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

December 17, 1990

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

YORK REGION DISTRICT HEALTH COUNCIL

Mr Beer: In August 1989 the former Liberal Minister of Health set up a steering committee for the region of York to examine the feasibility of creating a district health council for York region. Currently there are some 28 district health councils in the province of Ontario. York region, with approximately 475,000 residents, is the most populous area not served by a district health council.

The steering committee, ably chaired by John Rogers, the former mayor of Georgina and former chairman of the region's health and social services committee, concluded its work last spring and recommended the establishment of a district health council. The former minister then asked that names be submitted by all interested groups and residents so that a new council could be set up.

The role of a district health council is critical to the planning needed to ensure a first-class health system in York region. With the implementation of the significant long-term-care reform initiated by the former government, it is vitally important that the new council be involved in the planning for future health and social services.

The question that everyone is asking in York region is, when will the present minister announce the formation of the York region district health council? I say to the minister that time is passing us by. There is solid agreement in the health and social service community that a council is needed. What we need now is some action.

DUFFERIN AREA HOSPITAL

Mr Tilson: The residents of north Caledon and Dufferin county have long been well served by the Dufferin Area Hospital in Orangeville. However, for a number of years now it has been recognized that our existing facility is overcrowded and antiquated in so far as its capacity to deliver modern health care services is concerned.

In 1987 the former Liberal government made a $20-million commitment to fund a new facility on a new site. For its part, the county of Dufferin pledged $6 million, and additional millions were raised and are still being raised and pledged locally to the project.

As recently as August, the government confirmed its commitment to the project by announcing additional funds to offset the effects of inflation since 1987. For its part, the local health community has undertaken a comprehensive review of health care delivery which has been highly praised.

Our health care community in Dufferin-Peel is poised to deliver modern, cost-effective health care to local residents. The staff at the Dufferin Area Hospital are without question some of finest and most committed health care professionals anywhere in the province, but they need to know, and indeed our entire community needs to know, the status of its hospital project.

The hospital is now awaiting word on whether it can proceed to the next level of planning for the new facility, the so-called functional program stage.

I would strongly urge the Minister of Health to reaffirm her ministry's and government's commitment to a new hospital to serve the citizens of Dufferin county and northern Caledon.

FEDERAL ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Ferguson: The made-in-Canada recession has affected virtually every community and industry across Ontario. Epton Industries of Kitchener is but another example.

In a recent press release, the company stated:

"In response to the continuing high value of the Canadian dollar, high interest rates and a temporary slump in demand for its products caused by the current recession, Epton Industries Inc announced that up to 48 employees will be laid off, offered early retirement or have their employment contracts discontinued.

"When asked about future business prospects for Epton, Mr Michael Weedon, company president, expressed concern about Canada's high interest rates as well as the negative impact of the high Canadian dollar on exports to the United States."

In a very non-partisan way, I would urge all 130 members of this House to write the Prime Minister of Canada to voice their concerns over the devastating effect the federal government's policies are having on the thousands of workers across this province whom we collectively represent.

While this government is very busy putting together a well thought out package to assist individuals through this recession, it is counterproductive to have the province of Ontario move people one step ahead and have our federal counterparts push them two steps back.

SCHIZOPHRENIA TREATMENT

Mr Callahan: Today I will reintroduce a private member's bill which had received unanimous approval on second reading in the House before it prorogued for the election. This bill had been referred to the standing committee on social development for public hearings. The bill amends the Mental Health Act to provide protection for schizophrenics.

During the accord period, the Mental Health Act was amended to provide for greater protection for persons suffering from mental illness to ensure that they had some say in the treatment they received. Parents were not given an opportunity to speak at these hearings.

The bill I will be introducing today is an effort to redress this inequity and allow public hearings to be held. As the members may or may not know, schizophrenics can lead reasonably normal lives if they take their medication.

The appeals from treatment orders can take up to six months. The purpose of my bill will be to reduce this to 30 days from the date of perfection. It also allows for interim application to a judge to have treatment continued. If this were not in place, people in larger metropolitan areas could spend up to six months virtually in custody without any treatment.

This bill is just a start. It is supported by the Friends of Schizophrenics. I am hoping that we will have an opportunity to have it dealt with and referred for public hearings so these parents may have an opportunity to tell the members just what a horror story it is to have a person suffering from schizophrenia and not being able to help them through the Mental Health Act.

Unfortunately, I am number 82 on the ballot. If anybody wants to swap, I would like to swap immediately.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Carr: I would like to inform this House of the outcome of a meeting of about 500 people held in my riding last Thursday night. The meeting dealt with plans by Petro-Canada to reduce air emissions at its Oakville facility. I would like to inform the Minister of the Environment that the people attending this meeting are extremely concerned about the quality of air and about the health effects on their families.

As a result of the efforts of the local residents, the Minister of the Environment, Petro-Canada and my office, we now have a plan in place to reduce the emissions from this facility.

The residents of my riding would like to encourage the Minister of the Environment to bring in tougher standards for air emissions and tougher penalties for industries which break those laws. A committee composed of concerned citizens, the Minister of the Environment, Petro-Canada, the Halton regional department of health, the mayor and myself will be formed to monitor the progress of the plans to reduce the emissions.

This whole process shows very clearly, one, how concerned the people of this province are about the quality of the environment and, two, how the government, the people of this province and the industry must work together in order to provide the solutions to the challenges that face the environment.

I want to assure the people of Oakville South that I will not be satisfied until the desired results are gained and the air quality around the Oakville Petro-Canada facility has been acceptable to my constituents.

DURHAM AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr Mills: Today I want to thank the Minister of Transportation for restoring public transportation service to Durham and Peterborough residents. I know not everybody is happy, but these new all-day bus services are an important step. Some of my constituents would like to see a train service, and I would like to see one too, but we cannot do everything we want, especially in our current economic times.

This is a start. We have acted quickly. We are listening to the people and we are responding to their needs and we will continue to listen to the people, working with them to find the best possible alternatives. These consultations will continue.

Public transport service has been held hostage by succeeding federal governments. The Liberals slashed the Havelock-Peterborough commuter train to Toronto. The Conservatives restored train service, then cynically cancelled it last January.

The New Democratic government is providing a reliable, cost-effective public transport service that balances the needs of all our residents. The new all-day bus services will serve more people in more communities better than one train service running only twice a day. Bus service also saves the taxpayers: $500,000 for a bus, $3.5 million for a train.

Again, I know not everybody is happy, but even Transport 2000, a national rail passenger lobby, agrees that at this time a traditional commuter rail service to Havelock-Peterborough is not cost-efficient --

Interjections.

The Speaker: That is a wonderful speech.

PREMIER'S COUNCIL

Mrs Y. O'Neill: The Premier's Council was established by the Ontario government in 1986 with a mandate to steer Ontario into the forefront of economic leadership and technological innovation. The council represents a broad cross-section of the Ontario economy. Its members are drawn from the business, labour, government and academic communities, a comprehensive forum indeed.

Its current report, People and Skills in the New Global Economy, examines ways in which industry, educators, labour and government can work together to ensure that tomorrow's workforce is equipped with the skills it needs to compete, to adapt and to enjoy meaningful working lives into the 21st century.

A verbal commitment was made to the people of this province by the Premier in late summer or early fall that the Premier's Council would continue to be a high priority for his government. Yet to this date we have not heard any of his specific plans or any plans indeed regarding future meetings of this comprehensive forum of provincial leaders.

When does the Premier intend to convene the first meeting of the council on technology? What ministers of his executive council will be included in membership of the council? May we expect a specific announcement of a meeting of the Premier's Council on technology early in the new year? I will be presenting an open letter to the Premier at the conclusion of my remarks.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Mr Jordan: Today the Minister of Government Services and the Minister of Energy made an announcement that attempts to improve energy efficiency in Ontario government buildings. The ministers did not make the announcement here in the House but at a press conference this morning. This announcement will see close to $10 million spent on 8,000 energy audits across this province. Hydro chairman Bob Franklin thinks this will accelerate to $15 million over the next five years. This is a very generous act of Ontario Hydro. They are already spending millions of dollars on energy conservation audits for the private sector and have been doing so for over 15 years.

These programs are commendable, but I wonder if the Minister of Energy has considered involving the other players in the energy game. The executive vice-president of Imperial Oil told me recently they would be happy to participate in government conservation initiatives. Would cost-sharing not be more beneficial than burdening the taxpayers with the full cost of these programs through their hydro bills, which are already facing a 15% increase in 1991?

I would also like to comment on the Minister of Energy's statement that this program could eliminate the need for a new nuclear power plant. I would like to remind the minister it will only postpone the need for a new supply of energy.

In keeping the 8,000 audits to $ I ,000: Good luck.

AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION CONVENTION

Ms Harrington: I wish to let the House know the success of the American Bus Association convention in Niagara Falls this past week; 2,600 delegates from all across North America were there. This was not just another convention; these people were tour bus operators.

Local workers were given a special training course in hospitality through the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. The Niagara Falls Canada Visitor and Convention Bureau organized the event with the help of city hall. Gala events such as fireworks and a laser light show over the falls were co-ordinated with the city of Niagara Falls, New York. Even customs co-operated.

The results: First, delegates were impressed with the hospitality and the hotel facilities on the Canadian side in particular. Mr Denis Stefaniuk of the visitor and convention bureau said: "We were told our hotels were superior to the American ones. We were told our hospitality was absolutely superb."

Second, past conventions in Indianapolis and Nashville have resulted in a three-year tourism boost. Tourism business in Ontario has been in a slump since 1988. So it is hoped that Niagara Falls, along with Ontario in general, will now reap the benefits of increased bus tours in the summer of 1991-92 and onward.

We welcome everyone to Niagara Falls over the holidays to see the Festival of Lights.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CORPS D'ÉLITE ONTARIO

Hon Mr North: Mr Speaker, I rise to ask you and all the honourable members to welcome three visitors to the Legislature today. They are Susan Mott of Angus, Dr Paul Syme of Sault Ste Marie and Kathy Wiele of Collingwood.

In just a few minutes, I will escort them to the Lieutenant Governor's suite, where they will receive the provincial Corps d'élite Ontario Awards in ceremonies presided over by His Honour Lincoln Alexander.

The Corps d'élite Ontario Awards honour outstanding recreation volunteers. By recognizing these three people, we honour all 372,000 recreation volunteers in the province. Their dedication makes our community stronger.

All three of the award winners here today have had a major impact on recreation in Ontario. I will mention only some of their accomplishments.

In 1986, Susan Mott helped to establish the first pony driving program in Ontario for people with disabilities. Pony driving is not well known in our province, but that is changing. Through the driving for disabled program, Susan Mott has introduced many people to the benefits of taking the reins of a carriage pulled by ponies. She is also the director of the Ontario Federation for the Cerebral Palsied.

