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

December 11, 1990

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANTI-DRUG STRATEGIES

Mr Beer: I want to tell the House today about an innovative drug awareness program sponsored by the York Regional Police Force together with the Newmarket Saints Hockey Club.

The York Regional Police have been active for the past number of years working with young people in schools to combat the spread of drugs. Their excellent program Say No To Drugs sends police officers into the classrooms to talk to students at the senior elementary level about values, influences and peers, their VIP program.

This year they are building on the interest of young people in collecting hockey cards. I am sure many of us collected hockey cards when we were young and this activity is still of interest today.

Anyone under 16 years of age in York region can collect 28 hockey cards from members of the York Regional Police or from the Newmarket Saints box office. When they have collected the first 12 cards, they can obtain a free collector's book, such as the one I am holding in my hand, at the Newmarket Saints box office. Inside the booklet is a place to attach each picture collected and under each picture is information about drug abuse.

I want to commend the York Regional Police Force and the Newmarket Saints Hockey Club for this informative and innovative program.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr J. Wilson: My statement is directed to the Minister of Education. I would like the minister today to rethink her government's plans to cut back its funding to Georgian College in Barrie.

The minister should be made aware that there is also a Georgian College campus in my riding in the town of Collingwood. If the Collingwood campus of Georgian College is forced to close or cut back services because of this government's shortsightedness, then workers will have no place to go to receive the education and skills development they need and want.

When will the government wake up to the reality that exists in Collingwood? A third of the town's workforce has been confined to the unemployment rolls because of industrial layoffs. If jobs cannot be found and the province is denying the option of education and retraining, what is left for workers? The skills development and retraining programs are needed to ensure that young adults are trained to find their rightful place in the workforce so they do not have to rely on government handouts.

It is about time this government did something for Collingwood to offset the traumatic effects this recession is having. At the very least I want the minister to assure this House there will be no cutbacks at Georgian College, and at the same time I want the NDP government to sharpen its collective pencil and offer assistance to get the town of Collingwood back on its feet.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Drainville: I speak today as a member of the provincial Parliament and as a Canadian citizen over my concern about the growing estrangement between the federal government and the various provincial governments in Canada.

Our nation seems to be in a state of suspended animation. As the recession deepens, as the destructive policies of the Conservative government continue to divide this country, region against region and citizen against citizen, we are finding it most difficult to communicate with each other about issues that need our common support. Fragmentation and chaos seem to characterize our current relationships.

Let me say to members that we must endeavour in the months ahead to begin to dream a new dream of Canada and to make this dream a reality. We must begin to build a Canada whose system of government is flexible enough to allow for regional economic, linguistic and cultural differences, a Canada that will foster consensus and unity on questions that affect our people as a whole.

As we enter a new year we should look for ways to work together to end this constitutional crisis that has been forced upon us by the federal government and look towards the day when all Canadians will be proud of the unity we experience and live out in our daily lives.

NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE FRANCHISE

Mr Chiarelli: I rise today on behalf of the people of Ottawa-Carleton to express jubilation at the return of NHL hockey to our nation's capital. Ottawa's "Bring back the Senators" bid has indeed brought back the Senators.

Ottawa has a tradition of hockey excellence. The original Senators won nine Stanley Cups, third only to the Montreal Canadiens and the Toronto Maple Leafs. The people of Ottawa are prepared to again support an NHL franchise. Hockey is Canada's national game and the nation's capital is hockey country. The people of eastern Ontario have already proved their support by purchasing close to 15,000 non-refundable season tickets even before a franchise was awarded.

The economic benefits that eastern Ontario will enjoy are equally encouraging: some 4,100 person-years of employment during the construction phase alone and close to 5,000 permanent full-time and part-time positions when the new Ottawa Palladium and commercial complex is completed, all without one penny of government investment.

Our congratulations and thanks go out to Dr Bruce Firestone, Cyril Leeder, Randy Sexton and the entire Terrace team who put in the thousands of hours required to make this dream a reality. Given such dedication and professionalism, it is my strong feeling that soon the CBC, or what is left of it, will have to change the name of its feature Saturday night program to Hockey Night in Kanata.

NUCLEAR POWER

Mr Jordan: When the members opposite came to power they thought they had the answers. Now that they are on the government side of the House, they are not too sure about what it means to be a New Democrat. They have two R-words over there: recycle and review. They either recycle Liberal programs and legislation or they review past Liberal decisions.

In the Ministry of Energy it has been review. First, they failed to live up to their promise to stop any further nuclear power development in Ontario by allowing the environmental assessment review of Ontario Hydro's demand-supply plan to continue, despite the fact that it has a large nuclear component. When the Environmental Assessment Board makes its decision, the Minister of Energy has said she will review it and then she will decide whether or not nuclear power has a future in Ontario.

Before they were on the government side of the House, the New Democrats steadfastly opposed the sale of tritium for peaceful purposes. They did not even want to transport it along the highways of this province. Now the government is reviewing its own policy on tritium sales and has said it will not even worry about the five grams of tritium already delivered to a company in Peterborough. This government is having an identity crisis and it is not sure which R-word to use next.

KEN BLACK

Mr Waters: First, Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on being the first elected Speaker of the House. That in itself is an historic occasion.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the previous member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay. Ken Black was first elected as a member of the Legislature in 1987. In August 1988 the then Premier, David Peterson, appointed Mr Black to a one-man task force to study and make recommendations on the illegal use of drugs in Ontario. Mr Black was appointed Minister of Tourism and Recreation and minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy in August 1989. Mr Black's educational background and community involvement put him in good stead for his legislative responsibilities.

Ken and I have known each other personally for a number of years. He was my physical education teacher at Bracebridge and Muskoka Lakes Secondary School, more years ago than I care to remember. Ken went on to be superintendent of the Muskoka Board of Education. In this regard, I know very well his commitment to education and the youth of the community. He spent his entire life working with young people, and his concern with their futures did not end on 6 September.

I would like to close by saying thank you to Ken Black for his commitment and effort to the constituents he represented in this Legislature.

RENT REGULATION

Ms Poole: This morning I attended a rally in front of Queen's Park. There were hundreds of people there: unemployed workers who have been laid off because of the Minister of Housing's new legislation, representatives from the renovation trades and construction firms who may have to shut down businesses because of the minister's policy, and small landlords who face bankruptcy.

They are angry and frustrated that the minister introduced his legislation with no consultation and no thought as to the chaos it is creating in the housing market.

I am a tenant advocate and I have deep concerns about this bill. Just as affordability of rents is important to tenants, so is the maintenance and care of their buildings; but what the minister has done is to use a sledgehammer just to solve a problem that he has admitted is caused by a few landlords.

The minister talks about massive rent increases, and I do agree with him that a 195% rent increase is reprehensible. I fought tenants having to pay for luxury renovations and the flipping of buildings, but at the same time, of all the units that have gone to rent review, only 5.7% received increases over 20%.

Why is the minister not dealing with those problems? Why is he not dealing with the abusers of the system instead of penalizing everyone? I hope the minister will take this into account when he is formulating his revisions to this legislation.

HUNTING LICENCE FEES

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources and it concerns the cost of hunting licences in Ontario, which are scheduled to increase by an average of 5% on 1 January 1991. The minister is no doubt aware that a resident small game licence will rise to $6.50, that a resident moose licence will increase to $26.50 and that a resident deer licence will be hiked to $20.25.

I have no problem with an average 5% increase in hunting licence fees, but I am concerned that this increase will happen automatically without any financial accounting being undertaken to inform the public about how such revenue is generated from these fees and how the money is spent.

The minister's predecessor began a fishing licence program with the understanding that all revenues generated would be used for conservation and stocking of our rivers and lakes with fish, but that money ended up in general revenues and has never been used for the intended purposes.

Many sports people that I have talked to want to see a system established whereby one adult moose tag would be allocated to each licensed hunt camp in Ontario. The minister should establish such a system and provide a financial accounting now, before the hunting licences are increased on 1 January.

EDUCATION OF DISABLED

There were several representatives who will be going on to the International Human Rights Conference this week. This book, Human Rights in Canada, sets up the agenda for the 1990s so that the disabled community can have full participation in society.

To become accessible we need to provide assistive devices that will give them the opportunity. I think all levels of government -- municipal, provincial and federal -- should be concerned about making their programs accessible so that we can reduce the barriers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN

Hon Mr Laughren: In the February 1990 federal budget, the federal government limited growth in Canada assistance plan, or CAP, entitlements to 5% for the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia in 1990-91 and 1991-92.

As many members know, the government of British Columbia referred the federal action to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba intervened in the British Columbia challenge out of concern that this federal retreat from federal-provincial CAP cost-sharing agreements could undermine the validity of all existing and future fiscal arrangements and cost-sharing agreements.

On 15 June 1990 the British Columbia Court of Appeal declared that the federal government did not have the authority to override the requirement of one year's notice in terminating federal-provincial CAP cost-sharing agreements.

Today the Supreme Court of Canada is scheduled to hear the federal government appeal of the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision. Again, Ontario is intervening.

Current estimates indicate that Ontario could lose $310 million in respect of 1990-91 and a further $510 million in respect of 1991-92 as a result of the federal 5% limit on growth in Ontario's CAP entitlements.

The Canada assistance plan has helped to support Ontario social assistance benefits for almost 590,000 recipients, including more than 250,000 children. Limits on cost-sharing deny federal assistance to individuals, families and children in need. National programs should not be permitted to discriminate against individuals based on their place of residence.

Attempts by the federal government to transfer responsibilities on to the provinces have not been confined to the areas of welfare assistance and child care. The overall cost to the government of Ontario of these federal actions has been estimated at $5.5 billion for this year and next. About 95% of this amount represents federal transfer payments associated with critical services such as health care, post-secondary education, welfare and child care.

In 1990-91 and 1991-92, Ontario will receive $4.4 billion less under established programs financing, or EPF, with respect to health care and post-secondary education than the federal government was to have provided under the formula set in 1977. Five unilateral federal actions since 1982 have resulted in ongoing losses to Ontario under EPF, so that federal contributions now cover less than 35% of health care and post-secondary education spending in Ontario. That is down from a high of 52% back in 1979-80.

In the most recent move to limit EPF payments to the provinces, the 1990 federal budget froze per capita EPF entitlements for 1990-91 and 1991-92, resulting in anticipated losses to Ontario of some $320 million this year and $570 million next year. The provinces are being asked to provide uncompromised service with eroding federal support.

