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

July 23, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SENATE OF CANADA

Mr Sterling moved resolution 22:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Senate of Canada should be abolished.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Yesterday I gave a brief statement prior to question period about my decision to try to talk a little bit about the Senate at this time during our constitutional discussions.

It's my feeling that when our constitutional committee was convened some year or year and a half ago now, the primary focus of the members of that committee and most of our thinking during those deliberations was in relation to inviting Quebec into the constitutional package, which it has really never accepted; it has never signed the Constitution Act, 1982.

Since that time, a lot of events have taken place and focus has come on two additional issues: one, the aboriginal inherent right to self-government, and the other, the Senate. I decided that today I would like to give members an opportunity to express some of their opinions with regard to the Senate.

I have had the privilege of being involved with the constitutional discussions, sitting behind or near the Premier during some of the private discussions which have taken place over the last four or five months. The experience has perhaps been very enlightening to me and I want to thank the Premier for inviting both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party to participate in those discussions.

Our present Senate has 104 senators plus, I believe, an additional 10 appointments, so there are about 114 senators in our federal Senate. One of the first reactions I had to the discussions, and particularly to Alberta's thrust that we should have a triple E Senate, was my lack of understanding as to what the Senate of Canada should really do, what its function was, what it should be involved in in governing Canada. I find myself back to that very initial reaction at this time. That initial reaction was probably evoked or came to me some three or four years ago.

One of the parts of the proposal we have in front of us, as negotiated by the nine first ministers of our provinces and the federal government, is that we have a Senate with eight senators from each province and two from each territory, making up a total of 84 senators. If we have a new territory, which is expected in the next two or three years, I assume it would gain another two seats and that would be 86 senators. Then there is some talk about aboriginal representation as well and we don't know how many seats that would flesh out in the final analysis.

When I was at the last constitutional discussions with the Premier during that Tuesday afternoon when things started to come together with regard to the present proposal with the triple E Senate, I sat down with my trusted calculator, perhaps as an engineer might when he's trying to calculate the meaning of what is going on, and I drew up a

schedule of what would be required to meet the various thresholds for the Senate to reject the initiatives of the House of Commons.

In order to reach the threshold of getting 42 votes or 50% of the votes in the Senate of Canada or the proposed Senate of Canada, it would require representatives of 12.5% of the population of Canada. In order to meet the threshold of 60% of the votes in the Senate of Canada or the proposed Senate of Canada, you would have to have representatives of about 16% of the people. To get 70%, which is the magic figure in the proposal at this time, you need only to get the representatives of 25% of the population of Canada in order to turn back virtually any kind of legislation, save a supply bill, in the federal Senate.

I had some concern with regard to the very sparse populations we have in Canada and how they would be properly represented in a triple E Senate. I think it's fair to say that the Premier has had concerns about that, that my leader, Mr Harris, has had concerns about it and that many people in Canada have concerns about it.

The other part of the proposal which bothers me perhaps more than the numbers, than the assumption I make in my previous adding up and calculating out what would be required in order to deal with House of Commons legislation, is the very negative aspect of this chamber. It appears to me that the only function of the Senate of Canada as envisaged by the first ministers at these meetings -- and this was prevalent in the attitude I saw around the room and which you were not privy to, the major concern of the ministers around that room -- was to block the House of Commons and the will it might have with regard to legislation and with regard to policy.

I believe, and I think members believe, particularly at this time in our own history here, that perhaps there's enough opportunity for opposition, be it the media, be it the official opposition or be it the third party, with regard to initiatives a government might want to take and put into effect. So my concern overall is with the attitude with regard to the genesis of this new proposal for the Senate of Canada; it is that the provinces, as represented by their premiers in general, want another check on our federal House of Commons.

I think the attitude exhibited around the table by the various delegations -- I want to exclude the Premier from this because I don't think that was Ontario's attitude, and of course it's definitely not my attitude with regard to this proposal -- was exemplified by the fact that when we elect the senators, it was only through the insistence of Mr Clark, and it was only through the insistence of Mr Rae, Mr Cameron and Mr McKenna, that there were to be concurrent elections.

The concern of Mr Clark or any federal politician who was in the House of Commons or was a member of cabinet was that if you had separate elections and the election came in the middle of a federal term in the House of Commons, it would naturally turn into an anti-government election, and in most cases you would have a Senate hostile to the House of Commons, members from different parties as per the House of Commons.

I think the other very salient point to remember in terms of the motivation with regard to the proposal we now have before us in these Senate negotiations is that the premiers insisted on and were successful in preventing a senator from becoming a member of the federal cabinet. That particular attitude tells me they don't want the Senate to be part of a constructive government governing the people of Canada, and therefore I think we would be better off abolishing the Senate than accepting the proposal we have before us.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I too have had the privilege of being involved in those multilateral discussions, and it's from that experience that I rise today to speak against this motion, which while I have some sympathies with it, I believe is a counterproductive motion.

I should point out that the Premier of Ontario has clearly indicated many times in many different forums that we preferred to abolish the existing Senate. That was the position of the Premier. It was indeed my position and the position of many of the members within our government and within our own party. That is true.

However, while the constitutional agreement reached on July 7 by multilateral representatives is not perfect, I strongly believe that it provides a firm basis for negotiating a renewed Canada. To simply delete an item from the agreement, in my view, is risky, dangerous and counterproductive.

Ontario went into these negotiations with four main goals: preserving national unity, creating a stronger economic union, entrenching a social charter and recognizing the inherent right of self-government for aboriginal peoples. All four of these goals were addressed by the proposed package.

As Ontario's priorities have been addressed, so must the priorities of other regions of Canada. For maritime and western provinces, the Senate is viewed as an important tool, if reformed, in providing a greater voice for regions in the federal government.

We say that in protecting the interests of Ontario, we must also acknowledge the interests of our other partners in Confederation. For them, Senate reform is, was and will continue to be important. In my view, Ontario responded constructively by agreeing to Senate reforms which clearly define and limit the powers of the new Senate in order to avoid the dangers of legislative deadlock.

Ontario agrees that a reformed Senate should be elected by the people of Canada. In my view, this new Senate would be radically different from the way senators are appointed at this time. The multilateral agreement, if ratified, will put an end to the system of patronage Senate appointments which caused so many of us to call for the elimination or abolition of such an institution. The proposed Senate will, for the first time, be directly accountable to the people of Canada. In my view, that is something the people of Canada will agree with.

Ontario does not support a reformed Senate which would thwart the authority of the House of Commons. Therefore, the proposed agreement recommends that the Senate only be able to block legislation with a simple majority vote on matters of taxation directly related to natural resources, which may be of interest to this province as indeed to many other provinces. Should 60% of the senators vote against a proposed bill, the legislation will be brought before a joint sitting of the Senate and the House of Commons. In these instances, the principle of an equitable chamber will come into force.

The House of Commons will also be reformed under the terms of the agreement to better reflect the principle of representation by population upon which the chamber is based. Ontario will gain 10 more seats in the reformed House of Commons to reflect its population growth. Ontario's interests therefore, in my view, will be well represented if the Senate and House of Commons are required to sit jointly. The 10 additional seats Ontario would have would play an important role in those joint sittings. The joint sitting requirement also places an onus on the two chambers to jointly resolve matters which they could not resolve separately. This is a positive mechanism.

To fully block legislation, 70% of the elected senators must vote in opposition to the legislation. If such a majority were obtained, bills related to supply and budgets could only be delayed for 30 days, not defeated. I am confident these reforms will not result in legislative deadlock.

In giving a greater voice to the regions of Canada, we are doing a great deal to address the sense of regional alienation and dissatisfaction within our federal system. We must do this if we are to build a truly renewed Canadian federation. A reformed Senate that is democratically elected by the people of Canada will be an important feature of a renewed Canada.

We have all had to make compromises to reach an agreement which I believe is the basis for negotiating a new Constitution. In agreeing to Senate reform, Ontario has not compromised its interests. The rules and limitations placed on the proposed Senate will help to ensure that a Senate with equal representation cannot thwart the will of the majority of Canadians.

In conclusion, I reiterate my government's position that a first ministers' conference must be called by the Prime Minister as soon as possible, with Quebec returning to the table, so that the historic agreement reached on July 7 can be discussed. In such a process, we fully expect there to be changes to the package, but we have agreed with the proposals contained in this package and we support them as a starting point for further negotiation.

We do not advocate, as the member for Carleton does, that we should eliminate an element of the package which is integral to its acceptance in many regions of Canada. To do this would, in my mind, set the constitutional agenda back considerably.

We've made great gains during this process, not just for Ontario, but for all regions of Canada. The reformed Senate proposed in the July 7 agreement is acceptable to the government of Ontario, and I am confident that this agreement has laid the foundation for a renewed Canada.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I rise this morning but before I speak on it, I should indicate that I spent the evening thinking about what I would say about pennies and when I get into the House I find that the honourable member Mr Sterling, who is a sterling fellow, is not prepared to speak about sterling or pennies, that we're speaking about the abolition of the Senate.

I'm just going to say a few more words on this, then I'll get into the topic of the abolition, but, as I say, it kept me awake last night thinking about this. You look at the question, if we abolish the penny, what would happen to our terminology that we have, songs like Pennies from Heaven, two cents for your thoughts or a penny for your thoughts? What would you put in your loafers, if you had loafers?

Now I want to get to the topic at hand. I appreciate that sometimes common sense prevails and instead of doing the penny, we're doing the abolition of the Senate. In that case you have to look at it from the standpoint of common cents too, because if one looks at the Senate of Canada, it has been an old boys' club, a repository of the politically faithful to various parties. I think most Canadians, first of all, ignored it for a while because the senators didn't do anything, so it didn't bother them.

Of course the Senate really came into great prominence when it attempted to block a few unpopular measures of the federal government and that's when it really became popular. But one has to look at it, if in fact they're just repositories of people who have been put there by political payoff, what are the taxpayers paying for?

My sense is that the taxpayers today have grave concern about the number of people they are paying to keep in their jobs, be it the members of the Legislature, be it members of the Parliament of Canada and be it the senators. They expect value for their dollar, which I think makes sense. So I think if you asked average Canadians on the street, "What has the Senate done for you today?" they might say nothing or they might say some particular item that it has blocked, namely, the GST.

I guess their efforts to block the GST made them knights on white horses with lances. It's too bad they couldn't effectively block the GST because the GST is destroying this country. That, plus the PST, is making it impossible for the economy to turn around. In fact one fellow told me the GST does have positive aspects because you no longer have to figure out what the tip is when you're at the restaurant. All you do is mirror-image the GST and the PST and you've got your tip. But the Senate there could have served a very important purpose.

