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

October 2, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HISTORICAL SOCIETY DISPLAY

Mr Cleary: I would like to invite all members to rediscover part of our province's heritage by visiting the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Historical Society's display in the lobby of the Legislature.

The SD&G Historical Society is a proud custodian of the rich heritage of the three united counties, settled first by the Mohawk people, travelled by the French voyageurs and established by the United Empire Loyalists in 1784.

The city of Cornwall boasts two museums. Inverarden Regency Cottage Museum was constructed in 1816 for Nor'Wester John McDonald of Garth and is now furnished with fine Canadian furniture. The United Counties Museum has long preserved the history of SD&G. The distinguished displays feature a badge from the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders Regiment, mounted on a McDonald tartan similar to the one worn by the former member for Cornwall, the first Premier of Ontario, John Sandfield Macdonald. You will also find a beaver pelt linking us with the explorer Simon Fraser as well as other items reflecting the rich diversity of our culture.

I invite members to take a few minutes to see the exhibits, starting next Monday, celebrating the historic greatness of Cornwall and one of Ontario's founding communities.

APPOINTMENTS TO HOUSING AUTHORITIES

Mr B. Murdoch: I wish to bring to the attention of this House and the Minister of Housing a problem which she or her predecessor may have caused in my riding. Perhaps inadvertently, they have given local housing authorities the impression that all appointments to their volunteer boards will be taken over by the province.

This perception was deepened recently when two members of the Grey County and Owen Sound Housing Authority, one appointed by the county and the other by the city, received letters from the ministry telling them that if they wished another term, they must fill out an application form for the province.

I have been assured by the minister's agency appointments office that she has no intention of vetoing appointments from other levels of government. They only wanted additional information and in fact have now stopped sending out those letters. But I warn her she could be facing many angry people in the near future if she does not make this very clear.

The Owen Sound Sun Times ran a negative front page

article on this issue yesterday. More will appear soon. The minister must realize what has happened and move quickly to ensure the public understands exactly what it is her ministry is trying to do.

KAREN MORRISON

Mr Dadamo: As a member of this assembly, I would like to take this opportunity to inform members of this Legislature about the Charles E. Brooks Labour Community Service Award, which was handed out recently in Windsor.

Let me add that this distinguished award was established in 1977 by the Windsor and District Labour Council, in conjunction with the United Way of Windsor-Essex County, to honour the memory of the late Charles E. Brooks, president of Local 444 of the Canadian Auto Workers and an outstanding community-minded citizen. In Windsor he is cherished.

I would also like to add that the award is presented annually to a Windsor and district trade unionist in recognition of outstanding contribution in the area of voluntary community services. As the member of the Ontario Legislature representing the riding of Windsor-Sandwich, I am pleased to announce to the members of this House that this year's recipient of the Charles E. Brooks Labour Community Service Award is Karen Morrison of Local 1681, CUPE.

Karen's tremendous contribution and endless hours of dedication to her profession as a nurse and to the labour movement have given her the honour she so rightfully deserves. As well, Karen is also the youngest person to ever win this award. As my constituent and dear friend, I congratulate Karen Morrison on being chosen this year's recipient of the Charles E. Brooks Labour Community Service Award.

SHELTER FOR WOMEN

Ms Poole: I was disturbed to learn that the committee of adjustment in the town of Georgina has rejected a pro-posal for a vitally needed women's shelter. This shelter would serve women and children who have been victimized by wife assault.

The reasons given for the committee of adjustment decision were not enough parking space and too narrow a driveway. Local residents talked about the proximity of homes for the mentally handicapped as a negative impact on children who would be in the proposed shelter. Do people seriously believe it is better for a child to live in an abusive situation than to occasionally encounter a mentally handicapped person? It is obvious the not-in-my-backyard syndrome is alive and well in Georgina.

Support for assaulted women and their children is needed throughout the province, but the need in Georgina is particularly acute. In 1990 this town had three times the rate of domestic assaults as the rest of York region. In the past two years, five people in Georgina have died as a result of domestic assault.

Just last week members of this Legislature deplored the tragic number of women who are assaulted. We condemned the violent circumstances under which many women must live and we urged the government to act now to deal with the systemic nature of this problem. Was it all just rhetoric?

We have to battle the NIMBY syndrome. This government must intervene and continue the Liberal government's commitment to building that desperately needed shelter in Georgina.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mrs Witmer: On August 14, the mayors of Kingston, Guelph, London, Windsor and Waterloo wrote to the Minister of Colleges and Universities requesting that he meet them as soon as possible to discuss the options his ministry would consider to help alleviate the very serious problems these communities face as a result of the demand for off-campus student housing. To date, the minister has not responded to this request to discuss off-campus student housing.

The increasing need for students to find housing off campus has resulted in a significant decrease in the availability of moderately priced housing for families in these communities. The fact that many students can afford to pay inflated prices for substandard accommodation has forced many low-income families to lower their expectations for the kind of housing their limited incomes can afford.

I recognize this is not a simple problem with easy solutions. However, I do believe the minister has an obligation to work with the various communities to seek solutions which will meet the needs of both the students and the local community. A month and a half ago the mayors of these cities requested that the minister meet with them to discuss their concerns and they deserve a response from him. I strongly urge the minister to make the time to meet with these mayors at the earliest possible opportunity and to work not only with them but with the Minister of Housing to find solutions to this extremely difficult problem.

FACULTY OF SOCIAL WORK

Mr White: I rise to congratulate the faculty of social work at Wilfrid Laurier University on the occasion of its 25th anniversary.

The faculty of social work was established in 1966 with only 28 students. This graduate school was the first in southwestern Ontario, where trained social workers were in great demand. To date the school has graduated 1,730 MSWs, who are providing leadership to local and national social service agencies.

The centre for social welfare studies, established in 1986, links the school's research program with the community and has been involved with the Better Beginnings, Better Futures program operated by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Easton McCarnie lecture series, which this year will be held tomorrow, is an annual public lecture series on a wide range of topics related to social policy. They have had prominent speakers, including the present Premier. As one among the faculty's many graduates, I am proud of its many accomplishments.

ONTARIO HYDRO LEGISLATION

Mr McGuinty: The Minister of Energy will be making a statement today. I want to speak to the origins of that statement. Members of a powerful lobby group, the Municipal Electric Association, representing 312 public utility commissions, on Sunday past issued a written ultimatum to the minister which said in effect, "If you make a suitable statement in the Legislature within the next 48 hours, we will stop our public campaign against Bill 118 and our chair and our president will each write you to thank you for your wonderful openness and to say we so look forward to working with you."

Yesterday, with the 48-hour deadline running out, rather than making a statement in the proper way through a ministerial statement before question period, a format which allows for response by the opposition parties, instead of following the usual procedure and instead of accepting our party's offer, made in this House yesterday, to allow him extra time to make a statement at the usual time, the minister, to use his terminology, used neither the back door nor the front door. Instead, he used a tunnel.

After the time for ministerial statements had passed, after question period was over and after the minister had removed himself from this House, we the members of this House and the people of Ontario learned of this minister's amendments to Bill 118 through a backbencher in his party.

We can only hope this minister and this government now recognize the gravity of the impropriety committed by the minister in attempting to bypass the rules and traditions of this House. We can only hope something like this never occurs again.

MINISTER OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr Carr: I rise today to condemn the Rae government and in particular the Minister of Community and Social Services. In the throne speech, the Rae government said, "We will deal resolutely with violence against women and children."

Theresa Greer, the executive director of the Halton Women's Place, sent a letter to the Minister of Community and Social Services on July 11 of this year. The letter was lost by the minister's office. On August 7 another letter was sent. The minister's office lost that one too. On August 12 another letter was sent. It went astray as well.

Theresa Greer of the Halton Women's Place says it best when she says, "Given the steps taken to date, I was quite dismayed to discover that the seemingly elusive letter has, as yet, not reached the minister and therefore my request for an interview has not been responded to."

In the throne speech the government said it is a government that will listen to the people and respond to their needs to the best of its ability. The actions of the Minister of Community and Social Services show very clearly that the Rae government has no ability to solve our problems. I call on the Premier to appoint a new minister, who is capable of getting results in the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

ONTARIO SUMMER GAMES

Mr Frankford: Mr Speaker, as you are aware, there is a great tradition of supporting amateur sport in Scarborough. Within our city there are many sporting and recreational facilities and organizations.

I am very pleased to draw to the attention of this House that Scarborough has been selected as the site for the 1992 Ontario Summer Games. The games are held every two years and will have almost 3,000 young athletes aged between 14 and 20 competing in over 20 different sports. Last week I was very pleased to be able to present a cheque for $500,000 from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation to assist the city of Scarborough in hosting the event. It is good to see the ministry encouraging this event, which will be a real boost to young athletes across the province and to sports organizations.

For many of the athletes the games are an important step in their careers. From there, some will go on to the 1993 Canada Games. Many of Canada's Olympic best got their start at the Ontario Summer Games.

I would like to acknowledge the hard work that staff from the ministry and the city will be putting in before the event on August 20 to 23 next year, and the involvement of many volunteers. As I said, we have a fine range of stadiums and facilities and we have an enthusiastic population. We look forward to welcoming athletes, their families and supporters from all across the province.

CERTIFICATES OF CONGRATULATION

Mr H. O'Neil: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege, not only as it relates to me but also as it relates to all the members of the Ontario Legislature. It deals with the congratulation plaques that are being sent out through the Ministry of Government Services on behalf of, I understand, the members of the Ontario Legislature, signed by the Premier.

Just as of the last couple of weeks these plaques have had their wording changed so they no longer state, "On behalf of the Ontario Legislature, I, Bob Rae, congratulate you." The wording has been taken out so that they are, I feel, more politicized. They state that they are from the Premier himself. Also, now these plaques do not state the date they come out on. They do not say where they are dated. They do not give the day or the month or the year. The Premier may not be aware of this. I will send this over to him so that correction can be made on it.

The Speaker: I appreciate the point of privilege raised by the member for Quinte. This matter might best be dealt with by the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. Perhaps the member would consider forwarding it to the committee so that all-party committee can take a look at this matter.

Mr H. O'Neil: On that same point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I will make sure the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly has a look at it, but I felt that out of courtesy the Premier should also be made aware of some of the things his staff are doing.

