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

November 29, 1990

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon Ms Lankin: I have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, signed by his own hand.

The Speaker: I have received a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, signed by his own hand.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CRAWFORD ROSE

Mr Beer: In the past week in the town of Aurora, Ontario lost an exemplary citizen. Dr Crawford Rose was one of those selfless people who labour tirelessly for their community throughout their lives, often with little or no public recognition. He died last week at the age of 92, after a long and full life of helping others. He was celebrated in and around Aurora, not only because of the good work that he carried out but also because he was such a genuinely caring person.

Dr Rose and his family came to Aurora in 1942. In addition to his medical practice, Dr Rose also took

part in political life. He was elected to city council in 1943 and served as mayor of Aurora from 1950 until 1955.

Some seven years ago the Rose family decided to sell its home to the board of the Yellow Brick House, a shelter for abused women and their children. Dr Rose took great pride in knowing that his former home was to be used to help those vulnerable women and children who needed a safe haven from violence. His spirit and dedication are reflected in the work of the Yellow Brick House today.

Dr Rose also had a long and productive relationship with York County Hospital in Newmarket. He was granted a lifetime membership with the hospital and wrote a book entitled York County Hospital: A Story of Faith. The book was dedicated to his wife, Julia, who died 13 years ago. In 1976 Dr Rose was also named Aurora's Citizen of the Year.

Dr Rose brought happiness to many people with his help and assistance. He was the kind of doctor who made house calls and the kind of person who made people happier just by the enthusiasm with which he lived his own life. Crawford Rose was a kind and gentle person, always willing to help the people around him. We will all miss him.

LAYOFFS

Mr J. Wilson: My statement is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. In a press release issued last week concerning the sale of Harding Carpets to Soreltex, Ontario Development Corp officials said the phasing back in of Harding's Collingwood plant is under review.

Although I appreciate the minister's efforts to date on behalf of Harding Carpets, any sale which involves public money and does not guarantee jobs for Collingwood workers is unacceptable. Layoffs are occurring across the province, but the Collingwood situation is unique. Within the span of a year, the town has been forced to look on in horror as one third of its workforce joined the unemployment rolls courtesy of industrial layoffs.

The economic and social repercussions of this industrial downturn have been profound. As I am sure the minister is aware, after reading the numerous letters I have sent to his office asking him to address this problem, last week's sale of Harding Carpets guaranteed jobs for workers at the plant in Brantford. My understanding, however, is that the sale is not yet finalized, and I am asking the minister today to provide workers in Collingwood with the same guarantee of jobs that Brantford workers received.

I would also ask the minister to provide a timetable as to when Collingwood workers can expect to be back on the job. It is unfair and immoral for workers recently devastated by a layoff to be left dangling as to what their fate entails.

TOWN OF EAST GWILLIMBURY

Mr O'Connor: It is with great pleasure that I speak today. The honour to represent the people of Durham-York in the first ever New Democrat government in Ontario as the first New Democrat elected in my riding is indeed a humbling experience.

With a large rural riding like Durham-York, I have found warmth and the willingness to help a neighbour that is quite easily overlooked in large urban areas.

Last Friday night I had the unique opportunity of being part of the opening of the new East Gwillimbury Civic Centre in Sharon. Last night I returned to the new civic centre to the town of East Gwillimbury's volunteer appreciation night. The East Gwillimbury Recreation Committee presented an award to Gail Roy as the Volunteer of the Year and also presented Ted Dodds with the Outstanding Volunteer Award.

As part of the evening's events, retired assistant deputy minister for recreation Bob Secord spoke of the importance and value of good municipal recreation programming.

The highlight of the evening was the recognition of the efforts and accomplishments of a local councillor, Paul Mainprize, and to honour Mr Mainprize with the Corps d'Elite Certificate of Recognition on behalf of the southern region of the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. He has added much not only to local recreation but also as a regional vice-president in the Ontario Municipal Recreation Association.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr McGuinty: I am concerned about the NDP government's apparent lack of commitment to the integrity of the independent environmental assessment process. The previous government established this independent process, with funding for public interest groups, to review Ontario's electricity needs for the next 25 years.

Comments in recent days by the Minister of Energy, and specifically in response to my question of 22 November, have left the clear perception that the relevance and independence of the Environmental Assessment Board is being eroded and is in question.

In lieu of her statements regarding the future of nuclear energy in this province, the minister had two responsible courses of action open to her. She could have asked Hydro to amend its plans to make the non-nuclear option one of Hydro's top three preferences before the board or she could have directed her ministry to make a constructive contribution within the hearing process. Instead, the minister seems to have been gripped by NDP moratorium fever.

Why does the minister continue to prejudge the outcome of this independent and rigorous process? Does the minister realize what kind of precedent she is setting with regard to the independence of the entire environmental assessment process?

From the larger perspective, what is in question here is this government's commitment to a respect for due process. It is one thing for this government to pronounce on matters of policy, but it is another thing for such pronouncement to be perceived as an interference with due process.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Carr: My statement is on the Petro-Canada oil refinery. The Petro-Canada oil refinery has in the last five years been the object of concern and anger for many residents and ratepayers in my riding. They question the quality of the air emissions from the plant which are, at the very best, smelly and obnoxious and which may even be toxic. There is no doubt that these odours affect the quality of life for the people living in the area, and there is a high level of discomfort.

Despite numerous telephone calls and written requests for an appointment with the Minister of the Environment, I have not been able to meet with her to discuss this matter.

Both the Premier and the minister are aware of the situation, having been informed by various residents, former members of Parliament and ministry officials. I realize that the minister is concerned with high-profile issues such as the garbage crisis and the 3Rs, but possible toxic air emissions are emissions which affect the health and comfort of the people now, and this is an issue which should be taken seriously.

There is a public meeting on 13 December at the Queen Elizabeth Park School in Oakville and I invite the minister to attend. It would give her a chance to convey to the residents in the vicinity of the plant both her concern and the assurance that she will act to ensure they live in clean, unfouled air, which should be their right.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Morrow: Mr Speaker, I wish to extend to you my congratulations on your historic election.

I thank the constituents of Wentworth East for electing me as their representative to this great Legislature. The riding of Wentworth East consists of the township of Glanbrook, the city of Stoney Creek and portions of the east end of the city of Hamilton. This region is one of the fastest-growing areas of the province. As a result of this growing population, there is an increased demand for many provincial government services.

The east end of Hamilton and Stoney Creek area of my riding have been neglected for years with respect to adequate health care services.

In the near future, the St Joseph's Community Health Centre will be opening in my riding to meet the needs of these people. I have recently toured the centre and was quite impressed. The facilities are excellent. The residents of this community will be able to take great pride in them. This health care centre is unique in the province as it will be very much a community centre and will rely a great deal on the participation of volunteers. I believe facilities such as these deserve the funding to make them a success.

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Shirley Collins. I thank her for the work she has done over the past three years.

It is a great honour to be a member of this House. I look forward to working with all the members of this Legislature to help make this province a better place to live in.

DRUG ABUSE

Mr Ruprecht: In the next few weeks the Parkdale Focus Group for a Drug-Free Neighbourhood will be meeting with interested persons to discuss how our community can take back the streets and rid itself of drug pushers and those who are undesirable in the community.

There have been a number of community groups across Ontario, and a number of municipalities, which have made recommendations to the Solicitor General and the Premier -- in fact, to this government. I can think of a number of groups that are local to our area, such as the Bloor-Lansdowne Committee Against Drugs, the Parkdale Schools-Community Anti-Drug Committee and, as I mentioned earlier, the newly established focus group against drugs.

Our citizens are expecting that the new social contract this government is talking about will include a specific blueprint of action. That would necessarily mean that the recommendations that have come to this government should be at least somewhat implemented.

I can think of the recommendations made by Metropolitan Toronto council. I can think of the recommendations made by the city of Toronto anti-drug committee with Mr O'Donohue and Chris Korwin-Kuczynski at the head. I can think of recommendations that have been made by local organizations. What we are asking for here is to find out just when this Solicitor General and this government will act in order that we, as residents, and the rest of Ontario will be able to take back our streets.

LIVING WILLS

Mr Sterling: This afternoon I intend to introduce two complementary private member's bills, one called the Natural Death Act and the other

An Act to amend the Powers of Attorney Act.

These bills deal with life-sustaining medical treatment decisions for the incapacitated terminally ill patient being kept alive indefinitely by artificial means. The Durable Power of Attorney Act deals with transferring a person's authority with respect to medical care decisions to another specified individual if the first person should become incapacitated. The Natural Death Act provides a less formal procedure, but it too is done with the informed consent of the individual. Through a living will, an individual can state in writing that if a terminal or irreversible condition occurs and he is incapacitated and cannot communicate, then treatment should be discontinued.

These bills are supported by the Canadian Dying with Dignity Association, the Alzheimer Society, and people who work in the medical profession and with AIDS patients, because modern medical technology has outpaced our body of laws and social realities.

These bills are not new to this Legislature. I introduced both of them during the 34th Parliament. Even though they were, for the most part. welcomed by the citizens of Ontario, the government of that day, while supporting one of the bills, blocked it from going to committee for further discussion. I hope this new government will not be so intent on playing partisan political games with such a sensitive issue.

CHILD CARE

Ms Haslam: I have chosen to talk today on an issue that I feel is very important. I would like to speak for the Marys, aged four, the Billys, aged two, and the Jennys, aged three, who die each year because parents have to take children to work and those parents work in an industry where heavy machinery is a necessity. Children are frequently found in this workplace because child care is not available.

I am speaking about farms and farm accidents. Farm accidents are a tragedy, especially when they result in a death and especially when the fatality involves a child. The number of children who have died in farm accidents this year averages one every five and a half weeks. As recently as last weekend, a child in my riding died in a farm accident.

Our rural areas need a viable system of day care. I am pleased to hear that the Ministry of Community and Social Services will be examining day care programs and targeting the north and rural areas. I look forward to a time when at the end of five and a half weeks there is no statistic of another child's death due to a farm accident.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

Hon Ms Ziemba: Today on behalf of the Premier I am very pleased to announce the appointment of Ernie Lightman as a commissioner to inquire into unregulated residential facilities in the province and to conduct a census of the vulnerable adults housed in these facilities.

This appointment is consistent with a key recommendation of the coroner's jury report on the death of Joseph Kendall. The report was released on 27 November 1990, just two days ago. The coroner's inquest into the death has revealed the appalling conditions in which some vulnerable adults live in this province.

In May 1985 Joseph Kendall was discharged from the Queen Street Mental Health Centre in Toronto to Cedar Glen Boarding Home in Orillia, a privately run home for ex-psychiatric patients and people with developmental disabilities. In November 1987 Mr Kendall died in hospital after he was assaulted at Cedar Glen.

