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

May 11, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

GOVERNMENT POLICY

STUDENTS' ACHIEVEMENT

HIGHWAY ACCIDENT

SHELTERED WORKSHOPS

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

SANDBANKS PROVINCIAL PARK

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

NURSES WEEK

SPRUCE FALLS MILL

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

RESIGNATION

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY PRESS GALLERY

INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

TAXATION

LABOUR RELATIONS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

LEGAL SERVICES

HYDRO RATES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

HOUSING CONDITIONS

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

ELEVATOR SAFETY

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

BUILDING CODE

TAX REVENUES

DRIVERS' LICENCES

GAMBLING

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

GAMBLING

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

VEHICLE TRANSFER PACKAGE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DOSSIERS DE TRANSFERT DE VÉHICULES

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'd like to bring to the attention of the Legislature an incredible event that happened in my riding of Timiskaming, specifically in the town of New Liskeard, on Friday last.

The Treasurer, Floyd Laughren, was visiting our riding. It gave an opportunity for our constituents to really show their unhappiness and unease with the two massive decisions that the government made on April 23 in regard to my riding. One was the cancellation of the Ministry of Natural Resources relocation of jobs to the town of Haileybury, and the other was the closing of the New Liskeard College of Agricultural Technology in New Liskeard.

We had 4,000 people turn out to greet the Treasurer. We had tractors and farm equipment lined up all the way from Earlton, 20 miles down Highway 11, to the town of New Liskeard. In the town, the Treasurer was greeted not only with the demonstration at the college, but also we had about 3,000 people in the town itself dressed in black, in mourning costume, if you will, mourning the loss of these jobs to our economy.

If anything, this government has pulled together the people of the Tri-town areas of Haileybury, Cobalt, Dymond township and New Liskeard. We are determined not to let these cuts affect our economy. We are going to fight these decisions. The government has a right, obviously, to take a look at the budget, and has a problem there; we don't feel it's the government's right to be able to make those decisions without consulting and working with the community.

I today would ask the government to work with our community. We think we can find cheaper ways to run that college, and we'd like to see some of the jobs come to Haileybury. Our economy needs it, and we're quite willing to work with this government to make this happen and build a better economy in the riding of Timiskaming.

STUDENTS' ACHIEVEMENT

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I rise today to congratulate a group of grade 7 students from the Cummer Valley Middle School. These students recently became national champions in mathematics.

The team of Roger Hong, Manfred Lau, Simon Law and Daniel Jacobs were first overall among 605 schools in the Canadian National Mathematics League competition.

In addition, Cummer Valley's grade 8 team of Vincent Yeung, Colin Huang, Savvas Panagiotakakos, Miriam Hamburg, Alex Blasko and Franklin Sham earned second in Ontario and sixth in Canada among 566 schools.

Individually in the contest, Vincent Yeung was fourth in the province of Ontario and 16th nationally, while Colin Huang was eighth in Ontario.

I would like to take this opportunity as the representative for the riding of Willowdale to congratulate the students and teachers of Cummer Valley Middle School for their outstanding performance at the competition.

The math skills that these students are learning will provide them with the opportunity to advance academically while allowing them to compete for the jobs of the future. The importance of mathematics cannot be underestimated in today's increasingly specialized and technical job market.

I'm proud to take this opportunity to congratulate the students of Cummer Valley Middle School for the excellence they demonstrated at the national mathematics championship and to say that in Willowdale our students can compete.

HIGHWAY ACCIDENT

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): Road collisions are the leading killer of young people aged 16 to 24 in Ontario. In 1991, more than 1,100 people died and 90,000 were injured in road collisions. Early Sunday morning, eight more young people were added to those figures in a fiery crash in Caledon just outside my riding of Halton North. Every car accident like this represents futures that have been stolen from our neighbours across this province, like the futures of the eight young people who died in that crash in Caledon.

We have to start recognizing that driving is a tremendously dangerous activity and that driving is not a right but is a privilege.

With this in mind, I hope that all members of the House will support the quick passage of the proposed graduated licensing system, which will help reduce the amount of serious and often fatal car accidents on our roads that take so much away from our province's wellbeing. This legislation will require new drivers to gradually earn driving privileges by successfully completing tests at the end of each of the first two years of driving.

In the first year that similar legislation was introduced in New Zealand, fatal collisions in that age group declined by 13% in the first year alone. That's 13% more young adults who can celebrate their futures and 13% less tragedies for our neighbours, and that's the kind of effect that's worth supporting.

I believe that with the graduated licensing system, we'll help to reduce such accidents like the one that happened in Caledon last weekend.

SHELTERED WORKSHOPS

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): The Minister of Community and Social Services has today made an important announcement of government policy, but once again, he chose to make this announcement outside of the Legislature and just to the press.

I am, however, happy that the minister has decided to take the advice of countless families and care givers and our Liberal caucus and cancel at least part of the $5-million cutback to sheltered workshops. The minister announced today that $1.5 million will be saved.

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the many concerned people who have made effective interventions to my office and I'm sure to the minister's office on behalf of developmentally delayed individuals, whose lives are profoundly affected by government's unfulfilled promises and this government's lack of direction.

Today's announcement, as usual, leaves more questions than answers, but I ask the minister now to share with us his studies and evaluation of the supported employment programs announced in last year's budget and to be reinforced in this year's budget. I trust that the working group announced today will be given all necessary resources to, without undue delay, engage parents, consumers and local agencies and, as the minister challenges, determine a real meaning for non-vocational, community-based support alternatives.

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement concerns St Ann's Separate School in Penetanguishene, which is the only school in all of Simcoe county to be recognized as a green school under the federally sponsored Society, Environment and Energy Development Studies program.

I want to thank principal Tim O'Halloren and vice-principal Bob Doucette, who decided to have St Ann's participate in the SEEDS program.

SEEDS involves children from junior kindergarten to grade 8 completing projects and activities that either communicate about the environment or enhance it directly. After completing an overwhelming 100 projects, St Ann's was officially designated a green school, the first of its kind in Simcoe county, I might add.

It was both exciting and informative to watch as teachers and pupils participated in skits that promoted the greening of Ontario. They also designed a beautiful mural featuring Waldo the raccoon, which will be on display in the school for years to come.

I was impressed with the attitudes and achievements of both the teachers and pupils of St Ann's, who clearly recognize that there is an important role for each and every one of us to play in the protection and preservation of our environment. I was really pleased to be part of the SEEDS celebration on May 7, 1993, at St Ann's Separate School in Penetanguishene which recognized the first green school in Simcoe county. It may be the first, but I expect it won't be the last. Congratulations.

SANDBANKS PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): This year is the 100th anniversary of the provincial parks system in the province of Ontario, and I believe that every provincial park in the province -- in fact it's true -- is represented by at least one member of this Legislature.

When we think of provincial parks, we often think of that very famous provincial park in the province of Ontario, Algonquin Provincial Park. But I want to tell you about a provincial park in my riding. Indeed, in Prince Edward county there's a provincial park called the Sandbanks Provincial Park. I want to tell you, it's about 35 years old. It may be a new member to the provincial park system, but an outstanding park nevertheless. It represents two of the finest baymouth sand-dune bars in the province of Ontario, and indeed it is very close to where I grew up.

I want to say that it previously was called the Outlet Provincial Park and now it's called the Sandbanks Provincial Park, represented by the east lake sector and the west lake sector, and it provides some spectacular scenery. The west lake sector has sand-dunes that stand 30 to 40 metres tall and are very attractive to all those who come and see them. The east lake sector has one of the finest beaches in the province of Ontario, about a mile wide, and maybe not as deep this year because the water level in Lake Ontario is quite high, but certainly a safe place for children to play.

So I invite all the people in the province of Ontario: Come on down to Prince Edward county and visit Sandbanks Provincial Park.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to draw the attention of this House to the serious job crisis facing our youth. The unemployment rate for 15- to 24-year-olds is 17% and in some regions reaches as high as 20%. Right now, more than 140,000 young people are out of work in this province. We can't afford to let these grim statistics and these difficult realities continue to go unchallenged.

The Premier's response to the crisis of youth unemployment has been totally inadequate. The $1-billion Jobs Ontario Training program is not working effectively: 55,000 people have applied for the program and only some 7,500 have had success in getting jobs. That simply isn't good enough.

My leader and this caucus believe that government can and should intervene to help create jobs for youth, and that's why we have developed a plan that will assist young people in reaching their goals. The Liberal plan would immediately help a total of 69,000 young people, 18,000 more than under current government programs, and many more over the longer term. The measures would cost $183 million, paid for with funds from existing programs, not through tax increases.

The Liberal Jobs for Youth program builds on successful existing programs and introduces some new ideas, making it both workable and fiscally responsible. The proposals in our Jobs for Youth initiatives follow a commonsense and practical approach to addressing the urgent needs of young people who can't find work. I commend this program to you, Mr Speaker, and to the government.

NURSES WEEK

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I invite all members of the Legislature to join with me in recognizing Nurses Week, which runs from May 9 to 15 in Ontario. The theme for the week is appropriately titled Nurses: A Dynamic Force in Quality Care. Nurses Week provides all of us with the opportunity to reflect upon and celebrate the vast contributions made by nurses to Ontario's health care system.

Nurses are the largest group of professionals in our health care system. As front-line workers and gatekeepers to the system, they have played a critical role in helping to ease the transition to a restructured health care system. Through their professionalism, devotion and commitment, nurses have helped to soften the impact of the government's slash-and-burn health care agenda.

Nurses Week is an important instrument in helping to raise public awareness to the vital role played by nurses in support of our health care system. The cutbacks in our system, where 2,000 nurses have been laid off in the past year, have meant more work and more responsibilities for nurses.

