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

October 20, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L091 - Thu 20 Oct 1988 / Jeu 20 oct 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

WASTE DISPOSAL

INTEGRATED RAIL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

WASTE DISPOSAL

INTEGRATED RAIL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

FIRE PREVENTION

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION

MISS OTTAWA ROUGH RIDER

ERINOAK

HAZARDOUS WASTE

USE OF TIME IN ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HEALTHY LIFESTYLES PROMOTION PROGRAM

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

CONSUMER WEEK / LA SEMAINE DU CONSOMMATEUR

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY / SANTÉ ET SÉCURITÉ DU TRAVAIL

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

HEALTHY LIFESTYLES PROMOTION PROGRAM

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

CONSUMER WEEK

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

HEALTHY LIFFSTYLES PROMOTION PROGRAM

CONSUMER WEEK

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

COMMUNITY AND HOME SUPPORT SERVICES

MEMBERS’ ANNIVERSARIES

WASTE MANAGEMENT

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

LEGAL AID

EDUCATION

RED MEAT PLAN

COURT FACILITIES

ROUGE VALLEY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

SCHEDULING OF MEETINGS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

LANDFILL SITE

HOMES FOR THE AGED AND NURSING HOMES

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

PETITIONS

CANADA POST

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NATUROPATHY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 111

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 112

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Brandt moved resolution 43:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the Ministry of the Environment has identified over 300 waste disposal sites in Ontario as possibly posing hazards to human health and the environment, and given that three years has passed since the Minister of the Environment first promised to establish an environmental superfund to clean up these waste disposal sites, the government should establish immediately a provincial environmental superfund to deal with the cleanup of leaking municipal and industrial landfill sites, to handle potential environmental problems related to the operation of waste disposal facilities, and thereby prevent further deterioration of our natural environment and reduce the threat to human health.

Mr. Brandt: With some reluctance I place this particular motion before the House, in that I feel there is a responsibility on the part of the government to fulfil promises that it made in the various election campaigns we have experienced over the course of the past few years. This was one of the most important pillars of the 1985 election, I believe.

In that particular election there was a promise made that a $30-million cleanup fund or superfund, if you like, an environmental response to a serious problem that had developed in this province, was going to be committed by this province, in order to address the whole question of cleanup of some of the unacceptable, harmful and, in fact, extremely sensitive landfill sites that existed in many parts of the province.

The estimates are quite startling when one looks at them. There are approximately 3,850 landfill sites in the various parts of Ontario. Of those, according to the Ministry of the Environment itself, some 10 per cent have been identified as being of a matter of real, serious concern to the Ministry of the Environment. We have fully about 385 sites, close to 400 sites, if you will, in the province, that would require attention in the form of the $30 million that I have identified and $30 million which was, frankly, promised by the members opposite, by their leader, during the course of an election campaign when I think a large number of people in this province voted in favour of such a fund.

It is interesting to note as well that our party introduced a similar fund for a somewhat larger number of dollars in the aborted throne speech just before the change of power in 1985. Aside from the politics of the situation, let me simply say that I believe there is some concurrence and some agreement within all three parties that we are going to have to address this question.

Earlier this week I asked for an emergency debate on the environment, specifically directed towards the need to establish some methodology by which we could face the problem directly, on how we are going to bring about an improvement in the way in which we are addressing the municipal landfill site problem. We had a healthy debate at that particular time with respect to some of the issues that are very real and, I think, of concern to members on all sides of the House.

But it really begs the question that if we have some 400 sites out there that are of concern -- and this is what my resolution this morning is directed towards and what it addresses -- sites that are creating a leachate problem, sites that are contaminating ground water and sites that in some instances are contaminating ground water and ultimately drinking water, then obviously we have a responsibility to find some form of remedial action that will address that particular question.

It is not going to be easy, and I recognize that. In fact, the fund I am proposing to be initiated, and which this government has promised to introduce, is probably inadequate once we get at the job, but we have to get started somewhere and we have to get started rather quickly.

Some of these sites will require relatively minor adjustments, perhaps a leachate collection system. Others will require some kind of total degree of attention on the part of the municipalities and on the part of the province and may require the complete removal of some of the toxic contaminants that we know are to be found in some of those landfill sites.

It is a very serious question. It is a very, very critical problem, not only as it relates to the existing 3,800 landfill sites that are scattered throughout this province and the contaminated and dangerous ones that have already been identified but also as there is the need for the development of some sort of safe landfill site policy for the future.

I want to say to the member of Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke), who is interrupting me at this time, that one just simply cannot cop out and indicate or take the position that incineration is unsafe, that energy from waste is unsafe, that municipal landfill sites are unsafe and that therefore one is paralysed into total inaction, because the problem is that in this province we are still generating approximately two pounds of garbage per person per day. It runs into millions of tons of garbage that has to be dealt with in some fashion.

The minister stood up proudly this week in response to a question I addressed to him and said: “Here is what we have done. To the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), let me suggest to you that we have increased the amount of money which is directed towards recycling in this province from $750,000 when you were the minister, and it is now $7 million. That is a 10-fold increase.”

I have no response to the minister other than to say I think that is a very positive step in the right direction. Had I been sitting in his seat over the past three years, I probably would have done likewise with a program which I introduced and which he has found to be of value to his ministry. All he has done is he has increased the amount of money directed towards that program.

Let me say, and I do not say this with the intention of simply being dramatic, if the minister were to take that $7 million and increase it 10-fold to $70 million, it would not address the problem. Recycling would still not be a sufficiently large percentage of the total volume of garbage that has to be dealt with in this province. I am not speaking about political verbiage either when I speak of garbage, but of the total amount of garbage that has to be dealt with --

Mr. Dietsch: It would take some landfill to take all that.

Mr. Brandt: I knew that would wake him up.

Of the total amount of garbage that has to be dealt with in this province, a 10-fold increase in the current budget would still be insufficient. I will let that sit with the members opposite, who are so proud of the $7 million they are dedicating towards this most worthy cause but is addressing the problem in a most insufficient way.

The minister, who is not in attendance this morning, may be interested to learn that we have landfill sites such as the Glenridge landfill site in the great community of St. Catharines in the Niagara region. That particular landfill site would be very high on the priority list of any government that wanted to address a remedial program for cleanup, because in this particular landfill site we have basement flooding that has occurred, and we have leachate or, in layman’s terms, the spread of contaminants from the landfill site itself beyond the bounds of the property of the landfill site.

We have had sewage overflows in the Glenridge site. It is unacceptable when that kind of situation, perhaps to a lesser degree, is repeated time and again in various locations across the province.

I say that the minister and the government have a responsibility in the first instance to address what they have not done and what they have promised to do, which is to commit to a cleanup superfund in the amount of at least $30 million to address problems of the past. They have to take the next logical step as well; that is to get themselves out of this state of inertia they find themselves in and to move towards addressing one of the most serious, most critical and most difficult problems that our province is going to have to face not only today but in the years ahead, which is to find an adequate method of disposing of waste in our province.

I ask the members opposite, in a totally nonpartisan way, if they find it acceptable that the community of Hatton has spent $18 million over 14 years in an attempt to address its municipal waste problem without a solution. Irrespective of who may be found in the wrong or who may be found guilty or who may be found insufficient in responding to that problem, I ask the members opposite whether that seems reasonable and logical.

I ask if one can accept that a municipality would be put to the wall financially in the amount of $18 million and that after some 14 years the solution they have come up with is that they are going to send, and have been sending, at a cost of $1 million a month, their waste generated at a rate of two pounds per person per day, to the state of New York.

Mr. Wildman: That’s free trade.

Mr. Brandt: That is another form of free trade. It certainly is.

What are they going to do with this garbage in the state of New York? Very simply, they are going to incinerate it. Now, if you were to speak with the current Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) about incineration, he would say: “Wait a minute. There is a problem with incineration in this province. We have already closed an incinerator in Metro Toronto because it was proven to be unhealthy. In fact, it was proven to be an incinerator that caused octachlorodioxins and dibenzofurans to be emitted from the stack, and both dioxins and furans are known carcinogens.”

Incineration is unacceptable, but is it acceptable to have incineration in another jurisdiction, the state of New York, where the very same fumes go up the stack and disperse over the province of Ontario?

Mr. Wildman: What about your federal confrères in the PC party?

Mr. Brandt: If my friend is suggesting that municipal garbage is also a federal responsibility, I say to him that in the first instance -- and I recognize this, as a former mayor and someone who sat on a municipal council for some 10 years -- it is in fact a municipal responsibility. I also say the problem has grown in magnitude and severity to the degree that it is now very much a provincial responsibility as well.

I say further to my friend that it is a national responsibility in the sense that I will concur with, support and wholeheartedly get behind a national superfund or cleanup that will address these kinds of problems in all parts of this great country of ours, because that is exactly what is going to be required in the ultimate end.

The problems of the past have been created not because of negligence, not because of oversights and not because of a lack of recognition of the environmental impact of landfill sites, but simply because this issue, the science of hydrology, the science of what happens to a landfill site over a long number of years, was simply not as widely known and as well understood 10, 20 or 50 years ago as it is today. We have to address ourselves immediately to what the problem is today and how we are going to address that problem.

The measures suggested by the current government in 1985 with respect to the $30 million are a very positive start. But after three years, why do we not have a start? Why do we not have some beginning? Why do we not have some landfill sites being addressed so that over a period of time we can remove these 400 hazardous sites from the roster. Then we can at least go to communities like St. Catharines and Peterborough, which also has a problem landfill site, as well as many other communities and say to them, “We are going to pay some attention to a problem that has been established in your community for some time through its landfill site, and we are going to clean it up.”

It can be done. We have the scientific knowledge today, we have the technology today, but do we have the environmental will to get on with this job? I say that time is quickly running out on us, because this type of contamination in these types of landfill sites is simply unacceptable, given the known factors associated with these landfill sites today -- something we did not know 10, 15 or 20 years ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: The members laugh. I happened to spend two years in the Ministry of the Environment as technology was developing with respect to the detection of very minute particles of certain types of toxic chemicals. We did not have the technology I 0 or 20 years ago to be able to understand some of these problems as well as we do today.

Now that we understand them, however, does that give the government an excuse to move absolutely nowhere with this problem? Does that give them an excuse not to fulfil a commitment that they made? I suggest it does not. I suggest they do have an unfulfilled election promise out there which I feel very strongly about and which my colleagues are very concerned about.

I want to say to the government that if it decides to embark on a course of action where it will initiate, at least as a start, the $30 million towards the cleanup of the sites that have been identified as being dangerous, our party will support that kind of initiative. Although I have not talked to them, I feel confident that the official opposition would support that kind of initiative as well, because in fact it has called for that in the past, as have many members of the current government.

