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

November 19, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Cleary: While the Ministry of Labour currently assists 16 help centres in the province, I am concerned that eastern Ontario is not being serviced.

The Minister of Labour is aware that Cornwall and surrounding area has been exceptionally hard hit by the economic downturn. One local survey has indicated that 23% of the area's unemployed are between the ages of 45 and 64.

As the help centres, targeted at the older worker, offer services such as job placement, personal counselling, vocational testing, job training and contact with local industries, it is clear that Cornwall would be an obvious choice. In fact, a number of local residents have been attempting to secure a help centre for Cornwall for over two years.

I would like to take this opportunity to implore the Ministry of Labour to respond to the needs of eastern Ontario's unemployed workers and establish a permanent centre in the Cornwall area.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Cousens: Today we begin debate on Bill 143,

an act respecting the management of waste in the greater Toronto area. It is another kind of act,

an act of desperation by this government. They have promoted the 3Rs, which we all agree with -- reduce, reuse, recycle -- but let's talk about the 3Rs they have forgotten about.

Recovery: If only this government could understand that there are other ways of recovering energy from waste. It is an option they have excluded and thrown out. They have ruled out other options that allow there to be a true recovery from waste such we are seeing in Japan at garbage dumps.

Realism: What is the realistic time frame for this government to start to deal with the problems, the realism that deals with the cost of land in Metro versus the cost of land in Kirkland Lake, a willing host for garbage? What about the realism that has to do with really finding sites in the Metro area and in the regions around Metro?

How about rights? That is the third R. The first R is recover, the second R is realism, and what about the rights of people in Ontario, where this act of desperation by this government is going to take away personal rights of people as to their property rights? It is going to take away the rights of municipalities, which will lose the right to appeal. They will lose their rights under the Municipal Act. They will lose their rights under the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

We are talking about the disappearance of fundamental rights and a government that needs to learn three new Rs: recovery, realism and rights. It is high time they started to listen.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

Mr Mammoliti: On behalf of the task group of parliamentary assistants, I have delivered to the minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy a report entitled Caring For Each Other: The People of Ontario Respond to Alcohol and Drug Treatment Problems. The task group was formed to seek public response to the recommendations contained in the final report of the Advisory Committee on Drug Treatment: A Vision for the '90s.

Between February and April, we held forums in 13 communities across the province and received 275 submissions from concerned individuals, agencies and institutions. These people welcomed the recommendations of the Vision document. Many viewed it as a blueprint for change.

Our report of these consultations supports our government's recent announcement of a $9.4-million expansion of addiction services in Ontario. As the report bears out, the public and the government are in agreement. The flow of a vast amount of money to for-profit health centres in the United States must be stemmed. At the same time, services in Ontario should be expanded, and can be, for much less than the cost of US care. Our government is committed to both.

The report also gives the government a tool for the future. It can help in our assessment of programs already announced and it can be used to assist further reforms as fiscal resources become available. Additionally, this report speaks to our government's commitment to public consultation.

We are pleased to share this report with members during Drug Awareness Week. We are hopeful this release will help bring greater attention to an issue that has a profound impact on our society.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr McClelland: On November 7, I brought to the attention of the Minister of Energy the fact that a substance containing PCBs exceeding provincial guidelines had been disposed of in the Keele Valley landfill. The minister was given the certificate number and the date the material was transported through the streets of Toronto. Ministry of the Environment staff knew of the incident, as did the landfill managers.

The Minister of Energy told the House that the facts would be checked and that he would confer with his colleagues on this matter and take appropriate action with them. He ended his response with the following lofty statement: "Situations like this will not be tolerated in Ontario, if in fact that is the case."

It has been two weeks and there has been no indication that the government has done anything to address the fact that these PCBs are there and the threat that they are raising by being knowingly exposed to the environment. I have raised this issue in the House again today because when it was raised earlier, neither the Minister of Natural Resources nor the Minister of the Environment was in the House, and I want to be sure that they are aware of the situation.

I remind the House that the waste water, runoff and leachate collection system is connected to the municipal sanitary sewer system, which has its ultimate outlet into Lake Ontario. I would remind the minister responsible for the GTA and the Minister of Natural Resources that Keele Valley is located at the head of the Don River.

It is nice to know that the Minister of Energy feels the situation should not be tolerated. The people of Ontario and members of this House want to know what has been done and what is going to be done.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr J. Wilson: Eleven days ago the Minister of Labour unveiled his proposed labour relations blueprint that will ultimately wipe out any hopes for Ontario to climb out of the current economic recession. Since the minister's announcement, I have received several inquiries from business people in my riding who are deeply concerned that this government either does not care or does not understand the extent to which Ontario's economic future is in jeopardy because of the NDP's plan to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Collingwood's industrial base has been devastated by this recession, and the minister's labour relations agenda will only serve to further imperil the town. One construction firm which has been in Collingwood for some 62 years doubts it will make it to year 63 if the Labour Relations Act is amended along the lines proposed by the government. The owner of this business writes:

"I could not believe that it was possible to make the Labour Relations Act worse, but this is incredible. If these recommendations are approved and another organizing attempt by another union was to be made on this company, I would have to very seriously consider whether or not to continue business in this province under your government."

If this Collingwood construction firm pulls up its stakes and moves to another jurisdiction, the government will have to explain to some 175 workers just exactly how its Labour Relations Act changes helped workers in Ontario.

This legislation will not help workers and it will not help employers. It will do nothing to improve business-labour relations in Ontario. The only investment it will generate is south of the border and in other provinces.

BASEBALL HALL OF FAME

Mr O'Connor: In the difficult times in which we find ourselves today, it is important to take note of the positive steps being taken by smaller communities in attempting to improve their situation.

I was very pleased to see it publicly announced recently that Stouffville is bidding for the Baseball Hall of Fame to be located in that town. Stouffville is an enthusiastic baseball town and would warmly welcome the many visitors the Baseball Hall of Fame would attract. Stouffville is very close to Toronto, where the Baseball Hall of Fame is currently located. Space at the Stouffville Fitness Centre is now immediately available for occupation. Once the town has found a new site for municipal offices, the Baseball Hall of Fame would take over the current town offices, making the town square a focal point for the entire community.

The business community in Stouffville is very excited about the benefits this new tourist attraction offers. The Baseball Hall of Fame would offer a much-needed economic boost to the area and a great opportunity for the town to become more visible in the greater Toronto area.

I strongly support this bid for the Baseball Hall of Fame. I think it will add terrifically to the community. The community has terrific support for this, and I support it wholeheartedly.

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

Mr Daigeler: Mr Speaker, do you believe the member for York South, as opposition leader, would have tolerated the Premier's absence from the province for more than two weeks while Parliament was in session? By now he would have had several fits of apoplexy at this unprecedented snub of the Legislature.

Ostensibly the Premier is overseas drumming up business for Ontario -- and the Deputy Premier better listen. I have no problem with that, yet he could have easily done that during constituency week. Why did the Premier fail to return today? Is he afraid to face the House at Queen's Park because he cannot boost business right here in Ontario?

What is keeping business away from Ontario is the Premier's own misguided priorities. With his labour and rent control reforms, he is making life miserable for employers and investors. Rather than reduce government regulations and the tax burden, he plans to increase unilaterally the power of unions and to halt rental construction through his cap on capital cost allowances.

It is time for the Premier to face the music at Queen's Park, lest the voters play him a very disagreeable tune at the next election.

JOHN COUCH

Mrs Witmer: Remembrance Day ceremonies in my community took on a special relevance and significance this year. This year the men, women and children in Kitchener-Waterloo took time not only to remember those who had died defending their county in war but also to pay tribute to the courage and self-sacrifice of a native son, Captain John Couch, whose heroic efforts to help those who survived the crash of his Hercules transport plane in the high Arctic resulted in the supreme sacrifice, his own tragic death.

Captain Couch died of exposure to the Arctic cold after working feverishly for about 24 hours to help those who had been injured. The fact that 13 of the 18 people aboard the flight survived is due in no small part to Captain Couch's valiant efforts. To help ensure we never forget his self-sacrifice and concern for others, the Waterloo branch of the Royal Canadian Legion will provide a $600 bursary each year from its poppy fund to Captain Couch's high school, Bluevale Collegiate Institute in Waterloo.

At this time, on behalf of the members of this House, I would like to extend our sincere sympathy and our condolences to Captain Couch's widow, Carol, to his daughters, Melissa and Rebecca, and to the other members of his family. As Canon Ladds said in his homily at the funeral: "John was always the kind to put people first.... The example of his heroic courage will remain as a legacy."

SHELTER FOR WOMEN

Mr Winninger: I rise in the House today to recognize the work of the Atênlos Native Family Violence Services in London, Ontario. This recognition is particularly appropriate since November is Wife Assault Prevention Month, but the work of Atênlos in building a caring community to stop wife assault among first nation peoples is year-round.

Yesterday the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses identified housing for battered women as a primary need. It stressed that shelters should be administered at the grass-roots level: run by women who are survivors of family violence.

Atênlos currently provides confidential crisis and support counselling to first nations people in the London area, 90% of whom have been emotionally, physically or verbally abused. This coming spring in the riding of London South, Atênlos will officially open London's first seven-bed native women's shelter. Some 14 to 18 native women and children will receive and build the support they need. The Ministry of Community and Social Services will contribute substantially to the operating cost of this shelter.

We often talk about native self-government within a constitutional context. It is also appropriate to see urban native people providing a place of refuge for urban native women as

an act of self-government. I laud this initiative and urge the support of all parties in recognizing the need for grass-roots native family violence services in responding to the distinct needs and safety issues of native women and children.

Mrs Caplan: I rise today on a point of personal privilege and I would ask that the Speaker intervene to secure an apology for me.

Shortly before members' statements began, the Minister of Health made a statement in the press gallery that the former minister had made a decision, although not communicated, regarding a request from Hemophilia Ontario. The minister neither discussed this with me prior to her statement nor had any way of knowing what had taken place. She was incorrect and I request an apology.

The Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I invite all members to welcome to our midst this afternoon the former member for Ottawa Centre, Mr Richard Patten, seated in the members' gallery west.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TAX REVENUES

Hon Mr Laughren: Last week, the province was informed by the federal government of a decline in personal income tax revenues estimated at about $2.1 billion, most of which occurred in the 1990 tax year. Because we are eligible for various federal adjustments, we must make up a net loss of $670 million in this fiscal year. This afternoon I am providing the people of Ontario with details on the actions we are taking to manage this change in our revenue picture.

