost-saving measures and thereby reduce the need to lay off workers. However, industries such as tourism and recreation have already exhausted all possible efficiencies as a result of extremely high competition in the marketplace. Others argue that employers will be able to absorb wage increases without reducing employment. However, the employers most likely to be affected by Bill 156 are those operating with tight profit margins in a low-wage industry.

Farm workers hired during the harvest season are but a typical example. Produce prices dictate the wage pool, over which a farmer has no control. Driving up the price of seasonal help will force the farmer to cut back on the number of employees he or she hires. I want to elaborate on that, because I own a farm and I have hired summer help at the minimum wage in order to give young children an opportunity to paint a fence or to clean up, just something for them to do. If a minimum wage is not what the farmer can afford to pay, then those people will not get a job.

The same choices will face companies seeking to hire summer students. Numerous studies have been documented that clearly show a substantial adverse employment effect upon teenagers, the residents of this province who want and need valuable work experience. As legislators, we must not discourage these individuals in their formative years.

I urge the members to show appreciation for the harmful side-effects which will result when Bill 156 is made law. Its insensitivity to the levels of supply and demand for labour in each sector of the Ontario economy -- and we cannot ignore the specific needs of each region -- cannot be tolerated. The negative impacts of this proposed legislation will fall, unfortunately, upon unskilled workers, who are most in need of work experience. The strength of Ontario lies in its workers and we cannot enact legislation which ignores the fundamental principle.

I recall the member who has introduced this bill speaking about $8 an hour. I believe that for anybody who has his own apartment and has to keep his own family, $8 an hour is certainly hard to live on. We on the farm have paid $10 an hour to get summer help -- good help, that is.

The problem I see with this legislation is that in the tourist industry, where one relies on tips and gratuities, there has to be a minimum wage that would be acceptable to that industry. I am well aware of the situation. I have many people who come into my constituency office who are making $5 or $5.75 per hour, which is unacceptable, as far as I am concerned, if somebody has to make a living.

I think what we have got to be doing is educating our industry and saying, “Look, in order to get good help, you’ve got to pay a decent wage.” But I have a problem when we start changing the minimum wage, which may not help those people who really need it, such as those young people I was talking about who nee that summer job, who need a part-time job. I think we have to start there, and I thank members for the opportunity to speak on this private member’s bill.

Mrs. Sullivan: I am pleased that the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) has put forward this bill, Bill 156,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act. There is substance to the bill, and a debate of substance will be a relief after the tactical debates we have been occupied with for the past several days.

I do not concur with the specifics of the member’s recommendations, but I do appreciate that this bill provides an opportunity to review the minimum wage, which impacts on thousands of people in the province.

Women, as you know, Mr. Speaker, have a particular interest in minimum-wage laws. If we can walk back a moment in history, we know that the first minimum wages, in New Zealand, Australia, Western Europe and then finally Canada, applied only to women and children, most of whom were employed in sweat work in unconscionable conditions for salaries that barely provided bread for the table.

Less than 70 years ago, and in many of our parents’ memories, indeed in many of their work experiences, Ontario issued its first minimum-wage order. That order specified that no experienced female over 18 years was to be paid less than $12 a week; inexperienced and younger women were subject to a lesser income formula.

The first minimum-wage orders were industry-specific: laundries, restaurants, hotels and certain jobs in manufacturing. Frankly, when we look at where our minimum-wage earners are today, we see that similar occupations head the list.

In a quite singular reversal of women’s employment equality trends, the move to cover the male gender under minimum-wage laws moved slowly. In Ontario, it was not until the 1960s that men were finally included in minimum-wage legislation.

Let’s took, as the member opposite has, at who receives the minimum wage today. In 1984 a Statistics Canada survey estimated that 62 per cent of general minimum-wage earners were women and 60 per cent were under 25. More than 40 per cent worked full-time and more than 20 per cent were the sole income earners in their family. For the most part, they work in the food and accommodation industries, in the retail trade and in the personal services sector. There has not been much change since the First World War in where these people are employed.

Last year the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto released another study of minimum-wage earners. It reported that fully 15 per cent of Ontario workers, including full-time and part-time workers, students, who can often, but not always, depend on their parents and families as well, and sole-income family heads earn the minimum wage. Judge Thomson’s data, to which the member from Hamilton East has referred, underline the characteristics of the minimum-wage earner. They form a significant part of Ontario’s working poor and their circumstances are distressing to all of us.

The question becomes one of how we tackle the issue, how we as legislators can stop being tolerant of poverty in our midst and what actions we can take not only to minimize poverty but to lead to its elimination.

The member has a proposal that is contained in Bill 156. The bill is remarkably similar in intent to one put forward in 1977 by Stephen Lewis when he was leader of the New Democratic Party and Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Lewis’s bill called for a 51 per cent increase in the minimum wage, and the bill of the member for Hamilton East, when the calculations are done, calls for the same thing.

So that members will fully understand the implications of the bill, I would like to review these calculations. The member has proposed that the minimum wage be indexed to 65 per cent of the average industrial wage. Today in Ontario the average industrial wage is $484.15. Based on a 44-hour work week, this would translate to an average hourly wage of $11. The bill proposes that the minimum wage be pegged at 65 per cent of the average industrial wage or $7.15 an hour.

I would like to go back to when Mr. Lewis proposed his bill in 1977. At that time, the minimum wage in Ontario was $2.65 an hour, lower than in any other jurisdiction in Canada except Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. The government of the day was quite satisfied with holding to that low rung of the pay ladder. Today, bolder steps in the climb up have been taken. Ontario’s minimum wage has been increased to $4.75 an hour and the government has committed to review that every year.

The last increase in the minimum wage places Ontario, along with Quebec, with a minimum wage that is the highest of any province in Canada and one of the highest in North America. Those steps were necessary, proper, timely and fair.

The member believes that a larger stride in minimum wage is the answer to the basic problem of having people who work but who are poor. I admire his intent, but I disagree with his strategy. The member is well meaning, but his approach could lead those who are least able to protect themselves into economic oblivion, and this is the ground on which I must disagree with my colleague opposite.

The government is now reviewing the eloquent report of Judge Thomson and is looking at that report as a whole piece. I should remind the member opposite that it is not just the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which has concerns about raising the minimum wage to the extent he has put forward. The social planning council’s report, which I spoke about a moment ago, talked of some of the jeopardy associated with precipitate moves in minimum-wage legislation.

I would like to quote from that report. It says, “Given the concentration of minimum-wage occupations in particular industries, any decision to substantially improve the adequacy of the minimum wage would have to be developed in conjunction with other programs to reduce the impact of such changes in terms of productivity and employment in these industries.”

The Macdonald commission also cited research which suggested that a 10 per cent increase in the minimum wage would result in at least a 0.2 per cent rise in unemployment. I remind the House that the member is calling for a 51 per cent increase in the minimum wage. Based on conclusions from these well-considered studies, in the current economy that means a one per cent increase in unemployment, a loss of 50,000 jobs in Ontario and, once again, women and young people would be disproportionately affected. In a less vibrant economy than we are experiencing today, the effect would be even more devastating and it would be the poor who would be most affected.

It is not only studies that provide the evidence. There are other jurisdictions that have made the experiment the member is calling for and their experience must give us pause. France in the early 1980s comes to mind. In France, between 1981 and 1982, the minimum wage was increased by 29 per cent. This bill calls for an increase of 51 per cent. The evidence shows that business stopped hiring workers, unemployment increased and, as a consequence, the government was forced to introduce tax cuts for business to stimulate hiring. That proved to be such a failure that the government finally had to abandon the experiment.

Along with my colleagues on this side of the House, I believe we should be fighting the root causes of poverty in our workforce. Improving skills, expanding training opportunities and enabling our workers to participate in a changing economic and industrial environment are priorities which are vital and which are sound economically. That is why we are pursuing them with vigour and determination. The minimum wage must continue to provide a wage floor so that people who are unorganized, unskilled and disadvantaged will not be exploited. The minimum wage is one element of reducing poverty in our workforce, but it is not the only one.

I admire the intent of the bill, but because I do not believe it will work, I regret that I cannot support it.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am very pleased to be able to speak on this bill from my good colleague the member for Hamilton East, a member who over the years has stood out in this Legislature for his work on behalf of the workers of Ontario, a member who has been willing to take stands that are controversial at times and that the other parties in particular would have nothing to do with, stands that are in the long-run, best interests of our province, of the workers of this province, and certainly in this case, of the working poor of Ontario.