I ask the members to support this resolution. I ask them to support it in a spirit of nonpartisanship, in a spirit of addressing an overwhelming, serious and critical problem environmentally which has to be addressed as soon as is humanly possible.

Mr. McClelland: I know all my colleagues in this House today agree very much with the previous speaker, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), that the problems we face today from leaking landfill sites all across this province need to be dealt with. They are a concern to all our communities in terms of health and in terms of the environmental integrity of our communities Those problems have to be addressed, and this government is committed to doing exactly that.

If one were to examine a list of the landfill sites, one would find that the vast majority of those sites that are causing concerns today were established in the past, when environmental standards and policies unfortunately were not even close to being as strict as this government’s. The policies at that time were not even close to the policies that this government has in place today. In the last three years we have put standards in place that do not make application for landfill sites simply more paperwork. They are tough, they are comprehensive and they are designed to protect the environment.

Since coming to power three years ago, this government has introduced new policies to control properly the development and operation of landfill sites. This government has introduced these policies to ensure that the legacy of the leaking landfill sites and the problems that we were handed will not be handed to the next generation, totally unlike the situation that this government was handed.

Now, the member for Sarnia talks about things that need to be done, but I think it will be of interest to you, Mr. Speaker, to the members in this House and to the people of this province to look at exactly what has been done. The province has introduced a policy that we call, for the information of my friends opposite, land use on or near landfills and dumps. That policy provides direct direction on land use on or near operating or nonoperating landfills, regardless of who owns them. This policy recognizes that landfill sites have effects far beyond the land on which they are situated.

That is hardly an earth-shattering conclusion, one might say, but for years there was no policy, until our government decided to deal with that.

This province has another policy. Our policy is entitled the role of the Ministry of the Environment in emergencies and spills. For the first time, we have set out a description of the role that this ministry has in protecting life, property and the environment during emergencies and spills. One can only wonder why the former government failed to recognize the need for such a policy. Notwithstanding a lot of rhetoric and sitting there on the shelf for many years, it took our government to get that off the shelf and enacted very shortly after taking office three years ago.

As well, the province has now incorporated the reasonable use concept into the Ministry of the Environment ground water management activities. The underground aquifer is no longer a resource that can be contaminated. This government recognizes that everyone has a right to clean ground water, regardless of what the neighbouring lands are being used for.

This government is continuously improving the standards that must be met in order to establish a landfill site in Ontario. Alternatives to the establishment of a landfill site such as recycling, on which the honourable member unfortunately does not have the foresight or the faith in the people of this province --

Interjections.

Mr. McClelland: In spite of the comments that I heard a few moments ago, I want to say to my friends opposite, to members of this House and to the people of Ontario that other jurisdictions in our world have attained a 50 per cent recycling achievement, a diversion of 50 per cent in other communities in Europe. There is no reason we cannot do that. I think that instead of looking at the glass as being half empty, we have got to recognize that we have the potential to work co-operatively and together and to be successful in this province.

This is nothing new. Recycling is a realistic alternative. Thanks to the support and commitment of this government to the four Rs of waste management in Ontario, we are well on our way and we will achieve it, in spite of the pessimism of our friends opposite.

It was this government, it was the government of the day that had the political will to begin applying the Environmental Assessment Act to private waste management undertakings, including landfill proposals, in order to ensure that environmental effects are carefully considered. We are the government that took that step and had the courage to do that. Today it is the magnitude of the proposed undertaking that determines the application of environmental assessment. That is the determination that is the critical factor.

I could go on for well over the amount of time that I have left to talk about the things that this government has done and the steps that we have taken, but we cannot just be talking about dumps any more. The legacy of establishing poorly designed landfills will not be repeated by this government. This government is committed to never leaving a situation like the situation we inherited for the next generation.

But at this time I would like to examine the resolution’s suggestion. What does this resolution suggest about the historical problem of leaking landfill sites?

Well, the resolution calls for a provincial version of a superfund and for more money and access to the government. It accuses the government of doing nothing for three years to address a problem of leaking landfill sites. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s tell the people of this province what this government has done as far as addressing this problem is concerned.

We have a provincial superfund already. We have already got what this resolution asks for. We have a superfund, and it is called, for the information of the members opposite, my colleagues who are not aware of it, the environmental security fund. I am glad that the official opposition is well aware of that, notwithstanding that the members of the third party are a little bit behind them.

It was established on July 23, 1985, over three years ago, shortly after this government came into power. The environmental security fund was established with a budget of $10 million and was designed to enable the Ministry of the Environment to have available funds to respond quickly to environmental threats, spills and contaminated water supplies and to ensure that the proper long-term resolution of environmental problems was dealt with. In creating this provincial superfund, this government has gone even beyond the model established by the United States Superfund. The Superfund applies only to waste disposal site cleanups. We are talking about the entire environment.

The Ontario security fund applies to any environmental emergency, however caused: spills, natural disasters, illegal discharges -- it applies to it all. The security fund provides for immediate restorative action to address the problems in a local area. Mine tailings are dealt with. Unauthorized discharges and waste disposal practices of a polluting company are all dealt with under that fund. The security fund is applied if those liable for the mishap cannot be identified or if orders, such as control orders, are not complied with immediately. The security fund is designed to provide funds quickly for large, unexpected expenditures.

The types of works funded today are numerous. They include hydrological studies of areas where serious contamination is known or expected; the provision of alternative water supplies where existing supplies are affected or threatened by a source of contamination; the cleanup of areas where environmental damages or health risks are identified; actions to remove or reduce potential long-term environmental hazards, and many more. It is useful, though, to consider for a moment how the former government managed before the security fund was established.

In the past, the ministry responded through either a $200,000 regional operations division contingency budget, the use of the waste management improvement program to undertake low-cost remedial measures or relocating funds in one year from another program to deal with this problem.

When the security fund was announced by this government, it was emphasized that the fund would enable the ministry to respond to contingencies more speedily and in a comprehensive manner. The fund permits cleanups to take place without jeopardizing other environmental programs. We do not borrow from one program to pay for this. We have it established and it is dedicated to do exactly what the member opposite is asking for.

The security fund was established with a budget of $10 million. The current budget is $20 million, and the total expenditures to date under the security fund have been almost $39 million. That amount of money will certainly rise in the future. We have numerous projects that need to be addressed. Those projects that we have inherited, the difficulties of the past, we will address with this fund.

We will make every effort to recover from the parties that are responsible. The money that we do recover will be disbursed under the security fund for the resolution of environmental problems that arise from the activities of those particular parties.

In conclusion, this government and the current Minister of the Environment have acted responsibly and with vision and have made a solid commitment to a fund to deal with the problems in the environment that we inherited. The environmental security fund was established to do exactly what this resolution is requesting. As a result, this resolution, if I can be kind, is redundant, if not foolish. Because this government has established the environmental security fund and has acted decisively already, we will not be supporting this resolution.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the next speaker, as this is private members’ business, it would be most appreciated if we could have one member at a time.

Mr. Wildman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your assistance.

I rise in support of this resolution. I am surprised that the member for Brampton North (Mr. McClelland) would say that he is opposed to this, considering the rhetoric that his own minister has used in the past in this regard.

I must say that I find it somewhat amusing that we should have this resolution presented to this House today by a former Minister of the Environment from the previous Conservative government. I understand certainly that there are 300 to 400 waste disposal sites which are possible hazards to the environment or human health in this province which must be acted upon, but one has to consider very carefully how those landfills became so hazardous.

The member for Sarnia in his presentation pointed out that, in the short-lived regime between the 1985 election date and the change of government as a result of the accord, the then Conservative government of Mr. Miller introduced a superfund; it made a proposal for a superfund. One can realize why that happened. Let’s think of the political situation at the time.

Everybody in this House is aware that, at the time, there were negotiations going on among the various political parties. Frankly, the Conservatives had missed the boat and they were trying to get back into the boat by saying they would respond to a number of the concerns that were being put forward by members of this political party in order to gain support so that their government would not be defeated. That was the only reason.

As a matter of fact, not too many weeks before the proposal for a superfund by the then government, a gentleman named Morley Kells, who was the Minister of the Environment, during the election campaign had to respond to a very serious polychlorinated biphenyl spill in the northwest. His only comment was that there was nothing to worry about, because only the rats on Highway 17 would be exposed to the PCBS. I do not know why he thinks only rats live in the northwest, but there were more than just rats exposed. As a matter of fact, a young family drove behind that truck for many hundreds of miles and were exposed to very serious problems.

That statement by Mr. Kells epitomized the Conservative attitude towards environmental protection. It was not until they lost their majority and faced the possibility of losing the reins of government that they suddenly were converted to the idea of an environmental cleanup and an environmental fund, which this party was proposing and which that party accepted only because it wanted our support.

The member for Sarnia did say that he thought this fund should be higher than $30 million. In fact, in our view, in order to be able to begin to respond to the serious concerns about landfill sites in this province, there would have to be a fund for Ontario of about $50 million.

The thing I am a little concerned about in this resolution, while I support it, is that it does not say where the money should come from. The member does not make it clear that this money would not come from the taxpayers, as does the current environmental security fund of the Liberal government. A superfund being talked about by this party, and which is now being talked about at the federal level in the election campaign, is patterned after the United States Superfund, which is a fund that is built on taxation on the companies that produce and use hazardous chemicals and hazardous substances.

That is the kind of superfund that we need, not only in Ontario but also across this country. It is the kind of superfund that is being proposed in this election campaign by Ed Broadbent, the federal leader of the New Democratic Party in Canada, and I understand it is being supported by the Liberal Party, I think, federally. It is hard to tell.

The Ontario environmental security fund has been raised to $20 million, as the member for Brampton North indicated, but that is coming from the consolidated revenue fund, the taxpayers. Basically, what that means is that the victims of pollution will have to pay for the cleanup. The people who are having to experience the contamination of ground water are going to have to pay for it rather than the people who are responsible.

It can be said that the reason for the superfund is to deal with problems in landfill sites where you cannot identify the person or the company that is responsible for the hazardous substance being deposited in the landfill site, but that is the reason for taxing the producers and the users of these materials before it happens, so that when you cannot identify the exact culprit, the money from those taxes can then be used to clean up.

That is what is needed in this province and in this country. We need a federal-provincial effort instead of the stalling by the federal Tory party and the Conservative and Liberal governments in the provinces. We need a superfund, as advocated at the federal level by Ed Broadbent, patterned after the United States Superfund. An environmental cleanup fund must be created out of taxes on the producers and users of hazardous and toxic chemicals and substances, as I indicated.