This government will no longer tolerate such treatment as that suffered by Mr Kendall.

I am requesting that an initial assessment be provided by the commissioner after three months and that a final report and recommendations be completed after six months. As soon as possible thereafter I will share with the members of the Legislature what further action will be taken by our government to address these problems.

I am very pleased to announce that Mr Lightman is in the gallery today. Mr Lightman is an economist in the faculty of social work at the University of Toronto. He brings technical expertise and long-standing involvement in social service and public policy issues to this position. Mr Lightman holds a PhD in economics from the University of California at Berkeley and spent two years as a faculty member at the London School of Economics.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Hon Mrs Akande: This afternoon I would like to inform the House of this government's plans for addressing poverty in Ontario. This issue must be addressed interministerially. Today, I want to talk about four steps.

First, the government plans to accelerate the process of social assistance reform in Ontario. The foundation of this reform is the recommendations of the Social Assistance Review Committee in its report entitled Transitions. As stated in the speech from the throne, we are committed to reform of Ontario's social assistance system, and that includes a commitment to the major directions of the SARC recommendations. They provide the solutions that we must put into practice.

To accelerate this reform process, I have asked the Advisory Group on New Social Assistance Legislation. established six months ago by my predecessor, to fast-track its work. This government has funded it to do so. I have requested that the group report back to me in January 1991 with advice on those recommendations of SARC that could be implemented without legislative change. Its advice would be in time for consideration in the spring budget. As for the recommendations from Transitions that do require changes in social assistance legislation, I have further asked that the advisory group report back to me by the middle of next year with a blueprint.

As I pointed out earlier, several recommendations from the SARC report go beyond the jurisdiction of my ministry. For this reason, a committee of relevant ministries will be established to co-ordinate the implementation of these recommendations in a comprehensive approach to addressing poverty. This committee will be led by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Second, while the reform of Ontario's social assistance legislation will take place throughout 1991, there is one very important step this government is going to take quickly to increase the incomes of all recipients of social assistance. My ministry will improve the previously announced social assistance rate increases that are effective I January 1991. Put simply, we have decided to increase the increases.

Instead of the 5% increase in basic allowances, the increase will now be 7%, and the increase in shelter ceilings will be boosted from 5% to 10%. These improvements will add another $91 million to social assistance benefits in 1991-92. For a single parent with two children, the impact of the January increases will result in up to an additional $104 a month.

Third, we realize that municipalities will pay 20% of the cost of general welfare assistance. They have not been given advance notice of this improvement of the previously announced rate increases. For that reason, for the 1991 calendar year only, the province will pay the estimated $7.4 million municipal share of the additional 2% in basic allowances and the additional 5% in shelter ceilings.

Fourth, this government will draw upon a $54-million fund announced by the previous government but never used. This funding will support employment programs for people receiving social assistance and for people with disabilities. This will involve a wide range of services that will focus on preparing and training people for jobs as well as creating work opportunities that will lead to permanent employment. The fund also helps with employment-related expenses such as child care for single parents or assistive devices for people who are physically disabled.

I believe these are all important and significant steps that demonstrate this government's commitment to address poverty in Ontario. This is real social assistance reform, making the system more fair for more people. Our determined course of action transforms a series of recommendations from words on paper to improvements in the quality of people's lives.

RESPONSES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Beer: May I, on behalf of my party, state very simply that we welcome and support the minister's announcement today. This will have a real effect in helping those who are on social assistance, and I think everyone can take great solace from that.

I think it is important to note that these reforms the minister has announced build on a very solid foundation which the previous government brought in through the beginnings of the Social Assistance Review Committee, through the work of George Thomson and his colleagues. In 1989, as honourable members will recall, we brought forward some $415 million to provide direct and real help to those on social assistance.

Earlier this year, we set up the committee which the honourable minister has referred to, to look at bringing in new social assistance legislation, which in the SARC report had been underlined as being critical, so that we could enter the 1990s with legislation that would adequately deal with the kinds of problems those on social assistance face.

I want to say that the whole question of the rates that are received by those on social assistance is a key one in the work which the committee is going to do, and I applaud the initiative that this committee has been asked to fast-track a number of these issues, because clearly the problems, even over the last six months, have become greater. It is going to be very important to look at issues such as adequacy. How do we go about determining what indeed are adequate and fair rates? I think that will be an important question for the committee to deal with.

I think one of the key things that the minister is going to have to deal with is how to effectively develop employment programs so that those on social assistance can get off social assistance. As George Thomson said in his report, one of the things that the people on assistance kept saying was, "Help us break down the barriers so that in fact we can gain useful employment."

The supports to employment program, STEP, which we brought in a year ago, has, as I think the minister knows, produced some real benefits in that some 80% of those individuals receiving social assistance now see higher levels of earnings than they did before. We want to continue with that because it is in everyone's interest that those who can work and want to get back into the workforce will be able to take advantage of the various work programs that will be developed.

I recognize that the Ministry of Community and Social Services cannot do that by itself. It needs to work with the other ministries. My only caution to the minister is that I think, as the lead ministry, it is terribly important that she ensure the work of that committee proceeds at a rapid pace, so that the kinds of programs that are required will be put into place.

I think also that, as the minister is looking at other areas that need to be altered and changed, one of the ones that we felt required a very close look and action was that of the children's benefit. This again was mentioned in the SARC report. Some work has already been done on it.

I have raised that with social service ministers across the country and with the federal minister, because I think, recognizing the number of children who in fact are receiving social assistance, we have to find better ways of dealing with child poverty, and a children's benefit is one of them.

I am glad to see that the minister is going to be funding the municipal share in 1991. That is important. I would ask her simply to move as expeditiously as possible with the provincial-municipal social services review.

I end as I began. We welcome these changes. They will make a difference, and we will work closely with the government to ensure that further changes are made.

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

Mr Phillips: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Citizenship, to lend our support overall to the statement, but to have one suggestion, if we might. I think it is a good move, the appointment of this particular individual. I do not know Mr Lightman myself, but I am told he is an excellent individual who by all accounts will do a fine job.

An Agenda for People did spell out the intent of the government to establish in law regulations around this area. I might suggest we could make Mr Lightman's work more effective if we gave him that as the direction, that it would be the intent of the government to establish in law regulations and that that should be part of his explicit instructions in terms of his study. But overall we are in support of it and we would make that one suggestion.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Jackson: I was pleased, as all members in the House were today, to have an opportunity to read in the Toronto Star the minister's announcement. I am starting to believe that, like the former government, we are going to be seeing an increased number of these announcements through the pages of the Toronto Star. If that is the case, perhaps the Speaker might be interested in renaming ministerial responses as Letters to the Editor.

However, on that point I wish to suggest that on the issue of the support for the poor people of this province, there is absolute unanimity from all three political parties represented in this House. I think all parties have distinguished themselves on the issue of support for the Social Assistance Review Committee and the SARC report. Where we vary is that we disagree on how we are to achieve those ends for the citizens of this province. It is clear that from this government in the announcement today we have some positive initiatives. However, we do question this government in terms of its approaches in certain key areas.

Yesterday we heard an announcement that this government is going to further entrench the universal nature of rent control in this province, and yet the Thom commission very clearly supported the recommendations that are also contained in the SARC report that the universal nature of rent control in this province harms and hurts the poor of this province more than anything else. So I am not surprised to learn today that the minister is reacting not with the solutions that her leader spoke of while he was on this side of the House but with the rather expensive Band-Aids that she now is able to extract from cabinet now that the NDP is the government.

The truth of the matter is that if we look in the last decade in this province -- and I checked Hansard for 1982, when our province was experiencing similar financial difficulties with its economy -- the government of the day, with support from all three political parties. chose to support the poor. The combined support in 1982 announced by the member for Scarborough Centre, the then minister Drea, was 17.7%, and today we have a 17% average increase. The fact is that we must ensure that this program is implemented fairly and does not hurt certain groups in our society.

On that point, I wish to advise that on the issue of municipal taxes we have several communities now that have warned the government that they are in deficit positions because of growing increased welfare costs. Some municipalities, like my own in Halton region, are massively cutting programs in order to ensure that they have the moneys in order to pay perhaps the fastest-growing welfare rolls we have seen in a decade.

In fact, I hope that the Minister of the Environment will examine Hansard, because there are at least six major recycling programs that are being cancelled in Halton region as a direct result of finding the cash necessary in order to pay for the shortfall that is not included in the minister's announcement today.

I ask the minister, what will municipalities do in the second year? We know that there is a growing cynicism about the approach that governments take with first-year announcements, and then they let go of the hands of municipal taxpayers in the second year. Those total costs will be borne by what we know will be still rather large requirements for general welfare assistance.

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

Mr Jackson: If I may, very briefly, I would like to respond to the minister responsible for the vulnerable citizens in this province. Although I commend the appointment of a commissioner, I am concerned that the ministry officials who helped develop this report were very much aware of the circumstances which led to the need to make today's statement, and nowhere are we seeing a major policy statement with respect to advocacy and a commitment for regulating the very homes that these people find themselves in.

More important, as the Premier is in the House, I would ask the Premier to conduct yet another investigation of a report on advocacy for vulnerable adults. I wish to inform the Premier that I have acquired a copy of the David Weisstub report, which his Minister of Health withdrew from the public two months ago. I was able to acquire a copy, and the Ministry of Health has withdrawn it from public scrutiny. I would ask that in fact this government will release this report and let David Weisstub report to vulnerable adults in this province what their rights are in terms of being denied certain medical services.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR POWER

Mr Conway: My question is to the Minister of Energy and it concerns the energy policy of this government. Accepting, as I think we all do, the importance and value of energy conservation, of renewable energy and cogeneration, can the minister confirm, however, that it is the energy policy of this government that there will be no new nuclear power facilities built in Ontario beyond those commitments already made at Darlington?

Hon Mrs Carter: I can confirm that there will be no new nuclear plants built in the immediate future. We have no plans to build any. We are pursuing, as the member knows, a policy of conservation and energy efficiency. We have plans for other ways in which we can increase power supply if necessary. I would not, however, rule out absolutely the possibility of building new nuclear stations, although we do hope that will not be necessary.

Mr Conway: Mackenzie King would be truly proud of that response, which seems to be "Not necessarily nuclear but perhaps nuclear if necessary."

I want to ask the Minister of Energy, who made, I thought, quite a remarkable speech in the throne debate yesterday afternoon, what she would say to the thousands of men and women who work in Ontario in the nuclear industries, in communities like mine or in Peterborough or in Niagara Falls or in Cambridge, and what they are to make of her increasingly strident antinuclear position. What are we to say to those thousands of men and women whose jobs are at stake in this industry? What would she like those men and women to take from her comments today and, more especially, yesterday afternoon?

