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

May 10, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ASSISTANCE TO THIRD WORLD

MARLAND YOUTH COUNCIL

NATIONAL BALLET OF CANADA

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS ENFORCEMENT

ADOPTION

BREAST-FEEDING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

HIGHWAY ACCIDENT

POLICE WEEK

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

HEALTH SERVICES

LABOUR RELATIONS

INMATE SECURITY

RECREATIONAL LICENCES

POLICE SERVICES

GASOLINE HANDLING

CLEANUP OF INDUSTRIAL SITE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

BUNGEE JUMPING

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

FUEL CONSERVATION TAX

HOUSE SITTINGS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GAMBLING

DRIVERS' LICENCES

GAMBLING

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

GAMBLING

MOTORCYCLES

GAMBLING

LA VIOLENCE

BICYCLING SAFETY

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

GAMBLING

TAXICABS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

SISTERS OF CHARITY AT OTTAWA ACT, 1993

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

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ASSISTANCE TO THIRD WORLD

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I hope members will share my view that sound projects of Third World technical, fiscal and medical assistance are not only acts of altruism. Of course, if they are well conceived and do not attempt to force First World attitudes and lifestyle preferences on Third World peoples, they benefit the receiving country directly.

But it is also true that by contributing to fiscal soundness and a better standard of life for all the peoples of the world we build healthier and safer international communities and a more vibrant world economy. That, of course, benefits Canadians as well, as present and future trading partners of Third World developing nations. Our generosity therefore serves a selfish purpose as well.

I'm rising, therefore, to thank several Canadian companies for their generous donations to Third World assistance and to applaud their generosity and foresight. The organizations concerned are Apotex Pharmaceuticals, Canadian Medicine Aid Programme, Genpharm Ltd, Ingram and Bell Inc, Novopharm Ltd, Pharmascience Inc, Speedy Optical Ltd and Taro Pharmaceuticals. Two other companies wished to remain anonymous.

To these Canadian companies for their humanitarian service and outstanding generosity, our sincere appreciation.

MARLAND YOUTH COUNCIL

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Today I rise in the House to welcome the members of the Marland Youth Council to Queen's Park.

The Marland Youth Council was formed in November 1992. This non-partisan council is comprised of student representatives from all seven high schools in my riding of Mississauga South. These students have an excellent understanding of the legislative process and are well informed about current issues. The council meets once a month to discuss provincial legislation or policy changes, and council members take time between meetings to discuss these issues with their school peers. Consequently, the Marland Youth Council has been of great assistance to me in representing the concerns and interests of young people in my community.

I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to all the members of the council, who have been so forthright in their discussions with me. Their insightful comments and advice on a variety of topics, including graduated licensing, destreaming and standardized testing, have been very helpful and thought-provoking.

I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in welcoming the following members of the Marland Youth Council who are here today: Kelly DeLuca, Tom Grzesiak, John Lam, Chris Leikermoser, Tania D'Avanzo, Rima Ramchandani, Matt Lenner, Lisa Smylie, Mellissa Taddeo, Jarrod Overy, Shannon Pountney and Matthias Kredler.

NATIONAL BALLET OF CANADA

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I am pleased to stand today to extend a special welcome to the National Ballet of Canada's concert group for its upcoming performance in my riding of Oxford.

As we know, the National Ballet of Canada has contributed greatly to our national culture. It has strengthened and promoted the development of Canadian culture through performances in various parts of the country and encouraged the growth of Ontario's cultural industries.

This performance also illustrates a strong sense of cooperation among sponsors from the private sector, a national performing arts group -- the National Ballet of Canada -- and the citizens of Norwich, particularly the local husband-and-wife organizing team of Cameron Smillie and Carolyn Clark. The first ballet presentation has generated a great deal of enthusiasm within the community.

This represents a significant opportunity for the citizens of a rural municipality like Norwich to enhance its cultural experience. For many of them, it will be their first opportunity to attend such an event. In fact, all 1,300 tickets for the May 20 performance at the Norwich Community Centre have been sold already.

For the National Ballet of Canada, Norwich, with a population of 2,200, will rank as the smallest community the company has ever performed in. The ballet's exhibition also includes an educational element for the local high school and grade 7.

In closing, I want to again congratulate the local organizers, Cameron Smillie and Carolyn Clark, as well as the National Ballet of Canada for bringing this cultural and educational experience to rural Ontario. I believe that this occasion will set a precedent for other cultural events in rural communities.

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS ENFORCEMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): One year ago, the NDP government replaced the Liberal support and custody orders enforcement program with the family support plan, which mandated automatic wage deductions for parents with child support obligations.

When the family support plan was developed, the Liberal caucus supported it, but we argued that the 25% of fathers who don't default on child support should be exempted from the automatic wage deduction program. But the NDP insisted on making everything mandatory for every parent with a support order, including all the fathers who voluntarily complied, so now we have an overloaded system with insufficient resources. Ironically, look at the NDP's recent restraint plan, and guess what? The family support plan will have its resources cut.

To add insult to injury, at the very same time as the NDP is slashing family support plan resources, it is wasting $500,000 on an expensive, sophisticated television campaign and a glossy coloured poster campaign which tells fathers to honour their support payments. Can you believe it? First the NDP makes wage deductions mandatory by law, which is a good thing, but then it squanders half a million dollars telling fathers to do what the law requires them to do anyway.

It is typical of this government to squander money on unnecessary self-congratulatory advertising instead of spending the money where it really counts: on the children on this province.

ADOPTION

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Earlier today a press conference --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would you stop the clock, please. The member for Durham East, please come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Durham East to please come to order. Would you restart the clock, and I recognize the member for Burlington South.

Mr Jackson: Earlier today a press conference and a rally were held at Queen's Park by the Adoption Reform Coalition concerning the current review of the adoption disclosure program by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Since 1978, a voluntary disclosure system has been in place which permits limited access to adoption information. To match adoptees with birth parents, a mutual registration and match must take place. If there is a match through the register and both parties consent, identifying information can be exchanged and reunions may be arranged after the parties have received mandatory counselling.

In 1987 an amendment to the Child and Family Services Act created a new disclosure and search procedure managed by the Community and Social Services ministry, which makes it easier to access adoption information. However, government bureaucracy has held up the flow of adoption information, resulting in waiting lists for as many as 8,000 adoptees facing a five- to eight-year wait before a search for their biological parents may be completed.

Today the search for one's roots and background is recognized as a crucial component to help us in discovering and affirming our personal identities. An inseparable part of this is the knowledge of one's biological, genetic roots by adoptees who choose to try to discover this hidden side of their earlier lives.

I call on the NDP government to respond to the sincere request made today by the Adoption Reform Coalition and assist Ontario adoptees in helping those who so wish to open the closed doors of their past and allow them to get on with their lives with truth and with dignity.

BREAST-FEEDING

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): May is the month in which the World Health Assembly, the governing body of the World Health Organization, meets in Geneva, Switzerland. In 1981 it approved a code of marketing of breast milk substitutes in recognition of the importance of breast-feeding for maternal and child health.

There is probably nothing that would make as significant an impact on the promotion of health as breastfeeding. Studies show again and again the advantages for morbidity and mortality. Cost savings can be substantial in both developing and industrial countries like ours. I would like to point out to the Legislature that the code of marketing was supported and voted for by the federal government of the day.

A few weeks ago there was a debate in the federal Parliament on a resolution by Jim Karpoff, an NDP member from British Columbia, on the need to implement the WHO code. It was gratifying to note the constructive speeches by the NDP and Liberal members but disappointing in the extreme that the Conservatives, after all these years, cannot bring themselves to take a small but essential measure for the health of the children of Canada.

I've heard a lot of concern about an agreement that Women's College Hospital recently made with a formula company. I have here a clipping from the Vancouver Sun: "BC Hospitals Urged to Drop Formula Deals." I hope that the Ontario Ministry of Health and its counterparts will get together to pressure against this unacceptable lack of action by the federal government.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I want to illustrate the hypocrisy of Bob Rae's government, a government that claims to protect the interests of working persons in this province.

We learned earlier this year of the government's intention to spend $180 million for a 30-storey office building to house new Workers' Compensation Board headquarters at a time when 20% of Toronto's office space is vacant. The initial observation of the plans to build new WCB headquarters echo the NDP's prevalent theme of fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars. But it goes further than that.

While the government may have an extra $180 million kicking around for the construction of more office space in downtown Toronto, it cannot find the money to assist those injured workers who have suffered injuries in the workplace prior to 1974. Prior to that time, WCB pensions were not indexed, which means that those who were injured on the job have experienced real losses in the purchasing power of their pensions. Although legislation indexed WCB pensions in 1985, it was not retroactive. As a result, the pensions of older injured workers continue to fall far from their value when initially compensated.

Meanwhile, Bob Rae is building more office space in downtown Toronto, forgetting about the older injured workers in our province. It is clear where Mr Rae's priorities lie, and unfortunately, they are not with promoting fairness for the injured workers of this province.

HIGHWAY ACCIDENT

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd ask the members of this Legislature to join with me in remembering the eight youths tragically killed in a motor vehicle accident on the Forks of the Credit road in the town of Caledon this past weekend. I don't think anyone can understand what the families of these young people are going through as they try to deal with losing their child or brother or sister or friend in such a tragic accident.

As parents, we should never have to outlive our children. As a parent, this is something you can never be prepared for. I cannot express to you the emotions that I experienced on Sunday morning when I heard about the accident and the feeling of helplessness that goes through you as you realize you can't do anything at that particular moment. All we can do right now is to pray for the young people who have survived and are right now fighting for their lives in the hospital, and for the families of the eight youths taken from us far too soon.