This revenue loss is yet another example of the price we are paying for the recession with its plant closings, job losses and overall weak economic performance. The recession Ontario experienced has been aggravated by federal government fiscal and economic policy. Our revenue shortfall demonstrates that its effects are deeper than we anticipated, with the result that they will be felt for quite some time to come.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I know the Conservative opposition does not like any references to its federal counterparts, but it is unavoidable.

Mr Cousens: Don't talk about the feds.

Hon Mr Laughren: I will not talk about them. I will try to avoid mentioning the member's federal cousins.

Instead of implementing policies to counter the recession, the federal government clung to a high dollar and a high real interest rate policy which deepened and prolonged the recession and its effects on people, businesses and governments. This legacy, combined with free trade and the GST, weakened consumer and business confidence when the opposite was needed.

The recession hit Ontario hardest. We have absorbed more than 80% of all recession-related job losses in Canada. As a result, more than one million Ontarians are now on social assistance. This number is expected to grow another 20% next year, in part because of reduced unemployment insurance benefits.

The increased costs for social assistance combined with the federal government's policy which caps its contribution to this program have had an enormous impact on Ontario's budget. This policy of limiting federal contributions will cost Ontario an additional $1.6 billion this fiscal year. This cost will continue to grow unless the federal policy is changed.

Therefore, we are urgently pursuing with the federal government a retroactive change in its policy of capping contributions to Ontario for social assistance payments. I am tabling correspondence with the federal Minister of Finance which seeks his co-operation in addressing our concerns and in participating meaningfully in the renewal of Ontario's economy.

We are also expressing interest in working with the federal government and the provinces to address the shortcomings of current economic and revenue forecasting. It is imperative that we improve the information available to all provinces to undertake effective fiscal planning. I hope to be meeting soon with the federal minister to discuss our position.

I have indicated that federal adjustment payments will help to offset some of the revenue loss. We anticipate receiving $585 million through the stabilization plan. Another $585 million comes through adjustments to the established programs financing for health and post-secondary education, which automatically take place because of the personal income tax revenue change. We will also take advantage of the opportunity, through the federal-provincial tax agreement, to make $300 million in payments in the next fiscal year.

These offsets total $1.4 billion. That leaves Ontario with a net shortfall of $670 million which we will manage this fiscal year in order to meet our budget plan.

Last week, I said we intended to manage the personal income tax revenue loss to meet the financial targets of our current budget plan so we can continue to build on its anti-recessionary strategy and maintain support for Ontarians hurt by the recession. I am reaffirming this commitment today. To do this, we have initiated a number of measures.

Effective immediately, all ministries are rigorously reviewing their discretionary spending. Until April 1992, there will be a freeze on the purchase of vehicles, furnishing and consulting services, except in exceptional situations. This action is in addition to the $100-million reduction in ministry operating budgets which I announced in my October 2 statement. Through it we are estimating a further saving of $50 million.

We are reviewing our capital spending program and will reduce it by $200 million. The funding for projects affected will be absorbed within our capital program next year so they can proceed. In taking this measure, I note that our commitment to Ontario's infrastructure remains strong, with capital expenditures totalling almost $4 billion this year, the highest level ever for Ontario. Furthermore, the $700 million dedicated to our anti-recessionary program remains intact.

Other offsets to the shortfall include additional revenues. The sale of the province's share in SkyDome will contribute a minimum of $150 million to help address our deficit target.

As well, additional revenues under the established programs financing will provide us with a further $200 million this year. This amount reflects new support for temporary residents, higher population estimates and increased cash transfers associated with earlier downward revisions in corporate income tax revenues.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I will speak a little more quietly because I do not want the members opposite to have to yell to be heard when they are interjecting.

Finally, we estimate that we will receive $70 million through the sale of assets such as surplus properties and the receipt of dividends from crown corporations.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Treasurer take his seat. With the co-operation of the House, we can hear the remainder of the statement and any other statements which are to be made this afternoon. There will be an opportunity, under the standing orders, for both opposition parties to respond.

Hon Mr Laughren: We are confident these measures will enable us to manage this unforeseen revenue shortfall this year. We will monitor closely our revenue and expenditure projections and take further actions if required.

We must be realistic about the future. Ontario is facing a serious fiscal challenge. It requires that we all work together to maintain programs and services and to build a strong, sustained economic recovery. But the personal income tax revenue loss has very significant implications for next year's budget planning.

Based on this year's experience, we currently estimate Ontario's gross personal income tax revenues will be between $1 billion to $2 billion lower than previously projected for next year. There will be offsets to this decline and we intend to deal fully with this pressure in our 1992 budget in order to meet next year's targets. Furthermore, we have put into place a series of strategies which will now begin to address this fiscal challenge head on.

1. My colleagues and I over the past several months have been communicating with our partners in the broader public sector about the serious fiscal problems we are facing and seeking their co-operation in a number of areas. On behalf of the Chair of Management Board, I am tabling a letter he has written to our agencies, boards and commissions asking that they adopt a salary freeze for all executive positions, just as we have put into place for our senior managers, political staff and members of the Legislature.

In addition, we have been speaking to all our major transfer payment partners about the need to implement similar measures in their organizations. We are also asking that consideration be given by all to the seriousness of the fiscal situation and the importance of negotiating lower wage settlements throughout the public sector.

2. Given the financial pressures we face, we must be realistic about our ability to increase funding levels to our transfer payment partners next year. In the measures announced today and those which were outlined in my October 2 statement, we have been able to minimize the impact of fiscal pressures on our partners next year.

Clearly we must manage within an environment of reduced financial flexibility. I am indicating today that it will be very difficult to significantly increase funding to our transfer partners. Thus, any increases in transfer payments for 1992-93 will be very limited.

We recognize the difficult circumstances our transfer partners are facing and we will continue to work closely with them through these difficult times and ensure effective levels of service.

We will endeavour to get full information to them as early as possible for their planning purposes. I hope to provide our transfer partners with the government's early direction on major transfer payments by the end of this calendar year.

3. As members are aware, policy and program expenditure reviews are now under way as part of our 1992 budget planning. These reviews are being co-ordinated by the new treasury board. Programs and services are being scrutinized for their effectiveness, cost-efficiency and consistency with this government's priorities of economic renewal and social justice.

We are committed through these reviews to achieve cost savings and to ensure that spending meets the priorities of government. The reviews are critical to determining what government does and does not do in the future. They will help to direct its reshaping, make it more effective and ensure that priorities are implemented.

4. Through the Management Board of Cabinet, we will be accelerating our ongoing program of increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the public service. A number of approaches are being considered. We are looking at administrative processes, some restructuring and changes in the organization and operations of government. In addition, through attrition and streamlining, a range of positions at all levels will be eliminated in order to meet the objectives of this strategy. Changes which are made will be in the spirit of co-operation and participation with employees and bargaining agents.

We will carry out our role as employer with integrity. This measure, while contributing to some savings this year, will have its biggest impact in the next fiscal year.

These are difficult fiscal and economic choices to make. They can best be determined by working together to plan and implement solutions. Pre-budget consultations, which will begin in January, will enable Ontarians to participate in the process of finding solutions together to address the fiscal and economic challenges we face.

This government is committed to leading and acting; to working actively with labour, business, communities and other governments to build a sustained economic recovery and to secure our goals of economic renewal and social justice. We have introduced and will be introducing other legislative and program proposals which will support investment, job creation and training opportunities. These initiatives will be the basis of Ontario's economic renewal and the restructuring of our economy. They are the basis of our agenda for getting Ontario working again.

The measures I have detailed will support the management of our fiscal pressures. They will enable us to meet our budget plan, continue its anti-recession package, build strategy and build towards recovery. We are strengthening our position to meet the challenges of our next budget and to continue to pursue a strategy of economic renewal and greater equity and fairness for Ontario.

RESPONSES

TAX REVENUES

Mr Phillips: I say to the Treasurer that today's announcement is very serious, very troubling and a cause of some considerable concern to us. As far as we are concerned, it is a government that has lost its way. This is not the first statement the Treasurer has made. Many people said the budget was wrong. This government said it was the only government in this country that was right, that everybody else was wrong. That was six months ago. A month ago the Treasurer said he had a $670-million problem. Today we see another $600-million problem.

I can tell the Treasurer that the people of this province are troubled and extremely concerned about this announcement today. They are worried about the problem because it was six weeks ago that I said in the House to the Treasurer, if he remembers: "I think there is a problem with the personal income tax. Look into it." We were assured there was not a problem then. Six weeks later, we see a $2-billion problem. We said six weeks ago we thought there was a problem here.

The solutions: One is that I will ask the Treasurer to check carefully into the fiscal stabilization plan. He says he is going to get $585 million out of that. We want to have some assurances that he has checked with the federal government and that this has some sense of reality. Certainly when we look at the fiscal stabilization program, we are not at all sure he is going to get $585 million out of that.

We see a government that has lost its control, lost its way, and frankly, if I can say this to the Treasurer, is beginning to lose the confidence of the people of this province. No one mistrusts the Treasurer's own personal integrity, but what we are seeing is a financial plan that is out of control. People are starting to worry, "Where will it end?"

On the fiscal stabilization program where he is calling for $585 million, we raise the question today, and we would like some assurance soon in the House that this has some sense of coming true. On provincial sales tax revenue, we have said before there is some concern about the numbers he has in his budget. This would have been the time for the Treasurer to come forward and say, "We've reviewed them, we've taken a look at them and perhaps they're too high."

Fundamentally, the Treasurer is giving us a plan we are not certain he is going to be able to stick with for the rest of the year. We are getting it one step at a time. We said the budget was wrong. We raised questions with the Treasurer in October, if he remembers, and said, "Will the provincial income tax be on?" He said, "Yes, we think it'll be fine." There is a $2.1-billion problem there.

It is interesting. As one of my colleagues asked, where is the Premier today? We are facing an economic problem here in the province. The unemployment rate went up substantially a week ago, and where is the Premier? He has chosen to be out of the country.

The concern we have is that the Treasurer has now put on himself about a $2-billion problem for next year, unless I have his numbers wrong; he is saying a $1-billion to $2-billion shortfall in revenue next year from the projections he had previously. I think that is correct. I believe he delayed about $350 million in his October 2 announcement, and in this announcement there is another $300 million. It is either a $1.5-billion or $2.5-billion problem that he has transferred to next year, if I am not mistaken in his numbers. This year we have a problem.

This is the third announcement he has now made, and we are worried that this announcement will not hold and that he has created a substantial problem for himself next year.

Our concern is that we would like to see the full picture. We did not see the full picture in October. We are worried about this fiscal stabilization program. We are not sure that is going to come true, and we now see for next year a $1.5-billion to $2.5-billion problem he did not anticipate.