We face a situation in Ontario where the working poor and poverty in general is a growing problem affecting a greater and greater portion of our society. We have a situation where we have an issue that is a controversial issue in terms of the business community, but not a controversial one in terms of people on the street. People know that wages, in terms of those at the bottom end of work opportunities in our society, are heavily impacted by the level of the minimum wage. There is no single initiative that could do more to improve the standard of living of those people than to take action on the minimum wage.

This is an issue where the business sector should be taking responsible action on its own, but in fact, over the years, it has not and we see a growing gap between what average industrial workers are making and what people are making in many of the service sectors, in smaller businesses and in the kinds of work that major corporations have been contracting out to small operations.

Those businesses have been taking advantage of people with lower skills and lack of experience, young people, and particularly women in the workforce, and paying what are really unconscionable levels of income, levels which do not even allow families to live at a level we view as a minimum, meagre poverty level in our society today.

We have in this Bill 156 an opportunity to move towards a fair level of income, a minimum wage which has been set in the bill at 65 per cent of the average industrial wage. That is certainly not an unrealistic target, one that has been achievable in other major industrial democracies of the western world, and a target that has been achieved with much lower levels of unemployment than we have here in Canada today. We have a situation that I would compare with, let’s say, a look at Sweden.

I was in Sweden just over a year ago and talked with top economists in that country about what is happening in the economy, about the levels of unemployment there and what type of minimum wage they have in Sweden.

In Sweden today, they have a society which is far fairer than ours in terms of wage levels, one in which everyone is given the opportunity to raise his family at a decent level of income. They have, effectively, a minimum wage that is approximately 70 per cent of the average industrial wage in Sweden today. They have managed to do that without the kind of economic scares we get from the Conservatives and from their business friends in the Liberal Party about the disastrous scenario of lost jobs and disastrous consequences for the working poor.

They have an unemployment rate in Sweden today of 1.7 per cent, the second lowest in the western world today. The only one that is lower is Norway’s, where there is a Social Democratic government as well and a similar policy of fair and equitable wages for everyone in their society.

The consequences of a move towards this kind of wage level surely has some impact in terms of redistributing the types of jobs that are available, but how do companies adjust to that? They adjust by ensuring that the jobs that are there are good jobs and that the workers there are trained and skilled. Those countries have programs in place to ensure that people have the skills that are needed in the workforce. Everyone is doing productive work and producing much higher value products than we typically are.

They have much less emphasis on the low-wage service sector than we have, but they still have their McDonald’s restaurants. McDonald’s in Sweden can pay a decent wage and still manage to sell hamburgers on the streets. Why do we have to have one of the most wealthy corporations in North America here in Canada paying a wage that is unconscionable and totally inadequate to support any type of family? As a consequence, we see only youth working in McDonald’s. There are very few people trying to support a family in that type of operation, at a corporation that is very successful, very wealthy and could pay those kinds of wages.

That same thing applies to other restaurants, other areas of the service sector and other small businesses in Sweden as well. They know that if they are going to be in business, they have to pay a fair and decent wage.

As a government, we can stipulate what the rules for the operation of business are going to be and people have to follow them. Sure, if one company or one small business today had to increase its wages considerably, it would be put at a tremendous economic disadvantage compared to its competitors. We are not asking for a disadvantage for one of them. We are asking that everyone in that competitive marketplace pay a fair and decent wage.

That does not change the competitive balance between those businesses. What will they have to do? Well, perhaps they may have to increase the prices of their hamburgers a few cents, but the people who can afford to go and buy their meals outside of their homes and go into a restaurant or buy other services, those who are making decent levels of income, should surely be able to pay a few cents additional for the products they buy in order to ensure that those people who are providing the service and delivering those products are able to have a decent standard of living themselves.

I find it quite disturbing that this government has twisted and distorted this particular issue. I would like to quote, in particular, a comment in response to a letter from one of my constituents, Genosio Paciocco, to whom the member for Hamilton East referred several times and who has done tremendous work on this issue. He wrote to the Liberal members and in particular got a response from the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour, in his excuse for not taking any action on bringing the minimum wage to a decent level, stated that study after study explains that the minimum wage is not an effective means of redistributing income.

What a totally irresponsible statement by the Minister of Labour, coming out on exactly the same day that we had the issuing of the report of the Social Assistance Review Committee, chaired by Judge Thomson, the most comprehensive, most expensive study ever done by the province of Ontario on the issue of poverty. It was issued on the same day as that statement by the minister. Right in the Thomson report itself, we get the contradictory evidence; in fact, this major study endorses a major increase in the minimum wage in Ontario.

I read from this study: “To compound the problem” -- of the working poor – “the purchasing power of the minimum wage has decreased by 22 per cent since 1975.” He goes on: “A program of income supplementation is not a substitute for a fair minimum-wage policy. On the contrary, the two are contradictory. The introduction of income supplementation must be accompanied by an increase in the minimum wage.”

The Thomson study is calling for a major increase in the minimum wage. We think it should be one related to the average industrial wage that is paid in this province. We think that as a society we can afford to do that. We believe we owe that to the people of this province.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I had not intended to speak on this resolution. The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) was slated to speak, but he is tied up on House leaders’ business due to the unforeseen circumstances that happened in the House in the last few days. However, I would like to make a few comments. I certainly concur with the member for Hamilton East in his contention that the minimum wage is very low. Anyone would accept that proposition. It is extremely difficult to understand how anyone could possibly live on those wages.

I do feel that we have to take into consideration some type of a system to make sure that people are not caught at a minimum wage level for many years, as the member has brought to our attention. It is an acceptable level for training inexperienced people as a beginning. It is maybe not too bad for young people who are getting into a trade or something of this nature. But it certainly should not be something that someone has to live with for 10, 20 or 30 years.

However, I would like to take the other side of the coin, as well. I have had over 30 years’ experience in a small business, in the retail sector. I know that it would be next to impossible for the many hundreds of thousands of small businesses that we have in this province to pay the type of minimum wage that members suggest.

Just by way of a personal experience, I had the opportunity yesterday, when I was visiting Welland, to drop in and meet Tony the tailor, Tony has been in business for 25 or 26 years. He brings his lunch to his place of business because he cannot afford to hire someone to help him in his place of business. He cannot afford the minimum wage as it is today because there is not enough profit in the business he is in. There are many retail operations in this province that are suffering the same problem. There are not the big dollars out there that people think there are.

The member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) made the comment that you simply increase the price a few cents. You cannot pay $8 or $10 an hour on a few cents, so you have to increase it by a few dollars. Then you lose business. In a very short time, that business is out of business. That is the type of problem that many of our small retail businesses would face. If the member for Sault Ste. Marie does not believe that, he should drop in and visit a few of them. There are hundreds of them in the downtown sector of Toronto that are barely existing, and many in the rural parts of this province.

I might also say, as I come from a riding that is basically rural, that there are many of our farmers who are barely existing now. They are financially in trouble. To suggest to them that it would only make a few dollars’ difference if they paid extra to the help that they need -- they cannot afford to pay what they are paying now. They cannot pay anything more. They have financial problems themselves. Many of them are not making the minimum wage. Many of them are losing money. In a matter of years, many of them will not be there. To sit in this assembly and suggest that they spend more money just does not make sense.

I feel it is a difficult problem, one we should work on. We should constantly strive to increase the minimum wage, to increase assistance to the working poor.

At the same time, we have to consider the fact that many people of the likes of my friend Tony the tailor are not receiving any assistance. He mentioned to me the fact that in 26 or 27 years in business, he has never received a single cent of support from any level of government, and he does not look forward through the next three years to receiving very much from this Liberal administration. He was very doubtful how he was going to vote until I convinced him that there is a better way.

I think I will leave it at that and let the Liberal government answer this very important issue that my good friend the member for Hamilton East has raised.

Mr. Kozyra: I am pleased to rise and take

part in this debate because I am concerned with the question of poverty in our society of plenty, as are all of my colleagues on this side of the House.

Mr. Dietsch: And over here.

Mr. Kozyra: And over there, lest we forget.

But I am disturbed by those persons who claim to offer a simple fix-all solution with no regard for the consequences of their actions. There are few better examples of this kind of thinking than the bill we are now debating.

It is worth noting that last year in the United States, Senator Edward Kennedy and Representative Augustus Hawkins cosponsored a bill which sought to index the US federal minimum wage at a rate of 50 per cent -- not the 65 per cent being proposed here today, but 50 per cent relative to the average industrial wage. This proposal could not even get the support of Democrats and had to be dropped early in the debate. The US Congress has not only rejected indexation, but the Kennedy-Hawkins bill in total has been withdrawn from the agenda. The result is that the US minimum wage will remain at US$3.35 for at least the near future.