Nurses continue to provide leadership in meeting new challenges and in continuously improving the quality of care they provide to the people of Ontario. The strength of our health care system is a function of Ontario having capable and talented nurses throughout the province.

Nurses are quite often the forgotten jewel in our health care system. I'd like to extend my appreciation to all nurses in Ontario, because without their tireless contribution, there would not be quality care in Ontario.

SPRUCE FALLS MILL

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd like to provide the House with an update on the progress of the Spruce Falls mill in Kapuskasing. Most of us know that the mill, formerly owned by the Kimberly-Clark corporation and the New York Times, was acquired by its employees and area residents in partnership with Tembec in December 1991. Spruce Falls Inc produces quality newsprint and publishing paper grades for the newspaper and commercial publishing industry.

The positive results of Spruce Falls Acquisition Corp in its first fiscal year of operation represent an extraordinary accomplishment. The company has generated modest earnings of $6.6 million year-to-date during a period when newsprint transaction prices dropped to record lows and competitors incurred significant losses. These results are due in large part to the reorganization and streamlining of its operations, along with an enormous amount of support from the employees and area residents.

In order to meet the company objectives, a new thermomechanical pulp plant will begin production in July of this year. The new $116-million state-of-the-art TMP plant will produce 500 metric tonnes per day of high-quality, high-yield pulp with 50% less wood fibre. It also replaces the existing rossing-debarking operation, a groundwood mill and a magnefite plant, which closed last week.

The closure, as part of the original business plan initiated by new owners in 1991, did not come as a surprise to them. In fact, they are already entering a phase of development which includes plans for a chip-stud mill to be fully constructed by early 1994, creating an estimated 75 jobs.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that today I have tabled a supplement to the 16th report of the Commission on Election Finances containing recommendations concerning the indemnities and allowances of the members of the Legislative Assembly.

RESIGNATION

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): Mr Speaker, I rise today on a point of personal privilege to offer my resignation to the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario. It is my intention to continue to work for my constituents as an independent member.

I have been a member of this Legislature for five and a half years. During that time, I have endeavoured to represent the interests of my constituents to the utmost of my ability. I have always been an ardent defender of human rights for all peoples. I have spoken on many occasions condemning violations of human rights perpetrated against Lithuanians, Latvians, Chinese, Estonians, Romanians, Hungarians and numerous others.

As a Canadian of Croatian descent, I have been deeply affected by the destruction and unspeakable horrors that have been and are being inflicted upon the peoples of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and other areas of the former Yugoslavia. I have and I will continue to speak out against those atrocities, notwithstanding that my warnings have gone unheeded and my efforts have been largely ridiculed. The defence of human rights should have no political or national boundaries, and it is our duty as members of the human race to speak out against abuses no matter where they occur.

On March 11, 1993, at a forum held at York University dealing with atrocities being committed against women in Bosnia, I strongly condemned the perpetrators of these atrocities as well as any individuals or groups supporting or condoning them.

It was never my intention to generalize or cast aspersions on any particular group. I would like to apologize to all Canadians, particularly Canadians of Serbian heritage, who respect human rights and who have been in any way offended by my remarks. As Canadians, we are of course constantly striving to ensure that our society is harmonious and that all feel equal and accepted. I have enjoyed these privileges as a Canadian over the last 41 years and will work to ensure that all Canadians are guaranteed equality and security for themselves and their children.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY PRESS GALLERY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, perhaps I might rise on a point of order, although I see many of them are absent, to point out to you that elections in the press gallery were held today. I'm sure you would like to know, as all members would like to know, that Richard Brennan from the Windsor Star was elected president for the third consecutive year; Guy LePage, CKCO-TV in Kitchener, vice-president for electronic media; Emilia Casella, Hamilton Spectator, vice-president for print media; Betsy Powell, Canadian Press, secretary; Randy Rath, CHCH-TV in Hamilton, treasurer.

I'd point out, and I'm sure they would like this to happen to some of us and not others, that all received an acclamation. Congratulations to them from, I'm sure, everyone in this House.

The Speaker: The member will be surprised to learn that he does not have a point of order. However, it is a point of great interest to all of the members.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, exactly one year ago today -- well, it's actually a year ago tomorrow -- to great fanfare, the former industry minister unveiled the government's industrial strategy. Included was a three-year, $150-million sector partnership fund to help sectors compete internationally. When your government unveiled its expenditure control package last month, however, this fund was put on hold for this year and has now become spread over a five-year program.

So far the government has not spent any of the sectoral partnership money and will not spend any this year, yet -- and I think you and I both agree -- this is the very time when industry needs this money to help with its restructuring. A key part of the government's industrial program has been effectively disabled during this critical time when it is most needed.

Minister, you have announced the closing of all of our foreign trade offices. You've put on hold for this year the sector partnership fund to help sectors compete internationally. Could you tell us what use an industrial strategy is that has one of its key elements non-functioning?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I think the member raises a good question, but it provides me with an opportunity to clarify some of the issues that he raised and to, I think, correct the record on a couple of points.

First of all, he is correct to say that the sector partnership fund will be spent over a five-year period instead of a three-year period. In fact, in our discussions with the players from various sectors and in the work plans that we've been developing with them, it has become clear to us, and also with their agreement and in many cases their insistence, that they recognize that this assistance will be better over the long term and that some of the work plans involve long-term development, and a five-year period is an appropriate period. So it does accomplish two things.

I will not deny to him that it does help us in a cash-flow situation, but the money will still be spent. As the budget and estimates come forward, you'll see that there is money earmarked for spending this year. The first of the sectoral plans came forward in the area of telecommunications. We are working with a number of other sectors. I'm in the process of taking those through approval right now for their initial work plans, and I will in the very near future be in a position to tell the member and others the details of those.

Mr Kwinter: My information is that in the telecommunications sector it's going ahead, but that it's going ahead with their money and not with any government money.

Why is it taking so long to set up the one-stop investor information service, or is the ministry so busy looking for places to cut spending that it never got around to even setting this service up?

Hon Ms Lankin: First of all, referring to the lead-in to the member's question with respect to the telecommunications strategy, I should point out to him that the technology networks funds that are being sponsored are government funds and that there is in fact a commitment of government dollars to that. As well, the process of developing that was supported through the government.

There is a council that's being established and there are government moneys that will support that. As well, part of the strategy is a commitment to government as a model user, which will involve investment in terms of our own capital dollars in equipment, software and processes within the government.

I understand the point he's making. I think he's wrong on some of the facts. We will be continuing to roll out information under the sector partnership fund. I think that it is something that will be moving on very shortly, and that he will be impressed with the results.

With respect to the Ontario investment, what was originally called a centre now is referred to as an Ontario investment service, and for a very good reason. We brought together a group of stakeholder advisers to work with us in terms of the development of this, as well as working with the investment subcommittee of the Premier's Council. In discussions with them, they had very clear input and advice into how these services could best be organized. They view it more as a service and what we can provide through services, as opposed to a bricks-and-mortar centre.

We've redesigned the program with the input of the private sector and the financial community. It's quite exciting. Again, we believe that with that advisory group that's put in place, we will have this operational within the next year. We are in the process right now of working with municipalities and others to bring together the databases and to release the request for proposal for the establishment of the systems that will provide the information to potential investors.

Mr Kwinter: Minister, it would have seemed to me that the way to have gone about it would have been to have designed the program before you announced it, not announce a program and then start designing it and then have to make the adjustments. What you have done is you've set up expectations you can't deliver. It really puts the whole program in a bad light.

This is a delicate time in Ontario's economic recovery. The indications are that the province could start growing again, but we still see job losses and companies leaving Ontario for more friendly climes in the United States. Last May's industrial strategy was supposed to improve the environment for companies looking to expand and invest in Ontario.

So far nothing concrete has happened. Not one industry has tapped into the sectoral fund, a program which the government has now decided not to fund for this year, and the one-stop investment information service will be more than 18 months behind

schedule when it is finally up and running. The government's industrial strategy has turned out to be nothing more than words on paper, with no concrete action to help companies and improve the investment climate in Ontario.

Does the failure to set up these two key elements of an industrial strategy mean that the government has jettisoned the goals of business and totally turned its back on them, solely for the reason of dealing with the deficit?

Hon Ms Lankin: I have to come back and both correct the member and ask that he listen to the answers and incorporate them in his next questions. Quite frankly, his question shows a lack of understanding of the industrial policy and the sectoral partnership and where we're headed.

There never, ever was any commitment for individual firm-specific assistance under the sectoral partnership fund. In fact, the whole premise of the sectoral partnership fund is to move away from firm-specific assistance and to look at how we work within a sector to develop pre-competitive cooperative actions around R&D and around a number of other sorts of things.

The progress we've made there in a very difficult area, of bringing together firms with labour in a sector that does not have a history of being cooperative, that does not have a history of working together, to try and identify what the state of the sector is and what areas could be addressed in a cooperative way that could bring up the competitive advantage of that sector, that could lead them to being export-ready and internationally ready, that process has been very successful. Again, I tell the member to wait just a few days and he will get the information on that.

Just a last comment: With respect to the investment services program, I can tell you that it is not a program that has fallen into any kind of disrepute. The private sector working with us is very supportive of the concept and there is a lot of energy and excitement in it. I would invite the member to speak directly to the people who've been involved in helping us design it.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question would ideally have been to the Premier, but I gather he's --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): He's on a talk show.

Mr Phillips: He's on a talk show, as someone said. In the absence of that, I'll direct my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It has to do with the management of the expenditure control plan. I think the minister will understand that municipalities in the province have truly been thrown into turmoil; "chaos" may be too strong a word, but certainly turmoil.