In addition to these, the federal government has undertaken wide-ranging cuts affecting many of the programs previously the foundation of fiscal federalism and the very nature of our Confederation. Federal measures aimed at transferring expenditures or responsibilities have included the following: terminating or refusing to renew existing cost-sharing agreements; changing program criteria to restrict provincial spending eligible for federal cost sharing; and placing ceilings on spending on direct federal programs.

Among the programs affected have been cost-sharing for young offenders, with federal transfer shortfalls in Ontario of $28 million over 1990-91 and 1991-92; non-profit housing, where federal cutbacks amount to $50 million over the two years; and forestry funding under economic and regional development agreements, with cutbacks of some $30 million.

These federal actions have damaged the country. Through this court case and in other forms we will continue to voice the strong objections of the people of Ontario.

RESPONSES

CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN

Mr Elston: I have listened with interest to the member for Nickel Belt, now Treasurer of Ontario, and I really wonder why he is bringing this statement to the House today. I know it is important news that the Supreme Court of Canada will deliberate, but our national press service, such as it is now under the guidance of the federal Tory government, will tell us all about what the Supreme Court of Canada does or does not do with this. This material is not news at a time when the people of Ontario need real action, real leadership from this government.

We are suffering, even if you just go to the debates which have been held here in this House, from a real series of devastating layoffs about which the government of the day has done nothing. They had made promises and when the member for Hamilton East was in his place here in opposition he made statements about how he was going to cure the ills of the economic world in favour of the working person of the province. He has done nothing except squirm in his seat as we have asked him to respond to the needs of the unemployed and those people who have seen their companies moving south of the border. He has squirmed.

The member from Toronto who is the Minister of Community and Social Services has in fact never responded seriously to a timetable of implementing another stage of the Social Assistance Review Committee reform. There has been nothing to tell the people who were interested during the election about the new plan for interest assistance for mortgage holders, for people who would be home owners. Nothing has come through.

There are more studies than even we as a government had, and some would say that we had far too many. But each day as each minister stands in his or her place, he or she responds by saying: "We have taken it under advisement. We have discovered a new concept -- consultation." They are not responding with any real news.

Where is the member for Hastings-Peterborough, the Minister of Agriculture and Food? When he returns from the international discussions, where is his program to assist the agricultural community at a time when things are becoming more devastatingly serious? Where in this announcement are the results of the deliberations of this government over the past three months now as it tries to bring forward some real response to the agricultural community, which really needs help?

How can the Treasurer stand in his place today and bring this little information to us? Most of this information is already a matter of public record. All of the cutbacks by the federal government were well documented under the auspices of the former Treasurer and even under the auspices of former ministers of the government as we wrestled with the delays in funding at the federal level and the real cutbacks.

That was never good enough for those people when they were in opposition, but today they have the courage, through the Treasurer standing in his place, to tell us all of these details while the province goes wanting. I cannot understand this inaction. It is not necessary that he tell us this today. He should be telling us about the details of his program for interest assistance to home owners. He should be telling us about the details for assistance to the farm community.

He should tell us about assistance for the people of Elliot Lake, and he should tell us about assistance for the people in the forestry industry who need that more now than they have in the last several years. Yet he has not responded.

If the Treasurer were being upfront about all of the things he was expecting to receive or not to receive in terms of economic reimbursement from Ottawa, perhaps he could tell us about the estimated $500 million in excess revenue which is coming. In fact, rumour has it that there may even be as much as $750 million coming which was not projected. But he has not actually decided to tell us about that. He should tell us about that, and he should tell us about concrete plans to gear up the construction industry so that it can take projects off the shelf and put them into real activity now in Ontario, because men, women and children in this province need the government's leadership.

At a time when they are looking for leadership, the Treasurer has given us this. This is not acceptable. The leadership the government was elected to give has not come about. I know the members are new and I know they have to find their way around this place, and that is important, but they had real plans in August and September 1990; they were elected with real plans. They were elected with immediate plans, and the Premier has taken them back. In fact, the Premier is now sitting in his place comfortably and cosily talking to his buddies while people in the province need his help.

Mr Stockwell: The statement cuts at what I believe to be a broader issue, that is the downloading of governments to other levels of government: more senior levels of government's commitments to programs, commitments to ideas, then obviously backing out.

If in fact this is the position of the provincial government, then I look forward to certain commitments to municipalities, where downloading was practised for the past five years. I have not heard any comments about them. I will give the members a couple of ideas about what the municipalities would certainly like to hear them speak about.

Maybe when the government issued this statement about those terrible federal people, it could then have announced that it would re-accept the cost of supplying court security, the millions of dollars it is costing municipal taxpayers. The government cannot have it both ways. If it is going to wail and complain when its financing gets cut off, it cannot go around cutting off municipal financing.

Waste disposal, pay equity, education, for goodness' sake -- we can talk about heritage language, classroom size, junior kindergarten. Maybe we can talk about those kinds of programs the government will be prepared to pick up in the next little while after it finishes bashing the federal government for doing exactly what provincial governments have been doing for the past five years.

If the government's commitment is in place, if its commitment is true, then maybe it should stand by its principles. If this is fundamentally wrong, if this is fundamentally flawed, then so are the processes and programs that were instituted which cut the legs from under municipal government. Some municipal governments were looking at 25% and 30% increases. If that is the case, then what is good for this government should also be good for the municipalities.

Employer health tax: the 4,000 fewer beds in this province are probably very indicative with respect to provincial cutbacks. The federal government is taking the position that there has to be a reduction in spending. The provincial NDP cannot tell me about the terrible high interest rates when we can tie it to debt. It is nearly directly tied to the debt. And the provincial government cannot tell me that on the one hand it wants the federal government to increase funding to it and increase spending, and then on the other hand that it wants to retire the debt and so it cannot lower interest rates. It cannot have it both ways. It has to be consistent.

The government also has to be consistent with the municipalities. The Treasurer cannot keep cutting the funding off to these people and not give them their transfer payments.

Hon Mr Laughren: Consistency should start with you, my friend.

Mr Stockwell: For somebody who should be listening, the Treasurer talks a lot. I remember he corrected me that way.

The Treasurer cannot cut the legs out from under those people and complain when the federal government does the same to him.

An Agenda for People promised a lot of initiatives and programs. None of them have been instituted fully to the extent that Agenda for People called for. They have not been instituted fully because the government realizes it has some financial problems. Standing in this House today bashing and whining about the federal government as they did in opposition is not going to resolve the issues the people of this province have with the provincial NDP. Outstanding commitments include billions of dollars to the taxpayers.

If the government is not prepared to institute them it should say so, but it should not come before us today bashing the federal government for transfer payments, for the high interest rates, for the GST and for all those other things when it is not prepared to offer anything to the people of this province in the way of help or assistance -- nothing.

The government is not prepared to stick by its campaign promises. It is not prepared to go to the municipalities and say, "We'll pick up all that downloading that was done in the last five years." What is it prepared to do? Sitting here bashing levels of government and telling us about the concerns it has is not serving the public in the province of Ontario.

If I were asking the Treasurer to make a statement, the statement would be whether he is going to institute An Agenda for People, whether he is going to institute his new economic policy, whether he is going to start his Fair Tax Commission. He should start his Fair Tax Commission, deal with the duplication of public service and deal with the duplication to the taxpayers, because the taxpayers do not care who takes the money from them. You can have three levels of government, but there is one taxpayer. Whether they take it from the right pocket, the left pocket or the hip pocket, it matters not, because all of them are taking and the taxpayers are fed up.

ADVERTISING BY MEMBERS

Mr J. Wilson: I rise on a point of privilege. I have with me today a copy of the 12 November issue of the Guelph Mercury. On page 3A, in the centre of the page, we see a photo of the inside of the constituency office of the NDP member for Guelph. In that photo we have a group of members of the Guelph and District Labour Council, and they are preparing signs which are clearly political in nature. In fact, one of the signs right here mentions one of the political parties. I feel this is an abuse of the taxpayers' money, Mr Speaker, and it is inappropriate to use a constituency office for partisan purposes. I would ask that you deal with this matter and rule on it and report back to the House.

The Speaker: If the member for Simcoe West would forward the information, I will be most pleased to look into it and I will respond back to him as quickly as I can.

VISITORS

The Speaker: All members of the House may wish to welcome to our chamber this afternoon two former members of the House, George McCague from Simcoe West and Doug Wiseman from Lanark-Renfrew.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

I wonder if the Premier could indicate what he means by an open and non-political approach and when we can hear the structure in which we might all participate in the very near future.

Hon Mr Rae: I hope I will be able to meet with the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party later this week. I hope it can be done as soon as that. I hope to be in a position to make a statement to the House before we adjourn next week. I look forward to those discussions and I look forward to the House and other institutions in the province being involved.

Mr Nixon: I appreciate the reiteration of the promise to consult with the leaders of the opposition parties. He may have forgotten his previous situation where, as Leader of the Opposition, there was a rumour that he did not always speak for every member of his party. I do not think any secret would be divulged if I said there are a variety of views in our party on how this consultation should take place. I would suggest to him that it is not sufficient consultation, although I appreciate his offer to speak to me and to my friend and colleague the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Would he not think that a truly open approach to this might be for him to put forward a resolution that could be debated, maybe in a evening session or something like that, as there are very few days apparently left in this fall session before we adjourn for a time?

While consultation with the two leaders might be sufficient in his view, I would express on behalf of my colleagues their desire to participate right from the beginning in how the structure might become established, and that we should do this without delay, because the rest of the provincial and Canadian world is rapidly moving on while we are polishing our glasses.

Hon Mr Rae: The Leader of the Opposition has again used a metaphor which I have used myself and I appreciate the fact that he is using it.

I hear the suggestion. It is an interesting one which I would like to discuss with the House leader, because there are some questions about what House business is going to look like over the next seven days. I am very open to the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition and I sincerely hope that something can be arranged.

Mr Nixon: I believe it was announced over the last day or two that Manitoba has established a so-called blue ribbon committee to review this matter and report to the government and, I presume, through the government to the Legislature and people of that province.

Perhaps the most significant thing is that the Bélanger-Campeau commission is well into this and mobilizing the opinions of the province of Quebec, while there seems to be a certain timorous approach by the fearless leader of the New Democratic government. It is not clear what is restraining him because he may well recall, in an address to this House not many months ago, that people on all sides responded to his rather clear review of the situation as it then was, pre-Meech, with a standing ovation. I even participated, much against my better judgement when I think back.

The Premier must surely put aside his timorous approach to this and assert his leadership of the majority in this House, move forward in spite of the reactionary pressures that are exerted upon him. give some leadership and allow the House and the people of the province to proceed. Does he not agree?