On behalf of the members of this House, I would personally like to offer my condolences to all of the families and friends of the young people involved. The communities of Caledon and Brampton will be hit very hard by this accident, and I am sure that everyone will offer any assistance they can to the families, friends and relatives of the eight young people killed.

When you grow up in a community that is small and primarily rural, you learn at a very early age how important community life is. It will be that same strength of community that will help the people of Caledon and Brampton through this tragedy.

POLICE WEEK

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): The week of May 9 to 15 is Police Week across Canada. This year marks the 23rd annual Police Week and I ask the House to join me in expressing our appreciation to police for their outstanding service to Ontario.

Police Week is an opportunity for everyone in this province to recognize the professionalism and integrity of our police officers. Ontario's police officers are among the finest in the world. The service they provide has remained of the highest standard, despite the demands our society places on them.

During Police Week, the 115 municipal police services and 182 OPP detachments in Ontario will be holding special events to showcase their community policing initiatives. I encourage all members of this House and members of the public to participate in these events. Make the effort to visit your local police service. Get to know your police officers in a positive and informal setting.

In conclusion, I call on all the members of this House to recognize and applaud the achievements of all police services in Ontario and across Canada as we celebrate Police Week. The men and women in blue who put their lives on the line for us on a daily basis deserve our fullest praise and gratitude.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

It is an important statement that was made in both Windsor and in Ottawa-Carleton. We have to remember that this House has a function, Mr Speaker, and I would like to know why they are not in the House today --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat, please. The member will know that he does not have a point of order. He will also know that I do encourage all ministers to make statements of important matters here in the House, for this is the seat of government.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Treasurer and Deputy Premier. The Finance minister, our Treasurer, keeps saying that the Ontario economy is recovering, take heart, that people of this province are getting back to work. We all saw on Friday that according to the Statistics Canada figures, 24,000 more Ontarians were unemployed in April than in March and that the number of people employed dropped by 13,000 last month. Ontario's unemployment rate for the first three months of 1993 averaged 11%, the same as for the first months of 1992.

I ask the minister, in light of these unemployment figures, who is right about Ontario's recovery, you or Statistics Canada? Or has increasing unemployment become the government's new definition of economic recovery?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Perhaps the leader of the official opposition would put it in a bit of perspective. We've had, I believe, seven straight months of employment gains in Ontario, and year over year, the employment is up almost 100,000 -- 96,000, I think, to be exact -- from a year ago now.

I realize that the role of opposition is put a negative spin on numbers and on events, but I think to be fair -- I do understand that very well -- I would ask her to put it in perspective. Also, it's not just Ontario that had a drop in employment in April. She's quite right, there was a drop in employment in April, but that was a national figure as well. The employment dropped all across the country.

So just to put it in perspective, not to dismiss the seriousness of an employment drop when we're into a recovery that we all recognize as being somewhat fragile, I do hope that the leader of the official opposition would appreciate the fact that there's been positive employment growth for the last year now and that we hope that what we saw in April was more of a blip on the scope than a new trend.

Mrs McLeod: It seems to me that the Treasurer is defending the indefensible, and it truly concerns me that, as you are about to bring out a budget in a week's time, you are still talking about hope, because that's exactly what those 13,000 more Ontarians out of work last month would like to have. They would like to have some hope. They would like to have more than a wish and a prayer from this government to say that there are going to be jobs for them in the future.

Treasurer, I am using the statistics that are seasonally adjusted, which, they tell me, are a real reflection of the numbers of people that are out there without jobs trying to find jobs. I would suggest to you that there is no reason for Ontario's economy not to be strong. We have tremendous strengths to build on, and the reason this economy is not recovering as it should is because of your government's policies. I am concerned that you still don't get it, and that a week before you bring in a budget you are still talking about new taxes that are going to kill even more jobs.

Minister, we have given a number of alternatives to tax hikes. We ask you: Now that you see that the economic recovery is not strong, that we have more and more people out of work, will you not go back and take a hard look at the proposal for new taxes that will put more people out of work? Will you not bring in a budget with no new taxes?

Hon Mr Laughren: I want to make sure I understand the position of the official opposition. I want to be perfectly clear, because I don't want to put words in the mouth of the leader of the official opposition.

I think it's now clear that the Liberal opposition doesn't want us to proceed with the expenditure reductions that we've announced.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): No, that's not the case.

Hon Mr Laughren: Oh, I'm wrong on that? Am I right that the leader of the official opposition does not want us to proceed with the $2 billion in savings that we're trying to negotiate at the social contract table? That's number two. And number three, she's now saying that we should not have any tax increases whatsoever in the budget.

Therefore, it seems to me that what the leader of the official opposition is saying to us is: "We know that there are problems in this province, but don't worry about the debt or the deficit. Let it rip." Well, this government is not prepared to do that.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, as a point of order before I proceed with my question: If, in response to the Treasurer's answer, I answer his questions, will you allow me that time as well as the time to pursue my role, which is to ask questions of the Treasurer?

Hon Mr Laughren: I wish.

Mrs McLeod: Treasurer, we are asking questions day after day which attempt to get on the table what your government's plans are, and we are more than ready to respond to them and we are more than ready to talk about alternatives.

Today, I want to talk about people who are out of work, more people who are out of work this month than were out of work last month. I want to talk to you about the fact that people need the jobs that businesses will create, and the fact that businesses are leaving this province because it doesn't make sense to do business here anymore. I want you to understand, Treasurer, that plant closures and the job losses are continuing.

Let me give you just three recent examples: Mack trucks announced that it's going to close its Toronto plant; Dofasco saying it's going to set its new mini-mill up in Kentucky rather than in Ontario; Toronto's Norbord Industries saying it's going to open a new plant in the United States.

My question today relates very directly to the fact that jobs and investment are being lost to Ontario because of your anti-business policies, from labour legislation to out-of-control WCB premiums to the new tax hikes you propose. I am talking about your budget, Treasurer, when I say to you, will you make it a priority in your budget to ensure that the steps are taken to put a sound economic recovery plan in place? Will you be prepared to examine every provision of your budget and simply ask the question whether or not this will help or hurt the private sector to create the jobs we need?

Hon Mr Laughren: It would be strange not to have that as automatically part of the process when drafting a budget. I don't mean to dismiss the problem of a drop in employment in the province. That's not a happy event, and I wish it was otherwise, but I would remind the leader of the official opposition that we have had economic growth and employment growth in the last year, and I don't think anybody in this province really blames this government for the recession -- other than those people with a rather narrow, partisan view of the world.

I don't mean to get into a series of finger-pointing, but there's lots of evidence that federal government policies over the last five years, everything from the free trade agreement to the GST, did a lot more damage to the Ontario economy than this government would ever, ever be able to do even if we wanted to, and of course that would be ridiculous.

If I might just quote briefly from a letter to the editor from the Wellington area, someone said in a letter to the editor:

"Last night you found fault with the NDP government of Bob Rae without once mentioning the mess the Liberal Party left behind or the problems created by the Conservatives before the Liberals formed the government. You were critical, destructive and negative. Not once did there appear to be any Liberal policy that had any substance, shape or direction."

When is the leader of the official opposition going to come forward with one positive suggestion or alternative? When?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: Right off the top, scrap the Interim Waste Authority, one alternative among a number we keep offering a Treasurer who simply doesn't want to hear the alternatives because this government has made up its mind.

Mrs McLeod: Treasurer, while my second question will be directed to the Minister of Health, I want to say as a direct

preamble to that question that we do indeed support the need for restraint, that we do understand that there are very difficult decisions to be made, as we understand how things have to be done differently in this province, but we are seeing more and more effects of what we truly believe to be a last-minute and very poorly-thought-out expenditure control plan presented by this government. It seems to me that if the government had started to deal earlier with the need for cuts, it might have been able to explain to all of us, and particularly to the people affected by the cuts, how and why it made those decisions.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I ask the Minister of Health: It seems that there suddenly appears to be a whole new plan to deal with what has been a very long-standing problem about the distribution of physician services in underserviced areas of this province. Minister, can you explain to us today why none of the five regions suggested by ministry officials as underserviced for the purposes of your plan happens to be in northern Ontario?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to clarify that. The regions that were defined as underserviced in the background material that I know the Leader of the Opposition is referring to was on a county basis. I don't think I need to tell anyone in this House that there are towns all across northern Ontario and in fact in other parts of rural Ontario that need doctors, and I can point to members on all sides who have identified that problem.

There are indeed a large number of areas of northern Ontario that need family physicians, that need some specialists and that have recognized that the underserviced areas program that has been in place for the last 20 years has not proved particularly effective in meeting those needs. What we are trying to do is to make sure that we have in fact the right professionals in the right place.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I confess I'm perplexed to know exactly how to frame a supplementary when the answer is completely incomprehensible to me. I'm asking why areas identified as underserviced -- the minister acknowledges there's a need to deal with the problem of medical services in underserviced areas, but none of them is in the north. Talking about counties doesn't answer the question; there are no counties in the north. The question is what's happening in northern Ontario under this new and, we believe, very poorly thought out plan.

I know this is not an issue that's new to the minister because while in opposition the members of the NDP caucus toured the north, and with a great deal of fanfare produced a report called Operation Critical demanding that the Liberal government immediately address the problem of a lack of adequate numbers of physicians in northern Ontario, and now it seems the whole problem has just disappeared.

Interjection: Did you?

Mrs McLeod: The previous Liberal government, in answer to the question from the NDP caucus, did address the problem. We established a program called the northern family practice residency program. It was designed to encourage physicians to complete their training in the north so that they would stay in practice there.

