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

December 10, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L021 - Thu 10 Dec 1987 / Jeu déc 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT

SUPERMAILBOXES

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT

SUPERMAILBOXES

VISITOR

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

EAST/CENTRAL ONTARIO RECREATION TRAILS COMMISSION

JOHN FRASER

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

EASTERN ONTARIO

RETAIL STORE HOURS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HUMAN RIGHTS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS

RESPONSES

HUMAN RIGHTS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

HOUSING SUPPLY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

MINISTER’S ROLE IN TRANSMISSION LINE DECISION

HOURS OF WORK

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SENIOR CITIZENS’ SERVICES

NURSING HOMES

USE OF GILL-NETS

SALE OF DRUG-RELATED EQUIPMENT

USE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

ETATECH INDUSTRIES INC.

TRANSIT SERVICES

CONTINUING EDUCATION

ONTARIO YOUNG TRAVELLERS PROGRAM

WASTE DISPOSAL

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

EAST/CENTRAL ONTARIO RECREATIONAL TRAILS COMMISSION ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLAN ACT

MINISTRY OF REVENUE AMENDMENT ACT

TRAVEL INDUSTRY AMENDMENT ACT

TRAVEL INDUSTRY AMENDMENT ACT

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

UPHOLSTERED AND STUFFED ARTICLES AMENDMENT ACT

OPERATING ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

TRANSMISSION LINES

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT

Mrs. Grier moved second reading of Bill 13,

An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario.

Mrs. Grier: Before I begin, I would like to indicate that I plan to reserve some of the time allocated to me so that I can wind up the debate at the end.

The Deputy Speaker: You have up to 20 minutes and you may reserve some of that time for the windup.

Mrs. Grier: I am very pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate on the act respecting environmental rights here this morning. It is, by coincidence, exactly one year ago today that I first introduced this piece of legislation into the House and members who were here in the last session will recall that in May 1987 we had a debate on second reading in private members’ hour on that occasion. In May 1987 my bill received support from all parties in the House. It was adopted unanimously and referred to the standing committee on resources development for discussion and detailed debate. I hope the same thing will happen today.

I was very heartened during the election campaign, which interrupted the progress of my bill in the last session and which I trust will not interrupt its progress in this one, by the support, the recognition and the indications from people, not only in my own constituency but across the province, that the kinds of principles which are enshrined in this legislation were well received, were popular and were in fact recognized as being very badly needed in Ontario. After the resumption of business by this House, I quickly reintroduced my bill, which brings us to the point we are at today.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that this is the first opportunity members have had in this session of the House to debate environmental matters. Some members referred to the issues of the environment during the throne speech debate, but this is the first time there has been an occasion when the subject at hand has been solely the protection of the environment. It is also therefore the first opportunity for members on all sides to recommit themselves to the promises and the commitments that I think we all made in the campaign, of our respect for the environment and our intention to do what we could to protect the environment.

I want to acknowledge the work that the many environmental groups have done, both in indicating support for this bill and in spreading the word about the principles enshrined in the bill. I think all members will have received a letter indicating support from a number of groups.

I would like to put on the record the list of groups that have specifically endorsed this second-reading debate today: the Canadian Environmental Law Association; the Canadian Auto Workers, locals 444 and 1973; the Citizens Network on Waste Management; Energy Probe; Friends of the Earth; Great Lakes United; Greenpeace; Pollution Probe; Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society; Ontario Federation of Labour; RADAR, which is Residents Against Dumping Around Rochester; Sierra Club of Ontario; Windsor and District Clean Water Alliance; Windsor and District Labour Council; and separately, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists.

What that represents is a very broad consensus from groups that may have very different localized interests, that the kinds of principles which are part of the environmental bill of rights are worthy of support and apply all across this province to every kind of environmental and nature group that we might have.

As I suspect all members know, the bill that I have presented is of somewhat mixed parentage. It was in 1980 that the present member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) introduced an environmental Magna Carta. That was followed by an environmental bill of rights introduced by members of the Liberal Party when they were in opposition. In fact, my bill is very directly taken from a bill that was introduced by the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston). So there has been support across party lines for a bill of rights. I think the time has come in this province when such a bill needs to be adopted.

We have, I acknowledge, made significant progress in the last two years towards protecting the environment, towards updating our laws, towards improving our regulations. But this bill is a vital addition to that progress. What this bill does is give a weapon to the citizens so that they can play their part, along with government, in protecting the environment. In a minority government those weapons were available more readily perhaps than they are in today’s majority situation, but I would suggest that perhaps the passage of this bill would give an additional weapon to the Minister of the Environment (Mr.

Bradley) in discussions that he may have with caucus or with the competing priorities of his fellow members of cabinet.

I would like to enunciate what the bill does, which is fairly clearly stated in

section 2 of the legislation. What it does is give to the people of Ontario “a right to clean air, pure water and the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic values of the environment.” It says:

“Ontario’s public lands, waters and natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come, and, as trustee of those lands, waters and resources, the government of Ontario shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of present and future generations.

“It is hereby declared that it is in the public interest to provide every person with an adequate remedy to protect and conserve the environment and the public trust therein from contamination and degradation.”

What that means is that it gives citizens the right to go to court to protect the environment. It ensures that decisions are not made, or approvals are not granted, without adequate public hearings. It guarantees access to information about the environment. It provides intervener funding so that those citizens who become involved have the resources to carry their case forward. It protects workers who report acts of pollution from reprisals because they have reported those acts.

What it does not do is it does not relieve the minister of his responsibility to protect the environment. It gives him, in addition to his own inspectors and enforcement mechanisms, an army of volunteers who have the right to supplement what government is doing. I think we have had ample indication that the public wants that right and would take advantage of that right. In the report of the Provincial Auditor there were more than 12,000 complaints filed by citizens in 1986, complaints about degradation of the environment. The Provincial Auditor went on to enumerate that the Ministry of the Environment, unfortunately, had not adequately followed up on those complaints.

When I say that citizens ought to be given the right to follow up themselves and to take action to see if their complaints are dealt with, that is the kind of right that this bill would give them. By providing intervener funding, it gives citizens the tools to do the job they have indicated they want to do.

It is important to remember that in our legislation the minister has the power to protect the environment but he does not have a duty to do so. It is not mandatory that he take action under some of the legislation and regulations that exist.

When you consider how the laws and the regulations of the province are written, you realize that the way they are developed they in fact give industry the right to pollute. Regulations are developed that say you may contaminate the environment to a certain level; you have a right to allow these kinds of contaminants into the environment. What the regulation does is set the level of those contaminants.

We have control orders. When there is evidence that pollution is occurring, a control order is negotiated between the government and the industry which spells out the right the industry has to continue to pollute to a certain level.

We have deadlines and indications to industry that regulations or legislation are going to be introduced at a certain time which give industry the right to continue to pollute until that deadline is met.

All these mechanisms for improving the environment or controlling environmental degradation are generally discussed behind closed doors and the participants in those discussions are the polluters and the government. Not present is the public. The public not only does not have the right to participate in those discussions, it does not have the right to be informed that those discussions are taking place.

Some of the most frequently heard jargon or buzzwords around environmental policy these days are “risk assessment” and “stakeholders.” If we think of those two words in conjunction with what I have just said about how regulations and legislation are developed to protect the environment, we will see that the risks are being taken by the public. Therefore, they are a major stakeholder in the development of these regulations, yet they are not present and not legal participants in the development of the regulations.

Let me give a couple of examples.

We heard last week from the minister that regulation 308, the province’s air pollution regulation, was outdated, and he allowed us to have three months for the public to comment on his proposals to revise that regulation. I think that is admirable. I am very glad the minister did that. The point I want to make is that he did not have to do that. He did it because he happens to think public participation is warranted, justified and desirable. But should we have in his place a Minister of the Environment who did not feel the same way, then we would have no right to demand that we be allowed to have public comment on that regulation.

The Ministry of the Environment is in the process of setting acceptable standards for dioxins and furans in the province. A report enunciating studies and statistics with respect to dioxins and furans was released in November 1985. There have been no public hearings on that report.

We know that the minister is setting standards in consultation with industry for those very toxic contaminants, yet we do not have a right to demand that there be a public process by which we who are going to take the risk can be involved. I think that is a classic case of the risk regulator and the risk-maker deciding what is an acceptable risk without the risk-taker being at the table.

In defence of the current minister -- and I know that defence will be mounted by his colleagues as this debate proceeds -- I want to make it very clear that there has been much better access to information in the last two years than we ever saw in this province in the past. I keep saying two years; maybe it is almost three years. We have had a release of reports. We have had a release of data -- not quite as quickly in the past two months as we saw in the previous session, but it still does come -- but I want to reiterate that is dependent on the goodwill of the minister. It is not guaranteed.

When you come to public hearings, the only right that the citizens of the province have is a right to a public hearing on waste disposal projects.

I made the point that there is in fact a right to pollute and I want to expand a bit on that. The polluters who use the environment can infringe on the public’s use of the environment. If a lake is polluted because of the actions of industry, the public cannot fish or swim, but the public has no right to use the courts to correct that public wrong. We have to prove that a private wrong has been done. We have to prove that our person or our property has been damaged by that pollution before we can go to court and try to claim damages or try to claim that the pollution ought not to be allowed to continue.

That whole issue of standing, and the standing of the public before the courts of this province, is one of the most crucial elements of the bill. I was in Toledo recently for meetings of the International Joint Commission and heard a representative of the United States, when a citizen asked him about how compliance could be enforced with the regulations, say, “Sue me.” As a citizen of Ontario, I do not have the right to do that.

Even if my industry is damaged, even if I am a resort owner and a lake has been contaminated, even if my backyard has been damaged by lead from a lead plant in the neighbourhood, I have to prove a very direct effect upon myself or my property before I have the right to go to court. As we are becoming more conscious of the effects of environmental degradation on human health, the cause and effect is ever more difficult to assess, but the importance of citizens having the right to go to court to protect themselves is ever more important.

Those who say that this right, which now exists in Quebec, in the state of Michigan, in Minnesota, is going to lead to a plethora of lawsuits are quite wrong. In fact, the history in those states is that the courts have not been clogged by frivolous or unnecessary suits. In fact, the safety valves of the reluctance of people to go to court, of the cost of going to court, of the effort of going to court, prevent anybody from doing so frivolously.

The tool that I mentioned at the beginning that allows people to make active use of the rights this bill would give them is, of course, the tool of intervener funding. That, too, has been a commitment by this government, a commitment that it has been called to account for in this House during question period, a commitment that has been partially fulfilled in an ad hoc way.