Hon Mr Rae: Yes, I do.

The Speaker: Before entertaining a second question -- this chamber is obviously popular today -- we also have another former member, Cliff Pilkey, a former member for Oshawa.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Kwinter: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Exactly one year ago, the GATT council adopted the report of a GATT panel formed at the request of the United States. The panel ruled that Canada's import restrictions on certain products are inconsistent with

article XI of the GATT.

The minister has just returned from leading Ontario's delegation to the GATT. Could he tell us what progress he made in addressing the problems with

article XI?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I thank the member for the question. Ontario is well satisfied with the circumstances that related to

article XI at the recent GATT talks, the Uruguay round.

As I mentioned to the House yesterday, I was pleased to have in my delegation there the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who did a very commendable and excellent job not only in advance of the round with his meetings with the agricultural industry representatives but also at the round itself. I want to thank him publicly for that.

The province of Ontario, as members know, attended those talks in a subnational setting, the federal government of course having the prime responsibility to represent this nation at the green rooms at those GATT talks. We were very successful in having

article XI maintained in the agricultural policy to help protect supply management and those who benefit from that supply management program, the Ontario farmers.

That circumstance was maintained in the Canadian package even though there were other provinces that were not pleased with that. They would like to have seen them removed, but it was necessary for the benefit of Ontario agriculture that the management supply

article be left intact. It was left intact when the round began, it was intact when the round was suspended.

It will be our position, as we meet later in the year with the federal Minister for International Trade, John Crosbie, to maintain that position for the benefit of Ontario interests, and we believe we will be able to continue to do so.

Mr Kwinter: The minister certainly does not understand the problem. The problem is that we do not want

article XI maintained. To state that he is satisfied that it is maintained goes contrary to what Ontario's and Canada's position is. Just to remind the minister, who has just gone to Brussels,

article XI deals with a ruling that was made about yoghurt and ice cream and possibly cheese. We, as a province, are opposed to it.

For the minister to stand in his place and say that he has gone to Brussels and he is happy with that means that he was not really there in any kind of meaningful way.

If, as the minister says, he is happy with what is happening with regard to

article XI, what is he going to do to ensure that the dairy industry is not going to be decimated, which is what will happen if the

interpretation under the present ruling of the GATT panel is upheld? What is he going to do about it?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I understand the

article quite well, contrary to what the former minister has said. It is very important, and was very important, for us to maintain that

article in the interests of supply management for the agricultural community here in Ontario.

It is true that there have been

interpretations of that

article under the former GATT provisions that have allowed some seepage and some escape into the areas that the member mentions. It has been our role and our task to try to close those gaps and those circumstances where those exports have been able to flow into Canada and Ontario, and that is our position as well.

The member tries in some kind of cute way to steer away to a secondary issue and detract from the primary comment on the main issue of supply management that I mentioned. But I can assure him, as I think he well knew before he asked the question, we also, in both ministries, are aware of that seepage and are trying to correct that circumstance through our trade representative, John Crosbie.

Mr Kwinter: Just so we can clarify the situation, a year ago today the GATT council accepted the ruling of a GATT panel that said Canada's stand on

article XI is not in keeping with its

interpretation of what it is. We as a province and we as a country have been very unhappy with that stand, because if it is allowed to stay as it is -- and the minister has just said that he is happy with its staying as it is -- it will destroy supply management. That is exactly the point I was making, that unless he can strengthen the

interpretation, unless he can adjust it to accommodate supply management and crop insurance and some of the other things we do, we are going to destroy the crop management system in Ontario.

Can the minister tell me now that he can ensure that supply management will remain as it is now during the final negotiations and afterwards? Can he assure us of that?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Unless 107 countries in this world bestow upon me the single authority to write all the rules and regulations under the current Uruguay round, no, I cannot guarantee him that.

What I can guarantee him is that it will be the position of this ministry and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food to continue to urge the trade minister, John Crosbie, who represents this nation at those tables, to continue to protect

article XI in terms of supply management so that the farms and the farming families of this province will continue to be protected.

In terms of those areas where there is some slippage through milk byproducts, which the member referred to on ice cream and yoghurt, we have continued to urge that those loopholes be plugged. We want to ensure that, under the rules

section of GATT, those areas are strengthened and regulated to ensure that the very pitfalls the member indicates are in fact plugged. He should not confuse the fact of that slippage with our position on

article XI, though. I ask him to consider that perspective.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier. In light of the revelations in this morning's announcement that Metropolitan Toronto's secret list of 15 potential landfill sites includes the Rouge Valley as a potential mega-dump for Metro Toronto's garbage, will the Premier stand up in this House today and tell us whether he plans to live up to his party's promise and his own personal onsite commitment that there will be no dump in the Rouge Valley?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, let me say to the leader of the Conservative Party that the list, which is put forward by the group called Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee, is not a secret list. It is certainly not now a secret list, but it was not a secret list before. I tell the member very directly, there are absolutely no plans of any kind by this government to use the Rouge Valley as a dump, none at all.

Mr Harris: As the public has begun to realize, I believe, from politicians of all parties at all levels, there is a huge difference between "We have no plans" and, as he said in the campaign, "There will be no dump in the Rouge Valley."

The Premier says the list is not secret. I still have not seen it. Metro Toronto officials who wanted to release it have been told, as I understand, by either the Ministry of the Environment or officials: "That would be inappropriate. Please keep it secret so that we do not excite some of these municipalities that may have other expectations." I do not know why they would have those expectations, but perhaps they still remember the month of August and the commitments that were made by the Premier.

As opposed to having no plans, I wonder if he would answer the original question, which is to say, does he plan to live up to his personal promise that regardless of anything else, he now, as Premier of the province, can say with certainty there will be no dump in the Rouge Valley?

Hon Mr Rae: I will live up to the statements that I have made in the past. I state as clearly as I can to the leader of the third party with respect to the Rouge Valley, it has been declared a park by the previous administration --

Mr Elston: Hear, hear.

Hon Mr Rae: -- in answer to the interjection, a position which we fully supported and which was advocated with great eloquence by the member for Mississauga South. When she did so, she was speaking on behalf of all the members of the Legislature, I believe, in the efforts that she and others made with respect to the Rouge.

I do not know how I can be any clearer than I have been. I was asked specifically by the leader of the third party whether I abided by the statements that I had made in the past with respect to there not being a dump in the Rouge Valley. That is the statement that I am making today: No dump in the Rouge.

Mr Harris: I would say to the Premier, that was not so tough, what he said in August. However, there are 14 other sites on this secret list that the Minister of the Environment has asked to be suppressed, for what reason, we are not sure.

Specifically, I can recall the NDP in August -- that was the No Dump Party -- particularly in Marmora, Plympton and Scarborough, for example. Could the Premier repeat the promises he made that there would be no dump in the Rouge Valley and the personal commitment and promise he made this summer to Marmora, Plympton and Scarborough? Does he plan to live up to those commitments?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the question that has been put by the member has been answered on many occasions, and it has been answered very clearly by the Minister of the Environment as well as by others.

The first priority of this government is the reduction of waste, and that position has been advocated very strongly. I can tell the member we are now, as a government, allocating resources. We are now looking at exactly what is going to be required to carry out this tremendous task, and that is what we are doing.

The second thing I would say to the leader of the third party is that we are establishing a public authority which will be clearly publicly accountable. It is going to be established with a clear responsibility to finding a long-term site, and the clear statement has been made by this government that no long-term site will be established without environmental assessment and without a process of full accountability -- no long-term site in that regard. That has been made very clear by the government and that is our position.

Mr Harris: Small change in the answer to the supplementary from what there was to the first question.

Mrs Cunningham: No long-term.

Mr Harris: Oh, that was just no long-term dump in the Rouge. Maybe I should --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: No, no.

Mr Harris: I understand.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Harris: I have a question. I am not sure we have really cleared up what I wanted to clear up, but I am not sure 10 more questions are going to do it either, so I will go to the Minister of Housing.

This afternoon, two weeks before Christmas, I bring him greetings from over 15,000 workers of this province, many of whom stopped by in person, who have been directly affected by the minister's very ill-conceived, I suggest, and unjust legislation.

The minister has example after example of workers who have been laid off as a result of his introduction of proposed retroactive legislation. These workers, I suggest to the minister, will be themselves facing a rather grim Christmas. I would like to know what the Grinch who stole housing has to say to these workers whose jobs were lost that were directly linked to the necessary maintenance and upkeep of Ontario's aging rental stock. What message does the minister have for them?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think the leader of the third party knows very well that the whole issue of rent regulation and protecting the affordable housing stock that exists in this province is a very difficult one indeed. I understand that. I understood it when I was in opposition and we understood it in the election. That is why, when we were in opposition and during the election and now that we are in government, we have brought forward proposals that will provide protection for tenants in this province.

I understand very clearly the member's point of view and the point of view of the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario, the large landlords in this province. The member's point of view and their point of view is that rent control should be abolished and that tenants should be left to have absolutely no protection for rents at all. That is not a point of view that I share. I think we have to provide protection.

Mr Harris: I think it is a pretty well established fact that Santa is not going to arrive on the roofs of a number of apartment buildings across this province this Christmas because there are so many roofs that cannot support even him and his eight tiny little reindeer because they are in need of repairs and apartments where he will not be able to slide down the chimney because the chimney is crumbling.

If Santa has problems, what about the thousands of tradespeople who have no jobs because of this government's shortsighted attempt to be all things to all people? They know their jobs have been stolen by the New Democratic Party, and the jobs that were stolen were not for luxury renovations. This seems to be the minister's only justification when we talk about this legislation. These are jobs that were for necessary repairs.

I have estimates that less than 2% of planned renovations could be classified as luxury or unnecessary, so the minister is throwing out 98% of the renovation jobs to correct a 1% or 2% problem. He is also destroying 98% of the homes of tenants to stop the 1% or 2% perhaps unnecessary or luxury renovations.

I wonder if the minister has any impact studies that show this is not the case, and if he does have any impact studies, if he would table them with the Legislature before we debate this legislation.

Hon Mr Cooke: I give the leader of the third party credit for his consistent point of view in wanting to eliminate rent regulation in the province; that has been his point of view for a long time. He refuses to recognize, as he has consistently that we had to bring in some type of protection because we were experiencing speculation and flips and unnecessary renovations that were resulting in tenants not receiving the kind of protection that we in this party and this government believe in.

