Legislative Assembly of Ontario

[Report continued from volume A]

1800

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA GESTION DES DÉCHETS

Continuing the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act / Projet de loi 143, Loi concernant la gestion des déchets dans la région du grand Toronto et modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement.

Mrs Marland: The Interim Waste Authority has the power to expropriate. They not only have the power to hire consultants; they have the power to expropriate. I would say to members that when we are talking about 1,200 acres of land around the Britannia landfill site that has been frozen while they decide whether it is going to be one lift, two lifts or how much land has to be protected, boy, if we get into expropriation, I have no idea where it might end in terms of cost to the taxpayers because of the government's inaction.

In the 16 months that it has been the government and that it has been totally inactive in solving the problem about where to put our garbage, I wonder if the government has any idea how much the end cost of this site has increased by the delay that it has caused.

We are not even there yet. By the time we get there, we will probably be talking about at least two or three years that it will have been the government. The worst part is that when we do get there, under this Bill 143 we will not have had a full environmental assessment.

We are going to have the expansion of garbage dumps in this province and we do not care about the environment. We do not care if the expansion of any of these sites puts the environment at risk. We do not care about the Oak Ridges moraine that the Keele Valley landfill site drains into. This socialist government is so two-faced about betraying the people in this province that if these landfill sites are established, if they expand existing sites, it does not care if there is not an environmental assessment.

It is like stepping back over 100 years, and I might as well mention that while we step back 100 years in terms of caring about the environment, we certainly are managing, with this socialist government, to step forward 100 years in four years in terms of our provincial deficit. It took us 125 years to accumulate the provincial debt and in four years we will have doubled it. It is a nice thought if you want to be depressed.

This letter continues:

"It is clear by the legislation that the Interim Waste Authority is the proponent for the purpose of any environmental assessment to be undertaken under the Environmental Assessment Act. The IWA is not required to consider as alternatives anything beyond reduction, reuse, recycling or the use of other sites outside of Peel.

"Accordingly, the environmental assessment need not examine as alternatives possible sites such as Kirkland Lake, one site serving the whole of the GTA or require a comparative examination of the other sites to be provided by the IWA in other regions.

"As well, the environmental assessment to be prepared by the IWA is not required to evaluate as alternatives, (a) incineration; the legislation appears to be comprehensive in attempting to shut the door on incineration by ensuring it is not raised as part of the consideration of the alternative waste reduction, reuse and recycling."

I may interject there to say I totally agree with the government on item (a). I am totally opposed to incineration until we know we have a system that does not put the environment at risk.

"Item (b), transportation of waste beyond Peel, and item (c), multiple landfill sites; this would, for example, appear to remove from possible argument over alternatives the consideration of the equitable sharing of the waste disposal burden by the establishment of a number of sites."

This is what I was talking about. This legislation does not even give the possible argument over alternatives for the consideration of equitable sharing of the waste disposal burden by the establishment of a number of sites. That is what I was saying. If we could say to a municipality, again, "Let's have short-term sites" -- or "interim" sites, you would think would be a good enough word -- but not 20-year sites, and "Let's spread it around." If people think their property values are depreciated or there are other things they personally feel they are at risk from because a landfill site is established, at least if there were options to have more than one site, we could possibly establish it for a much shorter time and it would be a more equitable share.

"A smaller site that met the siting criteria but fell below the capacity established by the minister's estimates could not be considered.

"It would appear that the Interim Waste Authority is to be guided in the environmental assessment by policies to be established by the minister."

Is this not great? The Interim Waste Authority is to be guided in the environmental assessment by policies to be established by the minister. Is that not just bully? The Interim Waste Authority is not going to be guided in the environmental assessment by the Environmental Protection Act or the Environmental Assessment Act that this province has fortunately had for 20 years; it is going to be guided by policies to be established by the minister. In other words, we do not know what the guidelines are going to be. We have no clue what this minister or this socialist government is going to set out for an environmental assessment. There is no security whatsoever about how they are going to deal with this. What an irony. For 16 months they have been the government and 16 months later the policies still have to be established by the minister. We have a bill for which we do not even know what the policies are going to be. The legislation specifically states that the corporation must use estimates of waste reduction, reuse and recycling provided by the minister. "Estimates provided by the minister." If they are as good as their estimates of what their deficit was going to be, we are in big trouble, really big trouble.

I am continuing to read the letter from Mr Kent Gillespie, the regional solicitor:

"It is unclear, however, whether the minister or the Interim Waste Authority will have the responsibility to establish and justify gross waste generation figures. Moreover, while the IWA will be planning capacity for the waste disposal site based on waste diversion targets established by the minister, there is a discrepancy between the mandate given to the IWA to plan on the basis of at least 20 years."

Is this not something? For example, the Interim Waste Authority must determine the period for which the site is to provide disposal 20 years and beyond, and the fact that the estimates are to be provided for a 20-year period.

1810

So here we are. We have estimates for a 20-year period, and they are only estimates, but the period for the landfill site is 20 years and beyond. That is like trying to play dominoes in the dark and trying to figure which one of the dominoes has fallen over. I do not think people understand what they have in this bill. Maybe this bill is written like Bill 121. Bill 121 is not on the order paper today; it is in the standing committee on general government committee. Bill 121 is a bill of this government, and they had more amendments to that bill than they had original sections. Now we have a bill that I am sure when it goes out to public hearings the government will bring in more amendments to it as well because obviously this legislation, after 16 months, is drafted in such a hurry it does not even make sense because it is so poorly drafted.

I do not particularly blame the staff because I can imagine how the staff have been scurrying around once the minister and the cabinet decide: "Wow, we'd better get on with this. We've been here 16 months. Now we'd better get something on. It's nine months since we promised the Interim Waste Authority. Oh, yes, we'll give them $17 million. We'll get them going. We'll recover that money by double taxation again on the municipal residents."

I think this is really significant, the fact that there is a discrepancy between the mandate given to the Interim Waste Authority to plan on the basis of at least 20 years and the fact that the estimates are to be provided for a 20-year period.

The person approving the undertaking under the EAA, presently the minister, the Environmental Assessment Board or a joint board under the Consolidated Hearings Board, must make its decision consistent with the statutory provisions and have regard to the waste diversion estimates and the environmental assessment policies established by the minister. Again, the legislation is unclear what weight is to be given to those policies and estimates. That is the thing that is so ludicrous. As Mr Gillespie says, the legislation is unclear what weight is to be given to those policies and estimates. If you are going to plan something on an estimate and it is something so significant, would you not think perhaps the minister might have the policies at least in place now? But they are not. This is really quite shallow. It is quite a show. It is a piece of legislation without policies.

There is a provision in the legislation for participant funding within the environmental assessment process. Section 16 of the bill contemplates that the policies of the minister to guide the environmental assessment will deal with the participant funding in the environmental assessment process. Participant funding is defined to mean funding to assist persons to participate in any part of the environmental assessment process to which the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988, does not apply. It, in effect, refers to funding of the process prior to the actual hearing. Actual details to what comprises the funding will have to be elaborated by regulation or ministerial policy. There again we have a section: "This is what we're going to do, but we don't really know what we're going to do yet because we've still got to establish the regulations and we've still got to establish the ministerial policy."

Explicit statutory authority is given to the contents of the minister's report under section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act. The EAA is not to apply. The minister may also amend or revoke her report. This presumably was provided to allow the minister to respond to changed circumstances. So we really do not know what we are getting. We have no idea what Bill 143 will be in the end in terms of its latitude of power and its latitude of impact.

If the Environmental Assessment Act is not to apply and the minister may also amend or revoke her report, where are we going here? We have a government which is saying: "Okay, pass Bill 143. Come on, we'll hold your hand. We'll go off for this walk down in the woods." Well, I can tell members that there are risks for us to decide that it is okay to go walking in the woods today. This is not a teddy bears' picnic. The implications of our being asked to vote blindly in support of Bill 14 -- even with all the gaps in it in terms of regulations and policies we are still being asked to support it. Yet the minister still has that final power. She can amend or revoke her report.

Peel is to comply with the minister's report, notwithstanding that an approval may be required under specified acts. The approval or consent that may be required by an act is deemed to be given. Peel must comply even if to do so would require the contravention of the agreement with Mississauga or of those specified acts. Compliance by Peel with the minister's report is deemed not to be a contravention. This part is really great. Here we have a situation where Peel may go one way and the city of Mississauga may go another, and there is no requirement for approval or consent.

Whatever happens when this bill goes through, Peel must follow. We have no powers at all. A hearing may not necessarily be held under section 30 of the Environmental Protection Act. The possibility of a hearing is left open, but it may not necessarily be held. The legislation contemplates as an alternative that submissions may simply be received by the director from the public and involve the municipalities. No hearing is required in respect to the submissions. Is that not great? No hearing is required in respect to those submissions.

Which avenue is pursued is presumably dependent on the time available before the exhaustion of the landfill capacity. Well, there we are. So if we are out of landfill capacity, we do not have any hearing at all. Now, that is the scariest part of all. Whether or not, in fact, there is a process here depends on how much time there is before we are out of landfill capacity.

I want to tell members we will be out of landfill capacity in the region of Peel in less than nine months from now. It may be quite a bit less. I do not want to be an alarmist, but the fact we are saying that this will be the process and these things will happen, that which avenue is pursued, whether we can have this much of a hearing or this long a submission or whether the submissions will be read or will be considered, all of that is dependent on the time available before the exhaustion of the landfill capacity.

1820

I say to the folks out there, it is pretty bad. There will not be any process; we will not be hearing from anybody. We will not be considering anything if we are out of landfill capacity. Thanks to this government, we have just lost another 16 months of landfill capacity. Thanks to this government, we have just lost another 16 months when we could have gone through some public process and evaluation.

The certificate of approval that would issue may contain terms overriding the agreement with Mississauga. Clause 18(2)(c) says the certificate of approval may contain terms "imposing any conditions that a regional, metropolitan or area municipality might have imposed under" the Municipal Act and the Regional Municipality of Peel Act and the Planning Act. What that section is saying is, with all of these other acts that have been in place for a long, long time -- and if we talk about the Planning Act, we are not just talking about a piece of paper; we are talking about millions of dollars; when we talk about the millions of dollars that are spent on planning under the purview of the Planning Act in this province, we are talking about every planning department in every municipality in Ontario -- suddenly, this bill is going to have precedence over all of these so it does not matter what agreements and what existing certificates of approval exist under those acts. It is not going to matter because this socialist government bill is just going to steamroller right over everything. For people who think they are protected by the Planning Act, is this not a laugh? Under the Planning Act, municipalities are able to establish secondary plans and official plans. They are able to designate zoning, designate land uses and in fact zone and rezone land under the Planning Act.

Is that not great? All those people who bought property anywhere in Ontario and thought they were safe because under the Planning Act there was a secondary plan and an official plan in place for their municipality and the land use designation was written out in those acts, suddenly they have no security at all. If they bought their property next to vacant lands that were zoned for a specific land use or designated for a specific land use, now this bill is saying: "Sorry, folks. The way things are, you know, we have to solve the waste management crisis and we may have to override those existing acts."

I do not think anybody in his worst nightmare could have dreamed up a worse piece of legislation than this. I do not think anybody would ever have thought that the Planning Act, into which millions of dollars have been poured in the execution of the planning acts around this province, would ever have been made vulnerable to another act saying: "Forget it, folks. There is vacant land there. Sure it was zoned for a park or maybe it was designated under the official plan for a future subdivision. Maybe you live in this subdivision and maybe there are acres and acres beside you that under the official plan have a land use designation that is quite compatible to where you live, quite acceptable. You bought the house because you knew there was going to be a park there and maybe a shopping plaza there and maybe a school or maybe even different types of industrial-commercial or retail use, but at least you knew what was there and at least you were secure if the land was zoned for that purpose, zoned under the Planning Act."

Now we have a bill that says, "Sorry about that, folks, this new act can revoke the Planning Act and the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act and the Municipal Act." In other words, we have no security at all. This government, as I said earlier, comes in with its big claws, strips the municipalities of all their powers, takes the power away and says: "There's the bill, folks. That's the bill." The bill for some individuals may be the loss of real value of their property because the Planning Act that protected them with vacant land beside them, is now revoked.

This is where we get to the best part of this bill. It gets worse as we get further into the bill. Again I am reading from Mr Kent Gillespie, the regional solicitor of Peel's letter:

"If injurious affection results from implementation of the minister's report, an affected person is entitled to compensation in the same way as if the municipality had expropriated land from the person. The definition of injurious affection is used in the legislation in such a way that Peel may be liable for damages resulting from the use of the lift as opposed to simply construction of the lift.

"The only beneficiaries of this section will be the developers owning land surrounding the site. I would anticipate that these owners will make substantial claims for business losses. These claims relate solely to the speculative economic losses arising out of the continued operation of the landfill site past the date of its previously expected closure. They in no way relate to impacts upon the surrounding lands which could be mitigated by the region and over which the region has any means of control. To tip the scales so drastically in favour of the development industry is highly questionable. One might call the bill the 'Developers' Guaranteed Profit Act.'

"The region has already offered compensation on a without-prejudice basis for impacts which are in the nature of a nuisance to adjacent residential occupiers. A claim for injurious affection under section 19 will not give them the compensation which the region has offered. Injurious affection is limited to loss of market value, personal and business damages. It is quite probable that there is no loss of market value by the adjacent residential owners in view of the temporary nature of the landfill use. These owners suffer no business damages. The legal interpretation given to 'personal damages' is limited to personal injuries. It will not support the kinds of compensation offered by the region.

1830

"The adjacent residential owners will be given no compensation under this section for the kinds of environmental impacts that they may experience. The only group that will benefit and the only group that will be able to obtain compensation will be the adjacent land developers.

"I would strongly recommend that this section be deleted from the bill. As a precedent, it could have province-wide implications for the entitlement to compensation for injurious affection, not only for waste disposal sites but also for other projects, including waste reduction, which will have an adverse effect on their implementation. A very great portion of the revenues from these sites will be diverted to compensate for speculative business losses by adjacent land developers. If you are in a position to support this recommendation, I would very much appreciate your communicating it to the senior ministry staff." This is a letter to Mayor Hazel McCallion.

Mr Speaker, this is where we get to compensation. If a land owner adjacent to the Britannia landfill site has property rights taken away -- which is their right to develop their property -- because of this legislation, frankly, I think they are entitled to compensation.

Where the irony deepens in this bill is, guess who pays for the compensation? It is not the socialist government that brings this legislation in. Oh, no. It does not pay for the implications of this bill on the property owners adjacent to the landfill site. The people who pay the cost of this bill are the taxpayers of Peel, the same taxpayers who have already paid $5 million to find their own landfill site, who are well on the way to doing that. That was all resolved right to the week before their environmental assessment hearing was to start.

Here we have a bill that now says that if there are damages to the owners of the adjacent properties of any type of injurious affection -- in other words, if they have lost business because they were not able to sell their lots, build their houses and make a profit -- we do not only have the compensation of the land cost and land value; on top of that, we have the compensation for the business loss.

It gives all this power to the province, but the province does not pay the bill. This socialist government that seems to think it believes in the rights of people and campaigned for the rights of people does not even understand what this bill says.

This bill says: "We'll tell you what to do. We'll tell every municipality in this province whether or not it has to ignore the Planning Act. We'll tell every municipality whether or not it has to ignore the Municipal Act." And if there are costs associated to that, if it affects the land owners -- in this case that are adjacent to the Britannia landfill site -- because they cannot do anything with their land, their land is frozen --

As I said earlier, we have 5,000 housing units on hold. We have 10,000 person-hours of people not working, who could be building these 5,000 houses that are needed for people, but obviously this government does not care about that. And all of the costs of not doing business because this government does not know how to manage waste, does not know what to do to solve the garbage crisis in the province -- all of those costs, instead of being right at the feet of this government, and in particular, I suppose, at the feet of the Minister of the Environment -- but somebody else is helping her make those decisions. I assume the cabinet has discussed this bill.

I wonder if the cabinet has discussed this bill. I wonder if, when members come to vote on the bill in cabinet, they realize the implications of it. Right now there are three cabinet ministers in the House. I doubt very much whether they could stand up and debate the contents of this bill. I doubt very much that any one of the three cabinet ministers in the House at this moment knows the implications to taxpayers of their policies and their directions in this bill. I doubt very much if they know that, after they take over all the power with these big claws that come in and grab the municipalities and strip them of control, they then turn around and say: "But you pay. We're going to tell you what to do in the municipalities in the greater Toronto area, we're going to tell you where to expand your sites, we're going to tell you where new sites will be, but you're going to pay for it." These are the people in Peel, at least, whom I know of, who have already paid for it. As I said, they have paid for it through the nose.

Now we have something different here. We have "injurious affection," to use a legal term from Kent Gillespie. We've got a little job here now that goes even further. We're really in trouble now. We're saying that not only will we not let you do what you want to do, region of Peel, but we're going to make you pay for what we want you to do. We're going to tell you what to do, and we're going to make you pay for it.

"Developers' Guaranteed Profit Act" -- strong term. The developers have lost a right to develop their lands while their lands have been frozen for this past year around the Britannia landfill site. I am sympathetic to that. I am also very sympathetic to the people who are out of work who could have been building those houses. I am most sympathetic to the property taxpayers in the region of Peel who are going to have to carry the total cost of this legislation.

It is only the cost of process. That is the terrible part. If we have to start paying compensation to the land owners around the site, which I respectfully suggest will be millions of dollars, what will we have at the end of it? We will have a bill at the end of it; that is all. We will not have a landfill site. We are talking about an extension. We are talking about adding a lift to the Britannia landfill site. We will not have a new site. Would it not be wonderful to think that we have already spent $5 million to $8 million in Peel on a landfill site? We do not have a new one. We are going to spend some more money, pay some more bills at the direction of this socialist government, but we still will not have new landfill site. We will have an existing landfill site whose capacity has been extended by allowing it to build higher, totally in violation of an agreement with the neighbouring community and approved by the Ontario Municipal Board.

All of that is bad enough, but on top of it, we are now going to pay another bill. It is called compensation. The risk to the property taxpayers in Peel, who cannot afford this government's policies as it is, the people in Peel who find that their Hydro rates are going up 14.5% next year because of the initiatives of this government, the people of Peel who find that their cost of survival is going up every day because of the policies and initiatives of this provincial government, now have yet another bill on their property taxes, to fund the implications of this legislation. The power that this legislation that is before us today gives to the area takes from the area municipalities.

1840

Now let's talk about section 4 of this November 28, 1991, letter to Mayor McCallion from Kent Gillespie. It deals with amendments to the Environmental Protection Act.

"Under this part of the bill, the minister is given the power to:

"(a) establish waste management systems, waste disposal sites and programs concerning the reduction of waste or the reuse or recycling of materials that are or could become waste,

"(b) make grants for the planning and operation of programs to encourage reduction of waste and the reuse and recycling of materials, and,

"(c) establish and operate waste management systems or waste disposal sites.

"Any of her powers may now be delegated to the director."

Let me say right off the top that I agree with everything to do with recycling, reduction and reuse. It almost makes me laugh to think about the number of hours that I have sat in this House with the present Minister of the Environment. We have sat on this side of the House and we have agreed on all of these things. We have agreed about the urgency of resolving the need to establish new markets for recycled products. We have agreed to the need to reduce waste before it begins; for example, to reduce packaging. We have agreed in opposition about the need to reuse materials.

But in the 16 months that this government has been in office, have we see any initiatives where it is bringing forward new policies to reuse, reduce and recycle? The answer is no. They cannot even get their act together about what percentage of refillable bottles we should require of the soft drink industry. Everything this minister stood for in opposition -- I do not know where it has gone. I do not know whether when she sits at the cabinet table, she maybe has her hands tied behind her back. Maybe she wants to say all the same things she said when she was the critic for the Environment at the same time that I was critic for the Environment for our party. Maybe she does.

I have never sat in a cabinet meeting and I have no idea how it works. I assume somebody chairs it. Perhaps they rotate the chairmanship. Perhaps they take turns. Maybe there is a hierarchy between senior ministers and more junior ministers and junior portfolios of who gets to speak and comment on the items on the agenda. All I know is that this minister is not the same person she was when she was on this side of the House as critic for the Environment. She is not.

We have a piece of legislation here, Bill 143, that gives her tremendous powers, powers to override all existing statutes that are of significance to the operation of municipalities in this province and, I may add, to the rights of the people who live in those municipalities. It is like she is now inside some big box. She has not stepped into a room with windows where she can still see outside and relate to the real world. It is like she is on the inside of a big, black box and is not relating to the real world.

If we are talking about the fact that she will have a power to establish recycling, reduction and reuse of materials-ha, she has that power today. She is the Minister of the Environment. She does not need Bill 143 to improve her powers in terms of the 3R programs in this province. She had those powers for 16 months and we have not seen anything.

I remember this minister was very upset, as I was, when the former Liberal government established the tire tax. Now, is that not an example for members, where we were told that we would all pay $5 a tire for tax and that it was a good thing? The $5 tax was going to go to the disposal of used tires, whether through recycling or some form of reuse, but in any case a safe disposal of tires, environmentally speaking.

I remember placing an amendment where it would be part of that bill that the $5 per tire would be designated for environmental programs, for the safe disposal of used tires, so that $5 would not be lost in the great black hole of the general revenue fund. I also remember very well that the Liberal government chose not to accept my amendment, so everybody paid the $5 tire tax, thinking it was going to go to programs for the safe disposal of tires. Now it is almost two years later and I understand that the amount of money that has been taken in is over $200 million and we still do not have a tire recycling or safe disposal program.

That minister was concerned about that when she was over here. I know she was. I have not taken the time to look up the Hansards, but I could have come in with a stack of Hansards and read into the record all kinds of quotes about the concerns this minister had about the same issues that I am concerned about as an environmentalist and that the people in this province are concerned about. When we are dealing with the subject of waste management, sure, the best thing we can do to save money and work towards a resolution of the crisis of what to do with our garbage is to reduce it. We all know that. But this minister cannot even make a decision on what percentage of reusable containers the soft drink industry should be required to provide.

