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

May 17, 1990

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ZEBRA MUSSELS

THREE FOR A TREE PROGRAM

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

CONSUL GENERAL OF JAPAN

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

EDUCATION FUNDING

KATHLEEN TAYLOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EDUCATION IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON

RESPONSES

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON

EDUCATION IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON

EDUCATION IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

COMMITTEE REPORT

REPLICA FIREARMS

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENT REVIEW

CHILD CARE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PAY EQUITY

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT INVESTIGATIONS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

WINDSOR AREA ECONOMY

TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

SOLID WASTE REDUCTION

TRAVEL INDUSTRY COMPENSATION FUND

SALE OF DISCOUNTED BEER

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

POLICE TREATMENT OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWNSHIP OF GUILFORD ACT, 1990

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POLICE SERVICES ACT, 1989

PATRICIA STARR INQUIRY

POLICE SERVICES ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

MOTION

REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The House met at 1100.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Allen moved second reading of Bill 165,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

Mr Allen: This morning we are addressing what by all accounts has to be one of the major crises afflicting Ontario and virtually every municipality within it. I want to state at the outset that I will be initiating the discussion of this bill and my colleague, our distinguished critic on environmental matters, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, will be following through with the second portion of the discussion as we get into the second round.

The problem is certainly one of enormous proportions. As I say, there is hardly a municipality that is not afflicted with a major crisis of disposable waste. As Canadians, we produce 1.8 kilograms of solid waste per day. If one looks at that in cumulative terms, in the hour that we are addressing this bill in this Legislature, there will be in Ontario 1,140 more tonnes of garbage municipally added to the crisis and to the challenge.

I presume that, since we are the heaviest energy users in North America and in the world, we are also probably, by the same scale, industrially, municipally and personally on a per capita basis the equal of the Americans, at least in the production annually of garbage. If one takes all the emissions into the atmosphere, into the rivers and waters, into the soils, and handled through our municipal waste systems and so on totally on a global scale, it is estimated that each American produces 60,000 pounds of garbage per year, or 20 tonnes per person. At 9.5 million Ontarians, that runs to 190 million tonnes of waste per year. Municipally, we produce 10 million tonnes of waste per year.

This bill of mine would love to address the total problem. However, what it does address are the specifics of a municipal problem in the order of 10 million tonnes of garbage per year.

Given the scale of the problem, it is astonishing that the government appears to be committed principally to a voluntary approach to this question. Yes, there are a few regulations, but it is surprising how few they are and how limited they are in their impact and extent.

It is astonishing that, when my colleague the environmental critic for our party in December introduced a resolution to this House to sample the opinion of the Legislature on this question and proposed a series of recommendations, the response of the minister essentially was, “There go the New Democrats again wanting to regulate everybody.”

I have to submit to you, Mr Speaker, that the regulatory regimes that exist are so feeble at this point in time and the dynamos that produce consumption and produce the enormous amounts of packaging to make consumption more attractive are so overwhelming that it is inconceivable to think that a policy that relies principally upon voluntarism would ever work.

For example, broadly speaking, municipalities still function under a regime in which they may dispose of what they want, where they want and when they want with remarkably few restrictions. Private waste disposal companies have so few controls on them that the minister does not even know in any detail what it is they dispose of or the overall total quantities.

The government itself has no mechanism for even understanding the scale in detail of the waste stream, as it is called, that flows from each one of us, from every industrial corporation, from every office operation and from every sector of our economy.

In the light of all that, the minister’s playing down or making light of proposals of regulation is cavalier, to say the least, and irresponsible, to say what is perhaps more appropriate. We only have to look around us to see how the engines of consumption drive us on into greater and greater individual consumption.

It is calculated that, even with the blue box program operating at its greatest effect as a voluntary domestic method of getting some reduction and certainly some recycling of some elements of the waste stream, the actual pace of consumption is such and growing at such a pace that the total of consumption and packaging and product disposal will overtake the effects of the blue box program and we will be no further ahead in problems of disposability or of waste management at the end of this decade.

This bill that I am producing is based on a rejection of certain propositions and an assertion of certain others. It rejects the proposition, for example, that waste management is essentially a local responsibility. At the moment, that is where most of the action lies. Municipalities have historically disposed of garbage. They understand that that has been their responsibility, and some of them are moving into recycling regimes and what have you.

But at the same time they have none of the jurisdictional or legislative powers to cope with the scale of the problem when one begins to address it in its real character, namely, the need to reduce the production of waste at its source or to embark upon major reusing initiatives, let alone to massively entertain recycling. Those regulations have to be provincial and federal, and each of these senior governments has a specific role in that regard and should be exercising it.

The second proposal that this legislation rejects is the proposition that all we have to do is work together to improve disposal methods. Disposability and incineration are the standard forms of disposal at this point in time in waste management. We reject them. There will always be some element of that in waste management, but overwhelmingly we have to address the problems of reducing waste at its source and then reusing where possible and recycling where necessary.

In this bill we also reject the principle that all individuals and corporations are free to produce and package materials without having regard to their ultimate fate. The producer of the problem in the first instance must be made responsible for its ultimate fate in terms of disposability and bear those costs. Those costs must not be loaded on to the environment, on to the municipality, on to the provincial government and on to the taxpayer’s back. There have to be taxation schemes, penalties, tax incentives and rebate mechanisms for dealing with that problem.

In terms of positive proposals, this bill endorses the proposal that reduction of waste at source is the first priority, to be followed by reuse and recycle. Second, waste options should minimize environmental impacts. We should not use one technique of reduction, reuse or recycling that will generate another problem in its wake. When there is an alternative product available, a disposable or non-recyclable product should not be permitted in the market.

We also propose that this whole process has to be institutionalized in order to make it function. I read from a major study done by the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto on this subject:

“Reduction options will be resilient only if responsibility for development, implementation, monitoring and enforcement is given to an institution with the mandate and resources to sustain commitments to waste reduction. Their longevity can also be assured by giving them legislative or regulatory expression which can offer some insulation from the political exigencies of the day.”

Wiser words were never spoken. One has to have in place structures that can deal on a systematic and ongoing basis with the problem of reduction at source, which means tackling the questions of the durability of products, the way in which they are produced and the incidental impact on the environment of production methods, the ways in which they are packaged and the forms, whether that packaging is recyclable or not, whether there are alternative methods of using, for example, containers that enable one to reuse and reuse the container in question and so on.

Those are the essential principles and those are the guidelines that lie behind the proposals that are in this piece of legislation. I will sit and await with interest the comments of the members in this House.

The Speaker: The following time will be divided among all parties, 15 minutes each, and then there will be two minutes for the sponsor to wind up.

Mr Jackson: It is my pleasure to rise in support of this private member’s bill, Bill 165,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act. I am always pleased to commend my colleague the member for Hamilton West for his initiative and his leadership in this regard. As we all know, matters affecting our environment are very much a non-partisan issue and very much an issue worthy of support.

I am delighted to inform the House that today in the Legislature in the visitors’ gallery we have students from Aldershot High School in Burlington to bear witness to today’s debate. They are the proud inheritors of a struggle within our own community to have the Aldershot landfill site redesignated so that that waste disposal site was not supported and they succeeded in the fact that its proximity to Lake Ontario was rejected.

Certainly the students at Aldershot High School were an integral part of the public awareness and the appeals before the Ontario Municipal Board and the joint commission in terms of having that site changed. So we are delighted to welcome them here today to the Legislature and we are very proud that they are here.

Crisis is a term that most often applies to the issues of waste and waste management in Ontario today. Provincial landfill sites serving half the population of Ontario will run out of capacity, it is predicted, in the next 10 years, which is a very short time. To make matters worse, garbage production rates are on the increase. Each year Canadians produce an average of more than a tonne of garbage, both residential and industrial, which is double that produced just 25 years ago.

In Metro Toronto over the past four years alone, the works department has registered an annual increase in waste volumes of more than 15% while other large urban centres report similar trends. Environmental pressures forced the closing in 1988 of Toronto’s aging incinerator and the abandonment of a new landfill. The process of searching for another landfill will take a minimum of five years to complete, which puts its resolution of this crisis to the year 1994. While Metro’s two landfills are scheduled to be closed in 1990 and 1992, over 160 existing landfill sites through Ontario will reach capacity within the next two years and more than 300 will be filled up within five years.

In the case of Halton region, which I have the privilege of representing here in the Legislature, the site selection process has been going on for 15 years. It has cost our taxpayers in Halton over $30 million, and we still have not found and completed our site. This includes $80,000 a month which is spent to export our garbage to New York state, and we are still being bogged down in the process of appeals as we speak.

This is the crisis. An increasing volume of waste, rapidly decreasing capacity in existing waste management facilities and new facilities not coming on stream fast enough are formidable barriers to speeding up the process and the resolution of this crisis. We ask ourselves how this crisis could have arisen in the first place. The answer lies in its root cause, namely, our social attitudes, our throwaway lifestyle which is mostly to blame here.

Waste is something we no longer want or something we no longer have a use for. We ourselves therefore define what is waste and what is not. In the last 30 years, Canadians not only began consuming more resources per capita but also began substituting goods: plastics for woods, detergents for soap, synthetics for natural fibres, and so on. These trends created new kinds of waste that were far more difficult to dispose of and developed wasteful attitudes and behaviours that endure until today. Fully half of all garbage by volume consists of packaging, which consumers have come to expect.

Slowly an awareness of a contradiction is finding its way to the surface. Economic growth in the form it now takes and human lifestyle patterns exceed the capacity of the natural environment to assimilate the waste they generate. Environment ministries can no longer contain it. Our lifestyle depends on many kinds of goods being disposable, on consumer wasting rather than conserving and on getting rid of the waste.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, I can only suggest to you that given this crisis, given our understanding of the problems, we can do nothing more at this point than support the member for Hamilton West. He has put considerable time, as both his caucus and our caucus have, into addressing this issue. I would like to commend the city council of Burlington which has passed, as many councils in Ontario have, resolutions which speak directly to reducing the amount of packaging.

We want to suggest to the Minister of the Environment as well that the processes which are leading to the landfill selection have to be more streamlined and there has to be more effort on the part of the government in terms of reducing the amount of garbage and disposables that are going into our landfill sites.

I want to thank the member for his bill and pledge to him the continuing and ongoing support of the Conservative caucus and the members towards the resolution of his Bill 165.

Mr Adams: The motion of the member for Hamilton West and his private member’s bill address the place of reduction in waste management. I think the member, and certainly the member for Burlington South in what he said, and probably everyone who speaks this morning is very interested in a problem which is now facing us all, and that is whether the current interest in the environment, this enormous interest in environmental matters, is going to last, whether in fact there is going to be a change in our society which is going to be permanent and which is going to effect permanent changes in the way we operate as individuals and in the way that businesses, industry and governments operate.