What my bill does is establish a process by which a group, before it embarks on an environmental assessment hearing, before it decides what studies it wants to do or needs to do, knows for sure that there is going to be intervener funding, how much that intervener funding will be, and by what criteria that intervener funding will be disbursed. That is a very essential element in giving citizens the right to protect their own environment.

I hope that if this bill passes today, there will be time in the committee hearings to hear from the public, to hear from the people who have suffered because of the lack of statutory environmental rights in this province. I think the issue is too serious to be compromised or for the elements of this bill to be attempted to be met by half measures or by qualifications.

The whole question of what is happening to our environment is too serious for the tools to protect the environment to remain fragmented among a number of pieces of legislation. What the bill of rights does is bring all of the elements of the environmental activity together under one piece of legislation and spell out very clearly the processes and the rights to be followed.

I hope that we soon have in this province a bill of rights that is enforceable, not the kind of preface to environmental protection amendments that the federal government is calling a bill of rights, and I want to make a clear distinction between the two.

I want to say in closing that I and the environmental groups were very heartened to find, in the questionnaire that was circulated before the election, that 89 per cent of the people who were elected to this House on September 10 supported the bill of rights in principle.

Today is our opportunity to vote for what we said we supported and I look forward to support from all sides of the House.

Mrs. Marland: In rising today to support this bill,

An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario, I would first like to congratulate the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) in her presence in bringing forth this very much needed bill. Certainly, this particular bill has quite a history. We certainly are aware of the fact that a similar bill was first introduced by the Leader of the Opposition in 1979, Dr. Smith, as Bill 185. Now that we are on to the third reincarnation, let us hope that this time we will really have a birth.

I would also like to mention that there is a tremendously strong concern within the Progressive Conservative caucus about where we are going with questions relating to the environment, and as the government that established the Ministry of the Environment in the early 1970s, there obviously has always been a recognition of the concern and planning for the preservation of what we have.

I would urge that the government and the government caucus members who are present here support this bill, as they did earlier in the year. I hope that in supporting it they will encourage the Minister of the Environment to continue with the select committee on the environment in order that this bill could be referred to that committee.

The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and I sat as members of that select committee on the environment this year, and we both recognize very clearly that we were only just beginning the process of the work of the select committee on the environment. We in fact discussed at our organizational meeting about five areas that we wanted to discuss within the purview of that committee.

We got only as far as the Countdown Acid Rain program, and that in itself turned out to be somewhat depressing in the beginning but encouraging at the end, because it was through the review of the Countdown Acid Rain program on the select committee on the environment that we did indeed discover the tremendous loophole of the banking provision for emissions by Ontario Hydro.

So obviously the work of the select committee on the environment is very important and has only just begun. We have not yet heard an announcement that that committee is going to be re-established to continue with the next project, which we had already identified, which was the pollution of the Great Lakes, in particular Lake Ontario and its input from the Niagara River.

I think in establishing the government as a trustee of public lands, which is one objective of the bill, we have to be sure that the government can act in the best public interest in preserving the ecological and environmentally special areas. We are certainly going to see whether that is possible by the current government when we see what its decision will be on whether or not it will allow the use of the Rouge Valley lands for housing.

In referring to the Rouge Valley lands I want to emphasize that our Progressive Conservative caucus does support the use of government lands for housing, but we certainly do not support the use of environmentally sensitive areas.

While we have 3,000-plus acres other than the Rouge Valley lands in the immediate area of Metro Toronto, we do not see that the use of the Rouge Valley lands is in fact necessary, and we certainly do not want to end up with a legacy for our grandchildren and great grandchildren where we have nothing but asphalt from Kingston to Hamilton because we have not planned to preserve the environmentally sensitive areas.

In supporting the initiative of intervener funding I think it is important to say that this is one component of this proposed environmental bill of rights which is very important. It is important, of course, to recognize the power and the money behind the industrial initiatives and the need for funding for individuals to compete in this process. As an example, I would like to tell members that we have this ongoing hearing at the moment for a project in southeast Brampton. The hearing started there. It has now been moved into the Mississauga civic centre.

That hearing is about the proposed energy-from-waste plans by Petro-Sun. The group of citizens who are in opposition to that proposal has been granted $30,000. Now, I am not suggesting that we were not grateful for the $30,000, but I would respectfully suggest that $30,000 does not come anywhere close to the money that is being invested both by the region of Peel and by the industrial proponents of the Petro-Sun proposal. So I think that when we are talking about intervener funding, we have to make sure that what is allowed and allocated to those groups is realistic.

I would suggest that if it is going to be realistic, it has to be somewhat fair in comparison to the amount that the industry has behind it.

The Environmental Assessment Act is obviously now at the point where we need a new act. We have situations where municipalities are applying to be exempt from the public process, to have landfill sites licensed without going through the whole process. We have had something in excess of 65 exemptions granted by the cabinet since 1985, and we now have class assessments that help get through the process faster. The point I am making is that in drafting legislation we must be sure it is workable.

Otherwise, our environment and the right of the individual to a clean environment will be much looser, it will not be as secure, and certainly we would wonder if there will be any beneficiaries. The fact that the Environmental Assessment Act does not apply to private sector initiatives is something that is important.

With the environmental assessment hearing that is going on for the Petro-Sun energy-from-waste plant in Brampton, ensuring that the public can participate does not in itself necessarily ensure that the public is protected. The concern we have is that this particular hearing is going on and the ministry will be reviewing this submission in the absence of the updated air pollution standards, standards that do not even include dioxin. I have mentioned this a few times in this Legislature in my questions to the Minister of the Environment.

It is beyond me how the decision on this Petro-Sun plan could be made before any new air pollution guidelines are in place. Before the public can completely comment on whether the decision is a good one or not, environmentally speaking, the point is that a bill of rights such as the one that is before us this morning must go hand in hand with other legislation to be effective.

On the matter of the air pollution guidelines, I cannot miss the opportunity to say that the members of this House were expecting the standards to be put in place by the current minister when his announcement was made. We certainly were not expecting another study and another green paper or the phase-in period. There again, we were expecting that if that is what his announcement was going to be, well, then we would at least have those new air emission standards in place to deal as a benchmark and a measurement against which to evaluate the Petro-Sun proposal, which in itself is very significant not only to Mississauga but to this part of southern Ontario.

I think a good example of how other legislation must keep pace with the environmental rights bill is the fact that the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program is inadequate. There are some 11,000 polluters that are still emptying contaminated effluent into sewage systems that are not covered by MISA.

In closing, I would just say that presently only those who can show direct personal harm or injury can sue on behalf of the Ministry of the Environment. This bill will allow actions that have the interests of future generations at heart. Much of what we are doing today we cannot even measure the effect of, but our grandchildren most assuredly will. They will see the effects and will have to live with our mistakes. I hope our grandchildren and great grandchildren will live with our protection for their future environmentally.

Ms. Hart: At the outset I would like to indicate my support for Bill 13 in principle and my agreement with its underlying goals. Control of pollution and a greater role for the public in protecting the environment are top priorities for me and for this government

As has been mentioned. Liberals have sup ported environmental rights legislation ever since Stuart Smith introduced the original version of this bill in 1979, and we still support it. However, we wish to ensure that Ontario ends up with the best environmental protection legislation possible.

Bill 13 is a great stride forward, but even it could be improved. First of all,

section 2 gives the people of Ontario the right to clean air, pure water and the preservation of the environment. I agree in principle that every citizen of this province and every future citizen of this province has the right to a clean environment.

But in order for an environmental bill of rights to work, it must be a piece of clear, enforceable legislation.

Section 2 raises a number of important questions that need to be examined. For example, the definition of “environment” used in Bill 13 is broader than that of the Environmental Protection Act, which refers only to the natural environment. Bill 13 includes the social, economic and cultural environment. Its jurisdiction is likely, therefore, to overlap with that of other ministries.

How would proponents of this bill deal with its impact on other jurisdictions? How would they legally define the concepts of “clean” and “pure”? What would be the relationship of the right to a clean environment and the existing common-law rights of all citizens? How can the right to a clean environment be applied to specific standards and duties outlined in current and future environmental legislation? Are there limitations to the right to a clean environment? If so, under what conditions? Substantial litigation may be needed to clarify the extent of this right unless these questions are clearly addressed.

A related issue is that of standing. Standing refers to the right of a party to pursue remedies in the courts and to appear before administrative tribunals. At present, members of the public can have standing to prosecute under Ministry of the Environment statutes. The ministry has always supported private prosecution. There is a statement to this effect in our abatement policy. A private prosecutor who obtains a conviction can, under Bill 112, obtain an order from the court to prevent recurrence of an offence or to rectify harm. This provision was used recently to prevent a St. Catharines company from continuing its outdoor sand-blasting operations.

Under current law, however, parties who wish standing in Ontario’s courts must be able to show direct injury to themselves or to their property. Bill 13 would extend this to give all citizens the right to bring legal action against an activity which harms the environment, regardless of whether or not they themselves are directly affected.

In such an action the court has broad power to grant injunctions on environmental matters, impose conditions or effect standards where there are none. The provisions for standing, therefore, are likely to be controversial, and extensive litigation may be needed to determine the relationship to other statutes.

The practical issues of introducing both the right to a clean environment and the right to standing need to be addressed before Ontario can have a strong and workable environmental bill of rights. I therefore encourage members to refer these questions to a committee of the legislature for more detailed work before this bill proceeds further.

Bill 13, then, lacks detail on two important issues. It also provides provisions which could be more effectively addressed in statutes of general provincial application. Questions raised in the issue of standing, for example, are also important in the context of civil liberties, consumer protection and human rights. Committee examination of these issues can only serve to strengthen this bill.

In addition,

section 16 contains measures authorizing public interest funding. Such funding, according to the bill, would be provided from an environmental hearing assistance fund to participants appearing before any board, tribunal, commission or court or any appeal or review thereof.

The throne speech of April 22, 1986, committed this government to ensuring that groups and individuals seeking to intervene in the public interest before administrative tribunals will be assisted. The Ministry of the Attorney General is developing a progressive policy on intervener funding. The Ministry of the Environment fully supports this undertaking. Furthermore, the ministry has shown this support by making funds available in the interim to public groups participating in environmental hearings.