It must also be used to investigate and clean up abandoned toxic waste sites where the liable party cannot be determined or found.

In our view, Canadians right across this country want industrial waste sites cleaned up. They want a government that will take the initiative, where appropriate, to clean up abandoned hazardous wasteful sites; and in our view, we must establish a fund that will apply specific taxes on companies producing toxic substances, roughly $4 to $11 per tonne of chemical produced and between 8 and 11 cents per barrel of oil and gas, as well as a modest environmental surtax on the profits of all businesses, about 0.12 per cent, to raise $200 million across the country. I think that all provinces and the federal government must participate.

The fund would be spent on environmental cleanups and repair of environmental damage and would allow Canadian citizens, both in this province and across the country, to petition for its use towards specific purposes.

We must establish a complete inventory of toxic and hazardous wastes throughout Canada, and particularly in Ontario, and provide enforceable timetables for their safe disposal and destruction.

We must oversee compensation to victims of environmental damage, ensuring that, whenever possible, this is paid by those responsible for injury and damage. It should not be the victims who have to contribute to the cost. I do not agree with the Conservative approach that we should use general taxation to pay for this kind of fund.

I believe that Ontarians, and Canadians in general, have had enough of vacuous resolutions. They have had enough of political promises to clean up the environment. They have had enough of these kinds of debates. They have had enough of disagreements between provincial environment ministers and federal environment ministers. They have had enough of the inaction at the federal level to set national standards.

The people of this province and the people of Canada want action, and they want action based on a rational approach. In my view, even the producers and users of chemicals and hazardous substances are prepared to pay into the kind of fund we are talking about. They have indicated they would. It is in operation in the United States now. Many of these companies operate in both jurisdictions.

It is not time for more resolutions. It is not time for the Liberal government to say we already have a fund that is adequate, because it is not. It is time for us to get together, both provincially and federally, and work together to clean up the environment. It is not time for us to be patting ourselves on the back and saying we are more concerned about the environment than the other guy. The fact is we are all in this together and we all have to sink or swim.

While it is fine to say that someone has had a conversion on the road to Damascus, like our friend the member for Sarnia -- thank God he has -- we have to have the rest of the people in this province and in this assembly agree to a cleanup. Enough talk. Let’s have some action.

Mrs. Marland: May I just say at the outset that I feel privileged this morning in our caucus to follow our leader, the member for Sarnia, in his comments.

I am also encouraged to know that we have a new parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, my colleague the member for Brampton North. I welcome him to the position of parliamentary assistant. I know there will be times when he and I will obviously be into very heavy debate. I almost hesitate to start this morning by correcting him right away, but in fairness to him, on a personal basis I am happy he is there because I know he is an individual member of personal integrity in this Legislature. I mean that sincerely.

I hope he learns and fits into the role, recognizing that he now has one year’s experience in this Legislature, which is just a little less than mine; I am not very experienced either. The point is that every single member of this Legislature shares the responsibility in terms of the environment. It is the single most important legacy we talk about in the future not only of this province, but of this world.

I hope we will, as we continue through the next three years with the Liberal government, have more than just policy statements being issued. I do not have to worry after the next four years of this Liberal government, because after that, fortunately, we will be the government and will be able to take action.

There is no doubt that in the past everything has not been perfect. I am not about to stand here this morning and defend everything the former government did, just as in reality no one else would, of any party at any time. It is not a perfect world, we are not perfect people, so we cannot have perfect governments. But what we have to have are governments that have political wills to take actions and steps when needed. When I look at what the Liberal provincial government has done in the past three years, I must say we have had an awful lot of talk, an awful lot of issuance of statements and new policies, but not a lot of action.

I must say that I listened to my colleague the critic for the Environment this morning. I hope he will heed very closely my comments and then speak to his staff who helped him, I am sure, through necessity, to prepare for some of his comments.

First of all, I am glad he mentioned the environmental security fund, because the environmental security fund was in fact announced by Premier Frank Miller in his throne speech in 1985. He said, “After completing a comprehensive review of waste management practices initiated in 1982, my government has decided to establish a $100-million environmental protection fund to clean up waste sites and provide stronger enforcement of our environmental regulations.”

Subsequently, on May 22, 1985, the Ministry of the Environment made a submission to the policies and priorities board proposing that a cleanup fund be established. I say with respect that the Liberal government cannot take credit for the total subject of this fund. In fact, all they have done is follow the initiative of the former government, for which I commend them. I would be grateful, but the results we have seen have not exactly been active, stimulating or exciting.

The other area that I am glad the member for Brampton North mentioned is the fact that we do have to have, as part of the total waste management picture, recycling. Obviously the reason I am very pleased to hear him say that is because I am sure, as he is aware, one week from today in this Legislature we will be debating my private bill which would make it mandatory around the province for every municipality to offer recycling to its residents. I look forward to the support of the Liberal government for my private bill on recycling.

I would also add that when my colleague the member for York East (Ms. Hart), parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, talks about worldwide figures as high as 50 per cent success with recycling, in fact, in Austria it is 65 per cent. So we are looking forward to that kind of tandem solution to waste management and the crisis that is part of this debate this morning.

I hope too that eventually we will end up having a government -- even for the next three years, this interim government for the province of Ontario -- that stops announcing funds charging around the province on a white horse. We have had so much of these kinds of campaigning and throne speeches, frankly, I find it a little dishonest. I find it a little unnerving that we do have this kind of dishonesty in some of the promises and some of the throne speeches.

We had a high-tech fund, for example, that was announced. It was $100 million. About $3 million of that high-tech fund was allocated. It is great to announce millions and millions of dollars to resolve housing problems in the province and then to find that the money is not spent. It is returned to general revenue and it is “recycled” the next year into another throne speech promise or, as in last year, another campaign promise.

I think too that as far as the promise of this minister is concerned, about where he would go if he could establish a superfund similar to the United States, we have got to look at the fact that now the minister is no longer talking about a fund for Ontario. He is in fact talking about a national fund. I think if the minister was really committed to the needs of this province on this particular subject, he would not have backtracked and would not now be looking for a national fund, again deflecting to another level of government.

I think when he says that we are pressing for a national superfund to clean up old problem spots as they are discovered, that is very misleading on the part of this minister.

In other words, just as on the Sunday shopping issue, the government continues to deflect, where it has a problem, its responsibility to another jurisdiction. Is it not wonderful to have a government that says, “We’d better look at this nationally.” Sure, it is a problem nationally, but it is also a responsibility and a problem locally in Ontario. I hope what we will see is some very real action behind the words and behind the promises and that, in fact, a fund will exist, as the motion says, that will be a remedial measure to a problem that is linked totally to the subject of waste management in the province.

I wish to leave some time for my colleague.

Mrs. Fawcett: I am pleased to participate in this debate on the need for a provincial superfund and would like to take this opportunity to expand upon the points mentioned by my colleague on the environmental security fund. In particular, I wish to expand upon how much money this fund has spent to correct the historical mistakes that have been left to the government to rectify because of the former government’s inattention to environmental issues.

Currently, there are just under 100 projects being funded by this environmental security fund and some of those projects are extremely expensive. Let us just review how much has been spent to date for some of them. The government of Ontario has spent over $66,000 for the Black Creek cleanup. Close to $2 million has been spent on work related to the Upper Ottawa landfill site in Hamilton. We have spent over $90,000 to date on the Niagara soil replacement program. The government has spent over $700,000 from the security fund to provide an adequate response to the Kenora polychlorinated biphenyls spill. I am sure this spill is an event that all members of this House are familiar with.

The security account has provided close to $8.5 million in funding for the Pottersburg cleanup in the city of London. We have spent over $27,000 to look at ways to improve the Paisley waste disposal site in Tiny township. The security fund has provided over $300,000 toward the alachlor monitoring program to ensure that wells and water supplies are not contaminated.

In response to the leaking landfill site in the township of Sidney, the security fund has spent over $1 million in an effort to remedy that situation by providing immediately alternative drinking water supplies and to build a pipeline for a future water supply.

Members are familiar with the Chippewa Creek coal tar cleanup. That project has required $1.3 million to date and still the cost keeps rising upwards. Talking about large ticket items, the PCB cleanup in Smithville has cost just under $5 million to date and that pricetag also keeps rising. So far, $61,000 has been spent on the cleanup of the Uniroyal site at Elmira. As well, over $17,000 has been spent to clean up the mine tailings in the Kam-Kotia mines.

The coal cleanup in the Ottawa River has cost the security fund over $6 million to date. As well, the Scott Road township ditch study, a study that I am sure the leader of the third party is familiar with, has required over $46,000 to date.

We have spent from the security fund over $1 million under the Deloro program. As well, in an effort to correct the gasoline contamination of the drinking water in the village of Killaloe in Renfrew county, we have spent close to $150,000 to date. Similarly, in order to protect the drinking water supply for the town of Bracebridge, we have spent close to $500,000 under the security fund. Large sums of money under the Environment minister’s direct grant program have also been expended on this project.

Of course, we must not forget how much money was required to provide a pipeline to safe, clean drinking water to the village of Smithville. That cost us just over $3 million. In order to clean up the south Riverdale soil, we have spent to date $4.5 million, and to address the Algoma slag heap in Sault Ste. Marie, we have spent over $70,000. The Windermere basin has cost us over $800,000 to date, and will undoubtedly cost more as the actual cleanup proceeds.

With regard to the recent coal tar investigations under way within this province, the resulting coal tar gasification and cleanup on the 11 high-priority sites is estimated to cost us between $6 million and $11 million per site. Currently, on these investigations, the security account has expended over $300,000 for studies alone.

I could go on and on but I think the members here see my point. Most of the money spent so far under the security account has been to correct the mistakes and legacy of the past. This outlines only the expenditures incurred to date. It does not reflect the total, final cost for many of these needed environmental projects. Clearly, the cost of correcting mistakes after the fact is much more expensive than preventing them in the first place.

I would like to take this moment to address what I believe is a real need for a superfund at the national level. I hope the leader of the third party will encourage his federal cousins to establish such a fund. This government supports the development of a national environmental contingency fund. Preliminary data indicate that the need is clear and the cost to be incurred for the cleanup of the sites will be significant.

To be effective, the superfund must be national in scope. There is need for a consistent national approach and funding mechanism. That mechanism must be based on the polluter-pays principle to ensure a fair assessment ranking and cleanup of contaminated sites in Canada.

Because of the large number of contaminated sites and the estimated high cleanup costs, a consistent and coordinated approach will result in a more cost-effective management of cleanup activities. Certainly, such an approach would be welcomed by the general public.

