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

December 4, 1990

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Chiarelli: The Premier is playing possum with the people of Ontario on the issue of automobile insurance. On 10 November the Premier said. "The approach the government takes has to be based not just on pie-in-the-sky hope but a solidly based. documented approach -- the decision cannot be based on ideology." Yet the Premier's cowboy minister was quoted last week as saying that the present Ontario motorist protection plan, Bill 68, is "a complete disaster." Where is the documentation to support this?

A legislative research officer reports that Ontario's three largest automobile insurance companies are complying with the guidelines restricting premiums to an average 8% in the greater Toronto area and 0% outside the Toronto area. I ask the Premier, where is his documentation on premium affordability, the root of automobile insurance reform? Will the Premier document for us his current information on premium levels in Ontario, and if he does not have this type of information, why not? I repeat, where is the Premier's documented approach and why does he not rein in his shoot-from-the-lip cowboy minister?

PUBLIC SECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE

Mrs Marland: Today the Treasurer will reveal the details of his government's throne speech promise to "allocate $700 million for necessary maintenance and renovation of public sector facilities." But unless the Treasurer is a magician, $700 million will not do the job. Over the next 35 years, more than $2 billion a year will be needed for infrastructure renewal just in the greater Toronto area. According to the deputy minister for the GTA, revenues currently provide only half of the amount needed for this capital spending. Even if the Treasurer devotes the whole $700 million to GTA infrastructure, he is proposing a $700-million solution to a $40-billion problem.

To make the picture clearer, consider that the 1990 budget paper E on the costs of public services shows that each kilometre of a four-lane highway costs about $6 million to build. If we spent the whole $700 million on a new four-lane highway, we would get only 116 kilometres of new road: 116 kilometres will not even get us across the greater Toronto area, which is 140 kilometres wide. If we included the cost of $14 million for the average highway interchange. $700 million would buy us just 10 interchanges and 93 kilometres of highway.

No ordinary mortal could make $700 million solve our infrastructure problems. We are waiting to see what tricks the sorcerer and Minister of Economics has up his sleeve.

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION, BRANCH 635

Mrs MacKinnon: Recently I had the honour of attending the official opening of the Royal Canadian Legion's newest branch. Branch 635, in the town of Brig- den in my riding of Lambton county. I also had the pleasure of presenting the members with a plaque on 23 November 1990.

Historically the Royal Canadian Legion originated when several small associations of ex-soldiers banded together throughout Canada during the First World War. The first national organization, known as the Great War Veterans Association, was established in April 1917 and in 1960 was renamed the Royal Canadian Legion, as we know it today.

As I speak of the Royal Canadian Legion, many things come to mind, in particular the variety of community services it provides to our nation today, such as Remembrance Day or Poppy Day, ladies' auxiliaries, adult education services, community service projects, rehabilitation services, bursaries and fundraising campaigns.

In view of all their contributions to our community, the Royal Canadian Legion, the veterans and today's men and women serving our country deserve to be acknowledged and commended for their dedication and contribution to our country. and we should continue to provide them with united support. Once again, I am honoured to have the privilege of announcing the opening of Branch 635 in the Lambton riding.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Curling: Many elements of the recently announced Metropolitan Toronto Police race relations policy deserve praise. I want to single out one particular example today, and I hope the Solicitor General is paying attention.

On 15 November 1990 the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission enacted the following amendment to the bylaw governing police conduct: "Members shall not, by word, deed or gesture, conduct themselves or persuade other persons to conduct themselves, in any manner that is discriminatory towards any person because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, record of offences, age, marital status, family status, handicap, or political or religious affiliation."

The Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission, Chief Bill McCormack and, most important, members of the police force, should be applauded for implementing this landmark clause. They also deserve a great deal of credit for the consultative process that preceded this announcement and for the commitment to continue to work with all community groups.

The Solicitor General has told this House that he will conduct consultations with all affected groups before he introduces regulations governing the Police Services Act this year. I trust he will pay attention to the fine example set by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission. It is vital that the landmark amendment passed by the commission be included in the provincial regulations. If the Solicitor General is not prepared to provide leadership on this issue, the least he can do is to be a good follower.

HOSPITAL EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Arnott: A serious situation exists in the riding of Wellington that I would like to bring to the attention of this House. It pertains to the possible closure of the emergency department of Louise Marshall Hospital in the town of Mount Forest.

Because of a dispute between the hospital board and the doctors who serve this institution, four doctors have threatened to withdraw their services from the hospital's emergency department effective 1 January 1991. Such an event will have serious ramifications for the future of this hospital and the community it has served for over 80 years.

The hospital board has been in contact with the Ministry of Health to enlist its support in finding a solution to this problem. I have personally spoken and written to the Minister of Health requesting her personal intervention in seeking an end to the dispute between the board and the doctors.

Louise Marshall Hospital is a viable and important medical facility which serves not only the approximately 15,000 people of its immediate catchment area but also a tourist population in the summer and accident victims from Highway 6 in its vicinity. Its doctors, nurses and staff are hard-working, conscientious, dedicated individuals whose positions, along with the hospital's future, are now in jeopardy.

On Wednesday 5 December, tomorrow afternoon, the board of Louise Marshall Hospital is holding a special meeting in a final attempt to reach a resolution. If they are unsuccessful, the Minister of Health will have to take immediate action to avert the closure of the institution's emergency department and so avoid the very grave consequences that will result from that closure.

RAIL SERVICES

Mr B. Ward: Commuters in Brantford are rejoicing at the success of the Minister of Transportation in keeping this government's commitment to restore the early morning and early evening rail service from Brantford to Toronto and back. This commitment was made to the commuters of Brantford during the election campaign, and I am pleased that the Minister of Transportation made this issue such a priority with his ministry.

Five weeks ago I met with the minister and expressed to him the concerns of Brantford's commuters. In only three weeks, the Minister of Transportation has managed to accomplish what others have failed to do in the past year. The commuters of Brantford suffered during the year, a year in which they were forced to use the already congested Highway 401 and Queen Elizabeth Way corridors, a year in which their productivity was reduced as they sat in their cars in traffic jams rather than at their workstations.

I am pleased that the Minister of Transportation has also offered to have continuing dialogue with the people of Brantford and will look into ways to continue improving the system. I want to assure the minister that the commuters and local business representatives with whom I have spoken fully support his initiative in restoring this rail service to Brantford. They are delighted that they will have the option of taking a train to work here in Toronto and are not concerned whether it has Via or GO painted on the side.

FARM LANDS

Mr Bradley: The refusal of the government review committee looking into agricultural finance to visit the Niagara Peninsula and to hear on a firsthand basis the concerns of Niagara farmers, as they relate to the somewhat dismal economic prospects facing them, represents a snub to those who have been severely impacted by free trade with the United States and by the international GATT rulings.

Those of us who have spent years attempting to preserve agricultural land in the province where favourable climatic and unique soil conditions exist, as they do in much in the tender fruit lands in north Niagara, begin to question the commitment of this government to farm land preservation when the committee, under the chairmanship of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who is on his way to Brussels, refuses to hold public hearings in an area where lands are under tremendous pressure for development and where financial hardship for farmers has become all too common.

I call upon the parliamentary assistant to reverse the decision denying the people of the Niagara region direct access on their own turf to his committee. The Niagara regional council and the Niagara North Federation of Agriculture, which have expressed their concerns in this matter, would certainly appreciate the same chance being afforded to farmers in our area as is being given in several other parts of the province.

Saving the farm land means saving the farmer, and the appropriate first step is to listen to their concerns.

WATER SUPPLY

Mrs Witmer: I rise today to bring a matter of the utmost importance to the residents of my riding to the attention of the Minister of the Environment and this House.

The Ministry of the Environment is currently considering an application by Laurel Springs Water Corp to undertake significant water takings in the Erbsville area for the purpose of bottling and sale. This proposal could have very serious consequences for the local residents and the environment.

Many residents, as well as the councils of the townships of Wilmot and Woolwich, the city of Waterloo and the region of Waterloo, have expressed concerns about the possible impact of such water takings on the quality and quantity of the well water that most local residents rely upon. These residents are already experiencing difficulties with their water supply and there is a possibility that approval of this application will exacerbate their problems. Moreover, they are very concerned about the possibility of serious environmental damage being done to the Laurel Creek watershed, as well as the nearby wood lot, Schaefers Woods.

I want the Minister of the Environment to know that I share these concerns and that I am sending her a letter requesting that she withhold approval for a permit for water taking until a complete and independent environmental impact study has been conducted. I would also urge her to undertake a thorough examination of her ministry's policy with regard to large-scale private water taking permits and the laws governing water mining and the ownership of subsurface resources.

DRINKING WATER

Mr Hope: Today I would like to comment on our government's announcement to finance the Lake Huron water pipeline for my riding. It will provide clean drinking water to the people of Wallaceburg, Dresden, Walpole Island and the townships of Chatham and Camden. Clean water is something these communities have not had for quite some time.

During the boom years, the Liberals had a generous opportunity to fully fund the same project. Now we are forced to pay double the cost, and possibly lives.

On Friday, the Minister of the Environment came through with the $43.1 millions the project's entire 1990 cost. She also guaranteed the province would cover 75% of the cost overruns.

But we are not heroes. We are simply fulfilling a basic need. It is what we swear to do when we take a seat in this House. But when I look across the floor and stare into the eyes of those who have turned me away as a constituent, I know such guidelines have not been followed.

Today the true heroes include the Wallaceburg Citizens Coalition for Clean Water, the group a member of the Liberal Party deemed radical in its fight for a basic need. Today the true heroes are the people of these communities who wondered aloud each time they turned their taps on if the safe drinking water was there.

In light of this, we should all sit in this House today humbled and think about why we are here and what we owe each other.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Hon Mr Laughren: I am honoured to deliver to the House the first major economic statement of the newly elected government, led by this Premier.

This is my first opportunity to provide a formal report to the Legislature since taking on my responsibilities as Ontario's Treasurer. I wish to assure the members that I intend to keep the Legislature informed regularly about economic conditions and the fiscal position of the government.

I would have been happier if the economic outlook today were brighter. It will come as no surprise to the people of Ontario to hear that there is a recession in this province. In fact, working people and businesses were aware of the downturn long before the economists and the politicians started making it official.

This is not a message of doom and gloom, however. The overall fiscal position of the government of Ontario is solid. The economy of this province is one of the richest and most advanced in the world, and our workforce is one of the most highly skilled.

This government will not sit back and wait for economic forces to take their course. We believe that there are important steps we can take to stimulate job creation, to alleviate hardship among the most disadvantaged in our society and to ensure that the engine of economic growth is primed for an early recovery.