It is almost as though she becomes mute at the cabinet table or, worse, a piece of legislation like Bill 143 comes in and nobody discusses it. All the other ministers are busy. They all have their own portfolios and their own bills they want to get through and their own concerns. I can perhaps respect the fact that they do not have the time to get into this legislation, but they certainly should be briefed before they agree that a piece of legislation like this, which strips the rights of the people of this province, comes into this House. I do not know how they could support this legislation being tabled on 24 October 1991.

Now we read that any of her powers may be delegated to the director. I do not have any difficulty with the powers that make grants under the Environmental Protection Act for planning and operating programs to encourage reduction of waste or the reuse or recycling of materials, etc, but we do not need this legislation for that. Not only do I not have any difficulty with it, I support the 3Rs, as I said, 100%.

However, it also says, under the amendments to the Environmental Protection Act, "Under this part of the bill, the minister is given the power to establish and operate waste management systems and waste disposal sites." Here is the crux of the matter. They have the power to establish the sites and they have the power under this bill to put municipalities through redundant re-examinations.

Mr Speaker, there is not a quorum in the House. I do not think we should continue.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Clerk, is there a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan) ordered the bells rung.

1853

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): A quorum being now present, the member can resume debate.

Mrs Marland: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The problem with the 74 government members is that, other than about 14, they do not know the kinds of gamesmanship entered into during debate when their party was speaking in opposition to bills similar to Bill 143.

The concern about the establishment of waste disposal sites is, who pays for them? The province has the power now and tells the municipalities totally what they have to do and what they are responsible for doing, but who pays for it?

"The definitions of 'waste,' 'waste disposal site' and 'waste management system' are much broader. For example, 'waste' now includes materials designated by the regulations and 'arrangements' for the management of waste are part of a system. In fact, the definitions are such that it is difficult to delineate the difference between a 'system' and a 'disposal site.'

"A new section 29 has addressed specifically the powers contemplated by the old section 29 and at the same time has delegated the power to the director. For eg, the bill gives clear authority to the director to direct Peel to accept waste from places outside Peel. Arguably, the powers have been expanded. The director may specifically direct that a municipality undertake waste management planning and to implement the plan. Of note is the fact that an order by the director may direct a municipality, not only to accept, but to transport waste from a source outside the boundaries of a municipality."

I have just had a note placed on my desk, I think very dramatically, by the government whip. I do appreciate the fact that the government whip would bring me a note. It is the first note I have had from a government whip. It is handwritten and, I am sorry, I cannot read it. I can understand by her body language that whatever the note says, it is probably not a compliment, so I think I will choose to read it when I am able to read it. It is funny, is it not, how cross people get?

As I say, the government members are at a disadvantage. I cannot accuse them of having short memories, except those members who were in this House prior to their election as the government. They know quite well what long debates are about.

The debate on Bill 143 is significant because of the fact that the bill strips the right of the people of this province to protection. It strips the right of the environment, never mind the people, to be protected.

"In fact the definitions are such that it is difficult to delineate the difference between a 'system' and a 'disposal site,'" the letter says. "A new section 29 has addressed specifically the powers contemplated by the old section 29 as I was saying and at the same time has delineated the power to the director.... Of note is the fact that an order by the director may direct a municipality, not only to accept, but to transport waste from a source outside the boundary of a municipality."

Can members believe that? Can members believe that this legislation gives the power to the director -- it does not have to be the minister, just the director -- to say to a municipality, "Not only must you accept waste from outside your boundary, waste that is generated from some other municipality, but you may even have to transport it as well." And guess who pays: the local area municipality within whose boundary the landfill site exists.

"The legislation provides a statutory framework for regulations to be passed on packaging and the disposal of products. The packaging provisions are quite broad given that it is an offence to even use any packaging or container or dispose of any product contrary to the act and the regulations, including any product that the regulations declare to be products that pose waste management problems."

That is fairly straightforward. That could have been brought in 16 months ago. It did not have to be tied into this. It is funny, is it not, how some of these sections are quite straightforward? I am sure it did not take 16 months to think them up.

Hon Mr Ferguson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am wondering if the opposition could make its points in a little more concise, succinct manner. We have a number of pieces of legislation to get through the House between now and when we break for Christmas.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): The member for Kitchener does not have a point of order. The member for Mississauga South is speaking to the topic and may continue.

Mrs Marland: Thank you for your ruling, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the comment from the member for Kitchener, the same Minister of Energy who imports $7 million worth of light bulbs from the province of Quebec for promotion by Ontario Hydro. Hardly a base from which to make any comment. Certainly one would think a minister of the crown knows what a point of order is, and obviously he does not know what a point of order is.

Interjection.

Mrs Marland: Anyway, the fact remain that the light bulbs came from Quebec to be distributed by Ontario Hydro. 1900

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order, please. Member for Mississauga South, please direct your comments to the Chair; you will find there will be less controversy. I would ask all members of the House to please follow the rules of order.

Mrs Marland: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am glad you are here because I needed you earlier today when there were even more interjections than there are now. I appreciate your being a firm person in the Chair.

The regulation-making power under part V of the act is now extended. Under the present regulations the minister can prescribe standards for waste management systems and for the location, maintenance and operation of waste disposal sites. Under the new contemplated regulations, the minister may prescribe requirements for waste management systems and waste disposal sites in relation to, among others, planning, siting, public notification and consultation, establishment of facilities and staffing.

Is this not something? The minister is going to be able to do everything to do with waste management -- everything except pay for it, right down to staff. They are now going to tell us how many staff to hire. This is really neat. They are not only going to tell us from a planning perspective, a siting perspective, the establishment of what kind of facilities, public notification and consultation, and they are going to tell us how many staff to hire, but they are not paying for it. The operation of facilities, the maintenance of facilities, the monitoring of the facilities, record-keeping and the reports of the director -- why do they not take over the whole thing? I do not understand this.

When the responsibility for waste management was given to regional municipalities around this province, there was a reason for that. It was because at the same time regional municipalities were given the responsibility for planning so the regional municipalities could decide where was the best place to have a landfill site. They could decide that this was going to be their new corporate-industrial area, for example, and a landfill site would not be appropriate beside it.

We have large corporate headquarters of two major corporations in Mississauga. Glaxo, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in Canada and in fact, I understand, in the world, is in the riding of the member for Mississauga North. Across the road is Syntex, another major pharmaceutical company. There are other major corporate headquarters that are built in the northwest quadrant of the city of Mississauga. There is also vacant land around them.

Is it not wonderful that we now are giving the power to the provincial minister responsible for waste management about where we are going to site our facilities? We are saying, "You can plan your cities however you like, but we will tell you where to put your landfill sites, we will tell you where your garbage dumps go."

I do not know how this government thinks it can get away with this legislation, frankly. When these municipalities have spent the millions of dollars that they have -- I can speak from experience with the city of Mississauga; I was on that council for seven years, and I know how much we spent on planning-we do not need a piece of legislation to tell us to hold public meetings. We hold all kinds of public meetings in the city of Mississauga. It is the most open government. This socialist government could learn something from the Mississauga city council, both past and present councils, I would say.

We do not need this government to tell us how to be fair to land owners, because we plan land use in a way that is fair, equitable and relative to existing land uses adjacent. But not now with this legislation. We have got a minister who is going to come in and has power over everything: what type of facilities, how they are to operate, as I say, how many staff we hire. That also is pretty scary. The way this government works, it is likely to tell us to hire twice as much staff as we need just to keep its union friends in work. That will probably be the outcome. It will probably make sure that everybody who works for us is replaced and everything that is operated meets its quota system.

We know what their labour law reforms are all about. I am sure when they can control our staffing through this legislation, that means their labour law reforms are going to go with it too. They are not only going to tell us who to hire and how to hire, they are going to tell us how long they are going to work and what kind of job they are going to do, and if they go on strike whether we can replace them. As I say, they are going to have control over everything to do with the management of waste except pay for it.

Therefore, in addition to conditions imposed by a certificate of approval, the regulations may prescribe additional requirements on a waste management site. The new regulations would include specifically the ability to prescribe requirements for the planning of waste management systems and requirements in relation to public notification and consultation. Of importance is the fact that the regulations could govern the manner in which municipalities carry out the financial management of their waste management activities. This would include regulations pertaining to how the waste reserve funds of municipalities are handled.

Provincial officers would be able to inspect such records required to be retained by the act or the regulations. Now, we are not only saying to the regional municipalities, "You must pay for everything." Under this section of the act, we are going to say to them: "We want to know how much money you've got. We want to know how much money is in your reserve funds and we're going to have regulations." We -- not we in opposition but we the government, we Big Brother, those socialists sitting over there -- are going to say to area municipalities: "Open your books. We want to know how much money you've got in your reserve funds."

What about responsible municipalities like the region of Peel and the city of Mississauga? The city of Mississauga is debt-free. How many municipalities in North America can say they are debt-free? The city of Mississauga is debt-free. So here we are. We have got municipalities both in the region of Peel and the city of Mississauga -- I cannot speak for Brampton or Caledon, but I see the member for Brampton North coming in and he will speak well and eloquently for Brampton, I know. He also had the inside track because he was parliamentary assistant to the then Minister of the Environment.

But here we are now. We are going to have regulations pertaining to how the waste reserve funds of municipalities are handled. We are not only going to say to these municipalities, "How much money do you have in your reserve funds?" but we are going to tell them how to spend it. They are going to take the money that the taxpayers have already paid and that is in a reserve fund. The reason it is in a reserve fund, I should say, is because we have been paying very wisely to establish a reserve fund for the cost of establishing our new landfill site. Now we have got this Big Brother socialist government again coming in with its big claws, saying, "We'll not only tell you how to do it, where to do it, how many staff to hire, but we're also going to tell you how to spend your money."

When I said earlier this afternoon, "Welcome to Russia, with love," it really was an incorrect slam on Russia, because Russia does not have that kind of junk any more. Thank goodness for the benefit of people who have lived under socialism in the eastern European countries and in the USSR. They are fortunate now because they do not have to have that kind of stuff any more, that kind of doctrine, that kind of policy, that kind of control that we do in Ontario. That is what we have to look forward to in Ontario.

This government is going to go into a municipality and say: "We want to see how much money is in your bank. We're going to tell you, through our regulations, how you can spend it." That money has nothing to do with this government. That is money that the taxpayers in the region of Peel and the city of Mississauga have paid through their property taxes. It has nothing to do with this government. They have already paid it all out of one pocket in their property taxes. They have already given everything out of the other pocket to the provincial and federal governments through their income tax.

1910

Now we are going to have a situation where provincial officers would be able to inspect such records required to be retained by the act or the regulations. A colleague of mine in this caucus, the member for Etobicoke West, often stands up in this House and holds up this sign that says, "Call Police." He usually holds it up at the point where we hear that there has been yet another inquiry into opposition offices that are being inspected by the police as to how they received source documents. Maybe the source documents have been received in their offices by the plain brown envelope route, and they may have been confidential, relevant documents from the cabinet meetings -- perhaps. Even on this subject of waste management, we have had some, shall I say, leaks from the government.

Now here we are with a situation where we do not have to worry about whether we are going to be investigated or whether we are going to have to give over the books of the region of Peel about how much money we have in our waste reserve funds. It says it right in the act. Provincial officers will be able to inspect such records. Is this not something? There is no question. We have got it right now. We have got the -- what shall we call them? The garbage police? Actually, I need the member for Etobicoke West in here to give me the suggestions for the names of these so called provincial officers. He probably will come up with a really good name.

Mr Chiarelli: It is a police state all the way around.

Mrs Marland: That is true.

Mr Harris: Except when it comes to policing.

Mrs Marland: I think the member for Ottawa West has just said it. It goes to confirm that we are getting closer and closer to a police state all the way around, except, as my leader the member for North Bay --

Mr Mills: No, no.

Mrs Marland: Pardon me, the member for Nipissing.My apologies to the member for Nipissing for not giving the correct name of his riding.

As my leader says, yes, we have a police state, except for what we really need and understand as policing.

Mr Harris: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not think the NDP care very much about this bill. I am not sure there is a quorum present in the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Will the Clerk check the quorum please?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: There is a quorum present.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): A quorum is present. The member for Mississauga South will continue.

Mr Chiarelli: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I hear comments that there has been an agreement between the House leaders with respect to the nature of this debate. I am just wondering whether or not --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order, please. The member does not have a point of order. There may be some information you require, but it is not a point of order.

Interjection.

Mrs Marland: The member for Durham East yells out, "We had an agreement that we were not going to call quorums during supper time." I want to say that the people in the region of Peel and the city of Mississauga could not care less about whether the people in this Legislature break for supper. What they care about is the $7 million, $8 million, $9 million or $10 million that this bill is going to have to be paid for by them on their property taxes.

There will be people in the region of Peel, I suggest to the member for Durham East, who will not be able to afford supper, never mind have time to eat it. We are all elected to work in this Legislature and I think we are into some kind of gamesmanship here where the member is more concerned about having his supper --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. We can put an end to the gamesmanship immediately if the member for Mississauga South will address the bill.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: We have all these interjections and she is going to have to respond.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order.

Mr Harris: If you can control the yapping from the NDP members, the member for Mississauga South will be delighted to address the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. Will the member take his seat, please. The Chair has already ruled. The member for Mississauga South has the floor.

Mrs Marland: In speaking to this bill, and since the time is now 7:15 and I have been speaking for almost three hours, I think it is fair to tell you that I did receive a note from the government whip that said: "There was an agreement not to call quorum during dinner. Do you have a problem with that?" Signed, "Shirley."

My own whip has just told me that there was no such agreement. I did feel, in fairness, that while I was speaking, when all these trained seals over here were yapping about, "You shouldn't call a quorum because we have this agreement," it was unfair for the government whip to place this note on my desk when there was no such agreement.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. It is in order for any member of this House to call for a quorum at any time. I ask the member to put this behind us and to get on with the topic of the debate that is before us.

Mrs Marland: I will get on with the debate. It is ironic that with 20 in our caucus and 74 in theirs they are so upset when I called a quorum.

New clauses 136(4)(k), (l) and (m) would provide general authority by regulation to require those matters that the director may also direct under the new section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act. The new regulations could also require municipalities to submit plans concerning waste management, which would be prescribed by regulations, to seek any approval required to implement those plans. Clause 136(4)(r) also states that the regulations may regulate the waste management activities of municipalities.

Authority is provided for the anticipated regulations that will come into effect to mandate source separation. We do not even have the regulations, of course, because it is always the same deal: We have to get the legislation through and then we get the regulations. Of course, the shroud that everybody hides behind in terms of regulations is, "We can pass whatever kind of legislation they want, but the real implications are in the regulations." The travesty of this system -- the system was established before they were the government of course -- is that when we pass legislation in this House, which we do get to debate, the implementation of the legislation is dependent upon the regulations and we do not get to debate the regulations.

1920

"Clause 136(4)(t) may deem a certificate of approval to exist in respect of a waste management system or a waste disposal site." This particular clause provides the basis for the permit by rule provisions which are being developed by the ministry.

"There are two broad policy issues created by the legislative amendments to the EPA:

"(a) The potential dichotomy between the waste management responsibilities of municipalities and the control over that municipality; and

"(b) the uncertainty created for municipalities by the amendments."

That is exactly what I have been saying for the last three hours. Here we are, the potential dichotomy between the waste management responsibilities of municipalities and the control over that municipality. The fact is that the uncertainty for municipalities can be created by amendments. Municipalities are never going to know what they are doing. They are never going to know when the game changes. They are never going to know when the rules change. All they are going to know for sure is that these police -- they are called "provincial officers." I am still waiting for the member for Etobicoke West to give me the proper name for these provincial officers. I really think we should call these provincial officers the garbage police, because the garbage police are going to come into the municipalities and tell them how to do everything, including: "Open your books and tell us how much money you've got. We'll tell you how much to spend."

Bill 143 does not amend the regional acts. At the present time, the waste disposal power and the statutory obligation in respect of the management of waste reside with the regions. The powers given to the IWA are permissive only. Section 3 of the legislation simply states that certain powers are given to the IWA "for the purpose of establishing landfill waste disposal sites." It appears that a discussion paper will be forthcoming on the role of municipalities in waste management, including its relationship between government and the private sector. Is this not great? Now we have this bill --

Mr B. Murdoch: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe we have a quorum here, sir.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan) ordered the bells rung.

1926

Mrs Marland: Now here we have the situation where we are going to pass this bill, okay? We are going to pass Bill 143. Then we are going to get a discussion paper on the role of municipalities in waste management, including the relationship between government and the private sector. So we are going to pass the bill and we are going to tell the municipalities what to do and we are going to make sure the local property taxpayers pay for whatever we tell them to do, and then we are going to have a discussion paper and go and talk about the role of municipalities in waste management. It is unbelievable. After we have passed the legislation that gives all kinds of power to the minister, we are then going to have a discussion paper and go and ask the municipalities about their role in waste management.

What are we doing here? Is this government so confused that it does not understand what this bill is doing, that it does not understand what it is about? The government cannot take over the business of waste management from the municipalities and then ask them to be part of a discussion paper on their role. It is like saying to a child: "Now look, you've been really bad. You're not responsible and you'd better go to your room for an hour." Then after he has been in his room for an hour, you go back to him and say: "Okay, now let's talk about your role, your being bad. Let's talk about the role now, and the responsibilities."

The people of Ontario do not have time for this nonsense. It is an insult to the people of this province -- a total, absolute insult. It is not a solution; it is a complication. It takes away the rights of people, it takes away the rights of municipalities and it wastes money. That is the worst thing, because it spends money without a solution and it makes people pay twice. We do not have time for this, but unfortunately this government is bound and determined to pass this legislation.

Is it not nice? They are going to have a discussion paper about the relationship between government and the private sector. What have they been discussing for 16 months? What has been going on for 16 months? Certainly we know what has gone on in this session. I do not know how many bills have been passed in this session -- nothing very significant.

Do members know what is going to happen? We are now into night sittings. Right now it is 7:30 at night. We are sitting till midnight tonight and every other night before Christmas, and the reason we are doing it is that this government has been in office 16 months and it has decided it had better get some legislation through. The big sham, the big betrayal of the people of Ontario is that they are going to say to us -- I have not been in the House leaders' meeting for a while, but we all know how it works: "If you pass these bills, we won't make you sit XYZ, we won't call the House back. If you don't pass these bills, we'll make you sit every night between now and Christmas because we want to get these bills through."

Their bills are so great they think the public does not need to know what is going on. They do not want to have the public know what is going on, so they will start ramming stuff through.

This is my seventh Christmas here. I know how it works. It worked with the previous government the same way. Suddenly they decide, "Well, we had better look like we've done something, so we'll bring in all these bills," and the government House leader insists that bills so-and-so and so-and-so get passed. That is what we are doing with this bill. We are passing this bill and this government does not even understand what it contains. They do not even understand the implications for the future of this province.

"Assuming, however, that Peel continues to play an operational role in waste management, Bill 143 represents what may be considered an unprecedented and fundamental intrusion of provincial control over the actual waste management responsibilities of Peel."

This letter is not written by a politician. This letter is not written by somebody elected to office who is taking a partisan position. One of the many good things about the region of Peel politicians in all the municipalities -- in Caledon, Brampton and Mississauga -- is that they are not partisan. They do not vote in a partisan way.

In any case, this letter is written by the regional solicitor, R. Kent Gillespie, to Mayor Hazel McCallion. This young gentleman has no reason to make a partisan statement. He is simply making a statement of fact. If it were not a statement of fact, he would not have it in his letter, because his professional ethics would not permit him to make this statement. Again, this is what it says:

"Assuming, however, that Peel continues to play an operational role in waste management, Bill 143 represents what may be considered an unprecedented and fundamental intrusion of provincial control over the actual waste management responsibilities of Peel. The province will now be regulating extensively in program planning and implementation, not just in setting facility standards and in granting approvals. The province will be regulating, for example, waste management planning, including control over when to seek approval and implementation of facilities and the manner of financial waste management. In fact, the bill states that the regulations under the legislation may regulate all waste management activities.

"The minister is also given power to establish and operate waste management systems, waste disposal sites and programs concerning the reduction of waste or the reuse or recycling of materials that are or could become waste. This would represent 'residual power' even if all waste management was statutorily assigned to upper tier municipalities.

"Uncertainty is created by the breadth of detail that is left to the regulations." And here is the crux of the matter: "The regulation-making power has been broadened considerably but with a scarcity of information on what is intended by the legislation and in the absence of determining the appropriate division of waste management responsibilities amongst the levels of government."

This is what I said a few minutes ago. It is not Bill 143 that is before us today in the House; it is not what is printed in here -- we are concerned about what is printed in here, but what we are really concerned about is what is not printed in here and what is not even written yet.

If this Minister of the Environment is the same as the Minister of Housing, who, when we were dealing with Bill 121, said, "I am still thinking about it" -- I asked her some questions and she said, "Oh, well, there are some parts of that bill I am still thinking about." What a gall. What an insult to the people of this province to bring forward legislation that they say they are still thinking about.

I will say one thing: The people of this province will still be thinking about this kind of regressive, draconian legislation when the next election comes around. The people of this province will not sit back and see their local area municipalities stripped of all the control of what goes on in those municipalities. They will not forget. The people of this province are too bright and too sophisticated not to know what is going on. They may not know today, while we are talking about this, because I am sure that for most of them this is very boring. It is very technical and they do not understand the implications. But when they get to pay their property tax bill and the dollar figures are there, they will understand. They will understand why their property taxes have gone up because of the policies and some of the lack of initiative by this socialist government.