Hon Mrs Carter: There was nothing in my speech yesterday, I would like to point out, that in any way contradicted the speech from the throne. We have a lawyer's confirmation on this issue.

I would also like to point out that the life of a nuclear power station is 40 years. We are bringing new nuclear power stations on stream. All the Darlington power stations are being completed and will come on stream. There is no loss of jobs whatsoever as a result of our policies, no loss of jobs whatsoever for the foreseeable future, and our policies of conservation are going to create many extra jobs in this province. I reiterate: We are not destroying any jobs; we are creating jobs.

Mr McGuinty: Although I may be a lawyer, I can assure this House I am not a QC.

It is a logical inference from the statements that have been made in this House by the Premier and the Minister of Energy that their emphasis is on conservation. Essentially it is the people of this province who will be responsible for determining the need for nuclear power through their personal conservation efforts. The people of Ontario are looking for new programs and new directions. The minister has failed to bring forward any such new programs to save energy this winter. Can the minister inform this House today about the specific details of her energy conservation plan to be in effect this winter?

Hon Mrs Carter: I find this question rather strange. Nuclear power stations projected by the previous government and by Ontario Hydro would not have come on stream for another 12 years; so I fail to see what their relevance is to this winter.

It so happens that several power stations, including five nuclear power stations. have not been functioning recently. Some of the nuclear power stations have been less reliable than we had hoped. However, several of these stations are coming back on stream, having been repaired, at the beginning of December; more are coming back on stream in the new year. There is no likelihood of power outages this winter, none whatsoever.

RENT REGULATION

Ms Poole: Yesterday, when I asked the Minister of Housing the status of uncompleted renovations due to his new legislation, he had not even considered a plan to deal with the problem. Let's talk about the plight of the tenants at 109 Jameson. The building is partway through a major renovation program, partially in response to city of Toronto work orders. The tenant advocates at Parkdale Community Legal Services have been involved to ensure that necessary work is done.

Yesterday, upon hearing the minister's announcement, the landlord ordered work crews off the job. What is the minister going to do to make sure that the tenants of 109 Jameson do not spend the next two years in suspended animation, waiting for the holes in their walls to be repaired and for the uncompleted construction to be finished?

Hon Mr Cooke: I very much appreciate the fact that the member has raised the plight of the tenants at 109 Jameson. I am sure the member understands that under the Liberal rent review legislation which the tenants of this province have had to survive through in the last few years, in the guideline that is set each year there is provision for maintenance and for some limited capital. The member understands the guideline as well as I do.

But does she also understand that the tenants of this building at 109 Jameson right now are facing a rent increase of 35% that would be effective 1 August 1989, which was applied for under the old rent legislation, and that another rent increase of an additional 50% was applied for by this landlord, which would have been effective 1 October of this year?

That is 85% in two years as a result of a building that was sold with financing costs to be passed through. It is a building that was bought by a landlord who knew there had been a lot of neglect. There are 31 outstanding work orders. I am surprised that a member like her, who has advocated for tenants for many years, would suggest that any rent review system in this province should reward a landlord like this.

Ms Poole: The minister does not seem to comprehend. I am not standing here in support of the landlord. I am standing here in support of the tenants. The reason that the Parkdale Community Legal Services has been involved is that a great deal of the work involved in that building was necessary. It was in a sad state of repair. The other thing the minister does not seem to comprehend is that, yes, tenants are very concerned about affordable rents, but they are equally as concerned about the maintenance of their buildings. It is their home. They want a decent and comfortable place in which to live.

Yesterday, when the minister made his announcement, he said that tenants will pay for increases in taxes, hydro rates and heating oil above and beyond the guideline. But when the boiler breaks down and there is no heat, who is going to pay for that new boiler so the tenants will not freeze? When the toilets overflow because the pipes have corroded, who is going to pay for that new plumbing?

When the electrical wiring becomes hazardous, who is going to pay for that new wiring? What advice does the Minister of Slums have for tenants?

Hon Mr Cooke: My advice to the member is that the philosophy she is enunciating here today is to institute a rent review system tenants would have had to live under that would reward landlords who deliberately neglect their buildings. That is exactly what she is suggesting by her approach. This building was clearly not properly taken care of. The current owner of the building bought the building in that state of repair. Because of the current rent review legislation, which says that when a new owner buys it he does not have to care about the ongoing neglect that occurred by a previous owner, now we are in this kind of circumstance.

It is our responsibility now to pick up the pieces that the Liberals have left this government, with a rent review system that is totally inadequate, and bring in a rent review system that offers real protection for tenants. We have accepted that challenge and we intend to deliver.

Ms Poole: It was a nice try by the Minister of Housing, but I was not talking about the tenants at 109 Jameson. I was talking about tenants all across this province who are relying on this government to show some leadership as to what is going to happen to major repairs and renovations.

The minister knows well that over 75% of the housing stock in this province was built prior to 1975. They are old buildings. Would the minister consider these things to be luxury renovations? No, they are not. They are necessary and they are not included in his announcement. Apartment buildings need new boilers now. Crumbling plaster needs to be replaced today. Apartment garages are corroding today. What is the minister's solution for tenants who need major repairs and renovations today, not two years from now?

Hon Mr Cooke: The solution is very clear. The rent review guidelines that the member's government developed include money for landlords to properly maintain their buildings. There are standards at the municipal level. There is the Residential Rental Standards Board at the provincial level. Those bodies will in fact continue to have the responsibility to enforce those standards. I hope we can look for the member's support for decent standards to be enforced and landlords to follow those standards. I hope we do not continue to get from her these types of questions which will reinforce landlords who have taken advantage of tenants and not met proper standards for tenants in the past.

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier. I am sure he shares my view that voters are fed up with cynical election promises. I want to refer the Premier to his comments during the election, at which time he pledged categorically to lead a "national revolt against the GST." In fact, the Premier said he would rally the premiers of the other nine provinces to join him in this national revolt.

Since the Premier has been on the job for nearly three months, the only feeble effort we have seen to date is the Premier indicating that Ontario will join three other provinces in an ill-fated legal challenge that is already in progress. Given that the goods and services tax will be in place within the next few weeks, can the Premier tell me when he plans to begin leading his national revolt?

Hon Mr Rae: I think that on balance the leader of the third party should reflect on the following facts. As opposed to his position -- I am not clear what his position on the GST is -- we have been very clear on our position. The first bill we introduced in this House, on the day of the throne speech, was to state categorically that Ontario would not put its tax on top of the GST. That was the first thing we did. I cannot imagine a clearer statement than that.

Because of the fact that the federal government was not listening in any other way, the Ontario government has joined with the governments of British Columbia and Alberta in two separate constitutional challenges, one with respect to the stuffing of the Senate with patronage Tory appointments, and the second having to do with the simple fact that we feel the imposition of the GST and the way in which it has been done are an invasion of an important area that has been occupied by the province for a significant time.

I can also tell the leader of the third party that next week the Treasurer is going to Winnipeg to meet with the other ministers of finance and to discuss the question of the GST with them. The simple fact of the matter is that where there has been an opportunity for Ontario to speak up and to act, not simply to talk but to take the steps that are within our powers, we have done so and we will continue to do so. That is the position of the government. I think it stands in rather marked contrast to the position of the Progressive Conservative Party in this House and in Canada as a whole.

Mr Harris: I do not know how introducing a bill saying, "Well, it's a fait accompli, so here's what we'll do to tie into it," is leading a national revolt. I found the Premier's GST revolt pledge report in the Thunder Bay Times-News on Friday 17 August. In the same article, and I would suggest the Premier must have had a busy day that day, he promised that the NDP would empower the Ontario Energy Board to bring in a one-price system for gasoline. The Premier said, "I really think consumers are being ripped off by the gas companies."

I want to ask the Premier, since we have had no indication that he plans to keep his one price for gas promise, can we now assume that after his election the gas companies suddenly stopped ripping off consumers, as he alleged?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only tell the leader that I do not have a sudden announcement to make for him today. I can only tell him that the subject is one which is under continual review by the government. The Ministry of Energy is looking at this on an ongoing basis. I would also say to him that as and when I have an announcement to make, I will make it in this House.

Mr Harris: I am sure the Premier is beginning to understand why the public is so cynical about us all. Believe it or not, the Premier also made another campaign promise on the very same day. One of those promises was that he would force Ontario Hydro to increase its uranium purchases from mines at Elliot Lake. At four, five, six or seven times the market price for uranium, this is what the Premier promised to do. Now, assuming that the Premier keeps this promise, and assuming he also keeps his throne speech promise to halt nuclear energy, what is the Premier going to do with all this expensive uranium he has promised to buy from Elliot Lake?

Hon Mr Rae: I may say to the leader of the third party that this is something that has been raised in this House on a number of occasions, including by the Minister of Natural Resources. Again, I do not have an announcement to make in that regard. I can only tell the leader that it obviously is a concern of this government that we have policies in place with respect to energy that make the most sense for the people of the province and that benefit the people of the province. That is what we are committed to doing but, as I say, I do not have an announcement to make today with respect to the question of uranium purchases in Elliot Lake.

Mr Harris: It was pretty clear in August that the Premier promised Elliot Lake he was going to buy more uranium from them.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Mr Harris: My second question is to the Premier as well. Would the Premier tell this House if it is the policy of his new government that only unionized companies can do business with the government?

Hon Mr Rae: To be very direct with the leader of the third party, I honestly do not know the answer to that question. It is not something which has been discussed in cabinet. It is not something which I have participated in any discussions about. If he has a zinger as his second question, I will wait for it, but it is not a subject I have discussed since taking office on I October.

Mr Harris: I thought it was a pretty straightforward question. Is it a policy or not? I guess the answer is that the Premier does not know what his own policy is in dealing with awarding contracts.

On 14 May 1990, an Ontario carpet company was awarded a contract to lay carpet at the Ontario Labour Relations Board offices. Would the Premier explain why, following the election of his NDP government, this contract, properly tendered and properly awarded, was summarily terminated solely on the basis that the company was not unionized?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I honestly cannot give the leader an answer to the question as to whether what he says is a fair characterization of what has taken place or not. I do not know. But obviously now that he has raised it, I will look into it and I will report back to him as soon as I have an answer.

Mr Harris: In the interests of the two thirds or so of the workforce that is not unionized in this province and of the companies that have been able to bid on government contracts, I hope he does look into it very quickly.

As he is looking into it, I would like the Premier to know that the company had already measured the offices at the labour board; it had purchased the carpet and it had scheduled the work. In fact, the carpet is now sitting in a government warehouse, unused but totally paid for by the taxpayers.