All of this, I say to the Treasurer, is creating an element out there that, first, is making it difficult to have confidence in the government's fiscal plan, and second, the real solution is to get the economy going. Believe me, that is the solution. But when people look at a government that cannot manage its fiscal affairs, they begin to lose confidence in its willingness to invest in jobs and job creation in this province. One goes hand in glove with the other.

As I said at the outset, we are troubled by this announcement. We predicted much of this might come true. We asked him to look at it, and indeed it did come true. Frankly, we are concerned that more bad news may be ahead that we have yet to see. We would like to have seen that today so we could have the full financial picture for the people of this province, so that they could have some confidence this government knows what it is doing in its fiscal affairs.

Mr Harris: I am really shocked today. We heard some rumours coming out of the NDP caucus that this was going to be a really serious announcement, that there were going to be some serious cuts, that there was going to be some sweat and blood and tears as a result of the Treasurer's sweat and blood and tears over the last weekend.

I have looked at this announcement. In the way of cutting their $53-billion expenditures, I see a 13.7% increase. I see a plan that says, "I hope, maybe by reviewing, we might be able to reduce expenditures by $50 million," or 0.1% off a 13.7% increase. That is all that is in the Treasurer's statement today. It is not even there. It is, "I hope that by working together and reviewing we can cut 0.1% out of our 13.7% increase we brought in the budget." That is what this announcement is today.

When we examine it and look at $200 million of deferrals to next year, that makes the problem even worse next year. Instead of taking the $150 million from the SkyDome and reducing our deficit, he says, "I'm going to use that." That means another $150-million problem next year. We see the feds are giving him $1.5 billion more and then another $200 million. We appreciate that from the feds. He says $70 million from a fire sale of assets in the middle of a recession.

No company, no family, no business would ever do that unless they were bankrupt, without examining every other alternative. Can members imagine a family or a company, in the middle of a recession, saying, "We're going to carry on giving 16% increases in total salaries to ourselves"? Can members imagine them saying, "We're going to carry on our spending at a level close to 14%, but we're going to fire-sale some of our assets, those things that help us generate the revenue." It is absolutely ludicrous that the Treasurer is heading anywhere close to this direction.

I want to talk about the phoney announcement about salaries. Here they are, a 16% increase in the public service last year, and the Treasurer is saying, "We are going to freeze ourselves and senior management." Now to the transfer agencies he is saying, "You'd better be careful next year, and we're asking about 1% of you to take a wage freeze." But all the unionized employees go ahead as if it is business as usual. The government makes statements that it hopes they will bear the reduced revenues in mind.

Do they think the trustees of the school boards, the municipalities, the hospitals that are negotiating, have been saying, "Go ahead, take whatever you want; it doesn't matter"? They are doing their very best and they are crying out to this government for some leadership.

I quote to members what really bothered me from the Chair of Management Board in the Globe and Mail today when we found out school settlements are 6.1% on average. The Chair of Management Board, who is also the Minister of Education, said, "Yeah, I'm kind of worried. Something needs to be looked at." This is the response from the Treasurer.

Now I want to read members a quote from the head of a union. It is Robert Garthson, begging, pleading, asking them to legislate a freeze. This is a vice-president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. He said "it is 'simplistic' to look only at wage settlements" -- he said that is "only" at; he is agreeing you should look at them -- "and he said restraint measures 'have to be applied across the entire spectrum of society.'" He is asking for this. The union is asking for this. If the government had a wage freeze today in the broader public sector, it could save $1 billion over the next year. They could start to address the problem.

This announcement today by the Treasurer says to me that next year there will be $2 billion minimum in tax increases in the next budget. It says to me there will be double-digit increases in municipal taxes, in school board taxes. That is exactly what the Treasurer is saying. He has cut nothing. He has said, "I hope we can cut $50 million if we apply our best efforts." I say to the Treasurer he is closer to Bill Vander Zalm than I thought yesterday. He is living in Fantasyland and this is a Fantasyland statement made by him today.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I invite all members to welcome to our midst this afternoon another former member of the assembly, the former member for Halton North, seated in the members' gallery west, Mr Walt Elliot. Welcome.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that Mr Bradley, the member for the electoral district of St Catharines, is recognized as the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. Does the member have a few comments?

Mr Bradley: Briefly, I am delighted to have the confidence of my colleagues in the Liberal Party to serve as the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. I almost said "royal opposition," because that has been a matter of great contention recently. But I look forward to being able to question the government from a new position and of course to having so many colleagues who are so capable of providing support to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Harris: I have given these speeches to the new leaders of the Liberal Party so many times I am reluctant to take up too much time of the House. I know for sure I am going to be called on to do another one come February, and my caucus voted today; they figure it is 50-50 there will be at least one more before then.

However, I want to welcome and congratulate the member for St Catharines. I look forward very much to working with him for the period of time he will be in this role and position. He will gain an appreciation very quickly in this position that it is not nearly so simple as it looks from the outside. The grass always looks greener over on the other side. It is true that it is much greener over on that side versus this side -- we understand that -- both in terms of the salary increases they have all enjoyed since the last election and, more important, in terms of the fun and enjoyment and challenge of carrying out policy. However, he will find that as well, just from the shift in his role.

We congratulate him. I understand it went to three ballots. I know that creates a lot of tension in the morning. We wish the member for St Catharines very well.

Hon Mr Laughren: I too would like to congratulate the member for St Catharines. I think I speak for my entire caucus when I say that we all look forward --

Mr Christopherson: No, you don't.

Hon Mr Laughren: I confess this can fall apart in a hurry.

Mr Scott: You're learning about that, aren't you?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes. I welcome, however, the advent of a kinder and gentler opposition with the member for St Catharines. I know he will do a fine job.

I want to say a brief word about the previous leader, my favourite storyteller, who said he would never be a candidate.

An hon member: That was then and this is now.

Hon Mr Laughren: I understand the difference between what was then and what is now. That is not a problem. I want to express my appreciation for the job he did in this House of keeping us on our toes. I know the member for St Catharines will do the same.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX REVENUES

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Treasurer. As I said in my comments on his statement, I think he can appreciate that the confidence of the people of Ontario in the ability of the government to manage its fiscal affairs has been considerably shaken.

On October 2, when he announced a $600-million problem, some of us raised the issue of provincial income tax shortfalls, I believe on that day, and suggested that the Treasurer might want to check on that. Seven weeks later we now find there is a $2.1-billion shortfall in provincial income tax revenue. Did the Treasury, or the Treasurer himself, inquire of the federal government as to the status of provincial income tax revenue? What was the response the Treasurer got?

Hon Mr Laughren: I was somewhat surprised when the member for Scarborough-Agincourt responded to my statement.

I thought he was somewhat unfair, because all this fall when I have responded to questions about our revenues, I have been saying that it looks as though our own sources of revenues seem to be on target but I did issue three warnings or cautions: (1) that a large portion of retail sales tax revenues did not come in until January, because of December shopping; (2) that corporate income taxes, because of the way they are reported and collected, do not get reported back in until February or early March, and (3) that the income tax revenues the federal government collects for us and then gives back to us over a two-year period have been historically incredibly volatile.

For those reasons, I was expressing caution about our revenue figures. Other than that, all I can tell the member is that we were getting some disquieting rumbles. There were press reports about income tax revenues.

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

Hon Mr Laughren: We did not get anything official from the federal government until last week.

Mr Phillips: I take it, if it is not too unfair, that the Treasurer had some indication, but not an official indication, that there was a shortfall. We see two additional problems on the horizon which I would like him to comment on today, not unlike the ones we raised six weeks ago. The Treasurer has indicated that the fiscal stabilization plan will give him revenue of about $585 million and that he will get an additional $785 million from the established programs financing. Has he had some assurance from the federal government that both of those things are a likelihood?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes. It is my understanding there is no reason for us to believe we will not get that money, no reason whatsoever. Now, of the numbers the member mentioned, one is the $585 million for the established programs financing and the other is the $585 million for the stabilization plan which kicks into place when there is a dramatic downturn in a province's economy. It has happened in other provinces as well -- British Columbia and Alberta, I believe -- so we have no reason to believe we will not get that money from the federal government.

I will be meeting with Mr Mazankowski to make sure these things are nailed down, but since we are clearly entitled to them, there is no reason to believe we will not get them.

Mr Phillips: I hope the Treasurer has actually had some conversation with the federal government and has gotten some assurances. As I look at that plan -- I have to look at it myself; I do not have a large Treasury staff -- I have some questions about it. I believe it is not $585 million from the established programs financing; I believe, from the Treasurer's statement, that it now is $785 million. Again, I will leave those two things with the Treasurer. The reason I raise them is that six weeks ago I raised the provincial income tax matter and now we find the problem.

I think it is now clear that the people of Ontario have some significant reservations about the Treasurer's fiscal plan. I do not think there is any doubt about that. Today's announcement will just cause further disquiet. We see now that he has added at least $1 billion to next year's problem.

Will the Treasurer undertake, not in April but in the next few weeks, to bring forward to the Legislature a new fiscal plan so that the people of Ontario can see all of this laid out and can have some confidence that he has looked at the total program and now has his fiscal house in order? Can we now have an undertaking that we will not wait until April for a budget but rather will have a fiscal plan out of this government that the Treasurer can live with and that the people of Ontario will understand is his fiscal plan?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am a great believer in the budgetary process and so I do not want to bring down a budget in the next month. I do not think that is necessary. However, I assure the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that we do hope, as part of the pre-budget consultation process, to put more information out there for the people of Ontario and the people of the assembly than has ever been put out there before, so that they get a better sense of exactly how difficult the problem is.

I take issue with the member for Scarborough-Agincourt on the whole question of how we are managing our fiscal plan. Exactly opposite to what the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is saying, despite a very severe recession, despite very severe cuts in federal programs, despite the fact that we had this income tax hit that nobody could have predicted -- it happened in previous years to the former government; I am not blaming it; that happened -- despite all that, we are managing our fiscal plan to make sure we are in keeping with the targets laid out in the spring budget and are going to continue to do that.

Mr Phillips: In all sincerity, the Treasurer is delaying his problems to next year. That is the reality.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Phillips: My second question is to the Treasurer. The key solution for Ontario is to get the economy rolling. Many of his fiscal challenges would be solved if he could get the economy rolling. The Premier, wherever he is -- he is travelling more than George Bush -- promised us on September 23 that the government would bring forward an economic plan to this Legislature. He said that it was his highest priority and that the ministers would be announcing their economic plan. When can we expect the comprehensive economic plan to be laid out for the people of Ontario so that we can have some confidence that the government can get the economy rolling at last?