We talk about a breadth of regulation, and we are reading a letter written by someone who is not a politician. It is simply a reporting letter. This is not a policy letter. It is not a partisan letter. It is not anything except a reporting letter from the regional solicitor of Peel to the mayor of the city of Mississauga. "The regulation-making power has been broadened considerably but with a scarcity of information on what is intended by the legislation and in the absence of determining the appropriate waste management responsibilities amongst the levels of government." Even with this Bill 143, we still do not know what level of government is really going to be responsible for what. We just know that this socialist government is coming in and stripping away the powers. We still do not know what the responsibility will be of the area municipalities, except the responsibility to pay.

As I keep saying, the bill is here. "Mr Property Taxpayer, the bill is here. You pay. We direct. You pay. You don't have any say, you don't have any rights, but you pay."

All waste management activities could be regulated. That means everything that is not in this bill can be done by regulation. I again say that my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus do not have an opportunity to debate the regulations. It is almost like it is under the table. Some of the regulations are still in the mind of the minister, I suppose, because we do not know what they are, and when the regulations are written, we will not have any opportunity to debate them.

For example, regulations could be passed prescribing requirements for waste management systems and disposal sites, and those regulations may add a layer of regulation to the conditions established by a certificate of approval, including changes to those conditions. In other words, regulations can do anything.

What is really interesting is that, through regulation, this government could require the region of Peel and therefore the city of Mississauga taxpayers and the city of Brampton and town of Caledon taxpayers to have all kinds of waste management systems. The world is its oyster. It could require any kind of waste management it wants. It may decide, "This is the best waste management system, in our opinion, and this is what you are going to do in Peel and this is how you are going to do it." But who pays for it?

Again, I come back to the fact that, through regulation, the government can control everything we do, but the taxpayers in Peel pay for it.

"Uncertainty is also created by the extensive delegation to the director. Under the new section 29 of the EPA, for example, the director can order a municipality to prepare a waste management plan, to seek approval for a plan and to implement the plan. Such an issue should be governed either by legislation in its own right or comprehensive regulations on waste management planning." Is it not incredible that a director -- we are not even talking about the minister here; we are talking about an agent of the minister. We are certainly not talking about a piece of legislation. We are talking about a person at the director level. He or she can order a municipality to prepare a waste management plan and can order it to implement that plan.

1940

There is nothing this director cannot do, really. No matter what the cost, no matter whether it is -- I say to some of the rural members from some of the smaller municipalities around this province that they had better be worried about this. They had better be very concerned about this, because whether they have money or not in their local municipality, this all-powerful director can come in and tell them what to do, how to do it and to go ahead and do it -- not only that they have to plan it, but that they have to implement it as well. Such an issue should be governed by legislation, not by a directive from the staff person. It should not be left to ad hoc decision-making by the director.

"Another example is the ability of the director under the same section to order a municipality to accept, process or otherwise deal with waste that is specified in the order." That is the part that all these people who do not understand what is in this bill will be shocked about when they get to know what the bill contains. There is an ability within the legislation to force a municipality "to accept, process or otherwise deal with waste that is specified in the order."

On the surface, it sounds like the expansion of Britannia is only going to deal with Peel's garbage. That is the first step. The same with Keele Valley -- just the first step. But once this piece of legislation goes through, we do not get a chance to debate the next step. If we do not have a solution to the garbage crisis a year or two or three or four years from now, "Welcome to Bob Rae's socialist Ontario, where we tell you what to do, and you pay." That is what it will be.

All this acreage of land that I talked about that surrounds the Britannia landfill site, the 1,200 acres of developable land -- I am sure this government is pretty excited. It is probably thinking: "We won't have to worry about where to put the landfill site. We'll just keep expanding Britannia. Why wouldn't we? It's not like Britannia is surrounded by houses and development." There are 1,200 vacant acres, essentially. There are a few houses on those acreages, but the fact is that those few houses are owned by the developers.

Now, if you do not think, Mr Speaker, that when we get into that box of whether we pile the garbage in the tennis courts or the parks or the schoolyards, and whether we expand Britannia into this 1,200 acres of vacant land, that this is not an option they will consider. When we get down to a greater emergency than we have now, regrettably, I think this is an option they will be looking at. If I am a developer and I cannot build my houses on my land, I might as well sell it and let the garbage dump expand.

Guess who pays? Guess who will pay for the expansion of that site and the purchase of that land? The same people who have already paid the compensation for the loss of business because those developers have not been able to build those homes. This is all able to happen at the word, at the whim, at the direction of a director -- not a minister, not even a deputy minister, but a director.

I know we have different ranks of civil servants, but I think when we are talking about millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, I am sorry, with all due respect to directors -- and I know many of our directors in the Ontario civil service are highly qualified, capable, committed people. I feel sorry for them right now, of course, working for this socialist government.

I do not detract from their individual abilities at whatever level of appointment they serve, but I simply say you do not give this job to a director to direct multi- millions of dollars and put at risk the financial stability of a region or a municipality that is debt-free. You just do not allow it to happen. But this bill allows it to happen and the fact is that if another municipality is in trouble, perhaps our municipality, with its 1,200 vacant acres, might have to accept another municipality's waste.

There is no security. I might as well take this glass and pretend it is a crystal ball, look into and say, "Oh, tell me, crystal ball, what's in the future for the management of waste in Ontario?" That glass can tell me how much security there is for the future of waste management in this province. This bill cannot tell me that -- a big fat zero. I can see right through that glass. I cannot see right through the bill and, worse than that, I cannot see the regulations, because the regulations have not yet been written.

The bill decides that a director has certain power, but the regulations are going to decide how garbage is going to be managed in the future in this province. The only thing that is in the bill is that the local property taxpayers pay.

"The ability is not circumscribed by any conditions as to the existence of an emergency or to the reasonableness of the order."

What that says is, "We can order you to accept waste from other municipalities at a cost, but it does not have to be an emergency." While the decision of the director may be appealed to the Environmental Appeal Board, which may substitute its decision for that of the director, the final decision is outside that of the municipality and is at the discretion of the Environmental Appeal Board in its consideration of the public interest.

If that is not the final nail in the coffin, what that says is that the director may give orders to a municipality about what it will do, what it will plan, what it will implement and so forth, all the stuff I have already talked about. The municipality may say: "Wait a minute, we don't like this. This isn't going to work in our municipality," or more seriously, they may say it is not affordable. "We can't afford it. We don't have any waste reserve funds." They do not have the history of strong financial management that the region of Peel and the city of Mississauga have. They say, "Just a minute, we don't agree with you, as a director," so they appeal it to the Environmental Appeal Board.

Then the Environmental Appeal Board, in its discretion, has to consider the public interest. We can be sure that if we have something like the Britannia landfill site sitting there in the city of Mississauga with 1,200 vacant, developable acres around it, and they have garbage piling up in the vacant lots and parks, tennis courts, schoolyards, whatever, in one of the Metropolitan Toronto municipalities, there will not be much choice about where the public interest is. The public interest will be to get that garbage buried and get rid of the risk to human health which exists when garbage is not treated and managed properly. So the Environmental Appeal Board now becomes the body making the decision in the public interest.

In closing my comments, having now completed the reporting letter from Mr R. Kent Gillespie, the regional solicitor, regional municipality of Peel, dated November 28, 1991, if we are really talking about the public interest and we are talking about the future of this province, I say to all members in this House that they should be ashamed to vote for Bill 143.

I say to members and to the member for Etobicoke West, I was looking for a name for these provincial officers who can go in and inspect books, and I was not able to come up with a good name for them --

1950

Mr Stockwell: Waste watchers.

Mrs Marland: They are more than waste watchers; they are money watchers as well.

I simply say that to pass Bill 143, knowing how bad it is in some of its sections and knowing the implications and the risk of stripping away the rights of municipalities, is one thing, but what is even worse is knowing that through this legislation we empower the minister to bring forth all kinds of regulations over which we have no control and which we no opportunity to debate. This bill is not the solution --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe there is a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): A quorum is present. The honourable member for Mississauga South has the floor.

Mrs Marland: I say simply that this legislation, which is entitled An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act, is not that. It is respecting the management of waste in the greater Toronto area, but the irony is it is not about the management of waste in the greater Toronto area. It is about the loss of democracy in this province. That is what it is about.

It is not about a solution for the waste crisis. It is not about finding an answer to what to do with our garbage. It is about changing history. It is about ignoring statutes that have stood to serve the people of this province for many years and the fact that we now are deciding priorities based on urgency but not on the environment. This government cannot talk to me about urgency when it sat for 16 months before it brought this legislation in.

Even now, we cannot see through the legislation into the regulations. Municipalities which have been good managers of their resources, like the region of Peel and the city of Mississauga, are going to be thrown into the hopper with everybody else and treated in this draconian way: "We'll tell you what to do, and you pay."

I look forward to the public hearings on this bill. I do not, however, look forward too optimistically, because if they are like the public hearings we are having on other legislation -- Bill 121 is a good example, where the government members on that committee are not at all supporting amendments from the opposition -- public hearings become an exercise in futility. It does, however, permit the public -- and in this case, I am sure it will be a lot of municipalities and environmental groups -- to come forward and state their major concerns and their major opposition to this bill. They will get on the record, but I am not very optimistic that we will see very many changes to this bill.

Closing the barn door after the horse is gone is a perfect example when we hear that after all this is over they are then going to have a discussion paper on the role of municipalities in waste management. They could have had a discussion paper any time in the last year and a half, but this is the way they want it to be. I hope those people who have concerns with this legislation will be able to be scheduled for the four weeks. I understand we are having three weeks in the greater Toronto area and a week outside the greater Toronto area for the public input to that committee.

Bear in mind, Mr Speaker, that, as with all the standing committees of the Legislature, the majority of votes on that committee are with the government members. I am sure we will have the same thing as we had this afternoon in this House, which is a total vacuum of knowledge by the government members about what the bill contains. Unless they do a cram course between now and the public hearings in January, we will not get any more interesting or relative input.

When I say "relative," I mean relative to the crisis that this bill does not address, relative to their understanding of what the crisis is about and, more important, their comments relative to understanding what happens in our province as a result of ignoring the Planning Act, the Municipal Act and the other statutes -- the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act -- all these acts and some others related to them that suddenly do not stand for anything.

This is not described as an omnibus bill but it should be, because it is all-powerful, it is all-encompassing, and as I have said a number of times, the scary part is, in some cases, it gives all that power to a director. Who is accountable here? I really feel that the minister should have retained the powers. If she is asking for them in the bill, why does she not retain the powers? But she is not even doing that. She is designating it down to the level of a director.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for your attention this afternoon and for helping us make these comments on this draconian, depressing, regressive legislation. I know the people of Ontario will well remember the implications of the government's taking their money but not keeping the power: taking the power and paying the bill in the future, whenever the next election is called.

2000

Mr Mills: I think we all recognize that there is a problem with politicians about a degree of cynicism, and I think it has been exhibited very well here this afternoon. People stand up in here, speak for a length of time and ramble on repeating stuff over and over again. The people of Ontario who watch this nonsense must become very cynical at the whole political process. It is a complete waste of time.

I am sure we have about 400,000 people who watch the proceedings in this House on TV, and they are turned off because this is an absolute disgrace, to waste time, to hold up legislation in this House, to delay important legislation in this House. That is what the members opposite are trying to do. There is no doubt about it. It is disgraceful behaviour and absolutely diabolical.

On another note, the reference where the member for Mississauga South likened Ontario to Russia is absolutely disgraceful. It should be withdrawn. It is an insult to the people of Ontario to be likened to the people in Russia.

While we are on the subject, the emperor gods that sat over there with the Conservative Party for 42 years, it was racked with patronage and scandal the whole 42 years it was there. The members opposite had the audacity to stand up here and talk about the socialist democrats. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr Chiarelli: I want to compliment the member for Mississauga South for pointing out, in her own meticulous and plodding way, that Bill 143 is another NDP act of legislative terrorism.

It is a very draconian bill, as the member has pointed out. It gives excessive powers of expropriation and land freezes. It guts the Environmental Protection Act and the Environmental Assessment Act in a major way.

Part IV of the bill gives a director powers to impose on any municipality in Ontario the right to take solid waste from any other municipality or to prevent it from importing waste if it chooses to do so, such as Kirkland Lake.

The member for Mississauga South has taken a long time to point out some very significant inadequacies in this legislation. She had to undergo the harassment from the government side and the last comment in particular indicating that she is wasting the time of this Legislature.

There have been other instances of legislative terrorism by this government. When Bill 4 was introduced, they had to backtrack on it. When the wage protection bill was introduced, they had to backtrack on it because it was very draconian. It was the opposition who through debates such as this forced this government to backtrack, and the member for Mississauga South and other members of the opposition will take the time to convince the people of Ontario that this is a draconian bill, that it is very heavy-handed.

I think it is very inappropriate for the members on the government side to use heavy-handed techniques and hardheaded tactics to try to shut up the opposition on major pieces of legislation such as this.

Mr Stockwell: It is a very telling day when the socialists at Queen's Park listen to a speech that I think was fair. It was aboveboard. It spoke to the issues and expressed many concerns of the local constituency. I look to the Minister of the Environment, and I know her constituents very well. They would be very disappointed in this minister if they knew the full impact of this bill that has been introduced in this House.

What is very telling, what really aggravates the people of this province and certainly the opposition benches is that the best defence this government could come up with to defend this piece of draconian legislation is that the members opposite talk too long. That is the best defence they can come up with.

There is no defence. They should be simply ashamed of themselves, as environmental protectionists, that they would ever introduce a piece of legislation that cuts out the one very important factor involved in any piece of environmental legislation. The group they have cut out is the public. There is no public participation in this. There is no public participation in Keele Valley expansion. There is no public participation in Mississauga or in Peel at Britannia.

That the members opposite can sit there and suggest the member for Mississauga South has spoken too long for their liking is absolutely sickening. They have no defence for this piece of legislation; they should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

I am prepared to listen to any member across this floor defend this piece of legislation. None has come forward so far, and to suggest the member for Mississauga South spoke too long as being the best defence they have certainly points out the flaws of this government and its total incapacity to deal with the issues facing the people of Ontario.

Hon Mrs Grier: I listened to not all of the speech by the member for Mississauga South, but I certainly heard enough of it to get the tenor of her remarks. I listened with some dismay to a member for whom I have had a great deal of respect and with whom I have worked with a great deal of co-operation on a number of environmental issues, and heard a rather extravagant -- to put it at its mildest -- interpretation of a piece of legislation.

However, what prompted me to join in this debate was a phrase that I heard her say as I came back this evening. It was the fact that this legislation would change history. This legislation is changing history because it is doing for the first time in this province what has been needed for many decades. It is putting forward an integrated waste management plan, a systems approach to a problem that has plagued successive governments. It is putting forward an integrated approach to dealing with our waste as opposed to the previous approach of seeking the biggest hole in the ground and burying it all. It is putting forward legislation that will be the basis for reduction, reuse and recycling, the kind of legislation that does not exist in any province in this country.

Also, it is doing what we all regret we have to do but what we are doing decisively and in a way that allows for the greatest possible amount of general consultation, even if not the extent of public consultation we would all have wished. The third part of the bill is dealing decisively with a crisis, a crisis not of our making, a crisis not even of the previous government's making, a crisis that has been building up for 40 years and then seven years because of inaction, no planning and no guts.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): We now have reached the maximum participation in questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Mississauga South has two minutes in reply.

Mrs Marland: The only response I have to the member for Durham East, who said that to liken Ontario to Russia is an insult, is to say that I actually agree with him; it is an insult to Russia.

I appreciate the support from the member for Ottawa West for his comments, but I think the most telling comment of anybody's response in the last eight minutes has been from the minister herself. If I could have wished the minister to make any comment whatsoever, I probably would have written for her the words that she actually used. This minister stood in this House a moment ago and said, "It is changing history," and we agree with that. We agree that it is changing history, but we do not agree that it is a good change.

There is another thing the minister said that is so significant -- and Hansard will show these comments tomorrow. The other thing this Minister of the Environment, this minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, said is, "We all regret what it is we have to do." This minister stood in this House and says she regrets her own bill. There is nothing more I can say than that. If I had written the lines for her, that is what I wished she would say. She regrets the bill because she understands what is wrong with this bill. Otherwise, she would not stand in this House and say she regrets what we have to do. The fact is the minister is admitting that this bill is regressive, it is changing history, it is not fair to the people of this province and if I were that minister, knowing her background, and what I said this afternoon about her and I and what we stood for, I too would regret her having to bring this bill in.

2010

Mrs Mathyssen: I am most pleased that I finally have the chance to speak to Bill 143, known as the Waste Management Act.

The introduction of this act illustrates the NDP government's commitment to effectively deal with and manage the waste management crisis that has developed because of years of neglect by previous governments. Clearly, this government has had to make tough decisions, decisions that those other governments were afraid to make.

This government has taken a number of significant steps which will ensure the wise management of our resources and our waste. The Waste Management Act is but one example.

This legislation has two major thrusts: dealing with our waste on a province-wide basis and dealing specifically with waste within the greater Toronto area. There are many compelling reasons why it is necessary to pass the Waste Management Act.

I think it is useful to examine the situation that we currently face in the province of Ontario in regard to waste and waste management. The total amount of waste that has been generated in Ontario in 1989 from residential, industrial and commercial sources totalled 10 million tonnes. Households in Ontario generated 40% by weight of this total. Containers and packaging accounted for 21% by weight.

In the province of Ontario there are approximately 1,400 active landfill sites. Of these sites, approximately 100 will close within two years. Within the next 12 years, it is expected that over 250 landfill sites will close. This will create many problems for many municipalities around the province.

Recently, Elgin county, near my own riding of Middlesex, had to close its landfill. This has resulted in higher garbage disposal costs. For far too long we have failed to recognize that it is uneconomical to continue producing and disposing of unnecessary waste. Companies that have reduced the amount of waste that they produce are finding that waste reduction is cost effective and has, in fact, helped them to decrease their operating budgets. For example, an article appeared in the London Free Press last month with the headline "Companies Discover Cutting Waste Pays." Another headline in the Financial Post reads, "Ontario Waste Plan May Lead to Savings." The Financial Post article states that as a result of the Ontario government's waste reduction plan, some companies could realize big savings in the long run.

I would like to read a section:

"Large companies with waste reduction programs already in place have realized sizeable savings. Peterborough, Ontario-based Quaker Oats Co of Canada Ltd saves about $1 million a year, mostly through reduced tipping or dumping fees and improved operating efficiency. IBM Canada Ltd saved as much as $150,000 in tipping fees last year by diverting more than half of its waste from landfill."

These are just a few examples that this legislation will help to ensure that companies remain competitive in the changing marketplace. Waste reduction practices will contribute to economic renewal.

This legislation gives legal force to the progressive regulatory initiatives that have been announced by the Minister of the Environment: initiatives designed to reduce the amount of waste that we produce. We have all heard the minister speak about the government's aggressive 3Rs initiatives. Evidence suggests that people are beginning to rethink the way that they dispose of their waste materials.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. The honourable member for Middlesex has the floor.

Mrs Mathyssen: I do indeed have the floor, Mr Speaker, and I hope the gentleman opposite would have the courtesy to acknowledge that finally, after two and a half hours of patiently listening, I have the floor.

An hon member: Three and a half.

Mrs Mathyssen: Is it three and a half? Thank you. We have all heard the minister speak about the government's aggressive 3Rs initiatives. Evidence suggests that people are beginning to think that the way they dispose of their waste materials is not necessarily advantageous. In fact, just the other night I was watching the CBC news. A very wonderful and informative show it is too. It has a series on power and politics. In the segment on the environment, there were several great examples of what is going on in this province because of our government, I might add.

For instance, there is a new environmental project called Waste Wise which accepts recyclable and reusable waste from consumers and then sells or distributes it to corporations. This project has proven itself to be a tremendous success.

There was the example of what an individual can accomplish. A woman in Georgetown separates all her garbage. She puts out only one small shopping bag of garbage every week and she has a family of five.

Examples were also given of municipalities that are implementing effective waste reduction schemes. Municipal politicians told of how waste reduction and separation programs are saving local taxpayer dollars. Those are hard-earned taxpayer dollars. I am glad that municipalities are able to save the taxpayers some money.

These examples, and of course there are many more, illustrate that the waste reduction initiatives announced by this minister and this government are working. They are working because people are beginning to rethink their old habits. This is a change in the right direction.

Despite the bold, positive steps that the people of Ontario have taken, there is still a great deal of work to be done, especially in the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors. This is another of the reasons why this legislation is so very important.

Our government has put forward a program that illustrates that it is willing to manage, and is capable of managing, our waste crisis. In the past, governments have not wanted to deal with the waste issue. It was easier to simply keep dumping garbage in our landfills without having to think about the consequences of such action. If people have been listening this evening, it has been easier to criticize, easier to go on and on about how inadequate things are.

The reality is that this government has taken a different approach, an environmentally responsible approach. We have implemented a waste management plan. We have stated provincial waste reduction targets of 25% by 1992 and 50% by the year 2000; announced a conserver action plan that is designed to move the province from a consumer to a conserver society -- this plan places emphasis on reduction and reuse of materials; established the Interim Waste Authority to establish long-term disposable capacity for the residential waste after all efforts to reduce have been made; announced a waste reduction plan to reduce the amount of garbage produced in the province through an aggressive 3Rs strategy; banned all future municipal solid waste incinerators in Ontario; announced a review of existing incinerators, and announced regulatory --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. Interjections are out of order, particularly when members are not in their seats. The honourable member for Middlesex has the floor. Please continue.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Because the message is so important, I hope they will pay attention after all or eventually.

We have announced regulatory measures to achieve our waste reduction targets. I am proud that this government is showing leadership and is managing our waste crisis.

This legislation is important because it will provide the legal instrument to implement the proposed regulations that will require municipalities to implement recycling and leaf and yard composting programs as well as requiring industrial, commercial and institutional sectors to recycle, conduct waste audits and prepare waste reduction plans. These proposed regulations are fully described in Initiatives Paper 1: Regulatory Measures to Achieve Ontario's Waste Reduction Targets.