Yesterday we discovered that the Ontario Public Service Employees Union is making decisions for his Ministry of Community and Social Services. Today we find out that organized labour is dictating who and what companies will do business with the province of Ontario. I ask the Premier to investigate as well who is calling the shots over there, he and his cabinet ministers or OPSEU and the big unions.

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the question. I can simply tell the leader of the third party that I, as Premier of the province and president of the executive council, consult widely with people and then we make decisions. I have promised the leader of the third party that I will investigate the particular incident he has raised. I would simply say to him with respect to his characterization of matters with regard to social services that I think his characterization is extraordinarily unfair and inaccurate, and I would simply leave it at that.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Unfortunately, the throne speech said nothing or practically nothing about the government's plans for colleges and universities. I guess that is hardly surprising since the New Democratic Party's An Agenda for People was silent on this matter as well.

I also noticed that the minister last week at Mohawk College said that money is not available for post-secondary education: "The whole funding question is very much a wait-and-see attitude. We will be lucky this year if we can give the system anything more than inflation-level funding."

Finally, I found it rather significant that at the 8 November rally by the Ontario Federation of Students, the minister sent the parliamentary assistant for the Ministry of Skills Development, rather than attend himself or be represented by his parliamentary assistant for the Ministry of Colleges and Universities.

I would like to ask the minister whether his absence at the OFS rally and the absence of higher education in the throne speech is an indication of his government's support for colleges and universities.

Hon Mr Allen: I am delighted to answer the question because it concerns the funding and the attention that needs to be devoted to the long-neglected post-secondary system in this province, which I inherited at the level of ninth out of 10 provinces in terms of the operational grants funding per student when measured against the other provinces in Canada.

If the member wishes to know exactly what I was doing when that rally was taking place, I was visiting Lakehead University and Confederation College. I was especially interested in the quality of education of post-secondary students in the north and the northwest, and I was especially interested to discover what was happening with respect to access for native students in both those institutions.

I will continue to underscore in my ministry an overriding concern for both access questions and the quality of education at the universities of this province as long as I am minister.

Mr Daigeler: I just would like to say to the minister that his absence, and certainly the absence of his own parliamentary assistant, was noticed by the students, who otherwise were mostly supportive of his side of the House.

In spite of the minister's assurances, on which we have seen no evidence so far, universities are taking their own steps at present to ensure the future of higher education in this province. You will have read last week in the newspapers that the University of Toronto business school is considering a proposal that would, in effect, privatize the MBA program and require students to pay the full cost of their studies.

Can the minister explain to the House what his government's position is with regard to such plans and specifically to the MBA program at the University of Toronto, and whether he has communicated his views to the university and how he is going to prevent them from proceeding with these plans?

Hon Mr Allen: With regard to the question that is specifically asked about the University of Toronto and the MBA program, that is an ongoing program that has been there since 1982, and only minor adjustments are being proposed with respect to it; so if the member has concerns now, I suppose he has had them for the last three or four years.

The decision is to be made this week at the university whether the readjustment of that program will continue. There is a very serious question at the heart of it, and that is how universities and colleges may provide what might be called contract services to private interests for training and professional services and professional education. That is the question or the issue that has to be addressed, which has been left again to this portfolio and which this case calls attention to. We are examining that question and will have some answer to it.

But I have to tell the member that the specific proposal in question opens the way for further registration, in point of fact, for about 60 more students in the undergraduate program.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Premier. I refer the Premier to the fall 1989 issue of the Tenants' Bulletin. In that publication there was an interview with Michael Melling, who was then chair of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations. In that, the Premier stated in answer to a question about how to get private rental stock out of the hands of the large owners: "You make it less profitable for people to own it. I would bring in a very rigid, tough system of rent review. Simple. Eliminate the exceptions and loopholes. There will be a huge squawk from the speculative community and you say to them, 'If you are unhappy, we will buy you out.'"

Is that really the Premier's policy? Is that his hidden agenda? Is he really going to buy them out?

Hon Mr Rae: The policy that was announced by the minister yesterday is the policy of the government. The purpose of the policy is to provide fairness for tenants and to put an end to speculation. The purpose of the policy is to allow security of tenure for tenants and to recognize that their homes and apartments are as valuable to them as residences which are privately owned.

The member refers to a statement which he quotes from an earlier publication. I can only say to him it was the policy of the previous government, as well as, if I may say so, of other governments, that if it is possible to create policies over time which will perhaps allow tenants to be involved in the purchase of their own buildings on a nonprofit basis, if we can convert residences which are owned on a non-profit basis, that strikes me as a good idea. That strikes me as something which would be good, to allow tenants to have that security and to make sure that buildings are no longer in the speculative stream, which is where they are right now.

Mr Tilson: In that same interview, the Premier is further quoted: "You can't talk about rent review till you talk about the structure of ownership, and that. to me. is what needs to change in the rental housing field." Is that still the Premier's policy? How do these sorts of comments square with his commitment of fairness? Does he not agree that the moratorium announced yesterday by the Minister of Housing discriminates against responsible landlords?

Hon Mr Rae: I really believe that the member had better get a handle, and I am sure he will over time, on what the experience of tenants has been over the last several years. We have had buildings flip after flip after flip after flip. We have had tenants pay and pay and pay and pay again. We now have the spectacle of landlords saying that rents that have gone up by 5% and 6% and 7% a year over the past several years are not going to be used for basic repair and maintenance of buildings. We have landlords saying, "Unless we get increases of 30% and 35% and 40%, then we're not going to bother to maintain the buildings."

Something has to be done to put this in perspective, and that is what we are determined to do: to ensure that tenants have security, that tenants have fairness, and to make sure there is in place a structure, a range of ownership across this province, which allows tenants to have security and which makes sure that people's apartments are taken as seriously as places to live as private residences. That is what we are all about.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Duignan: Let me extend my congratulations to you, Mr Speaker, on your election as Speaker.

My question today is to the Minister of Housing. Given the failure of the previous governments to honour the commitments to deal with the affordable housing crisis in this province -- witness the fact that fewer than 6,000 units under the Homes Now program have been completed -- can the minister ensure this House that the remaining 24,000 units will be completed?

Hon Mr Cooke: Right after the time that we were sworn in as the government, we started discussing in the ministry exactly how we could take advantage of the Homes Now program that was initiated by the previous government and make sure that the commitment of 30,000 units was a commitment that was delivered in this province.

I am pleased to inform the House that it is now the projection of our ministry that, through a process of reallocation -- we have reallocated housing which people and groups could not deliver in time with the deadlines to other groups that can deliver -- by the end of this year we will have 9,500 of the Homes Now units committed and ready to begin, and in 1991 we expect to be able to commit 20,500 units. We will put more social housing units on the market next year than ever in the history of this province.

Mr Duignan: On behalf of another 20,500 families that are going to receive affordable housing in this province, I thank the minister.

Can the minister indicate under what circumstances he has lifted the 31 March deadline in relation to the Homes Now program?

Hon Mr Cooke: We decided that in order to facilitate the construction and the allocation of all 30,000 Homes Now units we would reverse a policy the former government had. We changed the 31 March arbitrary deadline the previous government had put in place and have allowed for circumstances by which there can be exceptions; they will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The bottom line is that if the sponsoring group can have the units committed and begun by the end of September 1991, then they will keep their allocation because we want that housing on the market next year.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mrs Caplan: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I would like to congratulate him on undertaking this very important and significant portfolio. I know the municipalities in this province are expecting, and I think rightly so, significant things from this new minister.

The Oak Ridges moraine is part of our natural resources and our heritage and is crucial to the clean drinking water supply of the residents of the greater Toronto area. A number of important reviews of the moraine have been undertaken, including the Kantor report as well as the Crombie report. The former Liberal government declared a provincial interest in this area under the Planning Act to protect the moraine from inappropriate land use. Can the minister today state his commitment to protecting the Oak Ridges moraine?

Hon Mr Cooke: I must say that after the experience of the past few years of asking the member many questions, there are many things with which I am tempted to begin the response to her question, but I will not.

We are trying to develop a well-planned system in this province -- innovative and creative -- that will deliver to the needs of the people of this province. However, on this particular issue I can indicate to the member that I have spent a little time with my ministry staff reviewing the issue. Because of other pressures in the housing field, I have not been able to spend a lot of tune. We are obviously interested in taking whatever steps are necessary to protect the area. There will be a more comprehensive response when the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area also responds to the Crombie report.

Mrs Caplan: I would ask the minister to be more specific. Will he or will he not today reaffirm the provincial interest in the Oak Ridges moraine that was declared by the previous Liberal government because of our commitment to ensuring that the greater Toronto area had a clean water supply for the future? Yes or no to the sustained provincial interest that was declared in July 1990.

Hon Mr Cooke: There is no change in policy at all. There is a provincial interest. That has been declared. We are certainly continuing that policy. In terms of other questions dealing both with the Crombie report and other policy questions we have to respond to, I cannot give the member anything more than that today.

TECHNICAL EDUCATION

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Education. She and I will know and I think many of our colleagues in this House will understand that all of us spoke at some time during the most recent election about the need for technological studies and technical education in our school systems. We want to be competitive in a global economy both in Ontario and in Canada.

I am sure the minister is aware of the recent Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation report subtitled "Technical Education in Ontario High Schools is Facing a Crisis." It was released this September, and the same report was released last September. It is not new that I am standing here asking this question. The minister is aware of it. What are her plans to face this crisis of a teacher shortage in technological studies courses in our school systems for next September in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Boyd: It is quite true that the OSSTF released a similar report last year, which was found to be highly overstated in terms of the number of teachers that were available. In fact, the overestimate of shortages is by about 25%. It is quite clear that this is a projection again and not yet a fact; it is speculation.

There is no question that our letters of permission in terms of technological education have been reduced significantly this year, I believe from 173 letters of permission during the last school year to 57 during this year. We are very pleased that the program now ongoing, particularly the summer program at Queen's University, has done a great deal to improve the availability of technological teachers.

We have a problem with distribution; there is no question about that. It is difficult for us to attract teachers in the technology field into the high-cost Metro area and also into the isolated areas of the north. That is creating a distribution problem. It is our intention to encourage Queen's, and Queen's has indicated an interest in continuing the summer program next year. It is our belief that this will be of great assistance in handling any kind of shortage.

The other issue, of course, is the whole matter of the ongoing curriculum review in terms of technology and the teacher education issues that arise out of that. That is part of the ongoing restructuring that was begun under the previous government and to which we have committed ourselves.

Mrs Cunningham: I appreciate the minister's response. I think I can speak on behalf of many parents and students, certainly members of this House, to encourage her in her work.

The shortages that were relayed to the minister may have been overestimated; I do not know. But I do know one thing: They are not new. They began in the early 1980s. As a matter of fact, a report was commissioned in 1985 and released in 1988 which also supported the real concern about matching the needs for technological studies with the availability of teachers. It is also true that this is not good enough, just the technical education courses in the schools. We are also looking to get skills training out in the workplace in apprenticeship programs.