EXTENSION OF RESPONSE TIME

Hon Mr Cooke: In the same spirit of co-operation, Mr Speaker, there has been an arrangement with the three parties that the response time today will be increased by two minutes.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Hon Mr Laughren: Our government has a commitment with the people of Ontario to manage the province's affairs openly and directly. We have begun to involve Ontarians in finding solutions to a wide range of challenges that we face.

It is with this commitment to openness and dialogue that I am informing members today of adjustments we are making to our spending plans. These midyear adjustments are a common practice of business and governments. They are being made now to manage the expenditure pressures which we are facing as a result of these extremely difficult economic times.

As members know, the recession has had a major economic impact on Ontario and placed enormous pressures on government spending. In particular, our commitment to social assistance has become more costly to sustain. Today, almost one million Ontarians rely on social assistance, many of them for the first time in their lives.

Expenditure management has been made even more difficult by the federal government's capping of transfer payments, which resulted in a shortfall of $1.6 billion this year.

Midway through the year urgent pressures and increased statutory obligations have made it necessary to review and adjust our spending in order to meet our budgetary targets and foster economic recovery. These pressures include $240 million in additional spending for social assistance, $53 million in extra costs for firefighting in northern Ontario and $215 million to cover the increased cost of pensions for Ontario teachers. These costs are a legal obligation for the province.

Besides those statutory obligations, we have had $35 million towards a new initiative to fund farm assistance, as I announced in this House yesterday, and $57 million in additional funding to support a variety of other pressures, including dealing with the Ontario Human Rights Commission backlog and the government's older worker adjustment program.

When we presented the budget earlier this year, the government made a commitment to actively fight the recession and to protect people from its effects. We are committed to maintaining health services, education and social programs.

With the measures I am announcing, we will stick to our budget plan, maintain our anti-recessionary measures, meet our spending targets, encourage economic renewal and free up funds to manage the pressures that I have identified. To do this, we are redirecting approximately $600 million this year. This represents an adjustment of about 1% of our total budget. All government ministries are participating in this process.

We are reallocating money from the following areas:

There is a $100-million reduction in operating budgets for supplies and equipment, consulting services, travel, advertising and communications. This is an immediate and permanent reduction averaging 5% in ministry budgets this year. It will be increased to 10% for 1992-93 and will result in an estimated $300-million cut in spending over the next 18 months.

There is $40 million in savings achieved by ministries managing and absorbing a portion of their current salary budgets. This year, the average salary settlement was 5.8%. We have given ministries a 5% increase in their salary budgets, with the understanding that the remaining 0.8% will be managed within the ministries themselves.

There is $460 million in redirected spending based on a range of saving opportunities. These include $50 million owing primarily to local school board delays in implementing their junior kindergarten programs, $85 million as a result of the late startup of the wage protection fund due to a delay in legislative approval, a $35-million saving on public debt interest payments as a result of good management of our borrowing program, and $50 million as a result of delay in passing legislation on proportional value pay equity. We remain committed to the pay equity initiative. I want to assure members that the money for this will be provided once legislation is passed.

This $460 million is available for a number of reasons. As noted, some new programs have not proceeded as quickly as anticipated due to delays either in government or among transfer payment partners. In some cases, legislation has not yet been passed.

I can assure members that these adjustments will be implemented without sacrificing urgently needed programs and services. In particular, I want to note that we will be maintaining public hospital system support levels for 1991-92 as previously announced.

These measures will enable us to keep our budget expenditures at $52.8 billion and will help us further our goal of encouraging economic renewal in this province. We continue to be committed to a deficit target of $9.7 billion. Full details of the revised budget plan will be provided in the Second Quarter Ontario Finances.

These actions are also consistent with the commitment which I made in the budget to establish an open and active approach to expenditure management. Our goal is to ensure quality service delivery and greater efficiency in the public sector. To move in these directions, we have initiated two strategies. The first strategy is to seek greater involvement of our employees, their bargaining agents, transfer payment employers and their staff and unions in addressing the issues facing the government. The second strategy involves rigorous and comprehensive policy and program expenditure review as part of the preparation for the next budget.

The experience, co-operation and participation of our employees and transfer agencies is needed to effectively address the fiscal and program challenges that we face. In recent weeks we have been meeting with public sector unions and employers to share with them our concerns and to impress upon them the importance of negotiating collective agreements which are affordable and fair to employees, employers and taxpayers.

My colleague the Chairman of Management Board will announce today the government's directions in introducing greater organizational efficiency, as well as our policy on wage increases for elected officials, political staff and senior management executives within the public service.

There must be changes in how this government operates, what it does and how it spends tax dollars. That is why the newly created treasury board, which we announced in the budget, has begun to work with all ministries to undertake an extensive program review. All major programs and expenditures are subject to review. This activity will become an integral part of the government's ongoing financial management and budget planning.

Through the reviews we want to ensure that spending is in line with the government's fiscal framework and consistent with our priorities of rebuilding the economy while maintaining programs that promote social justice. We are determined to realize cost savings which can be directed to achieve government priorities, and we want to identify ways of improving programs and services for the benefit of all Ontarians.

Initially these reviews will concentrate on programs which are experiencing rapid rates of growth, such as the Ontario drug benefit program, government funding for hospitals, commercial health labs and other insured health benefit programs. We firmly believe that if we are going to save medicare, we must begin by controlling its cost.

In addition, we will be reviewing expenditures for consulting and professional services, as well as government communications and advertising.

Ministries are being encouraged to involve their partners, clients and employees in their reviews. Closed door management is no longer acceptable. We will actively encourage input and co-operation to make the best decisions.

Wherever savings can be found, they will be made. Where the need is great, or becomes greater still, we will continue to tailor and redirect our spending, as necessary.

Let me reiterate that we will continue to manage our finances while providing the important services needed and expected by residents of this province. We will continue with the anti-recession program announced in this year's budget.

We must face the reality of these harsh economic times. These latest measures are intended to meet the financial pressures for this fiscal year. However, I can assure members we will take further action if and when it is needed to meet our fiscal objectives.

We have pledged to take the lead and work in co-operation with labour, business, communities and other governments in achieving economic renewal. These measures will enable us to continue the anti-recession strategy of our budget, support greater equity and fairness and set the basis for a vibrant economic renewal which brings jobs, training opportunities and investment to Ontario.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE SALARIES AND BENEFITS

Hon Mr Silipo: The Treasurer has shared with us the province's financial picture as well as the series of initiatives that we are undertaking to manage the financial challenges we face.

In keeping with the Treasurer's message of asking all government ministries to make fair adjustments, I want to tell the House about this government's approach to public sector wages. I also want to tell the House about our intention to make the operations of the public service more flexible, efficient and effective.

Our fiscal resources come under additional pressure during a recession. Sound management of our public resources will help us create economic renewal. During times such as these, we have to be more concerned about spending money in the best possible way. We have to manage our resources more creatively. We have to be more innovative.

This recession affects all of us, and Ontarians understand that the challenge of restraint must be shared fairly and equitably. The government of Ontario will take up its part of the challenge.

We have seen other jurisdictions where politicians, senior managers and appointees have received substantial increases at the same time as the wages of average workers have been frozen. We have seen also in the private sector, on average, executive salaries increasing more than the salaries and wages of their employees.

This government believes that leadership in sharing the challenge of restraint must come from those most able to make the sacrifice and those with the responsibility for managing our finances. We are looking for equity in how we share the challenge.

I am today announcing a number of measures as part of the government's approach to public sector wages:

1. For the 1991-92 and 1992-93 fiscal years, there will no pay increases for MPPs, including the Premier, cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants. MPPs will receive a retroactive 3% increase for the fiscal year 1990-91.

2. For 1992, pay for deputy ministers and the approximately 2,000 most senior managers in the Ontario public service will be frozen at the 1991 level.

3. For 1992, ministers' allocations for political staff will be frozen.

4. For 1992, pay for approximately 120 persons appointed to government agencies, boards and commissions will be frozen.

These measures show that the government, as the second-largest employer in Ontario, intends to lead by example, but not by the example that has been set in other jurisdictions. There they have effectively shut down the collective bargaining process in bad times and have imposed wage controls.

I want to make it very clear that this government believes in collective bargaining. I want to show that the collective bargaining process works during bad times just as it works during good times. For the process to work during times such as we face today, people need to know the problems. They need to know the fiscal realities. They need to know the facts in order to make reasonable decisions at the bargaining table. That is why we are talking and will continue to talk to public sector employers. That is why we are meeting and will continue to meet with public sector union leaders.

We spend 45% of the provincial budget, or almost $24 billion, on salaries and benefits for government employees and people such as teachers, hospital workers and municipal workers who work in the broader public sector. Each 1% average increase in combined Ontario public service and broader public sector wages costs provincial taxpayers almost one quarter of a billion dollars.

We are aiming for low wage settlements in forthcoming negotiations with bargaining agents in the Ontario public service. We are confident that they will understand the fiscal difficulties which we face and will work with us to achieve negotiated collective agreements that are fair to both our employees and our taxpayers.

We also want broader public sector union leaders, employers and workers to consider seriously the fiscal realities that we face and to incorporate them into the many and various collective bargaining processes that are under way and will soon be under way for future negotiations.

We know that cost adjustments in the government involve more than having an approach to public sector wages. As a government, we have to look at our own internal operations. We are considering measures to cut costs while at the same time making the public service more effective, efficient and flexible.

Among such measures are redeployment of resources, enhanced and innovative management practices and streamlining. We are also undergoing a fundamental rethinking and redesign of business processes to more fully use the capabilities of information technology.

Here too we want to involve our employees and their unions and associations in seeking solutions to the fiscal problems we face. We want to do this in the context of our continuing commitment to equity and fairness in the Ontario public service. That process has already started by way of employee relations committee meetings at each ministry. These are joint union-management committees. I am pleased to inform members that the Premier has asked every minister and deputy minister to convene these meetings specifically for the purpose of discussing ways to enhance government operations.

The Treasurer has made it clear that sound fiscal management is not just reacting to problems. Sound management involves constant monitoring and the ability to recognize problems and correct them before they become serious. Equally, sound management means involving all parties, management and workers, in the setting of priorities and the adjustment of spending patterns.

I am convinced that all of us, members of this House, broader public employers and public sector workers, will take this responsibility seriously and act in the interests of the people whom we all serve, the residents of this province.