The response to contaminated sites and the resulting cleanup has not been provided on a systematic basis in many parts of Canada. This is mainly due to the absence of national criteria. The acceptance of common evaluation and classification criteria and procedures for establishing cleanup criteria by all jurisdictions would promote consistency across Canada.

I am sure members recognize that the Ontario Minister of the Environment has been a leader in working towards the establishment of a national superfund.

During the October 1986 meeting of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, referred to as CCREM, it was the Ontario minister who recommended that a task force be established to address the development of an environmental contingency fund. This fund was envisaged to provide a rapid response mechanism where contamination posed a hazard to human health and environment. The fund would also provide long-term liability protection for hazardous waste sites and would be used for required cleanup at decommissioned industrial properties and cleanup of spills.

During the September 1987 CCREM meeting, the federal Environment minister tabled a feasibility study on the superfund. It was not good enough, and due to the urging of our Environment minister it was agreed to have a task force finalize the proposal for the fall 1988 CCREM meeting.

As a result, let me quote from the information release arising from that CCREM meeting: “The ministers reviewed the progress made since their last annual meeting and recognized that progress has been made in classifying contaminated sites across the country.” After much behind-the-scenes work by this Minister of the Environment, it appears that a national superfund proposal is getting closer to reality.” Of course, any assistance that the third party can provide in encouraging the federal government to expedite this proposal is appreciated.

I cannot support the member’s resolution, as Ontario already has its provincial superfund. To use the member’s own words, to be truly effective, a superfund must be national in scope.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sarnia has four minutes for his windup.

Mr. Brandt: Having heard the member for Brampton North in his maiden speech with respect to his new responsibilities as parliamentary assistant, I want to welcome him to his new portfolio and wish him well with his responsibilities, because he is going to have a lot to answer for in the next short while. I say that in light of the fact that time is very quickly running out for this government in terms of using the fabricated sins of the past and sins of omission and commission by previous governments as the only kind of response that it can put forward in dealing with the environment.

The reality is that this resolution before us today is the government’s own resolution. They are voting against it. They are voting against the very thing that the government of this province promised to do on behalf of the people. I want to say to the parliamentary assistant that the reality is that the government has a minister in place who has not approved of one single landfill site in three years in this province, who is allowing the waste from Lester B. Pearson International Airport and from the Halton area to be shipped into the United States.

I simply ask the members opposite to answer this question in their heart of hearts: If New York state were shipping its industrial and/or municipal waste into Ontario, what would their response be?

Mr. Dietsch: That’s not the resolution.

Mr. Brandt: Obviously, it is not. If it was, in fact, shipping its waste here, then members opposite would stand up in righteous indignation and talk about those terrible Americans dumping their waste on this pure province. The fact of the matter is members opposite are shirking their responsibility and they are passing their waste over --

Mr. Dietsch: Point of order.

Mr. Brandt: I have only two minutes. Why does the member not sit down?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. What is your point of order?

Mr. Dietsch: Could you please see that Governor Cuomo gets a copy of the transcript?

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. The member for Sarnia, please proceed.

Mr. Brandt: That is the kind of unimportant, frivolous, unnecessary interjection that I can expect from the government members when they try to shirk their responsibilities with respect to their own election platform.

The reality is that we have a serious situation in this province dealing with existing landfill sites. Yes, there were problems in the past that had to be addressed; there were difficulties. When you have the most industrialized province in the entire country, then the complexity of the industrial waste you are going to deal with is going to be of a higher, more difficult and more complex order than industrial waste in some of the more agriculturally oriented provinces or some provinces that do not have the industrial development that we enjoy here in Ontario.

We have advanced more quickly than any other province. We were the first province in the entire country to have a Ministry of the Environment. We were the first province in the entire country, quite frankly, to address environmental problems in a serious way; inadequate at the time, I agree, but we had made some very concrete moves towards cleaning up the environment and addressing those problems.

It is now time for this government to take the next logical step and simply do what it promised to do, that is, to start taking remedial action for some 400 sites, seven of which, I might add, the current Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has identified as being of critical importance. The parliamentary assistant knows this. I will be monitoring those seven sites to see what he does about them, because he has a responsibility to act now and not to blame previous governments or previous regimes. It is now his responsibility.

The Liberals are the government of the day, they are the ones who made the promises to take some action on environmental measures. We are waiting to see them do it. I am disappointed that they are voting against their own resolution and their own campaign commitments.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to say that I think in private members’ hour, it is incumbent upon all members of the House not to interrupt other members and use their time.

The Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that very much.

INTEGRATED RAIL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Mr. Tatham moved resolution 40:

Mr. Tatham: The time has come to renew and improve rail passenger service in our province.

Canada is the story of a bold concept that built a railroad. From the very beginning, railways, politics and the development of Canada were inextricably entwined. Canada was like one big gift, full of promise and wrapped in ribbons of steel. When Confederation finally came in 187 1, a railway clause was written into legislation. To many, railways meant profit and progress, and no other single enterprise played a more vital role in Canada’s development than the railways.

I believe railway transportation continues to have a vital role to play in Canada, and in particular, in Ontario. Independence, mobility and freedom are no longer terms to describe today’s commuters. When you spend one and three quarter hours going across Toronto or two and a half hours travelling from Stoney Creek to Queen’s Park -- and we all have personal traffic jam stories -- you are open to ideas and options that would let you leave your car at home. Improved and integrated passenger rail service could well be the best solution to commuting blues.

It is a big step. We all love our cars. The annual average kilometres per automobile in Canada is 20,000 kilometres. By 1985, there was a registered motor vehicle for every driver in Canada; that is some 16 million. Not even Wayne Gretzky could deke his way through the average Canadian rush-hour traffic. He would be just one of 16 million trying to get home, pick up the kids, make it to work on time and all doing the hesitation waltz.

Let’s not hesitate about rail transportation, but let’s be fair to it. Before we say rail passenger service is outdated, too expensive, unreliable, let us take the train. It is called Via Rail. Let us start with a comment by Walter Stewart. Here is an excerpt from Uneasy Lies the Head: The Truth About Canada’s Crown Corporations.

In 1981, the federal government simply lopped off 20 per cent of Via’s passenger traffic by a cabinet order, which was not announced until Parliament had started its summer break and members of Parliament were unable to raise objections. Via, of course, heaved a sigh of relief. The lines lopped were all money losers. Then, when the predictable screams of outrage built to a frenzy, Via was told to restore most of the dropped lines again, but not told how to make them pay. From the first, Via has been trapped, trapped with not enough money either to buy new equipment or keep the old stuff rolling. It did not.

It does not even own its own tracks. Instead, it pays the other railroads trackage fees for the right to run its trains on their rails.

There is probably someone in the world who understands exactly how these fees are arrived at. Cynics believe they are drawn out of a hat and no low numbers are put into the hat. Canadian National, a crown, consistently refused to disclose to Via, another crown, what cost data is used as a basis for its charges. “Trust us,” they said. With that, Via had to be content. All we know for sure is that Via pays CN for using its trackage and maintenance much more than Via is able to collect from its customers for train tickets.

In 1985, Via paid a sister crown $350 million and that year collected its all-time high for total passenger revenue, $201 million. CN, a consistent money loser, before Via came along, now makes a profit, thanks to its Canadian rail subsidiary, $105,532,000 in 1985, but Via does not, Via cannot and Via will not. It is an unfair shell game. The loss has gone out from under the CN shell and now nestles under the Via shell, The railway lives on subsidies, which hit a high of $632 million in 1985 and it goes on. The taxpayer is left holding the pea.

How many of this House are driving a 1968 model car? Whoever was to blame, as Walter Stewart pointed out, by the 1970s passenger rail had become a cursing and byword in the mouths of transportation executives. CN and Canadian Pacific Railway were both coining money out of communications, hotels, real estate and even a little something out of freight. Accordingly, the passenger services were allowed to run down. It became clear that the government could either let this process proceed to its natural conclusion; extinction, or step in.

In 1977, it stepped in to create a new crown, Via Rail Canada Inc. Its job was “to manage railway passenger services in Canada.” CN was reconstructed and recapitalized. The railway had started with a long-term debt of $2 billion, which by unceasing effort it had managed to run into $2.2 billion over the 54 years between 1923 and 1977. Interest payment on this debt came to $130 million a year. Then the accountants got to work. They converted $808 million of this into equity and gave the crown a new lease on life. In return, CN agreed to pay the government a minimum of 20 per cent on net earnings annually. As dividends on this equity, in 1985 CN paid Ottawa $23.5 million.

Overnight, CN was kissed into a prince. CN began to follow its written instructions to the Minister of Transport, which read this way: “It is the view of the government that CN should make every attempt to conduct its affairs with a commercial attitude and in a commercial manner.” That being the case, there was no longer any reason whatever why CN should continue as a crown. It ought to have been privatized at once, but nobody mentioned that when Via was in the throes of creation.

The new crown took on the old one’s passenger traffic, along with most of CPR’S, although CPR retains some commuter traffic and the trains to run it with. What Via inherited was declining business, a lousy reputation and several rail-yards full of decrepit stock, for which it paid $67 million.

Since then, the corporation has received capital grants in dribs and drabs to buy new equipment, stations and repair yards but never enough to do its job properly. In all, it has received about $1 billion. That is less for the entire system than was sunk into Mirabel and some of the money was not wisely spent.

Between 1981 and 1985, Via Rail paid out $225 million for a fleet of light, rapid, comfortable LRC trains, that turned out to be even more prone to break down and conk out than the 1957 clunkers it had inherited. Via officials kept explaining that the US-made LRCs were just going through the kinds of breaking-in problems to be expected with any new technology. That may have been true, but it was cold comfort for abandoned passengers.

In 1984, the transportation commission noted, “Via possesses two fleets: the largest being old, conventional equipment which is expensive to maintain and is unreliable, and a much smaller new fleet (LRCS) which is also unreliable and expensive to maintain.”

Mr. Wildman: Either way they lose.

Mr. Tatham: You are right.

The passenger cars, the report went on to say, biting its lip, “are functionally obsolete both before and after they receive maintenance.” Via does not have enough equipment, which means that when something breaks down, it takes time to replace it, so schedules become mere guesswork. Even when it has the trains, Via cannot be sure it can run them.

It is at the mercy of track maintenance programs carried out by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways in the summer, the high season, and if a passenger train and freight train are on the same track, it is the passenger train that must pull off and wait for the freight to pass. CN and CPR have their own priorities and quite properly put them first while the passengers wait. There is a good chance they will be parboiled because just as Via’s old steam heat tends to fracture in the winter, its air conditioning tends to pack it in during the summer.