My question now would be, what is the minister doing with the Ministry of Skills Development other than the pilot programs we all know about? We know there are six or eight pilot programs. What is she doing with the Ministry of Skills Development to work towards getting more industry and business involved in the apprenticeship training program? Is that ministry actually helping the minister and assisting her and encouraging her in the very important work she has to do in providing training and skills for young people?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We certainly are working interministerially; that is a commitment of our government. We recognize that in this area unless the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the Ministry of Skills Development work very closely together to ensure that there is articulation between the various levels of education and unless we work to make that a continuing process, we are not going to be able to deal with what we regard to be a crisis in terms of the growth of skilled trades and technological expertise in this province.

This is a party that has long been concerned about the lack of emphasis in this area of education. We are certainly committed to improving the record of the last two governments in this regard.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Wessenger: My question is addressed to the Solicitor General. As he is probably aware, eight municipalities in Simcoe county will be amalgamated on 1 January 1991. The three new towns will be the amalgamated town of Alliston, Beeton, Tecumseth and Tottenham; the amalgamated town of Bradford and West Gwillimbury; and the town of Innisfil, which includes the former village of Cookstown.

Can the minister tell me who will be responsible for policing this restructured area of south Simcoe county?

Hon Mr Farnan: The County of Simcoe Act defines policing responsibilities for each of the three towns. The municipal police force and the OPP will continue to police those areas they were responsible for prior to amalgamation. However, each of those municipalities will have three options following 1 January 1991. To expand the municipal force, they will have to choose either to contract their service to another municipality or to contract to the OPP. What I should stress, however, is that after 1 January, if it is contracted to the OPP, then they will have to pay for that service.

Mr Wessenger: Is it not true that the existing policy and protocol for contract OPP policing were designed to address the requests from small municipalities seeking an alternative to a municipal police force and do not address the sensitivity of all police staff affected by amalgamation? If so, when does the minister expect to be able to announce a new protocol, and will it be in place to meet the immediate needs of my community?

Hon Mr Farnan: Indeed, the protocol has been a concern. In order that we would develop a protocol that was effective, we met with the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ontario Provincial Police Association, the municipal police authorities, the Ontario Provincial Police authorities. Indeed, I am happy to inform the House that as a result of these fine consultations we have developed a protocol that will indeed fit the needs of the small municipalities as we face the future. We look forward to working with them and the new protocol.

POLICE LEGISLATION

Mr Curling: My question also is to the Solicitor General. In the minister's recent remarks at the Ontario Police College, he applauded the leadership shown by the Liberal government, and justifiably so. He was applauding it in the development of the passage of the Police Services Act. At that time he described the Police Services Act as leading edge legislation and indicated that he was preparing for full proclamation of the legislation by year-end.

My question is, will the minister reaffirm this commitment to proclaim the Police Services Act by year-end?

Hon Mr Farnan: I am happy to answer the question. I should talk just very briefly about the Police Services Act. The reality of the matter is that I believe we have made a lot of progress. However, I often think that as politicians we get carried away by our effectiveness.

In reality, many creative advances were made in policing. The old Police Act was not changed since 1940. In fact, the Police Services Act in many ways recognizes the advances that have been made in policing, advances that we can continue to work on through the regulations.

I am happy to inform the member in this House that we are working very diligently to proclaim the act by the end of this year.

Mr Curling: I am very pleased that the minister was so precise that we will have the proclamation by the end of the year. However, as the minister will be aware, prior to the proclamation of any legislation, it is normal that regulations to the act are drafted and passed by cabinet. The minister will also be aware that in the case of the Police Services Act, these regulations are crucial in the management of the day-to-day activities of the police and how they interact with the public.

I am also sure that the minister will be aware that his leader, now the Premier of Ontario, and his caucus, which is now the government of Ontario, strongly argued that these important regulations be developed in an open, public way and that the regulations be reviewed by a committee of the Legislature prior to proclamation.

Will the minister commit to the development of these regulations in an open, public process advocated by his own leader, or will the minister make the important decision behind closed doors with no input by the public?

Hon Mr Farnan: How could the honourable member think otherwise? Let me assure the honourable member that indeed there will be extensive consultations with our partners in policing, that there will be extensive consultation not only with police services personnel but with the public that is affected by policing. Indeed, we intend to develop these regulations in a very particular manner and we intend to have the opportunity for input all across the board.

BUDGET

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Treasurer. According to the Provincial Auditor's 1990 annual report, there are some suggestions that the previous Liberal government in fact knowingly manipulated the provincial government's books for two reasons -- hard to believe -- (

a) to more closely mirror its 1990 projected budget and (

b) to remove $884 million of debt from the fiscal year 1990, thereby decreasing the deficit from $3.4 billion to $2.5 billion. The auditor said:

"There is a perception that the government is, in reality, managing and adjusting its actual results so they will more closely parallel its" operating results. "This in turn raises serious doubts concerning the integrity of the accounting process."

Does the Treasurer consider this to be an acceptable approach to fiscal risk management? When did he learn about this and how does he propose that financial gamesmanship such as this never happens again?

Hon Mr Laughren: I would like to welcome the member to this House and trust that he will find the adjustment from municipal politics to provincial politics without too much hardship.

It is a fair question, a legitimate question. It was no secret that what they call preflows were being done. That was a very open process, as I recall it. The Provincial Auditor does not like it when Treasury preflows from one fiscal year into another year. I might say, though, that there are people who do like it, such as the hospitals and the schools and the universities and the colleges, where they are able to get money sooner than they would otherwise have done so.

In his report this year the auditor has asked us to consider changing that policy, and there is no question that we are actively considering changing the policy. I do want to have a little more time, however, to think seriously about the long-run implications of just saying flatly, "No, there will be no more preflows from one fiscal year into the next." I do not think it is a deceptive process when it is done very openly, that it is what you are doing in order to advance funds to a particular sector of our economy.

Mr Stockwell: The auditor suggests that it is manipulating the operating results and that it casts doubts about the integrity of the accounting process. Obviously this is very much a concern of the auditor. Clearly it is not something that he would approve, and I am asking the Treasurer today how he would ensure that if this in fact does happen again, it is sent back through the process to one of the standing committees so that we can do the job we are elected to do. It is very difficult as it is now to compare year to year; if there are preflows, it makes the job next to impossible.

Hon Mr Laughren: I want to assure the honourable member first of all that the possibility of preflowing any cash in the next couple of years is extremely remote, so it is not going to be an immediate problem for us. even the temptation of doing it. I want to assure the member that we are doing exactly what the Provincial Auditor is asking us to do in his report. He says he wishes us to consider the policy because he simply does not like the accounting aspects of it. I am not quarrelling with the Provincial Auditor in that regard.

All I am saying to the member is that I really do want to take a careful look at the long-run implications of simply saying, "No, we will never preflow any funds." It is quite conceivable, for example, that there could be an adjustment of funds coming from the federal government as a result of one of our tax-sharing agreements that would come in very late in the year that we might very well want to preflow. As a matter of fact, I believe that is exactly what happened last year when almost $1 billion came unexpectedly from the --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: All right. Anyway, almost $900-million came from the federal government to the provincial government late in the fiscal year and therefore a decision was made to preflow it into this fiscal year.

The member is quite right and the auditor, of course, is quite right that it does alter either the deficit or the surplus figure in the following fiscal year. So we are actively doing exactly what the auditor asked us to do: to consider the policy.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I want to advise the House that I have just received some information relating to a question which was put to me by the leader of the third party with respect to carpet installation at 400 University Avenue. With the permission of the House, I wonder if I could answer the question, if that is okay, or would you like me to do it at the end of question period?

The Speaker: Do we have the unanimous consent of the House?

Agreed to.

The Speaker: In fairness, I will ask that the clock be stopped.

Hon Mr Rae: My advice is as follows: It has been the practice of the Ministry of Labour since 1983 -- which is, of course, when the Conservative Party was in power -- to use unionized labour on contracts for leasehold improvements at 400 University Avenue.

On 21 August 1990, the Ministry of Labour requested the Ministry of Government Services to issue a contract for the purchase and installation of carpet on the sixth floor of 400 University Avenue. The contract was awarded through a competitive process to provide such goods and services at fixed unit prices.

Subsequent to the award of the contract but prior to the commencement of the installation work, the ministry was advised that the installers were non-union workers. Since it has been the practice of the Ministry of Labour since 1983, under a Conservative administration, and continued through from 1985 under a Liberal administration, for a union contract to be used for the installation of the carpet, the ministry requested that the installation be done by unionized installers. The project has been reactivated and is going to go forward using union labour in the Ministry of Labour building.

The vendor will be compensated for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of the ministry's request. The carpet was purchased and fully paid for. It will be used and installed in the Ministry of Labour once union installers have been contracted.

If I may say to the member from North Bay, all of this was done without any intervention by any minister of this government, and as I understand it, or any intervention by any minister under the previous government. It was done as a matter of basic Ministry of Labour policy with regard to the installation and the use of union labour on the property at 400 University Avenue. That is the beginning and end of policy. Since it was established by the Conservatives in 1983, it seems to me that there are some Conservative traditions that are worth preserving, and that is one of them.

Mr Harris: Normally in the House when time was given for answer to a previously asked question, there was always a supplementary granted. I am assuming that is still a practice and would like to take that opportunity.

I would ask the Premier if he now knows the answer to the first question I asked, which he did not know when I asked it. That is, is it government policy that all companies doing business with this government have to be union? I was surprised the Premier did not know one way or the other.

Second, could he explain why the contractor, the successful bidder, who when he was contacted, when he offered to supply union installers, was told: "No, you can't do that. You've just lost it. We'll take the contract away from you"?

Hon Mr Rae: No, I cannot explain that. I will look into that on behalf of the leader of the third party. I am reluctant to sort of rattle on about things I am not fully aware of, but so far as I am aware, there has been no change.

Mr Sorbara: There's a change of policy. There's the first good news we've heard from this government.

Hon Mr Rae: That is a first change. That is a major change. That in itself is a change of policy. I think I am going to stick to my previous answer and say that as far as I am aware there has been no change with regard to the basic principles of competitive tendering. There should be no change, as far as I am personally concerned. There is no need to, except in an instance where the Ministry of Labour has felt that as a matter, as I say, of preserving certain Conservative traditions in the province, there was a need to continue with that one.