ONTARIO HYDRO LEGISLATION

Hon Mr Ferguson: When I opened debate on Bill 118, I indicated that the government would be listening closely to what was said. I also informed the House that the government would be responsive where appropriate. We are responding.

The changes that will be moved during committee will make it clear that the intent and purpose of the legislation is to provide the framework for a new partnership with Ontario Hydro and remove the barriers to the implementation of our new energy directions. The primary goal of these new energy directions is to protect the environment while ensuring that the province continues to have a reliable supply of energy at reasonable prices.

We propose to make it perfectly clear that any policy directive that is issued must relate to the corporation's exercise of its powers and duties under the act and not lead to an extension of those powers and duties by means of government directives.

I have had the opportunity to meet with the representatives of the Municipal Electrical Association and a number of other stakeholders in this process, and I want to tell members that we as a government are responding to their concerns. We will continue to listen as the legislative process unfolds.

The government shall also move some minor wording changes dealing with the substitution of other forms of energy for electrical energy. The government is determined to proceed with changes to the act that will enable Ontario Hydro --

Mr Bradley: This is not what you said in the union halls in St Catharines.

The Speaker: Order, the member for St Catharines.

Hon Mr Ferguson: Mr Speaker, do I have to compete with this guy day in and day out? I want to tell the member how it works here. We have our turn and they listen, and then they have their turn.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member sit down.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask all members to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the members of the House to come to order, please. If members are not capable of coming to order, then we will have to take a recess.

To answer the Minister of Energy's question, yes, we do have to put up with each other. I would trust and hope that would be in a little calmer and more reasoned approach than we have seen in the last couple of minutes. I would ask all members of the House if they could restrain themselves from pearls of wisdom and allow the minister to complete his remarks and then we can have the responses from the opposition parties.

Hon Mr Ferguson: In conclusion, the government of Ontario is determined to proceed with changes to that act that will enable Ontario Hydro to encourage fuel substitution because this could save over 700 megawatts of electricity by the end of the decade, an amount roughly equivalent to a Candu reactor, but at considerably less cost to the electricity customers than building new supply and enough to supply the electricity needs of a community the size of Ottawa.

RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Elston: I wish to thank the Treasurer for providing us finally with an answer to what several hundreds of millions of dollars has meant. He would not tell us last week. Far from being open and consultative, he has been rather close-mouthed about all of the things he was doing as we led up to this grand announcement today. It is interesting that they have chosen to provide us with at least part of the picture as they see it today.

But as we look at one of the documents -- a document I was able to recover from his spin doctors' area, I guess; we have all of the communication messages that he wishes to put out through his caucus officials -- it is interesting to note that at one stage the suggestion is that there will be, if necessary, even further changes made when those items arrive on his doorstep. It seems to me that what we have today is only partly a confession about how far off their budgetary target these people actually are.

In Ontario, it looks like the piper is setting the tune, but the taxpayers are paying the price. This stuff is really interesting reading. This group of people --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: It is unusual but in this new Parliament and this new era of no finger-pointing, a kinder, gentler era, the New Democrats figure they can push us around a fair bit. I am suggesting that I am only going to outline for the public of Ontario the stuff that the government members have been told to tell the public. "Is this just fat-cutting?" it says. Answer to question 86 is, "No, we are closely scrutinizing our planned spending and are making decisions for reallocating money that have the least impact on people we serve."

All of this stuff is really interesting, but what it tells us is that there is not an independent thought among those people at all, that they have to really bow and scrape to the people who are spinning the story out of the Premier's office and out of the office of the Treasurer.

It seems to me that what we have not quite got yet is the full story behind all of the problems that an unaware group of people sprang on the people of Ontario in April 1991. It seems to me, after eight months leading up to their first budget, they should have known what was going on in this province. Now, some five months later, as they tinker around with some of these things, they should have the nerve to tell us the full story.

Perhaps there will be another day when I come back to ask the Treasurer whether his accusations about things being spot on, as they were suggested to be when he told us that. Certainly there are things in here that lead us to believe that the message is softened around the edges so that these people can retrace their steps if they have to, when the Treasurer comes back to this House again to explain how far gone wrong his whole economic scheming has really been.

While I am on my feet, I just wish to note one really good thing about this statement. The party that has long stood for universality of everything has told all its caucus members to go out and explain that essential services are being maintained, but what these people are doing is ending universality in health care. The types of paragraphs which were underlined by the Treasurer as he said, "All of these items are under scrutiny," ie, being controlled, mean there will be an end to the day when people can count on this government to deliver universal health care in this province.

That is why he underscored that particular paragraph. That is why he put his emphasis there. That is why he chose to underscore the areas of real concern. For universality there may yet be a very big problem to come.

The Minister of Health, who I am aware has every intention of doing her best work, is about to be forced by that Treasurer and the member who is at Management Board to undo the things that were done in great ways through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. For me, this is a bit of a sad commentary as they refuse to tell us their true intent through this little statement. This tinkering they tell us about now is a forerunner of bigger things to come in health care. I am concerned that they will not share their full plan with us.

I am concerned that they have refused to bring into this House, at an earlier date, their plans for long-term care. I am concerned that day by day we have to extract bit by bit, piece by piece, the details around the thinking in that organization.

What it means is there is no overall plan to direct the economic activity of this province. There is no overall plan to deal with the budgetary plan of this province. In fact, far from doing the things they said they stood for in April 1991, far from being the things they stood for in August and September 1990, this government is doing things which the people of the province will not find out about for several more months hence. It is our duty to try and pry as much of the detail from these people as we can.

These people, because they merely say they are being open and consultative, cannot be believed, if you go by the series of answers that were delivered in this House in the first week as I tried to get at the basis upon which cuts were being made.

It looks like this is a "use it or lose it" economic statement. It basically says, "If you haven't spent it, I'm taking it back." He says, "There is a delay in spending this, a delay in spending that, so we are taking it back." A full 10% of the value, I think it is, of the anti-recession program is going to come from slower spending in health capital, some $70 million. To me, that is like taking that material out of that area and reapplying it against his anti-recession program, with the same result -- still costing jobs in our economy.

Mr Sterling: Before this statement was made, I was hopeful that the Treasurer and his colleagues would come forward with something that would make the people of Ontario optimistic about the future. I thought perhaps the Treasurer had come to his senses and was ready to face the music. We have seen today in terms of his statements that he has not accepted his responsibility in terms of fiscal management for this province. All he has done today is delay the inevitable. He has done nothing today to restructure the basic problems of the debts and the revenues this province is engaged in in order to provide the necessary programs for its people.

Today, for instance, we saw a $240-million enrichment of the teachers' pension fund. This government insists on helping those people who are earning $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 a year, while avoiding meeting the needs of pensioners, aged people and our health care system.

Last April the Treasurer had all the facts in front of him in order to determine what budgetary decisions he should make. Those same facts are present today. He knew what the federal government was doing with regard to transfer programs. He knew what other provinces were doing with regard to holding down their expenditures. Yet this province and this Treasury decided to do something else. As a result, he should find no surprises, save and except some very minor ones, with regard to his shortfall in revenues and in terms of expenditures.

He had the facts to determine that his social welfare payments would be what they are today, yet he finds himself short on money and therefore having to take these very temporary measures.

Many of the measures he is taking today are merely a postponement of paying the bills from this year to next. A prime example is the wage protection fund on which he plans to make payments next year instead of this year, yet it is still a liability of this government.

Perhaps the most important matter we should be discussing today is the confidence of the people who generate wealth in this province in this Treasurer, in this Premier and in this government. Today's statement does nothing to restore that confidence, nothing at all.

I find one of the most tasteless parts of this whole speech and show today is the whole attack with regard to payments or increases in MPPs' salaries. We have across from us 72 members of the government. Not one of those members receives only an MPP's salary. Every one of those members has another sinecure. Cabinet ministers are earning the equivalent of $117,000 in this province. The Premier earns the equivalent of $124,000 in this province. Each and every government member in this Legislature has essentially received a 30% increase in his salary over the last single year. I would challenge any member on that side to provide the figures to me and I will show him that is the case.

For them to preach restraint when in fact they are at the trough is absolutely unacceptable. If this Premier and this cabinet want to engage in the tasteless political trick of ploying to the public on MPPs' salaries, I suggest they do as the Prime Minister and his cabinet did in 1987 and take substantial pay cuts.

Mr Stockwell: In April we had a $9.7-billion deficit. That deficit was intended to jump-start the economy of this province to fight our way out of the recession. On the date of that budget there were 893,000 people in Ontario receiving social assistance payments; in July there were 961,500. In the months of that budget, 85 layoffs affected 8,300 people; by August those numbers climbed to 150 layoffs affecting 16,000 people. In Ontario, 40,000 workers a month are exhausting their unemployment insurance benefits, by between 10% and 13%. That $9.7-billion deficit did nothing to jump-start this economy.

The $600-million tinkering plan of the Treasurer will do equally as little; absolutely nothing. The Chairman of Management Board says he is going to get tough with the employees. It is too late. They gave them a 14% increase in payroll last year. It is closing the barn door long after the horse has gone. They have to get it together. If it is going to save, it better roll back.

ONTARIO HYDRO LEGISLATION

Mr Jordan: I ask the Minister of Energy once again to please withdraw Bill 118. This bill is so flawed that he could not get his own government people to accept it. The minister is saying he needs it to remove the barriers so he can have power at a reasonable price in Ontario. What barriers? He has his own chairman, his own chief executive officer and he has loaded the board with his members. What barriers is he talking about?

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Elston: I notice with some interest that the Treasurer has tried to continue to say that he is fighting the recession rather than the deficit, that his directions or instructions to his caucus colleagues are to make sure they tell everybody, "We're not spending less." That is right here under "Other Points to Remember." Can the Treasurer confirm that in dealing with other areas of capital allocation, in colleges and in health, he was only able to retain his $700-million capital anti-recession program intact by those other ministries having sacrificed their capital budgets so that his alone would survive?

Hon Mr Laughren: Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth, which perhaps should not surprise me. The member should know that any of the capital holdback was only because it could not be spent in this fiscal year. Perhaps the member opposite would insist that we go out and spend money whether it was appropriate to spend it at this time or not. This government does not share that view.

