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

November 28, 1990

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Cleary: Ontario farmers want to know where the NDP government stands on the issue of stable funding for farm organizations and mandatory membership in farm organizations. Earlier this week, the Minister of Agriculture and Food told the Ontario Federation of Agriculture one thing, he told reporters a second thing and he told this House a third thing.

The minister is being as slippery as a newborn calf.

First, he told the Ontario Federation of Agriculture that he supports stable funding for farm organizations. Then he told reporters that he does not support the Ontario Federation of Agriculture as the farm community's lone lobbying voice.

Yesterday, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry asked the minister to explain his position, but he did not have much luck. All the minister would say is, "We intend to pursue the concept of giving farmers a voice."

As the outgoing president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture described the new minister, "He's 100% in favour of having children, but he wants to remain a virgin."

The minister told the House yesterday, "Farmers have been trying over the years to get their act together...." The farmers of this province do have their act together. It is the NDP government that does not have its act together.

I urge the minister to clarify this government's position for the farmers of Ontario.

DURHAM ART GALLERY

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to bring the plight of the Durham Art Gallery to the attention of the Minister of Culture and Communications and the Legislature in general.

This small art gallery is one of the finest of its size anywhere and we in Grey are very proud of it. Operating from the basement of the public library, it has managed to produce a minimum of 12 shows per year, exhibiting national and international work and showcasing our local artists and crafts people. Unfortunately, the gallery is trying to do this as well as educating young people and conducting student tours in an economically depressed rural area with no corporate support.

Now they face a crisis. The library which has donated the space has asked them to leave. Operating costs are up and donations are down. The gallery has not been able to afford an exhibit since the beginning of October and is relying on fund-raising in the form of bake and craft sales and a silent auction to pay off its minor debt.

The membership and general public have been very supportive, but they are not wealthy. Everyone is sympathetic, yet no one can help.

The speech from the throne allotted further funding to the Ontario Arts Council. It is my hope that the minister, who is aware of the situation, could help by granting special status to this very important culture resource in my community.

RIDING OF KITCHENER-WILMOT

Mr Cooper: First, Mr Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your election. Next, I would like to say a few words about my predecessor, John Sweeney, the former Minister of Community and Social Services and later the Minister of Housing and of Municipal Affairs.

After representing the constituents of Kitchener-Wilmot in the Ontario Legislature for 15 years, Mr Sweeney chose not to run in the last provincial election. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the hard work and commitment he put into representing the constituents of Kitchener-Wilmot, and I offer to him my best wishes for the future.

Finally, I want to tell the members about firefighters Paul Bagnarol and Robert Innanen of the Kitchener Fire Department. On 27 December 1988 firefighters Bagnarol and Innanen risked their own lives in an attempt to save the life of Captain Charles Kieswetter, who was trapped and overcome by heat and smoke in a house fire.

Firefighters Bagnarol and Innanen were among the recipients of the 1990 Ontario Medal for Firefighters' Bravery. I ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing and congratulating these two courageous men.

TECHNICAL EDUCATION

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I find a very recent survey taken by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation distressing. Its results indicate that technical shops are closing across this province one by one, because properly trained staff cannot be found in the specialties of automotive, carpentry, welding, graphic arts, drafting and electronics.

The very necessary renewal of technological education throughout this province demands a high level of consultation with representatives of labour, business and industry and the colleges of applied arts and technology. It demands focused in-service training and major input from the faculties of education and indeed the technical teachers themselves.

Acting directly upon the Premier's Council's report Competing in the New Global Economy, the previous government began such a task by beginning broad and serious discussions and by offering incentives to school boards in the categories of construction, manufacturing, service and transportation.

I, along with the OSSTF, urge this government to plan co-operatively with and fund adequately the faculties of education, as we rescue technical education and restore stability to the supply of skilled labour that is this province's such great need.

Ministerial guidelines must be developed, and it is essential that school boards across this province be given every assistance possible in this basic area of study, and thus ensure that our young people, our most precious resource, will be technically literate as they enter the world of work in this era of global competitiveness. Ontario's need for skilled labour hangs in the balance.

SKYDOME

Mr Stockwell: On 11 October 1990 the Treasurer made a public statement revealing the financial state of the SkyDome. On 24 October 1990 the Treasurer appointed a negotiating team to negotiate a new agreement between the consortium members and the province of Ontario.

The problem that the taxpayers have with all of this is that they presently have no idea if the existing agreement is fair and just, due to the fact that documentation regarding the profit-and-loss-sharing agreements, which appear to bind the taxpayers to absorb the losses, is not public information. Taking this into consideration, the taxpayers will not be able to assess the success or failure of the committee struck, for the simple reason that no one knows what the original agreement entailed.

There must be a yardstick to measure any new agreements against, and that yardstick is some kind of method to compare the profitability of the private companies and the debt servicing of this government. Maybe the most important issue is how much money the private companies are profiting and how much money the provincial government is in fact losing.

I strongly urge that the very first item of business by the standing committee on public accounts be to direct the Provincial Auditor to do a total review of the costs incurred during the construction of the SkyDome and issue a full public report.

What I would like to know from this government is what happened to the openness in government theme it ran on. Let us start this session by levelling with the taxpayers of Ontario, informing them just how much the private corporations are taking to their banks as a result of doing business at the SkyDome, and just how much money the government is shorting us all.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr Frankford: Canadian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War is an affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the winner of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize. There are more than 7,500 physician members, approximately 20% of all Canadian doctors.

As 1990 draws to a close, the world is on the threshold of either putting an abrupt halt to the engine which drives the arms race, or it is opening the door, which is already ajar in several countries, to the rampant spread of new nuclear weapons.

In January 1991 the United Nations Partial Test Ban Amending Conference will decide if a comprehensive test ban is achievable. In spite of the end of the cold war, underground testing under the guise of modernization allows the nuclear arms race to continue and, in the name of national security, pollutes our environment with radiation.

With on-site inspection possible, verification to prevent cheating is no longer an issue. Although previous American and British governments supported a comprehensive test ban, currently these two countries alone plan to veto an initiative endorsed by the rest of the world.

Failure to amend the partial test ban will put in jeopardy the non-proliferation treaty which will expire in 1995 and which was designed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons capability.

As a supporter of Canadian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, I urge my fellow members of this House to demand that our Prime Minister fulfil Canada's traditional role as a peacemaker and speak out in support of a comprehensive test ban.

ELLIOT LAKE

Mr Brown: Mr Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your election to this House and your elevation to this very important post, and on a fine dinner, I might add.

Today, I would also like to thank the new government for sending the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy to Elliot Lake on a kamikaze mission.

As most members should know, Elliot Lake is experiencing the worst of economic times. In August, 60% of the primary workforce was laid off -- 60% of the workforce.

Did the parliamentary assistant arrive to confirm commitments made by the Liberal government? Did he confirm the $10-million diversification fund? Did he confirm the building of a direct road to Blind River? Did he announce a fire college? Did he announce a French-language college? Did he announce a seniors' campus? Did he announce that Ontario Hydro will purchase all its uranium in Elliot Lake? Did he arrive with any good news?

No, he arrived to confirm that his government does not believe in the environmental assessment process. He arrived to confirm that his government had bravely and courageously taken giant steps to prejudice that process which will review Hydro's 25-year plan. He arrived to ensure the people of Elliot Lake oblivion.

These same people may be excused for thinking that Brian Charlton was Brian Mulroney.

ZEBRA MUSSELS

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. It concerns a tiny shellfish that has been causing serious problems in European waters for years and is now thriving in the waters of Ontario.

The minister is no doubt aware that the zebra mussel was first introduced into Lake St Clair in 1988 by a ship discharging ballast water that was originally picked up in a European port. Zebra mussels damage boats and fishing equipment. Large concentrations of zebra mussels have been found attached inside industrial power plant and industrial water intake pipes. They reduce the amount of food available to the young of many fish species and they decrease the survival rate of fish eggs.

The time has come to introduce a program aimed at ridding our waters of the zebra mussel. It must be done now, because experts tell me it would be easier to prevent or control the initial attachment of the larvae than to try to dislodge the zebra mussel once it is established. Develop a program now before tourism, our fisheries and our water systems and electrical generating plants are damaged beyond repair.

Why has the minister not made a statement in this Legislature? What does he intend to do? Does he not think that this is one of the important items in Ontario?

CHARLES TATHAM

Mr Sutherland: Mr Speaker, I too want to congratulate you on your re-election to this House and your election as the Speaker. I was remiss in not doing that in my previous time speaking.

I want to make a statement today about the previous member for the riding of Oxford, Charlie Tatham. As many of the members know, Charlie was the member from 1987 until the recent election. In talking with many members of this House, I know that Charlie was a very well-liked individual and highly respected by members of all three parties in this House.

Mr Tatham started his career of public service many years ago. He was the mayor of Woodstock in 1957. He continued to be active in municipal politics for many years, right until the time of his election to this House. He served in many different areas within the riding of Oxford. He was also the warden for the county of Oxford at one time.

As a member of this House, he was also very active. He was the Premier's representative on the Ontario-Quebec high-speed rail committee. He also chaired a committee that toured around the province and looked at the restructuring of county governments, as Mr Tatham was very active when Oxford country restructured its government in 1975.

I just want to make mention of him and, on behalf of the people of Oxford, thank Mr Tatham for his many years of public service both to the people of Oxford and to this province.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

RENT REGULATION

Hon Mr Cooke: Today we begin a new era in providing real protection for tenants in this province.

Since 1975, Ontario has coped with several different rent review systems. Each has had little commitment to protecting tenants. The current Residential Rent Regulation Act has been condemned by both tenants and landlords as being too complex and too costly.

More important, the system has failed in protecting tenants from high rent increases. During the past three years, more than 330,000 tenant families have faced increases above the rent review guideline. In some cases, tenants have been required to pay rent increases of more than 100%. For many, this has been tantamount to ordering them to leave their homes. Clearly, the existing process must be replaced with rent control that provides tenants with protection from high rent increases.

As well, we have to devise a process that is much less complex and intimidating. It must be easier for people to understand and use and simpler to administer than the current process.

It is the intention of this government to develop such a system through extensive consultation with tenants, landlords and other interested parties. In the meantime, we are introducing a two-year moratorium to protect tenants from high rent increases. It will apply to rent increases taking effect from 1 October 1990, the day this government took office, and will continue until the new rent control legislation is in place.

I am tabling the necessary amendments to the Residential Rent Regulation Act today to put in place those measures required to implement the moratorium. I would note, however, that most of the Residential Rent Regulation Act and its associated regulations will remain unchanged by this amending legislation. For example, the current administrative and hearings procedure will continue, as will tenants' rights to seek rent rebates. As well, the rent registry and the Residential Rental Standards Board will remain in place.

