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

December 10, 1990

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DEMOCRACY

Mr Henderson: I have made no secret of my view that real reform of governmental process is decades, if not a century, overdue in Canada. Happily, members of this Legislature have generally been responsive to that view, but too little has been done.

The form democracy has come to take in Canada is not necessarily the one best suited to our needs. The will of Canadians can be overturned too easily in our present structure by a majority government.

Many different models of democracy are alive and well and flourishing somewhere on the globe. Wisely, many emerging nations canvass the global options before deciding what model of government best suits their needs.

Canada simply inherited the British parliamentary model, then stiffened the rigidity of party solidarity and caucus unanimity when a succession of leaders objected to the freedom of some caucus members.

Later today I will introduce a bill which would establish a committee to recommend ways of electing our premiers in a direct ballot at election time, separately from the election of MPPs.

Electors in Canada should not have to choose between the party, the local candidate and the leader. Governments, perhaps with cabinets which may include elected members of any party with elected members, should be more accountable to the people and to their elected representatives. To be sure, the situation could arise of a Premier of one party and a majority of elected members of a different party; however, other jurisdictions have shown that to be a workable situation and so can we.

This bill would help advance an overdue process of meaningful reform.

ABANDONED RAIL LINES

Mrs Witmer: I am pleased to rise today to direct the government's attention to the issue of preserving abandoned railroad rights of way as multipurpose recreational trails for use by the residents of this province.

At a workshop held at the University of Waterloo on 30 November -- the workshop was entitled Protecting and Managing Abandoned Railroad Rights of Way for Conservation and Recreation for the People of Ontario -- those in attendance unanimously called upon the government of Ontario to take action immediately to develop a provincial trails policy and program, to provide funding for the purchase of all existing and future abandoned railroad rights of way and, finally, to establish a provincial trails co-ordinating agency.

At a time when everyone in this province is concerned about our environment and the need to protect our heritage, I would urge the government to take action on these recommendations at the earliest possible time. If these greenway corridors are lost now, they will be lost to us and future generations for ever. There are many abandoned railroad rights of way that are currently available for conversion to recreational trails. They would be used by hikers, birdwatchers, naturalists, skiers.

I fully support the Ontario Trails Council's efforts to obtain provincial support for utilizing these unused tracts of land for recreation purposes. What better thing can we leave our children?

WILLIAM STEWART

Mrs Mathyssen: I regretfully rise to inform the House of the death on Saturday 8 December of Bill Stewart. Mr Stewart was the MPP for Middlesex North for 18 years, 14 of those years as the Minister of Agriculture and Food before he retired in 1975.

Mr Stewart was born in Denfield, Ontario. Not only was he a working farmer, but he was a man who had dedicated himself to working for Ontario's farmers. His contributions were many; he was the founding director of the Middlesex Federation of Agriculture, he introduced the Milk Act in 1965 and was very active in the building of the Lake Huron to London water pipeline.

In 1978 Mr Stewart was made an honorary doctor of laws at the University of Western Ontario and was appointed as the chancellor of the University of Guelph in 1983. In 1989 Mr Stewart was inducted into the Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame, and rightly so. He was a true friend to the farmers of Ontario.

ABORTION

Mr Daigeler: The 28 November statement on abortion by the Minister of Health was an ominous sign of the NDP's dogmatic intransigence. It was a scary portent, in my view, of what is in store over the next four years for people who disagree with the government's philosophical orientation.

Knowing full well how divided Ontarians are on this issue, the minister adopted the most strident yet mostly obsolete pro-abortion rhetoric in her comments. This unwarranted act was another slap in the face to everyone who regards this matter as an issue of the highest moral order, including members of her own caucus.

Even her own pro-choice supporters were surprised that for the first time in Canadian parliamentary history a Minister of Health labelled abortion as a woman's right to control her own body. As is well known, such euphemistic rhetoric totally ignores the rights of the unborn life.

The NDP's true confrontational colours showed in the minister's remarks. She not only announced initiatives that offend many people's deeply held beliefs; she also took pains to put them down in the process.

I was not surprised to see the minister move on the NDP's long-held policy on free access to abortions. I was shocked, however, to note her total disregard for other views on this issue.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Turnbull: In a recent speech to a New Democratic Party provincial council, the Premier blamed federal government policies for making "it harder for people to invest here, and for causing hundreds of jobs lost and dozens and dozens of plants closed." His own government has implemented and is committed to policies which discourage investment and destroy jobs.

Bill 4 has had an immediate negative effect on jobs in Ontario. Triple R Roofing Ltd laid off all of its employees on 30 November 1990. Day Restorations laid off one half of its staff on 28 November 1990. Regal Aluminum laid off 108 of its 200 employees. Armstrong Baum Plumbing and Heating may have to lay off 30% of its workforce. Why? In the words of that owner, this has nothing to do with the recession. This is legislation. The work needs to be done but, if the owner cannot recover his costs, he cannot continue the work.

These are some of the hundreds of jobs lost in Ontario as a result of the government's legislation. The Premier cannot suck and blow at the same time. He should stop blaming others and clean up his own house first.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Mills: Every week the average person in this country produces 19 pounds of garbage, and this has created a garbage disposal crisis in almost all of our communities. I am proud to say that the people of Durham East are fighting back and waging a war on waste.

For example, local residents Pat Lycett and Kristin McCrea formed the Durham garbage reduction program. They convinced 77% of the people in a six-mile rural area of Durham to save their garbage for four weeks. The residents were shown how to compost, reduce, reuse and recycle. The results have been spectacular. The amount was cut from 19 pounds of garbage per person per week to approximately one and a half pounds. By educating people on shopping smart, buying products with low-waste packaging and purchasing articles that can be reused, real reduction in waste management was achieved.

Other organizations making important contributions on environmental issues include Newcastle Environment Committee, Clarke Constituents Committee, the Zero Garbage Group, the Durham Recycling Group, the GOOD committee, Save the Ganaraska Again Group, Port Granby/Newcastle Environment Committee, STORM and the Port Darlington Community Association.

I ask my fellow members to give these groups and others dedicated to this cause across Ontario a round of applause.

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr Offer: This province and country is in the midst of a recession. Many thousands of jobs are being lost every day. Over 11,000 jobs have been lost since October. In Mississauga we are not immune. Jobs across the city and throughout the region of Peel are being lost through reduced operations, partial closures and complete closures.

The question remains, what is the Ontario government doing to assist displaced workers? Promises have been made, but without any specifics, in the NDP's Agenda for People and throne speech. The economic statement recently released by the Treasurer provides no strategy for digging Ontario out of the recession. There is nothing in the Treasurer's statement to encourage investors to create jobs in Ontario.

The previous Liberal government broadened the scope of statutory severance pay, instituted new information requirements in mass termination cases, increased individual notice requirements, established the Transitions program, implemented with the federal government the program for older worker adjustment in Ontario and increased funding for short-term skills training for employed workers under Ontario's Training Strategy.

The laid-off workers in Mississauga, Peel and throughout Ontario need a continuation of the policies initiated by the previous Liberal government and not an accumulation of promises by the NDP government. The recession is now. Action today.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Eves: I rise today to talk about northern health travel grants and their status in the riding of Parry Sound, being the districts of Parry Sound and Nipissing.

On 9 June 1988 the then Minister of Northern Development and the then Premier announced that as of I April 1989 the districts of Parry Sound and Nipissing in their entirety would become eligible for all northern Ontario programs by any ministry, agency, board or commission of the provincial government. As of today the Ministry of Health still does not recognize the residents in the district of Parry Sound and all the residents in the district of Nipissing as qualifying for northern health travel grant status.

I rise to ask the minister today if she would kindly consider the promise made by the previous Minister of Northern Development and the previous Premier, who reiterated that promise during the recent election campaign this summer, so that these restrictions be removed from people in the districts of Parry Sound and Nipissing so they can partake of specialized health care services, as other Ontarians can, all across the province of Ontario.

I also would think that, if the Ministry of Health hopes to promote such regional centres in northern Ontario as the cancer treatment centre in Sudbury, it would be wise to look at the travel requirements in terms of distances so that indeed residents in northern Ontario will be encouraged to utilize those services in northern Ontario.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr F. Wilson: I would first like to pay tribute to the former occupant of this seat in this House, Larry South, who personifies the title of gentleman. Mr South takes his honoured place in a long line of distinguished members from Frontenac-Addington that continues to this day.

My reason for standing before you today, Mr Speaker, is to draw attention to the plight of a segment of my constituency and of Ontario's workforce not protected by any organization or even by the minimal, but soon-to-be-improved, Employment Standards Act of the province.

The workers of whom I speak are the small retail store owners and managers presently under contract to large mall landlords. This segment of the workforce, virtually unprotected by legislation or regulation, finds itself, due to contract obligations made in better economic times, forced to compromise religious, moral and family commitments in order to meet the greedy expectations of mall landlords. Many of them have been forced against their will to remain open for extended and abnormal hours which include Sunday and other traditional holidays. This is done for no other reason than to glean the last penny of possible profit to satisfy the greed of mall landlords.

I therefore ask this government, formed by the traditional and true party of the working people, to take the necessary steps to relieve the pressure on small retail store owners and managers by giving them, in regulation or legislation as soon as is possible, the option given to all other workers in the province, that is, to decide for themselves whether they wish to open on Sunday.

I beseech the small retail store owners and managers who hear my voice to make known to their elected representatives their views on this matter.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we have concurred that we have unanimous consent among all three parties to ask for unanimous consent on two issues, the death of Bill Stewart, a former member of this Legislature who was Minister of Agriculture and Food for some 14 years, and the commencement of International Human Rights Day and Week.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for the statements to be made?

Agreed to.

WILLIAM STEWART

Mr Villeneuve: It is indeed a sad day to report on the passing of a friend of everyone, who sat in this Legislature for some 18 years, Bill Stewart. He was known by his constituents, and indeed by everyone in this province. He was first elected in a by-election for the riding of Middlesex North on 5 September 1957 and for the next 18 years served with a great deal of dedication both his constituents and the province of Ontario.

He was very instrumental in bringing forth the Ontario Milk Marketing Board to stabilize the milk industry by uniting the province's 48 milk markets under a single marketing board, which first saw the light of day in 1965, and this was done in co-operation with the federal government.

Mr Stewart was above crass politics and worked with whoever, whenever, to better the farmers, the rural residents of Ontario, and by so doing, made Ontario a better place for everyone, and in particular for consumers, who enjoy and take for granted the clean food that our farmers produce.