Any kind of capital expenditures that are not being made, are not being made because the work simply will not be done in this fiscal year. It is not an attempt to decimate the capital expenditures whatsoever. We feel very strongly that the capital aspect of the anti-recession package is very important to start the whole process of economic renewal in this province. We feel very strongly that those were selected on a priority basis, and there is no attempt to cut back on capital expenditures. That is simply because of delays in construction, planning and so forth, not because we are taking back money on capital expenditures.

Mr Elston: I have been involved in the business of managing expenditures and I know exactly who is in control of approvals. You, Mr Speaker, will know as well that the Treasurer of this province is the person who can mandate approvals going out, with the assistance of his ministers. There are some delays which I am told are occurring due to an inability of his people to deliver approvals on plans that have been in front of his various ministries for several months.

Will this Treasurer confirm that his $700-million anti-recession program is less effective because of the lateness of implementing the capital programs of other ministries, that the jobs he creates are being partially offset by delays that are being forced on the capital budgets of other ministries?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not know where the member is getting his ideas from. The $700-million capital expenditure program is virtually all in place. About 85% of it has either been completed, started, or ready to start, perhaps even as we speak. All of that money will be spent in 1991-92. That is our full intention, and there has been no effort whatsoever to slow that down. We want that money to be spent because we believe it creates jobs in the depth of a recession, and also because we think it is important that we are going to trigger economic renewal in this province. We think that is important to do.

The other capital expenditures that are not being done this year are simply because of delays in construction and so forth, not because they are being played off against the anti-recession package and not because we have any intention whatsoever of slowing down those capital projects -- absolutely not.

Mr Elston: The Treasurer's remarks about delays in programming seem to fit the bill for most of the areas in which we can look at the savings he indicates.

First, municipalities are going to have to wait another month for payments in lieu of taxes. He has made them carry the burden of his cutbacks in that way by some $9 million. There is going to be a delay in the legal aid tariff for some unspecified time, and it will be $4 million borne by other people in the legal aid system. It appears the communities that have been awaiting the relocation of government jobs to their areas are being asked to carry the burden of the Treasurer's cuts by some $23 million as they await his approval of those movements.

Far from being a partner in these cuts that are being made, he is asking other people to bear the responsibility for his inability to understand how to deliver a budget to the people of the province. What consultations has he had with the municipalities about the lateness of payments? What consultations has he had with the colleges about the change in their base budgets? What consultations has he had with hospitals and others who have been awaiting his largess?

Hon Mr Laughren: First, the member will notice there are not major alterations in our commitments to those transfer agencies, so I think he is being unfair when he implies that in his question. As well, I remind the member that the total reallocation announced today is about 1% of our budget, roughly 1%. I can recall that about a year ago today we learned there was a 5% mistake in what was predicted by the previous government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has the floor. New question.

Mr Phillips: The question is to the Treasurer, just to try to get a good understanding of his thinking on the budget. I think the Treasurer can appreciate that the last few days have been rather unsettling for many individuals out there in terms of the impact the budget might have. Now that we are halfway through the year, I wonder whether the Treasurer can assure the House that he now has a very firm grip on the expenditures and that we will not be seeing any further significant budget changes over the next six months, that this is the final major adjustment we will be looking at.

Hon Mr Laughren: I respond first to the comments of the opposition critic about unsettling times. I really believe previous governments would not have gone through the open dialogue we have had about our expenditure problems. They would simply have been buried and resolved at the end of the year. We are committed to a more open process of talking to the people about things such as expenditure problems, and we intend to continue to do that.

On the question of what happens in the balance of the year, I simply say that to the best of our knowledge what has been laid before the Legislature today is accurate. There are some imponderables that are more difficult to forecast than others, and I will give a couple of examples.

The majority of sales tax revenues are not computed until well into January because of the November-December shopping period, in which there are a lot more sales tax revenues coming in. Second, corporate income tax revenues come in even later because of the way they are reported in the year. It is usually even March before they all come in. Finally, there is that volatility in which the payments from the federal government are made to the province on the provincial income tax sharing arrangement we have with the federal government.

Given all those precautions, to the best of our knowledge what members see before them is what they are going to get.

Mr Phillips: Just on the openness, I think we will all look back on the stories in the paper over the last few days and wonder where they came from and how they came, because that has contributed to it. I have no idea where they came from, but I think that has contributed to the unsettledness.

As a follow-up to what the Treasurer said, in terms of what his decisions will be if the revenue comes in lower, he will know that the federal government has its first-quarter numbers out. He will know that personal income tax is the number one source of revenue and corporate tax the third largest, and those numbers are substantially lower than the numbers he has in his budget.

I wonder whether the Treasurer could tell us what his plan is if revenues from those two sources come in lower. Is his plan to maintain the $9.7-billion deficit or is his plan to maintain the spending?

Hon Mr Laughren: That is a good question. First, I want to reassure the member that the stories about the size of the cuts and reallocations that have been around the last couple of days really came because I and the Premier responded to questions from opposition members. We think that is our job in this assembly and we will continue to do that. That is why the stories are out there. Previous governments would have sat tight on them and not announced anything until they were read in the House.

On the more serious question the member asked, about what happens if revenues do not meet our expectations, we have every intention of not allowing the deficit to go beyond $9.7 billion. We are quite fierce about that. It is our intention to manage our expenditures in such a way that this will not happen.

Mr Phillips: I think there are numbers out of the federal government that will allow the Treasurer to look at his revenue estimates now, but be that as it may.

I think many people were looking at this announcement today as some indication that the Treasurer may be moving off his long-term financial plan. I gather that is not the case. Therefore, I would like the Treasurer to confirm or deny that it is his plan -- he is really laying plans now for the next fiscal year -- to maintain the deficit at the $8-billion to $9-billion range and look at brand-new taxes in the $5-billion range. Is it the Treasurer's expectation to maintain the fiscal plan in his budget over the next four years that does call for those two things: deficits in the $8-billion range and brand-new taxes in the $5-billion range?

Hon Mr Laughren: We had this discussion in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs earlier this year. The member and others should look at the numbers in the budget as a commitment by us not to exceed those deficit numbers, because I think they are high enough as they are.

I say to the member, who is trying to ask a serious question, that the deficit numbers are achieved -- no surprise here -- by some combination of revenues and expenditures. Whether that combination is precisely what we see in the budget from the spring I do not know, but our deficit goal will be the numbers that are in that budget document from earlier this year.

Mr Sterling: I am not here to celebrate that we are going to hold to a $9.7-billion deficit and the doubling of our deficit over the next four years when this government is in charge of the Treasury bench.

Even before the Treasurer struck his first budget, he had limited his ability to constrain his expenditures by announcing some very high transfer payments, and also by indicating that he was not going to constrain the operating budgets of many of the provincial institutions and the civil service of this province. Then in his budget of April 19, 1991, he not only promised to maintain the expense base which, in my view, was irresponsible and was formulated by the former government in 1988 and 1989 -- in some ways I sympathize with the Treasurer. Bob Nixon is in London while the Treasurer is here to face the music. I understand his problems.

But even with the very broad base of the expense floor Bob Nixon had developed in 1988 and 1989, the Treasurer insisted this year on expanding that expense base by creating new social programs, creating new social expenses which we cannot pay for.

The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Sterling: I had hoped that by this time he would have realized the problem he is faced with, that is, that he does not have enough money to pay for the existing promises and continues to expand the base for those expenses.

His leader was quoted recently in a tabloid: "Everybody has to wake up and smell the coffee. We don't have a printing press in the basement." Has the Treasurer woken up and smelled the coffee?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am sorry I missed that quote in one of the three Toronto tabloids.

I did want to respond to my critic from the Conservative caucus in a serious way. He is quite right that when we announced our transfer payments last spring, to the hospitals it was 9.5%, to the school boards it was 7.9%, and to colleges and universities 7.3%. I do not apologize for that. By doing that we maintained essential services in our health care system. We maintained a quality education system at the post-secondary level and at the elementary and secondary school level. I think that is important if we are going to be well placed for economic renewal in this province.

To be fair, the member should appreciate that we are sharing the expenditure problem with the Legislature and with the people in Ontario. Quite frankly, unlike some jurisdictions, we intend to stay within our deficit forecast.

Mr Sterling: I appreciate that. The Treasurer has also maintained the 10,000 new civil servants who have been in place since 1986 under the former Liberal government.

There is absolutely nothing in the Treasurer's statement today which indicates that there are going to be substantial tax increases needed in the next year. Is he intending to introduce substantial tax increases?

Hon Mr Laughren: I was just conferring with the Premier. I did not give him a chance to respond; I jumped to my feet.

It is fair to say, and I do not think it is a secret, that we have just started now, through the process of the treasury board, to look at all the major allocations in government -- all of them, without exceptions -- to determine what our expenditure base will be next year and therefore, following on that, what kinds of revenues will be required to support that expenditure base. So there really has not been any decision whatsoever on what, if any, tax increases there will be next year.

Mr Sterling: We have heard from the Treasurer, and I believe he is to be congratulated in his last budget by presenting the fact that he expected an $8.9-billion deficit next year. When we add things up, things that have happened over the last six or seven months, the shortfall, even with all the information he had, we can only come to the conclusion that either the deficit is not going to hit $8.9 billion next year or he is going to have substantial tax increases.

What the business community, the wealth providers, and the people of Ontario were looking for from the Treasurer today was some kind of indication that he had realized it was necessary to seriously constrain government expenditures. My concern over his statement today is that he has not really restrained very much, if anything, that he has not really met any pain at this time. He has not indicated to the transferees of the substantial transfer payments, decisions he will be making over the next three or four months, that those transfers may not be as great as next year.

Does the Treasurer not think that at this time he should perhaps withdraw the budget he presented on April 29, withdraw the bills he introduced in this Legislature and start afresh so that the people of Ontario --

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Sterling: -- the business community, the wealth producers and the people will have some confidence in the Treasurer's ability to predict what is going to happen, and an acknowledgement that the paths he has taken in the past were mistakes?

Hon Mr Laughren: There was quite a bit in the question, but basically it was asking us to change the budget halfway through the year, which I do not think would make any sense. I want to remind the member that the budget we brought down in the spring included in it major commitments to essential services in this province. I have not heard the business community, to which he referred, tell us we should not be maintaining a good health care system, a good educational system and good infrastructure in this province so that we are well placed, when we come out of the recession, to take advantage of an economic renewal on which we are all counting.