Major funding will also be provided to citizens’ groups planning to appear at the Ontario Waste Management Corp.’s hearing before the Environmental Assessment Act. Intervener funding has already been given out for the hearings on the 3M Canada energy-from-waste facility in London, the Consumers’ Gas liquid-natural-gas storage proposal in Cobourg, Highway 416 in Ottawa and the Halton regional landfill. The government has made available up to $300,000 to support public participation in the Ministry of Natural Resources class timber management environmental assessment.

This policy of funding citizens’ participation in environmental hearings results in better, more democratic decision-making and will be actively continued on an ad hoc basis until the legislative proposal developed by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is approved by this Legislature.

Sections 12 to 14 of the bill attempt to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the issuing of licences, approvals and orders and an opportunity to review and comment on existing environmental legislation. The government supports the concept of greater public participation in environmental decision-making. The Ministry of the Environment is currently working out the implementation details of a comprehensive policy for public consultation. This policy will be made public in the spring.

In the interim, though, the ministry has implemented the principle of public participation in a number of ways: the Recycling Advisory Committee and the municipal industrial strategy for abatement advisory committee. The ministry encourages the creation of public advisory committees to ensure public awareness and involvement in several programs, including municipal waste-management master plans. Last year the public was invited to respond to the MISA white paper. More than 100 public interest groups, municipalities, industry associations and individuals participated in this review period.

The ministry is currently inviting comments on the new proposed changes to the air pollution regulation 308. In addition, the ministry has ensured that several important undertakings are now subject to public hearings. Any proposed energy-from-waste incinerator with a capacity of over 100 tons a day is now subject to the Environmental Assessment Act. In September 1985 it announced that mobile polychlorinated biphenyl destruction facilities would be subject to full hearings. In light of this track record and in light of the comprehensive intervener funding proposal now under development,

section 16 of this bill, which provides for intervener funding, will become redundant.

In conclusion, I reiterate that I support this bill in principle. I believe it should be strengthened and improved and would benefit from referral to a committee for public review, as the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore has indicated.

Several of the means for public involvement proposed in Bill 13 are already offered or are being developed by the Ministry of the Environment or other ministries. The sections on the right to a clean environment and on standing need further work, with more consideration given to the details of implementing these provisions.

I am confident that I reflect the view of many of the other members in commending the dedication and ability of the opposition critic on the environment the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, not only in this matter but in all matters environmental. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the other members who have been involved in this initiative right from the beginning. An environmental bill of rights is a very important initiative of this body, and I urge all the members of this Legislature to support it.

Mr. Charlton: It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of Bill 13. My colleague from Etobicoke-Lakeshore has worked very closely with me on this project over the last couple of years, and I did some work on it myself during my time as Environment critic.

I would like to start my comments by thanking the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) for her support and the member for York East (Ms. Hart) for her support as well. The member for Mississauga South mentioned, as have all of the speakers so far, all of the reincarnations that this bill has been through, and the member for Mississauga South made the comment that perhaps this time we would have a birth. Let us honestly hope that it is a live birth. I think that reflects my feeling not only about the importance of this bill but also about the importance of the environment as paramount above all other things.

The member for York East, for example, expressed some concern about the broad definition of the environment that is used in this bill. I would like to assure her that that was not a mistake and not an oversight, but a very intentional move on our part and on the part of the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston) when he introduced this bill some years ago.

She expressed a concern about the broad definition overlapping with other jurisdictions, and again I want to assure her that that is exactly the intention of the broader definition. What we have in the present structure, with a much narrower definition of the environment, is that other ministries in competition with the Ministry of the Environment are able in a number of ways to get around maximizing environmental protection in Ontario.

What this piece of legislation and the broad definition are in fact saying is that that is no longer acceptable; the protection of the environment has to be paramount above all else, both for present generations and for future generations. We all like to talk about present generations and future generations, but we have to start to understand the implications of what is going on in the area of environmental degradation and the struggle for environmental protection.

The member for York East also raised concerns about the question of standing and how that question of standing would impact, for example, on environmental legislation which set new environmental standards for a particular substance, range of substances or whatever the case happened to be. I think she hit the point right on the head at the same time as she missed it. The point is that, again, the question of standing has to be broad so that, in effect, the citizens of this province have the right to challenge even standards that are legislated by this Legislature or imposed by the Ministry of the Environment if the public does not feel those standards are acceptable.

In order to understand the need for that right, we in this House have to start understanding the environment and the environmental approvals process that goes on. We have scientists and bureaucrats making decisions about what is acceptable and what is safe. I want to emphasize the word “safe” as I talk to this matter. Scientists study substances and they come to the conclusion from the scientific evidence they are able to glean from studying a substance that this substance is not particularly toxic and will kill only one in a million people.

They present that scientific evidence to the bureaucrats and the bureaucrats make a decision, “One in a million is not bad: that is acceptably safe,” and the substance is allowed to be used in our society.

When the public raises concerns about that substance being used in its community, in the industry in which they work, or when it perhaps turns up in their water, it is not told that that substance is going to kill one or two people in Metro Toronto or that it is going to kill 26 people of the present generation across Canada. They are told it is safe because the bureaucrats decided it was acceptably safe.

The response we get in the Legislature here, the response that is put out publicly is: the amount of the substance present in the environment meets the guidelines, meets the standard, whatever the case happens to be, and it is therefore safe. They are not told that it is safe for most of the people but not for all of them. The public has to have the right to challenge those decisions about what is acceptably safe.

The public has to have the same right to say that killing 26 Canadians with this particular substance is no different from the abhorrence we feel when there is a train wreck that kills 26 people and negligence is found to be the cause. Somebody’s head rolls in that case, but when we kill one in a million or 26 people across the country by things we do in the environment, we do not even know whom to blame in most cases. We have to start changing that attitude towards the way we approach what is acceptable to use in the environment in this country.

The question of intervener funding is a useful question that we have to discuss. It is heartening to hear, finally, all three parties supporting the concept of intervener funding. It was a long time coming. The ad hoc approach the government has taken to providing intervener funding over the course of the last several years is useful, but I want to say to the member for York East that we were told almost two years ago, when we were in the select committee on energy, that the government was very close to coming forward with legislation on intervener funding, criteria for intervener funding.

Almost two years later we are still waiting. We have to proceed to deal with those questions until we see that legislation; and we will deal with them in this bill, we will deal with that question of intervener funding in other private bills that come into this House until such time as we have that legislation in place.

The ad hoc approach is useful, but it is simply not what we need, because it is not there with a set of criteria so that groups can know in advance what to expect. We had a consolidated hearing board hearing in Hamilton over the Redhill Creek expressway. It was a lengthy hearing, a very costly hearing, and the citizens’ group ultimately did get intervener funding. However, their research and their case presentation were limited by not knowing they were going to get that funding and not knowing how much it would be.

Again, their case against very powerful opponents was a lesser case than it should have been or could have been if they had known up front what it was they had to deal with in intervener funding, what criteria they had to meet to gain that intervener funding and how much that intervener funding would be.

There is also the question of access to information. The government has repeatedly said, “We are proceeding and are putting in place freedom-of-information legislation”; but if you look at that legislation, although it is useful in a global, general sense, it is not very specific and tight. Again, in the case of the environment, as I suggested earlier, the environment has to be paramount, above all else. People have to have access, in the case of the environment, to every stitch of information available; they have the right to know fully what is going on around them.

As my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore said, they are the risk takers. They have to have an absolute right to all information where the environment is concerned with no exception and no exemption, as is provided in our freedom-of-information legislation.

I encourage all members to support this piece of legislation. We will be happy to have full hearings.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I, too, intend to support this legislation, but I do have some very serious concerns about it. Most of them pertain to the agricultural sector, which I happen to represent. Environment is only earth, air and water, and those are three very important components for life. However, I wonder if we have a conflict sometimes between environment and agriculture. We have the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) talking about bringing in right-to-farm legislation, and then we have this Bill 13 which in many ways will supersede or certainly conflict with the bill of the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

I refer the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore to subsection 2(1): “The people of Ontario have a right to clean air.” Certainly no one would disagree with that, but how does that affect the farming community? People move into the farming community and they have a home adjacent to a field. The farmer spreads manure. They then have a problem with the smell there. Is that a conflict between the ministries of Agriculture and Environment?

Would this legislation mean that someone would have the right to take that farmer to court? Whether the judge threw it out or not, the farmer would still be subject to defending his actions, hiring a lawyer, taking time off and going to court. I just wonder if we are drafting legislation that could impact on our farming community and not really realizing what we are doing. I give members a word of caution: it is a very serious concern to the people out in the farming community.

Since I have only a few minutes left, I would like to take some time to concentrate on two very serious problems in our environment. Those are the proposed industrial liquid waste plant, and simple municipal garbage and how to dispose of it. Both of them are extremely urgent environmental problems, and yet they seem to be on the back burner.

Dr. Chant just released his latest report on the Ontario Waste Management Corp., which was established in 1981. He has been working for several years, and I am not too sure how far advanced he is at this point in time. I am not arguing, nor do I have the time even to get into it in any depth, but I do feel that this Legislature, this government and the Ministry of the Environment have the responsibility to make certain that we establish an industrial waste disposal system in the immediate term, not in another four, five or 10 years from now.

Every year millions of gallons of industrial liquid waste are going someplace. Some of it is being stored; some is being sent to a couple of areas -- l think we have one in Sarnia that looks after it -- and some is even being exported out of the country, but thousands of gallons disappear. I would think many of these gallons end up going into our rivers and lakes and into the soil that we are so interested in protecting. So I say to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and the Minister of the Environment that we all have a responsibility to assist Dr. Chant in establishing a facility.

I am not saying it has to be in the location he has chosen, but we do have a responsibility to make certain that we can adequately and safely control our disposal of industrial liquid waste.

The last point I would like to mention also deals with waste, and that is municipal waste, garbage. Quite simply, we are not doing enough to solve this problem. The minister announced in the House last week that he was putting more money into the recycling program. Recycling certainly is a beneficial means to help solve the problem, but at the very best it will achieve 15 per cent to 25 per cent, and we still have to deal with the other 75 per cent to 85 per cent. We have two choices: we can either burn it or bury it, and neither one is totally satisfactory.

In my opinion, the day has come when the farming community no longer wants to see dumps, so-called landfill sites, in the area. We have had enough of it. We will not allow it to go into aggregate deposits. We cannot put it into rock soil. It has to be fairly decent land. Therefore, we take agricultural land out of production.

It makes sense that we should be looking at energy-from-waste facilities that are environmentally safe. Surely to heavens, if we can send a man to the moon, we can develop an environmentally safe energy-from-waste facility. I have encouraged the minister to take this approach for many years. It is something we have to look at.