Another major step was the formation of the Ontario Food Council in 1974. Mr Stewart was very instrumental in bringing that to the fore. As a matter of fact, the ministry changed names from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food during his stay as minister, which shows the concern he had for everyone here in the province of Ontario.

He also authored and helped the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario, the crop insurance program, the agricultural rehabilitation and development program, better known to most of us as ARDA, the meat inspection for small plants and 50% cuts in farm taxes. The farm tax rebate came to the fore about the end of his tenure. He continued to defend the agricultural industry up until his death. He served as a volunteer on many organizations.

Bill Stewart, the farmer from Denfield, will not soon be forgotten. His hard work and dedication will benefit Ontario agriculture, Ontario farmers and Ontario consumers for many years in the future.

Mr Nixon: It is very sad indeed to hear the news of Bill Stewart's death. As far as I personally was concerned, he was a close friend and I had the greatest admiration for his capabilities in this House and as a minister.

He was appointed to the cabinet by John Robarts in the autumn of 1961, just at the time I became the Liberal nominee for election in a by-election in the then riding of Brant, I believe it was called. It was his duty as a newly appointed cabinet minister to see that the Progressive Conservative Party did well in those by-elections. So my first contact with him was, I suppose, what the honourable member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry would say, in politics. I do not think Bill Stewart ever hesitated to be a politician. He was one of the best I ever had anything to do with. Fortunately, he began with a failure, because I was elected.

We had a very interesting time over the years of his ministry. There is no doubt he was an extremely capable and effective Minister of Agriculture and Food. The honourable member who has already spoken has recounted his specific achievements, and as a dairy producer myself I of course was intensely interested in the supply management that led to the Ontario Milk Marketing Board and the Milk Commission of Ontario, and I have always, of course, had a continuing interest in these matters.

Bill Stewart was an excellent speaker in this House. It seems to go with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. They always have a special responsibility to convey government policy and the indications of the inadequacies of alternative policies to the farmers themselves. The farmers traditionally come to Toronto in the wintertime for major conventions, where their views are examined carefully. They have a chance to talk to their political ministers and it is always an extremely interesting function. Bill Stewart could probably do that as well -- let us put it that way -- as anybody I have ever heard.

I think the most important thing, however, was that he was effective in this House and understood its function. He argued passionately for the policies that he himself had brought forward and on behalf of the policies of the government of which he was a member. He had the total confidence of the members of the House, and I would say of the farmers in this province. His initiatives in this regard are still seen to be providing leadership right across the country and even beyond.

After he left active politics, his role in the community continued in a very effective way. He became chancellor of the University of Guelph. He wrote a very interesting book about his political career and accomplishments and the political process, which I certainly recommend to anyone who has not got too much to do in other preparations for their work.

I join with other members in expressing our appreciation for a very effective life, well led. He was a man who understood the political process and in many respects was one of the best political practitioners and one of the best ministers of agriculture we have had in this province. Over the years I have also come to know his wife and family and naturally our sympathy goes out to them.

Hon Mr Buchanan: It is with great sadness that we too note the passing of Bill Stewart last Saturday. It was a very untimely passing. We had attempted to arrange a meeting with him to talk about some issues facing agriculture today and it is rather unfortunate that I did not personally have that opportunity to meet with this great man.

To all who knew him and his career as a politician, as Minister of Agriculture and Food and as a respected and admired member of the Ontario agricultural community, he was an honourable man who served his province well. Mr Stewart had many friends in the agricultural community and indeed is fondly remembered by the staff at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food who were fortunate to have worked under his leadership as a minister between 1961 and 1975.

Many of his accomplishments have been mentioned here today and I will not repeat them, but after leaving politics Mr Stewart was continually called upon by many groups seeking to make agriculture and food a dynamic and progressive contributor to Ontario's economy.

Mr Stewart's lifelong devotion to the pursuit of agricultural excellence was recognized when he was appointed chancellor of the University of Guelph. In 1988 Mr Stewart was presented with a Ministry of Agriculture and Food Centennial Award in recognition of his service to farmers and the farming community.

On behalf of the farmers of Ontario and the government of Ontario, I wish to express sincerest condolences to the Stewart family on their great loss.

The Speaker: I will ensure that the kind remarks and tributes, as recorded in Hansard, are sent to the family of Mr Stewart.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Mr Cousens: I would like to comment on behalf of our party on International Human Rights Day and International Human Rights Week. It is an international event of great importance. With today marking the 42nd anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we mark a milestone in human history. For the first time an effort was made to define human rights across the broad spectrum of individual nations.

How fortunate we are in Ontario where the walls that once divided people through race, culture, nationality, religion, colour and language are breaking down. Our schools are often a microcosm of how the world should be. Young people have friends of different backgrounds. They value each other for who they are and what they are and do not concentrate on each other's differences, but enjoy what they have in common. During the 1990s more and more of us will be exposed to diverse peoples and hopefully, like our children, will appreciate the things we have in common.

Thomas Watson Sr, the founder of IBM, made respect for the individual one of the guiding principles of that company, and to this day IBM is renowned for the way people are treated. Respect and human rights go together. Each one of us in stores and schools, business and politics needs to show respect for each other. We begin to make human rights a meaningful statement in our society when we practise Watson's motto of showing respect for the individual in all we do.

Our multicultural society promotes understanding of the different peoples who make up our communities, and by knowing more about one another's background we gain a mutual respect for one another.

With human rights also goes responsibility. There are enough takers in the world who know their rights. It is refreshing that when someone else's personal rights are being denied or tampered with, someone will rise to the challenge of defending and supporting that weaker person. Last week a woman was swarmed by a group of young teenagers, robbed and beaten while others walked by unconcerned, uninvolved and seemingly uninterested. How can this be in a society such as ours?

As we think of human rights, I genuinely hope that we can all give a more caring concern that respects others and responds to their needs in a positive way when their freedoms and rights are threatened.

Human rights are an international issue. As we consider the needs of Jews in the Soviet Union, blacks in South Africa, minority groups in Iraq, repression in China, let us in Canada live in harmony with one another. International human rights are an ideal goal that must be endorsed and supported. Let us educate our society on the need. Let us set an example for the world.

Mr Curling: Today I had the opportunity to share a platform with the Premier, the Minister of Citizenship, the chief commissioner of human rights and my colleague the member for Markham. It was in recognition of two things: It was the 42nd anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the member countries of the United Nations and it was also to unveil the equality poster for human rights. I was very proud to be there.

What it does is it offers a vision, this declaration, for a world without injustice, without discrimination, without cruelty, and confirms our faith in the dignity and worth of the human spirit.

Each of us has the right to the opportunity to live our lives with the dignity that is inherent in all humanity, without exception. The province of Ontario has shown leadership in this cause in the past and we must continue to demonstrate that leadership.

Many human rights violations happen right here in Canada -- in Ontario, in Toronto, in our homes. Often we think of human rights violation as beyond the boundaries of Canada. We must ensure that our senior citizens are able to live out their lives in safety and dignity. We owe it to the people who built this province to ensure that they have proper health care and other services they need.

It also means giving them the opportunity to continue to contribute in the workforce. The ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to mandatory retirement begs the question of a province to look again at the Human Rights Code concerning this issue.

We must work to end hunger. That does not mean government support for food banks. It means having a decent level of support for people on social assistance. We must also create a society that helps people turn welfare cheques into paycheques.

Society still does not treat women, disabled people and visible minorities with equality. Ontario can only achieve its potential if we can make certain that each individual in this great province has the opportunity to fulfil his or her aspirations.

We in this province still wrestle in order to end illiteracy. The year 1990 was declared the International Year of Literacy in recognition that literacy is also a basic human right.

Also, there is the treatment of the refugees in our province, not giving them the opportunity to work and also to assert themselves immediately in a country that demonstrates freedom.

Every individual has the right to expect that we will achieve these goals. It is up to us as members of the Ontario Legislature to meet their expectations.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I am very pleased to be speaking on behalf of the government today on International Human Rights Day. As a government, we are very pleased that in our throne speech we again addressed the need to make sure that we break down those areas of discrimination, that we make sure people in our society have every access to all the freedoms that we evoke, hold and cherish.

International Human Rights Day is a very important day. As the honourable members have mentioned, this is a non-partisan day. It is a day when we want to make sure that all our citizens, whether in Ontario, Canada or the world at large can participate fully in all the benefits of society.

Today we are very pleased that we stood outside as a non-partisan group and celebrated International Human Rights Day by unfolding and showing a poster. We were very pleased that we all could make sure that we share those same beliefs.

As Minister of Citizenship, and as what I call my enlarged ministry, my ministry of equity, we will make sure that groups such as our native people, women, visible minorities, members of the disabled community and our seniors, will no longer face discrimination because of sexism, colour, race, age or whatever. We are committed to making sure that everyone in Ontario has a place in Ontario and that there is a place for everyone in Ontario.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS / NOMINATIONS AUX POSTES GOUVERNEMENTAUX

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the opportunity to make a statement. I have said that my government's first challenge is to win the trust and respect of the people of Ontario, and I have said that our integrity will be measured by the way this government is run and our relations with the people we serve.

I am pleased to be able to tell the members today that this government is implementing new measures to ensure greater fairness in appointments to government agencies, boards and commissions.

This government will provide complete public access to all information on such appointments. There are approximately 5,000 positions, most of which are part-time. If the public is to be properly served, it is crucial that they be filled by women and men who are representative of the abundance of talent and the varied experiences that we have here in Ontario.

That is why this government is compiling detailed lists of each and every government appointment to every single agency, board and commission. When these lists are complete they will be distributed to public libraries across Ontario. Every resident of every community in the province will be able to find not only a description of the appointment but information about qualifications needed to hold the position, how much it pays and when to apply.

We hope to have this system in place by May 1991.

Nous voulons que le processus de nomination soit ouvert et clair pour tout le monde. Pour que le public ait confiance en ce processus, il doit être empreint d'équilibre et de perspective.

C'est pourquoi nous sommes en train de préparer une formule de demande normalisée qui va être à la disposition de tout membre du public intéressé à siéger à un organisme, un conseil ou une commission. C'est également pourquoi nous allons rappeler aux résidents de l'Ontario, par le biais d'une campagne annuelle de publicité, les postes qui sont vacants.

The time has come to strip away the secrecy and mystique which have always surrounded government appointments. The process must be open to everybody. It must be understood by everybody.

Obviously this government has its own policies and goals. We have a job to do and we will recruit and appoint the men and women we believe can assist us in meeting our agenda. But partisan affiliation should neither automatically qualify nor disqualify any applicant. Women and men who have not thought of doing so in the past will, I hope, put themselves forward as candidates, and we will carry out an effective program of recruitment to ensure that we make the most out of this province's great strength: the rich cultural and racial diversity of the people who make up Ontario.