Under the moratorium, the majority of rent increases will be limited to the amount of the annual guideline set by the ministry each year. Members will recall that this guideline is based on the average cost increases that a typical landlord would experience in operating a well-managed rental property.

In 1990 the guideline is 4.6% and in 1991 it is 5.4%. Landlords will be allowed to seek moderate rent increases above these guidelines to help cover some operating increases which are clearly beyond their control. These would be significant increases in municipal taxes, heating, hydro, water, cable and insurance and higher costs arising from changes in interest rates when existing mortgages -- and I emphasize existing mortgages -- are renewed.

Under the moratorium, tenants will no longer be required to pay rent increases to finance luxury renovations or the flipping of apartment buildings. As well, tenants will not face rent increases arising from capital expenditures. In addition, tenants will not have to pay previously approved rent increases that were to be phased in over a period of years. The proposed legislation cancels all phased-in rent increases taking effect in a building on 1 October 1990 or later. Once the moratorium legislation is passed, landlords will be required to repay tenants any amounts of moneys owed since 1 October 1990.

The moratorium will not apply to rent increases that were effective before 1 October 1990. In allowing these applications to continue under the old rules, we are conceding that we cannot retroactively correct all the inequities of the past legislation. However, there is a possibility that these older applications may result in some tenants owing retroactive rent increases to their landlords. If this proves to be the case, we intend to protect tenants by instituting measures to allow them to repay retroactive rent increases over a one-year period instead of the current situation where they have to pay them up front.

The moratorium legislation will enable us to protect tenants over the two-year period while we turn our full attention to public consultations on a permanent rent control system. This consultation process, along with the development and passage of permanent legislation, will be completed within the two-year period. We encourage everyone in Ontario to take

part in the consultations across the province on this important issue.

As well, I would like to indicate to the members of the House that I hope they will play an active role in the consultation process. It is my intention to involve them fully in the development of the new rent control legislation. We face a considerable challenge in the months ahead and I look forward to receiving the advice and assistance of all my colleagues.

RESPONSES

RENT REGULATION

Ms Poole: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Housing. If the minister thinks he is going to appease anyone by his statement today, he is sadly mistaken. We had expected at the very least that this minister would have the courage to announce a specific outline of his government's rent control policy.

We in the opposition must ask a question: Why has the minister delayed introducing his permanent rent control policy? Could it be that he has finally realized that the rent control policy they promised in An Agenda for People is simply unworkable? Could it be that the minister has finally seen the light that there is no simple solution to the myriad of complexities in the rental housing market?

The minister has quite a dilemma. When he was opposition critic, he had a very simple proposal to solve the rental problems in the province, and the operative word is "simple." His solution was to have one guideline rent increase per year with no exemptions, and in fact the NDP, in the election campaign, adopted the minister's proposal. The Premier himself -- the one right across the way with the glowing halo -- promised: "New Democrats would bring in rent control. That means one increase a year based on inflation. There would be no extra bonuses to landlords for capital or financing costs."

Why could the minister and the Premier not fulfil this promise and bring in permanent legislation today? There are really only two reasons: Either their plan was flawed, their policy too simplistic to be workable -- in other words, they had not done their homework and their research -- or, on the other hand, they knew at the time that their plan was unworkable and unrealistic but they figured: "Hey, it'll win us a few votes. We'll get the tenants on our side."

What a choice. They had to admit they were either opportunistic or incompetent. They were not options for this new, truthful government of integrity. Instead, they chose the option to announce a freeze and give people a chance to forget what the NDP's policy on rent control really was.

Has the minister realized the ramifications of the freeze he has announced? Does he actually believe there will be any capital work done in any building in the province when landlords have no idea how they can pay for the work? Has he considered what will happen to work that is half-completed?

I have here a memorandum from a landlord who faxed me this morning saying: "We are in the process of refurbishing 109 Jameson. If the NDP legislation is retroactive, we will stop the work in its present condition, as we will lose too much money by completing it."

What is the minister going to do about the situation? The tenants cannot live in a state of frozen chaos and construction for the next two years while he makes up his mind. Has the minister considered what uncertainty this freeze has created and what it will do to the rental housing market? Does he have any plan for dealing with the bankruptcies and the insolvencies that are inevitable? Does he realize that the uncertainty may force the banks to become the province's largest landlord? I ask the minister, do bankers fix toilets? I predict we are going to have to find out.

At first glance, this seems to be great news for the tenants of the province, rents frozen for the next two years. However, this irresponsible act will become a nightmare for tenants as their aging apartment buildings start to crumble around them. The minister has taken the first step towards his new title, Minister of Slums.

Mr Curling: I want to ask the minister, where is the fairness in this? He said he wanted to be fair to landlords and tenants. It seems to me it is a one-sided patchwork, broad statement here. I ask the minister to ask his colleague the Treasurer; he sat on Bill 51 and he realizes that the contribution of landlords and tenants on that bill was just tremendous. We have never seen such consultation. Now he is saying he is going to go out for consultation. I say to the minister that he has no policy. It is a patchwork situation that he has here. He complained that we had a patchwork.

I say to him to bring his housing policy out and then we will see whether he has rent control or rent review. He should be fair to both landlords and tenants.

Mr Tilson: I would like to respond to the minister's statement. I must confess I am a new member to the Legislature. This morning I found a press release by the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario crossing my desk. I found an advertisement by the ministry on where it is going with respect to housing. All of this came out before the minister had even released his statement. To me, it is clearly a ministry that is out of control.

I will say that I thought the Liberals were in bad shape with their policy. This policy is an absolute disaster. It is unbelievable where we are going with this proposal by the minister. Already we are in the throes of a recession. We are going to have to absorb a flight of capital, bankruptcies and unemployment in the construction trades. There is certainly not going to be any incentive to maintain our existing rental stock and, over time, units will be lost due to deterioration. Small landlords are going to remove their units from the market, thereby accelerating the vacancy problem.

If tenants think things are bad now, wait until they cannot find anything, wait until they are living in slums.

The rental housing industry has indicated that $1.68 billion in planned renovation work by 1992 will not proceed, resulting in the loss of 52,000 person-years of employment. The minister is not clear in his statement as to where he is going in that direction. There is certainly not going to be any private sector investment in rental housing. The province will have to build every new unit because no one else is going to do it, something the provincial Treasury, facing a $2.5-billion deficit, cannot afford.

If they proceed with the 20,000 units a year that they promised during the election, it is going to cost $380 million in operating subsidies over two years, and this does not even include the capital costs. The Liberals spent $3 billion to construct only 30,000 units.

This policy will do nothing to help the 360,000 tenant households that already spend in excess of 30% of their income in rent. By the time this two-year moratorium has run its course, I think landlords will be broke, there will be tenants without accommodation and many others will be living in slum accommodation.

Mr Stockwell: I have read An Agenda for People a number of times. I am not certain why it was written, at this point in time. It is a break-a-promise-a-day routine around this House from now on. Joe DiMaggio's consecutive hitting streak is in jeopardy with this particular government; 56 days seems very likely. Where in An Agenda for People did they mention a moratorium? Where did they mention consultation -- two years of consultation?

They mentioned bonusing. Yes, they did, they mentioned bonusing. They were very clear: There will be no bonusing. They summarized their approach to rent controls with, "It's simple, it's fair and it avoids bureaucracy."

I do not know what happened between the date that this was printed and the date the announcement was made, but either they have forgotten quite a bit or it really was not their intention to implement this and it was simply used as a vote-getting promise and now that they are in government today they would simply choose to forget the Agenda for People, because quite conceivably, quite apparently, the people can simply choose to forget this.

Mr Grandmaître: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: If the Minister of Housing thinks his announcement or his statement is so important, he should have had it printed in French, in the two official languages of this province.

Hon Mr Cooke: If I could explain to the member, and I certainly apologize for the fact that the statement is not available at this particular moment in both languages, the fact of the matter is that this statement was scheduled for tomorrow. The Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario put out a press release this morning that does not adequately represent the position that the government has announced today. To avoid confusion for landlords and tenants across this province, we thought it was appropriate that the statement be made now, today, to avoid that confusion for landlords and tenants.

As a result, the statement was not ready in both languages. It will be ready very shortly, but I sincerely apologize for that fact now.

The Speaker: I appreciate the member's point of order and would draw members' attention to the fact that while it has been a recent practice of this assembly to present ministers' statements in both of our official languages, it is not a requirement, but it is normally extended as a courtesy. I do appreciate the point you raised.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I wish at the same time to recognize, and members may wish to welcome, a former member of this assembly who is seated in the members' gallery, René Fontaine from Cochrane North.

Before beginning oral questions I wish to commend the members, who have been most diligent in directing both their questions and their replies to the Speaker. It is most helpful as we conduct our business in an orderly way and I appreciate the efforts that have been extended both yesterday and again today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LAYOFFS

Mr Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Labour having to do with the startling and continuing escalation in the rate of layoffs. The honourable minister is no doubt as familiar as anyone with the statistics in this regard, but when his own ministry indicated that there would be 5,000 more layoffs in the province in November, it certainly is a clear point in which the government has to express to this House and the people of the province, not just those laid off or facing it, specifically what its programs will be.

I would simply ask the minister if he can indicate to the House clearly what he is going to do which is going to begin within the next very short period of time and which should be under way now to alleviate the concern that is felt by all members of this House in response to the needs of the people in our constituencies.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member has raised an issue that is probably of the most concern to members of this government. We had, up until the end of October, a 77% increase in permanent layoffs and closures in Ontario. We are going to address this with labour adjustment and retraining programs, with changes that allow for longer notice periods. We are in the process right now of working on the various steps we will be taking to try to alleviate the problem.

Mr Nixon: The honourable minister has had his responsibility for eight weeks, not a long period of time, but about halfway through that period the Premier and himself and his colleagues announced that there would be a wage protection fund retroactive to 1 October, the day this government took office, and that the people who were laid off because of bankruptcies therefore would be protected.

It was not clear, and certainly was not made clear in the speech from the throne, whether this would include pay only or severance, notice, vacation; when in fact it would be in place; how it would be funded, and some indication of what the cost might be in view of the layoffs and bankruptcy rates, which have gone up 80% year over year.

Now, the statement was made by the Premier at the time he was approving the move of Victor Rice and Varity Corp out of the province to Buffalo. It was attempting to soften the blow. But surely the time has come when this government should bring forward specific plans and, I would suggest, legislation. I would ask the honourable minister when he and his colleagues are going to present such legislation to this House.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I can assure the member that the wage protection part of our package -- and that is only part of the package to deal with the layoffs that we have in Ontario today -- will be before this House very shortly. We are consulting with a number of parties now. There is a fair difference in the cost of such a program. The initial statement listed only wages and vacation pay. We have to take a look at severance and termination and what we can put into the package and how we can fund it or finance it, and that is what we are in the process of working on right now.

