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

December 12, 1990

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NUCLEAR POWER

Mr Conway: I rise on behalf of my constituents in Renfrew county, more particularly those constituents of mine who work at the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory. That would be some 2,000 people. These constituents are increasingly concerned about and by the energy policy of the new government in Ontario.

More specifically, the new Minister of Energy, the honourable member for Peterborough, has on a number of occasions articulated a very strong personal view against the future of nuclear power in Ontario. As Minister of Energy, she has directed Ontario Hydro to renegotiate its recently concluded agreement with Atomic Energy of Canada. This ministerial directive has already caused a very real concern in my community.

I might add that the Ottawa Valley press last week reported that one multimillion-dollar contract has already been affected and a number of jobs, in this case at Sheridan Park, may very well be in jeopardy as a result of that ministerial directive. The city of Pembroke, at a meeting last week, passed a resolution expressing its concern about the new energy policy and about its confidence in the nuclear power option for Ontario.

My constituents in Chalk River and elsewhere want me to convey to the new government and to this Legislature their belief that nuclear power has an important and positive role to play in the future energy policy of this province and they expect that it will be given a fair and balanced hearing as we move forward to develop a balanced and sensible energy policy for Ontario in the 21st century.

MATTAWA AND DISTRICT ARTS COUNCIL

Mr Eves: I am pleased to rise in the House today to welcome the members of the Mattawa and District Arts Council who are here from the riding of Parry Sound. For those who are returning members, they will be aware of the rotating art display in my office provided by this council.

I am pleased to announce that the Mattawa and District Arts Council has arranged for a new display in my office of several excellent paintings done by a very prominent artist, Clemo Duval, who is here with us today. These works are titled Life Line and Flying Out of the Painting.

The Mattawa and District Arts Council was formed in the spring of 1989 and serves to promote the work of local artists and craftspeople. I think it is indeed an honour to have such talented people, not only in the riding of Parry Sound but in all ridings in the province of Ontario, and we as Ontarians and Canadians should be doing everything we can to promote their very valuable work.

BRIDGE REPAIRS

Ms Haeck: Since his appointment on 1 October, the Minister of Transportation has repeatedly stated his commitment to improve roads and maximize transportation safety in Ontario. It gives me great pleasure to announce to the House today a number of contracts and initiatives which exemplify this government's commitment to better and safer highways.

I am especially pleased that these announcements directly benefit Ontarians in my own riding of St Catharines-Brock. On 28 November, a contract valued at $1,842,700 was awarded to C. H. Heist Ltd for surface preparation and coating of existing structural steel on the Garden City Skyway along the Queen Elizabeth Way at St Catharines. As part of the ongoing maintenance program for this 30-year-old structure, repainting, which normally takes place only during warm weather, will be accelerated. A 33-metre

section will be painted between January and March, and the balance completed by the end of September. This will cut the necessary delay and inconvenience to bridge users by three months.

On 12 December, tenders will be opened for structural rehabilitation of four bridges at Highways 406 and 58 at the St David's Road interchange in St Catharines. The estimated value of this contract is $700,000. Over the years these four bridges have suffered structural deterioration due to exposure to salt spray. This has resulted in damage to concrete decks and leakage due to corrosive salt and dirt accumulations.

We thank the minister for his consideration.

COMMUNITY SERVICE

Mrs McLeod: I am always pleased, as I would expect all members are, when the hard work and dedication of people in the community that I represent are recognized. Today, I am proud to have the opportunity to congratulate Rosemary Collins, a resident of Thunder Bay, who on Friday 7 December 1990 was awarded a community action award by the Ontario Office for Disabled Persons. The award was given to honour the outstanding contributions that Ms Collins has made to the disabled persons' community in Thunder Bay.

The list of organizations with which Ms Collins has been involved is a long and distinguished one. A rehabilitation counsellor with the Ministry of Community and Social Services for the past 14 years, she has served as a member of the Lakehead Association for Community Living, the Lakehead Social Planning Council, the Thunder Bay Therapeutic Recreation Committee, the Handicapped Action Group Inc, housing and tenant selection committees, the Thunder Bay Volunteer Action Centre, the family services committee of the Red Cross and the March of Dimes women with disabilities committee. This is just a sample of Ms Collins's work.

Thunder Bay is a city which owes much to residents committed to community involvement. The level of Ms Collins's involvement sets a high standard for others to follow.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to remind the Minister of the Environment of a situation in my riding, of which she is already aware. As she knows, her ministry approved a waste management study for Grey. With the blessing of her officials, the city of Owen Sound joined in and formed a partnership with Grey in terms of the study. Ministry personnel began supplying advice because the local field staff, by their own admission, have little expertise in the area of waste management. Now the assigned expert is on maternity leave and her replacement is not available because of a shift in ministerial priorities. As a result, after a year of hard work the study has come to a halt.

This is a most unfortunate situation, because my riding has approximately five landfill sites which are quickly reaching their limit and several more which are presently operating under a ministerial certificate because they are already full.

Nothing can be done without the study, and the study cannot proceed without the assistance from the ministry. Grey is trying to do its best for its people and waste management, but it does need help from the minister. County council is disheartened because it feels the government has pulled the rug out from under it.

I would appreciate the minister's looking into this matter and advising me or Grey council of any assistance she can provide.

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORP CUTBACKS

Mr Lessard: I mentioned on Monday that the mayor of Windsor has formed a task force to respond to the recent decision to close CBET-TV. The strategy of this task force is to impress upon the entire country the incredible anger and sense of loss felt as a result of this decision. It is to point out that Windsor is almost totally surrounded by the United States and that in many areas of Essex, Kent and Lambton counties viewers will have no alternative but to watch American news and programming.

This will radically change the perception that we have of ourselves. We are not like Americans, nor do we ever want to be. This decision tears at the very fabric of Canada. The effect on national unity is devastating.

"CBC and you" -- that is how the promotional ads go. CBC is us; it is our friends and it is our neighbours. But with this loss in Windsor it is becoming next to impossible to know ourselves.

I urge CBC to reconsider its decision to close CBET. Consider the incredible stupidity and waste of tax dollars, stopping the work of 80 employees but continuing to pay those persons until April. This is the ultimate gag order. Why not let these people continue to provide service to the community? Show some fairness and give the community a chance to respond to this catastrophe. I urge CBC not to strip the equipment from this station. I urge this government to pass a resolution condemning this destructive act.

There was a time in the Legislature when the people of Windsor had fighters for Windsor in the Legislature, and half-hearted answers from ministers were not accepted. There was a time when ministers could not say, "Well, it is not our mandate to do this, so we cannot do it." I say to the Minister of Culture and Communications, he is in the cabinet. He and his cabinet colleagues who run the government of Ontario have the power to change the mandate of TVOntario and they have the power to serve Windsor, Essex, Kent, Lambton and Sarnia.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Jordan: I rise today to inform the Minister of Energy that her solutions for dealing with high gasoline prices are simply not acceptable to the residents of rural Ontario, including many from my riding of Lanark-Renfrew.

On Tuesday of last week the minister, in response to a question from the member for Brampton South, told this House: "One way of avoiding the consequences of increasing prices is to use less." I would put it to the minister that this is not an option available to many members of my constituency.

In Almonte and Carleton Place, two towns in my riding, close to 50% of their populations work in Ottawa -- about 60 miles return. These people have no choice but to drive to their jobs. Smiths Falls and Arnprior, both 50 miles from Ottawa, have about 20% of their population commuting every day. An estimated 10% to 20% of Perth's residents commute 110 miles every day to Ottawa, and 10% of Renfrew's residents make the 120-mile trip daily.

The Premier and other members of his party clamoured loudly about the unfairness of gasoline prices while in opposition. Now the Minister of Energy asks us to stop complaining and reduce our consumption.

COMMUNITY SERVICE

Mr O'Connor: It is with great honour that I speak today and I would like to reflect for a moment on a special awards ceremony that took place last Tuesday in the midst of a snowstorm up in my riding. There were special awards presented to Jim Quinn, Ted Quinn Jr and David Joyce. In a heroic gesture without thought to their own lives, they pulled four people whose boat was sinking out on Lake Simcoe out of the frigid waters on 14 April of this year. A special presentation was made to them.

Also during that awards ceremony, Junior Citizens of the Year Alison Armitage and Jody Hanna were presented with certificates. A special service recognition award was give to Anne Eecloo and Citizen of the Year Mavis Gulyas this past week during the middle of a snowstorm. They were all able to attend.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CONFLICT OF INTEREST / CONFLIT D'INTÉRETS

Hon Mr Rae: I am pleased to announce that today I will be tabling a new set of guidelines with respect to conflict of interest. The 31 articles of these guidelines will impose upon cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants clearer standards of conduct than those imposed by existing conflict of interest legislation and policies. These guidelines do not replace the existing standards or the law that was passed in the previous Parliament, but rather they extend and strengthen them.

First, I consider it essential to establish certain fundamental principles. It is to be our governing principle that we must at all times act in a manner that will not only bear the closest public scrutiny but will go further and ensure public confidence and trust in the integrity of government. Ministers are not to be involved in contracts with the government. Members of their immediate families are to be eligible for contracts, including contracts of employment, only through an open system of competition and tenders. There will be clear public disclosure of any such contracts obtained through the government.

My government has long been committed to the view that the most appropriate way for members to avoid conflicts is to divest themselves of potentially conflicting interests. Accordingly, I am directing my ministers and parliamentary assistants to divest themselves of all financial interests, including business interests, which cause or could appear to cause a conflict unless they can demonstrate that divestment would cause undue hardship and that the public interest will continue to be protected. These divestments must be made at arm's length and not to family members.

At the same time, we must respect the right of spouses to independence in their business affairs. Therefore, the divestment policy will not be extended to them. However, the more stringent disclosure rules will ensure that their financial interests are subject to full public scrutiny.

Ministers and parliamentary assistants will be given 60 days to comply with these requirements and any decisions to retain such interest will be made public. In this context it should be noted that under the guidelines parliamentary assistants will now be subject to the same duties that ministers have under the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. To guard against acquiring new conflicts, a prohibition is placed on acquiring land other than for personal residential, recreational or farm use.

La divulgation ne suffira pas à elle seule à éviter les conflits mais elle aidera le public à suivre de près la conduite du gouvernement. Par conséquent, j'exige une divulgation plus large et plus détaillée des intérêts financiers et des changements importants relativement à ces intérêts. Je crois comprendre que le commissaire a pour règle de demander aux députés de divulguer les changements importants. Je suis heureux d'appliquer cette politique par ces lignes directrices.