Of course, if these changes do not become permanent -- do not become institutionalized, I believe is the expression one of the previous speakers used -- then all that we are doing now will be for nothing. There has to be a real change.

Part of that change, I think perhaps the most important part, is a change of attitude or a change in lifestyle. I think if this change is to come about, it has to come about in an informed populace. It cannot come about simply despite ignorance in the population in general or among legislators or business people or whatever. People have to know why they should change their lifestyles and their attitudes. I think only then will the change be permanent.

I think one of the contributions of this Ministry of the Environment, and in particular of the current Minister of the Environment, towards this change in attitude has been a raising of awareness of the meaning of the expression “the three Rs.”

A very short time ago, it seems to me, if you went into a school and said, “What are the three Rs?” almost everyone would have said, “Oh, it’s reading, writing and arithmetic.” And if you had come into this House and you had said. “What are three Rs?” people would have said, “Reading, writing and rhetoric.” But today, if you go into a school or you go into the street and you say to someone, “What are the three Rs?” they say immediately and with no hesitation at all, “The three Rs are reduce, reuse and recycle.”

People are thinking about those three Rs and the Ministry of the Environment can take some credit for that, and I think it is important. As the member’s private bill indicates, thought is already being given not only in this Legislature by the member for Hamilton West but also in the schools to those words, “reduce, reuse and recycle.”

As the member has pointed out and as we all know, there is a certain logic to them. In the ideal world, first, you reduce unnecessary consumption as much as possible. Then, ideally, if you do use something, you reuse it and you reuse it again. Then and only then, in the ideal world, do you recycle. You take that product -- let’s say it is a bottle -- you make it back into glass and you make it into another glass, consumable item. That is very important. Again, that order, that logic is known now among the general public and particularly I think among students, including those here in the gallery.

That logic is real, but we live in a world which, in some ways sadly and in some ways happily, is not an ideal world, and I am sure that the member, in putting forward this bill which stresses reduction, does not want us to give up in the area of recycling, give up in the area of reuse. He knows that we, all of us, have to somehow keep all three of these things going, even though in the very ideal case we would perhaps reduce first.

This, of course, is what the government has been striving to do, and it is not easy. It would be much simpler if we could reduce the thing to a formula and say, “Look, this year, next year and the year after we will reduce, the years after that we will reuse, the years after that we will recycle.” We have to somehow keep all of the three Rs going at once.

Let’s look at some of the government’s achievements in the area of the three Rs. The blue box has already been mentioned this morning. I believe it was a week Friday that the two-millionth household received its blue box in Ontario, and the number is growing daily. The blue box alone is now diverting over 250,000 tonnes of waste from the waste stream to some productive use, and each month more materials are being collected through the blue box in different parts of the province. The blue box is the most obvious phase of our recycling effort, one of the three Rs.

It is the collection phase, and it is a very important phase because, through it, each household each day or each week makes a commitment to recycling by putting out its own blue box.

But the other phases are equally important. There has to be a technology phase for each of the materials; that is to say, a way of taking those materials and recycling them into a useful product. For example, in terms of newsprint, there has to be a way of safely bleaching the newsprint, and the government has been thinking of and working on that.

Once we have new materials, there has to be a marketing phase, and there has to be a way of selling the recycled products. If not, we end up with mountains of recycled material. Again, that is being addressed very seriously by the Ministry of the Environment. As members know, the major newspapers in the province are on side at last, and when the Sun, the Star, the Globe and Mail and so on place their next orders for newsprint, they will require recycled content.

That is one example of the government’s encouraging and stimulating the market phase of recycling, and if we have a collecting phase -- the blue box -- a technology phase for each material, a way of reprocessing the material and then a marketing phase, a way to sell those products, we have sustainable recycling.

If recycling is to stick, it has to be sustainable in that way, and the government has to keep all those aspects of recycling going. The goals of our activity in the three Rs are 25% diversion from landfill by 1992 and 50% diversion by the year 2000. This is exactly the same target as the member for Hamilton West has in his private member’s bill.

In terms of reduction, the packaging standards developed by the province have been submitted and received by all the ministers of environment in Canada and will become the national standards, and I was pleased to see a number of the items in the member’s bill echoing this government’s proposed standards for packaging. Packaging certainly has to be one of the targets of any three Rs program.

I could mention, similarly, the government’s efforts in the area of composting. I know composting is both recycling and reduction, as the member for Hamilton West realizes, but composting does reduce the volume of waste as well as creating a useful material. The Ministry of the Environment has assisted dozens of municipalities with home composting. In my own riding of Peterborough, every township now sells for between $12 and $25 a large home composter which citizens can use. By the way, these are being bought very rapidly and people are going into home composting.

The ministry is also supporting municipal, large-scale composting, and I look forward to the day when the pilot project which is now going on in Guelph will be used as a model for the whole province and when Peterborough will be into large-scale communal composting.

I intend to vote in favour of this private member’s bill. I will leave the time that we have remaining for my colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, who will be discussing other examples of the government’s efforts in the area of reduction and the three Rs.

Mrs Grier: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to have this debate in the House today and of course to support the bill that has been brought forward by the member for Hamilton West. As the member has said, this bill moves to implement the resolution that I put before this House last December and which called on the government to introduce before March 1990 some guidelines, some targets, some plans by which it would achieve the targets of waste reduction which it had announced and which the member for Peterborough reiterates today that it supports and which we all support.

The difference that we have with the member for Peterborough and with the members of this government is that we do not think those targets can be reached by voluntary effort. I find it really disappointing to hear the member for Peterborough explain how he sees the three Rs working, that he says it would be nice if for a period we could say, “We will for this length of time reduce and then we will reuse and then we will recycle.” The three Rs are not in sequence, they are a hierarchy of importance, and the first importance is to reduce waste.

If you cannot reduce waste, then you recycle items, but you do not wait until you have decided whether or not you can reduce before you get into reusing and recycling. You have to look at every item in the waste stream and say: “How can that item be reduced? Can we stop using that?

Can we somehow avoid having that particular product, that particular item, in the waste stream?” If we cannot do that, then, “Can we find a way of reusing it?” and only if we cannot reuse it, “Can we find a way of recycling it?” We do not wait until we have looked at every item in the waste stream before we look as to whether or not we can reduce them before we begin to look at how we can reuse them. We have to always keep in mind with every single item that is disposed of, could this be reduced; could this be reused; if it cannot, could it be recycled?

Our problem with the approach of the government is that it is focusing completely on recycling, and that, in itself, is not enough. By focusing on reduction, we are not saying we do not support recycling; we merely regard it as the last way to go, and only to go that way if we cannot approach the issue from the perspective of reduction and reuse.

When I put my motion before this House last December it was supported on all sides, but nothing has happened from the government since then. There have been no initiatives to implement that resolution, which it said it supported in principle. In fact, when we look at the actions that it has taken, they have been steps backward in reducing the requirement for refillable containers on the market. So in the absence of any action from this government, my colleague the member for Hamilton West has brought forward Bill 165, because what that bill will do is put in place the kinds of programs that would allow us to reach the target of 25% diversion of waste by the year 1992.

The reversal of this government’s policies with respect to refillable containers was, I think, a very clear indication of its abdication of responsibility for showing leadership in the field of waste reduction. People have said all across the province that they want to do something about our environmental crisis. They want to participate in trying to solve the problems and they have shown by their actions in using the blue box system how willing they are to do that.

The pop containers ought not to be in the blue box system. The blue boxes should be only for those things, as I have said, that you cannot reduce or reuse, and you can reuse pop containers. It is very basic; it is very simple. Every child who buys pop knows that if he buys it in a bottle for which there is a deposit, he will probably take that bottle back and that bottle will be reused. Why can this government not understand that this is what has to happen?

If the government cannot understand that this has to happen with pop containers, we on this side have no hope that it will begin to understand that this has to happen with a whole lot of other items that now have ended up in the waste stream.

When I raised in the House the cave-in of the government to the soft drink industry by the reduction of the targets for refillable containers and the decision to no longer prosecute soft drink companies that do not meet the regulations, the Minister of the Environment accused me of not supporting the blue box system. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am very glad that two million people across the province are participating in the blue box system.

Mr Adams: Two million households.

Mrs Grier: The member for Peterborough corrects me and he is right.

My problem is that it too is a voluntary program. It is only available, by and large, to single-family households. It is only available in municipalities that choose to participate in it. It does not cover the commercial sector. It does not, by and large, cover multifamily units, apartment buildings and the like. It can only go so far.

Think how much further we could go in reducing garbage if we were prepared to say, “It is mandatory that you have blue boxes everywhere.” But the government does not want to do that. It does not want to pass that kind of regulation.

Think how much further we could go if we said, “It is mandatory that you not landfill or dispose of items for which there could be another use,” but this government does not want to do that. It does not want to interfere with the market. It does not want to regulate. It is prepared to put all the onus and all the responsibility on individuals.

We find, in fact, that many municipalities that entered with enthusiasm into the blue box program are now finding that it perhaps is not as great as it is cracked up to be and that it is going to be costing them a lot more money than they had originally envisaged. What municipalities are concerned about, given the record of this government, is that they are going to be left holding the bag for a blue box system that no longer pays its way because the government has done nothing to create the markets or to create the regulations that require people to reuse materials.

Let me quote from some comments that were made in the region of Durham, one of the first municipalities to get into recycling and to look at reducing garbage because of the problems it has with landfill. “The blue box recycling program.” said representatives of Durham region, “has become a financial monster that eats up 10 times as much revenue as it generates and may eventually bankrupt some Ontario municipalities.”

This government is putting all its emphasis on recycling in the blue box system. What action does it plan to take if in fact municipalities say that they can no longer participate?

From the North Bay Nugget, on 1 May 1990, “North Bay city council may have to rethink its planned blue box recycling program because of problems finding a market for recycled items.” As one of the councillors said, “Our frustration is that municipalities spend a lot of money sorting and collecting recyclable products, and the province and the federal government have not moved fast enough to restrict certain kinds of packaging.” I think that says it all.

This government has done nothing to reduce packaging, one of the major contributors to the garbage problem. Sure, they support the packaging protocol that came from the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers last March, but I want to remind the members, and particularly the member for Peterborough, who referred to that packaging protocol, that one of the targets in the protocol is that all provinces must have in place a nationally co-ordinated data collection program to make possible the monitoring of the targets by 31 December 1990.

We are now well into May 1990 and we have seen no indication from this government that it has in place a co-ordinated data collection program to make possible the monitoring of the targets for reduction of packaging that this government says it supports.