Mr Nixon: I have some sympathy for the honourable member, who used to be so aggressive on this side of the House, calling for action, if not immediately, then probably yesterday. I am not so sure I like the new persona of the honourable member. While I was prepared to be somewhat critical of him, it was not on a basis of inaction. Unfortunately, he seems to have fallen into the grip of the molasses-in-January principle that the Premier has imposed on all of his colleagues.

I would like to ask the honourable minister, since he has the main responsibility in this regard, for example, how the announcement of the $700-million special fund in the speech from the throne is going to be allocated, since the Treasurer indicated that it would not be any significant call on the consolidated revenue fund until the next budgetary period. Then how are we supposed to talk to the people in our constituencies to say that help is on the way in a reasonable period of time?

Would he not feel that his own response is similar when he says that they are having a little trouble remembering whether their original statement had to do with just pay or whether it had to do with severance and notice and vacation?

Surely he can inform the House now, since the Minister of Housing is presenting special legislation today, that we are going to see this legislation and have ample time to consider it so that when the throne debate is completed in a few days, we can go on to the consideration of this immediately important initiative.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the leader of the official opposition knows that the $700 million he refers to is capital projects, part of a package to deal with the unemployment in the province, and there will be announcements on that very shortly.

The part of the package that I am working on as Minister of Labour -- the labour adjustments, the severance, the notice, the justification, the wage protection plan -- is something that the leader of the official opposition knows I was raising in this House for almost five years and got absolutely nowhere with. I want the leader of the official opposition to know that in the two months I have had charge of my ministry, we are probably closer to bringing in all of the components of that package than we got in five years of going after the Liberals.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mrs McLeod: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister may not be fully aware of the anxiety and the concern that exists across this province because of her decision to freeze plans to move developmentally disabled people out of institutions and into the community.

Will the minister please tell us why she has placed a freeze on these plans for deinstitutionalization and particularly why this freeze on transfers applies only to moves out of government-operated institutions while the movement of residents out of privately owned nursing homes can continue?

Hon Mrs Akande: Actually, there has not been a freeze placed on that movement; there has been a temporary hold placed on that. The reason for such a move is simply to give us an opportunity to provide a better process in which everyone is involved and is satisfied. There were some concerns, even expressed by those people whose families were to be moved, about the process that was in use, so this is an attempt to provide a better process.

Mrs McLeod: I would like to remind the minister that the people who are most directly affected by this decision are people who will indeed be trapped in institutions if there is not a will on the part of this government to move forward with the plans for deinstitutionalization. I would also remind the minister that members of her caucus in the past have been critical of the previous government for not moving quickly enough. Her response on a matter of process leads me to the supplementary question.

We know there was no consultation with the Ontario Association for Community Living prior to the minister's decision to freeze the program being made. We know that other advocacy groups such as the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped and People First were not even aware of her decision until we contacted them because we were concerned.

We do know that the union wanted exactly the freeze that the minister has imposed. In fact, we have a copy of a letter to the Ontario Association for Community Living with the first formal communication regarding this temporary hold dated 15 November.

We also have a copy of a message to union members that was posted at the Oxford Regional Centre and, if I may ask the indulgence of the House for one moment, I think it is important that they be aware of this.

The message states:

"I was informed in a phone call received at 5:15 pm from head office that effective immediately, the multi-year plan has been put on hold.

"Only those residents who already have their bags packed will leave the facility.

"Fred Upshaw, president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, in a meeting with the Minister of Community and Social Services and the fight at local levels were instrumental in achieving the hold on this plan."

That message is dated 6 November. Will the minister please tell this House and concerned people around this province why she did not consult with advocacy groups or individuals or families before stepping in and why, as a member of a government committed to consultation, she would not have taken the time for this very basic communication?

Hon Mrs Akande: I am happy to answer that question. As a matter of fact, I have been in contact by telephone with Mr Zwerver, who is the Canadian president or chairperson of the Ontario Association for Community Living, and we have discussed this hold. This government remains committed to community-based services.

The intent of the temporary hold is simply to provide an opportunity to look at the process. We are not discussing whether, we are discussing how to include all people, including the groups that the member mentions in a discussion of that process. I might state, however, that I am not responsible for the communication that is written by others. I simply accept responsibility for communications which bear my signature.

Mrs McLeod: I am pleased to hear of the minister's continued sense of commitment. I confess that I was somewhat surprised by the communication that was sent to all members of the House. While I appreciated the information, my surprise rested in the fact that the information provided by the ministry was clearly supportive of continuing the program and really failed to offer any more reason for this temporary hold in exactly the terms the minister has used today, which is in some way to look at a more effective process.

This plan was developed over a long period of time. The process was very clearly in place. It was proceeding in a way which I understand had been considered quite satisfactory by all the groups and individuals that have been involved. But I do want to say that I do not question the minister's concern. I know that she has expressed outside this House her own belief in the importance of having disabled people become part of the mainstream of our community.

I do want to give the minister an opportunity to reassure people across the province who are concerned. Will the minister please tell us what comes next for people in government-operated institutions? Will she make a commitment to moving developmentally disabled individuals out of the government-operated institutions, and when will this temporary hold be lifted?

Hon Mrs Akande: I am very glad that the member recognizes this government's commitment to community-based services and certainly I share that with her.

We are indeed anxious to move people out of large institutions into their communities. We will do so with the support of all those involved. While the member speaks highly of the process which her government implemented, I am afraid that I have received some questions about it and therefore felt it was my responsibility to assume a more thorough study. So we have done. May I assure the member that we will indeed bring this to the House as soon as we have done that as quickly as possible.

Mr Jackson: My question is to the Premier and it as well has to do with the multi-year plan that has just been referenced in the previous question. I would like to furnish the Premier with a copy of the memo previously referred to. I have a copy which I would like him to look at.

I also wish to direct his attention to the fact that on 20 November he made a statement through the Lieutenant Governor in this House. He gave two brief statements in support of community living. I will quote from the throne speech:

"We will work towards our communities becoming supportive environments where all people, including those who are vulnerable, can meet their full potential, participate in community life and make their contribution to society. In doing so, we recognize that saying yes to their concerns will mean saying no to others whose claims are presented more loudly."

I would like the Premier to address the House on the fact that his Minister of Community and Social Services undertook a private meeting with the head of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and apparently, on the face of the memo, arrived at a decision and a deal to put the multi-year plan on hold. There was not the consultation nor the exchange of information with the key partners in this act.

I would like the Premier to advise this House whether he was aware that this special deal had been made as he was drafting the throne speech some two weeks later.

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I thank the member for the question. Let me say to the member that I am not aware of any such deal of any kind. I do not think that is a fair characterization of what has happened.

If I can refer the member to it, I am also in receipt, as is the whole House, of a jury verdict in the Cedar Glen inquest. The member will recall that the circumstances there were of an ex-psychiatric patient from the Queen Street Mental Health Centre who was discharged to the Cedar Glen boarding home on 1 May 1985 and was admitted to Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital on 1 November 1987 after an altercation with another resident of the home resulting in a fall. Mr Kendall was admitted dirty, malnourished, overmedicated, disoriented due to a drug reaction and developing pneumonia.

I just want to say to the member, the bottom line for all of us has to be to ensure that the quality of community support is there for everyone who is a resident of a provincial institution who is being admitted into the community. That has to be the bottom line. If I can say so, we dealt with this question for the past 15 or 16 years in this House, which is when the process of deinstitutionalization began.

As I understand it, what the minister is saying, and I think it is a fair comment, is to make sure that the quality of community care is there and let's make sure that enough is being done to protect the interests of the residents, of people who are either in a psychiatric institution who are being discharged or who are in a residential facility for the developmentally handicapped who are being discharged.

It seems to me that we are entitled to say that we have a responsibility as a government to ensure that the community support is there. But let me say to the member that the creation of caring communities in the communities of this province is a priority for our government and is something to which we are committed as a government and to which I am committed as Premier of the province.

Mr Jackson: The question to the Premier was for him to conduct an inquiry into the relationship he has within his own cabinet in terms of consultation. The hallmarks that he had for his position politically when he sat on this side of the House we now expect him to be consistent and continue while he is on that side of the House.

I refresh the Premier with his positions: that he would be open and honest and that he would be forthcoming and consultative with the key players. What I raised and brought to the Premier's attention was the fact that the head of one of the most powerful unions of this province had a private audience with the minister responsible. There were no vulnerable adults represented in that room.

The fact is that the Premier was not aware that these kinds of arrangements were being made, and I will continue to refer to them as a deal because, as the minister admitted herself, her contact with the association directly only occurred this week.

I would ask the Premier again: Are these the kinds of activities that he condones for his cabinet ministers with respect to consultation, particularly after he told the people of Ontario the importance he placed on ensuring that vulnerable adults had access to the decision-making powers of this province?

Hon Mr Rae: The member has asked me to repeat or to state what my commitments are and what our commitments are as a government, and I will say this to the member: I expect the Ontario Association for Community Living to be consulted. I expect those representing vulnerable people to be consulted. I expect those who have experience in the community to be consulted. I expect ARCH to be consulted. I expect advocates on behalf of the disabled to be consulted. I expect the people who are working in institutions to be consulted. I expect everyone to be consulted, and that is what will be done.

I expect a decision from this government that is going to ensure that every resident, everyone who is physically disabled or who is vulnerable, has an appropriate level of care and that, wherever possible, that care is provided in the community. That is the policy of our government. That is what we are committed to and that is exactly what the minister is committed to as well.

Mr Jackson: We agree with the standard the Premier just set out and we are gravely concerned at the minister's actions, which appear to have contradicted the very standard the Premier has set.

What I have handed over to the Premier, thanks to the page, is an announcement that his own minister made subsequent to her arrangement or deal with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union to put a hold on the program.

On 6 November she announced $168,000 funding from her ministry for the Oakville Association for the Mentally Retarded. It got a considerable amount of press coverage in the local community. Why I have sent the Premier that press release is so he is aware that the deal had been made and she was announcing plans for expansion.

What I am now going to advise the Premier is that three days later her ministry advised the association not only that their funds would not be forthcoming but also -- I am sorry to be technical -- that condition 6 as established for any continuance of this program by the government was that necessary staff be hired or be in the process of being hired to care for these deinstitutionalized vulnerable adults. The fact is that the Ministry of Community and Social Services advised the local association to pull the ad notice for hiring of those staff after it had played in the local media for three days.