If we look at our main competitors, specifically the US border states, we find that most of them maintain a minimum wage of US$3.35 or about $4.08 in Canadian funds. Ohio, which is a major industrial state not too distant from Ontario, has a minimum wage rate of $2.30 or about $2.80 Canadian. Generally speaking, Ontario’s minimum wage of $4.75 an hour is about 15 per cent higher than that found in the nearby US border states. Our minimum wage is, with Quebec’s, the highest of any province in Canada. Our commitment to an annual review has in fact restored the minimum wage to a level, relative to the average industrial wage, which we have not seen since 1981.

We may not want to make too great an issue out of these differences, but at the same time we cannot ignore them. These are real differences we must consider in developing Ontario’s minimum-wage policy.

At the heart of this bill is a very well-intended objective. The honourable member who introduced this bill genuinely believes his bill will go a long way towards solving the problem of poverty in Ontario. That is indeed a very noble objective and no one on this side of the House stands in opposition to that goal. However, I do believe that while the intent is well meaning, the method proposed could have serious negative effects on the very people it seeks to help. The honourable member opposite must know and understand that addressing the problems of the working poor requires a comprehensive strategy that deals with the question of poverty in its economic and social breadth.

The recent Thomson report, which reviewed the social assistance system and the broader question of income distribution, contains significant recommendations that the government is committed to review. One such proposal contained in the report, a proposal members can be assured we are analysing in every detail, is that dealing with the income supplement for low-wage earners. This supplement would equal $150 per month per person or $300 per month for a couple, providing both of these people are working full-time or part-time at the proposed minimum wage of $5.86 per hour.

The income supplement would continue to be paid until an employment income of $945 per month is achieved. At this point, the supplement would be gradually reduced until an income of $1,245 per month was achieved.

I want to draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact that this report recognizes that the minimum wage itself is but one factor in the equation and is not, should not and, indeed, cannot be the sole instrument, otherwise the employment effects may be significant. More accurately, there would be disemployment effects. Virtually every economist agrees that such substantial increases as being proposed will cost some of the working poor their jobs.

Who would be the people most affected by a dramatic increase in the minimum wage, such as is being proposed today? It will be the young people, young people with little work experience, young people who require on-the-job training before they can move on to command a more effective wage.

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up. I am sorry.

Mr. Mackenzie: As much as I only have a minute and 10 seconds, I will just say, first, with regard to the response from my Tory colleagues, when the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) said that the minimum wage had to be acceptable to the industry involved, he said it all and, as far as I am concerned, has destroyed his position in terms of fighting for people because I have never seen industry yet promote increased minimum wages.

I am surprised at the member for Halton Centre (Ms. Oddie Munro) and more than a little disturbed. Her arguments, and I wish she would go back to some of the previous debates, are almost right out of the Fraser Institute and are the same kind of pro-business arguments we have had on this particular issue since I have been in this Legislature. Her party has been the government now for three years and we have gone backwards, not forwards, in terms of the purchasing power of the minimum wage. We have gone backwards, not forwards, in terms of the percentage of the poverty level these people are at.

If we really believe that work at a decent wage, and that has to be part of the equation, is the answer and not the welfare system, then what is the government going to do about it? It has done nothing up until now. I have to say that the answers do not give me much hope even in terms of Judge Thomson’s comments, which were pretty direct in wanting $6, although phased in, as the minimum wage. I do not have any confidence the government will even go that way considering the remarks I have heard from the member for Halton Centre. It is going to be interesting.

GARBAGE RECYCLING PROGRAMS ACT

Mrs. Marland moved second reading of Bill 89,

An Act requiring municipalities to establish Programs for the Recycling of Garbage.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes to make her presentation, of which she may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mrs. Marland: I do indeed count it a real privilege to stand in this House today and present my Bill 89 for second reading. I think that the most exciting part of presenting this bill in the Legislature today is the fact that I know it will have to be unanimously supported by all three parties because it is the direction of the future in terms of waste management.

The purpose of the bill is to require all municipalities to establish and implement programs for the separation at source and recycling of garbage. These programs would be similar to those which we have now had for three years in the city of Mississauga, which involve the education of the public in what the program actually involves and the direction on the use of receptacles and why we should all be interested in recycling.

The most serious part of recycling, of course, is to reduce the volumes of garbage that have to be treated either through landfill or other forms of disposal, but one of the spinoffs we have talked about in my municipality is that the more we recycle, the more we reduce the cost, through our property taxes, of the treatment of garbage and waste.

It is encouraging to know that every day in this Legislature we hear the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) talk about the need to expand the blue box program. The minister says it both in this House and elsewhere. At this point I want to quote from a speech he made only a few days ago. The minister was speaking to the Recycling Council of Ontario, at their annual conference on October 24, 1988. The minister said:

“It is waste, and a waste disposal problem, only when we miss the point that garbage is in fact a valuable resource.

“This lack of understanding is coming back to haunt us with a vengeance. Overflowing landfills. Contaminated groundwaters. Incinerator-generated air pollution. And all in the cause of using limited resources once, and then throwing them out!”

This is a constructive bill which is designed to help municipalities get involved. We must look at the issue of recycling as a province-wide need.

I would like to tell members that in the city of Mississauga, our Laidlaw garbage trucks have a very significant sign on the side of them. The sign says, “We are partners in recycling.”

Some municipalities may worry about being too small to have a recycling program. The point is that, as with other areas of jurisdiction, small municipalities can get together with others.

I could give an example that is existing today in the United States. Apparently in Hamburg, which has a population of 10,500 people and is in New York state, near Buffalo, they began recycling in 1981 in an effort to save money. They saved only US$600 in the first year because of startup costs and because the paper market was worth “diddley,” as the Hamburg public works director, Gerald Knowles, said. But four years later, by 1985, they were saving $30,000 a year, partly because of the dumping fees they no longer had to pay to garbage-collecting companies. So obviously the size of the municipality is not a problem.

The minister, in another one of his speeches, indicated: “The province generates enough municipal garbage to fill trucks stretching from Windsor to Whitehorse. Add the commercial and light industrial waste going to our landfill sites and incinerators and the lineup doubles to occupy both sides of the road.” He continued, saying, “Through recycling we will eliminate 8,000 trucks from this imaginary highway next year.”

What does this actually mean in figures? I would like to tell members. To reduce 8,000 trucks, but from how many? I calculated how many were on his original highway and that figure is 435,468, carrying, according to the minister’s figure, 2,170,340 tons. The minister estimated that reduction through the current recycling effort would be 8,000 trucks. That leaves 427,468 trucks still on that highway, with a reduction in actual figures of only 40,000 tons. A 40,000-ton reduction is only 1.8 per cent.

So, obviously, while 8,000 is a good start, it is not enough if the minister believes that recycling will solve the waste management crisis. I do believe he is committed on a personal basis, and that is the only answer he is giving. That is why there is all the more reason to adopt my bill. About 1.8 per cent of our garbage is recycled. That leaves 98.2 per cent which still has to go to landfill or incineration.

If we are really concerned about the environment, then sending our garbage to American facilities to be burned is not an environmentally intelligent or responsible solution. We cannot control our immediate environment. What we do, we do for the global effort.

I would like to give members some examples of the success of recycling in other countries. We have an example in Austria, where they have now achieved 65 per cent. In Wilton, New Hampshire, in the United States, they have achieved 45 per cent; in Freiburg, West Germany, they have achieved 35 per cent; and in three short years, my own municipality of Mississauga has already achieved 15 per cent.

We must admit that the waste crisis is one that must be solved by all levels of government. The member for Brampton North (Mr. McClelland), who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, said in his speech during the emergency debate, “The challenge for all levels of government is to fulfil their responsibilities, to work together to solve” the waste management pressures. This is a departure from the minister’s response that it is purely a municipal problem. Obviously, it is not one level of government’s responsibility.

I think it is interesting when we now see programs starting all around the province with assistance from the government. Some have gone further than the original description of what recycling programs could be and how they could be managed.

I would like to give members an example of what has happened in Midland, Ontario. The 15,000 residents of the Georgian Bay community of Midland must begin recycling household garbage by September 1 or face fines under the first mandatory recycling bylaw passed by an urban centre in Ontario. Is that not interesting? To this point, recycling has been a service provided by some municipalities in Ontario, but not as a mandatory program. It is not mandatory that we use the boxes, that we as individuals be part of this program.

An example was given at a recycling conference that I attended, and it was another municipality in New Hampshire in the United States. They have a very blatant system that inhibits everyone who would try to go against their desire to have successful, complete recycling programs. In that part of that particular state, if you put your garbage out at the end of the driveway and there are obviously recyclable items in it -- hard objects, bottles, cans and so forth -- they simply do not pick it up. They slap a big yellow sticker on the side of the garbage saying: “This contains recyclable materials. If it is not sorted next week, we will not pick it up then either.”