The member has to understand, as he refuses to do, that if we had not brought in some improved type of rent regulation, he knows as well as I do that he would be standing up and the Liberal Party members would be standing up and saying, "Where is the protection for tenants?" There are tenants who are receiving 60%, 70% and 80% rent increases.

We have decided that type of rent regulation is necessary. We brought in a moratorium, and that is the position that we have taken. We do not agree with the member's point of view that there should not be rent control in thisprovince.

Mr Harris: I realize that the minister does not like to answer the question, and he likes to get into a whole host of other facts and suggestions and presumptions. What I am interested in is this: Why is the minister destroying the homes of 98% of the tenants in this province and the jobs of 98% of the renovation workers who are being thrown out of work with a sweeping, retroactive bill designed to protect the 1% or 2% of the renovations that can be deemed as unnecessary or luxury? That is the question that I want answered and that the people of this province and the 98% of the tenants do not understand.

Will the minister table the impact studies or, if he does not have them, will he admit that he has done no impact studies on the 98% or more of these homes that tenants are going to see deteriorate as a result of his legislation?

Hon Mr Cooke: I would say to the leader of the third party that it is that kind of rhetoric, the rhetoric that he is using and the rhetoric that is used by AFFORD, the Association for Furthering Ontario's Rental Development, and by large landlords in this province, that will not lead us to a permanent solution to this very important issue in this province.

I have put forward to the member through my House leader a proposal which we put to the landlords and the tenants of this province that would see the moratorium now and a proposal for the long-term legislation to come forward at the end of February so we can speed up the process and make sure the moratorium is as short as is absolutely necessary.

The member knows that this proposal is in front of him. If he wants to get the moratorium out of the way and get on with a long-term solution that will deal with capital, then let's get the bill out to committee and start dealing with the problem.

LANDFILL SITES

Mrs Sullivan: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. We have learned today that the minister and her officials have been in possession for several weeks now, since 14 November, of a list prepared by Metropolitan Toronto outlining 20 proposed sites to receive Metro garbage. We understand that when the minister learned this list was to be released, she or her officials directed Metro to keep the list under wraps.

There is a great deal of confusion in towns like Marmora, Plympton, Kirkland Lake, and indeed even in the Toronto area in Keele Valley and in Scarborough, that communities will be required to take Metro waste against their will.

The minister has promised that she will be open and aboveboard relating to any question on environmental issues with the people of Ontario. I am asking the question of this minister, will she lift the veil of secrecy and will she table in the House tomorrow the list of sites that Metro Toronto has prepared and that she has directed shall be kept under wraps?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am glad of an opportunity to be as clear as I possibly can about the process that is being undertaken by this government. Let me start by dealing with the list. The list of sites was prepared by Metropolitan Toronto. I think they called for proposals under the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee or SWISC process set up by the previous government. They got 89 responses and they have since been whittling that list down.

I am not in possession of nor have I seen the list to which the member refers, but I think we all know that since last spring there has been a long list of communities that have been concerned about the fact that Metro and the GTA were looking at their communities for a long-term site for waste disposal.

What this government has done is establish an integrated process of waste management. The member knows we are going to be dealing with waste reduction and reuse. We also are going to be setting up an authority that will build on the work that has been done by the existing regional municipalities and their co-ordinating committee and that will set in place the search for a long-term site.

Until that authority is set up, which will likely not be until the next sitting of this Parliament, I asked Metro and the regional municipalities to carry on and to keep their options open. They said, "Will we release the list of our preferred sites?" I rolled my eyes and said, "If you must." They now have decided they must.

My concern is that the authority that is going to be put in place will be the body that will be seeking the long-term site. That authority will establish the criteria and the conditions under which a site has been selected. The list to which the member refers is a list that is currently in the possession of Metropolitan Toronto and was the list that they had prepared under the previous process which was set in place by her government.

Mrs Sullivan: The minister did not answer the question about tabling the list. Clearly, it is in the possession of her officials. I also believe that the minister is creating enormous confusion with directions from her officials which are going to, for example, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, with her emergency action threats and with flip-flops. I will give some examples of that.

When in opposition, the minister advocated that Metro and the greater Toronto area should meet their garbage needs within their own boundaries. On 21 November the minister flip-flopped and absolved the GTA of any requirement to do so. On 4 December she and her government and the members on the back benches, some of whose communities are affected, voted against our party's resolution to require this. Today the Premier says the Rouge Valley will not have to take long-term waste. I can tell members what NDP means in terms of waste management issues; it means no damned plans.

I want to ask the minister if she will outline for this House her definition of a willing host, her definition of her commitment to the environmental assessment process, the relationship between her landfill siting authority and the solid waste environmental assessment plan of Metro and whether she will guarantee that the Rouge Valley will not have to accept landfill, not only in the long term, as the Premier has indicated, but in the short term as well.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me respond to the last part of the member's question. If the member will recall the statement I made in this House, of which she was very critical, it was that there were not going to be interim waste disposal sites for the greater Toronto area. That, I think, deals with the question at the end of her statement.

The plan that this government has is one that puts the environment first, and it puts the environment first by getting serious about waste reduction, waste reuse and waste recycling, something that the previous government was not prepared to do.

Second, our plan calls for an expedited process to find a long-term site for the garbage and putting that site under the environmental assessment process as opposed to taking shortcuts as our predecessors were going to do.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. As the minister knows, I have received and I am sure the minister has received many letters and telephone calls daily criticizing and expressing concerns about the Bill 4 that he is proposing, which is the rent control legislation. These retroactive provisions are seen by many, and not just the landlords, as unfair and inequitable as they effectively leave high and dry those who relied on the existing legislation and undertook renovations in good faith over the last summer.

Will the minister do the honourable thing and remove those retroactive provisions of Bill 4 which threaten so many of the small apartment owners with total ruin?

Hon Mr Cooke: I am sure the member knows that even under the proposal that is now before the Legislature, there will be 130,000 units in this province that will go through the rent review system under the old Liberal legislation. That is how many units. Over 10% of the private stock will still go through the old rent review system under the proposal we have put forward.

That means that 130,000 are going to face significant increases, and we are not able to protect them under our current legislation. So I would say to the member, if he is suggesting there should be changes to Bill 4 that would provide even less protection for tenants across this province, I do not share that point of view at all.

Mr Tilson: As the minister knows, I have asked for impact studies. He said he has them. I have written to him, I have telephoned him, and he will not give them to me. The leader has asked for supporting data behind this bill. We have not received any. My guess is that this information does not even exist.

Will the minister tell this House whether he has a legal opinion in support of the retroactive provisions of Bill 4 and, if not, will he make a reference to the courts to determine whether or not his legislation, especially the retroactive legislation, is even legal? I expect the minister is breaking the law with this legislation. Will the minister do that before someone else takes him to court and before committee hearings begin, so we can proceed on a sound legal footing?

Hon Mr Cooke: I am sure the member knows that the procedure in government is that any legislation that is brought forward to the Legislature is put through the Attorney General's office for an opinion to make sure that it is consistent with the Constitution and with laws in the province, just as any piece of legislation goes through the Attorney General's office.

My understanding is that is exactly what has happened with Bill 4. It has been routed through the Attorney General's office and the opinion is that the legislation is adequate under the Constitution of the country.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr Owens: My question is for the Treasurer. Will the vetting process that the Premier announced yesterday in this House slow down the establishment of the Fair Tax Commission, and will the proposed members of this commission have to undergo the vetting process?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I did not hear the last part of the member's question. Sorry.

The Speaker: Like the member for Nickel Belt, I was unable to hear the entire question either.

Mr Owens: Thanks to St Nicholas and his blue reindeers across the way.

The second part of the question is, will the members of this Fair Tax Commission have to undergo a vetting process under the rules that will be established by this new commission?

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the assistance of the member opposite. I appreciate the question. I do not anticipate that the rules or the plans laid down by the Premier yesterday will slow down at all the process of appointing the tax commissioners.

According to the guidelines outlined by the Premier, they will apply to order-in-council appointments as opposed to appointments that are at the initiative of a particular minister. It is my expectation that the tax commissioners will be appointed in this case by the Treasurer and that we will not be subjected to an order in council, and therefore vetting is laid out by the Premier.

Mr Owens: What then will be done to ensure that Ontarians have the best possible representation so that all sectors are represented on this commission?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member raises a good point, because we have been spending a considerable amount of time ensuring that the various sectors will be represented on the commission. We want to be sure first of all that there is appropriate gender representation on the commission. We want to ensure that there is regional representation. We want to ensure that the various sectors, including the business sector, the public sector and local government, are all represented on the commission. So we are working very hard to ensure that the commission itself is a representative one.

I am hopeful we will be able to make that announcement of the composition of the commission in the not-too-distant future.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

M. Ramsay: Aujourd'hui, j'ai une question pour le ministre des Richesses naturelles.

In this House on 17 May the minister, while in opposition, stated in reference to the budget of the day:

"There is a huge backlog of unregenerated cutover lands. These cutbacks mean much of them will remain unplanted. This will mean less timber for the mills of Ontario and increased unemployment across the north. Both governments, federal and provincial, must commit increased funding for forest management. These cutbacks threaten the future economic viability of the lumber and pulp and paper industries and communities dependent upon them for jobs."

Then in the throne speech the government stated:

"We believe in sustainable forestry, and are determined to see that our forests are regenerated."

So far we have seen in a concrete effort from this government only a 20% allocation of the $41 million put into capital works this winter towards silviculture and some forest inventory updates. We have not seen any change in policy and we have not see any new initiatives.

My question is, what specific items are on the ministerial agenda to solve the forestry problems that the members talked about while in opposition? What are those projects and what are the time lines?

Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciate the question from the member and I appreciate his concern for the future of our forests and the jobs in the one-industry towns that are dependent on those forests. He is quite correct in pointing out, as has been done in this House, the serious problems facing particularly the sawmill industry but also the pulp and paper industry.

This government is committed, as it stated in the throne speech, to sustainable forestry and to ensuring that we manage our forests in a way that takes into account all values -- particularly timber values, but the values of other types of habitat, fish and wildlife, the tourist industry, recreation -- and that we manage forests in an ecosystem approach.

We are currently developing proposals within the ministry for such an approach and moving towards consultation with various sectors. We have already been very much involved in consultation with the industry, with environmental groups and with labour to determine how we might proceed. I will be preparing a presentation for cabinet. We will be going to cabinet in the near future with a proposal for how we will implement our commitment in the throne speech and we will be making it public as soon as we can.