Few principles are more fundamental to our democratic system than the independence of our justice system. Accordingly, we set out in some detail guidelines regarding communication with judges, tribunals, prosecutors and the police, mindful that these guidelines are part of and subject to the fundamental duty to maintain public confidence and trust.

I would also point out in this connection that I am specifically requiring that ministers and parliamentary assistants inform me if they are charged with an offence or made party to a proceeding in which their character is put in issue.

In my view these guidelines are only part of a process we must continue. The guidelines are limited to those matters which do not require legislative implementation. We are recommending that a comprehensive review of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act be conducted in consultation with the other parties. It is my hope that this review can begin in the new year. We believe that many of the standards we are adopting today could be applied to all members of the Legislative Assembly. We would also like to hear from the commissioner what amendments he suggests for changing the legislation.

In this regard, I hope that the commissioner will find the guidelines helpful in his dealings with ministers and parliamentary assistants, and that he will provide whatever assistance he can consistent with his statutory authority and his independence as an officer of the Legislative Assembly.

We are also developing a code of conduct for senior public servants and ministers' confidential staff. As most if not all of these individuals are crown employees, it is more appropriate that they be included in the ongoing review of the Public Service Act.

As committed as I am to the establishment of guidelines and codes in legislation on ethics in government, I realize all too well that nothing we commit to writing can substitute for common sense and a well-developed sense of public duty.

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to announce that I have asked my parliamentary assistant, the member for Cochrane North, to conduct a review of my ministry's current lottery system for allocating moose tags.

The review will provide hunters, tourist outfitters and other interested parties with an opportunity to express their concerns about the moose tag lottery system, and it will help my ministry to ensure that we have the fairest system possible for the allocation of the tags.

The moose tag lottery system was designed in 1983 --

Mr Scott: Why don't you talk about the moose once or twice? The moose haven't had a break from this government since you came in.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wildman: I have the impression they do not think it is important to talk about moose tags. As I was saying before the moose over there interrupted, the moose tag lottery system was designed in 1983 to place predictable limits on the harvest of adult moose in order to protect the breeding stock. The goal of the program is to double the moose population by the year 2000. In the past seven years, the moose population has increased to 120,000 from 80,000.

Because of the restrictions on moose harvest and the increased number of people who want to hunt, in some parts of the province there are now many more hunters than there are tags available for allocation. Some hunters would like to make changes in the current lottery method of allocating the harvest among competing hunters.

The review will include public meetings. These will be scheduled to take place between 18 January and 2 March 1991 in Toronto, London, Pembroke, Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury, Timmins, Hearst, Kapuskasing, Thunder Bay and Kenora. Concerned parties may present their written submissions at the meetings or send them directly to the member for Cochrane North.

The member for Cochrane North will submit a preliminary report to me on 15 March. His final report and recommendations will guide me as I decide on what changes are needed to improve the fairness of the moose tag lottery system.

The Ministry of Natural Resources has already been assessing the moose tag lottery in an effort to make the system even more fair. One possibility is the introduction of a group application system, by which a group of hunters may jointly apply for a moose tag. Such a system is aimed at distributing moose tags even more evenly among groups of hunters.

The group tag application system will be discussed during the review of the member for Cochrane North. A decision on whether to introduce such a system will be announced 15 March. Should the ministry decide to introduce a group application system, it will be put in place in time for the 1991 season.

This government is committed to consulting with and involving user groups in the management of our resources. The review of the moose tag lottery system will provide concerned citizens with a public forum in which to voice their opinions, and it will ensure that moose tags are allocated in a manner that hunters will find even more equitable.

RESPONSES

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

Mr Ramsay: The minister mistakes our noise over here as support for what he is trying to do. I am pleased that the minister mentions that the previous administration really did start to analyse the group application system. I think what that does for the people in the House here is recognize that moose hunting is more than just the consumptive sport that it is perceived to be, but also that people look for the camaraderie of the hunt and also to have the wilderness experience as other people do. I wish him well in that.

Part of the gales of laughter is, though, that we get an announcement on the moose hunt while the minister makes an announcement to the press yesterday about the tree audit, as we have here in this

article today, talking to the press. We would like to see more details on that and hope that very serious announcement comes here to the House soon.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Sorbara: I intend to respond to the Premier's statement regarding his new guidelines on conflict of interest. It is interesting that in the first few months of this government we have found New Democratic Party members who have abused the use of government stationery, New Democratic members who have abused the use of their offices, New Democratic members who have been thrown out of the caucus, by the caucus, in private, without any public disclosure of the basis for that ejection from the NDP caucus, and New Democratic members who have misused municipal funds and stationery in pursuit of their own election campaigns.

What is so outstanding about these new guidelines -- we acknowledge on this side of the House that divestiture seems to be the order of the day -- is that it is interesting that if these guidelines are actually put into place, it means that no small business person in this province can ever expect to get into cabinet; that is to say, if he owns a hardware store or she perhaps owns a feed mill or some other business, in order to qualify for Mr Rae's cabinet it will not be permitted.

There are, however, some exceptions, and what is interesting about the exceptions is that notwithstanding that we passed

an act in this House that set up an independent commissioner, the exception to the rules and the person who will determine whether or not that exception stands is none other than the Premier himself.

Let us look at the section. It says that ministers are required to divest themselves of any asset or liability which could cause or potentially cause a conflict, and all business interests. It goes on to say that except where the minister satisfies this, it is the Premier -- not the conflict of interest commissioner but the Premier and Ross McClellan and David Reville -- who will, in private, look over the business interests and see if that individual can or cannot qualify for cabinet.

This is a shocking departure from a statute that has been respected all over Canada and North America as the single most important piece of conflict of interest legislation passed in North America. The Premier has gone beyond all of that. He says in this document, his new guidelines which he is tabling today, that the Premier will be the arbitrator of which business interests cause or do not cause a conflict.

I cannot believe. having participated in the debate dealing with conflict of interest and having assisted the then Attorney General in formulating that legislation and having agreed that this was a good idea to put in statute, that the Premier would now table guidelines requiring any potential cabinet minister and any potential parliamentary assistant to sell everything that he has. He cannot do anything with that money except keep it in the bank. He cannot buy shares in Imperial Oil because Imperial Oil might buy a piece of land and these guidelines prohibit the purchase of land directly or indirectly.

There is a caveat, and the caveat is sitting right over there across from me in the Premier's chair. I cannot believe that after all we have been through, the Premier of this province would decide that he and he alone will be the arbiter of what is or is not a conflict.

It goes on to set up the Premier as the arbiter in other instances. Beyond that, he says that there are new guidelines with respect to communication and the administration of justice. I have looked at them. They are no different from the guidelines that existed before. Communication with tribunals and ministries are no different from the guidelines that Liberal cabinet ministers adhered to. Additional restrictions add nothing except, again, the prohibition against purchasing any land whatever, directly or indirectly, unless the Premier of this province decides in his wisdom that it is okay.

This is a shocking departure from a system that was fair to all concerned under the legislation.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The former speaker insinuated that I somehow abused my privileges as a councillor with respect to stationery. It was widely --

Mr Sorbara: I didn't mention your name or your riding. What are you talking about? Is this a confession? Talk to Bob. Don't talk to me.

Mr Scott: This is the one chance the NDP will give him to speak. Let him speak.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I expect that all members will allow any member to put forward what she or he believes to be a point of privilege, and will allow the Speaker the opportunity to assess the statement made. Let us give the member for Downsview the courtesy of listening.

Mr Perruzza: If the member had checked my printing expenses from the year I was elected to the year that I ordered the other stationery, he would have found that I used the same amount of stationery. It cost me $1,200, which is $1,400 less than the average in the city of North York. In the way of community meetings and so on, I did much more than any other member on that council. The member will find, if he checks the expenditures for the councillors for this year and for the period that I was on North York council. that my expenses were much lower than the average in the --

Mr Eves: You didn't make the Premier happy with your point of privilege. If you could have seen his face, you are in deep trouble.

Mr Jackson: Any other secrets over there?

The Speaker: If nothing else, everyone is obviously refreshed after the long sitting last night. To the member for Downsview, I listened very closely to the remarks by the member for York Centre and there was no mention of any individual's name or riding.

Mr Sterling: I want to comment on the Premier's announcements on conflict of interest guidelines. I am absolutely amazed that the member for York Centre is a respondent for the official opposition, because of the number of problems that were cited by the conflict commissioner during his period as the minister and that government's watering down of the conflict of interest guidelines in 1985 to accommodate many ministers of the former government. I could not understand how this party can possibly criticize an improvement in terms of the conflict of interest guidelines.

I want to say to the Premier, however, that he still has to go some distance to go back to 1972. I want to talk about three or four specific cases with regard to his conflict of interest guidelines. In 1972, Premier Davis then said that no private company in which a minister or his family has an interest could become contractually involved with the government of Ontario. The Premier, in essence, has watered that clause down by saying that some members of the family of one of his cabinet ministers or parliamentary assistants can become contractually involved with the government.

We would ask the Premier to tighten that up further, because regardless of whether or not he likes it, he leaves a wide-open door for abuse to come into effect in terms of family members getting preferential treatment with regard to contractual arrangements with his government.

The second area I would like to talk about is that Mr Davis required in 1972 that ministers and their families had to divest themselves of all holdings in public corporations. Under the Premier's plan, a spouse or members of the family -- the immediate members of the family -- can hold shares in public corporations. I think that is a definite weakness in terms of the Premier's guidelines.

Under the guidelines back in 1972, Mr Davis required all cabinet ministers to divest themselves of all lands save and except for residential land or recreational land, and that included as well the requirement with regard to family members. That was in part a requirement of the guidelines at that time. I would ask the Premier to toughen the guidelines with regard to requiring other family members to divest themselves of those other kinds of land save and except as was set out in the guidelines of 1972.

Last but not least, when we were considering the Members' Conflict of Interest Act in the last Parliament or the Parliament before -- I cannot remember which -- our party stood hard and fast for the requirement that deputy ministers of the government be required to follow the same exact guidelines as cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants. It has been our experience that deputy ministers are often in a better place to take advantage of any kind of contractual arrangements with the government than the elected politicians might be.

If the Premier tightens those guidelines, I think he will not have the problems that the former government had in terms of meeting public expectations and the number of ministers who had to resign as a result of either real conflicts or perceived conflicts.

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

Mr B. Murdoch: My response is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I would like to commend him for replying to our moose problem so quickly. It was actually the only issue that was never addressed in the Agenda for People and he has made a decision on it which we applaud him for.

There is one more issue that I would like to mention, though, that the minister did not have anything to say about, and that was the fees. Hopefully he will not increase them until he has consulted with somebody.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Premier. I wonder if the Premier could confirm that representatives of his office have been in touch with political and public service representatives in Ottawa and other provinces with respect to the issues of national unity that are being presented by the constitutional debate.