The amazing fact is that the neighbours, of course, are inhibited by the fact that at the end of the day their garbage is still sitting at the end Of the driveway, now with the addition of a bright sticker. So they are not taking part as responsible citizens in reducing the costs of waste management in their municipality, nor are they taking part from the standpoint of protection of the environment.

I am not suggesting in this bill that recycling be mandatory around the province within municipalities yet. I think it is important, first of all, as my bill suggests, that it become mandatory that municipalities give the option to their residents to take

part in a recycling program, because the truth of the matter is that once people become familiar with recycling as part of their weekly or twice-weekly garbage pickup, it just becomes a way of life.

Somebody has made a number of comments about the necessity of this bill. I would like, just for a moment, to address that. I feel that this bill is necessary because, at the moment, the current government in Ontario is supporting recycling as a program policy of its ministry. I do not doubt and I have not questioned the thrust of that program currently in the ministry. Obviously, with the cost-sharing of setting up the program, it is well recognized and well established that the current government is supporting recycling.

The only problem I have and why I feel this has to be legislated is that we know, should the Minister of the Environment lose at the poker game for funds at the cabinet table at any time, this program could quickly and easily be replaced in priority at some time in the future.

It requires legislation to guarantee this one aspect to protect our environment and reduce our costs of handling waste in this province. We know that the government does not have a money tree at Queen’s Park, because we are the providers of the funds that any government allocates to programs. We also recognize that priorities of governments can change. We feel, at this time, it is an ideal opportunity for this government to commit to legislation a program which it has demonstrated it obviously believes in.

I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Thank you. The member for Brampton North.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, might I take this opportunity, on behalf of my colleagues, particularly in private members’ hour, to congratulate you and welcome you to the seat this morning. Congratulations.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr. McClelland: My colleague from Mississauga South has talked this morning about waste management and garbage. It is very clear to members of this House and the people of this province that we recognize that we cannot treat garbage as waste any more. It is, in fact, a resource, and we have to begin to treat it as such. She talked about our government’s approach to recycling and said that it is the only approach. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, members of this House and the province, that it is not the only way of dealing with garbage; it is a way. It is an important way and one that we are committed to.

More important, we need to change our attitudes. We have to change the way we think about waste and to see it as a resource. Recycling and reuse are two very key elements of our government’s approach to dealing with this problem.

Our primary response must be to reduce the amount of waste we produce in the first place. Failure to do so will come back to haunt us. Failure to implement the four Rs of waste management will leave us with a legacy that we have heard about and that, in fact, we are suffering at the present time -- overfill in land sites, polluted air, the problems that are associated with incineration. How do we deal with those?

Recycling in all sectors of society must become the fundamental basis upon which comprehensive waste management is undertaken in Ontario, recognizing, as I said earlier, that we must first reduce the waste that we are producing. We have, as a province and as a society, made a substantial start. The number of municipalities that are now served with blue box curbside service is 92, a remarkable improvement from 1985, and that momentum keeps building. Metropolitan Toronto, with its five cities, is joining the growing number of participants.

Another useful indicator of what this government is doing in terms of recycling is the commitment of our province’s and the people of this province’s financial resources to waste management and recycling. From $750,000 in 1985 this government has increased the investment tenfold. We have spoken about that in this House before. We have doubled the funds for industrial recycling to $2.5 million.

But funding is not the only indicator. We have other programs that we have heard about and our minister has spoken about to the people of the province and members of this House. Our household waste program has in three years grown to involve 53 municipalities, 12 of which have set up permanent depots for people to bring in their hazardous discards. Permanent depots are the way to go and must be introduced throughout this province.

All of us in this House know that these programs are in fact producing results, and worthwhile results. In early November of this year, the symbolic one-millionth blue box will go into household use in Ontario. A lot has been said in this House by the member opposite, that this represents only one tenth of the waste stream or potentially one tenth of the waste stream. Yet I would say to my friends that this one tenth is a great start, a significant start. That is what we are targeting to in many communities.

It is a first target level. We have set other targets. We have the Recycling Advisory Committee, which we know about, for the soft drink industry. We expect to see the next target level, of 1.2 million boxes, achieved shortly after our one-million level. That will represent 60 per cent of the households in Ontario.

This government has developed successful recycling programs and has actively increased the amount of funding available for recycling; something, I might add, the third party failed to do while it was in power. We are looking at ways to expand that program as well.

This government, though, is looking at ways of moving beyond the blue box program. The minister has announced that he intends to expand the scope of the Recycling Advisory Committee, will broaden its mandate, will study ways to expand the range of materials and packaging beyond those that are now recycled. The ministry waste management staff are working on a long-term waste management strategy. This strategy is directed at diverting 50 per cent of our waste from disposal as well as reducing the environmental impact of garbage and waste disposal.

Our government has a philosophical approach that I would suggest is somewhat different. We believe that if we treat people in other levels of government as if they are what they ought to be and help them become what they ought to be, that in fact will happen. When people are highly motivated, when municipalities and other levels of government are highly motivated, it is easy to accomplish what other people say is impossible. At the same time, when people are not highly motivated, it is impossible to accomplish those things which should be easy. We are committed to motivation and working in harmony and concert with our friends and with the people in municipal governments across this province.

The development of stricter standards, the growth and enhancement of recycling programs and markets and a growing public demand for well-thought-out, sane waste management have established a momentum in this province, and we must see that this momentum continues.

No one can disagree with the member’s basic premise behind the bill and what she wants to accomplish with that bill. It is laudable and it makes sense in terms of its premise that recycling be enhanced and encouraged in our province. The question is, how do we do that? How can that best be achieved?

The bill proposed mandatory recycling for Ontario municipalities. Those members who are interested in athletics will know who the late coach Vince Lombardi was. Vince Lombardi said that anybody could light a fire underneath a player, but it took a truly great leader to light a fire in people’s hearts. That symbolizes and says in many ways what our minister and our government want to do.

We do not want to dictate and tell municipalities that they must do what they already want to do. We want to encourage and foster that momentum that is already under way and light a fire within the hearts of the people of this province: the young children, the parents, the people who have a vested interest in the future of what this province will be.

This government’s approach to date has been voluntary. The variety of positive, successful funding initiatives has been the cold, harsh reality in part of municipalities recognizing that it costs too much not to deal with waste as a resource. Through public pressure for responsible action and through encouraging that the primary -- not purely, as my friend said -- but the primary responsibility rests with the municipalities and will remain so, we will continue to work and see that municipalities continue to respond as they have done to date.

Municipalities know they cannot expect to manage their own waste successfully unless they implement the four Rs of waste management. We have heard that before, but it is a message that has to be heard again until it is understood by all citizens of this province: reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery. Burning and burying are not the answers.

The people of Ontario have valid questions about the environmental soundness, health risks and rapidly escalating costs associated with incinerators and landfills. Municipalities are responding. They are setting higher tipping fees, as much as $65 per ton to reflect the cost of that. Municipalities are actively promoting recycling, not only for their citizens, but also for industry and commercial entities within their communities.

Municipalities currently have the ability to make recycling mandatory. They already have that ability through the passing of municipal bylaws, and my friend has made reference to that. Midland, for example, as she referred to, has passed a bylaw. This has the benefit of solving the real problem, not just to bring new municipalities on stream with recycling, but to ensure that existing programs have and will continue to have a high rate of public participation.

We have provided adequate funding as a government. We are working with municipalities and while public pressure continues to grow, we will see municipalities respond. This government believes in working together with municipalities to promote recycling. It is growing in momentum and it does not require a law to mandate.

Our policy flows from the premise that men and women and boys and girls across this province want to do a good job in waste management, and we will provide them with the proper leadership to do so. We intend to continue to lead and work co-operatively. I find it exciting. If my friend opposite finds it less exciting to be working in a co-operative spirit, I am sorry, but we will continue to work in a co-operative spirit, to work together with municipalities and do what we feel is the appropriate thing: provide the leadership that is required.

We will not be supporting this bill because of the mandatory aspect of it. The late President Eisenhower said that leadership is the art of getting people to do something that they know is right because they want to do it. This is the type of leadership our minister has provided and our government has provided and we will continue to do so. It will not be in the context of this bill, while recognizing that the premise and the objective of the bill are very laudable.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

Mrs. Grier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too would like to congratulate you on your new position.