Minister, I met with the graduating members of the first class of that program on Friday and I can tell you that they feel completely and absolutely betrayed. I ask what you say to the 1993 graduating class of the northern family practice residency program who have taken specialized training so that they could stay and provide medical service in communities of northern Ontario and who are now finding out that, thanks to this ill-conceived plan, they are not going to be able to do that.

Hon Mrs Grier: First of all, let me be very clear to the Leader of the Opposition that there are areas of northern Ontario that need physicians. The purpose in putting forward the proposals that we have put before the Ontario Medical Association is to negotiate with the Ontario Medical Association a formula, a way in which we can in fact meet those needs.

Secondly, there are many opportunities for new, young physicians, whom I would agree with the Leader of the Opposition we need to encourage into our system, on other than a fee-for-service basis. There are community health centres, there are HSOs, there are public health units which are anxious to have doctors. Some of them are in the north; some of them are in the south.

But if we are to manage the health care system in a way that it has not been managed in this province in the past, then we, as other provinces have begun to do, have got to find a way in which we can ensure that we manage the deployment of those professionals so that we have the doctors where we need them to serve the people who need them.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Madam Minister, I'd also like to ask you in that regard, because I think Metropolitan Toronto is going to be an underserviced area, specifically with respect to AIDS and HIV patients. As you know, I've had a call from an intern, Jonathan Luetkehoelter, who is living in my riding and intended to practise in the city of Toronto to provide care to HIV-positive and AIDS patients, and he's reconsidering that because of your plan.

As you know, the patient lists of more than half of the primary care providers to these people who are HIV-positive and have AIDS are closed and there are not enough new people going in. This plan is going to hurt those people. In the interim, people who are HIV-positive and have AIDS are dying.

I'm asking you what you're going to do to encourage those people to continue practising and make an exemption for HIV-positive and AIDS patients so that we continue to provide doctors' care for them in my riding and in the city of Toronto.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say to the honourable member that the fact that there is such a desperate shortage of physicians to treat people with AIDS proves the point that our current system isn't working.

I would agree with him. We have to find a way to encourage physicians to meet the needs of people who have very specific and specialized needs. The system that we are putting in place and the discussions that we have had with the AIDS bureau is designed to try and make sure that there are primary care physicians to deal with people who are HIV-infected. That is why the development of some kind of community health centre, some kind of centre where those doctors can be on salary and can be specialized and can meet those needs has been under active discussion for quite some time and is entirely consistent with the proposals that we have put before the Ontario Medical Association.

I share his concern and I want to make sure that his concern is addressed.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Minister of Finance and it has to do with the public service's proposal that was tabled last Friday. Certainly, parts of this proposal are totally unacceptable, but other parts that have to do with some of the expenditures that could take place within the whole public spending of the province of Ontario have a great deal of merit. Yet the issue still goes back one step further, and that is that public servants who are going to raise issues of importance that could allow us to find areas we could cut back on would be reluctant to do so, and in fact would hold back their suggestions, for fear of personal reprisals.

If you go back to your own throne speech just after you were elected, you and your government had proposals that would affect this whistle-blowing thing. On page 3 of your throne speech, you said, "We will introduce 'whistle-blowing' guidelines to protect public employees." With that kind of guideline you talked about over two years ago, the fear of recrimination disappears, the reluctance people have is lessened, and people will come forward with suggestions on how to fight this problem of spending and expenditure in the province of Ontario.

The fact is that whistle-blowing doesn't cost us anything. It could save you a great deal of money. Why is it that two and a half years later, you have not brought in your whistle-blowing legislation, that you still haven't kept that promise?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I do not disagree with some of the comments the member has made. Obviously, we will be proceeding with the so-called whistle-blower legislation at the appropriate time; there's no reason not to.

I just want to offer assurances to the member and to other people, people in the public sector, that there would not be reprisals for people who came forward with suggestions. As a matter of fact, we look forward to receiving them. We said over and over again that if people have suggestions for ways in which we can deliver services more efficiently, we would be foolish indeed to ignore them. So we encourage that to happen, and I would just offer the member assurances that we'll do everything we can to make sure there are no reprisals against people who do so.

Mr Cousens: Two years ago you were prepared to bring legislation forward and you should still do it, because it's one way of building the trust which is disappearing very rapidly between yourselves and the unions. It would at least give them some sense that what you say is what you mean.

The unions believe that any kind of dollars you're going to find, if they're going to come from any place, they'll have to be from tax hikes or they'll have to come from expenditure cuts, but they're not going to come out of the public payroll; in other words, that you're going to have to find some other place for the money than in the social contract.

The unions obviously believe you are willing to negotiate $2 billion in payroll cuts, and they've come back with suggestions on how the government can save $2 billion. What I want to know is the option that you're going to follow. Inasmuch as you're going to come up with some savings, are you going to (1) do as the unions hope and cut less from the payroll so you won't have that much into the social contract, or (2) could you just put the money into reducing the deficit, or (3) could you back off on your ludicrous proposal to have tax increases?

Are you in a position where you could come now and say that if you are able to find the $2 billion or a large sum close to it -- we've seen $1.7 billion proposed by the unions in both government waste and health fraud and other areas where there are significant savings.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Cousens: Those savings: Could you apply them to some other area than to just the deficit but to not cause tax increases?

Hon Mr Laughren: We tried to be as clear as possible when the social contract talks began, and that was that we were going to achieve and had already made decisions on approximately $4 billion in expenditure reductions, that there were going to be revenue increases, tax increases in the budget on the 19th, but that there was a requirement for another $2 billion at the social contract table to come out of public sector compensation one way or another, so anything that goes beyond the $2 billion that's been targeted at the social contract table could be applied to whatever out there to effect savings or to reduce expenditures.

But I want to make it perfectly clear that we would much rather achieve $2 billion and will insist upon achieving $2 billion at the social contract table, rather than a further $2 billion in expenditure reductions all across the province, which would cause enormous job losses in the public sector. That's the purpose of the social contract: to protect jobs and services in every community all across the province. That's the very purpose of the social contract talks.

Mr Cousens: I'm aware that's the purpose; I'm just afraid of what you and your government are going to do. The bottom line here is that the unions are still not willing to talk payroll cuts. They obviously haven't got your message of public sector restraint. Since I assume you intend to follow up on the $1 billion in reduction in waste and the $700-million saving in health care fraud that the unions have already identified and our leader has identified, that gives you at least $1.7 billion in money saved. Will you state categorically today that any savings, such as this $1.7 billion from waste and health care fraud, will be used to wipe out the tax hike in your forthcoming budget?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, we appreciated very much receiving the information back from the public sector last Friday. We are looking at and will continue to look at all of those proposed savings. Some of the numbers I might quarrel with, as to whether or not those kinds of savings can be achieved and so forth. In many of them, it's going to take a considerable length of time to achieve the savings that are mentioned in their proposals. But that doesn't mean they're not good proposals and not ones that are worth considering.

But to answer your question directly, no, we will be proceeding with tax increases in the budget because we believe that the balanced approach of expenditure reductions, social contract savings and tax increases is the fairest way, so that everybody in this province is making a contribution to the solution.

INMATE SECURITY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Chair of the Management Board. Officials in the Management Board secretariat are aware of potentially dangerous problems with security hardware at the Mimico Detention Centre, the Stratford provincial jail, the provincial courts in Oshawa and Etobicoke, and the OPP buildings in Downsview and Peterborough.

For instance, in the new addition to Mimico, vertical cell bars were installed with soft rather than tool-resisting steel. The bars have been replaced with tool-resisting steel, but they are still the wrong shape. The new bars are round rather than the double-ribbed that are required for security purposes in the project specifications.

That's not all. The locks on the cells can be unlocked without causing the signal light to go on. Some of the locks have been modified since leaving the factory so they no longer contain a full complement of lock tumblers. This means that some keys may unlock doors they shouldn't and it's even possible that some locks can be unlocked without keys.

My question, Minister, is, how and why did these serious security defects occur and what is your ministry doing to correct them?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The defects which the member refers to were detected by staff of my ministry and the Ministry of Correctional Services. Actions are being taken with the contractor responsible. They will all be replaced at the cost of the contractor, not of the public purse. We're proceeding to investigate other installations.

Mrs Marland: On March 18, Global Television interviewed government officials about the situation in Mimico. The Global reporter Robin Smythe was shown the modifications that were being made to the cell bars, but there was no mention of problems with the cell locks. However, I have carefully reviewed a videotape of that news story with a corrections hardware expert. We have been able to discern that the government was aware of the lock problems at that time.

In the video, the new lock boxes are unpainted rather than painted steel and there are other parts that have also been changed. As well, the reporter ended her story stating that inspections of other new government buildings, where the same subcontractor was used, showed that the grill bars do meet government security standards. However, this contradicts information I now have, which is that soft grill bars were installed at the Stratford provincial jail, the provincial courts in Oshawa and Etobicoke and the OPP detachments in Peterborough and Downsview.

Minister, it appears that your ministry is trying to cover up a potentially serious security risk. Will you immediately begin an investigation to get to the bottom of this?

Hon Mr Charlton: I guess, to be as brief as is possible to a question like this, the investigation is long since under way.

Mrs Marland: Looking again at Mimico, this building was supposed to be ready in December 1992. The government hired 24 people who are now collecting idle-time salaries while they wait for these security deficiencies to be corrected. The minister should also be aware that clause 816 of the project specifications required that an independent hardware consultant unrelated to the hardware manufacturer and supplier be hired by the contractor. But in the Mimico case the independent hardware consultant was also the project manager for the hardware supplier.