2020

I am pleased that there are also a number of important amendments to the Environmental Protection Act contained in this legislation. These include broadened powers to regulate all types of packaging, an expedited approval process for 3Rs facilities, such as composting and recycling, and changes in certain definitions.

Another really important element of this legislation is that it provides the Interim Waste Authority, whose job it is to find three long-term disposal sites within the greater Toronto area, with the opportunity to acquire land and access property for site testing. At the same time, the rights of residents will be protected. This is a very important function, as the Interim Waste Authority plays an integral role in the waste management plans for the GTA

Members of the official opposition and members of the third party have made remarks during this debate which I find quite disturbing. Opposition members seem to think we are removing people's rights. At least, that is what they say in their rhetoric. They have suggested that this government is going to assume the right to go on someone's property whenever it wants for whatever reason it wants to do whatever it wants, to survey, assess and test in a manner far beyond anything that has ever happened before.

The record needs to be clarified here. The record needs to be set straight because this simply is not the case. Bill 143 is a comprehensive bill that illustrates that this government is committed to managing the waste crisis in this province. This bill is one component in an overall waste management strategy of which the 3Rs play an important part. Opposition members have criticized the right of entry in this legislation. This is rather ironic. The right of entry is not unique to Bill 143. It is found in many other bills, such as the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Pesticides Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

In fact, we have taken extra precaution in Bill 143 to protect people's rights. For example, even when the land owner is willing to allow the inspection, seven days' written notice is required. In no other act is such notice required. This piece of legislation may serve as a model for rewording older acts in terms of protecting people's rights.

There is another serious concern in connection with remarks made by members opposite. We have heard in the last hours members opposite speak in praise of both incineration and the export of Metro garbage to the north. One member even went so far as to characterize incineration as progressive technology. The reality is that incinerators spew out contaminants like dioxins and furans that invade our valuable agricultural land. As a member from rural Ontario, I have to tell members that we have precious little agricultural land. We certainly cannot be allowing incinerators to spew out filth on that land. This is not progressive action; it is irresponsible action they are advocating over there.

The notion that Metro can solve its garbage problem by shipping it out of sight is equally unsatisfactory. We in the government are not alone in this point of view, I might add. I have two letters here from which I would like to quote. The first is from Mr Doug Fraser of Haileybury, Ontario. Mr Fraser has addressed his remarks to the member for Markham, in the third party, and the member for Brampton North, from the Liberal caucus.

He writes, "I am quite dismayed at your outdated criticisms of several aspects of this bill," meaning Bill 143.

Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: According to our standing orders of this Legislature, in the rules of debate under subsection 23, if one "in the opinion of the Speaker, refers at length to debates of the current session, or reads unnecessarily from verbatim reports of the legislative debates or any other document," that person will be called to order by the Speaker. I wonder whether you have been aware of that section and whether that is something you would like to follow through on, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): I appreciate the honourable member for Markham, who brings a valid point of order, but in the Speaker's opinion the honourable member does have the right and the privilege to refer, from time to time, to text, which she does. The honourable member for Middlesex has the floor.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that, in recognition of the fact that previous members did nothing but read from other people's material. At least I brought my own speech.

Anyway, getting back to the letter from Mr Fraser, he writes:

"I was quite dismayed at your outdated criticisms" -- and these are of course outdated criticisms by the Liberal caucus and the third party -- "of several aspects of this bill. Although it is true that steps have been included to expedite the finding of an appropriate site within the GTA and to take necessary steps to prepare for any 'disposal gap,' surely these are well-reasoned and essential measures!

"It would seem that your only 'out' is to avoid the problem completely by making it someone else's problem -- either the residents of northern Ontario or all who would be downwind from an incinerator. This is analogous to burying your head in the sand. The first rule of ecology is a simple one: There is no such place as somewhere else."

I will be brief in reading from these letters and go on to the second, from Mr Brennain Lloyd of Northwatch, which "is a coalition of 20 environmental and citizen groups across northeastern Ontario with an active interest in environmental issues impacting on this region." The letter from Mr Lloyd states:

"The options of incineration and/or export are neither environmentally sound nor socially acceptable. To be frank, it is very discouraging to have this discussion of Toronto's garbage crisis return to these unreasonable options again and again.

"Does the considered consensus of the environmental, non-governmental community, which has so decidedly rejected incineration as a waste management option, hold no weight in your party's measurement?" -- meaning the Liberals and the third party. "The citing of the exclusion of incineration and export as key criticisms of this legislation indicate to us either a lack of substance or a lack of understanding and does grave damage to your credibility. Are you concerned with waste management legislation, or just throwing stones?"

An hon member: Who was that letter written to?

Mrs Mathyssen: That was written to the Liberal caucus opposite and to the third party.

I will just conclude. I trust this clarifies some of the misconceptions that have been fuelled by opposition members. I am also glad that we will have further opportunity to address some of those misconceptions regarding this legislation during committee hearings.

I am pleased to support the Waste Management Act. Bill 143 illustrates that our government is capable of providing the leadership that is necessary to effectively manage our waste crisis. This legislation plays a very important role in assisting in the changing of old habits. We have no choice but to change from a consumer to a con server society. We all have a responsibility to reduce, reuse and recycle the waste that we produce. This legislation will help to ensure that our vision becomes a reality. Thank goodness we have a government that does have a vision.

Mr Cousens: I feel constrained to make at least a few comments on this presentation. First, I want to say it is one of the rare times that someone from the governing party has stood up to speak on the bill. For the large part, the people over there do not comment. I think it is a credit to this member that she at least made some comment on the bill.

I notice that the honourable member for Middlesex really does not convey anything of the true intent of this bill in the way in which it is going to remove the rights of municipalities. What does she see happening to municipal rights, the rights of the municipalities in the greater Toronto area which are affected by this bill, which will lose the right to call upon the Planning Act, the Municipal Act, the regional municipality acts and the conservation acts? This bill will singlehandedly remove the application of those previous pieces of legislation, which took years of accumulated knowledge to put into effect. Now, whenever dealing with landfill sites under this bill, it will not be necessary to refer to that previous legislation. I ask the minister to comment specifically on the removal of those rights of those municipalities and the rights of people that are affected.

2030

The second point I touch on is that the member talked about the Expropriations Act. Why is it that when the government considered this bill and talked about expropriation rights, it did not consider something of the long-term implications on those people who are adjoining a site that is being expropriated?

I believe the honourable member has failed to call this bill what it really is. It is a desperation act, an act of desperation by a government that is not willing to listen, not willing to talk, not willing to table its real views for what needs to be done to resolve the landfill crisis in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

Mr White: I would like to join my colleague the member for Markham in commending the member on her excellent contribution. In a short, 10-minute speech, a speech replete with the wisdom, experience and energy she has obviously dedicated to her position as a parliamentary assistant, she has demonstrated study and thought. Her knowledge of the entire area has been demonstrated, particularly her knowledge of Bill 143.

I think she has demonstrated that the bill is a landmark piece of legislation dealing effectively -- perhaps the members opposite would say precipitously -- with a crisis of waste and environmental degradation that has been brought on by the contributed neglect of 47 years of waste by opposition governments.

The speech the member gave contrasts dramatically vith the two-and-a-half-hour verbose waste --

Mr Mills: Three and a half.

Mr White: My colleague corrects me. It contrasts dramatically with the three-and-a-half-hour verbose waste of time when the member opposite spent two and a half hours reading a single-page letter, a feat in and of itself.

Mr Mills: Claptrap.

Mr White: By contrast, my colleague gave us many different contributions and of course pointed out the importance of this bill towards economic renewal in the reduction of waste and how those two goals go hand in hand.

I want to conclude my remarks by again commending my colleague on her excellent contribution.

Mr Offer: In the time permitted, I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the member for Middlesex; I should say, the comments she read. The problem the member has, as well as her colleague right beside her, is that is not listening and recognizing what the facts and the reality are all about.

I heard the member beside the member for Middlesex, the member for Durham East, refer to the comments and the speech of the member for Mississauga South as claptrap. That is what that person said. The fact of the matter is that the comments by the member for Mississauga South and other members on this side, in terms of opposition and the third party, dealt with the bill at hand and the reality of the facts at hand. They talked about how the people in the areas are being affected and what those people are saying.

Let me tell members that it is not claptrap but a serious and deep concern about how their communities are going to grow, about the way in which landfill is going to be disposed of and about previous promises made by the now Minister of the Environment and the now Premier who stated, when in opposition, during an election, that there would not be an expansion of any landfill site in this province without a full environmental assessment hearing.

What we have with the Britannia landfill site is an expansion without any hearing. When the residents of that area said to the Minister of the Environment, "Please, we want to talk to you. We want you to hear our concerns. We want to hear from you and we'll do it in the privacy of your own office," what did the Minister of the Environment say? She said no.

When members of the government talk about consultation, it is just fatuous. There is no substance behind it and there are 600,000 or 700,000 people in the region of Peel who know that for a fact. The minister should be ashamed. Finally she is getting the picture that this is a matter of very deep concern to the members of the opposition and the third party. It would be wise to read the act and how it affects the people.

Mr Stockwell: I think the important fact that has been lost on the member for Middlesex is that she can quote the figures and the tonnage all she likes. Those were the figures and those were the tonnages when the NDP came into power. When they came into power they had a full understanding of the issues that were faced in the waste and landfill disposal issue.

The problem they have is that their Premier and their Minister of the Environment were on the record long before they came to government. They were on the record as saying, "There will be no expansions at Keele and Britannia without full environmental assessments." The question that must be asked is, why has the government done an about-face at the expense of thousands and thousands of residents? They consider this to be a very important issue. Their homes are near these dump sites and they got commitments from the NDP's Premier and from the NDP's Minister of the Environment that they would not have expansions without full environmental hearings. Now they have gone back on their word.

The other point that they must address, and that the Minister of the Environment still has not addressed, is that 11 months ago there was no garbage gap. Everything was fine. Their own minister suggested that there was no necessity to go forward with any new initiatives because their 3Rs would resolve the problem and there would be no garbage gap. Members opposite cannot blame the Liberals. When the NDP government came into power, it said there was no gap, that the waste disposal problem was resolved. Now, a year later, the NDP minister reads her reports, decides there is a garbage gap and blames the Liberals. What was she doing for those 11 months when she said there was no garbage gap? Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They should either tell the truth or not stand up and make us put up with this kind of stuff.

Mrs Mathyssen: First of all, I would like to address my remarks to the member for Markham and tell him that the intent of this bill is to deal with the waste management crisis. The right of the people of this province and of the greater Toronto area to a clean environment is paramount. The protection of the environment is paramount. The member opposite would abrogate the rights of members of northern communities by foisting GTA garbage on them and I say to hum that is clearly wrong. I believe the people of the GTA are citizens quite able to take responsibility for the waste they create. For the member opposite to insinuate that they are not is most insulting.

I would also like to say to the member for Mississauga North that the communities of the GTA will grow, and they will grow in an environmentally responsible way, because now they will reduce, reuse and recycle.

Finally, to the member for Etobicoke West, when we came into government, into power, we did have a serious waste problem because of neglect. As a new government, we pledged to resolve that problem, and we have. Bill 143 fulfils the pledge that was made.

2040

Mr Curling: It is indeed a pleasure to stand and address my comments directly to Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act. I do not come to this debate as an expert on garbage, but I do come to the debate with a recognition of the fact that I do represent people in Scarborough North, who are extremely concerned about this act and the direction it is going in.

Before I do so, I would like to pay tribute to two people to start with. One is the former Minister of the Environment, the honourable member for St Catharines. As members know, in his endeavours as a minister he had an award given to him by the United Nations on the blue box project. That is no achievement that one can just smile about; it is a tremendous achievement that had a lot of work and dedication. No one could question the dedication of that minister at the time.

As a matter of fact, I have to give credit to another person who kept him on his toes, someone we respected tremendously when we were the government of the day. Oft-times, as we listened to the manner and the discipline, the way that the member for St Catharines carried out his duty, we watched the honourable member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore who, as a critic, seemed to understand what the environment was all about.

Although we smarted a bit in the loss of the election and thought this province would be in terrible hands, we consoled ourselves that there was a minister, an individual over there who understood the environment because of the way she dogged the approach and the ways of our minister, who was doing a tremendous job, being awarded by the United Nations. She was regarded as someone who would not put up with nonsense and who would make sure that we were on our guided path, a very responsible Environment critic. I had no fear when she entered the cabinet that the portfolio would not be in good hands.

I have been in cabinet and I know how difficult it is at times to get everything you want at the cabinet table, but I also know that if you are quite expressive and knowledgeable, they cannot shun away from the needs. So members can understand that I pay tribute to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, but alas, upon becoming the minister -- I had waited to see some wonderful things happening to carry on the great work of the former minister on the concern we had about garbage, especially in the region of environment. This was an area that would be looked after very well.

I was extremely disappointed as we waited in opposition to see some of the policies and directions of where the minister would go. I am afraid that as the critic of the Environment she was extraordinary and as a minister a bit disappointing, the matter becoming worse, disappointing to all of us here.

I fear that the capability of the minister now is not due solely to herself. I think it is because of her government, because of her party, because of the fact they had made all these promises. Members are quite aware, quite familiar with this wonderful document that they put forward in the campaign, something that we read rather carefully, An Agenda for People. "NDP NPD" -- they said it twice here, in English and French. I am sure the honourable member followed very carefully the script and the mandate that was set forward here of the commitment in regard to the environmental rights. They outline them right here on page 7, as they follow me along. I see them all digging for their -- if they are not, they will be going into their desks in a moment, because I know they have a copy here. It is supplied to them regularly to remind them of the promises that were given during the campaign. Now that they are government and of course they are honourable people, they will follow through on their promises.

"Rights to a clean environment," it states here. I know the Speaker is quite familiar with this but, just for emphasis, I think I should read a bit of it. I know too that the government members know it without even going to their desks at the moment. It says: "Pass the environmental bill of rights immediately." There is no explanation. It is self-explanatory. "The NDP's environmental bill of rights has been before the Legislature since 1986."

How they waited and waited to be in government. And on that day in 1990, did it dawn upon them that they would be the government? Shocked they were, as we were. In 1985, we were the government. We pulled ourselves together with not even enough members to form a majority and we signed an accord with the honourable members there and carried forth the duties and the things that had to be done for this province, to have a better province.

Hon Mr Hampton: And did pretty well by it.

Mr Curling: We did extremely well, as the member said, because what we did was we carried through that agenda and beyond.

It goes on: "Three times the Liberals have approved it in principle and three times they have refused to let the bill become the law in Ontario." In other words, they are saying that each time they brought it forward, the Liberals were not sincere, because this is three times that they have put it forward and they refused to bring that bill of rights.

"Citizens want more rights" they continue, and it is important for me to complete this, "to take action for a cleaner and safer environment when government and industry don't act." When government does not act. This government itself has acted very well in reneging constantly.

That is only one aspect of it. I will not go through this great manifesto of An Agenda for People that is written in a way to say, "This is the way to go."

We know also about employment equity. They put that bill forward and did not come through, and then they said they had to go for consultation.

Here we have Bill 143, this act that I think is almost a disgrace, save the fact of opposition government, save the fact that we have an opposition that will not tolerate this actually obscene act. It is obscene because of the power-grabbing aspect of this act, the way the minister herself feels, and I think too her cabinet, not only to renege on what they had all promised, but also to take power into the hands of this government which has now smelled power and feels it does not need people any more. They just need themselves, as a power unto themselves, to make laws and administer them without any consultation whatsoever.

The bill of rights -- nice, fancy words, as we always use. A right for all the citizens of this province to participate in what we have seen today, a right to direct the government to know exactly what the people want. But as soon as they have known the smell of power, they would say, "I can do it. I don't need the people any more."

I have heard debates here talk about areas that have been affected by this bill, but I would like to address my comment, too. I will come back to the bill and some of the things it has done and would have done if we were not here as an opposition to make sure they hear of the concerns we have. I was appalled, too, and I am sure you were, Mr Speaker. I want to commend you for the very adequate way in which you handled the House when the member for Mississauga South spoke in detail, patiently went through all aspects of the act, to point out -- it took her three and a half hours or more, and I am sure she could have continued for five or six hours if it took that time for them to listen.

2050

Interjection.

Mr Curling: Our comrade says it was two and a half hours. I presume he may have fallen asleep for one hour of that, but she spoke for three and a half hours, pointing out meticulously aspects of the bill that the government must look at and change. As a matter of fact, it would be easier to just get rid of the bill and start all over again.

I know, as I mentioned earlier on, how frustrating it is for the minister, who has been in this House as a minister for over a year and has not brought in one act yet in regard to the environment, has not done a thing, and now is hurriedly trying to bring this bill through. As the member for Mississauga South spoke, the criticism and the abuse that she had to put up with because she was putting it in detail -- they said she spoke too long. This democratic party felt that this member here has no democratic right to speak on behalf of her constituency as the critic for her party and should not speak that long. I commend her for standing fast on the issue.

I want to commend also a member from my party, the member for Oriole, who also emotionally expressed her concern about this bill. I do hope -- because the New Democratic Party members consider themselves compassionate people, people of concern, people who listen and people who act. She then pointed out in detail what her concerns were.

Hon Mr Cooke: Why don't you speak about the bill?

Mr Curling: I am sure some of the members here would be forward enough to feel I cannot address this bill. Again, that is the audacity they bring forth in this House. I want to tell the member for Windsor-Riverside that this bill has a dramatic effect on people within our region.

Hon Mr Cooke: You don't even know what's in the bill.

Mr Curling: I recall at election time that the then leader of the NDP, now the Premier, visited Whitevale. He stood there at the time with many of those who had not yet declared themselves as NDP candidates to run in the election and he repeatedly talked about the "promise to ensure" that the Whitevale site would remain farm land and not become home to about six million tonnes of trash between 1992 and 1996.

I say to the honourable member for Windsor-Riverside, who feels I do not know what is in the bill, that what is in the bill is threatening Whitevale. What is in the bill is threatening the Rouge Valley, but the government members all stand there and talk about the protection of it all. Members will recall the very famous Rouge Valley, which is still there. The Premier of the day, Mr David Peterson, made a statement to preserve the Rouge Valley. Soon after, many of the members here were criticizing the fact that there was not a strong enough commitment with regard to the Rouge Valley and preserving that beautiful land and the beautiful wildlife that is still there. The concern, of course, was that a dump site should not be placed around the Rouge Valley, or an expansion of a dump site.

Today this new bill threatens that. It threatens that the Rouge Valley may not have the freedom it so deserves from that kind of expansion and pollution of the dump site.

I just want to mention who was there at the time. There was my colleague Norah Stoner, who was then the member for the riding of Durham West. I am glad that the honourable member who is now the sitting member for Durham West was there. He himself made some rather profound statements there. He talked about the protection of Whitevale. He talked about the fact that there will be no expansion of the dump site. As long as he was there, there would not be any dump site or expansion of Whitevale.

I do not hear him. The Premier was there at the time. As the press stated here in a report of August 1990 in the Oshawa Times: "Flanked by Jim Wiseman, would-be candidate for the NDP in Durham West, and Durham Centre NDP candidate" -- at that time the comrade Drummond White -- "...Rae said that as long as new dumps are found -- "

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe it is customary in this House to refer to members either as "Mr" or "the deputy from." My friend may feel he has some comradeship with me; however, I would hope he would express that in private elsewhere.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Thank you. Yes, it is customary, as the honourable member for Scarborough North knows, to refer to the honourable members by their riding name, please.

Mr Curling: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I thought the socialists would like to be associated with their proper titles, but I stand to be corrected.

My comrades here in the House, most of them who go by titles over there, were flanked by their leader at the time. The member for Durham West, a good comrade there: "As long as the new dumps are found, there is no incentive for reducing garbage."

Where are these members now? I do not hear them advocating at all the preservation of the Rouge Valley or the protection of the type of dump site that they want to put in that area. I have not heard one of them. I call on them all. I will be so proper that I will call them by their titles.

Where is the member for Durham-York? The member for Durham West, as I said, I do not see advocating for and protecting that area. Where is he? When my colleague Norah Stoner was fighting in that light, she paid the price. The member for Oshawa, the now Solicitor General -- I did not hear a peep out of him, or any of those members. And our good friend the member for Durham East, who so emotionally stood up and spoke -- at one stage, I was concerned about the cardiac arrest he might have, he was so emotional about it. I have not heard him defending the area of Whitevale that falls right between his region. I have not heard a peep out of our other colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, from Hastings-Peterborough, in regard to support of the Whitevale or the Beare Road dump sites.

My good friend the member for Scarborough East, my neighbour, the Rouge goes through his constituency and he has no concern for this Bill 143 and the manner in which the minister is going to conduct it. It seems that if the Whitevale or the Beare Road site is expanded, that is of no concern whatsoever, but there they were in the election fighting about the protection of the Rouge. I can see they were all words, and no meaning to them all.

My other neighbour -- you said I cannot call them comrades, Mr Speaker, but they are comrades in every respect -- is from Scarborough Centre. Where is he today? I have not heard one remark out of him in protection of those two sites.

2100

These are comments and observations made by people. This is the observation made by Christy Chase of the Oshawa Times staff: "For the second time in two months, NDP leader Bob Rae has thrown his support behind the people of Whitevale." Now I am wondering where his support lies in regard to that area. I am concerned. I am tremendously concerned, because in those days when it was politically wise to get votes, he leaned to that side.

As a matter of fact, even our mayor, Joyce Trimmer, at one stage when we were fighting for the protection of the Rouge, thought that maybe we should build executive houses on these sites. Today of course, when it is politically wise, we are all behind the Rouge. I commend her for changing her position, for seeing the light. I have not seen one thing done by this government that has that kind of concern about the situation we face today.

I want to speak a little bit about the bill itself. I wanted first to raise those concerns really about the Rouge Valley because it is one of those things people have talked about not only in Canada -- I was as far away as Germany in 1988 when someone asked the delegation that I took to Germany about the Rouge Valley and commended us for taking that action in preserving and protecting the Rouge Valley.

