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

June 13, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L088 - Thu 13 Jun 1996 / Jeu 13 Jun 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

IMPORTATION OF WASTE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE TRANSFERT DE DÉCHETS

PENSION PLANS

IMPORTATION OF WASTE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE TRANSFERT DE DÉCHETS

PENSION PLANS

IMPORTATION OF WASTE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE TRANSFERT DE DÉCHETS

PENSION PLANS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

CHILD POVERTY

NEILL-WYCIK COLLEGE-HOTEL

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

FOREST MANAGEMENT

LIQUOR LICENSING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

WORKFARE

AGRIBUSINESS PARK

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ALCOHOL AND GAMING INITIATIVES

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ALCOHOL AND GAMING INITIATIVES

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ALCOHOL AND GAMING INITIATIVES

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

YOUNG OFFENDERS

WORKFARE

YOUNG OFFENDERS

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

EDUCATION

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

OBSTETRICAL CARE

TRAIN DERAILMENT

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

DELLCREST CHILDREN'S CENTRE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

RENT REGULATION

BEAR HUNTING

RENT REGULATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

BEAR HUNTING

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

RENT REGULATION

FIREARMS CONTROL

RENT REGULATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ALCOHOL, GAMING AND CHARITY FUNDING PUBLIC INTEREST ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉGISSANT LES ALCOOLS, LES JEUX ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES DE BIENFAISANCE DANS L'INTÉRÊT PUBLIC

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTATION IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 AMÉLIORANT LE PROCESSUS D'ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE ET DE CONSULTATION PUBLIQUE

WORKERS' PENSION BILL OF RIGHTS, 1996 / CHARTE DES DROITS DES TRAVAILLEURS EN MATIÈRE DE RETRAITE DE 1996

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATE STABILITY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA STABILITÉ DES TAUX D'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

IMPORTATION OF WASTE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE TRANSFERT DE DÉCHETS

Mr Ramsay moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 56,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act and the Waste Management Act, 1992 with respect to the Importation of Waste from one municipality into another / Projet de loi 56, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement et la Loi de 1992 sur la gestion des déchets en ce qui a trait au transfert de déchets d'une municipalité à une autre.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): As I start my discussion and as we begin debate between all parties on my bill, I say to the new members and the people watching that it is a very special opportunity and privilege that members of the Ontario Legislative Assembly have that, depending on how lucky we are, maybe once or twice during a government session we actually have the opportunity to bring up a concern of an individual member that must be debated and voted on by this assembly. I must say I cherish it and I know the other members do too.

I'd like to start by explaining what my private member's Bill 56 is. As you have read in the title, the bill involves the establishment of new and the enlarging of existing garbage sites that are primarily for the use of depositing garbage that is imported from another municipality, from another jurisdiction, possibly even from another country. I think this is very important.

While we always have to grapple in our neighbourhoods and our municipalities, our counties and our districts with the disposition of our own waste, with modern transportation methods today and densely populated large urban centres such as Metro Toronto, many municipalities or jurisdictions in other countries are always looking for a new home to deposit their waste. I think it's very important that we differentiate between the standards we apply to that sort of disposition of garbage, the waste that would come from another jurisdiction, and that which we have to handle in our own backyard.

I have moved amendments to two acts, the Environmental Protection Act and the Waste Management Act, to differentiate and ask for a higher standard when we look at the disposition of garbage that comes from outside of our municipalities.

The bill is very simple. It addresses basically three principles. The first is that the site must be established and operated to the very highest available standard. I think this is particularly important when we're talking about a municipality handling its own waste, but when we're talking about the importation of waste, usually you're talking about a mega-dump. If you're talking about a mega waste project, I think it's doubly important that we apply the very best standards available for our environment to that project.

While we may have a standard here in Ontario that states certain requirements, we know that with the different chemicals we find in our waste stream today it's very important that we keep on top of that, that we keep strengthening those standards, that we keep looking for the next chemical that we consider might cause a health hazard and apply the very best technology and standards to the establishment of that site.

That's the first principle of this bill, and I would ask the members of the opposition, even if they don't like a particular detail of the bill, to at least look at the standards and address the basic principles of the bill.

Second, the site process and proposal must go through a full Environmental Assessment Act hearing. We hear from the government that potentially, and the Minister of Environment and Energy is on record as saying possibly, the establishment of waste sites in Ontario may not have to go through an environmental assessment. That really scares me, especially when you're talking about the new type of mega-sites that are being developed today.

I think it is very important that the scrutiny of the very tough Environmental Assessment Act that we have in Ontario, that was passed by a previous Conservative government, be placed to and put to these proposals. I think it's very important that, while we may be looking at streamlining the criteria for the establishment of waste management sites for our own use, for sure we do not dilute at all the standards we apply to a site that is primarily to be established for the receiving of waste from another jurisdiction.

Lastly and very importantly, as far as I'm concerned, is that when you're talking about a mega-dump coming into your own municipality, it's very important that the local people have a direct say; after all the information is in, after we know the facts, after an EA is completed, that part of the final approval process from the government, from the Ministry of Environment, is that a binding referendum be held in that jurisdiction.

This is one point I put in the bill because of my particular circumstance, which I will address here. I've put in a certain criterion of 100 kilometres, and I've done that to address the particular situation in Timiskaming that I'll talk about in a second. That is certainly debatable, and if we got approval today for this bill to go into second reading debate I would like to see some discussion. I would be open to any friendly amendments that give some flexibility as to how large a catchment area we should have for people to have a direct say.

What I believe is that the principle is sound, that people who live in a municipality in unorganized areas, in counties or northern districts should have a direct say as to the establishment of a mega-dump that's primarily being used to house, if you will, a foreign jurisdiction's waste. I think that's very important and I hope all members from northern Ontario and southern Ontario, when faced with the same sort of proposal, would want to work on behalf of their constituents to make sure their constituents have a say.

The reason I'm bringing this bill forward is that my very neighbourhood faces this type of proposal today. There is now no longer a public sector proposal but there is still a private sector proposal put before the people in my area to establish a mega waste disposal site in an abandoned iron ore mine called the Adams mine site, an old, open-pit, iron ore mine just south of Kirkland Lake. It happens to fall in an unorganized area, so there is no municipality, nor any direct local representation for those people.

Neighbouring municipalities, three councils, have given the green light to this, but the vast majority of people in that area want to have a say about this project. They want to ensure that this thing is built to the highest available standards if it's proved to be environmentally safe. They want to ensure that there's a full environmental assessment process. In the end, once they have all the information, they want to ensure that they have a say. I think this is very important.

This particular project I personally do not care for. This project is basically an 80-million-tonne repository that sits 300 feet above the great clay belt of Timiskaming where all our farmers depend on groundwater to feed their livestock and their families; so basically sitting 300 feet above the clay belt area, about 40 miles by 40 miles in a fractured rock pit. The plan is to put 80 million tonnes of Metro garbage.

That project may be safe, I don't know. But I want to make sure that it would be built and proposed to the very best standards, maintained that way, have a full environmental assessment hearing, and in the end the people in my area should have a direct say whether they want to go ahead or not. We're talking about six trains a day coming through all our towns to bring this waste there. We're talking about putting this waste in this fractured rock pit where water comes in and comes out. It sits right on top of the Timiskaming aquifer. It's very important to the people of our riding that we have a say in this particular project.

I am pleading with the members today to allow this bill to proceed. As I said, I am certainly open to suggestions as to how to modify this bill, especially maybe in regard to the 100 kilometres referendum. That distance certainly fits my particular situation. It may not be appropriate to other situations. I think you have to go by mileage, though -- or kilometrage, as we would say today -- rather than just by jurisdiction. You may have a mega-site being planned on the border of some municipality right next door to another one, so obviously the people of the neighbouring municipality should have a say also.

We certainly need to establish a catchment area. It should be established, I believe, on environmental grounds as far as water-tables and watershed areas. In my particular case, that would involve at least 100 kilometres because the water aquifer that runs underneath this pit goes into Lake Timiskaming, which is the headwater of the Ottawa rivers. We certainly don't want to see nickel and mercury and cadmium coming into our waterways and into our wells. We want to have a say, we want to make sure it's to the very best standard, and I ask members today to try to support this bill.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's a pleasure to respond and be part of the debate on Bill 56. I certainly agree with my honourable friend from Timiskaming that it is a privilege to be able to bring forth a private member's bill and to debate it on Thursday mornings.

Certainly I found your bill very interesting. It brings forth some ideas on democracy. At first glance I kind of questioned why this bill was being brought forward, and certainly you've explained it this morning, concerns about your particular area and in northern Ontario.

As I read it and think about it, it's not written for all of Ontario. I would very much agree that Toronto-based solutions do not provide the answers for all of Ontario. On many occasions, we found that they just simply don't work. But similarly, answers written for northern Ontario do not necessarily work for all of Ontario.

This bill amends sections of the Waste Management Act and the Environmental Protection Act. It applies to the siting, the expanding and the altering of all landfill sites importing waste from outside a zoned municipality. I'm particularly concerned about altering because that could mean this would plug in if you wanted to make them smaller, if you wanted to close them earlier, if you wanted to put in a new collection system or new, improved, up-to-date, state-of-the-art protection system liners, that sort of thing.

We're encumbering environmentally friendly changes, and too many times we've run into situations where it's taken up to three years to work through a very awkward process to improve our environment.

It really comes up with asking for three things: (1) the director must meet the highest possible standards -- I fully agree, state of the art, that's the kind of thing any landfill site should be meeting when they're siting them or developing them; (2) notifies EA boards for hearings, and that's consistent with what's been going on; (3) also a referendum of all residents living within 100 kilometres of the landfill site and at least 50% must support the landfill proposal.

In general terms, I'm very enthusiastic about referendums. I think it does improve the democratic process in general, but today it's awkward to use the referendum process. It's cumbersome, we're not set up for it, and we need a current, up-to-date voters list if we're really going to make referendums work.

Enumerations are expensive and unless it's within a year of an election, the only way we can carry out a referendum today is to go about an enumeration. For referendums to fly in the future, we need a current, up-to-date voters list to be ready to go and then it would be reasonably priced to carry out referendums.

I have some concerns with this bill in that it doesn't meet quite a few things. What about the role of the municipalities that are not affected and that are within 100 kilometres of a landfill site? Should they really be all that involved with the vote? But more importantly maybe, what about the role of municipalities that are over 100 kilometres and could be affected, such as down the Ottawa River or down the St Lawrence? In those types of catchment basins they should be addressed and their concerns should be addressed as well, not just simply ignored. There's more to it than just 100 kilometres. Then there's the administration of a referendum and how that would be carried out.