To buy a new set of trains for the Toronto-Montreal corridor, where 52 per cent of Via’s passengers are carried and where it has its only chance to make a real profit, would cost $2 billion. Via is not going to get $2 billion, in part because it is a crown corporation, without friends in the pits where bureaucratic infighting takes place and the money is doled out. Via is the opposite of, say, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. or Ontario Hydro. It is a crown stuck with the disadvantages of distance from government and yet compelled to follow political direction.

All these grim facts may not sound like much of a sales pitch for an integrated rail transportation system, but it is an insight into the current woes facing the system.

In a May 2, 1988, story in the Toronto Globe and Mail, Via President Denis de Belleval said, “Via’s transcontinental cars are 30 to 35 years old and its equipment is, on average, more than 20 years old. We have locomotives running between Montreal and Quebec City that should have been retired 15 years ago.”

Bleak prospects? Not necessarily. There are different options, but one activity that is talking place in some countries in the world is improved rail service.

Let us consider briefly the development of high-speed passenger rail technologies that have taken place in France, Great Britain and Japan. For our purposes, high-speed rail is defined as “systems with maximum design speeds of 125 miles per hour and above.”

In the mid-1960s, the Japanese chose to construct entirely new tracks and equipment, because they had no alternative. The bullet train between Tokyo and Osaka made a profit and repaid capital investment costs.

Great Britain decided in the early 1970s to introduce high-speed service. It chose to employ conventional technology and design trains with maximum speeds of 125 miles per hour, that could share existing track with freight and commuter trains.

As for France, to ease severe congestion on the Paris-Lyons line, the French built a new high-speed track through sparsely populated country between Paris and Lyons, where the line connects with existing track on the outskirts of the two cities.

The basic technology options for high-speed rail service include a combination of equipment, track and propulsion systems. The cheapest capital cost for high-speed service results from diesel-powered conventional equipment on existing track at a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour.

The most expensive option is to use electrically powered high-speed trains on completely new tracks at speeds well in excess of 125 miles per hour.

The construction cost of the French TGV line was reported to be $4 million per mile. The two latest sections of the Japanese Shin Kasen are estimated to have cost about $35 million to $40 million per mile, principally because of the extensive tunnelling and viaducts required in Japan. The upgrading of the northeast corridor in Great Britain has cost between $4.5 million and $5 million, with an additional $2.5 million per mile for electrification.

High-speed passenger rail systems require high ridership to generate enough revenue to cover most or all of operating costs, let alone capital costs. Thus all existing foreign high-speed rail services have been introduced on corridors serving major population centres. High population and high-population densities are probably the most important characteristics of a potential high-speed rail corridor, because they make possible the ridership level and the support for the local transit infrastructure required for successful high-speed service.

The public benefits often cited for high-speed rail service include: first, increased transport system capacity mobility; second, reduced congestion in highway and airport ground traffic and other environmental gains; third, energy efficiency, economic development and employment; fourth, safety.

Other countries have done it. I am sure some of the members in this House have travelled on one of these trains. We can do a better job for our travelling public. One morning this past summer I took the 7:30 Via Rail train from Toronto to Belleville. It was a new rail car. It was on time. I had a smooth ride, courteous service, fruit cup, muffin; all in all, a good trip. Would it not be a real plus for the travelling public if we could have quality, on-time, frequent and fast rail service in Ontario?

I think the press reports, letters to the editor and editorials all suggest that our passenger rail service in Ontario should be improved. Any person who is in business, if he wants to stay in business, has to make a profit or close the door. What should we do? When the traffic is moving we are happy, but when we are sitting in a stop-start, slow situation, we all begin to think there must be a better way. The Toronto Transit Commission and the GO Transit system are under duress now to service the Toronto-area commuters, yet commuting distances are increasing as Toronto housing prices increase.

People are commuting twice daily from Hamilton to downtown Toronto jobs and from other places in the province.

The GO Transit system works. According to a recent

article in the Passenger Train Journal, April 1988, “Obviously, no matter what happens in other parts of Canada, Toronto’s commuter rail operations will remain the envy of many other North American cities.” GO Transit gives sensible, reliable service and its ridership is up.

I have been told that 60 per cent of the people in downtown Toronto arrive by subway and bus, and another 10 per cent by GO train. What kind of development would you have in Metro Toronto without the subway and without GO Transit?

But look beyond today. What are the options for tomorrow? What about going from Windsor to Toronto? What about going from Ottawa to Toronto? You can drive, you can fly, you can take the bus and you should be able to take the train. In a speech given to Transport 2000, Denis de Belleval, president and chief executive officer of Via Rail Canada, said, “We are currently studying all our services and we are analysing each and every option to enable us to present the Canadian government with a vision of rail passengers in Canada for the year 2000.”

I have a confirming letter from Via Rail corporate planning, dated August 16, 1988, stating that “right now, market research is being carried out to survey the needs and preferences of the travelling public and to provide the basics for developing demand forecast for all of the possible roles, etc.” While I applaud its activity, if there is going to be another spike driven into passenger rail service, I want all of us to think long and hard about it.

We have a fundamental and crucial choice facing us, either drive a positive, forward-looking spike for the proper development of the rail passenger system, or by our neglect, disinterest and single-minded focus on the automobile, allow fiscal and policy constraints to drive a stake in the heart of our rail passenger system.

It represented a significant portion of our past. It could play a significant role in our future. Rail passenger service is still a bold concept that can help build a country and a province. The present Via Rail system seems to be a Sisyphean system. Our citizens deserve better. We must do better. I welcome you all aboard for this resolution.

Ms. Bryden: This resolution calls for nothing but studies by the provincial and federal government to develop an integrated rail transportation plan for Ontario with a primary focus on passenger rail service. I think everyone in this House will support such a motherhood resolution. More emphasis on passenger rail services has been part of New Democratic Party policy at both the federal and provincial levels for many years, but I think the mover and the others in the Liberal Party who may vote for this resolution today have a mammoth job on their hands to change the present commitment of the Liberal government, which is to passenger automobile services.

We do not need studies; we need a change of focus by the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) and the government. If you examine the government telephone book, for the Ministry of Transportation you will find that rail transport has no listing in the selective table of contents for the ministry, and the “rail office,” which appears on page 485, has seven people listed in it. Only one of these people is a transportation analyst. There are three research engineers listed on page 484 under “rail technology,” but it is not specific whether they work for the rail office or for whom they work.

The KWIC Index to Services, on page 506, says, “The rail office develops provincial policy on rail matters, and maintains close contact with railway companies, shippers and regulatory authorities.”

This government has not built a railway since the turn of the century and its main role seems to have been to rubber-stamp federal rail closedowns, such as the Cataract to Elora line last March. It is true that building railways is a federal responsibility, but certainly promoting a focus on passenger rail transport is a responsibility of this government. The amount of attention it gets in the phone book and the KWIC Index indicates the government has no commitment to developing greater use of passenger rail services.

I also ask the mover and his colleagues to look at the makeup of the Ministry of Transportation. All the major branches beaded by an assistant deputy minister are concerned with road building, road safety, road traffic control, interurban and urban bus service and financial aid to municipal road and public transit services.

I will say that the previous government of Progressive Conservatives built more public transit than the present government has built since it came in three years ago. The phone book indicates that the overall commitment of the ministry is to the automobile and to automobile transport. For example, the ministry appears to be supporting the Leslie Street extension and Bayview Avenue widening, which simply funnel more auto traffic into the downtown of Toronto. The minister is apparently subsidizing these extensions under his cost-sharing formula for assisting arterial transportation initiatives by municipalities.

His latest commitment to improving transportation is to spend millions on electronic controls along Highway 401 and the Queen Elizabeth Way to speed up the entrance and exit from these expressways. His policy paper issued early in the year is mainly on how to close the gaps in Metro Toronto’s road transportation networks, but it drops the Sheppard Avenue subway. I think the member has a major job on his hands to change the focus of government. I think this resolution will not have very much effect on that unless he does it within his own caucus and within his own making of party policy.

One of my constituents, Ross Snetsinger, has been writing articles and letters to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Minister of Transportation on the importance of maintaining and extending rail transport in this province. He points out that it is the least polluting and most energy-efficient form of transportation and can even be made pollution-free if the proper equipment is used. He warns that our present focus on auto traffic has had a serious impact on the ozone layer. I commend his proposals to the mover and the government and urge them to study Mr. Snetsinger’s articles.

I also suggest that they look at his proposal for a provincial railway branch line futures agency. He points out that there are 26 rail lines in this province that will be closed down or become tourist attractions only if such an agency is not set up. He puts it in the context of province-wide initiatives needed both here and at the federal level to save our environment from the growing greenhouse effect of the present automobile-oriented society.

I also urge the mover and the members here to look at the real causes of our ecological crisis resulting from transportation. They relate back to the overdevelopment of our agricultural and other land in the Golden Horseshoe area and the condoning of municipal zoning which allows huge lots, urban sprawl, and does not encourage the intensification of housing close to our city centres. This is where the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs have to get into the act if we are to save our ecology and get pollution-free transportation.

The motion before us will not do that. It is simply another call for another study that will take up a lot of time, instead of changing the focus of the ministry to one that will emphasize that we have to get more people out of their cars and more into both passenger rail and public transit of all kinds than is being done by the present government. They may say that GO Transit is getting people out of their cars. It is, to the extent that there are enough lots where people can park their cars before they use GO transit.

But we have to remember that GO Transit is subsidizing a lot of commuters who have bought these huge-lot houses or who are being forced by the cost of houses in the city to move great distances.

It would be much better to go in for more housing intensification within the cities and the Metro area and not have to subsidize GO Transit to that extent. It is using federal railway lines but they are not being preserved. They may be closed down. That is why we cannot rely very much on the extension of GO Transit through rail service. We have to see that GO Transit is not used by developers as a means for selling houses far beyond the area of Toronto, when there could be much more intensification of housing within the Metropolitan Toronto area.

Mr. Cureatz: It gives me nothing but great pleasure to stand in my place representing all those fine people of Durham East, as I have had the honour to do for a number of years now, and speak to the honourable member’s resolution. I want to say unequivocally that I am nothing but totally in favour of his proposal.

I can only say that nothing more would be expected of me than supporting one of my former seatmates, albeit he was way over here on the Liberal rump. But let it be a precedent to all members in some future time to support a former seatmate when he has an interest in a proposal, whether members particularly like it or not or, for that matter, whether it is of their same persuasion or not.

The resolution is an all-encompassing idea that has been discussed for a number of years. I can remember back to my old days as a backbench government member. I will not go into that speech this morning, though. I was way back, actually right about where Baloney is, when Margaret Scrivener had been given this big responsibility of doing an in-depth study on rail transportation in southern Ontario. She ran around for about six months and suddenly after six months stood up with this big announcement, a lovely, big stack of books about how the rail system should be improved.