It was five months ago, Minister, that the government announced specifically to the municipalities the money that they would have to manage their affairs in 1993. They've been working, I think it's fair to say, very hard to bring their budgets in, in many cases, with no tax increases. In many cases, they have done an extremely good job. Yet here we are, and these municipalities, Minister, as you know, are more than a third of the way through the year; their budgets are set. In many cases, their tax rolls have gone out, and they find that they see a 10% reduction in the promised transfer payments from the province.

My question to you is this: What happened between the time you made the announcement, which was only five months ago, and now that would lead you to say to those partners that they will be getting 10% less from the province, and do you agree that you have indeed thrown them into turmoil?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I don't agree that we've thrown them into turmoil. I recognize that some municipalities have concerns about this. I met in Hawkesbury last week with the smaller municipalities. I also met with the northern municipalities the week before. I think that one of the things that is fairly clear to them when you talk to them on an individual basis, one by one, is that they recognize that there's a major problem that we all have to share a responsibility for and share in the solution to.

In fact, Joe Mavrinac, the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, has pointed out, and I think it's correct, that it's important that the government not make across-the-board reductions, that there are differences in municipalities. We've given the assurance that we will be releasing, hopefully this week, the figures as to exactly how each municipality will be affected by the unconditional grants.

Mr Phillips: The municipalities, everybody in the province knows you've got a problem. That's no secret to anyone. It is how you manage the problem that's at issue here. It was just five months ago that you gave a solemn undertaking: Here would be your transfer payments. They know the problem. They're trying to deal with the problem.

Minister, knowing that you are now going to reduce the transfer payments by 10%, and when the social contract negotiations are complete I gather that it is your intention to take another $285 million from municipalities, representing, I gather, a pullback, a drawback on their transfer payments in the range of 40% -- as I say, they understand the problem. In fact, they have been spending the last four months wrestling with the problem, Minister; nothing new to them.

My question to you is this: Do you share the mayors' concerns about this midyear reduction in their transfer payments, and will you undertake to set the meeting up between the Premier and the mayors this week, before the final decisions are made on the budget, so that there can be some consideration of their concerns as the budget is finalized?

Hon Mr Philip: The honourable member is not correct in most of what he said. In fact, the $285 million is not coming directly out of them. The successful outcome of the social contract negotiation means that all the impacts of that process should be fiscally neutral. He understands that.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Oh, give me a break.

Hon Mr Philip: The member for York West keeps interjecting and trying to talk over our voices. As usual, he doesn't make any sense. He didn't make any sense as the municipal councillor.

Interjection: Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Philip: Etobicoke West, I should say. The fact is, and I will try to answer the member because I think he asked a good question and has provided me with an opportunity to answer, that any reductions in the provincial transfers through the social contract should be offset by similar reductions in the municipal compensation costs. So in fact, that $285 million, assuming that the social contract talks are successful, and we understand that they are progressing well at the moment, will in fact be fiscally neutral.

Mr Phillips: Frankly, I do understand the numbers and I understand the problem the municipalities are facing. I will say to you, you've put them into a very tough spot. There's none of them that would disagree with the need for restraint; I'll say that again. But here they are, they are four months, almost five months into the year, they have spent that money; it's gone. Now they've got eight months left in which to find that money that you are taking away from them. So they understand the problem far better, I think, than you do, Minister.

The Premier has said on several occasions that you are going to build into the budget -- it's a fait accompli, I gather -- a $2.4-billion expenditure reduction program and the $2 billion from the social contract. That's a fait accompli.

My question to you is this. The mayors want to meet before the budget in order to have some influence on that final decision. They believe they face a significant crisis. I think they should have an opportunity to persuade you one way or the other on that. Will you firstly guarantee that that meeting with the Premier will be arranged before the budget is announced, and will you undertake to let the House know and to let the mayors know what you are prepared to look at in terms of helping them work their way through a very tough situation as they try to deal with restraint midway through their fiscal year?

Hon Mr Philip: The municipalities are part of the social contract. They're at the table, they are presenting their ideas, they are part of the process. Unlike other governments across this country that have simply slashed, we are actually consulting with the various stakeholders. The municipalities are there at the table. They have every opportunity to present their views, and indeed if they wish to meet with the Premier, then I'm sure that the Premier would consider that, as would Michael Decter. They are meeting with various people and obtaining input from various people.

But the municipalities are at that table; they're part of the process, so I don't know what the honourable member is saying, that somehow they're not being consulted. They're right there, part of the consultation process.

TAXATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): We're one week before a budget. We have no Treasurer here. We are in the middle of social contract talks. We have no Premier. We have no Deputy Premier.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To whom is your question addressed?

Mr Harris: I would ask then for your permission and unanimous consent of the House, since the Premier is in Windsor on open line right now on the Wayne McLean show, and I have talked -- my office -- with Wayne McLean and he is agreeable, if we could phone the Premier on the Wayne McLean show, place our question to the Premier so that all of Ontario --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. The honourable leader of the third party may have missed the admonition to this House just a few days ago about the use of electronic equipment in the chamber, notwithstanding his request to speak directly with the Premier. The rules, however, permit the member to address a question to any minister who is present in the chamber.

Mr Harris: I wonder, could I have unanimous consent to talk directly to the Premier on the Wayne McLean show and place my question that way?

The Speaker: I'm sorry, no. No, I won't allow the question to be placed, because we do not permit the use of cell phones in the chamber. But the member is invited to place a question to one of the ministers who are present.

Mr Harris: I'm sorry they won't give me unanimous consent. It would have been good for the show. It would have been good for the people of Ontario too, Wayne, and I apologize that we cannot talk to the Premier directly.

I then will place my question to the deputy Deputy Premier for the day, as we were told, the deputy Deputy Premier for the day; so that's whom my question is to.

Yesterday the public sector unions said they would return to the bargaining table. The reason is because they were encouraged by a letter from the Premier. The Premier said in that letter, Madam Deputy Deputy Leader for the Day: "In this spirit, I welcome your proposals. Your proposals on taxes and revenue have been referred to the Minister of Finance for consideration in his budget preparation."

Minister, the unions have called for a wealth tax. Given the Premier's letter, it would appear that in fact a wealth tax may well be the price of your social contract discussions. I would ask if you would confirm for me today, Madam Minister, as the Finance minister said on March 6, that there will be no wealth tax in the upcoming budget.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Questions of this sort have been asked many times in the Legislature. The Premier and the Minister of Finance, on all occasions, have indicated that taxes will not form part of the negotiations at the social contract table. That remains the case and that in fact is the direct response from the Premier, both at the meeting that he held with the unions and the social contract coalition and in the letter directly.

Ideas for taxation from all sectors of society have been welcomed by the Minister of Finance. I know that I have met with numerous groups and have passed on their comments to the Minister of Finance. He's met directly with a large number of groups and has considered proposals from the business community, from boards of trade, from unions, from others.

There is nothing out of line with what has been suggested. Those proposals have gone forward to the Minister of Finance -- the actual nature of taxes and the specific taxes the leader knows well that I will not comment on in question period here -- and will form part of the Minister of Finance's report to the Legislature when he presents his budget next week.

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary to the minister, this is a minister who should be responsible and should be promoting and encouraging the upsizing of the private sector, particularly at a time when others are proposing the downsizing of the public sector.

The private sector has told you very clearly -- those who still have a nickel left -- that that is the money that, if it invests it in Ontario, will create the jobs we need in Ontario. You, as minister responsible for the private sector, for economic development, should be fighting tooth and nail to make sure that no more of those dollars are taken away from the job creators.

I would ask you, Madam Minister, to confirm this: The Treasurer said there will be no wealth tax in the upcoming budget. I would ask if you agree with Michael Harcourt, who said there'll be no wealth taxes in British Columbia. "We want that money to stay in British Columbia to create jobs in British Columbia." I want to know if the minister agrees with that. If you do, will you assure us that you will fight tooth and nail to make sure that there is no new wealth tax in the upcoming budget?

Hon Ms Lankin: I want to draw the member's, I guess, attention back to the original reason why we've embarked upon this balanced approach to the setting of the budget this time. We've said clearly that we believe, in order to have a climate for economic investment, in order to bring about the possibilities of economic growth, in order to be prepared to build on the beginning of the return and the recovery, that we need to do something about the government's fiscal situation and that the budget needs to deal with bringing the deficit under control.

We've said we wanted to approach that in a way that allowed us the latitude to maintain investment in our infrastructure and in critical programs to support growth in the economy and a climate for economic investment.

With respect to the package that we have been developing for the budget, we've looked very clearly at a balanced approach which tries to have a fair contribution from all Ontarians. That includes looking at expenditure reductions. It includes the social contract negotiations and it includes taxation.

I've met with a number of groups that have raised their concerns around any kind of taxation. Those views I have reflected to the Treasurer. The actual composition of any tax decisions will be made by the Treasurer --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- and set out in the budget, Mr Speaker. I will not today in the Legislature answer direct questions on that.

Mr Harris: By way of final supplementary to the minister: Your own committee -- what did we call it? The Fair Tax Commission? Right. It studied wealth taxes and indicated potential negative economic impacts, such as reduced investment in Ontario, discouragement for private savings, the possibility that people might simply move themselves or their money to other provinces to avoid the taxes.

I would ask the minister if she agrees with that assessment, if she agrees with Michael Harcourt. Does she have some study in her ministry that suggests that wealth taxes will somehow encourage investment in Ontario, contrary to all the laws of economics and of taxation policies? If she does, will she table that? If not, will she confirm for us today -- and you would understand the concern, Minister, because the unions said, "We're not coming to the table unless you look at our tax proposals," and the Premier wrote them a letter back: "Thank you. We like your tax proposals. I'm giving them to the Treasurer."