The proposals that are taking place within the framework of the constitutional discussions are talking about people who are accountable. Certainly I think if the Senate were to be accountable, were to be directly elected and were not to play the partisan games that are played by most politicians, then in fact it might be a worthwhile endeavour. I might be prepared as a taxpayer to support their rather humble trappings. We all know that the Senate has very humble trappings in Ottawa. They don't receive many benefits. Their salaries are extremely low. If you believe that, then I have some swamp land in Florida I would sell you.

In any event if they're meaningful, then as an institution I would be prepared to support them. But thus far, I've looked at the suggestions that have been made in terms of the Senate: first of all, the question of getting eight from each province, and a person having to run for the Senate, let's say in Ontario or Quebec. The cost of running for that seat would be so astronomical that person couldn't possibly come to that role without an awful lot of baggage. You see it in the United States.

In the United States, some of these people have to represent very large communities and, as a result of it, when they get elected, the cost of getting elected requires them to pay back the people who have supported them financially.

What are you going to have? The eight senators will be people of great prominence. Now that's a positive. It may mean these eight people are going to be people who can give something to Canada, can add something to our circumstance.

It might be similar to the situation that I'm surprised in the discussions of the Constitution they're not discussing the question of whether cabinet ministers, of whatever parliamentary system, are people who are drawn from the private sector and from business and from the union membership who are people who know something about the portfolio they're about to take over, instead of having people elected from the populace at large and then choosing people to become this, that and the other thing.

It's pretty difficult for a person to be the Solicitor General or the Minister of Correctional Services if he or she is not in fact involved in the justice system. What do they know about it? Similarly, in British Columbia I believe they've just appointed a person as a cabinet minister for the Attorney General's portfolio who's not a lawyer. What does that person possibly know about the portfolio? In fact if you don't know much about your portfolio, then things can happen behind your back, as we've all experienced in this House this week and last week and the week before, that you're not knowledgeable about. That's to the detriment of the people of Ontario or the people of Canada.

I would suggest that abolition of the Senate gives me mixed emotions. It's an established body. It's one more of our traditions being eliminated. But at the same time, dollars today for taxpayers -- particularly when you consider that, what is it, on July 15 or something the Canadian taxpayers are finally able to take their money and run, because they've paid tax right up to that point -- they want dollar value. If you can't give them dollar value for the political representation they've got, then abolish it.

If we had the magnificent ability to be able to have people sitting out there in their armchairs to vote on this themselves, I think you'd probably find that they would support abolition of the Senate, because they don't see it as a functioning body.

Even with the amendments, even with the discussions that are taking place within the constitutional framework, they would not perceive this as an advantage, except that, as I understand the situation, if there was an elected Senate and if in fact it was given the rights that are being proposed, at least initially in the constitutional discussions, that Senate could effectively have stopped the GST, the goods and services tax, or as it's affectionately called, "Get some more taxes."

I think that would have been a positive aspect for this country. We allowed a federal government to take a tax of an amount that has now had a staggering effect on our economy. That's why people are crossing the border to shop. It's not that prices are cheaper, it's just that they don't want to pay the tax, so they bring it back and they try not to pay the tax. We have overtaxed our people totally, and we as politicians are going to suffer the downfall of that, because eventually they're going to decide not just the abolition of the Senate, they're going to abolish the rest of us. They're going to figure it would be a lot cheaper just not to have us around. We will become like the dinosaurs.

I guess you don't know how I'm going to vote on this, whether I'm in favour of the Senate or I want to abolish it. The specific reason is that I came here this morning to discuss common cents, pennies. Here I am with a number of delightful things to say about pennies and I can't say them. I want to save a little time for my colleague, because he will probably have something to say on this. He's probably well prepared to speak to this matter.

I say to the taxpayers of Ontario: "Unite. You write to your member and tell him that the 10 to 12 session in the morning on Thursdays should be abolished because it's costing you money and nothing comes from it whatsoever." It's a debating club. I think the taxpayers would probably press the button not just for the abolition of the Senate but for the abolition of private members' hour on Thursday morning while the House sits from 10 to 12 --

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): You just want to sleep in, don't you?

Mr Callahan: No, but I don't believe in coming down here to attempt to represent my constituents and perhaps bring forward a bill such as I did for schizophrenics -- it was passed by the House and it never went anyplace. There are still schizophrenics roaming the streets of Ontario and parents who would dearly love to be able to do something for their loved ones, and it had absolutely no effect on the legislation of the day in terms of changing it.

So I say to you that if important things like that cannot be passed then really we have become unnecessary on Thursday mornings. Having said that, I will reserve a bit of time for my colleague, who will speak on the abolition of the Senate. I certainly look forward, Mr Sterling, to being able to debate the question of common cents, the penny, in the future.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this resolution in support of my colleague the PC member for Carleton, Mr Sterling. I think the member for Carleton has set a kind of record in this House because, to my way of thinking, since I've been here in 1981 I have never seen a resolution as short as this one is. The resolution reads, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Senate of Canada should be abolished." I think that says volumes of what the people in this province are saying.

The first woman elected to the Canadian Parliament, Agnes Campbell Macphail, was born near Hopeville in my PC colleague's riding -- Mr Murdoch's -- the riding of Grey. Agnes Macphail had a pretty quick wit and in 1923 she called the Senate the "House of Refuge."

When B. T. Richardson addressed the Empire Club in Toronto on March 12, 1959, he said: "The chief reason why the Senate has never contributed a single creative idea to the solution of any serious problem in our whole history is that it has failed to organize itself with information, research, study and discussion to arrive at conclusions on complicated problems. That's basically the reason why the Senate does not, in fact, know what's going on in the country, or in the world."

Ten years after that, in 1969, Richard J. Needham wrote: "Isn't it awful about those loafers sitting around taking handouts and simply sponging off the taxpayers? Let's abolish the Senate immediately!"

Our country is being torn apart by negotiations, discussions and debate surrounding various proposals for the creation of a triple E Senate. The people of Simcoe East tell me that the re-invention or reform of the Senate is not one of the major issues facing them. They're more concerned about job creation, the sorry state of the economy and putting food on the table for their families. They do not believe Senate reform is one of the critical components of the constitutional package currently being studied across Canada.

People ask me what a bunch of appointed senators can do for them or their country that their elected representatives in Ottawa are not already doing. I can't think of one single, solitary senator who has a constituency office that he or she uses to listen to the views, opinions or concerns of the people.

There's a majority of Canadians who simply do not take the Senate seriously any more, and it appears that many senators do not either, if Senator John Haig was to be believed when he rose in the Senate in 1950 and said, "We members of the Senate are the highest class of pensioners in Canada." In 1964 Canadian artist Harold Town said, "We have one, mind you only one, really well-run home for the aged and infirm (prematurely or otherwise), and it is called the Senate." Mr Town's comments may be humorous, but it is truly unfortunate that we do not treat our senior citizens half as well as we treat the patronage appointees to the "House of Refuge," and that's to borrow Agnes Macphail's words.

We have an obligation to reflect the views and opinions of the people who put their trust in us to represent them in this Legislature. We can reflect their views and opinions by supporting this resolution by the member for Carleton that calls for the Senate of Canada to be abolished.

I think it is most important that on the eve of the Leacock Festival in Orillia I leave you with the words of Canadian humorist Stephen Leacock, a famous resident of the city of Orillia, who said in 1913, "Whatever be the virtues of an ideal system of appointment, the Canadian Senate is a mere parody of it."

This debate this morning perhaps would have been more appropriate at an earlier date. However, I believe it brings to the attention of this Legislature the views of the people of this province who want to have some real say in what's taking place in Ottawa. I remember sitting in this Legislature and the Premier saying, "We want the people involved, we want input from the people and we want the people to be part of this process of the Constitution." He condemned the previous Premier for not being open and accountable.

Well, there's no one who has been less accountable to this Legislature in my opinion than the present Premier has in bringing the views of the people to that table -- not his own personal views, but the views of the people.

The agenda in this Legislature, which has brought closure in now by the House leader, will end the debate today until September 28. I wanted the opportunity to speak on some very important legislation that was taking place in this House. That opportunity has been denied to me. I wanted to speak about the House rules. I wanted to speak about Bill 75, the Middlesex-London annexation. I wanted to talk further about county restructuring. That is not going to happen with the House adjourning today.

Regarding this debate on the Senate, for a party that I understood was so much opposed to the Senate that on many occasions it has said, "We want the Senate abolished," will the real New Democrat please stand up who wanted that for many years? Is there one over there today with the views of that party who has said, "We want the Senate abolished"? Is there one of them over there today who's going to stand up when the vote comes and say, "We do want the Senate abolished"?

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this important resolution. I commend my colleague for bringing this resolution forward. I think the debate here today, as I said earlier, is so important that I wanted to express my views, as I have been doing for a very long time, with regard to the Senate and the patronage appointments being made there. I have yet to see one great expression from that Senate of how it would run the country. I don't know what they do, but I wanted to express what my thoughts were.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): In the few minutes I have available to me I'd like to address very directly the issue that's been raised about the abolition of the Senate.

As many honourable members will realize, we on this side of the House as a party have for years given support to the view that the Senate should be abolished. In fact, many of us really believe that should happen. But I'm afraid the reality is, we're in a situation in Canada now where we have gone into negotiations with eight other provinces and we've had to make some very tough decisions about what kind of institutions we're going to be able to continue to have in this country.

So we had to look at the possibility of allowing for a Senate which would be elected, which would have some powers and which would also be equal. Equality was going to have to be weighed for the position of our government; it would have to be weighed in looking at the powers and the effectiveness of those powers.

So it was that there was an arrangement made which was going to provide, I would say, an insurance policy, with the clause that spoke about the joint sessions between the House of Commons and the Senate that would effectively prevent a deadlock between the two houses of Parliament. That deal was one that needed to be made. I fully support the Premier of this province in having done that.

Let me also say that people in Ontario might not realize we do not have any senators in Ottawa. Mr Trudeau has senators, Mr Mulroney has senators and even Mr Pearson has senators, but Ontario has not had any senators in the whole history of having a Senate in Canada. They have been patronage appointments. They have been people totally committed to the person who appointed them to that body. So we have not had representatives. The very least we will have in this new Senate are eight people who are truly representative of the needs and aspirations of the people of this province; let that be understood.