We in this party support the legislation the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) has put before the House today. I think that member deserves congratulations not only for having brought forward this legislation, but for also having been part of a municipal council which, in fact, got into a blue box recycling program well ahead of many others in this province. As somebody who was on a municipal council in Metro, I never cease to be ashamed of the fact that Metro did not. I know Mississauga was not the first but it was certainly one of many that were early into the game, which has now become commonplace.

Everybody is saying they have to get blue boxes. We have heard from the member for Brampton North the catalogue of initiatives and encouragement and incentives that have been put forward by the Ministry of the Environment, all very worthwhile, all very laudable and commendable but not enough and not moving fast enough.

We heard in the emergency debate in this House last week that even if blue boxes became common all across the province and the target of 1.6 million was met by the end of 1989, we would only be picking up by that method 7.5 per cent of the households’ solid waste. That is not going to come to grips with the problem we face.

The blue box program and the incentives and initiatives of the ministry as currently proposed are not dealing with the whole question of organic waste. The pilot project in Guelph is very desirable and I am sure will produce some useful results; but I would submit that the results could well have been calculated by looking at similar projects in other jurisdictions and that we did not need to wait for that pilot project to get on with some composting on a larger scale in Ontario.

We have seen no initiatives from this government with respect to either recycling or reduction of wastes from the commercial sector and nothing to cut down on packaging, which is a major contributor to the solid waste problem that we have. Of the municipally disposed waste, 20 per cent comes from packaging, and we have not seen anything by this government to cut down on that.

We have not seen any broad initiatives to encourage recycling by large apartment buildings or even small apartment buildings, other than, again, some small pilot projects. We see no moves by this government to force all new apartment buildings to be constructed in such a way that they lend themselves to recycling programs.

We see development occurring all across the province, with apartment buildings being engineered exactly as they have been in the past, so that the owners, the tenants and the occupants can then say, “It’s too difficult to recycle and to separate in buildings of this size.” We have to start, as the Brundtland Commission said, as the federal National Task Force on the Environment and Economy said and as this Minister of the Environment has said, to integrate economic and environmental decisions at every level and in every facet of the decisions that we take. We have not seen that happening on the part of this government.

Many of the programs that are in place have in fact been crisis-driven. The mandatory recycling in Midland happened because of the lack of any place to dump its garbage. It is the same, with all due respect to the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham), in southwest Oxford, where they had a big fight over a landfill and got into mandatory recycling. Here in Metro, in my municipality, we are going to have the unveiling of the blue boxes on October 31. That is the day before the deadline for recycling of soft drink bottles, and it also happens to be two weeks before the municipal election: crises of a different nature, but those are the things that have driven recycling in Metropolitan Toronto.

I think the conclusion we have to draw from all of that is, while voluntary programs are commendable and while I am glad to see them in place, they are in fact not moving fast enough to deal with the problem. That is why we have to go beyond that and, as a provincial government and as a provincial Legislature, say, “There needs to be mandatory recycling.”

We have seen a government, which the member for Brampton North says wants to respect other levels of government, move to tell other levels of government what to do in housing because of the crisis that arose, to threaten municipalities that, if they do not build in some affordable housing, then they will be forced to do so by the provincial government.

I think the crisis in waste management is of sufficient urgency that the province has to move in that direction on this one as well. What is interesting is that the government and the Liberal Party have said they support mandatory recycling. I am sure all members will recall the project for environmental priorities that sent a survey to everybody in the 1985 election campaign and in the 1987 election campaign.

When you look at the question that they circulated prior to the 1987 election campaign, it reads:

“Garbage incineration and recycling: If properly used, the 3 Rs can dramatically reduce waste requiring landfill or incineration. However, many municipalities give the three Rs a low priority and instead focus on landfill and incineration. These approaches may pose a serious environmental threat to ground, water and air quality. Will you support mandatory residential curbside recycling as a component of municipal waste management systems?”

How did the Premier (Mr. Peterson) answer that question? The Premier answered with a yes. How did the current Minister of the Environment answer that question? He answered with a yes. And how did the member for Brampton North answer that question? With a yes. That was in September 1987 and here we are in November 1988, and suddenly mandatory recycling is no longer acceptable, no longer going to be supported, we have to allow the municipalities to do it at their own pace.

We, in this party, have long supported mandatory recycling. It has been part of our program for many years, and at our provincial convention last summer we adopted a resolution that I would like to put before the House because I think it spells out very clearly what a New Democratic Party government will do to implement recycling of solid wastes to reduce garbage.

“An NDP government considers that recycling of residentially generated glass, metal cans and newspaper should be mandatory. Municipalities would be required to refrain from collecting garbage from those residences where the home owner or tenant has not separated out the recyclables listed above. Mandatory recycling as stipulated in the above clause would be carried out by instituting a blue box recycling program in every municipality. Programs would extend to all multiple dwellings, including high-rise apartments, buildings and condominiums. Market development for reclaimed materials would be assisted through research and startup grants for companies seeking to use these materials.

“Mandatory recycling would be established in the commercial and business sectors for the two waste components that are immediately amenable to recycling, fine paper and corrugated cardboard. Freight rates would be set such that recycled and to-be-recycled materials would be moved more cheaply than virgin materials. All provincial government offices would be required to purchase stationery made from wholly or partially recycled paper, whenever feasible. Recycling programs would be expanded to include compostable wastes, and home owners and tenants with yard space for composting would be provided with composting bins.

“Recycling programs would be expanded to include certain household hazardous wastes that can be safely picked up in this way, such as dry cell batteries. An NDP government would also assist the funding of experimental, innovative recycling systems.”

That is the kind of meaningful, active program that will really get this province on the road not only to recycling but also to reduction of waste. It is the kind of program that I think this province needs. I think that Bill 89, which is before us this morning, is the first step going in that direction, and we will be supporting the legislation.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Simcoe East.

Mr. McLean: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me congratulate you on your recent appointment.

I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill 89,

An Act requiring municipalities to establish Programs for the Recycling of Garbage. I wish to commend the member for Mississauga South for bringing forward such a thoughtful and practical proposal. Mandatory recycling as proposed by the bill will contribute to the solution to Ontario’s waste management and landfill dilemma.

As all members will be aware, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario has taken a leadership role in pressing the government to tackle this issue. The government must find solutions to what has clearly become a crisis in this province. I realize that “crisis” is a rather harsh word, but I am not alone in making this observation. Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc., the Toronto Recycling Action Committee and major newspapers all have termed the challenge of municipal waste disposal in Ontario a crisis.

Even the Minister of the Environment, who so rarely says anything comprehensible, has observed that it is time to tackle Ontario’s garbage crisis. I say bravo. Perhaps the minister has come to his senses.

I think the statistics tell the story. Each year Ontario produces over 10 million tons of waste. Every day each individual is responsible for one kilogram of garbage. Over 90 per cent of this garbage goes into landfill sites, but an unprecedented number of these sites are almost full to the brim. We all recognize that something must be done to prevent the breakdown of Ontario’s waste management systems. What action have we seen? Unfortunately, it is rather chaotic.

The municipality of Durham is a good example of the province-wide trend. Durham region currently dumps its garbage in the Metropolitan Toronto Brock West landfill site, which will run out of space in the next two years. The region is not willing to let Metro open another landfill site in its boundaries, and Durham must therefore find its own solutions to the garbage problem. Now, we know that it normally takes at least five years to locate and prepare a new landfill site, so I think it is fair to say that, for the people of Durham region, time has already run out.

The Minister of the Environment will no doubt recall the actions he took in October 1989 to close down the Pauzé landfill site, which served six municipalities. At present, these municipalities are shipping thousands of tons of garbage to Toronto’s Keele Valley site at an enormous cost to the ratepayers. Is this the solution the minister has to the waste disposal crisis or is he really just playing a game of musical landfill sites with the province’s garbage?

The whole mess brings to mind the garbage fiasco in New York City, when barges full of waste were set adrift on the Atlantic Ocean. One is left wondering whether the Minister of the Environment might some day soon send Ontario’s garbage on a voyage of discovery through the Great Lakes.

Most likely, though, we will see in most instances the Hatton solution to the crisis. In Halton county, the earliest a new dump can be opened is 1992, Halton now has nowhere to put its garbage, so it is paying $1 million a month to haul it to Niagara Falls, New York, where it is burned in an incinerator operated by Occidental Chemical Corp. Potentially, Halton could have to spend close to $50 million for haulage unless other alternatives become available.

If the government keeps this up, we will soon reach the point where garbage will be Ontario’s greatest export to the United States. There will be more garbage than tourists at the border crossing. Ultimately, this whole idea of shipping garbage to the United States is completely unsatisfactory. It only serves to show that the government of Ontario is incapable of solving its own problems.