So there is great fear and great concern out there. I would ask you again, Madam Minister, can you assure us that in your desperation to appease the unions, there will not be new wealth taxes in the upcoming budget?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member opposite continues to ask a question that he knows well I will not answer at this point in time. The Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, will be coming forward with a budget next week. He will get his answer about specific tax moves at that point in time, when that comes forward.

I want to clarify one point on the record, which is to ensure that the people listening know what the Premier actually said in his response to the unions. He said, "Your proposals on taxes and revenue have been referred to the Minister of Finance for consideration in his budget preparation" -- what has been done to all other proposals: they've all been referred to the Minister of Finance.

The government shares your determination to make the tax system more equitable, and the work of the Fair Tax Commission will be helpful in that regard. May I say to the member that he must also look not just at the impact of taxation -- and any tax moves we make, and there will be some, we hope will be a very fair and equitable package -- but also at what the impact would be of not taking action: an increased deficit with the resultant increase in public debt interest, much of which would be paid to offshore capital markets, and what that would do to our economy in terms of taking money out of the Ontario economy. We have a balanced approach and we think it's the right one.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): In the absence of the Premier and in the absence of the Deputy Premier, who I'm told is in his office just across the street -- he doesn't want to come and represent the Premier while the Premier is in Windsor -- I will address my second question to the deputy Deputy Premier for the day.

The Premier has been very clear that he needs $2 billion from the payroll of the public sector. Never mind the tax part of the agenda, never mind the cutbacks in spending, he's been very clear that there will be $2 billion less in total payroll costs in the public sector this year over last year. He said that figure is not negotiable, that's what it's going to be: not negotiable.

However, as we saw in their proposal last Friday, the unions seem to be talking about everything else under the sun except actual payroll cuts. They've said: "You can cut here. You can cut there. Hike taxes. Do this. Do that."

We were led to believe that this process was different from any other -- and quite frankly, I supported it on that basis -- that you're going to cut $2 billion in payroll costs, but that instead of doing it unilaterally, just 5% across the board or imposing it, you would invite the unions to discuss how the 5% could be cut.

Can you tell me this, Madam Minister: As far as you're concerned, is it still your intention to live up to the ironclad commitment that the $2 billion is not negotiable and, if so, can you explain to me why, while the unions are present, not one word of the negotiations has been about how to cut back their wages?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I would suggest to the member that this is a very different process and that if he supported it for that reason, he will support the fact that what's different about is that we said we would go to the table and listen to what people had to say. He seems to suggest that we should have a unilateral approach, even though we're doing it differently and not really having a unilateral approach.

I would point out to the leader of the third party that within the government's proposals to the social contract table, we very clearly talked about things like the tripartite task force that would have terms of reference that would look at a review of measures to improve effectiveness, efficiency, equality and affordability of the public sector service delivery in Ontario; a review of procurement; contracting of activities; a review of senior management numbers and compensation; delayering.

Some of the proposals that the unions have placed on the table are very similar to that. So we indicated by our own proposals that there were a range of things that we would be willing to look at within the $2-billion number that had been set.

In direct response to the member's question around the $2 billion, the Minister of Finance has been very clear, and the government is very clear, that this will form part of our approach on the three-legged stool, as the Minister of Finance has referred to it.

Mr Harris: Minister, when you asked the unions for a proposal on how to cut $2 billion from their payroll, they sent back suggestions on how to further cut the private sector. They sent back suggestions on, "Here's some taxes you can increase." They said if you'd had whistle-blowing legislation, they could find, I don't know, another billion dollars or two. They had lots of ideas for you, but none on how they would cut one cent from the total wage package they have.

Minister, during your government's first two years in power, inflation increased a total of 6%, yet, for example, OPSEU's overall wage bill for the same two years increased 19.5%. So, Madam Minister, even if the public sector employees take an overall 5% cut in the third year, they will still be far better off during your term in office, where payroll costs have gone up have gone up far in excess of the rate of inflation for that same three-year period; far better off, I think you would agree with me, than the private sector, which, according to your Premier, is in the middle of the toughest recession it's been in since, I don't know, the Boer War, to hear him talk some days.

Madam Minister, given that what you've called for is a 5% cut to bring them down to a level well in excess of the rate of inflation during your three-year term, can you explain to me why it is that the union leaders don't even want to have one word of discussion on how to achieve that? Instead, all they want to do is talk about tax hikes: "Somebody else cut back, not us." Can you explain that?

Hon Ms Lankin: I would think that the leader of the third party should direct that question to the parties whose thinking he wants to know on that and not to me, as a minister of the crown. I can tell him what our thinking is. We've put forward a proposal; we've asked people to engage in discussions about our ideas and their ideas. Our proposal was much broader than just compensation, although that certainly formed part of it. We talked about openness and accountability, restructuring work, reskilling workers, partnership for Ontario capital investments, reform of the framework for collective bargaining.

In their response, they talk about reform of collective bargaining, they talk about workplace democracy, accountability. There's a lot in common between the two proposals, and the Premier, in his letter to the public sector coalition, I think has indicated that there is value in starting the discussions in earnest, and if we can start with where we agree, perhaps that will start moving us down the road to deal with some of the more difficult issues: those where we don't yet agree.

Mr Harris: By way of final supplementary to the deputy Deputy Premier for the day and also to the minister who I believe was responsible for negotiating that first contract that went up some 15% or so, yesterday the Finance minister said, "We will insist upon achieving $2 billion at the social contract table." The Premier has said that

part is non-negotiable. We know there are other discussions; we know there are taxes now on the table and everything, that they weren't going to be. But they've been very clear, the Premier and the Deputy Premier, about saying there will be $2 billion in cuts in the total payroll cost to bring the public sector to still some 5% or 6% ahead of inflation over the time of your government: not bad, when you look at the private sector.

I would ask you this, Minister: Are you, as the deputy Deputy Premier for the day, prepared, on behalf of all the companies out there, all the workers who are looking for jobs, to insist that this $2 billion in savings will come out of these social contract talks, and if not, are you prepared to legislate it?

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, the leader of the third party has asked this question on a number of occasions, and the answer he gets from me, whether I am in this position for the day or whether I'm here for longer if the Treasurer and the Premier aren't here, will be the same as he's heard from the Treasurer and the Premier. We don't go to the table putting a gun to people's heads. We have committed ourselves to the $2 billion. That will be reflected in the budget and ministries' estimates. There are a number of ways to achieve that, and the member knows well that one way might be to simply reduce further the transfer payments to reflect that amount.

I want to touch on one point that the member has raised in his last two supplementary questions, because I would hope that he would find this helpful. We wouldn't want to inadvertently mislead the viewing public. That is with respect to this issue of the 15% increase in the civil service, and how even with 5%, they're still doing well. It gives the impression of individual civil servants having an increase of that amount, and he compares it to the private sector, which rates actually talk about individual wage increases.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: Yes, I will. That amount he refers to includes increases in programs where new staff have been hired.

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her response?

Hon Ms Lankin: It is not an annual wage increase. It is very, very unfortunate that he continues to use that number in a way that could inadvertently mislead the public.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In the absence of the Premier, to whom I wanted to direct this question, I guess I'll direct it to the Chair of Management Board.

At a time in the province of Ontario when developmentally delayed children are being denied the kind of assistance they require at home because of budget cuts, at a time in our province when people are having to line up on stretchers in the hallways of hospitals until there are beds available to them, and at a time in our province when senior citizens are being forced to dip into their meagre savings to be able to pay for drugs that are, in some cases, prolonging and saving their lives, could the minister tell us what possible justification he could present to this House for the millions upon millions of dollars that his government is squandering on self-serving political advertising?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): On the matters the member refers to in his

preamble that dealt with, I think, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health, I'll ensure that my colleagues take note of your comments and perhaps deal directly with you at some point.

In terms of the specific question that ended off that lengthy

preamble, the advertising which this government does is no different from the advertising done by any other government in this country or, for that matter, in many others. The vast majority of that advertising is to make the people of this province aware of government programs, changes in government programs like the rent review legislation in this province, so that they in fact have appropriate access to the things that government provides and delivers to them.

Mr Bradley: The government of Ontario has squandered about $1.5 million on advertising for Jobs Ontario instead of putting those additional funds into jobs themselves. Your government has spent $1.7 million on blatantly political advertising over the issue of rent control that any objective observer would see as simply self-promoting for the government. You're spending money on posters and new advertising for the support and custody office at a time when the support and custody office itself needs the necessary staff to carry out its roles and responsibility.

So I ask the minister, in light of the squandering of this money in these very difficult restraint-filled economic times, would you now abandon this self-serving, politically generated advertising and return that money to needed services for people in this province?

Hon Mr Charlton: I've never, I don't think in my entire life, heard such a ridiculous set of conclusions out of a number of findings that the member has made.

Last fall, I can recall being in this House when members across the way were raising questions about the Jobs Ontario Training fund and the fact that at that time there were only a few hundred people who had been placed in employment as a result of that program. We have now started to promote the program and to date we have created over 23,000 new job positions in this province and put in jobs, aside from interview processes, some 10,000 people who are now actively working as a result of that program.

That advertising program that the member across the way refers to is helping the people of this province move into employment, off of unemployment rolls, off of welfare in this province, and providing a significant boost to the economic recovery.