I might also say that in terms of our deliberations as a select committee here in Ontario the select committee spent a great deal of time on this issue of the Senate. Although there was not overwhelming evidence across the province of a view of what the Senate was made up of, there's no question there was an indication in Ontario that this issue was important and that if indeed there was going to be a Senate that Senate should be elected.

We did our work as a committee and we came up with our own proposals. I was involved in the discussions on the Constitution at the five constitutional conferences with the nine premiers. Our proposals put forward in the report of the select committee on the Constitution were very widely spoken about. In fact, I would say that it was at least a jumping-off point for the premiers to come at the Senate in the way they eventually did; that is, to look at the Senate as an equal Senate perhaps yes, but that the powers would have to be diminished somewhat. They have been in this proposal.

It is not a triple E Senate that we have agreed to as a province; it is a two-and-a-half E Senate, or maybe even a two-and-one-third E Senate. That has to be understood by the people of this province and the members of this House.

I've touched very briefly on the points I want to make. We are at a time and a place in which Canadians are waiting for a resolution of these constitutional discussions. To not see that the agreements that have been made have been made within the context of deliberations and negotiation is to miss the point. We can talk blithely about taking unilateral decisions and say, "No, we're going to go for abolition." We can alienate the west of Canada, we can alienate the east of Canada, but what we must not do is destroy the country.

So it shows statesmanship when the Premier of this province is willing to take seriously these negotiations and attempt to bring Quebec to the table by ensuring that certain fundamental questions have been dealt with.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I regret that this House has so little time to discuss matters of importance of this kind -- in this case, about two minutes and 14 seconds -- but I want to deal with the idea of abolishing the Senate, which I think is the only action that the government of Ontario should be supporting at federal-provincial negotiations. For years, the New Democratic Party, if any party, has been the leader in wanting to abolish the Senate. We have seen a circumstance now where that position has been changed considerably.

I cannot see how anybody who believes in the democratic system we have grown up with could possibly countenance moving away from representation based on population. Here in the province of Ontario we have some 99 seats. We're supposedly going to get some more seats as a result of a deal. We're going to get those seats in any event because, based on representation by population, we have a change at the time of redistribution, and Ontario will get those seats.

What we are doing is reducing the influence of the people of the province of Ontario; we're approximately 10 million strong, handing the same power, to show the other extreme, to Prince Edward Island, which is a province with about the same population as the city of St Catharines. It makes no sense to me. It flies in the face of democracy. The abolishment of the Senate is the only solution. It will cost us millions upon millions more dollars now that we have an effective Senate and one which is, if not equal, close to equal, because those people will be demanding the same services the House of Commons has.

I find it odd that Premier Rae could be outmanoeuvred in these negotiations by, of all people, Premier Don Getty, who I do not believe necessarily represents the people of the province of Alberta in discussing matters of the Senate. I don't think the people care about the Senate. They want to get rid of the Senate. They want to go back to a situation where democracy rules and not a second chamber.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'd be more than happy to give the member for St Catharines two minutes of my time if he'd like to complete his remarks.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Bradley: It's very kind of the member for Parry Sound to do so. I want to give credit in this case to the member for Carleton for drawing this matter to the attention of the House. We in this House have avoided this issue. What always happens in these circumstances is that the debate comes after the deal, and it's in effect a deal which is solidified by the premiers. If we want to see the provinces have some powers with which they could be comfortable, we could enhance an organization known as the council of first ministers.

At the present time, from time to time the first ministers meet to conduct certain business dealing with the entire country. By making those meetings more formalized, with a secretariat, with a commitment on the part of the federal government to meet with the provinces from time to time, I think we can accomplish the same thing in terms of allowing input from various provinces into national decision-making. But for the life of me, I do not understand why we'd move into a circumstance where you're going to have political deadlock.

I'm sure there are many people in Australia who would love to be rid of the Senate because of the deadlock they have there. In the United States, which has a different system from Canada, there are many people who see that the only way they break deadlocks in the United States Senate and in the House of Representatives is very simple: by making deals, deals that do not benefit the nation as a whole but that benefit certain fiefdoms in certain areas of the United States, so the contract for a new missile system goes to one state and a contract for a submarine to another state and so on and so forth.

Let's avoid the deadlock; let's bring back democracy to this country; let's abolish the Senate of Canada for good.

Mr Eves: Despite the fact that I gave two minutes of my time to the member for St Catharines, I don't agree with his comments or with the member for Carleton in this resolution.

I am here this morning to say that although my personal preference is that I don't care what happens to the Senate, and I don't think many other Ontarians or Canadians do either, I do want to point out something to members of this House. Those of us who have travelled on the constitutional committee of this place -- and I've been on all three that we've had since 1985 -- and those of us who have had the privilege of attending some of the constitutional meetings among ministers and first ministers can tell you that you have to appreciate the feeling that people in other parts of Canada have for the need for one institution in our federal system where they are indeed equal players.

I think that if you listen to the concerns of the maritime provinces and of the western provinces, they have legitimate concerns. I don't think this is going to be the be-all and the end-all even if they are able to achieve an equal Senate, and I don't think it's going to solve all their economic problems, as some of them may think it will, but I think one thing it will do is to make them feel as if they are indeed equal players in one institution in our federalist system. I think that is very important and I think that has been the source of a lot of aggravation to western and maritime provinces for some period of time now.

I think that we as Canadians in the richest province in Canada, the most successful province in Canada, have to have some generosity of spirit and some understanding as to how people in other parts of this country think. Surely we are not so small or so parochial in our own thinking that we are not prepared to design an institution that will take nothing away from us except for, perhaps, 16 senators who weren't elected. That's all it's going to take away from the province of Ontario, in my opinion, especially with the proposal that was arrived at by the nine premiers and Mr Clark of the federal government a few weeks ago.

The powers of that Senate are not, quite frankly, as great as the powers of the existing Senate, the way the powers today are given to the existing Senate. The fact is that the Senate today doesn't exercise its power, as it feels that it's not a legitimate body because it's not elected by the people. I think that if we're going to have a Senate in this country, if it's going to continue to exist, it definitely has to be elected.

The agreement that was structured by the nine provinces and Mr Clark of the federal government, although not everything I would like to see, is probably the best compromise you can achieve in our system, with so many different concerns, so many different parts of Canada with different concerns and different interests, and in trying to accommodate all of those.

I happen to know that the Premier personally was not in favour of an equal Senate. But as I've said to him before and will say here again now, if push comes to shove at the end of the day and that is the price of saving the country, then so be it. Surely we're not so small that we have to sit here like fat cats with 10 million people in the province of Ontario and try to dictate to the Prince Edward Islands and Albertas of the world what's good for them. "Because we happen to be from Ontario, we know best. We know what's better for you than you do."

As I say to the critics who talk about the population of Prince Edward Island, they might want to think about what the population of Rhode Island is compared to the state of New York or California. I realize that this is a different system of government, but the ultimate authority will still remain in the House of Commons for most important matters. The majority needed in the Senate will be very substantial indeed and in fact may require a joint meeting of the House of Commons and Senate, in which case members of the House of Commons still have an exceedingly overwhelming majority under such a system. I don't know what we're afraid of here.

I want to get one final comment on the record. If this House passes a resolution here this morning saying to the province of Quebec that the province of Ontario is in favour of abolishing the Senate, I think that is a very wrong signal indeed to be sending at this particular point in time.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I too would like to commend the member for Carleton for bringing forward this timely and important issue. I want to assure the member for Carleton, however, that if he's concerned that a reformed Senate is going to in some way fetter the powers of his national leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, let me assure him that after the election, he'll have nothing more to fear.

The member for St Catharines was quite right. The Liberal government in past years has evaded this question of reform of the Senate. The issue of the Senate was not solved at the Meech Lake accord. The issue of the Senate was not resolved at the 1990 conference, the Langevin conference. As late as September 1990, this predecessor government had a committee set up to study the future role of the Senate.

We don't live in a vacuum. At one time, my thinking was that we should abolish the Senate. I now believe that thinking is passé.

I'm not aware of too many committees that have been established that have recommended the abolition of the Senate. I do know that the Allaire committee, the Liberal Party committee of Quebec, recommended abolition of the Senate, and the Spicer committee recommended abolition of the Senate or a total restructuring of the Senate. Certainly the special joint committee of 1970, the 1978 Ontario advisory committee on the Senate and the Pepin-Robarts Task Force on Canadian Unity all favoured retention of the Senate but fundamental and structural reform of the Senate.

Why was the Senate set up in the first place? It was certainly set up for the protection of provincial minority and regional interests and as a chamber of second thought. While as a chamber of second thought it's certainly not been effective, it can be effective in the areas of protecting provincial and regional interests. I think that's what the member for Parry Sound was so accurate on when he said, moments ago, that the regional, the provincial interest in the east and the west can't live in a Canada without equal representation in the Senate.

We may criticize the method of selection of senators, we may criticize the term of appointment, we may criticize the failure to devote time to their duties, but the Senate certainly constitutes for us a second chamber that can reflect those diverse interests across Canada. I feel that the compromise settlement reached among the nine premiers and Mr Clark represents a larger step forward than has ever been taken before in our review of the Senate.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Carleton, you have two minutes.

Mr Sterling: I want to say I know many other members would have liked to have had an opportunity to speak, but unfortunately those are our rules.

There can be no doubt that the powers of a new Senate, an elected Senate, would be much, much greater than they are at the present time, regardless of the rules. If I was elected as a Senator in Ontario and represented 1.5 million people, I've got to tell you, I wouldn't be taking a back seat to any MP from this province of Ontario who represents something like 100,000 people. For those who think a Senate which is elected will not participate in blocking and harassing the House of Commons in the future to a much greater degree, let them think something very much else.

My resolution does not relate to the fact that Ontario and the other provinces may indeed have to agree to a Senate in constitutional discussions. My resolution states that the Senate of Canada as it's now constituted should be abolished. My resolution says that this province, this Premier, this government should have taken, and we all should have taken, a much stronger stand from day one in the negotiations. Our first and best position is that the Senate be abolished. I am concerned about the attitude and the negotiations which have led to the existing proposals.

But I do not take the confirmation of this resolution, nor do I think anybody else can take the confirmation of this resolution, as a rejection of what the nine premiers and the federal government negotiated. All I want this Legislative Assembly to say is that, on behalf of its constituents, it would rather have the present Senate abolished once and for all.

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

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This point of order relates to the orders of the day that appear on business of the day for July 23, 1992. You'll note, sir, that there are two orders listed for debate this afternoon after routine proceedings. Order 50 requires us to continue the debate to --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. This is private members' business.