Apparently, the minister has concurred that the two facilities in London, one adjacent to Victoria Hospital and one in the 3M plants, are quite safe. Both were passed by the minister as being environmentally safe, and he maintains they do have a safe reputation and are adequate for the purpose.

I am simply saying that if we could concentrate our resources on designing and developing an energy-from-waste facility that is safe, then that is the direction we should be going, because the farming community is getting tired of paying the price for this inaction of the government and being forced to accept another landfill site to satisfy the garbage disposal problems of our cities, and this includes the lakeshore area of this city. It is time the people in the cities realize that rural Ontario is not a garbage disposal area for the rest of the province.

I would encourage this House to encourage the minister to take a lead in developing energy-from-waste facilities that are safe and satisfactory.

Mrs. Grier: I would like to thank the members for their thoughtful contributions to this debate and for the support they have indicated for the bill. I think we have laid a good foundation for a much more detailed discussion in committee of some of the concerns that have been raised.

I want to say to the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) that farmers are people and environmentalists too. They share the same concern of many people in the cities about what we are doing to our environment. I think his emphasis on the problems of the disposal of municipal waste is a classic case of where the kinds of rights and principles enshrined in my bill would be of great advantage to the agricultural community when waste facilities are suggested for their backyards.

I really question whether his colleague the member for Mississauga South is as enthusiastic as he is for an energy-from-waste facility if it is going to be in Brampton, but I guess those are problems we all have within our respective caucuses.

I would like to thank the member for Mississauga South for her reminder that the select committee on the environment was a very useful committee of this Legislature, and I share her hope that it certainly can be convened and allowed to get on with the other tasks that it had identified.

The member for York East, I think, makes some very valid points about the need for clarification of the definition and the

definitions of standing within the legislation, and that, of course, is precisely what I hope would occur when we get to committee and have an opportunity to dissect and discuss the bill in detail.

She mentioned that the Ministry of the Attorney General was developing a progressive policy for intervener funding and that that particular

section of my bill would be redundant. The member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton), I think, adequately dealt with the long delay in that progressive policy being produced. I hope that the member for York East will add her voice to ours in persuading the Attorney General that perhaps the principles of intervener funding which he himself espoused when he was counsel to the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry would be very adequately translated to Ontario and could form the basis for his thoughtful and progressive policy, which no longer needs to be delayed at all.

With respect to the comment that many of the elements of this bill already exist in other pieces of legislation, I acknowledge that that is the case, but one of the points I want to make is that if citizens are truly to participate, or if laypeople and not lawyers are to participate in protecting the environment and if they are to play their role in the various commissions and hearings that are established, then the most basic tool they need is to find in one place, in one piece of legislation, all the rights and privileges to which they are entitled in this province.

The very fact of fragmentation across a number of pieces of legislation inhibits people’s full participation in what people in this province want to do, which is to establish for themselves that they are entitled to the clean air and clean water we all hope they will one day have and that an environmental bill of rights would entitle them to. I look forward to the debate in committee.

SUPERMAILBOXES

Mr. Cousens moved resolution 8:

Mr. Cousens: Post office bashing is becoming Canada’s national pastime and, indeed, what we are talking about today is part of that whole debate and discussion.

As the MPP for Markham, I strongly support many of the federal initiatives that are going on from Ottawa. I am a strong supporter of the free trade discussions; a strong supporter of the deficit reduction of the federal government. I believe what it has done in child care initiatives in this last couple of weeks is also very progressive.

However, when I disagree with federal government initiatives, I am prepared to stand up and at least make my voice known. Among those things is the Meech Lake accord, about which I have strongly presented my views in this House. I am concerned that Toronto was not selected as one of the financial centres of this country and I am also very concerned with the direction of the post office.

I did not envy Mr. Mulroney when he took office. He went to an office after Pierre Elliott Trudeau had been there a few years and had left the place in a shambles. That is unlike the Premier (Mr. Peterson), in that when he came to office, the kitchen cupboards were full and he has not had anything like the problems the federal Conservatives have had by comparison.

We have to put a few facts on the table before we start dealing with this issue. I understand that this is not a provincial issue and the motion is very carefully worded so that it respects the federal jurisdiction. Yet during the recent election campaign very many of my constituents were interested in knowing my position. Inasmuch as I strongly concurred with the feelings that they had, though I am not able to do more than I am doing this morning it at least expresses the large, broadly felt feelings of the people from my riding.

Also, in context, I would like to table the concerns I have that the federal government has to reduce costs, government spending. These are honourable intentions, and I would like to see all governments continue to try to have a balanced budget. We all must do what we can in order to achieve that goal. The aim of the federal government to reduce costs is indeed an honour able one.

None the less, there are many problems with the supermailbox. The supermailbox is one of a number of different methods used to distribute mail in this country. Door-to-door service represents 55 per cent of what the Canada Post Corp. does; centralized points represents 13 per cent, group mailboxes or supermailboxes represent six per cent as a national average, rural route services represent seven per cent and general delivery four per cent.

I know that other jurisdictions, France, Sweden and United States, are finding that door-to-door delivery is not a service that can be widely extended, especially in a cost-effective and affordable manner. Other jurisdictions are looking for ways of reducing those costs.

The town of Markham has all types of the services that are offered by the federal government, but instead of the six per cent national average of those who receive supermailbox or group mailbox services, close to 25 per cent of the residents of Markham receive service through the supermailbox. In other words, 15,000 households have supermailbox availability. South York region is increasingly served by this kind of delivery.

I must go on record, along with the communities I represent, as saying that we are outraged by this form of delivery. We have in the members’ gallery a few leading citizens, representatives of my community, who have formed a group known as RAM, Residents Against Mailboxes. Mrs. Anne Derrett from Markham and Andre Foucault and his wife, also of Markham, have been very diligent in trying to draw the community together on this issue.

They have had a door-to-door canvass, they have raised money locally, they have met with all levels of government and, indeed, they are concerned that they and we are being being treated as second-class citizens when we do not have home delivery. I am pleased they are here and I am pleased they are able to have the freedom to speak their minds on this issue.

The outrage extends into some 40 different communities across this country, communities that have taken a position opposing supermailboxes. Included in those groups is the town of Markham, my own community, as well as the region of York, both of which are on record as saying they are concerned and they do not like it. The outrage can continue if this House can endorse this motion today.

Why oppose the supermailbox program? I have five reasons why I would like to have this House consider the motion extremely valid, and there are possibly other speakers who can enlighten us with some of their views as well and open it up.

The first reason has to do with the disabled. Disabled people will find the supermailbox virtually inaccessible in bad weather. It is bad enough in good weather because the platform is raised up, there is no easement for wheelchairs and the box is difficult to reach. When snow and ice and other problems get in the way, I know the federal government through the post office will try to keep the boxes cleaned up, but still they are very difficult for the disabled to reach.

Second are the elderly who rely on their mail. There will be stormy days and many times when they are not able to go out and get their mail when the rest of the neighbourhood is able to do so. The elderly certainly have to be considered with the group of people who are receiving this service.

Third is the safety of children. I do not think people have done enough to think about the problem that exists with the location of a supermailbox in a neighbourhood. There is a peak time when people coming home from work will stop to pick up their mail. They will criss-cross the road, drive across to the opposite side to make a quick run to the post box to get their mail. The location of the supermailbox is inviting bad driving habits. It is just a matter of time before there could be an accident, and we do not want that.

We do not even want to think of the possibility, but by virtue of the way these units are located and the way people are going at them, when there is a deluge of maybe 20 cars at one time, all coming to the same place, the drivers running to get their mail, the cars going in different directions, crossing the road, the hazard to children, to people in the community, to bicycle riders, especially in neighbourhoods where there are often not sidewalks, creates a hazard that has to be addressed.

My fourth point is my concern with litter. I am thinking of my very good friend the member for York Centre (Mr. Sorbara). He is the most diligent of MPPs in distributing his mail and keeping in touch with his community. I can just see the people going to the supermailbox and getting some of this political junk mail and just throwing it away. The problem we have then is that litter from junk mail becomes one way of getting your mail in our communities. It blows to the door because someone did not bother to take it home along with the rest of the mail.

The whole problem is that people get some of this mail, not only from the member for York Centre but also from the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini). I am sure that his constituents, if they have any supermailboxes, will do the same thing. When they get it, they just toss it away. There is so much mail that comes to people’s homes or to these boxes that people do not necessarily want, and they are so used to just I tossing it away.

When it is in their homes, it ends up in a basket or in the garbage, but in my community and in others where there are supermailboxes, this rubbish, this overload that we receive, ends up blowing around the neighbourhood. That is becoming a constant concern. Who picks it up? It is the person on whose property the mailbox may exist, or it may well be someone else when it has blown several hundred yards away.

My fifth point is that property values are decreasing. An illustration I can make on that is that the Ontario Municipal Board on June 30 had an assessment appeal by Mr. McWhirter in Pickering. He was challenging the assessment on his property and the taxes he was paying. He successfully argued his case that the supermailbox on his property was decreasing the value of his property and his assessment should be accordingly decreased. The Ontario Municipal Board reduced the market value of his home by $2,000 and he had an according reduction on his property taxes.

There are other instances of this across the country, in Winnipeg, and I suspect there could be a deluge of other people applying for a review of their assessment because having a supermailbox on their property is not so super.

When we start thinking of value and property, ads in our own local paper, the Markham Economist and Sun, now will carry in the description of a home -- l have one instance where it adds the pluses one would have in buying a house in that location and adds this point, “and home delivery,” as something that is included. Those of us who have home delivery take it for granted. Those who do not and want to buy a new place are saying, “Would that not be nice to have?” It is more than nice to have; they are willing to pay for it. Therefore, when they come out and look at the value of property, it becomes an issue.

These are five of a number of points. The disabled will suffer and are suffering and the elderly lose out. I am concerned about the safety of our children. I am concerned about the litter in our communities and our neighbourhoods because of the refuse that people just throw in a way that they should not when they pick up something they wish they had not been mailed and, finally, the property values themselves in these communities are impacted negatively.

What recommendations can one make? A sincere attempt is being made through this motion to ask this Legislature to look very seriously at the problems these urban dwellers have by not receiving home delivery while their neighbours do. Even within half a block or a few hundred yards of where there is home delivery, those who had a new house built in the last several years will not receive delivery. Rather than treat them as second-class citizens who are not able to receive the equivalent kind of service that others in the same community receive, through this motion we can make a strong statement to the federal government and the Canada Post Corp. to do something about it.