I again reiterate that these are serious matters. It could be a simple breakdown of communications, but I fear more directly that there is more at play here. I ask the Premier again if he will investigate the actions of his minister, not only with respect to her private meetings with the union but also with respect to her convoluted approach to the association in Oakville in terms of its funding commitment and then withdrawal of support.

Where is the commitment? The Premier will only determine that if he is prepared to investigate the minister's actions.

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the information that I have received from the member. Obviously, now that he has raised it with me, I will review it with the minister. That is a perfectly reasonable request for him to make and it is something which will obviously be discussed.

But let me just say to the member once again that, ever since Walter Williston's report in 1974, this House has been debating and dealing with the question of deinstitutionalization and that the concern has been expressed by a number of us on a number of occasions. I can well recall, going back to the early 1980s, when the then Leader of the Opposition, who went on to become Premier, Mr Peterson, launched a campaign on behalf of the Liberal Party at that time with respect to the multi-year plans, expressing concern about the impact that those plans would have on residents and the impact that they would have on a number of institutions.

We are going to continue to discuss this question. I hope we can do it in a balanced way. What I want to say to the member is this: We are committed to providing the highest possible standard of care. The news yesterday with respect to the Brantwood situation was profoundly disturbing to me, as I am sure it is to all members. The reports that we have had from inquests over the years with respect to what has happened in private boarding homes and in unregulated institutions is of profound concern to me, as I am sure it is to the member. It is of profound concern to this government. We do not have a monopoly on this concern; we share it with all the members.

We are going to do what we can, and I can assure the member that is what we are committed to doing as a government; and that is precisely what we are committed to doing, not to saying yes to any established interest that is out there. The people who come first, the people whose interests come first, are the residents, the people who are themselves disabled and vulnerable. Those are the people whose interests we must advance as a Legislature. That is what we are committed to doing and that is exactly what we are going to do.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Premier. Yesterday he received a letter from Fairwin Investments Ltd. Over the past eight years, foreign investors have injected $300 million into Ontario real estate, primarily apartment buildings. They had planned to invest an additional $500 million over the next five years but will not proceed under a system of rent controls -- at least according to that letter.

Today the Minister of Housing has indicated that the government will continue with a system of strict rent controls during this moratorium period, and, as a result, almost $1 billion in capital will most likely be moved out of this province.

I would like to ask the Premier if his government has done an economic impact analysis of his decision to proceed with rent controls.

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I would say to the member that I am not aware of such a letter, although no doubt it has arrived. I have not seen it, but I would like to refer the question to the Minister of Housing, if I can.

Hon Mr Cooke: I guess how I would like to respond to that is that we did. When we were looking at the policy options that were open to this government to provide real protection for tenants, we did look at the impact on the economy.

We also looked at the impact that the current rent review system has on tenants across this province, and the fact of the matter is that we have had no protection or not adequate protection for tenants in this province. As a result, 33% of the tenants of this province pay over 30% of their monthly income on rent. As a result, people have been economically evicted from their apartments in this province and, because this party believes that housing is a basic and fundamental right for the people of this province, it is our obligation as a government to properly protect the tenants of this province so that this right can be achieved.

Mr Tilson: I hope the minister will make this analysis available to this House, because I think the policy he announced today is certainly going to have a grave impact. Today the minister announced that there would be a moratorium for the next two years. Landlords across this province have borrowed money in the past number of years to undertake renovation and repair work. Considering his statement today and given the number of outstanding loans, has his government assessed the number of bankruptcies that will result from his decision? Will he announce that today?

Hon Mr Cooke: I am certainly prepared -- and we will as we go through this process -- to share every bit of information we have that helped us make this decision. But I want to reiterate to the member that on the government side we have to look at the balance between what is necessary to protect the affordable housing that currently exists in this province and, on the other hand, what is rightful and appropriate for landlords in this province.

I have looked at that and I think on balance we have to come down with proper and complete rent control in order to protect tenants, along with the escape clauses, which we have outlined to members, with energy costs and municipal taxes.

I would simply like to ask the member: The alternative he has suggested, the alternative his party suggested, is what they have in British Columbia. In British Columbia they have no rent control, and as a result Vancouver's average rents now are the highest in the entire country. We in Ontario do not want to see that happen. We want to protect tenants in this province.

Mr Tilson: I honestly believe the minister forgets where he is. We ask the questions over here and he gives the policy.

I will say that the Ministry of Housing has reported that $10 billion in renovation and repair work is needed to maintain Ontario's existing rental stock. If his government proceeds with this system of rent controls, as he has indicated today, with no provision for capital costs, landlords have indicated that they will not proceed with $533 million worth of renovation and repair work this year alone. By 1992, $1.68 billion of planned work will be in jeopardy. Unemployment rates in the low-rise construction trades have already reached 60%.

I would like to ask the minister if he has done an analysis of how many construction and related jobs will be lost as a result of his decision to proceed with strict rent controls during this moratorium period.

Hon Mr Cooke: I would like to point out to the member that I am not sure what analysis he has done or any other organization has done to come up with the $500 million figure. With the figures we have looked at in our ministry, the largest amount of capital spent in one year, passed through the system, under the current rent review system -- that is certainly the comparable figure -- has been $122 million. Now, during a recession and during the Mulroney high interest rate time, is he going to tell me that the landlords of this province are planning on spending $500 million through the rent review system?

I would suggest to the member that what will have the most significant impact on whether landlords will be spending money on renovations and capital in this province will not be anything that we do in this government, but it will be the high interest rate policies of his federal government.

Ms Poole: My question is for the Minister of Housing. It is estimated that some $10 billion in capital repair work needs to be done on our aging housing stock. The rental freeze he has announced today is effectively going to ensure that none of that capital work will be done over the next two years.

I would like to paint a scenario for the minister, and I would assure him that this is a very real one, particularly with high-rise buildings.

An underground parking garage needs to be retrofitted because of salt corrosion. It will cost $500,000 to do this work. The landlord goes to the bank to secure the financing. The bank says: "I'm sorry. You're already leveraged to the maximum, and because you have no revenues coming in to compensate, we cannot do this. You have no collateral." The landlord cannot borrow the money. The landlord does not have the money. The garage will collapse and so will the building from the salt corrosion. What is the minister going to do about this?

Hon Mr Cooke: I guess what I would like to say to the member is that over the next period of time we certainly intend to put out a consultation paper and discuss with her and with other people in this province how we should proceed in the long term. But in the meantime we have to take a look at some of the very high rent increases that have occurred in this province. I would suggest to the member she take a look at, for example, 44 Walmer Road where there was a 21% increase. or in her area, the Balliol Street area, a 29% increase, or if she wants to look at Main Street, a 192% increase.

The member, as an advocate for tenants in this province. must understand as well that our government is preoccupied and concerned with protecting the tenants and the affordable housing stock of this province. That is our primary concern and we are willing to work with her and with the landlords and tenants of this province in devising a long-term system that will also protect tenants and provide for the capital needs of the system as well.

Ms Poole: This minister is not concerned with protecting the tenants. He is concerned with protecting his own government's skin. He says the tenants need protection. I agree with him, but this is not the way, to say that for the next two years, while he consults, nothing will be done on capital.

I am going to ask the minister for an answer to the question I posed to him in my statement today when I responded to his announcement. What is he going to do about the situation where the work is halfway done and where the landlord knows there is no compensation for him for completing the work? I have a landlord right now who is saying that he is going to walk away from it. What is he going to do about the buildings where that capital work is half done?

Hon Mr Cooke: The very nature of the moratorium means that there are going to be some difficulties with it. I am not here to tell the member that anybody can bring in a moratorium and simply say that there are not going to be any difficulties, but I am prepared to tell her that under the current legislation 330,000 tenants experienced rent increases that were incredibly difficult to deal with. We have to provide proper protection for tenants.

I am prepared, and it will be seen as we work through the system of consultation -- we said in the statement that it is a maximum of two years -- to go through that process and come up with the long-term proposals as quickly as possible. We will not deviate from the principle that the current rent review system is inadequate and does not provide protection for tenants. The proposal we have before members and the long-term proposal will provide that kind of protection as long as we are here.

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

Mrs Marland: My question is for the minister responsible for disabled persons. Yesterday we heard the horrific stories -- pardon me, not stories -- the horrific facts that are contained in this report dealing with people in residential care who have both physical and mental disabilities. I am personally familiar with these families in my riding, and in fact among my own personal friends. I know on a firsthand basis the agony these families go through when they first have to make the decision that they themselves can no longer care for these people in their own homes.

So then they make the decision that they will entrust that care to people in outside facilities. Now they learn that people in those same facilities are choking to death because they have been fed too quickly, are starving to death because of inadequate nutrition, and in some cases are seriously injured.

Based on what the minister must have read, along with the rest of us -- I give her one example from the Globe and Mail today where a report by two paediatricians states, "Severe malnutrition, dehydration and the failure of staff to recognize symptoms of serious illness contributed to the deaths" of those 15 residents at Brantford -- I ask her on behalf of these families who have their loved ones in these facilities because they cannot even feed themselves and need total human care to survive, which is their own basic right, what can we tell these families who have heard these horrid, chilling facts? What is going to happen to their loved ones?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I am going to excuse myself. I do have a bad cold so my voice might sound a bit garbled.

I want to thank the honourable member for bringing this to our attention because I share those concerns as well. It is one of the reasons why I entered politics and why I wanted to be elected. For far too long there has not been anything done to make sure that people who live in institutions and who need and require that care have advocacy and guardianship.

We mentioned in our throne speech that for the last 15 years there have been reports gathering dust on the shelves which have not been answered and have not been actually addressed. We are going to address that quickly and expediently. I promise the member we will bring that to this House at the very quickest possible moment we can.

Mrs Marland: We pay people in this province to take care of our loved ones in these facilities. That is their job. It is our responsibility that these people are well cared for. I do not think that on top of that we need to start looking for advocates. The people who work there should be advocates for the rights of those people, and the government, no matter who it is, has to start today to make sure that their rights for health protection and safety in those institutions are protected.

I am not interested in an advocacy commission that will issue yet another report 12 months from now which, as the minister has just identified, will gather dust. I am asking her what has happened today that is different from what happened yesterday as a result of this report, and what assurances can these families have who have heard this horror story, these chilling facts? I beg of the minister to tell us what the difference is going to be tomorrow, not 12 months from now.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I do want to reassure the families, and I want to reassure the member and all the other members in this House. We all share the same common concerns and I think all of us have constituents who have people in institutions who are not being adequately cared for.