Mr Sorbara: I appreciate that.

The Deputy Speaker: But this is out of order.

Mr Sorbara: It's not out of order.

The Deputy Speaker: It is out of order. This is private members' hour and there are two items to be debated, so we must debate the issues that are on the Orders and Notices.

Mr Sorbara: All I'm asking you for is a ruling.

The Deputy Speaker: Orders of the day.

MUNICIPAL PURCHASING POLICY

Mr Sutherland moved resolution 20:

That in the opinion of this House, all regional, county, district, city and town governments with a population over 10,000 should be required to develop purchasing policies by January 1, 1994, that include the use of recycled materials, and that each purchasing policy include the following: (1) that all tendering documents indicate that preference will be given to bids that use recycled material; (2) that all advertising for contracts will indicate that preference will be given to bids that use recycled materials; (3) that in selecting the supplier of the contracts, the municipality may consider an allowance in the bid price for those products that have 50% recycled material.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Sutherland moves ballot item 22. Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to my resolution. Let me say by way of introduction that this resolution is not meant to be an all-encompassing one in terms of solving all our environmental problems or all our garbage or waste problems. It is a resolution very focused on one specific aspect, that is, trying to develop some new markets for recycled products and recycled materials.

Each year in Ontario there are nearly 10 million tonnes of waste generated. That represents one third of Canada's total. Approximately 90% is disposed of in landfills. As we know, a great many landfills are going to be closed in the next few years, and we're going to have to try to find new ones.

Many municipalities across the province have engaged in recycling, whether it be blue box or some other form, and they are to be commended for that. The problem that has seemed to develop, though, is that many municipalities are concerned about the cost of recycling. They're also concerned that the prices they have been receiving for the recycled material has decreased significantly as a result of there being a surplus. Part of the reason is that new markets for the use of those goods have not been developed. As a result, in some cases much recycled material is just being stored in warehouses.

The purpose of this resolution would be to have municipalities start to create the markets by developing procurement policies that would encourage entrepreneurs, small business people and large business people, to spend some time, energy and research to use their creative talents and develop new products. If all the municipalities listed in my resolution were to do that, I believe it would create a large enough market that the entrepreneurs and creative people out there would want to spend some time trying to develop markets for that product.

Of course, after it was developed for them, I suggest it would also allow them to produce the product at a reasonable price because of the size of this market and then those products would become available for the general public as well.

In my resolution I left out townships for this requirement and towns under the size of 10,000 only because there are some administrative responsibilities for looking at and examining bids on this type of resolution and not all those smaller municipalities have the administrative support staff or the resources to carry that out. I certainly want to encourage those municipalities to look at doing that.

As I said, many municipalities are concerned about the costs of recycling. They are also concerned about the costs of trying to find new landfill sites. They're lengthy battles. We had one in the riding of Oxford that went on for several years. It cost the county government, which is responsible for landfill, a great many dollars, and I think it's important that we try and deal with that.

There are a lot of initiatives under way by different municipalities already. They are to be complimented for that. The city of Toronto has a policy. There's also something called the GIPPER program, which is Governments Incorporating Procurement Policies to Eliminate Refuse. It's a committee of municipalities, many of them from the GTA as well as federal and provincial ministries, working on ways in which waste can be diverted. They look at federal guidelines and try and develop standards for their purchasing. That's good too, because obviously reducing the amount of waste is what you want to focus on as well.

Given the sense that we've made a firm commitment in this province to go forward on recycling, we need to try and start developing the markets.

I just want to make one note here: In the June 1992 edition of Ontario Recycling Update is an

article the member for St Catharines brought to my attention. Shell Canada is introducing a new line of motor oil containers that use a minimum 50% post-consumer recycled plastics. They are getting the plastic from Resource Plastics in Brantford. So there are initiatives under way in the private sector, but I think the public sector has a firm responsibility to provide leadership, and municipalities as well.

As to the specifics of the resolution, it's one thing to have a policy that you're going to give preference. It's important that the public and those people who are going to supply the products have some awareness of that. That is why I have required that it be mentioned in any of the tendering documents put out by a municipality, also in the advertising of those tenders in newspapers and whatever other forms they advertise.

In my resolution, I have said that a cost allowance could be allowed if those products contained more than 50% recycled material. I thought about putting in a specific amount of cost allowance, but I thought that should be left at a municipality's discretion as to what it thinks is appropriate. In some cases, in the initial stages to encourage new products, some type of cost allowance may be put in -- that has certainly been done in other practices; to sometimes give preference to products from a particular region or area, there have been cost allowances built in -- and I certainly hope municipalities would want to do this.

I don't see my resolution being an onerous thing on municipalities. They express concerns from time to time about legislation that is passed down to them or that they have to follow and don't have control over. I think that if this type of practice came into being, the municipalities would find it would save them money in the long run in terms of the costs of their recycling or allow them to expand their recycling into other products they're not doing currently. Again, that would be in the best interests of the environment as well.

I also think it's very important to take note of the fact that the government of Ontario does have initiatives in this way, so the resolution is not asking the municipalities to do something the provincial government won't do itself. They have undertaken initiatives there. I don't know all the history; I think some of that might have been started with the previous government. Certainly our government has undertaken to step up that program and try to reduce the amount of waste, but also specifically deal with procurement policies that involve recycled material.

I also think the economic impact here, in terms of creating jobs and new technology, is important. We all talk about green industries and how they're very important in terms of economic renewal for the province in those new areas. If we help to create the market, I think the private sector will develop these products and hopefully some of these products will have export potential. In a lot of areas there are already demands on products. Certainly for newsprint many of the foreign contracts now require that it contain so much recycled material.

Of course, municipalities right now purchase items that contain recycled material -- think of the steel industry, which has been recycling for quite a while -- and products that way.

But I think we need to get more comprehensive. It has to be the majority of municipalities in this province doing it, using their dollars to spend wisely. I think if members of the public at large see municipalities, their elected representatives, taking the leadership they will pick up on that leadership and be more aware of how they spend their money in terms of purchasing environmentally friendly products and those products that have recycled material contained in them.

I look forward to the comments from my fellow members who will participate in the debate this morning, but I think this is a positive resolution for the environment, municipalities, our economy, small business, the entrepreneurial types, the inventive types and the creative types. I mentioned earlier, from the Ontario Recycling Update, how even some of the larger corporations, such as Shell Canada, are starting to get into this direction.

Overall, I hope all the members will agree with me that this is just one step in the process of greening the province and making it more environmentally friendly. This should not be seen, though, as an attempt to avoid the other two Rs, which of course are to reduce and reuse. More emphasis needs to be given to that. Those two Rs should take preference over the recycling, but clearly, if we're going to be able to keep recycling working effectively, we must develop the new markets.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this resolution. I want to commend the member for introducing it into the Legislature. I had the opportunity this morning at Brock University to address the International Joint Commission Great Lakes Environmental Education Institute.

One of the points I made in an informal discussion with the people who were present was that even when there is less of an emphasis today on the environment because of the economic circumstances that face the province and the country, and in fact much of the world -- we don't get the stories in the news media about it; it's not the lead item on the CBC national news, it's not on the front pages of the newspapers, it isn't in the electronic media to the extent that it was before -- one of the reasons for hope was that when we looked at the private members' hour, as we used to call it, the private members' time, many of the resolutions coming forward from members of all sides of the House dealt with environmental issues.

This is clearly a message that members of this House, certainly from all political parties, and members of other elected bodies consider environmental issues to continue to be of importance.

It's a difficult time in the field of the environment. This is why I commend the member for coming forward with this initiative. There are many people who would like to put environmentalists on the run at this time. You will notice not-so-subtle efforts south of the border and some even in our country on the part of certain people in the corporate sector and certain naysayers about matters related to the environment -- certainly not all; others are working well -- to put environmentalists on the run, to put aside many of the initiatives that have been developed in various jurisdictions over the years, including Ontario.

No doubt there would be those watching today who would be critical of the member for suggesting this kind of resolution in these economic times. I would not be one of those. I think these are precisely the times when these initiatives should come forward: to demonstrate clearly to the public of Ontario that members of this Legislature believe the environment is important regardless of the state of the economy.

I also want to commend the member for dealing with the issue of recycling. There's a perception out there that recycling is a distant third in terms of the hierarchy of dealing with environmental issues. But the member has appropriately pointed out in his remarks that reduction and reuse are extremely important as well; in fact we should be making a variety of efforts in that field.

There are, first of all, those people who don't like any environmental initiatives and feel all environmentalists are somehow granolas who shouldn't be paid attention to. However, there are also fairly extreme people on the other side of the issue who wish to discount recycling as a significant component of dealing with environmental issues. The member has appropriately brought forward a resolution which says recycling does play a role. It may not be the pre-eminent role but it is still a role to be played, and it's a practical role in many cases.

There are those who will advance the argument, for instance, that it's still cheaper to throw garbage in a hole in the ground. I need not at this time, in July of 1992, explain to members of this House the hidden costs of doing that, costs which are not on the ledger. We all recognize it initially appears to be much more expensive to have a program which involves recycling. You will hear municipalities and you will hear others, the naysayers out there -- who never wanted to see recycling programs and had to be dragged into them kicking and screaming -- now complaining about costs, again not weighing the costs of continuing to burn or continuing to bury garbage in this province.

The member has a moderate resolution. It's a practical resolution. It's not onerous on any municipality, in my view. When he talks about preference being given in bids that use recycled material, "preference" to me is a very reasonable word to use.

I like his third suggestion as well, that they may consider an allowance in the bid price for those products that have 50% recycled material. Sometimes, at least in the initial stages, we find recycled materials do cost a bit more so people tend to recoil from that. If they're prepared to give that allowance, that will encourage many more people to put recycled material in their bids.

When the blue box program began in earnest in 1985, the member would know there were a lot of people who were naysayers at that time, a lot of people south of the border, a lot of people in the engineering field who said: "Well, of course this doesn't work. You're going to find that when markets go down, you will be in very great difficulties." The last government persisted and this government has persisted. Neither government has backed down in the face of that criticism. That bodes well for this Legislature and for this province.

When Chris Ward was the Minister of Government Services he began a program which has been extended and expanded by the present Minister of Government Services, Mr Wilson. As we walk down the hallways of this Legislature we see containers where you can recycle polystyrene. We see newspapers and we see fine paper that can be recycled. All these things can be done if there's a will there and if there are regulations.