LEGAL SERVICES

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. Attorney General, I understand you've been meeting with various interest groups and advocating the imposition of provincial sales tax on legal services. Is that correct?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I have certainly discussed with a number of concerned groups the proposals that have come forward from a number of different quarters around the imposition of provincial sales tax. As the member is well aware, the Treasurer is the person who is responsible for tax decisions, and one of the issues that I certainly have taken up in pre-budget consultation has been some of the suggestions that have come forward from various parts of the community around that, as I believe have come up around other professional fees as a means of revenue-raising.

Mr Harnick: Attorney General, if the Treasurer imposes the provincial sales tax on legal services, what will be the effect on people's access to justice?

Hon Mrs Boyd: It would certainly be my concern, as I think it would be the member's, that particularly those people who are beyond the level where they could be protected by the legal aid plan and yet who have not got a great deal of income themselves might be unduly affected by that. That, of course, would have to be one of the considerations taken into effect by the Treasurer.

I know that the Canadian Bar Association and the law society have both made representation to the Treasurer, urging him not to impose a sales tax, and if one were imposed, to dedicate some of the funds to improving access to legal services if that should happen.

As I say, this is a decision that is up to the Treasurer. It would certainly be my job to advocate that if he were to make this decision, we as a government would have to take some very serious action to ensure that access was not affected.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Minister of Housing, you must be doing a great job of communication and marketing out there, because let me tell you, within a week, over half the residents of the Clearview cooperative housing in my riding have been sending me a number of letters.

This housing project was built in 1986 and provided affordable housing to the residents of the city of Chatham. At the time of the construction, electrical heat was installed because it was most economical. However, since that time, the cost has risen. As we've seen what the Liberals did with Ontario Hydro, it just escalated and took off, to the point where the residents of Clearview are paying double, even triple, the heating bills of people in homes heated by natural gas. Sometimes these bills are as high as $500 for the December and January months.

My question to the minister is, with the social housing energy retrofit program being extended to these constituents; will they be able to get relief for the astronomical hydro cost that is facing them?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The government has been very concerned about what high heating bills in particular are doing to households that are living in social housing. While it was cheaper to construct with electrical baseboard heating, it certainly has not proven cheaper to operate with electrical baseboard heating.

That was the reason why in 1991, first of all, we decided that non-profits would not be built with electrical heating except if there were no other fuel available, and second, to begin the social housing energy retrofit program, which also seeks to try and improve the effectiveness of water use. What we did last year was allocate $9 million to this program. It converted over 12,000 homes and it employed about 250 people, so it's a program that's well worthwhile.

Mr Hope: By supplementary, I would ask the minister when she expects the announcements to come. Also, you know that you've received a number of these petitions, which are indicated by all the people who are there, talking about $429 a month in hydro costs. Will you give deep consideration to these residents in Clearview and the working people of my riding and the city of Chatham?

Hon Ms Gigantes: We will be allocating, I'm pleased to say, $19 million to SHERP this year, and the letters for the preliminary approvals on those allocations will be going out over the next week or so, so groups like the Clearview group which have made application should have a preliminary indication by just a few days from now, and then once they submit the details of their applications following on that initial approval, we should be expecting to be able to work with them, providing funding by midsummer.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour.

Minister, I've asked you questions recently in this House about workers' compensation, and as you know, the unfunded liability at the board is topping some $11 billion, growing by $100 million each and every month. Despite all the problems that occur, they're going ahead building this new 30-storey office edifice. I don't know if they're going to call it Mackenzie Place or Simcoe Place, something like that, something in your honour, and they're building that in downtown Toronto at incredible cost.

Also, to the minister, I understand in July 1992 there was a report of the Chairman's Task Force on Service Delivery and Vocational Rehabilitation and then in November of 1992 a response from the chairman of the WCB, in spite of all of these problems, called an action plan, wherein the chairman set up 47 internal committees to study all of the problems that have been --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Forty-seven?

Mr Mahoney: Forty-seven internal committees to study the problems.

I understand, rumour has it --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And your question?

Mr Mahoney: -- Mr Minister, that you have set up another committee and that the purpose of that committee is to look into the feasibility of a royal commission to study all of the problems and the reports set out in all of the committees looking at all of the problems at workers' compensation. You wasted $3 million with John Sewell's commission.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Mahoney: You've set up a royal commission on education. Who knows what that's going to cost?

Is it true, Minister, that you're setting up a royal commission to study all the problems that we already know about at workers' compensation?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The committees the member talks about are internal committees at the board itself, of its employees who are trying to come to grips with some of the problems we've had. I might say that the initial steps have been exceedingly successful, and they are the front-line workers who have to deal with the problems we're raising about the board at all times.

Mr Mahoney: I didn't hear an answer to the question. Let me try again. Minister, I asked you if you would ask, not instruct, as you misinterpreted my question, the Provincial Auditor if he would launch an investigation into the dealings that took place between WCB, between its investment fund, between Cadillac Fairview Corp and the Toronto-Dominion Bank to put up that edifice down at Simcoe and Front streets. I asked you to ask the Provincial Auditor to look into the misdealings that I've reported to you in this House. You refused to take action on that.

Instead, what you're doing is you're hiding behind committees. I mean, this is unbelievable, an $11-billion deficit. Never mind your government's problems, we have a government agency that's $11 billion in the ditch, growing by $100 million each and every month, and what is your solution? Set up 47 internal committees. Do you know that there's even a recommendation --

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Mahoney: -- in this report that recommends that the board approve the appointment of the chairman and the vice-chairman of the WCB instead of bringing it to cabinet, and they adopted that. They're stripping cabinet of the power --

The Speaker: Would the member please place a supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: -- to deal with the WCB.

My question, by supplementary, Mr Speaker: Rumour has it, sir, that, as a result of all of these reports, as a result of the 47 internal committees, as a result of your latest task force, you are going to be recommending at the next cabinet meeting the establishment of another --

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mr Mahoney: -- royal commission. You're a government of inaction, a government of royal commissions.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. If the minister detected a question --

Mr Mahoney: I didn't see you on your feet for the deputy deputy.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I don't think any authority has been stripped from the government at this point in time, and I can tell the honourable member that we're always looking at ways to improve the service at the Workers' Compensation Board.

HOUSING CONDITIONS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Housing. The tenants at 1002 Lawrence Avenue East in North York have been subjected to deplorable conditions in their accommodation. They have been intimidated by hired thugs; they have had falling glass; the heat has been turned off in that building periodically and the elevators periodically do not work. What are you doing about this, Minister?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The problems that have existed at that apartment building certainly have been a matter of concern at the Ministry of Housing. Members of my own staff and members of the ministry staff have been working with tenants to try and help them use existing legislation, in particular the Rent Control Act, to improve conditions there. I could give the member a more up-to-date briefing once I have checked back with the ministry and find out the current state of affairs at that apartment.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, that isn't good enough. People from your ministry met with the tenants' group in January. The intimidation has continued; you have done nothing. To suggest that you're having further meetings and you're going to brief me is not sufficient. These people are enjoying terrible living conditions. That has taken since January. I'm asking you, what are you going to do for the tenants now?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Rent Control Act of Ontario provides full redress for tenants. It provides that they shall not be harassed. It provides that where maintenance is not adequate they can apply for a rent reduction. It provides that where there is a property order, the apartment owner cannot ask for an increase, even a guideline increase.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Rent reduction? They need heat.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Not right now. They need air-conditioning.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Our task is to make sure that people in that building are getting the assistance they need to use the legislation, which, for the first time, provides them with those protections. I can assure the member that I will check and find out where matters are with regard to this particular property and make sure that the --

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): We are so dismayed. The dismay over here has reached a level of no return.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'm in shock.

The Speaker: Will the member for Yorkview please come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Yorkview to come to order.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Madam Minister, I recently visited the Willis Training Centre, which is an enormous complex currently housing over 300 horses which are being trained to participate in the horse racing industry. I met with the local farmers and entrepreneurs within the industry, so they could discuss what they perceive to be negative impacts on people affiliated within the horse racing industry, and I believe that they do have some legitimate concerns.

Madam Minister, are you aware of these concerns, and if so, how are they being addressed?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Yes, I'm aware of the concerns as expressed by the member. The province is committed to working with the Ontario horse racing industry to maintain its viability. I would say, with the exception of the city of Windsor and the law enforcement community, that no other interest group has been consulted so extensively as the horse racing industry when it comes to casino gaming.

It's quite true that horse racing is under tremendous competition throughout North America for the consumer's entertainment dollar, and through government programs like the tax-sharing arrangement, the province pledges to continue to assist the horse racing industry in meeting this competition.

Mr Abel: Thank you, Madam Minister. I'm sure those involved in the industry will be happy to hear that.

Since this is such an important industry and involves so many people, does your ministry plan to have ongoing discussions with those most affected?

Hon Ms Churley: Yes, I certainly do pledge to continue our consultations and discussions with the horse racing industry. A point that I'd like to make here is that when we release the request for proposals for the casino in Windsor, a component of that RFP in fact asks that the winning proposal would pledge to work extensively with the horse racing community and be sensitive to the Ontario horse racing industry.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I have a question as well for the minister of casinos, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I might add parenthetically that maybe you should get your act together with the horse racing industry, because I defy you to go head to head with it on the comments and the response you just had.

ELEVATOR SAFETY

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Minister, you're responsible for elevators in this province and the safety of them. You spend $4.5 million a year. There are 35,000 elevators in the province of Ontario. Last November the Provincial Auditor said that you're spending $4.5 million and you're doing an inadequate job. In fact, there are as many as 10,000 elevating devices that are probably or possibly unsafe in this province.