I recommend that the members not support this particular bill. Our ministry is preparing legislation that will be tabled this afternoon, a new environmental assessment bill.

What we really need is productive scoping and setting out what's needed for a landfill site and the requirements well in advance. What we need are no big surprises as you move down the road to developing these, get it all set out in advance. At present, we are going through an extensive consultation process to involve the communities in the general area.

It's our hope that we will foster cooperation between municipalities. This particular bill will pit municipalities against one another in a struggle to bring in a landfill site for the purpose of importation of garbage.

The 100-kilometre zone is very arbitrary. I really don't see any basis for why we've drawn a circle with a radius of 100 kilometres. Since this referendum will obviously span many jurisdictions, I'm left with wondering how the referendum would be carried out. There is a tremendous number of questions there. Who would administer the referendum and ensure its fairness and impartiality, and maybe most of all, who would be paying for that referendum? That kind of thing is not addressed. It doesn't even address who would be allowed or, if the 100 kilometres reaches into a certain municipality, would all of that municipality get to vote or just the portion that happens to be represented?

This is a map I brought for the honourable member for Timiskaming along with, to scale, a circle of 100 kilometres. You can see how much of Ontario this 100 kilometres would cover. If we were to put a landfill site in, say, Niagara Falls, I guess, because you don't say and the referendums in Ontario are not clear, we'd have half of New York state voting. If we were to put one in Gravenhurst, we'd have most of Toronto voting on a landfill site in Gravenhurst. I don't think the member from Muskoka would be very pleased to have all of Toronto voting on a landfill site in Gravenhurst.

My residents in Port Hope would be pretty upset to have all of Toronto voting on a possible landfill site in Port Hope.

This bill is not consistent with our present government policies. We certainly stand for environmentally acceptable options and tough standards to protect the environment. We stand for some streamlining and improving the waste approvals process. It is not consistent to increase the numbers of inefficient, cumbersome Environmental Assessment Board hearings. We certainly don't need more of those and longer ones, and we certainly do not need to increase the time frame to develop landfill sites.

For these reasons I would suggest that the members not support this particular bill and vote nay.

The Acting Speaker: Before we proceed I just want to remind the member for Northumberland -- I know your intentions were good, you meant well -- that no signs or anything are allowed in the House. I hope you will understand.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Let me begin by congratulating my colleague the member for Timiskaming for the considerable efforts he has made to date on behalf of his constituents, which are made visible here today through the work he's put into Bill 56.

I might in passing indicate as well to the member opposite who just made a presentation and raised some concerns, some more valid than others, that none of those is fatal. I think the member is open for friendly amendments with respect to this issue of the 100 kilometres. None of this is carved in stone. If it's sent out to committee, that could be reviewed. I'm sure we might be able to accommodate the member.

I'm supporting this bill because it embraces two important principles, one being the importance of having an environmental assessment hearing when we're going to put a landfill site in somebody's community. Secondly, it embraces the concept of a willing host. I want to address those particular principles.

So that members opposite in particular recognize how we got into this in the first place, the Environmental Assessment Act was introduced in this Legislature in 1975 and was proclaimed in law in 1976 by a Conservative government, and for very good reasons. The purpose of the act is to provide for the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. I'm sure nobody here would disagree with that.

The act is applied in the following way: It says that a person or institution wishing to proceed with an undertaking, and in particular in this case with respect to the introduction of a landfill into a community, must do the following: They must consider alternatives to proceeding and alternative ways of proceeding; they must evaluate the environmental effects of each alternative; they must demonstrate a sound decision-making process that minimizes environmental effects; they must compile a formal document for government and public scrutiny; and, if required, they must present at the Environmental Assessment Board at a public hearing.

All the member for Timiskaming seeks to do today is to ensure, and I think quite rightly so, that in specific cases where garbage or waste from one community is to be transferred to another community, that community which is the recipient or the host is entitled to have the matter brought before the Environmental Assessment Board for a full and complete hearing.

The introduction of this act is most timely because I understand that the Minister of Environment and Energy is later today to be introducing a new bill which is going to -- I'm not sure yet -- either exempt landfill sites entirely from the environmental assessment hearing process or lessen the burden on proponents, both of which give me great concern. It's very timely and appropriate that we're considering, through this bill advanced by the member for Timiskaming, the importance of environmental assessment hearings for landfill sites.

So that members opposite in particular recognize as well, it was only in October of last year that I raised this very issue in the House. I asked the Premier something regarding a motion that had been read in this House in 1990.

That motion in 1990 read in part as follows, "No new waste disposal sites will be designated within the province without the benefit of full and public hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act." My question to the Premier then was, "Do you still today believe that Ontario's dumps ought to be the subject of full and public hearings on the Environmental Assessment Act?" The Premier's answer, incomplete, was, "Yes, I do." So I do not understand how government members could have any objection to that part at least of this bill, which insists that any effort to introduce a landfill site into a community ought to be made the subject of a full and complete environmental assessment.

The second principle the bill embraces is that of a willing host, and I guess there's some looseness with respect to the definition of a willing host. The principle here is that no community can be compelled against its wishes to take another community's waste. I think that is eminently supportable as well. It's one thing to have to take responsibility for your own garbage, for your own waste, but it's quite another to have to assume responsibility for someone else's.

In the former case, where you are required to assume responsibility for your own garbage, your own waste, it's only right and fitting and just and all those good things, and there is a real obligation on the part of a community to take that kind of responsibility. It provides a real incentive to reduce the amount of waste you are producing within your community.

But in the latter case, where a community is being asked to take in within its borders, within its boundaries, somebody else's waste, that's a different matter altogether. In that case, I would argue there is no obligation on that community to do so. Secondly, that very option being made available to the community which is getting rid of its garbage can act as a very real disincentive to reduction of waste production. It's only appropriate that in that case that community, that proponent which is asking that its garbage be sent elsewhere, seek the consent of the recipient community or willing host. That's only fair and reasonable.

The member puts forward that one way of ensuring we have a willing host is to hold a referendum. That is clearly a means by which we can determine whether or not the community is willing. He is not creating any kind of unfair burden. It's simply a majority of the members. With respect to this issue of how wide we ought to spread the net, who ought to be entitled to cast a vote in this referendum, that's a subject of some fair debate. But I don't see why that subject could not be addressed more fully at committee. I don't see it as something fatal.

We hardly want to involve our American cousins in that kind of consideration. I don't think that was the member's intent. Surely we can all agree on that.

In brief, what the member is trying to do here is eminently supportable. The bill is sound. He's embracing a couple of principles which, in fairness, have been embraced by governments of all political stripes during the past 25 years or so, one of those principles being that if a community is going to receive waste from another community, it ought to do so of its own accord, it ought to be willing to take the garbage in. Otherwise, if not, we should not be able to compel it to do so.

The second principle is that an environmental assessment ought to be heard in these kinds of cases where we're dealing with landfill sites. The member has a particular concern related to his own constituency, a very valid and legitimate concern. In that particular case, we're not talking about a small operation; we're talking about a very large operation. It's important that a full, complete environmental assessment be heard and that the community there be found to be truly willing to receive that waste. I have no reservation whatsoever in lending my full support to the member for his good work, as contained within this bill.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I rise to support this bill. I think what is probably more important than the question of support or non-support are the issues around which the support is based.

This is a very brief bill, but I think it sets out a number of important environmental principles. Implicit in the bill is the principle that whatever jurisdiction we live in or whatever jurisdiction we are located in, we assume responsibility for ourselves, we assume responsibility for what goes on in our jurisdiction, we try not to pass our costs or our problems or our waste, in this case, off on someone else.

It seems to me that if we are going to maintain the earth in an environmental condition anywhere near what we have today or if we're to improve upon the environmental condition of the earth, this is a very important principle, that we be responsible for ourselves, that we be responsible for our conduct, that we be responsible for whatever costs we impose upon the natural environment. I think this is an important principle and it is implicitly found in this bill. For that reason, I would support this bill.

Related to this principle of self-responsibility is a second principle: the avoidance of externalities. That is, if we cannot take responsibility for ourselves, we should not impose burdens or costs on others. For example, what this bill would say is that it is inappropriate, if I operate a farm or if I operate some sort of undertaking or activity, that I would spew out waste that is then passed on to someone who lives down the river or who lives on the adjacent property.

The bill speaks to that implicitly, that externalities are not to be condoned, that externalities create an overall loss for our economy, that externalities create an overall loss for our society and therefore externalities ought to be avoided and the law ought not to allow individuals or companies or jurisdictions to impose externalities, to impose their costs on someone else. That's an important principle that is related to the principle of self-responsibility, so on that principle as well I would support this bill. Implicitly, it speaks against externalities and it speaks against allowing a jurisdiction to impose an external cost on someone else.

Finally, the bill says that if for some reason a jurisdiction is unable to be responsible for itself, if for some reason a jurisdiction must impose an externality on another jurisdiction, the test must be very high, the test must be very stringent. In other words, if you can't look after yourself, if you can't take responsibility for yourself, if you can't take responsibility for the debris, for the waste, for the garbage, for the loss that you generate and must pass on to someone else, the bill says the test must be very stringent.

Again, in line with the philosophy of self-responsibility, in line with the philosophy that we should look after ourselves, we should not expect others to look after us, in line with that general principle of self-responsibility, it is quite appropriate to have this kind of stringent test.

It's important to look at what the three pieces of the test are. First of all, the test must be established and operated in accordance with the highest standard available in the industry. Given the situation we would be dealing with here, in my estimation that's quite an appropriate test. If we refuse to be responsible for ourselves, if we insist on passing the costs of our operation on to someone else, then it would seem to me only appropriate that this be done in accordance with the highest standards available in the industry.

The second test is that the establishment of the site must have been the subject of a hearing by the Environmental Assessment Board. I think that's quite appropriate. Once again, if we are incapable of looking after ourselves, if we are incapable of assuming responsibility for ourselves and we want someone else to assume that responsibility, and in this case it's an environmental responsibility, it seems to me there ought, at the very least, to be a hearing.

At the very least, there ought to be a hearing to look at what the justifications are, to look at and examine if this is the most appropriate way, the least costly way, to deal with the situation where a jurisdiction is not able to be responsible for itself.