Almost 20 years ago, Dr Paul Syme founded the Voyageur Trail Association. The trail stretches nearly 400 kilometres along the shores of Lakes Huron and Superior and is used by hikers and skiers. A tireless worker for recreation and conservation, Dr Syme has served in executive positions with Hike Ontario and the National Trails Association.

Kathy Wiele has shown great leadership and vision in 15 years of volunteer service to the Ontario Recreation Society and the Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario. In all her efforts, she has consistently promoted training and professional development in recreation.

Mr Speaker, I would ask that you and the honourable members join with me now in showing our appreciation of all recreation volunteers by honouring Susan Mott, Dr Paul Syme and Kathy Wiele.

TORONTO WATERFRONT

Hon Mrs Grier: I want to share with members of this House the government's response to the recommendations of the Crombie Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront.

It has been two months since David Crombie tabled his second interim report entitled Watershed. The principles of the Watershed report and Mr Crombie's recommendations are fresh and invigorating. They have received broad support from municipalities, environmental groups, the media, the general public and from this government. I want to commend the previous government, and John Sweeney in particular, for giving the commission a broad mandate and for its support of the commission's activities.

The commission's findings have already prompted widespread debate, discussion and commitment to regenerating the waterfront. We responded immediately, supporting the report with enthusiasm, and we endorsed fully the principles put forward for the future direction of the waterfront area: a waterfront that is clean, green and attractive; a waterfront that is usable, diverse and open; a waterfront that is connected, affordable and accessible. These are values that we as a government share.

We intend to use these nine principles as a guide, not only for the waterfront, but to move beyond the waterfront to the greater Toronto area urban structure process. My colleague the Minister of Natural Resources and I will apply these values to the closely related greenlands strategy released earlier this summer by the previous government. We will provide a framework to ensure that greenlands and watersheds become an integral part of future plans for the greater Toronto area.

Our clear acceptance of Mr Crombie's principles should be viewed by municipalities and the community as a ringing endorsement of the ecosystem approach to planning as well as to the underlying values of the commission report.

The call for immediate action has been unanimous, and today I would like to outline how we intend to implement key recommendations of the Watershed report.

First, we will establish a continuous waterfront trail which will become the greenway that ties the GTA together from Burlington to Newcastle. It will link to the Bruce and Ganaraska Trail systems at either end. We see the waterfront trail as the highest land use for all public lands along the water's edge. The trail will be much more than a four-foot strip of asphalt. This trail will connect the waterfront with river valleys and source areas and link up areas of natural and historic importance along Lake Ontario. It will be a place for people, for families and children to enjoy the out of doors and the natural environment on foot or bicycle.

Second, we accept the idea of waterfront partnership agreements as a valid implementation vehicle for waterfront plans. We will negotiate agreements between local, regional and federal governments, along with conservation authorities, to prepare responsible development plans and implementation mechanisms for the waterfront consistent with the Crombie principles.

Third, we will establish by legislation a waterfront regeneration trust. It will be the responsibility of the trust to accept lands surplus to Toronto port needs, as well as adjacent provincial lands, and to co-ordinate regeneration activities.

Finally, we will move to halt the unnecessary privatization of the public shoreline and crown resources such as water lots. My colleague the Minister of Natural Resources will address this matter in the near future.

A significant portion of the Crombie report concentrates on the Etobicoke waterfront. As the local MPP, the minister responsible for the GTA and the Minister of the Environment, I am pleased that Etobicoke, Metro and the province will be working co-operatively to ensure that there is a comprehensive planning framework for new development in south Etobicoke, culminating in modification to the Etobicoke official plan, plus other implementation measures. The three levels of government have agreed on a program which includes extensive community consultation.

In the final year of the royal commission's work, we will ask Mr Crombie to address:

1. The feasibility of relocating the Gardiner Expressway, in consultation with Metropolitan Toronto and the Ministry of Transportation;

2. The pooling of lands and the integration of future plans for the Canadian National Exhibition, Ontario Place, Fort York and HMCS York, in consultation with the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and the other authorities involved;

3. Finally, policies, practices, technology and methods available to regenerate shoreline areas.

These measures are an important starting point for ensuring that the waterfront and the natural environment of the greater Toronto area is preserved and enhanced for future generations. We will continue to support the work of the commission and we look forward to Mr Crombie's final report.

SALE OF FAIRBANK MEMORIAL PARK

Hon Mr Cooke: As members may be aware, in August my ministry was asked by York Mayor Fergy Brown and others to review the procedures followed by York council in its decision to sell part of Fairbank Memorial Park for a condominium development.

I have now received the report. I am not, however, in a position to release it to the public at this time because the police have asked me not to, and it has been handed over to them as part of their investigation into the issues in the city of York.

Notwithstanding the fact that I am unable to release the report, there are a number of aspects regarding the conduct of business by York council that are a cause of concern to me.

The decision to sell part of Fairbank Memorial Park for development was made against the provisions of the city's official plan and apparently against the wishes of many residents of York.

I am concerned that the people of York stand to lose valuable park land when earlier city reports have in fact documented a need for more park land.

I am concerned that council decided to sell the land before it made any move to redesignate the land for residential development. This made public consultation secondary to an agreement with a developer over the use of a public asset.

I am concerned about the lack of public consultation undertaken in connection with this deal. Technically there was a process, but it appears to have been managed in such a way as to minimize any opportunity for a real public discussion of the project as a whole.

I am also concerned about the refusal of York city council to acknowledge that it has a problem that requires attention or to initiate any corrective action. Its only response to the controversies so far has been to hire a lawyer to protect the city from "allegations and rumours" in the media.

These are but a few of the concerns that have been raised about the way the city of York does business.

My government promised, in the speech from the throne, to introduce new conflict-of-interest legislation that would apply to municipal politicians and officials. It is our intention that this legislation will help restore lost public confidence.

In the meantime, I am strongly advising the city of York to bring in outside municipal consultants to undertake a complete administrative review. I would expect that review to result in new procedural bylaws for the city, including stringent procedures for the sale of municipal assets, particularly land. Clear, understandable rules for procedure would also help to reassure the people of York that their elected representatives are acting in their best interests.

Finally, with respect to the future of Fairbank Memorial Park, I would point out that before anything further can happen, the city will have to go through a very public process should it seek to amend its official plan and zoning bylaw. That process includes considerable opportunity for public input and offers objectors the option of appealing any such amendments to the Ontario Municipal Board. I want to let York city council know that I will follow that process with great interest.

As the minister responsible for good land use planning, I want to assure the members here that if I am not happy with the way the process proceeds, I will be more than willing at any time to exercise the powers available to me under the Planning Act, including a declaration of provincial interest, to see that the final outcome is in the best interests of the people of York.

Municipal governments provide a wide range of vital services. The decisions they make, particularly on land use issues, have a profound influence on the day-to-day lives of the people of Ontario. The people must be able to have confidence that the municipal decision-making process is completely fair and above board. It is my hope that the steps I have outlined will help rebuild some of that confidence in the city of York.

RESPONSES

CORPS D'ÉLITE ONTARIO

Mr H. O'Neil: Along with the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, I, on behalf of our party, would also like to add words of congratulations to the three recipients of the Corps d'élite award.

As the previous Minister of Tourism and Recreation, I can tell members that these awards are looked at very carefully, and the people who receive them are certainly due them. I can also tell members that as the previous minister who travelled around the province to see the many volunteers who work so hard on behalf of recreation in the province, it is very rewarding to see that the minister and the government are continuing these awards.

A word of caution for the minister, though: It is not always easy to tell the Premier and the members of the caucus and the cabinet how important recreation is to this great province, so he will have to fight for funds for them. They need these funds and assistance to make sure we have top recreation within the province of Ontario. I congratulate him for continuing in this area.

TORONTO WATERFRONT

Mrs Sullivan: I am responding to the statement of the Minister of the Environment. I would like her and other members of the House to know that we welcome her statement, which builds on the initiatives of the Honourable John Sweeney and the Ontario government, which moved forward in a unique collaboration in relationship to that commission work, and involving the greenlands study of our former colleague in this House, Mr Kanter. We also appreciate the minister's acknowledgement of that previous work.

We also welcome the commitment to establish a waterfront trail from Newcastle to Burlington. We are looking for additional information, including whether a provincial interest will be declared under the Planning Act and whether that activity will also include a complete natural history inventory, which we believe is vital for the appropriate development and regeneration of that area.

On the watershed partnership agreements, we see this as a forward-looking activity. We welcome that. We are hoping to hear some announcements relating to long-term funding. I refer the minister to page 84 of the Watershed report, which suggests that a financial and resource regime to support the implementation of the waterfront partnership agreements will be necessary.

At first look it seems to me that the waterfront regeneration trust seems to be a creative approach. We would be interested in knowing when legislation will be coming before the House and what kinds of provincial protections will be put into place for lands that may have been contaminated in the past. Will decommissioning, by example, be required before the trust acquires ownership?

The minister has referred to her own area, Etobicoke. I would like to put in a plug for my area and ask the minister if her view of the waterfront protection also includes the recommendations of Halton, which were accepted by Mr Crombie, for a Great Lakes science centre to be established there. Mr Crombie has suggested everything is connected to everything else. We see this as a positive start.

SALE OF FAIRBANK MEMORIAL PARK

Mrs Caplan: I am responding to the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and will start out by saying how extremely disappointed I am with this response. It does nothing whatever to rebuild confidence. In fact the points that have been made in his statement, I believe, seriously undermine public confidence in the planning process in the city of York.

These questions have been asked now since August. Not only have we not had any answers provided, but in fact there has been no action whatever. At the very least, today I think it would have been reasonable to have expected the minister to declare a provincial interest. I think it would have been reasonable for him to commit to release the report and also to commit to a public inquiry following the police investigation. These are extremely serious public matters. I would tell him as well that to me his response is particularly disheartening because I know how unacceptable that kind of action would have been to him just a few short months ago when he sat on this side of the House.

No one wants to interfere with a police investigation. Certainly the people in this party support that kind of due process. But I would say to him very, very clearly that he has failed to use the powers that he has. He has failed to understand the importance of what is happening in the city of York and how that needs to be opened fully to public scrutiny. An administrative review, from his suggestion, of the city of York not only displays his lack of understanding, but his lack of understanding of the need of the people of the city of York to have confidence in their municipal council.

I would lastly say that what upset me the most was the minister saying "if he is not happy with the planning process." Through this whole report he is concerned. What will it take to make him unhappy?