This bill is about not protecting the Rouge Valley. I would like the members to know that. The minister may deny that, but I would like her to know the people within that area are extremely concerned with the dictatorial attitude, the power-grabbing aspect and the way she will carry out this bill. They feel that it is their input into it to tell again their story about how this bill will damage the Rouge Valley by going about in a process of the selection of the dump sites there.

I know the minister has criticized this government and I cannot understand that. She said we are not giving her the authority she requires, the power she requires for the expansion of current landfill, and she wants that power; second, for not allowing her to go forward with her reduction regulations. Because we do not hand all this power over to her, because we want her to respect the democratic process, this bill, as I see it, is a power-grabbing bill.

This bill is set out in four parts. I do not know if the bureaucrats have written it for her. I am sure she directed them that these are the powers she wants and to write it accordingly. When it comes back in written form, I urge her to go through it in detail and ask the basic questions: Are people being protected in this process? Is the democratic process being recognized in this process? It is important. Although democracy may seem to be rather slow, I think it is one of the best processes we have today, because what it has done is allow people to participate, to control their own destiny and to feel they are a part of the system.

We know there are mistakes that will be made, but they will understand why. They will not in any way feel this has been dictated by them or by the directors she will be appointing to give this total authority to do their jobs, without, of course, any recourse for the people.

We know the four parts of the bill. Part I appoints the Interim Waste Authority Ltd. We know the kind of powers it gives in expropriating land just for the purpose of establishing three long-term landfill sites. We can understand that there are needs to find landfill sites, especially in Durham, Peel and York. There is the other part that I talk about, Metro Toronto. These powers, which I will speak about later on, are of quite great concern to me.

We know that part II went about outlining the criteria for the long-term site selection process.

Part III, as we know and are extremely concerned about, is one of the most controversial parts of this bill. That is the part I spoke about earlier on, this expansion of the minister's emergency powers where she will order Peel to expand Britannia landfill and Metropolitan Toronto to expand Keele Valley.

Here is the crunch: It can be done without any environmental assessment and no opportunity at all for the participation of the public. This is the part I wrestled with. Have they gone out of their senses? Is this the same opposition, now the government, that used to lecture us about consultation and the representation of the people? Is this the same opposition, now in government, that locked people out of public participation, that locked me out of participation, and when I was allowed in, I was not able to speak? At that time, of course, 31,000 people cast their votes so that I could represent them and represent all the 110,000 people in Scarborough North. They locked me out; then I was allowed in but was not able to speak.

Have they gone out of their senses in saying, "We will not give the public any opportunity for hearings"? If I have this part of the bill wrong, the government will please correct me, because I stand to be corrected. I would not be disappointed, of course, because I expect public hearings from a socialist government that advocates full participation by the people.

People have died for this democratic process. People have gone to war or they have sent their sons and their husbands, and now even women have fought for that right to go to war to protect the democratic process so they can participate and determine their own destiny, so they can feel a part, that this country belongs to the them. They elect people who they feel will speak for them; who, when they draft up bills about protecting them in the environment or finding landfill sites, whatever they do, they feel will articulate the things they are saying and feeling.

2110

Alas, in less than a year -- a couple of months in power -- they took the power upon themselves and said: "Now that you have elected us, we don't need to hear from you any more. We don't need any input from you, the public. We don't need it at all. As a matter of fact, we are the almighty. We have all this power, with which we know exactly what you are thinking. Therefore we know exactly where landfill sites will be. Even the bill of rights will come later on, when we give you a chance, maybe."

The minister said she wanted a bill of rights immediately, when she said in 1986 -- and I can recall of course in 1989 that the member, now the Minister of the Environment, presented a bill of rights. It is all gone. It has all changed now, and she will not ask the people to participate. That is the kind of democracy we have. So when I call them comrades, I call them comrades because these are the same types of people who go around the world and talk about participation and say, "Let the people speak." But I think what they meant about the people is, let them do the speaking and the people shall go wherever they want to, "because we know what's right for them."

It is a sad day. It is a sad era. They came into government at a time when most of the world was going through some rather recessionary times, especially in North America, when people are tightening their belts and wondering what is happening to them.

When you look, Mr Speaker, they would also like to say to the government they elect and the people they elect, "Can you speak for me?" When they come to my office and say, "I would like to speak on behalf of the concerns this Bill 143 has" -- it is a public document now, so they have read it -- they are concerned.

They said to me: "This will affect us. Can you go through this with me?" I said: "Listen, I'm not a full expert on all this, because, you know, sometimes this technical way of writing" -- but when we went through it all, they were right. They said, "We'd like some input on this." I had to go back to those people and tell them this minister and this government will not have them participating at all. Although the government tells me the opportunity I have, I will use the one opportunity to come into this House and tell the government that the people are not happy with this.

Hon Mr Cooke: What do they expect when it is you who knows the act?

Mr Curling: The member for Windsor-Riverside said I do not know what is in the bill. The audacity of him. He knows it all. The government knows it all. If I do not know what is in the bill, it is the government's responsibility. If the people of this province do not know what is in this bill, it is the responsibility of the government and the members here to make sure that what is in the bill is something that will affect them. How do they feel about it and where can they make their concerns be heard?

They have told me they are not happy. They have told me they would like to have an opportunity to say that they are concerned.

The leader of the party sat down, the House leader sat down, and I have to commend the House leader of the opposition party. I would like the people to know that it is due to the hard work and the commitment to democracy of the House leader that forced this bill to be debated early.

Thanks for a democratic parliament and thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing all of this to happen because, if you should cast your eyes elsewhere and if you should somehow tune out for a few moments, they will grasp additional powers, as we heard today, telling the member that he cannot call a quorum, taking power so that the people will not be heard. They are upset that they will not be heard and they want to be heard long, loud and in detail and they want the bill to be explained to them and the minister to justify it. If the action cannot be justified, then they want it to be changed.

In the meantime, as I take a breath here, I would ask for a glass of water. There is a lot more that I want to say. I hope this water is not affected if we do not have environmental assessment; I hope I can drink it with confidence. I hope by the time we have the power control here I can sip this water and feel good about good Ontario water.

Part IV of this bill outlines the Environmental Protection Act which, of course, they say broadens the definition of waste. It will now include all materials and it will give the minister the power, which this government likes to use, to implement her waste reduction regulations.

Garbage has been around a long time. It is not new. We have started thinking about it lately. We may think it is too late. It is not too late, but it will be too late if they grab the power and decide to do with it as they would want without any input. I think this is a great opportunity, as a matter of fact, to have each member coming from a different region. What an opportunity. I want to go back to that same democratic process because I think it is so important to this bill. Although it is only, as it says, addressing the greater Toronto area, it is going to have a great impact on all of Ontario. It will have an impact on how we deal with things and how we deal with garbage.

I recall when I arrived in this country, the things that people throw out. This is a throwaway society, we throw everything out. We feel that as soon as we have finished with it we can put it on the sidewalk, on the curb, and the garbage truck will come along and it is out of sight, it is gone, it is the responsibility of those who picked it up and the municipality. We feel very pleased about that because we have moved into a neighbourhood where we did not know where it went, but by golly, some of that garbage goes to other people's neighbourhoods. It comes back to haunt you.

There is an old saying that says the chicken will come home to roost one day. The garbage has come home to roost now. As we put it on the sidewalk and ignored it for years, today it has come home to roost. I hope it has not roosted in the water yet, because some of those waters are contaminated. It will come home to roost and the rude awakening of a resident whose house I think may have been blown up because of the gas that was built up in a garbage area. The gas had fermented there for a long time and it blew this house up. The chicken has come home to roost.

2120

The chicken has come home to roost because we find that diseases and things that we threw out did not leave us at all. The sea and the rivers and the lakes we felt were there, and if we threw the garbage in there it was carried away into some wonderful garbage heaven so that nobody saw it. It has come home to roost because gone are the days when we could go to the water and drink from the river or the lake; now they are polluted. No longer can we fish for dinner. The chicken comes home to roost on our dining table as we eat a fish. It comes home to roost with the meat that we eat and the cattle that feed on the pollution that is around. It comes home to roost with our children, and with our health being affected by the way we dispose of our garbage. We sent that chicken out and it came home to roost, the way we dispose of our garbage.

That is why full consultation, full involvement of all the people is so important. The structure of this Legislature is such that people from all parts of this province can say what impact it has, what type of garbage has affected them and how we should go about it. But if we decide to turn our heads away and, as members in this House and this opposition, not to do our job, to criticize and tell the government when it is going wrong -- I think many colleagues I see over there who have been in the House a long time, understand that it is an honourable thing to admit mistakes, to take guidance and to say, "Yes, it was not thought out properly," or, "The bill is not written in a way that cannot be changed, because we can adjust it accordingly." Not to grasp this power, not to feel that "We do have the power; we don't need the people" -- the government is losing a great opportunity for that input.

I urge members and the minister herself, that the fortunate part of it -- as I mentioned early on in my speech when I commended the honourable member, the former Minister of the Environment, the member for St Catharines, for the knowledge he has and brings to this House and shares it with the minister -- was that she used to listen just as he listened to her at times. I will tell members that. There is no secret at all in my caucus; when he came to caucus he said: "The honourable member made a very good point. She's right here and we should adjust it." And many times members can see in the interchange that happened between 1985 and a part of 1990 how much respect he had for her. I ask her too now, in the interest of all Ontarians and the environment, and the interest of the chicken that we send out that will come back to roost one day, I ask her to listen and amend, and not feel that "I have all the power now and I do not need in any way to listen. I have this power and I will do what I must do," because that chicken will come home to roost another day.

While my other colleagues from the western part of the greater Toronto area appeal to her, I appeal to her too, for the extremely sensitive area that we have in the east. I appeal to all the comrades that I called out here earlier over in the eastern part who are now enjoying the sweets of victory in the last election, who stand with their leader in article after article denouncing this government for not taking a stand, to my colleague, Norah Stoner, who lost an election standing up for her rights there, like my good friend, the member for Durham West who said she did not do sufficient in protecting the environment there in the Whitevale dump site.

I searched the Hansard. I have yet to find a word about defending the Whitevale dump site. I want them to continue, as they said in the election, to fight for that. Now I want them to take the opportunity as this bill moves to its second reading to say, "Well, I will continue to fight and I will talk to the minister." I am sure they have good discussions in caucus. I sure that each member tells her their point of view -- the member for Hastings-Peterborough, the member for Scarborough East, the member for Scarborough Centre, the member for Oshawa, the member for Durham Centre and the member for Durham-York, all those members -- to fight for what we so much want to preserve.

The minister had a report written and she needs it to be implemented. Within the bill it is described as part III. I keep going back and I know that when she looked at all the environmental acts -- the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Ontario Municipal Board Act, the Municipal Act, the Planning Act, the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, the Regional Municipality of Peel Act, the regional Municipality of York Act and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act -- it is here within those parameters that she wants to exercise her power.

The minister states that section 17 of part III requires that the regional municipality of Durham establish a waste management system. It says it must consist of at least one transfer section to ensure that it has the ability to transport, she said, wastes to Keele Valley when the Durham landfill site reaches capacity, and I think she anticipates that capacity in 1992. There has been no consideration given to what this project will cost. There has been no talk at all about the cost factor of this to the region, and I understand, according to Durham, that this transfer station will cost the region over $49 million in capital costs and $26 million in annual operating costs.

2130

Members should just think of the individuals in Durham region now. A bill just came down, and that will increase the costs, as I said, to $49 million in capital costs and annually, additional to that, $26 million. Members should work that out; householders will have an additional cost of about $250 to $300 on their municipal tax bill. With all the taxes that are corning down today, these are the same people who said that the Liberal government should be regarded as a tax government. They do not want to impose any more tax on the people, I am sure, but while people are losing jobs, while people are having it very difficult in this recessionary time, the Durham municipality will find itself forced to pass on an increase in the tax bill of those householders to the tune of about another $300. That is a sad note for the people in Durham, because they are hurting. They are hurting in every form. They are hurting in their mortgage payments, and those who have homes there are hurting, of course, in their tax bills already. The additional $300 tax will be maybe that straw that will break the camel's back.

People are losing jobs. The confidence of the business sector is waning. Many businesses have left the province because they are not quite sure of the policies of this socialist government, which seems to direct most of its energy into the labour area; that area needs some support, of course, but not all the support of government. Government represents all people, business and labour alike. But the business community is not pretty happy with the government; I would say, in milder form, it is not impressed at all with how it conducts itself.

As you pointed out, Mr Speaker, what has this to do with Bill 143? It has to do with Bill 143 because I am seeing their concern and householders will be seeing $300 more on their tax bills after they have implemented this $29-million annual operating cost in that area of the landfill site.

The ministerial order -- my colleagues here spoke very well on it and my other colleague will have a lot to say on this -- requires that the municipality of Peel extend the Britannia Road landfill site in 1992 when that site is scheduled to close, and that the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto expand Keele Valley in 1994 when it is also scheduled for closure.

As you are quite aware, Mr Speaker, and I know you have been kept quite informed about it, Britannia is requesting for a lift of 2.5 million cubic metres and Keele Valley is to be prepared for a lift of 4.2 million cubic metres. It is unlikely that the long-term sites will be identified and approved prior to 1997.

It seems to me that Britannia will be forced to accept more garbage and waste for five years longer than originally agreed upon, and Keele Valley will take about three years longer, as we know, than anticipated. It is poor planning on behalf of the minister. We will point things out to you that need to be looked at very seriously, and my colleagues who are personally affected in that area will speak in much more detail about it.

Under section 17, Mr Speaker, as you direct me of course to this bill, it states that the Environmental Assessment Act does not apply to any undertakings in order to comply with the minister's order. I read it about three times to see if I had it right. It does not apply to any undertakings in order to comply with the minister's order. This is really in conflict with the promises made by the NDP during the election. But what is a promise in an election?

If I am going to base my argument on the fact that a promise is made in an election and they should carry it out, maybe my argument would be pretty weak, but it needs to be pointed out. It needs to be pointed out that they go and say, "This is our promise, and we will adhere to that promise." Now of course so soon after the election things have changed dramatically.

Subsection 17(8), as I go into detail on this bill, orders the municipalities to comply with the minister's order, even if to do so contravenes "an agreement that is binding on the municipality or the Planning Act."

That is what it is all about: power. It does not matter at all that it is laid out here and it says that the minister is the one who has the almighty power to do so.

There are many others, Mr Speaker, as I go through this; you will be appalled yourself to find out that the bill was drafted in a manner of such power. Subsection 13(1) states that the Minister of the Environment will advise the crown agency, which I mentioned earlier in my speech, as to the amount of waste that will be diverted from landfills due to the 3R program.

I suspected somehow that they did not have a plan. When the leader of the party, now the Premier, was asked about his detailed program, I think what he mentioned was something like, "Of course, we can work on the reduce and recycle aspect of things." In other words, that was his program. I suspect that he had not had much of a program ready.

2140

In the same section, subsection (2) states that the agency in determining the required capacity for each of the landfills will use the estimates provided by whom? Members have guessed it right. They will be provided by the ever-powerful minister. Again she will determine where it will go.

These parts of the legislation undermine the independence and the expertise of the agency. Of course, the government will give the agency the power, but from time to time the minister will step in and overrule all that with the power she had grabbed along the way here in this bill if we do allow her to do that.

I can empathize with the minister, as I said. I know that the bill was drafted hastily. I know that the minister is anxious to get a bill in because, as I stated, she comes to this House with great respect from the opposition, because we did respect her very much when we were in government, but she has nothing to show for her work. We would like to help her, because in helping her we would be helping the province. The province comes first. We feel that the province must have one of the best bills that can be provided, and our job is to do that.

While we are trying to help her through all this process, we are keeping in mind the people of this province. We are keeping in mind, as I said, that when the chicken comes home to roost it does not poison us, it does not come back at us and kill us. We must have a good bill, something that the people can live with, because the fact is it is one that we are completely concerned about. That will happen if we do not get the attention of the minister and the government to go in that direction.

As I said, subsection 13(2) and subsection 13(1) and other aspects of it undermine the independence and the expertise of the agencies that were given the power to determine the long-term landfill needs in greater Toronto. The waste authority is doing its analysis on the surface areas to be served. It will study the potential population growth and the business development in the regions and determine the capacity of disposal area required for the next 20 years.

The government has somehow distanced itself from the process by establishing this independent body to conduct the site selection. It has in some way, in a token manner, involved itself, as I said, in dictating to that authority the capacity that would be required of each landfill. The minister, although giving that power, will come to this authority and say: "That's the capacity. That's what I'll do." I am saying I do not understand that. The government gives that authority the power and allows it to do its job, but the minister will determine the capacity of the landfill sites.

It will be based, as she said, on the best estimate of the effectiveness of its 3Rs over the next 20 years and will require the Minister of the Environment to prejudge the effectiveness of its own forthcoming waste reduction regulations. This exercise will be conducted more objectively, I feel, by an independent body -- without the interference of the minister -- a body that would carry out all the studies and analyses, as was stated earlier on. But what we have is the minister overpowering, or putting her authority over and above this authority: She will do her own evaluation and make her own assessment outside the power she has given this authority, this board.

Subsection 16(2) of the bill deals, of course, with the intervenor funding, and I know the Speaker has watched and read very carefully about intervenor funding.

As we deal with this greater Toronto area management of waste, I question what this has to do with Bill 143. Given that the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988 clearly applies to the Environmental Assessment Act, it seems to me there are some ulterior motives behind all this and I would like the minister in her statements or during the time we debate this bill, to explain why it is she is putting it on to this. Maybe she is not planning at all. Maybe those are the cuts that may happen and maybe she is not planning at all to renew the Intervenor Funding Project Act when, of course as she knows, it sunsets next year. I do not know her plans. I know that there are many cuts that the Treasurer plans to make and maybe that is one of them; there are some savings here.

I know many of my colleagues would like to speak on this. In wrapping up, I just want to say -- speaking directly through the Speaker to the minister, and I am glad she is here -- that the concern of the people in the Durham area, although they are quite well represented in Parliament here and in the government, may feel cheated if those members do not speak in defence and in support of that area, the Whitevale and the Beare Road area. They are disillusioned at what they have seen so far, but they think there is still hope. They feel that if the bill is only in second reading there is hope.

They feel that if I could get through to the senses of the Minister of the Environment there would be still hope. They feel that if the former Minister of the Environment, who is still in the House, can bring the minister to her senses about addressing the issue, there is still hope. They hope, like the member for Oriole who spoke so eloquently on the bill and pointed out in detail some of the concerns, that there is still hope. They hope, like the third party, the member for Mississauga South -- who spoke at length and they listened -- although through all the noise and the rattle and insults, that somehow if 10 minutes of that three and one half hours of speech got through, there is still hope.

They say that since they had elected one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight members of the government side in that area of Durham, there is still hope; that since within those members there are two cabinet ministers sitting at that table to bring the concern to the Environment Minister about the effect it would have, there is still hope. They hope, too, that with the little knowledge that I have but, I hope, with the passion I bring to the issue, the minister will listen, that there is still hope. But when they go back to the Agenda for People, they find no hope. They find reneging. When they go back to the behaviour of some of the members here, they say they do not think there is hope. In general, while all the members like to be recognized, I, too, want to recognize them, to say to them in our province today, the people who are hoping that some of the things can be addressed, that justice itself can be addressed, that they can be heard through this bill, that they can recognize themselves through Bill 143 and say the minister has listened, the government has listened.

I am a very optimistic individual. I am optimistic because I feel that all members come to this House to serve the people of this province and to serve them well. I want to protect the Rouge Valley. I do not need a great expansion of the Whitevale or the Beare Road. I need the members to stand up and speak on behalf of them. Bill 143 does not help the cause.

I want to thank you again, Mr Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to bring those concerns to this House.

2150

Mr Offer: If time permits, I just want to take a moment to congratulate the member for his comments on the bill. I think he brings forward the passion that a great many people feel about this particular bill.

It is not just a piece of legislation; it is a bill that talks about some very serious changes and ramifications to communities and the way they are going to be able to plan. In a very real sense it usurps and steps on the local municipality's right to plan in its community. For instance, it talks about superseding any agreements that municipalities have entered into. That is something that directly affects the area which I represent, the city of Mississauga. It talks about superseding official plans and local bylaws. These things are very important aspects, as we all know, when we talk about the communities and how they are going to be planned. I think the member has brought forward, in a very real way, the concern that many people feel in areas that will be affected.

I think what is coming out in no uncertain terms is that it is not just the areas that have the landfill sites now that are going to be affected. Yes, they are going to be directly affected, but I think what is coming out in no uncertain terms is that many other areas -- an incredible number of areas -- are going to be affected by this particular piece of legislation. What this legislation does really is take local planning initiatives, of municipalities and of regional municipalities, out of their hands. Those are the people best able, best equipped to deal with these matters. This bill really tramples on their right to do what people have elected them to do. I congratulate the member for his comments on the bill.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to respond to a few comments from the member for Scarborough North. His recollection of history is a little bit wanting in terms of what he was saying about the landfill site search in my constituency and the P-1 landfill site search. The point that I would like to make is that the P-1 site in north Pickering sits on top of three aquifers, the head waters of the little Rouge, the Petticoat Creek and Duffin Creek. This site was chosen somewhat arbitrarily, probably at the whim of some minister and maybe the councillor from Etobicoke West.

They were going to run this, if memory serves me correctly, under an Environmental Protection Act hearing, not an Environmental Assessment Act hearing. What strikes me as a little bit interesting is that they complain about rights. There was no option, we believe, that this site could be rejected. They were prepared to put six to eight million tons of garbage on this site, which is hydrogeologically difficult in the first place, and which is prime agricultural land in the second, with an Environmental Protection Act hearing. They stand here in a very interesting turnabout decrying and saying that they are the protectors of people's rights. I have a great deal of difficulty with that.