The third part of the test is a referendum. I heard one of the members from the other side say that while he was generally in favour of referendums, he was not in favour of a referendum as it might be used here. I want to take issue with that. It seems to me that one can design a referendum to meet a number of local circumstances. In this case, it's a referendum of persons living within 100 kilometres of the site. It may be that 100 kilometres casts a wider net than is appropriate; it may be that a narrower net is appropriate. It may be that we should be limiting this to the municipality or the regional municipality that is involved.

It would seem to me, though, it is quite appropriate that if we are unable to assume responsibility for ourselves and we are asking others to assume responsibility for us or asking others to assume responsibility for something that we are doing, in this case an environmental matter, there ought to be some mechanism which would allow those who are being asked to take responsibility to indicate whether or not they are willing, whether or not this is in accordance with their wishes.

I go back to the fundamental principle. The fundamental principle is that we should be responsible for ourselves. In this case, we should be responsible for our own waste, our own garbage, that which we would inflict on the natural environment. If we are unable to be responsible for ourselves, it seems to me that one of the standards ought to be that we can show that those we are asking to be responsible for us do in fact and do in effect assume the responsibility. I believe this is a good part of the test.

Exactly how one would want to develop such a referendum, exactly what the geographical sphere ought to be is something that should be open to debate and open to debate at committee. For example, it might be that a referendum should be conducted along with the next municipal election, something like that. Or perhaps it ought to be along with any other necessary questions that have to be decided between municipal elections, and the municipal council, having received a petition of 50% or more of local residents, must then put it up for referendum.

It seems to me that there are a number of ways to do this which are fundamentally in agreement with the premises of democracy and the principle of self-responsibility.

Essentially, this is a sound bill and a bill that speaks to principles that I believe everyone in this House would want to uphold and speak in favour of. The subsection, however, dealing with the issue of referenda may require some fine-tuning, and it is probably appropriate that the fine-tuning be dealt with by committee.

But I speak in favour of this bill. I know the kind of issue it's trying to deal with, that is, fundamentally the kind of issue where someone is unable to assume responsibility for themselves or for their jurisdiction and they want to pass that responsibility on to someone else. This kind of legislation, I would argue, is needed to deal with those situations. While, as I say, there may be some parts of it that require fine-tuning, I think that can be done at committee.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): This is a bill that's been introduced by the member for Timiskaming. His riding, as he mentioned, is the location of the Adams mine site. He has spoken many times, recently at least, in opposition to the Adams mine site. When I read the bill, it's almost tailor-made to deal with the issue of whether Metro waste should go to the Adams mine site.

I must say there wasn't too much reaction, from the Liberal caucus at least, during the Interim Waste Authority debate when the provincial dumps were being created around southern Ontario. There was a proposal for the Adams mine site but it really didn't get off the ground because the NDP government said: "You can't export waste. You can't take waste into another area, whether it be to the United States or whether it be from one area of this province to another. You can't have energy from waste. You can't do this; you can't do that."

We on this side of the House have said, and we continue to say -- as the parliamentary assistant has indicated, there will be a report to the House today from the Minister of Environment that the policy is that municipalities are the ones that should be making the decisions. There's sort of a smell of that in this bill, but not really, if I have time to comment on that.

I suspect the member wasn't too active back in the early days of the NDP reign because he was confident, at least at that time, that there was no way in a million years that Ruth Grier was going to allow a dump in the Adams mine. I suspect that is why he is becoming more active now, because there was a referendum held in the Kirkland Lake area. I think it wasn't whether there was going to be a dump but whether there would be an environmental assessment. That referendum carried and it still continues to be a political issue in that area. Obviously, the member for Timiskaming has been quite active on one side of that and Mayor Mavrinac -- I think he's still there -- is on the other side.

The bill is quite interesting. Many people in this province haven't forgotten the reign of David Peterson, of which the member for Timiskaming was a minister. David Peterson said, "We're going to have a dump" -- an interim dump, he called it -- "in Whitevale and there's not going to be an environmental assessment." His answer was, "You can't please all of the people all of the time." He said there wasn't going to be an environmental assessment; they were just going to put it there.

The member for Timiskaming has come a long way, I will say, from the reign of David Peterson, but I haven't forgotten and the people on this side haven't forgotten, and the people from Ontario haven't forgotten. Can you be trusted when you say you're not going to have an environmental assessment,

whereas today you say you should have an environmental assessment?

I have a few minutes left to deal specifically with respect to points on the bill. It is an interesting bill, although, as I say, I think I know why it was created. The whole issue of the referendum -- the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Environment alluded to the fact that he had a circle, and it showed that if you follow the vote of a referendum out 100 kilometres, a larger population could be deciding what is going on in a smaller population. I suspect, for example, if you had an area outside the GTA and you had people in Metro voting on that, they'd love to vote on that: "Out of sight out of mind.

Let's put the garbage up in Muskoka." That's the problem with 100 kilometres, although the former speaker, Mr Hampton, may be right: Maybe a committee could vary that.

But I have a lot of problems with the issue of referenda. There are other issues in it. You have said in your bill that we'll have to have a referendum with respect to the operation of the site. I don't know what that means, and again I suppose that could be clarified in committee. Does that mean that for the establishment of a site you're going to have a referendum, and for the operation of a dump site on a regular basis you're going to have continuing referenda? I'm sure that's not what the member intended, but it is rather vague wording.

With respect to the opening part of his bill where he says we must set conditions to establish a landfill site outside the boundaries of the municipality, why not set what the conditions of a landfill site are across the province? If you're going to be a proponent for a landfill site or an energy-from-waste facility or anything, why doesn't the government say, "These are the regulations; they're tough regulations, and if municipalities don't fit into that," or, if a private proponent wishes to put up a site, if they don't meet those regulations across the province, "they don't qualify"?

It has nothing to do with whether you're within one jurisdiction or another jurisdiction. I believe that should be made clear.

These environmental assessment hearings are very, very expensive. The last exercise the NDP put us through cost us millions. I don't know what the final tab was for that terrible Interim Waste Authority process, but it was terrible and it went on and on and on. Actually, it was probably a good thing, looking back. I had the unfortunate pleasure of having one of the dump sites in my riding and it was probably a good thing that it was so confused and so convoluted.

But I would suggest that the member should concentrate more on saying, "These are the conditions for a landfill site or an energy-from-waste facility, and if you don't meet those requirements, don't bother us any more." It may well be that if those requirements are so strict, you may not need an environmental assessment. Maybe you do, but maybe you don't. It depends on the situation.

But I will remind the member, as will all of us if you continue to talk about taking environmental assessments to the board, that your party, of which you were a minister at the time, not Minister of Environment but a minister in that government, was not exactly supportive of environmental assessments. I am rather amazed that you of all people would be coming out at this stage talking about that proposal.

I emphasize that I think it would be more appropriate that your bill be suggesting that we have a strict set of requirements and those are the requirements you meet, that you don't come along and wing it.

I suggest, as I said earlier, that the whole purpose of this bill is to deal with the Kirkland Lake Adams mine site. I went there a few years ago to view it, as the critic for the Conservative party. I didn't hear a peep out of the member for Timiskaming at that time. I suspect, to be fair to him, he didn't think it was possible. Now it is possible, and I guess that gives him grave concern, but I don't think this is the way to do it. If the Adams mine site is inappropriate, the regulations will say it's inappropriate, not referenda.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'd like to speak in support of the member for Timiskaming's bill this morning. I think it represents, for him and for the people of his area, a way to deal with the problem of having those of us from large metropolitan areas sending their garbage to areas that are certainly not large metropolitan areas. They're often small areas; they're often somewhat remote areas.

It's very attractive to be able to do so, I must say, when you have the problem of, as they always say, Toronto garbage or greater Toronto area garbage. One of the solutions which is least annoying to the people who live in the immediate area, the people who actually create that garbage, is the solution of sending it some distance. We now send it into the United States, in some cases. We send it to other places in Ontario.

These arrangements do exist because there are municipalities -- if you take the city of Toronto, for instance, there's nowhere in the actual city of Toronto you're going to be able to dump Toronto's garbage, so there is always going to be the problem of trying to find a way to get around this.

One of the best ways, of course, is to continue the program of reducing the amount of garbage we produce in the first place, reusing many of the items that in years gone by we used to simply throw in landfills or into incinerators, and of course recycling various products. I think a lot of municipalities have really advanced in this area. We're continuing to see it, despite the fact the funding was cut off. We're still seeing municipalities concerned enough about this that they're expanding those programs for recycling, and this is most encouraging.

It means that municipalities that create their own garbage seem to want to deal with that problem or at least are prepared to begin to deal with that problem in a way that in the past they did not.

Mr Ramsay, the member for Timiskaming, has a specific problem. There are people down south who would like to take the garbage and send it up to his constituency. It's interesting. When these proposals are made, initially there's a lot of acceptance of them. Some people at the local level cheer them and they see big money coming in and so on. What you often find is a pattern. I've observed the pattern over the years, where the initial enthusiasm for something like this starts to dissipate after a little while when people understand the ramifications of the garbage coming from somewhere else.

It's a bad principle as well. I'm not saying it can't ever be avoided. There are circumstances where it's going to have to happen, but as often as we can, it is good to be able to avoid this by, as I say, reducing the amount of garbage we produce in our society, and I think there's much more we can do in that direction by reusing a lot of the items.

I give credit to some of the people, for instance, in the building industry who are now using a lot of products once again that in the past used to be thrown away. There are some good pilot programs that we see around the province. I remember the city of Guelph used to be particularly innovative in some of the things it was doing. I remember visiting places in Peel county where there were special programs being undertaken in terms of wood recycling and so on.

But Mr Ramsay and his constituents face a specific proposal that is floating out there. It seems to die one week and be revived the next week. I think he wants to find a solution. He's not being overly radical in this. He's not saying this should never be considered, that the option should be cut off. Much as many people in the area might want that to be the case, he has chosen something that I think he believes is quite practical.

The bill sets conditions that must be met in order to establish or operate a landfill site in a municipality if the purpose of the site is to accept and dispose of waste generated outside the boundaries of the municipality. I think he is entitled to have these conditions placed on it if it is not the garbage from his own municipality.

First, the site must be established and operated to the highest standards available in the industry. I think we want that anywhere where there's a site. I think he's wise to put that in there. All of us, when we see any of these landfill sites around, want them to be to the very highest standards. I suspect that today the government will be bringing in a bill, by the way, which is going to adversely affect the environmental assessment process just as this bill is before us today.