Obviously, the Management Board secretariat is not being vigilant in ensuring that contractors follow the government's own specifications for its projects.

Minister, how did this conflict of interest occur, what are you doing to ensure that a similar situation doesn't occur again, and can you assure this House that when people are asked in a public interview on television they in fact tell the truth?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member of the third party takes a very smug approach in the way that she asks her question. Let me just suggest to you two things in response to her question: firstly, that my ministry and the ministry of corrections have been on top of this matter --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: The ministry of corrections and my ministry have been on top of this problem for some time now. There has been an extensive investigation pursued by the two ministries. One of the reasons why the member has had leaks of information is because of the extensive investigation which we've conducted. That matter is now in the hands of the Ontario Provincial Police.

RECREATIONAL LICENCES

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I wonder if the Treasurer could help me out. Treasurer, we all know that you are trying frantically to raise new revenues and I'm just wondering how far you will go in your desperation. I have it on pretty good authority that you and the Minister of Transportation are seriously considering a $10 to $20 licence fee on every bicycle in this province and also the same kind of $10 to $20 fee on every canoe in this province.

Interjection: Canoe?

Mr Daigeler: On every canoe.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Daigeler: Mr Treasurer, I wonder whether you could put my mind at ease about these new taxes on bicycles and canoes or, if you can't, whether you at least could assure me that you won't bring in taxes on roller-skates and tolls on sidewalks.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I do appreciate the fact that more of the member for Nepean's constituents get to work by canoe and bicycle than mine do. But I wanted to assure the member that any new revenue moves that we take, whether it's on the tax side or what we call non-tax revenues, will be sensitive to the needs of everybody in the province.

Mr Daigeler: Frankly, Mr Treasurer, I don't find that very reassuring at all. In fact, I find it about as reassuring as your answer when I asked you about the elimination of OSAP grants, because when I asked you about that, you sloughed off the question, and guess what? Six months later you cut out the OSAP grants. So Treasurer, what assurance, what guarantee, can you give me that you will not tax bicycles and canoes in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I've forgotten my answer to the question on OSAP, but I wanted to tell you that the assurance I can give you that there will not be licences on bicycles and canoes is my word.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last Wednesday I asked you if you had any idea of what the additional policing for the Windsor casino is going to cost the province and you said that you did not. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't want to misquote you, so your quote is, "We don't have any projection at this point of the total amount that will be." That is the quote.

I'd also like to read you a quote from the Windsor chief of police. When asked "Have you projected the annual cost of policing and securing the casino project once it is up and running," his answer was, "Yes, I have, and of course, that is part of the report I've just referred to." How do you explain this discrepancy in this report you've had in your possession since January?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I don't have that report which he is referring to. That, I understand, is a report that was completed by the Windsor Police Force and given to the police services board as a recommendation. But that report was completed before the casino site was chosen.

Mr Eves: I don't know what the specific casino site has to do with the fact that the ministry indeed does have the report and has had it in its possession since January. A spokesperson for the Windsor Police Services Board has told us that your ministry did not want this report released before June 30 of this year. In fact, he's further told us that until the Windsor police did their study, the province had done no study of its own as to what this additional police force would cost in connection with the casino, and I understand that your ministry has now hired a consultant to do research so it can review the conclusions and the findings of the Windsor Police Services Board study.

Why are you (

a) not permitting that report to be released, and why are your ministry people telling them that, and (

b) trying to reinvent the wheel and spending more taxpayers' money to challenge a report that's already been done by the Windsor Police Services Board? Why are you doing this stuff?

Hon Ms Churley: As I said, my understanding of that report was that it was an internal police document that was prepared very early on in the process. In the meantime we have been working with the Windsor police and the OPP together and commissioned a study to come up with reasonable calculations on what kind of extra police are needed for this project. We've come up, in the meantime, with the number of "10" to deal with the opening of the interim casino, but we will be continuing to work with the police and the study to come up with a reasonable number.

GASOLINE HANDLING

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is also to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is this on dumps?

Mr Wiseman: No, Mr Bradley, it's not on dumps; it's on something that you failed to recognize when you were the Minister of the Environment. It has to do with leaking gas tanks. I raised this issue a few months ago in the Legislature, on these commercial gas tanks that are in the ground holding gasoline and tend to leak. I can see now across the province that gas tanks are being replaced.

At that time the response I received was that regulations were pending. I would like to know at this time where in the stage of process we are in terms of heading towards having regulations around in-ground gas storage tanks.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): As a member I'm very concerned about the serious environmental problems which can be caused by leaking underground storage tanks, concerned about it because they can cause explosions and fires and can and do contaminate underground water.

The regulations I'm proposing are designed to prevent such incidents by requiring certain upgradings of facilities. We are taking into account the impact of the proposed regulations on all sectors of the industry. Obviously, there would be costs associated with that. The bulk of that consultation has been done and I intend to expedite the decision on this matter as soon as the consultation process has been confirmed.

Mr Wiseman: My question is prompted by the hard reality that even the smallest leak from these tanks can contaminate a wide area, and that will create huge environmental problems and environmental messes.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'm with you on this one, Wiseman.

Mr Wiseman: I'm glad to hear that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Wiseman: I'm just a little nervous now, though.

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

Mr Wiseman: My supplementary has to do with: Do we have any indication of the costs related to the cleanup of these messes? What does it cost the ministry to do this? How long? Can you give me some update on that kind of information?

Hon Ms Churley: The average cost of a cleanup is an alarming $200,000, and sometimes it can go into the millions. Large expenditures on cleanups amount, of course, to an economic strain on the taxpayers of Ontario and they create often unnecessary expenses for business. These are very, very high costs if a leak does happen.

By adopting the proposed regulations, we will be doing our best to protect the environment in this case and at the same time preventing these large expenditures on cleanups. So just to reiterate what I said in the first question, we are hoping to move very quickly at the end of the consultations and move forward with these new regulations.

CLEANUP OF INDUSTRIAL SITE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy and it is on the issue of cleanups. Last month, as part of the minister's finances expenditure cutbacks, your government announced that it would be delaying the cleanup and restoration of various pollution sites throughout the province. We have now been informed that one project that will be delayed due to this announcement is the cleanup of PCBs located in and around the town of Smithville. According to our information, the cleanup on this site was to be started this summer, but has now been delayed indefinitely.

Minister, this is a very important environmental issue to the residents of Smithville and the Niagara Peninsula which demands your full attention. On what basis have you justified the delay in the restoration of this PCB-contaminated site?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I appreciate the member's interest, and I'll take the matter as notice and report back to the House.

Mr Offer: This is why earlier on I have said that the Minister of Environment should be a full-time minister, not sharing the portfolio with other areas of responsibility. The concern we have, Mr Part-Time Minister, is the impact your delay will have in the long-term health and safety of residents in this part of the province. We want your assurance, the health reports you have on hand, that you will table in this Legislature with the residents that there will not be any health and safety concerns to the residents of Smithville, that their health and their safety will not be jeopardized by your delaying the cleanup of this PCB-contaminated site.

Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciate the member's interest in the concern for the health and safety of the residents, and as I said earlier, I will take this as notice and report back. As to his

preamble: Balderdash.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is for the government House leader and the minister responsible for auto insurance.

The reports on rehabilitation and long-term care which you released last Thursday contained almost 100 recommendations for change to automobile insurance regulations. In your report you said the following:

"The recommendations will be reviewed in a further round of consultation with interested parties before the government implements changes to existing regulations."

My question to the minister is: I'd like to know what your timetable is for this consultation and when exactly you plan to introduce or release the regulations for Bill 164.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The minister responsible for auto insurance.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): The member has raised an interesting question, but he should understand something right from the outset: His question would indicate that he doesn't understand whose report it is that's just been released, because it isn't my report. It's the report of a task force that was set up by myself, made up of the insurance industry, a number of consumers' groups and a number of accident victims' groups across the province. The report is theirs, not mine.

The review he refers to, the further consultation, will take a matter of just a few short weeks, and we will be making announcements accordingly.

Mr Tilson: I think that's one of the concerns we've had throughout this entire exercise of Bill 164, because Bill 164, during the public hearings we've had -- we've had extensive hearings, including extensive public hearings, and this was based on the draft regulations you put forward at that time for Bill 164. That was the whole premise of Bill 164: based on those regulations and the benefit packages that arose from those regulations.

During the hearings, you suggested to me and the member for Willowdale that perhaps you would consider doing away with the deductible test and having a verbal threshold test. You now have the review of a task force which is going to have considerable time with respect to the hearings. I'm glad you say there are only two weeks, but that's an extended period of time. You've asked Professor Arthur to advise you as to a new advocacy system. You've done away with the lawyers in this province as far as automobile insurance is concerned -- although Professor Arthur is a lawyer, interestingly enough.

You're now doing away with the lawyers and you're going to develop an advocacy system, something you know nothing about, something you have no idea about what it will cost the taxpayers of this province. I will say --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): You know what Shakespeare said about lawyers.

Mr Tilson: Yes, I did hear what Shakespeare said, and I think that's the problem with this government.

The Speaker: Will the member place a question, please.

Mr Tilson: My question to the minister is: Will you withdraw Bill 164, with all of these uncertainties you're creating and continue to create, and go back to the drawing board and start all over?

Hon Mr Charlton: Well, the answer to the last part first: No, we will not withdraw Bill 164. The member opposite obviously should take the time to sit down and look at Bill 164 and the task force report he's referring to. The task force report was not only developed by the very groups who made presentations before the public hearings on Bill 164, but the task force report addresses a lot of the cost-pressure problems that they themselves identified during those public hearings.

To use the member's words referring to uncertainty, the task force report has significantly reduced the extent of any uncertainty around Bill 164.