I will tell the member something as well. The $700-million package, the anti-recession program which was designed to create jobs all across this province at the same time as there were 250,000 being laid off in the private sector, we think was a responsible thing to do. Quite frankly it was the private sector that took advantage, and quite appropriately so, of doing those capital works projects all across the province. I have not heard them complain about that.

Mr Sterling: There is no other business around.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, that is not fair. I believe the private sector agrees we should be maintaining those essential services in this province. I continue to believe that.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE SALARIES AND BENEFITS

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Chairman of Management Board. I read his statement very carefully. He talks about "flexible, efficient and effective." He spoke about creating "economic renewal" and that "the challenge of restraint must be shared fairly and equitably." Finally one of his better ones was that he intends to "lead by example" in getting tough with the wage package.

He has at least 92,000 employees under his direction. He is talking tough. He has frozen 2,000 people out of 92,000. Those people he froze, the majority of them, received increases of upwards of 11% this year. Would the minister tell me exactly how that is going to fight the recession and show restraint, when he only shows the capacity to hold back 2,000 employee increases rather than the 92,000 who work for this province?

Hon Mr Silipo: Either I was not clear or the member opposite has forgotten about the other half of the statement. What I said in the statement very clearly, and what I want to reiterate for him and members of the House, is that I think we are showing by example the kind of direction we want to set, and yes, we have begun by sharing the challenge we face equitably in terms of the people in senior management, the MPPs, cabinet ministers, etc.

I think that concomitant with that goes our commitment to the collective bargaining process. We are not going to shut down the collective bargaining process because we are in tough economic times. We are going to show that the collective bargaining process can work even in these tough economic times. We are confident that our employees and their unions understand that and we are confident we can get a settlement that is fair to our employees and fair to our taxpayers.

Mr Stockwell: As I said in a response, the horse is gone. He gave them 14% last year. The time for restraint has passed. We get groans from the front benches.

He hired more people. He should have made the decision in April. This Band-Aid approach is not going to solve the problem. The Treasurer stood in this House and said, when the exact option was outlined to him about freezing public sector employees' salaries at 2%, that this would have saved an admitted $700 million. We would not have to be here today if he had taken the right approach, but the Treasurer said at the time, "No, if we had frozen them all it would have saved $1 billion, but I don't think that's the solution."

How is the minister going to face the Ontario Public Service Employees Union with the Treasurer saying that to freeze salaries is not the solution? He is going to come back to this House and tell us he is going to bring in a tough negotiated settlement at 2% or 3%. The Treasurer has already scuppered him. He has no capacity to do this because he only froze 2,000. What is he going to bring back to the people of the province as far as a settlement is concerned?

Hon Mr Silipo: What I hope to bring back is a deal that is fair to our employees and fair to our taxpayers. If we were to take to its logical conclusion the position the member opposite is taking, he would be arguing that the time for restraint is over.

We are saying, I think very clearly, that we are still very much in a time of restraint. We are still very much in a time when we need to be very careful over the next couple of years about how we spend our money. I think everyone understands that. We are going to do that in a way that respects the collective bargaining process, but still delivers on our commitment to be fair to our taxpayers and deliver our responsibilities in a fair and equitable manner.

Mr Stockwell: The time for restraint was about $9.7 billion ago. It is long since past where he can talk about restraint. The minister has to start acting.

The other point I would like to make to the minister and the question I would like to ask is that he does not want to deal with the retroactivity. He has increased salaries on the payroll of this province of some 14%. He tells me he cannot go back retroactively. Yes, he can. His cabinet has retroactively slammed the landlords in this province. His cabinet is retroactively passing a Hydro bill that will change the Hydro corporation. His cabinet retroactively has talked about the wage protection fund. The government seems to be able to go retroactively when it fits its very narrow guidelines and its political philosophy.

The people of this province are substantially broke. This government is substantially broke. It has $9.7 billion in deficit. Why can the minister not go back retroactively and deal with the 14% pay hike when the government could hammer the landlords, change Hydro and deal with the wage protection fund? Why can he not do it here when we could save the taxpayers some money?

Hon Mr Silipo: Clearly decisions have been made in the past year, both through the collective bargaining process and in terms of decisions that the cabinet has made and the government has made. I think what we are doing is looking to the future and to what our responsibilities are, and as I indicated earlier, we intend to do the job in the best way we can, respecting the collective bargaining process in those areas where we have a responsibility to bargain and to deliver on our responsibilities to our taxpayers.

If the member wants to speak about the $9.7-billion deficit and the slash-and-cut approach that he would make, I think he should be the first to be reminded that in a slash-and-cut approach, the people who would suffer are the ones who can least afford to pay for those kinds of issues and who need the support the most.

ASSISTANCE TO DE HAVILLAND

Mr Kwinter: My question is to the Treasurer. Today Sir Leon Brittan, the European Community commissioner of competition, announced they would be blocking the sale of de Havilland by Boeing to Alenia SpA and Aerospatiale SA. Given the fact that his government had made a commitment to save the 5,000 jobs at de Havilland, given the fact that it had made a commitment to invest up to one third in the new company, could the Treasurer tell us what the government plans to do to keep those particular promises that it made?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think I will refer this question to the Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate a chance to answer the question. I can tell the honourable member that I have today been on the phone with Michael Wilson. I intend to speak to the Prime Minister later on today to tell him the seriousness with which we take the decision of the EC.

We will be working with all the parties involved, obviously the two prospective purchasers to discuss whether there is any other possible arrangement that can be made, with Boeing, with the federal government and with any other parties with respect to the future of the company. I think the clear message from this government in terms of our willingness to participate in a one-third participation in the ownership of the company has been that the commitment on our

part is there to maintain these jobs in the province to the very best of our ability. That was the commitment we made. We have lived up to that commitment.

We are obviously very disappointed at the decision that was made by the European commission and we are going to do everything we can to see that de Havilland remains not only a viable company, but an effective leader in what we think is a crucial technology to this province and to Canada. We intend to do everything we can to continue in that role.

Mr Kwinter: The reason I directed the question to the Treasurer was that I think that there is a financial implication.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology announced the other day that he would be coming forward very shortly with a new industrial strategy. The response to that by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business was that this industrial strategy was "some cockamamy program designed to give the NDP a warm, fuzzy feeling and little else."

My concern is that the Premier is obviously still going to pursue some sort of financial salvation of de Havilland. He is announcing a financial program, I assume, to implement an industrial strategy. Given the Treasurer's statement today, given the constraints the government finds itself in, how is he going to finance these adventures?

Hon Mr Rae: If the Liberal Party of Ontario is saying that 5,000 jobs and trying to protect as many jobs as possible is an adventure, let the record show that.

We have been working closely with the federal government, whose economic philosophy is well known and is not our own. They have expressed a commitment. I have spoken with the Prime Minister on this matter many times over the last month. He has told me throughout that the federal government attaches importance to this company and will not abandon the province with respect to the de Havilland workers. I would be very surprised if the Liberal Party of Ontario is saying it would do even less than Brian Mulroney with respect to this company.

I would say in all sincerity to the member that the decision that has been made by the European commission is obviously a disappointing one. But I would say to the member for Wilson Heights that it is an investment for this province to maintain our ability to compete in world markets with respect to this technology, an investment that has to be made by the private sector and that has to be made, in support, by the public sector. There is not a country around the world whose aerospace industry is not supported by the public sector in one way, shape or form, and that reality is there.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his remarks, please.

Mrs Caplan: How are you going to pay for it? Floyd has to put the money in place.

Hon Mr Rae: If the honourable member is saying, "Where are you going to get the money?" I can only tell the honourable member that obviously the government is looking very hard at its entire investment portfolio as we begin to look more strategically at what we can do to maintain Ontario's competitive edge --

The Speaker: Would the Premier please complete his response.

Hon Mr Rae: -- to maintain our ability to compete in higher technology and to look at those industries that have a strategic value and a strategic future for Ontario. I think it would be irresponsible --

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat, please.

NURSING HOMES

Mr J. Wilson: My question is to the Treasurer. What really makes my blood boil when I reflect upon the spending habits of the Treasurer's government is that he was able to find $500 million to increase the payroll of the civil service over the past year, but he is unable to come up with $20 million for seniors and the frail elderly in nursing homes.

Seniors have come to his government; they have asked for just 4% of what he has awarded civil servants and he has said no. In his government's speech from the throne, it was stated, "We recognize that saying yes" -- to those persons who are vulnerable -- "will mean saying no to others whose claims are presented more loudly." How can he possibly justify saying yes to OPSEU but no to the seniors in nursing homes in this province? Let the Treasurer justify that.

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not recall saying no to nursing homes in the province, to start with. Second, the Conservative caucus persists -- this is not the first time it has happened -- in trying to play one group of Ontario citizens off against another. I think that is a regrettable thing the Tory caucus is doing in this province. It is not a useful exercise to have people out there, all of whom have legitimate needs, played off against others who also have legitimate needs.

All I can tell the member is that we intend to do what we can, given the fact that we are serious about keeping our expenditures under control and in keeping with the statement in the budget about committing to the economic renewal in this province.

Mrs Caplan: Never shuts up.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole will please come to order.

Mr J. Wilson: We are not playing a game over here. The Treasurer's conscience should be bothering him. He said yes to large pay increases for civil servants and no to residents of nursing homes. Yesterday in this House his Minister of Health said she is strapped, she cannot do anything till 1993, she hopes she can, but nothing specific at this time.

The government's reorganization of senior management resulted in pay increases of up to 11%, or $20 million. Why is it that the Treasurer was able to come up with $20 million for senior bureaucrats but nothing for the seniors in nursing homes? Where are the seniors in this province going to live when nursing homes close after October 15? I ask the Treasurer to answer that question. We deserve a response and the seniors in this province deserve to know where they are going to reside after October 15.

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not think the member was in the House yesterday when the Minister of Health responded, and what he is saying is not quite what the Minister of Health said. She did say she would be responding to that issue.