That was six months ago. You apparently haven't done anything in the intervening six months. In fact, right in this building and in the building across the street, the Whitney Block, there are licences that have expired. What have you been doing for six months, Minister?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The elevating devices branch -- and I've said this in the House before when this question has been raised -- has been recruiting an additional, I believe, nine inspector trainees. I said in the House before that some of them will be starting by June, so it's not as though we have been inactive. We have been busy and working with the Ministry of Labour in training new inspectors.

Mr McClelland: Minister, I think it's indicative of a general malaise and incompetence that runs throughout the whole government, and your ministry is no exception.

As of 11 o'clock this morning, licences in the west bank elevators in this building had expired, licences in the east bank had expired, licences in the Whitney Block elevators had expired. The licence in one of the central elevators, which you possibly use, you possibly ride as you take the people of the province of Ontario for a ride on almost a daily basis now, expired in April 1991. You're only two years out of sync here. This is your responsibility.

What does that say about what else is happening in your ministry right across the board? Are you on top of it? Do you know what's going on or not? Where have you been? What are you doing?

Hon Ms Churley: I know that my new critic from the Liberal Party secretly knows that I'm doing a good job over here and that I'm on top of the issues.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): We do too.

Hon Ms Churley: And Ed does too.

Hon Mr Philip: The Speaker thinks you're doing a good job.

Hon Ms Churley: And so does the Speaker. Good. We know that there have been too few inspectors and we have had some trouble in recruiting a number of inspectors, for a variety of reasons which I'm sure you won't let me go into here, but there will be very soon some new inspectors coming on stream.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Dave Johnson (Don Mills): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The assessment base in Metropolitan Toronto was put in place in 1953 using 1940 information. Today in Metropolitan Toronto there are about 40,000 homes under appeal because the system is out of date, and most people concede that it is very unfair. In frustration, Scarborough has appealed the assessment of 1,000 homes in the city of Toronto; and Toronto, in retaliation, has appealed the assessment of some 5,600 homes in Scarborough.

What action can we expect from this government to deal with this mess? What action can we expect from this government to assist thousands of innocent people who are caught in the middle of this battle?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I met with Chairman Tonks and Councillor Cavalier on March 22 to discuss market value assessment. We've had ongoing dialogue about it. It's my hope that Metro will be able to address some of the issue which my predecessor and I have raised with him, issues concerning the reassessment plan. There are staff at Metro who are looking into those issues and they'll be getting back to me.

But let me say that I'm concerned, as is he, and indeed I'm meeting with the mayor of Scarborough this afternoon and I have met recently with the mayor of Toronto. I'm concerned about the actions that are being taken by both Scarborough and the city of Toronto in appealing the assessments in each other's jurisdiction. I don't think that that is terribly helpful and I don't think that that kind of thing between the two cities really is very constructive and will lead to a solution to the problem.

Mr Dave Johnson: Mr Minister, I'm glad to hear that there is concern. However, there are about 6,000 people who are caught in the middle of this mess. Indeed, in the city of Scarborough, for example, there are about 30,000 appeals. Some of these will be resolved fairly quickly, but thousands of them will go to the Assessment Review Board and that will require many additional courts at a very high cost to the taxpayers of this province to resolve these problems.

I guess my question to you is, what plans have you got in place, again, to deal with this, given that people are going to have this hanging over their heads for many, many months, well into next year, and how much cost will the taxpayers of this province be required to foot because we haven't had action to deal with this problem?

Hon Mr Philip: Certainly, the massive task of handling the more than 165,000 appeals against property taxes in Scarborough is already under way. We understand that they are being dealt with. There is the particular decision which we're still waiting for concerning Mr Marum's appeals, and that will be decided with due process.

But what I have informed the member of is that there is a process under way to deal with the very issue of the taxation and of the concerns that have been brought to us and brought to my predecessor, Mr Cooke, about such things as not having people across the province pay excessively for transportation and for hydro as a result of the particular proposal that was brought forward, not destroying the film industry in Metro Toronto, which would likely have happened --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Philip: -- if that proposal had gone forward and not putting small business in Toronto out of business. Those concerns are being dealt with by the group at Metro and they will report back to me.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

PETITIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition that was forwarded to me by Mr Carey Webb from Trenton, Ontario, and it's signed by many of the residents in the Quinte area. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers;

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers,

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): This petition is to the Parliament of Ontario.

"I, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To implement without delay the new open municipal government law and new conflict of interest law."

It's signed by Henry Freitag.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have another one. It says:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"I, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To revise the Planning Act (and any other act) in such a manner that such conduct as shown above and experienced in the town of Penetanguishene never, ever can take place again in Ontario."

That one's signed by Henry Freitag.

BUILDING CODE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): And the other one:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"I, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To revise the Building Code Act (and any other act) in such a manner that the fees charged must be reasonable and must only cover the cost for the services provided by the licence; also that the service must be performed in a frugal and most efficient manner.

"(Signed) Henry Freitag."

TAX REVENUES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The final one:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"I, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To pass a law prohibiting the use of tax money by provincial government, municipal government and organizations under the jurisdiction of the provincial government for meetings, conventions, gatherings and caucus meetings in other than public buildings;

"To pass a law prohibiting the use of tax money to wine and dine officials of the government and their friends; the new law to set a limit of money and a limit when a lunch or food or other expenses can be charged. This law must also include municipalities."

That's signed by Henry Freitag, and I have endorsed those four petitions.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas in 1990 the Ontario Ministry of Transportation demonstrated its good intentions by proposing a system of graduated licensing that would require newly licensed drivers to adhere to certain conditions and restrictions which would be removed as the driver gains driving experience; and

"Whereas statistics show that new drivers of any age are five times more likely to be involved in road accidents due to lack of experience, death and injury from traffic-related accidents continues to be the biggest risk facing Canadians between the ages of 16 and 24, and research strongly suggests a graduated licensing program would result in a decrease in traffic accidents, reduced injuries, save lives and make our roads safer,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To take immediate action to revise the law, specifically the Highway Traffic Act, to include a graduated licensing program for novice drivers.

"As concerned parents and citizens of Ontario, we believe that it is now time to take action to protect our young and novice drivers and, in effect, our very future."

I have signed this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of people concerned about casino gambling. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally portrayed itself as having a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has expressed a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves in this new and questionable initiative."

I am pleased to sign this, as I agree with the contents of this particular petition.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Simcoe West.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Thank you, Mr Speaker; you're doing a good job. I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historic concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I've affixed my name to this petition.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted with the citizens of Ontario regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally vulnerable and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas credible academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government must immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition.

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of a neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling;

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have, since 1976, on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

There are 83 signatures here, and I affix mine to it.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario intends to reduce funding to the provincial psychiatric hospitals by $45 million;

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

"We do not want funding to be reduced in the Ontario mental health care system. We want programs in the community that truly serve the psychiatrically ill and provide the opportunity for hospitalization if needed."

There are over 70 signatures on this petition, and I've also signed the petition.

GAMBLING

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society" -- or thought they had -- "who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos, despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly, along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

This is signed by many signatures from the riding of Durham East, I believe, and I too attach my signature to it.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition to this House:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers;

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

That's signed by 90 people in my area.

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "To the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the undesigned, being residents of the Tri-town area in the district of Timiskaming, petition Premier Rae and the provincial government to reconsider their decision to cancel the MNR relocation to the town of Haileybury. We request that the following be considered:

"1. That the relocation program was initiated as an effort to minimize the impact to the district of the closure of the Sherman and Adams mines;

"2. That the 36 MNR positions have already been filled and families relocated and employees are working out of rented facilities in the town of Haileybury; and

"3. That Timiskaming is less able to recover or stabilize from the loss of the number of jobs lost in the past five years than areas more diversified."

This has been signed by 672 residents, and I affix my signature to this also.

GAMBLING

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): This is a new one.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling;" and

Whereas the New Democratic Party is probably the most hypocritical party that's been elected in the last number of years; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the construction of legalized gambling casinos, despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition. It's signed by 11 people. It comes from the St David's United Church congregation in the fine city of Woodstock and it is similar to other petitions. These people are opposing casinos and after several "whereases" they ask:

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 7,

An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management / Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives aux municipalités en ce qui concerne la gestion des déchets.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Renfrew North was the last speaker, but he is not in the chamber, so I will recognize the honourable member for Markham.

[Applause]

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I haven't heard such applause since the last time.

Bill 7: The government, under the ministership of Mr Philip, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, has brought in a bill affecting waste management for the province of Ontario. I'd like to make a number of points on this bill, some positive and some negative.

Certainly the bill has to do with the whole need to recycle in this province, and on that part of it I want to be very supportive of the leadership the government has given in this area. But I would also like to comment on a number of questions and problems I have with regard to the bill, some of the inconsistencies that exist within it as it pertains to Bill 143, which was passed last year, and some of the questions that concern the cost of implementing the bill. These questions have not been addressed by the government and certainly need to be.

Many people, when we in the Legislature are dealing with bills and new legislation, say, "All you ever do is criticize," and this adversarial form of government we're under, this parliamentary system, does require that kind of honest criticism that goes on with government initiatives. But one of the things our party has consistently done, when and if the government comes forward with initiatives that are supportable, that are worthwhile, that are financially affordable, is to have the courage of its convictions and share in that kind of decision-making.

Sometimes it's very painful, because there are times when the government has to make decisions that are not easy. When this government has come forward with a number of initiatives with regard to cutting back costs, we have been supportive of those initiatives. When this government came forward with its social contract discussions trying to find a way of cutting back on the costs of the payroll of some 900,000 public servants in Ontario, in spite of the hardship that this is going to bring to many of the people in the public service, our party has supported that.