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As you know, part of this government's expenditure control program announced last month included $52.9 million within your ministry. One of the measures taken to achieve that reduction within OMAF was the deferral of the exit component of the tobacco sector adjustment strategy, amounting to a savings of $3 million of the $32-million program. This three-year joint federal-provincial initiative was designed to assist farmers to get out of tobacco and into alternative crops.

I understand that the tobacco crop size forecast for this year is larger this year than other years and that the $3-million portion deferred from the exit program was money that may not have been utilized by the tobacco producers this year or in future anyway.

Could the minister tell the House what impact this reduction will likely have on the tobacco industry?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'd like to thank the member for the question. First of all, we do not see this deferral as having a significant impact on the industry and on the tobacco farmers. The member is quite right. There's $3 million taken out of the tobacco adjustment program for this year. This is a federal/provincial-funded program. We are looking at the long-term future of the tobacco farmers and we're working with a group in the tobacco belt to deal with their long-term future.

However, the 1993 crop looks fairly promising. There are a number of export markets available for tobacco and, as the member noted in his question, there isn't the same need for that exit money as there may have been, as we felt, a year or so ago.

We are maintaining a fund there, though; there is money left in such a fund which will help with the second component, which is diversification. We have left $500,000 in that particular fund. We would expect that the federal government will leave at least $500,000 in its side of it, although I would note that Mr Mazankowski, when he did his cutting of expenditures, did not seem to cut back on any spending, so he may leave his full $3 million in there. That would be nice.

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

Hon Mr Buchanan: We will continue to work with the growers and the industry to make sure there is a future. We do not think the cuts we've made here will severely impact the area or the industry.

Mr Jamison: I am encouraged to hear that kind of comment from the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As you know, this particular issue impacts a number of ridings, but mine particularly: Norfolk. It also impacts Elgin and Oxford and surrounding ridings. It's a very important issue.

In many previous discussions with the minister, I had indicated a need to study the impact of the tobacco economy on local communities. I was greatly encouraged to hear last December of the formation of the government-community-industry committee led by your ministry. Their role was to evaluate the role tobacco plays in the region and to suggest how the community could best meet future challenges. Could you please provide me and the House and my constituents with an update on the progress of this particular committee's work?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The member is referring to a committee that was set up some time ago. It's a very innovative committee. It has government participation. In fact, there are six ministries from the provincial government, along with the federal government, community-based groups, the municipal politicians, tobacco farmers and the industry people themselves, as well as labour representatives, looking at the importance of tobacco to this region. They're also looking at: What does the future look like? If in fact tobacco is not going to have the same importance in the economy of that region, what else is available? They're looking at alternatives to tobacco in a long-range analysis.

They have had a meeting. It's really gratifying to see the cooperation they're having, and they're having a second meeting coming up. They're going to continue to meet and make sure that this part of the province has a future --

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

Hon Mr Buchanan: -- even if tobacco is not the primary product that's grown in that area.

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, there have been many questions raised in this House and in committee over the sweetheart deal struck between the Workers' Compensation Board through its not-so-arm's-length WCB investment fund, the Toronto-Dominion Bank and Cadillac Fairview to build, own and occupy Simcoe Place, a new 30-storey office tower in Toronto.

Questions have been asked about the deal by me and by others before me. My question however, Minister, goes to the role, proper or improper, of the board itself.

Section 64 of the Workers' Compensation Act states, and I quote, "Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the board may purchase or otherwise acquire" -- "otherwise acquire" being key words -- "such real property, as it may consider necessary for its purposes, and may, with the like approval, sell or otherwise dispose of any such property."

Minister, did this decision come to cabinet or to you as the Minister of Labour, and if so, what was the decision? Where is the order in council approving the deal, the acquisition and/or the 20-year lease on Simcoe Place?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The Workers' Compensation Board did not violate

section 64 of the act, for the following reasons: The acquisition of an interest in the ground lease in the Simcoe Place project will be made by a separate legal entity and not by the WCB itself; the acquisition of an interest in a ground lease does not constitute the purchase or acquisition of real property. And I would say as well that I find it very strange that a proposition that was pretty well set by the previous government is now being questioned by the member across the way, when they presented it to us as a good proposition and one where they would have an investment in 75% of the costs of the building.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I'm not allowed to say a member in this House is being misleading, but that was awfully close.

Let me be very clear that our government did not approve this deal. We have a former Minister of Labour sitting in this House who will stand testament to the fact that we did not approve this deal. You did, sir. Your government approved this deal.

My understanding also is that this so-called arm's-length organization, the WCB investment fund, is actually run by a committee of the Workers' Compensation Board and it has very direct input into the decisions that are made. It would appear that a legal opinion was sought to allow the Workers' Compensation Board to get around the requirement of

section 64 to avoid the possibility of having to come and embarrass you and this government and ask you to approve this deal.

Minister, somebody is playing games in the construction of Simcoe Place, making sweetheart deals and finding ways to get around the rules. You were asked in committee and you refused to agree. Will you ask the Provincial Auditor to investigate the nonsense that has gone on in the approval of the construction of Simcoe Place and the signing of a lease and the commitment of the Workers' Compensation Board to substantial moneys, $13 million a year, for the next 20 years?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The Provincial Auditor has the right to investigate any matter, and I'm certainly not going to instruct him as to what he has to do in terms of his job.

I would also like to say that the WCB investment of 75% interest in this building is seen it as a very, very good deal.

Just to carry it a little further, I think it's interesting that one of the questions we asked, after almost a fait accompli was presented to us, was, "What kind of study have you done in the city of Toronto?" and Royal LePage was appointed to look at 34 locations across this city and none of them, none of them, met the requirements for the Workers' Compensation Board building.

BUNGEE JUMPING

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and it concerns the minister's decision -- or lack of decision -- on the task force report on bungee jumping.

Minister, you have left mobile crane bungee operators dangling long enough. Your task force report came out in February, so I ask you: Will the province's 11 mobile crane bungee establishments be allowed to open this summer, yes or no?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I should be making an announcement on this very issue later on this week.

Mr Jim Wilson: Beach Bungee is located in Wasaga Beach, and it will employ some 20 people on a full-time basis this summer. However, my constituents are about to have their life's savings wiped out because the minister intends to ban bungee jumping from mobile cranes instead of bringing in regulations that would allow mobile crane operators to, first, stay in business, to continue to employ people and, third, to help Ontario communities compete for tourism dollars. These operators would not be forced out of operation if the minister would simply bring in regulations.

Minister, why don't you do your job and effectively regulate bungeejumping, rather than driving my constituents out of business?

Hon Ms Churley: I do take the question seriously. After the tragic death last year of a young man who was test-jumping a bungee ride, there was a task force set up with members from my ministry and representatives from the Ministry of Labour and also industry, and they came forward very recently with recommendations. There was a coroner's inquest as well related to this death which just very recently came out. We have taken the recommendations seriously and, as I said, I will be making an announcement later this week on what the ministry intends to do.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question today is for the Minister of Environment and Energy, if he's -- yes, he's there.

Mr Minister, the opposition last week, in their usual doom-and-gloom manner, suggested that in expenditure control measures this government is backing away from its traditional commitment to supporting summer employment opportunities for young people in Ontario.

My question: I want to know, on behalf of the young people in my riding of Durham East, and in fact on behalf of all the young people in the province of Ontario, whether or not the government of Ontario is indeed backing away from this commitment. Specifically, I want to know the status of the Environmental Youth Corps program. Is it on, how much money will be spent and how many positions are you going to open?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The Ministry of Environment and Energy remains committed to youth employment opportunities in the province, particularly as it relates to environmentally oriented projects. The ministry is providing $11.9 million in funding this summer and fall to encourage environmental protection and conservation projects, and it's expected that this funding will create more than 3,600 job opportunities in 900 projects for young people across the province. It works out to approximately 20 or 25 less positions for the Environmental Youth Corps than last year.

Mr Mills: Such a wonderful answer, Mr Speaker, I haven't got a supplementary.

FUEL CONSERVATION TAX

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you to the member for Durham East for that.

My question is to the Treasurer, and I have a suggestion for the Treasurer in my question that I have made to him on many occasions. He has ignored it and you can see the state of the Ontario economy as a result.

My question to the Treasurer is the following -- or the Minister of Finance as they call him now -- would the Minister of Finance assure the House that when he is developing his budget, he intends to remove the tax on the auto workers of this province, that tax being the so-called "gas guzzler tax" that he wishes to try to disguise as an environmental tax?

In doing so, by removing this tax, he will stimulate the sales of automobiles in this province and put auto workers back to work, while at the same time encouraging residents of this province to purchase new vehicles and turn in their old clunkers, therefore ensuring that we have better fuel economy and better pollution abatement equipment in our vehicles.

A perfect, positive suggestion for the Treasurer, and I'll be prepared to applaud him if he will finally acquiesce to a very positive and reasonable suggestion.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): It is tempting to comply with the request of the member for St Catharines if I thought he really would applaud me, but I know that he would not, no matter what I did.

I would of course not want to discuss tax policy prior to the budget, other than to say that I continue to be flabbergasted, if not shocked and appalled, that a former Minister of the Environment, who I always put in the category of a crusading minister, would have the audacity to come and propose to this House and to the people of Ontario such an anti-environment message.

However, having said that, having said how surprised I am that he would now take such an anti-environment position, I would not want to tip my hand as to whether or not there will be a change in that tax.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding any standing order of the House, the House meet in the morning of Wednesday, June 9, 1993, for the consideration of private members' public business, and when the House adjourns that day, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, June 14, 1993, and that Monday, June 14, 1993, be not considered as one of the last eight sessional days in June for the purposes as set out in the standing orders.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition addressed to:

"The Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

I have affixed this petition to which I heartily agree.