The simple thing they could do is abandon the program. How they do it and what they do if they have to change the level of service and if they have to continue their cost reducing -- and I would endorse the federal government trying to keep up the whole attempt it has tried in the past several years to bring costs under control for this country. We all know the worst thing that can happen is for a country like ours to continue to spend, especially at the government level. It increases inflation and has many negative impacts on what we are all about.

In the meantime, there is going to have to be something done about the supermailbox, and whatever the federal government can do to make up for the cost differential, that in itself should be considered.

I have one other recommendation I would like to make. I would like to reserve a few minutes after other members have had an opportunity to speak. What would be the chance of the federal government establishing a review board? I think Harvie Andre, the minister, has alluded to this before, but I think there is great merit.

If we were to have at the federal government level something like the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission which reviews broadcasting policy for the country -- if a citizen of this country has any concern about a broadcast, any CBC or public agency or private agency that is in the broadcasting business can appeal to the CRTC and have a fair, honest, unbiased hearing.

Could not a similar kind of review board be established for the post office? This kind of post office would act in a way similar to the CRTC, the Ontario Municipal Board or the Ontario Energy Board where people could take their concerns, have them heard, have them understood, in a politics-free, unbiased, review agency environment.

I believe this could be an excellent way of cleaning up the whole range of misunderstanding that exists in the minds and hearts of so many Canadians. We are spending so much time bashing the post office when we could be doing so much more to build housing, to improve the economy and to clean up the environment. These are the issues that we as Canadians should be discussing and working on, but instead we continue to be fraught with a heap of concerns that centre around the Canada Post Corp.

I would be pleased to see this House endorse this motion. I would be pleased, as well, if the federal government could look not only at removing the supermailbox as a method of delivering mail but also at a way of allowing people like me, people like those from RAM and others in the community, to have some way in which they can be heard and listened to. I feel now that such a review agency as I have suggested could begin to allow that process to work, so that the citizens of Canada with a concern will know that they are going to be listened to.

I think there is much that can be done. I believe the strength is there within this country to have a post office that works. I know we are fortunate in this building to have the best little post office around and I know we are fortunate in so many of our communities that there are dedicated people in the post off ice. I am not here to bash the people who make the system work the way it is. I am here to seek change in a positive way, so that service for the people of our community in Markham, where so many are affected negatively, can be improved upon as can service for the other communities that have a similar concern.

Mrs. Stoner: I would first like to congratulate the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) on putting forward this resolution. I think it is most appropriate. This matter has caused a great deal of difficulty in the growing communities of Ontario and, in fact, all across Canada. What the Canada Post Corp. has done in implementing this supermailbox scheme is to create a discriminatory system wherein communities in new residential areas in urban municipalities are treated as second-class citizens.

This becomes really obvious, and it was certainly obvious to me during the election campaign. One end of the street which had been established for a few years would receive residential mail; then in the middle of a block that service would stop and the rest of the street was discriminated against. In some areas they would have an infill situation, with an existing urban community and a little pocket right in the middle that was not allowed home delivery. Everybody else in the whole community surrounding them was given that service.

The property situation in those kinds of instances has in fact been alluded to by the member for Markham. We are seeing a proved reduction in property value. In the properties where those boxes are situated, they are actually seeing a reduction in their market value assessment. There have been two cases in the town of Pickering where they have had $3,000 reductions in their assessment.

It has created an eyesore. The physical size of these boxes is about six feet high and about 10 feet long. They are a real eyesore, particularly to someone who has just bought a new home and who is doing absolutely everything he can to improve the property and to be an asset to his community. They are surrounded with letters. There are not even waste-baskets provided by the post office to collect the junk mail they insist on delivering to all of us. Those communities are considered, as pointed out in the real estate ads, to be underserviced, and therefore different and less happy places to exist in than some of the other older communities.

But the real discrimination and the discrimination that causes me the most problems is to the individuals who are not served by the home service, such as the elderly in our community, who find it very difficult to get out on occasion to those boxes and who, when they do get to the boxes, find they cannot get at them because they are piled high with snow, ice and slush.

The boxes are right on the edges of the road, and the ploughs come along and heap great piles of snow and refuse adjacent to them and people cannot get at them. The elderly find that difficult; the disabled find it impossible. The disabled in our communities cannot even get near the boxes and even if they can, in a wheelchair for instance, get close to the box, they cannot reach the mail itself in the little cubicles that the letters are in.

The safety factor that this has created has been very obvious to me. I live in a rural village and we pick up our mail at the general store. That is what is called the joys of country living and frankly it is something I enjoy about living in Greenwood. However I see just south of me on Westney Road in Ajax a situation that really frightens me.

What happens is that when people are coming home from work in the evening it is generally after dark because we are somewhat of a dormitory community. People have at least an hour a day added on to their workday in travel time in the evening, so they are getting back after dark. In many cases, they are picking up their youngsters from their day care situations or wherever they have been after school. They come to their supermailbox and stop their cars, in the dark, in an ill-lit situation in many cases. Those youngsters are then let out of the car to run across the road to pick up the mail from the box.

You have the same situation at the same box for a whole lot of other people coming in, a lot of vehicular motion.

People are angry about those boxes, and because they are angry they tend to respond in ways they probably should not. I have seen over and over again people driving northbound, pulling over into the southbound lane, because that is where the boxes are, parking facing the wrong direction on that roadside, getting out to get their mail, then getting in and pulling back across the southbound traffic lanes. It is crazy but they are doing it. They are doing it because they are upset with their treatment by the federal government, with the fact they are having to use these boxes.

In taking those actions, they are responsible for their fate and those they endanger, but you have to look at the core and the root of the problem, and the root of the problem is the discriminatory action of the federal government in this.

Snow removal and maintenance is causing the municipalities a great deal of difficulty. They are responsible for removing the snow from the roads and do so to the best of their ability. In doing so, they are adding the snow to the sites of these mailboxes. Those of them not cleaned or maintained as much as they should be then become a problem in themselves.

I agree with what the federal government is trying to do in cutting the costs of the post office and postal services. I have real problems, though, when I compare what is happening in Canada to what is happening in Britain. In Britain, they have a 36-cent or 37-cent stamp and twice-a-day delivery. They made a profit last year of $360 million. I do not particularly want Canada Post to make a profit, but I do think it could balance its levels of service in such a way that instead of its $129-million deficit in 1986 it could break even.

Our stamps are 36 cents. I would not mind paying 37 cents. What they could look at, but have not dealt with, is the possibility that in delivering service to all urban area householders, to homes in urban communities, all of them, they could deliver on a four-day week as opposed to a five-day week. By slowing the service a little bit, from five days to four days, they could deliver to everybody.

Frankly, it would not bother me one bit if my Bell Canada bill or my Department of National Revenue bill did not arrive for another day or two. It would not be a big problem and l do not think it really would be for anybody else. I would accept that as a fair level of service, a level of service that then did not discriminate against my neighbours.

I hope that the members of this Legislature will support the resolution of the member for Markham and assist me and my community, and those in the other communities of Vancouver, Calgary, Nepean, Winnipeg, Mississauga, Whitby, Montreal and Brampton as well as those of Ajax and Pickering, in receiving equitable service for urban communities across this country.

Mr. Farnan: I rise to speak in favour of the motion that condemns the continued use of supermailboxes by Canada Post Corp. Canada Post Corp. has been installing so-called supermailboxes in new subdivisions since mid-1985 and is only maintaining door-to-door service in areas where it already exists. In the process, the post office has created two classes of citizens,,,,, those in established neighbourhoods who continue to get their mail delivered to their door and those in newer suburbs who do not. If CPC has its way they never will. It is not fair.

Neighbours living on adjacent streets are receiving different levels of service. Anne Derrett from RAM complains: “I can throw a stone in any one of four directions from my home and hit a house that is getting door-to-door delivery.” It is not fair.

These community mailboxes are unsightly in and of themselves. In addition, residents have complained that the presence of these supermailboxes has resulted in an increase of garbage on their property. They are extremely hazardous to access in harsh weather conditions for the well and healthy residents; under such conditions, access for the handicapped and elderly is well nigh impossible. Add to all this the increased risk of accidents due to traffic. Remember that many of these community mailboxes are located in residential neighbourhoods. Children playing in the proximity of these supermailboxes are at a higher risk of injury. It is not fair.

Our elderly, our seniors count on home delivery for communication with their family and friends and supermailboxes are an inconvenience, a bother and an undue cause for delay. It is a system that will bring a letter from Vancouver, from England, from the other side of the globe and deliver it to a superbox in the vicinity of a senior’s home, but will not go the extra few hundred metres. It is not fair.

Do the residents who receive a lower level of service by means of supermailboxes pay less for their postal services? Not at all. For years prior to 1985, these residents of new subdivisions contributed to our postal system. They continue to pay the same amount as the rest of us for basic mailings and the same standard fee for all other postal services. It is not fair.

The real estate boards are only too well aware that supermailboxes depreciate the value of your home. More and more we find home delivery described as an added selling feature on a property. Take for example the advertisement in the Markham Weekender. It referred to, “Other features include a heated and insulated double garage, a walkout from the kitchen and home mail delivery.” If your home does not have home mail delivery, it will have a lower value. It is not fair.

The judgement of the real estate boards has a basis in fact. In Winnipeg, the city assessment department has reduced the land assessment of households unfortunate enough to have supermailboxes situated on the easement adjacent to their property by some 15 per cent. This results in significant reductions in property taxes. In Ontario, several residents appealed their market value assessment on the basis that community postal boxes were placed in front of their properties. They won their appeal. As a result, these residents received a reduction in their 1987 taxes.

As more and more residents appeal their assessments, as indeed they should, we see the potential for a significant erosion of local revenue as property values decrease. This is a decrease in revenue that must impact on local levels of government. No wonder so many municipalities and cities across Ontario and Canada are on record as opposing these supermailboxes. It is not fair.

We are all aware that the Mulroney government, in its approach to this whole area, would drastically reduce the quality of postal service and eliminate between 3,000 and 4,000 postal jobs in the process.

We should be attempting to improve the quality of postal service. This year in the United Kingdom, approximately two million homes will receive twice-daily delivery of mail to their homes. Unlike Canada Post, which had an operating loss of $129 million in 1986, the Royal Mail showed a profit of $360 million. The same is true of postal services in Australia, the United States, France and West Germany. All operated in the black last year.