The Speaker: Further questions or comments? The member for Scarborough North has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr Curling: I am very pleased that my comments have aroused and awakened the member, because I wanted him to say something about that area. Ever since the election I have not heard him saying very much. All I am saying is I am glad that this debate itself has allowed them to start speaking on the issue. If they lie dormant like this, places like Whitevale and the Pickering site will go through this and maybe, of course, expand the dump site there.

I want to tell the honourable member that my interest in that area, and I am sure he has a great interest in that area too, is that they do it right, that they listen. I am saying that the member is elected there, and the minister is in his caucus. I want him to carry the message. He has, as I pointed out to him, almost seven members in that area. He should speak to them in the same way when he stands up with his Premier, his leader there, and talks about protecting it. In one statement the member said, "People in Whitevale and through Pickering-Ajax are vehemently opposed to the dump and looked to Stoner, who got elected three years ago on an anti-dump platform, to help them." Let me hear the same thing from the member and all the members over there. I am telling them that this bill has been crafted in a bad way and if they listen we can save it and the chicken will not come home to roost.

Mr Stockwell: I have thought long about exactly how this speech will unfold and exactly the comments in the past that this government has made and exactly how far adrift this government has gone from its days in opposition. I think back to the time when the member for Durham West would come down and make deputations before Metro council. He was so eloquent in his speeches at Metro council in his concern for the environment and how strong he was about preserving the environment and environmental protection hearings and the Environmental Assessment Act.

2200

I thought long about the Minister of the Environment, sitting through many speeches at Etobicoke council and in the House here, hearing her comments in the House when she was in opposition to the then Minister of the Environment, the member for St Catharines, and how mixed the message was today compared with the very defined, the very obvious positions and stances this government has taken in the past, when in opposition.

It makes me wonder exactly how power affects this government, exactly how the mantle of power weighs on their shoulders. Let me be very clear: This piece of legislation, Bill 143, will follow them around for the rest of their lives. They will never ever live this down.

Mr Harnick: Like a big albatross.

Mr Stockwell: It will be the albatross. It will be the weight around the government's neck. It will be the biggest mistake it has made as a government and the biggest mistake it has ever made as an environmental party.

It is very important that we go back a few years to the early 1980s and the debate at Metro council and other councils in the Metropolitan Toronto region when it became clear that we were involved in a garbage crisis. At that time, a kind of quasi GTA was formed. It was a very important step taken by Peel, Metro Toronto, York and Durham. At no time in the past had four regions in the Metropolitan Toronto area come together to resolve what we considered to be the greatest crisis we in Metro Toronto faced in the 1980s.

As we go back to those early 1980s and mid-1980s, the landfill sites were being filled at unbelievable rates. The expansion and growth of Metropolitan Toronto was second to none, I think, in North America, maybe even the world. We had incredible amounts of waste being sent or diverted to our landfill sites. Keele Valley was opened not many months before this and was projected to be a very helpful addition to our landfill concerns. We felt the Keele site, Maple as it was known then, would last 20 years, maybe longer.

Subsequently, it was very clear that it was not going to last. I believe it was then Chairman Flynn, also a man from Etobicoke, who sat on council with the Minister of the Environment and would remember very well her eloquent speeches at council about process and the environment, land filling and development. It is hard to believe it is the same person I am looking at today but it was the same person. Mr Herrema, whom the member for Durham West will certainly remember, represented Durham and his council supported the Whitevale site. To make the suggestion that this was foisted on them by some provincial government is half-baked at best. The council in Durham supported that site, let members opposite make no mistake about that.

Mr Wiseman: Not the people.

Mr Stockwell: Not the people, the member for Durham West suggests. I suggest to the member that the people in Peel do not support the expansion of Britannia and the people in York do not support the expansion of Keele Valley with not a minute of public hearings. If the member is fighting for the people, he should vote against this bill.

The GTA members got together and searched for two things. They searched for a short-term site and a long-term site. The members of those councils, represented by their chairmen, agreed on one issue and one issue alone, that each region would have to put on the table a short-term landfill site adopted and endorsed by the council.

Hon Mrs Grier: Who put Keele Valley on the table?

Mr Stockwell: If the minister will just hold on, I will finish. Peel put a site on the table, York put a site on the table, Durham put Whitevale on the table and Metro put the Rouge on the table.

Hon Mrs Grier. York put Keele.

Mr Stockwell: Metro council put the Rouge Valley on the table. The minister can twist it any way she likes. It does not surprise me, the way she is twisting the facts today. They put the Rouge Valley on the table.

When they put those four sites on the table for short-term dump sites, the sites were accepted by the councils, endorsed and supported. This all works within Bill 143. We must go back to find out how this government has reached this draconian level. This measure is so draconian that it usurps the rights of public citizens.

Those sites were put on the table. We debated at length. We had the NDP down at Metro council. I even believe that the now Premier showed up at one point to be a deputant to the works committee to talk about the dump sites and how unreasonable and unfair it was to the public to approve dump sites with only an Environmental Protection Act hearing, only a shortened environmental assessment hearing.

And 11 short months later, once they gained this power, they are attacking the Environmental Assessment Act, neighbourhoods, councils, planning acts, OMB decisions, Peel, York and Metro. They are attacking the people who have a right to be heard about something as important as a landfill site in their community. That is what they are doing.

As we go back in history, this particular process may not have been a perfect process. No one suggests it was a perfect process, but it was a damned sight better than this piece of legislation before this House today. That was the councils' role. They had to find short-term sites. Also in that role, under the then Minister of the Environment, the member for St Catharines, they were directed to do another thing. They were directed to find long-term landfill sites. Those long-term landfill sites were investigated and studied. Money was spent.

Members should bear in mind very clearly that a lot of money was spent on the short-term sites as well. On those short-term sites, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore suggested that a shortened environmental assessment hearing would not serve the needs of the community. I just cannot believe she can stand here today and introduce this piece of legislation. This is worse than a fish on a beach. This is a total abdication of any principles and policy decisions this person stood for. It is unbelievable. She is not even recognizable today with this piece of legislation coming into this chamber under her name.

This minister is the environment's worst nightmare, the dirt kisser from way back who stood in this Legislature and around this province.

Hon Mr Allen: The what?

Mr Stockwell: The environmentalist, the dirt kisser.

Mr Harnick: It is the equivalent of a tree hugger.

Mr Stockwell: It is the same as a tree hugger.

The Speaker: Will the member for Etobicoke West take his seat for a moment, please. I missed the comment at first, but it has been repeated. It would be helpful if the member could find a different term to use for his description.

Mr Stockwell: It is much like a tree hugger. I will certainly withdraw.

This minister, who stood on many points in this House and outside this House and questioned the veracity of the shortened environmental process, is now instituting a bill that allows for absolutely no public input on the expansion of Keele Valley and Britannia.

We then reached the stage during this process when the councils supported the short-term dump sites, when the councils that were looking for long-term dump sites went about the province searching for a rational and reasonable site that would be, I might add, a happy host. That was one of the provisions within it. A couple of those sites were found around this province and investigated. Money was spent drilling those sites to see the worthiness of whether they would be acceptable landfill sites.

2210

This minister opposed that process as well. This minister suggested it would be improbable or impractical to deliver GTA garbage outside of the GTA. The same minister who sits here today knows full well that garbage from Metropolitan Toronto is being shipped south of the border. The same minister who suggested that you cannot go around shipping Metro garbage outside of the Metro region or the GTA, has simply acquiesced to the fact that Metro garbage is being shipped south of the border, as though the United States is some Third World nation that is allowed to collect our garbage but no one else is. Hypocrisy. It is very interesting -- the new left, the new NDP and its new approach to the environment and environmental concerns and the people of this province.

This process went on for maybe seven or eight years. In 1990 they reached the stage of finding a happy host. That happy host was Kirkland Lake. It was well known that the people of Kirkland Lake supported the Metropolitan Toronto decision to make it a long-term landfill site -- by some 79%, I believe. It could be 71%, but it was a substantial majority of the people in Kirkland Lake. Why did they do that? Because they were struggling. They had an economy that was not moving, a tremendous unemployment rate and needed an influx of capital to revitalize the community. Metropolitan Toronto was prepared to put in hundreds of millions of dollars to open up the landfill site and a recycling program as well, hundreds of millions of dollars to jump-start the Kirkland Lake community. I might add that the Kirkland Lake community endorsed this. Council endorsed this. The majority of people in Kirkland Lake endorsed this. There was at last a happy host to relieve the burden of the landfill site from Metropolitan Toronto.

The suggestion is that the government should not be shipping garbage north. There may be some debate and there is at least room for discussion. I am not opposed to that line of thinking; it is a rational thought. I think if the government could discuss it with the people of Kirkland Lake and Metro Toronto, they might reach a compromise. But no, this minister would not even hear of discussion on this topic. She pulled it from the table.

What else did she do? The five or six years' worth of work, the millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars that were spent on seeking an alternative site within Metropolitan Toronto, within the GTA, that met with the guidelines of the Minister of the Environment -- what did she do? She pulled those off the table -- millions of taxpayers' dollars and years of work to try and resolve the short-term landfill crisis that we in the greater Toronto area were facing.

The real sham of the whole escapade is that this minister stood up in this House 10 months ago, maybe longer, and said she had analysed the garbage crisis, she had read the reports, she had spoken to the people she needed to speak to and she had decided, in her own wisdom, that there would be no garbage gap. With the 3Rs implemented by this government and the recession, she would not need to find an interim landfill site because her 3Rs would alleviate the need for a garbage gap.

Eleven months ago, she took an issue over from the Liberal government and said there was no problem. Do members understand that? She said in this House there was no problem, there would be no garbage gap. Yet today she stood in this House, pointed an accusing finger at the then Liberal government and said: "It's all your fault. You've mishandled this issue." But 11 months ago there was not a problem. Eleven months ago there was no garbage gap. I ask the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, who mishandled this problem? Eleven months ago she did not have a problem and today she has a problem. May I suggest if anyone in this House has mishandled this problem, it is the minister. She has mishandled this problem. She has created this crisis. She told us 11 months ago that there was no problem, and in the same 11 months she is the only Minister of the Environment I know who created the new problem.

I ask this minister, when she responds, to discuss that statement, to discuss how she can go from no problem 11 months ago to a problem today and tell me that it is all the previous Liberal government's fault. That is shallow logic not befitting a minister in the province.

The next very distressing point that came along in this quagmire of errors, this disgraceful display by the socialists, this issue that they have refused to deal with head on, was the total destruction of absolutely any piece of legislation that dealt with the protection of the environment in this province today. These are the same socialists who in opposition would not allow a single change in the environmental assessment hearing because it would hurt the process. It would do irreparable damage. It would be unreasonable to expect neighbourhoods and people in areas to live around a dump site that did not go through a full environmental assessment hearing.

That was a noble position often put forward by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the Minister of the Environment. But today we have a piece of legislation here, and the member for Durham West has the absolute gall to stand up here today and suggest that the Liberal government was going to shorten the environmental assessment process and make an Environmental Protection Act that takes some five to seven years, saying it would be irresponsible and not befitting a government that would oppress his neighbourhood and his people.

The member for Durham West should sit down with his Minister of the Environment. Does he realize what Bill 143 does? Does he know what it does? It takes away absolutely any opportunity for the public in the regions of York and Peel to have input into the expansion of the garbage sites in their backyards.

In Durham they were going to give them five to seven years of hearings. The Minister of the Environment knew they were getting five to seven years in Durham, and she said that was not good enough. Yet under her legislation she is not giving them even 20 seconds of hearings, and she defends this public policy; she stands in this House and defends it.

I understand what we have here is a classic case of NIMBY, which is the most politically devastating acronym you can face today. NIMBY -- not in my backyard. The member for Durham West cannot stop salivating to vote in favour of it, to hinder someone else's area and neighbourhood and homes. It is absolutely repulsive that he could take such a position.

The member suggests I do not know what I am talking about. I will be more than happy to go to his neighbourhood, to his riding, and go up to the York region in that riding and have a public debate on this issue. I will be happy to debate this publicly and bring in experts to find out exactly who does not know what they are talking about.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if the member for Etobicoke West could address his remarks to the Chair and if the member for Durham West could exercise a bit of restraint and wait for his opportunity to respond to the speech from the member for Etobicoke West.

2220

Mr Stockwell: I see the member for Durham West is having trouble staying awake. The people in York and Peel are not having any trouble at all staying awake now that the government has forced this down their throats with not one second of public hearings. The member should be ashamed of that, I say to my friend.

We then reached the stage where this minister suggested there was no garbage gap. Some 11 months later she stood in this House and said she made a terrible mistake; there was a garbage gap, and she was going to have to take emergency powers. The really sad part about it is we all knew 11 months before that when she stood in this House and said there would be no garbage gap that there would be one. Everybody knew it. Metropolitan Toronto knew it. Durham knew it. York knew it. Peel knew it. The members opposite knew it.

I know for a fact that members of the NDP on Metropolitan Toronto council knew it. Richard Gilbert, who is a known NDPer, was very public in his criticism about the shortsightedness of this minister. Dale Martin, a member of Metro council, also an NDPer, was very public in his criticism about the shortsightedness of this minister. Those are known NDPers who knew full well that there was going to be a garbage gap and that this minister was not dealing forthrightly with the public in Ontario.

We now have a garbage gap. We now have no short-term landfill sites on the table because this minister pulled them all off; she pulled off years of work and millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars that went into those years of work. We have no long-term site to go to because that has been pulled off the table and the millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money that has been invested. Then she stands before us and says: "The Liberals messed this up. It's their fault. I don't know what happened."

If the minister did not pull the short-term dump site --

Hon Mrs Grier: I'd be in a worse mess.

Mr Stockwell: The minister knows. She said she does not know how she got into this mess; it was the Liberals' fault. If the minister had not pulled the short-term dump sites off the table, she would not be in this mess. If she had not pulled the long-term dump sites off the table, she would not be in this mess, and if she did not have such a shortsighted attitude to the garbage gap that was as plain as the nose on her face she would not be in the mess she is in today.

But this minister, the Minister of Shangri-La, chose to ignore the obvious. The minister who did not want to deal with reality chose to ignore the obvious. The minister who did not want to have to deal with some hostile neighbourhoods and hostile communities did not want to admit the obvious. The obvious was that there was a garbage gap and everybody knew it. The minister knew it because her own ministry was telling her there was a garbage gap. I dare the minister to show us one person who had any expertise in this field, who recommended to her that by implementing her 3Rs there would not be a garbage gap. I challenge her to name one individual who gave her that advice, because that individual does not exist. The only person who said there would be no garbage gap was the minister and that is how shortsighted this minister was on this very crucial and important issue.

What is the next step? We have a Premier who sits beside the Minister of the Environment who went around this province during the election and made very unfortunate and unreasonable promises, promises that no one could keep. He practically promised there would be no garbage. That was practically what he did, because every time he was at a landfill site or a proposed landfill site, he promised the people of that area that they would have to go through full environmental assessment proceedings and hearings to get it approved.

The socialist caucus should ask the minister about the last waste landfill site that was approved under the full environmental assessment hearing. The last one that was approved, as I recall, was a site in Halton. This was 1990. We were going to be out of landfill space by the mid-l990s in Metro Toronto. The Premier went around this province promising everyone that they would have to go through full environmental assessment hearings. The last site that was ever approved, and the minister knows this very well, was in Halton. Do you know how long it took to get that approved under the Environmental Assessment Act, Mr Speaker? Seventeen years. The Premier went to all the landfill sites and made the promise there would be a full environmental assessment hearing on every single landfill site that he attended in this province. He was not being forthright. The Minister of the Environment was not being forthright in her criticisms of the previous government. To suggest to all parties that they would have to go through an environmental assessment hearing on any new sites meant that we were 17 years behind the eight-ball, and we only had four or five years left of landfill sites in Toronto. I ask the caucus members, do they think that they were stretching the truth just a little bit? Do they think that maybe they made it up as they went along?

Do you think maybe, Mr Speaker, they were simply saying it to get some votes? I do not think that is a quantum leap.

The sad part about this whole process is that then one looks at the Agenda for People, because this is the party that produced this document that spoke about people being tired of governments that say one thing at election time and do something completely different when they are elected. I would like to ask the minister, when during the election did she tell the people of Keele and Britannia that she was going to expand their sites with not a minute of public hearings? When did the minister tell them that? When did her Premier tell them that? As I recall, they told them they would have full environmental assessment hearings.

The people of York and Peel deserve one thing for sure; they deserve a full public apology from this government for the misleading information that it gave them during the election of 1990. They were foolish to believe it, but they are so foolish now, because they are forced to accept an expansion to a landfill site that the government promised it would not do.

The ultimate irony was, I believe, in the first week of August. Their Premier, the member for York South, sat in that office downstairs and called the then Premier, David Peterson, a liar for not carrying out the promises he made in the last campaign. The absolute, unmitigated gall of this collection of socialists is absolutely beyond belief. The ones who suffer are the poor citizens who surround Keele Valley and Britannia.

This Premier -- I want to emphasize this -- did not call Mr Peterson a liar just once. You would think if he said it once, it might have been a slip: "Oh jeez, he shouldn't have said that." Or if he said it maybe twice, you would think: "He slipped twice. We can forgive him for twice." He called them a liar five times. Once he called them a liar for not fulfilling his campaign promises on auto insurance. It is all collected in the agenda for power that they produced to buy votes from the special-interest groups to put themselves where they are today.

The most interesting part of this debate is --

Mr Morrow: You are wasting time.

Mr Stockwell: I do not think this is a waste of time, my friend. I do not believe this is a waste of time. I think this is a very important, public process that needs to be aired. I think the people of Peel and the people of York consider it to be a very important public process. If the member thinks I am wasting his time, I suggest he leave, because I think there are a lot of people around the greater Toronto area, and in York and Peel particularly, who think this is a very important issue.

The next issue we must deal with is, why did this government make these promises that it could not keep, knowing full well it could not keep them? That issue has been dealt with over a series of debates in this House. The funny thing is, the member for York Centre -- I think he is from York region -- asked the Premier, which was really interesting, "When you stood on that site at the Keele Valley and you said you will not have an expansion here without a full environmental assessment hearing -- you said those words, Mr Premier, because I saw you on TV" -- he said to the Premier exactly that -- "was that you, Bob? Who said that?" The Premier got up and he referred the question to the Minister of the Environment, as if she would know if it was Bob, because he was not sure if it was Bob.

2230

That is how sad this whole debate has gotten: The Premier will not even admit that it was him making these promises.

The Minister of the Environment got up and she got mad at the member for asking the question. The minister should know there are a lot of people in York and a lot of people in Peel who are asking the very same question. So what does that take us to? Public process. These were the champions of public process, as I look across. At any council I sat on, you could count on the socialists to bring forward the public process argument. Nothing could be approved without enormous public meetings, without enormous public input. If you wanted to build a semidetached house, you had to have a public hearing. If you wanted to develop, let's say, the motel strip -- how about that one? -- you would have to have public hearings for 25 or 30 years.

Here we are today with this government which approved the motel strip in about 20 minutes. They could not do it in 25 or 30 years, but they did it in about 20 minutes at a backroom meeting one night. We have this government which endorses public process and I remember the minister's speeches. They were eloquent on public process and never usurping the rights of the people to public process. Do members remember those? It was not just the motel strip but all developments.

Here is this minister, who sat on cable 10 in Etobicoke and made these wonderful speeches to the people of Long Branch and Mimico and New Toronto and Alderwood and said, "Public process is so important and it is me, the NDP member on this council, protecting your rights." What the heck happened to public process? Where did she go wrong? What happened on the way down Lakeshore Boulevard and up University Avenue? There has been a conversion like I have never, ever seen before. The cable 10 show in Etobicoke about public process -- there was always time for public process. Here we have Bill 143, a full expansion of landfill sites in Peel and York. There is not time for one minute of public process.

In fact, they have strayed so far from their ideology -- they slipped on public auto insurance -- they claim the recession had something to do with that. They have slipped on their budgeting; they claim the recession had something to do with that. They do not have enough money. Their day care policy is gone. Non-profit housing is history, and all these promises they made, because of the recession. Members think they cannot possibly break another promise because they all cost money; then we have Sunday shopping. That does not cost them any money. They cannot use the recession as a cost for Sunday shopping. Then they give up on that one. You can shop in Ontario in the months that start with the letter D; that is what you can do in Ontario today.

So that piece of rigid ideology in Bill 143 falls into that. It has totally slipped, totally gone. The public process is no longer necessary. Do members know why? Because they know best.

[Applause]

Mr Stockwell: Some of the deep thinkers in their caucus applaud this. I will say categorically that there are a tremendous number of people in the region of York, there are a tremendous number of people in Mississauga and Peel, the GTA, in Metropolitan Toronto and in Durham and in Halton who would like very much to comment on this piece of legislation. Their own minister did not even want to send this out to public hearings. Did the member for Durham West hear that? At least at Metro council we had public hearings and heard his complaints. His government did not even want to send this out for public hearings. He should be ashamed of himself This government should be ashamed of itself.

It forced this opposition party and that opposition party to negotiate a tough deal even to allow the public to comment on this bill. The government was the protector of the process; it was the protector of public input. What happened? What happened to its principles? What happened to its ideology? What happened to its commitment? Are the cars that big? Are the salaries that large? Is that the case? This government has sold out like no government has ever sold out in the past, ever.

This particular package will eliminate any need to have much debate about this come the next election. Why? Because this is the most damaging piece of environmental legislation ever to hit the tables in this Legislature. I cannot believe the NDP caucus can be so cavalier about this. I cannot believe its members think this is a good piece of legislation. I cannot believe, after reading this, that they think this is a good thing to do. I would love to see the defence. The defence is, "The Liberals left us a mess and we had to clean it up." But that argument is so fake, it is so false, because 11 months ago there was no garbage gap and there was no problem. So how come, 11 months later, it is the dirty Liberals' fault, when there was no gap 11 months ago? There was no need for a short-term deal --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I ask the minister. I am not kidding, that is what the minister said. The minister said that; there was no gap. There was no need for a short-term site because the 3Rs that she implemented, recant -- I am sorry, those are the wrong 3Rs. Reduce, reuse and recycle, those 3Rs were going to resolve the problem, and there was no problem. Now 11 months later, there is a problem and it is all the Liberals' fault and they are, of course, liars. We heard that one back in election time because they did not fulfil their campaign promises.