CORPS D'ÉLITE ONTARIO

Mr J. Wilson: I am very pleased to rise today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to join with the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and our colleague from the Liberal Party in extending our wholehearted congratulations to the three recipients of the Corps d'élite Ontario award.

I am also pleased to point out to the House that two of the recipients are from my riding of Simcoe West. Susan Mott lives near Angus in my riding, as does Kathy Wiele who lives in the town of Collingwood. Dr Paul Syme, unfortunately, does not have the good fortune of living in the riding of Simcoe West, but we extend our congratulations to him as well.

It strikes me that today's recipients are an example of good citizenship. The communities they live in, the people they meet and the places they work in are better for the very fact that they are there.

Once again, on behalf of our party and all of the citizens of Ontario, we extend our congratulations, and I will be pleased to join the minister in just a couple of minutes to watch them receive their awards.

TORONTO WATERFRONT

Mrs Marland: In response to the announcement dealing with the Crombie royal commission report, we have some questions that we hope the minister responsible will address shortly in the future. We concur that this report has some sound recommendations. We also feel at this point that they cannot be dealt with in isolation for overall planning for the greater Toronto area.

Frankly, when the minister says that they will provide a framework to ensure that greenlands and watersheds become an integral part of future plans for the greater Toronto area, I think the message we really want to convey to this minister is that we are waiting to know what all the future plans are for the GTA and that we cannot deal with one aspect of it in isolation.

I give as a perfect example the fact that we have seen no real commitment yet from this government to deal with the most major issue of the GTA, which envelops all of this planning, and that is a commitment to the replacement of the infrastructure. Unless we have that commitment to the infrastructure replacement, it does not matter what we plan for the CNE grounds or the watershed or anything else. We will still have closed beaches next year as we have had for the last five years. We will have ongoing problems which cannot be corrected without a very real commitment by this government.

In fact, when we look at the government talking about the waterfront regeneration trust, admittedly it is federal land, but with the sale of the lands that are connected with Harbourfront, all of this has to be planned overall. We expect this minister for the GTA to make a very realistic analysis and come forward with the plans we have been waiting for now for some time.

Mr Stockwell: To consider that the waterfront needs more planning, I think is a total, colossal waste of time. The studies have been done; they have been reviewed; they are stacked this high. We think about the CNE specifically. That is the biggest white elephant in Metro now because the government built the domed stadium, which effectively closed down the CNE as far as lakefront use is concerned.

In Etobicoke for 20 years, through studies on the motel strip, we have attracted nothing but cockroaches, rats and hookers. They are still there. It is still an eyesore in Etobicoke, and the Minister of the Environment, who was the local councillor for many years, knows full well that we are just going to have a continuing eyesore that has done nothing to benefit Metropolitan Toronto and Etobicoke.

One thing I have always said about Mr Crombie is that he has a great sense of humour. This report is not practical. It will never be implemented. The biggest developer along the lakefront that is using up prime waterfront property is the government itself on the Humber College properties and the psychiatric grounds. I think they had better look in their own backyard before they start determining what development is okay and what is not.

SALE OF FAIRBANK MEMORIAL PARK

Mr Harris: I want to respond briefly to the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs concerning York region's --

Mrs Caplan: City of York.

Mr Harris: -- I am sorry; those guys to the right of me can understand why York region comes to mind, though -- York's sale of part of Fairbank Memorial Park.

First, the minister says in the first part of his statement that he is very concerned about the lack of public input. Then he says, however, that there is a process with "considerable opportunity for public input" still ahead of us. Second, the minister makes a threat that there is going to be a provincial interest without saying what it is. He is going to allow them to go through this whole process. He is making a threat to the Ontario Municipal Board; he is making a threat to the town; he is making a threat to the people. If he has a provincial interest, why --

The Speaker: Time.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In accordance with the standing orders, I would ask if the Speaker would investigate why the Minister of Transportation hastily called a press announcement this morning at 10 o'clock to announce a $400-million project being killed and failed to share the circumstances and the details of that with members of this House. The reaction in the city of Hamilton and Wentworth region has been incredible. I ask the Speaker to investigate.

The Speaker: That is certainly a point of information and obviously of some agitation, but other than that, it is not a point of order.

Mr Nixon: Obviously the honourable member was not allowed on the question period list for the third party, but that is not going to stop him getting it on Hansard for today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Nixon: I have a question of the Premier. Since our efficient House leaders seem to be moving us towards an adjournment later this week and we will not be returning until well into March, according to our timetable, I would ask the Premier to comment on a concern that I expressed, and that has certainly been expressed by others, on the inadequacy of the government's plan to assist those people who are presently unemployed, unemployed because of bankruptcies and the closedown of many industries and who are becoming statistics because of the downward spiral of the economy.

He is aware, I am sure, that his Treasurer's commitment of $700 million is now a commitment of $41 million over the winter and there is a substantial concern that we are going to have people in serious want or in serious difficulties because of the inadequacies in this regard unless the government makes some announcements and takes some further initiatives in the next three days.

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I share his concern and his views with regard to the seriousness of the situation with the economy. I can assure him that we are doing whatever we can to speed up the allocation of funds under the anti-recession package which has been put forward by the Treasurer and I can assure him -- and I am sure he will understand me when I say this -- that obviously when the House is in session that is required in order to generate new legislation. But to make new announcements within the $700-million package, we do not need to come back to the House.

I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that we are going to be doing everything we can to speed up the necessary investment and to make sure that those jobs are coming on stream as quickly as is humanly possible.

Mr Nixon: The Premier will be aware that the unemployment rate reported last week for Ontario is 7.6%. We are no longer the province with the lowest unemployment rate. In Windsor, it is 10%. At the other end of the province, in Cornwall, it is 27%.

The money that has been allocated by the Treasurer, according to the information he provided, is going to be $6.9 million for all of southwestern Ontario and only $2.9 million for all of eastern Ontario. Surely the Premier would agree with me about the inadequacy of this situation.

I noticed that he was castigating the Prime Minister of Canada for promising a transitional program associated with free trade, and I believe the Premier is right in his criticism because no such program is coming forward. I am not blaming the Premier for the recession, although I may get around to that later in my political career, but I will tell him we are all of us looking at the situation in our own constituencies and we feel that it is totally inadequate at the present time.

Can the Premier indicate what further consideration is being given by his colleagues and by himself to head off at least some of the worst depredations of this situation?

Hon Mr Rae: Obviously the answer is not good enough for the Leader of the Opposition. I can only say that what we are going to do with respect to the $41-million figure that he talks about is only the initial allocation in the first week in which we announced the program. As I have said to the Leader of the Opposition on many other occasions, as soon as we can announce further investment that we think makes sense and the projects are ready to go and the municipalities are coming on board, we will do that.

I would like to further indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that the Treasurer has already raised with the Minister of Finance in Ottawa, and is going to be raising again this week in person at his meeting with the Minister of Finance in Ottawa, the need for this to be a program of the three levels of government: the municipalities, the provincial government and the federal government.

I am very proud that it is the provincial government that has led the way in terms of this $700-million anti-recession package, which is the largest investment that has been made anywhere in the country with respect to fighting the recession and which will be worth well over $1 billion if we can get the federal government and the municipalities to come on board. The sooner we can get that money into the field and into the communities, the better off we will all be. In that sense I agree fully with the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Nixon: We have the distinct impression -- and it may be because we view the government initiative with a somewhat jaundiced eye -- that the government is under the impression that it is going to get away with a reference to the $700 million, which will not be spent in this fiscal year.

There is a clear indication that $41 million is the money that will be spent. The Treasurer can tell the Premier that the Ministry of Revenue takes that in before lunch seven days a week, 365 days a year. The $41 million sounds like a lot of money, but when you look at what it actually means when spread out across our communities, it is really not going to be effective. For the Premier to indicate that he is giving leadership for all of Canada is certainly not going to do anything about the employment situation and it is not going to do anything to mitigate the effects in our communities.

I would simply ask the Premier again, is he satisfied with what the government is doing now? Would he not agree with people on all sides of this House who feel that an additional commitment of energy and leadership is needed if the money is going to be available and it is going to be in the communities where it is needed and when it is needed? The need is certainly going to come well before this coming March.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that as long as there is a recession in this province, I am not satisfied; as long as there are people who are unemployed in Ontario who could be working, I am not satisfied, and as long as there are projects that can be done which need to get speeded up, I am not satisfied. I do not think anybody can be satisfied in that circumstance.

We are going to do everything we can, everything that is humanly possible. We are going to be working as hard as we possibly can to bring these projects on stream. That is what we are elected to do and that is exactly what we are going to do. Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition, I am not any more satisfied than he is with the current economic situation in the province and we are going to be doing everything we can to turn it around.

Mr Nixon: The Premier must surely be aware that even though he describes his dissatisfaction, we are all dissatisfied with this and he is the one person, perhaps with the Treasurer, who can do something more than is presently being done.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. It has to do with the announcements over the last few days of substantial windfall profits from the petroleum industry in Canada. Much of these profits, of course, is earned in this jurisdiction and certainly are reported here.

With gasoline prices contributing to the increase in inflation, up to 5% according to Statistics Canada, with drivers paying 24.2% more for gasoline last month than a year ago November and with the petroleum industry reporting a 183% increase in profit year over year, would she not feel that there is a certain amount of gouging going on in the profit-taking of this particular industry during the last couple of months?

Hon Mrs Carter: I can only repeat what I have said before in answer to similar questions, that we are monitoring prices. I do not believe that prices have increased recently as a result of the Middle East crisis; in fact the reverse has been the case. We shall take appropriate action if we feel that this has become necessary.

Mr Nixon: During the Premier's brief honeymoon with the people of the province -- I think it was about the fourth day he was in office -- he made a statement that he would not allow gouging. The Toronto Star, which of course has since left his support substantially, said, "Rae Vows to Bar Price Gouging by Oil Companies." I noticed about a week later that one of the minister's employees said he had looked at the matter very carefully and there was no gouging, and everybody sat back and was relieved that the government was in control of this matter.

But surely when the minister looks at the profits reported by these major, world-class companies she must see that the increase in profits of this type must surely be associated with the heavy increases in the prices charged, and surely she as the minister should be doing something about it.

The one thing that concerns me is that so many of her colleagues were vehement in this regard in their previous incarnation.

I think of the honourable member for Algoma, who is now Minister of Natural Resources, who said -- and this is so typical of the whole bunch of them -- "It is time we got away from this crazy and silly political posturing in this House and actually made a commitment to the consumers of this province that we are going to lower the prices in northern Ontario and deal with the ripoff the oil companies are providing to consumers." The honourable minister must surely want to support her colleagues, even though she was not here and is not responsible for some of the excesses of some of these people, but surely with the statistics before her it is not enough for her to simply say that she can say no more.