I want to correct the record as well. This province settled with the civil service, the workers represented by OPSEU, for an average amount of 5.8%. If the member was listening, he heard me say today that of that 5.8%, the ministries would be funded for 5% only and the 0.8% would have to be absorbed in the normal expenditures of the ministry. I wish the members opposite would use accurate numbers, not exaggerated ones, when they are trying to make their points.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Mills: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Over the last few months, my office has been packed with farmers from my riding on a weekly basis. They do many things. They are corn growers, apple growers, chicken producers, fur growers, the whole spectrum of farming. These farmers are up against it. I know yesterday the minister announced his emergency assistance package. What is this going to do for the average producer in Durham region?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The member is correct. Over the past number of months he has been talking to me about the farmers from his region and some of the concerns they have. I would like to inform the member, though, that this program we announced yesterday is not geographically targeted; it is a general program which tries to address the concerns across various commodities.

He mentioned apples, I believe, and he mentioned the fur industry. They will both be assisted in some way with this program. Also, of course, the grains and oilseeds sector, of which I believe there is some in his area of Durham, will be assisted. The farm interest assistance program, which was topped up with $11 million for those people who are in serious financial difficulty, also will benefit producers across the country, including those in Durham. There also is an emergency component to it to help those in serious financial difficulty, and I am sure that some farmers in the member's riding will also be able to benefit from that.

Mr Mills: I am convinced that the farmers in my riding are going to receive this program with open arms, but I guess my supplementary question is, how soon is the money going to get into their pockets?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The cheques are not in the mail yet. In regard to the $11-million top-up to the farm interest assistance program, that program is an ongoing program and the cheques will continue to go out as quickly as possible. We have already put out around $40 million of that $50-million announcement. This additional money will flow immediately.

In the other components of the program, the money will be able to flow this fall. We tried to use existing programs or other programs in which criteria have already been established, so we expect the cheques can flow probably in November and December, certainly before Christmas.

FUEL SPILL

Mr McClelland: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Let me recount some facts that took place last weekend. A resident farmer of Perth county phoned the minister's spills action hotline to inform them that he had a full 1,000-litre aboveground gas tank leaking on his property. He wanted direction from her ministry on what he should do with the leaking tank. He was informed there was no one there to assist him because it was lunchtime and could he please call back later.

At 1:05 pm Friday he phoned the hotline back and was informed by one of the minister's hotline officials that he should phone the regional office in London and it would deal with his concerns. At 3:30 pm, after numerous calls, he was finally informed by somebody in the regional office that he should not move "one teaspoon of contaminated soil until officials of the ministry were there to inspect the site."

However, he was informed that the person he was speaking to only worked until 4:30, and after all, it was the weekend. Possibly he could get back to the office and somebody would be in touch with him a little bit later. Nobody called. He did not hear from anybody from the ministry all weekend while the gas continued to leak, and 1,000 litres of gasoline leaked into the soil over the course of the weekend.

Monday, 8:30 am, the same gentleman called the London regional office and was told that the person he had dealt with was now on vacation. They could not do anything. He spoke to another official, who said, "Maybe we can get out there today and maybe we'll be able to help you out." Late Monday morning, they decided to respond and were given permission by the ministry, by an official, to now move the empty tank with 1,000 litres of fuel leaked into the soil.

The Speaker: Could the member place his question, please.

Mr McClelland: So now there is contamination, and the minister knows the problems that are resulting.

Environmental emergencies do not occur between 8:30 and 4:30, exclusive of lunch-hour, Monday to Friday. Obviously in this case the process to deal with this kind of emergency did not work.

I have to ask, is one of the cost-cutting measures imposed by the Treasurer within her ministry resulting in this kind of incompetence with respect to the hotlines? What is happening with the ministry in terms of response?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me respond to the second part of that question, because I want to assure the member that certainly none of the allocations and adjustments within our budget have affected our programs.

I am very concerned about the facts that the member has just related. I am not aware of them and he has not given me any of the background or the names and the times. I hope he will do that and I would like to take the question as notice. I will undertake to find out the facts and get back to this House as soon as I can.

Mr McClelland: I appreciate the minister's undertaking to deal with this specific issue. On a more general basis, I would ask the minister if she would undertake at this point in time to examine the processes within her ministry to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen again.

I hope that we will not go through a consultative process. The minister introduced yesterday her long-awaited and much-promised bill of environmental rights in terms of its consultative process. Recently, in Traverse City, the minister said she is really concerned about toxins but she has to consult about it. I would hope we could have some definitive action forthcoming from this minister to direct that this kind of thing does not happen again, not just with this specific situation, but to ensure that it does not happen on an ongoing basis. I hope to have that undertaking from the minister as well this afternoon.

Hon Mrs Grier: The member has been a parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment in the past and I am sure knows quite well that the spills action centre is manned or womanned 24 hours a day and is there on emergencies. The response time is often extremely fast in our ministry. I do not know the background of the situation he has described. If the facts are as he has outlined, I am undoubtedly very concerned. I want to get from him the information that he has, and as I have said, I will undertake to find out what the story is within the ministry and get back to the House.

TAXATION

Mr Carr: My question is to the Treasurer. I think the Treasurer has found out something very important today, that all the social programs that the people of this province are so concerned about do not depend upon the compassion of government, but they do depend on having a healthy and prosperous economy to support them.

I was interested in reading the Financial Post of the 27th, and I will read the members a copy of it. "Ontario's tax competitiveness in manufacturing has fallen farther behind that of neighbouring provinces and US states since the mid-1980s." That is a Conference Board of Canada report.

I also hold up a Canadian Federation of Independent Business

summary that said the biggest obstacles business is facing are the total tax burden and government regulations.

My question is very simple: Will the Treasurer commit to the people of this province that he will not introduce any taxes that will hurt the competitiveness of Ontario industries?

Hon Mr Laughren: This government would never knowingly introduce any program that would harm our competitiveness. I think, to be fair, the member opposite should appreciate the fact that the conference board study did not include all taxes when it was comparing the competitiveness. They did not include, for example, payroll taxes, and there are lots of cases where payroll taxes are lower in this province than in other jurisdictions. The conference board admits that, by the way. They are not pretending that this is an all-inclusive study.

To be fair, I think we have a lot going for us in this province in terms of competitiveness that is not just measured by comparing taxes. We have an educational system and an infrastructure second to none in Ontario, and we intend to maintain that.

Mr Carr: The problem is that the business community does not believe the Treasurer. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says: "This government is good at listening. They parrot back what we say, but then we do not see any results." The Ontario Chamber of Commerce says, "There is a widespread business perception that the full burden of Ontario's tax system has reached the point where other jurisdictions are more attractive." That is on page 13 of the Ontario chamber's recommendations. "The overall objective of the Fair Tax Commission must not be greater tax revenue."

It is very clear that higher taxes mean fewer jobs, and that translates into fewer moneys for social programs in this province. My question again is to the Treasurer. The Fair Tax Commission is looking at this right now. Will he commit to the people that he will not introduce any more taxes that will drive jobs out of the province?

Hon Mr Laughren: Of course we do not want to drive any jobs out of the province; we want to attract jobs to the province. I think the member opposite would agree that it is --

Mrs Caplan: But you're doing it. The only thing you're managing to do is drive business out of here.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Mr Laughren: I wish the leader of the official opposition would put the member for Oriole on the question period list so she can vent her anger in a more constructive way.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member has asked questions to the Minister of the Environment and other people at times and we do not get answers. It is nice to know that the Treasurer has asked me to put this member in question period. I would like him to keep his Premier in the House for more than 30 minutes for every question period. If he wants to have a real decent time in this place, then he should start pointing his fingers at his Premier, because I am fed up with his stuff.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Leader of the Opposition sit down. Things were moving along reasonably well. If we could just have everyone relax a little, we could conclude the question and response between the member for Oakville South and the Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There has never been a Premier as accessible to this House or to the people of the province as the Premier who sits in that chair right now.

Interjections.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: What is out of order?

Mr Elston: What is out of order is that he is suggesting things that are completely not true. It is not true that the member for York South is available to this House. He has not been here more than one day this week. He was here two days last week.

We are not going to take this type of shenanigans any more. They cannot create some kind of illusion for that person. He is not paying any attention to this House. He was off in Skokie, Illinois, on Monday. He was at the ball game last night, but he was not in this House. He was in his office yesterday during question period, his itinerary told us. But he had better start coming clean with the people. He cannot take us down that path any more.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. There is nothing in the standing orders that directs the Speaker to be involved in members' attendance. I do appreciate that it is a point of contention between two sides of the House. The clock continues to tick and the Ontarians sitting at home in their living rooms, 350,000 of them who watch us every day, would, I am sure, like us to continue with questions and responses.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Oakville South asked a good question, a most appropriate question and a serious one. I want to assure him we are very much aware of the whole competitiveness question of Ontario vis-a-vis other jurisdictions. That is absolutely critical to us. If we are going to have a competitive province and are going to be able to put ourselves in place for sustained economic growth and economic renewal in the years to come, I believe we simply must maintain our level of education and of the infrastructure that is in place, including post-secondary education, I might add.

As well, we get a lot of comments on how the health care system in this province makes us a lot more competitive than a lot of other jurisdictions. It is time we started saying that.

The Speaker: Could the Treasurer conclude his remarks.

Hon Mr Laughren: Finally, I want to assure the member that I do not think anybody has met with the business community and been more accessible to the business community over the last year than I and the Premier.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Fletcher: My question is for the Minister of Housing. The need for affordable housing continues to be one of the most pressing problems we face across Ontario. In my own riding there are far too many people who do not have access to safe, secure and affordable housing. During recessionary times the demand for affordable housing rises sharply.

I know her ministry, in co-operation with many community groups, is continuing to develop much-needed housing. However, it has come to my attention that the deadline for the Homes Now program, which was to provide up to 30,000 non-profit housing units, expired yesterday. What happens to those projects which have been working towards commitment but have missed yesterday's deadline?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I am pleased to recall for the members of this Legislature that the Homes Now program, which was started by the previous government and which had a commitment of 30,000, was extended, in terms of the deadline for the program, as of last October by our earlier Minister of Housing. The deadline is indeed September 30. As of August 1990 only 5,000 units had been committed under that program. As of the end of this week, we expect 25,000 units will be committed. We feel we have made great strides forward in this year.

The allocations that still can be made will be made on a case-by-case basis. We have had a lot of applications from community-based groups, as the member points out. They will be considered on a case-by-case basis from now on.

Mr Fletcher: Exactly how many of the units that have been committed actually have people living in them now?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I am pleased to report that 7,000 units are now completed, and we expect a full 30,000 to be completed by 1993.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr H. O'Neil: My question is to the Minister of Health. It relates something today with the Treasurer's announcement about universal health care and long-term health care.