Mr Ramsay: I have been in contact also, as the minister has, with representatives of the industry and other interest groups in the province that share the minister's interest and mine in the forest, in the management of the total resource. But, as the minister will know, the previous government had some studies to be looking at in old growth and also the Pearse report. The previous minister allowed the new minister the discretion on when that report should be released, and I applaud the previous minister for doing that.

At the forestry industry breakfast which the minister attended last week, the industry was asking where the Pearse report was. We would like to see that consultation. The industry would like to see that discussion start. The industry would like to see some direction from this government.

Hon Mr Wildman: Again, I want to agree with my friend across the way about the co-operation of the previous minister. I appreciate her approach. I would say in response specifically to the question that the industry has sought direction from the government, particularly in relation to the fact that the previous government was unable to proceed with the forest management agreements and refused to proceed with forest management agreements over the last two years of its mandate because of the costs involved, and the industry, as I am sure as the member will agree, is looking at how that might be changed.

The industry has also specifically called for an audit, which is in line with the policy of this party, as the member will know since he was part of it at one time, and we are proceeding with the need for an audit so we can get a better picture of what exactly is the state of the forest. We will be able then to develop our forestry management plans in consultation with the industry, environmentalists, labour and the communities involved to ensure we have proper management.

In regard to the Pearse report specifically, I expect that will be released in due time as we release to the public our overall policy with regard to consultation and forest management.

FOOD BANKS

Mr Jackson: I have a question for the member for York South. The member is well documented on record, both as opposition leader and during the last election, with respect to his understanding of the problems associated with the perpetuation of food banks in this province.

The member was quite eloquent in his understanding of what contributes to institutionalized poverty and the traps that exist for far too many thousands of Ontario residents, and so it is not surprising that so many anti-poverty groups have been shocked and dismayed at the complete reversal of the Premier's position with respect to his approach to attacking institutionalized poverty.

My question has to do with why the Premier continued to even seek out headlines, such as one that appeared in the Toronto Star of 1 December which reads, "Rae Vows to End Food Banks." I would like to add again, that was on 1 December. In the Premier's own words, "Poverty is what drives people to food banks." The

article says he said that although speeding up the Social Assistance Review Committee process "might have less political sex appeal than throwing money at food banks, we recognize that it isn't the answer. We must deal with the structural problems that create and perpetuate poverty."

Why was the Premier saying that on 1 December, when his government is now funding food banks? They are now perpetuating poverty, by his own admission. They have gone with the sexier political appeal approach instead of attacking the structural problems of poverty in this province. Why has the Premier changed his position so dramatically?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the question from the always eloquent member for Burlington South. l can assure the member that there has been no change in our objective and the direction in which we are going in terms of speeding up the SARC review process. As a government, we have taken something that was clearly on the back shelf after the first round was approved by the Liberal government, and we have pulled it off the back shelf and said that we want to get moving on it, that we want to proceed. It is not easy in terms of our financial circumstances, and we all understand that, but we are determined to do the best we can.

With respect to the $1 million, the minister made it very clear yesterday that this $1 million can be used by a variety of food banks across the province. I would say to the honourable member for Burlington South that there are varying views with respect to the emergency situation in different parts of the province, that there are differing needs in the food bank community in different parts of the province and that there are differing views.

Therefore, it was the response of this government that we would set up a fund of $1 million which can be accessed by food banks and used for various purposes. That is the way in which it was put forward by the Minister of Community and Social Services. It can be used for advocacy. It can be used to get people the benefits they need and deserve. In some circumstances, in the Ottawa area, for example, and in some smaller communities where there is an immediate emergency in terms of access to food supplies, it can be used in that regard.

But the position of this government remains that the long-term approach, the medium-term approach where we are putting the vast majority of our resources right now as a government is in terms of the increase in welfare payments we announced and the increase in shelter supplements we announced. The direction of our policy is clearly to put money into the pockets of people to make sure they do not have to use food banks, and to respond to emergencies as and once we find them. That is the position of the government of Ontario.

Mr Jackson: The Premier referred to differing views. We do not have a differing view from the thousands of poor people in this province. We do not have a differing view from Thomson and the SARC members. We do not have a differing view from a whole host of volunteers who run food banks and whose goodwill we are exploiting in this province. The only differing view we are getting is from the Premier and the New Democratic Party of this province.

They were saying six short days ago, after one cabinet meeting, "Rae Vows to End Food Banks" to every one of those groups -- consistent in their message that this government has not changed its approach like any of the previous governments. The truth of the matter is --

Hon Mr Allen: Why did the national food bank close?

Mr Jackson: The member for Hamilton West knows there are elements of his own government's policy that betray his own dissenting report at the standing committee on social development. I will quote the member for Hamilton West. He said that "refusal to support such early action on these...crucial points leads us to conclude that the government has no intention of including any major new income support measures for the poor in the coming budget. To us that is intolerable." That was the position of the New Democratic Party before an election.

Finally, one point: With the Premier funding these, then my question is --

The Speaker: We may have a differing view on what constitutes a question. Could the member succinctly place a supplementary question.

Mr Jackson: My supplementary question to the Premier is simply this: Why did his political party sign a document objecting to the approaches taken in attacking poverty through food banks? Why did he include the statement, "To expect them to continue in that role is, in our view, an improper exploitation of community goodwill and voluntary resources"? Why is he perpetuating that with his policies instead of attacking the structural problems associated with poverty in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: I will try to say as briefly as I can to the honourable member that what we are doing is consistent with what we said we would do in opposition. It is not easy to do. Reforming the welfare system, getting people back to work and dealing with the problems of people who are disabled is not an easy job.

If the member reads the text of what I actually said in the Star

article from which he quoted, he will find that is exactly what I said in the Star article, that what I am saying in the Star

article is precisely the position this government has taken.

The position we are taking is that we are going to work with groups across this province. We are not pretending that it is going to be easy. We are going to respond to those groups all around the province, not just in Metropolitan Toronto. We are going to respond to groups in Hamilton. We are going to respond to groups in Ottawa that have been cut off because the previous government cut off emergency funding worth some $600,000, which required a great many of them to close and no longer provide help.

We are going to have to do that at the same time as we are going to have to deal with the long-term problem. That is what we are committed to doing. We were committed to doing it before the election and during the election, and now that we are the government we are committed to doing the very best job we can in that regard.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Morrow: My question is for the Minister of Labour. I know the minister has heard a lot of complaints about the poor service injured workers are getting from the Workers' Compensation Board. In my riding I hear constantly from injured workers who wait months for an answer to their claims and may suffer terribly as a result. What is the minister doing to try to resolve these unacceptable delays at the WCB in getting legitimate benefits paid to workers who have been injured on the job?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to tell the member and all members of this House that we are treating the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board with the utmost urgency in our ministry.

I want to emphasize that in our judgement the problem does not lie with the front-line workers at the board whose workloads are extremely heavy. I have recently met with the chairman of the board, the vice-chair and senior officials and we spent most of that meeting talking about the service problems that are emanating from the board. I came away from that meeting convinced that they sincerely want to resolve these problems as much as anyone, and they have begun a number of new initiatives that should help us in this matter. I will be monitoring what happens with these new initiatives on a regular basis.

Mr Morrow: I thank the minister for his assurances and I share his hope that we can get some quick improvements. Does the minister know if any of these new initiatives by the board involve the hiring of some more staff? Surely this is a problem. There are not enough adjudicators.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am told by the board that the telephone inquiry staff has more than doubled in the past two months. They also told me there are efforts to hire even more. They are also hiring more adjudication personnel as quickly as they can find the qualified personnel.

The member will also know that the WCB is an independent agency, not controlled by the ministry directly, and we cannot tell them when to put in phones or additional personnel. We think the board should resolve its own problems and we believe that the top management, the new direction and the new board that will be hired shortly will see to it that the priority at the Workers' Compensation Board is resolving the adjudication problems.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Cordiano: I have a question of the Minister of Citizenship. On 26 November the Minister of Citizenship issued a press release in response to her government's throne speech. In that release the minister noted that her ministry was perfectly positioned to take the lead in securing an employment equity piece of legislation that would be brought forward.

The minister went on to promise that there would be more in the coming weeks. Yesterday in this House the Premier announced his intention to appoint an employment equity commissioner. The real issue is, when will the minister bring forward employment equity legislation? It has been some time since that announcement was made, since her intention was made known. I would like to know what specific timetable will be put in place by the minister to bring forward legislation.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I thank the member very much for the question. I too share his concerns about the urgency. As he knows, there is an urgency for employment equity in this province. We recognize that need. We also recognize that to be able to make sure we have a good employment equity plan in place, one that works well, we need to have a commissioner in place. That commissioner will be announced very shortly.

Mr Cordiano: It is very interesting indeed to note the transformation that takes place when one goes from opposition to government. I might remind the current minister of this document, Bill 172, which in case she forgets, outlined the initiatives to put forward a broadly representative workforce by eliminating discrimination against women, disabled people, natives and other visible minorities.

That was put forward by the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Premier. In case she forgets, he wrote the bill; it is quite detailed, quite specific, with timetables, agendas and a number of relevant facts that will lead to employment equity. I would like to ask the minister again, when will she put forward this piece of legislation? If it was good enough for the Leader of the Opposition when he was in opposition, why is it not good enough for her leader when he is the Premier in government today?

Hon Ms Ziemba: This is a very good question. I thank the member very much for his question. I also would like to be a little bit rhetorical, but I will not be because the Liberals also put forth employment equity four times in an announcement. We will be putting forth our employment equity plan. When we do, it will be a good employment equity plan. It will reflect the Premier's bill and we also will have this plan in place very quickly, before our mandate is over.

ZEBRA MUSSELS

Mr McLean: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister is no doubt aware that this past summer the former government promised quick action to deal with the threat of zebra mussels. An interministerial committee was set up and a strategy was put in place, in conjunction with research, and there was a budget of about $8 million. What happened to the report of this interministerial committee and what happened to the minimum $8 million that was set aside for that?

Hon Mr Wildman: I am particularly concerned about the effects of zebra mussels and the potential effects they could have for the future of the fishery in the Great Lakes, particularly Lake Erie. As they have moved into the other Great Lakes and have been identified in other harbours throughout the lakes system, and as we see the possibility of the zebra mussels moving into inland lakes, the possible effects on the sport fishery as well as on commercial fishing in the Great Lakes could be devastating.

The member is correct that there is an interministerial committee that has been working to develop a strategy for government. Some of the main thrusts of that strategy have been to try to educate the public to ensure that they will take measures required to protect their boats, their vessels, working to deal with the effects on water intakes, whether it be municipal water intakes or utilities and so on to ensure that those can be protected, and developing new avenues for scientific research as to how we can eventually control, if not eradicate the problem.