There are those who will make the argument -- and the member, I'm glad, hasn't bought this argument -- that people will do this of their own volition. They will do it when they're regulated to do it. Regulation is very good for at least getting the program going. The regulations don't have to be stringent, but they have to set out the parameters that the member has suggested in his resolution. I believe this resolution is worthy of favourable consideration by members of this House. The Minister of the Environment may then give it consideration.

I am pleased to see the member has taken this initiative. I lament the fact that the budget of the Ministry of the Environment has been cut. I say that not in a political sense; I say that as one who's been the Minister of the Environment and knows how you have to fight for dollars. Resolutions of this kind don't cost a lot of money for people. This is a practical resolution, it's a sensible resolution, and it's certainly one that I will be supporting.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I take pleasure in rising this morning to speak on this resolution by the member for Oxford. The resolution requires that all regional, county, district, city and town governments with a population that exceeds 10,000 be required to develop purchasing policies that include the use of recycled materials.

I would have loved to see a resolution here this morning with regard to packaging, something this government has not fulfilled a commitment on that many of us have been looking for. It wasn't many days ago that I had the opportunity to purchase a rain gauge. A lot of people would wonder why I would be wanting a rain gauge at this time of year, but I purchased one at a hardware store. I've got to tell you, the packaging that was required, apparently by the manufacturer, to put that little rain gauge in was amazing. We are debating today a resolution with regard to the policies of municipalities; I would have loved to see one here with regard to packaging.

The purchasing policy, I want to indicate, would include the following: that all tendering documents would indicate that a preference is given to bids that use recycled materials; that all advertising for municipal contracts would indicate that a preference is given to bids that use recycled materials; and that in selecting the supplier of the contracts the municipality may consider an allowance in the bid price for those products that have 50% recycled material.

The member for Oxford explains his rationale for introducing this resolution in a letter to the members, of which I received a copy:

"The purpose of the resolution is to help create new markets for recycled material. While a great deal of emphasis has been placed on municipalities to recycle, little attention has been given to the use of products containing recycled materials. Some municipalities, including the city of Toronto, have developed a purchasing policy towards environmentally friendly products where economically viable." They have done that.

The resolution deals with municipalities because of, as the member for Oxford says in his letter, "their responsibility for providing new landfill sites, plus sharing the cost of recycling programs." The member for Oxford feels this resolution will significantly decrease the cost of recycling programs for municipalities by increasing the demand for recycled materials. Under the resolution, municipalities would publicly state their preference for products with recycled materials, and the municipalities would also have the right to provide an allowance in the bid price for products that have more than 50% recycled materials.

The process to reduce the amount of waste going into disposal is well under way. The government of Ontario has established targets to decrease the amount of waste going to disposal by at least 25% in 1992 -- I believe that's been reached -- and we've been looking at another 50% by the year 2000. Any initiative that helps to reduce the amount of waste that is generated is welcome. The member for Oxford's resolution, however, is fraught with problems and, I believe, was poorly thought out. I want to tell you some of the problems.

It is yet another example of the government's downloading on to the backs of municipalities in Ontario. In his opening remarks the member for Oxford indicated that it was a concern of his; however, he did not think it would be downloading.

At the present time Ontario municipalities are drowning under the added weight of increased welfare rolls. This has contributed to decreasing any financial flexibility these municipalities might have to adopt a preference for products with recycled materials. Most municipalities have had their tax bases shrink during the current recession, which also contributes to making it more difficult for them to adopt the principles of the member for Oxford's resolution.

If we look at the tax rolls, the taxes not being paid, the back taxes not being paid, the municipalities, when you talk about giving them more responsibility, are having a problem. This also represents another example where Queen's Park creates programs for the municipalities while forgetting to send along a cheque to accompany them. This has happened in many, many cases. It is also well and good to suggest that municipalities should use products from recycled materials; however, many municipalities are being forced to go into debt at the present time to provide basic services.

The member for Oxford's resolution also fails to spell out what criterion was used to determine that this resolution would apply to municipalities with a population of 10,000 or more. What criterion did he use to determine that? The resolution would have been useful if it had made the use of products with recycled materials optional for each municipality and if incentives were provided for each municipality to adopt this method of purchasing. Municipalities are forced into the inevitable position of pitting their commitment to the environment against raising taxes or going further into debt.

In all the recent polls I've seen lately, the residents of Ontario are more concerned -- first is the economy, second is taxes and third would be the environment. In the member's letter outlining his resolution he states, "Some municipalities...have developed a purchasing policy towards environmentally friendly products where economically viable." That is the essence: "where economically viable." The bottom line for the municipalities when they purchase is, and must continue to be, cost. It goes without saying that all municipalities would purchase environmentally friendly goods if the price were competitive with other products.

The member for Oxford's resolution is very similar to the previous government's tire tax. The tax on tires was designed to stimulate the tire recycling industry by funnelling or rerouting the money spent on tires into tire recycling. Suffice it to say that the tire recycling industry was not sparked and this money has not gone into tire recycling.

If the resolution had any real merit the government would have incorporated it into the waste management systems planning program, which is designed to assist municipalities in designing long-term waste disposal systems. One of its objectives is to encourage the development of environmentally sound waste planning and provide a process that initiates 3R activities. That's what we want to see happen.

It is also ironic that this resolution should be brought forward by a member of the government, a government whose record on the environment is shoddy at best. I remember the government members, the Minister of the Environment particularly, when they were in opposition. She had all the answers, she had all the avenues of how she was going to solve the problems, but since they have been in government the answers they thought they had are not there.

The letters "NDP" have taken on a new meaning for the people of York, Durham and Peel. The meaning they have now is "No Dumps Please," to describe the environmental flip-flop carried out by the present administration. Residents in York, Durham and Peel feel betrayed by a government that has broken another election promise. These individuals remember the NDP's pledge during the last election campaign that no garbage dumps would be established in agricultural land or environmentally sensitive areas. However, they have selected 57 sites in Peel, Durham and York to house Metropolitan Toronto's garbage. Several of these sites are on agricultural land or in environmentally sensitive areas.

What bothers me is that I cannot figure out how they could pick 57 sites. What criteria are they using for 57 sites? Why don't they go back and pick probably 10 and then look at it from that point of view? These are proposed sites that you're looking at. My goodness, I wonder what criteria you are using to do that.

But don't forget, you have residents who live in these communities. They're worried about the quality of the water they'll be drinking and the health of their families and the sale of their homes. If you had a site proposed next to your property and you wanted to sell it, do you think the value would be up?

I'm telling you, that's why the people of Peel, Durham and York are angered by the process this government has used to select the sites for these dumps. The three final sites will be tabled in the spring of 1993, I understand, but I also hear it could be in September. Nobody really knows, and I for one feel sure that the government itself does not know.

These same people have been left to wonder why they were not asked about these garbage dumps and why there's no regional representation on the government agency. Why is there no representation from these municipalities on the Interim Waste Authority that selected the sites?

Why will there not be a full environmental assessment of the dump plan? Without a full assessment, no options other than the three-dump plan will be considered by the NDP, and the NDP's environmental policy will make losers of all of us.

If the NDP is searching for a constructive environmental initiative, it should look no further than Ontario's version of the chamber of horrors, better known as the Ministry of the Environment. The MOE has systematically slowed development to a crawl. Not only is it stifling initiative in this province, but the ministry is certainly a contender for Bob Rae's title as Buffalo business booster of the year. The constant holdup of approvals and the confusion that comes from a ministry that is seemingly changing the rules on the run has made Ontario a nightmare for investment and development.

You can talk to many of your constituents who are looking at the problems with the MOE. They're looking at approvals they're trying to get. One of my constituents, Mr Smith, has come face to face with the MOE's chamber of horrors:

"The problem we are experiencing is that of a bureaucratic nightmare. With the development industry in such poor shape today, the province must devise a system which allows a certain degree of wealth and prosperity. If this does not happen, people cannot find work, and those with the wealth are not willing to share it by providing employment in the labour force."

Mr Gill is just one of a growing legion of people who are becoming frustrated and alienated by the insensitivity and dictatorial nature of the Ministry of the Environment.

I guess no one is more punished by the Ministry of the Environment than Mr Bell in Stayner, who is trying to get a plan of subdivision approved. He says:

"I have to improve myself and become more competitive in this environment and I can't survive very much longer. The costs of trying to get [approval] are killing me.

"This is about my survival here as a business. Really, my only hope is to get this [building] permit so that we could develop this site...to bring more money into the business."

I could go on, but I want to talk to the people with regard to the hydrology studies that appear to be a problem within that ministry. There is a waiting list of about nine months to a year. An individual will have his plans returned to him. He will have his consultant revise them. He will return them to the ministry and they will be at the bottom of the list. There are all kinds of examples of that.

I look at the blue box recycling plan that's been in place. I look at my own community, where the people are trying to get into the recycling of plastics. When we had the mayor of Mississauga before a committee, she claimed they had 500 tonnes of plastic in storage that they couldn't get rid of. Is this resolution going to implement a policy that is going to do away with those plastics that are sitting in storage now?

I think the essence here today, dealing with this resolution, is that I would have been more pleased if we had been dealing with reduction of packaging. The minister spoke very strongly on that in opposition but I have not seen direction coming from this government with regard to packaging. I started out my remarks by indicating the purchase that I made a short period of time ago, with regard to the packaging involved. Why is the leadership not coming from these people with regard to packaging?

Today we have professional people who do the testing of water and I commend them for the job they're doing. They want to make sure the environment we live in is more friendly and makes Ontario a better place.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I am very pleased to give support to this resolution from my colleague the member for Oxford. This resolution makes possible a clear and very important statement for municipalities regarding the value of waste reduction and recycling. In addition to municipal recycling through the blue box system, it would signal concrete support for the products and industries that will develop in response to the abundance of recycled materials that unfortunately used to end up in landfills and were consequently wasted. We know that as a society we can no longer afford to waste our resources.

In addition to the waste of our resources is the fact that siting landfills is a highly emotional and very expensive proposition for a community. Traditionally, people have feared that property values will go down, that soil and water will be contaminated and that the host community will suffer as a result of that landfill site. Yet ironically, while many of us will resist having that landfill in our neighbourhood, we still persist in creating the garbage that needs to be landfilled.

The key to resolving this contentious issue is of course to produce less waste, less garbage. That is why in Bill 143 the Minister of the Environment, the most honourable member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, included changes to the Environmental Protection Act, changes that compel the industrial and commercial sectors to conduct waste audits and reduce the waste they generate. It's part of the pollution prevention policy and strategy of this government. It's why the waste reduction office has been set up: to facilitate this most important step in the reduction of the waste we send to landfill.