But you will certainly hear from the leader of our party, the member for Nipissing, Mr Harris, and all the members of our caucus should this government decide to bring in more taxes. That is something we see as a very serious negative impact to the economy and to what Ontario is all about. I can guarantee you, on those issues we have a conscionable difference with, we will do everything we can to prevent the government from taking that dangerous course.

Dealing with the issue of recycling, I don't think there's any doubt that we as a party, having started the whole blue box program in the province of Ontario under the then Minister of the Environment, Andy Brandt, some years ago, started a process in which municipalities began to take a very serious effort in separating their garbage, finding those things that could be recycled and doing something with it. It's spread now to the point that we have some 90% of the population, in one way or the other, participating in recycling programs.

My community, the community of Markham, has been recognized as one of the leaders in the province of Ontario for its own initiatives in promoting recycling.

[Applause]

Mr Cousens: That's good. It's not often that Markham gets applause. Today, we'll take it again. I will take it, because indeed Markham has always taken a sense of pride in trying to be a leader when it comes to these areas of recycling and the initiatives that go into the 3Rs. In fact, if you go back some period of time and look at the people in our community, long before it became fashionable we had our own depots established in Thornhill and Unionville where the community could come and bring recyclables, and the community volunteered time and energy.

I remember Mrs Audrey Pickard in Thornhill was one of the leading lights at that time, and Jeanette Annbinder, who now heads the town of Markham's initiatives for recycling, helped start the whole activity in Unionville.

It was a community activity. We did it because we wanted to, we did it because we believed in it, and when the government sanctioned it with its blue box program and it began to expand, our community committed itself wholeheartedly to it.

A community that takes these initiatives is doing something not only for itself but for the future generations. To that extent, it's good to see so many taking

part in the blue box, participating in the compost programs. These are all ways in which the community as a whole is making a strong statement of support to the government's plan to, number one, reduce the amount of garbage by 25% at the end of 1992 -- and I think we can all participate in celebrating that victory at the end of last year -- and then to aim for an even more difficult challenge that by the year 2000 we will have reduced the 1987 levels of garbage by 50%. That is going to be a tougher challenge to reach; nonetheless, the people in the province of Ontario have the kind of energy and commitment to work towards that.

So all of these things begin to build a story of success, that here is a province that at least is trying and is trying for the right reasons. I don't think that any of us can ever let up on those initiatives because we've only just begun to scratch the surface. Certainly, in our province, in our country, the world looks to us for leadership in so many ways, and I think we're going to have to continue to show other countries that we really mean business.

Maybe that becomes some of the questions that we have out of our trade arrangements with other jurisdictions, that if they don't have an environmental agenda that somehow matches us, we're going to look at their way of doing business so that we won't be trading partners unless they too are participating in it.

Dealing with hazardous waste maybe is one of the areas where this province has gone astray. The Ontario Waste Management Corp continues to look for a site. They're getting down to the last stages of finding that site in Lincoln, yet no one has stepped in to see whether or not we still need the kind of facility that the government has spent millions of dollars trying to identify. In the meantime, the people of the province of Ontario, those businesses that are generating certain kinds of hazardous waste, have found other ways of disposing of it, so there may not be the same necessity for it.

Notwithstanding that, on the initiative of this bill coming forward to say, "We want to do something about waste management," the intention is honourable, that if we're going to do something about the recycling initiatives in the province, we are moving in the right direction.

That really is where I start to differ with the presentations that have been given by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and this government. Intentions are honourable and good, the fact that we are moving in the direction towards major reductions in the amount of garbage that we have, major reductions in the amount of waste we generate, a way of reducing the amount of landfill that is required. If we as a province are able to act in a very intelligent and deliberate way to bring these numbers down, we will have done something that we all believe in.

But how do you do it? How much is it going to cost? How are we going to proceed to the next stage? That's really where we begin to have problems with Bill 7 and the plans that this government has put forward. When you look back to the blue box program, one of the reasons it was such a success was that it wasn't solely a government-sponsored program. It was a program in which you had Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc involved in developing a joint program.

Some 200 employers, businesses in the province of Ontario, with heavy support from the bottling industry and those businesses that felt they were contributing to the problem, wanted to contribute to the solution, so they brought their money to the table and they, with the support of the government of the day, began to develop the whole blue box program.

When you start seeing a program jointly funded by industry and government, then you start having cooperation and a spirit towards the solution that has everybody saying: "It can work. We'll make it work." In the early days of the blue box program, they couldn't always deal with those items that were put in the blue box, but now we're getting to the point where it's generally believed that the paper, the bottles, the plastics and the other substances are being recycled. That is certainly the direction we want to move in.

Now as we look at this, we're saying with Bill 7, "Who's going to pay for this?" Historically, we've had a relationship with industry that participated in the costs. Now we're coming forward with legislation that is brought down by the government that makes me ask, "Who is going to pay for this?"

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Who?

Mr Cousens: Well, I haven't seen the answer in the legislation.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): There's only one taxpayer, Don.

Mr Cousens: There is only one taxpayer. My honourable good friend the Minister of Transportation is absolutely correct: There's only one taxpayer, who ends up paying the taxes at the municipal, the regional, the provincial and the federal levels, and that same person is just running out of money to pay all the taxes that are coming out.

So if we're bringing forward another bill that has cost implications, we should analyse and assess those implications before we speedily pass the bill, because you can't just take the ideology and the intent, separate that off and say that because the whole purpose of recycling is in itself worthwhile, we don't need to look at the cost side of the equation. You have to take both and consider them and say, "Having decided that we're going to move towards a very difficult goal by the year 2000, to reduce the amount of garbage by 50%, how are we going to afford to do that?"

Mr Stockwell: Change the rules.

Mr Cousens: We can change the rules, we can change the legislation, and as that legislation gets changed, so too do the ground rules. Those ground rules mean that municipalities, which are going to be forced to participate in the whole 3R program in a way they've never before been forced, will now have costs associated with these programs that they may not be able to afford.

It goes into the cost equation again, because when the program was originally introduced with the blue box program, the cost equation had private industry, OMMRI, with the Ontario government, helping the municipalities cover the cost, and then there would be a recovery of some of the costs through the recycling efforts themselves.

But the fact now will stand that within a few years from now, this government may well remove the subsidies that underpin and underwrite the whole blue box program. Should those subsidies be removed, and I think it's safe to assume that those subsidies were intended to get the program started and that the money will not be forthcoming from the province on an ongoing basis, the municipalities will then have to pay the total cost of the blue box program and the recycling efforts of those municipalities.

The municipalities, as we look to the future, are not going to have the resources that can afford some of these initiatives. I think we owe it to those municipalities when in fact, at the present time, we're forcing upon municipalities far more costs that they have to save in order to run those municipalities, far more costs that are being taken away from the province in order for them to continue to survive.

We cannot continue this one-way street where the province continues to push down to the municipalities more and more costs, because at that point this one taxpayer we're talking about has to pay more of a local tax, and that tax, as it continues to increase, becomes an impossible burden for those people who have to pay those taxes in the municipalities, because taxes at the local level this year have been kept, pretty well across the province, on a whole basis where they were not increased.

But that is not the case for the last several years where the province balanced its budget a few years ago based on the backs of the local taxpayers, where they ended up having to pay so much more. We now, through this bill, are going to pass down to the local municipalities more of that cost. That concerns me. We want to proceed with a recycling initiative, but we've got to be mighty careful of what we're passing on to the local ratepayers.

I know there is about to be a tax revolt. You're seeing signs of it in Scarborough, and the honourable member for Don Mills referred to it in a question earlier today on just the whole problem of that municipality in trying to face up and deal with the cost of doing business. I don't think there is a municipality today that isn't having screams and an outcry from those people, who as ratepayers are saying, "Hey, you've got to stop it." It's not just a matter of keeping your taxes at par; you've got to start reducing the local level of taxes.

These communities will not begin to be able to address cutbacks in the cost of doing business if we at the Ontario level of the Legislature are going to be forcing upon them new obligations that cost money. So what we have to do is to find ways of working this through.

I ask the question, has the minister, has the government spent some time looking at all the costs of all the programs they're funnelling down to the local level? I don't think they have. I don't think they've taken the time to really listen and grapple with the hardship that municipalities are dealing with today, and the hardship of the taxpayer. When we're dealing with this bill, we have to begin to look at that.

The costs that will go into implementing this bill are far greater than you would see just by reading the fine print, because if you're going to have recycling facilities, one of the things you will have is material recovering facilities being brought in, at least two of them for Metropolitan Toronto. To build the first level of recovery station costs in the order of $23 million to $25 million, and then what you need to do is to feed that with the materials in order to get the things out of it, but there's a capital cost to it.

Then when you move to a second level that's going to take even more garbage in order to recycle and deal with it, that costs $30 million to $40 million to build. Where is the money going to come from to build those facilities? Is it going to come out of the tipping fees? That's going to come out of the local taxpayers. Are there going to be grants from the province to help it? Not likely. Not with the kind of financial hardship the province is facing now. There can't be a continuing sending of money to the municipalities to pay for this bill. There won't be the continuing downloading of funding to pay for it. The province doesn't have the money.

We're living so far beyond our means even now that we haven't begun to face up to the crisis that Ontario is in. When the Treasurer comes out with his number of a $17-billion proposed deficit for Ontario, people say: "Well, I guess we're used to it. We had $10 billion or $12 billion last year." The accumulated deficit: $10 billion or $12 billion, and another $17 billion.

There is no doubt that the people of Ontario cannot continue to live beyond their means. We have to find ways of cutting back expectations, cutting back what we really have to do. It may mean that we have to phase in some of these new ideas and new expectations and hopes, because we're not going to be able to do it within the short time frame that this government is imposing upon the municipalities.