GAMBLING

Mr Dave Johnson (Don Mills): I have a petition from the Church of the Ascension, Anglican Church of Canada, Don Mills parish, which reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is signed by 58 petitioners, and I've added my signature to the list.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): "To the Parliament of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I have 254 signatures and I affix my name.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I am glad to rise in the House again and to increase the number of petitions against casinos by another few to add to the thousands who have written to the government against casino gambling.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm very pleased to affix my signature to this very important petition.

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

It has some 71 signatures on it.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

I have affixed my signature to the petition.

GAMBLING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I too attach my signature to this.

MOTORCYCLES

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): With the nice weather that we're having now, there are more bicycles, mopeds and motorcycles on the roads, and I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Ontario agreed to the text and spirit of resolution 29, which states, 'That in the opinion of the House, given that motorcycles use less of everything, the government of Ontario should promote the use of motorcycles,'

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proclaim the month of May 1993 as Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature to the petition.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I also have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Ontario agreed to the text and spirit of resolution 29," which was presented by Mike Cooper in 1992, "which states, 'That in the opinion of this House, given that motorcycles use less of everything, the government of Ontario should promote the use of motorcycles,'

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proclaim the month of May as Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month in the province of Ontario."

I have another 40 signatures on this petition and I affix my signature also.

GAMBLING

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I'm in agreement with this, I'm affixing my signature to this petition.

LA VIOLENCE

M. Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & Grenville-Est) : J'ai une pétition ici provenant de l'école du Saint-Rosaire à Crysler, Ontario, des étudiants et des parents des élèves qui sont grandement inquiets de la violence dans notre communauté et dans notre domaine. La pétition dit comme suit :

«À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Nous, soussignés, résidents du Canada et de l'Ontario, nous prévalons maintenant de notre droit ancien et incontesté de présenter un grief commun dans l'assurance certaine que votre Assemblée législative y portera remède.

«Nous déclarons humblement :

«Attendu que les parents et les grands-parents demandent que la mise en marché du jeu Serial Killer Board Game, First Edition, de Tobias Allen de Seattle soit interdite ici au Canada et en Ontario ;

«Deuxièmement, attendu que ce jeu contient une housse mortuaire, 25 bébés et quatre figurines de meurtrier et que l'objet du jeu est de commettre des meurtres et que la personne qui réussit à tuer le plus grand nombre de bébés remporte la

partie ;

«Et, troisièmement, attendu que ce jeu va à l'encontre de l'intérêt des enfants et qu'il pourrait être dangereux s'il était mis entre mauvaises mains et qu'il est suggestif pour les jeunes gens, qui se laissent facilement impressionner ;

Il y 46 signatures à cette pétition, et j'y ai apposé la mienne. J'appuie cette pétition fortement.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition here that's addressed to the Speaker of the House and the Parliament of Ontario. It's signed by people from Merlin, from Chatham, from Paincourt, from Tilbury, from Mooretown and Petrolia, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, support the voluntary use of bicycle helmets promoted as part of a comprehensive bicycle safety program; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, oppose the province's plan to mandate the use of bicycle helmets as being an exclusive restriction of personal rights to choose for ourselves guaranteed under the Constitution,

"We respectfully submit this petition for your consideration."

They're asking for the repeal of the possible legislation that will make bicycle helmets mandatory in the province of Ontario, and I present the petition forward.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): This petition forms part of a petition that collected well over 15,000 names in support of the future of Bruce A. Among other things, it indicates that:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

I have affixed my name to the petition.

GAMBLING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with a number of signatures from Windsor, Ontario, and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TAXICABS

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I too have a petition here. It's from TTOOA, the Toronto Taxicab Owners and Operators Association. It's addressed to the Lieutenant Governor. They're upset at Metro, and I don't blame them.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition sponsored by State Farm Insurance of Strathroy and signed by some 83 of its customers and area residents that asks the Legislative Assembly to repeal Bill 164.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, as you know, there are 15,000-plus signatures on this petition that I now deliver to you.

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

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

In addition to the 15,600 signatures, this is supported by several groups, representing labour, business, local municipalities, chambers of commerce, school boards and riding associations in our area. These signatures happen to be from the Whitby-Oshawa-Ajax area and accompany the last petition, which originated out of the Essex and Belle River area.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SISTERS OF CHARITY AT OTTAWA ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Grandmaître, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr81,

An Act respecting the Sisters of Charity at Ottawa.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Continuing the debate, I believe it's on the government side. If not, we'll go to the member for Lawrence.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I'm very pleased today to speak on Bill 7, the municipal waste management act, because I think this affords me an opportunity once again to demonstrate how in fact this government has now become identifiable in terms of its modus operandi. It does have one now. I can honestly stand up and say I'm beginning to understand what it is that this government is attempting to accomplish or at least what it thinks it's accomplishing, because up until now it has been very difficult to determine or to understand, as an observer, the direction in which this government was moving.

When you look back on the record, you begin to see a pattern that has emerged, a pattern which suggests that this government throws all of its ideas out the window upon entering into government, all the old ideas which most of us on this side understood were probably inaccurate, misguided and at best as far from practical reality as you could get.

Most of the issues which this government and this party that's in office now advocated during the time it was in opposition we're beginning to understand it has no connection with. It is completely severing itself from its past, attempting to reconstitute itself, attempting to get in touch with reality. Two and a half years after it was elected, it is coming to grips with reality. Those are the statements made by the Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, the Premier and others. Of course, getting in touch with what reality? Their reality.

I have to say it's at least an attempt by this government to understand that the real world around us is rather different from the world which they saw upon entering government.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): He doesn't know anything about waste management.

Mr Cordiano: The member sitting in his chair -- I believe the member is the parliamentary assistant -- should be a little more patient when other members speak, since when he speaks no one interrupts him.

Mr Wiseman: I'm not the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Cordiano: You know what I say to the member on the opposite side who's interrupting and interjecting? There's plenty of time. I have 27 minutes, and if he would be patient and listen, he might learn something along the way.

I know one thing: We are in opposition for whatever faults we had. I think we paid that price in the last election and I can honestly say that we're willing to learn. We're willing to examine what mistakes we made along the road. We're willing to say, "Look, the world is changing and we're examining all the policies that are being put forth."

Let's get back to the municipal waste management act, because this is instructive to demonstrate the kind of misguided, if you will, or misconstrued policies of this government, comparing that to its policies when it was in opposition, comparing the diametrically opposed position that is now being taken to the party that was the NDP when it was in opposition.

The Interim Waste Authority has been mandated to find new dump sites. A number of designated sites have been brought up to be considered and three will be chosen of those designated sites. No one would have imagined that this government would have approached this question in such a way as it is now -- that is, by central decree determining what waste sites will be used in the future for Metro Toronto garbage and York region garbage. That is to say, they're avoiding all the various proper procedures that have been put in place. A full environmental assessment is going to be bypassed in order to have a fast-track site, if you will, designated; three sites that will be determined.

Nothing could be further from the original intention of this party. Nothing could be more hypocritical, if you will, of the policies of the previous party in opposition. At the every best, it's hypocrisy, because it's a total reversal of what was advocated by this party in opposition. They have done that repeatedly.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole, the member for Durham West. There is one member who is allowed to speak and it's the member for Lawrence.

Mr Cordiano: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What Bill 7 does in the final analysis is it enables municipalities to bring about user fees for the purpose of waste management activities throughout the province. A cynic might say -- and I will say it, because I am cynical about this government -- that this is but the beginning, the beginning of a trend which will see the implementation of user fees for just about everything. Because in the final analysis, this party is so contorted now that it has no real understanding of where it was and where it wants to go, so it's making policy on the fly.

They're in fact making policy in a kind of diametrically opposed situation which says, "Well, we believed in this, but it doesn't work, so let's just leave it behind, wash that away, bring on something new, because we've got this problem now and we have to deal with it."

But the advice it ultimately listens to looks so confused, so ill-thought-out. In fact, no one has any real idea whether the trends that are being started today will worsen the situation, deteriorate the system we have in place, deteriorate the services we have in place, making it that much more difficult to recover from in the final analysis, when things do get better -- and they will get better at some point.

But the legacy of this administration will be to have set in motion a number of initiatives which will alter the landscape for ever. It will be unrecognizable, what comes after this: user fees for just about everything, making the user pay, and tolls on our roads. New roads will only be constructed if there are tolls; there's no way to construct new roads, according to this government, unless you make somebody who uses them pay for it.

What I'm afraid of is that something that was held so sacrosanct by all members of this House, and I believe all Canadians, our health care system -- is that next? Is that going to be threatened? In fact, there are a number of things that point to that already in the works, and that's a real fear on the part of many, many people. Why? It's because you have misguided, mismanaged resources on the part of this administration, making that conclusion, of course, the only one that's left.

When you squander resources, you then have to make up for the squandering by instituting heavy burdens on people, the taxpayers. The Treasurer -- the Minister of Finance, pardon me, as he is now called -- has indicated that not only is he cutting back on services, not only is he going to make it difficult for people to have access to the very basic and essential services that they have come to know in this province, but he's going to impose even more onerous taxes, making it that much more expensive for the services that will be left to them, services which I've already pointed out are less than adequate for the people of this province in most areas, making it so that you pay more for less.

That's the arithmetic that this government understands. That's the legacy of this government: We're going to pay more to have less. That's the phrase that I think will be used ultimately to describe the days in which this government was in office: more for less; pay more to have less. I think that comes as a result of squandering resources and mismanaging. Ultimately, it costs taxpayers a lot more than it would have, a lot more.