In Bill 143 there is a requirement for waste to be separated at the source so it can be reduced, reused and recycled effectively and efficiently. If we're ever to move away from our reliance on those unpopular landfill sites, we have to change those wasteful ways.

I'd like to say here too that interestingly enough, even while there was acknowledgement during the public hearings on Bill 143 -- I dare say if you were to ask members in this House about the 3Rs, the response would be that we must make every effort to save resources and make better use of those resources -- there was still, despite that acknowledgement that we must reduce, reuse and recycle, the complaint from some municipalities and some in the business communities who came to the Bill 143 hearings that recycling was too expensive and unsustainable because markets for recycled material were not readily available.

There was much discussion about expenditures for the warehousing of materials collected by recyclers, materials that didn't have a market. Since this apparent lack of market places recycling in jeopardy, it's therefore essential to have a use for the collected materials. This, of course, is what makes this resolution by the honourable member for Oxford so very important and appropriate.

If municipalities do indeed develop purchasing policies that include the use of recycled materials, there will be a very real incentive for businesses and entrepreneurs to develop more products containing recycled materials. We will see more of the green industries that we believe will be the basis of our economic renewal. I must add that it will be an economic renewal that is not only sustainable in terms of resources, but also promotes a cleaner and safer environment.

The procurement currently being pursued by the government of Ontario is one that supports the 3Rs and the conservation of energy and water. We have recognized our responsibility to lead by example. In addition to efforts to reduce waste, reuse where possible and then recycle is the decision to acquire supplies, equipment and services that have the least negative environmental impact. There has been a decision made to use procurement as a means to support the suppliers of equipment, products and supplies that have specified levels of recycled content.

Because of the value of government purchases -- and I must say that the incentive is very attractive and very profitable to suppliers who wish to fulfil this requirement -- these environmentally sound requirements, if enhanced by municipal purchasing policies, will doubly add to the value and will make a much greater market for the kinds of goods that show we are indeed concerned for and willing to take steps to protect our environment.

It's not enough for us to say we should create less waste. It's not enough for us to say we don't like dumps and just protest the siting of landfills. Those are, I think, the false environmentalists, because while they generate the waste, they're refusing to take responsibility for it, and we have failed our environment if we continue to behave in that way. We have to act in a constructive manner. This resolution provides a very positive vehicle for municipalities to use their considerable buying power to effect tangible, positive results for themselves and for their constituents.

In conclusion, I'd like to say once again that I commend my colleague the member for Oxford for bringing this resolution to the House. I would also like to compliment him for the additional information he's provided. He hasn't simply said we should require municipalities to adopt these procurement policies; he's also provided an extremely valuable checklist for municipalities to use so that they can pursue this important course of action.

This checklist includes some 35 guidelines to assist governments' purchasing staffs in product selection, things such as product criteria which require, for example, that the product designed be durable and long-lasting; that recycled materials used to produce the product be indicated very clearly; that the product not contain banned substances; that the product is recyclable following use and that the product is energy efficient, and in response to my colleague across the floor, requirements around packaging -- for example, that the product packaging be designed in a minimal way and that the package be reusable or recyclable.

Herein you can see that the honourable member is not only inventive; he is providing us with very practical ways to make his resolution work.

I'm convinced of the dedication of Ontarians to our environment and to solving the dilemma that we find in terms of our waste and our garbage. The proposal brought forward today is a firm step in the right direction to achieve our goals for waste reduction, and I thank the member.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I'd like to take the remaining time to say that I agree with my colleague that this is a good idea from the member for Oxford, except I have to say to the member for Oxford that I'm going to ask for his intervention with the Minister of the Environment on behalf of a business in my riding called Kentrex International Inc.

Back in August 1991 it was approached -- it didn't approach but was approached -- by the Minister of the Environment to seek a grant to assist it in its operation whereby it recycles 100% of used tires. In fact, they're producing products made from 100% recycled materials for sale in the retail marketplace. As I say, this was at the encouragement of the Ministry of the Environment in August of last year. As of today, nothing has happened. It's still under consideration by the ministry officials.

My constituent tells me the biggest problem is that the personnel keeps changing in the Ministry of the Environment and they keep having to go back and do show-and-tell for them to demonstrate how this particular product could be worthwhile.

I'm told by my constituent that they would prefer to stay in Ontario because they like Ontario, but if in fact something is not done by the Ministry of the Environment in terms of arriving at a just decision in this regard, it'll be necessary for them to move to the United States, and once again we will see an elimination of jobs from this province.

They were told there was tire tax money available, and of course tire tax money has been collected for three years, yet they hear things such as, "There's no money," or in the alternative, "You have to show us what your product can do all over again."

That's 14 months ago again, at the urging of the people from the Ministry of the Environment. They were urged to apply for a grant to assist in the installation of a scrap tire reduction facility in Ontario. I'm informed by my constituent that their facilities are designed to produce clean, ultrafine rubber crumb for blending with recycled plastics for utilization in the manufacture of value added products for the consumer marketplace. They've not got any response. In fact, the process my constituent has is one where nothing goes to the landfill at all.

It is 100% recycling of the tires and inclusion of that with plastics, so you in fact have a perfect opportunity for the process. The only program it seems the Minister of the Environment is interested in is 3Rs.

In Ontario it's estimated the jobs that could be created would be significant. It would generate taxes. There would be a positive effect on our balance of trade. As well, it would consume some 100 million pounds of recycled plastics annually while providing a viable and profitable solution for the disposal of some 2.3 million tires annually. Some of the investors in this company are getting tired of the answers they're getting -- the government of Ontario, they say, lacks credibility with the business community -- that there are no funds available. They were told in one instance that if the grant was approved by the ministry, the receipt of the same could be delayed indefinitely.

People from my riding met on April 16, 1991, with Brendan Killackey of the ministry to discuss the situation. June 17 they met again. August 19, 1991, they met again. It's, as I say, due to the numerous changes in the personnel.

Kentrex, which is the name of this company, calculates that 15 million pounds of compound translates to 100 direct jobs in the manufacturing sector. In fact they sent to the minister some of the job creation projections that would be attributable to this. Some 82 direct jobs would be attributable in the tire reduction facilities, 300 direct jobs in the compounding industry, 700 direct manufacturing jobs in plastic moulding, 800 direct jobs in the plastic recycling sector, 1,400 direct assembly jobs in the manufacture sector and 50 jobs in transportation of bulk materials.

I say to the member for Oxford, I support your proposal, but the proof is in the pudding. Here you have a state-of-the-art facility that didn't go looking for a grant from the government at all. It was approached to do it because they said its program fitted so well into the 3R program the Ministry of the Environment wanted. Since August 1991, they still have not got an answer.

I suggest you write that name down, Kentrex, and you inquire of the minister as to why that application has not been granted, because you look at the large number of jobs we could lose to the United States if in fact this grant is not allocated and if in fact they keep them on a string. It falls totally in line with what your minister seems to be proposing and in line with the principle of the motion you brought forward before this Legislature today.

I urge the member for Oxford to seriously consider that if the government is truly responsible and truly wishes to use the principles of environmental reduction it has and isn't prepared to look at any other type of application, then in fact it should be responding immediately to applications such as this, particularly when it and its ministry officials say that this fits in so well with the program, particularly when you consider the number of tires that need to be disposed of. You're going to have them disposed of in a way that will not require incineration.

It will be a matter that will be 100% recyclable, nothing will go into the landfill sites, so that all the problems that have been created by the question of other types of garbage that are creating demands for landfill sites will be reduced.

The member for Oxford, I'm going to consider supporting your resolution but I suggest to you the minister has to get the message that when people approach her with ideas that are acceptable and that work, she can't just put them on the back burner and say there's no money or you can't keep changing personnel in the Ministry of the Environment so these matters never get dealt with, because what in fact you do to companies is force them, from a standpoint of economics, to retreat from this province.

My friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has done a litany of retreats of industries from this province on a daily basis, the number of jobs that are being lost. If the government is truly interested in preserving those jobs and in generating those jobs, then in fact what has to happen is the ministry has to be active. But what we're seeing with the Ministry of the Environment these days seems to be sort of put it on hold and play games with it because you don't want to give the money out right now. That money's all there. That money was collected for a very specific purpose.

I ask you to keep in mind the name Kentrex and if you would follow up on that and find out what the ministry is doing with it.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I'm pleased indeed to rise in support of the resolution of the member for Oxford, which I feel will go a long way towards encouraging sustainable municipal procurement in this province.

I recall that one presenter before the standing committee on Bill 143 suggested a future archaeologist might conclude of our society that this wasn't the Stone Age or the Bronze Age or the Iron Age, these people lived in the trash age. As we accumulate mountains of garbage and non- biodegradable solid waste, our society's most enduring legacy may be the amount of accumulation of garbage. The average Ontario resident throws out each day more than 2.5 kilograms of waste and, as has been observed earlier, as a province we generate 10 million metric tonnes per year, only 20 of which are recycled.

So we need to encourage everyone, young and old, to encourage utilization of the 3Rs, reduce, recycle and reuse, so that we can achieve our target this year of a 25% reduction in waste and a 50% reduction in solid waste by the year 2000.

I would applaud my own city of London for some of its initiatives taken to reduce waste and also to create some innovative procurement programs. I checked with our city hall yesterday on this issue and was advised that we have a signed statement in London committing our city to buy, as much as possible, only things with recycled paper content, and almost all the paper used at city hall is recycled.

Moreover, all city construction projects used recycled asphalt and all asphalt that is removed is recycled. In construction tenders, in practice, contractors with city hall are encouraged to reuse waste concrete and asphalt and there is a plan now to rewrite the standard tenders. There is also a program in place for staff to visit business and industry to instigate waste audits which will enable them to assist with planning waste disposal and recycling.

I'm proud that our government has spent several hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past fiscal year on recycling projects, including the sponsorship of students involved in school recycling programs. I'm pleased that some of our students are present in the House today to be commended for their efforts. Our minister, Ruth Grier, has said how delighted she is to see how many projects for recycling are being put forward, especially by young people.

I realize time is short, but I would commend the students who put together this report called Visions 2020: Youth, Environment and the Future, which is a discussion in response to the Brundtland report on sustainable development. Through poetry, artwork and short essays, students have attempted to come to grips with some of the challenges we face in terms of recycling.