Hon Mr Laughren: The renewal of Ontario's economy will not come in a blinding flash of light. It is going to come as we come out of this recession and as we, as a government, make sure we do not panic and overreact to the fact that it is a severe recession.

We have already taken a number of measures that will help us in the economic rebuilding of this province. We are going to transform the training system, which I think all members agree needs to be transformed. Training in this country is inadequate and is not well co-ordinated. We want to bring some coherence to the training plan. That will be out in the not-too-distant future.

We have taken some moves on encouraging workers to invest in the economy themselves through the worker ownership plan. I think that is a very important initiative we have taken.

This is a contentious issue among some members, but I think reforming the labour legislation of this province will also go some way towards rebuilding the Ontario economy and making sure there is a sense of security among workers, which they presently do not have.

We are determined to move ahead with reform of the social assistance program so that people on social assistance get back into the workplace. We are going to put a lot of emphasis on that in the next year.

I can see the Speaker is looking edgy, so I will sit down.

Mr Phillips: I think the answer indicates the problem. There is one thing that will divide labour and the business community at this critical point in time. We have a firestorm out there. We have a recession that is under way and needs to be fixed. The government frankly has started a fight between the two groups that can stop the fire the best.

The Treasurer should believe me. If he looks at the business groups and labour in this province, where are they going to be focused in the next six months? Where is the Ontario Federation of Labour holding conferences across the province? What are they doing it on? The labour relations stuff. What is the business community doing? They are focusing on that when we should be focusing on getting the economy rolling.

Will the Treasurer at this time, recognizing his fiscal problems, recognizing the need to get the economy rolling, undertake at least to set the labour relations legislation aside? Let that be dealt with when we get the economy under control and it can be debated in a rational forum. Will the Treasurer at least undertake that one thing to get the economy moving?

Hon Mr Laughren: We are not prepared to set aside the labour legislation. I know members opposite would never proceed with these kinds of labour reforms. I understand that. Having put out a discussion paper, and having labour and business discuss the paper that has been put out and get back to the Minister of Labour with their suggestions, we will see what develops from that consultation period. But we are determined to move ahead with labour reform. We think it is long overdue in this province and we have no intention of setting that aside simply because the Conservatives and some members of the Liberal caucus would like to see us do that.

Mr Phillips: When the Treasurer announced his budget, I think he said: "Every other province is wrong. The federal government is wrong. We're right." I think that is the case. The Treasurer may argue no, but that is what was said at the time, "We know best." Can the Treasurer lay out for the Legislature now the evidence that his plan is working where the other plans are not working? What is the evidence now that he was right and everyone else was wrong?

Hon Mr Laughren: I must say that in the budget in the spring we put out some numbers that bothered a lot of people. They were tough numbers but they were realistic numbers. When I look across this land at other provinces that put out numbers, they were not very realistic numbers. I do not like to step back in time too often, but I remember a year or a year and a half ago when that party was in power and it said, "We're going to have a surplus," which suddenly turned into a $3-billion deficit.

The member opposite cannot have it both ways. We put out numbers that we knew would upset some people but that we thought were realistic. We put out numbers indicating what our fiscal plan was for the next three years as well. A lot of people did not like that, but we had an obligation to indicate how we thought we were going to come out of this recession and how, in some cases, we intended to make sure we invested in this province in a way that made sure we were prepared to come out of the recession in a healthy way.

TEACHERS' SETTLEMENTS

Mr Harris: I find it ironic that the Liberals and the NDP are arguing about who was more incompetent or who is more incompetent. Why do they not both admit they are incompetent and let's get on to a new direction? Obviously they are both incompetent when we look at the spending they have initiated.

The Treasurer's announcement today, this wishy-washy statement on transfer payments, is not acceptable. Contracts are being settled now: 7% increases, 6% increases are being settled. The vice-president of the union representing teachers, Robert Garthson, has come forward and said: "We need some overall leadership, not just one group of teachers, not just one group in society. We are begging. We are asking for some leadership from the top."

Will the Treasurer today give that leadership from the top and let teachers, unionized workers, non-unionized workers, transfer agencies, arbitrators and employers all know that there is no money for any increase next year?

Hon Mr Laughren: There is no question that this government does things differently than the Tories do. There is absolutely no question about that. I want to assure the Tories in this House that this government will never ever manage the economy in the way Tories do in Ottawa. We do not need any lessons from Tories on how to manage an economy.

I say, on a very serious note, because I think the leader of the third party asked a serious question and deserves a serious answer that is non-partisan in nature, that when we make our transfer announcement, which I indicated in the statement I wanted to make before the end of this calendar year, and that does not leave us a lot of time -- we want to make that announcement, but I think we are already sending signals to our transfer partners out there that there is not going to be much money announced in that statement.

Mr Harris: Teacher settlements are averaging 6.1%. We have a strike on in Elgin and the offer on the table is close to 6%. Can the Treasurer today tell the taxpayers all across the province, all those who are in the middle of negotiations with teachers, how much he is going to transfer to cover the cost of those increases in salaries?

Hon Mr Laughren: As I indicated in my first response, it is our intention to do that as quickly as possible. What we are doing is evaluating, through the treasury board, all our expenditure programs in government. That has never been done before, never in this province. I confess we do not have a draconian, ham-fisted way of looking at fiscal problems. We are determined not to overreact in the short run, but rather to do it in a methodical, planned way so that when we approve the estimates process for 1992-93, it is done in a more thoughtful way than has traditionally been the case.

Mr Harris: The total cost, year over year, to the Ontario taxpayers for the civil service was 16.1%. Inflation for that period of time, I think the Treasurer will agree with me, will be somewhat under 6%. Inflation next year will probably be in the 2% to 3% range. Does the Treasurer see any need for an additional increase this year, given the 16% overall in new money that has gone towards the civil service this year, either in new civil servants, pay equity, merit pay or increases, and given inflation somewhere under 6%, and 2% to 3% next year? The two-year average will still be 8% if he says it is zero today. Does he see a need for more money there?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the leader of the third party is confusing the Ontario Public Service with the broader public service that is in hospitals, schools boards and social agencies all across the province. This year when negotiations occurred through the collective bargaining process, the increase that was negotiated with the civil servants was 5.8%. Since then we have asked each ministry to absorb 0.8% of that, so really it came down to a 5% increase. When those settlements occurred, inflation was running at a rate of 6.1%.

Hon Mr Laughren: I confess that the easiest politics in the world is civil service bashing. That is the easiest thing in the world to do. I do not think it has much to do with rebuilding the economy of this province.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Harris: Today in his announcement the Treasurer indicated he would not touch one cent of the capital spending that is in his recovery package because that was important spending, because that was creating jobs in this recession. He is going to cut $200 million in other spending. He is not going to touch this spending over here because that is creating jobs, but he is going to cut $200 million this year out of capital spending in other areas. Could he tell us how many jobs that will cost?

Hon Mr Laughren: A lot of the capital measures we are taking are measures that were not going to get off the books this fiscal year anyway. There will be some others, but not all of them have been identified. We have determined that we are going to find $200 million in capital spending. I could not give the leader of the third party a list of every one of them at this point, but we are determined that they will be either put off until next year -- I am sure there will be some that will simply be cancelled because of our fiscal problems. It goes without saying that we cannot do it all.

Even having said that, approximately $4 billion this year is the most in capital expenditures that has ever gone on in this province.

Mr Harris: The Treasurer is not cutting some capital spending because it creates jobs in the recession, but somehow or other he is cutting $200 million. I asked him how many jobs that would cut. It is a pretty straightforward question. If he knows how many he will save by not cutting here, surely he knows how many he will lose. Obviously he is going to lose a substantial amount of jobs.

Could the Treasurer tell us if the the people of St Catharines, the people of Windsor and the people of Niagara Falls can still expect substantial capital investments to relocate ministries to their communities?

Hon Mr Laughren: First, I wonder if I could put the record straight, because I think the leader of the third party is confusing our anti-recession package of $700 million, which we put in place this spring and which is very largely under way now and mostly will be completed by the end of this fiscal year. I hear what the leader of the third party is saying. I think he would like to see us end those capital expenditures in those communities that are expecting relocation of civil servants but I do not --

Mr Turnbull: Like to see you resign.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the leader of the third party is not quite sure whether he wants us to continue with spending or whether he wants us to cut all the spending, because I get a mixed message from him. Perhaps if he has another question he could make it clear which it is he wants.

Mr Harris: The question was pretty straightforward. I asked what capital the Treasurer was going to cut and he would not tell me, so I tried to identify capital expenditures in the future and he still will not tell me. The reason for the question is so he cannot keep talking out of both sides of his mouth. That is the problem. The Treasurer has not cut a single thing and he will not identify anything.

We told the Treasurer that his budget was 180 degrees in the wrong direction. The people of this province told him that. We laid out a document, New Directions: A Blueprint for Economic Renewal and Prosperity in Ontario, and we asked him to consider this. He has still ignored all this advice.

The Treasurer's announcement today means a minimum of $2 billion in new tax increases in his April budget. It means a minimum of billions of dollars of tax increases in municipal and school board budgets next year by not taking action today. Particularly after today, we have absolutely no confidence in the Treasurer. The people have no confidence in the Treasurer. The working people and those who are not working, unionized and non-unionized, have no confidence in the Treasurer. We will be moving that motion of non-confidence.

Mr Speaker, you are going to ask me if there is a supplementary here, and there is not. I am wasting my time with the non-answers.

Hon Mr Laughren: I detected a rhetorical question in that statement. I regret very much that the leader of the third party does not have --

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There was no question. How can the Treasurer answer a question that does not exist? Is this a ministerial statement or not?

The Speaker: I will allow the minister to respond.

Mr Cousens: No way. Come on. That was not a question.

Hon Mr Laughren: He was on his feet. Of course I have a chance to respond.

Mr Speaker: Order. I realize the phrasing did not seem to suggest an interrogative. On the other hand, the minister has the opportunity to respond to what he determined or at least thought was a rhetorical question included in the wording. I will allow a supplementary.

Mr Harris: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to inform you that I waive my right to the last supplementary. There is no question.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the leader of the third party has a problem.

Mr Cousens: This is terrible. Come on, no question.

Mr Tilson: We sure don't want an answer.

Mr Villeneuve: You want to hang yourself, Floyd.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. When the House comes to order, we will hear a response from the Treasurer and then we will move on.

Hon Mr Laughren: I will try not to be provocative.