Interjection.

Mr. Cureatz: Oh, has the member got it? Is that the one? I thought it was in green. It was in black and red, was it?

That was the end of it. I have to admit we were the government. The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) was giving us the devil in the previous resolution. I was not so happy about the manner in which some of the things were going, but I remind the member for Algoma that those guys are the enemy now. We are in third place. How much more does he want? Does he want us to be wiped off the map? He just cannot stop sticking in the knife, can he?

Interjection.

Mr. Cureatz: All the Liberals are having fun? Does the member want to talk about the federal Liberals? Does he want to put that on the plate this morning?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Mr. Cureatz: Well, let’s talk about trains. I have had the opportunity of having some experience with rapid transportation, namely, the GO rail system. I can only suggest to the honourable member that maybe we should be concentrating on some practical aspects before we get into the overall concept of southern Ontario, which is indeed noble. On a specific basis, I can tell members that we have some problems right now with rapid transit systems.

Of course, when we were the government, Jim Snow was the perennial Minister of Transportation and Communications. I have to congratulate Bill Davis and those cabinet members who tried to expand the GO rail system, and in fact did. Its success, I think, has proved that indeed people are waiting and willing to use a mass transportation system to get into downtown Toronto.

More particularly, of course, I have a working familiarity with east of Toronto, towards the Pickering, Whitby, Oshawa, Bowmanville and Newcastle communities, because there has been great talk for a long time of extending the GO rail system to the east of Oshawa, to the riding of my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), near the Holiday Inn, Highway 401 and Harmony Road.

The interesting thing was that when Bill Davis was around he was pushing this advanced light rail transit system -- I think that was what it was called -- these little trains that go around in circles. They have one out in Scarborough. When I was down in Windsor with the Sunday shopping committee -- I will save that speech for another time -- I could see the little train going around across the river in Detroit.

He came up with this idea that he would have this little train starting from Oshawa. You would ride to Pickering, get off the train, jump on the GO train, ride from Pickering to Toronto, get off that and walk to work or take the subway. He and his cabinet colleagues were not familiar with commuting. They were too used to having chauffeur-driven limousines. If they had had any idea about commuting, they would have appreciated that it would be a very hard system for people who wanted to use a mass transportation system. You get on the train and suddenly you have to get off the train and get on another train. You get on that train and you have to get off.

In any event, after he left and that ALRT system was set aside, George McCague was Minister of Transportation and Communications. He did the sensible thing and announced that it would be a full GO rail system from Pickering out to the Oshawa area, but the first stage would be to Whitby at the Brock-401 interchange.

That, strangely enough, has had some slow molasses put to it. I suspect it is only because of the Liberal administration. For the two years of minority government, they dragged their feet. They were trying to make as much hay as possible.

Mr. Callahan: That’s a mixed metaphor.

Interjections.

Mr. Cureatz: That is right. And do you know what happened? They were hoping they would get a member or two elected out that way so that they could say, “Elect a Liberal member and you will get the GO train system.” If I recall, during the election there was a great fanfare. The member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner) was there, laughing behind the Premier. The member for Durham Centre (Mr. Furlong) was there. There was a big announcement, “The Premier is finally bringing the GO train,” notwithstanding the fact it was on the books for four or five years. He was just making another announcement.

I have to say I suppose it proved to have some success, because we got two Liberal members from out that way taking the credit for the GO rail system, but I tell them it is hurting them now, because it should have been running a long time ago and they have just been playing around with it. Let me tell them -- I will be letting the press know out our way -- that it is not going to work too successfully yet.

It is good that it is finally coming out to Whitby, I say to the member for Durham West -- she can pass it on to the member for Durham Centre -- but do you know what? I stopped the other day, because I plan on using it, and I asked one of the workers there who was fixing up one of the handrails on the steps. I said, “How many parking spots in here?” He said, “A thousand.” Do you know what? A thousand is not going to be enough.

At Pickering, it is already glutted. I went there once to try to park. If from Pickering they move to an industrial site, the industrial site is about a half-hour walk to the GO train station at Pickering and it is glutted, so they are hoping, and I am waiting to see, if the opening of the other two or three stations east of Pickering is going to alleviate the parking.

I suggest that it is not going to and that they have underestimated the value of this resolution, and that is for the use of a commuter rail system, and people are attuned to it. For those members who are driving in those kinds of hours, the traffic from east of Toronto along Highway 401 from Oshawa and Bowmanville into Toronto is horrendous now, and people will be using a rail system, something that the resolution purports.

Of course, I am mildly amused -- if you want to see some fancy footwork here, Madam Speaker, in the two and a half minutes left -- it says, “a concentrated program to improve the rail system and services,” We can expand a little more on that, because we do not have to talk about commuter services; we can talk about the transportation of other items.

Someone said to me yesterday, “Sam, are you up for another garbage speech?” I said, “You’re darn right I’m up for another garbage speech.” Let them just keep talking about Sam and the garbage speeches, because I want to say to the member that we could be thinking about how this Liberal administration is not handling the garbage crisis. They could be working garbage trucks into this resolution on saving the commuter system and looking at an overall policy of putting garbage on a rail system and commuting the garbage to the appropriate place, which has yet to be found as we have heard time and time again.

As recently as yesterday -- here it is in the Toronto Sun I think it is -- more talk about the crisis in the garbage situation, in that Durham region has said no to Metro Toronto, “Metro, you’re supposed to be looking after your own garbage.”

I am a little suspicious. Elie Martel used to say, “I’m not from Missouri.” I knew he was not; he was from Sudbury. So I am going to say I am not from Missouri.

The point is I think there are some politics going on at the region. Maybe the chairman of the region, hoping to get re-elected, will look strong and emphasize the fact he is fighting for Durham; therefore, put him back in as the chairman. The great Liberal that he is, he ran the campaign for the Liberal candidate against me, I might add.

Notwithstanding that, we still have the garbage crisis out our way and the Liberal administration is not doing anything about it. I was talking the other day about a plan, an overall concept, and do you know what? We could be working in a rail system in terms of getting at all of these tragedies in the various regions around southwestern Ontario organized to handle the garbage situation that is taking place, following the resolution about getting action and coordination.

But do you know what? We do not hear a thing about it, not one iota. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), time and time again, has said here --

Mr. D. R. Cooke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I draw your attention to rule 19(d)2 of the standing orders and would suggest that the member stay in line with the terms of the resolution.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member tried at all times to bring all his comments back to the resolution, in the best possible manner he could. His time has now expired and I believe he has had the opportunity to express himself fully.

Would any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate with respect to the resolution? The member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr. Keyes: It is a great pleasure me for me to stand in this House and support the resolution of the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham). I do so for a number of reasons. The first is to acknowledge the great thoroughness and the depth in which he does his research in preparation for resolutions, and also, particularly, his usual relationship with some form of humour in it.

I had the privilege of getting a copy of his original notes for this, and I was disappointed to see that the one line he did not put into it, in order to bring back the relativity of his humour and the rest of it, was his closing line, “Had it been available way back then, I’ll bet that Sam McGee from Tennessee would have chosen a Via Rail high-speed rail train instead of a dog team to get to the marge of Lake Lebarge.”

I certainly also want to give my wholehearted support for the role that Via Rail does play in moving substantial numbers of customers, approximately six million passengers per year, back and forth across this great country.

The third reason is my appreciation for the problems that have confronted Via since its formation as a crown corporation in 1977 and the steps that have been taken over the years to alleviate the majority of those problems. This appreciation on my part was heightened during the four years that I served on Via Rail’s advisory council, which acted as a liaison committee between Via and the consumers of the province and was a forerunner of the numerous community liaison committees now in existence.

I also had an appreciation for what an efficient, on-time, high-speed rail service can provide in other countries -- Japan, France and Britain -- because during my term at the National Defence College in 1980 and 1981, I had an opportunity to ride the Silver Bullet from Kyoto to Tokyo, the French Paris-to-Lyons line and also the lines that operated out of the British system from London.

More important is my own utilization on a very frequent basis, since becoming a member of this House in 1985, of the system that is currently in existence, using it to come up here every Sunday evening and then on Thursday, like tonight, being able to climb aboard at 4:40 p.m. or 5:55 p.m. and arrive in Kingston two hours and 10 minutes later, refreshed, nourished and ready for constituency activities.

I support a resolution that has the thrust of providing better service to areas of the province where ridership can be increased and where improved service would enhance the opportunities of commuting between major population centres while at the same time reducing the demand on our highways and, consequently, reducing the pollution created by the internal combustion engine.

I believe it would be beneficial, however, to spend a few moments this morning on certain of the positive aspects of Via’s operation; namely, the ridership statistics, the improved service to the riders, the equipment upgrading and other issues of interest to this House.

A glance at Via’s annual report of 1987, which I hope everyone has perused -- members have this in their offices -- will show that for the last five-year period ridership has remained fairly constant at approximately six million riders per year, reaching a high in 1985 of seven million people. Despite an unexpected event in 1987 -- namely, a strike between Canadian National and Canadian Pacific -- that had no financial impact on the net revenue for Via Rail. While a loss in revenue of about $6.3 million was occasioned, this was offset by equal savings in operating expenditures.

The year 1988 has been a very strong one for Via, with the overall passenger volume up approximately 10 per cent from last year, as reported in the annual report. In our eastern corridor, from Toronto to Quebec, the passenger volume has risen by almost 18 per cent. In southwestern Ontario, it has increased by five per cent. I know this is a figure that the honourable members in support of the resolution would like to see increased in the future. Overall, Via expects the growth to continue, but perhaps at a somewhat lower rate, in 1989.

Just out of interest, Kingston now happens to be the third-busiest rail station on the entire Via Rail line.

Via has undertaken a number of steps in the past year to improve customer service. A customer service department was created in the fall of 1987. This now groups together the vast majority of the employees dealing directly with the public. A better Via first-class service in our Quebec-Windsor corridor was started in 1997, which features special check-in and boarding privileges, complimentary beverages, full-course meals and complimentary newspapers and magazines and, if you have used it recently, a brand-new Via Rail lounge in Union Station here in Toronto.

As well, all the coach passengers on trains in the Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto triangle now receive a complimentary snack and nonalcoholic beverage; very much like you see on the planes criss-crossing this continent. Eventually, all of Via’s network will receive the same type of benefit.

One of the other great improvements is that Via has signed a contract with Cantel Inc. to install cellular phones in all of the light, rapid, comfortable train systems. This, again, is in the Montreal-Windsor corridor. The three-year contract was signed after a trial period of several months and installations began in November. Now you may use them with a credit card anywhere in the corridor at the regular cost you enjoy with your cellular phone within your own automobile.