Hon Mrs Carter: If the Leader of the Opposition will provide me with evidence of gouging by oil companies, I would be very happy to see it. I would like to point out that the price of gasoline has actually gone down over the last week.

Mr Nixon: Since very specific complaints were brought forward, besides the Premier saying that he was not going to allow gouging and that he thinks a 183% increase year over year is all right, what about the minister's northern colleagues who have been perfectly clear in their commitment that they were going to equalize these prices in northern Ontario? I see the Minister of Mines straightening up and opening his briefing book for the first time in two months, in case he is going to participate in this. The honourable House leader herself, who unfortunately is absent, had indicated that there should be some sort of a legislative review undertaken and maybe even controls.

Surely the minister, now that she represents all of this goodwill and this strength in policy, is going to have to announce something to fulfil these commitments to the people of Ontario and particularly northern Ontario.

Hon Mrs Carter: A member of my staff did go up to Kapuskasing at the end of last week. I have not yet received the full briefing, but I do understand that it so happened that the price of gas went down by a nickel over the weekend, whatever the reason may have been. We are holding a briefing for caucus members from that area tomorrow and we shall be going into this matter very fully.

Mr Harris: I congratulate the minister on knowing where Kapuskasing is, which is more than half the Liberal cabinet did in the past five years.

INTEREST RATE RELIEF

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier. In August he outlined a document -- just to refresh his memory in case he has forgotten -- called An Agenda for People. On page 2 of that document the Premier said, "Ontario is in a recession." No surprises; I would assume that once he got into power it would be in a recession. He said in August it was in a recession. He said, "The high interest rate policies of the federal Conservatives demand a provincial response."

The Premier did not say that provincial response was to rant and wail and moan and groan about the federal government's interest rate policies. What he said was this: that he would use the borrowing power of preferential rates available to the provincial government, administer the programs using existing structures, and that he would offer reduced interest rate loans to three critical areas of Ontario's economy, all at no cost to the taxpayer.

During the election, that is what the Premier said his response would be. One of those critical areas in the three he outlined was small business. Given that, true to what the Premier thought in August, we are in a recession, can he tell us why he is waiting for this no-cost option to provide interest rate relief to small business?

Hon Mr Rae: To be fair to the leader of the third party, he has asked this question before, almost verbatim, and I am going to try to give him an answer which is consistent with my previous answer, and that is to make it clear to the leader of the third party, the Conservative Party, that the major economic decision we decided we could take before the budget was with respect to the anti-recession package.

We have made some other announcements apart from that, but, frankly, the overall dollar amount has not been enormous, and that has been basically because we wanted to get a handle on the overall economic situation in preparation for the budget before making any other major economic announcements. That is the reason we have decided to act in this way.

I think it is a wise course of action. I think it is consistent with what most people would feel makes a whole lot of sense. We are focusing on the $700-million package, and other announcements, frankly, are just going to have to wait a little while longer.

Mr Harris: What the Premier has said in An Agenda for People is "at no cost to the taxpayer." I do not know why he needs to talk to the Treasurer. Is the Premier telling me that 10.5% loans for small business at no cost to the Treasury are not a priority for his government, given this period of recession?

Second, the Premier offers the same type of assistance to farmers. He says 10.5% money will be made available to farmers -- again at no cost to the Treasury. I do not know why the Premier needs to talk to the Treasurer. Since the Premier had this plan, he knew we were in a recession, and he can do this at no cost so presumably there would be no financial impact on the province, why does the Premier not proceed with the plan to provide farmers with 10.5% low-interest loans?

Hon Mr Rae: For the same reason that I indicated in my first answer. I am sure the leader of the Conservative Party is aware that my colleague the member for Essex-Kent, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, is consulting widely and is visiting communities across the province to discuss questions of agricultural finance. I think that is the way for us to proceed.

Mr Harris: I really think the Premier is testing the credibility of the small business sector and the farming sector. Presumably he is consulting with them and saying, "Do you want 10.5% money?" and he thinks maybe there is one farmer or one small businessman out there who is going to say: "No, Bob, don't do that. Please don't give us a break on interest rates." What is there to consult about? They have told the Premier for a long period of time what the problem is. He knew in August what the problem was.

Let me get to the third sector of the economy, which is the housing industry. There the Premier promised 10.5% loans -- again at no cost to the Treasury, no cost to the taxpayer, he is going to use the borrowing power of the government of Ontario. I assume that the Premier can do this at no cost providing the Treasurer is not planning to use up all of the provincial borrowing power for something else.

I would ask the Premier, is that why he has to consult the Treasurer? Is that why he has to wait for the budget, because he is concerned that the Treasurer and the rest of his ministries will use all the government borrowing power and there will be nothing left of the borrowing power to help farmers, to help small businessmen and to help the housing industry?

Hon Mr Rae: When I listen to the leader of the Conservative Party, I always have to be aware what day it is, if this is Dr Save or Dr Spend.

I want to say to him that after two and a half months in office, I think it is fair to say that the government made a decision, knowing we would be criticized by some, though we were never quite sure from what source the criticism would come or on what day it would come, or the consistency of the criticism, but to say to the leader of the third party that the decision was made that we would proceed with a major capital works project, which is exactly what we have done; and that with respect to other economic announcements, we would basically be taking time to study those, to talk to people, to consult with people and not make any further major announcements until we get closer to budget time.

That is the decision that we have made. I think it is a wise decision in terms of looking at the implications of our decisions, not just for next year but for future budget years. As we head into 1993, 1994 and 1995, we have to be concerned about the long-term implications of every decision that we make. We are very much aware of that.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Harris: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transportation concerning his government's commitment to spending money on infrastructure in the province of Ontario rather than helping the private sector or helping farmers or helping small business.

The Premier says they are going to stimulate the economy with private sector investment. I wonder if the minister can tell me what consultation he had with the mayor of Hamilton and the chairman of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth in reversing a 10-year commitment and planning decision in cancelling $400-million worth of work on the Red Hill expressway.

Hon Mr Philip: In the first place, it is not the cancellation of $400-million worth of work. In the second place, I can tell the member that I consulted extensively with Reg Whynott, the regional chairman, and the elected representatives from that area. I understood their concerns precisely and I had an obligation, as the Minister of Transportation, to make a decision based on my concern for the environment. I made a correct decision, I made a moral decision, and I decided not to continue with the funding of an expressway through an environmentally sensitive area.

Mr Harris: I guess the defence for not doing anything is going to be this high moral something or other in their background affecting decision-making.

By way of supplementary. the minister says it is not $400 million, and he is quite right. There is already $100 million being spent; it is the other $300 million not being spent. Silly me for treating it as $400 million wasted when he is going to throw away $100 million that has already been spent on his roads to nowhere.

However, I would like to ask the minister this. All the planning in the whole region of Hamilton-Wentworth, all the planning for the last decade, all the residential zoning, all the commercial planning and all the industrial planning has gone on on the basis of this expressway going in the location where it was to go through, part of it the Red Hill Creek area.

A full environmental assessment was conducted. All of the moral decisions were decided by, I guess, two previous governments. Can he tell us what happens now with a decade of all the planning. all the zoning, all the houses that have been built and planned, the commercial development, the industrial development in all of the Hamilton-Wentworth region? Does he just forget it all now?

Hon Mr Philip: The obligation of this government and of my ministry is to set the priorities for how we will spend the tax money that we have at our disposal. I chose not to spend our tax dollars on a matter that would create an environmental problem for the people of Hamilton-Wentworth. I chose not to spend money on destroying something that will be of great value to our children and our children's children, and that is my obligation. It was a tough decision, but I had the guts to make it.

Mr Harris: I wonder if the minister could tell me what aspect of the environmental assessment that was done on this project he disagrees with.

Hon Mr Philip: It is not my role to decide what the environmental assessment is.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Philip: There was a consolidated hearing some five years ago. Things have changed since then. I made a decision based on present conditions and on our party's commitment to protect the environment and to have a marriage between the environment and transportation. I made that decision, it is the correct decision, it is the morally right decision and I stand by my decision.

PURCHASE OF URANIUM

Mr Brown: On 18 August 1990 in Sudbury, Ontario, in a television interview, the Premier stated clearly and unequivocally that Ontario Hydro would increase its uranium purchases from the mines at Elliot Lake. My question is to the Minister of Energy. Does she support this very clear promise made by the Premier on 18 August?

Hon Mrs Carter: I would like to point out that the moratorium we have brought in on the building of nuclear power stations has made no difference whatsoever to Elliot Lake because we are still purchasing uranium for existing stations. We are bringing the Darlington stations on line and obviously we shall need uranium for those. The problems at Elliot Lake are due to the falling off of international demand for uranium, which is something that is obviously beyond our scope. We are looking into the question of purchase from the mines at Elliot Lake, and that is something that we shall be coming up with an answer on in the future.

Mr Brown: I am saddened; I am disappointed. Does the minister not understand that there are 2,000 men and women unemployed in Elliot Lake right now? We are talking about 60% unemployment in Elliot Lake among the primary workforce. The Premier's statement on 18 August was not just some throwaway NDP policy; it was not an initiative like most of the others in Elliot Lake, which are just strictly pulled from the Liberal agenda. It was a very specific promise made to a very specific group of people in full recognition of the recession and in full recognition of the government's nuclear policy. They said they would buy 100% uranium in Elliot Lake.

The Minister of Natural Resources, my friend the member for Algoma, in campaigning said, "We must buy 100% of the uranium in Elliot Lake; put people before dollars." We have 2,000 men and women in Elliot Lake unemployed. This is their promise. When is the minister going to live up to it? It has to be now.

Hon Mrs Carter: Of course, the problem that the people of Elliot Lake have is that theirs has been very much a one-industry town. They have had to depend on uranium mining, which is something that does have its limitations in any case.

We have not discontinued purchases from there. As I said, the difference is due to the falling off of demand. We are very concerned indeed about the problem of employment in Elliot Lake. My parliamentary assistant has recently been there and has discussed the problem with the mayor and other people there. The mayor happened to say, incidentally, while he was there, that the previous government had let them down.

We are looking at a whole range of possible things that may happen there. One is that as a result of our policies of energy efficiency, there will be job spinoffs in all kinds of other manufacturing and other areas which may benefit that area. Ontario Hydro is also looking at the possibility of putting electricity generation of a different type -- not nuclear -- into that area.

As I say, we are extremely concerned. We are working on it. We shall not leave the people of Elliot Lake abandoned to their fate. We are doing what we can.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Harris: I would like to go back to the Minister of Transportation to try to find out whether this decision that he has made today in Hamilton is one based on perception, as was the decision with the long trucks, or whether it was a decision made upon some morals he has, for which there is no foundation, or whether it was based on a foundation. I would ask the minister again, could he tell me one thing that the environmental assessment panel ruled on when it ruled in favour of this project that he disagrees with?