We inherited a recession and a deficit, but we did not inherit the policy paralysis that often accompanies economic hard times.

We do not believe that as a government we can spend our way out of this recession. There are too many external factors beyond our control, such as the economic performance and the conduct of monetary policies in the United States, Europe and Japan, and the continued unrest in the Middle East, to say nothing of the high-interest-rate, high-dollar policies of our own federal government.

But what we can do, we will. What we can do is pursue, through our economic initiatives, some of the broad policy goals that are central to the philosophy of the New Democratic Party government. These goals include introducing greater fairness into our institutions and practices, providing better protection for those least able to protect themselves, opening up the process of public policy development, and planning an economically and environmentally sustainable future.

In pursuing these goals, we are determined to build new partnerships. In the economic arena, it is important to note that we are firmly committed to working with key groups, such as labour, business, other levels of government and community organizations, in developing a common agenda. This agenda must support economic recovery while promoting positive and creative labour adjustment policies and industrial strategies.

We need to work together. These are complex economic times. Economies around the world are undergoing fundamental structural change because of new trade alliances, increased competition and new technologies. In Europe, the political map is being redrawn.

In Canada, there is a feeling that we have lost our collective sense of community. The government of Ontario wants to help build a national recovery agenda. Once again, we are asking the Prime Minister to bring together the first ministers of this nation to respond to the current economic challenges.

Recent numbers have shown that the Ontario economy actually entered into a recession in April of this year. Employment generally in the province has declined by 66,000 since February. The number of unemployed workers has risen by more than one third since then, and the unemployment rate has jumped to more than 7%. Job losses have been most marked in the goods-producing sectors, especially in manufacturing, where employment has fallen by 77,000 over the past 12 months. Bankruptcies so far this year are up 73% over last year's level.

The downturn reflects the impacts of federal high interest rates and high-dollar policies. The Bank of Canada has pursued an extremely tight monetary policy in an effort to slow growth and eliminate inflationary pressures. The results have been record-high levels of real interest rates, unprecedented spreads between Canadian and US interest rates and an appreciation of the dollar to a 12-year high of more than 88 cents US earlier this year.

These policies have undermined the ability of Canadian industry to compete internationally and have produced sharp declines in business investment and in key sectors of the Ontario economy such as manufacturing, construction and housing.

Declines in real output and employment are expected to continue well into 1991. We expect real growth of only one half of 1% in Ontario next year. For the second year in a row, there will be no net job growth. Employment in the construction sector will continue to fall as major projects are completed and few new projects are started. And the manufacturing sector will continue to be adversely affected by the recession and the free trade agreement. The unemployment rate is expected to average 7.3%.

The planned introduction of the federal goods and services tax on 1 January 1991 will extend and exacerbate the downturn. We estimate that the consumer price index inflation would remain relatively stable in 1991, at just below this year's level of 4.9%, in the absence of the GST. However, with the new tax, we estimate inflation in 1991 will actually reach about 6.1%.

Despite substantial uncertainty surrounding the economic outlook, we hope that recovery can begin by mid-1991. However, the recovery is not expected to be as strong as the one following the 1981-82 recession, as the combined effects of the GST, high real interest rates and increasing global competition continue to restrain economic growth.

The timing and the pace of the eventual recovery will depend critically on events external to the provincial economy, including US economic performance, developments in Europe and Japan especially as they affect world interest rates, the course of oil prices and federal interest rate and exchange rate policies.

The international environment is more precarious than it has been for some time. Even in the absence of war, uncertainty over developments in the Middle East continues to undermine the confidence of consumers and investors in both Canada and the United States. Any further erosion of confidence will make it more difficult for the economy to recover in the latter half of 1991.

However, a negotiated settlement in the Middle East and an easing of tension could reduce uncertainty, boost confidence, lower oil prices and speed up the eventual economic recovery.

The prospects ahead are uncertain at best. Based on current indicators, we are projecting slow growth, rising unemployment and rising inflation due to the GST and are hoping for the beginnings of a modest recovery at midyear. Further details on Ontario's economic outlook are presented in a separate staff paper which has been distributed to members with this statement.

As I have mentioned, a return to strong and sustained economic growth will depend to a large degree on improved economic conditions beyond our borders. However, we can take measures to ensure that we are fully ready to benefit from and participate in economic recovery. In addition, we can alleviate some of the hardships of the recession by introducing immediate actions to create jobs.

There is considerable need for the renewal of our stock of social capital: our schools, housing, roads and bridges, universities and colleges, and our water and sewage facilities. As well, many of our public buildings and infrastructure need to be expanded, upgraded, made more energy efficient or made more accessible for the elderly and for persons with disabilities.

As we find ourselves in a recession, with major weakness in the construction sector, now is the time to undertake the renewal of our capital stock. As announced in the throne speech, the government is giving the go-ahead to a significant renewal of public infrastructure with a commitment from the province of $700 million.

This short-term capital projects initiative is expected to generate the equivalent of approximately 14,000 full-year jobs. However, by the very nature of the program, a much larger number of people will benefit through employment opportunities for periods of less than one year.

Our school boards and municipalities will be important partners in this initiative. In consultation with all ministries, a large inventory of short-term capital projects has been developed. Many of the projects in the inventory have been requested in the past by local governments and school boards but were not undertaken because provincial funding was not available. Today's commitment will allow much of this backlog to go ahead. As a result of the provincial-local partnership, it is expected that our special allocation will create up to $1 billion in short-term capital projects.

All of these projects will begin to create jobs within six months, with completion before the end of the next fiscal year. Many projects will begin to create jobs almost immediately.

The employment impact of this major initiative will be felt at the very time when the economy most needs the stimulus. It will create modest growth in an economy that might otherwise be stalled at no growth. And while it is forecast to bring the unemployment rate down only by 0.2%, it will make a significant difference in the lives of many thousands of Ontario citizens. That is an impact that does not show up in macroeconomic statistics, but it is real and it is important.

The infrastructure renewal program will have important longer-term benefits. It will prolong the life of our public capital stock, it will avoid more costly reconstruction requirements in future and it will, in many cases, reduce future operating costs.

The current inventory consists of almost 3,000 projects throughout the province. These projects represent the full range of public activities and involve significant priority areas, such as the environment, roads, rehabilitation of water and sewage facilities, public and non-profit housing, community and educational facilities, retrofitting for access for disabled persons, improved fire safety, greater energy efficiency and improvements to waste sites, watercourses and forest management activities.

We will give priority to projects in communities and regions experiencing serious economic problems. Special efforts will be made to make job opportunities or apprenticeship positions available to all parts of the community, particularly women and natives.

To begin to create jobs immediately, $41 million has been approved for projects that can be started very soon. These projects, which are the direct responsibility of provincial ministries, can be undertaken in spite of winter conditions and do not depend on other partners for activation.

Included in these immediate actions are improvements to access for disabled persons and seniors to community facilities, electrical generating facilities in several native communities, upgrading waste disposal sites on crown lands, enhancing tourism attractions at such sites as Upper Canada Village and Huronia historical parks.

We will finalize the allocation of the province's $700-million commitment in the near future. Further announcements will take place as soon as final decisions have been made.

In addition to the direct spending I have already outlined, the government will undertake a number of tax- based initiatives.

The federal government's GST proposals could not have come at a worse time. It is expected that the GST will reduce consumers' 1991 real disposable incomes by at least $4 billion nationally. This blow to consumers' incomes can be expected to reinforce the decline in consumer spending already set in motion by high interest rates, declining employment and sagging consumer confidence.

As I announced on 11 October, this government will not tax the GST. Amendments to the Retail Sales Tax Act were tabled on 20 November by my colleague the Minister of Revenue to ensure that if the federal government's proposed GST does in fact become a reality, Ontario's sales tax will not be piggybacked on top of it. The government also introduced in that bill a series of administrative adjustments to its retail sales tax policy that will only take effect if the GST is introduced.

Our decision not to tax the GST will save Ontario consumers an estimated $70 million in this fiscal year. In 1991-92, the action provides $500 million in savings to Ontario consumers.

The government will introduce legislation to enrich the Ontario tax reduction for low-income Ontarians. This action, proposed originally by the previous government, cuts personal income taxes for low-income families with children and disabled dependants by an estimated $44 million this fiscal year. Making further improvements to the tax system's treatment of lower-income Ontarians will be an area for early action by this government.

Providing a stable climate for business planning and investment is also an important objective in good times or bad. A number of corporate tax measures have created uncertainty because proposed legislation had not been passed prior to the election. Changes announced by the previous government, some dating back to the 1988 Ontario budget, have served as the basis for business decisions and tax returns. I do not believe it would be fair or appropriate to change those tax rules retroactively.

The government therefore has decided to proceed with the outstanding legislation, including the research and development super allowance, the Ontario current cost adjustment -- OCCA -- and the enrichment in the OCCA rate to 30%.

The OCCA will provide additional support for investment in manufacturing and pollution control machinery and equipment by the manufacturing sector -- the sector hardest hit by the recession. While I believe that the OCCA has a useful role to play in stimulating investment during the recession, it is not clear that it provides the most cost-effective or strategic incentives necessary for our long-term economic wellbeing.

Consistent with our goal of stimulating the economy in 1991, the OCCA enrichment will be available for new manufacturing machinery and equipment purchased between 1 January 1991 and 1 January 1992. In keeping with my intention of reducing uncertainty through open planning, I am announcing today that the government intends to sunset the OCCA on new manufacturing machinery and equipment. However, given the continuing need to ensure that new production processes are adopted to reduce pollution, the OCCA for pollution control equipment will stay in place indefinitely.

The OCCA will provide an estimated $160 million in tax-based support for business investments in manufacturing and pollution control equipment in Ontario.

In total, these tax changes will deliver $700 million in tax support to Ontario's people and businesses in 1991. We estimate that this support will add 0.2 percentage points to the 1991 provincial real growth rate and preserve or create up to 8,000 Ontario jobs.

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent at this point. As the time is running down. I would ask for consent that we allow the Treasurer to finish his statement and then extend extra time to both opposition parties for responses.

The Speaker: Agreed?

Agreed to.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the compliance of the members of the opposition.

I would now like to provide an interim update on the province's finances for the current fiscal year. As members know, on 11 October I disclosed that the $23-million surplus projected by the previous government had deteriorated to a projected deficit of $2.5 billion. This sharp turnaround reflected both the impact of the recession on provincial spending and revenue, and a number of significant obligations that had not been included in the estimates tabled by the previous government.