I will look into the particular question with regard to the particular contractor. If the member will send me the name of the contractor, I will make inquiries with the Ministry of Labour to find out how it happened in that way.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Mammoliti: My question is to the Minister of Housing. On 1 February 1990 the Ministry of Housing -- more specifically, the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority -- adopted a new policy. That policy is called the secondary wage earner policy. In a nutshell, the policy forces secondary wage earners to pay rent as well as the leaseholder. This poses an obvious disadvantage. There is no incentive for them to leave the MTHA complex and to save money and perhaps to buy a home of their own. Is the minister aware of the problem? Is he concerned about it?

Hon Mr Cooke: I certainly appreciate the question. I think all members of the Legislature who have had tenants from the Ontario Housing Corp call them have heard of the concern of how rents are calculated for dependent children or children who are still living at home with their parents in the OHC.

I can indicate to the member that, yes, I am aware that the policy was changed in September by the Ontario Housing Corp. I am also aware that there are concerns being expressed that the reforms simply do not recognize the situation of parents who cannot collect rent from their children who are still at home. We intend, along with the Ontario Housing Corp to review the policy and see if the policy can be reformed further to reflect needs of families in OHC units across the province.

Mr Mammoliti: I am concerned about it, seeing that the concentration of the MTHA is just under 20% in my riding. Would the minister be prepared to let me know whether he is prepared to do something in the immediate future, and if so, when?

Hon Mr Cooke: Yes, I will let the member know as soon as we have a policy decision. I would certainly invite him and all members of the Legislature who have opinions on this important issue to contact my office. I would be glad to discuss it further.

CONDUCT OF CABINET MINISTERS

Mr Mahoney: Can the Premier tell this House under what standards his cabinet and caucus are operating? Does he have guidelines for the conduct of his cabinet and caucus colleagues, and will he table them in this House?

Hon Mr Rae: I am currently drafting and working on those guidelines. They will be publicly available very shortly. They will be discussed with the leaders of the opposition parties.

In addition to that, I have already discussed with leaders of the opposition parties the fact that I think it will be a good idea for a committee of the House to look at the broader question of conflict-of-interest laws in the province. I am going to be presenting the House and cabinet and the public with guidelines with respect to the conduct of cabinet ministers. I am going to be doing that shortly. I expect to be able to do it before Christmas.

The Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired. Members may recall that we even stopped the clock for a while to handle a question and an answer which normally would have run. I am sure the intense interest will bring you back to the building on Monday.

PETITIONS

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Eves: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Request that the province of Ontario declare December 6 as Women's Remembrance Day. We request 14 seconds of silence be observed in schools, workplaces, institutions and media to commemorate the 14 women massacred at École Polytechnique in Montreal on the same date in 1989, and all women victims of violence in Canada."

This petition is signed by some 60 concerned constituents and I am affixing my signature thereto.

WATER AND SEWAGE UTILITY

Mr Wiseman: I have a petition here signed by 3,719 residents in Ajax, and they petition this House, the Legislature of Ontario, as follows:

"Through your resources and agencies, to prevail upon the regional municipality of Durham to reverse its decision to significantly expand the water supply plant located on the Ajax waterfront and locate it in a more suitable industrial zone. We are all citizens of Ajax who are committed to the preservation of waterfront park lands for the enjoyment and use of present and future generations. The proposed project is one we fear may well, if sanctioned, be the beginning of yet a further desecration of the wonderful community asset, truly the jewel in Ajax's crown. We urgently appeal to you to prevent this desecration."

I also have affixed my signature to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RESTOULE SNOWMOBILE CLUB ACT, 1990

Mr Eves moved first reading of Bill Pr9,

An Act to revive Restoule Snowmobile Club.

Motion agreed to.

LA CAPANNA HOMES (NON-PROFIT) INC ACT, 1990

Mr Ferguson moved first reading of Bill Pr48,

An Act to revive La Capanna Homes (Non-Profit) Inc.

Motion agreed to.

ALARM SYSTEMS ACT, 1990

Mr McLean moved first reading of Bill 5,

An Act to regulate Alarm Systems.

Motion agreed to.

HERITAGE DAY ACT, 1990

Mr McLean moved first reading of Bill 6,

An Act respecting Heritage Day.

Motion agreed to.

GODERICH-EXETER RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED ACT, 1990

Mr Klopp moved first reading of Bill Pr22,

An Act respecting Goderich-Exeter Railway Company Limited.

Motion agreed to.

LORDINA LIMITED ACT, 1990

Mr Eves moved first reading of Bill Pr45,

An Act to revive Lordina Limited.

Motion agreed to.

POWERS OF ATTORNEY AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Sterling moved first reading of Bill 7,

An Act to amend the Powers of Attorney Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Sterling: This bill basically gives the right to a person to give to another person the right to make decisions on his or her behalf, should he or she become incapacitated. This bill would specifically give the person the right to transfer to another person the right to withdraw medical services or medical treatment, should the person who has been the donor of the power become incapacitated.

NATURAL DEATH ACT, 1990

Mr Sterling moved first reading of Bill 8,

An Act respecting Natural Death.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Sterling: This embodies the concept of a living will in legislation. As opposed to the previous bill which I introduced, this bill gives a general direction to the world or to a doctor as to what a donor might like done, should he or she be placed in a position of not being able to speak for himself or herself. Therefore, what it embodies is a kind of structure that a person would draft a document whereby he or she would describe certain circumstances under which he or she would want the withdrawal of medical treatment or medical services so he or she could die a natural death.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION DAY

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Harris moved opposition day motion 1:

This House, noting the increase in the number of jobs lost through layoffs, the rising unemployment rate, the increase in the social assistance case load and in the cost of social assistance programs and noting the deterioration in the province's financial position, urges the government to abandon the tax-and-spend approach to financial management which has dominated the province's fiscal policy for the past five years, an approach which has added to inflationary pressures and reduced the competitiveness of Ontario's industries, and to adopt a policy of restraint to control costs and to provide the opportunity for tax relief.

Mr Harris: I introduced this motion because I felt it was essential to impress upon the government our view that it simply cannot continue to follow the doctrine of tax and spend which has served as the foundation of fiscal policy in this province for the past five years.

I thought it was important to do this for three reasons: first, because of my personal conviction that the fiscal policy of the government of Ontario over the past five years is in part responsible for the current severe economic downturn; second, because I am concerned that the new NDP government is poised to repeat and compound the errors of its predecessor; and third, because I am convinced the control of government expenditure, the element of policy too long ignored by governments in this province, is vital to the achievement of long-term fiscal stability, moderate tax rates and a development of an aggressive, productive and competitive economy that is capable of generating new wealth and therefore creating jobs.

I appreciate that there are members who will reject my contention that Ontario fiscal policy is in part responsible for this recession. I am aware, for example, that the current interim leader of the official opposition sent a spirited letter to Ottawa just a few months ago, disputing this claim to Ottawa.

I would say parenthetically that I suspect my honourable friend has fewer reasons to communicate with the federal government in his new capacity. However, I fully expect some members to pass the buck, to engage in some enthusiastic finger pointing in the direction of the federal government, to spend more time and energy trying to fix the blame than trying to fix the problem. Some members can always be counted on to play the old political game.

I would remind those members that the results of the last election clearly show that the public is thoroughly fed up with the old political game, with the old politics as usual, and if we are to be brutally frank, with politicians as usual.

Playing the old political game has eroded confidence in government and public institutions, with public opinion surveys showing that almost half of Canadians believe that none of the political parties really stands for the things that they believe in. Further, according to the numbers I read in The Big Picture, a recent survey of trends in Canadian opinion, playing the old political game has also reduced public trust in politicians.

Today nearly 60% of the population think we are unprincipled, 81% think we are more concerned with making money than with helping people, 65% think we are incompetent, while apparently only 32% can think of anything good to say about us all, regardless of party.

If members want to reinforce these perceptions, if they want to convince the public that this place is occupied by hacks driven only by the search for partisan advantage, then I say play on.

I would also reassure members that the claim that Ontario fiscal policy played a role in causing this recession and in limiting the competitiveness of our economy is not a product of some Tory fantasy.

I would call members' attention, for instance, to the 1990 pre-budget submission of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce wherein the chamber stated, "The Ontario government, through its actions and activities, has been a major part of the inflationary pressures that have led to the current economic slowdown."

I would also remind the members of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto's submission to the former Treasurer, who is in the room, in which the board warned that Ontario "major league taxes" were hampering and jeopardizing our industrial competitiveness.

As well, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association reported just last month that we have slipped from second to fifth among industrialized nations in terms of our manufacturing productivity and that, if the current trends continue, the competitiveness gap between us and our major competitors in the G-6 group will continue to widen. In Ontario, in the past year, some 77,000 manufacturing jobs have been swallowed up in that competitiveness gap.

The members could also examine the findings of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business' recent report, entitled Taxing Ourselves to Death: The Small Business Tax Burden in Canada. The CFIB analysis found that among the four most industrialized Canadian provinces, that is to say among Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia, "Ontario has no equal when it comes to imposing taxes on businesses in all three size categories." The CFIB also concluded that, "Ontario's heavy tax burden unquestionably contributes to the highest provincial business bankruptcy rate in Canada."

As for the province's payroll tax policy, no less an authority than the government's own Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology warned that the imposition of a payroll tax would make it more difficult for the small business sector to create and maintain jobs. I find it ironic, and I am saddened as well, that since the implementation of that tax last 1 January, it also corresponds almost to the day with when we began to seriously lose most of those 79,000 manufacturing jobs.

So, these experts -- not me, not my party, but these independent experts -- tell us that Ontario's fiscal policy has been inflationary, that it has undermined competitiveness, that it has increased bankruptcies and that it has discouraged job creation in this province.

The effect on the province's financial position has been equally negative, as anyone who has reviewed the Treasurer's statements and the quarterly financial reports can attest. The purported surplus in this year's budget, largely manufactured to begin with, as we argued last spring and as the Provincial Auditor confirmed only recently, has evaporated. In its place we have a $2.5-billion -- and growing daily -- deficit.

This year, as in the past five years, the government will again overshoot its budget plan expenditure target, a record which begs the question of why the government bothers to develop a budget plan in the first place.

In short, the fiscal policy of the past five years has made us the most heavily taxed jurisdiction in North America, increased our public debt, raised the expenditure base to a level which cannot be sustained in the absence of an economic boom without either another round of tax increases or another runup in the debt.

Regrettably, antigrowth and countercompetitive policies have not been limited to the fiscal policy field. As Professor Richard Lipsey, director of the economic growth and policy program at the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, noted in his address to the Vancouver Institute, the province of Ontario has been following a discredited policy path similar to that taken in Europe in the 1960s, a policy path out of touch with the realities of a highly competitive and globalized market.

We have pursued policies which result in stories like the one I read the other day in the Globe and Mail about an Ontario high-tech company -- in this case Stetron International Inc of Markham -- which is trying to decide if it can afford to stay in Ontario or if it has to move to Buffalo, New York, to stay competitive. The

article noted that Stetron was not the only company pondering its future in the province and that, "With the rapid deterioration in Ontario's international competitiveness during the late 1980s, to stay or to go is a decision that more and more businesses in Canada's industrial heartland are facing."