I think it is worth reminding the members of what the packaging protocol says. It says that all packaging should have minimal effects on the environment. It says that priority will be given to the management of packaging through source reduction, reuse and recycling. It says there will be a continuing campaign of information and education to make Canadians aware of the function and environmental impacts of packaging. It calls for policies to apply to all packaging used in Canada, including imports. It calls for regulations to be implemented as necessary to achieve compliance with these policies.

This government has signed a national packaging protocol which calls for regulations, yet it consistently refuses to put in place in this province regulations that will help the people of this province meet those targets and reduce the packaging that is filling up our landfills all across the province. Every family in Canada produces one tonne of packaging per year and 80% of that packaging is disposed of. It is not reduced, reused or recycled, and we have no indication from this government that it is prepared to do that.

There is amazing public support for action to reduce garbage. There is amazing public support for the kinds of policies that are contained in Bill 165. There is amazing public support for some leadership from this government in moving proactively and aggressively to do its part to reduce garbage in the province. People want to do their part, but they cannot do it alone. By putting all the onus and all the responsibility on individuals, by relying entirely on a voluntary program, by saying that recycling is the first priority, this government is abdicating its responsibilities.

Until they get serious and until they put in place some regulations that will assist people who want to help to do their part, we are not going to move meaningfully to reduce the garbage that is generated in this province.

I am very pleased that our party is showing that leadership, is providing constructive suggestions in the vacuum that exists on the other side, and I am pleased to have the support of private members. I hope that will soon be translated into support by the minister and by the cabinet.

Mr J. M. Johnson: I would like to start by thanking the member for Hamilton West for bringing forth Bill 165 and express my support. I support all aspects of the bill, but in the short time I have to speak I would like to concentrate on clause l(la)(a), “establishing programs to assist municipalities, to achieve...a 50% reduction in the amount of waste being deposited at waste disposal sites.”

I would like to concentrate on a problem in my riding. The county of Wellington has been trying to establish a dump or a landfill site, whatever you want to call it, for the past few years. They have spent over $1 million and they are not much closer today than they were two years ago. The rural people just do not want the city’s garbage and they are sick of being forced to accept it.

One problem that we have is used tires. It is my understanding that seven million used tires are placed in landfill sites every single year. I think it works out to something like 11 tires being discarded each minute. In making reference to the problem with tires, I would refer to the Hagersville tire fire a few months ago. There is a front-page story in the Toronto Star today, “Tire Dump Ablaze in Quebec,” which states, “Millions of flaming tires were turned into a ‘monstrous furnace’ as they burned out of control at Quebec’s largest tire dump last night.” It goes on to say. “It’s just like the Hagersville fire.”

How long must we wait for the government to take action? How many more fires? In the few minutes, I would just like to emphasize that we should be dealing with the problem of discarded tires and what to do with them. The traditional disposal method of landfilling is not adequate as the tires eventually float to the top. In addition, landfill space is at a premium and very little more is going to be available in the future.

In Europe and the United States tires are used as fuel replacement for cement kilns. That is what I would like to propose, that the government give consideration to using tires in a controlled test burn and allow St Marys and other tire companies that have promoted this for several years the opportunity to prove they are environmentally safe. If they are not environmentally safe, then forget about it. But if they are environmentally safe, they will replace some of the coal that is being burned at the present time, which is imported into the country. They will help to get rid of the surplus tires; it is my understanding that they can use 1.5 million tires per year.

It is a technology that has been in existence in Europe: Germany, Sweden, several of the European countries have used it. It was designed in Canada, I think about 15 years ago, by St Lawrence Cement. They call it the “Canadian technology,” but we do not use it in Canada. There is possibly a reason that we should not use it, and it may prove that would be the result of a test, but surely anyone should be agreeable to trying out an experiment with it; have a controlled test and see how it works.

In Germany, when they first introduced it, it took approximately a year’s test for every site that they burned tires at, and every single one proved successful and is in operation now. So the technology is available. It apparently is safe or it would not be used in these countries; many of them are as environmentally concerned as we are. So I suggest that it is time that the minister took a look at the issue and tried to deal with it, with one aspect, as I mentioned, of the tire problem.

As the member for Hamilton West has brought forward, there are many other issues that are dealt with in the bill. I support the whole concept of the bill and I hope that the government would give consideration to doing something about the used tires, unless we want to continue to read in the press every two or three months of another tire deposit site that goes up in flames.

Mr Faubert: It is my privilege today to rise in support of Bill 165, which has been brought forward by the member for Hamilton West. On 10 March 1989, the Ministry of the Environment announced that Ontario would divert to constructive purposes 25 per cent of its household and commercial and industrial waste in 1992 and 50 per cent by the year 2000. That is the objective of the Ministry of the Environment. Let me take the opportunity today to describe initiatives supported by this government to help achieve the goal. I would point out that this, indeed, is leading by example.

On 10 October last, the Minister of Government Services and the Minister of the Environment announced the $1.6-million first phase of a comprehensive program to apply the three Rs -- reduce, reuse and recycle -- to the Ontario government workplace. I agree with the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore that this is a hierarchy of priorities and I think the emphasis should be on reduction.

The government’s goal is to divert more than 3,000 tons of waste per year away from landfill and incineration, and we are now in the process of implementing that program. This government is the first provincial government in Canada to undertake a comprehensive internal waste management program. We hope to serve as an example for other provinces, and indeed for the private sector, to follow.

The primary focus in the first phase is on the recycling of fine paper, newspaper, glass and plastic bottles, and metal cans. The program is currently being implemented in Queen’s Park and also within this Legislature, and it will soon be expanded to cover 45,000 Ontario public servants in more than 120 buildings across Metropolitan Toronto. We plan to expand this program across the province to cover all government buildings in communities which have a blue box program presently in operation.

Perhaps one simple but effective way that will work to reduce waste is by doublesided photocopying. We estimate the government will save 29 tonnes of photocopy paper simply by replacing all of the high-volume copiers with machines that copy on both sides. That is bad news for Xerox paper suppliers but it is good news for the environment. This is an effective reduction of a product use.

Perhaps the biggest environmental problem our society faces is that many products we use have been designed to be used once and be thrown away. The increased awareness of the need to protect our waste diversion programs provides funding and technical assistance to industrial, commercial and institutional sectors to encourage recycling activities. These activities include the recycling of a wide range of materials, such as plastics, corrugated cardboard, wood wastes, paints and solvents, liquid industrial wastes and other hazardous wastes. To date, over 150 projects have been approved for funding.

This program had a budget of $6.5 million in the 1989-90 fiscal year and has been in place since June 1987.

I would like to point out to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore that perhaps among the government members themselves there is a great deal of support for the position brought forward by this private member’s bill. We have not gone far enough -- we will admit that -- in this area to encourage recycled products and markets or to encourage the source reduction, but I would like to point out that I too, like my colleague the member for Peterborough, intend to vote in support of Bill 165.

Mr Pollock: I want to compliment the member for Hamilton West for bringing forth this bill and I certainly am going to support it. I am going to support it maybe with a little reluctance on one particular issue.

He mentioned in his bill, Bill 165, that he hoped to see a reduction of the garbage going into landfill sites by the year 2000. I have a reeve in my municipality who has actually stated that they have reduced garbage going into a landfill site by 70 per cent right now, and by the year 2000 they ought to be able to do a bit better. I know the member is trying to set up a guideline for the whole province, and that is fine. As I say, I compliment him on bringing forth this bill and I am certainly going to support it.

I am not really a supporter of landfill sites. I firmly believe there is no proof that, over the next 50 or 100 years, landfill sites will not cause every bit as much of a problem to the environment as incinerating garbage. I have a clipping here from the Toronto Star, dated 14 May, and this newspaper clipping states that Metro Toronto has offered to buy the landfill site in Petrolia for $30 million. I am a believer in the old cliché that you get what you pay for, or vice versa. If Metro is going to pay $30 million for that particular landfill site, you can rest assured that Metro has every intention of dumping $30-million worth of garbage into that landfill site.

One of the things that always concerns people in the rural areas is the polluting of their water systems. Some of these major landfill sites certainly do that. There is leachate coming out of these landfill sites and they are polluting the underground water system. One of the worst things is a battery. I know a little battery like this does not mean much, but if I were to break this battery and put it in that glass of water I am sure nobody here would offer to drink it; plus the fact that if I broke it and got a little of it on my suit, it would be “Goodbye, suit.” That is what is going into our underground water supply. and it is of real concern to me.

I want to mention the fact that in my neighbouring municipality of Seymour there is a landfill site. It started up about six years ago. In two and a half years it has been leaching. Apparently they went into the county plan and now they have got to take Cobourg’s garbage. That will just add to the problem, and apparently Cobourg has not got a waste management plan in place, nor has it got a blue box program in place. That is of real concern to the people from the Seymour area.

I would want to mention also that on 19 May -- that is, this Saturday -- they are having a walkathon in Marmora. I invite everybody in that whole area to come to that walkathon. This is being sponsored by TNT. It is actually promoting awareness of the proposed dumping of Metro’s garbage in the old iron ore site at Marmora. They are starting their walk at the curling club. They are going from there out to the site. The people of Marmora and area are working hard to resist the dumping of garbage in there.

Back in 1984, the Ministry of the Environment people wrote a report that stated that this was not a safe place to dump garbage. There is over two billion gallons of water in that particular mine site. It is fresh water, there are fish in there and I do not believe Metro should be dumping garbage in that particular site. I want to support and compliment TNT -- TNT, I might say, stands for Take No Trash -- on its efforts to oppose dumping Metro’s garbage in that mine site.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Cureatz): I note there is almost a minute left on the government side. I would suggest to the honourable member we will allow three minutes for his concluding remarks.

Mr Allen: I want to thank the members on all sides of the House for supporting Bill 165, legislation to move towards a regulatory regime to deal with the reduction of solid municipal waste in Ontario.

I appreciate the support of the member for Wellington and I certainly concur with his central comment that there is no reason why rural municipalities should he forced to deal with the problem of urban garbage. The member for Hastings-Peterborough can take back our compliments to his reeve. Any reeve who can reduce what is going into landfill by 70% is accomplishing these objectives in advance and ought to go on tour across Ontario to help other people do the same thing.

Likewise, I want to thank the members of the government side who spoke, the member for Peterborough and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. I would only say to the very useful comments of the member for Peterborough that yes, indeed, it is very critical that a population understands the issue that we are grappling with and that government move in sync with an understanding and an intelligent population. I have no problem with that. I was a little concerned with his sense of what “reduce” means, in terms of the reduction of consumption by individuals.

That is not the technical meaning that normally we give to it in this debate. The reduction of waste at source, in the productive process, in the packaging requirements and so on is what we refer to in that respect.