In respect of revenues for the current fiscal year, it appears that federal transfers of Ontario personal income tax will be higher than expected. However, trends in corporate and retail sales tax revenues may offset much of this gain. On the expenditure side, the case load of social assistance recipients is expected to exceed our recent estimates at a cost of a further $150 million this year. In addition, part of the cost of new initiatives announced today will affect spending this year.

In spite of the continuing impact of recessionary pressures, the government expects to hold the deficit to within the projected $2.5 billion.

These are volatile and uncertain economic times. I will be providing members with a more detailed breakdown of the current-year fiscal position in the quarterly Ontario Finances report in January, when I expect to have firmer figures.

Our projected fiscal position for 1991-92 is difficult to predict in the current economic climate. However, we will still be dealing with the significant impact of the recession on both revenues and expenditures.

Revenues will suffer from the combined effects of economic slowdown, the decision not to levy the retail sales tax on the GST, and the federal decision to cap Canada assistance plan and established programs financing transfers. This last item alone will cost the province a further $940 million in reduced revenue in 1991-92.

On the expenditure side, we face strong public demands and rising costs at a time when anti-recessionary efforts must also be put in the forefront. Funding should and will be set aside next year to undertake needed improvements and reforms as outlined in the recent throne speech. But in developing our budget for next spring, we must also take into account the size of the deficit. I remain acutely aware of the difficulty of increasing revenue during a recession, yet I cannot forget the urgent social and economic agenda facing the province. I can assure the members of this House that my deliberations concerning the budget will balance these competing pressures.

I realize that our transfer partners are anxious to hear about their funding for the coming year. The practice in Ontario has been to announce in November or early December the amount of funding available in the upcoming fiscal year for transfer partners such as hospitals, schools and municipalities. With the change in government, our funding allocations process has been somewhat delayed. To allow my colleagues and myself sufficient time to consider the funding requirements of our major transfer partners, we intend to make our announcement for funding levels early in the new year.

I realize that in some cases this may delay budget planning by the boards, councils and institutions affected. However, once funding levels are established, we will expedite the process of informing municipalities, school boards, hospitals, universities and colleges of their specific grants.

Looking beyond the 1991 Ontario budget, I plan to introduce a more open, policy-driven process to review the extent to which the budget, with its taxation and expenditure priorities, reflects the objectives of the government. I intend to examine the rationales for budget secrecy and consider innovative ways to expose the tradeoffs inherent in the budget. It is also time to consider moving towards multi-year budgeting. In addition, we plan to look at alternative ways of reporting the province's capital spending that will more clearly reflect the long-term benefits to the economy of those investments.

All of these initiatives should help to improve the budget process in Ontario.

Establishing the Fair Tax Commission is the first of many steps aimed at tapping Ontario's diverse and knowledgeable constituencies for their insights and advice. I will provide a detailed report on the establishment of the Fair Tax Commission in the near future.

In conclusion, as I noted at the outset, we are in a recession of uncertain duration. International events and unduly restrictive federal monetary policy are adding significant risks to the economic outlook. I sincerely hope the federal government will respond positively to the Premier's suggestion for a federal-provincial meeting on the economy and will join us in responding to this recession. Governments in Canada have to make co-operative and concerted efforts in dealing with the recession and in preparing for recovery.

The government sees a role for all parts of our society in successfully overcoming the current recession and in laying the foundations for a strong recovery and a more secure, resilient economy. It is our firm intention to develop close working relationships with all key groups in the community. I will be conferring closely with my cabinet colleagues and members of this House to establish the necessary framework and forums for government, labour, business and our many diverse communities to join together in addressing the challenges of economic adjustment and restructuring.

The measures I have outlined today are both progressive and responsible. In total, they provide $1.4 billion to create jobs, stimulate investment and offset some of the negative impact of the proposed GST. Taken together, I expect that these measures will increase the provincial gross domestic product by 0.6% and create more than 20,000 jobs.

The Speaker: The clock indicated that the Treasurer went an additional three minutes beyond the normal 20 allotted. What I would like to do is add three minutes to each of the opposition parties in addition to the five which they are allocated under the rules, so that both parties have a total of eight minutes at their disposal for responses.

RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Mr Bradley: It is most interesting, first of all, to note the change in the sides of the House, and how it changes what flows from the mouths of individual members who sit in the Legislative Assembly.

One can recall with some interest, just short months ago, the gentleman who is now the Treasurer of Ontario and the Premier excluding the external forces that affected the province and, of course, pointing the finger at the government of Ontario as being responsible for all that happened economically in this province and having within its hands the opportunity to ensure that the provincial economy was moving at the right pace. It has changed now, as the Treasurer has indicated, in reading the words that were prepared for him.

In fact, the Middle East, Japan, Europe, all of the world, the United States, the other provinces, all happen to have an influence on the provincial economy. That, to a certain extent, is true.

But we want to ensure that the province takes on its responsibilities in dealing with matters within its jurisdiction, and that is what the opposition will be watching for in the next several months. We are assured, and perhaps we can be pleased to a certain extent, by the fact that perhaps we will not have a GST in Canada because, as I recall, just a few weeks ago and a few months ago, the Premier of this province was going to lead a crusade against the GST.

We can be assured as well that the effects of free trade are unlikely to impact upon Ontario because, once again, the Premier of the province, a few weeks ago and a few months ago, indicated that he would be implementing measures designed to block the implementation of free trade in Ontario. So perhaps there is some assurance in those who believe that the Premier will be able to undertake those activities and be successful.

In addition to this, I find it interesting and I guess, from a politician's point of view, one can be a bit admiring of the government's being able to use the projected $2.5-billion deficit in the province of Ontario which it inherited. One forgets that when the party that used to sit over there just a few months ago came into office, in fact the provincial deficit was $2.6 billion and there had been a series of deficits previous to that, so this is not a unique situation.

It did not impede the government in carrying out its programs, but the Treasurer and his Premier have been quite successful in getting that message across and I must say I admire them in this honeymoon period in being able to do so.

I note as well with some interest that this new government will be maintaining some of the tax changes proposed by the previous government. Despite the rhetoric during the election campaign that indeed it was going to change these measures which were designed to improve the business atmosphere in the community known as Ontario, we see that in fact the government is going to continue to implement those policies, recognizing the wisdom of them but having a difficult time explaining in the union halls of the province and other places just how it is going to be able to justify those.

To be fair to the Treasurer -- and I want to be fair to him -- we have a similar situation existing across the country. In fact, every province and the federal government are all revising their estimates or predictions of their budgetary revenues and their expenditures. That is to be expected in a recessionary period, but we will be looking for actions that are designed to create jobs and give an impetus to the economy.

The Treasurer has mentioned some investments in capital projects. They, of course, are extremely important. The Minister of the Environment will be particularly knowledgeable of the fact that there are a number of projects sitting on the shelf in many municipalities, and provincial projects, that could be proceeded with. In fact, a time of recession is the time to accelerate those particular projects, and we will be looking forward to those.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities put out a booklet called, I believe, Work, Work, Work, in which it indicated the desirability from an economic point of view of implementing infrastructure renewal in a variety of fields. I think of sewers, water projects and waste management projects, but also there are the transportation projects, such as the Pelee Island ferry which could be constructed at Port Weller Dry Docks in the city of St Catharines and take the workforce, which is at present at 30, and place it somewhere well into the hundreds. I know the Treasurer will make particular note of that and attempt to influence his cabinet colleagues to proceed with that most important project.

We recognize as well that schools in the province of Ontario always need some renewal of their buildings. There are the roofs which inevitably leak after 25 years. There are safety measures that have to be undertaken. The Ministry of the Solicitor General requires fire regulation changes. All of these can be implemented at a rather accelerated pace because they are projects that can be proceeded with quickly. We will be watching carefully to see, in each and every municipality, that the government is in fact proceeding with those projects.

The minister would recognize as well the opportunity during a period of recession to get some rather good prices when tendering is going to ensure that some of the projects that might have cost more money in a boom economy can in fact be done for somewhat less. That is an advantage again of proceeding with those kinds of projects.

In regard to the deficit, I can well recall when we were in government that at the beginning of the year all of the ministries would come in with the wish list. I suspect they have been in to the Treasurer with the wish list and appear to have convinced him, in many cases, that all of the projects should proceed. But he would recognize, as our government did, that the deficit was always going to be $8 billion or $10 billion if he proceeded with the wish list of all of them.

The Management Board of Cabinet and the policy and priorities board of cabinet will have to look carefully, establish priorities and disappoint some people in the community by not proceeding with certain of the projects that they would like, particularly those which have long-term economic ramifications in terms of operating costs for the province.

I think if the government is going to move in the field of capital investment at this time, it is going to have to be much more productive than getting involved in longer-term programs that it may wish to initiate, and in fact will initiate, when the economy returns to what we hope will be something closer to normal.

We also recognize that had they decided to cut the sales tax in Ontario by one percentage point, they would have put back some $1.1 billion into the hands of consumers in the province at this time of recession. They seem to have conceded the fact that the GST is going to be implemented instead of fighting it, as we had expected. But with that one gesture on the part of the Treasurer, consumers across Ontario would have been generating the kind of economic activity which would have produced even more jobs in this province.

Mr Stockwell: The last time we were in this House outlining a financial proposal such as this, we had a $30-million surplus and we were recession-proof. I hope this particular outline is a little more accurate.

My first concern is, why is there still no mention of transfer payments? That is a large concern for a lot of operations in this province. They are still waiting for the concerns about whether or not they are going to be funded, to what extent they are going to be funded, and of course I think within the near future it should be announced. It has been reasonable that they have announced it in the past.

They are partners in this operation, the people that the Treasurer is transferring moneys to, and if in fact they are partners, using his terminology, I think they should know what their share is. We apparently have a $1.4-billion commitment here today. We should also remember that part of that money -- I believe at least $300 million -- is coming from other levels of government, particularly a kick-in from the municipalities, to kick that up to $1 billion from the original $700 million announcement. The Treasurer is shaking his head. "We can look into it."

He can look into the economic outlook that we have that is not doom and gloom. It is certainly not good; not good at all. In fact, we have a declining manufacturing sector. With the decline of the manufacturing sector, I hope we do not generate new revenue by simply increasing the tax portion. I do not think that would help anybody at this point in time.

If we admit that the manufacturing sector is declining, I fear that by slapping more taxes on it, it in fact will not be around and operating by this time next year, if in fact this is the type of financial outlook that this government will have. Undercutting the manufacturer at this point in time through more taxes would simply undercut the competitiveness of those sectors. By undercutting their competitiveness, obviously there is loss of revenue to them, loss of jobs and so on.