I regret that the leader of the third party does not have confidence in me as Treasurer, because I have confidence in the leader of the third party to bring to this assembly all the policies that are important to Tory parties all across this country. I have confidence in him doing that. I have confidence in the leader of the third party to wipe out his party's deficit in the next couple of years. I have confidence in the leader of the third party.

What I do not understand is why he is so angry and upset that, despite the fact we are in a very severe recession, we are able to manage according to our targeted figures in the budget. I think what is really bothering him is that we are succeeding in doing that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member should take her seat.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under standing order 32(a), covering question period, which we are now undertaking, there is no provision for a minister to stand in this place and make a statement in the midst of question period when a question has not been asked. Therefore, I ask you to replace the time on the clock taken by the Treasurer in response to no question, as he has used up the time of the opposition to ask questions as provided in the standing orders.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, on the same point of order: I do not think there is a provision for the leader of the third party to stand up and make a statement without a question either.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party, to the same point of order?

Mr Harris: Yes, Mr Speaker. To the point of order -- I think it was a new one -- that was raised by the House leader for the New Democratic Party: If I was out of order, I apologize and withdraw all I have said.

The Speaker: I remind the leader of the third party that I did recognize him to place a question. The member for Brampton North.

Mr McClelland: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment.

The Speaker: To the member for Carleton, I am sorry, I should have explained to you. I am very pleased to review what has occurred, but I am not adding time to the clock. I allowed the question because the member asked to be recognized. Therefore, there was the opportunity to place a question to which the minister had an opportunity to respond. We now move on to the next in order while the clock continues to tick by, I remind you.

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

The Speaker: Is this a new point of order?

Mr Sterling: This is a request for a ruling on the request I brought before you. I would like you to identify where the member for Nipissing placed a question to the Treasurer. That is what is provided for in the standing orders and it is your duty to protect the members of the opposition under the standing orders.

The Speaker: To the member for Carleton, I recognized the leader of the third party so that he could place a question. Therefore, the member to whom he placed the question has an opportunity to respond.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Mr McClelland: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Her environmental equivalent to the War Measures Act, Bill 143, in my view is the height of hypocrisy. An official from her legal services branch told me yesterday that the reason this bill was introduced under the office of the greater Toronto area was one of mere convenience. In fact,

part IV of this very important act, the Environmental Assessment Act, deals with environmental protection initiatives. It is an environmental protection act which clearly falls under her responsibilities as the Minister of the Environment.

Will the minister not agree that this bill would be better dealt with in two separate bills, and will the minister agree today to sever

part IV of Bill 143 and introduce it as a separate piece of legislation since it is clearly not the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area but the Minister of the Environment who should be dealing with

part IV.

Hon Mrs Grier: Whether I introduce legislation as minister responsible for the GTA or as Minister of the Environment, what is very important, critical and new about this legislation is that for the first time a government is looking at waste management in an integrated way, recognizing that you do not solve waste management problems by merely looking for disposal sites. You have to look at the 3Rs in waste reduction and at the same time find disposal sites for the residue after you have reduced the waste as much as possible. That is what this legislation will accomplish and, frankly, I am not sure it particularly matters under which hat it rests.

Mr McClelland: It matters because this is clearly the most heavy-handed piece of legislation ever introduced by a Minister of the Environment anywhere. It is shocking to me to think that the minister, who was once an advocate for citizens' rights, the same Minister of the Environment who introduced an environmental bill of rights, the same minister who stood with the Premier and said there would be no expansion of existing landfill sites without a full environmental assessment, would write such hard-handed, ruthless legislation.

The minister has clearly attempted to use these waste management reduction measures she talks about to disguise her draconian and heavy-handed measures. Her environmental war measures act wipes out the very rights and principles she once personally championed. I ask the minister again to sever

part IV of the bill so that it can be dealt with in the way it should be and proceed, while the other sections of the bill receive the public scrutiny and the input they require and deserve.

Hon Mrs Grier: I find the analogy between a waste reduction bill and the War Measures Act extremely offensive, but let me say to the member that it is about time somebody in this province waged war on waste, and if his government and previous governments had done it over the last two decades, then this government would not be forced to manage the crisis in the way we are.

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr J. Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Health, who I think just slipped out for a moment. Perhaps she will be back if one of the members of the NDP could get her. She was here a second ago.

My question concerns the request for compensation for haemophiliacs in Ontario who contracted HIV through the province's blood supply. I say to the minister, who is back in, I appreciate her concern for rising health care costs in Ontario, but she will also be aware that a six-year-old haemophiliac, a little boy who contracted the AIDS virus through the Australian blood supply, was awarded compensation by the courts in the amount of $875,000. It cost the Australian government $15 million to fight this case, and now that government is being forced to settle, as a result of the court case, similar cases out of court.

As of this morning, 18 lawsuits have been filed by persons with haemophilia who contracted HIV through Ontario's blood supply, and each names the government of Ontario in its suit. Why is the minister refusing to act responsibly and provide catastrophic relief to haemophiliacs in Ontario who contracted HIV through our blood supply?

Hon Ms Lankin: I do not think we are refusing to act responsibly at all. In looking at this issue, I think I have confirmed the position the ministry had taken in the past.

Let me say briefly to the previous Minister of Health under the former government that with respect to comments I made today, I clearly said that the ministry had taken this position in the past. I do not attribute this directly to the minister having made a cabinet decision, but in terms of documentation and letters, many positions had been taken by the ministry with respect to not dealing with the issue of catastrophic relief for haemophiliacs suffering with HIV until a comprehensive strategy dealing with the Prichard report and response in general was done.

I have, in fact, copies of that in writing, but I apologize to her for having attributed remarks directly to her. It is not in fact what I said, although I understand she understood that.

I can say to the member opposite that we are committed to providing benefits and support to all people in this province suffering from HIV and AIDS. We do not see in the provision of health care treatment that there should be a distinction based on how the individual contracted the disease, and I think we have to be very careful with respect to this. In fact, the federal government has been very careful not to tie the kind of compassionate compensation that it forwarded to any indication of culpability on the part of the blood supply. The response we have taken in Ontario is not a unilateral response; in fact, it is shared by every province in the country at this point.

Mr J. Wilson: The minister is aware that there are some 375 haemophiliacs -- many of those people are children -- who are now living with the AIDS virus simply because they placed their faith and trust in our health care system and in Ontario's blood supply. The Australian example makes it clear that the fiscally responsible thing for her government to do -- she should never mind what the Liberals did not do -- would be to compensate these people now, rather than spend millions of taxpayers' dollars fighting this issue in court. Why would she rather see our scarce health care dollars given to lawyers than to people who only placed their trust in our health care system and in her government?

Hon Ms Lankin: Whenever a legal issue is raised, it is very easy to say you should settle on that legal issue, irrespective of what the principles involved are; to spend money in that way rather than spend it on court costs. I suggest the member has to take a look at the legal issues involved. What I think we should be spending the money on, all of it, is delivery of services to the people who have this disease. That is not categorizing one group of people who have this disease.

With respect to the issue of the blood supply itself, we are talking about a national issue. We have had a response from the federal government and from every provincial and territorial government that is involved with the process that there is not a legal culpability involved in this. What we have is people suffering from a disease who need treatment and who need benefits and expansion of the services in that area. That is the right way to spend the money.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Hansen: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Farmers in the Niagara area have been looking at ways to help ease the tremendous financial hardships they have encountered over the past few years. Recently the regional municipality of Niagara voted in favour of relaxing its land use policies to allow farmers to sever lots from their farms to help raise funds to cover costs. This decision has not been supported by the government and the ministry has said it will send all severances to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Will the minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Food meet with the Niagara farmers and the Niagara regional representatives to listen to their concerns and requests?

Hon Mr Cooke: I appreciate the question and the interest the member has shown in this very difficult issue. We in this government understand the very serious situation the farmers are experiencing in the Niagara Peninsula and we certainly understand the motivation behind the decision regional council made to try to help out the farm community, but we had to make a decision in this government of how we would protect agricultural land, and the decision has been made.

I have spoken directly with the regional chair, and I know the Minister of Agriculture and Food has spoken to representatives of the farm community. We are going to meet, because we have to find long-term solutions for the farmers in that community. We want to do that with the farm leadership and with the municipal council leadership. A meeting has been set up for December 17 when we hope to begin that dialogue.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Scott: As members undoubtedly know, the riding of St George-St David numbers among its population some of the poorest and most disadvantaged people in the entire province of Ontario. My constituents in St Jamestown and Regent Park, the largest public housing project in the country, would have been shocked, I think, to see the government backbenchers give a standing ovation to the Treasurer when he said he was managing the services of the province efficiently.

My question is for the Minister of Health. Last week, and this is why my constituents would be concerned, they read in the press that the Deputy Minister of Health, Michael Decter, a mandarin from Manitoba, had indicated: "We are looking very hard at the type of services delivered and what are the outcomes. For instance, we spend large amounts of money treating lung cancer, which frankly does not do much good." He went on to give other examples of services that might be cut out. He spoke of heart bypass surgery and organ transplants for people over 70 years old.

The serious question I have for the Minister of Health is, are these things Mr Decter speaks about being actively considered in the ministry? Does the deputy minister in that respect speak for the government?

Hon Ms Lankin: As we review how our health dollars are spent, we are committed to trying to put in place a process that ensures every procedure is evaluated based on health outcomes. We think that this is an important way to go and that there have been some pilot projects within certain hospitals with respect to total quality management and continued quality improvement which suggest that those are really important elements to an evaluation tool.

Recently the Canadian Cancer Society, with respect to the studies that have been done in a co-operative, broad-sector way, in the Cancer 2000 report has suggested that we need to look much more at the prevention issue rather than treatment with respect to lung cancer, that we need to shift those resources.

The particular cases I think were used as illustrative of the kind of debate we need to have in our society with respect to which kinds of health care procedures we continue to invest in, in our new procedures that we bring on line. They are not considered at this point in time a list of actual items that within a month or two I would be announcing any changes with respect to.

Mr Scott: I want to thank the minister for the completely candid answer, because I take it to be entirely clear that Mr Decter does speak for her and the government when he says this government is actively considering whether OHIP services should be provided in respect of certain cancer treatments, bypass operations for the elderly and organ transplants. There has been a reflection of that in today's press, no doubt connected with what Mr Decter said, when the Toronto Hospital, which is a hospital upon which my constitituents are directly dependent, as members can imagine, announced that transplants, for example, for which it is well known, might be cut.