So it has absolutely reached the stage where the socialists that I once knew, the proud socialists, the NDP, are totally unrecognizable; the protectors of the environment, the purveyors of process.

Mr Hope: The tree huggers.

Mr Stockwell: The tree huggers. They got arrested, for goodness' sake. Some of them even got arrested for protecting the environment. I cannot even recognize this government, this minister and this bill. If they honestly believe this is a proper piece of legislation, I invite all members of the NDP caucus, all members from outside the GTA, to please come to the public hearings in the GTA and hear what the people say. They should hear what the people say about the legislation, what the people think about not one minute of public hearings on this legislation and what the people say about the rights it gives the Minister of the Environment, or a director from the Ministry of the Environment. They should hear what the people have to say about that.

Let's hear what Pollution Probe has to say, or Greenpeace, or all the other socialist plans that came in on an ongoing basis to Metro council. We heard from them ad nauseam about the public process, about environment, about landfilling etc. It seems funny that none of these people is going to be given an opportunity to speak to the expansion of Keele Valley and Peel.

Does that not make the minister uncomfortable? Does that not make her feel difficult? Does it not make it difficult to talk to these people again? Does it not make her uncomfortable to stand up and defend this bill that she spoke about at great length in opposition, about how terrible these kinds of things were? Does she not feel uncomfortable? Does she not think that she has sold out? Does she not think that everything she stood for is now just a distant memory? Does she not think that at all?

Does she not think that, according to Metropolitan Toronto council's solicitors -- here is a good one -- the EPA, part V, is important? Does the minister not think the Aggregate Resources Act is important? Does she not think the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act is important? Does the minister not think the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act and the Municipal Act are important? Does she not think those are important pieces of legislation put in place to protect the citizens' environmental soundness?

2240

Does she not think the Planning Act is important? This is amazing. The minister is bulldozing over the Planning Act. She used that more times in defence of opposing developments and projects in Etobicoke than there are members in this House. She is bulldozing the Planning Act. I cannot believe it. I swear she took the Planning Act to bed with her before. It was so important to her. Today, she is just bulldozing it. She does not want anything to do with the Planning Act. Does she not think the Regional Municipality of York Act is important, or in fact the approval of Vaughan under subsection 66(3) of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act? Does the minister not think they are important?

Here is a really important question that needs to be asked of this minister. Does the minister not think that her environmental bill of rights is important? Does she not think that her environmental bill of rights is a piece of legislation that should be introduced to protect the people in Ontario from governments and from other --

Hon Mrs Grier: I hope to have your support when I do.

Mr Stockwell: I hope I can support it. But does the minister not think it is important that the act be given full weight? The very interesting part about this is, the first piece of legislation that this minister will bring in, besides this one, will be her Environmental Protection Act.

Do members know what the second piece of legislation will be when she brings that in? She is going to bring in a piece of legislation that will ignore the Environmental Protection Act and allow Keele Valley and Britannia to expand. That is the very second piece of information she has hung her hat on. She staked her political career on her Environmental Protection Act. She has introduced it in the Legislature at least once, maybe more.

The first act she is going to have to contravene when she expands Keele Valley and Britannia is her own Environmental Protection Act. Does the minister not think that is the ultimate irony? Is she not embarrassed by this? How can she hold her head up, when the first act she is going to contravene is her own environmental bill of rights? That is almost laughable. If it were not so serious, we would think it is laughable.

Here we go now. We are reaching a stage in our Legislature's rebirth, the rebirth of the socialists who have changed. I admit they have changed. They are trying to make themselves into, I guess, Red Tories. I really do think that. I think they all would want to look like David Crombie, if they could. I cannot get over the metamorphosis that has taken place right before our eyes. This socialist doctrine that they live by has been thrown out the window in the name of political expediency.

I think a few of the ministers have sold out big-time. There is no question in my mind that the insurance issue was a sellout big-time. That was probably a big fight in caucus. That is probably a big fight by the other members of caucus. It is understandable because when they went to the door, particularly in other regions of this province, there was quite an issue, I am sure, in insurance. That was a big fight.

That was a big fight, and then the budget was a big fight. They know $10 billion must be a lot of money because a lot of people have spoken about it. So that was probably a big fight; maybe not a fight, but they certainly had some angst or a little concern about that kind of dollars being spent.

I think a few other issues that have come along have been a great concern, but what bothers me is I do not think this was a big issue in that caucus across the floor. I do not think this got 20 minutes, and the sad part about it is, I do not think it got 20 minutes because I do not think they understand it.

It does seem rather interesting, but I do not really believe they understand it. I do not think they understand how wide-ranging and encompassing this piece of legislation is. I do not think they understand that the decision for a dump site gets taken out of anybody's hands and put in one person's hands. I do not think they understand that. I do not think they understand that there is no process for the government to appeal a dump site. None. No process. It is a decision that is made by the minister and director. If the government members think that is a reasonable, acceptable approach to governing the province, then I do not think they are truly socialists. I do not think they are politicians, because that is what they are doing with this piece of legislation.

I will say categorically that I still do not believe the members across the floor fully understand the ramifications involved in this bill. I think they do not understand them because, when this bill gets passed and we have public hearings, I think a lot of those members across the floor are going to change their tune. Maybe not the member for Durham West, because he sold out. He thinks that his Whitevale is off the table. Why is he going to change his tune? Because this minister right here before our very eyes, the Minister of the Environment, has a list. She has a list of sites around this province that she can open without any hearings, without any public process. Do the members know what is on that list? I am going to guess what is on that list. I think Whitevale is on that list. I think Whitevale is on that list, I say to the member for Durham West.

Mr Bradley: Is she checking it twice?

Mr Stockwell: She is checking it twice and she is going to find out who is a Tory and a Liberal and not a dipper. She is going to find out which ridings are in the opposition and which ridings are the dippers' ridings. She is going to keep as many as she can out of the dippers' ridings, but there we have to pare it. The member is doing a good job; he should get a raise. But the government is going to have to come up with a few in NDP-held ridings, and I would suggest that when that list gets made public, there will be some major fallout in that caucus, because they are going to realize their sacred political hide is on the line. People in their ridings are going to say, "Gee, we did not elect you to put a dump site in our backyard." The members are going to stand up and say, "Well, I am not going to support it," and the minister is going to say: "Tough, I can do it anyway. You passed Bill 143."

Jaws are going to drop and they are going to say, "Jeez, I knew I should have read that bill," but it will be too late. It will be too late for my friends from Whitevale, too late for my friends from Orillia, Marmora or Newcastle. It will be too late for them. It will be too late for the people from the Rouge, because they will be on the list. They are probably all on the list. Why do we not think the Minister of the Environment will release the list? Because she does not want to tell any members of her caucus who is on the list, because she thinks they will start to think. When they start to think, they may oppose Bill 143. That is a quantum leap, but I think that just may happen. So the question has been put a number of times, and I will take the opportunity to put it to her. Why does she not give us the list? What is she hiding? I guess any time a Minister of the Environment will not give a list of prospective landfill sites, one would have to think: "Gee, there must be a lot of landfill sites on there. Gee, there must be a lot of people who would be really upset if they found out. Oh, my gosh, even some of my caucus members might be upset, like the member for Durham West and his Whitevale dump."

Now, I really hope his site is not on there. I really hope that. But I think it is. I think the Rouge is on there. I think Newcastle is on there. I think there are sites -- Orillia maybe, Newcastle; maybe those sites are on there. Maybe the minister will have a site for Kingston. Maybe she will have a site for Kingston to alleviate the problem they have about shipping garbage to Ottawa, but the minister will not tell anyone what is on the site.

Here we have a government that opposed the previous government and any shortening at all in the Environmental Assessment Act. So what do they do? They do not have any at all. They do not have an Environmental Assessment Act. They do not have an Environmental Protection Act. They used to oppose them for having secret lists; then they used to oppose them for having public hearings on these sites unless they were happy hosts. So this government has no act by which to measure the environmental soundness of certain sites, and it has a secret list it will not tell anybody about.

I remember sitting in this House when the announcement was made that there was no garbage gap, and I recall very vividly when I said: "You're kidding the troops, Madam Minister. You're kidding the troops. There's going to be a garbage gap." I remember much the same as the member across is doing now: "Oh, don't waste our time. We know you're wrong. There's going to be no garbage gap. We're going to implement the 3Rs -- reduce, reuse and recycle." They are going to implement the 3Rs and there will be no garbage gap. They laughed and they joked and they made faces, much like the member is doing across the floor, because they were not worried. As Hazel says, the Great White Mother was going to look after them. But 11 short months later they found out that the Minister of the Environment was wrong. They do have a garbage gap and they are going to have to expand sites.

2250

They made the same kind of statements and muggings that they are doing today. It is rather humorous, because I will have a good belly laugh, I suppose, come five or six months, when they introduce the list of sites. It is going to be really, really interesting to see the fallout in that caucus when they introduce the new secret list.

We now have this draconian piece of legislation introduced by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore -- whom, if this was ever introduced when she was in opposition, we would still be peeling from the ceiling -- that usurps all the rights, all the opportunities that any of the public has as far as public hearings and environmental process for the expansion of waste sites. It basically allows the government, minister or director to pick sites, allows the police into any area on your land -- totally draconian. If you do not let them on your land to investigate your land, then they get a court order and they can come on your land. This is a government which knows about calling the police, but here is another act about calling the police that they can use, all in the name of environmental protection.

Well, I challenge this government to go out in public, on tour, to debate and discuss this piece of legislation with the affected municipalities. I challenge them because I know full well that when the member for Durham West was in Durham and they were talking about shortening the Environmental Assessment Act, and the new Environmental Protection Act was going to be a few years long, that was not acceptable. That was not acceptable to the member for Durham West and not acceptable to his community.

Now the member for Durham West says, "This act" -- that allows for no public input in the region of York and the region of Peel; it does not happen to be the region of Durham -- "is acceptable." How does he square that with his community? How is he going to square that with his community when he finds out Whitevale is back on the list? How is he going to square that with this community when they are allowed to open Whitevale without any public process? How does he square that in his own mind? How does he square that --

An hon member: You don't know what you're talking about.

Mr Stockwell: We never seem to know what we are talking about, but I told the member for Durham West there was going to be a garbage gap. He told me there would not be and that I did not know what I was talking about. I told him they were going to have to expand the two sites in Keele and the site in Britannia. I told him they were going to have to expand, and he said I did not know what I was talking about.

It is funny how every time I do not seem to know what I am talking about, they are wrong. Maybe they should listen up a little bit and they might learn something. It is going to be really interesting that this government will have to go to the public and square it with the public --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I did not. We have a couple of dreamers across the floor here, members.

It is going to be really interesting when this government goes out in public hearings and tries to square this with the constituents and public in the affected areas, because I do not think for a moment that if this government were in opposition, it would have accepted expansions to Keele and to Britannia with no public hearings.

So it comes up to a brief summary, to allow my friends in the official opposition an opportunity to speak. The brief summary is this:

This government that opposed any changes to the Environmental Assessment Act to expedite the concerns in the GTA for waste has now approved a process that allows for no environmental assessment hearings. This government that told us 11 months ago there would be no garbage gap, this government that suggested in opposition that any change or designation or variant from the EAA would not be accepted by them, this government and its Premier -- who, I will remind members, called then Premier Peterson a liar downstairs five times -- they are going to coddle the member from Durham; he is obviously nervous. This government that sat here or stood on the site at Keele and Britannia, this government that said it would never allow Keele to be expanded or Britannia to be expanded without a full environmental assessment hearing, was in my opinion telling untruths. It was misleading the public.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I will not retract, Mr Speaker, because there are communities out there that have been developed abutting these dump sites on the provision that there would be no expansion. Those agreements were legal, binding contracts entered into by the regional government and the local government, entered into by Metro council and Vaughan. Those were contracts signed that said there would be no expansion. The NDP Premier, during the election, stood there and said he would not expand it without a full environmental assessment hearing.

In summary, there have been a lot of promises that this government has sold out on, but this will be the most damaging. It has done more damage to this government, it will do more damage to this government, and in three or four short years when they are back on this side of the House, they will never, ever have any credibility when it comes to the environment because of Bill 143. They will have no credibility with Bill 143 because they sold out. When they sold out, they sold out the citizens in the region of York and they sold out the citizens in the region of Peel. Eventually, depending on how long that list is, they will sell out a whole bunch of other citizens in Ontario.

The other note that is very important to mention -- it is kind of interesting how both of these sites, Keele Valley and Britannia, only affect opposition members. It is kind of interesting how those are the two sites they expand. Not the sites -- they had a couple of sites they could have gone forward on that NDP members were on.

Hon Mr Wildman: You have a very conspiratorial mind.

Mr Stockwell: Maybe the member is right, but it is kind of curious that the sites they are expanding are the sites held by opposition members. Members would almost think they planned it. I am not going to say they planned to break their promise, because I do not think they thought they would win. I just think one would almost think they planned this position some 10 or 11 months ago when the minister said there would be no garbage gap.

It is left up to this government to go out and defend this to the people in the province. I honestly believe the Minister of the Environment should attend public hearings. I think it is really important that the minister know this, and I think Peel and York would like to see the minister attend public meetings there. I think it is very important and that they would like to hear from her. They would like to hear her, and I think it would be very important that the Premier also attend those public meetings, because they have an undertaking that they have broken with these communities. They have an undertaking they have not lived up to with these communities.

I think it is incumbent on them to go out to these communities and explain why they could not fulfil their undertaking. I do not think it is necessary to have the backbenchers, because I think they still have not read the legislation, which they will not understand. I think it is more important to have the Minister of the Environment and the Premier, the two members of this government who made the commitment that there would be no expansion without a full environmental assessment hearing. That is important. That is the least these people deserve. If the minister is going to do this to them, they deserve an opportunity to be heard. I think that, under any other process at any other level of government, she would agree to this. I think they deserve the opportunity to be heard.

2300

I was a little lengthier than I thought I would be, but I think it was important that we recap the history of this issue. I think it was important that we recap the history of this issue as it relates to the Minister of the Environment and her complete and utter reversal on this issue. I think it is important that we recap this history and how it relates to the Premier and how he completely broke his promise. I think it is important how we relate it to the backbenchers, because this issue is not dead. This issue has just begun.

When that list comes out, I would love to be in the NDP caucus, because there are going to be jaws hitting the table faster than you can see that list being delivered. That will be very interesting. As I said before, the history will be needed when they figure out that they should have read this bill and did not. They gave away any opportunity for public process. They gave away any opportunity to oppose. Worst of all, they gave away the rights and the privileges of the people they represent. They gave them away in the name of partisan, socialist policy.

The Speaker: Questions or comments? The member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: There we go, we got our mike back tonight. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. What do you say after somewhere around an hour and a half or two hours of verbatim comments on the part of a member from the Tory party? I think the member has nothing to give in regard to this House in regard to an example of what he is talking about on this issue, because quite frankly I think he is very much mistaken in his interpretation of what this bill is all about. That, however, is not surprising, taken from the member opposite. I have yet to sit in this House or sit at home, trying to listen to what he is saying, and appreciate it for any kind of seriousness.

He has talked about saying he would love to be a member of our caucus in regard to being able to listen to what our caucus would have to say at one point. We would not have the member anyway. So with that, that is my two minutes.

The Speaker: The member for Brantford. Folks, make up your mind. The member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: It was kind of my colleagues to allow me a few minutes. I just wanted to comment on the speech by the member for Etobicoke West, because in the Legislature there are often speeches delivered that are worthy of favourable comment, and not simply because of the content but also because of the style and the background brought to the House.

Whether anybody agreed or disagreed with the member -- I happened to agree with a lot of what he had to say this evening -- I think it was a very helpful intervention. I know other people in the government who hear this kind of intervention by a member of the opposition will assume it is simply an excuse to waste time or take a partisan shot at the government. Certainly there was a degree of partisanship, as there should be in this House. Certainly it does extend the debate, but I think if the members of the Legislature listened carefully to what the member for Etobicoke West said, they would recognize that he has some considerable experience on local council in dealing with these problems.

He has also exposed the fact that when one gets into government, it is much more difficult to deal with these issues than when one is dealing with them from this side. I have had experience -- eight years in opposition previous to now -- and I know how easy it was when I was in opposition to suggest that the government was doing something wrong and how the solutions that I proposed, if I ever had to propose them, were solutions that perhaps I would not have to implement.

What we are seeing are a government and a minister confronting a very difficult situation. As a former minister, I have some sympathy with any minister who has to deal with this problem, but I think the debate on this bill has been enhanced by the participation of the member for Etobicoke West. I want to take this opportunity, because we do not compliment one another enough in different parties in this, to say, "Well done."

Mr Wiseman: I would like to correct one item in the two minutes I have available to me, and that is the comments that are continuously made that there will be no chance for consultation for the Keele Valley and the Britannia landfill sites.

The minister indicated on November 25 -- it is in Hansard -- that she had instructed these municipalities to undergo certain criteria: site survey, leachate collection control and disposal, contaminant plume, groundwater contamination in the buffer, gas generation and management, storm water management, line of performance, final cover, buffer assessment, site operation, monitoring and after-use plan.

The minister has also requested that Peel and Metro develop public involvement processes to include the public in the studies and the assessment of the safety and soundness of the landfill sites and has also indicated that the landfill extensions will not be done if they cannot be done safely. I think these are important things to remember. Furthermore, Metro Toronto is also preparing a proposal for public involvement which will make the public even more involved in the future.

I think that the comments that the public will be excluded from this are a little farfetched and grasping at straws. There is an element in here that I find extremely gratifying to see, and that is the potential that if they are not safe and cannot be done in a reasonable manner, they will not be done at all. I know, from personal experience with the Brock West landfill site, part of which collapsed into Duffin Creek about 12 months ago, that these are very important considerations indeed.

Mr Conway: I have sat here most of the late afternoon and all of this evening listening to this debate. I do not profess to understand all of the intricacies, like many of the people who have spoken before me, but I want to make a couple of observations. I agree with the member for St Catharines. Quite apart from where one stands on the issue, and I can appreciate how there are different points of view on this very contentious policy, I want to congratulate the member for Etobicoke West for giving a very lively, spirited and engaging speech. We hear all too few of these kinds of addresses in this House. I personally and deeply regret the growing tendency for people walking in here with prepared texts that in some cases -- it is a criticism I think we can apply on all sides -- they have not even written and read with not very much effect or with much commitment.

Mr Wiseman: Just consulting extensive notes.

Mr Conway: I say very directly to my gum-chewing friend from Blind River that the member for Etobicoke West has favoured us tonight with a very lively, entertaining, informative and combative speech. That is what I came to Parliament to be part of. As well, he brings to this discussion a very useful historical perspective.

I will not rethresh some of the straw around what my dear friend the member for York South committed the government to, from Britannia to Marmora and from Whitevale to Keele Valley in the last electoral campaign. I understand the exigencies of office, the problems of the discipline of power, but from what I have heard, it seems to me what we have in Bill 143 is a Trojan horse out of which will issue in the not-too-distant future some component parts that I think will make the lives of my friends from Marmora and Durham West, among others, lively, to say the least.

Mr Stockwell: I would like to thank the member for St Catharines and the member for Renfrew North for those kind words. I will probably use them in my next brochure, no doubt.

I would like to comment on the comments of the member for Durham West. It is laughable that this member can stand in this House today and the best defence he can offer for the Minister of the Environment is: "Don't worry, folks. I told the local municipalities to hold public hearings on my decision." What the heck is the point? They are going to hold public hearings on the decision the minister made. Has she not got the guts to go out there and defend them herself? Has she not got the guts to stand up there and talk to the people she has made this decision for? Why send the local municipalities? They did not make the decision. It was not their decision to make. The minister made it and she is telling me that they are going to have to go through all these processes to get the site approved. 2310

These processes she speaks of are nothing. It is this much when you do an environmental assessment hearing and the minister knows it. So for the minister to stand here and pretend that the processes Metropolitan Toronto is going through are some kind of replacement for the Environmental Protection Act or the Environmental Assessment Act is insulting to the people of York and Peel.

Finally -- I remember the minister saying this and I have said it myself at local council -- if the minister is going to make a decision that the local councils have to live with, then she must pay the piper and defend the decision to the public.

The minister is doing what she hated the most, which is having the province making the decisions and telling the municipalities to defend them. Shame on the minister.

Mr Wiseman: I am indeed pleased to rise today to speak on this issue of waste management. It is something with which I have a long familiarity. I will begin with a little recount of history and why I come to this position.

The very first landfill site I was unfortunate enough to encounter was less than 1,000 metres from my home on Brimley Road in Scarborough, the one that just slid into the access road of the harbour in the park at Brimley Road. I grew up just around the corner from that.

My next experience with landfill sites happened to be just up on Military Trail north of Scarborough College where Scarborough put a landfill site. Then the Beare Road landfill site in 1962 -- I was lucky enough not to have the unhappy circumstance of being near that, but when I moved to Ajax I became very familiar with that landfill site from my constituents who, starting in 1962, had to suffer the consequences of garbage stinking and putrefying in that area, then blowing over their community from Scarborough, only to find that when that landfill site was closed, they stuck another one in Brock West.

In total, within the confines and right on the border of Pickering, we have a grand total of almost 33 million tonnes of garbage, far beyond what anybody should have to experience.

When I decided that the environment was an important issue, important enough for me to be involved in the political arena, my constituents made me very well aware, very early on in 1987, that garbage was an important issue and the odours emanating from garbage were an important issue. That is when I became immersed in the topic of garbage and waste.