We will establish an appointments secretariat, which will receive and record all applications, and we will ask an all-party committee of the Legislature to scrutinize the candidates we have selected.

I would like to take the opportunity today to advise my colleagues in the House that we are seeking applicants for a number of positions. They include the chair of the Social Assistance Review Board, members of the Social Assistance Review Board, an employment equity commissioner, and the chair of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, to name just a few. We are also establishing an all-party committee -- whose decision, I might add, will be final -- to choose a new privacy commissioner.

This government realizes that everyone will not always agree with its final selection for some appointments. Universal approval of choices is simply too much to hope for. But the public has a right to see appointments made by a fair process, a process the women and men of Ontario can trust.

By ensuring public access to all details of appointments and by peeling away some of the secrecy surrounding the process, I believe we can ensure fairer selection of the best possible candidates.

RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr Nixon: I am surprised that the Premier has put this forward in this particular tone. The release of information about public appointments has been public in this province, certainly for the last five years, and I can well recall as House leader that it was my duty to table the information, which was then distributed to the library on a regular basis.

As a matter of fact, the book that was originally tabled five years ago -- giving the names of the officers in all the agencies, boards and commissions, the people who presently held the jobs, what the pay was and when the vacancies would occur -- was thicker even than the Premier's briefing book, and therefore it was very complete indeed. So there is nothing new about making this information public, and the idea that somehow it was a mystery is really a mystery in the mind of the Premier and some of his supporters and really to no one else.

The idea, also, that it was distributed around the province is an excellent one, and this information, as I say, went to the library and was available to any individual in the province who wanted to undertake an application.

The honourable members would recall that there was an office reporting to the Premier that would examine reasonably carefully the people who were applying for offices. I can remember hearing from Frank Miller before he was appointed; from Bob Elgie, and he was appointed; from Mr Martel, and he was appointed. There was Ross McClellan himself, who was appointed on the basis of merit only, and Donald MacDonald, just as ones who came to my mind as my friends and I listened to the Premier bring forward his particular view in this regard.

I am quite concerned, when I read the Premier's comments, that some of the people in the province might misunderstand what he has in mind. He says: "We will establish an appointments secretariat" -- I understand that Carol Phillips, who is well connected and highly trusted and has extensive experience, will be associated with that -- "which will receive and record...applications.

We will ask an all-party committee...to scrutinize the candidates we have selected." I can only presume that this is the royal "we," and that the government of the day, probably with the approval of the Premier, will put forward names to some sort of committee, which will then scrutinize. I do not know whether he thinks his friends in the back rows are not going to be busy enough, but obviously they will not have any appointment powers except for the one he specifically referred to on the last page, where he interpolated that an all-party committee would have the final selection on a new privacy commissioner.

I am very glad of that. I accept that. It is generally understood that where an office is associated directly with this House, it should be decided by the members of this House. I believe this is appropriate. But the only new thing here is for the Premier to come up to speed a little on this particular one. The rest of it is old stuff masquerading in the New Democrats' clothes.

We felt, as a government going back five years, that we opened it up as well. I simply want to reiterate that all the details in these appointments were known to all the citizens and that they were carefully scrutinized. The people who were appointed were appointed on the basis of their abilities. If some of them happened to be Liberal, the reason is exactly the same as the reason the Premier puts in his statement, that is: "Obviously, this government has its own policies and goals. We have a job to do and we will recruit and appoint the men and women we believe can assist us in meeting our agenda."

What could make more sense than that? That is the truth in the Premier's statement. It really means that things will be done as they have been in the past, with a little more democratic socialist pizzazz. We look forward to examining that.

Mr Eves: The Premier's statement is sort of like a good news and bad news story. The good news is: "We're going to do something slightly different from what has been done in the past." The bad news is: "We're going to make the final decision anyway."

The government can go through this window dressing exercise of having a legislative committee "scrutinize" the lists which the government presents to the committee for scrutiny, but I do not see in here any power of the legislative committee to make the final decision with respect to those appointments.

I guess the question I would have for the Premier and the government is: Who is going to make that final decision? The appointments secretariat, the legislative committee, the cabinet minister or the Premier of Ontario?

I think I know the answer to that question and I think that the Premier does as well.

Why would the Premier differentiate in his press release today by talking about why the government is seeking applicants for the position of chair and members of the Social Assistance Review Board, an employment equity commissioner and chair of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario? I presume all will be subject to the scrutiny process, not the selection process.

He goes on to say that an all-party committee will choose a new privacy commissioner. If it is good enough for the new privacy commissioner, why is it not good enough for all the other appointments it wants to make? Why can the all-party committee not choose those people as well?

I think the Premier would do well to look back at an old recommendation of a previous standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, which recommended in its recommendation 20, dealing with the tabling of proposed appointments, that a standing committee of the Legislature review the nominees and recommend alternatives where appropriate on the basis of merit. Will this committee to which the Premier is going to send these scrutiny candidates have the power to select these candidates?

Will it have the power to recommend and choose alternatives if it does not think the names he has submitted are appropriate or have the merit to assume these positions? If he is here today in this House announcing those changes, then I think indeed he would be announcing a significant new era in political appointments in Ontario.

Really, all this is, as the interim leader of the official opposition has stated, is so much window dressing to say that we are going to allow a committee to look at candidates we select and after we have gone through that process, we will choose, "we" being the royal "we," I presume, meaning the Premier: "I will choose who I think is best in the long run in any event."

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Labour on a matter that has concerned us once or twice already this session. The honourable minister would be concerned, as are we all, with the Statistics Canada announcement last week indicating that the unemployment rate in Ontario is now 7.6% and that bankruptcies are up 112% year over year.

Members may recall that it was more than a month ago that the Premier, in a ringing endorsement of his friend Victor Rice's move to Buffalo, indicated that there would be a new program designed to protect workers' pay and severance, particularly following bankruptcy, and that it would be retroactive to 1 October, that magic day.

Another magic day was last Thursday, the last day in which legislation could be introduced into this House for passage in 1990. We have not seen the legislation, therefore we will not see it now until well into the spring for enactment, whenever the House moves in that direction.

I would ask the minister if he is not concerned that there are these many hundreds of people, probably thousands, who are subject to the difficulties of the present recession, who were counting on the protection announced by the Premier a month ago, and nothing has happened. Can he explain why nothing has happened and what protection is available for these people?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the Leader of the Opposition will understand that when we bring in the legislation there are serious costs involved. We have to discuss exactly how encompassing the legislation is. We are not going to bring in legislation that cannot be enforced. For that reason we are proceeding with caution, but the member will see it shortly.

Mr Nixon: Members will recall that when the Premier made this enthusiastic announcement associated with Varity's move to Buffalo, there was a wide variety of assistance that was going to be made available to the workers. I have a feeling that the Treasurer may have got hold of that list and realized that the cost of meeting those requirements would be unbearable and that the Minister of Labour once again is simply watching the world go by without bringing forward the legislation that, according to the press release at the time, he was committed to.

Is the Minister of Labour aware that the Treasurer's commitment of job creation funding for southwestern Ontario boils down to $6.9 million for southwestern Ontario for this winter? Is that the best he can do, and in his normal conservatism, which is now bubbling to the surface, is he allowing the Treasurer to actually veto all of these progressive ideas that the honourable Minister of Labour and his Premier announced with such enthusiasm just a month ago?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: If there is a veto, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I am not aware of it. We are proceeding with our plans for the legislation and the member will see it in due course.

Mr Offer: In an Agenda for People and indeed in the throne speech, plant closure justification was specifically promised. The last day for the introduction and debate and passage of legislation has passed. New legislation cannot now be debated and passed until, at the very earliest, the spring session. If there are to be public hearings throughout the province, the very earliest they can take place is next summer. We have a recession now.

The minister made very specific promises six months ago. More than 15,000 permanent job losses have occurred due to plant closures so far this year. Why do the workers have to wait until this spring at the very earliest or most likely until the end of the upcoming summer until we see the plans the minister was able to make so specifically while in opposition and cannot share with this House while in government? When are the workers going to see the minister's plans?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member will know that this is an issue that has been on the table since back in 1982, I guess, certainly since his government came in during 1985, and I can assure him that he will see legislation in this area shortly.

[Applause]

Mr Nixon: If the NDP members are conditioned to applaud an answer like that, I guess they are pretty well ingrained in party politics here. We expect something better than that from the minister.

FOOD BANKS

Mr Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Following her announcement late last week of $1 million in support of food banks, she would be aware that Social Assistance Review Committee recommendation 268 -- and I am extremely familiar with the SARC recommendations, having lived with them for many months -- states that, "The Ontario government should not provide formalized funding to food banks," and that the task force on food banks said that, "No amount of money given directly to food banks will reduce the numbers of people who come to their doors."

Can the minister not recall that she stated to the House on 22 November that the "government intends to respond to the needs of food banks, not by funding them," and can she explain her reversal in policy and what the impact will be if we optimistically look at what is facing us in the next few weeks?

Hon Mrs Akande: I thank the member for the question. Yes, indeed, I am aware of the recommendation from SARC, though not as able as the member to remember them by number. However, I also recall it was this party that was particularly interested in the fact -- and I recognize it -- that there was an emergency and that this emergency had been spoken about frequently by the food banks.

Also in consultation with them I learned that although many of them did not want us to fund the food banks because they thought it would be a negative move, there were others, who also made themselves very loudly and plainly heard, who required such emergency funding.

Then, within the context of the emergency, we decided to do something which would allow the food banks that did not wish our funding to use the money in a way that would help them; that is, to help people to direct themselves to get social assistance, unemployment insurance, people who they said previously had difficulty accessing the system because they did not know how, and would also allow others who had seen that they needed the money to use it in their way.

Yes, indeed, within the context of an emergency, one alters one's plans.

Mr Nixon: I suppose one of the disappointing things about going into government is that even though you change your mind, with what the honourable member has just told us was good reason, still it is sometimes misunderstood, presumably by people who are knowledgeable in the field.

The food banks' representatives are reported to have said after a meeting with the minister that "temporary support measures described in her announcement on Friday would not provide meaningful solutions to the problems of poverty." If that is true, and certainly NDP policy has been based on this sort of good advice, why did she change her mind? Is there a change in the level of emergency between 22 November and last Friday, 7 December? What happened? Did the level of irrationality among her colleagues increase to the point where it was irresistible?