Certainly no one would deny that harnessing the voluntary interests and wills of individual people across Ontario, as they themselves have increasingly become sensitive to the environmental crisis, is a tremendous engine for changing the problems of waste disposal that we have at hand, indeed with respect to all environmental problems. But as the member himself did say, one does have to worry that perhaps that is a passing commitment, that perhaps it will not be an enduring, functioning motivation.

The purpose of public policy in general, I think, is to provide those means and mechanisms collectively whereby we can give force to our individual intentions, and to give them a structure, a direction, a meaning and a result that we all want. That is why I have proposed the sequence of proposals in this bill for dealing with the matter of waste reduction.

I hope that the member is an advance guard of his government in persuading it to move even more thoroughly and completely into a regulatory regime that can deal with this question, and to deal with it in the following terms, namely, to provide regulations, through the amendments to the Environmental Protection Act, which will:

establish programs to assist municipalities to achieve the objective, by January 2000, of a 50% reduction in the amount of waste being deposited in waste disposal sites;

establish reduction plans for the reduction of designated wastes within prescribed time periods;

designate types of waste that shall be covered by waste reduction plans and prescribe time periods;

designate materials that should be subject to source separation;

govern the phasing out of the use of containers and packaging for which there are waste reduction alternatives;

designate containers and packages that are required to be phased out and prescribe time periods for phasing out such containers and packaging;

designate disposable products for which non-disposable substitutes are available and prohibit the use of such products;

prescribe, for example, durability standards for consumer products so that they will not have to be disposed of at an early date in their life;

govern the sale and distribution of consumer products that do not meet the prescribed durability standards;

govern the reuse and recycling of containers and packaging;

require manufacturers of designated products to use such proportion of recoverable materials as prescribed;

prescribe the proportion of recoverable materials to be used in designated products;

set out a regulatory regime that enables municipalities to respond at the level of reduction, reuse and recycling;

authorize municipalities to refuse to collect waste for disposal if the waste has not been properly separated and to refuse to accept waste at disposal sites if waste can be reused and recycled.

In all those respects, it is necessary for this government to move in the direction of a regulatory regime but also in the direction of an information-collecting regime which will make all of that possible on a systematic and effective basis. In that respect, I hope that the support of all members in this House will help move the government in that direction.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Allen: I propose that this bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

Hon Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, I propose that your first suggestion be carried forward.

The Acting Speaker: We have to determine if the majority is in favour of the bill going to the standing committee. It would appear that they are not and that they want to refer it to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Breaugh: You have got to test and see.

The Acting Speaker: We’ve got to vote on it?

Mr Breaugh: It’s just Remo off by himself. Maybe the rest have seen the light.

The House divided on whether the bill should be referred to the standing committee on resources development, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 10; nays 26.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

The House recessed at 1204.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Farnan: Right now there are over 10,000 children in Ontario on the waiting lists of the province’s 85 children’s mental health centres. Just last month, the Minister of Correctional Services admitted that 18% of the inmates in Ontario’s correctional system have psychiatric mental health problems.

It is time this government got its priorities straight and realized that spending money on children’s mental health, rather than on their future incarceration, is the only approach that makes sense.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services allocates $116 million a year to the 85 centres, an average of $3,400 per child. Compare this to the $47,000 a year it costs to incarcerate an adult prisoner.

As a society we are abhorred by the waiting lists for cancer therapy and heart bypasses. Should our outrage not be even more vehement when we find children who are victims of sexual abuse, the witnesses of family violence, prone to deliberately injure themselves, depressed, violent and all without treatment? What price do we put on these children? We pay the dedicated professionals in the field so poorly and the pressure of their work is so great that burnout rates among front-line social workers are running at between 60 and 80 per cent.

It is often said that we judge a society by the manner in which it treats the weakest and the most vulnerable of its members. By this criterion, the plight of the 10,000 children on mental health services’ waiting lists is an indictment of our society.

ZEBRA MUSSELS

Mr Pollock: With the holiday weekend approaching, I would like to bring the problem of zebra mussels to the attention of the public. The mussels have already caused problems in the Great Lakes. These problems include damaging spawning beds and clogging intake pipes and they have sunk navigation buoys, to mention just a few aspects of the multimillion-dollar problem.

People seem to feel helpless when it comes to stopping the zebra mussels; so please, when you are out this weekend, do not spread the zebra mussels to our inland lakes. Do not transport live bait or any type of container from our Great Lakes to other bodies of water. Do not take water from one lake to another. Scrape your boat hull and trailer clean when taking them from the Great Lakes. If the surface feels grainy, it is probably mussel larvae.

Mussels can survive a minimum of four days out of water and, if the humidity is high, even longer. Empty your bilge, ballast water and live well on land. Scuba divers should take extra care with their gear when moving from one lake to another.

Have a mussel-free holiday weekend.

THREE FOR A TREE PROGRAM

Mr Reycraft: A short time ago I reported to the assembly about an activity going on in my riding of Middlesex that is truly a unique way of raising awareness and money for the environment. I would like to update members on the Three for a Tree campaign sponsored by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, TV London and McDonald’s.

The campaign encouraged people to help with reforestation by purchasing lapel pins, like the one I am wearing, for $3 each. For every pin sold, enough money was raised to plant at least one tree. Like trees themselves, the idea was planted, it grew and it blossomed. Some 8,500 lapel pins were sold, raising enough money to plant more than 13,000 hardwood trees.

Armed with this success, the program will continue to sell more pins, raise more money and plant more trees. Distribution of the pins has been expanded beyond McDonald’s. For example, students from Strathroy District Collegiate Institute sold the pins to mark Earth Day. It is that type of community involvement that makes this project so fulfilling and so worth while.

The Middlesex-London area has a reputation for its beautiful trees, parks and forests. I am proud of the people who took the initiative to enhance this reputation and of all the people who bought pins to support this campaign. I am sure all members of the assembly join me in applauding the Three for a Tree program and wishing its organizers continued success.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

Mr Kormos: Welland-Thorold, sadly, is as much in need of treatment beds for victims of alcohol and drug abuse as any other area in the province of Ontario. In fact, we have been fortunate to have programs like Homes for Reflection in Welland, which for the last five years was operated under the very skilful and competent leadership of Irene Bissonnette, and for the last year equally skilfully by Pauline Raby. This is a program that provides drug and alcohol treatment for women on an in-house basis over a 28-day period. It has been outstandingly successful and has serviced not only women from the Niagara region, but women from all other parts of Ontario and indeed other parts of the country.

Sadly, this government and this Ministry of Health have deemed that the 10 beds operating at Homes for Reflection will now be reduced to six, not that the demand is not there; there are waiting lists lengthier than any of us would ever wish.

Simultaneously with that, this government lets scavengers like Phoenix operate. Phoenix is a so-called alcohol and drug consultant service that scavenges the streets of Toronto and Ontario looking for patients for a New Orleans-based hospital and drug and alcohol treatment program. Why will this government and this ministry not invest money in their own treatment programs right here in the province of Ontario instead of the United States of America?

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Runciman: Later this afternoon, the Chair of the standing committee on general government will be presenting a report regarding events that took place this morning in committee. Mr Speaker. I have some very serious concerns about this report and will be raising them with you on a point of order after the report is tabled.

Last week, under standing order 123, I requested that the subcommittee of the general government committee designate 12 hours to consider a matter that involved the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Premier’s office. This motion was perfectly in order. However, this morning the member for Yorkview attempted to stall this motion, thereby stripping the opposition of its rights under standing order 123.

This is a travesty. It is one more attempt by the Peterson Liberal government to ride roughshod over the rights of the minority and to further diminish our parliamentary democracy.

Mr Speaker, I would urge you to rule on this matter this afternoon before the committee reconvenes.

CONSUL GENERAL OF JAPAN

Mr D. W. Smith: On 10 May 1990 I had the pleasure of attending a reception in honour of Tadashi Masui, the consul general of Japan. The consul general was the honoured guest of the Economic Development Commission and this reception was held at the close of his day-long visit to the Sarnia-Lambton area. The event was hosted by the Sarnia-Lambton Economic Development Commission and was held at the Polysar building in Sarnia. There were many business people and elected officials in attendance.

Mr Masui was invited to visit the Sarnia-Lambton area in an effort to provide an opportunity for community leaders to discuss potential investment and cultural opportunities between Japan and Sarnia-Lambton.

I am pleased to say Mr Masui received an enthusiastic welcome to the Sarnia-Lambton area. Upon completion of his tour of the region, he indicated that he was impressed with the greenness of Lambton, which I presume would be a contrast to his own country, and the beautiful blue-green St Clair River.

During the reception in his honour, there was a great deal of discussion on promoting Canadian-Japanese business co-operation. He indicated his desire and his country’s desire to become a good corporate friend of Lambton. Japan has invested a great deal in our country, and he hopes that this excellent business partnership can continue in the years to come.

The consul general as well as others who attended the reception were impressed to learn from local business people that approximately $7 billion worth of products are sold by the petrochemical industry in the Sarnia-Lambton area each year.

I would like to say that it was a pleasure to have the consul general of Japan, Tadashi Masui, show an interest in visiting Lambton county and in discovering the many investment opportunities available in this area.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Miss Martel: On 23 April I advised this House of the longstanding capital needs of both the Sudbury Board of Education and the Sudbury District Roman Catholic Separate School Board. I encouraged this government to respond positively to the needs to demonstrate support for quality education in northern Ontario.

Capital grant allocations were announced on 4 May. A look at what happened in Sudbury proves the government did not listen to what I had to say. For example, the Sudbury board was advised it received $930,000. The schedule, however, shows that this allocation is spread out over a three-year period, from 1991 to 1993. The actual allocation for 1991 is $130,000, even though the amount previously approved for 1991 was $305,000. Somewhere, $175,000 has been reclaimed by the Ministry of Education, and no one is quite sure where it has gone.

The separate school board was allocated $1.2 million to cover renovations at one school and to purchase the land for a new secondary school. However, this allocation was not granted for 1991. The money is to be provided to the board in 1992, which means the new school, so desperately needed, has been put on hold yet again. I can only hope that the money promised will not be reduced by the ministry in future, as was the case with the public board this year.

A lot of fanfare accompanied these allocations, but when you get right down to it, there is not much substance behind the fluff.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Jackson: In light of the pending provincial election, I would like to remind the Liberal members that during the 1985 election campaign the leader of the Liberal Party promised to raise the provincial share of education funding to 60%. Despite the slogan “I did what I said I would do,” this Premier has let the provincial share in each of the last five years. It now stands at a mere 40%.