Governments both here and in Ottawa must accept a large measure of responsibility for taxing away the competitive advantage of our industrial base. I wish I could say that all of that is behind us now and that the voters have turfed out the scoundrels before they could do even more damage to our economy. Personally, I find little comfort in what would normally be a very encouraging development, because as I mentioned at the outset, I am very concerned that the current NDP government is going to lumber down that same discredited policy path which the Liberals followed, to their eventual defeat.

I say that because I have seen nothing in the government's election platform, I have seen nothing in its throne speech and I have heard nothing in this House to show that the government is prepared to make the tough decisions necessary to achieve fiscal stability, long-term prosperity and jobs for Ontarians.

What I have seen are some disconcerting headlines such as this one from the Toronto Sun, 20 November, announcing, "NDP Could Double Deficit." The goods news is -- get this -- that our current Treasurer would not allow a $10-billion deficit. I do not know if this means that the Treasurer could comfortably live with a $9.5-billion deficit or not, because I believe I have heard that his comfort zone is somewhere in the $5-billion neighbourhood. But I fear that our colleague the member for Nickel Belt is in danger of becoming the Carl Sagan of fiscal policy, since he seems to only relate to numbers in the billions and billions of dollars.

In any event, we shall see the results in a year or two because I suspect, and I am very comfortable going on record today to say it, that the Treasurer is well on his way in the next year and a half or two to a $10-billion deficit.

Another gem, this one from a CBC press release on a profile of the Treasurer on the people's network's Monitor program: The release dated 19 November was headlined, "Ontario Treasurer Says He'll Raise Taxes," and pointed out that the Treasurer, while acknowledging that his party did not run a campaign of raising taxes, strongly disagrees with people who suggest that the NDP does not in fact have a mandate to raise taxes.

Our current Treasurer seems to have come down with what I like to call the Liberal disease, which causes those who suffer from it to equate a majority government with a blank cheque signed by the taxpayers.

I would remind the Treasurer that the members of the last majority government in Ontario, which did not run on a campaign of raising taxes and then proceeded to raise them some 32 times, are currently warming the benches only recently vacated by the Treasurer and his colleagues. There may be a lesson in that for the Treasurer and for the Premier.

Another headline, another sign of things to come: "Ontario Considers New Gas Tax." Of course, like the Liberal government they helped put in office, our resident greenies are not considering hiking the tax merely to fatten the Treasurer's coffers. They will tell us that a gasoline tax hike or the introduction of a new carbon tax will be good for the environment, that if we really want to hug a tree, we will have to mug a taxpayer. We have heard all this before, but I thought the special status of green taxes like the tire tax had gone up in smoke along with those 13 million tires at Hagersville.

One final headline, this one from the Financial Post of 19 September: It reads, "Rae to Spend Way Out of Recession." I am forced to conclude that the NDP government is determined to be as shortsighted as its Liberal predecessor; that is, reserve the right to play tweedledumber to the Liberal's tweedledumb. Since the Liberals taxed and spent our way into a recession, the new kids on the block will try to fix it by taxing and spending our way out of it.

However, the one thing I have never heard from the current Treasurer during his brief tenure, nor from the honourable interim leader of the official opposition when he held that portfolio, is any serious discussion of the need to control expenditures, of the need to more effectively and efficiently manage government spending and the need to cut out the substantial fat and waste in government.

Government seems to be wearing blinkers on this issue. It seems to me that the words "save" and "restraint" have vanished from the government's vocabulary. But surely after massive tax hikes imposed during a period of sustained economic expansion have failed to eliminate the deficit and balance our budget, and after achieving the highest level of expenditure growth of any Canadian jurisdiction without achieving a commensurate increase in the level and quality of public services, the time has come to take a long hard look at our expenditures, to acknowledge that some questions about the way we spend money surely are in order.

The time has come to acknowledge, as an expert witness before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs of this House told the committee, that: "To ensure continued prosperity, Ontario policymakers must adopt a more prudent spending agenda and refrain from tax increases. A co-ordinated streamlining of existing programs is needed to make room for new requirements. Attempts to pay for new programs and to offset a softer revenue trend with more tax increases will be self-defeating. Such action will simply encourage the relocation of activity and jobs beyond provincial borders."

I hope that the Treasurer is listening because the bottom line is that a continuation of tax-and-spend policies will lead to the piecemeal dismantling of the Ontario industrial base. It will lead to a steady erosion in our standard of living. It will perpetuate a public policy environment inimical to the growth of what the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has called the aggressive economy. According to the CMA, sound public policy is one of the four pillars on which an aggressive and competitive economy is built.

The public policy environment which encourages competitiveness has a number of features, but the two most relevant for our purposes are that it is a policy designed to control spending and to limit the tax burden. It is, in short, a policy designed to do precisely what we have not been doing and to achieve objectives which do not appear to be of even marginal interest to the current administration.

During the recent months and over this next period of time, it is obvious that government must reduce its demands on our economy. The prosperity of our society, the range of opportunities available to our children, the quality of public services do not depend either solely or primarily on the compassion of government, but do depend on the competitiveness of our economy and the ability of our economy to support them.

I invite all members who care about securing the opportunity for growth and all members willing to do more than simply pay lipservice to this goal of achieving a future for this province as prosperous as its past to join in support of this resolution.

Hon Mr Laughren: I am pleased to rise in my place and defend my honour in this debate. I appreciated the member for Nipissing, the leader of the third party, putting this motion in Orders and Notices. I think it is appropriate to have this debate at this time, early in this session. It is also, I think, a good signal for the official opposition as to the intent of the third party on economic matters in the next several years. It is certainly a good shot across the bow from the leader of the third party.

However, I found the member's remarks somewhat pessimistic about the Ontario economy. I do not share that pessimism. I found, quite frankly, that when I was in opposition with the leader of the third party he was more fairminded and evenhanded than he is now, but perhaps that is a natural course of events.

I must say that some of the words in the motion that is in Orders and Notices are indeed appropriate. We are indeed in a recession, as I said before, and we are indeed going to be facing a deficit of $2.5 billion this year. We are still determined to live within that deficit. I must say, though, that we

part company most profoundly on the way in which we should deal with the recession. For the member for Nipissing to try to convince us that the way out of the recession is to cut back even more, to cut taxes and cut back on expenditures --

Mr Nixon: Didn't it work for Herbert Hoover?

Hon Mr Laughren: It did not work for Herbert Hoover, it did not work for Ronald Reagan and it did not work for Margaret Thatcher. What the member for Nipissing is laying before the House, and I appreciate the stark way in which he has done it, is simply supply-side economics. You might find other words to describe it, but that is basically what this motion is; it is a commitment to supply-side economics. I feel most profoundly that is not the answer to a recession.

We saw what happened in the United States. It was Ronald Reagan's firm belief that if you cut taxes and cut government expenditures you would encourage people to spend and invest, and therefore the problems would be resolved in that manner. We know that has not happened. There is a record indebtedness in the United States now as a result of those policies. There have been all sorts of bad things that happened as a result of supply-side economics in the United States. We know, for example, that there is more homelessness in the United States now than there has ever been.

We know that the education standards are declining in the United States and I would attribute a lot of that to supply-side economics. We know that they do not have a health care system in the United States along the lines that we have here.

There are all sorts of things that happened in the United States. Deregulation is a part of supply-side economics, in my view. We saw the disaster that brought to the savings and loan corporations in the United States, for example. It also leads to things like the proliferation of junk bonds. They have totally gutted the health and safety regulations in the United States. I could go on and on and on about supply-side economics.

We on this side feel very strongly that the approach we have taken is the right approach to getting ourselves out of this recession. It is admitted, of course, that we will have a deficit, but I can tell members that this deficit is not caused by anything that we have done so far. We know -- the numbers are all there for all members to see that as we headed into this recession the retail sales tax dropped dramatically, corporation income taxes dropped dramatically, and welfare case loads shot up dramatically -- and the member is right, they are growing daily. We know that is a serious problem.

At the same time, for the member for Nipissing to say that the answer is to cut back even more seems to me strange indeed. That is not the answer to getting ourselves out of this recession. That is why we made a very deliberate decision to do something to stimulate the economy to get ourselves out of it, at the same time making a long-term investment in the public infrastructure in this province. I do not mean this as a particularly partisan shot, but a lot of that public infrastructure has been allowed to run down by the preceding two governments.

By implementing our $700-million antirecession package on short-term capital works we are going to improve the capital infrastructure and the public infrastructure in this province. It is long overdue. I am glad we have this opportunity to do it. I regret that it is because of a recession that we are doing it. At the same time, it is an opportunity to put some much-needed capital into our public infrastructure.

When the local levels of government become involved in that antirecession package, we are talking about a $1-billion incentive into the economy within the next year. We think that is a major attempt and a very positive way to try to combat the recession. To simply batten down the hatches, as someone said, Herbert Hoover style, I think would really be counterproductive at this time.

We have every intention of managing the economy in this province in a prudent way. We know that we have to examine existing programs if we are going to introduce new programs. It is not simply a case of for ever adding programs on top of other programs. Certainly, management of existing programs is part of any kind of sensible management of an economy. We, of course, have already indicated to the various ministries that we expect that to happen as we head into the budgetary process for the 1991-92 year.

I know that the present leader of the official opposition had built into the budgetary process for this year some constraints on programs in the various ministries to start with. So we know that is ongoing.

I just am a little taken aback by the leader of the third party blaming us and blaming government spending for a recession. That I do not understand. Also, putting the blame for inflation on us is ridiculous. Ontario, as we sit here this afternoon, has the lowest inflation rate in Canada, and that is what makes no sense about what the federal government is doing to us too. The federal government has said that in the province of Ontario we are causing inflationary pressures.

At the same time they are bringing in a goods and services tax, or at least they want to, on 1 January that is going to add a minimum of 1.3 points to the consumer price index. We think it will be even more than 1.3; we think it will be about 1.5 points on the inflation rate.

So for the federal government, and through them to the member for Nipissing, to say that Ontario is adding inflationary pressures, I think is just fundamentally wrong and they should be pointing --

Mr Sterling: When the spending has gone up by 150% in the past five years?

Hon Mr Laughren: For the members opposite to say that Ontario is responsible for inflation is wrong. Ontario has the lowest inflation rate in the country.

Mr Carr: The western premiers said it too.