Second, the site must be the subject of a full hearing by the Environmental Assessment Board is his suggestion and a major, mammoth site of this kind is what he's looking for. What I can tell him is that unfortunately today the government will be weakening the environmental assessment process, much to the chagrin of many, I think, on all sides of the House who wanted to see a strong environmental assessment process.

I feel sorry for the Minister of Environment and Energy having to announce this because she'll have to put a smile on when she gets up and says why it's good, and that's difficult all the time to do so. I understand it's not an easy problem. I never want to say it's an easy problem to solve, but you're going to see today, the very day this bill is before the House, the government once again weakening environmental standards. A lot of Conservatives out there that I know in the province are concerned about the environment and I think a lot of them are going to start to be concerned about what the very right-wing

section of this party is doing in this regard.

The third is, he calls for a referendum to be held among the people residing within 100 kilometres of the site and the results must indicate that a majority of the persons who voted are in favour of the establishment of the operation of the site. I think what he's saying here is -- he's trying to have what you call the happy host site. In other words, the people who reside in the area, the people who will have to put up with the problems that exist, the problems that are created by bringing this garbage into the area, are going to have a voice in this. It may be that the local municipality says this is a good idea and it may be that they don't.

For instance, I thought the vote that took place in Oshawa was rather interesting, where Oshawa said it didn't want a casino. I was going to send them a letter of congratulations, though some of my colleagues might disagree with me on that. That's what I mean, when people have that opportunity. I think Mr Harris during the campaign indicated if he were Premier that he wanted to see a referendum on many more issues.

I think this falls within the purview of what the government has advocated and I want to commend the member for Timiskaming for taking this particular initiative, which is practical and which is in the interests of the people he represents and of course, ultimately the province as a whole.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Timiskaming has two minutes to reply.

Mr Ramsay: I'd like to thank all the members who participated in the debate today. It is ironic, and I guess perfect timing, that my bill that tries to strengthen environmental standards comes on a day when unfortunately we believe, and we'll know by this afternoon, that environmental standards in regard to waste management are going to be lowered in this province. That's sad.

I'll tell you why it's sad: I think you would have a better process with people feeling more certain about the process and probably better success in establishing landfill sites if people felt confident in very strong and tough standards. It's when you have the uncertainty in these standards and a lowering of the standards that we're going to see today that you're going to foment more resistance out there among people who do not want the establishment of landfill sites in their area, especially when they involve waste from other jurisdictions.

Tonight the Timiskaming municipal association is going to consider a resolution condemning the establishment of this site and I know that the vast majority of municipalities in my area are going to support this resolution to try to stop this site.

I'd like to conclude with the last two paragraphs of a statement I made to Metro council in December last year, when Metro council was considering this as a public sector site. It was addressed to them, but I think today it applies to the government, so I address it to the government:

"I want to leave you today with a warning: If you decide to proceed with this project without incorporating the safeguards that peer reviewers consider necessary, without a full EA and without conducting a referendum in the host region, your project will be met with extreme resistance.

"I believe this project is extremely risky and while there would be tangible short-term economic benefits to our region that we sorely need, the vast majority of our residents believe that the risks outweigh the benefits. I support that view and I will do everything in my power to stop you."

The Acting Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

PENSION PLANS

Mr Hampton moved private member's notice of motion number 21:

That in the opinion of this House, since workers fund pension plans but have little or no say in how these funds are administered, directed and invested; and

Since pension funds account for about $360 billion in Canada; and

Since workers need to have a say in how their pension plans are run and how funds are invested to benefit their future;

Therefore the government of Ontario should immediately bring forward legislation amending the Pension Benefits Act that provides that, wherever a pension plan exists in a workplace, at least one half of the members of any committee or board responsible for the plan and fund administration and investment be representatives of members of the pension plan.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), you have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): The reason I have brought this resolution forward is because pensions are becoming more and more important, both in terms of the operation of the modern economy and in terms of their importance for workers and their families.

We need only review some of the demographic changes to see how important pension plans have become for workers and their families. Not too long ago it was the custom that people would retire at age 65 and, assuming the longevity of life, that they would need a pension for about 10 or 11 years, until age 75 or 76. That has changed a great deal over the past 10 years or so. First of all, people are now retiring much earlier in their lives, so it is not unusual that someone will retire at age 55.

It's not unusual in the unionized sector of the economy and it's not unusual outside the unionized sector of the economy that people will retire much earlier. Secondly, there is all kinds of evidence that people are now living longer, so living until age 80 or beyond is not at all unusual.

This means that the performance of our pension funds and the capacity of our pension funds to look after us after we retire have to be much greater now than in the past because we have people living in retirement for 25 years or more. That speaks to the need for individuals to have a say and have more direct knowledge about how their pension funds are being invested, about what kinds of returns they can expect both in the short term and in the longer term and what sorts of pension benefits they can expect.

The second major change concerns the fact that pension funds are now huge players in our economy and have the capacity to determine major investment decisions and the overall direction. For example, well over a third of all corporate assets in Canada are now controlled by pension funds. In fact, the top 10 pension funds alone control more than $300 billion, compared to total corporate assets of about $1 trillion. An excellent example is the Ontario teachers' pension plan, which is worth $42 billion and alone owns the equivalent in shares of 2% to 3% of the entire Toronto Stock Exchange.

No less a futurist than Peter Drucker notes, "The power of the lender is as great as the power of the owner, sometimes greater, and the shareholdings of pension funds have reached the level where they effectively cannot sell because there are few buyers available who have such huge assets as to be able to own or purchase what is owned by pension funds."

The founder of the German Deutsche Bank, Georg von Siemens, once said, "If one can't sell, then one must take care." In Germany and Japan, where industry is directly integrated into the financial structure of the economy, there is a much tighter relationship between funds and companies, and funds tend to invest in a achieving long-term results rather than short-term profits.

It seems to me, as pension funds assume a larger and larger role in the operation of our economy, that people who contribute to those funds ought to have greater knowledge and greater say into the kinds of investments that those pension funds make.

There's a third important reason that workers ought to have a say in and greater knowledge of the operation of their pension funds, and it concerns the difference between short-term returns and long-term returns. The fact of the matter is that pension funds have by nature very long-term liabilities. For example, when someone is living in retirement for 25 years, as I said earlier, you want to have a pension fund, a pension plan that is invested so that it can finance that 25-year retirement period. You need to look at the long term in terms of the performance of your investment.

What has happened, though, is that a number of pension funds in the past have been invested in ways that return very good short-term returns but not very strong long-term returns. That, over the longer term, hurts the capacity of the pension fund and the capacity of the pensioner.

You've got examples, and some of these are recent, where the Ontario teachers' pension plan was utilized in the takeover by Wallace McCain of Toronto-based Maple Leaf Foods. After McCain took control of the formerly cash-rich company in May 1995, to help pay off the debts he incurred he has axed the entire grocery products division. This may make good short-term sense, but it makes no long-term sense in terms of the operation of that pension fund and the returns to those people who will depend upon that pension fund.

For this reason as well I would advocate that people who belong to a pension fund ought to have an equal say in how that pension fund is invested and ought to be in a position where they have more complete knowledge of what kinds of investments are being made, whether the returns will be short-term, whether the returns will be long-term.

For all these reasons I believe it is important for this resolution to pass. It states very clearly to the government that there is a need now, in view of the changes that have taken place demographically, in terms of how long people are living and how long they're living in retirement, in terms of the changes that have taken place in the economy, that pension funds are now major investors in our economy and can account for major shifts in investments and major shifts in how companies are operated.

Because of the changes that have happened, the resolution calls upon the government to look very carefully at the Pension Benefits Act and bring in amendments following this resolution which speak to the changes that have taken place in terms of demographics, in terms of retirement, in terms of the size of pension funds and the value of their investment in the economy, and finally this question of short-term benefit, long-term benefit, long-term liability.

I hope that members on all sides of the House will consider this issue in terms of its merits, in terms of the changing demographics, in terms of the size of pension funds and their impact on investments and their impact on companies and will support the resolution.

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): It's a pleasure to have the opportunity today to comment on this resolution put forward by the member opposite. The resolution we are debating suggests, and I shall quote, "There should be a mandatory requirement on the present voluntary system that wherever such plans exist, at least half of any pension committee in the administration of the plan must represent" members.

While this is a very interesting proposal, a number of questions arise that have to be addressed. With an arrangement such as is suggested by the member opposite, the membership of the plan will have an equal say in all plan decisions, yet it is the employer who will be left with all the risk.

Current private pension benefit plans stipulate the amount of the pension that will be paid to the members based on a formula related to age and years of service, and the employer is responsible for making the contributions. What if there is not enough money in the pension fund to meet its obligations? The employer will have to pay up. Right now employers are exposing themselves to risk, but they're doing so voluntarily. Under this resolution, why would there be a need to make the private system much more complex and perhaps even force employers to wind down such plans, particularly at a time when the future and direction of the Canada pension plan is under debate?

Adopting this resolution and going in this direction would also cause division within and between different members of the organization, especially when it's time to decide who is to be represented on the pension committee. Would it be just the active employees, or would part-time and full-time employees have the same representation? And how about those who are retired or who have terminated their employment and are working with a different employer but are still owed a pension?

It sounds to me like a clear case of making a system that works well into one that becomes more complex to manage. Where is the common sense in this? It doesn't seem to have any.

So many questions arise within this resolution for plans that currently have pension committees. Would they automatically be reconstituted to provide equal representation? Would the employer be able to decide that he or she, or the company, no longer wants a committee to act as administrator, or would they have to get the approval of the new committee?

In the end, the result of this resolution is to make a more complex system that gives members an equal say in all plan decisions, but the employer will be left with all the risk. Why should we institute a format that gives members powers without responsibilities? This is a recipe for forcing private employers out of providing pension benefits.

Presently, employer-sponsored pension plans are established to provide retirement income for employees to ensure that workers can retire and continue to receive some money for the rest of their lives. They have always been accepted as an efficient and effective way of providing some level of income security for retired members.

As I mentioned earlier, pension plans are presently voluntary. Whether or not a company will have a plan is up to the employer. Where there is a bargaining agent, a pension plan is often negotiated as part of a collective agreement. Where there is no agent, employees frequently ask that plans be established.

If such a plan is established, it presently must comply with the Ontario Pension Benefits Act. The PBA sets out minimum standards with which all plans in Ontario must comply, including eligibility rules for full- and part-time members; vesting and portability rights; survivor benefits in the event of death; early retirement rights; and the information that must be disclosed to plan members. It also sets out numerous reporting requirements for the employer who sponsors the plan.