Obviously, we have just got the report. We will be communicating with the Ministry of Community and Social Services and also the Ministry of Health to make sure that this does not happen again. We will be doing that immediately and we will be doing all the various things that have to be done to make sure that people are adequately cared for in institutions and in private homes as well. So we will be bringing forth all those various aspects.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Huget: My question is for the Minister of Labour. The minister is no doubt aware of the hardships being experienced by injured workers in this province because of excessive delays by the Workers' Compensation Board in processing claims. Many claims go for months before decisions are made and workers who once earned a good income are being forced to turn to welfare to feed their families while they wait on the system.

What steps is the minister taking to speed up the adjudication of workers' compensation claims so that injured workers do not have to suffer further injury or face poverty along with the pain and suffering caused by their workplace injuries?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to thank the member for his question because it is one that I think concerns every member on all sides of this House. All our constituency offices are filled with frustrated WCB claimants who feel real and legitimate complaints about the length of time taken to process their claims.

The excessive delays being experienced now are not the fault of the adjudicators of the board. I want to make that clear, and it is not just my opinion. I have talked to the office of the worker adviser and the office of the employer adviser. The employees of the WCB are doing the best they can under a very high stress situation.

We are telling the WCB that we are not satisfied with the service levels to claimants. In fact, I will be having a meeting with the chairman of the board on this tomorrow morning and I will be asking him to come up with ideas on how service can be improved quickly. There is now a vacancy in the office of the president of the Workers' Compensation Board and we are conducting a public search for a new president. One of the most important criteria we will have in selecting the new top management of the board will be the individual's demonstrated commitment towards better customer service. I agree with my colleague that injured workers need speedier adjustment of their claims in Ontario.

Mr Huget: I thank the minister for his commitment and I hope we will soon start to see some real progress in this area.

May I ask if the minister is aware of the many specific complaints about the difficulty of reaching adjudicators by telephone? Many of my constituents come to me in my offices in frustration after trying to call the board for hours, sometimes days, with no success. When they do get through, they often encounter an answering machine on which they leave a message, and I am told that many of these calls are never returned. Is there something that can be done quickly to relieve this situation so that injured workers and their representatives will be able to at least talk with their adjudicator?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think all of us have heard of the delays and of the phone calls and the promises by an answering machine to call back that just do not come about. This is one of the issues that is on the table for our discussions tomorrow morning with the chairman of the board. This is one of the issues that the new management of the board, the new president when we bring one in for the board, will be asked to look at specifically, and that is the level of customer service at the board. We have had a long period of time when they have been going through policy changes. That will now change.

We are now looking at the adjudication and that will be the emphasis of the management team at the board.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr Offer: My question is to the Minister of Labour. The minister continues to be unclear on his government's proposal to increase the minimum wage. An Agenda for People and the throne speech stated that the minimum wage would be 60% of the average industrial wage. In opposition the member was very clear. He introduced three bills into this House which called for immediate implementation of 65% of the average industrial wage at that time.

The minister is playing with the workers of this province who are expecting this increase and with employers who are facing tough economic times, and as well with potential investors in this province. They deserve answers. Will the minimum wage in 1994 be 60% of the average industrial wage in 1994?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I thought I had answered that twice for the member yesterday. I have said very clearly that the minimum wage will be 60% of the average wage in the province of Ontario, and that is what it will be when we finish with our new plan.

Mr Offer: My question was very specific: Would the minimum wage in this province be 60% of the average industrial wage in 1994? Very clearly, the minister in response omitted the words "average industrial wage in 1994." Now I want to know: Will the minimum wage in this province in 1994 be 60% of the average industrial wage in 1994?

There are people who have to plan. There are workers who are expecting this particular response. There are employers who are facing tough economic times. There are potential investors who are looking to this province who want to know very clearly what the position of this government is and what the minimum wage in this province will be in 1994. A response that just refers to 60% of the average industrial wage is not clear enough. We want to know, will it be the average industrial wage in 1994? The question is posed to the minister specifically; I expect a very specific response.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I do not know how I could get any more specific. It will be 60% of the average wage in the province of Ontario, and obviously it will be 60% of the average wage in Ontario in 1994.

MARKET VALUE REASSESSMENT

Mr Turnbull: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. Could the minister confirm that her government will not authorize the reassessment of over one million residential and business properties in Metropolitan Toronto as planned by the previous Liberal government and will thereby save the taxpayers of this province up to $20 million?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: At this time I cannot make that commitment. I have presently made arrangements to speak with Mayor Eggleton of Toronto and Chairman Tonks and I have also made arrangements to talk with some other members in my own caucus.

Mr Stockwell: How about the Metro chairman?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: There are some Metro people coming to meet with me. I am not able to make that commitment at this time.

Mr Turnbull: In light of the stated policy position of the NDP at the 1984 biannual convention, which states very clearly, "The NDP opposes any further introduction of market value reassessment," and based upon the responses during the recent election from the NDP member for High Park-Swansea, the NDP member for Dovercourt, the NDP member for Riverdale and the NDP member for Don Mills on a questionnaire prepared by the Citizens for Property Tax Reform during the last election, will the minister please confirm her government's position regarding the imposition of market value reassessment in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: At this time I am not prepared to make my government's decision on market value assessment in Toronto. As I have said previously, I am meeting with various people to find out about market value assessment in Toronto, how it is going to affect Toronto and what our position is.

Mr Owens: First, I would like to thank the opposition for being concerned about the warm weather outside and turning the heat up a little bit in here today. My question is for the Minister of Transportation --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The enthusiasm displayed by the members is certainly appreciated. What would be even more appreciated is if the enthusiasm could be tempered with listening.

Mr Scott: Are you kidding? Our model is Peter Kormos. I didn't know anything about opposition until I met Peter Kormos.

The Speaker: And I am sure the member for St George-St David would like to learn about opposition from inside the chamber. Now, if we are all nice and calm and quiet --

Mr Mahoney: Impeach, impeach.

The Speaker: I knew that was coming. I just wondered how long. Since we have now captured everyone's attention, perhaps the member for Scarborough Centre could place his question.

Mr Owens: Mr Speaker, as you are so fond of saying, before I was so rudely interrupted, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation.

In light of the fact that we have just come out of the Year of the Disabled, myself and my constituents in Scarborough Centre are quite concerned that this group was not mentioned in the minister's statement on transportation policies for the future. I am wondering if the minister can explain to myself and my constituents how this policy will impact on the disabled.

Hon Mr Philip: As members of the Toronto Transit Commission are well aware, it was contained in the proposals that were going towards them regarding the improvements in the GO system.

I am committed to the TTC's Choices for the Future report and I have been working with the TTC to make all new stations accessible and to have the retrofitting of selected other stations. We are committed to the easier access program and, as members have seen in the news, I have launched with various transit authorities new initiatives in that field. This year my ministry is spending some $32 million on providing door-to-door access for disabled persons and elderly people.

Mr Owens: I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation again to be more specific about the plans his ministry has to encourage the use of public transportation by the elderly and persons with disabilities.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Mahoney: My question is to the Premier. The Minister of the Environment, after little more than a week in this Legislature, has certainly left her mark. However, in the minds of many citizens and political leaders, at least in Mississauga and I am sure in the rest of Ontario, the mark is indeed a black one.

This four-page fax that I have received from Mayor Hazel McCallion is a resolution passed unanimously by Mississauga council last Monday night. It is only one single indicator of the concern raised by the minister's derailing the processing of site 6B in Brampton.

The mayor and council will be looking for a meeting with the minister within one week from today and, with the Premier's desire to consult, I am sure that meeting will take place.

My question is: Does the Premier accept the minister's dismissal of efforts to find an interim site such as 6B, thereby allowing expansion of the Britannia sanitary landfill site by way of her emergency powers, a situation that means no public consultation and little, if any, accountability?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say first of all that I am sure the Minister of the Environment looks forward to a meeting with Mayor McCallion --

Mr Mahoney: I doubt that.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I am sure she does. Certainly, I have enjoyed all my encounters with the mayor and I am sure the minister will as well, in terms of a good session, a good discussion. It will be a good, frank exchange.

The member said something about no accountability. I cannot imagine a more accountable process than the one we are undergoing now, that we will be undergoing as a government over the next few years and in which the issue of waste reduction and getting at the garbage problem is going to be a priority for all of us. When the member says that this somehow is an unaccountable process, I can only say to him that I am accountable to him and to all the members of the House every day in question period. I am accountable to the people of the province, as he is, at election time. We are going to be as accountable as anything over the next while.

The member asked me if I agree with the announcement that was made by the Minister of the Environment. Obviously I agree with the announcement of the Minister of the Environment, because it focuses attention in a way that I think needed to be done on the urgency of the situation and of the need for us, after such a long time, to get on with the business of reducing the amount of garbage that goes into the waste stream. That is the objective and purpose of the minister's announcement, and that is the reason it has been done.

Mr Mahoney: I guess I got the answer that he agrees, but I also am interested in the fact that it is becoming very clear to the mayor and council in my city, Mississauga, and to myself and other concerned citizens that the minister's conserver action plan is at best in the conceptual stages. The minister was asked yesterday and was not forthcoming with an answer, but perhaps the Premier can tell this House: What are the time lines, what are the costs, what are the targets for waste reduction, what percentage of waste will be diverted in the first year of the program and when will the first year of the program start?

The people want answers about this announcement, and they are not getting any from the minister. Will the Premier give them?

Hon Mr Rae: To the member, in as non-partisan a way as I can, when we took office on 1 October we found that the Liberal government had made an announcement with respect to a 25% objective on the reduction of waste by 1992. The statement was made by the previous Minister of the Environment and by the Premier at that time that any municipality that did not reach the 25% level would not be able to join in on the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee program and take advantage of the other "plans" of the Liberal government at that time.

What we found was that, generally speaking, most municipalities were nowhere near the 25% mark. Some were closer than others, but there was no sense of direction, of central leadership, coming from the Minister of the Environment to reach that target. That is why we have said we have to not only reach but exceed that target. That is the objective of our government. I can only say to the member that those announcements will be made shortly and soon. They will be decisive and clear and they will, we hope, lead the province and lead the way in terms of reducing the amount of garbage that goes into the stream.

That is the objective; that is what we are trying to do.

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

Mr Carr: My question is for the Solicitor General. As the minister is well aware, yesterday the Provincial Auditor delivered his final accounting of the activities of the previous government. In his report I was very disturbed to notice that there is a severe inadequacy in the Ontario Provincial Police staffing levels. This is having a direct effect on the efforts to reduce crime in the province, as demonstrated by the fact that the number of crimes solved during the summer months is lower than during the rest of the year.

What plans do the Solicitor General and his government have in place to ensure that there is an adequate number of OPP officers on duty to prevent and solve crimes in our communities?