Mr Sterling: Speak to the western premiers.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not expect them to agree with me. I would ask, however, that they put the deficit figure in some kind of perspective. The deficit for this fiscal year, $2.5 billion -- we still believe we can stay within that number -- is less than 1% of the gross domestic product of the province, 0.9%. If you go back to the deficits, the last time this province had a recession, back in 1981-82, the deficit as a percentage of the gross domestic product was higher than the deficit of $2.5 billion this fiscal year. I have not just picked out one measurement. If you measure that deficit as a proportion of the total government expenditures, it is also less than it was back in 1982.

I confess that the recession was deeper in 1981-82 and that it rebounded much more dramatically than we think it is going to rebound next year. At the same time, I think that the leader of the third party should be somewhat more fairminded when he talks about the deficit being $2.5 billion and being concerned about that. Better that we recognize that we are indeed in a recession -- a recession, I might add, that the Conference Board of Canada, which is not exactly an NDP front, even claims is a made-in-Canada recession and clearly points the finger at the monetary policy of the federal government. It is plain and simple.

If members want to look at where we are being hurt the most in the province of Ontario it is in manufacturing and construction, and high interest rates and the high value of the Canadian dollar are hurting us a great deal. I hope that the leader of the third party will take the time to sit down with his federal counterparts in Ottawa and tell them that we are hurting in Ontario. Ontario is feeling the brunt of this recession more than any other province.

We would all be well served if the leader of the third party would talk to his friends in Ottawa and convince them of the wrongheadedness of their monetary policies; they are simply not working. It is time that interest rates were lowered so we can get on with reinvesting not just in the Ontario economy but all across this land.

I do not want to take a lot of time this afternoon. I simply want to express my appreciation to the member of the third party for putting the motion in Orders and Notices. I think it is appropriate that we have a debate. I am very pleased that my parliamentary assistant, the member for Hamilton Centre, is going to play a major role in the debate this afternoon. His advice is the kind I usually take; he is being of great assistance to me.

Mr Eves: Boy, this must be a new Floyd.

Hon Mr Laughren: It is absolutely true. I am looking forward to his role in this debate this afternoon.

I would conclude by simply saying that while we are in a recession, while we are heading for deficits, the Ontario economy is basically sound. It is going to take us a year before we start coming out of the recession, but we are surely going to do that. There are some unknowns we have to cope with, such as the US economy, such as the Gulf crisis and the price of oil, but we are a healthy, basically sound economy, and we are going to come out of this recession. We have been through worse recessions than this before, and I trust we will manage the economy in a way that all members will applaud at the end of the day.

Mr Nixon: Mr Speaker, may I first offer my congratulations to you, sir, on your elevation to the position of the Deputy Speakership. We have enjoyed your supervision in the past. We know you are a most intelligent and moderate person, and we look forward to serving under your direction in the future as well.

An hon member: Is he running for the leadership?

Mr Nixon: Well, maybe he will, but this is a good job he has.

I also am glad to take

part in this debate, because I think it is a useful thing to do. I can recall five years ago, as the new government took office, that the circumstances were substantially different; we inherited a deficit which we inflated as much as we possibly could. It came in at just over $3 billion; that was in a budget of about $23 billion. The honourable Treasurer, having done his magic on a balanced budget, has come up with $2.5 billion in a $44-billion budget. We are prepared to live with that, as we have no choice other than falling on our swords again. Once is enough.

Five years ago the economy was growing rapidly. I was not nervy enough at the time to take credit for that, because the economy all over the world was expanding. Many people said it was Ronald Reagan's tax cuts that did it. Many people indicated it was Margaret Thatcher's iconoclastic leadership; the icons in that instance were the labour unions and they were blasted. The whole world was going forward.

Over those five years dramatic changes occurred, and we in Ontario benefited from them enormously. We had a rate of growth higher than any of the other economies in the western world. We had a very high rate of increase and expenditure, as the leader of the third party has indicated in his comments. I suppose our justification at the time was that we were filling in for the inadequate commitments to infrastructure from the previous government, exactly the same arguments we are hearing now in this House.

In fact, the requirements of the community were growing very rapidly and there were not very many people in this House, even in the Conservative Party, who were voting against more money for schools and hospitals, roads and environmental programs, development of the north and job opportunities for our young people.

As a matter of fact, as Treasurer I used to note very dramatically that the Progressive Conservatives in those days would decry additional expenditure in almost the same breath they would call for more services. They are not much more rational now, but they are elected and they are here, so what are we going to do about it?

I would say that during the five years, the deficit, even though the Provincial Auditor and the honourable member for Scarborough West feel it was somehow manipulated, even though it was done by the Progressive Conservatives in 1974-75 just before an election, and done, I believe, in 1979-80 by the saint of the Tory Party, Frank Miller, that great Treasurer, with the support of the present leader of the third party, who for a few brief moments was fluttering in the limelight of being a cabinet minister -- just before his wings caught fire and he dived into northern Ontario only just recently to be heard of again.

During these five years, the efforts of the Liberal government created 560,000 new jobs. The honourable leader of the third party feels that most of those were created in the civil service; he thought we were hiring all our friends. Actually, we made a mistake and hired mostly NDPs; there is more truth to that than fiction. In fact, the growing economy was creating jobs at a great rate. I do not take credit for that any more than I blame the present recession on the NDP, but I think people should know that since the NDP took office, the net job loss in the province has been 160 jobs every day, seven days a week.

What a record. Even the Minister of Labour is turning red; his hair is turning grey. We will get around to their abject failures in correcting this loss some time in the future.

I think those statistics are interesting to compare and should be borne in mind when the troglodytes of the far right start saying that we are hiring too many people and that somehow the civil servants should be working harder and working better and that sort of thing. They can have that policy all to themselves. We are not going to squeeze in on that, because we believe the civil servants are working hard, that there are demands out there, and that the province is served effectively and efficiently. We will be looking for efficiencies in government, which is our duty just as it is for not only the members of the PC party but for all members of the Legislature.

It is interesting to note that while we are castigated for having tax rates that are too high, the important tax rates are low, lower than most other jurisdictions. For example, at present we have the lowest effective personal income tax rate in Canada for middle-income families with children. Those are the people who pay a lot of tax.

As a matter of fact, during my brief time as Treasurer, our policies actually removed over 600,000 low-income people from the tax rolls. These are people who pay income tax at the federal level but do not pay here. I wish we could have done more. One of the things I firmly expect in the first NDP budget, if the government lasts that long -- I was predicting it would not last until Christmas; we shall see -- is that one of the major additional expenditures will be to increase the number of people at the low end of the income spectrum who will be removed from the personal income tax rolls entirely.

I certainly will not criticize the Treasurer if he does that. I wish we could have done more, but we removed more than half a million people from paying personal income tax which, I guess, at least in politics, is a step in the right direction.

Mr Harris: You removed half of them by throwing them out of work.

Mr Nixon: No, sir. The average income went up faster here during our years than at any time in history, and we created jobs at a faster rate in this province than at any time in history. Just in case the honourable leader of the third party, who was out washing his hands briefly, forgot all the statistics I presented to him, I want to tell him again that during our years we created jobs at a rate of 300 new jobs every day for five years. No one can take that number away, because it is correct. Even the leader of the third party has simply got to accept it.

In the environment, we raised the expenditures, the commitments, by 128% over five years. We brought in the blue box program, which did more to reduce the waste stream than anything else. I am a great fan of the present Minister of the Environment, as I was of her predecessor. I supported him as I support her, as do all members, in their efforts to reduce the waste stream. It will be interesting to see how successful the current minister's efforts are compared to the former minister's. Their commitments are the same. I would say that the blue box program, which was recognized internationally by the United Nations, is an outstanding one and one we should all be proud of.

I am not apologizing, for example, even for the tire tax the honourable member mentioned. It is bringing in $40 million to $45 million a year. That money, while it goes into the consolidated revenue fund, obviously is used to support environmental programs. I sincerely wish that there had not been a tire fire, but there was. I hope the present Minister of the Environment, as she finds her feet and gets an opportunity to bring her attention to this important matter, will get support from her colleagues, as she certainly will from here, in bringing forward the proper approach to cleaning up the mess of old tires.

We are getting 11 million new old tires, if you want to put it that way, every year, and "something must be done." I did my little bit by whacking on a tax of $45 million. That money should be considered an environmental tax; we did, and I believe the new government will and must as well.

I want to say something about the health budget. I am only going to take about five minutes more, I say to those people who are getting ready to speak. We increased it from about $8.7 billion to $15.3 billion, and it has gone up beyond that. The elimination of OHIP premiums is probably the accomplishment I was associated directly with in which I have the greatest pride. People do not like to pay the new health care tax. That is too bad, but we have a lot of money to pay in this connection. Most people recognize that it is a fairer and more appropriate way to fund medicare, at least in part. Please remember that this tax pays only about 14% to 15% of the medicare costs.

Hospital funding, particularly capital funding, rose dramatically during these years. Our spending on home care tripled. I would suggest that the new Treasurer and all of us in the House will be asked to support an even faster escalation of the costs of a totally new approach to home care, which was the policy of the past government, which was certainly provided with excellent leadership in the public service and I believe will go forward without any equivocation and I hope without any delay.

It is interesting also in health that the hospitals are lobbying so dramatically the Minister of Health, who seems to bow under every pressure; members may have noticed that themselves, having worked with her themselves in the New Democratic government. Hospitals are coming forward in this strong and effective way, demanding more money. Naturally, as Treasurer and still as interim Leader of the Opposition, I support their requirements as strongly as I possibly can, I really do, but I think it should be borne in mind that last year the increase in the commitments to the hospitals was just under 10%, one of the largest; I believe it was about 9.7%.

There is some thought that no appropriate money was made available for pay equity and for the payment of the new health tax. Of course, there is no money made available specifically to pay nurses or to buy iodine or whatever it is they use, or anything else. They are given an amount of $6.6 billion with which, under the direction of their own boards, they provide the services that are required under the hospital act and under the direction of the Minister of Health. So it is an extremely important issue that must involve all of us in this House.

In education there were substantial advances. We provided enough money so that school boards can pay our teachers at a rate that is generally accepted to be among the highest in North America and in the world. They are the only group I know of in the teaching community with a fully indexed pension at 70% of the average of their best five years. Naturally, this is totally unsatisfactory. Just like members of this House, who also have an inadequate pay scale and an inadequate pension, there is a minor degree of dissatisfaction.

Perhaps, even though these pay scales and this pension that has been determined are still inadequate, we will see what the Treasurer does with that as he moves forward in meeting the problems he faces.

I simply want to say in closing that rather than the province of Ontario interfering with the nation's economy -- and the policy I put forward as Treasurer was supported by my colleagues in the government and in the Legislature -- we felt that taxes should increase sufficiently to pay the costs of our programs. The costs of the programs did go up during our years from about $23 billion to about $45 billion; in fact. a bit more, now that the Treasurer has moved next year's payment