Dr Hudson, the new president of the hospital, said patients will be turned away. "'We would have to say' -- speaking of organ transplants -- 'trash the organs; we're not going to use them, we haven't got any money.'... Patients will be told: 'Sorry, you're going to die.'"

The other half of the riding, north of Bloor Street, numbers some of the richest citizens in the country. They will be able to get this kind of treatment and surgery, if not in Ontario then in Quebec or in Philadelphia or in New York or in Dallas. In light of the needs of my riding, what is the minister going to say, in light of what Dr Hudson has said, to constituents in the south end of the riding who are going to suffer from this destruction of the health care plan under which they are presently the beneficiaries? It is an important and very troubling question. I ask the minister for a candid answer.

Hon Ms Lankin: I appreciate the opportunity to give a candid answer. I think I have been very candid on this issue all along. I believe that there is a great deal of room within our health care system and within the hospital system for restructuring that will provide service in a better co-ordinated way across the region, and we will make some good decisions about how and what we are providing within our hospitals.

I hope -- I have to say I hope -- with respect to what has been quoted by Dr Hudson in this article, that in fact he said much more that was much more balanced in his approach. I am quite shocked by the quotes that are here. In discussions I have had with the OHA and with other hospital CEOs, I think we have a very co-operative approach that has been established. That has not been reflected in the headlines.

Let me tell the member that those kinds of comments, which I will say directly are outrageous -- I certainly hope they were put forward in a much more balanced approach -- are the very kind of thing that leads to panic in the member's community and in other communities. I would like to say that I hope we can quell that panic, and I look for the member's assistance in doing that.

I received a letter by fax, very shortly after the paper was out today, from University Hospital in London and from the co-ordinator of the multi-organ transplant service.

Mr Scott: My constituents do not live in London; they live in Toronto.

Hon Ms Lankin: Perhaps the member could listen to the response.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: The chief of the multi-organ transplant service, who is working with the ministry task force with respect to this issue, was shocked at those kinds of comments being made and wanted to assure the people of Ontario not to panic and not to have fear, that these kinds of statements go far too far with respect to what the situation is.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: Let me also say that I think the Ontario Hospital Association and its leadership should be listened to. I will just quote right from the weekend, where Mr Timbrell said: "'Will patient care be jeopardized?' he asks. 'No. Will there be waits? No. Will there be a compromise on quality? No. Will there be a change in how we receive services? Yes.'" I think we are going to try to manage that change.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Can the Minister of Northern Development and Mines give this House, and more particularly the residents of northern Ontario, her personal guarantee that this decision by her government will not adversely affect northern Ontario residents?

Hon Miss Martel: I think the member would understand that I could not give a personal guarantee regardless of if it were a question of medical care or anything at this point in time. We are under a great period of fiscal restraint in the province. All of us, in terms of our various ministries, are making every effort to maintain the basic services that we have to maintain our programs, but we will all have difficulty this fiscal year to try and do that.

I should talk to the member in particular about the specific case, the dermatologists in northeastern Ontario, whom I am sure he has a concern about, as I and my colleague the Treasurer do. Yesterday my ministry talked directly to the Deputy Minister of Health. We asked that a meeting be arranged with respect to Dr Donahue. Those arrangements are being made right now.

Second, there is a second meeting that will occur between the OMA, this government and the doctors, which I will be attending in Sudbury, that have a concern specifically about the shortages in cardiology and in obstetrics so that we can talk to all of them about what can be done. I look forward to having those discussions. The meetings, as I understand it, were trying to be arranged as soon as possible.

Mr Eves: I talked to some of those doctors whom the minister and the Treasurer apparently talked to late last week. Their version of the meeting is not anywhere near the same as that of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Dr Donahue is not the only specialist in Sudbury who has a problem. These people are generally concerned about the needs of their patients as northern Ontario residents, as a result of the decision of the Minister of Health.

Dr Abdulla, who is the cardiology chief at Sudbury Memorial Hospital, is concerned that the government's decision may force him to move south. He is the only qualified nuclear cardiologist in all of northern Ontario. He is one of five serving a population of 600,000 people that should have 10. Dr Cheung, also of Sudbury, the minister's home town, is the only full-time neurologist practising north of Parry Sound in the province. He may also be forced south, he says. He is extremely concerned about the ramifications of the government's decision on his patients and his staff.

When is the minister going to realize that the government's decision is placing the health care of northern Ontario residents in jeopardy? Is it not the intention of the government to provide those first-class health care services in northern Ontario? That is why we build centres like the Sudbury cancer centre, so people can be treated there, not so they can be paid under the northern health travel grant program to ship them all to Toronto because the Minister of Health is cutting out their services and forcing them to move south.

Hon Miss Martel: It certainly is a priority of this government to provide those services, especially in Sudbury, and that is why I and my colleagues the member for Nickel Belt and the member for Sudbury have fought so hard on behalf of the cancer treatment centre and other specialists who are located in Sudbury. I remind the member of that.

Also, if he listened to the first answer -- he obviously did not -- I said that we were in the process of arranging a meeting between the Ministry of Health, the representatives from the OMA, my office and the cardiologists and obstetricians who were at the meeting in Sudbury on Friday, and requested a meeting and that their concerns be aired.

If the member had listened to my first response, he would have heard me say clearly that we understand it as not only a problem with the dermatologist Dr Donahue; it is also a problem with the others. We are undertaking as soon as possible to have these meetings.

I would also say, with respect to the situation of Dr Donahue in particular, that I asked him very clearly at the meeting on Friday if he was prepared to open his books and have a meeting with the ministry because none of us, in terms of those he has asked some help from -- that is myself and the Treasurer -- in none of the letters he sent to us did he indicate what his costs were or what his problem was.

In none of the letters he sent to us did he indicate what his costs were or what his problem was, so we have asked very clearly that if we are going to come to a meeting with him, and we intend to do that, will he in turn open his books? I hope he will do that. That is the basis upon which we are now arranging those meetings.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Abel: My question is for the Minister of Labour. My riding of Wentworth North --

Interjections.

Mr Scott: Let that guy ask a question. Give him a break.

The Speaker: Order. The Speaker would appreciate the assistance of all members, not just the member for St George-St David.

Mr Abel: I am grateful to the member for St George-St David for taking care of my best interests here. As I began to say, my riding of Wentworth North consists of three towns, Dundas, Ancaster and Flamborough, and in these three towns there are several shopping malls and plazas. Several of the shop owners from within these malls and plazas have contacted me with some concerns regarding the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, specifically picketing on third-party property. My question to the minister is, will the proposal to allow picketing in shopping malls interfere with businesses not involved in a labour dispute?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think it is a good question and useful to get rid of some of the scare tactics that are used in terms of this legislation. Incidentally, I was going to make the point that we are --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: As I was just going to say, Mr Speaker, what we are looking at is a discussion paper, not legislation as yet. We will not know what is in the legislation until we finish the discussion process. I think it is a point, however, that there is not a fear as is raised by some of my colleague's constituents who are concerned.

The current state of the law allows for workers to picket at the entrance to the mall or in the parking centres, and that can often lead to real problems with a number of people who may be involved in the malls. The change would allow for picketing inside at the actual store that was being affected by the labour dispute, and I think that will be a lot easier than previously.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think allowing --

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the final point is that the proposals in the discussion paper, which still has to go through the discussion process, will allow peaceful picketing directly at the business involved, and attempts to picket them all generally would be illegal, as they currently are.

TEACHERS' SETTLEMENTS

Mr Beer: My question is to the Minister of Education. In an

article in today's Globe and Mail, it is reported that the minister has told Ontario school boards that they need to show more restraint in wage settlements, which are currently running on average at 6.1%.

Last month, as Chairman of Management Board, the minister intervened in discussions between the Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology and their staff and stated that they ought not to offer any settlement above 2.7%.

Is the minister prepared to give this same message clearly and firmly today to the leadership of the teachers' unions in this province?

Hon Mr Silipo: I think I said earlier, and I will continue to say, that I believe and this government believes in the collective bargaining process and in that process continuing. What I have also been saying and will continue to say is that we have some realities that we all need to deal with, and very clearly the area of wage settlements is an area that everyone needs to look at, whether it is in the school board sector or in any other sector. That is the kind of message I have been giving out, and that is certainly the kind of message I will continue to give out.

Mr Beer: That really is no answer at all. The minister is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying: "It concerns me...something needs to be looked at...without being too firm...we will need to be sharpening our message."

It seems the minister is quite prepared to sharpen his message when it comes to the community colleges, but he ducks the issue and is afraid to make the tough decisions when it comes to discussions between the school boards and the teachers. What is happening here is that the minister has also indicated that school boards can expect 3% or less in transfer payments, and yet it is clear from what is going on in terms of these settlements that there simply will not be money for the wage settlements.

What is the minister going to do? Will he state today how he is prepared to protect the Ontario property taxpayer if, on the one hand, he is not prepared to give the school boards the money to run the schools of this province, and second, he does not seem to have the wherewithal or the courage to stand up and state clearly and categorically the wage limits that will be permitted?

Hon Mr Silipo: Although I note with interest the settlement reached for the colleges' support staff of, I believe, 3% for next year, I also, as I say, believe very clearly that school boards, teachers' federations and other employer organizations have a clear responsibility to continue the collective bargaining process and find solutions to the fiscal problems that we have through that process.

I met yesterday with representatives from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association. I will be meeting with representatives from other trustees' associations, as well as with teachers' federations and other employee groups and representatives, to discuss with them very clearly the kind of situation we are all living under. It is the kind of restraint, quite frankly, that everyone will have to show.

The Treasury has already indicated we will be making our transfer payments announcements before Christmas as a way also to indicate very clearly to the municipal level, school boards and other transfer payment agencies the kind of support they can expect from this government. It is a time for all of us to look very clearly and very realistically at what we can achieve.

Mr Beer: I would like to state that the answer is not acceptable. It is purely a lot of gobbledegook, and I invite the minister back at 6 o'clock for the late show.

The Speaker: I assume the member for York North will file the necessary document.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I did not want to pursue this, because I did not want to take up any more time of question period, but as he stood on his feet for his second supplementary on his second question, the member for Nipissing indicated that in view of the fact that he was getting non-answers from the Treasurer, he would not be placing a second supplementary question.

I may be wrong, but I for one did not hear a question, Mr Speaker. I would ask you to review Hansard to see if in fact one was placed, because I believe -- and again I may be incorrect -- that you permitted the Treasurer to respond to the member's question. Well, I do not think there was a question. I would ask you to review Hansard, and if in fact there was not a question, why was the Treasurer given an opportunity to respond to a non-question?