As mentioned earlier, if we decide to continuously impose too many unnecessary requirements in the PBA, employers who currently provide plans may decide to wind them up. Others may decide to not offer them at all, while others might opt for a non-regulated group RRSP plan. The PBA makes the plan administrator responsible for proper management of the plan.

The administrator determines how the money in the fund will be invested, ensures that all benefits are paid, keeps all members properly informed, is responsible for filing all documents with the appropriate regulator, and makes recommendations to the employer about changes to the benefits. A plan administrator may be representative of the employer, a pension committee, an insurance company, or in the case of a multi-employer plan, usually sponsored by a union, a board of trustees is established.

Currently, if there is a pension committee, the PBA says it may be composed of representatives of plan members, but it does not mandate proportions. For most private sector plans administered by pension committees, it is rare to have equal joint representation because virtually all are non-contributory. The employer is solely responsible for the contributions.

I encourage everyone here to vote down this resolution. We as a government are not in the business of making things more complicated and inefficient, and in the end this resolution will not increase benefits for workers. If anything, it may in fact weaken the existing system.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I found the comments made by both the introducer of the resolution and the last speaker very interesting. I would just like to go back to what pension plans are really all about.

I must admit there seems to be some confusion as to how these plans come to be and who has contributed to the plans. It may very well be in certain situations that monetary contributions are made directly by the employer, but in all situations that I'm aware of, it's usually something negotiated between the employer and the employee group. To say it's all the employer's money that goes into these plans is not correct.

What we're talking about is a deferred wage or a deferred payment that the employer and the employee group, through negotiations, have determined shall be put aside for the employee so that once that person retires there's enough money available for that person to maintain a particular lifestyle and to look after them in their retirement.

To me, it seems to be more a situation of just plain old common sense. If it's something freely negotiated between the parties, regardless of who actually puts the money in, shouldn't both of those parties that have negotiated the pension plan have a say in how the pension plan is to be handled? That's really the issue here.

For too long in this country and indeed on this continent, the us-and-them attitude between management and labour ruled the day. I suppose it goes back to the beginnings of our North American way of life. Certainly there seems to be a lack of some of the coherent methods in which management and labour seem to work together in countries like Germany, Japan etc. I think one of the reasons they've been so successful economically over the last 30 or 40 years is that there has been a much closer working relationship between management and labour.

I think a lot of the problems dealing with pension funds stem from that situation. It seems to me that if somebody puts money into a plan -- and there are many plans as well, by the way, that employees put money into directly -- they ought to have a say in how that's being administered.

We've all heard of those situations, and I've got a number of examples here, where funds have been totally mismanaged by the manager of the fund when it's totally employer-controlled. We all know about the Conrad Black situation relating to Dominion a number of years ago when in effect he tried to grab all the pension funds in Saskatchewan. We also know of contributions that have been made to various political parties by pension plans which I would say the majority of the people involved in the plan or who benefited from the plan did not agree with.

You could go on and on and on, but they don't deal with the real issue. The real issue is, who should have the control over money that has been contributed to a plan, either directly or indirectly, by the employee? It seems to me to make eminent good sense that employees should have a fair say in how those moneys are to be managed.

I know there is reluctance by a lot of people who say that as soon as you have an equal representation of employees and employers in a pension plan or in any kind of situation there's going to be constant strife and you're not going to be able to reach a decision on some important matters as it affects the financial viability of the pension plan, let's say.

It's been my experience that once a person comes on to a particular committee, whether we're talking about pension plans, whether we're talking about the Ontario Housing Corp, with which I was involved for a number of years, whether we're talking about any kind of municipal organization, the people by and large don't leave their personal history behind them; obviously it's part of the package they carry into their new position. But most people in those positions strive to do what is best financially for the organization and, in this case, for the pension plan they're actually involved with.

This notion that if you're going to have an equal number of representatives from the employee groups and the employer groups, therefore you're always going to have strife, is something I don't buy into and I would dare say it's something most Ontarians don't buy into. That may have been the politics and that may have been the thinking of the past, but if we want to be competitive internationally, it's certainly something we have to leave behind. I think most employees and employers involved in these kinds of situations totally understand that.

I would like to pick up on something else that the mover of this resolution said, and that deals with the tremendous size of the pension funds that we're dealing with. I have, for example, a note here that states that well over a third of all the corporate assets in Canada are controlled by pension funds. The top 10 pension funds alone control more than $300 billion, compared to the total corporate assets of about $1 trillion. You can see how active a role they play in the economy of this country.

It is further my understanding that the $42-billion Ontario teacher pension plan alone owns the equivalent in shares of something like 2% to 3% of the entire Toronto Stock Exchange. We are not talking here about small players in our economy, small players in our stock market. They are huge players, they are important and I think they are something the contributors should have a total say over and be completely involved in, whether they're from the management side or whether they're from the employees' side.

I urge the members of this assembly not to look at the potential problems. The member across the aisle talked about certain of the problems that the particular resolution doesn't deal with specifically, and I agree with him that these little difficulties have to be ironed out. But I think what we're dealing with in this resolution is the principle of the situation, and the principle simply is that those who contribute either directly or indirectly to a pension plan surely in this day and age ought to have a say in how that pension plan is to be administered and managed. I urge everyone here to support this resolution.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the member for Rainy River's pension bill of rights. I think Mr Hampton has brought forward a resolution today that would allow the government, at least some of the backbenchers, to say, "We aren't entirely opposed to workers having a say in things that relate to their work life."

We've seen that through legislation things have been changed and we've lost that, and here's an opportunity for some of you on a free vote -- it's private members' day here in the House. This hour is ours and here's a chance for you as an individual to say that you're not entirely opposed philosophically to the idea that workers would at least have an equal say in something as important in their lives as the future and the management of their pension plan.

I found it interesting that my colleague from the government back benches, the member for Wentworth East, said -- I wrote it down and I'm quoting this -- why would you give workers "powers without responsibility"? I think what the government members in particular need to get over is this idea that somehow workers don't have a vested interest in making sure that their pension plan works for them.

I can't think of a bigger responsibility than one's own future, particularly as it relates to your ability to provide for your family in your retirement years. I would say to the members opposite that that's a greater incentive to make sure the plan works properly than just the bottom line. This idea that somehow workers would be irresponsible because they don't have the dollars on the line philosophically doesn't work, at least certainly not for me and certainly not for Howard Hampton. It doesn't make practical sense because workers have that future that I've just referred to that's their priority.

There's a further benefit to workers that needs to be recognized and I think that's an inherent part of what the member for Rainy River is putting forward; that is, it allows workers an equal say. Let's remember, this is not handing everything over to workers. It's giving them half a say in a fund they're paying for, directly or indirectly, through contributions or deferred wages and benefits in other areas. It allows the workers to have a say in where that money is invested in terms of reinvesting in the local community, reinvesting in related businesses or industries that relate to the work being done.

Bear in mind that for the company directors it may not necessarily be their top priority that that particular workplace continue to exist. It may be a greater priority, particularly if it's an international corporation or a national corporation, that its ability to do business somewhere else in Canada is more important than remaining in that particular location.

I don't think that's an unreasonable supposition. I think a lot of corporate directors would think that way,

whereas the workers sitting there would have as a top priority maintaining their jobs, maintaining their security, thereby securing the community they live in, and it allows them to look at their community as something they have a greater ownership in and of, rather than just the place where they work.

Their point of view on a given issue or on a given area of investment may vary from time to time, and many times they may agree that in the interest of the health of the corporation an investment ought to go offshore, for instance, or may need to go somewhere else, the United States, but at least the workers would have a say and they would have an equal opportunity to consider what's before them, weighing their priorities against those of perhaps the company. If they meet, terrific, and if they don't, then they can negotiate it, work it through. That is how you democratize the workplace; that is how you give workers a legitimate say in their future.

I sincerely hope that there are a number of government backbenchers who wouldn't follow necessarily whatever line they may be given by the powers that be. Take an opportunity now to show that you are not entirely opposed to the idea that workers have a right to at least half a say in something they pay for, in something they're entitled to and something that directly affects the job they're in now and, most importantly, their own future security. That's what this is.

I again want to compliment my colleague Howard Hampton, the member for Rainy River, for bringing forward this pension bill of rights, and I urge government members to join with us in supporting the concept that workers have an equal say in the future of their lives and their security.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House today to address this resolution. I'd like to also acknowledge the member for Rainy River for bringing forward this topic for debate this morning. Without a doubt, listening to his words and his debate in the House until this day, he's showing dedication to the working people in this province by trying to give them, as the member for Hamilton Centre says, more say in the investment decisions of pension funds.

What I'm going to bring to the discussion today is a certain hesitation on my part and a warning, I guess, that what this resolution, if it passed and became legislation, would do is not increase the rights of workers in pension funds but destroy a lot of pension funds that already exist. I think you'd see a windup of a great many private pension plans and you'd see a real hesitancy on the part of employers to have the kinds of pension funds we do today. I'll get into the debate of why I think that is the case.

I'd also like to salute the member for Wentworth East on his comments. I've had the opportunity to work with Ed Doyle on some committee hearings so far, and I agree with his comments. I think they're well researched and well spoken, and I'll try to add something to his comments.

It's interesting too that the Pension Benefits Act has been out for some time, I think since 1988, and through five years of the NDP power in government, they did not take the opportunity to bring this amendment to that act, perhaps as an indication that maybe when they were in government there was some hesitancy as well to make these changes, or maybe it reflects a new trend in thinking on the left. But I think that even members of the caucus before, between 1990 and 1995, may have shown the hesitancy that I want to express today.

If I could make an analogy, I spent some time discussing the Canada pension plan, especially in my riding, and actually held an open house in Port Colborne with the member for Wentworth East on the topic. There's a great deal of suspicion among the constituents in that area and throughout Ontario about the pension plan, whether the investments in that plan maximize returns, are to the best interests of the individual contributors: every working person in Ontario and in Canada. The reason is that there's suspicion of the politicization of the process. With the Canada pension plan there are contributions made and then there are benefits paid out.

Interjection.

Mr Hudak: The member for Kingston and The Islands also attended one of these hearings and he's up on the topic as well. Whenever contribution rates exceed benefits, there is an investment fund created which will be invested for long-term returns to the contributors.