Last June, I made the minister aware of the large number of suicides in the Hastings and Prince Edward area: Seven teenagers and 22 adults committed suicide over the course of one year. At that time she promised to look into the matter to see if she and her ministry could provide assistance. I also mentioned that the Hastings and Prince Edward counties' mental health program had a waiting period of approximately three to six months for mental health counselling dealing with suicidal tendencies and sexual abuse. I am told by many of my members that these same conditions exist in other ridings across the province.

What has the minister done to eliminate this problem?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member raises an important issue, one which I took seriously when he raised it at the time. We did take a look at the mental health budget and the programs that are in place in that area.

I think all of us agree that spending in that area needs to increase over a period of time, but we have to do it in a way that recognizes there is an overall allocation within the health budget right now, and it has to be done by slowing growth in some of the high-growth areas. That is part of the process we are doing, trying to find money for reallocation.

Specifically with respect to the community the member raised, the member knows we have spoken about it since. When he alerted me that he was speaking to some people in the community and was hoping for a more positive response from me in terms of actual dollars at this time, I indicated to him that I was unable to provide any particular grant right now but I would try to get someone from the ministry to work with the district health council and the community mental health agencies there to look at how the money is being spent to see if there is a way they could reallocate within their own program to address this very important need in that community.

Mr H. O'Neil: I realize the minister is telling me she is going to be looking at it, but that is basically what she told me four or five months ago. They tell me that the waiting lists now, rather than being three or six months, have gone up, in some cases, to approximately nine months.

Years ago, when we were in government and the members opposite were in opposition, although the minister was not there, if there were one death in the community or one person held up from being operated on -- here I have 20-some people in a matter of one year, not only in my riding but in the riding of the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the riding of the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, 20-some people who have committed suicide and the minister is telling me she is going to have another look at it and see whether she can get some help or allocate some more dollars.

I appreciate the minister's intentions, but we cannot wait. We have to have something done on it. It is an important matter. I would hate to come back to the House in a week or a month or a few months and say, "We've had another suicide and the minister hasn't done anything about it." Let's get off our butts and let's get moving and get something done about it.

Hon Ms Lankin: I can understand the frustration the member is expressing. I did not say or commit that I was going to look at it again. In fact, I looked at it and was unable to provide any more money at this time. What I did indicate is that we would offer assistance to help the groups in that area see if they could designate or target some of their programs to this, if that is felt to be an area that is lacking and needs more assistance.

At this point, I cannot find more dollars to put into a program until --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: Thank you, Mr Speaker -- until we successfully work together to try and bring down the rate of growth in some of the institutional areas and other areas.

There are no new dollars. If the member will look at the budget, we have increased dollars in this area. I would hate for him to come back in a week or two weeks and tell me someone else has committed suicide. I am sure he or someone in this House, or maybe even in my own riding, will be able to say that. These are very difficult times. People are facing incredible human problems out there. I look to the north and I see the people facing problems. I look at native communities. In terms of the rate of suicide, it is very serious. We are trying to designate money towards that, but there is not new program money that I can give to the member's riding at this time.

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Mrs Cunningham: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education has stated publicly that Ontario will not participate in the national school achievement indicators program because the test will not match the demographic profile of students in the province.

Last evening, on The Journal on CBC, the Honourable Jim Dinning, the Minister of Education for Alberta, stated --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, please come to order. Will the member for London North take her seat for a moment, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I asked the member for Oriole to please come to order. I am trying to hear the question as posed by the member for London North and I would appreciate your co-operation in being able to do that. The member for London North.

Mrs Cunningham: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will try again.

Last night, on CBC's The Journal, the Honourable Jim Dinning, the Minister of Education for Alberta, whom I know the minister has been in touch with, stated that the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, could accommodate Ontario's concerns about gender or racial bias and the length of time a student has been in Canada.

Given the short time frame right now and in light of that statement and in light of the positive statements made by the Premier last Thursday, I am wondering if the minister will take the opportunity at this time to advise this House of how the discussions on national testing are progressing and whether she is seriously reconsidering the decision not to participate in the national testing program.

Hon Mrs Boyd: From the very beginning our position has been that if we can come to an agreement among the ministries of education around the issues of demographics, the consultation period, the curriculum tie, all of those issues that are so important in this, if we can come to that agreement we certainly will be prepared to go back into an active stance from our observer stance.

I asked for that in December. I asked for it again in February. Finally, when we had our meeting last week, the rest of the ministers, who of course had begun to encounter exactly the same difficulties in selling this to their own provinces, agreed to try to negotiate a settlement. The position we are in right now is that we will meet again before Christmas. Our deputies are charged with trying to come to an agreement in a memorandum of understanding to which we are all bound in terms of the project.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: If that occurs we will go ahead with it, but if it does not occur we will maintain our observer status.

Mrs Cunningham: I am obviously encouraging the minister, in the best way I can, to come to some kind of agreement. It was pointed out to me just yesterday by a group of parents from the North York board that indeed in some of our schools -- and parents are very concerned about this matter -- there is a lack of marking going on around correcting spelling. It may seem like a simple matter, but these are the kinds of questions I think the public is not quite up to speed on when it comes to the kind of expectations we have in our school system, and they of course vary from community to community.

We are looking at standardized testing results, certainly internationally -- and we have some results there -- and we certainly know about the Benchmarks project in Ontario, but I think at this time in the history of our country parents are very concerned about how we do match up across Canada. I would just like to encourage the minister, and perhaps she would take the opportunity, to tell us whether she has been able to get the teachers to talk more positively with regard to the demands, I would say, by parents that we do have standards within our system and that they are measured across the country.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I think the member is well aware that teachers are also concerned about accountability and they are tired of the attacks on them by the Conservative right that they are not concerned about accountability. Teachers in this province are very concerned about that, but they are equally concerned about the way in which standardized tests have been used to further disadvantage the marginalized in our society, and that is what we intend to protect them against. We are absolutely in concert with our professional teaching partners when it comes to ensuring that any testing that is done does not further marginalize children.

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

Mr Mahoney: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: You will note that during the question period there was some acrimony over the absence of the Premier. I would like the Speaker to help me out with a ruling.

At approximately 40 minutes to go on the clock, my House leader informed the Premier that I had a question to place to him at some point during question period. He indicated he would stay for that, yet at 24 minutes to go he got up and left. Along with him, of course, the entourage of media leaves. One cannot blame the media because they have to follow the Premier out to get the answers. My point of privilege is that I believe my rights as a member have been violated by the Premier, who shows no interest in staying in this House to hear questions by members of the opposition directed directly towards him.

I would like the Speaker to rule whether or not it is indeed a violation of my privileges and a violation of the rights of all the people of Ontario who would like to hear the opinion of the Premier on legitimate questions being posed by members of the opposition. It is our job and our responsibility, and I submit it is his job and his responsibility to stay in his place so that we can do our job.

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga West, fortunately or otherwise, there is nothing in the standing orders which is of assistance to either him or me on this matter. It is, however, perhaps just a friendly suggestion, a topic of discussion for the House leaders at their regular weekly meetings, but there is nothing in the standing orders that assists me or him in this matter. I appreciate his drawing it to my attention, however.

Mrs Cunningham: On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I too would like to take this opportunity. I suppose sometimes the members opposite think the work we do in opposition is somewhat trite, but it happens to be part of the democratic process. I also believe, certainly since the time I have sat in this House, that it has been the priority of the Premier to stay as long as possible. The previous Premier would always tell us if he was leaving early. Specifically, today the Premier did not say he was leaving early. There have been times when he has advised us and therefore we rearranged our questions.

I know it is not within your purview, Mr Speaker, but I think it is our responsibility to advise the government House leader that we too are concerned that this has happened three times in the last two weeks. It is not a good beginning, so we would very much appreciate the Premier staying in the House till the end of question period, as far as reasonably possible, and at least advise us if he is leaving.

The Speaker: If the member for London North, no doubt as she always does, was listening intently to the response I provided for the member for Mississauga West, the same applies of course. I appreciate it whenever members bring concerns to my attention. It reflects of course an interest in the parliamentary process and that is something I naturally applaud.

CERTIFICATES OF CONGRATULATION

Hon F. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the matter of the certificates raised by the member for Quinte, I would like to inform the House that I have already instituted an inquiry into the matter and I will report to the House when I get the results.

PETITIONS

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Kwinter: I have a petition signed by about 200 people.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91 made under the Police Services Act, 1990 denies Ontarians this right;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Carr: I am pleased to table a petition signed by concerned residents of Oakville and Burlington and surrounding areas which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislative Assembly to the following:

"That the production, sale and rental of pornographic and obscene material in Canada has a direct negative and destructive influence leading to sexual assault upon women and children, including degradation, exploitation and humiliation;...

"That elimination of the production, sale and rental of pornographic and obscene material in Canada would decrease the incidence of violence against women and children.

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Legislative Assembly to eliminate the production, sale and rental of pornographic and obscene material."

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I am privileged to rise today and present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds;

"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation and are in need of unifying symbols;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario's police officers."

That is signed by several concerned residents from the villages of Angus and Tottenham in my riding of Simcoe West, and I too have affixed my name to this petition.

NURSING HOMES

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I have a petition signed by 23 people, to which I have affixed my signature.

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario immediately rectify the inequity in funding between nursing homes and homes for the aged. We strongly support the Ontario Nursing Home Association in their efforts to provide better care for residents of nursing homes through increased funding."

Mrs Sullivan: I have a petition which I have signed which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario immediately rectify the inequity in funding between nursing homes and homes for the aged. We strongly support the Ontario Nursing Home Association in their efforts to provide better care for residents of nursing homes through increased funding."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 118,

An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Suite du debat ajourne sur la motion visant la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 118, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Societe de l'electricite.

Mr Drainville: I am glad to rise again in the House to continue my remarks on Bill 118,

an Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

I want to deal with some comments that were made yesterday in debate, in particular by the member for Mississauga South. In her remarks to the House, which I must say were certainly lengthy, she indicated 8 or 10 times that we were a socialist government. In terms of the direction we have tried to take in introducing Bill 118, I want to be very clear about this: Yes, indeed, we are a social democratic government. I am very proud of that fact. I remember the words of an august member of the House of Commons, one of our leaders, J. S. Woodsworth. He spoke these words one time, which I think are germane to our considerations on this particular bill:

"I am not afraid of the word 'socialism,' which comes from a perfectly good Latin word which means 'comradeship.' That means that today we as individuals are no longer living isolated lives, that no nation is any longer living an isolated life, but rather that we are living in a society in 1,001 complicated relationships and that we must adapt our political ideals and our political institutions and our political policies to meet the new situation that confronts us."