I will just quote very briefly from a presentation by London District Christian High School in London, where the authors write, "Our goal is to prevent materials that could be reused from being discarded in landfill sites."

These are resources that must be reused. The government, through programs and incentives, will create the structures needed to collect, process and reuse once-used products. Permits and strict guidelines must be obtained to ensure responsible environmental stewardship.

I'm confident, through the vehicle of this resolution, that public scrutiny will be brought to bear on the important issue of municipal procurement, and I trust that in the future we can eventually target 100% recycling.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I want to personally thank the member for Oxford for bringing forward a very creative piece of private member legislation, because it really raises the consciousness of everyone in this House and the public at large to a very important topic. Very simply said, landfilling is expensive. The more we can do either as individuals or as municipalities and at other levels of government to ensure that as little as possible has to be landfilled, we are basically saving ourselves as taxpayers an awful lot of money.

To follow up on some of the comments that have been made here today, locally in my own riding Domtar paper recycles post-commercial products, that is from Bay Street and possibly from this government as well, and reworks that paper into a beige-coloured paper. Anyone who has ever received a copy of a letter from the Ministry of the Environment will recognize very easily that this is their paper. It's something that obviously can be done by many municipalities.

I want to quickly comment on a few comments made by members opposite and say that incineration is really not an option. I have here the Ontario Recycling Update for June 1992, and it states that a report from the New York City department of sanitation claims that "state-of-the-art technology will eliminate pollution from incinerators." This report from the city's office of the comptroller states otherwise. "Even the best available pollution controls still allow the escape of toxic elements in the form of gases or particulates."

Further, as the member for Simcoe talked about, in the packaging industry there are in fact a whole range of initiatives to reduce the amount of packaging, and municipalities really have to be conscious of the cost-saving factors here too.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oxford, you have two minutes.

Mr Sutherland: First of all, I would like to thank my colleagues the member for Middlesex, the member for London South and the member for St Catharines-Brock for their comments and their participation in the debate today. In my

summary, I want to make a couple of comments in reference to the comments made by the member for St Catharines and the member for Simcoe East.

The member for Simcoe East talked about the costs to municipalities and the economic costs of such a resolution as mine. The member for St Catharines made reference to how people's environmental concerns have dropped a bit, given the impact of the recession and their focus on jobs. What we all have a responsibility to do is to educate people so they see that economic competitiveness is equal to environmental concerns.

Those industries that are out there on the leading edge of the environment in terms of cutting their waste, their energy use and those types of things are the competitive companies -- certainly the ones in my riding that are taking that initiative. All we need to do is look at Japan and Germany in terms of how they turned energy efficiency in their auto industries into a worldwide industry. We need to become the leaders in new areas, so I think that's important to remember.

In terms of the overall cost and the cost allowance for startup costs, I think it's important that our orders of the day are printed on recycled paper. When recycled paper was first available it cost far more than regular paper. Right now, because there's been a large market created for recycled paper, you can get it at almost the same cost as regular paper, and that's certainly some of the focus of what we're trying to do here.

Finally, my last comment is to the people at home or wherever who may be watching, to write to their local municipality and find out what type of procurement policy it has for environmental products, and if it doesn't have one, to encourage it to develop one.

I thank all the members for their participation.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' business has expired.

SENATE OF CANADA

The Deputy Speaker: We will deal first with ballot item 21 standing in the name of Mr Sterling.

Mr Sterling has moved private member's notice of motion 22. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Pursuant to standing order 94f, the recorded vote on this ballot item is deferred.

MUNICIPAL PURCHASING POLICY

The Deputy Speaker: We will now deal with ballot item 22 standing in the name of Mr Sutherland.

Mr Sutherland has moved private member's notice of motion 20. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

SENATE OF CANADA

The House divided on Mr Sterling's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 27

Akande, Bisson, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Conway, Dadamo, Elston, Fletcher, Haeck, Hansen, Jackson, Johnson, Kormos, Lessard, McLean, Miclash, Morrow, O'Connor, Sola, Sterling, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Waters, White, Wiseman, Wood.

Nays -- 18

Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Drainville, Eves, Ferguson, Frankford, Huget, Klopp, Mackinnon, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Sutherland, Wessenger, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger.

The Deputy Speaker: All matters relating to private members' business have been completed. I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed at 1210.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I received a Dear John letter from Hydro Mississauga:

"We want you to be aware of a resolution passed by the Mississauga Hydro-Electric Commission on July 2, 1992, wherein it 'strongly recommends that Ontario Hydro be restricted to an increase of 1% to 2% in the wholesale cost of power.'...

"We believe the time has come to contain the runaway costs of Ontario Hydro. On a recent national convention of the Canadian Electrical Association, Angus Reid reported that cost is the most important public attitude issue of 1992....

"We believe an overhaul of Ontario Hydro similar to results at the Tennessee Valley Authority in the United States is what is required. Since 1988, $400 million has been cut from the TVA annual operating expenditures while electricity production increased by 10%. Payroll has been cut from 37,000 to 20,000 people and, most importantly, no rate increase will be necessary in the coming fiscal year.

"Hydro Mississauga has cut its payroll by 25 people (6.7%) and is holding our operating cost budget to a zero per cent rate increase for 1992....

"If our industries are to remain competitive and our customers are allowed to pay electric rates that are in the range of inflation, then something must be done by the management of Ontario Hydro to reduce the cost structure of the provincial utility."

It's signed "Yours truly" by Alan Bradley, chairman, and I wholeheartedly agree with his recommendations.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'm extremely disappointed and angry to learn that full public hearings by an all-party standing committee of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for the London annexation bill will not be held this summer. The uncertainty around this legislation affects the economic growth, whether it be agricultural or industrial land, of all of southwestern Ontario. Final decisions could have been made much sooner as part of the ongoing democratic process had this bill received second reading before the summer break.

The OPP detachment has already announced that areas affected by the legislation will no longer receive its services as of January 1, 1993. The London police force will have to budget accordingly so that the people in these areas remain well protected. In the meantime, it is important that the ongoing transition team discussions continue in order that municipalities can plan their budgets.

The minister has decided to conduct his own hearings in London during the summer. This will provide Middlesex county and London residents and all those concerned the opportunity to discuss alternative proposals and voice their concerns about the administration of some of the best agricultural land in Ontario.

As we all know, there has been a great deal of controversy about the process leading to legislation, Bill 75. The minister stated that the implementation date of January 1, 1993, will not change. Furthermore, he still intends to conduct full public hearings by a legislative standing committee in Toronto after the House resumes in late September. Perhaps before the end of this afternoon there will be a way to get this London bill through. If not, perhaps we can send it out for public hearings after first reading.

GUELPH CIVIC CULTURAL CENTRE

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): When the Minister of Culture and Communications announced the $2 million in funding for the Guelph Civic Cultural Centre on July 7, the member for Wellington condemned the announcement as a cynical attempt by this government to demonstrate that it is creating jobs. He should have checked.

Not only has the federal Progressive Conservative government supported this project with $2 million in funding, but the Honourable Mr Winegard, federal cabinet minister, has offered his generous personal support as a patron and has publicly endorsed the centre many times. In fact, this morning Mr Winegard was testifying before an Ontario Municipal Board hearing that his government indeed supports this project.

The member for Wellington should have taken the time to check the list of supporters, including local businesses, and I'm sure he'd have recognized many friends and supporters. The important fact is that this project has drawn support from members of all political parties and all of those supporters are united in recognizing the benefits of this project.

The member's criticism that jobs created by this project will only be short term is so shortsighted I can hardly remark on it.

As for saying that the people of Guelph and Wellington would rather have seen an announcement on hospital funding, the member knows the funding and roles for the hospitals were announced June 1.

This centre is going to be located by the river in Guelph. I hope all members can join me some day in kicking off their shoes and socks and dangling their feet in the river.

JAMAICAN CELEBRATIONS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I will speak on the 30th anniversary of Jamaica's independence. On August 3, Jamaica will celebrate the 30th anniversary of its independence.

Jamaica and Canada have long enjoyed a very special bond. Not only do the two countries have an extensive trade relationship worth millions of dollars annually, but Jamaica is a favourite tourist destination for tens of thousands of Canadians each year. Like Canada, Jamaica is a multicultural society, which is reflected in the country's motto, "Out of many, one people," which could almost be Canada's own. Of course, many thousands of Jamaicans, including myself, have over the years made Canada their home.

Finally, I'd like to note that this year also marks the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the Jamaican Canadian Association, which is one of the oldest West Indian associations in Toronto.

I know that all members of this Legislature will join me in extending best wishes to the Jamaican Canadian Association and the entire Jamaican Canadian community.

I'm sure the new Prime Minister, P. J. Patterson, looks forward to a continued relationship, as do the many Jamaicans who have continued to make this their home and who have had many prominent roles in the Canadian community. We're looking forward to your joining us in having a great 30th anniversary.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make the members of this Legislature aware of the Schomberg "no dump" picnic that is being held this Saturday on one of the nine potential sites Ruth Grier and the Interim Waste Authority have chosen for an 800-acre dump to house all of Toronto and York region's garbage.

Ruth Grier, the ultimate NIMBY, will not even consider any option other than a megadump for Schomberg. Why will you not allow your great non-partisan agency to explore the other options that are available to the people of York, Peel and Halton?

In the great consultative process this government is becoming infamous for, we are supposed to believe that the IWA is listening to the public during the public hearings and that it hasn't already made up its mind as to which sites are on the short list and, quite possibly, which sites have already been chosen for the final three megadumps.

Please join me Saturday as I oppose the IWA's plans to place a megadump on A-1 agricultural land in Schomberg. The "no dump" picnic, sponsored by Respect Our Rural Environment, will be held on one of the nine preliminary sites chosen, the 11th Concession of King township, from 11 am to 3 pm.

This entire process has been flawed from the beginning, with the great NDP defenders of the people willing to displace operational farms for a dump. If this government is remembered at all it will be for its undemocratic ways and the classic hear no evil, see no evil and speak even less.

CLOSURE OF RADIO STATIONS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Several days ago, a decision was made by Pelmorex and Telemedia to close their AM stations, CKCY and CFYN, in Sault Ste Marie, the only two AM radio stations in my constituency. The closure of these two media outlets is of great concern to our community. The elimination of radio stations CKCY and CFYN will not only silence our local news, our local sports, our local causes and events, but it also paves the way for our US border community to further bombard us with American content and culture.

It is important to note that if CKCY and CFYN do close, we will be the only city of comparable size in Canada to function without an AM radio station. The plan to consolidate the management of the remaining two Canadian FM stations will contribute as well to an ever-increasingly uncompetitive environment.