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, on that point, I listened with some interest to the exchange this afternoon between the member for Nipissing and the Treasurer. I do not want to prolong the point, but it seems to me that surely the Treasurer has a right, and any minister of the crown has a right, to respond to a question. But it seems to me that if a member of the opposition bench has the right to get up -- and I think any Chair has to exercise some measure of latitude. It is not an easy task; I understand that. But on the basis of what I heard this afternoon, I would certainly support a ruling by the Chair to allow some latitude whereby one might hear a rhetorical question.

It seems to me that if we in the opposition, as members of the Legislature, are going to stand up and make a statement as part of a routine question time, it is not unreasonable that a member of the government who is clearly going to be engaged in that process -- after all, that is the informing logic of this process.

I do not like to disagree very often with my friends in the third party, but I would simply say as a member of this Legislature that in what I heard this afternoon, when a member of the Legislature stands and puts a point, though it may not be as purely interrogative as the rules would anticipate, it seems to me that, mens rea, if that is the legal term, the reasonable thing would be to allow some kind of response, if only in the anticipation that there was a rhetorical question contained within the submission.

The Speaker: First of all, to the member for Parry Sound, I appreciate your having brought this concern to my attention. I certainly listened quite intently to the comments by the member for Renfrew North. I did make a ruling on this earlier. I will, however, be pleased to take another look and will report back to the member for Parry Sound later.

PETITIONS

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario that reads as follows:

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

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

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

I am pleased to say that I have affixed my name to this petition, as have my good friend and colleague the member for York Mills and a number of good people from my riding who live in Wasaga Beach and Stayner.

Interjections.

Mr J. Wilson: I hear a lot of heckling from the opposition because they wonder why every single day since the government took away the reference to the Queen in the police --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member for Simcoe West take his seat, please.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Mr McClelland: I have a petition signed by over 700 people in opposition to Bill 143. It is signed by 700-plus people from the Maple and Vaughan areas who are asking if the government of the day would put a stop to Bill 143. I will sign that petition so it can be introduced.

CLOSING OF TREE NURSERIES

Mr Miclash: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

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

"We oppose the proposed closure of the bare root

section of the Dryden Tree Nursery due to the loss of substantial employment...Dryden Tree Nursery purchase of materials and services, income dollars spent locally and the MNR local presence in the community."

That is signed by some 112 residents of the area, and I too have attached my name to that petition.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

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

"Whereas gasoline prices are significantly higher in the Ottawa area than those in southern Ontario;

"Whereas such a price disparity discriminates against Ottawa area consumers;

"The Legislative Assembly of Ontario should urge the Ontario government to correct this injustice for Ottawa area motorists."

This is signed by 150 people, and I have affixed my signature.

CHRONIC FATIGUE IMMUNE DYSFUNCTION SYNDROME

Mrs Mathyssen: I am presenting a petition signed by 2,988 people from all over southwestern Ontario who request that:

"The Ontario Ministry of Health take steps to establish a clinic in one of the London, Ontario, teaching hospitals for the appropriate assessment, treatment and clinical research for chronic fatigue immune dysfunction syndrome.

"These signatories further request that the Ontario Ministry of Health provide the necessary funding to establish a critically needed permanent regional information centre in London, Ontario.

"These signatories would like the members of this House to understand that very little is known about this debilitating disease. It strikes people in every age group and leaves its victims with cognitive dysfunction, memory loss, difficulty with concentration, sleep disturbance, physical pain and extreme prolonged fatigue. A conservative estimate of those afflicted in Canada is about 100,000 victims, an estimated 10,000 of whom reside in southwestern Ontario.

"Despite the horrendous cost to the health care system, the inability of sufferers to continue to work or attend school, no Canadian epidemiological study has been done for CFIDS."

On behalf of all those concerned members of this Legislature and the many victims of this disease, I respectfully submit this petition, to which I too have signed my name.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Grandmaître: I too have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, similar to that of my colleague from Ottawa-Rideau:

"Whereas gasoline prices are significantly higher in the Ottawa-Carleton area than those in southern Ontario;

"Whereas such a price disparity discriminates against Ottawa area consumers;

"The Legislative Assembly of Ontario should urge the Ontario government to correct this injustice to Ottawa area motorists."

This is signed by 127 people living in the Ottawa-Carleton area, and I have affixed my signature as well.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Kormos from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

The committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 126,

An Act authorizing the Filing of Information in an Electronic Format under Statutes administered by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations

/Projet de loi126, Loi autorisant le dépôt de renseignements au moyen d'un support électronique dans le cadre de lois dont l'application est confiée au ministre de la Consommation et du Commerce.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Cooper from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 115,

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and Employment Standards Act in respect of the opening of retail business establishments and employment in them/Projet de loi 115, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail et la

Loi sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne l'ouverture des établissements de commerce de détail et l'emploi dans ces

établissements.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS GOVERNMENT CHEQUE CASHING ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'ENCAISSEMENT DE CHÈQUES DU GOUVERNEMENT

Mr Morin moved first reading of Bill 154,

An Act to prohibit the Charging of Fees for the Cashing of Government Cheques

/Projet de loi 154, Loi interdisant de demander des droits pour l'encaissement de chèques du gouvernement.

Motion agreed to.

CHURCH OF THE TORONTONIANS ACT, 1991

Mr Harnick moved first reading of Bill Pr104,

An Act to revive the Church of the Torontonians.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Harnick: This bill is to revive the charter of a corporation.

The Speaker: It is a private bill for which there is not normally an introduction.

CITY OF NEPEAN ACT, 1991

Mrs O'Neill moved first reading of Bill Pr110,

An Act respecting the City of Nepean.

Motion agreed to.

EARTH DAY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA JOURNÉE DE LA TERRE

Mr Christopherson moved first reading of Bill 155,

An Act proclaiming Earth Day

/Projet de loi 155, Loi proclamant la journée de la Terre.

Motion agreed to.

REDIRECTION OF BILL

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Bill 126 was moved on to third reading earlier. I am given to believe there was an agreement with respect to this bill going to committee of the whole. I am looking for the consent of all three parties in the House to redirect that piece of legislation to committee of the whole.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement to send Bill 126 to committee of the whole?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am not aware whether there have been discussions with the government House leader. Could I ask that we stand down this decision until I get some sense of what in fact has been discussed?

The Speaker: This matter can be dealt with later on. We note there are no House leaders present in the chamber at this time. We can set this aside for now and the member can come back later when we have had an opportunity to determine what can happen with this.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 33, the member for York North has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer given by the Minister of Education to his question concerning transfer payments and teachers' salaries. This matter will be debated at 6 pm today.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA GESTION DES DÉCHETS

Mrs Grier moved second reading of Bill 143,

An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act

/Projet de loi143, Loi concernant la gestion des déchets dans la région du grand Toronto et modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement.

Hon Mrs Grier: I am pleased that debate on waste management in this province is about to begin. In my six years in this Legislature I think this is the first time members have had an opportunity to debate a comprehensive approach to waste management, despite the fact that the issue of waste management has preoccupied many of us and the time of this House in question period. There has not been a comprehensive piece of legislation getting to the heart of the matter that is beginning to deal with the problem.

In Ontario, as in the rest of Canada, our quality of life and prospects for economic prosperity have traditionally been rooted in an advantage that few other jurisdictions on earth enjoy. We are a community of approximately nine million people occupying almost 900,000 square kilometres of land rich in resources.

But we have long been aware that this abundance is not without limits and that we have been straining those limits. That is the hard fact that underlies the evolution of environmental protection in Ontario. It has been addressed in legislation and in programs developed and refined over the past quarter century by a series of governments.

In spite of current economic conditions, public concern for the environment remains high. In fact, it has strengthened in focus. The public has adopted recycling as part of everyday life wherever recycling systems have been put in place. They are becoming more selective as consumers, creating a demand for environmentally friendly products. The greening of public attitudes is manifest here and around the world in disapproval of some of the products and byproducts from industries, businesses and institutions that are often seen to be harming the environment.

For their part, many in industry, commerce and institutions are thinking and working in more environmental ways. They are quick to recognize the advantages in cost and efficiency of low-waste, low-pollution operations and also the marketability of greener, environmentally friendly products.

We are now building on the foundations of environmental legislation established in Ontario and launching major new environmental initiatives to address the public's environmental and economic concerns.

Today I am pleased to introduce the Waste Management Act, 1991 for second reading in the Legislature. This is our government's first milestone in refining the province's environmental laws so that we may maintain a level of environmental quality which will nurture a healthy, productive society and a strong, sustainable economy.

With this legislation we are beginning to implement an environmental strategy which is based on four major policy directions.

First, this is a green government. The environment must be taken into account by all ministries in every policy and program that is decided upon.

Second, stewardship: Everyone has a stake in the environment, a responsibility to protect it and a right to enjoy its benefits.

Third, conserving: To create a sustainable environment, we must transform ourselves from a consumer society to a conserver society.

Fourth, prevention: Our programs have a double focus, to develop strategies to prevent further damage and to clean up existing problems in our environment.

The Waste Management Act, 1991 addresses urgent environmental issues facing this province and provides the government with the legal authority to resolve them and begin implementing strong and consistent environmental policies.

The act provides a framework within which we can accelerate the transition from a consumer society to a conserver society strongly based on the 3Rs -- reduce, reuse and recycle -- with the emphasis on waste reduction.

This legislation is the foundation for implementing a series of regulatory initiatives for waste reduction, the first of which I released for public consultation last month. This legislation is the means by which we intend to achieve more than 25% waste diversion from disposal by 1992 and more than 50% by the year 2000, goals that have been espoused for quite some time but for which programs and policies were not put in place to enable us to reach them.

We are tackling a waste management system that has traditionally been heavily weighted in favour of simply finding disposal sites instead of reducing the amount to be disposed of in the first place. With this legislation, and regulations and programs to follow, we intend to require municipalities to account for and maintain records of the full cost of waste management facilities and to establish disposal fees which are substantial enough to reflect those true costs.

At the same time we will expedite approvals of 3Rs facilities, such as composting and recycling plants, to remove some of the barriers that have impeded their establishment up to now.

This act will help us to improve the public's ability to carry out the 3Rs so that waste reduction measures are consistent across the province. This means mandatory recycling and leaf and yard material composting programs in all the larger municipalities. This will allow more people to share the benefits enjoyed by those who live in our already waste-conscious municipalities.

In the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors, which account for some 60% of the solid waste now going to disposal, the act will allow the province to require annual waste audits, implementation of waste reduction action plans and recycling programs in designated larger operations. A growing number of companies and institutions are already doing these things to achieve substantial waste reduction as well as significant improvements in operational efficiency. This legislation will help us in bringing the rest along and establishing a fair and competitive environment.