Hon Mr Rae: I can tell the member, from my knowledge, of some discussions which very naturally take place between deputy ministers. The Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, for example, has very naturally in the course of events over the last two months been speaking to the deputy minister in Ottawa, and as well has obviously been in touch regularly, as is normally the case, with deputy ministers in other provinces; I cannot give the member details of exactly which provinces.

I can tell him that the secretary of cabinet has also, in the normal course of events, had discussions with the secretary of cabinet and others in Ottawa. These are normal discussions. There were no particular proposals of any kind discussed, because as far as we are aware the federal government has no particular proposals to put forward. But of course there have been discussions. That is the normal course of events.

Mr Scott: The Premier understands perfectly that I am not interested in what he calls discussions in the normal course of events. I am interested in discussions that have taken place either at the political or at the bureaucratic level with Ottawa or other provinces that have to do with the issues that remain outstanding as a result of the failure of the Meech Lake accord.

The Premier has conceded that there have been discussions at the bureaucratic level. I wonder if he would be good enough to tell us what subjects have been discussed at the bureaucratic level. and would he be good enough to confirm what discussions have taken place between political players?

Hon Mr Rae: I can answer the latter question. I honestly cannot answer the former question because if the member is asking me for a detailed account of those conversations --

Mr Scott: What is Peter telling you he is hearing?

Hon Mr Rae: With great respect to the former Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, I think he knows that certain discussions that take place in the ordinary course of events I am not going to report every day to the House in terms of the discussions that I have. But I can say to him with respect to my discussions, which I am happy to refer to him, that I have had a meeting with Premier Ghiz, I have had a meeting with Premier Filmon and I have had phone conversations with several of the other premiers, including Premier Bourassa. This was before Mr Bourassa's latest stay in the hospital.

I have not had an opportunity to speak to Mr Bourassa except at a personal level since that time.

I can only say to the member that the discussions have been very general. It has been a sense of saying we have to keep the process under way. We want to establish some personal contacts. I would say to the former Attorney General that right now it seems to me the fallout from the Meech Lake accord has been such that there has been a reluctance to get together. I am encouraging people to get together.

My approach is to encourage people. If we can get together and discuss something practical, like the economy, at that point some new personal discussions may be able to take place in terms of how we see the future constitutional discussions happening over the next several months, and indeed several years.

That is the extent of the discussions so far. I would be happy to answer any other questions the member for St George-St David has in that regard.

Mr Scott: The Premier is a good Canadian and he places the issues of national unity very high, as do all of us in this House. He knows that it is five minutes to midnight in this constitutional exercise and he does not have to be reminded that if on his watch there is failure in national unity matters, all the other things he hopes to accomplish will be of no real historic consequence. He knows that.

He has told us that there have been bureaucratic discussions of a general type. He has told us that there have been political discussions of a general type with himself and some other premiers. He has encouraged us from the beginning, from the first day that this House sat, to participate in the development of a bipartisan constitutional policy, an objective that I take very seriously and regard as very important.

What I want to know from the Premier -- having promised that he will have some policy to announce by 20 December; having spoken at length about constitutional issues outside the House, recently at an NDP meeting on Sunday night and in scrums from time to time; having spoken with his political colleagues and having had his senior public servants speak with other senior public servants in a variety of governments -- is, when is he going to tell the Legislative Assembly and the people of Ontario something about his plans so that we can participate in a meaningful way in this exercise?

The point I make to the Premier is that all this is going on without any reference not merely to opposition leaders but to any members of the assembly. We want to share his burden but we cannot share his burden unless he takes us into his confidence. It is what he asked of us and it is what we ask of him. When is he going to do it? A day before he makes his announcement? Two days before? Is he going to offer us a fait accompli? What is the plan the Premier has and why can he not tell the House and the people of Ontario about his response to this critical issue?

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David said he would like to share my burden. I would be delighted in many ways to do that.

I would remind the member for St George-St David that when he was the Attorney General and we were getting down to the very short strokes with respect to the Meech Lake accord, it was on his instructions that I was told, as Leader of the Opposition, that I could not attend a meeting which dealt with last-minute strategy.

Mr Scott: You went to all the others. We have been to none. We have not been to a single meeting. You were in the Union Station every day.

Hon Mr Rae: No. I just say that by means of contrast to the member for St George-St David. I say that because I want to stress to the former Attorney General that that is not the way in which I intend to do things. I say that by means of contrast to what has taken place in the past. I said yesterday to his leader as clearly as I possibly could that I wanted to have discussions with him and with the leader of the third party this week. It is my earnest desire to do that. I say to him --

Mr Scott: When?

Hon Mr Rae: We will work out the details of the time. Also, in response to the question from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, when I was asked whether or not it would be possible for us to

schedule a debate on the issue, I said I thought that was a good idea and I said I thought that was something the House leaders should discuss in terms of how we do that.

I have said to the House, I have said outside, I have said for some considerable time that the direction which we are going to take by way of process will be presented by the government to the House before we adjourn for Christmas. That is the commitment I have made.

Mr Scott: After consultation?

Hon Mr Rae: After consultation. I intend to fully live up to those commitments and I intend to fully live up to the sense which I believe still exists in this House that there is not only room for consultation, there is a requirement that we consult, not only that we consult with members of all parties but that we consult with the people of the province of Ontario so we do not end up making the mistakes that have been made in the past.

LANDFILL SITES

Mrs Sullivan: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and it relates to the minister's secret list of garbage dumps. Yesterday the minister said the list was not secret. It is, however, unavailable. We have called Metro works, we have called the greater Toronto area office, we have called the Ministry of the Environment and we were unsuccessful in shaking that list loose. We were told that it is held by the Metro works commissioner, Bob Ferguson, and Metro's consultants, M. M. Dillon, and will not be publicly released.

Since the minister's officials reasserted her responsibility for garbage and site selection at a meeting with regional officials yesterday, will she table the list in the House today as we asked her to do yesterday, reducing the uncertainty that a number of communities face in relationship to that list, and will she confirm her policy adviser's statement that her permanent landfill will be up and operating by mid-1994?

Hon Mrs Grier: I wish I could confirm with certainty that statement. That is certainly our hope and our intention. It will require co-operation from the members of this House, who I know share my concerns that a long-term site in fact be up and operating by 1994. I look forward to having that co-operation when I bring forward the legislation for the public authority that will be created to do just that.

Mrs Sullivan: Once again, for the third time, I ask the minister, will she table the list in the House? I am also very interested in her hopes and intentions, as she describes them, that she and her authority can open a landfill site in 1994 in an expedited fashion. The minister's policy adviser has indicated that a site will be chosen in June 1991. We would like to see the list. We have not seen any details on the minister's garbage authority; it does not exist. We have not had any details on proposals on the specific plans to gut the environmental assessment process; it does not exist. She told us that in the House the other day.

The minister will know that to secure an operational site for the ministry, her officials in the ministry now assume a minimum of a one-year construction season, a minimum of six months for documents and consultation preparation, an average of 18 months for government review -- and it certainly has never been under a year -- three to six months between the review and the hearing start and about two years for hearings and a decision. That is a minimum of a five-year wait. Existing garbage dumps will be full beginning in 1991. A new long-term dump is five years away, and the minister is clearly not planning ahead.

My question to the minister is: Will she give the residents of Marmora, Kirkland Lake, Orillia, Plympton, Mississauga, Vaughan, Brampton and Pickering the assurance that any new garbage dumps on her secret list and any proposed expansions of existing dumps will receive a full environmental assessment hearing and a public hearing?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me deal once again with the issue of the list, which -- I hate to disappoint the member -- I have not got and I have not seen. The list is a list that was prepared by Metropolitan Toronto council under the auspices of the program put in place by the previous government.

I have asked Metro council and the regional municipalities that comprise the greater Toronto area to keep their options open with respect to long-term landfill sites and I have asked them to provide to the new public authority, when it is established, all the relevant material, studies and information that they have collected so that we build on the work that has been done and not duplicate it. That is our intention.

Mrs Sullivan: I would like to read a report from the Toronto Star of today's date. It says: "In a meeting with regional heads, provincial officials told Metro to hand over its secret list of 15 long-term dump sites to the province." I am asking the minister again, will she table that list in the House?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member seems to be unable to comprehend the kind of integrated waste management strategy that this government is putting in place. Her second question dealt at length with the time frame for finding a long-term site. She knows, I think, that that time frame is very dependent on how seriously we can get to reducing and reusing waste, and that is what this government is going to do.

When it comes to preparing for a long-term site, this government is going to put in place a public authority and that authority will develop a list. That list will use the information that has already been collected by the regional municipalities and that list may be the same that Metropolitan Toronto has.

It may be a very different list, it may be a longer list, it may be a shorter list, but it will be part of a very public process that is being undertaken by what I hope will be a joint municipal-provincial partnership and that will be proceeding in accordance with the values and the principles of the Environmental Assessment Act. I hope to have the member for Halton Centre's cooperation and support in that endeavour.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Tilson: I have a question --

Mr Scott: We have gone through that. We don't want the list. Don't ask another question. That's enough.

The Speaker: I thought I might start keeping a list of noisy, disruptive members. Perhaps all of us at this time could direct our attention to the member for Dufferin-Peel, who is waiting patiently to place a question.

Mr Tilson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Housing.

Mr Scott: Don't ask for the list.

Mr Tilson: No, I won't. I have asked for the list but he has not got it either.

We have listened for several weeks now to the minister's dissertations on Bill 4 and throughout all that, both inside and outside the House, he refuses to acknowledge the impact that Bill 4 is having on the workers of this province normally engaged in essential apartment renovations. I am not talking about the marble foyers that have been referred to so often by the minister, I am talking about essential apartment renovations.

As the minister knows, project after project, many essential to the proper maintenance of aging buildings, is being put off or cancelled. The minister knows that. Would he not agree that it is ultimately the tenants' quality of life which will suffer if buildings are not maintained by owners who, through no fault of their own, simply do not have the resources to undertake even the essential structural work and repairs? Would the minister tell us?

Hon Mr Cooke: I would certainly agree with the member that it is the tenants' quality of life that Bill 4 is attempting to address. I would like to refer the member to an

article that was in today's Globe and Mail about a building that has been raised in this House by the Liberal Party and responded to by myself as Minister of Housing.

I guess the approach that the Conservative Party is taking that of people like David Franklin, who owns 109 Jameson, who invested in the building with his partners, who then invested capital in the building, and now has been able to take advantage of a tax loophole so that the capital that he invests he gets to write off the tax system, then gets to pass it through under the rent review system -- and then his response to the Globe and Mail questioner about the likelihood that all the tenants in that building would be economically evicted from the building is: "That's one downside to the deal.