But the politics come into play because the contribution rates are, in effect, a payroll tax. If the rates get too high, they act as job killers. The current plan that's been released by the federal government said that the rates may rise as high as 14.2% in the year 2030, and a great deal of concern was expressed about the effect that will have on jobs. The politics come into play where there is always a vulnerability that a politician will say: "We don't want to make this difficult decision today.

We'll put it off to future generations." The contribution rates in the history of the Canada pension plan have not been high enough, with the current level of benefits, to make the plan continue on a pay-as-you-go basis. What was expressed in these hearings was a suspicion that politicians said, "We'll put off until tomorrow, the next year, the next generation, the difficult choices." That's not fair to the contributors. That's a particular vulnerability because the CPP process has been politicized.

There are two types of pension plans in Ontario. There are the public sector plans, which are contributory. Both the employer, usually the government, and the individuals, the employees, contribute to the plans. My understanding is that there is a 50-50 representation among the administrators, which makes a certain degree of sense. If there is a deficit, because the plan is contributory, both the employer and the employee groups will increase funds or make the decisions to meet that deficit. This resolution, if it became a bill, for example, I don't think would have an effect on the public sector funds.

But the private sector funds are the issue we should address and to a large extent are not contributory. They're non-contributory, so if a deficit were to exist, the employer would have to increase the contributions to the plan. If a bad decision were made on a board, by an administrator of a fund, and a deficit did occur, then it would be the responsibility of the employer only to increase the contributions to make up for that deficit. As the member for Wentworth East said, that is giving power without responsibility, which this resolution tries to do.

The problem with that is that then a great number of employers who provide pension funds or are considering pension plans in the future are going to say:

"I'm going to be very hesitant about providing this kind of pension fund to my employees. If a bad decision is made, if I have to fund the deficit, if I have the sole responsibility for making up that deficit, why would I get into this fund in the first place? They can use the Canada pension fund, they can do their own private RRSPs. I don't want the business."

That's very dangerous. This trend we've seen to increase pension plans in the workplace would be reversed under this resolution. I'm very hesitant on that basis.

I'll move a little forward too. To address something the member for Hamilton Centre had to say, there seems to be a faith, which is not always shared on this side of the House, among the third party that representatives of unions, for example, and union shops play a white knight role, that they can come to the rescue in any particular situation, at any agency, board and commission, and set everything right. I think to a large part union representatives are very hardworking.

Some in my riding, like Rose Bisson and Dave Miscolczi and Dave Van Helvert at Customs at the Peace Bridge, act on behalf of their representatives in the union, but at the same time I don't perceive them as acting as white knights.

Use workers' compensation for an example. We had the 50-50 board. There was a great deal of concern expressed on this side of the House -- and we changed it -- and among the population that the workers' comp board could not function on a 50-50 basis. Decisions were long in coming. There was politicization there and gridlock as a result. The problem with using the failed workers' comp mechanism in private pension funds is that it's a very serious issue. If there's a gridlock over how funds should be invested, over time as returns accumulate and such at interest rates, it's a great deal of cost to the long-term viability of the plan.

If I could talk about politicization for a second -- and some people may disagree with me, but some others will agree -- if we look at Ontario Works, for example, there have been some threats in the media I've seen to the United Way. If United Way provides any funds to groups that are supporting workfare, the union reps, the union leaders are using some bullying tactics, saying they'll withdraw funds to the United Way. I think the vast majority of union workers support Ontario Works. They want to see it work in the province and they voted strongly in favour of it.

I don't think some of the threats that are being issued are representative in any way of the average union worker. It's a political process.

The danger I would express is that the same political process could come into the management of an investment fund, where a union boss on such a fund could say, "We're not going to invest in such and such a company because we don't like the way they do business," or, "We should protect this particular ideology in business," or, "We should support this trend." It's all well and good for politics, but it doesn't do anything for me in my long-term investment returns.

I think the average union worker, the average workplace person in Port Colborne, Fort Erie, Wainfleet, throughout Niagara South, is very concerned about the long-term viability of their pension, to make sure they have strong investment returns when they retire. They don't want their hard-earned savings become part of a political process.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate? The member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Applause.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Thanks so much. That's support from the member for Kingston and The Islands.

I am happy to speak in support of the bill being brought forward by our NDP colleague this morning. There's some interesting debate going on in terms of what will happen should the bill be passed. Will this government bring it forward in legislation? It's one of those bills that is brought forward because of the kind of subject matter it is. It expresses to government the need to have a look at what this issue really means and the meaning behind this coming forward.

I would admit there have been some fairly ironic instances in our recent history that would say, "Look at the irony of the Ontario teachers' pension plan funding corporations that ultimately, in this last election, were significantly supportive of the Conservative Party." There is a lot of irony there. You wonder if those kinds of happenings aren't pushing a bill like this coming forward in the House. That is unfortunately the nature of business. If we look at major companies that are being put together, there really is still only one reason why a company does exist, and that is for its profit line.

The ultimate question today, though, is, whose money is it when we talk about pensions? Is it the workers' money or is it the employer's money? The majority of moneys being put into pensions, from what I have seen in my own community, the majority of dollars are brought forward through a bargaining process on what a worker will earn when he's working or she's working with an employer. When that is bargained, and pensions too are bargained like most other things, it's a wage; it is the worker's money that is being put into the fund. In that regard, shouldn't the worker have some control over what that pension plan will do?

The member opposite just used United Way as the example, and the United Way is the best example of why unions should be very involved in what happens with employers through a United Way campaign. In my own community we have truly equal representation from employee groups and employer groups, from business and management and unions. In our city, in our county, our unions are significantly involved in working with management teams to ensure a significant, successful campaign.

The idea that employers are out not to fund pensions if they can help it or to do something other than what's in the best interests of workers is probably going too far the other way. I have rarely met an employer who isn't interested in ensuring that pension plans will always be there for their employees.

Unfortunately, they don't always control the dynamics of the economy and there have been many examples, such as those brought up by the member today introducing the bill, some really difficult circumstances, some instances where business people have simply used that pension plan as a significant little cache to go off and make other purchases and then make significant restructuring within a company that ultimately leads to massive layoffs.

I think those examples were brought forward this morning. Unfortunately there is an irony there. If it truly is the workers' money, how ironic then that it is the workers ultimately who lose their jobs, whether it's through a move to another country or whatever.

We come back to the real question of whose money it is. An employer, I think, wants to feel proud that he can offer his or her employees a pension in most cases. In the huge amounts of money that have been mentioned already, the kind of money generated in some of these pension plans, millions upon millions of dollars, the majority of that money is bargained for. That pension plan is a bargained pension plan and is part and parcel of a compensation for work.

I feel that workers should have a say in what happens to that. Whether that say should be a full 50% may be up for further debate, but that they shouldn't be allowed to sit at the table and discuss what's going to happen with the pension plan is probably unreasonable. There's no question that workers sitting around a table looking at a much larger number of retirees than ever before, a significant aging of the population where we'll have more and more people who are retired living longer and very dependent on those pension plans means that those pensions need to be secure.

When you have people who are directly benefiting from the security of that pension and those people helping to make the decisions that will ensure the viability of the pension plan, there is absolutely no reason why those people should not be sitting at the table and assisting in that kind of decision-making.

We hope the government will have a look at this issue. I hope this member's bill this morning will allow this government to come forward and say, "Maybe we can address this." Whether they will come forward and specifically ensure that at least one half of the members of any committee or board responsible for the plan and fund adminstration be representative of members of the pension plan -- maybe it's not 50%, but I think it would go a long way to ensuring that employers and employees can sit together to decide the future that ultimately will be the safety of pensioners in Ontario.

I support the bill and I hope that all the members in the House today will.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I also rise today very happy to participate in the debate and to congratulate the member for Rainy River, Howard Hampton, for bringing it forward because he allows us in this place at this time to focus on an issue that is fundamental to the future of this province.

He presents to us an opportunity to participate in a decision that could contribute in a very positive way to a more focused and direct attack on a challenge that we all face in Ontario today, which is how we develop an economy that's going to work for us, that's going to be in our best interests and that will hold us in good stead as we move into the next century and as we deal with the winds that come at us as we more and more realize the impact of the global economy that we're in.

Certainly there are, in my mind, more things today re this issue that we should be agreeing on than disagreeing on. I don't think there's anybody in this place who doesn't agree that over the last five to 10, even 15 years in this province we've been challenged by a lack of capital to invest in the things that we know are good ideas. To create wealth, to provide jobs and to contribute positively to the economy that we all depend on to maintain the quality of life that we've all come to appreciate and want to maintain in this province, there's a need for capital.

We also, I think, agree that everybody needs to be involved in whatever way that is able to be realized. Not only is it not feasible or even intelligent any more that a small group of people be the only ones investing capital, investing their resources in the future of this province; we all need to be, in the ways that are made available to us, taking whatever resources we have and maximizing the potential so that investment can return rewards that can be shared by everybody in the jurisdiction of Ontario. So I think we agree.

We agree that we need some capital, that there's a lack of capital, and we agree that everybody should be involved in contributing, because we all have access to -- in some small way; some people, in some larger way -- resources that we can put in so that collectively we can all gain.

As we look at the reality today and the pools of capital that are out there and the fact that more and more they're controlled by forces outside of our influence, I think it's important that we try to figure out which ones we can still have influence over. Certainly, nobody would disagree that pension funds are substantial and we have still some control over where they're spent and how they're invested.

What we're suggesting today is that we extend the role of all of us in the decision-making around where those funds are invested because the impact on all of us directly and substantially will have a tremendous impact on where we go as a people together, concerned about the future economy of this province and how it will evolve.

I want to just very briefly speak for a moment about the contribution that workers can make to the decision-making around where these funds are invested and how they're managed. What they bring to the table is their own experience, their own commonsense approach to managing money in their own lives and the need for any capital to concern themselves about the impact that they have on the communities within which they live and to which they want to contribute.

In Sault Ste Marie, for example, we were faced in the early 1990s with a major challenge, a major dilemma. Algoma Steel was in trouble and the major investor was pulling out, and what were we going to do? The government of the day decided that it would bring to the table all of the players, including the union in that instance. Today we have a corporation that was on the rocks no less than five years ago out there leading the way in the steel industry, making profits like it's never made before and contributing to the life of Sault Ste Marie and I dare say this province in ways that none of us, I think, would have imagined in 1990 and 1991 as we went through those very difficult times.