Provincially mandated programs have been offloaded on to the property tax base, forcing boards to pass on double-digit mill rate increases. The Ontario Public School Boards’ Association reports that property taxes went up by $1 billion in 1989. They estimate that an additional $800 million will have to be raised from property taxes this year.

Given that there is an election in the air, I would like to remind the Liberal backbenchers of the property tax increases their constituents face because of the Premier’s education policy: Hamilton public and Hamilton-Wentworth separate boards, 18.1%; Lanark county, 17.5%; Durham board, 14.8%; Halton board, 14.6%; Essex county, 13.5%; Wentworth county, 12.5%; Lakehead district separate, 12.3%; Waterloo county, 12.1%; Brant county, 12%; Grey county, 10.7%, and Sault Ste Marie, 10.5%.

Mr Speaker, be assured that at every opportunity we will be reminding taxpayers of the real reason that their property taxes have gone through the roof this year.

KATHLEEN TAYLOR

Mr Adams: The Peterborough YWCA sponsored its 11th annual Woman of the Year Award on 10 May. This is an award to recognize, honour and celebrate achievements of women in Peterborough and area who have contributed to the advancement of women. Nominees for this prestigious award have enriched the lives of others, have acted as role models and have demonstrated commitment to the advancement of women.

This year’s nominees, all distinguished citizens, were honoured at a dinner at which the award winner was announced. The nominees were Maureen Barrett Roe, Cathy Beach, Marsh Cobden, Fern Doyle, Gail Hancock, Lois Harte-Maxwell, Carola Lane and Kathleen Taylor.

This event is an important opportunity to honour women in the area served by our YWCA. The YW is a leader in providing opportunities for the development of women and children, as well as providing shelter for women and children fleeing family violence. The YW also provides a wide range of educational, social and recreational programs for women.

My riding is fortunate to have such an organization acting on behalf of women. Past women of the year have included Kim Naish, Marilyn Huels, Rosemary Ganley, Erika Cherney and Sharon Murphy. This year’s winner was Kaye Taylor, who was recently admitted to the Order of Ontario, and about whom I spoke in this House on 8 May.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EDUCATION IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Hon Mr Conway: The Contact North distance education network is an electronic success story.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Conway: For the edification of my friend the Leader of the Opposition, who would know that, since this pilot project began three years ago, in 1987. Contact North has provided a wide range of secondary and post-secondary educational opportunities to northern Ontarians, many of whom live in isolated communities.

Using innovative information technology, Contact North creates an electronic classroom that serves more than 75 northern communities and is available to more than 90% of all northerners. Students in different communities are linked to colleagues and teachers in other areas by means of telephone conferencing. Lessons are exchanged electronically by means of facsimile machines and by computer conferencing. The network even provides an electronic blackboard using computer screens and telephone lines.

Today I am pleased to announce that the government of Ontario will provide $7.6 million to continue and to expand upon this vital initiative. No longer a pilot project, Contact North will build on its success and will expand into additional northern secondary schools.

Funding this year for Contact North and northern distance education will include up to $4 million for the operation of the Contact North network and related services, up to $1.5 million to help northern colleges and universities develop additional distance educational instructional material and $2.1 million of one-time capital equipment funding from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to help northern secondary schools purchase equipment needed to participate in the network.

Contact North has proven to be an electronic highway allowing all northerners to participate more fully in this province’s educational system.

I am pleased to report to this Legislature that 75% of Contact North students are female, 15% are francophone and 12% are aboriginal Canadians. In addition, 85% of the students are from outside the five main urban centres in northern Ontario.

To remain competitive in the emerging global economy, we must ensure that all Ontarians have equal access to a quality educational experience, and Contact North is a vital link in helping us meet that challenge.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON

Hon Mr Sweeney: This afternoon, I intend to introduce legislation to give voters of Ottawa-Carleton a direct say in the running of their regional government. The legislation will, for the first time, allow voters in new regional wards to directly elect someone whose only job will be to represent their interests at regional council.

The regional chairman, who now is not directly accountable to voters, will be chosen by regional council from among its directly elected members.

Mayors of the 11 municipalities within the region will remain on regional council as representatives of their municipalities and to provide a link between the two levels of government.

The changes I am announcing today are the result of a long and thorough process of study and consultation, a process that started nearly three years ago when the provincial government, at the request of the regional council, appointed former Rideau township mayor David Bartlett to review its system of regional government.

Something that became very clear during the consultation process is that the people of Ottawa-Carleton are concerned about the overall size of municipal government in their region. Very soon, I intend to appoint a commissioner, whose job will be to start a consultation process leading to the creation of between 14 and 18 new regional wards. But, part of the commissioner’s job will be to ensure, by reducing the size of the existing area councils, that the total number of elected positions in Ottawa-Carleton will not increase as a result of this change.

The new regional wards will not necessarily follow municipal boundaries. In the interests of representation by population, some regional wards may cross municipal boundaries. This is entirely consistent with the idea that these new councillors will have a broader regional perspective. They will represent not the municipalities they come from, but the people who elect them.

I am introducing the legislation this spring so that this new structure can be in place in time for the 1991 municipal election year.

This change is an important step forward for the people of Ottawa-Carleton. Regional issues today are too important to be dealt with by councillors whose first responsibility is to their local lower-tier council. Now, for the first time, the people of Ottawa-Carleton will really know who is responsible for regional issues.

RESPONSES

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON

Mr Breaugh: I would like to respond briefly to the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It is very true that in the Ottawa-Carleton region there has been an ongoing argument about the nature of regional government. We are pleased to see that the government has done something. I am not quite convinced what it has done here.

There is some form of quasi-democracy headed towards the Ottawa-Carleton region. It is somewhat ironic that in the nation’s capital we cannot quite figure out the democratic process yet. There will be something close to an elected chairman of the region, but not quite. It will always be fascinating to watch that unfold.

I have read with interest the proposal that the minister is going to make in legislative form later on this afternoon about boundaries, that we will consult yet again and establish some new hybrid form of representation where they will cross municipal boundaries.

I wish the minister luck, but there is only one thing in his whole statement that I would like to challenge. That is the last line: “Now, for the first time, the people of Ottawa-Carleton will really know who is responsible for regional issues.” I really doubt that a lot.

EDUCATION IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr R. F. Johnston: I would like to respond to the Minister of Colleges and Universities’ announcement of the expansion of the Contact North distance education network. Everyone is quite pleased with the way that has operated.

One would want a very thorough evaluation to be undergone, and I am surprised that there is no major announcement of funds to do that kind of evaluation of the program and some of the problems and failings as well as successes that we have seen with that program. One of the problems often in provincial initiatives is that no evaluation component is built into funding, and it would be a wise thing for us to do.

Some of the figures that were announced are startling. That 75% of the students are women raises a number of questions. Some very positive responses can obviously be seen, but there are also some serious questions on the other side that should be asked in terms of male representation and need for some of the programs, which I participated in personally.

I must say, as I congratulate the minister on this, that I am surprised that again today he has come out with what is in the realm of things a small announcement, at the same time as he should have been coming out with a statement on education which is of much more significance. That is that today is the 120th day since the report of the select committee on education came down recommending major changes around financing of education in Ontario, and that report has not been tabled in this House.

The minister has not made a statement on that report in this House today, in spite of the fact that this province is suffering from enormous inequities in education, which are not just northern problems, but problems of real financing concerns. He should have been talking about what he is going to do about the fact that in Metropolitan Toronto, for instance, $7,409 a student is being spent on the education of individuals at the secondary level, when in other parts of the province we are talking about $5,600 being spent, a difference of virtually $1,800 in the amount of money that one municipality can put into education versus another.

At the same time as we are saying that, even those municipalities with a lower level of expenditure are putting in over $1,400 more than the provincial ceilings allow for. That is how out of touch our education system has become in terms of the financing realities. But today we do not get an announcement about that; we get an announcement about the northern network, a very small, little part of the overall program. To me, that is unthinkable.

I look at the figures, even from neighbouring Buffalo, and compare the fact that in 1987 they were spending much more money in Buffalo for education than we are spending here in Metro Toronto, the place where we are spending the most money on education.

Interjection.

Mr R. F. Johnston: Yes, I will give the member the statistics -- I was thinking he would want them -- US$5,567 was spent in Buffalo on education, and in Metro Toronto it was C$5,078. If we compare that with other regions in this province, we can see that the deficit is even more enormous than that. So we are not even keeping up with our neighbours to the south, who one would have thought are not as committed as we are in terms of education.

Why has the minister not come out with that response today? Why has he not taken that report as seriously as he should have when the questions of equity around financing of education and the incredible cost that property taxpayers are having to pay for education in this province have not been addressed by his government as they should have been? That would have been a much more welcome announcement today and would have shown a little more respect for the select committee process than the response we have had from him.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON

Mr Sterling: I would like to respond to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the direct election of Ottawa-Carleton regional council. Dave Bartlett, who is the mayor of the township in which I reside and a man who I know and respect, I think has done an excellent job in trying to reach compromises, in trying to reach some meaningful reforms in both the reports that he has presented to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

There are a number of things which perhaps concern me about the process, and I have not had the opportunity to look at the legislation so I do not know all the details. But I understand from the minister’s announcement and some of the brief discussions I have had with some of the politicians in the local area that the commissioner, whoever that should be -- and Mr Bartlett himself might be a good consideration, because I think he achieved a degree of credibility with the politicians in the area -- is given, according to the statement, considerable powers in what he will do under this act.

For instance, the commissioner will be deciding where the boundaries lie for these different elected positions. Not only that, but the commissioner will be making some decisions which are very near and dear to the hearts of many municipal politicians across the Ottawa-Carleton area regarding the composition and the form of their future municipal councils. We are not talking about regional councils at this time; we are talking about the municipal councils themselves.

I am not clear from the announcement, as I have not read the legislation, who will have the final say both in terms of boundaries and in terms of the size of the municipal councils. The minister is pointing to himself and saying, “I will have that say.”

That leads me to my third and final point. I believe that legislation like this, which has more of an impact on the Ottawa-Carleton area, should be referred to a committee, and that committee should travel to the Ottawa-Carleton area. You know, Mr Speaker, that under our standing orders that can only be done during a period of time when the Legislature itself is not sitting.

I would, therefore, implore the minister to have this bill referred to a committee of the Legislature, and during the summer break we would be able to go to the Ottawa-Carleton area and have input from not only the local municipal politicians but also the people in the area as to his plans for the structure of the government.

That will essentially be the last time that a public forum will be available to the people before he, the minister, as appointed by himself today, will make the final decision on these very, very important matters.

Then I would anticipate that when we return, according to our calendar in the third week in September, we could consider this bill for third and final reading after the appropriate amendments had been made. I am assuming that the minister will see the sensitivity of this issue and the urgent need for this issue to be resolved before 1 November. That of course would work against this government calling a needless election in September of this year.