Unlike Canada Post, which aims to cut employment levels by 14 per cent by 1991, other services have managed to stay profitable while hiring more workers. In Reagan’s America or Thatcher’s Britain, the post office is expanding, but here in Canada, Mulroney wants to offer reduced service, unequal service, cut postal employees and privatize. It is not fair.

What I find particularly galling, although it should not surprise me, is the attempt of the Mulroney government to distance itself from this miscarriage of justice. We know that the decision to implement the supermailbox program emanated from the federal government. We know that the Honourable Harvie Andre has the official title of minister responsible for the post office. We know that the corporate plan of Canada Post Corp., which allowed it to bring supermailboxes into our neighbourhoods, was approved by the federal cabinet, and yet the federal government says it is not responsible for the post office.

To add insult to injury, we are now subjected to slick ads and brochures designed to convince us that we are in favour of supermailboxes and that we actually like them. Indeed, every postal truck in the country has been commandeered to be part of this discriminatory promotional scheme. The funding for this con job is provided by us. In fact, the very people who are being discriminated against, those who are subjected to the use of supermailboxes, are paying for these advertisements through the purchase of mail service and through their taxes. It is not fair.

I congratulate all those who have actively worked to oppose this high-handed, discriminatory, arbitrary and unmandated action by the federal government of this country. I encourage them to continue to apply pressure to this insensitive and unfair approach to the provision of postal services in Canada. The federal government must be made aware that there is a price to pay in the next federal election for hoisting on us such a blatantly unfair system of postal service in the form of supermailboxes.

New Democrats like to believe, and we work to ensure, that we do not have second-class citizens in Canada. New Democrats have always campaigned on providing the highest level of service for all and to ensure that segments of the population are not discriminated against. We welcome support in fighting on behalf of ordinary Canadians for a guaranteed quality postal service for all. Indeed, Ed Broadbent and New Democratic Party postal critic Cyril Keeper, together with our federal caucus, have been consistently opposed to the supermailbox program from the very beginning.

Residents of Ontario and Canada can be assured that we will continue to oppose this program vigorously, both in the federal Parliament and in the next federal election campaign. In voting on the motion before us, I encourage all members of the House to support the motion. It is fitting that this parliament representing the residents of Ontario go on record as strongly opposing this blatantly unfair program of supermailboxes.

Mrs. Marland: In rising this morning to speak on the resolution of my colleague the member for Markham, I would first of all like to commend him on the resolution. I think that in discussing this resolution in this House today, we are really simply discussing one item. Simply put, we are discussing second-class mail which equals second-class citizens. We are also discussing not-so-super mailboxes.

When we are talking about Ottawa’s plan to have in place by next April 1988, 400,000 of these not-so-super mailboxes, we are looking at a postal service for close to half a million people. It is very interesting when we recall that when Harvie Andre became the minister responsible for the post office, he said upon his appointment earlier this year, “Citizens have come to expect their governments to perform at least two functions: to defend the country and to deliver the mail.” We are not here to discuss what the government is doing about defending the country, but we certainly are here to discuss how it is delivering the mail.

It is interesting to point out that it is not a choice of the federal government. It fact, they are bound to this service by the exclusive legislative authority given to the Parliament of Canada by the British North America Act in 1867. If postal service is one of those mandated responsibilities of the Parliament of Canada, then I think what we should be discussing this morning is how to help it to achieve it equitably for all residents of Canada.

When we talk about the supermailbox service, what we are saying is that it means you walk to the large metal box at the end of your street. When you get there, you sidestep the debris left on the ground by the users who discard their third-class mail. The interesting thing is that if you are one of these unfortunate residents who have supermailboxes as a second-class postal service in their community, as you are walking to the end of your street you may in fact pass the postman who is delivering mail to your neighbour on the next street.

It means that in that neighbourhood, children have yet another place to hang out, another place to dart out into ongoing traffic. It certainly means an eyesore for those who have purchased a home beside what will become a littered lot. Because of that, it can mean a reduction in property values, which has already been demonstrated at property tax assessment hearings where appeals have been made on the basis of being adjacent to a supermailbox, and the Assessment Review Board has granted that consideration. In fact, some municipalities have felt so strongly about this matter that they have initiated court challenges.

The one area that concerns me most of all is the fact that we are ignoring the necessity for everyone to have access to the postal service. When we deal with everyone, we are dealing of course, as some other members have said this morning, with our senior citizens and the disabled. If they cannot enjoy the service of door-to-door mail delivery, even while neighbours can within the same city, then I think it really borders on a Charter of Rights and Freedoms issue. What access is this for disabled people? In fact, a supermailbox is no access at all for the disabled, even in good weather, but certainly no access in inclement weather. That is unforgivable.

I am happy to see that the member for Essex South, who is Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons, is in the House. He is agreeing with me by nodding his head. I know that anyone who works with the responsibility for seniors and the disabled in the province -- I also recognize that the member for Dufferin-Peel (Mrs. Wilson), who is Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs, is here. I know she would share my concern also for seniors.

We must be very serious and very committed, particularly about this area. There is no way that any one of us in this Ontario Legislature cannot support this very worthy resolution of the member for Markham. Recognizing that the direct remedy is not within the purview of this House, I am quite sure that the House in whose purview the responsibility lies, namely, the House of Commons in Ottawa, will look very carefully at a resolution unanimously supported by every member in the Ontario Legislature. I think the gravest impact of the use of supermailboxes is in Ontario as far as the national scene is concerned.

I would like to speak particularly about my own area in Mississauga South. Mississauga is an extremely high-growth area. The member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner) very kindly mentioned Mississauga in her rundown of municipalities that have a concern with this lack of service, this second-class service. I am very happy she did because I know, as the former mayor of that municipality, the member for Durham West understands very clearly the problem my colleague the member for Markham is trying to address.

In Mississauga South, the Port Credit postal station now has 19 group boxes in service. It is unlikely that these households will ever have door-to-door delivery. In the Clarkson post office, we have two group boxes in use. To go beyond the riding, I would like to mention that in Streetsville, which is now a part of the city of Mississauga, residents there must visit a post office to pick up mail, because Canada Post simply does not have enough boxes to go around. They do not even have the superboxes in Streetsville, so those people do not even have that service, let alone door-to-door delivery.

I think to ask those people not even to go to the end of their street but to go to the post office is certainly intolerable.

I know that the federal member for Mississauga North, Dr. Bob Horner, is working very diligently on behalf of his constituents who reside in Streetsville and in the other new growth areas that are impacted with this problem in Mississauga. Certainly anywhere in Mississauga where the new development is happening -- and we are aware that the growth essentially is to the northwest in the largest areas of the Creditview Erin Mills and up to Meadowvale areas of the city -- any of those people who have had this problem have been totally frustrated in trying to address the remedy.

They have spoken to their city council, their provincial members and their federal members. So I think collectively we have to decide what the remedy must be and the remedy is that they simply not be used.

If we look at the history of postal service in Canada since 1980 we will understand why it is that the resident is losing out. In 1981, Canada Post Corp., a crown corporation, was established, effectively removing the operation of postal service out of the House of Commons. Bill C-42 established the almost exclusive right of Canada Post Corp. to deliver individually addressed letters. Competitors are required to charge at least three times the going postal rate, if they wish to penetrate this market. Thus, for all intents and purposes Canada Post has a monopoly on personal, individually addressed letter mail.

Even though this provision was heavily criticized by utility companies and municipalities, to name a few, what are essentially monopoly provisions prevail.

Since 1981 we have seen a reorganization of Canada Post and, at the same time, we have witnessed a great change in the business of mail. Canada Post is working hard to reduce its deficit, to modernize and to employ technological enhancements to mail service. It has also entered into other areas of mail service, in response to the increasing use of mail services by the business community. I refer to second-, third- and fourth-class mail and direct mail marketing. Advertisers in Canada will spend in the neighbourhood of $1.74 billion on print-basis marketing in 1987, more than is spent on daily newspaper advertising and more than is spent on television advertising.

In recognizing that the federal government is trying to cost cut and be efficient, I would suggest that perhaps they consider alternative daily delivery and have an equitable reduction to all citizens in Canada.

Mr. Mahoney: It is indeed a pleasure to address this assembly on this particular issue. As the previous speaker has mentioned, our community is impacted greatly in the city of Mississauga by this particular problem.

I also find it interesting, and I want to congratulate the member for Markham for taking a shot at his federal cousins on this particular issue. I think it is quite appropriate for him to tell the people in Ottawa that he is not happy with the unilateral decision that they made without any consultation with the people of Canada, with the provinces of Canada or with the municipalities.

I will tell you as well that I spent a couple of years on the board of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and, indeed, we are fortunate to have a past member of that board, Mr. Carman Metcalfe, in the gallery today, the reeve of the great metropolis of Asphodel. Mr. Metcalfe would tell you that we objected very strongly at AMO to this particular deed that Ottawa foisted on the people of Canada without any warning. It brings up a particular issue and that is, will they listen? I am quite supportive of the member’s resolution today, but the question is, will they listen?

Some hon. members: Never have.

Mr. Mahoney: Frankly, they never have. In the history of this, I would tell members that a couple of years ago the mayor of Mississauga; the mayor of Malton, Councillor Frank McKechnie; myself, and a couple of others met with some people in Ottawa. We had a breakfast meeting when they announced this. It was just after Michael Warren decided he was not going to take the heat for this particular decision, so he left town and they had an interim person running the post office.

We said to them, “How can you do this without consultation, without discussing it with us and with the people of Canada?” The answer was: “It is done. It is irrevocable. It may be unilateral, but we are sticking to our guns and we are going to go this route.”

I do not think they will listen, with all due respect to the member, but having said that, I think it is equally important that this House put on record the feelings we have about this particular issue.

I would also point out that I believe this overall thing is a strategy by Canada Post. There is more to it than meets the eye. Let me take members through a scenario of moving into a new community.

First of all, the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) referred to the Streetsville post office. Streetsville post office has car parking for about four vehicles on a good day. There are a number of new communities that are developing all around that Streetsville post office. The community of Meadowvale and the community of central Erin Mills, which has a projected population of some 25,000 people, will all pick their mail up initially at the Streetsville post office. They go there and of course they get very frustrated because they have to park on Queen Street and they end up getting a ticket and they cause traffic jams. Then what do they do?

By the way, I would add that the post office in Clarkson, and the member for Mississauga South will be familiar with it, closes at three o’clock on a lot of days and if you work for a living you have difficulty in picking up your mail at all. But after one or two years of going to the post office, being frustrated with the parking problems and the traffic problems in the community, you get a petition up to Canada Post and you say: “We want green boxes. We are fed up with going to the post office and we want a green box.” A green box is not a community box or a superbox.