I am very disappointed about the regional strategy here today. We keep talking from the point of view that there are concerns, that there is a recession. This particular government, in An Agenda for People, talked about a recession back in August. They knew there was a recession. They have in fact been elected. They told us that the recession was here. So I do not know why it is taking this length of time to determine how far we are into the recession. We know it is here. They knew it was here. Why can we not see some solid proposals to fight our way out of this recession, for the northern Ontario and eastern Ontario regions specifically?

We spoke of a partnership of players. When we talk about a partnership with the private sector and so on, maybe the Treasurer should have a meeting with the Minister of Housing, because on page 6 he says, "I do not believe it would be fair or appropriate to change tax rules retroactively." He must not have told the Housing minister that, because he is doing everything retroactively. A little consistency would certainly help. Clearly, if they are going to forge partnerships, they are going to have to forge a better partnership than the Housing minister has forged with the landlords, which is no partnership. Speaking about it and doing it are two very different things.

From the fiscal side, the government has forgone $500 million in revenue that would have to come from piggybacking the sales tax with the goods and services tax, which again is laudable in my opinion, but I do not understand the hypocrisy of it when the government goes forward and still doubles the tire tax. They are continuing on along those lines, the $40 million or so, but they do not strike it there or slash the budget there. They are giving up $500 million. I do not think it adds up to more than a couple of hundred thousand dollars on that particular item.

I do not know why they do not dispose of that as well right now. It seems to be their policy. Maybe they should be consistent right across the board.

I think we are set up for a big deficit next year. I think this is a setup. I think it will exceed the $2.5 billion that is the deficit today. Why? I think we have stagnant growth. There is no question about that. I think 0.6% is not achievable. I do not believe we are going to achieve those kinds of numbers. It is stagnant out there. We are in a recession. It is going the wrong way. I think we are in for big trouble when it comes to the revenue side. We are losing nearly $1 billion through established programs financing. And what does that add up to? Where do you generate the money from?

I do not think the private sector today can accept any more new taxes. The Treasurer has made similar statements; it is not time to go out and tax the private sector. So how are they going to generate the shortfalls? They are going to generate the shortfalls by passing it on to the deficit and the deficit will climb from the $2.5 billion we have today. The Treasurer has stated in the past that he is not scared at $2.5 billion; he will be scared at $10 billion. Where do we find that special line in between, where he starts getting scared?

I think the public is very interested in that number and I think we in the Legislature are also equally interested.

Taxes are killing business today. They are killing business today because their revenues are down and their profits are down, and by continuing this tax-and-spend approach, which I think we will see next year, it is going to cut into the competitiveness of these businesses. You are going to see job losses.

I do not believe that this kind of economic outlook, although the suggestion is that it is not doom and gloom, is putting us on the road to recovery. I think we are still seeing the typical approach we have seen for the past five years, which is the tax-and-spend merry-go-round. The only difference is that with this tax and spend, the taxpayers are paying for the government's tickets.

Mr Cousens: I would like to just carry on where the member for Etobicoke West left off. Whom do you believe? We know we could not believe the Liberals with their $23-million surplus, and now I think that there is a real justification for non-belief in the government's figure of $2.5 billion. One is a surplus; one is a deficit. We know it is going to be bigger. We know that one was not that much.

It is too bad that there is not some way in which we can have an accounting on how they come to their numbers. We should open up the process even further so that we can see where they are coming from, because the Treasurer is given a range by the people in Treasury and he is playing around with the numbers. I agree with the member for Etobicoke West that the Treasurer really does not know where this is going to take us or how deep the hole is going to get: in fact, he will probably be happy if it is not just as deep as it is probably going to be.

We have problems with delays in transfer payments, and I just hope there is more time to discuss that. Everybody in this province depends on what happens out of this Treasury. If the government is going to be so late in doing things then it is going to have a ripple effect right through to the school boards and municipalities. Let's come along and face the music. We should give them some sense of hope out there. We have had double-digit increases in our taxes at the municipal level. We need to have some relief and the Treasurer needs to give some leadership and tell them where it is going to be; he should be positive and come up with a faster answer.

Mrs Marland: In the time remaining I just want to reconfirm what I said in my statement earlier today, that this Treasurer will have to be some kind of magician or sorcerer in order to fulfil his statement of this afternoon.

I would like to also emphasize that there is a tremendously heavy burden on those people who live in the greater Toronto area. We have not yet seen the benefits for those people from the commercial concentration tax, the increase in motor vehicle licences or the driver permits. So I say to the Treasurer. these tax burdens that are added to people and become punitive are totally unfair and unjust. We expect more of this government.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Nixon: The member for St Catharines has already adequately described our concern at the inadequacy of the Treasurer's statement. I want to indicate our further concern with the inadequate economic leadership from the government as a whole.

The political platitude "Too little and too late" applies to the situation that the government has brought forward in this statement. In that regard I would like to ask the Premier what he thinks of a program that will reduce unemployment by 0.2%, which involves a $700-million-plus municipal expenditure in addition but which in fact will have very little impact on the employment situation in the winter that we are now entering. Is that sufficient for him?

How is he going to answer questions in this House -- if we are coming back in the wintertime -- having to do with the elevated levels of unemployment and the suffering that is going to be evident in all communities of this province with a program that is going to reduce unemployment by 0.2% and which in fact takes only a minuscule amount of the money presently allocated by this government for the relief of the situation in this particular winter?

Hon Mr Rae: The Leader of the Opposition asked me the question, and I am sure he did not mean it rhetorically, how am I going to answer questions? I am going to do the best I can to answer questions, as is the Treasurer.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, we have provided tax relief of well over $500 million. We have injected an additional $700 million into the economy, plus additional moneys which we hope very much will be forthcoming from the municipalities as well as from the federal government. We have done that after having been in office for a little over two months, prior to the formation of a budget.

I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that we are preparing for the budget. We have been doing that, if I may say so, from 1 October on, as effectively as we possibly can. I think the people of the province understand that in the circumstances we are doing the best we can. We are injecting money right away in areas where it is going to have the most impact, we are proceeding with programs that will have the most initial impact and we are planning for a budget which will go on in the spring. If that is not good enough for the Leader of the Opposition, I am sorry. He was here for five years.

He had an opportunity to do the job and now it is our turn to do the very best we can. That is exactly what we are going to plan to do.

Mr Nixon: The budget that I had the honour to present to the House some months ago had $3.2 billion, which is presently being expended across the province for the sorts of capital works that are certainly worthy and which the honourable Premier has indicated by way of policy will have $700 million added to it. My point is that only a very small percentage of that, probably less than a sixth, will be spent during the months of this winter.

We look forward to the Treasurer's budget in May, when the tulips are blooming and certain other things are going to be happening. But during the wintertime, when the unemployment impact is going to be the sort of severe thing that all of us will be concerned with, democratic socialists or not, I would put to the honourable Premier that his initiatives are totally inadequate.

For example, I want him to tell the House specifically what he is going to do by way of his promise to have a tax revolt which is designed to stop the goods and services tax. The wording of this statement is rather careful, with sort of a subjunctive approach to the GST on 1 January. We will be talking about his bill to parallel the retail sales tax with the GST and we will be discussing that at the time. But what is this tax revolt? Surely he can be at least as effective as the Liberal government was in stopping free trade.

Hon Mr Rae: I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition is expressing a hope or a fear. I am not quite sure.

In the space of being in office for a little over eight weeks, the Treasurer has made an announcement today that we are going to be reducing taxes and adding to spending for an additional amount of nearly $1.5 billion to whatever was in the former Treasurer's budget.

He may think that is nothing, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition as clearly as I can, he was in office at a time when the economy started to turn down. He was there in April and May, he was there in June and July and he was there in August. He saw the signs as clearly as anyone. In fact, since he was the Treasurer at that time, he had far more access to information with respect to the downturn than anyone else in this Legislature.

To be fair to the Leader of the Opposition, he announced that it was the plan of the Liberal government to reduce the sales tax by $1.1 billion. We have decided to do things a little differently, to reduce the effect of the sales tax by half a billion dollars and to inject more capital spending, because we think that is a better mix. That is our view. He may disagree with what we put forward. All I can say to him is, we are doing it as fast as we can. If there are more projects we can bring on stream more quickly under the $700-million capital program, that is exactly what we will do.

I would just say to the Leader of the Opposition, I think the people who are watching these questions and these answers have a memory. They remember who was on this side up until 6 September. He saw a recession coming and he had a chance to do something about it. We are doing the very best we can as we have taken office and that is exactly what we are going to do.

Mr Nixon: The Premier knows that our response was to allocate $3.2 billion for capital works during this year, far bigger than any previous government in the history of the province has allocated. We are very proud of that allocation in the budget.

I would say in response that the Premier has indicated that his Treasurer and others have been planning carefully since they took office on 1 October, more than two months ago. The statement today allocates what the Treasurer previously said would be $25 million during the winter. He has adjusted that now to $41 million worth of starts during the winter, which would be allocated for payment during the next fiscal year. I would simply say again to the Premier that the platitude "Too little and too late" applies because it is true under these circumstances.

In the program An Agenda for People, which says Ontario is now in a recession -- and their planning must have taken these difficulties into consideration -- the Premier calls for interest rate relief. He plaintively calls in the Treasurer's statement for Mr Mulroney to meet with him and do something about it. That has been totally inadequate for two months. Nobody will talk to him. Even the other premiers do not bother talking to him about these matters. But they did promise specifically interest rate relief for first-time home owners and farmers. That is a promise. They were elected on that promise. Where is it?

That is what we need now. Where is that promise and how is it going to be kept, I put to the Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: The Leader of the Opposition says, where is it; when is it coming? All I can say to him is, be patient. We are preparing a budget. I mean it quite sincerely. What if we were to run off in all directions, if we were to run off without having a real assessment of exactly how serious the situation is, and frankly what we can afford to do? That is exactly what we are assessing now. The former Treasurer took pride in the $3.2 billion. We have just raised that to $3.9 billion and, with the additional capital investment of the municipalities, that is going to be an additional amount.

I really think the public who are watching this exchange are going to be rather surprised at what they hear from the Leader of the Opposition. He had an opportunity over five years as the Treasurer to do his best for the provincial economy. He did that, and the people rendered their judgement on 6 September. Now we are going to do the very best we can to deal with the recession which we face. That is what we are going to do.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Nixon: This question is to the Premier as well. He indicated in his last answer that we should wait and be patient. We have the impression from statements made by himself, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Agriculture and Food, that in fact government members are sort of observers of the scene, stewards as he called them yesterday. who stand by and hold the seals of office while the economy of the province slides past them and do not take the sort of action that should be required.

There are many communities in the province that are going to be dramatically impacted during the next few months; they are dramatically impacted now and are not well served by this particular announcement. Northern Ontario particularly is one of the most vulnerable.