Hon Mrs Akande: Yes, it was one of the points that was mentioned so frequently by the member, that in fact the emergency was mounting. But let me say first of all, very clearly, that it is not this government's expectation or its intention to solve the food bank issue with an emergency fund. We have already begun to move towards solving the questions of poverty. That train has left. Did the member miss it?

It started when we increased social assistance; it started when we increased the increase; it started when we increased the shelter costs so that people would not have to decide whether to pay rent or go to the food banks; it started when we insisted that men pick up the cost of supporting their children. Oh, yes, indeed that train has left.

Mrs McLeod: Nobody missed the train, as little as was offered: the 2% solution was barely enough, as people involved in the field recognize, to cover the additional costs.

We find it rather astounding that, with some very specific emergency responses recommended by the task force on food banks, the minister seems to have shifted the responsibility for dealing with the emergency situation to the community itself. If in fact the government is committed to long-term reforms to dealing with poverty, let me remind the minister of a number of the issues in which she has made some previous commitments which would begin to address this issue.

We need to see 10,000 new child care spaces and 10,000 subsidized child care spaces that were promised in each of the first two years of an Agenda for People. We need to know that municipalities such as Metropolitan Toronto will not be left on their own to provide the kind of training that is needed to assist those on social assistance. We need to support literacy programs, we need to use existing emergency programs to assist recipients to deal with the unexpected emergencies that drive them to the food banks.

We need to implement programs such as direct deposit of social assistance cheques so that recipients are not spending as much as $40 and $50 a month just to cash their cheques. If the government is committed to long-term reform, can we ask once again when we will see those specific plans to deal with this pervasive problem of poverty?

Hon Mrs Akande: Thanks to the member for a reminder of so many of those initiatives which we have begun. We have in fact begun to work interministerially again to design skills programs that will address the needs of people who have to go back to work and that will make sure that people are receiving skills training in the areas they need to in order to apply for and to have the kinds of jobs that are available to them. We have also begun to look at that whole business of direct deposit, and we will be quite willing to report on this and many other initiatives as soon we have completed.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. On Friday, discussions on the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade collapsed in Brussels because of a failure to reach agreement on agricultural subsidies within the European Community. The response of the international negotiators and economists to GATT was that this was guaranteed to plunge the world into a war of regional trading blocs.

The government has failed to show any sign of economic leadership. What I want to know is what plans the government has following the collapse of GATT to guarantee access for Ontario growers and manufacturers to the European market.

Hon Mr Pilkey: It was indeed a pleasure to represent this province at what was to be the final round of the GATT talks in Brussels, Belgium. I am pleased to advise the member that notwithstanding the fact that an agreement was not achieved in those final rounds, primarily because of a disagreement between the United States and the EC, these talks will be continued, hopefully in Geneva, Switzerland, likely in February 1990.

Ontario was well represented through its trade delegations and also had the benefit of the company of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who played a very key and important role in those particular talks. We also had the benefit of the International Trade Advisory Committee, from private sector representatives known well to many members of the House opposite, who joined hand in glove with us in an effort to maintain Ontario's position so that we might continue the prosperity we need and require to enjoy if we are to maintain the 35% of exports that we have in this particular province.

We will again be meeting with federal trade minister John Crosbie in the near future prior to proceeding to Geneva to again ensure that Canada and Ontario have a strong voice at those talks so we can ensure that our manufacturing and business concerns continue to prosper in a very fruitful way.

Mr Stockwell: It is very obvious why the Leader of the Opposition was not on the train; there were no seats left after their ministers had taken them up.

It is obvious that the government does not have any plans whatsoever for revitalizing Ontario trade in the face of increasing protectionism. To go to the GATT discussions in Brussels without a contingency plan is at best naïve and at worst irresponsible. Considering the reaction of the Canadian economists to the GATT failure was, "Thank goodness we have guaranteed access to the US market," can the minister please tell the members of the House exactly what plans his government has to further capitalize on the free trade agreement during this period in which we need it the most?

Hon Mr Pilkey: It was suggested by one of my colleagues that perhaps the appropriate response to his question is that the member opposite should have some faith in the Mulroney government.

I can assure the House that the Ontario delegation and the ITAC group met frequently in Brussels. We were very together in trying to assert ourselves as advocates for this province, to assure ourselves that this province and the people and the workers of this province continue to do well in our trading relationships, whether it be with the European Community, whether it be in the Pacific Rim or whether it be with the United States of America. These talks regrettably deteriorated to a circumstance that Canada could not alter and, as I indicated before, a very basic and real disagreement between the EC and the United States.

It is my impression that talks are going to have to be held at the very highest level of government between Kohl, Mitterrand and Bush, at a minimum, to help break this impasse. If that is not done, I think it is rather fruitless for the trade ministers such as myself and those from other nations to proceed to Geneva without there being some direct intervention by those authorities, because quite frankly those countries are not prepared to come to the table for any meaningful dialogue or discussion to break down the subsidies, that are quite unnecessary and harmful, that are impacting negatively on trade today.

Mr Stockwell: This government is quite happy, day after day, to stand up and blame others for the recession that we now face. What they do not seem to realize is that we are responsible for our own economic destiny.

The United States is currently establishing free trade negotiations with Mexico and is looking towards expanding these arrangements into other South American states. As the world moves into a smaller number of very powerful trading blocs, Canada is still busy fighting within itself for trade between the provinces.

Can the minister tell the members of this House what plans he has -- if he has any plans; apparently not -- for dismantling the system of interprovincial trade barriers? Will Ontario take a leadership role in the issue and unilaterally remove the barriers, or is he simply going to sit before this House and continue to blame senior levels of government and senior levels of government throughout the world? What is the minister's plan?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The honourable member references the national government. As I recall listening to the national debate, or what there was of it, from Mr Mulroney in the FTA, we were going to be led to some great promised land and certainly not be left with this circumstance of rising and mounting unemployment, the likes of which we have not seen in the past decade. The member might check with his colleague in Ottawa who was reported in the Toronto Star on the weekend as throwing up his hands and saying that he cannot do anything about these mounting unemployment rates, interest rates and so on.

I can assure the honourable member that this province, through its trade delegations, will continue to work with the sectors of Ontario to help promote them, to try to advantage them, to try to put them in the very best position to trade not only with the United States of America through the free trade agreement but also with the European Community, which quite frankly is developing a market in 1992 much larger than even the Americans have.

I do not know if that responds to the question. I hope it does. I suggest to the member who asked the question as well that he perhaps consider going to Brussels, and not taking the train but the buses. I am sure he will enjoy the trip.

Mr Villeneuve: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Given the breakdown of the GATT negotiations and talks that he attended last week, can he tell us what measures he and his government will take to assist Ontario agriculture to try to negate the very heavy subsidies that are being paid by the United States and the European Community?

Hon Mr Buchanan: First of all, I would like to clarify the language of the question. It is not necessarily a breakdown. The terminology used was an "adjournment" of the talks to a date in the new year. So we expect to continue the talks in the new year.

In the meantime, in Ontario we are going to consult with farm leaders, we are going to consult with the food group, and meetings have been set up for next week and the following week to consult with the agricultural community to address what sorts of strategy we can put in place.

Further to that, we have called for a meeting of the agriculture ministers across the country. There was a meeting scheduled in February. I have asked that this meeting be moved forward so that we can readdress this issue, come up with a plan and go back to the negotiations with a plan that we can implement to assist the farmers of Ontario.

Mr Villeneuve: Farmers are going broke left, right and centre. They are taking a very large reduction again this year in realized net farm income. Consultation should be at an end. The minister should know there is a major problem just to get people to survive, just to break even. Two weeks ago the Premier acknowledged to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, for instance, that yes, Ontario needs a strong voice for agriculture, but there has not been any approval of that strong voice, which is badly needed. We need a safety net and the federal government is working on that. I hope and I think I understand that this government is also supportive of that.

In 1991, the crop income will not be any better than it was in 1990, and in 1990 it was at a 15-year low. What can we expect from the minister as encouragement to Ontario agriculture over the winter months as it prepares to go and plant a crop in 1991?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I am sure the member is aware that we have been talking to farm groups and we have been looking at safety nets. At the meeting that was held in Winnipeg a month ago with our federal counterpart, we have come to agreement on some safety net proposals. The member would also be interested to know, I am sure, that while we were in Brussels we did spend a considerable amount of time discussing safety nets with our federal counterpart. I hope that by next week the final details will be ironed out so that we can announce that the safety net plan is going to be put in place to assist farmers in the very near future.

Mr Villeneuve: Regarding what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology said in reply to an earlier question, I want to quote from a press release from the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It says as follows: "Canada's offer is solid and balanced, addressing the three key areas of market access, internal support and export subsidies. In particular, I am very pleased by the federal government's stance in support of a strengthened

article XI" of the GATT.

I am pleased to see that one member of the government understands a little bit what is happening. I am not sure about the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with his previous answer. However, agriculture's returns are 14.3% less this year than they were last year. The year before they were 17.8% less than they were the previous year. If this kind of wage loss was being taken by any other sector of the economy, this government would come to the rescue immediately. In view of those statistics, what does the minister plan on doing?

Hon Mr Buchanan: As I mentioned earlier, we are planning to proceed with the safety nets. We would like to speed them up to make sure they are in place for next year.

Further to that, I would like the member to know that if we do not bring in the safety net program as a national program, there is a very great danger that the western provinces may gain all the money that is available from the federal government for support. I have argued very strongly that we have national plans to support agriculture in this country and it has been accepted by the federal government. Mr Mazankowski now supports the concept of national programs so that Ontario will get its fair share of federal tax dollars to go to support agriculture in this country.

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

Mr Curling: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, who has responsibility for human rights and race relations. As this House has already acknowledged, on this day we pay tribute to the importance of human rights and human dignity for people in all walks of life.

The government has made a strong commitment to senior citizens in Ontario. As I am sure the minister is aware, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a decision handed down last Thursday, upheld the validity of mandatory retirement policies.

The minister will also be aware that mandatory retirement legislation impacts most adversely on elderly women and the poor. In addition, as the minister may know, other Canadian jurisdictions such as Manitoba, New Brunswick, Quebec and Alberta, as well as the federal government, have all abolished mandatory retirement. Given the government's strong commitment to individual rights, can the minister outline what her government intends to do to protect the rights of seniors adversely impacted by this decision?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I thank the member very much for the question, because I too have those same concerns, as he well understands. Having heard the result of the court action, we were very concerned and we have instigated some talks between our own ministries to address this. We will be addressing it, though, in several different ways, as the Minister of Community and Social Services has already said, with the various different programs that we have in place and with the moratorium on rent controls as well.