The way I operated in terms of developing what I think would be an acceptable policy was that I came at it from the point of view of what could be done in the short run and what could be done in the long run to alleviate the need for landfill sites and the need to dispose of waste.

The very first thing I recognized was that we needed to get on with the 3Rs, reduce, reuse and recycle. In most cases, even "reclaim" would be a good R to add to that. My philosophical approach to waste developed in the context of the crucible of my constituents saying to me: "We've had enough of Metro's garbage. We want some accountability."

It was not bad enough that Brock West was receiving millions of tonnes of Metro's garbage. Metro also owned, in the northwest corner of Ajax, a place called Brock South, which was an old stone quarry within 50 metres of Duffin Creek.

I do not know why, but it seems that people in Metro like to put their landfill sites in river valleys and close to watersheds, any we want to name. Even Keele Valley is on the head waters of the Don. Brock West is on Duffin Creek. Be are Road is right across the road in Rouge. They wanted to put another one in Brock South, which is just downstream from Duffin Creek. Then they wanted to go to P-1, which is on the head waters of the Little Rouge, Petticoat Creek and Duffin Creek. I do not know what it is about river valleys, but they sure are attractive for landfill sites. The one in Newcastle is also on both sides of the creek in Newcastle.

I came to my understanding of waste through my constituents, and I ran in the 1987 election against the member who sat in this place for two years, 11 months and some odd days, Norah Stoner. I lost that election, but I talked about the environment. It was my major plank. I talked about the water in Lake Ontario, I talked about waste and I talked about reducing, recycling and reclaiming. From that, I became very committed to make sure that any landfill site located anywhere would have to undergo the most stringent environmental process to the point where we buried our political ideology.

I sat in the constituency office of Norah Stoner one night in October 1987 with Tories, New Democrats and Liberals, and we created an organization called PACT for the Environment -- Pickering and Ajax Citizens Together for the Environment. It crossed all boundaries. The one thing that held that organization together was the philosophical belief in certain points. One, the process must be equitable, fair and honest for everybody. Two, any municipality must take care of its own garbage as close to the source of creation as possible. Those are the two biggest tenets. The third was that any landfill site that would be created would have to undergo a full environmental assessment process under the Environmental Assessment Act.

We sent a deputation to the then Minister of the Environment, the honourable member for St Catharines. I was at that table with all the directors of PACT. We made that same commitment there. We never said at any time that we did not want a landfill site in Ajax or Pickering. We never made the NIMBY comment, because that would be unacceptable. What we said was, "Let's have a process that will find the best site and will be equitable, honest and fair."

We made that suggestion to the then minister, who obviously was not able to follow through. On more than one occasion I made the same presentation to Metro council, making the same points about the process to be honest, fair, equitable and having garbage dealt with as close to the source as possible. We never said we should not have a garbage dump in Ajax and Pickering. We never said that, but they did not listen to the advice four years ago, and consequently we are having a little bit of difficulty now.

In terms of how this relates to Bill 143, I do not know what bill they have been reading, but it is not the same bill that I see, and it is not the process that I support from this point of view. This bill sets out in four parts what we are going to do in terms of waste management.

The very first part deals with what is called the Interim Waste Authority Ltd. This part of the bill defines it, sets it up as a crown corporation, and sets out the process of how it is going to function. This part of the bill legalizes or puts into effect the process against which landfill sites will be determined. It is called the draft approach and criteria for the landfill sites. There are three of them; there is one for Peel, there is one for Metro-York, and there is one for Durham.

This document is rather lengthy, so I will not read it, but I have in fact studied it. I have gone to public consultations and open houses about this document. I have discussed it with the directors of the Interim Waste Authority. I have discussed it with the engineers who are involved in the site selection. I have spent a considerable amount of time with this document.

2320

This is a good document, and it is good for a lot of very good reasons, because the first thing it does is it sets up criteria against which landfill sites will be measured -- not like under the old Environmental Assessment Act process, where you would have five or six sites put out and you would say, "Well, under the Environmental Assessment Act, we have to determine which one is the best." You could have five terrible sites, and you would pick the least worst. I do not know if that is grammatically correct, but it is a reality. You would pick the least worst, or the best of a bad lot, depending on how you want to deal with that phrase. But these criteria say there are absolute criteria; there are criteria that are set out before you name the landfill sites.

They say there is no public consultation. I can say there has been public consultation on this document. I can say this is a good document, and I am going to deal with some of the criteria.

The very first item deals with agricultural land. As an environmentalist, I know the importance of protecting our agricultural land. I know the importance of setting out and making sure that future generations have agricultural land, and dose to Toronto. This document sets out and says the screening criteria will screen out all class 1 to 3 agricultural lands and will make certain that specialty crop areas will also be protected by corridors of about 160 to 200 metres of buffer. I am not going to read all of this, because it is rather lengthy.

The second set of criteria says it is going to screen out all scientifically sensitive areas or what are called ANSI, areas of natural and scientific interest. They are going to be protected, so they are going to be off the table.

It will screen out complex geology. Well, if that was in the criteria, then P-1 would have been off the site very early because it sits on top of till and permeable rock and other permeable material, and it would never have made it past the screening process.

It will screen out builtup areas -- who knows what a municipality is going to do in its rezoning, but they will move houses right up to the edge of the landfill site, as they have done in Pickering, in Vaughan and in Britannia.

It will screen out the portion of the Rouge Valley where the provincial government has declared a provincial intent to establish a park. The honourable member for Etobicoke West obviously has not read this, or he would know that this criterion says M-2 and M-3 cannot be on the table. To stand in this House and say this is a foolish and unacceptable process shows that he has not read this document and does not understand the relationship of this document to the bill.

It will screen out lands in the Niagara Escarpment Commission planning area, first nation reserve lands and cemeteries to include buffers.

You see, some of the comments that have been made obviously have been made by people who have not read the entire document.

The document also goes on to talk about screening out other areas within the urban shadow -- land inventories -- and it says that any land that has been designated as industrial or has been already designated to be destroyed or to be used for uses other than environmental or agricultural will be included, so industrial areas will be included. It would screen out existing regional parks, including buffers, screen out major schools and major communities, and screen out major hospitals.

I could go on and on, but the important thing about this document is this: Yes, there will be 10 or 25 sites named in all of those regions over the next little while, but any site that is taken off that list will be measured against these criteria, will be done and will be rationalized in the public process. People will be able to come and say: "Why did you remove that site? What criteria did you use to say that site shouldn't be on the list? What criteria did you use to say that landfill site should be on the list? Why didn't you put that site on the list, if it's not on the list against this criteria?" It opens up a huge potential for people to be involved in the entire process, so I say this document is one that says it is not a NIMBY approach; it says you have to measure against absolute criteria.

An hon member: When is the end of this speech?

Mr Wiseman: You guys go for an hour, two hours, three hours. Don't I get equal licks? Is this not a democracy?

Interjections.

Mr Wiseman: It seems that the members opposite have woken up, and that is great because it is almost 11:30 and it is good that they are hanging in there for a real analysis of what this bill really means.

The second process is about waste disposal sites and waste diversion, and I think we have already made a commitment through this document in terms of moving towards waste reduction. I have always maintained that waste reduction is the key. If members take a look at what is in the waste stream, the amount of waste that can be diverted using cones, using composters, using paper recycling and newsprint recycling and bottle recycling, these all will remove a great deal of the waste stream.

That brings me to another point in this bill, and that is Kirkland Lake. I have read the document dealing with Kirkland Lake, and I would like to raise a few points about that. The issue of Kirkland Lake is that it would create jobs. I would like to ask how that could be if all Kirkland Lake was going to get were remnants from the waste stream that could not be used, reused, recycled and reduced here. If you take your glass out and you sell it, if you take your newsprint out and send it to Whitby or to Thorold to be de-inked, if you take your tins out and you send them to the canning companies, if you take your glass out and send it to Consumers' Glass Co and you take your fine paper out and you send it to be recycled, what are you going to do? Is Metro going to send all of its waste by train up to Kirkland Lake, have them sort it and recycle it and then send it all the way back down here? Members opposite are living in a dream world. There is no way that will happen because if there is money to be made at it, Metro is not going to send it to Kirkland Lake; I know Metro well enough to know that this is something they would never do because they make so much money off garbage.

I am going to leave some time for the honourable members opposite to get into this debate, but I want to make some points in summing up. I have always maintained -- and that is why I am not afraid of the process in my riding, because my constituents know that I was never a NIMBY, that I always said publicly and have said publicly since elected that if this process finds a landfill site, the best landfill site, and it happens to be in my riding and it meets this criterion, then I will live with it. But it has to be a fair, open, honest, equitable and clean process devoid of political interference such as what we did not see in the P-1 site in north Pickering, where the land was given and somehow or other it became the site, arbitrarily chosen, probably because the land was free. It was a bad site and we have all the hydrogeological studies to show that.

So this process I can live with if it is open, honest, fair, free and it has criteria that landfill sites will be measured against. I will debate and argue and support the process under those circumstances.

2330

Mr Offer: I would like to make a few comments on the dissertation from the professor from Durham West, self-professed no doubt. The problem, the issue that he seems to have missed is the reality that we are facing not only in the region of Peel but in other regional municipalities. The problem he seems to have overlooked is that his minister has already issued an order extending the Britannia landfill site. No matter how he wants to cut it, the fact of the matter is that a landfill site in the regional municipality of Peel has been ordered to be extended by his Minister of the Environment without any public consultation.

The residents surrounding that site have requested a meeting with the member's Minister of the Environment. They recognized that there is a lot of politics around this, and so they said, "We will meet with your Minister of the Environment privately in her office to share with her our concerns, to ask her questions, away from the politics, away from the media." It was the member's Minister of the Environment who has refused to meet, so the member should not stand and preach to us about how wonderful this bill is, about how it embraces the whole aspect of public consultation, because there just ain't anybody who believes him.

The Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the honourable member for Durham West has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr Wiseman: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I do not think I will use the two minutes.

I would like to address that question specifically from my perspective as the member who has had in his riding and on the border of his riding 33 million tons of garbage. What is environmentally the most preferable route to take if there is a garbage gap and if the processes of recycling do not meet it --

An hon member: Where are you from?

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Wiseman: -- is a lift on a landfill site that already exists, and to say that the member wants to go to a greenfield site under an EPA, which the member is talking about, in terms of a P-1, is totally unacceptable, because that is not the solution to the problem. It is not the way to close the gap.

The residents in my riding have made it abundantly clear to me on more than one occasion that there is an element of fairness that has to enter into this, and that is also in the document that I did not talk about, in terms of criteria, about having taken landfill sites.

I would like to ask the member, a lot of different areas, like Vaughan, where were they going to send their garbage? Where was Mississauga going to send its garbage? The people of Durham and my constituents have said on a regular basis that landfill and garbage should be dealt with as close to its source of creation as possible and that Durham should have its own garbage dump and that each municipality should take care of its own waste.

Mr Offer: I am somewhat pleased to join in this debate. I have waited a great deal of time. I listened to some very important speeches from members of this Legislature on an issue which I very much believe affects all of us; some of us, in fairness, a little bit more directly than others, but certainly without doubt it has the potential in time to affect each and every member in this Legislature directly. I happen to be one of those members, and I profess not to be an expert in this matter, as my friend the member for Durham West is, but I want to use the time that is available to me to tell members a little bit about what we are going through not only in the city of Mississauga or my riding of Mississauga North but indeed in the regional municipality of Peel.

Let's take a little time, Mr Speaker, to share with you and those in the Legislature something about what the people in the area are going through, something about the concerns they have. Before we start I think we have to recognize first that in my area of Mississauga North there exists the Britannia landfill site. I think those of us in the Legislature and those who are viewing have heard the name, Britannia landfill site, used probably by every person who has risen to speak on this particular issue. That site just happens to be in my riding.

In my riding we do not have people who would be termed NIMBY, because we already have the landfill site and have had it for many, many years. People have lived with that landfill site for many, many years. Communities have been planned around that landfill site for many years. Houses have been built and there have been agreements that have been entered into as a result of that landfill site. That landfill site is slated to be closed because it will be reaching capacity probably within the next four or five months.

So, as we talk about this particular issue, I think it is important that members of the Legislature recognize that when we talk about the Britannia landfill site, we are talking about a site which is in fact nearing its capacity. We are not talking years away; we are talking months away. The last I have heard, speaking to the engineering staff in the regional municipality of Peel, is probably no later than June, and that is being generous. Because of the recession there has been less fill going to the site. But the fact of the matter is that, as we sit here in the month of December, the residents in my riding in the city of Mississauga and the regional municipality know that their regional landfill site is going to be at capacity by June or July of 1992, and there is nowhere else for that garbage to go.

Let me talk a little bit about the regional municipality of Peel because that is a region, with its member municipalities, that has not shied away from the challenges of waste and waste reduction. This is not a new issue for members in the area. I have before me, and I am not going to read from all of this, initiatives that are undertaken by Mississauga's waste minimization strategy. This is a city that has not shied away from the challenges of waste reduction in all areas in the 1980s and the 1990s. This is indeed an important document, a timely document and a document which clearly shows that Mississauga has recognized the challenge but has done more: It has prepared a strategy to meet that challenge. They have recognized what was coming. They have undertaken to address it.

2340

Not only the city of Mississauga, but also the Regional Municipality of Peel has conducted studies on a long-term landfill study, the results of stage 1. They have dealt with composting, how to make a composter. They have waste management news. They have been dealing, again, with the challenges. The Minister of the Environment, in her seat, nods her head in the affirmative, agreeing. She knows not only what the city of Mississauga, Brampton, Caledon and the Regional Municipality of Peel have done, she recognizes that these are areas that have not sat back and said, "It's somebody else's problem to solve." They have said: "It's our problem, all of us, and we have the capacity and the initiative and the wherewithal to meet the challenge."

That is the area I represent. Those types of leads did not come from the provincial government or the federal government. They came from within the local municipality. They knew what had to be done and they were attempting to address it.

I have a series of initiatives that have all been performed, all undertaken by different areas in the Regional Municipality of Peel, and it is important, as we deal with Bill 143 -- and I do not want to have to be reminded, but we are dealing with that bill -- that we recognize the framework we are dealing with, because Bill 143 just rips at the heart of the initiatives that have been undertaken by the cities and by the region in the area.

Now the Minister of the Environment shakes her head, in the negative this time, and I could be -- I am -- moved to respond, because the minister will know that she had been invited to come to the region. She had been invited to meet with people. She had been asked -- in fact, it was far from a request -- it was a plea. The residents pleaded with her after she made a decision some 13 or 14 months ago which was going to affect the communities: "Please come to the ridings. Please come to the areas. Tell us what it is that you did, why you did it, what it means to us. We have some questions we want to ask of you, and we will do so."

The residents said, "We understand that a public debate is going to be followed by the media," as the Minister of the Environment treads softly in the city of Mississauga. "It is one that is going to be followed by the media, and it is one for which you are probably going to receive criticism." And so, what do the residents, associations say? They say: "We will meet with you privately. We will meet with you away from the glare of the media, from the public debate."

The minister does not want to do that. She does not want to speak to the mayor of the city of Mississauga, to the chairman of the Regional Municipality of Peel, with the ratepayers' associations at a public meeting. Then, I say to the minister, how about meeting with delegates of ratepayers' associations in the privacy of her office, so that some very sincere concerns can be addressed?

They came to me. I thought that was exceedingly balanced. I thought the actions of the Minister of the Environment over the past 13 or 14 months required and demanded a stronger action, but the ratepayers said, "We want to ask the questions privately of the minister." So we requested that meeting. They asked if I would help, and certainly I would.

The minister refused. The minister refused to meet privately with residents who are going to be directly affected by the landfill site in Britannia. So what type of reaction or response, what type of credibility do we think this minister is going to have with those people? Rightly so, I think the answer is zero.

How can the residents of any association, the residents of any area have any confidence in the decision of any minister when the minister refuses to justify the decision privately to those people who are going to be affected? I think we would all feel the same way. We can throw politics right out this door. I think that in any situation in our lives where somebody else has made a decision and we ask privately, we ask and request to meet with the person who has made that decision to tell us about the decision and that person refuses, any of us would be a touch suspicious, any of us would be exceedingly concerned with the person's credibility. That is where everyone is. I have petitions from thousands of residents. People have written to me, have written to the minister, have written to the mayor of Mississauga saying: "What is it that she is doing? We are against the expansion of the landfill site without any consultation."

Now I move directly to one aspect of Bill 143 and that is part III. Part III of the bill speaks directly about the expansion of a landfill site. The people in my area, in fact the people across the province, very well remember a promise made in the last election. That promise by the now Premier, then opposition leader, the member for York South, said very specifically, "There will be no expansion of any existing landfill site without a full environmental assessment hearing." That is something that is very clear to everyone. People understand that. Somebody was holding himself out to the people of the province -- a leader of an opposition, the member for York South, was saying to the people of this province, "If you vote for me, if you support candidates of the NDP, then you can be certain there will not be any expansion of any landfill site in the province without a full environmental assessment hearing." That is very clear. That is quite understandable. That was said way back in the election. People understood that. I believe people responded to that.

Now we are not talking about the promise made in that election; we are talking about the reality of the Britannia landfill site. That is a site which is being expanded. Is it being expanded with a full environmental assessment hearing, as was promised by the member for York South in the last election? The answer is clearly, by Bill 143, no. The promise made by the member for York South in the last election that said, "vote for me and there will not be any expansion of any existing landfill site," has been broken.

Mr Speaker, I know you are an expert in parliamentary procedure and parliamentary language. I would one day like to ask you, as an expert, what it is when a person promises a hearing and then says, "No hearing." What is it? I know I cannot say "lie," I know I cannot say "mislead," I know I cannot say all those things, and I would not. But the fact of the matter is that people in the last election heard someone say clearly, "No expansion without an environmental assessment hearing."

In Mississauga, in the riding of Mississauga North that I represent, where the Britannia landfill is now located and is now being expanded -- lo and behold, without an environmental assessment hearing -- do members opposite think that people are not upset? Do they think they do not care? Do they think they do not understand? Do they think they do not feel that they have been severely betrayed, misled and misrepresented to? The answer is yes, they do feel that. They are badly hurt, they are feeling badly betrayed and misled, and it is something they are not going to forget.

2350

They question me: "Why is Britannia being expanded, and potentially Keele Valley? Why are those areas held by Liberal members?" They ask me the question, "Is there something behind this action by the Minister of the Environment and the Premier of the province?" This is not something that I brought up; this is a question posed to me. They are saying, "Why?" Is it because of the fact that Liberals represent these areas that the Premier, in an election, would say, "No expansion of a site without an environmental assessment hearing," but in reality, in a site which is held and surrounded by members of an opposition party, there is no hearing? They are asking me those questions.

The question is, what does the mayor of Mississauga say? Maybe if the Minister of the Environment could see fit to meet the mayor of Mississauga, she might be able to answer that question. Because of the fact that the Minister of the Environment refuses to meet, and so what we are left with is the very real possibility that on a site which is slated to be closed in six months, which is now the subject of a ministerial order, which is now right within the ambit of Bill 143, there is not going to be any hearings, there is no public consultation and there is no opportunity for the people who are directly affected by this site to have any say. It flies in the face of promises made by the then opposition leader in an election. It flies in the face of continued protestations by the now Minister of the Environment.

The Minister of the Environment has said over and over again how she values public consultation. The fact of the matter is that when she has to put just a scintilla of substance behind that statement, she falls flat on her face. She did not have the guts even to meet with some concerned people surrounding the site. That is what she failed to do. When she was called upon to meet with those people, she said to them, "No, but I value consultation."

If the Minister of the Environment does not think those people feel betrayed, I challenge her to finally go out there and meet with the people. They are taking the time; they are making the effort. These are people who have other jobs. These are people who are looking to a whole variety of help and advice. They are not familiar with this process. They are asking the minister for some help and she just turns her back on them, as sure as I am standing here today. She just turns her back and says, "I believe in consultation." But when she has to put some substance behind it, there just is nothing they can touch and feel and have some confidence in.

I have before me some letters that have been received by the residents, the ratepayers. I do not profess to be an expert in this area. The members of the government side stand up and say to the opposition members: "Well, you haven't read the bill. We are the experts on Bill 143, its implications, its effect."

The fact of the matter is that it would be nice if there was any hint that they had read the bill, because I can tell members, without being an expert, what the people are saying. I am telling them about letters written by Steve Gallant, Ray Skyvington and by a variety of residents to the Ministry of the Environment. What are they getting in response? They are not getting any response. Far from coming out to a meeting, they are not even getting any real response.

They write a letter to the Minister of the Environment on the expansion of a landfill site. Do members think the Minister of the Environment responds? No. I will read members the first comment: "The Honourable Ruth Grier has asked me to respond to your letter of October 22, 1991 and to the attached petition by area residents regarding the Britannia Road landfill site." I want to thank the minister very much. I am sure it was a major difficulty to receive the letter and hand it right over to Mr Jim Merritt, regional director.

The residents in the area do not want to deal with Mr Merritt, with all due respect to him, who I am sure is a very talented individual. They wrote a letter to the Minister of the Environment. They wrote a letter to the minister and they wanted her response. They do not want the response to start, "The Honourable Ruth Grier has asked me to respond to your letter." They do not want that. They do not want to hear this letter by Mr Merritt, who I am sure is a quite capable individual, but they did not write the letter to Mr Merritt. All they hear is the Minister of the Environment talking about the need and the importance of consultation.

So we have a letter by Mr Merritt. Mr Merritt writes a response by saying he understands the concern. I am going to be dealing with this letter in a little greater detail as we proceed in this debate, but I know there has been an agreement that the House is to sit to midnight tonight. I am not finished talking about some very important aspects of Bill 143, specifically part III of that bill, talking about the very deep concern and betrayal felt by the people around the area. I will leave that to another day and I will adjourn the debate at this time.

The Speaker: If this is a convenient place for the member to leave his remarks for the time being, it being nearly 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 2359.