I would ask the honourable Premier to simply contemplate some statements made by his own colleagues. For example, the present Minister of Northern Development: "Times are not the best in northern Ontario. It is probably going to be a deep and ugly recession." I believe she is correct, and the Treasurer's comments today verify it. The Minister of Northern Development went on and said the absence of a commitment to the northern development fund was not discouraging. "The current recession makes it very unlikely that new businesses would want to get started even if government funding was available." This is quoted in the Chronicle-Journal of 21 November.

With that approach from the Minister of Northern Development, how can the Premier possibly effect any kind of development in the north when there is such a negative approach from the minister herself in this particular sensitive area?

Hon Mr Rae: If the Leader of the Opposition says that the Minister of Northern Development is a negative person or being negative in the comments that she is making, I could not disagree more profoundly. I would say to him that in terms of credibility on northern issues, credibility with respect to what has not been done and what needs to be done, I think that the Minister of Northern Development has a record that is second to none in this Legislature.

I want to stress to the Leader of the Opposition -- he can disagree with our approach, and I know he does -- I think everyone will be assessing the relative credibility of that approach. Our approach has been to say we are going to inject the money that we can as quickly as we can in those projects that we can pull off the shelf as quickly as we can in northern Ontario as well as in southern Ontario.

Mr Nixon: Where is the northern development fund money? You promised it.

Hon Mr Rae: The Leader of the Opposition is shouting across, "Where is the northern Ontario fund money?" I can say to him it is there. The fact of the matter is that there is sufficient money in the fund right now to address projects that are being put forward until the budget which is coming in the spring.

For us to proceed with spending across the board -- whammo, let her rip, do not think about the consequences, just let her go, do not think about it, do not worry about what the operating expenses are going to be in a year -- I know enough about the Leader of the Opposition when he was Treasurer to know that he was the person who sat in that cabinet room and said: "No. No. No. No." Now he is turning around and has the nerve to say, "Why aren't you spending the money that I never spent for five years?" I do not think you have credibility when you do that.

Mr Nixon: I said no to the extent that the budget of the province of Ontario went from $23 billion in 1985 to $45 billion at a time when we at the same time balanced the budget. The reason I put it to the Premier is that he promised there would be more money for the north. Why does he say no when all he is relying on is the money, which he considered to be picayune and inadequate, that was put there by the budget that I had the honour to introduce?

For him to say now that this is sufficient and nothing further should be done while his Minister of Northern Development says that there is such a recession in the north that no more money would help anyway because nobody wants to open a new business indicates the bankruptcy of the Premier's policy. Why does he not put adequate funds into the economy of northern Ontario to simply keep his election promises?

Hon Mr Rae: I am going to resist the temptation and just say to the Leader of the Opposition that half of the money which is being allocated this year under the $700-million fund, I have just been reliably informed, is targeted for northern Ontario. One half of that money is already being addressed; it is flowing as of now.

Mrs Cunningham: When will it be spent?

Hon Mr Rae: The member for London North asks, not rhetorically, "When will it be spent?" It is going to be spent prior to the end of this fiscal year.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I think those northerners who are watching will know who was in power for the last five years in times when things were very good, and they know full well who is now taking responsibility for an economy which is in recession. All I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is, we are going to do the very best we can in the circumstances. If it is not adequate to satisfy him, I am sorry. We are simply doing the best we can. That is all we are doing.

Mr Ramsay: That answer is not good enough, because what the people of northern Ontario want to have is a reconciliation between what this party said in the election and what it is doing now. The Premier says that this minister has a record. The minister has no record. The first announcement that this minister made was to abolish the cabinet committee on northern development. How is this ministry and this government going to be working on the economic development of northern Ontario?

An Agenda for People states clearly that this government would set up a northern fund of $200 million a year for the first two years of this government. The people of northern Ontario would like to know whether this government is going to put that fund in place or not.

Hon Mr Rae: Being Premier, I am prepared to listen to lectures on political consistency from all members of the House, including my good friend the member for Timiskaming.

Mr Jackson: Good friend?

Hon Mr Rae: Yes, I say that. In at least one election, I remember campaigning with him; so I assume there are others.

Let me say to the member that the announcements that have been made so far are a clear indication of the commitment of this government to all the people of the province, including northern Ontario. As I said, of the money that has already been directed, that has been decided upon that we can move off very quickly, at least $20 million is going directly into northern Ontario.

With respect to the question which has to do with the additional moneys to the fund, that decision will be made in the context of the budget. We are working flat out, I think it is fair to say, in the preparation for that budget. The member knows himself, from his experience in other cabinets, that this is a process that takes some time. That budget will be presented in the spring and when it is presented, I think the member will have ample opportunity to see what he likes and what he does not like. I am sure we will have a chance to debate it then.

LAYOFFS

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Treasurer. We are told to be patient. The minister's outlook report today has expressed some concern for the economy, and patience is something we should have.

How about the workers who are being laid off today? How can one ask them to be patient? A hundred or so workers in Thorold have been laid off, 51 workers at Eddy Match in Pembroke have been laid off, 230 jobs were lost in Kitchener at Greb, 100 in Kitchener at the Lear plant, 60 in Tilbury and so on and so forth. What about these people? What are they supposed to do for the next few years? What are they supposed to do while the Treasurer decides what his economic forecasts are going to be? How can they be expected to be patient?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think, to be fair, the member for Etobicoke West will realize that we have already announced programs to support people who find themselves laid off. We have talked about that already. I think as well that by announcing a $700-million capital works program, that will go at least some way towards easing the problem.

I do not stand here in my place and pretend to the member or anyone else that the measures announced today in this economic statement are going to solve all the problems in the province of Ontario. We know that we are in a recession. We know that the recession is going to last at least another six months, probably longer, and that there are going to be problems. I am not going to stand in place and say to the member for Etobicoke West that I have got all the problems solved for the workers to whom he refers.

Mr Stockwell: If the Treasurer is not going to resolve these problems and these people are in fact going to have to be patient, then let's deal with his report today with respect to the deficit.

The Treasurer has stated that a $2.5-billion deficit does not worry him; a $10-billion deficit in fact does worry him. Where do we find his projections? Surely to goodness, after doing this work, he must have some idea what the economic impact on this province is going to be and on his government next year. Where will he see the deficit ending up at the end of the next fiscal year? How much will it be?

If he could come clean with the public, I think they deserve that kind of information. They should know where the Treasurer wants to take this province. If he can let them know that, they can measure his success or failure. Is it $7 billion? Is it $8 billion? What is his comfort zone? Could the people of this province find out that kind of figure?

Hon Mr Laughren: I have a fairly narrow comfort zone, if that makes the member feel any better. I think the member should understand that, even if I wanted to, I could not stand here in my place and tell him what the deficit is going to be for 1991-92.

As he will understand, I hope, there is a process we go through in this province of allocating funds to various ministries. They come back and state what kind of allocations they want. There is a period of negotiations that goes on. We have not yet decided on any kind of revenue changes that we want to bring in in the budget. We have not even talked about constraints within the various ministries. I do not think it makes sense for the member for Etobicoke West to expect me to tell him what I think the deficit is going to be in 1991-92. I will level with him to the extent I can. I believe it is going to be higher than in 1990-91, but I do not know what that number is.

Mr Stockwell: The Treasurer has a fistful of promises out there from An Agenda for People; we are talking probably to the tune of $14 billion in promises, in that kind of range. His numbers are not quite that high, but the numbers that would be considered realistic have got to be in that range. His education promises over five years top over $7 billion.

Nobody held a gun to the Treasurer's head to make these promises. He made them. He wrote them down. He distributed them. Now he is denying them. When is he going to fill the promises, how much are they going to cost the taxpayers and when is he going to come clean? Nobody held a gun to his head when he was at the landfill sites promising full environmental assessments.

Nobody held a gun to his head when he promised all these extras for the people of Ontario. They believed him. They thought he was going to do them. How much are they going to cost, and when is he going to implement them?

Hon Mr Laughren: I would like first of all to commend the member for Etobicoke West for his rapid transition to the behaviour in this House from the more sedate form of behaviour at municipal council level. I do want to caution the member, though, not to make demands on this government to implement what I agree are expensive promises that were in An Agenda for People. I would urge him not to pressure us to implement those quickly at the same time as his leader is urging us to practise restraint.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Yesterday, in response to a question from the member for York Mills, who pointed out that a recent project with his ministry's name on it, a non-profit project, was costing the taxpayers $2,500 per month per unit, the minister said that his press release was wrong and that he thought it would be less than that. I believe that was the gist of the minister's response and I accept that. I sure hope it is less than that when it finally comes out, but that is what his press release said.

In July the Ministry of Housing said it cost the government $1,500 to $1,800 per month to subsidize tenants of non-profit rental units. Could the minister tell us if that figure is still valid, or is it higher than that, after a few months have elapsed?

Hon Mr Cooke: I can indicate to the leader of the third party that the press release that he referred to and that his colleague referred to yesterday in fact quoted the estimate of the subsidy figure given by the non-profit sponsoring group.

Mr Harris: It was out of your press release.

Hon Mr Cooke: I realize that. I read the press release.

I have instructed the Ministry of Housing people that in future press releases when units are being committed -- they have not been built yet -- there should not be an estimate of the operating cost given that is provided by the sponsoring group, the estimate should be based on the experience of the Ministry of Housing. That figure for the project that was raised in the House yesterday will be approximately $1.2 million to $1.4 million and, as I understand it, the subsidy works out to about $500 a month per unit.

Mr Harris: I want to congratulate the minister for being able to put non-profit housing on the market for a quarter of the cost of the former government. I do not know how he is doing it.

Hon Mr Cooke: It's the subsidy.

Mr Harris: Oh, that is just the actual operating subsidy from the province; it is not the true cost.

Would the minister agree with me that the total taxpayer cost over 35 years for non-profit housing is, as the ministry states and as we see on every press release, in excess of $1,000 a unit per month for every project we have seen outside of Metropolitan Toronto and $1,500 to $1,800 a unit per month in Metropolitan Toronto?

Second, can the minister explain to me how it was reported last July that the private sector could make available to the government and the government subsidize through its shelter subsidy, take people off the waiting list for subsidized housing, luxury condominiums in Scarborough with five to six appliances, marble lobbies, microwaves, indoor pools, saunas, tennis and squash courts for a subsidy cost to the taxpayer of $850 a month per unit, half the price of the two-bedroom boxes that the minister is building and supplying through the non-profit route?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think the leader of the third party should understand a couple of things, and I think he does. Number one, on the subsidy rates, you cannot compare $1,500 to $1,800 with an average of $500. There is a range of subsidies and he knows that. There are people who are paying market rents in non-profit and co-op housing and there are people who are subsidized for rent geared to income. There is obviously a range; he understands that.