Hon Mr Farnan: The member will note that the auditor in many respects congratulated the OPP in many areas on the fine work it is doing, as are police personnel across this province. The member is drawing his question from the document that was produced yesterday. If the member had gone two pages farther he would have found the answer on page 178. Basically, it is a problem, but a problem, I might add, that has been addressed and is being addressed.

We have a memorandum of understanding and there is a collective bargaining process. Police officers, like other persons in society, are entitled to vacations. It is not an unreasonable expectation for police personnel to have some of that vacation time during the summer when their families are at home. There is a policy in place where only one member in six will take leave at that particular time. We are trying to encourage that, where possible, there will be policing at all times to the greatest effect, whether it is on the weekend or during the summer period.

The OPP officers and the police across this province provide effective services throughout the year, 12 months of the year, winter and summer.

The Speaker: Although time has expired for question period, due to the lengthy response by the Solicitor General, if the member for Oakville South has a supplementary, I will allow him to place it.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

The Provincial Auditor gave the government the solution to the problem in his report. Mr Archer determined that 33% of the officers' available hours were spent on administration. This is not acceptable. Mr Archer also determined that on average only 15% of the officers' time was actually spent on patrol; this is not acceptable. The auditor pointed out that each 1% reduction in the administration work rate would save 75,000 hours a year that the OPP could use in other areas. Yet the OPP pointed out that funds required for one method of reducing administration hours are "currently not available."

Over the past five years, the number of violent crimes in this province has increased by 37%, yet police are spending more and more of their time filling out paper. What is the Solicitor General going to do to ensure that the fine police officers in this province do not have to waste their time on paperwork when they should be out on the streets? I say to the Solicitor General, let's get the police back on the streets where they are needed.

Hon Mr Farnan: I point out to the member that in fact there is something of a contradiction in the auditor's report. On the one hand, the auditor is saying, for example, that there must be more enforcement in terms of speeding. Of course, the members will realize that this causes more paperwork, more court time, etc. On the other hand, they are saying we should reduce this amount of time for administration, and I am sure the OPP is taking every effort to reduce paper time.

In fact, I would suggest to the House that the initiative taken in terms of Ontario municipal and provincial police automation co-operative, the computer system we are putting in, is a direct effort to reduce administration time and to increase the enforcement component.

Let me also say that in an ideal world our police services could provide all the services, but in reality, our police services at all times must make choices between different areas in which they must work. I believe they do this extremely well, sensitive to the needs of the community, in touch with the community and implementing and enforcing the law as the community requires.

PETITIONS

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mrs Sullivan: I have three petitions from 135 people, residents of Halton Centre, relating to a request for capital funding for the construction of an elementary school in the Iroquois Ridge in Oakville. I concur with the view of these people that a school is needed in that area and I am pleased to affix my signature to the petition.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Wood: I have two petitions on gas pricing in northern Ontario. One of them is concerned with the prices since the Gulf crisis; the other one is concerned with the price of gas over the last 15 to 20 years being different in northern Ontario from southern Ontario. I affixed my name to the petitions. There are some 650 names on the petitions.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon Mr Cooke moved first reading of Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

INTERLOCK PEOPLE LTD ACT, 1990

Mrs Cunningham, on behalf of Mr Cousens, moved first reading of Bill Prl7,

An Act to revive The Interlock People Ltd.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMITTEE SIZE

Miss Martel moved resolution 2:

That, notwithstanding standing order 108(

a) and for the duration of the 35th Parliament, no standing or select committee shall consist of more than 12 members.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Miss Martel moved resolution 3:

That the membership of the standing committees for this session be as follows:

Standing committee on administration of justice: Messrs Carr, Chiarelli, Fletcher, Harnick, Mrs Mathyssen, Messrs Mills, Morrow, Poirier, Sorbara, White, F. Wilson and Winninger.

Standing committee on estimates: Messrs Carr, Daigeler, Hansen, Mrs Haslam, Messrs Jackson, Lessard, Mrs Marland, Mr McGuinty, Mrs McLeod, Mr Perruzza, Ms Ward and Mr G. Wilson.

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs: Messrs Christopherson, Hansen, Jamison, Kwinter, G. Phillips, Sterling, Stockwell, Mrs Sullivan, Messrs Sutherland, B. Ward, Ms M. Ward and Mr Wiseman.

Standing committee on general government: Messrs Abel, Bisson, Brown, Drainville, Duignan, Ms Harrington, Messrs Mammoliti, Mancini, B. Murdoch, Mrs Y. O'Neill, Messrs Scott and Turnbull.

Standing committee on government agencies: Messrs Bradley, Frankford, Grandmaître, Mrs Haslam, Messrs Hayes, McGuinty, McLean, Runciman, Silipo, Stockwell, Waters and Wiseman.

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Messrs Cooper, Duignan, Frankford, Mrs MacKinnon, Mrs Marland, Mrs Mathyssen, Messrs McClelland, Morin, Ms S. Murdock, Messrs H. O'Neil, Owens and Villeneuve.

Standing committee on the Ombudsman: Messrs Curling, Duignan, Mrs Fawcett, Messrs Henderson, Huget, Mrs Mathyssen, Messrs Mammoliti, Morrow, B. Murdoch, Wessenger, White and Mrs Witmer.

Standing committee on public accounts: Messrs Bradley, Callahan, Charlton, Conway, Cooper, Cousens, Hayes, Johnson, Mrs MacKinnon, Mr O'Connor, Ms Poole and Mr Tilson.

Standing committee on regulations and private bills: Messrs Abel, Ferguson, Fletcher, Johnson, Jordan, Mrs MacKinnon, Messrs Miclash, O'Connor, Ruprecht, Sola, Sutherland and J. Wilson.

Standing committee on resources development: Messrs Arnott, Charlton, Ms Churley, Messrs Cleary, Dadamo, Huget, Jordan, Klopp, Offer, Ramsay, Waters and Wood.

Standing committee on social development: Mr Beer, Mrs Caplan, Mr Cordiano, Ms Haeck, Messrs Hope, Malkowski, Martin, Mrs McLeod, Messrs Owens, Silipo, J. Wilson and Mrs Witmer.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

Miss Martel moved resolution 4:

That the following

schedule for committee meetings be established for this session:

The standing committee on administration of justice may meet on Monday and Tuesday afternoons following routine proceedings; the standing committee on estimates may meet on Tuesday afternoons and Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings; the standing committee on finance and economic affairs may meet on Thursday mornings and Thursday afternoons following routine proceedings; the standing committee on general government may meet on Thursday mornings and Thursday afternoons following routine proceedings; the standing committee on government agencies may meet on Wednesday mornings; the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly may meet on Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings; the standing committee on the Ombudsman may meet on Wednesday mornings; the standing committee on public accounts may meet on Thursday mornings; the standing committee on regulations and private bills may meet on Wednesday mornings; the standing committee on resources development may meet on Monday and Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings, and the standing committee on social development may meet on Monday and Tuesday afternoons following routine proceedings; and that no standing or select committee may meet except in accordance with this

schedule or as ordered by the House.

Motion agreed to.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE / DÉBAT SUR LE DISCOURS DU TRÔNE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mrs Marland: The throne speech of the New Democratic government has great significance to the people of Ontario since it sets out the first believable agenda of Ontario's first socialist government. I say the first believable agenda because the government is already breaking promises contained in An Agenda for People, which the NDP developed for the election campaign.

However, if we think of the throne speech as being our map to NDP policy, this map would certainly cause us to lose our way. I assume that the vague philosophies and objectives set out in the speech will be translated into concrete action in the near future. In the meantime, though, there are many parts of the throne speech which worry me.

First, as the Progressive Conservative spokesperson for the greater Toronto area and the MPP for a riding in the GTA, I am worried that the GTA now means "geographic territory absent" from the throne speech. The four million people who live in the GTA had hoped that the appointment of a minister responsible for the greater Toronto area signalled an understanding by the NDP government that a new approach was needed to managing the growth of the greater Toronto area. Yet the words "greater Toronto area" never appear in this throne speech.

In fact, a backgrounder provided by the GTA minister estimates that the greater Toronto area's population will increase by approximately 50% over the next 35 years. Yet even today the GTA is splitting at the seams. Our highways and public transit systems are clogged beyond capacity. We have an affordable housing crisis of epidemic proportions. New development is consuming prime agricultural land while older, more central areas decay. There is no co-ordinated plan for waterfront development and our growth is not environmentally sustainable. Surely the special and serious problems facing the GTA deserve more than a no-mention.

So far, the post-throne-speech announcements regarding the GTA have been no more reassuring than the speech itself. Consider waste management. The Minister of the Environment, who has responsibility for the GTA, has proposed a cure that may be worse than the ailment. Granted, the minister's objectives of greater reduction, reuse and recycling in order to divert materials from landfill sites, combined with a more appropriate environmental assessment process, are shared by us all, but I would like to tell her that some of those things are already being done in the landfill site that serves my riding -- namely, Britannia -- where they have not accepted cardboard and wood for some time.

The minister is not being realistic. She has not released any details regarding a 3Rs program and she has decided to continue the previous government's policy of more discussion on how to change the environmental assessment process, despite recommendations received four years ago from the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy.

Without action on the 3Rs and the EA process, we will not have a new landfill site ready in 1993 when all the current GTA sites will be full. Three GTA sites -- Keele Valley in Vaughan, Brock West in Pickering and Britannia in Mississauga -- will be asked to take more garbage than they were designed to hold. That is an environmental risk as well as being grossly unfair to those communities. In the event of an emergency, two proposed sites in Brampton and Pickering may even be opened to take garbage without an environmental assessment whatsoever.

This is not waste management for the GTA; it is waste mismanagement. Frankly, we expected far more from this new minister.

Another concern about the new GTA waste management plan is who will pay for the bill for hauling garbage from the five regional municipalities to one long-term site. Frank Bean, chairman of the region of Peel, estimates that the current annual bill of $30 million to dump garbage at Peel's Britannia site in Mississauga could escalate to $130 million per year to haul garbage outside of Peel.

The previous Liberal government financed many of its new programs by offloading the costs on to the municipalities and their property taxpayers. I certainly hope the GTA's waste management announcement does not signal that the NDP government will continue the Liberal tradition.

This year, taxpayers in my riding of Mississauga South faced increases of 9.4% for the regional portion of their tax bill, 7.7% for the municipal portion and staggering increases of 17.2% for the Peel Board of Education taxes and 16.5% for the separate board taxes. The property taxpayers cannot afford to pay such increases year after year. They cannot afford to pay the extra costs of hauling garbage outside the region of Peel.