This legislation also extends our ability to deal with packaging and containers, which make up an estimated 21% of our waste stream, and in addition, to deal with disposable products and products that pose other waste management problems. Here too we expect to develop an effective program of waste audits and waste reduction action plans.

Sections of the act focus attention on the greater Toronto area where we have close to four million residents making up about 44% of the total Ontario population. It is in the GTA consequently that we find the greatest need for solutions to deal with disposal sites that are rapidly reaching their original design capacities. At the same time, this concentration of population and economic activity provides the greatest possible opportunities for success in 3Rs initiatives.

We have established the Interim Waste Authority to provide provincial leadership to the GTA in establishing long-term waste disposal facilities and seeing them through the environmental assessment process. The act before us today provides some of the authority essential to achieving this goal.

The act also provides for implementation as required of some of the interim GTA waste disposal decisions which have already been announced and discussed in the Legislature.

Current estimates of waste disposal indicate that capacities at the Keele Valley and Brock West landfill sites are greater than were expected some months ago. Ministry staff are evaluating these latest estimates, and I look forward to seeing how they hold up. Obviously those estimates have significant bearing on the need for actual use of the interim capacity measures, specifically for example, the need for one transfer station in Durham region and the need for a lift at the Keele Valley landfill site.

Regardless of changing estimates, however, all our information does point clearly to a need for a lift at the Britannia Road landfill site in Peel region starting next year. The risk of not preparing for interim capacity at Keele Valley and Britannia Road is one I cannot take for the sake of both the environment and the economy of the greater Toronto area.

The act before us today reflects in varying degrees all four of the basic environmental policy directions this government has established.

It encourages a green government approach to waste reduction at the regional and municipal level in tune with provincial initiatives, including the waste reduction efforts led by the Ministry of Government Services.

It helps provide a better environment for stewardship, with opportunities for industry, commerce and institutions as well as the general public. The consultation we have begun on the proposed 3Rs regulations ensures full public access to the process of developing the forms this stewardship will take. With the strong emphasis placed on waste reduction, we are implementing conservation over consumption and creating conditions more favourable to conserver approaches.

Similarly, the act will help us prevent pollution. It will help us guide the public, governments, industries, commerce and institutions in anticipating and reducing the production of waste materials and diverting others from disposal into productive use. These basic policy directions will continue to be paramount as I bring forward further legislative initiatives, policies and programs.

These approaches have been incorporated into the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement. The MISA program is focused at more than 300 industries discharging directly into our lakes and rivers and more than 12,000 industries which tie into our sewer systems. We have strengthened that program to emphasize pollution prevention and to reduce the discharge of persistent toxic contaminants by reducing the use of these contaminants in the first place.

These new directions I am implementing share the values and reflect the principles adopted by the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy, which I am privileged to chair. The government is continuing to look to this multistakeholder group for the strategic planning essential to the development of a conserver society in an environment that will nurture and sustain quality of life as well as healthy economic activity.

As a government, we are convinced that solutions to environmental problems cannot wait for more prosperous times. The challenge before us is to develop creative programs to respond to the need for immediate and strong action and to do this in a way which is fiscally responsible.

When we look at the role of various economic sectors in environmental protection, we are looking to more than just reducing the environmental problems they create. Now we are seeing the greening of industry, which in turn has led to green industry, where pollution prevention is the key principle. The government is working with business and industry to increase their competitiveness in a world market for environmental expertise which could exceed $200 billion.

In developing comprehensive programs which emphasize pollution prevention as well as the other policy directions I have outlined, the Ministry of the Environment is providing a spur to all industries to come up with technological advances to meet our regulations. The ministry wants to establish an environmental climate which will encourage industry to bring about this kind of development.

The government is on the road to providing the people of Ontario with the quality of life to which they aspire, in an environmentally sustainable economy. Reducing the amount of waste we produce and disposing of the residue in an environmentally sound way is an important step along that road and I welcome the opportunity to debate those principles and this legislation in this Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Sorbara: I want to advise my colleagues in the House that I intend to speak at some length on this bill.

An hon member: Surprise, surprise.

Mr Sorbara: There is the say-nothing member for Middlesex shouting out her insults again, sent in my direction during --

Mrs Mathyssen: Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. Yes, I understand. You were not the one.

Mrs Mathyssen: That is right.

The Deputy Speaker: Take your seat, please. It was not the member for Middlesex; it was another member.

Mr Sorbara: Then I would apologize to the member for Middlesex. I am so accustomed now to hearing insults hurled at me from her during the course of deliberations in the standing committee on administration of justice that I just naturally assumed, and that was in error.

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: I guess we are going to have a lot of interjections through this. I will just try to ignore them as best I can.

I plan to speak at some length on this bill. Members will be hearing through the course of a very long debate arguments that I think will establish conclusively that the best course for the Minister of the Environment would simply be to withdraw this bill and start again. I will be making submissions to the House as to why I consider that to be the only appropriate course.

I want to say at the outset that the members will be hearing very strong arguments from a number of our members, not just members from ridings in the greater Toronto area but from members representing all parts of the province, because in our view the draconian nature of this bill can and will have implications for every single community in Ontario and indeed beyond that to the whole course of solving our environmental problems and working out environmental solutions in Ontario.

It is difficult for me to believe that the Minister of the Environment, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, could actually allow her name to be associated with this bill, and I say that as honestly and as straightforwardly as I can. I have several reasons for saying that, but the one I think is paramount in my mind is the extent to which the Minister of the Environment, when she sat on this side of the House -- I think the Chair was just directly in front of me here -- was an outspoken, articulate, powerful and respected advocate on issues relating to the environment.

It went beyond the role her leader, the now Premier, had assigned to her as Environment critic. You could tell, particularly in the interchanges between her and the member for St Catharines, while he was Minister of the Environment, that she understood the issues. In particular, she understood the extent of the right to be heard that the laws of the province had vested in the people of Ontario, which was paramount in her understanding of environmental issues: the right to be heard, the right of a community to participate in the decisions that would affect them.

She went so far, during the course of the last Parliament, as to introduce an environmental bill of rights. That legislation was never passed, but it vested in individuals and groups in a community the opportunity to take their case to an independent tribunal and to have it deliberated upon.

The essence of Bill 143, the bill she introduced in this House a few days ago and now sponsors in second reading, the kernel of the bill, is to abrogate the rights of citizens in virtually every respect and virtually every law that has governed environmental protection, I say to the minister, since we started legislating in those areas in this Parliament. She laughs. When I say that, she laughs. I am going to get into why that is the case, but I will just set it out for the members, because it is important we get to that matter urgently.

This bill provides that, by order, the Minister of the Environment can, under her pen and under the authority of Bill 143, order that there be an additional capacity at the Britannia landfill site and order that there be additional capacity for Metro's garbage at the Keele Valley landfill site, without the ability of the citizens of this province to be heard on the matter.

This is how far it goes. This bill allows that the order of the Minister of the Environment bypasses the Environmental Assessment Act, which she used to believe in, the Municipal Act, the Planning Act, the Ontario Municipal Board Act, and even beyond that, the rights that accrue to municipalities under private contract.

What are we left with? I will tell members what we are left with. After her order comes down, under her signature or the signature of one of her directors, the people of the province have an opportunity for 21 days to express their view in writing, and that is it. After that the matter is closed, and after that the garbage trucks come, and after that her will shall prevail. This is rule by royal prerogative and it looks very bad on the now Minister of the Environment, a former champion of environmental rights: 21 days to respond in writing; no hearing.

I, as a representative of the people of York Centre and the Maple community and the Vaughan community, and thousands of others who might have something to say in the process of a hearing, are told that we have no right at all to be heard. All our democracy, all our rights legislation, everything we believe in as legislators, is based on the right to be heard and she has presented us with a bill that says: "You shall no longer have those rights. I can personally order the expansion of a dump. I can personally inflict that on the people of a community" -- Peel, York region, and by extension really anywhere else.

If this passes, this sets one of the most dangerous precedents in environmental regulation and environmental management of any jurisdiction in North America, the denial of the right to be heard.

Imagine if in this Legislature the government were able to bring forward a bill and say: "There's going to be no debate. If you have a concern about it, write us a letter. Send us your views by mail."

I want to tell members what that is like. My constituents have been writing the Minister of the Environment for months. They have been communicating by mail. They are not given an opportunity to meet her personally. That would be too much. But they have been writing her. Do members know what they get? No answer at all; no response.

Let me just give members one example. This hero across the floor, who talks about the 3Rs --

Some hon members: Heroine.

Mr Sorbara: I do not want to make it a sexist differentiation. This hero or heroine of the environment proclaims that she is going to implement the 3Rs in Ontario. Let me just tell her a little story or two about that.

In the municipality I live in, York region, they are anxious to get on with the 3Rs. In fact, they are anxious to build a recycling depot and a composting depot. Do members know what? They cannot do it, and they cannot do it because under the Regional Municipality of York Act, passed by this Parliament, they do not have the authority to do it. They need a change in legislation. It is not a big change in legislation; it is a very small amendment to the York region act.

They bought a building to get on with their plans for dealing with her majesty's 3Rs. They paid money for the building. They developed plans to use that building for recycling and composting, but they need authority to do that. They were limited in their authority and asked the previous minister, the member for St Catharines, for that authority. He said, "Yes, we will bring forward legislation." Then there was an election and he was no longer the Minister of the Environment. That gives members a sense of how long ago this matter emerged.

They needed the authority, so they wrote when the new minister was sworn in. They asked that a bill be brought forward by her or the Minister of Municipal Affairs to empower them to do this. The letter came from the chairman of York region, as would be appropriate. Do members know what the Minister of the Environment said? Nothing. There was no response whatever, no letter back saying: "Thank you for your letter. I understand. Yes, I'm in favour of the 3Rs," or: "No, I'm not in favour of the 3Rs. That will be very difficult. The legislative calendar is very busy." Nothing, no response whatever.

The chairman of York region wrote a letter and asked the Premier to ask some minister to get on with that, with a simple amendment to the York region act. Do members know what the chairman of York region heard from the Premier in response? Nothing. No letter, no phone call, no postcard, no suggestion that, "Yes, we'll deal with that down the road." Nothing. Do members know what? The bill is still not in the House.

The Minister of the Environment, who stands up here and unabashedly proclaims her belief in the 3Rs, has not got the decency to advise York region whether she will bring forward such a measure. I find it hard to believe. It is a very good example of the extent to which what this