Interjection.

Mr. McLean: You agree to that.

It demeans this province to export our garbage just so that the Americans can burn it and then send it back to us in the form of pollution.

The list of crisis areas in Ontario is growing every day. It is clear that the government is aware of the severity of the situation. What is not clear is whether there is any leadership at the top. Day after day, the minister stands in this House and refuses to answer questions on the landfill crisis. Instead, he blames the previous government for the problem and calls the opposition pessimistic. Surely, he does not think that laying blame and insulting the members opposite is somehow sufficient to satisfy Ontarians.

We are genuinely troubled by this government’s action. This minister has closed down 100 landfill sites and has not approved one to be opened. The fact is that this crisis has been building since 1985, when the Liberals came to power. As with so many other issues, this Liberal government is unable to provide direction. It is rather odd that while our garbage is criss-crossing the province, the government is sitting idly by. Such inaction increases our confidence that this Liberal government will end up in the trash heap when the electorate is through with it.

There are only three ways to deal with garbage. We can bury it, as the electorate will be doing to this government, we can burn it, as should be done with most of the statements by the Minister of the Environment, or we can make as strong an effort as possible to recycle. Clearly, incineration is unsatisfactory because we should not be exchanging a garbage problem for a pollution problem.

Incinerators and energy-from-waste facilities were once regarded as a solution for the mounting garbage problem. Recently, they have been shown to be harmful to the environment as they release toxic substances into the air, water and food chain. Until technology is available to ensure clean burning of waste, incineration should not even be considered. Up to now, the province has been relying heavily on landfill. As we have seen, there are enormous problems in locating new landfill sites. Local opposition is often understandable. It is now vital that alternative measures be found.

That brings me to recycling. The benefits of recycling are considerable. To begin with, statistics indicate that over 30 per cent of all garbage could soon be recycled. That is 30 per cent less garbage to be landfilled. Pollution Probe, a respected environmental organization, tells us that the city of Ottawa is presently recycling 10 to 13 per cent of its garbage, but has a potential to recycle 34 per cent by the year 2001.

The cities of Guelph, Kitchener and Waterloo have set similar targets. The Ministry of the Environment even makes a bold prediction that 50 per cent of garbage could eventually be recycled. This appears to be backed up by statistics from Europe. Anyone could be impressed by the potential. Recycling is an environmentally sound proposition. Instead of burning garbage or allowing it to decay in a hole in the ground, industry can reuse materials such as glass, metal and paper. I have no doubt that full-scale recycling of plastics will begin in the near future.

Clearly, recycling is a progressive step in protecting the environment. Furthermore, recycling creates jobs. In March 1988, it was announced that a recycling plant employing 350 people would be built in Whitby. It has been called a boon to the environment and the pocket. This plant, which will remove ink from newspaper, could use up much of the surplus 300,000 tons of used newsprint which ends up in our landfill sites every year. Consider how many trees will be saved every year through the operation of this one plant. This is a kind of project Ontario needs: good jobs in an area with enormous potential. Ultimately, recycling makes economic sense.

In the beginning, it requires an investment of effort and money by government and industry. Consumers must be persuaded to make recycling part of their daily activities. However, the reduction in landfill requirements will free tax dollars for other purposes. Recycling can easily be profitable for private enterprise, and this means greater tax revenue for the government and a stronger economy. Consumers will benefit because recycled goods will be cheaper to purchase. Ultimately, everyone benefits: industry, government and private citizens.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party have never been afraid to provide leadership, so one of our members has brought forward a bill that will correct the obvious problems of the municipal recycling support program.

This bill brought forward by the member for Mississauga South ensures that every municipality will implement a recycling program for discarded metal, glass and newspaper. In the future, when new items are found to be recyclable, the bill can be amended accordingly.

Bill 89 makes sense, perfect sense, and that is why I encourage all members of this House to join me in supporting Bill 89.

Mr. Epp: I am in agreement with this bill’s underlying principle of expanding the recycling activity in Ontario. We need to move beyond the blue box program. This year, municipalities expect to recycle 130,000 tonnes of paper, glass, metal and polyethylene tetrathalate soft drink containers. We expect to see more than the projected goal of 170,000 tonnes recycled in 1989.

We have made a good start, but the Minister of the Environment is committed to doing much more. If we are to make a real dent in the production of wastes and to recover significant amounts of discarded material, we must push to extend recycling on a consistent province-wide basis.

As mentioned by my colleague, there are special concerns in northern Ontario which have resulted in slower progress. To address these concerns, a Recycle North Task Force has been formed to review the feasibility of recycling projects for communities such as North Bay, Sudbury, Kirkland Lake, Timmins, Thunder Bay and Kenora. The task force’s feasibility analysis will be reviewed by representatives of major northern municipalities, and we are sure that its practical input will assist in resolving concerns and expediting the development of northern recycling programs.

This government has made this blue box recycling program a success and we have already taken the next step and asked the question, where do we go from here to expand recycling in Ontario? Recently, many apartment tenants expressed their desire to get involved in the recycling effort. By working with municipalities to extend recycling to apartment units, a diversion rate of 20 per cent may well be feasible. Pilot studies under way in Guelph, funded by the Ministry of the Environment, are proving to be successful and provide an example of what can be done in other municipalities in this province.

The Ministry of the Environment and Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc. are also now supporting a recycling demonstration project in Guelph to evaluate a mechanical sorting machine --

[Applause]

Mr. Epp: Let the record show that there is great applause in favour of Guelph -- a mechanical sorting machine that will separate steel and aluminum cans, glass and two-litre PET plastic soft drink containers. The new sorting machine will automatically divide the container recyclables into different material components. The ministry is also supporting Guelph’s pilot waste recovery project to collect domestic and commercial organic waste material and produce a marketable compost.

The recovery project will evaluate the feasibility of achieving a diversion of up to 30 per cent of the waste stream and the effectiveness of implementing a full-scale, city-wide organic material recovery and composting system.

These new directions in municipal 4R projects have the potential for making a real dent in Ontario’s garbage production. With one of them, composting, we are going beyond recycling and into recovery. All of the 4R solutions -- reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery -- can be brought to bear on our various garbage crises with considerable impact on waste volumes. If you look at the quantities of waste going to community landfill, you will find that easily half of the load comes from the commercial-industrial material collected by private waste haulers.

The ministry’s industrial 4R program is encouraging initiatives which will ultimately make inroads in this waste load. It is encouraging business and industry to take a closer look at the value of their waste. The current initiatives will help tame waste generation in a variety of industries, including newsprint, wood, food, processing, electroplating, cardboard and steel. We want to nurture -- I want to emphasize that -- the development of new industrial waste management techniques. Good ideas should not gather dust on a shelf because a company cannot manage the cost and risk of pursuing them.

Through the industrial 4R program, the government shares the risk and spreads the rewards of industrial 4R research and development.

One of the concerns that has been raised about mandatory recycling is that it is does not recognize that the market development for recycled material also needs to grow. In order to ensure a successful recycling program, there must be a market for the materials. To date, both supply and demand have grown together. The concern raised is that mandatory recycling would flood the existing market and result in recycling failing due to inadequate markets.

We need to work with the municipalities, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and industry in a co-operative program to develop the recycling market. This government is prepared to help in this effort. The Canadian Waste Materials Exchange, which we support along with the federal government and other provinces, offers all industries access to a broad spectrum of useful waste materials. In April 1987, this ministry also joined with the Ontario Waste Management Corp. to provide funding for the activities of the Ontario Waste Exchange.

I believe that the increased support has allowed the Ontario Waste Exchange to take a more proactive role in linking companies that have complementary raw material and waste disposal needs.

I predict that significant additional growth should result from efforts of the Ontario Waste Exchange this coming year. Waste exchanges will play a key role in achieving up to 50 per cent diversion of waste from disposal that we are seeking from the commercial-industrial waste streams. Similar diversion levels are expected from the 4R program for industrial waste. With these industrial programs and with our municipal assistance program, our government has put its money where its mouth is. So has OMMRI, through its municipal recycling support program, and the rewards of this investment spread throughout our economy.

These programs now offer a secure supply of post-consumer recycling paper. Taking advantage of this, a private company has announced that it will open Ontario’s second paper mill to use these materials and create 300 jobs east of Toronto. The aluminum industry has developed its own valuable recycling effort based on the economics of energy conservation. We can see that some industries have assumed responsibility for controlling and reducing their wastes, but there is room for more. What we need is net materials accountability.

Packagers and producers will have a role to ensure that their product materials are recovered after use. Producers of small batteries, for example, should help finance and establish battery collection and handling facilities. Newspaper companies should participate in collecting and recycling old newspapers.