Hon Mr Philip: The consolidated hearing was not unanimous. In fact, the environmental representative on that consolidated hearing wrote a very strong dissenting report condemning the decision on environmental grounds. I have reviewed that. I reviewed the destruction that would take place to the valley if this portion of the expressway went through and I made the decision based on what I feel is the commitment of New Democrats in this House and in this government to the protection of the environment.

Mr Harris: I am trying to get a handle on process here. Is the minister saying: "It does not matter what the Minister of the Environment says or does. It does not matter about the environmental assessment process. It does not matter about 10 years of planning. All that matters is my personal sense of what is good and what is bad"? Other than that, I wonder if the minister can tell me one specific thing, other than the fact that we know there were a couple of people who objected, that bothers him about the impact on the valley of this road going through there.

Hon Mr Philip: We made the decision. It was a cabinet decision. It was a proposal that I brought to the cabinet that we not fund that portion of the expressway. I felt that it was based on what we had said in an election; namely, our commitment to have a marriage between Environment and Transportation and between Environment and other ministries. We were consistent with what we said in the election and we are consistent with our strong commitment to protecting the environment.

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Mr White: My question is for the Attorney General. In June of this year the standing committee on administration of justice submitted a report entitled Alternative Dispute Resolution. Although much has happened since that time, I am sure the Attorney General will recall the report. "Alternative dispute resolution" is a catch-all phrase which includes such activities as mediation in family law and consensual deliberation of native people and labour arbitration.

The justice committee report had several recommendations for the Ministry of the Attorney General that would affect government support for that conflict resolution mechanism. Is it the intent of the Attorney General to consider and possibly follow through with those recommendations?

Hon Mr Hampton: I want to thank the member for the question because it is certainly a timely question, given some of the situations we currently have in the court system. I want to say this in answer: The Ministry of the Attorney General wants to explore and evaluate the use of alternative dispute resolution methods over the next few years, and to this end the ministry has designed a family mediation pilot project in conjunction with the Unified Family Court in Hamilton. As well, there are pilot projects ongoing with some first nations communities in northern Ontario to design alternative dispute resolution methods for native justice.

But I also want to say to the member that where alternative dispute resolution has been tried in the United States, it has been somewhat controversial. It has been controversial because in some cases it has been found to have been unfair to women, to the poor and to some minority groups. So while we want to explore and evaluate, we want to take great care in the projects that we do initiate to ensure that they are fair to the people in society whom we have to serve.

TRADE WITH MEXICO

Mr Kwinter: In the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I have a question for the Premier. A seminar was held in Montreal last week sponsored by the International Trade Centre in Montreal. The meeting was attended by federal trade officials and business leaders. It was held to discuss a free trade arrangement between Canada and Mexico and wound up urging that Canada should enter into a free trade agreement with Mexico.

This weekend, Edward Ney, the US ambassador to Canada, said that Canada must decide by I February 1991 whether to accept the United States and Mexico's ground rules for Canada's participation in a three-way free trade deal. Can the Premier tell us if his government is in favour of a Canadian free trade agreement with Mexico?

Hon Mr Rae: No, I am not. Let me be very direct with the former minister, whose experience in this field in well known. Let me say this to him very directly. He will know, because he was formerly the minister and he expressed these views on a number of occasions, how poorly Canada did and fared under the free trade arrangement with the United States. He will know that the federal government, which promised us the greatest adjustment measures in the history of civilization, to paraphrase the words of the Prime Minister, failed totally to deliver on that.

He will know that there are thousands of workers and communities that are worse off as a result of the way in which the previous free trade agreement with the United States was negotiated.

We now have the second phase of the American administration's agenda with respect to trade, and I say to the member for Wilson Heights as clearly as I possibly can that I do not intend to subscribe to that agenda on behalf of our government. Our government does not subscribe to that agenda; I have indicated that to the Prime Minister. It has been indicated to Mr Crosbie by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology how strongly this government feels that the federal government has an obligation to live up to its own commitments to the workers of Ontario and Quebec and Atlantic Canada and western Canada.

It has an obligation to make good on those before it starts talking about any other arrangements that are going to be made which are going to leave our workers even more vulnerable than they already are under the existing arrangements.

Mr Kwinter: The Premier has indicated that his government is opposed to a Canada-Mexico free trade agreement. The New Democratic Party was very critical of what it called the ineffectiveness of our government's opposition to the US free trade deal and vowed that if it were elected, it would not be held hostage and would do everything in its power to frustrate any of the provisions in the agreement that fell under provincial jurisdiction.

In spite of these grandiose statements, the speech from the throne made no mention of what the Premier would do about the Canada-US free trade agreement. His government allowed 650 53-foot trailer permits to be picked up by Americans, to the detriment of Ontario manufacturers and users. He has just done a total about-face and issued another 400 permits without any provision that they in fact stay in Ontario for Ontario users.

The Premier called a Canada-US-Mexico free trade agreement: "...unconscionable. It is an absurd adventure inspired by US President George Bush." Could the Premier tell us what measures he and his government contemplate to effectively oppose what they have labelled an absurd adventure?

Hon Mr Rae: I do not know how one can make any clearer than I already have the views that we have expressed. We intend to discuss these views with other governments across the country, and we shall continue to do that. We have met already with groups in this province and elsewhere that are very concerned about the direction of federal trade policy.

I know that there have been meetings by others who have been down to Mexico and met with the opposition in Mexico in terms of their views.

It is my understanding that the leader of the opposition in Mexico may well be coming to Canada in the new year, in which case I can tell him and tell the member that I would be more than pleased to meet with him to discuss the real interest that we both share with respect to improving working and living conditions in our two countries, and these are actions that we are going to continue to take, because we believe that the federal trade agenda and the Republican trade agenda coming out of the United States are not trade agendas which serve the interests of the working people, indeed all the people, of this province.

We are going to continue to maintain our position, to attempt to persuade others of its merits, to work with other groups that we want to work with and to do what we can to see if we cannot turn this strategy around.

NURSING STAFF

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. As the Minister of Health is undoubtedly aware, the contract between the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Nurses' Association expires on 31 March 1991, a few short weeks from now.

Last Friday, the Treasurer, as the minister is aware, met with the Ontario Hospital Association. A report coming out of the meeting -- I am quoting from the Toronto Star now so as not to offend any cabinet minister over there -- said, referring to Mr Laughren, "He also suggested that an NDP election promise to pay nurses more could prove too costly during a recession." The NDP "'made a lot of promises in the campaign that were extremely expensive,' Laughren said."

Do they not realize what position they are putting the Ontario Hospital Association in with that type of approach? How can they expect the OHA to negotiate and bargain in good faith with the ONA when it does not know how much money, if any, the Treasurer is going to give it?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I think that question should be referred to the Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: Could I commence by thanking my former friend the Minister of Health for referring the question.

I am not sure what the member for Parry Sound is getting at. What I said to the Ontario Hospital Association was that I understood that it was its responsibility to bargain with the nurses of this province. I also said --

Mr Eves: Is the Treasurer going to give them the money the Premier wants them to have?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not give the money to the nurses of the province of Ontario.

Mr Eves: Yes, you do.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Parry Sound should understand, if he would listen for a moment, that what we do is we announce a major transfer from the province to the Ontario Hospital Association.

Mr Eves: I understand exactly how the system works. The Treasurer gives the money to the hospitals, they give it to the nurses. That is pretty simple.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Could the Treasurer take a seat for a moment, please? Would the member take his seat, please?

Mr Scott: Who are all these hecklers, Mr Speaker? That's awful.

The Speaker: Yes, I wonder. I am gratified that everyone had a nice rest on the weekend. They came back full of energy, which is quite wonderful. Earlier in the question period, a member had a question about process.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I will make one more attempt. The process that is in place here is that a question is asked and then there is an opportunity for response. That is a process which we will follow.

Has the Treasurer completed his response? Supplementary.

Mr Eves: I am glad the Treasurer thinks that it is not his responsibility. I think he just said a few moments ago, "We don't pay nurses." I would like to read him a quote from an emergency debate of his leader's, 15 February 1989, to see what the Premier thinks about whose responsibility it is to pay nurses. These are all direct quotes from the Premier:

"The question is a commonsense approach to a problem which is one of health and of life."

"If it is not working well enough to attract and keep nurses, then as a government which is the paykeeper, as a government which is in fact responsible for paying nurses' salaries, that government ought to be there saying to the hospital association and to the nurses' association: 'This isn't working well enough. We want you two to get together and find a solution, and we are prepared to be the funders of the decisions that you arrive at.'"

The Premier says it is the Treasurer's responsibility. The Treasurer should talk to the Premier. He says the Treasurer funds what they decide. Is that correct? Does the minister agree with what the Premier said or not?

Hon Mr Laughren: I will try once again.

Mr Eves: The Premier said they are responsible to pay the nurses; the Treasurer said they're not.

Hon Mr Laughren: Through the Ontario Hospital Association, we provide the funds.

Mr Eves: Oh, now they are. Thirty seconds ago they were not.

The Speaker: Would the Treasurer take a seat please? The member for Parry Sound asked a very important question, and the assumption is that he would like a response. It would be much easier, the member would find, if he were not to interject while the response is being given.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member for Parry Sound does understand how the system works.

Mr Eves: I understand exactly how it works.

Hon Mr Laughren: Therefore, I do not understand why he is asking the question. He is trying to find more information about it.

Mr Eves: Is the Treasurer giving them the money or not?

Mr Sorbara: You say they need more, but you won't give them the money.

Hon Mr Laughren: I am trying not to be provocative. Surely the member for Parry Sound understands very well that we provide funds to the Ontario Hospital Association, which in turn bargains with the nurses of the province and comes to some kind of settlement. What I said to the Ontario Hospital Association the other day was I understood what its demands were. They were extremely well documented. The OHA has a very good reputation of not putting phoney numbers in front as a bargaining ploy. I said to the OHA we do understand what the needs are. I hope that they understand, as well, that we cannot satisfy everybody's needs at this point.

Mr Eves: We can't keep the promise we made during the election.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: If the member would please listen for a moment. he would understand that we are going to do the best we can, all within a framework of fiscal responsibility.

RENT REVIEW

Mr Owens: My question is for the Minister of Housing.

Mr Elston: This ought to be good.

Mr Owens: Absolutely. Pay attention.

For the past couple of weeks since we announced our rent control moratorium, we have heard the leader of the third party, we have heard the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel speaking about how the poor, downtrodden landlords are being stepped on one more time.