I agree the current tenants would be forced out. I thought it was the government's job to look after them." The member is right; it is our job to look after them and that is what we are doing under Bill 4.

Mr Tilson: I acknowledge that the previous government made a terrible mess of the housing crisis in this province. I acknowledge that, but this government is making it worse. I know that they believe that there is more than enough money in basic rental increases to take care of all repairs and maintenance, no matter how major. Let's assume the owners simply cannot afford to maintain their properties. I know the government does not want to assume that, but let's just assume that.

Is the government telling this House that the tenants' quality of life and their rightful enjoyment of comfortable accommodation is somehow going to be assured by more property standards inspectors, by more and more unenforceable work orders and simply more bureaucracy -- that is what they are going to create? Is the government telling us that? Is this really their solution? Do they really believe that tenants can take comfort from that?

Hon Mr Cooke: I go back to the question that the member seemed to refuse to answer in his caucus, and that is, what quality of life do tenants have if they are economically evicted from their buildings? In this particular building, as I said a few weeks ago, rent increases of 80% to 135% were asked for. We cannot in this party sit by and watch that happen.

If the member read on to the

article that was in today's paper, after all of this work was going to be done -- purchase the building, put capital into the building, pass the costs through the rent review system, take tax write-offs -- then what was the plan of this investor? In 1995 flip the building, then the tenants go back to rent review and those costs are passed through too. I cannot justify that system. That is why we brought in Bill 4.

Mr Tilson: I will tell the government one thing. This side of the House is not going to create slums like they are creating. Can the minister tell us whether he is considering extending the mandate of rental standards boards to cover all buildings regardless of size. and what impact this will have on the size and cost of his bureaucracy? Can he tell us that today?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think that one of the issues that the member as a critic and the Liberal critic and landlords and tenants in this province are going to have to deal with is, when the matter is before the committee. the consultation document for the long-term solution, we have to address the issue of maintenance and capital in the buildings across this province. We have said that right across, but I look forward to the member's suggestions of what we should do in the long term.

The Liberal critic yesterday came up with some suggestions -- I do not entirely agree with her, but she came up with some positive suggestions. I am looking forward to the member's. He can sit back and criticize and say that tenants should not be protected and we should eliminate rent review. but as long as we are in power the elimination of rent controls is not in the cards. We are going to bring in legislation to properly protect tenants in this province.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Cousens: I have a question for the minister of garbage. It is inconceivable that she, as minister, does not know the 15 potential dump sites on Metropolitan Toronto's list, because as the minister responsible --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat for a moment? I thought you were about to use the proper title, perhaps with responsibility for certain items.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, how right you are. Thank you very much.

To the honourable Minister of the Environment -- let me begin again. just in case she missed my preface. It is just inconceivable that she, as the minister responsible for the environment. does not know the 15 potential dump sites on Metro's list. As minister responsible for waste management, she just has to know what they are. Her problem is that she just will not volunteer the locations of the sites, but we can.

We have been informed that of the 15 sites. eight have had no geological testing done to date. It will therefore be impossible for them to be operational by 1994. That leaves seven possible sites: Kirkland Lake, Marmora. Plympton, Rouge, Whitevale, Newcastle and Orillia township. However, yesterday the Premier ruled out the Rouge. so we now have six possible sites. Is the minister going to deny, in the presence of all these witnesses and the honourable Speaker in this House. that these sites are not on Metro's list?

Hon Mrs Grier: I can neither affirm nor deny that they are on the list. If the member wants to pass me the list I would be more than happy to have a look at it. because I have not yet seen it.

Mr Cousens: So we are now down from seven to six sites. At this point we do not need to listen to the minister, because we have got more information than she does, but we are still going to give her a chance to give that leadership that she is so capable of giving, especially when she was in opposition. This looks like more of a preview of the way in which the minister's new and improved environmental assessment process is going to work -- through attrition. In other words, it is her intention to select a landfill site for Metro's garbage by the process of elimination.

The facts are that Metro Toronto has admitted that it has signed a contract with Kirkland Lake for disposal of its garbage. and the minister has actually encouraged the signing of this deal. The minister should come clean with the people who voted for her party in the September election and who depended upon her no-dump party to protect them from having to accept garbage they do not want. She knows it is going to take at least a year for her new and improved environmental assessment process, 18 months for the court battles and another 18 months to engineer the date.

Will the minister not today admit that Kirkland Lake is the only viable site that could even come close to meeting the 1994 deadline?

Hon Mrs Grier: Each of the five regional municipalities that comprise the greater Toronto area has itself been undertaking a search for a landfill site. Under the previous government, the chairs of those regions came together to form the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee and that body was seeking a site for the greater Toronto area. It is that body that is going to be the foundation of the new public authority that will be seeking a landfill site, not merely for Metropolitan Toronto but for Metro and Durham and Halton and Peel and York.

It is that authority that will be developing a list of sites, that will be establishing criteria by which sites will be selected or not selected and that will be subjecting their choice of sites to the environmental assessment process. I think that is the missing element in the question that the member has been posing. We are not seeking a long-term site merely for Metropolitan Toronto, which has now developed a list; we will be seeking a site that will accommodate not the garbage but the leftovers after reduction and reuse for the greater Toronto area.

Mr Cousens: It is a funny transformation from a prophetess to a goddess to a tooth fairy, because what is going to happen is that the people in Metro Toronto are going to wake up some morning with garbage under their pillows because she has not solved the problem.

I am getting notes. Everybody sort of agrees with me.

It is time the minister read her notes and understood that we have a crisis and she is not just going to do it with the three Rs. She comes back and she gives us the same old message, which we all believe in, but we somehow would like to have her give us a number on how much landfill we are going to save through her big 3Rs program by the end of 1993, three years from now. We are rolling towards that date. How much landfill are we going to save from now until then from her 3Rs program, and live with it?

Hon Mrs Grier: I guess going from goddess to tooth fairy is a bit of a transition, but had I waited for the process that had been put in place by the previous government, I would have been toothless by the time we got to a landfill site.

The previous government had established a target of diversion of 25% of waste by its recycling program. It is certainly my intention to divert more than that. I agree with the member that we have a crisis and that time is running out and that therefore it is incumbent upon all of us to do whatever we can to divert far more than 25%. I know that in my conversations with the member he has shared my concern that the municipality of York, from whence he comes, is merely diverting 5% of its garbage.

There has to be a concerted effort to divert far more than 25% and then we can in fact have a much longer period before we need to have a landfill site. I acknowledge that we will need an additional landfill site and we are embarked upon a process that will take us to that site, but the bottom line for us is what will protect the environment. What protects the environment is a good search process and serious reduction and reuse.

Mrs Sullivan: My question is again to the Minister of the Environment. It was clear also from today's Toronto Star that according to Metro officials, as the critic for the third party has indicated, there is one option left for Metro's garbage and that is Kirkland Lake as the proposed dump.

The Timiskaming Anti-Garbage Coalition conducted a poll recently of 1,100 citizens in the area, reporting 70% opposition by decided respondents to bringing Toronto's garbage to the Adams Mine site. The members of that group see a conflict in that the Minister of the Environment is also the minister for the greater Toronto area, which is the site of the garbage crisis.

Dr Epps, who is spokesperson for the Timiskaming coalition, has raised a most interesting issue. I would like to quote. Can the minister provide a definition of a willing host? "This should not be difficult as she has already urged Metro to sign an agreement based on this concept. If the willing host is defined as the mayor and councillors, then I suppose they should prepare to shovel garbage. If, however, the definition requires the people of the region to be willing, then I would challenge the Minister of the Environment to obtain proof of our willingness."

An agreement exists between Metro Toronto and Kirkland Lake. The question that the Minister of the Environment has to answer -- and I want her to answer it today -- is, what is a willing host?

Hon Mrs Grier: Somehow there seems to be a gap in memory somewhere. Let me point out to the member that the list she has referred to, and the list on which Kirkland Lake, Marmora and all of the others exist, was developed under a process put in place by her government, not by this side of the House. The definition of "willing host" that was accepted and that placed Kirkland Lake on this list was a definition defined by the Liberals when they were the government.

Let me make it very clear to the member that the public authority that will be establishing a long-term site for the waste of the greater Toronto area is not yet in place, has not yet developed criteria as to the appropriateness of sites and has not yet developed a list of sites. No decision has been made as to the ultimate site for Metro's waste.

Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The GTA has prepared its own list of 86 sites, not with the help of this party when it was government but of its own accord.

The Speaker: That is certainly a point of information.

Mrs Sullivan: I was not asking for a reiteration of rhetoric; I was asking the minister for a specific response: How does she define "willing host"? She has refused to answer the question about tabling the list. We want to know how she defines "willing host" in her ministry, because she has changed all the other rules.

Hon Mrs Grier: I do not have a definition of "willing host." I consider the definition of "willing host" the definition of "criteria by which a list of potential sites can be developed," to be one of the first tasks to be undertaken by the public authority as soon as this is put in place.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier. Earlier this week he announced his new policy, I guess, with regard to appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. In announcing this policy, as I understand it, he plans to still proceed with the old way of making the patronage appointments to these various agencies, boards and commissions. The only thing I can see that he has done differently is that he plans to refer the appointments to a committee. The committee will receive these appointments after he has made his selection through the normal patronage process in the Premier's office, after you have --

Mr Sorbara: Have you got a good headline?

Mr Harris: Well, this is the way that party did it. If the Liberals are proud of that process, then keep interjecting.

Mr Elston: Don't let us take you off the point.

Mr Harris: They are distracting me and I understand it. Maybe they are not too proud of this process and I do not blame them.

After he has made the order-in-council appointment, he plans to refer it to a committee which will have no power to reverse the appointment, no power to reject the appointment, no power to make any recommendation as to a superior appointment. In light of that, can the Premier tell me what has changed in the way he plans to proceed with patronage appointments?

Hon Mr Rae: Well, I almost hate to break up the lovers' quarrel that we saw over there. I was enjoying it.

Mr Scott: Tell us your plan. Your plan is Mulroney's plan.

Mr Eves: How soon they forget; 1985 was a good year.

Hon Mr Rae: I have obviously touched a nerve.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: All right, they do not like each other. Okay, I accept that.

In answer to the question, the member says, "What is different?" What is different are three elements, as I understand it.

The first thing that is different is that the distribution of information to the public is going to be far wider and far more sweeping than has ever been the case before. The decision to make a list available in every public library across the province in a form that is readable and accessible and available, that there is a standard application form that any citizen can say that he feels he is eligible, has never been done before and I think it is an innovation.