I look forward to the reforms and I think the people in the area look forward to the reforms, but proper consultation is an absolute necessity. I would urge the minister to take the response which I have indicated today as a serious response with regard to the consultative necessity of having everybody in the Ottawa-Carleton area have their say in an open forum on this issue.

EDUCATION IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Eves: Very briefly, in response to the statement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities, we are pleased to see that this pilot project has now become a permanent fixture in his ministry, although it is basically just a regurgitation or reiteration of a 1987 election campaign promise. I do not know whether the minister is trying to give us a message over there or not.

On a more serious note, I am pleased to see that the Minister of Northern Development is also participating in this process.

COMMITTEE REPORT

Mr R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to raise a concern under standing order 36(d), which says: “Within 120 calendar days of the presentation of a committee report as provided in clauses (

b) and (c), the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response.”

The Minister of Education has complied with this recommendation on our first two reports. So far today, he has not chosen to do so on the third report, on financing. I am quite concerned about this and would like to have the matter raised through you to the minister.

Hon Mr Conway: I want my honourable friend to know that it is my intention to respond very, very shortly. I do not believe the 120 days at this moment have been realized, but I can assure him that I will do everything I possibly can to meet his expectations in this and, of course, in all other respects.

Mr R. F. Johnston: Is this the 120th day? I am glad he went out to see his staff.

The Speaker: Order. The member tried to make a point of order, and if the 120 days are not up yet, maybe it is not a point of order.

Mr R. F. Johnston: It says “within 120 days.”

The Speaker: Oh, “within.” We are close to it then.

REPLICA FIREARMS

Mr Farnan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Today I requested permission to bring a selection of replica guns into question period, and both the Sergeant at Arms and yourself, as Speaker, ruled against my request.

My private member’s bill, Bill 145, recommends that such guns be banned in Ontario. May I request the rationale for your decision not to allow these replica guns to be brought into the House today? After all, if these are just harmless toys, easily accessible across the province in toy and department stores at prices of $3 to $5, why would you be worried about their presence in the assembly?

I would suggest, Mr Speaker, that your decision speaks eloquently to the issue. If it is unsafe to have these weapons exposed in this House, surely we should provide the same safeguards across the province for children and for police officers.

The Speaker: I appreciate the member’s point of order and, in a way, his suggestion that he does not agree with what the Speaker and the Sergeant at Arms suggested. However, I am sure all members are aware that we have tried for quite a long time to discourage any props being brought into the chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I appreciate the member’s accepting the suggestion of the Speaker, but I would inform all members that quite a number of days ago, because of the activities and props used in this House, I wrote directly to the chairman of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly asking him to reconsider a previous report.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENT REVIEW

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, who is not here, but I hope he will be here. I also have a question for the Minister of Housing, and since he is here certainly in body, I will ask him a question.

My colleague the House leader, the member for Windsor-Riverside, asked the minister certain questions about buildings on Jameson Avenue and tenants who have been faced with increases of some 100% proposed by the landlord. The judge who heard their request for a temporary injunction agreed to that request, but he told them that they would need to raise some $50,000 as a security bond if they wanted to even apply for a permanent injunction.

I want to ask the minister: Where are tenants on Jameson Avenue in south Parkdale supposed to come up with $50,000 in order to fight their landlord?

Hon Mr Sweeney: As I indicated to the leader’s colleague yesterday, it is one thing for landlords to ask for large increases; it is another thing, in fact, for them to get them. I read off to the honourable member a number of situations -- and I have a fairly lengthy list -- of places where the actual amount awarded was considerably less than what had been asked for.

The second point I would make is that the ongoing rent review process is in fact ongoing; no decision had yet been made.

Third, I would say to the member that there is currently a title search on that property to determine whether or not there had been an arm’s-length transaction. So I believe the system as it is currently in place was a valid one and could have brought relief to the tenants.

Mr B. Rae: I heard an interesting homily on the defence of the indefensible in terms of the minister’s rent review system. I did not hear an answer to my particular question. My very particular question raised the conditions imposed by the judge in question, who said that tenants who were seeking a longer injunction against repairs and renovations that they felt were unnecessary had to come up with a security bond.

I can see the lips of the Attorney General moving quietly as he seeks to give the minister his legal instructions, but I would like to ask, before the Minister of Housing turns for advice to the Hamilton Burger of the Legislature, I wonder if he could give us the answer to this question: Where are the tenants of Ontario supposed to come up with $50,000?

These are people living in south Parkdale. They do not have a lot of money; they are facing rent increases of 103%; they are trying to stop their landlord from ripping them off. Where are they supposed to get the $50,000?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The intent of my first answer was to describe to the honourable leader that in fact there is a mechanism in place to assist tenants to deal with the kind of situation that they have. There is no mechanism in place in this province to provide the sums of money that the honourable leader speaks of.

Mr B. Rae: If the tenants felt that anything that was in the current law was good enough for them, they would not have felt the need to go to court to get a temporary injunction. The judge felt their case was sufficiently strong that he granted that temporary injunction. His only warning to them was, “If you want a permanent injunction, you’re going to have to come up with a $50,000 security bond.”

The minister has left the tenants out in the street to fight in the courts. It is an expensive, difficult process. I want to ask him again: Where are the tenants supposed to come up with the $50,000 in order to fight their landlord in court, which they have to do?

Hon Mr Sweeney: One of the rights of any citizen in this province, in this country, is to take a case to court if he chooses to do so. The responsibility of the government is to have a mechanism in place to deal with the particular situation. We have that mechanism in place. It has proved time and time again that it can deal with these situations. If citizens choose to take the court route, that is their right to do so. The government does not have the resources to back that up, however.

The Speaker: New question?

Mr B. Rae: I will stand down my second question on the understanding and assurance that the Minister of the Environment is attempting to get here.

The Speaker: I cannot assure the member of any member’s attendance, but you wish to stand it down.

Mr Runciman: We, as well, have a bit of a problem. I had a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions, who is not here. The Premier is not here, the Deputy Premier is not here. The government House leader indicated that he would deal with the question, and now he has somehow mysteriously disappeared. I am going to have to stand down --

Hon Mr Scott: Where is Mike Harris?

Hon Mr Wrye: Seven members out of 17 is a little much.

Mr Sterling: We don’t have the limousines to get us here.

The Speaker: Order. I gather you are asking to stand down the two questions.

Mr Runciman: One.

The Speaker: Stand down one question.

CHILD CARE

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Mr Scott: Here’s the Tory who is in favour of rent control. Here’s the Tory in favour of pay equity. Here’s the Tory against user fees. She is alone in her caucus. Let her speak.

The Speaker: The member for London North has a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services, once the Attorney General stops.

Mrs Cunningham: In February 1989 a review of more than 1,600 child care inspection reports revealed that nearly 40% of licensed child care centres did not meet provincial regulations on safety, cleanliness and quality. In November, nine months later, the Provincial Auditor also concluded that the ministry has not adequately monitored the operations of problem child care centres.

The minister’s predecessor promised to table a report of the enforcement practices review last spring. It has now been more than a year. How much longer do we have to wait for this report?

Hon Mr Scott: I thought this question would be on pay equity or user fees or something like that.

Hon Mr Beer: As the honourable member knows, I did report to the House on interim measures that we had taken to respond to the concerns over the child care centres and I can tell her that the final report will be available before the House rises; indeed, I hope very shortly.

Mrs Cunningham: In listening to the minister, I suppose this is the same response we had over a year ago: “You will get it before the House rises in the spring.” That was the same one. So I would just like to remind the minister that, really, it does not matter how much money he puts into services if he does not support those services with adequate licensing reviews and enforcement. Then quality will suffer.

There are a lot of parents out there today who are remembering some of the tragedies that have taken place in child care centres over the last two or three years in Ontario. They are looking for those kinds of enforcement standards and they are certainly looking to see centres closed down when the standards are not met. So my question now is, what guarantee will you give us that parents in the next few weeks and months, before we get that review, can be assured of the quality of child care in the province?

Hon Mr Beer: I think I can make a very clear assurance to parents. As the honourable member knows, a number of steps were taken which have been implemented, for example, the poster which appears in all of the child care centres and shows clearly when the latest inspection was done and what the results of that inspection were. They are also, in terms of the ongoing inspections that my ministry carries out, clearly identified, and as a result of a number of the issues which arose over the last 18 months, we took specific steps to improve those procedures.

Indeed, with respect to licensing, we have been very firm. One of the issues was around the provisional licences that were granted. We have been reviewing those in a much more direct and immediate way to ensure that those centres that are operating will in fact be able to ensure to the parents who walk in the front door that their premises are safe and that their children are in good hands.

Mrs Cunningham: In response to the poster, we did appreciate the poster, but that came into effect last spring. The report of the auditor is some six months subsequent to the poster and we still have problems. They talk about monitoring the operations of chronic problem day care centres, not being adequately monitored. That is a problem.

On 23 November we were most interested to know that the minister is also revising child care accountability and management systems that I feel will be necessary as part of this enforcement, his own staffing. Could we expect in the report to be released in the next few weeks that the accountability and management systems will be part of the minister’s report with regard to the staffing of his own ministry, and the accountability of the work that it does as part of this enforcement?

Hon Mr Beer: I can certainly assure the honourable member that the report will set out clearly the steps we are taking in all of the areas so that parents will know that the child care centres are safe, how they are licensed, the various procedures, and the support that we provide to ensure to parents that they know these centres are places where they can safely place their children.

I would say to the honourable member that it has been our approach not to wait for the final report but indeed to act on a number of the recommendations, both that came out of the auditor’s report as well as things that we discovered ourselves. I think at this point, even without the report, that I can say we have moved expeditiously to ensure that we have improved protections. I do tell the honourable member that the report will be out shortly and I believe it will contain the information and guidelines that she requests.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Runciman: My question was originally intended for the Minister of Financial Institutions. In his absence, I will be directing it to the government House leader.

The Minister of Financial Institutions has told us on many occasions that under no-fault insurance, motorists living in Metropolitan Toronto and the Hamilton-Wentworth areas will face an average 8% premium increase, and for those living outside those areas, on average, there will be no increase in premiums. I wonder if the minister today could assure us that those with good driving records living outside Metro Toronto and Hamilton-Wentworth will not face substantial increases.

An hon member: Is this a little boost for your nomination meeting?

Hon Mr Ward: I am very much tempted to do some advertising, but I will resist that temptation and respond.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Ward: The member for Welland-Thorold helped me out greatly over the course of the past few weeks and I want to express my appreciation.