A green box is a bunch of little boxes stacked from right down to the ground. You provide your own lock and you go there every day and you pick up the mail. Of course you will go through one to two years of living with a green box because at least it is in the community and it is substantially better than having to drive to Streetsville or to another community to pick up your mail and have all the problems that go with that, but those boxes are ugly, to say the least.

What happens is you have some difficulty. You are going in the middle of winter getting mail and your lock is frozen and your mail is wet and it has ice on it. You get pretty fed up with that. So then you go to the post office and you say: “We are fed up with the green boxes. We want a community mailbox. It is nice. It is silver. It is shiny. It has a little thatched hut over the top of it. It looks wonderful.” You actually end up petitioning the post office for this community mailbox. You see their strategy. It is very clever. They get the community asking for a level of service that is substantially reduced from what the rest of Canada has.

The other thing I found interesting is that when the mayor and council in Mississauga met with the post office to say to them, “Could you please explain what this is all about?” they brought out a little bit of a dog-and-pony show and they showed us a slide show and a film all about it. The key word in the whole program is “community.” It is a community mailbox and it is going to be situated right in your community and everybody is going to gather at the box and they are going to talk about what is going on in the community.

In the middle of February in Markham they are going to get together. We have eight months of winter and four months of bad skating in this country, and they show you a film, which I think was shot somewhere in California -- I am not sure -- with everybody running down to the post office and talking about what is going on with little Peggy Sue at school and saying, “Is this not marvellous,” and “Would you like to come back to my house for tea and doughnuts?” It is just a clear example that the federal government has no idea what is going on in Canada. They live there in Ottawa. They seem to anyway and they do not understand the sense of community.

I believe though once the community has gone this route of picking it up at the post office, demanding green boxes and now demanding community mailboxes, they are going to get fed up. I have a suggestion for the federal government that will solve this whole problem and that is that we eliminate the post office entirely.

I know the member’s motion does not go that far and he would not want to slap his buddies down in Ottawa with such a discouraging remark, but they could get rid of the post office entirely and put PCs in every home, and that is not Progressive Conservatives, that is personal computers in every home and we could get our mail through computers, right in the comfort of our living room. We could pay our bills. If we wanted to have a good time, we could probably punch up and find out whether our neighbours are paying their bills and have a good laugh at that.

So we could eliminate the post office entirely and for the amount of money and for the deficit they are running in that wonderful crown organization. For that amount of money, I would suggest they could put a personal computer in every home in this country and have a much more efficient delivery service. So their strategy is working. Now the communities are going to submit petitions saying, “We now want you to take the mail service off entirely and put the whole system on to a computer base.”

The previous speakers referred to two classes of citizens. Let me give a couple of examples.

In the community of central Erin Mills, which I mentioned earlier, we have about 25,000 people now and in the future. That is the ultimate population. In the community of Erin Mills west, which is to the south and the west, we have another 12,000 people. These are very distinct communities, both of which will be served by this particular program. In the community of Erin Mills south, which is a substantially older community of about 30,000 people, everybody gets mail delivery.

So very clearly, there is a major difference in the service level between living in Erin Mills west, central Erin Mills and the established community of Erin Mills south. There is no question that is a two-class society with regard to mail delivery.

The item though that bothers me more is the issue of infill. What infill is, for those not familiar with development procedures, is where you might have a site in a community that has been set aside for a school for some seven or eight years and the school board decides it is not going to build a school, so it releases it back to the developer and it goes to housing. It will take about 10, 12 or 15 houses on that site, depending on the size of the lot, and it will be right in the middle of an existing residential community, probably on a cul-de-sac.

I can show an example in my riding that is very close to home. The people in that cul-de-sac do not have mail delivery.

Mr. Wildman: Hey, Ed.

Mr. Mahoney: I am talking right over the member, so I do not hear what he is saying and that is just the way I like it.

In any event, the people in that cul-de sac do not have mail delivery, yet they can talk across the back yard fence --

Mr. Laughren: Talk to yourself.

Mr. Mahoney: It is the only way I get good answers.

They can talk across the backyard fence to a neighbour in the summertime and this guy is getting mail delivery and the person on the new street, in the infill subdivision, is not getting mail delivery. Yet the post office worker walks right by the end of the street. It is absolutely absurd and it is a clear example that the government in Ottawa is not listening. We have numerous examples that we hear all the time, but this one is an absolute sham.

I support the member for Markham. It might be one of the few times that I will be supporting the member for Markham. I also support the comments of the member for Mississauga South and she will tell you it is definitely one of the few times that will occur.

It makes sense. We should be petitioning Ottawa to stop this charade, to treat all Canadians as equal in this great country, to eliminate this ridiculous program that they have started.

Mr. Swart: I am rising to support this resolution, of course, as everybody else in this House will do, I am sure.

I think I want to emphasize that what the federal government has done is not only unfair, not only hurting people, but also simply stupid and idiotic.

I want to emphasize of course, first of all, that it is being done by a Tory government.

Second, I want to point out that the resolution itself does not go nearly far enough, because it does not deal with the matter of the post offices that are going to be closed across this nation -- perhaps 1,000 of them or so, including the one in Thorold likely, a city of 16,000 people. My colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) has a resolution on that matter which must be supported at a later date.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Markham. I believe he is sincere in this, even though it is a Tory government in Ottawa that is doing this. It would be interesting to contemplate how he would vote on this issue if he was down there in Ottawa.

In the very little time I have I want to just deal with two items, if I may, that have not been covered. One is the matter of employment. What the federal government is doing by this is literally going to put thousands of people out of work. I can recall in this House when the Conservative government over there introduced some legislation that was going to cost $100,000 to provide each job for people, and here we have a situation where it does not cost any capital to provide jobs and we are going to be laying off a lot of people when we could be hiring a lot more people in the post office service.

The other matter I see -- l will not have the time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Markham has reserved four minutes.

Mr. Cousens: I appreciate the support of all those who have spoken. Indeed as the member for Durham West touches upon the safety problems, I think that she has a true understanding as someone whose community has the same kind of problems as many others do where there is an increasing concern.

The member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) starts talking about operating in the black and I have to be very proud of the fact that we have someone from the official opposition talking about that, but in such a way that he is able to draw on the experience of Britain as did the member for Durham West. I appreciate their remarks and their support.

The member for Mississauga South indeed has the responsibility for the disabled for our party but also has a true understanding about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and I think has raised some very interesting points that could be raised further through those who will take this even further in discussion. I believe that her emphasis on having equal access of service for everyone is an underlying principle of this resolution.

I have to tell the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) that I have no intention of taking cracks at my federal colleagues. In fact, I believe that the Ottawa Conservatives are saints compared to the Queen’s Park Liberals. When the member starts coming along and thinking there is going to be this kind of going on, I cannot betray my loyalty to my good friends in Ottawa, except they could use some help and that is why I have put this motion in front of us.

The honourable member for Mississauga West did suggest that there be PCs in every home and I happen to know that in the PC technology, there is a 16-bit PC, that reminds me a little bit sometimes of him.

Then we also have my very good friend the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), and this is two days in a row that we have agreed. I do not know what is going to happen tomorrow. I think we better go home or we will end up --

Mr. Swart: You will agree on public auto insurance.

Mr. Cousens: We have problems.

I have been consulting with a number of members from my party, the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) and the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock), all of whom are very concerned as well about rural mail delivery. They are looking for satisfactory service and really do not want to see people in rural Canada treated in any way other than a quality way. I have to say that as one who has rural delivery in Markham, I empathize wholeheartedly with their concerns.

Unlike the government at hand that has made a number of promises and has not really lived up to many of them, this is one of the promises that I made during the election campaign, that I would bring a resolution forward in this House and seek support from the Ontario Legislature to Ottawa to urge them to do something about supermailboxes. I would hope that the Premier and his cabinet could do something about the many promises they have made on housing and education and on auto insurance which are still lacking.

I do not want to be mean-minded. I am so pleased to get the support that is coming from these other honourable members. I also would like to go on record as --

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: I did not mean to upset them that much, Mr. Speaker.

The only other thing I would like to say is that in our own community, not only our town of Markham and the region of York, but also our federal member of Parliament, an independent, Mr. Tony Roman, is also strongly supportive of this resolution.

This is a time when everybody can have a little fun at the expense of the federal government. I wish we would also understand the federal government has major problems in trying to resolve --

Mr. Wildman: They certainly do.

Mr. Cousens: They do around the post office. I mean in trying to get the economy of the post office worked out, to try to find cost-effective ways of reducing it. I would encourage them to continue in that process but please do it without making second-class citizens of those people who are presently having to be served by what are called the not-so-supermailboxes. I would like to see them abolish that program. If this resolution is passed, we can move a step closer in that direction.

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT

The House divided on Mrs. Grier’s motion for second reading of Bill 13, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Ballinger, Black, Bradley, Brown, Bryden, Callahan, Charlton, Cleary, Collins, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Daigeler, Dietsch, Elliot, Eves, Farnan, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Fulton, Grier, Harris, Hart, Henderson, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Kozyra, Laughren, Lipsett, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, Martel, McClelland, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Morin-Strom, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Offer, Owen, Patten, Philip, E., Pollock, Rae, B., Reville, Roberts, Smith, D. W., South, Sterling, Stoner, Swart, Tatham, Wildman, Wilson.

Nays

Runciman, Villeneuve.

Ayes 60; nays 2.

SUPERMAILBOXES

The House divided on Mr. Cousens’s motion of resolution 8, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Ballinger, Black, Bradley, Brown, Bryden, Callahan, Charlton, Cleary, Collins, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Daigeler, Dietsch, Elliot, Farnan, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Fulton, Grier, Hampton, Hart, Henderson, Johnson, J. M., Kozyra, Laughren, Lipsett, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mahoney;

Mancini, Marland, Martel, McClelland, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Morin-Strom, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Offer, Owen, Patten, Philip, E., Rae, B., Reville, Roberts, Smith, D. W., South, Stoner, Swart, Tatham, Velshi, Wildman, Wilson.

Nays

Runciman, Villeneuve.

Ayes 57; nays 2.

The House recessed at 12:18 p.m.

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call for members’ statements, I would like to inform the members that there is a guest in the members’ gallery, Bob McKessock, a former member for Grey. Please welcome him.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. Mackenzie: The impending closure of the Firestone rubber plant in the city of Hamilton and its potential sale to Cooper Tire is a clear example of the very real concerns of workers in Ontario and underlines the lack of protection that the law of Ontario gives these workers.