I think it is a very broad issue. It is not just the issue of whether we want people to go back to work; we also have to take a look at whether people have the right to retire and to live in dignity in their retirement. But I do share the member's concerns, and we will be talking to the Attorney General and other ministries as well. I thank the member very much for his concern.

Mr Mahoney: I am not quite sure if the answer was stating a moratorium on a decision, or interministerial dialogue, or exactly what it is the minister just said. It seems to be more of the same old thing.

Given the government's previously stated commitments to individual rights, I find it quite surprising that the minister and her leader have failed to address the issue of mandatory retirement since the Supreme Court delivered its decision last week. Is it purely coincidental that her government refuses to set out its policy initiatives in this area since labour has come down strongly in favour of the Supreme Court ruling favouring mandatory retirement? Can the minister tell us whether the Canadian Labour Congress has decided this issue for the government, or will the minister tell us that the government will act to protect our senior citizens?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I thank the member for his question. No. We are taking our time to look at this issue because it is a much broader issue, as I said. Yes, we do believe in the rights of people.

Mr Mahoney: Not for the seniors, it isn't.

Hon Ms Ziemba: No, it is a broad issue because the seniors do have a right to retire, if they want, in dignity. It is also an issue of pensions. We are very concerned that people should not have to work because they cannot live on their pensions, and that has certainly been the problem in the past.

Mr Mahoney: You don't understand the issue.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Yes, we do understand the issue, and we are concerned about it. We will be making sure that we sit down and discuss and look at the issue in its broad terms to make sure that the Attorney General and I will be speaking about this.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Mr Jordan: My question is for the Minister of Energy. I assume the minister supports the goal set by her government of increased conservation and energy efficiency. As she will know, Ontario Hydro has several financial assistance programs to help apartment building owners defray the costs of retrofitting apartment buildings to make them more energy efficient. Does she believe the energy saved through these programs will be a major part of her government's energy conservation program?

Hon Mrs Carter: While that is of course one part of our conservation plans, it is very far from being the only part, as the member is well aware, because these plans are very far-reaching indeed.

Mr Tilson: I gather the answer there is that we are not sure, but I do have a supplementary question for the minister.

Ontario Hydro is encouraging apartment building owners to individually meter their units. Their brochures, which I have before me, indicate that individual metering can reduce energy consumption by 30%. Hydro provides a forgivable loan of $300 per unit for up to 75% of the cost of installing individual meters.

The owners of a town house complex in Kitchener heeded Ontario Hydro's advice and installed individual meters in 51 units at a cost of $2,500 per unit. Now they are caught in the Minister of Housing's freeze and they cannot recover the remaining $2,200 per unit they spent. Clearly, there is no longer any economic incentive to do this type of work that has been put forward by the Ministry of Energy. The efforts of the Ministry of Energy in the field of energy conservation are being undermined by the Minister of Housing. I think the minister will agree with that.

Does the minister not think that the Minister of Housing's rent control policies are putting her energy conservation goals in jeopardy as there is now no incentive for apartment building owners to undertake energy efficiency projects?

Hon Mrs Carter: If the problem that the member opposite is outlining is indeed happening, then we will look into it with our colleague the Minister of Housing and see what the situation really is.

ST PATRICK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Mr Sutherland: My question is directed to the Minister of Education. Last week, St. Patrick elementary school in the city of Woodstock in my riding was closed and the students were sent home after unusually high levels of methane gas were detected. Since that time, the city has had some wells drilled to siphon off some of the extra gas. The school has reopened today and the students have gone back. However, there are still some parents concerned about the safety of their students who have refused to send their children back to the school.

My question to the minister is, what assurances can she give that her ministry will ensure that the safety of the students and staff at St. Patrick elementary school will be looked after?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I appreciate the concern that the member has expressed and certainly the ministry was quite concerned as well to hear about the problem at St. Patrick school. The ministry's regional office in London continues to monitor the situation.

The action that was taken was not only to dig the wells with the pipes but also to install electric blowers. We have had assurances from both the city engineering department and the medical officer of health that in fact the levels are safe and will continue to be monitored. This is a really serious problem, because the school was built next to a landfill site and we all know that these are serious issues when that happens.

Mr Sutherland: Is the ministry willing to do any of its own monitoring of the situation and of the methane gas levels?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I am not entirely sure of the answer to the question, because my understanding of it was that this was the responsibility of the municipal government in terms of the engineering department and the medical officer of health. However, I will ascertain and inform the member of that as soon as possible.

USER FEES

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Minister of Health and it really flows out of the announcement made last week in Quebec around health care. Will the minister indicate to the House whether or not her government at any time during its life is considering any form of user fee in the health care system in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The member refers to the Quebec report. We have not received a copy of that report yet, but I am looking forward to getting it and studying it. The recommendation which is made in the Quebec report for service charges for people who go for non-emergency service to emergency centres at hospitals is certainly not something that is under consideration by this government.

Mr Phillips: I do not think that the minister has answered the question. I said, is the government at any time during its life considering any form of user fee and will she indicate whether she has ruled that out or not?

I would ask the minister if she might be more specific in her answer. She has talked merely about the emergency fee. What we are interested in is whether or not the government will consider any form of user fee during the life of her government. I think it is extremely important to the health care system of Ontario that we know the answer to this. I would like to know whether her government has or has not ruled out user fees in the health care system in Ontario.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The member is aware that there are some charges within the health service system in Ontario for items which are not covered under OHIP. We have no plans currently to impose other charges.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Treasurer. On 6 December there was a communiqué released from the meeting of provincial finance ministers. That communiqué called for an end to the spending habits that we have found ourselves in for the past number of years, those spending habits leading I think in some degree to the recession that we are in.

We all know that out-of-control spending causes a higher debt, that higher debts increase the interest rates etc.

Interest rates are a concern that small business, farmers and so on have today. Why is it that the Treasurer opposed the signing of this communiqué and what is it specifically in it that causes him some concerns, or is he opposed from his political perspective?

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the opportunity to explain and report on the meeting of the finance ministers. I should make it perfectly clear that what I objected to in the communiqué was not the fact that the provincial finance ministers wanted to control expenditures at a time of rising deficits all across Canada, but rather that the communique expressed what to me was almost a fixation or a singleminded interest in controlling expenditures as opposed to taking even any kind of serious look at the whole question of revenue possibilities in the various jurisdictions.

For those reasons I felt that I could not in all honesty sign and be part of a communiqué that concentrated solely on expenditure control the same week that I had been on my feet in this place announcing a $700-million antirecession package. I thought that would have been inconsistent on my part.

Mr Stockwell: The past five years were very good years. We saw increased spending in Ontario: $17.2 billion more, or nearly 60%, since the 1985-86 fiscal year. Since 1985-86, Ontario government spending has increased at an average annual rate of nearly 10% and, over the 1984-85 to 1989-90 period, Ontario government program expenditures increased at an average annual rate of 9.6%, compared with a 6.4% average rate for provinces and a 3.6% average rate for the federal government.

The concern is that this kind of spending took place during a very big economy, a boom economy. In fact, we spent at unprecedented levels. The commitment that I think the taxpayers would like to hear from the Treasurer is if we have to spend during the boom years, and the Treasurer is discussing expenditure increases during the bad years, when is the time not to spend? When is that crucial time in fact to pay the debts? When is that crucial time to give the taxpayers a break on the revenue side or the taxpaying side?

It seems to me we spend in the good years and we spend in the bad years. When are the years that we stop spending and pay those debts so our children are not burdened with them from years ago?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am sure that the critic, the member for Etobicoke West, is not implying in his question that I or we had any responsibility for spending in good times, although we do look forward to that opportunity in the years to come.

I would say to my critic, the member for Etobicoke West, that it seems to me it is not appropriate at a time of a recession -- and keep in mind that Ontario, although I hate to use this expression, is leading the way in recession in this country, as a matter of fact in North America. So I think it would be completely inappropriate for me to agree to any kind of communiqué that said we should be singleminded about expenditure controls. We simply cannot do that.

It would be hypocritical on my part to say yes, I think the federal government should put a cap on expenditures at the same time that those finance ministers were asking for the federal government to reconsider its cap on certain transfers to the provinces. For those reasons, I felt that I could not be part of that communiqué.

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORP CUTBACKS

Mr Lessard: In the city of Windsor, Mayor John Millson has established a task force to deal with the incredible loss of local programming as a result of the cutbacks at CBC. I think this initiative clearly demonstrates that the people in the city of Windsor are not prepared to just lie down and play dead with respect to this issue. As much as I would like to make a speech about my feelings about this loss, I know that this is not the appropriate place to do that.

There are several options that are being pursued by this task force, one of which relates to the possible involvement of TVOntario. My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. I would like to know if he can advise this House whether he is prepared to recommend that TVOntario provide this vital and much-needed service in the city of Windsor with respect to local news programming, or whether he is able to do that.

Hon Mr Marchese: I share the distress that the member is feeling and I share the distress and the outrage that Windsor is feeling. I wish that I could immediately fill the communications gap that has been caused by the federal government on the CBC broadcasting.

As the members know, TVO is an agency of the ministry -- it makes its own programming and allocation decisions -- but TVO is limited to educational broadcasting and is not in a position to operate programming locally. Its only programming centre is in Toronto and it only broadcasts across Ontario. It cannot be a substitute for the CBC.

There are two things that prevent it from being able to do what the member asks and what Windsor would like, and those are that the educational broadcasting agreement does not allow it and its physical structures do not allow it to do the kind of programming that he suggests. I think that asking for TVO to pick up on the CBC cutbacks is like asking GO Transit to pick up on the Via cutbacks.

Our outrage needs to be properly directed against the federal government. This is a national issue that needs a national answer, and we need to focus our energies on reversing this national disaster.

Mr Lessard: In light of the answer that the minister has given, I wonder if the minister can advise the House as to what he is prepared to do, if anything, with respect to this issue.

Hon Mr Marchese: Again, I am not optimistic that the federal government or the Minister of Communications is going to regain his sanity and do the right thing on this matter. However, there are several things that I am doing that probably will not solve it, but we have written to Mr Masse stating our outrage and expressing to him our desire that he restore the funding to the CBC; we are writing to Mr Colville, the chair of the CRTC, calling for public hearings on the review of the CBC licence, and we have written to Mr Veilleux to express to him our concerns.

In addition, I am getting in touch with all of the counterparts, the ministers of all the provinces, so that hopefully we can meet, and if we cannot meet, to discuss what we can do together in terms of taking a position nationally against the CBC cutbacks.