The report has not been finalized, but I will follow this up and report back to the member as soon as possible as to when the report will be published.

PETITION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Mathyssen: I have a petition from 20 members of the Presbyterian Church of Canada asking the members of the Legislative Assembly to retain a common pause day. I have signed my name to this petition.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Jackson from the standing committee on estimates presented the following report:

Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday 6 December 1990, the report of the committee is deemed to be received and the estimates of the ministries and offices named therein as not being selected for consideration by the committee are deemed to be concurred in.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HOUSE SITTINGS / HEURES DE SÉANCE

Miss Martel moved government notice of motion 7:

That, notwithstanding standing order 9, the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19 and 20 December 1990, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

Hon Miss Martel: The motion we are moving today is patterned after motions that have been moved by the previous government on two occasions. The first was last fall, in the session of 1989, when the government House leader at that point moved that we sit, and we ended up sitting Wednesday 13 December, Monday 18 December, Tuesday 19 December and Wednesday 20 December. Second, in the spring session of the year 1990 the government House leader moved the same motion and agreed that we should sit eight sessional days. As it turned out, on only two of those occasions did the House in fact sit beyond the extended time.

I believe the memo I have given to both House leaders outlining the business we would like to move in the next two weeks is business that this House can in fact complete. We do not believe there is anything onerous in what we have suggested. We have asked both the House leaders to give us an idea of what time they would need on different bills, such as the rent review bill, for example, and how many speakers they would have. What we would like to do, given that we know a number of speakers from both the opposition parties would like to speak on rent review, is allow as much time as we possibly can during the night sittings for that to occur.

We also know, for example, that although we have been told previously that the official opposition would put up speakers for no more than two days on the GST, on Bill 1, in fact that has been extended and there are more members who wish to speak to that. So we are moving that tonight we would allow those members from the official opposition who have not yet spoken on this bill to do that. We hope that in this way all the people, the 10 people from the official opposition who want to speak on rent review and the at least 15 people from the Tory party who want to speak on the rent review, will all be accommodated. That is the reason for moving the motion.

I have also told both the House leaders that pursuant to the agenda we have set out, we would like to finish the business on each of the days. If we finished at 7, 6:15, 8 o'clock, then we would adjourn the House and we would not proceed with any other new motions.

We have said as well that if both parties want to continue to deal with rent review, even though we have finished the business of that day, then, as the government, we would certainly allow that to proceed.

That is the reason for the motion. I say again that we do not feel it is onerous in any way, shape or form. We hope, as has happened with the last two governments when this was moved by the former government House leader, that we will not have to sit every night and that we will deal with the business of the day each day.

Mr Elston: It is an interesting adventure upon which we are embarking at this particular time. We have been in this Legislature now since 19 November, first to carry on with the election of the Speaker. This government was first notified that it was to take power on 6 September, and we were presented in very short order -- at, I think, our first House leaders' meeting -- with the list of must-have bills which were seen by those people on the other side of the House to be non-contentious.

Some of those people have indicated quite clearly that they found Bill 1, for instance, to be a bill of little significance, very little public import, and why did we wish to speak to it as an opposition? I can say that the signal given by the government with respect to Bill 1, the GST parallel for the Retail Sales Tax Act, was in fact for us a signal of a reversal of position, not leading a tax revolt at all but merely changing their attitude towards what they would do for the public of Ontario.

During the election we were told that they would fight the GST, that a tax revolt would be led by the member for York South with all the passion and power that he could muster in his new-found capacity as Premier.

We were left to debate a bill that said, "We are going to comply, the flags will be struck, and we will move to join our federal colleagues, our federal friends" -- as the NDP is now cosying up to the Tories in Ottawa -- and they do not think the loyal opposition of Her Majesty should have the right to speak for more than two days on a bill which has significance to the extent that the NDP has now withdrawn from the fight to save Canada from the GST.

This is an indication that they cannot stand the speeches that are being made by the opposition members, effective speeches which have found their mark, aimed at the heart of the conscience of the people from the New Democratic caucus who have been told not to talk at all. They have been told not to speak out in this public Parliament of Ontario, they have been told to muzzle themselves, not to join in expressing dissent from the position carried by the Premier of this province, which is to cosy up to Brian Mulroney. "Let's go and join the GST gravy wagon.

We'll give away a little bit of money and we'll tell the people we are giving them $500 million," while all the time the seals laugh with glee as they think about the presents they will carry home to their constituents: "You get the right to pay retail sales tax and GST. We've given up the fight; we will not lead the tax revolt that was promised."

That is an important item to debate in this House, and that is why we have been debating it. Far from what the House leader of the New Democratic Party said, I had indicated that we had a number of people who wished to speak and that I was asked by my caucus to ensure that there was ample time for them to put the view each of them held on behalf of the people whose interest they represent in this Legislative Assembly.

That is as it should be. I do not wish to cut off the debate; I do not wish that they should cut off the debate. We should have been back here at a much earlier date if they wanted all this stuff to be done. If they had a legislative agenda, which they did not when they came here to take power on 6 September, they ought to have come back to this House at an early time in October. We were ready, we were prepared.

At the time of the election on 6 September, the people of Ontario were fooled into believing that those people were prepared to lead this province, but they are not. They were not prepared, they were not ready. They do not have an agenda. We have heard nothing but "more consultation" dribble-drabble from those people who represent the executive interest of that government. Today, they tell us we will extend the sitting hours so that the people of the province will be able to watch television from 1:30 in the afternoon until midnight. What is more, they are trying to break Her Majesty's loyal opposition by moving the amendment so that there is no time for a dinner break.

I approached the House leader for the New Democratic Party and asked that we be allowed to take one hour, one solitary hour, so that the members of this Legislative Assembly could break, so that they could have time to eat and drink and have some time for rest. Those people said: "No way. You don't deserve a break at the dinner hour like ordinary people." This government will not allow Her Majesty's opposition to rest at the dinner hour.

They require us to speak until midnight, straight through from 1:30, while we are forced to listen to the drivel that comes from their executive council members in answer to questions that are required to show assistance is available to farmers who need the help, to the forestry industry which needs the help, to deal with issues around mortgage assistance relief for those people who need that to purchase houses in the province.

We have a lot of things to debate in this House. We have a number of items. An important part of our debating time has been with respect to their give-in to the GST under Bill 1.

Then, they wish to start Bill 4 today. That is fine. They can do that. But do you know what they want to do, Mr Speaker? They told us at 12:30 today that we would be debating Bill 4 for the rest of the day and into midnight hours, which was fine, because the House leader for the New Democratic Party has every right to tell us what she will do and her caucus has told her what it wants us to do. The majority tells the minority how to conduct itself in this Parliament to the best of its ability, and she was given her marching orders out of her caucus meeting today.

I heard about the sentiments expressed by a number of those backbench people, who said: "Madam House leader, don't you let them carry on with the debate. You show them who has the authority. You show them who has the power and put the boots to them. Make sure, Madam House leader, that those people don't have time to eat or drink. Make sure they are starved into submission in this Parliament."

What more could be true of the majority as it revels in its new-found authority and power in a way which could not be imagined by such a novice group of individuals? They have found their mark at an early opportunity. I will say that it surprises me that they have come to this state so early in their novice careers, but we should have expected it. We should have expected that they would try to put this to us early in their time, because they are an impatient lot.

They wish to go home and show their constituents what they have done for the province, but what we want to do is show the people in this province, through televised debate, what in fact the New Democratic Party has not done. They have not launched a tax revolt with Bill 1, they have not done anything that will significantly assist the housing situation in Ontario, and we will require the time to debate this. But they are unwilling to order their business in the regular hours of sitting for this House. They say: "We don't want to hear your points of view, Leader of the Opposition.

We do not want to hear your points of view during normal sitting hours. You can talk from 6 o'clock until 12 o'clock every night."

These people had all of these things they said were so important for the people of the province, but they waited and they waited and they waited until 20 November to put out their legislative scheme. Not only did they wait that long, then they would not introduce their bills so that we as opposition people could take time and examine them.

We heard an equally absurd sort of consultation timetable put by the Premier of this province today when he spoke to the Leader of the Opposition in reply to questions about the constitutional, non-partisan activity in this House. He said, "I am going to talk to the leader of the third party and the Leader of the Opposition in the next couple of days, and then we want to deal with this next week."

This man who would have led a tax revolt in the populist sense, this man who would have been the populist leader of Ontario in a way which was not seen perhaps since the time of Mitch Hepburn or some of those other premiers of renown, would tell the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party that they have two days to get back to him, maybe three days, before he makes a speech next week in the House about what the government will do on the Constitution.

While events pass us by, they move the motions to make us sit without a break for the supper hour each day from now until 20 December.

Mr Sorbara: Let them eat Hansard.

Mr Elston: They could have brought all of those bills into this House that were non-contentious, like the Income Tax Act -- if we are to believe the House leader of the New Democratic Party; like the Manitoulin bill; like the parental leave bill; like other of those bills, amendments to the Education Act, the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board Act. All of those could have been brought on the first day they had an opportunity to introduce bills in this House, and they refused. Why did they refuse? They refused because they wanted us, as opposition members, to sit here and nod our heads as servants of the majority.

There ought to be a lesson to be learned by those new people over there that while they may be told by their government House leader, by their government whip and by their Premier to nod in acquiescence to the terrible travesty of the democratic process that we are involved in here, we are not going to take our direction from the government House leader nor the government whip nor indeed the Premier. We will not be told that we have two days to do certain things if there is a significant point of view to be put. We must have time to debate this.

Obviously we are not going to win the day when it comes time to vote on the extension of hours, but if these people had been able to order their business in a reasonable manner, we could have proceeded to get a number of these bills out of the way starting on 21 November. Nobody over there had any idea of how to run this business, despite the fact that they have a number of veteran people in their caucus and in their cabinet.

Why could they not have brought on 21 November all of their bills which are seen to be non-contentious, all of these bills which I and the House leader for the Progressive Conservative Party were told were mere housekeeping matters? Why could we not have been debating the principles around which those bills were associated while we waited for some of their big items to come? Why could we not have done the housekeeping?

Why could the NDP House leader not have given us some opportunity to sit in our caucus and discuss the relative merits and then come to this House to give good debate to those bills instead of being told we have from 1:30 to 6 to do seven bills? That is what we were told: "Seven bills. We want them."

Interjections.