I think he has also got to understand that the vacancy rate in the region of Toronto is 1% and that the vacancy rate in Ottawa-Carleton is 0.3%. If we were to buy the proposals that the member's party put forward during the election and again today, that we not build any non-profit and co-op housing in the province and that we simply make arrangements with the private sector for a rent subsidy program, we would be in even worse shape in terms of the vacancy rates across this province.

It is our objective to have an overall housing strategy that takes advantage of the private sector and the not-for-profit co-op sector, as well as a rent regulation system so that we can have a well-rounded housing program in this province that meets the needs of the people of this province and builds on supply and creates jobs. The leader of the third party might realize that the housing program we are involved in, which was begun by the Liberal Party, will create over 40,000 person-years of work next year. So there is also a very substantial economic spinoff.

Mr Harris: I am not surprised that there is double the number of jobs in providing government-subsidized housing, because it costs twice as much. What I am interested in and what I want to compare -- apples to apples, as he asked me to do yesterday -- is the cost of subsidization, the cost that the taxpayers pay to house people who need help. By the way, his figure of $1.2 million with 58 units, if he checks it out, is $1,700 a month, consistent with what the ministry says, not $500 a month, if he checks his calculator. I want to compare apples to apples, the amount of subsidy per unit.

I gave the minister the example of the luxury condominiums; the private sector offered those new units to the government, which the former government picked up and said, "Look, we don't know whether it makes sense or not, but it costs half as much." I applaud them for at least recognizing that. I pointed out that example.

Second, the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario, in a press release and in a proposal of 1 October, offered him 20,000 units -- the same number the New Democratic Party wants to build in non-profit housing, costing taxpayers $1,700, $1,600 or $1,800 a month per unit -- for $60 million, a cost of $300 or $400 by way of shelter subsidy to put a family that needs help into an equivalent unit. Apples to apples: $300 to $400 versus $1,500 to $1,800.

I would like to ask the minister, short of having a philosophical disagreement that he wants the private sector out of the housing business and out of the province -- I suppose if he accepts this proposal it might put government out of the housing business, and I do not know what the NDP would do if that ever happened -- can he explain to the taxpayers who are paying four times the subsidy for each unit why his proposal makes sense to them?

Hon Mr Cooke: I can indicate to the leader of the third party that when I met with the fair rental people I indicated to them that I wanted to pursue their proposal, that I wanted to look at it, because I believe that in the short term rent supplement might be one of the vehicles we will want to use. But I fundamentally reject the approach of the Conservative Party, which would be to eliminate rent regulation, eliminate rent control and simply subsidize the private sector from one end to the other. That is not the approach of this party.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Callahan: Much has been said about An Agenda for People in this House. We all recognize that the only clear thing in that agenda was that there was a recession. Not expecting to be elected, they made all sorts of promises. We are now in a very serious recession, obviously, as the Treasurer has told us. Taxes are one thing. An additional thing, however, is that during the recent election campaign -- this is directed to the Minister of Energy -- the now Premier stated on a Radio Noon show on 13 August 1990 that he would ensure the province had the legal power to prevent gas price gouging.

A recent survey by the Ministry of Energy showed that pump prices have jumped about 60 cents per litre in most Ontario cities, supposedly because of the Persian Gulf crisis. Calls to local retailers, and that includes portions I represent, have shown that prices are well over 67 cents per litre and perhaps as high as 70 or 72 cents in the north.

These continual price increases are in contrast to the fact that crude oil has dropped from $41 a barrel to $29.15. Can the minister indicate what steps she is taking to protect the consumers of this province and to ensure that oil companies are not making windfall profits by exploiting the so-called Kuwait crisis?

Hon Mrs Carter: I would like to point out that there is a time lag. We have several days' supply in this country so that as the prices oscillate, as they have been doing, where they are at does not always correspond to what is happening as a result of the Gulf crisis. This government is monitoring gasoline prices and we shall take appropriate action if we feel that becomes necessary. We do not feel this is necessary at this moment.

Mr Callahan: Certainly the minister has to be aware of the fact that prices in the province have increased dramatically. This is having an impact on people. Taxes are one thing -- they do affect people -- but every nickel is important. In my riding just recently they opened up what I suppose in the terms of the Depression would have been a soup kitchen. There are also people -- 80% of them are young people -- who have bought homes who are suffering under power of sale, so every nickel counts. I suggest that when it increased from 57.4 cents per litre in early October to 65.5 cents now, surely the price should be coming down equally as fast as the price of oil drops.

I repeat to the minister that this is very important to the economic survival of a lot of people in this province. Can she indicate what steps she is taking to protect the consumers of this province and to ensure they receive lower prices, and would she be prepared to establish a committee of the Legislature to gather information, monitor prices and ensure that gasoline wholesalers justify all price increases? She may give us the information in the House that she feels there is no need, but the people out there who are suffering that cost and seeing prices go up and down like a toilet seat do not believe her.

Hon Mrs Carter: I just want to state that gasoline prices have not increased as much as crude oil prices. Second, I want to point out that in this province we do now have a policy of energy conservation and efficiency, and one way of avoiding the consequences of increasing prices is to use less. If we all manage to have energy-efficient vehicles, to have our houses efficiently heated and so on, we shall in fact end up paying far less of these increases than we otherwise would do.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Harnick: My question is for the Premier. The 17 November edition of the Oshawa Times included an

article describing how a son broke down and cried in court after seeing the careless driver who killed his mother in a car crash have the charges dismissed due to the length of time he waited to come to trial. The same

article details the story of a woman whose husband assaulted and threatened to kill her. The charges were dismissed without even being read. As she left the court, she saw posters promoting Wife Abuse Awareness Week: what a joke. she thought.

Some 3,000 of the 3.400 cases dismissed to date have been dismissed from the provincial court (criminal division). We now have two judges from the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division), and I am referring to Mr Justice Callahan and Mr Justice Trainor, who have said that the Askov case does not apply to the provincial court. Why is the government continuing to permit cases in the provincial court (criminal division) to be dismissed on consent, stayed or withdrawn? How can this be justified to the victims of crime?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I want to say to the member for Willowdale that there are few issues about which I feel more strongly personally than this one with respect to the importance of our ensuring that we have a justice system that works, that we have the assurance that those who are charged will be tried in time, that they will receive a fair trial and that those who have been hurt or affected by people who have been charged will have some assurance that the system of justice is working. As Premier, I can say that I feel incredibly strongly about it. We have discussed it extensively.

We have added resources to the judiciary. We are going to be taking other steps. Other measures will be announced by the Attorney General to deal with the issue.

I cannot comment directly on the two decisions that have been made by Mr Justice Callaghan and Mr Justice Trainor except to say that I am sure those decisions are having an impact and will have an impact on the decisions that are made by crowns and, I hope, provincial court judges across the province, but beyond that I really cannot give a comment. I will naturally draw the member's question to the attention of the Attorney General when I next see him, which I hope will be tomorrow in cabinet, because it is a question that needs to be answered and deserves to be answered. It is a good question.

It is a question that is on the minds of a great many people and I will endeavour to give the member an answer.

Mr Harnick: If it is in the Premier's power, will he undertake to the people of this province that in light of the decisions and comments by the two judges to which I referred, he will refer an appeal to the Court of Appeal to settle the law in so far as the provincial court is concerned, and that he will do this in an expeditious way by way of reference or whatever, so that the matter can be solved and we can save as many of these outstanding charges as possible and thus justify to victims our good criminal justice system?

Hon Mr Rae: As Premier, I can express what I think is a policy that would be endorsed by every member of this House, and that is that we all want to have a justice system, a criminal justice system and a civil justice system, that works, so that when people are charged with something, it means something -- the charge proceeds to trial, there is a disposition on the basis of evidence, and it works.

When we took office, because of the impact of the Askov decision and other things that were not in place, frankly, we found that we had to make very difficult choices. The Attorney General had to make some difficult choices.

As Premier, I cannot really answer the member's question directly, because I do believe that what he is asking essentially are questions of judgement that have to be put to the Attorney General, that are not political questions. that are not partisan questions. They have to do with his responsibilities for the administration of justice to all the people of the province. I will bring the member's question to him. Again, I think it is a good question. I think it deserves an answer and I will see that he answers it for the member as directly as possible.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Ms Haeck: My question is directed to the Minister of Health. I recently received a letter from a constituent concerned about his ability to obtain a 250-day prescription for his diabetes. This appears to be a ministry policy, but at the same time does not seem to be widely known in my riding. I would wish the minister to comment on that.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The issue that is being raised here is one which affects the efficiency and effectiveness of prescriptions that are given in Ontario, particularly in the case of older people. It is one where the Ministry of Health has established a pattern of telling prescribing physicians and encouraging pharmacists to provide prescriptions in a reasonable and rational way.

Ms Haeck: I was wondering, in light of the fact that the minister has already indicated there has been some encouragement of doctors and physicians, how widely this policy has been advertised since it does not seem to be taking effect in all places.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I think the member is correct and that the policy should be more widely known in Ontario. I will be asking ministry officials to make the policy as widely known as we can, in as efficient a way as possible.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr Scott: I am reformed, Mr Speaker. You will be glad to hear I do not intend to ask any more questions about An Agenda for People. It does not seem to me it makes any sense. It was never intended in that sense to be acted on. Nobody expected that this gang would win the election, so we cannot press too hard on that subject.

I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board. As she knows, her principal job is representing the taxpayer in bargaining with, among others, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. Some members last week commented on the difficulty of performing this in light of her past experience, which was exactly the opposite -- representing the Ontario Public Service Employees Union in bargaining with the taxpayer.

I have a question about the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. That act, by clause l(l)(g), as the chairman knows, prevents the union from making political contributions to the governing party. I received today a policy and priorities board of cabinet submission, which is dated 22 November 1990. At page 4 of that submission, marked in the margin in capital letters, "new," meaning new proposal to amend the act, it was suggested that the act could be amended so that employees of the government could raise funds for political parties and the governing party.

Will the Chairman of Management Board assure me that the government has clearly abandoned that intention that members of the public service should be able to raise funds for the governing or any other party?

Hon Ms Lankin: I am not prepared to comment on cabinet documents. However, with respect to the issue that we have announced in the throne speech, reform of political rights, political activity for public service workers, the ability for public service workers -- of course, they have always had the ability to individually contribute -- and the ability for individual workers to be involved in a greater degree in the public service is something we are looking at with respect to the Public Service Act.