Mr Sorbara: I am glad that in the face of the worst CBC cutbacks in history, the Minister of Culture and Communications is prepared to express his concerns.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Sorbara: My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues. Last Thursday in this House we were listening to some very moving speeches by members commemorating the lives of the 14 young women who were murdered at the École Polytechnique in Montreal. On that very day in Hamilton a jury acquitted one Guy Ellul of the murder of his wife.

In that case, the evidence showed that Mr Ellul stabbed his estranged wife some 21 times. Some of those wounds were as deep as six inches. The evidence also established that prior to this incident, the accused had spoken publicly about killing his wife and his children, and indeed committing suicide, if his wife were to leave him.

My question to the minister responsible for women's issues is this: In light of the very grave concern, not only in the community of Hamilton but right across the province and indeed around the country, about this verdict, and in light of the minister's responsibility to speak on behalf of women throughout the province of Ontario -- and not to suggest at all that in this House we ought to convict a man who has recently been acquitted -- what is the minister prepared to do in light of the fact that men and women from Hamilton are outraged at this decision and look to this government for some direction?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: In sharing the member's great concern, I believe that the question would most appropriately be answered by the Attorney General.

Hon Mr Hampton: Without commenting any further on the specifics of the case, I can tell the member that in the ordinary course this kind of decision would be reviewed by senior crown law officers at the Ministry of the Attorney General to consider whether an appeal should go forward, and that will be happening in the ordinary matter of course very soon.

Mr Sorbara: I accept the fact that the minister responsible for women's issues wants to refer the question to the Attorney General. There was no doubt in my mind when I got up to ask the question that in the normal course of things the crown law officers would be reviewing the address to the jury and the transcripts of the trial to determine whether or not there was a basis for appeal.

I directed the question to the minister responsible for women's issues because I was referring to a different matter. It was but three weeks ago that the minister responsible for women's issues, in the face of a lobby from the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, said that this new government was going to make a real difference on the issue of violence against women.

So my question to the Attorney General, to whom the question has now been referred, is this: What plans does he have to make sure that some different dynamic comes from this government to send out a different message about violence against women in this province from the message we get from this jury in Hamilton?

Hon Mr Hampton: I do not need to speak for the minister responsible for women's issues. I think it is very plain on the record that the minister responsible for women's issues has advocated strongly on this issue, has made wife assault an issue which is very clearly before the public, has made it a permanent program of this government, has dedicated more funds to that program and has been very proactive indeed in terms of informing the public that this cannot and should not happen again.

ANTI-DRUG STRATEGIES

Mr Carr: My question is for the Solicitor General. Over the past week I had the opportunity to spend some time with police officers to educate myself and to consult about some of the problems of crime facing this province. In fact, I had a bit of an opportunity last week to spend some time in the Premier's own riding, up in 31 Division, and watch while drug deals were being made.

Having seen at first hand what the men and women of our police forces face daily, and due to the fact that there was no mention of a strategy in either An Agenda for People or in the throne speech, my question is this: Is the Solicitor General planning to introduce an anti-drug strategy for this province and, if so, when might this House expect it?

Hon Mr Farnan: For the member's information, there is already an anti-drug strategy. It is operative. We will in fact be reporting on the advisory committee to the minister. This report will come into the House, I would think, within the next week. Not only is the strategy in place; it is operable, functioning and doing very well indeed.

Mr Carr: Up to 90% of the crimes, as I found out in my experience of being out there, are drug related, and while the number of incidents of crimes is staggering, what is really shocking is the way in which the police are handcuffed in doing their job.

The previous government, in the Black report, focused on education as a method of eradicating this terrible problem. While we support that focus, I would also like to know if the Solicitor General will include education and treatment in the strategy that he is putting together. I will ask him today if he will make a commitment to ensure that the police have the tools to get the job done. Will the Solicitor General make that commitment to this House today?

Hon Mr Farnan: Education is indeed very significantly part of the present strategy. Indeed, the education programs are being put in place within our school system between grades 3 and 10 and being expanded from grades 1 to 3 by 1991. So prevention and education are very, very significant.

I want to point out that the three aspects of the anti-drug strategy include prevention, education, treatment and enforcement. But the member should realize that the emphasis has to be not simply on one aspect of these areas. Enforcement is there. We have in place special anti-drug units. We have special training taking place, where our police services personnel receive special training, and we shall continue to expand that. Specialized training will continue, prevention and education, treatment and enforcement. It has to be a composite approach, not a single approach. We will continue along those lines.

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

A deadline of 30 November 1990 was established for comment on the report by educators and other interested parties. Can the minister tell the House if that deadline was adhered to?

Hon Mr Allen: I appreciate the member's concern for the colleges of this province and for this very creative report that has been received, not by me but by a previous minister, and indeed inaugurated by the member for Fort William. This has been an unusually effective, perhaps the best consultative process this province has ever seen in terms of the consultation of stakeholders, and indeed a process in which many members of this House participated very helpfully, because they too were consulted.

This document contains many creative proposals. It is true there was a deadline of 30 November. Some of the colleges had a bit of a problem responding to the full range of the report within that confined period of time, so I have extended the deadline until 31 December and I am awaiting those recommendations until we take full action on the report.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Daigeler: I am rather pleased that the member just asked the question that I was going to ask today as well. For that very same purpose I brought along a copy of the report. I am very pleased that the minister appreciates the work of the previous Minister of Colleges and Universities, the member for Fort William. When I met with the students and with representatives of the college community, as the minister has said, they were very appreciative of the process that led to this report and in fact they were also very appreciative of the recommendations that have been put forward.

In light of the minister's support for this project, I would also like to ask him about his plans for the training efforts of the business community. Many of the recommendations relate to the need to further develop a training culture in this province. I would like to ask the minister whether he shares my conviction about the development of a training culture, especially by businesses with up to now only 31% of businesses providing training. Is he prepared to implement those recommendations of the Vision 2000 project as quickly as possible that relate to the training efforts of the business community?

Hon Mr Allen: This report is not going to sit on the shelf and this minister is not going to sit on the fence. It is really interesting that the gentleman opposite is asking me to implement it before the stakeholders have all had an opportunity to tell me specifically what they want done about this very complex and far-reaching report.

I have already in fact sat down to consult about methods and possibilities of moving ahead from this point. Certainly I have had my close consultation with the head of the Council of Regents, who masterminded this document and its results in a very effective way. I will be looking to an implementation process that follows very much that good model. I will not be looking for mechanical quick fixes. I will be looking for a process that effectively, over the next few years, puts in place the major recommendations that come from this report, and not least of all those that pertain to skills and the training dimension of that document.

Mr Daigeler: The minister has acknowledged that the consultation process was very excellent and that it was very far-ranging. He has now had four months to study those recommendations. I do not see the need to have another whole round of consultations in order to implement at least the final recommendation of this report, which was to set up a committee that will move forward and do the very work that he is just spelling out. That recommendation can be put into place now and I hope he will do that before Christmas.

However, my specific question, which the minister did not answer, was, what is his view of the fact that only 31% of businesses in this country are providing training and how is he planning to encourage our business community to provide training, this so important educational responsibility which is presently not fulfilled by the business community?

Hon Mr Allen: That was a great many words about not very much, in the sense that I am currently --

Mr Scott: It's a matter in which you used to have exclusive expertise, as I remember.

Hon Mr Allen: That is right. I have had two whole months, of course, to examine the whole front of skills training and the whole front of the college system, and also to get myself involved in negotiations with the federal government around OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, a provincial and federal training board. I have already had one sit-down with that minister. We are preparing for negotiations. Surely the member is not suggesting that I should jump the gun on the whole implementation process around Vision 2000 and around the negotiations for establishing a training culture in Ontario.

Give us a little break, as my fellow minister in the Housing ministry said to somebody else last week.

TRITIUM

Mr Jordan: My question is for the Minister of Energy. We are having a difficult time understanding the government's policy on nuclear energy. First, one of the government's favourite words, "review," was just put into place to study Ontario Hydro's demand-supply plan. The minister said she would review the plan and then decide if nuclear power has a future in Ontario.

Before they were on the government side of the House, the New Democrats strongly opposed the sale of tritium for peaceful purposes. They did not even want it transported along the highways of this province. What is the current government's policy on the sale of tritium?

Hon Mrs Carter: Our policy on tritium is under review at the moment. This is a matter which does concern us. We are looking into it very profoundly and we shall have a policy in the very near future. At the moment, things are proceeding as under the policy of the previous government.

PÉTITION

ÉTABLISSEMENT D'UN ÉDIFICE À LOGEMENTS SUBVENTIONNÉS

M. Villeneuve : Hier après-midi, j'ai eu l'occasion de visiter le village d'Embrun, où on m'a présenté une pétition destinée au ministre du Logement, par le comité des aînés de Crysler, signée par 165 personnes de la région. La pétition se lit comme suit :

«Dû à un urgent besoin, nous, les aînés de Crysler, supplions la Société de logement de l'Ontario : l'établissement d'un édifice à logements subventionnés pour les personnes âgées dans notre communauté.»

Cette pétition est signée par 165 gens de l'âge d'or de la région de Crysler ; il y en avait plus de 200 à la réunion hier après-midi.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COMMITTEE ON THE DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PREMIER ACT, 1990

Mr Henderson moved first reading of Bill 21,

An Act to establish a Committee respecting the direct election of the Premier.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Henderson: The purpose of this bill is to establish a committee to develop a plan under which the Premier of Ontario would be elected by direct election by all Ontario electors. The committee will be composed of members of the assembly, academics, a government lawyer and the chair of the Ontario Law Reform Commission.

Many different models of democracy are alive and well somewhere in the globe. Wisely, many jurisdictions canvass the global options in the course of refining the model of government best suited --

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-Humber, a brief explanation is all that is in order. You have already addressed the basic principle of the bill in the first three sentences. That is all we need to hear.

Mr Henderson: I would like to say a word or two about the nature of the committee.

The Speaker: No, I am sorry. I have to rule it out of order.

DEAF PERSONS' RIGHTS ACT, 1990

Mr Abel moved first reading of Bill 22,

An Act to provide for certain Rights for Deaf Persons.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Abel: The purpose of this bill is to ensure that deaf people are not discriminated against when accompanied by hearing-ear dogs being used as guide dogs. This bill will extend to deaf people with guide dogs the same rights now enjoyed by blind people with their guide dogs under the Blind Persons' Rights Act.

COMMITTEE ON THE DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PREMIER ACT, 1990

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I noted with some concern that you cut off the member for Etobicoke-Humber when he introduced his bill. Members are able to make brief statements. He had delivered only two or three lines on the principle of the bill. I think it is very usual to allow at least some leeway, particularly when government ministers introduce their bills and have some things to say about their legislation. I see no reason why the member for Etobicoke-Humber could not also have explained his bill just a little bit more fully.