Mr Elston: All of those people think it is funny. They are in government and they can put the boots to us. I understand that, but there are some good points to be made. The Minister of Revenue sits and laughs, but at least two others of the bills are her bills and are important bills with significant housekeeping items to be discussed. There is not any question in my mind that we ought to have had those on the first possible day.

The new House leader for the government obviously is learning her way around. She has found the significant sections, the sections she will need to make sure that the majority has its way with us in opposition. They may not like the fact that we have some very serious points to make with respect to the GST bill.

They may not like the fact that we do not think it is fair for them in the government, after having run an election in which they criticized the former Premier of the province for introducing a retail sales tax cut of 1%, to now introduce their own tax cut and be running around the province indicating to real men and women and children that there is some $500 million to be saved under their scheme. That is only true and only significant if the people have anything to buy products with. There is no saving if the people cannot afford to buy anything.

There is no saving if those people do not have jobs, if those farmers do not have farms, if those farmers do not have incomes, if those people who would pay for their mortgages have nothing to pay their mortgages with. That is an important issue upon which we would like to debate the government's intention.

The government thinks it is important that it makes us sit in the evenings? We will sit in the evenings: We are paid to do that and so are members opposite. The House leader has said she wishes to go to Bill 4, but she only wishes to go to Bill 4 for three speakers and then she wishes to go back to Bill 1. She has said, "Liberals, if you want to talk about GST, you can do it until midnight." That is fair ball. If that is the way she wants to run things, then we will be here and we will speak and we will be seeing a good number of the members opposite here for the last sessional days.

That is fair, but I say there will be days when other things are required. When they ask for unanimous consent, as they have done a number of times so far, we have been agreeable. We have been agreeable to assisting the government when it had real plans to process through this Legislative Assembly and showed them to us, but there is nothing of real substance that this government has shown the people of this province. The government House leader says she wants to sit longer to talk on these bills which even she has called less than significant. The GST bill is significant to the Liberals.

Maybe the Progressive Conservatives do not want to talk about GST; maybe the New Democrats do not want to talk about GST. That is fair. The members can run and hide if they wish on that issue, both parties, but the Liberals have something to say about GST. We have said it nationally and we are saying it provincially.

I know that my colleagues to my left -- philosophically to my right, a long way to the right -- will have a lot to say on Bill 4, but it is unfair for the member for Sudbury East to say that the House leader of the Liberal Party has said that only 10 people in our caucus wish to speak to that. I have told her that at the moment our list contains 10 names. As the debate heats up, there will likely be more than that who wish to speak to it. I realize that she was putting the number of speakers we had on the record so that at some later date she could move and say: "I was told they had 10 but now they have 12.

That's all they deserve." That is not the way it works. We have an open party. We will let our members speak, unlike over there, the members opposite, men and women, who have been told to be quiet. They have been told not to intervene in the debate. They have been told to be quiet, to be diligent in their silence to an extent which would marble the very sanctity of any religious institution anywhere in this province.

I guess the members opposite might be entitled "the true silent majority," because they refuse to speak at all, but we need the debate time to put across our point. We will be diligent in doing it at all hours of the day and night, because we are entrusted to watch, on behalf of Her Majesty, the very difficult situation the majority intends to put Her Majesty's people in. Without a thorough examination of these bills, there will be other problems.

I can tell members I would love to go on much longer, but Mr Speaker grimaces with some mild degree of concern. While I know it is not because the subject matter has strayed from the topic on which we are speaking, it may be a bit of a return to his previous roots in a caucus of uncertain origin.

I can say that the diligence with which we intend to pursue Her Majesty's business is real and is heartfelt among the people here who ran in the election of 6 September and were confronted by NDP candidates who talked about the GST in a way which said or at least indicated that our then Premier would be unable to deliver. Why are those people, who were elected as New Democratic candidates to be the members from their ridings, not standing up today saying: "Our Premier said he would lead a tax revolt. I'm upset that he is not leading such a tax revolt"? Why?

Because they are diligent in their silence, because they will not speak now that power has fallen close to their laps. They are, even now, after an initial wakened hour, slumbering under the whip of the House leader and her chief government whip.

I would just like to add a few words. I have found an interesting Hansard that the House leader and the Speaker may be interested in hearing.

"I am not going to speak for two hours, so I do not have to worry about the rules coming into effect and cutting me off, but I do have a few comments to make about this since this is the first time that we have proceeded under this rule, the new rules having just been in effect for this session," speaking as he then was, the House leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Windsor-Riverside, on the first use of the extended sitting time.

"I think it is going to be important for the government to review the planning that has gone into this session, or in some cases the lack of planning that has gone into this session, and why it has become necessary for us to use this rule, which I would hope would not become the normal course in the last two weeks of every session" -- but which of course this government speeds on its way to become the rule of this Legislative Assembly.

"If we have a well-run and well-planned House, we should be able to avoid evening sittings, and I think we should do that to the best of our ability." I quote again the member for Windsor-Riverside as then the House leader of the opposition New Democrats.

"Sitting up until midnight for two weeks straight before Christmas, at the same time as this is a very busy season back in our home ridings, is not a very healthy process to follow in this place. However, this was part of the give and take under the new rules. We are not going to oppose this violently, but I do think some review is necessary."

How quickly they do turn on their thoughts of philosophy. Is it not clear that this is really the badge which this government party is wearing? The things for which they stood in opposition -- the fairness, the consultation, the ability to work for the little man, the helping hand for those who could not help themselves, the ability to reach out and provide interest assistance for farmers and for home owners, the desire to assist in doing something for the environment in a way which would be real, speaking in fairness in the operation of the House -- how quickly they do forget.

And now here we are, in just less than a month of sitting, they turn to the extended hours and do the very thing that the House leader for the New Democrats, when he was in opposition, said should not be done.

They are making a mockery of debating in this House. They had the time to introduce all of the bills. They had the time to let us deal with them in a reasonable fashion, and they say, "We want seven bills in an afternoon and oh, by the way, if you really want to talk about one of the most important pieces of legislation we've seen in some time, which is Bill 4 on rent control, you can speak about that at night if we get the rest of the stuff done." I think that shows gall which is actually beyond what that party had been when it was over in opposition.

But they seem to have accepted their new role with a new-found lust after power and authority in a way which I would not have thought possible.

I am exercised by these people moving this today, not so much just that we sit to midnight but the fact that they decide they will do one thing at 12 of the o'clock, they will do another at 12:30 of the clock, and after we have gone about and arranged our business so that speakers who were arranged to be here this afternoon were told to go away, we are now told that they have changed their minds and those very people for whom phone calls were given to tell them to cancel their speaking engagements so that they could be here tonight have been told now that, "You can go to your speaking engagements, but the other people have to be brought in here."

What kind of fumbling around is this with the government business? When will they ever make up their mind? I know there has been some need to accommodate the needs of the Tory party, and I think that is great, because it has an important social function tonight for its caucus, but all that should have been well known before we were told to go and tell all our people that they were not needed to speak on Bill 1.

No, they think it is a joke. They think that somehow they can run around and cause us to try in our co-operative manner, cancel some speakers and then have to bring them in again from other places. Let's think about what this government is doing with this bill, with this resolution. They are moving to make it a rule that we will sit every night in the two weeks leading up to our holiday break. And for what -- to cover their stumbling and bumbling and fumbling around, to cover the fact that they have nothing in their plans for the agenda of this session, that they have nothing done as ministers, that they have nothing arranged as a caucus to proceed with the business of the day.

Mr Speaker, if you examined all of those people over there, you would probably find out that they do not even have all their staff in place yet because they cannot get around to getting their own business affairs done. I hear a whole bunch of them over there saying, "Oh, I got mine, I got mine." "How many have you got?" I heard one say. There are a number of their ministers over there who have not really got down to getting their affairs in order. How can they tell us that we ought to sit nights while they figure out what in the world they are going to be doing?

Give us reasonable notice. Let's get on with the business. Because they have the numbers and because the majority will tell us that we must, we will sit in this House after 6 o'clock tonight without a break for dinner. We will sit till midnight, and we will sit till midnight tomorrow night and the next night, and we will carry on and do the business of this place and we will not be deterred from doing Her Majesty's loyal opposition's business.

Before I sit, I wish to move that the motion be amended by allowing one hour for dinner beginning at 6 o'clock this evening.

The Deputy Speaker: I expect that you will put this in writing.

Mr Eves: I am going to be rather brief in my remarks. I do want to get a few things on the record, though. While I could concur with my colleague the House leader for the Liberal Party that perhaps the government could have taken a more organized or reasonable approach with respect to legislation, unlike him, I do not see any sinister plot on behalf of the government waiting until the eleventh-and-a-half hour to introduce legislation. I just happen to think that they were totally disorganized and quite frankly did not have their act together until 6 December.

But it is the government's prerogative, under the new rules that we have agreed to on all sides of this House at other times, to ask for extended sittings no later than midnight during the last eight sessional days of each session.

While I would have preferred a more reasonable approach with respect to perhaps a break between 6 and 7, or perhaps a limit as to how long the House could sit other than midnight, that is obviously not to be. The government is intent on proceeding with the motion the way it is worded. We did receive notice of this motion being tabled last Thursday, and it has been tabled in accordance with the standing orders, and it is indeed in order.

I would like to direct a few comments, though, with respect to this matter, with what I see is some interesting -- I was going to say perverted, but I will say somewhat unusual logic on behalf of the Liberal House leader. Bill 1 is a bill about the retail sales tax in the province of Ontario. It is not a vote on the goods and services tax. That is done, for his information, in the House of Commons in Ottawa. We are in Toronto in the Ontario Legislature, not in the federal House.

Mr Sorbara: We thought we were in Ottawa.

Mr Eves: I know the member does not realize where he is. That seems to be the problem right here right now.

I do not know why the Liberal Party of Ontario would want to discuss this bill. Quite frankly, if I were they I would be extremely embarrassed to drag this debate out as long as they have, because what this debate is about is a tax on tax.

Is it their basic philosophy that they should be taxing taxes and gouging taxpayers or not? Yes or no? Obviously they have been talking for three days because they believe that you should gouge taxpayers and you should tax taxes and have double taxation. That is what this legislation is about. That is what this Ontario legislation is about. We are in Ontario, we are elected to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and we should be discussing Ontario business.

Mrs Sullivan: That is precisely what we are doing.