So I say to you today that you should consider very seriously allowing a greater contribution by those who contribute directly to this fund in the decisions around where it will be invested because it's important that we have somebody at that table who understands the need of the people and the communities of Ontario for investment in the resources that they see around them to generate wealth and to create opportunity. Who any better able to do that than the workers themselves?

Just look for a second at the contribution the organized labour movement has made to the quality of life of this province over the last 30, 40, 50 years. Nobody can deny that. Most of us here are here today because of the education system and the health care system and the opportunity that our forefathers had to participate in the economy and to make a half-decent living so that we could buy things and by that way stimulate the economy as well.

If we look at the contribution that the labour movement made in the specific instance of my own community, the restructuring of Algoma Steel, and if you go back even a little further, the development of the Group Health Centre in Sault Ste Marie, how progressive and thoughtful and intelligent that contribution was.

I don't think you can for a minute underestimate or not stand and support the resolution this morning put in front of you by the member for Rainy River, the member of my political party and caucus in this place, Howard Hampton.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): In the moments remaining, I too would like to add my support to this resolution, as the member for Rainy River has put it forward. I want to add to the comments of my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich, that maybe it isn't necessary that 50% be employees, but because it means so much to the future of any individuals to their retirement future and it means so much to them, that employees in organized situations or in companies that provide pension plans in an unorganized employee environment have the opportunity to discuss those important issues regarding the pension.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): It's a pleasure to get up today and support the resolution brought forward by Howard Hampton, the member for Rainy River, on equal representation on pension plan administration and investment.

I believe this resolution is very important at this time in our history because, as we know, we're talking about big dollars. We're not talking about a few million dollars; we're talking about up to $360 billion sitting out there. Howard Hampton, with the NDP caucus, is very much concerned that this money is invested properly and on behalf of workers, and that the workers have a say in it.

I just want to give a little bit of history. In my home town, Kapuskasing, we had Kimberly-Clark and New York Times, who owned a paper mill and a pulp mill. They decided in 1983 that they were going to start to dismantle the mill and close it down. In 1987 they shut down the sawmill; in 1983 they had shut down the Kleenex mill; in 1989 they decided they were going to shut down the number one paper machine.

As a result of the Canadian Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union coming forward and being the driving force, they decided they were going to meet with our NDP government at the time -- we're talking about five years ago now -- and they were going to take over the mill. They have 59% shares in the mill.

When Howard Hampton says the government should bring in legislation of this kind, it's happening in Kapuskasing with the employee ownership. At the last negotiations, when union representatives sitting on the board of directors and on the pension plan found out that Kimberly-Clark and New York Times had left them with a shortfall of over $28 million, they decided, "At the bargaining table we'll defer some more of our wages into this so the pension plan stays active and is going to cover all of the pensioners out there, a future generation of pensioners coming along."

There is cooperation and there is worker involvement in some places. In Sault Ste Marie they're involved in Algoma Steel. As I said, in Spruce Falls Inc in Kapuskasing, in partnership with Tembec, the union was the driving force. Had they not been, both the Conservative and Liberal governments during the 1980s would have allowed this company to shut down, and you would have ended up with a ghost town in Kapuskasing. We were fortunate at that time. We pulled all of the stakeholders together.

The chamber of commerce was involved at first, but it took the driving force of the workers themselves saying: "Pension plans are a deferred wage. Our wages would be a lot higher if it were not for the company controlling a pension plan." As a result, they have a lot of say and control over what is happening and they should have a 50% share on the board of directors.

I'm happy that Howard Hampton, the member for Rainy River, has brought this resolution forward and I will be supporting it.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Rainy River has two minutes to sum up.

Mr Hampton: I want to use this time to address some comments made by members in the debate on the resolution. One member opposite said that somehow having workers with equal representation on pension fund committees would result in the politicization of those decisions. The member should read the Pension Benefits Act, because the act sets out clearly the legal duties of anyone who works on or makes decisions with respect to the investment of pensions.

It applies equally to worker representatives, to retiree representatives or to professional administrators. It requires them always to act in the best financial interest of the fund. They incur great legal liability if they act in any other way or for any other purpose. In fact, it probably imposes the highest duty that the law knows, a fiduciary duty, to act in the utmost best interest of the fund.

For those members of the Conservative Party who think that somehow allowing workers to have a say in something that is vitally important to them and vitally important to their quality of life when they retire will result in the politicization of all kinds of decisions, that is without any legal merit and, moreover, without any factual merit.

The point is simply this: The demographics of Ontario, the demographics of Canada are changing. People retire earlier and they live longer after they retire, which means that their pension funds are becoming more and more important in terms of the returns. Secondly, pension funds are becoming huge investors in our economy. For those reasons it makes sense that workers have some say in those investments and in those returns.

IMPORTATION OF WASTE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE TRANSFERT DE DÉCHETS

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will first deal with ballot item number 35 standing in the name of Mr Ramsay. If any members are opposed to the vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Ramsay has moved second reading of Bill 56,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act and the Waste Management Act, 1992 with respect to the Importation of Waste from one municipality into another. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

PENSION PLANS

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will deal now with ballot item number 36.

Mr Hampton has moved private member's resolution number 21. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1158 to 1203.

IMPORTATION OF WASTE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE TRANSFERT DE DÉCHETS

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Mr Ramsay has moved second reading of Bill 56. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Boyd, Marion

Gerretsen, John

Laughren, Floyd

Bradley, James J.

Grandmaître, Bernard

Martin, Tony

Caplan, Elinor

Hampton, Howard

McGuinty, Dalton

Christopherson, David

Kennedy, Gerard

Pupatello, Sandra

Colle, Mike

Kormos, Peter

Ramsay, David

Cooke, David S.

Kwinter, Monte

Ruprecht, Tony

Crozier, Bruce

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Sergio, Mario

Duncan, Dwight

Lankin, Frances

Wood, Len

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Grimmett, Bill

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Baird, John R.

Guzzo, Garry J.

Sampson, Rob

Barrett, Toby

Hastings, John

Shea, Derwyn

Bassett, Isabel

Hudak, Tim

Sheehan, Frank

Beaubien, Marcel

Johnson, Ron

Skarica, Toni

Chudleigh, Ted

Jordan, Leo

Smith, Bruce

Danford, Harry

Leadston, Gary L.

Stewart, R. Gary

DeFaria, Carl

Martiniuk, Gerry

Tilson, David

Doyle, Ed

Maves, Bart

Turnbull, David

Ford, Douglas B.

Munro, Julia

Vankoughnet, Bill

Fox, Gary

Murdoch, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Froese, Tom

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Wood, Bob

Galt, Doug

Pettit, Trevor

Young, Terence H.

Gilchrist, Steve

Preston, Peter

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 24; the nays are 41.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

Before I move to the second order I will cause the doors to open for 30 seconds.

PENSION PLANS

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Mr Hampton has moved private member's notice of motion number 21. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Boyd, Marion

Grandmaître, Bernard

Martin, Tony

Bradley, James J.

Hampton, Howard

McGuinty, Dalton

Christopherson, David

Kennedy, Gerard

Pupatello, Sandra

Colle, Mike

Kormos, Peter

Ramsay, David

Cooke, David S.

Kwinter, Monte

Ruprecht, Tony

Crozier, Bruce

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Sergio, Mario

Duncan, Dwight

Lankin, Frances

Wildman, Bud

Gerretsen, John

Laughren, Floyd

Wood, Len

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please stand and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Grimmett, Bill

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Baird, John R.

Guzzo, Garry J.

Sampson, Rob

Barrett, Toby

Hastings, John

Shea, Derwyn

Bassett, Isabel

Hudak, Tim

Sheehan, Frank

Beaubien, Marcel

Johnson, Ron

Skarica, Toni

Chudleigh, Ted

Jordan, Leo

Smith, Bruce

Danford, Harry

Leadston, Gary L.

Stewart, R. Gary

DeFaria, Carl

Martiniuk, Gerry

Tilson, David

Doyle, Ed

Maves, Bart

Turnbull, David

Ford, Douglas B.

Munro, Julia

Vankoughnet, Bill

Fox, Gary

Murdoch, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Froese, Tom

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Wood, Bob

Galt, Doug

Pettit, Trevor

Young, Terence H.

Gilchrist, Steve

Preston, Peter

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 24; the nays are 41.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed for today, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 pm.

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): We have been urging the Ministry of Health to have a very good look at Essex county in the area of doctor shortages. As you know, this has been a pressing issue for some time. I would like to direct my comments to all members of the House, in particular to the member for Lincoln, the chairman of the Red Tape Review Commission.

As you know, we were directed by the minister to submit information, and a package needed to be filled in on underserviced areas. We received our response from that submission and we were told that yes, you must fill in these details in order to get your designation:

"Should municipalities and/or townships wish to work together to address these issues and combine their efforts in applying for designation, each municipality and township must pass a resolution that they want to be considered together and that they will not be applying for designation on their own."

It goes on to list the various levels of bureaucracy that we must overcome in order to be designated an underserviced area.

We have some 40,000 people in Essex county who cannot access a family doctor. I would submit to the member for Lincoln that this is red tape at its finest. What were all those presentations we had last week of the Red Tape Review Commission report? They have done absolutely no good in terms of what is really needed in communities across Ontario. In the case of Essex county, and certainly in Windsor and LaSalle, we don't have enough doctors.

CHILD POVERTY

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): We in Canada were very proud in 1992, when the United Nations ranked Canada as average or above average in most areas as one of the best places in the world to live. This week the UN handed out its report card on the state of the world's children, and Canada was found not to be a great place for children.

"Canada has the second-highest number of poor children among 18 industrialized countries, with more than one in seven living in poverty. The United States has the most," the model that this government wants to follow.

"Canada ranks 24th out of 34 countries for suicide among young females; 22nd for suicide among young males. The rate for females is six per 100,000, for men it's 24.7 per 100,000.

"Canada ranks 22nd out of 44 countries in births to teenage mothers with 27 births per 1,000 females. The US record is 64 per 1,000; Japan has the least at four per 1,000."

As the report points out, this is not the worst news, because when it comes to aboriginal children, their problems are by far greater. The suicide rate, for example, is seven times that of the high rate that we have for other children in this country.

As we do our work in this place, let us remember that Canada is not a great place for kids, but we can make it so.

NEILL-WYCIK COLLEGE-HOTEL

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): I had the pleasure recently of visiting a business operation in Toronto that stands as a proud example of how young people are able to manage a successful business enterprise in Ontario.