To the member for Leeds-Grenville, I want to say that the government believes that average increases in the Metropolitan Toronto and the Hamilton-Wentworth area will in fact be 8% and in rural areas the average increase is expected to be 0%.

But I want to stress that those are indeed averages, that some differences of course will exist. Some people will get reductions, some people will get increases. Those are indeed averages, so if the member for Leeds-Grenville, for instance, happens to drive an Alfa Romeo or his Porsche to the Legislature, he may in fact find a higher increase than the 8%. But the numbers used are indeed averages.

Mr Runciman: Unlike many of the Liberal members of this assembly, I do not drive a foreign car.

The minister’s assurance that those living outside Metro Toronto and Hamilton-Wentworth will not face premium increases on average is not correct. I have been given the proposed premium increases under no-fault that Commercial Union Assurance Co of Canada plans to implement in London. For a six-star driver -- that is, a driver with no claims, convictions or accidents in the last six years -- who drives less than 10 miles a day to work, the proposed increase under no-fault is 17.4%.

Will the minister reconcile the suggested 0% premium increase with the figures from Commercial Union Assurance?

Hon Mr Ward: As the member will know, I am advised that the commission has as yet not approved any rate structures or tables at this time. That is indeed covered by the legislation and the government stands by its commitment that, on average, in the urban areas of this province there will be an 8% increase and in rural areas there will be 0% increase.

I want to stress that the member knows full well that without this legislation it is conceded by everyone that the increases for automobile insurance rates in this province would have been well in excess of 30%, on average, throughout Ontario. I believe the legislation that is before us now provides an excellent balance in terms of benefits and rates and that, on the whole, all drivers in this province benefit.

Mr Runciman: We are talking about a good driver who is going to pay 17.4% more under no-fault, and that driver will be covered for only half the benefits he is now entitled to under the current system. The Minister of Financial Institutions told us on more than one occasion that safe drivers would not pay more under no-fault. The minister’s statement is clearly at variance with the facts and figures I have presented here today. It is time for the government to come clean with the motorists of Ontario, tell them the truth and tell them that its pie-in-the-sky forecast of no premium increases in rural Ontario is completely incorrect.

Is the minister prepared to acknowledge that today and indicate that good drivers living outside Toronto and Hamilton-Wentworth will face significant premium increases for less coverage?

Hon Mr Ward: The government stands by its commitment that indeed the average increases will be as we have indicated. The member has already been told in previous responses that those rate structures he is referring to are indeed proposed and not approved.

Mr Wildman: When is an increase a decrease? You must be mistaken. The Premier said he was going to lower them, not increase them.

Hon Mr Ward: I would say to my friend the member for Algoma. who continues to interject, I got a lovely letter from his constituent today in Hilton Beach who, although an NDP supporter, thinks his position on this is terribly misguided. There is a lot of support for this legislation. It does in fact benefit all the drivers in this province.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order. Are you finished? Once again, we will just wait.

PAY EQUITY

Mr R. F. Johnston: The Attorney General will be glad to know I do have a question on pay equity for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues in the province. I would like to quote the Attorney General. I remember, in 1986, when the first legislation was brought in, he said, “Child care workers in the municipalities will have male comparison groups, but those in small, non-profit child care centres may be working in all-female establishments. This bill does not deal with this. I will ask the commission to come up with solutions to deal this and to make sure those women are not left out.”

Yesterday, a coalition of people met with the ministry and were told, unfortunately, that even though they are only earning $16,000 to $17,000 a year, on average, this bill will not meet their needs either; it is not the appropriate bill. Why is she leaving them in the lurch after the promise made in 1986 by the Attorney General, so strong on pay equity that he heckles the honourable member for London North?

Hon Mrs Wilson: I am pleased to answer this question from the member opposite on pay equity, and indeed, this government is very proud of our pay equity legislation, which will be the most responsive on this issue in North America.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with members of the coalition for -- what is the name of the group? -- the coalition on pay equity, the group that is interested in this issue.

An hon member: Whoever they were.

Mr Breaugh: She does not remember much.

Hon Mrs Wilson: It is a coalition of women’s groups who are bringing forward their viewpoints on pay equity and who are committed to working with this government to help our legislation cover more women. The Minister of Labour has already moved to bring in proportional value. He has promised draft legislation which will make our legislation cover more women. We are proud of this legislation. We need to work further so that more women will have the opportunity to be covered by it.

As an advocate for women’s issues, I am committed to working with those women’s groups to be certain this legislation is indeed the finest in North America.

Mr R. F. Johnston: In spite of the final record, I can see why the minister has trouble spitting out the term “pay equity,” given this government’s commitment to it, or failure to it. Why is it that she is not doing what the former minister responsible for women’s issues said? Why is she leaving these women who receive 73% of the income that other women earn in the province, 47% of what men earn in the province and only 57% of the average industrial wage unprotected when the commission showed her how she could protect them?

Hon Mrs Wilson: The member opposite will know that this government is committed to providing appropriate wages in the child care sector. Will we accomplish it all at once? No, we will not, but we have made important steps in doing so.

Last year, we provided some $88.8 million in wage enhancements, which went, in particular, to women who are working in areas where their wages are not high. We have gone particularly to work with our federal counterparts, who have initiated caps on the Canada assistance plan funding. I am particularly worried that those decisions made by the federal government will make it --

Mr R. F. Johnston: CAP has nothing to do with this.

The Speaker: Order. Please take your seat.

Mr D. W. Smith: You don’t want to hear the answer.

Mr Mackenzie: Pathetic answer.

Interjections.

Mr Speaker: What a waste of time. We will just wait.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Jackson: My question is for the Minister of Education. Each year school boards across Ontario are sent a memorandum from the minister’s office to complete a capital expenditure multi-year forecast that sets out the priorities for capital construction in each of the boards in Ontario. In November, the memorandum he sent stated as follows, “Decisions on the allocation of funds depend upon information received from school boards and the priority given to each project.”

I have been receiving an awful lot of calls from irate constituents in Liberal ridings, in particular the ridings of Kitchener, Waterloo North and Kitchener-Wilmot, who are very concerned because of the minister’s 4 May capital announcements, which completely ignored the Waterloo county board’s first two priorities. I am also getting a lot of irate calls from constituents in the Liberal ridings of Durham Centre, Durham York and Durham West complaining that the Durham board was not allocated any funds for the 10 priorities it outlined in 1991.

My question is simply this: These constituents in these Liberal ridings would like the minister to give them a straight answer today and tell them why their boards’ priority ratings were ignored by him and his government.

Hon Mr Conway: The government is quite prepared to defend, here or anywhere else, its record in support of capital projects, both for growth and for non-growth purposes right across the province.

I repeat, thanks to the budget read by the Treasurer here a few weeks ago, the current administration has added yet another year of $300-million worth of provincial grants, which brings over a period of some few years $1.5 billion worth of provincial grants in support of elementary and secondary school construction.

Is the process generous? Yes. Is it fair? Yes. Is it rigorous? Yes. Is there more to be done? Of course, and we intend to carry on to meet the needs of all the regions across the province, in an evenhanded way, I might add.

Mr Jackson: Is it arbitrary? Yes. Is it dictatorial? Yes. Is it inadequate? Yes. Is it the minister’s pipedream? Yes.

The fact is that trustees all across Ontario are telling this minister, who refuses to listen -- trustees like Father Kennedy, a close friend of the minister’s from the Hamilton-Wentworth separate board, who says, in a sense, this government seems to be taking away the local school board’s responsibility to determine local needs. The reason for electing trustees is to have local people make decisions about what needs are most important. Indeed, in the Durham board, the trustees have said they were shocked. They expected that they would get --

The Speaker: Order. Is this question period? Yes.

Hon Mr Conway: The invitation is so great, but I will restrain myself as usual. I would only want to observe, for the edification of the member for Burlington South, that between 1987 and 1990 this Liberal government allocated over $90 million to the school boards in Hamilton-Wentworth, which was well over what the entire allocation was in the last year of the old Miller Tory regime, 1984-85.

I repeat, in the period between 1987 and 1990 this government committed over $90 million to the school boards in Hamilton-Wentworth, and that is well above anything that the Tory government committed in any year in the last four or five years, when it had the responsibility, a responsibility that it abjectly failed to meet in this important area.

The Speaker: The Minister of the Environment is here, so I will recognize the Leader of the Opposition for a leadoff question.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT INVESTIGATIONS

Mr B. Rae: The Minister of the Environment will no doubt know that at 8:30 this morning some 20 Ministry of the Environment investigators arrived at Varnicolor Chemical in Elmira equipped with protective rubber suits and a mobile laboratory van.

The only problem with this so-called surprise raid is that these investigators were also met by a scrum of reporters who were aware of the raid. Members of the local environment community were aware of the raid days in advance. I want to ask the minister how it could possibly be that this Eliot Ness operation on the part of the MOE would have been so advertised that they were met by the media and indeed was no kind of surprise at all?

Hon Mr Bradley: The member himself and his colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore have directed questions to me on this, as have others. I think it is no secret at all that the Ministry of the Environment has been investigating this company for some period of time. They went to the site about six times in 1989. They have conducted an ongoing investigation as a result of information which has been provided by an employee of the company and as a result of other complaints and will continue their investigations, whether it is in regard to the activities taking place today or future activities.

They have in fact been in and around the site previous to that and will continue to do so. It is a potentially extensive problem. We want to look at all of the angles as a ministry and I am sure that further visits will take place to this company and others.

Mr B. Rae: I cannot believe that the minister is serious in saying that the purpose of a visit by 20 people from the ministry, in which they are taking samples, in which they are doing testing, is to warn everybody in advance, to tell everybody in advance that this is what is going to be done on a Thursday at 8:30: “You’d better be ready, because we’re going to be there.”

How can we take seriously the minister’s enforcement? The statements he has made in this House about how he is going to get the kingpins, how he is going to surprise people, how he is going to be there -- how can we take those seriously, when everybody knows about it and when in fact there is advance warning of it and there is no element of surprise whatsoever?

Hon Mr Bradley: It must bother the Leader of the Opposition to know, for instance, that the conviction rate of the Ministry of the Environment is in fact over 90%. I know it would annoy him to hear that, because it does not fit into his plans when he comes into the Ontario Legislature. I understand that, having sat in opposition for some eight years.

In addition to that, both the prosecutions and the convictions of this ministry have increased dramatically since the beginning of the investigations and enforcement branch. On a daily basis, we as a ministry have people going out to various plants to conduct investigations, and will continue to do so, including this particular plant. People from the Ministry of Environment have already visited the plant and have already interviewed people who have had accusations against this company.

I indicated that in the House to the member when he asked a question some time ago, and to his colleague the member Etobicoke-Lakeshore when she asked a question. Those kinds of investigations will continue for some period to come.