Mr Eves: I see I have struck a raw nerve over there. Speaking of raw nerves, the former Treasurer of Ontario, now interim leader for the third time, if I am not mistaken, of the Liberal Party, initially went to Ottawa and agreed -- if you want to talk about whether they should be embarrassed about this piece of legislation or not -- with the Minister of Finance, Mr Wilson. He was one of the seven provincial treasurers who agreed to combine the retail sales tax and the goods and services tax but then came home and had his knuckles slapped by the member for London Centre, I think it was, who is not here any more.

What was his name? Peter Davidson, as they called him on Wall Street and in Washington. I see he obviously made a big impact there.

The reality is that the Treasurer thought it was a good idea to combine the two but then came home and was told by his leader: "What are you doing, Bob? We might want to run on this in the next provincial election so we could reduce our caucus from 93 to 36. How stupid could you be?" I wonder who is stupid now.

If you want to talk about being on anybody's philosophical right, as the Liberal House leader does, I can remember his jackboot, Attila the Hun approach to the positions of this province. If you want to start talking about philosophical right and left, if you go any farther right you will drop off the end of the earth, as the Liberal House leader did in his then portfolio as Minister of Health in this province.

Although we would agree with the fact that this could have been done in a more organized and orderly fashion, we do appreciate that the government is somewhat disorganized. They did this according to the standing orders and we see no reason to object to this motion.

Mr Drainville: It is a pleasure indeed to be able to respond to some of the red herrings that have been hurled from the opposite side of the chamber today. I have to admit that as I listen to the hyperbole and the grandiloquent statements that are made by the honourable members, particularly the member for Bruce, it reminds me of some of the promises that have been made by the members across the way. I think of the member who spoke recently indicating that the former Treasurer of Ontario was himself in favour of the GST and that continues to be a problem with the Liberal Party, both in this province and in the federal House, that they do not know which side of the issue they are standing on.

It has been said by some members opposite in the last few days, whether during question period or during debate, that somehow the agenda for this government is not clear. If it is unclear for them, let us try to make it clear, if we can. The reality is in terms of the Agenda for People -- members remember that -- we know that between the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party what we have are competing agendas. They do not want an Agenda for People. They want an agenda for the rich or they want an agenda for the privileged or they want an agenda for other people.

But let us say that we are very clear in this party about whose agenda we are working on, and that is the Agenda for People.

The minister has been clear in this House that what we need to do is to provide a framework for legislation. We have done precisely that. We began with Bill 1 and what did we see? The Liberal Party, in its great wisdom, standing up in this House and every member seeing it as his divine right -- never mind democratic right; it is their divine right -- to speak on this bill. We are facilitating that. We are saying if you want to speak on Bill 1, we will give you time to speak on Bill 1. We will sit at night.

The member for Bruce has indicated that we nod in acquiescence to what our ministers say. I would not say that is true. I think we nod in agreement at the good sense they bring forth in the direction we are moving in terms of our Agenda for People.

Further on, the member for Bruce indicated that we are silent. Now, sometimes silence is necessary. I remember years ago my grandmother used to say to me, "Dennis, sometimes it's better to be silent than to share your ignorance with people." I would give that particular bit of warning to the member for Bruce and some of the other opposition members. We hear these lugubrious outpourings every day from the opposition. What do they amount to? They say that we have forgotten our agenda. We know our agenda. They say that we are not bringing forth legislation. The legislation is here. They want to speak about it. We are giving them time to speak about it today and through the next few days.

As to the right that we have, let there be no doubt about this: We are bringing this forth according to the rules of the House, rules that have been agreed upon by all the parties. The Liberal Party may not like those rules -- it agreed to them at one time -- but the rules are reasonable because we cannot allow members opposite to feel that they have the full right to co-opt what the government's agenda is.

They have a right to criticize, yes. They have a right to debate, yes. They will be given that right in the nights ahead. But they do not have a right to indicate that they have control over the agenda. It is the government of the day that has been elected by the people of this province that has given its indication as to the direction it is going.

Let us be clear that this is a direction that is going to lead us, on 20 December, to having passed the legislation that we need to pass to be able to do the work in the new year that we are intending to do.

The Deputy Speaker: I have just received the motion from the member for Bruce.

Mr Elston moves that the motion be amended by adding thereto "that one hour be allowed commencing at 6 o'clock each day for dinner, and that the House resume at 7 o'clock."

Mr Sorbara: I for one am not surprised that the government members have just voted down an opportunity to grab a bite to eat during the dinner hour over the next few days. That is okay. If that is the way they want it, that is the way they will have it. As I said earlier, I guess we can eat Hansard during that period.

We are experiencing in the first two months of the first session of this Parliament a government which is undertaking what all agreed, and I remind my friends that our government House leader, the member for Bruce, quoted the passages from the member for Windsor-Riverside when he was the House leader for the official opposition about how draconian a measure this is. What we see now is the government House leader simply unable to manage effectively the business of this House and requiring at this Christmas holiday season that all of us stay here and work until midnight.

That is okay because we are prepared to do that. But the sad reality of it, Mr Speaker, is that if you look at the Orders and Notices and the bills that the government has on it, none of these bills has anything to do with the agenda that the New Democratic Party proposed when it was campaigning. Nothing here represents one law, one bill, one project, that reflects what that party said during the election campaign.

Let's look at the Orders and Notices and let's look at what the government is asking us to do. It is asking us to stop talking about Bill 1. It does not want to hear from us any more on the goods and services tax and the retail sales tax. The government, Mr Speaker, has had one speaker -- I encourage you to check Hansard -- other than the minister, speaking on this bill. I want to tell the members of the government party that they were not elected by their constituents to remain silent. This is a parliament. This is a place where, based on a mandate from the people who elected us in our ridings, we come to speak our views.

My friend the member for Durham East did stand up and speak, but the others are remaining silent. Why is that? The members of that party, within two months of being elected and forming a government, are simply bowing to the wishes of those few people in the Premier's office who decide that they are going to get through with this agenda. But what is the agenda? Bill 1, "Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 1,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act." What does it say? It harmonizes our sales tax with the GST. But what does it matter, I say to the government House leader, when we pass this bill? It is retroactive. Why are we staying here to get this done before Christmas? If we pass it two years from now it does not matter because it is retroactive, like all other tax bills.

There is no urgency in that. Nobody's life is going to change as of Christmas if we pass the bill. No unemployed worker is suddenly going to get a job because we pass this bill. Yet the government members do not want to speak about it. They do not want to have their say. They do not want to take this opportunity to speak to their constituents in this Parliament, which they were democratically elected to do, to have their say on the GST. Well, they should forgo that.

I want to tell my friends that the bills that are going to come up are going to be a lot more controversial than this, and if the government shuts them up on this bill, then I will tell them something. For the bills that are coming down, they will not even be in the House, because they will be so embarrassed at what their government is doing.

Now we have a motion before us to keep us here until midnight tonight, tomorrow night, Thursday night and all of next week. We are prepared to do that because we have to get these bills done.

The second item on Orders and Notices is "Second reading Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act." They call it in their document the rent control bill. I am glad we are going to get this done before Christmas, or the government wants to get it done before Christmas. That is why we have this motion. That is why two months into this Parliament we are going to be sitting until midnight every night.

But I encourage government members to read the bill. It is retroactive. It does not matter when they pass it. It does not matter if they say anything about it, because their minister has told them that they are going to vote in favour of it. If it is passed in the spring session or the fall session or the first session in 1992, it does not matter. It is retroactive. It does not matter what the Parliament says. Well, we are not giving up our right to have our say on these bills.

Let's look at the next bill, the third order. "Second reading Bill 9,

An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund." Have government members read the bill? It gives the Treasurer some authority to borrow some $3 billion.

I want to tell my friends that I did not see that bill on the document called An Agenda for People, but if that is what they think the priority is -- they have just been elected. They have a massive mandate, 74 members, a great Agenda for People. It is not here. The first two months and nothing is here having anything to do with the Agenda for People.

I am reminded, because my friend the member for Parry Sound reminded us, that we are in Ontario. But I remember when Lester Pearson was elected as the Prime Minister of this great nation in 1963, he had 100 days of action. He had all of the stuff that he had promised Canadians on the order paper within 100 days. With a minority Parliament we got the Canada pension plan. We got an unemployment insurance plan. We got a universal medicare system with a minority Parliament. He was elected, he came into the federal House of Commons and he brought forward the legislation.

What do we have? We have on the order paper a number of bills that the government has said represent an urgent priority for it. We have been through three. None of them relate to An Agenda for People, but we are going to stay until midnight every night to get it accomplished. One of these days we will see a bill introduced that has something to do with what that party talked about when it campaigned.

Let's look at the fourth order. Guess whether this bill has anything to do with An Agenda for People: "Second reading Bill 10,

An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act." My goodness, another tax bill. Have a look at the bill. It is very lengthy and virtually every provision in it is retroactive. Some of the provisions will apply back to 1981. Read the bill. But we must stay here every night this week and next to get this retroactive legislation passed, because somehow it has something to do with An Agenda for People that those members promised the people of Ontario when they were campaigning.

I think maybe if we go through the order paper, we will get something that has something to do with the agenda that the New Democratic Party promised when it was campaigning. Order 5: "Second reading Bill 11" -- we are moving up -- "An Act to amend the Income Tax Act." Again the Minister of Revenue asking for second reading of this bill, a tax bill.

This is interesting, because as I recall the campaign, there was, let's see now, provision for a fairer tax system with a minimum corporate tax of 8% of income. It is not on the order paper. What did we get? We had the Treasurer make an announcement about creating something called a Fair Tax Commission. We will want to study it. That is not even on the order paper.

The Treasurer told us today that the commissioners are not even going to be appointed by order in council. He will do it himself. Cabinet ministers? By the way, if members have not learned, if it is not order in council, he will do it himself and he will let members know who he appointed. If it is order in council, he will bring it to cabinet, but we heard today that members are not going to hear about it.

The fifth order that we are going to be dealing with as we sit till midnight every night has nothing to do with An Agenda for People, but maybe we will get on with it when we get to the sixth order. Let's see what that says. "Second reading Bill 12,

An Act to amend the Education Act." My goodness. I wonder what that has to do with An Agenda for People.

I think I recall hearing that An Agenda for People promised a number of things on education. I am going to be speaking about that later on during this session, but I remember quite clearly that the government would be moving urgently if elected to fund school boards from the consolidated revenue fund to the tune of 60%. They had better get started. There is nothing on the order paper. The sixth order does not deal with that. I know. I have had a look at the bill.

Mr Speaker, I remind you -- you know the rules -- but I will remind the other members of this House that if they were to introduce a bill tomorrow that had anything remotely to do with An Agenda for People, would we be able to deal with it in this se