I appreciate that you want things to move along, but from my point of view, to allow a gentleman two or three sentences is hardly sufficient time to provide for first reading and is quite unusual.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, I appreciate the point you have raised. The member will also recognize that it is common practice, not from the point of expediency but simply common practice in our procedure, to read only a few lines that introduce the principle of the bill and not introduce anything which could be construed to be argumentative.

It was on that basis alone that I listened intently to the member for Etobicoke-Humber. Once he got beyond the first three sentences, he was then starting to present his arguments on the background information to the bill. I listened equally carefully to the member for Wentworth North, who presented the bill with simply the first lines of principle introduced.

I think all members are mindful of our common practice on how we introduce bills. The first reading is not an opportunity to present anything other than the principle, simply stated.

Mr Elston: I appreciate what you are saying, Mr Speaker, but I really think we will be keeping a good record, then, of the ministers of the crown when they deliver their first readings as well. I know they are also entitled to make statements and they generally do make statements, and they usually go on for quite some time. It is a bit of a concern that the private member is being restricted to two or three lines after doing a lot of work in preparing his legislation.

The Speaker: The member for Bruce knows full well the Speaker's point of view with respect to private members and the importance of their bills. This may be a mistake on my part, but I am going to allow the member for Etobicoke-Humber to test the chair; Christmas spirit.

Mr Henderson: Mr Speaker, perhaps I may just say on the point of order that I did say, after you made your initial comments, that I wanted only a sentence or two further on the nature of the committee, which is not argumentative. If you will bear with me, it will be exactly two or three brief sentences.

The committee will be directed to consider constitutional and other legal implications of the change in the method of choosing the Premier. It will also be directed to prepare all necessary draft legislation to implement the plan. It will have 18 months to complete its work.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 1,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mrs Sullivan: On Thursday last I was speaking to some of the issues involved in Bill 1 and its implementation, particularly those relating to compliance requirements of the goods and services tax, which as we know is a costly, time-consuming, administrative nightmare for most vendors, with the additional compliance and administrative costs associated with the introduction of the new retail sales tax on a different base than is used for the federal GST, and with the different bases for the collection of the tax.

We know from experience in other jurisdictions of some of the singularly striking administrative and compliance costs. In the United Kingdom several studies have been done on its value added tax, which is a tax similar to that the federal government will be introducing. Those studies have shown that the costs of the tax place an extremely strong burden on the vendors. Once again, that burden is particularly complicated when the retail sales tax at the provincial level is placed on the good or the service before rather than after the end price is calculated.

The GST has for some time been clearly recognized as a blow to the province. We have heard, certainly in the House, that the action that has been included in Bill 1 will cost the provincial Treasury $500 million. It seems to me that there may be some underestimation of what that cost is. I have, to refresh my memory, an

article that appeared in the Toronto Star in October 1989, where provincial finance ministers were warning at that time that their treasuries stood to lose billions of dollars under the federal sales tax as a result of the changes made by Ottawa.

I would like to quote from that article. This is from 17 October 1989. It says, "'The report drafted last week by provincial deputy finance ministers warns that inflation created by the tax will cut provincial sales tax revenues as consumers' real incomes and spendings are reduced,' said the official, 'but more importantly, it will force increased provincial spending for items such as civil service salaries and social programs.'"

That is significant. I wonder if the minister and the Treasurer are willing to direct information to the House, are willing to speak to us openly about whether those kinds of calculations have also been taken into account in their fiscal and economic planning. We have heard about the $500 million in lost income as a direct result of placing the retail sales tax on the product before the GST rather than after, and we wonder what other prices and increases, what other costs to the province are hidden from us and have not been adequately expressed.

As we proceed in the debate and hear from the minister, I would also like to know more about the impact of this activity on the ISTA, the interprovincial sales tax arrangement. The ISTA is intended to minimize multiple application of provincial sales tax on vehicles which are operated by Canadian carriers in more than one province. We have not heard any word about this at this point. We understand that there will be different methods of application of retail sales taxes in various provinces.

Ontario seems to be out of whack in comparison to the other provinces, and of course this kind of interprovincial arrangement is something that can cause significant difficulty when Ontario is out of step.

Under the ISTA a sales tax must be paid to each province where the carrier operates. The system has been devised for carriers to pay tax on a pro rata basis to the various participating provinces based on the percentage of the distance in those provinces. If we look at the goods and services tax, we will see that there are indeed significant implications of the goods and services tax relating to freight services, with inbound and outbound international freight services, with the exception of postage stamps to be zero-rated.

Indeed, the RST may apply in some of those situations, GST may be applied on certain aspects of freight services, and I think we need considerable explanation from the minister on how these interprovincial matters will be dealt with.

As well, the ISTA carriers include distances travelled in the United States, as they are calculating their distribution percentages for their interprovincial vehicles. I think these are matters of some concern and will certainly be matters of significant impact when it comes to the administration of the tax, which will be no small matter for the province.

We know that the two kinds of costs associated with collecting a goods and services tax, or in fact any other kind of sales tax, are the administrative costs, which are largely paid by the revenue department that implements the tax, and then the compliance costs, those costs associated with collecting, remitting and accounting for the implementation of the tax, and those costs are paid for largely by the taxpayers.

I think it would be very useful for the minister to provide us with additional details of some of the administrative costs the Ministry of Revenue is expected to bear, first as a result of the GST and, second, as a result of this particular change in the method of collection of the retail sales tax.

I wanted to move on to a

section of the bill that has a significant impact on our tourism industry. We certainly know that tourism accounts for a major part of the economy in Ontario. Millions of dollars are directly involved in the tourism-hospitality-convention business, and that industry has significant impact on our heritage conservation, on our environmental conservation activities in various parts of the province.

We know that at a time such as the one we are now in, of significant economic downturn, one of the first areas to feel the brunt of that downturn, to be involved in a slump and to react to the slump is of course the tourism and hospitality business. We see it in cancelled or unbooked conventions, we see it in less frequent business travel, we see it in less frequent utilization of restaurants, and the clear requirement for the whole hospitality industry to significantly pull in its horns and alter its marketing strategy.

Indeed, I was struck when I was looking recently at the bankruptcy statements in Ontario to see the incredible number of operations in the tourism-hospitality industry that had entered bankruptcy proceedings recently.

One of the things that has been of singular use to the travel and tourism industry for many years has been the retail sales tax exemptions which were introduced specifically to promote tourism, hospitality, conventions in the province, and the tourism industry generally. They apply to goods which are exported from the country, and there is a rebate for non-resident transient accommodation applied to hotel and other accommodation.

If I could just review: Before 1982, the retail sales tax was not collected from the person who was purchasing goods for export. The vendor supplied the detail to the minister, and that continued until 1984 when a refund program was introduced. In 1978, the retail sales tax on transient accommodation was temporarily removed, and by 1984 a refund program was introduced. That refund program was extended indefinitely in the 1985 budget. I believe the Treasurer, in including the extension of the refund program in the 1985 budget, made that taxation policy very clear, very open and aboveboard. It was visible, it was understood, as were any changes to it.

But I am quite concerned as I read the provisions of the bill which allow the minister to bring about changes in the regulations to those rebates without the public scrutiny available through the Legislature and with no guarantee that the tourism industry, the hospitality industry, the convention industry will be consulted in any way. I think in one discussion, in response to remarks of a previous member, I raised that.

I hope the minister will respond to that, and I hope the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, whom I see in the House, will also be pressing the Minister of Revenue for detail about those consultations, which are singularly important for the industry he speaks for and represents in this House.

Another issue on which I think it would be useful for the House to hear from the Minister of Revenue relating to this bill relates to the fact that under the previous government we had made it very clear that it was not our policy, and there was a great commitment that there would not be an expansion of the base to which the retail sales tax would apply to bring it further into conjunction with the goods and services tax. We have not heard a similar commitment from this government.

We see Bill 1 as a first step in paralleling, and I think it is not only in the interest of this House but also of people throughout the province to know: How far will the paralleling go? Where is this government going to take us in reaching out and embracing the goods and services tax, on which its tax revolt has been remarkably subdued?

We see very much the possibility that ultimately, and in fact probably in the very near future, the goods and services tax will be buried in the total price of a product or service; that is, we will see a tax-included price for most of the goods we buy. That will certainly be the first step the federal government had intended to introduce.

There have been slight changes in that program at this point, but we believe that will come back. In that case, I suggest that this bill, Bill 1, will have absolutely no meaning, or our vendors will be required to do calculations that are above and beyond the call of necessity in order to comply with this particular bill. In fact, the minister will have to revert back to the original position, which was to place the retail sales tax on the final price of the product after federal taxes of whatever ilk or stripe.

As I conclude my remarks, I want to indicate that although it is an extremely unfair, regressive tax, we have seen a great deal of information coming from the federal government relating to the application of the goods and services tax. Some has provided additional confusion. We have seen, for example, that many accountancy firms and legal firms have different opinions of where that tax will in fact apply, where products will be exempt, where products will be zero-rated and so on.

But what we have not seen are the implications of this tax change for our retail sales tax vendors, for our retailers and for our consumers on the compliance and the administrative complexities of changes that this bill brings about.

That is something we would like to see. I would like to hear from the minister what kinds of communications programs are planned, what the cost of those programs will be, and when they will be implemented, or if these are simply matters once again under study or pause.

Mrs Caplan: Maybe there's a moratorium.

Mrs Sullivan: There possibly would be a moratorium.

[Interruption]

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would you please remove this man from the gallery.

Mrs Sullivan: As I conclude my remarks, I do want to remind the members of the House of matters we raised at the very beginning of this particular debate. We believe the goods and services tax is an unfair, regressive tax that we do not support, and we have been surprised that the government which has indicated it will lead a tax revolt against that tax has in fact made as its Bill 1, its first piece of legislation, the harmonizing of the retail sales tax in Ontario with the federal goods and services tax. It has indicated that it clearly expects the goods and services tax to be implemented and it has given up the fight to keep it away.

That concludes my remarks for today. I am looking forward to hearing the response of the Minister of Revenue, particularly on some of the difficult matters in regard to compliance, administration and the interprovincial tax matters I have raised, and the impact on the tourism industry.

Mr Bradley: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill 1, which deals with synchronization of the provincial tax with the federal tax, a tax which the people of this province and the people of this country have clearly indicated they do not want and do not support, despite the very heavy advertising of the federal government at this time, using taxpayers' funds to promote that particular tax which will extract from the Ontario economy and indeed from the Canadian economy a good deal of money from those who very often are the least able to afford it.