The decision on our part to establish a committee that will have the responsibility of reviewing appointments and referring to them, judging them, questioning them in a very public forum again is something that has not happened before in this Legislative Assembly. It was recommended back in 1986 by a former committee of this House. It was not put into place by the party which is now in the official opposition, the Liberal Party. It was rejected by them and it is something which has not been put in place before.

The third thing which has been put in place is with respect to officers or appointments which are genuinely appointments of the Legislative Assembly as a whole. With respect to the future, there we are clearly establishing that the final recommendations of the committee, which will be a three-party committee in which all parties will be represented equally -- equal representation from each party -- will be empowered to choose, for example, the new Information and Privacy Commissioner and that decision will be final. It will not be reviewed by me because I regard that as a position that is genuinely independent.

These are three things that have not been done before. It may not be perfect, but it was not done by the Tory party when it was in power for 42 years and it was not done by the Liberal Party when it was in power for five years. I suggest we give it a chance and make it work.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am sure that the Premier inadvertently misled the House in not remembering that the Clerk of this assembly was appointed on recommendation of a standing committee of this House ably led by the member for Oshawa.

The Speaker: The member for Renfrew North, in raising his point of privilege, may wish to reconsider his phrasing.

Mr Conway: I said -- and I do not think it gives any offence; I cannot imagine it would give any offence -- having listened to the Premier, that he, in my view, inadvertently misled the House by not remembering in this place that the very distinguished Clerk of this assembly was selected by a former standing committee of this Legislature ably led by the former NDP member for Oshawa. That is all.

Mr Harris: The Premier and his Liberal counterparts and some other government back 142 years can argue about what they did and what they did not do. What I am interested in is what the Premier and I have talked about for the last couple of years, what he and I talked about in the campaign, about truly demystifying, if he likes, and truly opening up and removing patronage from the appointments process. Now he is very proud of what he has proposed. I think the public will judge that not to be the case.

However, given that the Premier is proud of it, can he tell me why one of the most important commissions that his government has talked about in response to numerous questions from members from all sides of the House, the Fair Tax Commission, surely could be classified as an agency, board or commission?

Yesterday, in response to one of his own members, the member for Scarborough Centre, the Treasurer said: "I do not plan to play by the Premier's rules. I plan to proceed through some technicality because I am a minister of the crown. This is my own commission. It is not the Premier's commission. This is not the House's commission. I do not plan to follow those rules; I plan to proceed on my own, making my own decisions." Can the Premier explain to me, if he is so proud of the rules, why he allows the Treasurer to proceed that way with the Fair Tax Commission?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to be very careful in my response because I just want to say that I do not think the member's characterization of the exchange that took place yesterday is entirely fair or accurate. I can realize why the member is asking the question that he is.

I can say to the member that in my view, and I have discussed it with the Treasurer, I have absolutely no problem, and neither does the Treasurer, with the members of the Fair Tax Commission being referred to the committee. All he was saying, in response to the question, is that there are 5,000 positions in agency, boards and commissions. The practical question for the committee is going to be, how many members? How many of those nominations are going to be considered by the committee? To be fair to the Treasurer, I think that is in a sense what he was referring to in his answer.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: I can say to him -- whenever I answer one of the questions of the leader of the third party he has difficulty taking yes for an answer, and I am giving him yes for an answer. He is asking me whether I think it is appropriate that the Fair Tax Commission should go to the committee. I am giving him a yes for an answer and I have no problem with that. If he is having difficulty accepting my answer, well, I am sorry, but I am giving him the best answer I can.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr B. Ward: I think the energy level seems to be up in this House and I am looking forward to stimulating debate over the next nine hours that we sit in this House.

My question is to the Minister of Education. I am sure the minister is aware of the fact that the city of Brantford has been hammered by the economic recession that this country is facing, a recession caused by the federal Conservative Party's agenda to destroy this country. We all know that in an economic recession young people are hit particularly hard through lack of skills development, job opportunities or tenure on the job. My question is, what will the ministry do, what is this government doing to help young people acquire job skills and work experience in those skills?

Hon Mrs Boyd: In April 1990 the Ministry of Education took over the Futures program from the Ministry of Skills Development and that program has been very successful. In fact, the uptake by young people is a reflection of exactly the needs that the member has mentioned young people are experiencing. That program is in danger of running out of funds. Our ministry is taking action and hopes to make an announcement soon about increasing the funding for the Futures program, which is offered through the youth employment centres and the community colleges.

Mr B. Ward: I am pleased to see that the commitment is there to renew the Futures funding, because it was highly successful in the city of Brantford. Could the minister tell this House and the people of Brantford this time how much the funding would be?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The overall request is for $6.85 million, of which $1.85 million is to adjust the minimum wage. It is anticipated that we will be able to make an announcement that those needs will be fulfilled.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Mancini: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. The minister announced on 22 November that he would not proceed with the legislation introduced by the previous government to allow 53-foot trailers on highways here in Ontario. He made the decision in response to a public perception and was quoted in the media as saying: ''I am not saying that the public perception is correct. I am simply saying that there is a perception."

On 26 November in this House the minister stated that it was not his intention to reintroduce the 53-foot trailers in this province despite fears of layoffs in the industry. Now we see that late last night, under the cover of darkness, the minister announced through a press release that he would be continuing the previous government's practice and issuing another 400 special permits for these trailers to operate. Why does the minister continue to avoid the Legislature for these important announcements, and can he explain his most recent actions?

Hon Mr Philip: What the member fails to indicate is that the bill his government introduced did two things: It lengthened trucks from 23 metres to 25 metres and it also provided for an open system of lengthening trailers from 48 feet to 53 feet. I told the Ontario Trucking Association that I was not prepared to move ahead with that legislation. My statement still holds. I have not moved ahead with that legislation. I do not intend to move ahead with that legislation.

What the former government also did, without consulting the Legislature and without bringing any legislation into this House, was to introduce an administrative procedure that would allow for permits for 53-foot trailers up to 2,000. So inept was the procedure they introduced that they provided for no system of monitoring who got those permits in any way whatsoever. Suddenly, on 15 November --

Mr Scott: Ed, go home and watch this on television tonight, please. This will on at about 10:15. Watch it, I pray. Don't miss this explanation.

Hon Mr Philip: I can see I hit a nerve with them. They do not like to hear about the ineptness of their system that I have had to try to correct.

Mr Mancini: I just want to inform the House that it was the NDP socialist government that approved the 650 applications to US firms.

Mr Bradley: How many?

Mr Mancini: It was 650.

The truckers of Ontario have started to refer to the minister as Ed Flip. I would say that judging from the minister's performance to date, he should be called Ed Flop.

On 26 November the minister refused to acknowledge impartial outside studies which clearly showed the safety-enhancing and the environmental and economic benefits of 53-foot trailers. He refused to acknowledge on that date that jobs would be lost because of his short-sighted decision and he failed to consult with the industry or anyone else that we know of.

Can the minister guarantee the House that the 400 new permits he is giving out will go to Ontario companies only? How does he expect Ontario truckers to compete on a level playing field when some are able to get these permits and others are not? How does he expect fair competition?

Hon Mr Philip: What the member wants is an open door, then, for longer trucks in this province and I say to him that is not what the public wants and that is not what this government is allowing.

On 15 November, under the former government's system, there were 625 --

Mr Scott: Ed, your job doesn't depend on this answer. Get that straight first. No one gets fired over one answer.

Mrs Caplan: Did you have a lottery?

Hon Mr Philip: Am I going to be allowed to answer?

The Speaker: I am getting the feeling that folks are not really interested in a response.

Mrs Caplan: We are fascinated.

The Speaker: Then perhaps the fascination will be followed with silence. If members would like a response, then I would suggest we allow the minister to respond.

Hon Mr Philip: They obviously do not want an answer.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. I am sure the minister is aware of the former government's capital commitments to many hospitals throughout this province. Is she in a position to tell us today whether she is prepared to deliver through on those commitments?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The member might want to put a date on when the commitments were made. As the member is aware, there were commitments made in the 1986-87 period for capital construction in our Ontario hospitals which were then put under a hold in the period about a year ago, pending a review of the capital program in our hospitals.

All those projects are now under review. Some have been approved and are proceeding. Others have been combined with a health review of areas, for example, in North Bay and Windsor. Others still are going through a review where two hospitals may be deciding to rationalize services, such as in Sault Ste Marie. So there is a combination of systems of review that are going on. Some projects have gone ahead and others are still undergoing study at the local level, and review within the ministry and continuing discussions between the ministry and the hospitals involved.

Mr Eves: Review, study and consultation.

Mr Mahoney: And pay for it yourself.

Mr Eves: And pay for it yourself, in the case of the member down here.

The reason I asked the minister the question was that according to the Minister of Housing, her cabinet colleague, in an interview with the Windsor Star on 7 November of this year, he said, "Medical institutions that were promised money by the former government may have lost it when the Liberals lost the election."

There are some 73 public hospitals in the province of Ontario on the list supplied by her ministry that are awaiting funding for capital projects. Many of those hospitals, like the Willett Hospital in Paris, Ontario, St Joseph's in Guelph, Orillia Soldiers' Memorial, the Dufferin Area Hospital in Haliburton and many others, like all of these 73, have had local people who have raised money, volunteers who have gone out and raised money on behalf of their hospital expecting that these commitments to these 73 hospitals would be fulfilled.

Can the minister tell us today which of those 73 commitments will be fulfilled and which will not, especially in light of the fact that the Minister of Housing seems to know that a great deal of them will not be fulfilled at all because the Liberals lost the election?

Hon. Mr Cooke: I didn't say that, Ernie, and you know it.

Mr Eves: No, that is a quote.

Hon Mr Cooke: No, it is not a quote.

Mr Eves: I will send it over to you.

Hon Mr Cooke: I read it.

Mr Eves: It is very large.

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The Minister of Housing says behind me that it was a newspaper headline and I am sure the member would not like to suggest that he actually made that statement if it is simply a headline. Beyond that, we are proceeding in a methodical way to consult with the hospitals. It is a very important question the member raises. The plans that were undertaken by hospitals in the period of the mid and late 1980s were very large, major capital plans, many of them related to chronic care institutions.

Since that time, as the member knows, the long-term care task force was undertaken by the previous government. It will be continued by our government and we are hoping to develop facilities which are much more suitable for the kind of care that people need and the kind of care that is suitable, and that we know is suitable, in the 1990s rather than the kind of traditional hospitalization and institutionalization patterns which have been followed for 20 years previous to now.

[Later]

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to rise to correct the record. The Minister of Housing was very disturbed at what I attributed to him a few moments ago in this House as a quote, so I want to read into the record exactly what the statement is in the Windsor Star so there is absolutely no doubt.