I'm going to a meeting of York region council on Thursday afternoon and I have no doubt the kind of message that's going to be shared at that time, the genuine concern they have on how they're going to deal with the financial crunch they're in. Here in this year alone, they've completed their budget, the budget process is over, they've established the tax rate, and now with the expenditure cutbacks and the social contract that the government has, they're going to have to face up to how they are going to deal with the financial changes taking place in the province of Ontario.

What that's going to mean is not just close to a $200-million withdrawal of unconditional funds; it's probably going to mean closer to $500 million of money that will not flow through to the municipalities this year. There isn't any recognition of how the municipalities are going to deal with this.

It's a crisis of great proportions, and the crisis is not going away. What is happening is that with this kind of bill, we are adding to the crisis, because what we're going to try to do is to get our fiscal house in order, provincially and municipally and at every level. Yet when we come along and ficklely pass further legislation that is going to cost the local taxpayers, we have to think twice about it. What we may have to do is say, "This is worthwhile legislation and the expectations are honourable, but we can't afford to do it right now."

That's what we do in our own homes when we put off purchasing a capital acquisition of some kind. We say: "Look, we don't have the money now. We don't want to build up more debt. We are going to hold off on this expenditure until next year or the year after that." So you take the car to maintenance and you have new tires put on it and you keep it going a little longer.

If it means that we have to extend the goals and expectations for the province and for every one of us a little further into the future, then as long as we know why we're doing it, as long as we still continue to believe in the dream, then we can do it and we will make more sense to the people who are out there.

It's one thing to hold up this tremendous example where Ontario is now the leading environmental recycler in the world, and we're bankrupt. Somehow or other, you have to work out the two together. All I'm asking is that the government hold back on some of its thinking so that we don't necessarily add to the burden that is already just overcoming and overwhelming the people who are out there.

The inconsistencies that go on in the Ontario Legislature are another concern that I have, and it's not without a little bit of trepidation that I talk about it, but it ties into Bill 7. When this government brought in Bill 143 back in October, just two years ago -- Bill 143 is the law that makes it necessary for Metro and York and Durham and Peel to come up with three landfill sites that will be selected in each of those regions, one for each of the regions. The selection process would be under the Interim Waste Authority, the IWA.

What would happen then is that Metro's garbage would come to York region, so York would then be the host site for some 40 million tonnes of garbage from Metropolitan Toronto and York over a 20-year period, and there would similarly be a large landfill site selected for Durham and for Peel. That process is continuing and we're now down to the short-list stage where there is a small number of sites, three of them in York region, three or so in Durham and another three in Peel, and by the end of August the government will have come up with its preferred site for landfill.

The kind of thing that you begin to ask is, now that we're coming out with this recycling bill, Bill 7, and we're dealing with Bill 143, what powers will exist within a municipality under the Municipal Act to deal more fully with all the problems of garbage? What's happened is that the government has tied the hands of municipalities under a previous bill, Bill 143, because the government said in Bill 143 that there can be no rail haul. This government will not consider the possibility of hauling garbage out of the Metropolitan Toronto area to a possible host site that would receive that garbage.

Kirkland Lake has been identified as a possible place where there could be a rail haul operation that would take the garbage from Metro and York to a remote site. We visited the site, the Adams mine site near Kirkland Lake, and it is a site that would appear to have many advantages. The municipality voted 69% in favour of having an environmental assessment of that possibility, and yet the government has said, "No, we will not consider rail haul as a viable option." They've said that the only way in which Metro, York, Durham and Peel can deal with this garbage is within their own boundaries.

That being the case, now that we're coming through with another bill, Bill 7, it's going to limit the options of municipalities if in fact the government is restrictive in the first place as to what they can do.

The government has also said that there will be no consideration of incineration. That's interesting, because a number of years ago there used to be 4Rs -- the first 3Rs plus recover -- and during the time of Mr Bradley, the Liberal Minister of the Environment, he removed the fourth R and we just quietly heard of reduce, reuse, recycle. The fact of the matter is, just recently -- the other day -- the leader of the Liberal Party announced at a gathering on the front steps of the Legislature that she's now in favour of incineration.

We've been a little bit more careful in saying we're in favour of incineration, but we've at least said, "Let's look at incineration as a possibility and let it be seen as an alternative, but subject it to a full environmental assessment before you draw that conclusion. If the environmental assessment would allow incineration to be given further consideration, then the government could consider that as one of the ways of having energy from waste, possibly." None the less, Bill 143 ties the hands of municipalities and other jurisdictions in the province of Ontario from looking at either rail haul or incineration.

Here is a government that took away the rights of municipalities to look after their own garbage and imposed a set of rules through Bill 143. When they brought in Bill 143, they brought in the Interim Waste Authority and said, "Here, Metro, even although you're in the final stages of working out your own problem with waste, we now, the province of Ontario" -- the Honourable Ruth Grier, then Minister of the Environment, came in with her bill, Bill 143, that took away the rights of Metropolitan Toronto and of the other jurisdictions who --

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under standing orders, I believe the debate should be restricted to Bill 7, and the member is not debating Bill 7.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you. As far as the Chair is concerned, the honourable member's on topic.

Mr Cousens: I want to stay with it, because when you have the government on the one hand taking away the rights of municipalities, as it did with Bill 143, and then coming along with Bill 7 saying, "Well, we're going to start giving you more rights," I have to say that it does tie in together. Everything is linked, and the honourable member for Durham West has a tremendous failure to see the big picture on anything. It's part of the myopic view the socialists and communists of the province of Ontario have where they're not able to get the broad, big picture.

They're able only to see things in a narrow, focused way. They can't balance things out and say, "Well, what's it going to cost to do this?" They come along and their only way of looking at it is their way, and they're not able to do it in such a way that brings in private enterprise and the municipalities and the whole of the province.

What you have in Ontario right now is a one-party government that has another two years to serve and all we have to do is somehow survive till 1995. Notwithstanding that, everything integrates. You can't come along and say, "Bill 7 stands on its own merit as a bill to reduce the amount of waste in the province of Ontario," without looking at the way in which the province has taken away the rights of municipalities to do other things. They've taken away their rights under Bill 143 to incinerate. They've taken away their rights to rail haul.

They've come along and said, "We are going to run the process for Metro, York, Durham and Peel's waste management systems through the imposition of Bill 143. Then they come along with this bill and say, "Here; under Bill 7, we're setting up another set of rules."

I just have to come back to the whole concept of the bill. The concept is valid. We have to continue to do everything we can to reduce the amount of waste we've got. But also, we have to look at the way it fits in with everything else that's on the public agenda. The public agenda is now at the point where the people of Ontario are saying: "Stop spending our money. Don't continue to bring forward legislation in the Ontario Legislature that is going to cost us more and more in our local tax dollars." We can come along with this bill and then walk away from it and say, "There, it's not our problem; it's the problem of the municipalities."

They can't afford it. What I'm saying is, had we come down and sat with them and said, "Now, in the face of the crisis that we have in Ontario, how are we going to work out a resolution to this problem? How are we going to come out of this set of problems with a way of reducing the amount of waste we're generating?" If we could sit down in a collaborative way and talk with sanity and openness, where we have got government, business, municipalities, every level, somehow participating in the solution, then we would go further toward finding solutions overall to the whole province's problems.

I sincerely hope that this Legislature will take further time to look at Bill 7 and that when it does go to committee there will be an opportunity for presentations so that we can just understand the cost implications of this bill. Let us not just again and again bring in more legislation that's going to cost the taxpayers without understanding that there are dollars associated with it.

I cannot divorce myself from the desire to have something but also the ability to pay for it. That is all we're asking for. If we were in a position to develop that kind of consensus where everybody is committed to a recycling program and committed to finding ways of making it happen, to do it without legislating things that are going to be impossible for some communities to handle, impossible for some communities to pay for because, by virtue of the withdrawal of funds from the province -- it's not going to be possible for municipalities to continue to afford it.

Let's look at the total picture. That is not being done by Bob Rae's government; it is not being done by Ed Philip. We've got a minister who is bringing forward this bill who has somehow removed himself from the Bill 143 fracas. We haven't seen or heard of Mr Philip. He has deferred the questions to the Minister of Environment, but he, as Minister of Municipal Affairs and minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, has not taken any kind of personal commitment to the issues that are being raised by our municipalities in the GTA.

He comes now with this bill. I wonder whether or not he's in a position to defend how it affects the decisions this government made with Bill 143. I am convinced he couldn't defend it, and maybe that's one of the reasons that he just kind of sidesteps the issue. We're not going to let him sidestep it. It is too important an issue. The issue that I want to make, and will continue to make with this government, is that you can't keep spending the taxpayers' money. There has to be an accounting of the cost of every piece of legislation.

We cannot continue to build the deficit in this province. We cannot continue to download responsibilities to municipalities. They cannot continue to afford to do the things that this province is demanding of them. What we have to do is find a better way of working together. I sincerely hope that through the committee process, when this bill is debated even further, we will proceed in that direction.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I just wanted to address myself to a couple of points that the honourable member so eloquently put, and specifically to the rail haul to the Adams mine in Kirkland Lake. I'm not from Kirkland Lake but I'm from Sudbury; I'm a northerner. It comes down to how hauling garbage from Metro Toronto to the north -- and I for one personally am absolutely opposed to looking after someone else's garbage.

But that brings me to another point in terms of the reduce-reuse-recycle aspect which was also mentioned by the honourable member. I was very pleased to note on the news the other night, a couple of weeks ago, that there is once-a-week pickup in some parts of Toronto now. I thought: "No wonder these people have never learned how to reduce and reuse. Forget recycling. I mean, if I