In the heart of this city is a facility called Neill-Wycik College-Hotel. This building operates as a residence during the school year, housing 800 students from Ryerson, George Brown and the University of Toronto. In the summer months Neill-Wycik operates as a successful budget hotel, last year providing accommodation for over 24,000 guests.

Most impressive about this facility has been its ability to consistently operate with excellent profits without assistance of any government grants. I understand from the Neill-Wycik hotel desk supervisor, Michelle Walker, that last year combined revenue from student residents and the summer hotel operations totalled $3.5 million. This enabled the hotel to make over $1,600,000 in building upgrades while still finishing with a significant profit. This is truly an example of what our young business minds are capable of today.

I congratulate the students and staff of Neill-Wycik College-Hotel on its 26th year of operation in our province.

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Today the Minister of Health released his plan to encourage physicians to work in underserviced communities. While this is a positive first step, my colleagues and I in the Liberal caucus have a number of concerns.

We believe that alternatives to fee-for-service payment plans are a positive initiative. However, we wonder why the minister is moving so slowly to support alternative funding and alternative payment plans which allow communities to develop solutions that will work for them.

Unfortunately, the plan outlined by the minister today only addresses a very small percentage of Ontario underserviced communities: those under 10,000 population. There are underserviced communities which need action and assistance now, and I ask the minister what these communities are supposed to do.

The Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario released a report in April this year. They have not had any communication with the minister until today, no consultation whatever since they released their report, and they have raised a number of concerns about today's announcement. Among their concerns: no new provisions for specialist backup, no changes in locum support and no new news regarding educational opportunities in northern and rural Ontario.

While this initiative is only a first step we, the Liberal caucus and other groups, including PAIRO, believe that this support is a piecemeal approach and is only part of an answer of serious maldistribution. The people in Ontario's underserviced communities, both large and small, deserve access to the health care they need. We call on the government to announce a comprehensive plan to ensure services are available in underserviced communities in Ontario.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): It appears that the Ministry of Natural Resources, along with the Ministry of Environment and Energy, is conspiring to deny traditional and local users reasonable access to public lakes and the use of publicly funded roads.

I refer specifically to this government's practices regarding the Black River forest management plan. MNR is simply denying right of passage of taxpaying members of my riding and taxpaying members of my community. I'm greatly concerned that this government is establishing an unfriendly environment when tourists from outside jurisdictions, mainly Americans, have more rights than our own Ontarians and our own citizens.

Under the plan you're simply, and I'm addressing the government with respect, cheating local residents out of fulfilling their inherited right to full access to these resources. Instead, this is what is being proposed. You are looking at us as exploiters and at the same time looking at American tourists as saviours of our resources.

Let's restore the playing field. We helped to build this country to what it is today. It's only natural and commonsensical that we should have at least equal access to our own resources.

LIQUOR LICENSING

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): To give improved protection to neighbourhoods that find themselves victimized by operators of licensed premises that consistently violate the letter or spirit of the Liquor Licence Act, I rise today to call upon the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to amend the Liquor Licence Act to give effect to enhancing community protection and empowerment.

Specifically, I call upon the minister to consider the introduction of amending legislation that would give the liquor licence board or minister the authority to preclude site-specifically the granting of any liquor licence for two years at any location where a licence has been revoked and where strong community support for such action is evidenced through public hearings; and further, that no licence subject to a revocation hearing be permitted to be transferred to any other individual or corporation until the hearing process has been completed and the local community has been given an opportunity to make interventions; and further, that should the LLBO revocation tribunal revoke a licence, it be authorized to also give consideration to salting the earth so that the property in question be sterilized in such a way as to preclude the granting of any licence to that location for two years and that the licensee be prohibited from applying for a liquor licence for a similar period.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This week St Catharines General Hospital announced that it is laying off an unprecedented 20% of its workforce; 220 hardworking women and men will have to pay the price of a funding shortfall from the provincial government. In fact, the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris has slashed $9 million in funding over the next three years from the General, the stiffest cut to any hospital in the Niagara region.

While the administration of hospitals across the province will contend publicly that these substantial reductions in staff levels will not affect the level and quality of care for patients, no one can come to the conclusion that a cut in the staffing level will result in anything less than a lowering of the level of service that a hospital can provide. Ask those who have been patients in hospitals in recent months whether the level of care that staff are able to provide is as good as it was 10 years ago and almost invariably the answer will be negative.

What the Harris government has been most successful at is the art of intimidation. Institutions and organizations that have been cut off at the knees by drastic cuts in health care funding have been silenced all too often by the implied threat that the hospital will be cut even further or closed. This is ill-treatment of our hospitals by the Harris government and a breaking of its promise on health care.

WORKFARE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): You may have noticed, Speaker, that Niagara region was graced, if you can call it that, with the presence of David Tsubouchi, the Minister of Community and Social Services, yesterday, where he received a most unpleasant welcome because he came with the most unpleasant news, his announcement of so-called workfare.

The folks down in Niagara region are mad as hell because, you see, they don't want workfare, they want jobs. They don't want welfare, they want real work with real pay, where they can participate in the economy of their communities.

Workfare isn't a novel concept down in Niagara region because way back in the last recession it was Mitch Hepburn's hussars who came down to Crowland to force relief recipients to dig ditches at gunpoint during the Crowland sewer strike. Folks down in Niagara can't be fooled by this government and by its attack on working people and its attack on jobs. Folks down in Niagara, where you've got double-digit unemployment growing every day as we witness layoff after layoff, pink slip after pink slip in the public sector, and yes, as this government undermines the economy of this province in the private sector -- the folks in Niagara are saying thanks but no thanks to Mike Harris and the Tories.

The people in Niagara want jobs, they want an economy that's growing. To paraphrase the famous country and western singer Johnny Paycheck, "Take your workfare and shove it."

AGRIBUSINESS PARK

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): In Northumberland, a local company, Norag Resources, is set to turn part of the Ontario Hydro land at Wesleyville into an agribusiness park to serve farm operations in central and eastern Ontario. The agribusiness park is a first for eastern Ontario and could serve producers from as far east as the Ottawa Valley. It is initially expected to create 10 new full-time jobs, with a promise for many more in the future.

Norag's principal members are Ben Curelli of the Canton area, owner of Gananasqua Grain, and Paul Wilson of Port Hope, owner of Strictly Business Computers. Bob Clarke of Clarke Consulting Services in Cobourg is a project manager for the Wesleyville plan.

The company has arranged a long-term lease for about seven hectares of land on the Wesleyville site. The project's first confirmed tenant is Agrico Canada. Other confirmed tenants include an agricultural processing facility and a grain terminal.

This new agribusiness park will benefit many local farmers who are now forced to send their products west of Toronto for processing. The Wesleyville operation will save them a substantial amount of time and money with reduced transportation costs and travel.

Northumberland is a major agricultural community and it has reached the stage where it needs its own centralized agricultural facilities.

I am confident that the policies of this government by making Ontario a more attractive place to set up new businesses -- that my riding will see many new ventures and investments in the future.

VISITORS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today the consul generals of Brazil, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Korea, Malta, and Trinidad and Tobago. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): This government is committed to environmental assessment as a way to safeguard Ontario's environment and natural resources. As the honourable members know, it was a Progressive Conservative government that created the Environmental Assessment Act.

That was 1975. Now, 20 years later, it's clear that environmental assessment needs to be modernized, be made more accessible to everyone early on and be refocused on strong environmental protection.

Over the years we've seen too many projects, especially waste management projects, get sidetracked on open-ended procedural wrangling with no tangible environmental benefits.

Previous governments promised change and delivered on a series of administrative reforms. They failed to carry through with legislative reforms to solve problems with the EA process. Their efforts, however, provided a framework for the long-overdue reforms that I am announcing today.

We are capitalizing on that 20 years of experience here in Ontario and updating the act to make it less costly, more timely and more effective.

Environmental protection remains the overriding objective of the act.

The public's right to a say early on in the process will be for the first time enshrined in legislation.

A full environmental assessment will still be required and the key elements of the environmental assessment are maintained, including the broad definition of the environment, the examination of alternatives, the role of the Environmental Assessment Board as an independent decision-maker.

These amendments will ensure high-quality environmental protection while making it easier for people to participate in the decision-making process.

This is great news for the environment.

Our proposals focus on four areas.

Public access: Right at the earlier stages of the process there will be a guarantee of public consultation for all affected parties. This will ensure that issues are identified and resolved early on.

Upfront and clear direction to all stakeholders will be detailed in terms of reference prepared by the proponents. These terms of reference, approved by the minister, will become the benchmarks for preparing and evaluating the environmental assessment and will be legally binding.

Time lines: Time lines will be established at the front end for all the key steps in decision-making processes. These time lines will benefit all stakeholders, provide more certainty and ensure the proponents can get decisions in a timely fashion. Deadlines will also be imposed on hearings before the Environmental Assessment Board. New powers will be given to the minister to ensure that a mediation process is in place to resolve disputes early on in the process.

We will harmonize Ontario's environmental assessment process with federal legislation to ensure that one project undergoes one assessment.

When environmental assessment was introduced over 20 years ago, it had the unanimous support of all parties. I believe that previous governments, like ours, know that the process needs to be fixed and I call on them to support these reforms as they proceed through the Legislature.

These amendments announced today will help us deliver better environmental protection through a process that is more timely, more certain and more accessible to everyone.

ALCOHOL AND GAMING INITIATIVES

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Last month, the Minister of Finance announced in the budget our plans to establish charity gaming halls and introduce video lotteries in Ontario. These gaming initiatives will bring broad economic benefits to the people of Ontario by increasing the flow of funds to charities across the province and by assisting the racing and hospitality industries to compete and grow.

We are determined to accomplish these initiatives in a measured and controlled fashion. Later today, on behalf of my ministry and that of my colleague the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, I will be tabling legislation to ensure our objectives are met.

As the finance minister said last month, we are committed to the establishment of a tightly regulated, government-controlled network of video lotteries for a number of reasons. An important one is countering illegal gaming activity and imposing some needed discipline and control in Ontario's gaming marketplace. We also believe that these lottery machines, if implemented within tight regulatory controls and in limited access environments, can meet a legitimate entertainment demand and provide a significant stimulus to the racing and hospitality industries.

Legislative changes are necessary to establish clear guidelines and implement the gaming initiatives. The use of existing legislation would result in needless duplication, for example, in matters of enforcement. The legislation I will be introducing today therefore will merge two existing regulatory bodies and amend acts to achieve these tightly regulated, government-controlled initiatives. I will be tabling legislation that will merge the Liquor Licen