Hon Mr Laughren: It is not a point of order.

Hon Mr Philip: That is not a point of order.

Mr Eves: I am clarifying for the record. Do members want me to clarify the record or not? The quote that the honourable Minister of Housing made is: "If the previous government hasn't allocated the money, there is a problem. It's going to be impossible to deliver on every promise the previous government made." That was the quote. I am sorry, the one I read into the record was actually a statement in the Windsor Star.

RECREATION FOR DISABLED

Mr Malkowski: I have a question for the honourable Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Would the minister please advise the House about specific initiatives that have been developed that will enable the disabled community to be involved in recreational activities.

Hon Mr North: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the House about this very important issue. I would like to make the member aware that our ministry is very aware of the plight of disabled people and of their abilities. I would like to inform the House that just recently I chaired the interprovincial meeting of sports ministers in Victoria and that under my chairmanship we reached a consensus to include disabled sports on an equal footing with able-bodied sports in 1993 and 1995 in the disabled games. I thank the member and I appreciate the question.

Mr Malkowski: I am very happy to hear that the minister is working with other ministries on a national level and that we are aware of national activities, but what is happening here in our own backyard?

Hon Mr North: I am sure the member is aware that we support the Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled. I was pleased to show our continued support just recently in Hamilton where we announced that.

With respect to the Ontario games, I have instructed my staff to review the operations of those games and to provide me with recommendations on how we can integrate disabled activities.

The member will be pleased to know that I have asked my staff to meet with staff of the Ministry of Culture and Communications to discuss how we can involve disabled artists in the Ontario games for the physically disabled so that we can create a multisport celebration out of the event.

CHILD CARE

Mrs McLeod: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week the minister was unable to provide us with a specific timetable for implementing 10,000 new child care spaces and 10,000 new subsidies that had been committed in the Agenda for People, so today I would like to raise another question of particular importance to child care advocates, and that is the adequacy of salaries for workers in the child care field.

In the speech from the throne, which I think we can assume perhaps carries a higher degree of commitment than the Agenda for People seems to carry, there was an indication that the government was promising early progress in redressing the unequal pay in areas such as child care. I wonder if the minister could tell us, in this situation, what is meant by "early progress." Could she confirm for us which is the priority for her government, access to additional child care spaces or dealing with inequitable salaries in the child care field?

Hon Mrs Akande: Actually, it is difficult to establish which of those two things is a priority. Both of them are a priority of this government. We have in fact begun discussions. We are actually at the end of that discussion and will be making an announcement in this House when we have finalized our plans.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Sutherland from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr9,

An Act to revive the Restoule Snowmobile Club;

Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor;

Bill Pr22,

An Act respecting Goderich-Exeter Railway Company Limited;

Bill Pr30,

An Act respecting the City of Vanier;

Bill Pr32,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr45,

An Act to revive Lordina Limited;

Bill Pr48,

An Act to revive La Capanna Homes (NonProfit) Inc.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

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

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

The Speaker: It is understood that we have completed debate on this item.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

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

Mr Laughren moved second reading of Bill 9,

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

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

Hon Mr Laughren: Most members will understand that this loan act provides authority for the government to borrow up to $5 billion. It is an amount that I will explain to members so they do not blanch at the thought of being responsible for borrowing that amount of money.

Members will know that the deficit for 1990-91 stands at $2.5 billion. That accounts for half of the borrowing in this loan act. The other half of the borrowing is for 1991-92, and I should remind members as well that there is some retirement of existing debt that needs to be refinanced that makes up the total in 1991-92.

On top of the $2.5 billion for 1990-91 there is almost $700 million of debt that is maturing in this year. So if you add the $2.5-billion debt for 1990-91 to the debt that is maturing of almost $700 million, that comes to about $3.2 billion, and the balance of the $5 billion is for 1991-92.

I think that members should understand, and I think most of them will, that we need to do some borrowing, not just for the balance of 1990-91 but also for the first six months of 1991. It is traditional as well to borrow more than the precise number of dollars you need in order to allow for an orderly way in which to go to the market to raise additional funds so that if it is not appropriate -- if, for example, there is upheaval in the Middle East -- we would not have to go to the market at precisely the wrong time in order to get the best possible deal for the Ontario taxpayers when it comes to borrowing.

There is also for 1991-92, besides the anticipated debt for 1991-92, an arrangement for contingency as well. This particular Ontario Loan Act, 1990, will not allow us to borrow beyond the end of September 1991, so that following the budget in 1991, a budget which I hope will be brought down in April, it would be my plan to almost attach to that budget another loan act which would finance the expressed intentions of expenditures contained in that budget.

That is quite an ordinary way, a traditional way in which loan acts are brought in. Last year there was no loan act brought in with the budget because of course the Treasurer of the day did not anticipate a deficit and therefore any need to bring in a loan act at that time. But it is our intention to bring in a loan act following the budget in the spring of 1991. With that explanation I look forward to the debate which will inevitably follow.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haslam): Questions and comments?

Mr Bradley: In addressing this particular bill, the Treasurer has brought to the attention of the House the fact that the government will be spending or wishes to spend at least some $5 billion, or needs the funding to make those expenditures. and that it transcends the fiscal years that we are talking about and that the needs are well beyond.

The amount sounds like a good deal of money and certainly is a good deal of money. When you look at the operation of the province of Ontario. you recognize that our budget is well over $40 billion at the present time. Part of that expenditure growth is a result of the demands on the system, the demands for services in the province of Ontario, and part of it is that the government has mentioned on a number of occasions, and others have mentioned, the fact that the anticipated federal transfers to the provinces are diminishing each year.

Where the provincial government used to be able to count on a good percentage of funding from the federal government, it is now instituting caps on that funding.

That leaves the provincial government with one of three choices. The first is to increase taxes. The Treasurer is obviously going to be reluctant to increase taxes at a time when we are in a recessionary period and so justifiably would reject that particular option at least until his budget in April of next year. The second is to cut programs and once again in a recessionary period many people would not expect that the programs that would directly affect the budgetary expenditures of the province should in fact be cut back in any significant way.

The third is that you must borrow and the choice that has been made is the choice to borrow in the anticipation that perhaps there will be some additional funding forthcoming.

I think I am in my speech and I was not aware that I am making comments on this. I am into my --

The Acting Speaker: We are on questions and comments.

Mr Bradley: Is that what that was? I have a long speech coming after. I was actually beginning my speech rather than questions and comments.

The Acting Speaker: Your time is up.

Mr Bradley: I wanted to ignore that particular thing because that is what got us into trouble in the first place with the last bill.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments? Debate?

Mr Bradley: I will simply continue my remarks on this particular bill because it is one which is important to the province and it does allow some latitude for members of the Legislature. This is one place where the Chair has a mighty difficult time reining in the various members of the Legislature because so much can be talked about when one talks about the borrowing of some $5 billion.

Allow me the opportunity then to get into a little bit of history which members of the Legislature would be interested in, the history of the need for borrowing in the province of Ontario. We would be aware that from the period of 1971, I believe it was, to 1988, the province of Ontario in fact ran deficits.

This was somewhat of a departure from the usual practice: in the old days when we happened to have some budgetary surpluses -- none of them were exceedingly large, but nevertheless they were budgetary surpluses -- to a time when the former Treasurer was able in 1989 to bring in the first budgetary surplus since in the 1940s in the province of Ontario, something of which he was particularly proud. I think there was recognition on all sides that we were in good economic times.

It is easier, everyone would concede that, to run a budgetary surplus. Indeed it is probably good fiscal management when there is a booming economy to run a budgetary surplus, a slight surplus; you do not want an excessive surplus. He was also able in fact for the first time in over 20 years to pay down the provincial debt. That is important to be able to do that.

This Treasurer does not have that option at this time because he faces a recessionary period in this country. We could go into the many reasons for the recession. I would attribute the major reason, as far as the domestic scene is concerned, to the high interest rate policy of the federal government, which is affecting all of the provinces and in particular the province of Ontario.

High interest rates, it is alleged by Sinclair Stevens, a former federal cabinet minister in the Mulroney government, might well be related. It is alleged by him that perhaps this was the unwritten part of the free trade agreement between the United States government and the Canadian government; that in fact they wanted to keep the dollar high, and to keep the Canadian dollar high it is necessary to have some high interest rates.

I indicated the other day in the House that one of the ramifications -- first of all, those of us who represent automotive centres and those who represent other industrial centres in the province of Ontario which are very much needing exports to be successful, or want to produce for the domestic market for that matter, are reliant upon a competitive Canadian dollar so that imports do not become more attractive and that our exports are in fact attractive in the United States particularly and elsewhere in the world, but particularly when dealing with the United States.

I recall, for the members of the House who might not have been here on that day, talking to, I think it was, Great Lakes Pulp and Paper Co and asking one of the individuals there what it cost for one point on the dollar; in other words, if the dollar went from 82 cents to 83 cents US, what was the result. That individual revealed to me that it was some $17 million in costs to that company. There are those of us who recognize that, in addition to a very skilled and dedicated workforce in the plants of the province of Ontario, particularly in the city of St. Catharines with which I am familiar, that is one major factor in ensuring that we are competitive.

Another factor -- and those who work in that milieu would certainly tell you; they are aware of it after the number of years -- is that we have a competitive dollar, a dollar which is not increasing in relation to the US dollar.

It is very attractive for those who choose to shop in the United States or to travel in the United States to see that dollar rise, but to those of us who represent communities which are reliant upon a competitive dollar, that is, a dollar which I would prefer to see below 80 cents as opposed to over 80 cents and we are seeing it at 85 cents, 86 cents and 87 cents, we are reliant upon that to make our industry competitive because others have other competitive factors that they use against us.

So we have a high interest rate policy which is causing difficulty for the people of this province and this country and that leaves a Treasurer in any one particular province with not too many options. The Treasurer in this province does not control the interest rates, regardless of who the Treasurer happens to be. That is controlled by the Bank of Canada and there is influence, of course, to be extended by the federal Minister of Finance.

We see the effect of those interest rates. That even affects the Ontario borrowing. When the Treasurer has to do his borrowing, he has to borrow in fact more money than he would like because he has to pay a higher interest rate. There is debt to be paid off.

One of the disadvantages of having been on the government side not long ago is that one can have some degree of sympathy with those who sit in that position, or at least understanding if not sympathy for those who sit in that position, such as the Treasurer and Deputy Premier of this province.

We saw a number of deficits. In fact, when this government came into power -- this government being the government that is no longer in power and relinquished that on 1 October -- the Liberal government, on 26 June 1985, in fact inherited in good economic times a $2.6-billion deficit.