The plastics industry’s sophistication in developing and marketing products far outstrips its performance in developing recycling and recovery systems. In the future, publishers, packagers, retailers, the plastics industry and other generators of waste material should join the effort. It is time they assumed a fair share of responsibility for the environmental safety of their products.

This government is eager to join with them in a co-operative effort to address the problem and turn a wasteful situation around. This government believes in a co-operative approach with municipalities.

Mrs. Marland: I want to start very quickly by correcting the record. It is unfortunate that the member for Brampton North, the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of the Environment, does not know what percentage of garbage is being recycled. I did not say one tenth. I did not say 10 per cent. I said 1.8 per cent and that is the figure from the Minister of the Environment’s own speech.

Mr. Ballinger: The department had an adjective in there.

Mrs. Marland: I think it would be great if at some time the government House leader would allow the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) to speak legitimately in this House. He spends his whole time doing interjections for everybody else, which is perhaps an indication of something on which I would not wish to comment.

This government said this morning, through its parliamentary assistant, the member for Brampton North, that it believes in working with municipalities. We certainly have a wonderful example of that on the subject of Sunday shopping. We have it on the subject of affordable housing. There are many areas in which this Liberal government demonstrates its co-operation and lack of it with municipalities.

I also took exception to the fact that my friend the member for Brampton North said I did not support co-operation. On a personal basis, I want to put on the record that I really took exception to that.

Obviously, this government’s position on this bill, to be opposed to mandatory recycling on the part of municipalities around this province, is only a further example of this government’s lack of leadership.

If there is one area that concerns me the most about the whole process of what I have heard this morning from the Liberal members, it is the fact that we have a whole line of dishonesty in terms of government policy and government direction.

I would be interested to know if the Minister of the Environment would have said on Monday of this week, when he addressed the conference of the Recycling Council of Ontario, that he would have been directing his Liberal government members today, Thursday, in this House to vote against this bill. I just wonder if this Liberal government really understands that the people of Ontario will not stand for or tolerate politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouths.

We have on record in Ontario today the fact that the Minister of the Environment and the member for Brampton North are both opposing mandatory recycling. The public is not naïve and the public will not forget that this Liberal government is opposed to mandatory recycling. It cannot hide behind the fact that, “We are doing it; we are doing it, folks, we have the blue box program.” I addressed that in my earlier comments. Yes, today we have the blue box program. If we so believe that this must be an ongoing program for ever, why would we not legislate it?

The reason is that it is not a priority of the government today and it does not want to guarantee that it will be its priority in years to come. If they are willing to guarantee that their belief is solidly behind a recycling program in this province, then they would work to make sure that every municipality offers it, not on the whim of individual municipalities which have different priorities. This government would show leadership. It would set priorities for the government and for the people of this province.

Obviously, this morning we have had an absolutely perfect example of the credibility of this Liberal government being clearly established at zero. If it were not so serious, it would almost be amusing. In fact, I have found this morning perfectly disgusting because of the fact that the Minister of the Environment misled the people last year when he told them in a questionnaire --

Some hon. members: No way. Shame.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Marland: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that the Minister of the Environment misled the people last year. What he did last year was to sign a questionnaire where he said he believed in and supported mandatory recycling. I will leave the conclusion for the public, when it now knows that this minister is not supporting my private bill which would ensure mandatory recycling to the municipalities around this province.

It is absolutely incredible that this government is not willing to put its commitment where its speakers are, and for the parliamentary assistant, the member for Brampton North, also to complete the same questionnaire and say that he believes in mandatory recycling and then to have to come into the House and follow the change in the thinking on which this government was elected. The whole point here is that the promises this government made in September 1987 are now being totally reversed. We are continually having examples of where they charged around this province making all kinds of promises on all kinds of issues, and now, today, they are taking completely opposite positions.

I am not disappointed on a personal basis; I am disgusted.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the discussion on private members’ public business for this morning.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Mr. Mackenzie’s motion for second reading of Bill 156, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Grier, Laughren, Mackenzie, Morin-Strom, Polsinelli.

Nays

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Brandt, Callahan, Cleary, Collins, Cooke, D. R., Cousens, Cunningham, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Furlong, Harris, Hart, Johnson, J. M., Kanter, Keyes, Kozyra, LeBourdais, Lipsett, MacDonald, Mancini, Marland, McClelland, McGuigan, McLean, Neumann, Nixon, J. B., Owen, Pelissero, Ray, M. C., Roberts, Ruprecht, Smith, D. W., Sola, South, Stoner, Sullivan, Tatham, Villeneuve, Wilson.

Ayes 8; nays 46.

GARBAGE RECYCLING PROGRAMS ACT

The House divided on Mrs. Marland’s motion for second reading of Bill 89, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Brandt, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Grier, Harris, Johnson, J. M., Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, McLean, Morin-Strom, Neumann, Ray, M. C., Sullivan, Villeneuve.

Nays

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Callahan, Cleary, Collins, Cooke, D. R., Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Furlong, Hart, Kanter, Keyes, Kozyra, LeBourdais, Lipsett, MacDonald, Mancini, McClelland, McGuigan, Nixon, J. B., Owen, Pelissero, Polsinelli, Roberts, Ruprecht, Smith, D. W., Sola, South, Stoner, Tatham, Wilson.

Ayes 19; nays 36.

The House recessed at 12:14 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LANDLORDS’ RESTRICTIONS ON PETS

Ms. Bryden: I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) the need for an amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act to stop the growing practice of landlords including a blanket no-pets clause in their leases.

Pets contribute a great deal to the wellbeing of seniors and others who live alone. It is discriminatory to deny tenants the same right to have pets that people who own houses have, provided the pets are not causing any disturbance to others nearby.

The Toronto Humane Society has said that in 1987 it admitted to the society’s shelters 9,900 cats and dogs because of enforcement of no-pet and pet restriction policies of landlords. For many pets, this is a death sentence. The society cannot find new homes for such large numbers.

I cite the case of Mrs. Marian Ryll, who shares apartment 823 with her husband and one 16-year-old cat at 265D Cassandra Boulevard in North York. The cat never goes out, but her landlord, Kirkton Investments Ltd., has issued an eviction notice to the couple because “the cat is offensive to the landlord and other tenants.” He has adduced no evidence to prove this in the notice. The eviction notice was dated October 18, 1988, and is effective November 14, 1988.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO GOVERNMENT

Mr. Cousens: I rise today to express concern over the tremendous surge in salaries that has been taking place in Metropolitan Toronto and local council chambers over the past few months. Metro councillors will now receive $57,500, from $19,800 last year. Toronto school trustees increased their wages by 86.5 per cent to $44,678, Etobicoke city councillors’ pay increased by 94.5 per cent to $44,090. It is estimated that the new directly elected Metro council will cost taxpayers $4.5 million just to start up operations. This is in addition to a new $211-million complex.

Citizens across Metropolitan Toronto are incensed, and rightly so. Yet where has our Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) been during these events? What is his opinion on these exorbitant salary hikes? The taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto deserve an answer to these questions, and I, for one, share in their outrage over these pay hikes.

The creation of a separate, directly elected Metro council was necessary to respond to the growing areas of responsibility within Metropolitan Toronto. It was not created to facilitate generous salary increases for councillors and representatives at the local and Metro levels.

HIRING PRACTICES

Mr. Tatham: From Business Week, October 3, 1998:

“How does Japan Inc. pick its American workers?

“Team participation is mandatory. The basic philosophy: Reward is not so much from your personal performance as from your impact on team and company.

“At Diamond-Star, a joint venture between Chrysler Corp. and Mitsubishi Motor Corp., applicants are told they must learn several jobs, change shifts, work overtime, make and take constructive criticism and submit a stream of suggestions for improving efficiency.

“‘It’s not an easy decision,’ warns a blunt video. ‘You’ve got to ask yourself if you are willing to dedicate yourself to the Diamond-Star team.’

“Dedication alone isn’t enough. Diamond-Star says 24 per cent of its applicants wash out during a slew of written, medical and drug tests. About 40 per cent who pass the first stage fail the company’s screening and training process. Still, Diamond-Star ended up with 6,700 qualified candidates for its first 300 jobs. Mazda hired only about 1,300 of nearly 10,000 applicants who passed its five-step screening process.

“Each company says it spent about $40 million, roughly $13,000 per employee, to staff its US plants.

“Overkill? Maybe, but Mazda and Diamond-Star aren’t taking any chances. Neither company spends nearly as much effort finding workers in Japan, where the school system does much of the screening work for them. In the US, the companies believe, they have to start from scratch. With a growing number of American companies coming to the same conclusion, it soon may be tougher to land a job -- whether you wear a white collar or a blue one.”