Local 113, United Rubber Workers, and its president, Charlie Scime, have been totally responsible in trying to work out a deal to protect their workers and very co-operative in efforts to sell this particular plant. With the growing concern over the negotiations and the potential sale, the president of the local, on behalf of the 1,300 workers at Firestone, wrote to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) on November 19, underlining the very real concerns they had over the tone of the negotiations and what might be happening.

They asked for a meeting. I have a copy of their letter to the minister on November 19. I, among others, tried to ensure such a meeting for these workers. As of this morning, the minister had not even had the courtesy to respond to this letter on behalf of the 1,300 workers in the Firestone plant. It would appear that the negotiations currently being carried out do not bode well for the future or offer any protection for the workers who are involved in that plant. I think this is a classic example of why the workers have very little faith in this government in Ontario.

EAST/CENTRAL ONTARIO RECREATION TRAILS COMMISSION

Mr. Pollock: Today I will introduce a private member’s bill which is extremely important to many people in my riding. Running for a distance of more than 150 kilometres is the Marmora Lake St. Peter abandoned railroad line. This corridor is currently used by snowmobilers, hikers, skiers, horseback riders, motorcyclists and all-terrain-vehicle enthusiasts. The bill that I am going to introduce to the government will establish the East/Central Ontario Recreation Trails Commission.

The commission would assume ownership, maintain a safe trail, provide drainage and work out a fair agreement in regards to fencing with land owners who need fences. The commission would exercise all the responsibilities normally assumed by land owners. The commission would be made up of seven or more people, preferably from the local area. The startup point would be at Glen Ross in the south and go to Lake St. Peter in the north. It would not exclude any extension of this trail. Such an undertaking would be most beneficial. It would increase tourism and bring more people and revenue into beautiful north Hastings.

JOHN FRASER

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to draw to the attention of this House the upcoming retirement of John Fraser, the director of education for the public school board in Peel. The Peel board has a motto of “Quality Education to All” and since 1972 Mr Fraser has laid the foundation for this motto in the city of Mississauga.

In 1979 Mr. Fraser took a four-month leave of absence to review the secondary school system in Peel. His report, “Education in Peel Secondary Schools,” provided a basis for many changes in our education program throughout the province. In 1984 John was appointed by Dr. Bette Stephenson, then Minister of Education, to serve on the planning and implementation commission which dealt with provision of full funding to Roman Catholic secondary schools in Ontario.

I would also like to congratulate Mr. Fraser on being named Administrator of the Year by the Niagara University in New York state for his outstanding contribution to education. It seems only fitting that as Mr. Fraser prepares for his retirement at the end of this current school year, we honour him for his many substantial contributions not only to the school board but with the Peel United Way, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, the Ontario Leadership Seminar, the Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Halton and the Brampton Caledon Association for the Trainable Retarded, just to name a few.

It has been a pleasure for me to work with John over the last nine years in my capacity as city councillor and I wish him a happy and active retirement. He leaves the Peel board in great shape.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: In this house two days ago, the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) said that he felt, as minister, with the information that he had available to him, which was similar to that which is available to all members of the House, the four and a half per cent auto insurance rate increase was justified.

What was that information which is available to the House? I know and the House knows that the insurers made over a billion dollars profit in 1986, one third higher than ever before in their history, and that increased by another 52 per cent in the first six months of this year.

I know and the House knows, from the recent Insurance Bureau of Canada update, that total revenue to auto insurers in Ontario in 1986 was approximately $3.8 billion but they paid out only $2.5 billion, or less than two thirds, in settlements.

I know and the House knows, because Ontario’s superintendent of insurance said so, that insurance rates increased by an average seven per cent in the first four months of this year before they were awarded the additional four and a half per cent.

I know and this House knows that there is not a shred of evidence anyplace which showed the insurance companies needed the extra $135 million which the government just took out of the motorists’ pockets and gave to them.

I know and this House knows that the minister did not discuss with the Consumers’ Association of Canada, the Canadian Automobile Association-Ontario or any other consumers’ group its proposed gift to the insurance companies.

I know and this House knows that the insurance industry worked hand in glove with and for the Liberal Party in the recent election.

Therefore, I know, this House knows and all the people of Ontario know that the Liberal government has just paid with motorists’ money the first instalment on its election debt to the insurance industry.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Mr. Sterling: I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my party to join with my colleagues in commemorating this very special day. Today, December 10, marks the 39th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations in 1948. This signing signified the first time that countries paid recognition to the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all people. The 1948 proclamation by the General Assembly of the United Nations serves as the ideal for human rights legislation in the free world.

Here in Ontario, we have been well served by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Our Human Rights Code, based on the fundamental principles of the universal declaration, is now a quarter of a century old. Over the course of its existence, it has helped to create an environment of goodwill and understanding in our many diverse communities.

By extending this awareness and understanding to provincial, national and international levels, we can attempt to allay the prejudice that leads to discrimination and ultimately the removal of the fundamental human rights, which, unfortunately, continues to plague many areas of our world. We must reaffirm our commitment and support for human rights on a global basis. I can think of no better occasion than on the anniversary of International Human Rights Day.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. McGuinty: I wish to comment on remarks made a few days ago by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) regarding economic development in eastern Ontario.

During the 42 years of Conservative governments in Ontario --

Mr. B. Rae: Forty four.

Mr. Breaugh: It is 44 now.

Mr. McGuinty: -- 44, the people of eastern Ontario had the feeling --

[Laughter]

Mr. McGuinty: I am sorry, I was thinking of the 42 years that my riding was in Tory hands -- when we had the feeling that Toronto was 5,000 miles away. We suffered under Tory indifference to our needs for adequate highways, health care and education, among other things. I can assure the members of the Progressive Conservative Party that those days are long gone.

As chairman of the Ottawa-Carleton caucus, I can assure the House that we meet with groups regularly to deal with issues that transcend party lines, and with respect to the Eastern Ontario Economic Outlook Conference that the member alluded to, the Liberal government had supported that conference in years past. I can assure the members of the Legislature that the people of eastern Ontario are now in good hands and that the Liberal government will continue to make up for years of Tory neglect.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Harris: Workers being forced to work Sunday after Christmas should be aware of Liberal opposition to our efforts to protect workers’ rights. Yesterday, both amendments I moved to the act were defeated by the Liberal majority.

The second amendment effectively allowed all workers the right to refuse work on a Sunday following a statutory holiday; one day every seven years. It was based on the stated logic of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that it is wrong to allow some employers to open on Sunday after Boxing Day while others must close. I wonder why the majority Liberals would not give the same right to workers one day out of every seven years.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HUMAN RIGHTS

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Today, Ontario, Canada and progressive nations around the world join together to celebrate International Human Rights Day.

It was 39 years ago today that members of the United Nations General Assembly, including Canada, adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This historic document proclaims that “... recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” The declaration is an eloquent statement of the minimum standard of conduct which peoples of the world are entitled to expect from their governments.

We must never become oblivious to the sorry condition of human rights in certain places around the globe. Nevertheless, it is important for us to collectively reflect upon and mark some of the positive steps we have taken to bring us closer to the achievement of true equality.

December 10 is a very appropriate date for such a reflection. It is a day to remember that the violation of human rights is not simply a moral issue, it is a legal wrong which demands a legal remedy, whether in South Africa, in east bloc nations, in Latin America or anywhere else in the world.

Ontario has played a leadership role in the development of human rights. Our province was the first to pass human rights legislation in Canada. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the establishment of our commission.

It is therefore appropriate that upon the retirement at the end of this month of the present chairman, Canon Borden Purcell, I announce the appointment of Raj Anand as the new chief commissioner of our Ontario Human Rights Commission effective January 1, 1988.

Mr. Anand brings outstanding professional and academic credentials to his new post. As a lawyer whose preferred areas of practice include human rights and labour relations, Mr. Anand has demonstrated a high level of expertise in the human rights field. As a legal writer, he has already made a significant contribution to current thinking in the critical area of equality rights under our charter. Mr. Anand recently authored a major task force report for the government on the impact of present trespass laws on youth and minorities.

Through his involvement with community legal clinics, the bar association and other nongovernmental organizations, Mr. Anand has proven himself to be a dedicated human rights advocate at the community level.

Quite apart from his very impressive qualifications, I wish to convey to him how pleased I am personally that someone of his energy and talent will take on this very challenging task of heading the commission. I congratulate Mr. Anand on his appointment and I welcome him to the commission.

I would also like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the people of Ontario, to express publicly our very sincere gratitude to Canon Borden Purcell for his commitment to the advancement of human rights generally and to the work of the commission specifically.

During his stewardship, we have seen substantial improvement in human rights protection here in Ontario. This includes the important amendments that we made in the code in 1981 and 1986. As a result of those amendments, the work of the commission has increased substantially. I would like to publicly thank Canon Purcell, on behalf of the people of Ontario, for guiding us and the commission through these difficult years.

To assist the new chairperson with the many challenges that lie ahead, I am announcing today certain measures that will strengthen the ability of the commission to enforce the Human Rights Code.

We are committed to making the commission truly independent. As both a substantive and symbolic testament to this objective, within the next two months the commission will move from its current two different locations to one location where it will be together in new, larger nonministry headquarters.

On an organizational level, as of January 1 the executive director of the commission will report only to the chief commissioner, not to the Deputy Minister of Citizenship. We will enable the commission to better provide the policy, research and communications services demanded of it during a period when its workload is increasing dramatically.

We hope that as a first step the new commissioner will quickly identify the resources he requires to enable him to go forward with his important work.

As an initial measure, the government will increase the commission’s base budget by at least $1 million. This will allow the commission to deal more effectively with individual acts of discrimination and to begin the important process of overcoming systemic barriers to full equality.

In 1987, human rights protection means much more than commitment to an abstract principle. In some cases, it means governments casting aside oppressive laws which abrogate the human rights of their peoples. It means individuals taking personal steps to change attitudes and behaviour. And it means unceasing community resolve by all of us to pursue the goal of true equality.

Human rights protection and equality of opportunity are the strengths that flow through the hands of our society. With the changes that I have announced today, I believe we move one step closer to achieving our goal, and we ensure that the force of that strength remains undiminished.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Legislature today about the government’s plans to improve the municipal electoral process in Ontario.

It is very important that the process by which municipal and school board representatives are elected is as open and accessible as possible.

As the members may recall, an Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections was established early in 1986. That committee met with a wide range of groups and individuals and received a great many written submissions before producing a