During the election campaign, the NDP promised a new provincial-municipal partnership. But how can we believe this promise when there is no mention of it in the throne speech and one of the government's first major announcements leaves us wondering whether another expensive provincial initiative will be financed on the backs of the property taxpayers?

Another crucial greater Toronto area issue is the need to repair and replace aging infrastructure. The throne speech promises that $700 million will be spent on repairing and maintaining public sector facilities, yet according to the figures released by the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, over the next 35 years the GTA infrastructure will require spending of from $74 billion to $79 billion in 1990 dollars. That amounts to more than $2 billion per year for just the GTA infrastructure, so how is only $700 million going to do the job? And is that $700 million going to be spent in the GTA?

As I said before, the words "greater Toronto area" are never mentioned in this throne speech.

The GTA is not my only worry. As the Progressive Conservative spokesperson for disabled persons, I am concerned about two issues of concern to disabled persons: employment equity and advocacy. These were not addressed in the throne speech. I trust that the government will also give its immediate attention to issues beyond advocacy and employment equity. Certainly we had some very horrific examples in the last two days of why there is such an urgent need to those issues pertaining to people with disabilities.

I am pleased that the government has promised action on the advocacy report that has "been gathering dust for far too long." However, on behalf of disabled persons across this province, I hope the action comes sooner rather than later.

May I take this opportunity to remind the new government that last November the minister responsible for disabled persons tabled the annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council for Disabled Persons. In that annual report, the phrases "waiting," "under review" and "currently reviewing" describe the status of reports such as Independent Living: The Time is Now, about attendant care, and The Freedom to Move is Life Itself, about transportation. More than a year later, we still have made little progress on the recommendations of these very valuable, very comprehensive reports.

In addition, we discovered last spring that the previous Liberal government actually cancelled -- and I emphasize this because we could not believe it -- its supportive community living program and the Ontario home renewal program for disabled persons. It is pretty hard to believe, but it is not hard to understand why that government is no longer in office.

I have received calls both from constituents and from residents of Metropolitan Toronto concerning problems with booking rides on the Transhelp and the Wheel-Trans services for persons with disabilities. These services are unable to meet the demand for transportation, to the point where some clients have missed important doctors' appointments when their rides have fallen through at the last minute. As these services rely upon subsidies from the provincial government, this is a matter the new government must address.

Of course, we are not only talking about appointments with physicians, hospitals and physiotherapy; we are talking about the basic need for people with disabilities to commute to their places of employment.

Having covered some of the key issues regarding disabled persons, I will turn to my concerns as the Progressive Conservative spokesperson for Culture and Communications. The throne speech says: "We recognize the importance of the arts to the economy and to the quality of our lives. We will augment our support of artists and arts organizations through the Ontario Arts Council."

Again, the NDP government is short on details. Again, we must wait and see.

The new government knows that, given its recent decision to reverse the previous Liberal government's funding commitment to the ballet opera house, there are serious concerns in the cultural community for the future of arts funding in Ontario. We all know, however, that difficult decisions must be made in recessionary times, when it is crucial to set priorities based on human need. However, I hope the new government will not catch the Liberal government's habit of introducing legislation like Bill 114 and Bill 119, which weakened the dedication of lottery profits to the arts, culture, recreation and sports.

Returning to the concerns of my riding of Mississauga South, one of my biggest worries is the state of our education system. Earlier, I spoke of the need for more capital spending to repair and maintain infrastructure in the GTA.

In Mississauga, the capital spending needs of our schools are particularly acute. One of the worst situations in my riding is at St James elementary school. Last April I presented petitions from the students, their parents and the staff of St James school regarding the school's desperate need for capital funding. I would like to read one letter in this House from only one of these students. This letter has a little drawing on it done by that student. The letter says:

"Dear Sir or Madam:

"I am writing you this letter because we need a gym because we don't have a gym." "Don't" is spelled d-o-t. "I don't think it is not fair, because if we had a gym, then I could skip." "Could" is spelled c-o-d.

This letter is obviously written -- in fact, it is -- by a grade 1 student, Anna, and this grade 1 student is saying to this new government, "It isn't fair that I attend a school whose basic standards of facility are way below anything we would expect in any school in this province in 1990."

The St James students, like many students in both Peel school boards, stand a good chance of going through the elementary years with all of their classes in portables. What is different at St James is that this school does not even have a gymnasium. As we enter the winter months that make physical education next to impossible -- not to mention that the school has no place to hold its public events, school concerts, Christmas celebrations -- how we can anticipate what that means for yet another year to these students is very real.

As I have said, many of the letters from the children at St James that were sent to me were also sent to the former Premier and the former Minister of Education. It is hard to make these children understand why, after all their letters, they are spending yet another school year without a gymnasium or proper accommodation.

During the election campaign the New Democratic candidates promised to raise the provincial share of education costs to 60% funding for elementary and secondary schools over the next five years. Yet the throne speech, which we are responding to today -- and this, I find, is the biggest irony of all -- made no mention of education funding.

Again, what are we to believe? What do I tell the children at St James school or the parents of children in other schools who are existing in substandard accommodation?

Granted, this government faces the difficult task of repairing the damage done by the previous Liberal administration. It is a considerable handicap to discover a $2.5-billion deficit, when it was estimated by the previous government that there would be a $30-million surplus in the provincial budget. But as the speech from the throne says, "Ontario's realities -- the environment, the economy, our social services, and the challenges facing Canada itself -- require leadership."

So far, I am not confident that the New Democratic Party is able to provide that leadership which this province so desperately needs.

Mr Henderson: It is indeed always a pleasure to hear the erudite words of the member for Mississauga South, speaking in her eloquent way of the Tory platform, such as it may be.

I have a question, however. In her reference to the ballet opera house, the member managed to talk about that without telling us where she stands and what her view is. May I, therefore, ask the member for Mississauga South: Do she and her party, or do they not, support the building of the ballet opera house, and do they or do they not support the awarding of government funds in the order of $55 million or so to make it possible? Do they support that or do they not?

Mrs Marland: Had the member for Etobicoke-Humber listened very carefully to my words, my words were chosen very carefully and were written very precisely because the question, the very question he is asking me today, is purely academic. What we are saying in our caucus and what I am saying in my response to the throne speech is that difficult funding decisions have to be made in recessionary times and it is crucial to set priorities based on human need.

I would respectfully suggest that the member for Etobicoke-Humber knows full well he is a member of a government that was totally incapable of setting priorities in terms of human needs. This member was a member of a government which thought it was all right to send cancer patients to Nova Scotia and Thunder Bay and elsewhere, patients who travelled outside of this province at a very traumatic time in their lives.

Also, obviously he was a member of a government that did not know what was going on or even understand what was happening with a major investment on behalf of the taxpayers of this province through the domed stadium corporation for change in design and so forth.

So I, in turn, would say to the member of Etobicoke-Humber, if he is so good at asking the questions now, where was he in giving the answers when his party was the government?

Hon Mrs Carter: I am proud to address this House as the member for Peterborough riding, and I am proud to be the minister responsible for the energy policy of Ontario's first NDP government. Before I discuss energy policy, I want to make some personal comments and some remarks about my riding.

I was a teenager in 1945 when the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. I was shocked that one nation could inflict such devastation on another and concerned about the long-term effects, both on the Japanese and on us all.

My children were all born in Berkshire, England, because Berkshire is the home of the atomic energy research establishment in Britain. I had encouraged my husband to work on nuclear energy research, which we thought at that time might help atone for the horror of the bomb.

Most of our neighbours and friends during those years, 1956 to 1962, were young nuclear researchers. We lived in the world of nuclear energy. I visited the reactors and met some of the leading scientists. At the same time, atomic bomb tests were proceeding and the politicians in power seemed to have no concept of what this might mean for human health.

As a mother of young children, I campaigned vigorously to end the tests. In 1963, the partial nuclear test ban removed one threat to the environment. An accident at the reactor at Sellafield in northwest England led me to realize that nuclear power was less benign than I had hoped. There was a close connection between weapons and power, and power reactors were being used to make plutonium for weapons.

This started me thinking very seriously about broader energy issues. I decided to learn more about non-nuclear methods of generating electricity. I found that the approved method of dealing with sulphur dioxide emissions from coal plants was to build taller chimney stacks to disperse them over a wider area. This is now known to be a main cause of acid rain.

I learned that large-scale electricity generation creates large-scale problems. I was gradually greened and became a proponent of energy efficiency and renewable energy. My home has had a solar water heater for years and my family has cut our personal energy use dramatically through conservation measures.

When we decided to come to Ontario, we were influenced by the fact that a large proportion of Ontario's energy was at that time generated by water power. That, of course, is why it is called hydro. We moved to Peterborough, the home of the large Canadian General Electric factory which has played such a large

part in making power production equipment for Canada. In the 1950s, CGE was the magnet which drew thousands of people to Peterborough and it was long recognized as the city's main employer.

However, times have changed and Peterborough has been hit badly by the decline in industrial jobs which the federal government has accelerated with its free trade deal. Education, health and other services provide an employment base, but as in many other places, Peterborough's manufacturing base has been eroded.

My constituents are worried about jobs and taxes, about affordable housing, about health services and child care and about the environment. Last summer, beaches were closed more often than they were open. Our urban forest of maple trees is dying. The health and safety of workers is not as well protected as it should be. Waste disposal problems are acute, particularly in the townships. Environmental problems are no abstraction to my constituents. They lower our quality of life and discourage tourists.

Farmers in my riding, as elsewhere, find it hard to make a living and are forced to raise money through lot severances, a process which threatens to undermine the integrity of farming areas and reduce our ability to produce food.

As Minister of Energy, I see energy very much as an environmental issue. The nuclear moratorium is an important part of our policy, but the key component is an unprecedented program to promote energy efficiency. We are committed to maintaining energy supplies, but we cannot do this by accepting projections of future demand as given and then scrambling to meet them. That is a road to financial and environmental disaster.

We are not asking people to suffer. We are asking them to realize that a kilowatt saved is a kilowatt earned. It costs less and it does not pollute. The technology of doing more with less energywise is moving ahead rapidly and opens up wonderful possibilities. Efficient end use of energy can reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants and save money at the same time. It is also an important economic tool, giving Ontario great competitiveness in the global market.

The nuclear moratorium and the government's new energy directions are real steps towards a society based on sustainable development. The $240 million that Ontario Hydro intended to spend for development of new nuclear plants will now be spent on conservation. The engineers and technical personnel involved will be reassigned. Ontario Hydro's agreement with AECL will be renegotiated so that there will be no specific financial support for new nuclear development.

I am asking Ontario Hydro to increase and accelerate its efforts in demand management, energy conservation and parallel generation. Ontario Hydro will also give priority to the early environmental assessment of hydroelectric projects at new and existing sites and of transmission facilities to bring electricity from Manitoba.