We received information that the building of the residents at 506 Dawes Road in East York has been requested to undergo a rent review to the tune of 39%, and I wonder if the minister is aware of that request.

Hon Mr Cooke: Actually, I became aware of this situation late last week both from honourable members but also from a letter that I received at my office. If I might read, in part, this letter, I think it would be of interest to the members of the Legislature. Besides outlining the case, the letter that I have reads as follows:

"I know that you are aware, as I am, of the very grave situation that exists in rental housing and the extreme hardships that result when there are rent increases of the magnitude outlined in Mr Courvell's letter. I know as well that you have undertaken to make changes in the rent review legislation to increase the protection for tenants."

This is the important part: "I trust that you will be proceeding with your contemplated changes without delay."

This letter came at the end of last week, and I appreciate this letter from Alan Redway, the federal Minister of State (Housing).

Mr Owens: The Conservatives should listen well.

I am wondering if the minister could provide any suggestions to the third party on how it can provide a more coherent co-ordination of responses between its federal and provincial counterparts.

Hon Mr Cooke: What I would suggest is that the provincial Conservative Party take the advice of the federal Conservative Party and let us proceed as quickly as possible to protect tenants in this province.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Ms Poole: My question is also for the Minister of Housing. In the Agenda for People, and indeed throughout the election campaign, New Democrats promised the construction of 20,000 non-profit homes per year to be built by the year 1992. I would like the minister to confirm now in this House the completion date for the first 20,000 nonprofit homes under this program.

Hon Mr Cooke: I would be glad to inform the member, as I have said in the Legislature to other members, that because of the process of reallocation and speeding up the Homes Now program, next year it is our projection that we will produce in this province and start around 20,000 units, the largest number of housing starts ever in the history of this province.

Ms Poole: I am glad to have the commitment of the Minister of Housing that the government will indeed construct those 20,000 units, but unfortunately that was not my question. My question was, when?

I would like to ask the minister about another aspect of affordable housing. He has said that 33% of tenants in this province are paying more than 30% of their income on rent and many of those people cannot wait several years for non-profit housing to be built. They actually need help now.

This minister and this government have said that they are the champions of these very people. If this is true, why has this minister not put a penny more into convert-to-rent programs? Why has he not provided any more money for rent supplement programs such as in situ placement? If the minister is so committed to social housing, why is he not providing any more money to these programs and providing it now?

Hon Mr Cooke: What I indicated to the member was that under the Homes Now program there were 30,000 units committed or promised by the former government. It was a good program. It still is. The problem is that most of the housing was never produced under that government. So we have gone through a process of reallocation. We are looking at the sponsoring groups that cannot start their homes by next year. We have changed the starting date from 31 March to the end of September to make sure we can get as many housing starts as possible under the Homes Now program, and that will now happen.

In terms of other programs that exist, the member knows as well as I do that we are now in the process of developing an entire housing strategy, part of which is the Homes Now program, and social housing, part of which is an effective rent control system, and there will be other programs that will form part of that housing strategy, the reform of the planning process.

I would just ask the member to give us a few more months to pull that package together and develop for the first time in this province a comprehensive, all-inclusive housing strategy.

BRANTWOOD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

Mr Jackson: My question is for the Premier. The Premier will remember the E coli bacteria outbreak at the Extendicare London Nursing Home in September 1985 in which 19 residents died. He will recall that on 17 October 1985, as the then leader of the third party in this House, he demanded that the then Liberal government launch a full investigation rather than a simple coroner's inquest to investigate those deaths. He went so far as to call on the Attorney General of the day to lay criminal charges in that case under Ontario's Nursing Homes Act. I invite him to revisit Hansard, page 939, of that day.

Yet when it came to the circumstances surrounding the Brantwood Residential Development Centre, where 15 residents died and there were reports of abuse and serious injury, the Premier refused to apply the same standard of a police investigation for the safety of vulnerable adults in that provincial institution.

My question is, advocacy groups for vulnerable adults are very much aware of the reversal of the Premier's position that he took when he was sitting here in the third party from that which he is now taking as Premier. They want to know why it is that he has betrayed his own social conscience when it comes to vulnerable adults in residential, provincially run institutions in this province.

Hon Mr Rae: Two weeks ago at about seven o'clock in the morning, together with the Minister of Community and Social Services, I visited the Brantwood centre. It was a totally surprise visit. It was prompted by my desire to simply be there and to visit and to get a chance to talk to people in the facility. The member has said something about abuse and about evidence of activity by people. If he has any evidence, he has a responsibility to bring it forward. I am not aware of any.

I have read thoroughly the reports which are publicly available with respect to the circumstances at the Brantwood centre. There have been staffing problems with respect to feeding time which were well documented at the centre. I want to tell the member, we are dealing here with people of all ages who are extremely medically fragile.

I would also urge him and any other member who is concerned about the care of anyone in any provincial facility to go and visit and see for themselves the work that is being done, the care that is being provided, and if he has any evidence with respect to concerns, to make those concerns publicly available and to bring them to the attention of the public authorities who are responsible.

I say to the member, I have been as true to my social conscience with regard to the care of developmentally disabled people as I possibly can. There is a coroner's inquest that is now ongoing. To compare that situation with the outbreak of an E coli bacterium in the Extendicare London Nursing Home five years ago is not a fair comparison. We are dealing with a very different situation, with a very different result and with a very, very different set of circumstances.

I would say to the honourable member, if he has any other evidence with respect to the care there or anywhere else, he should please bring it to the attention of the public authorities. He does not have to bring it to my attention; he should bring it to the attention of the Attorney General or anyone else, and if there is any evidence that the police -- the police are able to read these reports; they are publicly available. The Attorney General's department can read the reports; they are publicly available.

If there is any evidence that anyone has died as a result either of deliberate malfeasance or criminal negligence, that evidence is something which should be dealt with, not on a political basis by the leader of any party, but by those public authorities.

Mr Jackson: An examination of Hansard five years ago will confirm that the Premier, who is also a lawyer by profession, had some very different things to say about a very different standard of care for vulnerable adults. I would remind the Premier of one further item. Not only did his Agenda for Reform in 1985 not have a specific statement about protection of vulnerable adults, he will recall that during the committee hearings on Bill 176,

An Act to amend the Nursing Homes Act, the member for Lincoln and I brought in an amendment to extend nursing home residents' protection under a bill of rights to include all citizens in Ontario, including those under the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act, to include all health care consumers. This was in 1986. I was shocked and dismayed when the NDP members for Hamilton West and Windsor-Riverside withdrew support for that amendment, one can only assume, with the understanding and blessings of the then leader of the third party.

The Premier's record is very clearly one in which he did not support the full extension of protection and rights for vulnerable adults in provincial institutions, and I ask him again on their behalf why it is that he has reversed himself on this critical position, especially in light of the deaths at Brantwood Residential Development Centre in Brantford?

Hon Mr Rae: The member is someone whose arguments I always listen to with great interest and whose description of my views I always have learned to take with a certain grain of salt. l have a reasonably good memory. It is not photographic, but it is not too bad.

Mr Bradley: It's selective.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St Catharines says that it is selective. It is not anywhere near as selective as I would like it to be because some things come back to haunt me late at night.

I would like to say to the member for Burlington South that I think we are being truest to our principles in our party. We said very clearly in the throne speech what we are going to do and what we plan to do on advocacy and the kinds of measures that we want to take in that regard. I hope we have demonstrated that in terms of the speed with which we have responded to the situation at Brantwood, to all of the allegations with regard to what took place or the circumstances surrounding them which have been a matter of record since the mid-1980s.

I say to the member that to compare that with respect to the question of whether charges should be laid under the Nursing Homes Act with respect to the London Extendicare situation is just not a fair comparison. We are talking about two very different situations.

But I want to say to the member that there will be lots of things to be done with respect to advocacy, lots of things to be done with respect to rights. We have asked Mr Lightman to look at the question of the care of those people who are in retirement homes. We are moving ahead very directly with respect to the situation at Brantwood. I can assure the member that if he has any other evidence with respect to problems we would be more than pleased to hear of it.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Miss Martel moved that notwithstanding standing order 94(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 4.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Mathyssen: I have a petition from the members of the Oakridge Presbyterian Church of London, Ontario, asking the members of the Legislative Assembly to ensure that we have a common pause day in the province of Ontario. I have affixed my name to this petition.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr Winninger: I have a petition of 34 names supporting the protection of designated buildings in the city of London by passing the private member's bill introduced by me on 6 December 1990.

I have a second petition signed by various members of the business community in London who support the legislation designed to preserve heritage buildings in London and requiring that a building permit be issued by the municipality before their demolition. This petition has 51 names.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Callahan moved first reading of Bill 27,

An Act to amend the Mental Health Act.

Mr Callahan: To enlarge on what I said in my private member's statement, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that an appeal from an order disallowing treatment would be made within 30 days from the filing with the district court, or in this case the Ontario Court (General Division), and secondarily that there will be provision for an interim application to a judge pending the hearing of the appeal to allow medication to continue. That basically is a start on the mental health amendment.

Motion agreed to.

CLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 SUR LES RECOURS COLLECTIFS

Mr Hampton moved first reading of Bill 28,

An Act respecting Class Proceedings.

M. Hampton propose la première lecture du project de loi 28, Loi concernant les recours collectifs.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mr Hampton: The Class Proceedings Act, 1990, will make available a comprehensive procedure for claims on behalf of numerous persons who have suffered the same loss or injury. The procedure is designed to provide a more efficient and streamlined method for the court to deal with complex litigation affecting the interests of hundreds or even thousands of persons.

I want to acknowledge at this time the work done by the previous Attorney General who worked very long and very hard on this legislation. I am pleased now to be able to present it to the House.

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT (CLASS PROCEEDINGS FUNDING), 1990

Mr Hampton moved first reading of Bill 29,

An Act to amend the Law Society Act to provide for Funding to Parties to Class Proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Hampton: This is really complementary legislation to the Class Proceedings Act. What it will essentially do is endow a class proceedings fund in the amount of $500,000. The fund will be used to assist plaintiffs in class proceedings with disbursements and cost awards.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (MISCELLANEOUS), 1990

Mrs Boyd moved first reading of Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I am pleased to introduce the Education Amendment Act (Miscellaneous), 1990. This act updates the Education Act with respect to freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation and gives legislative support in the following six areas: first, release of basic personal information to medical officers of health; second, continued collection of personal information in the Ontario student record; third, funding for school-based child care facilities; fourth, payment of sick leave gratuities for designated teachers; fifth, additional programs for students with special needs in demonstration schools, and finally, copyright licence agreements.