Now, one has to admire, because in politics one does admire the ability of some people to get their message across, how this government has -- not the Treasurer himself, I might add. I give him some considerable credit. I watched his press conference and he did not dwell on the fact that he inherited any deficit or did not talk about any deception -- but this government as a whole has been able to say somehow that it inherited an empty pot or something of that nature. Some people who should know better do not know better about these things and accept this holus-bolus, forgetting again that the Liberal government inherited a $2.6-billion deficit, but had run a surplus the year before.

But the Treasurer is faced with what every Treasurer is faced with across this country. I think people have to understand that if they are going to be critical of him, he has to -- and he is going to have to do it perhaps again -- revise his predictions on what his net cash requirements will be because he is going to see some substantial increases in such things as social assistance costs. That is inevitable when there is a declining economy. In addition to that, he is going to see a decline in revenues. He has already witnessed that. We have seen that happening.

Businesses across this country are revising their figures. Every provincial Treasurer who made a prediction in a spring budget is now changing that prediction. The federal Minister of Finance has done the same.

So I would say that the Treasurer certainly is in need of these funds. I just hope that I can find some excellent ways in which he can use those funds to the advantage of the people of this province.

I want to indicate as well -- I do not lecture the Treasurer; I simply share with him some experience as a member of the Management Board of Cabinet and the allocation process that he is becoming very familiar with and probably is quite immersed in at the present time, between the policy and priorities board of cabinet and the Management Board and I assume he sits on both or has some considerable control over both -- that he would recognize that every ministry comes in with a wish list.

So not only are there the natural components of a deficit plus what he decided he was going to throw in -- the previous Treasurer said everything but the kitchen sink. I do not know about whether the kitchen sink was included or not, but he included a lot of items in there. But what he is faced with as a Treasurer and as a member of Management Board of Cabinet is the fact that each of the ministries is coming in with a wish list.

Were I a member of the civil service of the province of Ontario, seeing a new government coming into office, particularly a government which one would anticipate was going to be a spending government, as a senior civil servant, I certainly would be putting forward a number of desirable projects that I wish to see funded.

So it is the role and responsibility of the Treasurer of the province, as the chief guardian of the vault in this province -- and the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet who sits in the House today, undertaking activities which are extremely important to everyone and which all of us will be participating in; I know she is listening very carefully to my suggestions on this regard -- but the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and the Treasurer both will have to be unpopular people with their colleagues because all of these colleagues are going to be desirous of increased funds.

In fact, the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet must be particularly diligent in dealing with the Minister of Government Services, who will want all kinds of money to undertake the activities that the Ministry of Government Services needs. Each of the ministries comes forward and puts forward a proposal for expenditures. One has to be mighty tough to sit on Management Board of Cabinet and ensure that one establishes priorities and that all of the extras that are thrown in are not accepted so that the budget gets way out of hand.

Now the Treasurer has indicated -- I am sure at the prodding of the official opposition and the suggestion of the official opposition -- that he embark upon some significant capital expenditures. When he was in opposition, he was in favour of that, in fairness, as well.

In a recessionary period, it is wise for a government to make capital expenditures to accelerate projects which might have come along three or four years down the line and to make an investment in the province, because we see a falling off of investments, a falling off of expenditures by those in the private sector. So it seems to me it is good management of the economy to have that money invested by the public sector at that time.

Second, it also allows for the government to be involved in putting in place an infrastructure which can then provide a basis for further economic development when the boom does come. There is all kinds of pressure then, when the boom comes, in terms of prices and availability of those to carry out those responsibilities.

So it is understandable. The Treasurer will not hear criticism from me for running a deficit during a period when we have a recession, because that is inevitable and he has to assist the people. The old way somebody suggested back in the 1930s of somehow cutting back drastically on public expenditures in a time of a recession is not wise in terms of ensuring that that recession is over in as short a time as possible.

Some of the predictions I have seen -- I hope they are wrong -- have been that the recession is going to be substantially deeper, substantially more extensive than many had suggested in the first place. That may or may not be the case. Even though those of us who sit in opposition of course like to see the government in a vulnerable light, for the sake of the province and the people of this province, we in fact do not want to see that happen. We would like to be able to criticize the government for other things in good times, to offer constructive suggestions rather than simply being critical for running a deficit.

The care, then, with which the Chair of the Management Board and the Treasurer approach the expenditure of government is going to be extremely important. I know they will not fund any frivolous programs. They will not fund those which are simply the hobby-horses of some ministers or some within government. They will want to look carefully and make wise investments in all of the appropriate things.

For instance, the Treasurer will know that were the Minister of Transportation and the members of cabinet and Management Board to approve the contract for the Port Weller Dry Docks to build the Pelee Island ferry, they would be helping a particular establishment which has gone from at one time more than 800 employees down to some 30 employees now. That kind of expenditure would be helpful to Hamilton, because no doubt Hamilton and Welland and other places that produce steel and some of the products that go into that ship would be helped by this.

So I know I would receive the full support of those who are from the Hamilton district and all of the Niagara district, and of course those who used to live in St Catharines and near the Welland Canal would be very supportive of this as well.

If the minister were borrowing for that purpose, I would say he is borrowing for the right purpose. If they were borrowing to facilitate the movement of ministries to various parts of the province in the decentralization program, I would say that is a good expenditure. I would never criticize the Minister of Government Services or the Chair of Management Board for doing that, because that is a logical and good expenditure for the money that is being drawn.

Some would express concern with the fact that the government is asking for $5 billion. I guess if one wants to be political about it, one can say that is not necessary, that somehow if one did not have that much money one is not going to spend it. I think reality dictates that the government is going to need that money until the revenues come in.

They also have to wait for the federal government. One of the things one usually finds out is that the federal government has more money coming in to one than one anticipates. Let's separate that from the transfer situation, the other programs where they play percentages. Rather, these are the revenues that come in from the federal government. Those often come in above what you anticipate. But also you see cutbacks in federal areas; offloading is the word I am looking for, of the federal government on to the provinces. We had announced, for instance, a green plan by the federal government.

What we will find out is that the implementation of that green plan will be done at the cost of provincial governments and municipal governments across this country.

I used to be mildly amused, although annoyed, when I would see federal ministers signing international agreements, in the United States particularly, on how they were going to save the two countries in the field of the environment, knowing the bill would be coming through the mail to the province of Ontario to implement it, with the municipalities shaking in their boots knowing they were going to pick up a substantial portion of that cost, while almost the entire credit would go to the senior level of government, that being the federal government.

The Treasurer can anticipate that there will be some costs as the green plan is implemented and that his government will have to assume some leadership in that area. Those who have served on municipal council -- as I look around the room, there are a number of people who have served on municipal council -- will know what it is like to have to undertake expensive projects. Municipalities have been in the forefront of dealing with environmental issues. They have had to put their money into major sewage treatment plants and water treatment plants and other activities designed to enhance the environment within this province.

When we look at the costs, when we look at the amount of money, $5 billion, it is certainly considerable. I am sympathetic to the provincial government in that it is going to have to pay much higher interest rates than it should for the money it is borrowing because of the high interest rate policy of the federal government.

But I would say that the Treasurer should be aware, as should the Chair of Management Board, that it will be the role and responsibility of the official opposition and the third party and indeed members of the government itself to ensure that the money which is borrowed is spent in an appropriate fashion, in a careful fashion and in one which is going to produce the best possible results for the people of Ontario.

I wish the Treasurer the very best in this. He can anticipate that when he spends the money in a fashion we deem to be inappropriate or less than careful the opposition is going to call that to his attention. That is something he is no doubt looking forward to. He can also anticipate that we in the official opposition will be making suggestions on specifically where that money can be spent. So when a new CAT scanner is needed in the Niagara region we can certainly say that is a good place to spend it.

If money is needed for the St Catharines General Hospital or the Hotel Dieu or the Shaver Hospital -- I do not want to sound parochial; I am just using these as examples of places where careful and good expenditures can be made -- he will know that we are supportive. But overall, we will look for those careful expenditures, for those pinpointed expenditures, where they can be most effective in bringing us out of this recession.

Mr Stockwell: I suppose this is the first of many borrowing bills we will see coming forward from the Treasurer and the NDP government in the next five years. This is probably the first of many debates that will clearly define the philosophical differences between the Conservative Party of Ontario and probably those of the Liberal and New Democratic parties.

Hon Mr Laughren: I hope so.

Mr Stockwell: The Treasurer hopes so. He does not need to hope. It is very clear.

I suppose it is going to be the first of many billions that will be piled upon the future debt of everybody living in this province, and I think it is going to be interesting to see exactly how this will wash through the system. I think the most interesting thing will be exactly how much debt this province will have two years from today, three years from today, exactly how closely the Treasurer will live within the guidelines he set down when he outlined his economic statement. A few of the phrases that caught my attention were "not significantly increasing the debt," "you cannot spend your way out of a recession," and so on. Those are the kinds of things I think Ontario needs today.

Clearly, over the past five years at least, there were philosophical differences with respect to spending. Yes, to a degree the Liberals did spend considerably more than I found to be acceptable. They did do some good things with that money. A tremendous amount of money was wasted because it was government. The fact is that government is basically inefficient and costly, and when you spend a buck in government it does not go nearly as far as the buck that was spent in the private sector. Whether you like it or not, I think it is a fact we all accept. Certain private sector operations the government would look down on; and I can understand that as well.

The $5 billion we are talking about today we will outline again. When we had our motion on the paper for the debate two weeks ago with respect to a fiscal policy to look forward to, we understood the philosophical differences at that time.

I guess the basic, fundamental flaw I see in the Liberal and NDP arguments is that we can somehow spend our way out of a recession, expend taxpayers' money to limit a recession, limit its length, its impact and how deep it will run. In my personal opinion, that is seriously flawed logic. At best, the government of the day, no matter how much money it spends, will be working on the margin of the economy in the province.

The suggestion has been made a couple of times across the floor that this is a made-in-Canada recession, which is laughable. I can just see the people in Greece complaining about Brian Mulroney and his made-in-Canada recession. It is just not a fact of life. This is a worldwide recession, a recession that all industrialized nations are in at this time. In fact, they have higher interest rates in most countries, and this recession is being felt, its fullest effect, on all people not just the people of Ontario.

To think through some kind of misguided logic that with some $700-million plan they are going to spend their way out of a recession is just not sensible. It is not sensible at all. It is not going to make a blip in the economic forecast, it is not going to make a blip in the unemployment rates and so on in this province.