Bill 7, as I say, does a number of things which I think are very useful and very practical. I think it's quite possible that we may even support this bill, quite possible. On the other hand --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You haven't decided yet?

Mr Cordiano: Well, I've got to talk to the critic, and he'll give us more information as to whether we can. But I think I should say that this bill attempts to do a number of things which I think are quite positive in the whole area of waste management.

The bill, with amendments to the Municipal Act, will allow municipalities to establish and operate facilities for all waste management activities. In many municipalities, that's going to be welcome. It will require source separation of waste and recyclables and establish user fees, as I pointed out, under property.

Now, that's the area that I have most difficulty with, establishing user fees, because you'll get uneven services, again, throughout the province.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): A tax on the poor.

Mr Cordiano: A tax on the poor. The poorer municipalities, if they want this service, are going to have to impose user fees for that, and that will ultimately lead to higher taxes.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Etobicoke West and the member for Durham West, if you want to carry on a conversation, don't do it in the House. There's a debate going on and everybody's interested in listening to the debate, so I would ask you please to remain quiet. The member for Lawrence.

Mr Cordiano: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My colleague the critic for Environment for our party, the member for Mississauga North, has also pointed out another of our concerns; that is, the upper-tier municipalities vis-à-vis the lower-tier municipalities and what this means in terms of jurisdictional squabbling and the responsibility that an upper-tier municipality will be able to assume over a lower-tier municipality to take on the authority for this area.

That leaves municipalities in the kind of situation which could lead to further squabbling among them, and of course that's not very constructive, so I think this is an area that needs to be straightened out by the government before we proceed.

As I say, we could even end up supporting this bill if some of our concerns are laid to rest. I think there's further work that needs to be done. That's why it's essential, as has been pointed out by the critic for our party, that we do have public hearings in this area, that we do have a thorough going over of the concerns, of the problems that result from the amendments to the various acts that we're speaking of. I think it's important that people understand that there are concerns with this piece of legislation and that we do have areas that need more work, areas that need to be exposed with respect to different views so that these concerns can be overcome.

I think with respect to those concerns that it is reasonable for us to assume that the differences between upper-tier and lower-tier municipalities can be resolved, that it's not going to lead to a polarized position between upper- and lower-tier municipalities and that ultimately it will not lead to more conflict, because that's the last thing we need among municipalities.

I know in Metro that essentially that is not a problem, but of course, if I listen to the good mayor of North York, he estimates that with the cutbacks that are being imposed in the restraint program, the blue box program in North York is in serious jeopardy. If not that, then it's going to lead to additional tax increases, which no one can support at this time and which no one can bear.

And that is the crux of the various initiatives by this government to deal with the deficit problem, the fact that they're going to rely on a $2.5-billion tax increase once again to bail them out from their own mismanagement woes, rather than over the last two years listen to the good advice of the various members on this side of the House who have repeatedly called for restraint.

Two years ago, when they first came out and said they were going to fight the recession by spending more, crank it up and get it spent -- they've done that in a variety of areas, not the least of which is affordable housing, and as a result of their mismanagement, as a result of their squandering of resources, they have now jeopardized the non-profit housing sector. And I mean jeopardized, because as a result of their mismanagement people now have come to believe that non-profit housing is not a viable alternative. There are many people questioning the viability of government funds being spent on non-profit housing.

They've jeopardized a very good program that had been around long before this administration came to power, programs that had been there under the previous administration and the one before it, both Tories and Liberals who had brought about non-profit housing in a variety of forms. But then this government came along in the midst of a severe recession, in the midst of our crisis economically, and it's allocating projects and units at will in areas where it cannot be determined whether or not there's a need for these housing allocations.

They're squandering those units, and now, to our understanding, we find out that there are housing units within those projects which are going wanting, unfilled, vacancies in areas which have pretty large, substantial vacancy rates. That's mismanagement of the worst kind.

As the auditor has pointed out with non-profit housing, $1.2 billion in subsidies will be spent by the year 1995-96. That's unacceptable, totally unacceptable. You need to manage the systems better in order to do that.

It brings me back to this bill, Bill 7. As I say, there is example after example of the kind of administration we're seeing from this government, the kind of squandering of resources which then leads, of course, to things like user fees, which have been suggested and insinuated in Bill 7: Allow municipalities to impose user fees so they can bring about the kind of program, the blue box program and the other waste management systems, which in other parts of the province have become commonplace and people have grown to accept them and expect them.

The uneven level of services throughout the province is something this party, the NDP, spoke against many moons ago, it seems now, when it was a different party. Of course, now they're not in touch with anything. They haven't really got a full understanding of where they're going, and I would say they've lost themselves in the woods. They really haven't quite got a direction in which they're moving that they can all feel comfortable with and can all support, and we see that they're tearing apart at the seams. There are a number of pressures on this party, on this administration, to move in all kinds of directions.

But I say to this government, that's precisely why it's difficult for people out in the public to support an administration or a party such as the one that's in power now, because they never know what direction it's moving in next. You can't really figure it out, because this government --

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Sounds Liberal.

Mr Cordiano: I say to the member opposite that if we Liberals were in power, we'd have a clear sense of what we were going to do. We told you two years ago to bring about a full stop in terms of the wasteful spending you had embarked on, and you didn't listen to either ourselves or the Tories, for that matter.

Mr Stockwell: They're listening now.

Mr Cordiano: It's a little too late, I would say to the member, because I'll tell you what: The program you're bringing about with restraint is having such a psychological shocking effect on the people of this province, it's going to result in even further destabilizing in the economy, destabilizing in the way people think, because confidence is simply not there.

What they're doing now, bringing about a full stop, if you will, cutting back to the extent that they are, is having a terrible, traumatic impact on people. They don't know if they're going to lose their jobs in certain areas of the province. There's simply no confidence at all to invest in anything. Anything this administration has done has simply not proven to be a positive step forward to create the kind of confidence that's necessary to get us out of this recession -- simply not there.

After two years of spending wildly, and really that's the only way you can describe it, running up the deficit to more than $10 billion -- probably $12 billion is the real figure; they keep relying on transfer payments that haven't come in from Ottawa, which will probably never come in.

Mr Stockwell: You've been reduced to taking lectures from the Liberals.

Mr Cordiano: I'd remind my friends in the third party, do not forget that in the last 20 years this is the party that brought in a balanced budget and in fact had a surplus. Let's not forget about that.

Interjections.

Mr Cordiano: Yes, sir, and fine, we may have done it by increasing taxes, but we did it at a time when the economy was booming. In fact, those taxes probably brought inflation back somewhat and brought the economy of the province -- despite what these people would have you believe --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Cordiano: Despite that, the policies of our government led to a surplus. That's not something the Tories in Ottawa could say, certainly nowhere near it, when they had a booming economy over the period 1985-90. The government in Ottawa failed miserably when it should have brought its expenditures under control, simply didn't do it, and now in Ottawa we're continuing to feel the effects of deficit spending under a Tory administration that simply did not deal with it.

The rhetoric sounded good in those days, but I would say we all have to look at what it is that we're attempting to accomplish, and this administration has to realize that the impact of its cutbacks now, the impact of its restraint program, will have a real shocking effect to the system, a real shock. It's going to traumatize a number of people. Confidence simply isn't there. People feel that they're next to lose their jobs, and that inevitably leads to even more declines in revenues. Your revenues cannot increase in that climate.

We have serious concerns with the way this government is managing the province's revenues, the province's fiscal concerns. As a result, we're concerned that the opposite impact will be felt in this province, that revenues will continue to decline and expenditures will continue to increase. I say to the government: It's a little too late in terms of the kinds of medicine that you're applying to the patient that's ill, a little too late. The medicine simply doesn't go far enough.

I'd say to members opposite and anyone else who's listening today that Bill 7 has received some support out there. AMO's obviously generally supportive of it, and some other interest groups are also supportive, but in the final analysis the concerns we have with respect to Bill 7, that is, the potential conflict that will result from Bill 7 between upper-tier and lower-tier municipalities, needs to be resolved. It simply cannot go forward without looking at that as a major concern and as a major fault in this bill.

In addition, I would also caution the government that in establishing Bill 7, you are creating a precedent with respect to user fees. You're allowing municipalities then to move forward and charge user fees to establish waste management activities and programs, and that, I say to my friends, I hope does not lead to a further usage of user fees in other areas which are very important to the province, and does not further deteriorate the services that people depend on and that people need in this province.

Particularly, I would say to all those members opposite who are sitting -- the backbenchers should listen to this, because you're going to be very concerned about what happens to health services in your ridings, because that's next. When you've got to cut and you're slashing and you're hacking away at budgets, user fees loom large in the picture.

You'd better take care with respect to the initiatives that you're undertaking now and that you're going to support now, because user fees are the next item on the agenda that I think this administration is seriously looking at. I see the Minister of Transportation sitting in the House today, and I would say that as to toll booths on our roads, again, he's proposed this, or his administration is looking at it. I would say to him that's just an example of what I'm suggesting here, user fees you're going to depend on. You're going to start leaning on them very heavily.

You've got to look at where efficiencies can be gained in other areas. You've got to start looking at the problems I pointed out, such as the squandering of resources in affordable housing, the squandering of resources in a variety of other areas which we've pointed out in this House, and furthermore the fact that you have not created an environment for the economy to improve over the long term. It's simply not allowing for job creation to take place in a meaningful way and, as a result, revenues may decline further.

I hope you understand that, and I hope you understand that revenues will decline if you don't take care with respect to how you manage the economy and the squandering of resources.