Mr B. Rae: We have fought for years with respect to nursing home inspections. The minister says he was in opposition for eight years; God willing, he will be in opposition again. These things can happen, I say to the minister. But the minister knows full well that the whole nursing home inspection scene was seen as being a farce for years because the nursing homes were told in advance, and staff knew in advance, when there was going to be a so-called surprise visit. That is exactly what is happening in this instance.

What the minister has here is a set of advanced warnings being given to everybody, being given to the media, being given to the entire world. The company must have known about this so-called surprise visit and this so-called surprise raid. The minister had 20 people turning up in plastic suits. He expects this kind of testing to be taken seriously when the company has had days of warning in advance before the ministry turns up? Why should the company --

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Bradley: I can only say to the member once again, because perhaps he did not hear it on the first two responses, that the Ministry of the Environment officials, whether it is the investigations and enforcement branch or others, had been investigating this matter for some period of time. I have said that on a number of occasions, not only in answers to his questions, and to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, but to other inquiries which have been. They will continue to conduct investigations of this site and any other site, some of the information being provided by their own initiative, some of it being provided by residents and employees of the company who have been very helpful.

In terms of the material that will be collected on this occasion or any other evidence which has been collected, all of it will in fact be used in any prosecutions. While the member wants to attack the people who are employed by the government of Ontario, I wonder how the Ontario Public Service Employees Union would feel about this. But he wants to do that. I think that he will find that they will do a very good job and that if there is evidence which is found as --

The Speaker: Order. There seemed to be a fair amount of material in that answer; I did not say what kind.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Neumann: My question is for the Minister of Transportation about transportation linkages for our community. The Highway 403 completion to Ancaster is an important priority for our community, and work was to have begun this summer. Recent stories in the news media, however, about delays because of the habitat of the West Virginia butterfly, an endangered species, have caused concern in our community despite the fact that many citizens are concerned about nature and the environment. The citizens of the community are wondering, will this delay the start of the project and is the 1996 completion date still an achievable commitment?

Hon Mr Wrye: One of the things that I have learned in my short tenure as Minister of Transportation is that almost anything that can go wrong usually does as one goes through the planning process on these highways. The honourable member is correct in pointing out that just as we were to finalize the tender documents for the first stage of Highway 403. a very important linkage between Ancaster and Brantford, there was a halt called to the process because of the presence of a habitat of what is known as the West Virginia white butterfly.

We have now searched high and low in the area for the West Virginia white butterfly and have been unable to find this particular species of insect, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act.

The good news for the member and for his colleagues the Treasurer and the House leader, who are equally concerned, is that work will go ahead this summer. We expect to advertise for the first project of this very important linkage in early August and then I expect tenders will be opened right after Labour Day.

Mr Neumann: My supplementary is again about transportation linkages. As the minister knows, the community was hard hit by the Via Rail cutbacks earlier this year. We were very pleased to note the recent budget announcement that the extension of GO Transit to Brantford is under review. What can community leaders and citizens in Brantford do to demonstrate the need and feasibility of extending GO service to Brantford, to assist in the study under way?

Hon Mr Wrye: I want to congratulate the member for Brantford and indicate and acknowledge the outstanding leadership provided by him on the GO Transit issue and to point out that the review the Treasurer called for in his budget earlier this month of the potential of bringing GO rail service to Brantford, and indeed to Peterborough, is about to get under way.

Certainly, because of some of the growth and the changing patterns of employment in the area, any information that can be provided in terms of potential use of GO rail service would he very, very useful. In that regard, I know that the member, working with the mayor of Brantford, has put together in the past a petition and garnered a very large number of names. We would be very interested in hearing from those individuals on the potential for their own use of GO rail service. That would help us as the study goes forward, and I commend that to the honourable member.

WINDSOR AREA ECONOMY

Mr D. S. Cooke: In the absence of the Premier and the Minister of Industry. Trade and Technology, I will settle for the Minister of Labour.

Perhaps the Minister of Labour will be aware that another plant closure has been announced in the city of Windsor yesterday, Stanley Home Automation, which employed 68 individuals. This is now becoming very clearly an epidemic of plant closures in my home community.

Interjections.

Mr D. S. Cooke: Maybe the Attorney General could shut up for a couple of minutes.

The Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member had better take his seat. I would ask all members once again to obey standing order 20(b).

Mr D. S. Cooke: As I was saying, another plant closure in my community was announced yesterday, Stanley Home Automation. It is clear that there is now an epidemic of plant closures in my community. As of the beginning of December until yesterday, according to figures supplied to us by the Ministry of Industry. Trade and Technology, there have now been 2,271 people put on notice that their plants will be closing -- either have already closed or will be in the next few months. If that happened in the city of Toronto, it would be equivalent to nearly 25,000 jobs.

The impact on our economy and on our community is very substantial. What are the minister and his government prepared to do to make sure that my community does not lapse into the same kind of depression that we had in the late 1970s and the early 1980s in the auto sector?

Hon Mr Phillips: I appreciate very much the concern of the member for Windsor-Riverside, as other members from Windsor have raised the same concerns.

We were very pleased to see about a week ago that the Ford company announced some major investments in Windsor. We were very pleased to hear that apparently the president of Ford announced at the annual meeting some additional investments, albeit in Oakville, but none the less a commitment to the automotive industry in Ontario.

I think both the Premier and others have indicated that we are committed, as the Treasurer noted in his budget, to ensuring that provincial jobs are spread around the province. Quite clearly, obviously, Windsor is one of the areas, among others, that the government has been looking at. I would say that I am very pleased to see Ford, with support from the provincial government, making an investment. I am very pleased to see some other new jobs created in Windsor, recognizing the difficult times. I think the Premier and others in this House have indicated that the government is looking very seriously at a variety of communities where jobs might be located by the provincial government.

Mr D. S. Cooke: No matter how hard this government attempts to promote the Ford announcement, there were 138 jobs created in that $9-million announcement, and the jobs will not even be created for three years. I am talking about job losses of 2,200 people in my community now. We need direct intervention by this government. There have been 13 plant closures announced in the last few months, four more are on the very weak list of potential plant closures in the next few months and last fall there were six more plant closures. We have had more plant closures so far this year than in all of 1989 and 1988 added together.

I am asking the minister again: It is his responsibility and that of his government to put together a package of aid to my community which should involve decentralization of public service jobs in our community. Is the minister prepared to go to bat for our community --

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr D. S. Cooke: -- because obviously the local Liberal members have had absolutely no impact in delivering that promise.

Hon Mr Phillips: If the member realized how often the local members on this side of the House are beating on me, beating on the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and beating on the Treasurer and the Premier for jobs, he would not be saying that.

I would say again that I recognize the needs of Windsor. I would just, however, remind ourselves, because I look at these numbers frequently, that during the first half of the 1980s there were about 220,000 jobs created in the province; that is, the first five years of the decade. In the second five years of the decade -- which coincide, I might say, with a change in government -- there were well over 730,000 new jobs created in the province. That does not, however, negate the concerns of Windsor.

As I said before, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology has been working very closely with the automotive sector. We are very pleased to see the Ford company making their announcement recently. The Premier and others in the House have indicated their concern for the Windsor area and how we are looking at Windsor, among other communities, about the possibility of additional public service jobs. We are very concerned about the Windsor area. I would say that all of the members on this side of the House from Windsor are very concerned and are looking for solutions.

TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Sterling: I am sorry that the member for Ottawa West is not here because the day before yesterday I asked a question in the Legislature at the very end. The Minister of Education indicated that the member for Ottawa West had asked the same question as I had. That is not exactly the way I have read Hansard. In fact, the member for Ottawa West made some outrageous and slanderous statements about Ottawa Board of Education trustees. He grouped them all together by saying that there were several trustees and then failed to identify those trustees even when demanded so by the Ottawa Board of Education trustees.

This has driven a further wedge in between the teachers and the Ottawa Board of Education, and I would ask the Minister of Education if he would apologize on behalf of the member for Ottawa West, who is not here today.

Hon Mr Conway: Any Minister of Education has a responsibility in the course of a strike or a lockout to do all that he or she can to ensure that these kinds of difficulties are resolved at the earliest opportunity and in the best interests of the students involved. I would say to my friend the member for Carleton that like all members I am anxious to see the parties to the dispute accept their responsibilities under the collective bargaining process, and I would encourage all members to work toward a resolution of this under the existing provincial statute, Bill 100, which provides, I think, in the main a very effective process by means of which to resolve these kinds of difficulties.

Mr Sterling: The day before yesterday the member for Ottawa West said, “I am concerned about an apparent lack of good faith on the part of some of the trustees at the Ottawa Board of Education” and “Some of these trustees are now privately urging MPPs to prevail upon the Education Relations Commission not to deal with the question of jeopardy before the summer.”

Does the minister believe that the member for Ottawa West is helping in this process of reconciliation and ending the strike?

Hon Mr Conway: There is no question that there is in this dispute, as in all others of my acquaintance, abundant concern on all sides that the interests of students not be lost sight of. As I have indicated to the House, in this case and in others, the Education Relations Commission has a very clear responsibility to monitor and to assist. That they are doing, as is their role and responsibility under Bill 100.

Once again, I would encourage all in the community, but most especially both parties to the dispute, to return to the table at the earliest opportunity and to resolve this expeditiously in the best interests of those students.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Ms Oddie Munro: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I have received correspondence from the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, as he no doubt has, regarding the use of ethanol as a transportation fuel. In their brief they detail the environmental and sustainable developmental problems associated with the use of gasoline. Among the benefits of fuel ethanol would be improved urban air quality. Can the minister provide this House with some information on the environmental significance of renewable fuels such as ethanol?

Hon Mr Bradley: Interestingly enough, I attended a conference where there were some experts who were dealing with the whole issue of, I guess you would say, energy conservation in the context of what is best for the environment as well in terms of fuels. It was interesting to see that it was a rather mixed result in terms of what the experts had to say. In fact, one of the individuals was from an institute in Washington that is involved with a university and quite independent on this and gave quite a balanced point of view.

There are a number of considerations that have to be taken into account with alternative fuels. Sometimes we jump quickly to an alternative fuel only to find that in terms of the environmental balance it is something which is good for society as a whole and the government.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Bradley: There seems to be some alternative fuel coming from the leader of the official opposition at the present time over there.

Anyway, I think what we have to look at in terms of total energy savings is, are there actually energy savings when you look at how that fuel is produced? In the case of methanol, as opposed to ethanol, for instance, it is produced from natural gas, which is by definition a fossil fuel. In a case of that which is produced from agricultural products, one has to look at the amount of energy that was used for those purposes. The Mi