The sooner we accept that, the better off we will be. The suggestion is made by the critic from the Liberal Party that a lot of spending will jump-start us out of this recession. Again, I think that is a philosophical difference we have with the Liberals and the NDP. They are not going to jump-start themselves out of a recession. If they feel that through some kind of slush fund, contingency fund, we can spend more money jump-starting the economy, they are working in the margins. The fact of life is that governments, particularly provincial governments, are working in the margins when it comes to jump-starting the economy, and they are not going to do it.

If they want to pretend they can do it, that is one thing. If they want to have numbers they can throw out to the people of the province and say, "Gee, we did this, gee, we did that, and so on and so forth," it might be palatable. They may swallow it. They swallowed the Agenda for People, so they may swallow anything. They may buy that theory, but the reality of the situation is that with hundreds of billions of dollars in production within the province, $700 million is literally a drop in the ocean; probably $5 billion is a drop in the ocean.

I do not think there is enough money they could tax them for, even in their wildest dreams, that would make the blip people would need to take hold of this economic recession.

I suppose, too, the philosophical differences also enter into the debate with respect to private sector and government. When it comes to a recession, the government really does not feel the recession; everyone comes to work who works for the government, everyone gets paid, everyone receives his cheque and all those things continue to happen. It is a recession; the word is there, but it never really hits home for anyone who works for the government because nobody loses his job.

The old adage is very accurate in this one: "A recession is when your neighbour loses his job, and a depression is when you lose your job." The problem with the government is that we are constantly in a recession because nobody in government ever gets displaced or loses his job.

When I analyse the attitude of private sector operations and government operations, they are very different. What makes them different is that when recessions happen -- and we can go back to 1981-82, even into the early 1970s -- a purging process takes place in the private sector: "Maybe we've got a little fat. Maybe there are areas where we can cut back. Maybe there are programs we need to reduce." Because of course they have -- and I know a lot of members over there would consider it a dirty phrase -- that bottom line. That is one specific that is only applied to the private sector.

Although there are many lovely debates and statements and speeches about a recession, the fact is that anyone in this room, and anyone who works for the government of Ontario, really does not have to deal with the recession. The bottom line is that the private sector deals with the recession through layoffs, job losses, reductions, etc. According to this government -- and it is stated; I think the Treasurer has been very clear -- we are not even looking to reductions, we are not even looking to layoffs, etc. They are looking at jump-starting the economy, spending more money.

I think that is a clear signal that when a recession hits it does not hit here; it hits out there. When they lose their jobs out there, that is when the people feel the impact.

At least some of the $5 billion we borrow today, I believe a considerable amount of it, will be used to jump-start the economy, or phrases such as that. They believe it will help. This is where the philosophical difference comes into play. I think the government would be far better off chopping a whole bunch of money out of its budget and reducing the provincial sales tax by 4%. That would have a far greater impact on the economy. I think it would have a far greater impact on spending habits and on the cash flow throughout the province. It would be far more effective.

I also believe it is far more effective if the private sector tries to jump-start its way out of the recession, because I do not think governments can, particularly provincial governments; clearly, municipal governments are in the same boat.

I guess this will be the first bill in a series of borrowing bills which will outline our philosophical differences. That is good. That is the democratic process and those are the things that should happen. When you elect NDP governments, these are the kinds of things that happen. I guess that is what the people liked and wanted and I suppose that is what they are going to get. Personally, it is not my idea, and being in the private sector world I know right now that we have gone through reductions in staff and reductions in operations.

When you own businesses, you are in the private sector world, and you have to lay people off. That has happened in a number of businesses; I have had to do exactly that.

Here are the philosophical differences that will come. I think it is good to have these stated up front on the first $5 billion that the government is going to borrow -- which is kind of an interesting statement: the first $5 billion.

I also believe, contrary to the Liberal critic's statement, that there is only one way to stop governments from spending. It is another approach that I think most in this province would agree with. The only way to stop governments from spending is not to give them the money, because once they get the money it burns a hole in their pocket so wide that they cannot wait to get rid of it. It is clear that during a boom economy we increased the debt by $10 billion, etc. That was a boom economy, a time when we had a tremendous influx of money.

At that time, we still had a government insisting on spending incredible sums of money. I disagree with the critic from the Liberal Party and probably the Treasurer. The best way to stop governments from spending is not to give them the money in the first place, because once they have it you know they are going to spend it. It would seem clear to me, with this borrowing and itemization of the amounts the Treasurer has outlined in his statement to the House today, that you could probably discount the Agenda for People as well.

Clearly, we have some discrepancies with respect to how much money the Agenda for People will cost. Those numbers are serious in difference. I calculate mine over five years and I come to around $14 billion. They calculate theirs over a couple of years and I think they came in at $2 billion or $3 billion. But there is a difference of opinion.

I think with this first borrowing bill and the $700 million they spent on jump-starting the economy you can pretty well assure yourself that the bulk of the promises made by this government during the election period are going by the boards. The Agenda for People may jump-start the economy itself, because it could be the biggest revenue producer for the paper-shredder companies. It appears to be the only one that is going to have any benefit from the government that has taken over.

I guess the debate is whether or not you agree with the $5 billion being borrowed. Clearly there is a need. Clearly the $2.5-billion deficit enters into it and I think if the Treasurer were being honest today he would agree that there is going to be greater than $2.5 billion in the deficit account at the end of next year. I have come to the conclusion that that in fact is going to happen. Even though I read his economic statement and he suggested that he wants to maintain that level, there is no way, in my opinion, if they are going to carry forward on some of these concerns and promises, that he has any prayer of maintaining a $2.5-billion deficit. It is going to get higher.

The argument was also made with respect to transfer payments. Transfer payments is a debate in which it depends on whose ox is being gored and what position you take on transfer payments. If it is a provincial government arguing with a federal government, it feels that it is being ripped off in no uncertain terms by agreements and details and it is upset because the federal transfer payments are being reduced, and the federal government says: "Oh, no, it's not. This is just sensible economic practice and, you know, you've got to learn to get by in tough times."

If it is the provincial government cutting off the municipalities, well, son of a gun, there are the municipalities that went to Hansard and read all the provincial government's arguments when they got cut back, and it is saying the exact same things. Lo and behold, I think you are going to hear this provincial government make the same argument the federal government made when it cut the transfer payments to municipalities, and mark my words, unless it has a pot of money stashed somewhere, the municipalities are going to be very, very disappointed with respect to their transfer payments.

We have already heard numbers. Hospitals in fact have outlined their concerns and education has outlined its concerns and you can only stretch a buck so far. This government has not got enough bucks to stretch, so somebody is going to have some problems. This government will be the first to stand up and start defending its transfer payment policy and, on the other side of its mouth, argue with the federal government about cutting them off.

So those are some other concerns I think you are going to see with respect to the financing, the economic impact, the economic statements that this government will make over the next few years. Again, I guess it comes back to the difference of opinion between our counterparts on this side of the House, the Liberals, and the government in power, the New Democrats. We philosophically, I suppose, do not agree with the way they approach the economics of this province, and it seems to me that they are very close in their ideology with respect to spending our way out of a recession and with respect to borrowing and so on and so forth.

An hon member: You voted with them.

Mr Stockwell: We voted with them to extend the sitting of the House, the honourable member would suggest. Imagine that; we voted to work longer. Gee, was that not awful? The only ones who did not vote to work longer were the Liberals, so it is an interesting comment he makes.

If we continue on with the debate on the $5 billion, the argument that will in fact be made in the future will be, there are only three ways to generate revenue. In fact, I have heard the Treasurer make that statement in the past. There are the revenues, deficit and so on and so forth and increased taxes. I think we are going to see a little bit of everything, and I think this is just the first piece of legislation, the first bill that indicates just that. I think the people in this province are going to have to get used to a little bit of everything.

That means on the debt side it is your right pocket; on the tax increase side it is your left pocket, and when they run out of money and they are going to have to figure out a new way to generate it, it will be your hip pocket. So I think we are going to have to grow accustomed to this attitude towards government spending. As I said, it is the democratic process. The people get the governments they deserve and it appears they deserve the government they get.

In conclusion, $5 billion is a considerable amount of money. I understand that there are needs to be met and bills to be paid. I still wish that we could re-examine the philosophical differences that we had a few weeks ago.

I still believe, and I think our party still believes, that before we go ahead and discuss any further spending, and before we go ahead and discuss any jump-starting of the economy, and before we go ahead and discuss any more borrowing, the most important thing that this government can do is examine the costs that have been incurred over the past 5 or 10 years and really examine its capacity to cut out the fat, because I will tell you, Madam Speaker, there is an incredible amount of fat in this level of government.

There is a tremendous amount of wasted money, there are a tremendous number of employees who are not needed, there are a tremendous number of employees who are in fact not working.

Mrs Sullivan: Where?

Mr Stockwell: The member can ask where. I can point her to almost any building and walk her through it and almost point, without any difficulty, to people the government could do away with.

Mrs Sullivan: Tell us.

Mr Stockwell: If the member is so naïve as to believe that this statement is not true, then we are never going to ever get to come to an agreement with respect to whether there is a cutback or not. The fact of the matter is I believe the people in this province would agree.

And if anyone has been to certain government buildings, Ministry of Transportation, any of these government buildings, and can honestly look any taxpayer in the face and say every one of these people is necessary and every one of these people is important and if we did not have them they would not carry out the job properly, I think he is kidding himself, he is kidding his constituents, and most of all, he is kidding the people in this House.

We all know the fat is there, and I think before we talk any more about borrowing, it would be very important for the Treasurer to review the costs, review the expenditures, read the Provincial Auditor's statement and come back with some major reductions in areas that probably could fund a lot of these programs.

In my opinion, if the Treasurer really took a hard line on the cost implications to this province and took a hard line to cut out the fat -- the weight watchers would get rich cutting out the fat in this place -- if he took a hard line look at it, he would find so much fat that you could probably institute the Agenda for People and not cost the taxpayers a nickel.

In my opinion, before he goes borrowing, before he looks at new tax resources, before he even re-analyses the tax system, it would be far more beneficial to the people of this province if he analysed his spending, because in the private sector, when recession times hit, the only really controllable item is spending. You cannot drag people in off the street to buy your product. The only thing you can do is reduce your spending. If governments were reacting in the same fashion when we have a recession, they would review their spending. I do not see that as a commitment. Frankly, I am not surprised the Liberals disagree, considering their spending habits in the past five years.

Mr Ruprecht: I listened to the comments of the member for Etobicoke West carefully and I appreciated what he indicated. He had said to the Treasurer, who is in this House today listening very carefully, I understand, that the question really is whether the government can jump-start the economy or whether the private sector can. I suppose as Liberals we could be of some help to both of these parties.

On the one hand, the Treasurer might think that the economy can be jump-started, and there is much he can do, of course, to help out, but I would caution him very much and I would ask him to consider that it