I would say in closing that there are a number of things, as I pointed out, in Bill 7 that are positive initiatives and steps in the right direction to allow for the management of waste in this province to be conducted in a more rational, more efficient way and to allow municipalities to bring about programs which they thus far have not been able to do. But, again, user fees are something that concern me and concern our party generally. So I would say, look carefully at that and look at the alternatives, because that's not something we want to set in motion as a precedent.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I would say that I look forward to comments from other members.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I will say that some of the issues that were raised by the member for Eglinton I think are of interest to us all, specifically the --

Mr Stockwell: Not Eglinton, Lawrence.

Mr Tilson: Did I say his wrong name?

Mr Stockwell: It's Lawrence.

Mr Tilson: The member for Lawrence, I'm sorry. His comments certainly were most useful in some areas, although I was concerned when he started taking shots at previous governments, and particularly our government, specifically --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): No.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'll tell you: Specifically, you looked at the province of Ontario, at what happened to this province when they took over, the most taxed jurisdiction -- at least until you people came along -- in North America. So don't forget that when you're listening to the member for Lawrence's comments.

I will say that he did make some worthwhile comments, specifically on the issue of user fees, and that may be a good or a bad thing.

The area that I am concerned with is when the municipalities are being forced to get into these projects, these plans -- all of which are very good; we must emphasize that, but we don't know what they're going to cost, and I'm going to emphasize that over and over. We're getting into another venture that we have no idea what it's going to cost. The provinces are strapped -- the municipalities are strapped, and the province is strapped as well, so if you're going to get municipalities into something, we must have some vague idea at least as to how we're going to pay for it. He raised one alternative of user fees.

That may or may not be a solution, and it gives us great concern, getting into something, getting us into a venture when we have no idea of the area it's going to cost.

The second issue he raised was the jurisdictional issue. There's no question, at least on the way the wording of the sections are phrased now, that there is going to be a jurisdictional war, as it was described, between upper-tier and lower-tier governments, and perhaps even by the lower-tier municipalities themselves.

Hon Mr Pouliot: This is waste management.

Mr Tilson: Well, you say it's waste management, but that's not the way to go about things. The way to go about things is to consult with municipalities, and I'll tell you that AMO isn't supporting it the way the parliamentary assistant has suggested in the past.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Downsview.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Just in responding very quickly to some of the comments that the member for Lawrence made, Mr Speaker, you sit in this House, and you understand that it's a partisan place, you understand that it divides essentially into three sections -- and now perhaps we're having a fourth grown, an independent caucus, if you will.

You understand that a lot of the stuff that is said in here and a lot of the criticisms are laid on a strictly partisan basis, and it's mostly intended to confuse the public out there, because what will happen during this transmission is that there's a good chunk of the Ontario public watching the proceedings today and they rely, essentially, on the members in this place to provide them with information.

While we're in the process of providing information, I'm of the view that if you live in a glass house, you don't throw stones. When I hear Liberals -- and primarily Liberals, because at least I know where the Conservatives stand -- on the issue of user fees, they would introduce user fees with respect to health care. You know what we have. We have a public plan. They would require you to pay on your own until we had a two-tier system: a health care system for the rich and a health care system for the poor.

But when I hear the Liberals talk about it -- and they're sort of in the middle and they sit on the fence and they're neither here nor there -- when you look at their record, when you look at five years of Liberal governance and you look at the huge increases in health care, you look at the 10%, 11%, 12%, 13% increases year after year after year, it leads you to think, "Where would they have gone to and how far could they have let that problem go?" They would have let it go until the systems crumbled.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I would like to address the early outpourings from the member for Lawrence, because I would like to just correct some of the misinformation he provided.

It was under the Liberals, the previous administration, that you had the circumventing of the Environmental Assessment Act with the declaration that a landfill site called P1 would be placed in north Pickering. It was under the Liberals that you had the abrogation of the Environmental Assessment Act by saying that the Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake would receive waste under the Environmental Protection Act. It was under the Liberals that you had the lift on Keele Valley being placed there under the Environmental Protection Act and not under the Environmental Assessment Act.

It was under the Liberals that you had the location of a landfill site in Brampton called site 6B that would be done under the Environmental Protection Act and not under the Environmental Assessment Act. For that member to stand in this place and to accuse this party --

Mr Perruzza: It's not his fault; he doesn't know.

Mr Wiseman: He doesn't know it. Well, it's obvious he doesn't know. He spent half an hour here talking about everything else other than this bill. To say we are misguided and mismanage resources is to understate that he does not understand what this is all about.

The waste management issue is a resources issue if you handle it properly. It can become the feedstock for jobs, as they are at Atlantic Packaging, or as they are in Welland-Thorold, or as they are at Recovery Plastics, or as they are in a whole host of industries in southern Ontario. This member clearly does not understand the waste management issue because he didn't speak to it for half an hour; he only recited the title of the bill twice.

Mr Dave Johnson (Don Mills): Just a couple of comments which have come to my mind as a result of the member for Lawrence speaking. One, I might add, is that I have received correspondence from Laidlaw, which has been involved with waste management in the province of Ontario for some time.

Laidlaw is very concerned about the role and existence of the private sector, which it feels has not been properly addressed under Bill 7. For example, they cite the study that was done by Dr Don Dewees, a professor of law and economics at the University of Toronto. His study has indicated that the private sector is able to deliver the service much more efficiently than the public sector in many areas of waste management and I don't think this has been appropriately addressed.

The member for Lawrence has talked about the financial situation and I think that this should be studied at greater depth at committee. I would hope these committees would take place during the summer and that there would be public consultation.

Laidlaw goes on to indicate that the consultation up to this point in time has been very slight. They indicate that the committee's first meeting with OWMA, the Ontario Waste Management Association, was on April 29 -- just this past April 29 -- and there have been only two other meetings since that time. With respect to each of these meetings, participants were only given one to two hours' notice, clearly not enough time to prepare.

It demonstrates further that this bill has not been properly put forward to not only the people of Ontario but to the private sector, and there needs to be a great deal of public input into this bill before it's passed, and a number of changes to reflect that public input.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Lawrence, you have two minutes.

Mr Cordiano: I'm hesitant to respond in a personal way to some of the slights that have been made from across the way, but I would just simply say: There's only one issue that we are really dealing with here at all times and that's really the question of competence, the question of whether or not this administration has the competence, can manage the resources of this province, can manage properly, can manage effectively, with respect to Bill 7 or any other bill.

What I'm pointing out is that this government is completely incompetent, and this bill is really about giving municipalities the opportunity to do the kinds of things that should be done around the province, but the question is: Who's going to pay for it? That is really the issue. The issue is: Who's going to pay for it? Is it another tax on individuals out there by the imposition of user fees?

Once again, this government passes itself off as being defenders of the little guy, defenders of the individual out there, and the smug faces across the way with respect to the way in which you talk about health care in this province when we're seeing incredible reductions, an incredible pullback of services.

We're seeing a dismantling of the health care system in this province because you squandered resources when you first came to office. You spent like there was no tomorrow. You gave doctors in this province, on the one hand, an incredible increase in the OHIP fee

schedule and now, on the other hand, they're going to slap them in the face by imposing reductions to interns. This government is nothing but hypocritical with respect to its long-held views -- come into office and do exactly the opposite of whatever they were going to do before.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? The member for Wellington.

Mr Hayes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it's appropriate that I do get up, as the member for Don Mills referred to a letter that he received from Laidlaw saying that there was no consultation or very little consultation --

The Deputy Speaker: I don't see a point of order there.

Mr Hayes: Have we got a new Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent, I don't see a point of order. Thank you very much.

Mr Hayes: Will you recognize me the next time, Mr Speaker, when we go around and I will refer to that? Thank you.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm very pleased and privileged to be here this afternoon on behalf of the people of Wellington to speak to Bill 7,

An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management, a very, very important bill, a bill that was introduced for first reading April 21, just three weeks ago or so.

We really haven't had a lot of time to assess the response to this bill in our communities, and that's a concern I would put before the Legislature right off the top. It is difficult to gauge public reaction if we only have a couple of weeks between the initial introduction of the bill and its first reading, and we wonder, I suppose, why, because of the importance of this bill, it's being handled in this way.

Very briefly, this bill does a number of things in changes to the waste management legislation affecting municipalities. It follows the release of two discussion papers in public consultation which the government has undertaken.

In March 1992 the Ministry of Municipal Affairs released a discussion paper called Municipal Waste Management Powers in Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment released a companion paper entitled Waste Management Planning in Ontario, and both papers outlined proposals for waste management reduction strategies, which is a very, very commendable goal on the part of this government. I believe it's a non-political issue at this time. We need to reduce our waste stream, no question about it.

A key component is the need for municipalities to expand their legislative powers to implement and operate effective waste management systems. This is what the government perceives to be a need and it's moving ahead in this direction.

Bill 7 amends the Municipal Act by adding sections 208.1 to 208.11. These new sections give municipalities the explicit power to establish, maintain and operate a waste management system, and a waste management system is defined as "facilities and services for the management of waste, including the collection, removal, transfer, processing, storage, reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal of the waste."

This bill establishes fees for the use of any part of a waste management system and requires individuals generating waste to separate at the point of collection. It prohibits and regulates dumping and disposal at facilities, appoints inspectors to obtain information relating to sites or facilities and markets products from waste material.

One of the most important parts of the bill is that it revises the conditions under which a county may assume waste management responsibility from local municipalities. An amendment to subsection 209(4) of the Municipal Act allows a county to assume any or all waste management functions if a majority vote on county council representing a majority of local municipalities vote in favour. Current legislation requires two thi