I watched with interest the procedure last Thursday as the government brought forward its first bill. There were many who I think did not recognize how one gets a bill through the Legislative Assembly. I know the government wants this bill and a number of other bills passed before it recesses for Christmas and into the new year. What we saw was an endless stream of interventions.

Hon Mr Wildman: We appreciate a full debate.

Mr Bradley: I am sure there will be a full debate, but what we had on Thursday, and I had hoped to conclude my remarks on Thursday, was an endless stream of interventions by members of the government, backbenchers who wanted to avail the preceding speakers of their wisdom, to ask questions, of course, as is their right, and to indicate what instant experts they are on virtually everything said in the House, having been in the Legislative Assembly some two weeks, able to make pronouncements with the kind of expertise that it usually takes two, three or four years for members to accumulate.

We must recognize that how we get a bill through the House is to ensure that we do not have an endless stream of pointless questions being directed to members, or cheap shots at members for the television audience which watches the continuous televising of this House. I would hope we will be able to conclude the debate in that manner, that is, getting the bill through and having any members who wish to speak make their speeches without those unnecessary interventions.

All of this, of course, in dealing with this bill, relates to the fact that the Premier has stated he would like the Ontario Legislature to be a kinder, gentler place. If it is indeed to be a kinder, gentler place, then we must recognize that it requires both sides of the House to ensure that that is the case. I have certainly given an undertaking to members of the government that I am prepared to make it as kind and as gentle a place as it was during the last session of the Ontario Legislature, when the NDP formed the official opposition and the Liberal Party was the government.

I will ensure that I will follow the practices that were followed by the opposition on that occasion, and I am sure that those with memories will know what those days were like.

Mrs Caplan: Weren't they kind and gentle?

Mr Bradley: The member for Oriole says that in fact they were kind and gentle.

Mrs Caplan: No, I asked, "Weren't they kind and gentle?"

Mr Bradley: She asks the question. I should ignore interjections, as the Speaker would properly suggest to me, but the fact is that it was neither a kind nor gentle place. The legislation that was put forward was subjected, as it should be, to scrutiny by members of the opposition, but some of the inflammatory language which was used, some of the tactics which were used are those which the Premier would like not used now. It is very much like the kids who are shoving in the schoolyard and one kid has shoved the other kid 25 times and then suggests: "We shouldn't do this any more.

We should end this practice now that I've had my 25 shoves." I can assure members that a passive opposition we will not be when there is a call for the kind of intervention that is necessary to draw to the attention of the public of this province some of the deficiencies which may be forthcoming from this government.

There was another procedure we had to follow when the government wanted to get its bills through, of course. It was very uncomfortable for members of the governing party to keep their silence, but the members of the previous government were compelled when they wanted to get bills through, even though they wanted to make an intervention and felt perhaps that one of the speakers on the other side was being provocative, in the interests of getting the bill through and not having the House sit on Christmas Eve, they held their tongues, and that is very difficult.

Mrs Caplan: Kinder and gentler.

Mr Bradley: The member for Oriole says "kinder and gentler" on that occasion. Looking at the goods and services tax itself, the legislation, the present government appears to be acquiescing to that tax at this time, certainly giving up the fight that we all had anticipated would be carried forward by the Premier and his many assistants. We recognize that the GST itself is going to have a rather devastating effect on Ontario. I think few people would suggest that that is not the case, particularly those of us who sit in this House.

Some would say we have a rather parochial view of the implications of the GST and that indeed it would affect other provinces as well, but I think there is an understanding that Ontario, being the business centre──whether people like it or not it is the business-industrial centre of this country -- just as free trade has had a devastating effect on Ontario, particularly in my part of the province where hundreds and now thousands of jobs have been lost as a result partially of the pressures created by and the opportunities created for our American friends. The free trade agreement was passed by Parliament and ultimately endorsed by the United States and by Canada.

We really see a shift of the burden from those in the corporate sector to those who have to consume products. It is a consumption tax we are dealing with this time, and whether one is rich or one is poor one has to pay that tax. There is a recognition that from time to time there will be cheques coming to certain individuals, but certainly they are not going to be coming to everyone and the time that that cheque arrives might not be opportune to compensate for the fact that we have it.

I think there is a recognition that we have to hire at the federal level a virtual army of civil servants to implement and administer this particular tax, and that will be an additional cost to the taxpayers of Canada at a time when everyone seems to be talking about simplifying things. Certainly the government in Ottawa said a number of years ago that it wanted to make it a simpler situation for taxation and that one of the reasons we have this bill is to attempt to synchronize and make things simpler. It remains to be seen whether that will be the case or not.

Virtually every personal expenditure of individuals in this province will be subject to that tax. It is not only annoying, it is disruptive to small business particularly and, of course, to those who consume from small business.

When we think of people even having to get a haircut and paying that tax, we recognize what the calculations are going to do, the annoyance of dealing with an additional amount of money. At a time when it is becoming a very competitive business, we have the administration of that particular tax and the fact that many and various businesses will not just raise their prices the additional amount of that tax but will round it off to an even higher rate. So people will be paying more not only in terms of the tax but in terms of the price to be paid for the service, for the particular good that is being purchased.

It is estimated that the GST will shift the manufacturers sales tax burdens to the consumers to the tune of some $4 billion in this country. The result will be a $4-billion reduction in real disposable income when we take into account the GST.

It is estimated that the GST will add some $8 billion to $9 billion to consumer costs. We can expect that the reduction in real disposable income will lead to reduced spending and consumption in such things as housing, so we can see that it permeates virtually all of our business undertakings in this province. From the smallest business to the largest business, those undertakings are being affected by the GST.

This is why we would have been hopeful that instead of acquiescing to the GST, we would have seen the crusade that was promised by the new Premier and members of the government to stop the GST. Apparently the only people who are interested in stopping it at the present time, or at least taking direct action to stop it, are the Liberal members of the Senate who are attempting to block it at this time. Whether or not they will be successful one does not know, but that appears to be the only place where there is a real crusade going on against the GST at the present time. Others appear to have put their tail between their legs and headed off in another direction.

The reason we are concerned about it, of course, is the impact of the GST on such areas as housing. We think we recognize there is always a challenge in housing in a quickly developing society, in an area where the population is increasing quite rapidly compared to other areas. We think of the Metropolitan Toronto area, for instance. The impact of the GST on housing, even with the rebate which is suggested, will bring about an increased cost for that housing.

The GST increases the cost of legal fees and real estate commissions, so we can anticipate resale costs will increase in the future as well. This is a basic item that people want. This is not a luxury we are talking about when we talk about a home. We are talking about something that we hope would be a basic right in our country that people would be entitled to, having worked towards it, that it would be affordable and decent housing and not taxed out of reach of people through a tax such as the GST.

It is estimated that the real growth in Ontario directly as a result of the GST, never mind the other economic forces that are confronting us in this province, will drop by some 0.3% in the first year, that the consumer price index will rise in Ontario by at least 1.5%, that the unemployment rate will rise and that employees justifiably will be out seeking even greater increases in their paycheques to compensate for the fact that they will have to pay the GST.

We will see such groups as sports organizations -- and I have been and continue to be very much involved in sports in my own community and to a certain extent in the province -- and many people within the sports community are extremely concerned, as in other areas of volunteer activity, about the fact that the GST is going to apply to them and that it is going to be difficult once again to get those volunteers to come forward. People work mighty hard, and for nothing, in sports organizations and other volunteer organizations.

When they find that government intervention is to take money away from them, to get its hands on some of the money, to make their job more difficult, some people are inclined to throw up their hands and say, "Well, if the government is this interested in intervening, perhaps it should run it." Fortunately I think we have enough people out there who are willing to continue this volunteer aspect, but they are mighty unhappy about the application of the GST to their area. I just choose that as one specific area.

I think we can anticipate that there will be the possibility that the Bank of Canada may raise interest rates sharply to combat inflation which would result from the GST. The governor of the Bank of Canada is preoccupied with inflation. Whether one agrees or disagrees with him, he is preoccupied with that and therefore he has raised the interest rates, the purpose of which, he says, is to combat inflation.

If we see more inflation generated by the GST, if we see those increases in prices as a result, if we see wages attempting to chase those prices, we anticipate that the governor of the Bank of Canada then would be interested in raising interest rates once again. That has already had a devastating effect on Ontario and certainly much of Canada.

That is an ill-conceived policy, in our view, though I see that Sinclair Stevens, a former minister of the crown, has suggested that one of the reasons we have high interest rates is an unwritten part of the agreement on free trade with the United States, that unwritten part being that we will keep our dollar high, and keep interest rates high as a result, in order that we do not gain an advantage in our dealings with the United States.

Just one figure I would mention to members of the House who may not be aware is that when I visited a pulp and paper company in Thunder Bay at one time to look at the operation, I asked, "What is the effect of one cent on the dollar, when the dollar goes up one cent as compared to the American dollar?" It was suggested that it was a $17-million cost to that company and of course ultimately to jobs in this particular province.

We see that devastating effect of the GST. We see that it is a tax which is very much opposed by people in our country. Some people are saying that they do not want any taxes raised, they want government to cut. Others are saying, "We would like you to establish priorities and, if there are taxes to be increased, those taxes should be fairly assessed on people instead of ramming through the GST."

I could go into some of the details of this -- the former Attorney General would want me to -- but I will be a bit restrained because I would like to get to what I see as the action of this government related to the GST. I well recall during the election campaign and previous to that, because I have had the privilege of sitting in this House for some 13 years. I have had the opportunity to listen to the gentleman who is now the Premier of Ontario. Indeed he made some compelling arguments in opposition. In some cases the government of the day was prepared to accept them and in some cases it was not.

Listening to some of these compelling arguments, for instance, I was convinced that Consumers' Gas should not fall into foreign hands. I remember, I think it was back in March, the Premier of Ontario saying on that occasion that the government of the day should never allow this to happen. And there were a lot of people out there who were among the Waffle division of the NDP in years gone by who, I think, looked to an NDP government to be economically nationalistic and to protect us from foreign intervention in terms of increased foreign ownership of something as basic as energy in this province.

But of course when faced with the so-called realities of office, the Premier decided that he would take another course of action and allow Consumers' Gas to fall into foreign hands. Those of us who were hopeful that he would lead the crusade against that when he became Premier, when he had the power, when he had the opportunity, were somewhat disappointed that he did not do so.

Looking at what had happened, we remembered as well the Varity Corp, the fact that there was a danger that it might go to the United States after all the federal and provincial money that was provided. Now, I had heard the Premier and me