Mr Scott: The minister, in being not prepared to comment, has let it remain possible, if not plain, that the government intends to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act so that the government union can raise funds for the government party or indeed any other party.

I have a question ancillary to that. We are now on notice that this may be one of the things her cabinet is going to do, but I want to talk about consultation now. This document which came into my hands had attached to it a letter from the deputy minister of human resources to all other deputy ministers saying in the letter, "We have sent this cabinet paper to OPSEU, but to no other individuals or groups" and, needless to say, not to the Legislature of Ontario. I seem to have been, no doubt on account of historic connections, an accident.

What I want to ask the minister, ancillary to the first question, is: When is she going to, before she comes to the Legislature, stop consulting privately with OPSEU when she refuses to consult with anybody else?

Hon Ms Lankin: Let me start off by saying I am not sure it is a historical relationship that the member has with the union. In fact, as I understand it, he has returned to the law firm that is representing the union on this very issue of political rights. I wonder where the document came from.

May I also say that we made it very clear to this Legislature in the throne speech that we were proceeding with a review of the issue of rights for political activity for public service workers, workers who are in the bargaining unit and in senior management. That is being discussed with senior management and with the representative of the bargaining unit, and I think that is entirely appropriate. As we bring forward suggestions for reform, we will be at that time consulting with members of the Legislature and those outside of the public service who will be directly affected.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mrs Cunningham: I too want to talk about consultation this afternoon. My question is to the Minister of Education. The Ontario Teachers' Federation and the Ontario Multi-faith Group for Equity in Education have both proposed the appointment of an advisory committee, the one in this report, whose task would be to make recommendations on circumstances under which (1) a constitutionally valid religious program and (2) alternative schools could be provided for by the public school boards in Ontario. When will the minister respond to these requests for an advisory committee?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I am pleased to answer the question this afternoon, having just come to this House from a meeting with the multifaith group and a number of other interested parties. This is an issue that has been really looked at over a long period of time. There have been a number of consultations with interested parties, and it is certainly the intention of this government to bring forward some response in this session to some of the requests that have been made and to look over time at other possibilities that may not be included in that initial policy.

To that end I have agreed today to meet again in February with the multifaith group. We have made arrangements to meet over a period of time with other interested parties in terms of various constitutional issues as well as funding issues, and that procedure is going forward.

Mrs Cunningham: On that point, the minister will come to understand that the meetings go on and on and on. We meet individually, we meet with groups, and this government has stated loudly and clearly its intent not only to consult openly but to come up with solutions to problems. Will the minister, before making any basic policy decision on the role of religious education programs and alternative schools, consult with all the significant stakeholders by way of an advisory committee as recommended in this report? Will she do that and when? I underline "advisory committee."

SEVERANCE PAY

Ms Haslam: My question is for the Minister of Labour. In my riding, 110 workers have lost their jobs in the community of Milverton as a result of last July's closure of Deilcraft Furniture. Unfortunately, owing to federal bankruptcy laws, the hard-earned severance pay of these workers at Deilcraft is not protected, and as a result those 110 workers have lost $780,000 in moneys they are entitled to receive. I have spoken with the workers at Deilcraft, and they understand that existing legislation will not protect them. Can the minister advise us what steps his ministry is taking to ensure that the workers of this province receive the severance pay they are justly entitled to?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I can tell the member that I am aware of the Deilcraft closure in Milverton and of the efforts of the citizens' groups to assist the employees there. She is correct. The federal bankruptcy legislation does not cover workers in a situation such as this. It is something we have raised for some time. I myself have raised it with the federal Minister of Labour within the last two weeks, attempting to get a speedup in changes in federal legislation. However, I want to assure her that we will not wait on the feds to act on this. My own employment standards department is currently looking at legislation that will protect workers' severance pay in situations such as this.

Ms Haslam: The workers of Deilcraft have also lost a considerable amount in lost wages. The speech from the throne spoke of the wage protection fund. Can the minister advise the House on the status of this fund?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The purpose of the wage protection fund is to protect workers who lose their wages or their vacation pay in a bankruptcy or receivership situation. The ministry has appointed a supervisor to begin the process of laying out the rules and regulations that will be called for in looking at situations like this. We hope to start calling, in December or right after Christmas, those who have already suffered in terms of receivership and bankruptcy cases and we would hope that we will hear from the Deilcraft employees' group about the kind of things they have run into in trying to protect the workers in that town.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS LEGISLATION

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Minister of Health. I think she well knows that thousands of health professions out there are awaiting the legislation on the health profession regulations. When the previous minister brought in the proposed legislation in June, I think all three parties agreed that it was time to take that legislation to committee and get on with it. Certainly the health professions are anxious to get on with it. I think the public is anxious to get on with it.

My concern is that if we wait until the spring session, we will lose at least six months on a very important piece of legislation. What I would like today is a commitment by the Minister of Health that we can have that legislation introduced now so that in terms of the consultation we can get on in January and February to dealing with it in committee rather than letting six more months go by. I would like that commitment today from the minister.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The member has raised an issue which I consider very important. I have raised it with my House leader. I hope to carry forward in discussions with other House leaders the possibilities of getting this legislation back into the Legislature and into a period of review during the break so that we can move as quickly as possible on it.

Mr Phillips: Again, as part of that, I wonder if the minister might assure the House today that the legislation will be coming back as it was in June, because I think many of the health professions out there are anxious that there not be changes. If there is any thought of changes, they want to get very active right now. So that would be the second part of assurances that I would appreciate today.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I can give the member the assurance that the legislation will come back in the same shape as in June. One additional item might touch on the matter of naturopathy, and in that we would very much look forward to having the contributions of members of this Legislature and indeed of the public during the hearing process.

NUCLEAR POWER

Mr Jordan: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Last Wednesday, the minister proudly announced that her government intends to avoid building any new nuclear plants, if possible, by instructing Hydro to increase and accelerate its efforts in demand management. Hydro's demand-supply plan for the next 25 years is currently before the Environmental Assessment Board. Taxpayers' money will be spent to hear public input on the feasibility of this plan, which includes some demand management but also includes the construction of new nuclear generating plants.

Given the minister's position on nuclear energy, will cabinet overturn any Environmental Assessment Board decision to continue with nuclear development?

Hon Mrs Carter: I think that is a hypothetical question. I think we shall have to wait and see what is going to happen in the years to come before we can give a definite answer to that. However, there are a lot of points to remember here. One is that although the recession is a problem for this province, nevertheless it does give us a breathing space as regards energy, because our energy use is not rising as fast as projected.

I could also state that there is no prospect whatever of power shortages even over the longer term because there are many reserve means of providing power that we can call upon. My government has great faith and belief in the efficacy of conservation and efficiency as a means of avoiding the need for generation of large quantities of current in the future. We also have large reserves of hydro possibilities that we can build as soon as they have passed the environmental assessment, which is being speeded up. We expect that large quantities of parallel power will be generated in the near future. We also believe that we are doing the right --

The Speaker: The answer, while being informative, is a touch long. We will allow the member to place his supplementary.

Mr Jordan: I would like to ask the minister --

Hon Miss Martel: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am going to raise this matter today as well, because I have very carefully timed the questions today with respect to the questions from the leaders. I can tell you they were far longer than the response from my colleague. If we are going to be fair in this House about apportioning time to all members, then I suggest we get on with that. But I can certainly tell you, Mr Speaker, that I watched that very carefully today, and the answer that was provided was not in excess, certainly, of the questions that were posed in terms of time early this afternoon.

The Speaker: It will not likely come as a surprise to anyone that the Speaker has been carefully monitoring both this question period and all previous ones. Quite frankly, there are some flaws on all sides, the subject of which will be dealt with by the Speaker in a subsequent sitting. For the time being, I am allowing the supplementary to be placed. I hope it is succinct, and I hope for an equally succinct reply.

Mr Jordan: If this government is so committed to adhering to the decision of the Environmental Assessment Board, as my party believes it should because it will have considered public input into Hydro's demand-supply plan, then I would suggest that her statement last Wednesday was nothing new. She is just keeping the status quo. The hearings of the Environmental Assessment Board will go on as previously planned. How can this minister continue to take the credit in this House for her government's supposed antinuclear policy when in fact she has done nothing to alter the position of her government?

Hon Mrs Carter: I would just like to say that we believe, as I said, in listening to the input of all the intervenors in the environmental assessment. We shall obviously consider the outcome of that very seriously. I do not feel that we can further commit ourselves on that at this moment.

Mr Hayes: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I feel that my privileges as a member in this House have been abused because the member for St Catharines got up in the House and made a statement that our agricultural finance review committee was not going to be visiting his riding down in the Niagara area. In fact, the minister's office has notified the regional council down there and also notified the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and it was also given to the reporter for the St Catharines Standard.

The Speaker: It may be a point of interest, but not much more.

VISITORS

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I have a point of privilege. You were kind enough earlier this afternoon to extend the use of your gallery to a group called the Peel Association for Handicapped Adults. We did have these visitors in the House this afternoon in their wheelchairs, with some other members in the public gallery, and I know that you would have wanted to have the opportunity to recognize their presence here. It is a very meaningful, very special visit on behalf of that association.

The Speaker: I wish to draw to members' attention that on special occasions, if they would be kind enough to notify the Speaker that there are specific groups seated in the Speaker's gallery, I would be most delighted to welcome them to our chamber.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Laughren moved first reading of Bill 9,

An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

M. Laughren propose la première lecture du projet de loi 9, Loi autorisant les emprunts garantis par le Trésor.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mr Laughren: The government requires authority to borrow in order to meets its obligations. Since a loan act was not tabled after the 1990 budget, I am tabling one now to provide borrowing authority for this fiscal year. Next year I will follow normal practice and table a loan act for 1991 immediately after the 1991 budget presentation.