We have also expanded Via Rail services this year by new weekend frequencies on the routes between Toronto and Ottawa and also between Montreal and Ottawa, providing the opportunity for persons working in those cities to move back at night-time.

One of the greatest areas of need, of course, was in the field of equipment. As members know, in 1987 $361 million was approved for capital improvements. This has enabled Via to purchase new equipment, refurbish the existing stock and expand its maintenance network. Thirty new high-powered locomotives were delivered in 1987; another 29 will be delivered by the end of this year.

Also, they are modernizing 190 cars used in the transcontinental services. A $90-million contract was awarded last September to modernize 155 stainless steel cars. Likewise, a further $30 million should be awarded shortly for some 35 additional cars.

My one great concern was the fact that when this Ontario government sold the Urban Transportation Development Corp. to Lavalin Inc., it had been anticipated that the majority of that renovation-refurbishing would have been done in the Kingston works of UTDC. Unfortunately, it was not the low bidder when final decisions were made and that was done elsewhere by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific yards.

We did know that the maintenance factors have been improved upon because there is now a new maintenance facility in Toronto that was opened in 1985. Also, the $100-million first phase of a Montreal maintenance centre opened in 1987, which will be completed this year for an additional $30 million-plus. Three other smaller centres are being constructed in Halifax, Winnipeg and Vancouver.

These are just some of the initiatives which have been undertaken by Via in order to provide an improved service. The whole aspect of running Via trains on CN and CP lines has always been a difficult one. The transfer of stations to Via likewise has almost been completed, but they have coped well in dealing with the problems that have been placed before them.

In supporting the honourable member’s call for renewed and improved service in this province, I want to draw to the attention of the House the decision and commitment of the federal cabinet in 1987 that Via Rail would have a thorough review of its operations in 1988 and 1989. In addition to their capital funding of some $36 million, this review should provide us an opportunity to see how, once again, Via Rail services can be improved.

I trust that this government, through its appropriate ministry and any of the other available channels open to it, such as Transport 2000, such as the honourable member himself perhaps in making representation, will make known to this federal review the sincere interest of the citizens in this province in utilizing an efficient, rapid, on-time rail service.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sault Ste. Marie, for up to eight minutes.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I will probably not go for that long, so we can get on at least another speaker.

I would like to endorse this resolution. The resolution does address an area of transportation which we do not talk a lot about in this House, and that is rail transportation. We have a very strong focus in terms of highway transportation, we sometimes get into some of the issues having to do with air transportation but we do not spend much time looking at what rail transportation services should be provided by Ontario.

Perhaps historically that has happened because the federal government has, over the years, taken primary responsibility for the overall transportation network in the country. Certainly, we have seen the very serious deterioration of that network. In most recent years, the deregulation of transportation services has resulted in serious cutbacks in services and numbers of lines. Today, we see numbers of rail lines, potentially some 26 existing rail lines in Ontario threatened by deregulation and the right that is providing to the major rail companies to close down lines with a much easier process than they could previously.

The Ontario government has a very important role to play in terms of our overall transportation network. Certainly, they should be looking at the example of what other countries have done in terms of providing adequate networks, particularly in major urban areas such as the Metro Toronto area and the other heavily travelled routes around southern Ontario.

If one looks at what has happened in Europe and Japan, they use rail transport, including very rapid transport, high-speed rail lines, extremely effectively to provide a major portion of the transport of citizens not only from community to community but on a daily basis in terms of commuting to work.

The development of the Golden Horseshoe area has put serious constraints on our highways. They are congested, we have serious pollution problems and we face major expenditures if we are going to get the highways up to the capability of the demand that is on them today. One of the ways we could relieve that demand quite considerably is to put a new focus on the possibilities of the rail transport system down in this area of the province.

I believe this is an issue the Ministry of Transportation has not looked at seriously in the past. I would hope that as a result of this resolution we would see a serious focusing and some staffing put into that area. As a result of the studies proposed here, hopefully, we can come forward with some concrete new investment in terms of rail transport lines that will serve citizens right across our province.

In northern Ontario, we have seen phasing out of rail lines over the past several decades. In fact, in my community, Sault Ste. Marie, we no longer even have a passenger rail service connecting with the other major communities. We have only the small Algoma Central Railway line, which is primarily a tourist operation; we no longer have the rail passenger service along the CPR line from Sault Ste. Marie to Sudbury.

Many other communities are going to face that same problem if Ontario does not step in and see that the service is provided in areas where the federal government has obviously abandoned its rights and responsibilities to provide citizens with that alternative mode of transportation, a mode of transportation that still is very successfully and very efficiently used in countries around the world.

I know that a country like Switzerland today has an extremely efficient system covering all the communities in the country, a system which is clean because it is 100 per cent electrified. There are none of the pollution problems associated with our highway systems and perhaps some of the problems which may have been associated with rail in the distant past.

I would suggest that this resolution could have been a stronger one in terms of demanding specific action from the Ministry of Transportation in Ontario, but it is a start in the right direction. I would hope that, with the passage of this resolution, the Ministry of Transportation will get on with the job of providing adequate, efficient services for the people of our province so that they do have the kind of world-class transportation system in the rail area that they deserve.

I think I will terminate at that point and let one of my colleagues have another chance.

Mrs. Marland: I would like to congratulate the member for Oxford and suggest to him that the intent of his motion is forthright, it is sincere and, if it should be supported by his own government in real terms, it will have far-reaching benefits to the people of this province.

I also have to make just one comment in response to the member for Kingston and The Islands when he referred to the sale of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. Obviously, I am sure he realizes that was the first big mistake his government made since coming to office, but that is history and, unfortunately, it was a big loss to our province.

I hope that as part of the studies to implement this motion the province and the federal government will look very closely at what goes on in Europe. They have a tremendously sophisticated electrified rail system and the alternatives for transportation in Europe simply are not needed, because they have a working, reliable system. I only wish this Liberal government in Ontario would plan very soon to electrify our GO Transit lines that exist, particularly the Lakeshore line, which comes out through my riding. That is not a parochial comment, since the Lakeshore line goes through about six ridings to the west of Toronto and, of course, those ridings out to the east to Whitby.

The fact is that the Queen Elizabeth Way, with its thousands of cars and increasing monthly, is not an alternative for people who have to commute. Because there is no available land to widen the Queen Elizabeth Way, we are going to have to look at increasing the number of rail stations on the Lakeshore line, and the only way that can be done, I am told by the chairman of GO Transit, is to electrify the line.

We hope this is the beginning of very good things.

Mr. Tatham: I believe it is the second verse of Auld Lang Syne where Robbie Burns says, “And here’s a hand my trusty fiere, and gie’s a hand o’ thine; and we’ll tak a right guid willie-waught, for auld lang syne,” which means, here’s a hand; thank you very much for your support from Beaches-Woodbine, Durham East, Kingston and The Islands, Sault Ste. Marie and Mississauga South.

An hon. member: Robbie Burns knew them.

Mr. Tatham: Robbie Burns knew them.

Looking to the 21st century, we who live in the Great Lakes basin can expect continuing growth. We must ensure that we take the necessary actions now to help prepare the proper infrastructure.

I thank members for their kind support.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the business for this morning, except to put the question.

WASTE DISPOSAL

The House divided on Mr. Brandt’s resolution 43, which was negatived on the following vote.

Ayes

Allen, Brandt, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cunningham, Cureatz, Eves, Farnan, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Laughren, Marland, Martel, McLean, Morin-Strom, Rae, B., Reville, Runciman, Sterling, Wildman.

Nays

Adams, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Carrothers, Cleary, Collins, Cooke, D. R., Daigeler, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Keyes, Kozyra, Lipsett, MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, McClelland, Miller, Offer, Owen, Pelissero, Poirier, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Stoner, Tatham, Velshi.

Ayes 22; nays 32.

INTEGRATED RAIL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Tatham has moved resolution 40. If there are any members opposed to a vote on resolution 40, will they please rise. Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:09 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Farnan: This is an arrogant Liberal government. Yesterday, I introduced a private member’s bill that would have required members to sit on Sundays for six to eight weeks. We witnessed the government killing the bill on first reading. This is even more radical than the closure of debate. It attacks the fundamental cornerstone of democracy. It stifles and kills debate. Not only do the Liberals not listen to the people of Ontario when they express overwhelming support for a common pause day; they crush debate on a proposal that was expressed by several delegations in the course of our hearings.

We witnessed yesterday the Premier (Mr. Peterson) refusing to answer substantive questions from the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) on the issue of Sunday shopping by hiding behind flippancy and cheap male chauvinistic remarks. We witnessed yesterday from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), who has consistently refused public hearings on Bill 162, that the government apparently accedes only after a disturbance of injured workers provoked by frustration.

This is truly an insensitive and arrogant government. The people of Ontario were certainly fooled in the campaign of 1987 when Mr. Peterson campaigned on an open and accessible government -- the image of David Peterson with sleeves rolled up, tie undone, very approachable. By their actions, you will know them. This action and this government are insensitive and arrogant.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to make very clear that the government members voted against the introduction of first reading of the honourable member’s bill precisely because his own colleagues voted against the introduction on a voice vote here yesterday afternoon. In doing so, we simply agreed with his own colleagues. Let it be very clear what we did and why we did it.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have a different point of order that I would like you to listen to, as you did the government House leader’s today and yesterday. The point of order simply is that we wanted members opposite on record on the Sunday shopping issue. That is why we forced a vote yesterday. We saw where they stand, and they stand the way they have stood for quite a while now: To hell with the public; they do what they want to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind members that they have used up most of the time for members’ statements.

I would like to remind the first member who made a statement that when you refer to members in this House, you refer to them by their riding or ministry.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: You made the comment about members’ statements time, and I ask for unanimous consent to restore the members’ statements time. What caused the problem with the statement time was a clear, knowingly out-of-order, very provocative interjection to use up time that is for the backbenchers.

Interjections.

Mr. Harris: Do you notice all the cabinet ministers speaking? That time is not just for noncabinet members. It is for all the backbenchers of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I certainly heard the request, and any member has the right to make a request. I will ask the House how it wishes to handle it.

Agreed to.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mrs. Cunningham: My statement is directed to the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward). I was pleased to hear that the minister has finally made the long-overdue announcement that a site has been approved for a new separate high school in London. However, a site without a school is as good as a classroom of students without a teacher.

In the minister’s press release, he stated that the capital needed to build the new school will be considered when the board submits its 1989 capital expenditure forecast. That is too late.

The minister has known for almost two years now that London has desperately needed a new separate secondary school. He has not yet made a firm commitment to provide the necessary capital funding.