Hon Miss Martel: Before the fourth order is called, might I make a note of two things. One, we would like the votes to be stacked and I believe we have unanimous consent to do that for the four bills that will go through committee today, and two, at each point when a minister starts to deal with a new bill, can the minister move down to the front and have his staff join them at the front?

Hon Mr Wildman: I don't need it.

Hon Miss Martel: Well, for the other ministers who will require staff.

The Speaker: The government House leader may likely be aware that the request she has made should properly be made during the committee sitting.

Was there a point of order?

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, just to comment on the government House leader's suggestion, I believe it is also agreed among the three House leaders that the vote on Bill 4, which we will be debating later this afternoon or probably this evening, will also be stacked until tomorrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

MANITOULIN, BARRIE AND COCKBURN ISLANDS LAND ACT, 1990

Consideration of Bill 15,

An Act respecting Land on Manitoulin Island, Barrie Island and Cockburn Island.

Hon Miss Martel: I might ask at this point in time that when the bills come up the ministers may be allowed to move to the front of the benches and have their staff join them. We will be dealing with four bills, we hope, this afternoon.

Agreed to.

The Chair: Any questions, comments or amendments, and if so, to which

section of the bill?

Hon Mr Wildman: I have amendments to schedules 1, 2 and 3, but I do not have amendments to any sections of the bill.

Sections I to 7, inclusive, agreed to.

The Chair: Mr Wildman moves that the schedules to the bill be amended as follows:

1. In

schedule 1,

(

a) under the heading "Secondly" and under the subheading "Fourteenthly," by striking out the words "lots 20 and 21, concessions 20 and 21" and substituting "lot 20, concessions 20 and 21 and lot 21, concession 20";

(

b) under the heading "Fourthly" and under the subheading "Firstly," by inserting after "by the" in the third line "shore";

(

c) under the heading "Fourthly" and under the subheading "Eleventhly," by inserting after "T660" in the second line "and recorded in the land registry office for the district of Manitoulin as number 28"; and

(

d) under the heading "Sixthly" and under the subheading "Eighteenthly," by striking out in the second paragraph, "Save and Except from the lots, streets and road allowances described as Firstly through Seventeenthly above, those parts of the said lots and streets," and substituting "Save and Except from the road allowances described as Firstly through Eighteenthly above, those parts of the said road allowances."

2. In

schedule 2, under the heading "Fourthly" and under the subheading "Thirdly" by inserting after "where the" in the second line "westerly production of the".

3. In

schedule 3,

(

a) under the heading "Fourthly," by inserting before "as" in the third last line "all";

(

b) under the heading "Fifthly," by striking out "lots 2 to 5" on the ninth last line and substituting "lots 1 to 5"; and

(

c) under the heading "Fifthly," by inserting before "as" in the third last line "all."

Hon Mr Wildman: The purpose of these amendments to the schedules is simply to clarify boundaries, the legal descriptions of the various boundaries of the properties that are being dealt with in the schedules. It is essentially a housekeeping matter to make it correct and accurate so that everyone involved understands the proper boundary lines.

Motion agreed to.

Section 8 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, if you would permit me, I would just like to say once again thank you to all the members for their support of this historic bill and to congratulate once again all of the participants, the chiefs, the officials of the Ontario native affairs directorate and all involved in Manitoulin Island for their work to bring this historic agreement about, and to say once again that this is just the beginning.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (PREGNANCY AND PARENTAL LEAVE), 1990

Consideration of Bill 14,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act with respect to Pregnancy and Parental Leave.

The Chair: Are there any questions, comments or amendments, and if so, to which sections of the bill?

Mr Offer: I understand the member will be bringing forward an amendment to the legislation, not the government side, and I am just awaiting a copy of that amendment.

Mrs Marland: We do have amendments. We are just getting the copies.

The Chair: We will wait for them.

Mrs Marland: Thank you. We appreciate that.

The Chair: When you are ready to proceed just tell us and we will start.

Hon Miss Martel: If I might, the staff of the Ministry of Labour are not here yet, and the minister would really like to wait for them to proceed. However, I have checked with the House leader for the official opposition, and he is prepared to start with the next order, Bill 1 in committee of the whole; the minister's staff for that bill are here if we might proceed to that instead and hold up on Bill 14 for the moment.

The Chair: Agreed?

Agreed to.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Consideration of Bill 1,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

The Chair: Are there any questions, comments or amendments and, if so, to which section?

Mr Elston: I do not know whether the minister will have any opening remarks, but with respect to our comments, they will be really on the first three sections or so initially, although we would like to go to two or three other sections of the bill that deal with the efficiency components of raising tax revenue from small business and other people. Our remarks will be on individual sections generally. There are no amendments, because we believe those would be defeated in any event, but we do wish to raise the issues of policy around the sections.

The Chair: We will just have to go through

section by section.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I have no comments at this time, thank you, Mr Chair.

Section 1:

Mrs Y. O'Neill: The passage of

section 1 will involve unnecessary complexity by assuming that vendors are going to apply the goods and services tax separately on the basis of each individual purchase. This complexity will be much worse for those vendors who supply a variety of goods and services which differ in their taxation status. I would ask if the minister could tell us what she is doing to help those vendors, particularly the small business people, in handling this complexity with a variety of goods in corner stores in particular.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: What we are doing is we are not getting involved with the GST so that the federal government will be involved with showing them how they are going to collect the tax. We are keeping the retail sales rules as is, and they will comply by those rules; any added problems will have to be dealt with by the federal department.

Mr Elston: My colleague and I have not had a chance to get our questions co-ordinated here because of the movement of the bill earlier in the day, but I did want to say in general, and note for the people who are watching this proceeding on the air, that the bill implements the government's policy not to have purchasers pay retail sales tax on top of the proposed goods and services tax. That is the general intent of this legislation.

I want to talk about that just for a moment, if I might, and ask the minister -- who spoke very eloquently on the introduction of second reading for this bill and actually summed up very eloquently -- what, if this is one part of the goods and services tax revolt, are the other parts of the goods and services tax revolt which might be included along with these early sections of this particular bill?

I think it would be only fair to have a complete tax revolt encased in this legislation if there are any other parts of the program that needed to be put into the Retail Sales Tax Act. Therefore, it is only fair that we now know the other components of the retail sales tax revolt with respect to GST so we can enumerate the necessity for amendments to this particular proposal.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I guess the other part of the revolt is the court challenge that we are facing.

The other thing that will come to light as soon as the GST begins to be implemented is that the federal government is not ready. Our not co-operating with it in the collection of the tax will create more of a revolt among the consumers and vendors in the province.

Mr Elston: In the event that the minister is correct and the more difficult steps put in place by the ministry have actually caused some delays and some -- what do we say? -- inability on the federal government's part to implement the system, can she give us some precision as to the delaying tactics which her ministry has implemented so that I can understand how she has caused the delay of implementing the federal goods and services tax as part of her tax revolt?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: My ministry is not causing the delay. By not co-operating and saying, "We will collect this together; you can give us back our money and we'll make sure you get yours," the federal government is responsible on its own for getting this tax out of the vendors of the province. By making some things comparatively the same, it will make sure that we get our revenue. That is what we are trying to do: protect our provincial revenue.

Mr Elston: I am sorry I was sort of taken off course by the minister's first answer. The interesting item I had heard was that there are other parts to her tax revolt as well. Will the ministry itself be playing a role in this tax revolt, or has she encased it all here in these provisions of this amendment act?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: At this time, I cannot see any other part that the ministry itself would be playing in a tax revolt.

Mr Elston: It is interesting that the minister has enumerated the court challenge. Is there another component to the minister's tax revolt on the GST that will be a companion piece to these amendments?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: This amendment is not to stack the tax on the tax. I think as we watch, as I have said before, there will be problems with collecting the GST by the federal government. What we are doing is not making it easier for it to implement the collection of the GST.

Mr Elston: If I can just stray for a moment to later sections of this bill, the interesting

part is that she is requiring the retailers of the province to keep records for an extended period of time; she has increased it from three years to four years. Will those records be made available to federal authorities, since the minister is not making it easy for the federal government to collect, particularly as they relate to charges of retailers and others not providing their required remittances to the federal government?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I think those records are available to the federal government. As for being under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and everything that falls there, they are available for anybody. It is the federal GST that is requiring the keeping of the records for that long.

Mr Elston: I find that a little bit of a problem because under freedom-of-information legislation, of course, the records of any individual retailer are only available to that retailer and are not generally disseminated widely by ministries for any purpose, whether it is in Revenue or otherwise.

I would find it very difficult to accept that she is using freedom of information legislation now to expose retailers in this province who have been -- what will we say? -- disadvantaged with respect to the GST to her ministry's assistants, along with federal authorities, in tracking down unpaid GST.

Can the minister reconfirm what I just heard, that she will be working with the federal authorities to convict those people who do not remit their GST?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: We will not be working with the federal authorities for remitting the GST. What we are looking at is protecting the provincial sales tax. We are paralleling that. The stores have to keep it for seven years anyway, so why make two different sets of rules in that regard? They have to keep them for seven years so let's both make them keep them for seven years. We have to stay competitive so that we have that information also.

Mr Elston: While we are tracking down what the tax revolt is about on the goods and services tax, I think we need some clarification on exactly what these people are really requiring the retailers to do. They are going to require that they keep their records longer; in fact, the records which the retail sales tax ministry has available for its own use will be made available to the federal authorities and those will be used in investigations and in tracking down and convicting the retailers who do not remit goods and services tax. Can the minister tell me, is that not correct?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: They will be used and will be kept one year longer than they are now; that is correct. As for using them for any decisions, as far as I know, we will be using our records for our purposes and they will have their access to them just like anybody else has in the government.

Mr Elston: This is kind of disturbing because records of individual retailers generally are not widely available to anybody who wants them. I cannot go in and get a retailer's records. I had heard the minister say that she will be making the records available for retail sales tax purposes to the federal authorities so they can use them for their investigations and for tracking down those individuals who had not remitted goods and services tax. That being the case, the ministry -- far from assisting retailers and consumers in mounting a tax revolt -- is actually helping the federal authorities to track down those people who do not remit goods and services tax.

Can the minister tell us she will now amend this bill so that the federal authorities will not be assisted in tracking down people who through no fault of their own have not remitted goods and services tax? I think we all understand that this particular federal legislation is extremely complex and unusually slow in getting implemented, but the federal authorities have gone on anyway, and now this bill will allow the federal authorities to come in and use the Ministry of Revenue here, the retail sales tax branch, to find those people who are delinquent in paying federal money.

Can the minister tell us that she will want to amend this legislation to protect the retailers in the province of Ontario, thereby assisting in the tax revolt that her leader and she probably both campaigned on August last?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: There is an exchange of information with the feds on a reciprocal basis so we can collect our provincial sales tax and they can collect their GST. In that way, we have to work together. The federal government also has powers to get access to that information itself through its own auditors.