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Ms Wark-Martyn moved first reading of Bill 10,

An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn moved first reading of Bill 11,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (MISCELLANEOUS), 1990

Hon Mrs Boyd moved first reading of Bill 12,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mrs Boyd moved first reading of Bill 13,

An Act to amend the Ottawa-Carleton French Language School Board Act, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

CITY OF YORK ACT, 1990

Mr Rizzo moved first reading of Bill Pr52,

An Act respecting the city of York.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION DAY

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Sullivan moved opposition day motion 2:

That in the opinion of this House, since the Minister of the Environment has acknowledged that even under the most optimistic forecasts of reduction, reuse and recycling there will still remain more than three million tonnes of municipal waste within the greater Toronto area requiring disposal annually;

Has effectively absolved communities within the greater Toronto area of their responsibility to designate interim sites within their own boundaries to deal with the impending garbage crisis;

Has indicated she is prepared to exercise emergency powers to extend landfilling at Keele Valley and Britannia Road in excess of currently allowable volumes, thereby ignoring all safeguards under the Environmental Assessment Act, and order without a hearing of any kind the disposal of garbage into the proposed site 6B in Brampton and P1 Whitevale site;

Has refused to provide this Legislature and the public with the details of her waste reduction strategy, and

Since the present government has clearly abdicated its responsibility to protect the public and the environment, and has failed to provide a sound environmental plan to deal with the impending garbage crisis;

This House therefore calls upon the Minister of the Environment to provide that:

(

i) A comprehensive waste reduction strategy be presented to the Legislature immediately for public debate and implementation;

(ii) No existing landfill sites will have their capacity expanded without full and public hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act;

(iii) No region can transport its waste to another municipality in the province without a resolution of the recipient municipality indicating that it is a "willing host" for such waste;

(iv) No regional landfill site that is coming on stream in a municipality having completed the environmental assessment process shall be required to accept municipal solid waste from outside the municipality by the Minister of the Environment's emergency powers;

(

v) No new waste disposal sites will be designated within the province without the benefit of full and public hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act.

Mrs Sullivan: I am pleased to be leading off the debate on this motion, which I believe is one of some urgency.

I think there is a fundamental rationale for putting forward this motion and that rationale is shock and, indeed, some anger. Like many others, my colleagues are shocked by the actions of the Minister of the Environment on waste management issues. We are shocked by her threats. We are shocked by her approach, shocked by her naïveté, shocked that she seems to care so little about the very demands that she made when she was in opposition, and shocked that she has so willingly abandoned the promises of the New Democratic Party green paper, of the New Democratic Party's Agenda for People and of the limited New Democratic Party agenda announced in the throne speech.

I am not alone in that shock. There are many people throughout Ontario who share it, and they are unhappy, they are disappointed and they are frustrated with the minister's lack of action. The base reason for that is that the minister seems to have compromised her principles. She made a great show of being an environmentalist when she was in opposition, but we are seeing a different face now.

We heard the Premier, in question period today, talk about political consistency. Well, I will tell the House that there is certainly none here.

It is not new knowledge that there has been a changed approach to solid waste management over the last decade in Canada, in Ontario, in our cities and in our towns and villages. It is not new knowledge that this approach had as its strongest proponent the member for St Catharines, the former Minister of the Environment, the current minister's predecessor.

The former minister, through his charm, through his doggedness, through his will, made integrated waste management strategy a top priority of every government at every level in this province. Because of his work, every industry, every hospital, every retail outlet, every school, every town council in Ontario was aware not only of the issue but of concerted action plans in which they, as individuals and groups, were participants.

On 10 March 1989 he announced to this House his program for solid waste management. Of the waste produced, 50% was to be diverted from landfill or incineration by the year 2000 and 25% of all waste generated would be eliminated by reduction or reuse. We would generate less waste to begin with, or we would reuse a product again and again for its original, or another, purpose. Another 25% of waste which was generated would be recycled. It would be separated and sorted, and materials would be extracted from it to make new products.

The other 50% of waste, which could not be reused or recycled or reduced. would necessarily be targeted for disposal at landfill sites or through energy recovery operations. Where disposal was necessary, there would be public protection through the environmental assessment process.

The former minister put his money where his mouth was, and I think the current Minister of the Environment would recognize that. The funds committed to the 3R program reached $54 million in this fiscal year, although I must say that we have not heard whether she intends to change, to reduce or to increase the commitments to that program.

The industrial 3R programs, which were initiated in about 125 industrial projects. were on target at 15% under the stewardship of the member for St Catharines. Recycling in our blue box communities is close to 15%, well on target. In total, under the stewardship of the member for St Catharines, some $225 million was going to be spent by the year 2000 for the 3R programs and master plans, and certificates of approval, which were integral to those plans, were being put into place.

Ontario was a leader in developing the national packaging protocol. We knew that packaging wastes in Canada had increased by 80% since 1960, we knew that every family in Canada was throwing away one long ton of packaging waste every year and we knew that four fifths of that packaging was ending up in dumps or incinerators. As a result largely of Ontario's initiatives in that area, a national packaging protocol was adopted in March 1990. That packaging protocol requires 50% diversion of packaging wastes by the year 2000, with interim phased targets to be met.

With the concurrence of Ontario's waste advisory committee, there was a plan prepared to implement that in Ontario. It was ready to be brought to the House this fall. I say that the new minister could have brought that plan to the House, but we have seen no action. We have not seen the plan here.

Could it have only been a year ago, on 7 December 1989, when the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore issued a news release following opposition day debate in this House? In that release she indicated, and her leader the Premier indicated, that everyone knows we have an acute and massive garbage crisis in Ontario. That news release included some recommendations: ban the disposal of certain items at landfills province-wide instead of leaving it to the municipalities; require mandatory blue box recycling programs; institute a system of green taxes; set up a waste reduction office.

Those were her recommendations, and yet when the minister spoke to the House on 21 November, what did we hear? We heard, indeed, a repeat of, "There is a crisis in waste management." But how is she going to deal with it? She will use her emergency powers under the Environmental Protection Act to expand existing landfill sites or to open new ones. That is the only measure that she has addressed with any clarity or precision. Did she talk about product bans? No. Did she say that she would make the blue box program mandatory? No. Did she announce new green taxes? No, she did not.

Did she set up a waste reduction office? No. She said that she will make sure that the tipping fees and the revenue generated by what waste remains are in fact reinvested in the three Rs.

Municipalities are now preparing their 1991 budgets. Have any of them seen or heard what she meant by this? Have any of them had any information about what will be required of them and what impact this will have on their operations? No, they have not.

The minister promised "firm and aggressive and decisive programs." Have we seen them? No, we have not. Instead, we have seen the minister jettison the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee initiative. When regional chairmen and their councils in the greater Toronto area were coming to terms with an integrated waste management strategy where the first priority for 50% of the greater Toronto waste to be diverted was given clear preference, where the other 50%, the three million tonnes per year still required disposal and where the disposal requirements were being approached logically, consistently for both the short and the long term, she threw it all away.

I am very familiar with the operations of that SWISC committee because I come from Halton, where we have spent an enormously long time going through an environmental assessment process in seeking a landfill site that divided our community and cost millions of dollars -- $37 million, I would tell members, in a community of 300,000. During that process of the SWISC action there was a thorough analysis of GTA waste management projections, of actions which have been taken to date, of potential for further action. There was a 3R action plan. I have it here.

It involved the initiatives in the plans of all the communities within the GTA. There was public consultation and there were innovative and creative ideas put forward and expressions of interest from the private sector.

There was also a recognition that demonstration projects may have to be put into place before the adoption of some unproven approaches, that indeed some of the traditional ways of approaching the issues may not in fact be the ultimate and appropriate ones.

There was a sense of urgency and I recall that words like "critical," "fast-tracking" and "expedite," were used throughout SWISC's documentation in its 3R action plan. The minister's response was to throw it all away, to set up a new authority whose mandate, she has told this House, has not been defined; whose composition, she told the House, has not been defined; whose time lines and whose authority, she told the House, have not been defined. We do not know yet when or how they will be defined. There is no plan; there is only a pipedream.

The one thing that the minister has said is that her authority would "search for and select new landfill sites for the GTA." It will not be involved in 3R activity and it may be set up in a year or so, after consultation on some of the things that I have mentioned: the mandate, the composition, the time lines and the authority.

But in a year or so we will have a real crisis on our hands. The Britannia Road site in Peel will be out of capacity in one year. The Keele Valley site in York region will be out of capacity in a little over two years. The Brock West site in Durham region will close in a little more than six months. The minister will use her emergency powers to keep the garbage not off the tennis courts, as she is wont to say, but out of our parks and roadsides and ditches and farms.

She will expand Britannia by fiat and Keele Valley and Brock and possibly the Rouge Valley site -- we did not get an answer to our question on that one -- despite the technical requirements of capacity and volume and contours and despite the knowledgeable views of people in the community. In the next phase, she will use her emergency powers, she has told us, to open the Brampton 6B site and the Whitevale Pl site. If the minister sees an emergency in the offing, why is she not demanding an environmental assessment of the expansion of the Keele Valley site now, of the Britannia site, of the Brock West site, of the Whitevale site and of the Peel 6B site? Why is she not demanding that now?

An environmental assessment would have reviewed the issues of leachate and ground water contamination. Those issues are already of concern at Keele. An environmental assessment would have reviewed the issues of nuisance, noise, dust, odour, truck transportation and volume. An environmental assessment would have guaranteed that people have a say, an opportunity for a hearing in public.

I had occasion earlier today to refer back to the minister's remarks in a debate much like this a year ago, on 7 December. I would like to read to you what she said then. She said:

"What are we doing in 1989 and 1990? We are moving backwards. We are saying that we can exempt sanitary landfill projects from the Environmental Assessment Act. The strength of course of the Environmental Assessment Act is that if you are evaluating a project under that legislation, it is incumbent upon the proponent to examine alternatives to the project that is being evaluated. Those alternatives are not just alternative locations for a sanitary landfill, but alternative ways of dealing with the garbage."

Is the minister now insisting on full environmental assessments? No. She said she will give us dumps by decree. That is a nasty signal to all of us. Where are her plans? Where are her timetables and her budget? If she has any, why have they not been put forward? Why has she not introduced packaging legislation or regulations? Consumers are demanding action. The national packaging protocol provides sound guidance for implementation and the Liberal government had a consensus agreement from the waste advisory committee to proceed this fall.

The minister said a year ago that certain items should be banned from landfill sites. Where is her legislation and where are her regulations? What about the gypsum wallboard and the construction wastes and the corrugated cardboard? Where are her plans? She said that a mandatory blue box program would be required across Ontario. It is already required in my home town, but where are the regulations that she demanded when she was in opposition?

Where are her green taxes? She must have consulted at some point with Stephen Shryban, who is counsel to the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and be familiar with the Canadian Bar Association committee report on sustainable development in Canada. She must have seen their options for law reform which included a graduated excess packaging tax which would reflect the environmental costs attributable to packaging. But where is the signal that there will be a green tax in Ontario? It certainly was not in the document that the Treasurer put before the House today. There have been no signals because there are no plans and no directions.

Where do we see any increment in demands for 3Rs activity in industry? There are none. Where is the waste reduction office? There is none. What we get is a new authority that will select a landfill site for the greater Toronto area, what we get are broken promises and what we get are irresponsible actions that would not have been tolerated under our government and I do not believe should be tolerated under this government.

The minister has had time to get her act together. She has had time to put her plans on the table. We have seen what could charitably be called a concept. But there are no ta