As a result, construction of the school cannot start until the fall of 1990 at the earliest. Students will not be able to use the new facility until 1991, meaning a whole generation of students will experience high school from the inside of portables. In fact, the situation is so critical in London that the separate school board has again been forced to ask to use Oakridge Secondary School for at least two years.

Today’s headline in the London Free Press reads: “Catholic Board Wants Loan of Oakridge Space.” Given the uncertainty facing both the public and separate school boards, there is still great potential for the kind of divisiveness that occurred in Hamilton. This piecemeal approach to planning is indicative of this government’s insensitivity to the needs of students in London and across this province.

FIRE PREVENTION

Mrs. Fawcett: On Tuesday, October 11, I had the pleasure of attending an awards ceremony in the town of Cobourg with my colleague the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). This was the first fire prevention award given under the new provincial fire prevention program. This award was initiated with the intention of significantly reducing Ontario’s fire injuries, deaths and property losses. One aspect of the program is the presentation of a number of fire prevention awards.

In 1987, our area received nine of a possible 16 awards in the James L. Arnott Fire Prevention Foundation contest held right across Canada. Winners from our area were Steve Higgins and Mark Bignell of Brookside school, Sarah Macklin of Dale Road public school, Doug Glen of St. Joseph’s, Bonnie Carman of Grant Sine school, David Giddings of Grafton public school, Jason Benne of Baltimore public school, Christina Nemec of St. Mary’s school, Grafton, and Tammy Caine of Camborne public school.

The Cobourg, Hamilton and Haldimand fire prevention committee has been instrumental in educating not only the youth of our area but the entire community on the merits of fire prevention. It has indeed been a splendid example of community involvement and we consider it a model organization that has served our community well. Members of the committee who deserve special recognition are: fire department chiefs Harry Greer of Cobourg, Howard Ferguson of Baltimore, Jack Lingard of Bewdley and Wayne Young of Harwood; chairman of the committee Ross Quigley; and municipal officials --

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION

Mr. Laughren: Year after year, members of the Legislature examine the annual report of the Workers’ Compensation Board. Year after year, there are public hearings on the compensation system. There are demonstrations. Our constituency offices are plugged solid with problems. Employers are unhappy with our compensation system, the trade union movement is unhappy with our compensation system, injured workers are unhappy and occasionally feel the need to express that unhappiness, and the board itself has an unfunded liability of $6 billion and it is still growing.

All in all, we have a system of compensation in this province that is not serving the people it is supposed to serve. Some people shrug their shoulders and say: “Well, there’s nothing you can do about that. You can’t have a system that works.”

We on this side say that is absolute and total nonsense. There is a solution that would work, and that is a comprehensive accident compensation system based on the model presently in place in New Zealand. Under that system, wage earners are compensated by employer contributions whether they are injured at work or at home. Injuries caused by car accidents are compensated by the car drivers, and a supplementary fund from general revenues covers all other types of accident. It is time we had that kind of system in Ontario.

MISS OTTAWA ROUGH RIDER

Mr. Sterling: I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House of an upcoming event which is causing quite a stir in Ottawa these days, namely, the Miss Ottawa Rough Rider contest. The excitement over this contest is not for reasons you might expect but is due, rather, to a certain 72-year-old sensation known as Pearl Fleming, one of the five finalists vying for the title tonight.

The Ottawa Grey Cup committee recently decided it was time for a change in the regulations. While the minimum age is 18 years, there is no longer any upper age limit for contestants. The contest criteria now call for a good knowledge of the Canadian Football League, an ability to speak publicly and a demonstrated support of the team. As a 40-season ticketholder, Mrs. Fleming is certainly eligible.

This regulatory change has been supported by the Grey Cup committee and the option now exists for any CFL city to adopt the same measures. Such an initiative will prove beneficial not only to the team but to the league, fans and, in particular, women.

I would like to extend my best wishes and the wishes of this assembly to all finalists in the Miss Ottawa Rough Rider contest this evening.

ERINOAK

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to share with this House some information about a wonderful facility in my riding, known as Erinoak. Erinoak was formerly called the Credit Valley Treatment Centre for Children. They changed the name to avoid conflict with the Credit Valley Hospital fund-raising program and to better reflect the two communities they serve.

This facility recently celebrated its 10th anniversary in our community in providing rehabilitation-based services to infants, children and young adults living in Peel and Halton who have physical disabilities. They address the real-world needs of these people by providing diagnosis, therapy, specialized equipment, medical clinics, recreation and counselling services within their own community. They also offer programs on an outpatient basis in the clients’ homes, schools and through our satellite centre in Brampton.

This is truly a co-operative effort operating under the provisions of the Ministry of Health with assistance from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The community financial support enables Erinoak to continue to provide programs and equipment not covered by government grants. The list of community donors is too long to read in a 90-second statement, but includes service clubs from all over Peel and Halton, corporate donors that contribute annually, community donors and memorial donations as well as individual donors. There are also nonmonetary donors who provide volunteer work at the site on a regular basis.

Under the leadership of Diana Thompson and the dedicated staff, they continue to operate a very needed service to our community.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr. Hampton: Too often in Ontario’s recent past, our environment has been ravaged as a result of decisions made in the United States or activities carried on in the United States. Names like Love Canal or the major source of our acid rain constantly remind us of this problem.

Recently, in northern Minnesota a proposal has surfaced which the Ontario Ministry of the Environment must take careful note of. The state of Minnesota proposes to establish a hazardous waste site near International Falls, which is a border community. Never mind that 11 of 13 counties in northern Minnesota have said no to the waste site and never mind that 75 per cent of the people who live near International Falls have said no.

The waste facility will initially store the hazardous waste heavy metals lead, cadmium and chromium. Perhaps the storage site will be 100 per cent safe, but perhaps it will leak. The danger is that all the water drains into Ontario. The second danger is that so far neither Environment Canada nor the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has had significant input or asked significant questions about the situation. This would be an easy situation for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to duck. We could always say it is a federal problem.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Hampton: But what happens when the pollution starts to come home? We need some action from Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

USE OF TIME IN ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Laughren: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if you could make a ruling, perhaps not as you sit here now but for the future. I wonder if you could tell us whether or not it is appropriate, when members make their statements at the beginning of the proceedings, for other members to rise in disagreement with what a member has to say in the opening statements.

An hon. member: And take his time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe it is the duty of the chair to uphold the standing order set out by this House. This House has decided that there shall be 10 minutes for members’ statements, and that is certainly what I was trying to uphold.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have been looking for an opportunity to raise this other point of order for some time now. As you reflect upon the orders, would you take under consideration the concern that many of us on this side of the aisle have about the growing penchant of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) particularly to not put his questions without an endless series of editorial comments after.

The concern I have is that when the Leader of the Opposition puts his first question, he can do whatever he wishes; but what I am very concerned about is that when you call him to order and ask him to put his second question, Mr. Speaker, he takes upwards of 30 seconds with what is often an uncontrolled editorial postscript. That, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, when you are looking at this matter that the government House leader has decided to raise, you might want to take a look at some of the particular cabinet ministers, such as the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), who abuse the question period regularly. It is obvious to me today that the government House Leader and the government are very grumpy because they screwed up so badly yesterday on Bill 162.

Mr. Speaker: It has been a most interesting discussion.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: If the members wish to waste the time of the House, that is up to them.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HEALTHY LIFESTYLES PROMOTION PROGRAM

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In contemporary society, many of the diseases we are treating, such as cancer, heart and lung disease and cirrhosis, we know have a strong environmental and lifestyle connection. That means we must be able to provide people with the options, the alternatives and the information that make good personal health choices both practical and possible.

Today we understand more clearly the direct relationship between our own health and the choices and decisions we make. We understand that health is not just the absence of disease but a positive resource for living, and, as individuals, we must take greater responsibility to protect that resource.

I believe we must now take this concept, this new understanding of health, and give it a vital, growing role in Ontario health care. I am therefore announcing today the launch of a comprehensive three-year healthy lifestyles promotion program focused on quitting smoking, moderate alcohol consumption and healthy nutrition.

My ministry will provide $1.5 million in annual funding for this program, which includes public education, community support and a community action strategy. This will be a positive program aimed at creating greater public awareness of healthy lifestyles and encouraging individuals to make health-affirming choices.

An important aspect of this program will be community participation. A review of other health promotion programs now in operation indicates that community support and participation are essential to program effectiveness and the achievement of positive outcomes and results. A major emphasis will be placed on assisting communities to mobilize services that will support individuals in making healthy choices.

In developing the program, my ministry had the benefit of the Spasoff and Podborski reports, which make a number of specific recommendations centred on health promotion and disease prevention activities.

As well, the ministry received excellent advice from a committee composed of experts in the fields of alcohol abuse, nutrition, heart disease, multicultural issues, women’s health and epidemiology. I would like to acknowledge the work of this advisory committee and express my appreciation for its dedication to this program.

In particular, I would like to mention the contribution of Dr. Larry Chambers of McMaster University; Dr. Geoff Dunkley from the Ottawa-Carleton regional health unit; John Garcia from the Toronto public health department; Maria Herrara of the Multicultural Health Coalition; Dr. Peter Loranger from the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation; Beverly Musten from the Scarborough health department, and Peggy Shultz from the Ontario division of the Canadian Mental Health Association.

The second program component, community support, will involve the development of resource materials which can then be adapted for use by communities and community organizations. To advise on and co-ordinate the effective development of these resource materials, experts on health risk behaviour will work closely with the program designers.

For the third part of the healthy lifestyles campaign, community action strategies, program staff will work with public health units and district health councils. In partnership, they will develop strategies that will stimulate initiatives at the community and district level to complement existing health promotion programs and activities.

The healthy lifestyles campaign will be evaluated during the three years of its development and implementation. We expect the information obtained to be a valuable tool for the planning of other local health promotion programs and services.

Earlier this year, I announced the first health promotion grants in a $1-million program for community-based health promotion projects. I also announced a new $1-million program aimed at reducing heart and vascular disease. The healthy lifestyles promotion program will now complement and support these efforts.

The healthy lifestyles promotion program, together with the other initiatives I have announced, has the potential to have a profound and positive impact on the health and wellbeing of the people of this province. I encourage all Ontarians to become involved and take the message to heart: ”Health. It’s a great feeling.”

Some of the members of the advisory committee are in the gallery today. I would like to acknowledge their presence and thank them for their contribution.

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to announce to the House that I have instructed officials in my department to appeal the decision of the Ontario High Court of Justice regarding the Education Statute Law Amendment Act of 1988.

As members of the House will be aware, the court determined on Monday of this week that certain provisions of the act should not take effect in the municipal elections to be held next month. The decision to appeal was taken after a