Mr Elston: This is a wonderful piece of information to the retailers in Ontario. This person who represents the New Democratic Party government has clearly stated that the goods and services tax, which is a brand-new tax in Canada, has a requirement for reciprocal exchange of information and that, far from leading a tax revolt, her government is helping to convict those people who do not remit goods and services tax. It can only be described as being complicit. In fact, the minister is not only paralleling; she is assisting the federal authorities in ripping the money from the hands of the retailers of this province.

I do not understand how they can stand up and keep telling us that they are leading some kind of tax revolt when they are actually having provisions in these sections of the bill which allows them, the Minister of Revenue for Ontario and the NDP government, to assist the federal revenue gatherers under the goods and services tax. I cannot understand why the minister is not amending this particular legislation, now that we are in committee of the whole House, to exclude any kind of co-operative activity on the part of the Ministry of Revenue with respect to goods and services tax collection.

I am not going to curry favour with the two gentlemen who are there assisting the minister, but the Ministry of Revenue is probably recognized as the best revenue department in Canada that has been collecting retail sales tax and other things, and yet they are saying that because we need some co-operation with the feds, who cannot get their act together on the goods and services tax, that we have to co-operate with them to share our information about those retailers who probably have not sent their goods and services tax in. I find that extremely difficult to accept, when we are supposed to be seeing a government that is leading a goods and services tax revolt.

What amendment is the minister prepared to propose so we can protect the retailers of this province who have been put out and who in fact have been strangled by the goods and services tax debate and the requirement to upgrade their machinery and other things that allow them to remit the tax?

I cannot believe the government is actually going to assist the feds in convicting people who do not remit it. Would the minister not say that she should help those people if the government is leading a tax revolt rather than hindering those people who do not remit goods and services tax?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: 1 have said already that the federal government has its own powers to investigate the vendors' records. It has the right to do that. What we want to do is also to have that power to collect the provincial sales tax. We do not want to co-operate with the GST. We all know the GST is the wrong tax for us right now, at this time, or at any time.

There is no way that this government, or probably the former government or even the other former government over there, wants to initiate and say hurray for the GST, and no one in Canada wants to say hurray for the GST. We do not want to encourage the GST.

I think as we watch the GST unfold in front of us, we are bound to see some failings on the part of that government.

Mr Elston: I just want to follow along that line for a couple of more moments so I can understand what this minister has just said. Has the minister just said that because of the necessity of her ministry receiving duplicate information from the federal authorities in order that she can collect more money, she has to co-operate with the federal authorities? And is she telling us that some secret deal has been made between her officials and the federal authorities to share information that allows both the federal Treasury and the provincial Treasury to extract more money from the pockets of the retailers of this province? That is what I heard the minister say. What is the deal?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: No, it is not. The reciprocal exchange applies to the Excise Tax Act. GST is to become part of that act, in co-operation with customs and excise on sales. Sales tax, tobacco tax and fuel tax have gone on for many years and have been very successful in fighting evasion, and that is what we are planning to continue to do.

Mr Elston: I think this is a very interesting line of questioning upon which I have embarked because it really tells us that, far from leading a tax revolt, these people are complicit in making sure that the individual retailers of this province pay the goods and services tax.

They not only have said that, but what they have indicated to us quite clearly here in this House in front of the TV cameras is that they have made a deal with the federal authorities to exchange information which allows the federal authorities to extract the goods and services tax and which also allows them to get information that will allow them to extract money from the retailers of the province with respect to retail sales tax remittances.

Can the minister confirm that, far from a tax revolt, she is leading a crusade to harvest far more dollars from the retail tax remitting people of the province?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn:

Interpretation is wonderful, I always said. The reciprocation of exchange of information has been there in the past. We want to keep it there so we can have exchange of information with the federal government. We want to protect the provincial sales tax. We do not care about the GST.

Mr Elston: Can I just get the minister to admit what in fact occurs as a result of exchange of information? The exchange of information helps the Ministry of Revenue in Ontario rip more money from the pockets of the retailers. Is that not correct? And the exchange of information from the Ministry of Revenue in Ontario will help the goods and services tax investigator from Ottawa track down and rip from the pockets of the retailers of this province more federal revenue. Is that not why the minister wants the exchange of information?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: No, it is not why we want the exchange of information. We need the exchange of information so we can administer the tax collections more effectively and efficiently.

Mr Elston: Effective and efficient management of a tax collections network. For those people who want to know what she really said was, this will allow the Ministry of Revenue for Ontario to get more dollars more quickly into the government of Ontario Treasury.

Effective and efficient tax revenue collection means they are going to get more dollars, and the information under the deal they have made with the federal authorities to get this money or this information will allow the federal authorities to do better on its collection of tax for goods and services tax purposes and it will allow the Ontario government to get more money more quickly, and with less pain to the government, out of the retailers of the province.

That is what she said, and I am discouraged that she does not have an amendment. If she says she does not want to help the investigation by the federal authorities, I am surprised she would not decide she would put an amendment in this thing that says no records shall be used at all for any purpose of investigation or of addressing charges for those people under the Goods and Services Tax Act. I think that would be the least she could do since the government has backed right away from leading a tax revolt but is in fact now in complicity in trying to raise federal revenue with these tax-sharing agreements between the Ministry of Revenue in Ontario and herself and her federal counterpart.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: My role as the Minister of Revenue is to implement the tax statutes and collect the provincial sales tax for the province. That is what I want to continue to do. I am not interested in the collection of the GST; I am interested only in collecting the provincial sales tax. This is a retail sales tax bill and we are interested in protecting our own revenue. The federal government gets its information already; it is already in the Excise Tax Act.

Mrs Marland: I am just wondering if this minister would like to tell us, in looking at the overall view of retail sales tax in Ontario, whether she has discussed with her ministry staff the possibility of reducing the retail sales tax, which was not a campaign promise of her party but was a campaign promise of the former government, which increased it from 7% to 8%. I am just wondering whether she has any plans to reduce it.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: That will be a decision that will be made by the Treasurer and that will also be announced by him.

Mrs Marland: Just as a supplementary to that, I am asking the member opposite, since as Minister of Revenue it is her ministry that would make the recommendations and the implementation would be the responsibility of her ministry. I am asking if she had discussed that before she brought this bill in; whether there is a possibility of reducing it. I am not interested in who is making the announcement; I know who makes some of the budget announcements that have budget implications. I think it is great that the minister is being coached by her colleague but I think she is quite capable of answering the question herself. Is it something that she has discussed?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: It is something that will be looked at through the Fair Tax Commission. It will be something that will come up as the Treasurer is doing the budget, as we look at the revenue that is needed.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: My colleague has already brought forward much of the harmonization that I brought to the attention of this House. I really do not think that can be denied. The complexities we are talking about here today and have talked about in the past are going to be very, very difficult for vendors to accept and to deal with. It is even going to be difficult for auditors. Indeed, the minister must have spoken to some, as I have.

The $500 million of retail tax saving that is supposed to be the great benefit of this bill will in all likelihood be more than accounted for in the delivery costs and the administration and, hopefully, the public relations that the minister is going to take upon herself with both the consumers and vendors of this province.

Section 11 of the bill provides for the compounding of interest daily. That is new. We have not had compounded interest on the RST in this province to this point. Of course, we also have the extension of the ministerial powers in this area because it could be prescribed otherwise by the minister. This amendment, as I have said before and say again, is a parallel; it is a similar provision with the GST. It certainly is going to add to the bookkeeping costs of vendors across this province. It is going to add to their costs and their responsibilities.

This is a technical compliance that harmonizes, as has been brought to the attention of the House this afternoon. The simplification that is talked about in this bill is really simplification for harmonization. There is no intent to simplify things for small vendors in this province.

I would like the minister to tell me -- as I had asked in my remarks before, but I do not feel I have had an answer -- what is she doing to help these vendors understand a division now of collection, a division which is going to in many ways change the way things have been done, in many ways is going to make the bill necessary for double bookkeeping because she is not going to harmonize, as she says, with the collection, but she is harmonizing in every other clause? That even makes it more difficult for people to understand.

What does the minister propose to do? I have again looked and looked and looked for something that tells the consumers and vendors of this province how this will happen in the stores in less than a month and how they will know what the price on which they are paying is calculated. I do not think that is clear in people's minds. I really feel there has been some negligence in explaining Bill 1 to the people of Ontario and I wonder if she could help us this afternoon on how she is going to do that.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I think many of the complexities that come out of this come out of the GST, which I know we all like to debate around here. The $500 million in savings is going to go back into the consumers' pockets. The compound interest is to make us competitive. If you had a bill and you had to pay either simple interest or compound interest, you would pay the one with the compound interest first. Therefore, the simple interest one would never get paid or get paid last at all times. We have to protect our revenue in this province and that is what we are doing.

The division of collection comes from the GST, not from the retail sales tax at all. I have talked to many small businesses and they are impressed with us in that we are not making it any more complicated for them. They are wise enough to see that the complication comes from the GST, not the retail sales tax. We are also providing seminars, bulletins and information packages to all those vendors and consumers so that they can see what we are doing and how we are taking a stand on the GST.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am glad there are at least some seminars. I did not know that before. In talking to different vendors, some of them within five minutes of this building, they certainly do not feel that they understand this. The minister has said herself, and now today she has changed that, that this bill is horrendously complex -- those were her very own words -- and implementation would be difficult and it would require extensive explanation. I am glad that she has begun to do that and I trust that her regional offices are continuing to do that. She has said she does not want to add to the confusion.

She is, however, giving what I consider and have said before is very little visible direction. I would like to know what the minister intends to do. She has now talked about vendors. What does she intend to do to help the consumers know in this province that she is doing something different than many of them think she is doing? As I say, I have seen nothing in the press about Bill 1 -- nothing.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: There was a press release, I believe, on 19 October and there was one not too long ago in the press and consumers do know what we are doing. I have talked to many consumers who know that we are not stacking. We are also making sure that they get rebates if there were the two taxes stacked on top of each other. They are informed of that and are aware of that. Some of them are calling my constituency office. I am sure that they are calling the member's office and I am sure that her staff as well as my staff can inform them of the changes and how they can be prepared for them and benefit from them.

Mr Grandmaître: I understand that this province has an agreement with the federal government to collect the retail sales tax on fuel whenever it is crossing our borders from the United States to Canada. Do we have such an agreement to collect the retail sales tax at the border?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: No, not to collect it at the border; no, we do not have that agreement. It is a voluntary tax that should be paid when people who have left the province and have purchased goods come back unto