When J. S. Woodsworth said these words, he was speaking about times such as we live in today. We have been confronted with difficulties as we have taken government. We look at a corporation which has had its difficulties in the last number of years, specifically in terms of the overruns that have been raised in terms of the nuclear option that Ontario has chosen. The reality is that the people of this province are concerned about the direction of Ontario Hydro. In fact, in my own riding -- perhaps those of us who are in the rural areas are closer to these concerns -- I can say that people have repeatedly said to me that we cannot continue to see Ontario Hydro go in the direction it is going.

There are members in this House who are against this bill, who say this bill is draconian and the government should not be going in the direction it is. They have a right, as opposition members, to put forward those points of view, but there are very concrete and very necessary reasons why our government has decided upon the course it has chosen.

The legislation and the changes we are bringing in here through these amendments to the Power Corporation Act will increase Hydro's accountability and responsiveness to public concerns and priorities. That is first, and it is important. Second, it will ensure that Hydro's activities are in the best interests of the people of this province. Third, we will remove barriers which up to this point have hindered Hydro's ability to comply with government policy directives. Fourth, we will open up the policy direction process. Last, we will allow Hydro to retain its independence to implement its day-to-day activities.

We are not taking over Hydro, but what we are doing is ensuring that the energy policy which is germinated by the government is given due consideration and that Hydro reflects the policy of this government. If that seems a strange thing to members of the opposition, I am surprised. It seems to me to make perfect sense.

The Minister of Energy, when he stands up in this House, has the responsibility to ensure that Hydro is doing its job. If there is a complaint about Hydro, do we not see opposition members rise in the House and complain to the Minister of Energy? There is a relationship between the government and Ontario Hydro. All we are trying to ensure through these amendments is that this tie between Ontario Hydro and the government is made more effective.

Again, I want to assure this House and assure those members of the public who are watching today that we are saying that the utility itself will continue to be a public utility and will control its day-to-day activities, but what we want to ensure is the economic, environmental and social wellbeing of the people of this province.

Further to that, I would like to talk a little bit, if I can, about the areas where we can be perhaps more proactive as a government. We realize that in terms of the energy policy of the government we need to look very seriously at new ways of dealing with energy sources.

For a decade now we have been hearing of the difficulties with fossil fuels and how limited they are. We have talked about CFCs going into the air. We have talked about the need for conservation. We have talked about the global warming trend. These issues, layer upon layer of issues, are interrelated to how we involve ourselves with Ontario Hydro, so what we need to do is to allow the government the freedom to be able to give the kind of direction which is important. By opening up the policy direction process, what we are going to begin to do is give a clear indication of the new energy directions the government is going to be pursuing.

The changes to this legislation will clarify the government's responsibility to establish these new energy directions and enhance Hydro's ability as a public utility to respond to them. For the future, we see a further refinement of these new energy directions in these areas: enhanced economic benefits to northern and aboriginal people. We also see that we will have increased energy efficiency, including fuel substitution where that is appropriate, and more parallel generation, particularly using renewable resources such as small hydro. This will provide significant opportunities for remote communities and aboriginal communities.

Just recently, since I have been elected and have come to this House, we have had a small hydro generating plant established at Elliot Falls in Victoria county. This local initiative has been a tremendous boon to the community. As we begin to move more and more support towards this kind of entrepreneurial leadership within the community and to seeing more and more power from the local communities, we are not only going to be able to see conservation efforts given the boost that is needed but we are also going to see that we are going to be able to provide much-needed entrepreneurial skills.

Elliot Falls is now producing a significant amount of energy for the local area. We are now looking at Fenelon Falls, which is a significant area for possible generation, and we are also looking at the Irondale River -- all in Victoria county.

I am looking forward to those days when we can begin to see these kinds of initiatives take place, strategic procurement to develop a new industrial sector in Ontario which will supply a wide range of energy conservation products. We need to begin to move clearly, as quickly as possible for us as a government and for the private companies, into areas where energy conservation products can be produced across this province.

We might even in five years or 10 years hence see Ontario as a place where there is great leadership in this particular field. Again, this all hinges on our ability to give direction to Ontario Hydro through these amendments to the Power Corporation Act.

I would like to address in a more substantive way some of the concerns I have about the structure of Ontario Hydro, the board, and the chairperson of the board becoming the chief executive officer. Perhaps I should read into Hansard a few bits of the amendments that are suggested. I would like to do that because I think people need to be clear about what the government is doing in this bill.

For instance, we see in

section 1 that, "There shall be a board of directors of the corporation consisting of a chairperson, a vice-chairperson, a president, the Deputy Minister of Energy and not more than 18 other directors"; that, "The deputy minister shall not vote at any meeting of the board," that deputy minister being an ex officio member of the board but helping to maintain that all-important link between the government and its energy program, and, of course, the board of Hydro; and that, "The chairperson is the chief executive officer of the corporation."

Those changes to some might seem like window dressing, to others might seem not particularly important or startling changes; but they are startling changes. Some of the members who have raised this issue are quite correct to say these are significant departures, but they are significant in the way that the opposition members have not indicated. They are significant because what it is providing is the framework for government directives to be taken seriously.

There are members in the House who decry this move. I read from yesterday's Hansard some remarks by the honourable member for Mississauga South, who said:

"The bill also allows the Minister of Energy to issue policy directives approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council that would be binding on the corporation. For people listening or watching, we perhaps should just explain what this means, because this is the most significant part of Bill 118.

"This is the part that allows the Minister of Energy to issue policy directives approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Everyone knows that a policy directive approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council is in fact a policy directive of the government of the day."

Indeed it is, and that is precisely the point. To have heard the member for Mississauga South yesterday would almost by implication indicate that such a heinous act on the part of the government has never been perpetrated on the people of Ontario, that it is indeed unacceptable for the government to move in this particular direction.

Let me give an example within Canada itself. I have the documents right here -- and I would indicate this to the honourable member for Mississauga South -- in terms of federal legislation, the Financial Administration Act. In terms of the federal Parliament and its relationship to crown corporations, its legislation is precisely what we are putting in this Power Corporation Act. It is precisely the same kind of thing. Why?

Because it has been seen, in the wisdom of those who govern in Canada, that it is necessary to maintain a link between the government, its energy policy and other policies of government and those crown corporations that are there, to make sure that those things are carried out.

I am also going to read into the record the various parts of this Financial Administration Act which will indicate the parallel to our own Power Corporation Act amendments put forth by this government. I read, in division 1 of Corporate Affairs, accountability to Parliament:

"89(1) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the appropriate minister, give a directive to any parent crown corporation, if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so.

"

(2) Before a directive is given to a parent crown corporation, the appropriate minister shall consult the board of directors of the corporation with respect to the contents and the effect of that directive."

Subsection (3), and this is very important:

"The directors of a parent crown corporation that is given a directive shall ensure that the directive is implemented in a prompt and efficient manner, and if in doing, they act in accordance with

section 115, they are not accountable for any consequences arising from the implementation of the directive."

Going further down to subsection (5):

"Compliance by a parent crown corporation with a directive is deemed to be in the best interests of the corporation."

Obviously it is understood in the federal House, in the federal Parliament and on the federal scene that it is necessary to maintain both a communications link and a policy link between the federal government and crown corporations. So it is that in the amendments to the Power Corporation Amendment Act, that is Bill 118, the government of Ontario is saying precisely that: no more than that and certainly no less than that.

I would like to dwell just very briefly on some of the comments that have been made about our government's approach to the nuclear option. As the members know, we have a moratorium on nuclear power at this point in time, and there are many reasons why that moratorium was put on, not the least of which is, especially in this recessionary time, that there are very significant questions as to whether we as a government can continue to go in a direction which is going to cost more billions and billions of dollars at a time when we do not have that kind of money to spend.

I might add that we are speaking about billions of dollars of expenditure on the part of Ontario Hydro. In that light we have ensured that we have put a moratorium on the development of nuclear stations, and at the same time, we have directed that Ontario Hydro redirect its spending at this point in time towards conservation.

There are those members again who decry this move to conservation. They say it is a motherhood issue. It is a motherhood issue but, more than that, it is an issue that we have not grappled with in this province up to this point in time. It is so serious for us that we have to begin to make inroads in this area or we are going to suffer dire consequences in this province in the future.

It is time for us to stop equivocating about conservation and saying, "We'll devote a little bit of money to that, but we will go full steam ahead in every other area, spending billions of dollars, and maybe some day conservation will become something that is important." We cannot go that route any more, and the government has been clear on this issue since the day it was elected and put the moratorium on nuclear power. What we have to begin to do is take seriously conservation in the province of Ontario.

The government has also directed Hydro to increase its efforts to develop supply alternatives such as parallel generation to make better use of existing facilities and to give a higher priority to the environmental assessment of Ontario's hydroelectric potential. The Environmental Assessment Board, in its consideration of Hydro's demand-supply plan, will provide its judgement on the future of new nuclear power in the longer term. The board's review will provide an opportunity for the public to participate in this judgement.

I want to say that in the Power Corporation Amendment Act we have tried to bring to bear a rational view of our relationship between the government and Hydro. I was reminded of a quote from Edmund Burke, who once wrote about statesmanship: "A disposition to preserve and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of statesmanship."

I want to say about this bill and this initiative on the part of the government that we have a disposition to preserve. We have not changed Hydro unalterably. We have not tried to mangle it as an agency of the province, as a public utility. We continue to give it the support that it needs to be given.

We also have an ability to improve, because if we do not improve Ontario Hydro's mandate, if we do not improve the link between the government and this public utility, then we will not be able to do the job we must do, and this is create better power for the people of Ontario, more power at a better cost, and in the long run, we will not be able to conserve. That need for conservation is something that is undoubted by anyone in this government at this time.

Mr Conway: Just a very quick question to the member. He made reference to a new hydroelectric plant in Victoria county. I think he said at Elliot Falls. My question is a very simple one. Is that a brand-new facility or is that a small group of people who have taken over an ol