We will ensure that northern and native communities are consulted and that they benefit from Hydro's ongoing activities and any proposed developments which receive environmental approval. Projects with minimal impacts can be undertaken first. The Adam Beck facilities at Niagara Falls will be rebuilt. If more power is needed quickly, natural gas combustion turbine units can be brought into use.

By reducing demand for power, the recession has given us breathing space in which to make conservation work. The Environmental Assessment Board hearings on Hydro's plan will continue in order to allow public input and to assess environmental and financial costs of all major future supply and demand.

I am happy to say that Ontario Hydro's chairman, Bob Franklin, has responded very positively to our request that Ontario Hydro more actively pursue demand management, conservation, parallel generation and the encouragement of customers to use fuels other than electricity where this is appropriate. Hydro's light replacement program has already saved 53 megawatts of electricity, enough to run a small town.

Members may be interested to hear some quotations from Mr Franklin's recent speeches. This is what he said:

"Baths and bungalows should be heated by natural gas wherever possible. Electricity is too valuable and too costly to heat dishwater. We can live just as well as we do now using less electricity if we use it more wisely. If a builder installs 15 kilowatts of electric heat in a house in Ontario, Hydro has to spend over $50,000 to build the capacity to keep that house warm. This is not a cheap heating system."

This is Bob Franklin talking:

"Energy conservation is also a way to create jobs. Much of the effort to increase energy efficiency is labour-intensive. Conservation happens close to the point of consumption. It tends to be widely dispersed. The economic activity is not concentrated in one area."

In fact, improving energy efficiency will have widespread benefits for Ontario's economy. A Swedish study shows that a doubling of electricity end use efficiency can simultaneously displace the nuclear half of present supply, support a 54% larger gross national product, cut carbon dioxide emission by a third and reduce electricity costs by $1 billion a year.

Compared with conventional low-energy studies, an efficiency scenario uses many times less energy, costs much less, stretches oil and gas supplies for centuries, dispenses with reliance on either the Middle East or the atom and by 2030 attains an atmospheric carbon dioxide level barely above today's. In short, it is much cheaper and cleaner today to save fuel than to burn it to get the same job done.

Because Canada has been using energy extravagantly, there are rich gains to be made through efficiency. Reduced costs will improve the export position of our industries. New manufacturers of energy-efficient appliances and equipment will provide jobs in Ontario and further help our exports to compete.

My ministry will take a leadership role in energy efficiency. Our current range of programs for business consumers and industry will be expanded. Regulations are being issued under the Energy Efficiency Act to ensure that appliances in the stores are energy-efficient. More innovative programs to replace existing appliances are being studied by my parliamentary assistant. We are working closely with other ministries, such as Housing, Transportation, Government Services, Environment and Industry, Trade and Technology, to make sure that all have energy efficiency as part of their mandate.

These new energy directions are designed to reduce the environmental impact and enhance efficiency of use of all fuels in all sectors, not just electricity. The announcement by my colleague the Minister of Transportation earlier this week serves as an example of the breadth of the government's commitment to enhance efficiency of energy use and reduction in associated environmental emissions.

The $5-billion commitment to efficient transit systems, subways, light rail transit, busways and ride sharing will result in enormous savings in gasoline use, much lower emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide, reductions in global warming, in ozone, in the gases that are threatening the health of our people, including our children, and the health of our planet. For example, a ministry study shows that subways consume less than 2% of the energy used by an automobile on a passenger-kilometre basis. Real savings from real commitments.

I want to emphasize that we have three major reasons for our energy policies. One is environmental: reduced fuel use is the best answer to the problems of global warming and of acid rain. One is social: not only will there be more jobs, but they will be healthy jobs, permanent jobs and jobs that will be generated evenly over the province where people live. The third is financial: we cannot afford to keep building power stations at $25 billion each.

Hydro rates are rising faster than inflation. Ontario Hydro's massive long-term debt, now about $26 billion, with annual interest rates exceeding $3 billion, has been incurred mostly to pay for its current nuclear program. The increases of close to 9% for each of the next three years are directly related to the completion of the Darlington station. Future nuclear power programs are already effectively dead in Germany, the United States and other countries. Mrs Thatcher could not privatize nuclear power because the banks would not carry the risk of decommissioning or nuclear waste disposal.

The British energy minister reported that nuclear cost estimates by the industry bore no relationship to actual costs.

Ontario's Candu reactors are different from those elsewhere, but their initial high performance has been falling off. In 1983, seven of the eight reactors at Pickering A and Bruce A were in the world top 10 for lifetime performance. Following pressure tube failures in 1983 and 1986, the older reactors are being retubed and their lifetime performance has dropped.

Ontario now has four of its newer reactors, at Pickering B and Bruce B, in the top 10, but currently as many as five of the older reactors are not working. That is why the government, as part of our commitment to maintaining the reliability of our electricity system, has directed Ontario Hydro to invest in measures that will improve the operating efficiency and safety of existing reactors.

In closing, I want to stress again that demand reduction through the efficient end use of energy is the main new energy direction for Ontario. The thousands of families all across Ontario who flock to buy new compact fluorescent lightbulbs are the wave of the future. The overall effect of millions of people making such changes will not only save energy and protect the environment but will help to contain energy costs.

The answer to Ontario's future energy needs is not building more nuclear plants but making a strong effort to promote efficiency, parallel generation and the development of renewable energy alternatives. Other governments have talked about changing energy directions. This government will do it.

Mr Conway: I would like to make a brief comment. We have just heard a stunning speech from the Minister of Energy, one that I shall certainly review very carefully over the next 12 hours, and I am sure my colleagues and other members in the House will want to take this up at question time tomorrow.

It is, as far as I can judge, a speech at some very considerable variance with what the leader of the government has indicated. It is a stunning comment about job losses to be anticipated in my constituency. By my reckoning, the Minister of Energy has just told hundreds of people in my constituency that they will be out of work before the spring. I am sure that in Niagara Falls and in Cambridge and in Bruce and in Elliot Lake, thousands more will be very interested in reading carefully what the honourable lady from Peterborough has just announced.

I want to go on the record as expressing grave concern about her comments. As far as I can judge -- believe you me, I will be reading this speech the moment the blues are available -- I detect a very considerable difference between what the minister is saying this afternoon and what the Premier has said, both in the House and outside. If I were to be sitting on that Environmental Assessment Board, to which panel will be referred many of the central questions in the new government's energy policy, I cannot imagine and I do not know how I could accept the invitation in light of the minister's just completed remarks, which seem to make very clear what government policy will be.

Again, I think I heard the honourable lady say some things at fundamental variance with what the Premier has said, both in the House and outside. I repeat that as the winter of 1990-91 stares before us with rising unemployment, the honourable lady's speech is a clear signal to hundreds of people whom I represent that they will be out of work, if she has her way, within weeks, if not sooner.

Mr Elston: I likewise am quite concerned by the release of government policy today during a reply to the throne speech, which I find a very novel way to announce a whole series of layoffs for the province of Ontario. This type of speech made at this time is designed to avoid the spotlight of the press. Since the members of the press have left to fill their deadlines for the stories that must be put in the papers for tomorrow, they have missed this very important announcement.

Here, at a time when this province is suffering from layoffs and loss of jobs at a rate that we have not seen in the most recent of times, this minister chose this time to announce another series of major layoffs in this province, throwing the economies of places like Bruce county into a tailspin.

For a number of people, just prior to Christmas, at a time when things are difficult enough, this will be seen to be a very serious blemish on the economy of that great part of this province. I express very severe reservations about what she has said and, like my colleague the member for Renfrew North, I will spend a great deal of time analysing exactly what she said, because it comes just a mere two days after my friend the member for Hamilton Mountain visited the people of Bruce county to say: "Don't worry. The NDP are a bunch of nice guys and we're saving you all from the world. We will protect you. We will build you up."

It tells me that the minister does not know what her parliamentary assistant is saying, that she does not know what the Premier is saying, that none of those people are together on this issue. She has chosen at a most inopportune time to announce a series of major layoffs in the county of Bruce and other areas around the province. I cannot believe she has done this without consulting the unions at the stations in Bruce. I cannot believe she would allow this to occur at a time when the Canadian Auto Workers are busy trying to recruit for union members at the Bruce plant.

Mr Scott: The honourable member who spoke so eloquently today will want to remember what happens to members of the NDP who speak out of line on energy matters. But leaving that aside for one moment. can I simply say that I believe her comments are sincerely held, but she has to understand that she represents the government of Ontario when she makes those statements. What she has told us today is what she would conclude if she were sitting on the Environmental Assessment Board.

She has answered the questions that the government has put to the Environmental Assessment Board and told the board what the reaction of the government will be to its recommendations. In those circumstances there are, it seems to me, two practical alternatives: either the Environmental Assessment Board hearing the matter should be disbanded or the minister should resign.

Mrs Sullivan: I too am pleased to respond to the member's comments. I am also extremely concerned that in her remarks as a private member making her initial statement to the House on the throne speech, she has spoken as a minister. In fact, in her remarks she has usurped the authority of the Environmental Assessment Board, which is reviewing the demand-supply plan that Ontario Hydro has put together.

In her remarks the minister indicated that she does not believe Ontario can afford to build plants. I say we cannot afford not to have adequate electricity supplies for our businesses, for our industries, for our institutions, for our commercial operations and indeed for our residents who live in all of our communities.

The plan that has been put forward by Ontario Hydro for review at the Environmental Assessment Board is a balanced plan with various scenarios, including significant amounts of conservation. We have also seen in the past from the previous government substantial, innovative approaches in relation to energy efficiency, including a new Energy Efficiency Act for appliances and energy audits that are assisting businesses and industries and commercial operations to come to terms with reducing their dependence on energy.

Since the minister has been leaping into other areas, I wonder if she is interested in leaping into those areas further. By example, will she insist on a changed approach to buyback rates? Will she extend and insist on extending environmental assessments to the private power projects she envisages? Will she insist that the Little Jackfish environmental assessment application, which is before the minister for review and has been there for two years, come forward?

Hon Mrs Carter: I am quite surprised by the intensity of this response to my speech, because in fact it is totally congruent with the throne speech. There is nothing whatever different there. There will be no loss of jobs. We are not phasing out the existing nuclear power stations. We are completing Darlington. Existing jobs are involved with the existing power stations, and Bob Franklin has said that the small number of people within Ontario Hydro who are working on the projected new power stations will be reassigned. In other words, there is no job loss.

On the other hand, the policies we are pursuing will, as I stated in my speech, create jobs. They will create far more jobs per dollar of expenditure than is the case with nu