TRITIUM

Mr. Chariton: The issue of the potential for selling tritium on the international market has been simmering just below the surface for several years now. The present government has never clearly set out its position on that issue.

Ontario Hydro wants to be able to sell tritium in order to start reducing its massive debt. Tritium is worth about $15 million per kilogram. Hydro has repeatedly stated it will not sell any of its tritium to nuclear arms producers. However, the addition of Hydro’s tritium to the international supply will free up other tritium for arms use as the nonmilitary market is fully serviced.

Recently, Hydro and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. have been involved in running courses on the safe handling of tritium through the Canadian fusion fuels technology project. These courses have been attended by a number of nuclear arms manufacturers, including Sandia, the Laurence Livermore National Laboratories, Westinghouse and General Electric.

This calls into question the sincerity of Hydro’s past assurances. It is time this government clearly set out a position in opposition to the export and sale of tritium. This government should put a stop to the attendance at training courses on the safe handling of tritium by nuclear arms producers.

ASSETS DISPOSAL

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten). A recent Globe and Mail story outlined how his ministry held giant garage sales in what bureaucrats call the recycling and disposal of movable public assets, such as typewriters, chairs, desks, pool tables and office equipment, at bargain basement prices. Unfortunately, these sales took place and will take place only in Toronto. Why not hold them at various locations in Ontario so that those living outside the Metropolitan area can take advantage of an opportunity whereby people are given a second chance to pay for something they already own as taxpayers?

The previous government arranged that libraries could purchase equipment at cost and many other organizations had the use of this furniture which is now being disposed of only in Metropolitan Toronto.

THOMAS B. MCQUESTEN

Mr. Dietsch: I would like to take this opportunity to remind members of this House of a reception and book launching being held at 6:15 p.m. on Tuesday, November 8, in honour of the biography and the man, Thomas B. McQuesten.

Thomas B. McQuesten was a past member of the Hamilton Board of Parks Management, a past chairman of the Niagara Parks Commission and Minister of Highways, to name a few. He was a man of vision. He was a man who planned and built for the future, a man who made enormous contributions to the building of parks, bridges and highways, the most notable being the Queen Elizabeth Way, which are now an integral part of much of Ontario’s everyday life.

Roland Barnsley, author of this biography, will be in attendance to present autographed copies. I would also like to offer special thanks to Norris and John Walker of Walker Brother Quarries for helping to bring this story of the forgotten builder to the new generations of Canadians through their centennial project.

As a last word, the members of this House will agree that I would not be myself if I did not remind all my colleagues of the excellent quality of wines, fruits, vegetables and peanuts which will be exclusively available at this reception. I look forward to see all members Tuesday, November 8, in the legislative dining room.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. McLean: I have a statement I would like to make, directed mainly to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan).

Save Orillia has had a fantastic fund-raising program to raise $5 million for a new hospital in Orillia. That program has been in the works for some six months. They have now fulfilled over 80 per cent of their goal of $5 million, whereby over $4 million has been donated and put in trust for the new hospital to be built.

I want to know when the minister will approve a new hospital for the city and community around Orillia. I hope that decision will be forthcoming very shortly, as I know the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) is just waiting to get rid of some of those funds he has in that budget.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WIFE ASSAULT / VIOLENCE AU FOYER

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Today, I am pleased to announce to this assembly that we are launching a new campaign to prevent wife assault.

This campaign has two objectives: to educate the general public about the criminal nature of domestic assault and to underline the need for public responsibility in its prevention. The campaign takes place throughout November, which has been named Wife Assault Prevention Month.

Cette campagne a deux objectifs: éduquer le grand public sur la nature criminelle de la violence au foyer, et souligner le besoin de responsabiliser le public quant à la prévention de cette forme de violence. La campagne aura lieu durant tout le mois de novembre, qui a été choisi comme Mois de la prévention de la violence faite aux femmes.

The government is committed to reducing the incidence of wife assault. The $600,000 campaign in annual public education funds is part of the provincial government’s ongoing commitment to the prevention of wife assault. The Ontario government’s integrated approach includes a commitment to law enforcement measures and criminalization, family support programs and shelter services, as well as professional and public education.

The Ontario women’s directorate co-ordinates work in these three areas with 15 provincial ministries involving 22 programs and a total commitment of $33.5 million in fiscal 1988-89. That represents a 15 per cent increase over 1987-88. Of this total, more than $27 million is committed to services for the women and children directly affected by wife assault.

La Direction générale de la condition féminine de l’Ontario oeuvre dans ces trois secteurs en collaboration avec quinze ministères provinciaux, ce qui représente 22 programmes et un financement total de 33,5 millions de dollars pour l’exercice financier de 1988-1989, soit une augmentation de 15 pour cent par rapport à l’exercice financier de 1987-1988. Sur ce total, plus de 27 millions de dollars seront consacrés à des services pour les femmes et les enfants directement touchés par la violence au foyer.

“Break the silence” was the message of the initial public education campaign. That campaign, I am pleased to report, went a long way in changing attitudes. Our follow-up studies indicated that it brought the issue of wife assault out into the open.

With that important first step taken, we have moved on to a new phase in our public education program. Our message now is “Wife assault -- it is a crime.”

That is the message we are determined to deliver across Ontario. It is crucial to remind every person in this province that wife assault is not a family affair, is not a private problem, a secret between partners. It is, instead, a problem that demands action from all of us as a responsible society.

We have worked actively with immigrant women’s groups and with the francophone and native communities in our effort to make public education most effective. A community advisory committee provided valuable input to our design of this phase of the public education program, and I thank it for its assistance.

Let me now describe the elements of the campaign I am announcing this afternoon.

The ads look at wife assault from two angles: from the battered woman’s and from that of the man who assaults her. They also illustrate the different types of domestic abuse, because wife assault can be not only physical but also psychological, emotional and sexual.

Along with the television ads, a poster is being widely distributed throughout the province. A brochure on wife assault will be available in seven languages. Radio advertisements will target a variety of third-language communities and, most important, communities across Ontario are presenting local initiatives on wife assault prevention.

Some 101 groups in this province receive government funding, totalling $160,000, in order to complete projects tailored to their particular community needs. Included in this effort are immigrant women’s groups, francophone groups, rural and native women’s organizations and northern Ontario communities.

Most of the projects designed by these groups are taking place during wife assault prevention month. They include workshop forums for public discussions, dramatic presentations and educational resources.

Before I close, I would like to say a final word about the issue of wife assault. Too often we jump to conclusions about the victims of these crimes. We blame them for the crime, instead of their abusers, or we tell ourselves it can’t happen here and that it is a problem that happens to other people in other neighbourhoods. But that, quite frankly, is just not so. We have to understand the real nature of wife assault. I am confident the campaign I am launching today will help accomplish that.

Wife assault cuts across all boundaries of class, of geography, of cultures and of incomes. We have to realize that it is not a remote act of violence. It is violence that could be happening right now, right next door.

There is no excuse for the crime of wife assault. We have to deliver that message loudly and clearly, that we will not tolerate such violence and that we will not turn our backs on the urgent need to provide personal safety to each and every woman in this province.

ADVOCACY

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased to table today the report of the Advisory Committee on Substitute Decision-Making for Mentally Incapable Persons.

The committee was composed of government officials, nominees of the legal, health, psychological and social work professions and nominees of various other interest groups.

They have produced an important report on the question of how to provide responsible decision-making for those who are unable to make their own decisions.

The report raises some critical societal concerns and, for that reason, the government will be seeking widespread public comment on the committee’s many recommendations.

As members will know, substitute decision-making is a significant issue in these times. Substitute decision-making involves questions of who should be allowed to make personal care and property administration decisions on behalf of those who, because of mental incapacity, cannot make their own decisions.

Our current laws have not undergone substantial change for a number of years. They, therefore, require updating so as to take account of the competing interests in this area. These issues raise sensitive public policy issues regarding the independence of the individual and civil liberties.

It is for that reason that, along with my colleagues, the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini), I want to receive public comments on this report.

We will circulate this report to a large number of groups and individuals concerned throughout the province. We will be asking them to review critically the report’s recommendations and to offer their comment and advice.

We will ask them to comment on these recommendations in light of the proposals advanced in two earlier reports, which the House will have seen. The first of these was the report prepared by Father Sean O’Sullivan on the question of social advocacy for vulnerable adults. The second was the report prepared by Professor Alan Manson of Queen’s University into the operation of the psychiatric patients’ advocacy office. It is clear these three reports are