Along with my colleague Sault Ste Marie's federal MP Steve Butland, I feel very strongly that any further decline of control, ownership and content of our local media systems will negatively affect our city's efforts to renew its economy.

At this point, the scheduled closing date for both radio stations is August 31, 1992. Steve Butland and I are appealing to the CRTC to hold public hearings into the issue and postpone the closing date until such hearings are held. We ask the province to support us in this request.

CHEQUE CASHING BILL

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I am pleased that the Minister of Community and Social Services is listening. There is some attempt to help low-income Ontarians who must pay fees to cash cheques. I fear, however, that her advisers are not doing their homework properly. They remain bogged down in details while the cheque cashing debate evolves.

No piece of legislation should ever be rushed. We must carefully think through the implications of Bill 154. I believe this has been done. What bothers me is this wait-and-see attitude. The Minister of Community and Social Services cannot wait and see indefinitely. Time may be on her side; it is not the side of those who will continue to pay fees. I appreciate and share her concerns, but concern cannot be an excuse for inaction. There have already been too many delays.

The minister wants to avoid Quebec's mistake; so do I. Yet she commits the classic ministerial mistake: procrastination. We know that policy evolves at a snail's pace, yet this is a rare case where the proposed legislation has already been tested. We are benefiting from Quebec's experience. We will ensure that low-income persons can cash their cheques elsewhere after the prohibition of fees. The minister must instruct her staff to move on this issue.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Yesterday the C. D. Howe Institute released its response to the proposals for strengthening the economic union under the Constitution. It is their conclusion that the proposal designed to reduce internal barriers to trade within Canada will only serve to enshrine existing barriers.

Our caucus has been very firm in its support for reducing barriers to trade between the provinces for some years now. In our participation at the constitutional negotiations, we have made sure that the Premier is aware of this in the most direct manner. Unfortunately, the Premier does not appear to agree with us, and thinks that barriers to trade between the provinces are good for Ontario. Ontario -- and Canada, for that matter -- can only benefit from the removal of these barriers.

The current proposal pays only lipservice to the concept of an economic union and is so full of exemptions that it provides little real benefit to our national economy. By providing existing barriers with constitutional protection, as is proposed in the new

section 121 of the Constitution Act, we will be permanently denying the Ontario economy opportunities which are increasingly being offered to our international trading partners.

I -- and others, I'm sure -- had hoped the debate on Canada's constitutional future would be resolved by now, but it appears that we will be continuing the debate for the better part of the summer at least.

I would urge the Premier to rethink his philosophy on trade barriers and, in future negotiations, to advocate the total removal of these barriers so that we may indeed achieve the free trade of goods, services and labour between provinces and attain an economic as well as a political union in Canada.

NANCY SWEETNAM

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I am honoured to rise in the House today to pay tribute to Miss Nancy Sweetnam, one of my constituents, who is a world-class swimmer and will be representing Canada at the 1992 Olympics this summer in Barcelona.

What most people don't realize, or maybe forget, is that our young athletes are people who try to lead normal lives. In the midst of highly stressful competitions and always in the public eye, they must remain calm, focused and completely dedicated to their sport and to representing this country. They are role models for all of us and they are also heroes.

Miss Sweetnam is an exemplary athlete. She has been devotedly competing for many years, triumphing recently at the Commonwealth Games, where she won a gold medal. At the same time, she has committed herself to her school work, recently graduating from high school and planning to continue her education at Laurentian University.

When Miss Sweetnam competes in Barcelona, I know the members of the House will be joining the rest of the country in wishing her well. But in the riding of Victoria-Haliburton, we will all be holding our breath with pride and delight, because this young woman from Lindsay proves that you can come from a small place and still make a big splash.

INVESTIGATION INTO RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Just before continuing with routine proceedings, on June 17 the leader of the official opposition (Mrs McLeod) rose on a point of privilege with respect to the outcome of an OPP investigation of certain members of this House.

The members will recall that I have previously ruled on the issue of members of an outside police force gaining access to any office within the parliamentary precinct for investigative reasons. As I understand this latest point, the Leader of the Opposition is asking that the Speaker somehow obtain for this House the results of the recent visit by OPP officers to the offices of the member for Bruce (Mr Elston) and the member for Halton Centre (Mrs Sullivan).

As has been pointed out on many occasions, the Speaker has no investigative powers. While I can appreciate the concern of all members with respect to the issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I must inform the House that the Speaker has no authority over the OPP or any investigation that that police force may carry out. Thus I am unable to obtain or provide for the House any information which would indicate the results of a police investigation.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I believe it's been myself who's raised this most often. The document that's been referred to, as you know, was a non-confidential, small briefing note that arrived in the hands of the member for Bruce. Less than two weeks later the anti-racket squad of the OPP arrived at his office to interrogate him as to how he came into possession of this document.

The reason it's so important is that fortunately the member for Leeds-Grenville, as the House has now found, was able to find out about a very serious matter because a member of the public felt confident enough to come to one of the members of the opposition.

If you, Mr Speaker, cannot protect us from the OPP anti-racket squad appearing on our doorstep, can you inform the members of the Legislature where we can look for protection then?

The Speaker: To the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I regret if I've been unclear in attempting to describe to the House what powers the Speaker has or does not have. Based on requests made earlier, I made a ruling. I delivered that ruling to all police forces in Canada, instructing that before any police officer has access to a member within the precincts the police officer or the force contact the Speaker's office first to determine if the member in question was aware of the pending visit and would allow access or the opportunity to meet at a mutual time. My understanding is that so far that process is working.

There was a second item which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and that was with regard to whatever reports or results of an investigation: Could the Speaker obtain those documents? The answer is clearly no, the Speaker does not have any investigative powers. The Speaker does not have the ability to obtain for members the results of police investigations.

All that I can say in conclusion is that if the member indeed has had a surprise visit by the police, where the police have not contacted the Speaker's office before contacting you, then I would be pleased to know about that and would take whatever corrective steps would be of assistance. But I must stress that there is no way in which I can obtain for you the results of a police investigation or police visit.

Mr Phillips: Further on that point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would then say that it is up to the Premier to provide the members of the Legislature with guidelines of when they will and will not call in the police. I think the Premier appreciates my feeling on this matter. I hope that some time soon we can see from the Premier the directions and instructions that he would provide to his government in terms of when we will and when we will not be expecting the police investigation of the opposition.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Further to this point of order, Mr Speaker: Very briefly, I would like to get clarification from you on whether you actually asked for those specific documents.

Second, there's some question about what the precincts are. The member for Halton Centre, for instance, was interviewed by the Ontario Provincial Police at the behest of the government in her own constituency office, which is not located in this building or in the Whitney Block, which is considered part of this building. Our concern would be as to the boundaries of that.

We're very concerned because if this were to be the case, for instance, if members felt intimidated, we would not have been getting the flow of documents we've received from various people in the government over the past couple of weeks and the Pilkey affair would not have been before this Legislature without that.

The Speaker: To the member for St Catharines, there are two questions, the first of which is that since it is not possible for the Speaker to obtain documents of the results of reports, then it would be inappropriate to make the request. Second, the precinct is described as the Legislative Building, the grounds on which it sits and the first three floors of the Whitney Block and does not extend anywhere beyond that which I've just described.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): We ended the last session of this Parliament with the government running away from the problem of a totally discredited Minister of Northern Development. It appears that we're about to end this session of Parliament with the government running away from yet another problem of another totally discredited minister, the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. My question is for that minister.

For the last two weeks, we have been raising a very serious issue of mismanagement on the part of this minister and his ministry. It's an issue which has enormous consequences. On Monday of this week, to create some sense of responsiveness after the crisis that occurred, the minister told us he had hired Madam Justice Inger Hansen to conduct a review.

It's now a full week since he announced this review, three days since he appointed the judge, and we still have no idea what this eminent person has been appointed to do. There have been no terms of reference provided, and we don't even know if the judge herself has been given a clear indication of what she has been asked to do. I ask the Minister of Correctional Services to table in this House today, right now, the terms of reference so we all know what Judge Hansen has been asked to do.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): First, I want to reject completely the assertions made by the Leader of the Opposition in her initial remarks as a precursor to her question. Second, I want to advise her that Judge Hansen will be ready to commence the investigation that we as a government initiated on Monday. Third, I want to indicate to the member opposite, although I have done it in the House over the last couple of days, that the review is to examine the operations of the Bell Cairn Staff Training and Development Centre in Hamilton.

It will review a broad degree of investigation and interview with a variety of staff, including Bell Cairn staff, including course participants, external trainers and ministry employees. It will also review the documents, the policies, the memoranda etc that are involved, and we will also be collecting information with respect to operation of other training facilities within the area of our jurisdiction and review. All of this will be done by the most competent personage in Judge Hansen, and we look forward to her fact-finding report.

Mrs McLeod: I raise the question because we fear this is all part of the government simply trying to run away from this problem at the end of the session. We don't feel this minister really has any idea of what he expects Judge Hansen to be able to accomplish with what the minister continues to call a review. We believe the minister is simply trying to take a little bit of the heat off.

Nevertheless we recognize that the minister has appointed a judge who certainly has the capability to carry out a full investigation of the very real problems that exist in this ministry and in fact throughout the Ministry of Correctional Services itself. We need some assurance that the government intends to allow a full and frank inquiry to take place.

I ask the minister to explain to the House how his use of the term "review" is different from the carrying out of a full inquiry. When will this review start? When will it end? Will it be carried out in public or will it all be conducted behind closed doors?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I already indicated in the response when the initiative would commence. I want to suggest as well that this minister and this government, once being seized of the information, have been nothing short of proactive, deliberate and immediate. We have done so with respect to launching a police investigation so that we can bring to justice any perpetrators of alleged criminal activities.

We have closed the Bell Cairn centre, and I will not allow the centre to reopen until I am quite and totally satisfied it will represent the kind of workplace that is harassment-free and free of any kind of circumstances which are not appropriate. Third is the retaining of Judge Hansen to do this further review into the matter.

It seems to me that those are quite direct actions, they are all-encompassing actions, and we look forward to the disclosure of the facts as they are found with respect to those investigations.

Mrs McLeod: Taking away the training facility for the staff is hardly a way of responding to what has been an ongoing problem in this ministry. Mr Speaker, you can understand our concerns, because this minister on Monday defined his understanding of the accepting of the responsibilities as a minister as attending all the special events in his ministry.