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

April 3, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Mahoney: The Minister of the Environment has really put the cat among the pigeons in the region of Peel. When the Britannia landfill site was opened in 1977, an agreement was entered into by the city, the region and, most important, by the citizens that the Britannia site would exist for 12 years. Out of necessity and by mutual agreement, that period has been extended for the time being.

The 27 March order in council issued by the Minister of Municipal Affairs took away planning authority for 500 metres surrounding this site. Is this not a crystal-clear message that the original agreement will now be ignored and the Britannia landfill site will be extended indefinitely?

Part of the Britannia agreement was that the city of Brampton would take the next Peel regional dump site. Obviously that arrangement means nothing to the minister. She has taken site 6B in Brampton off the table and frozen development around Britannia with no consultation with the people.

The minister comes into her portfolio on a white charger, acting like Annie Oakley, saying she is going to solve all the problems by having municipalities and the people of the province adhere to the 3Rs. We all know that the fourth R, re-election, is the only one she and her colleagues are really concerned about.

Annie had better get her gun, because if she thinks she can simply extend Britannia without consultation or discussion with the citizens or the city, there will be a showdown with Hazel McCallion at high noon on the main street of Mississauga for the battle of her life.

Peel has gone through the site search process and this minister has undermined that process. She has ignored past agreements and shown the mayor and council that she cares not for consultation but only expediency.

ORILLIA PERCH FESTIVAL

Mr McLean: The annual Orillia Perch Festival celebrates its 10th anniversary this year. Thousands of anglers, young and old, male and female, converge on the Sunshine City each year to test their fishing skills in the waters of Lake Simcoe and Lake Couchiching.

During the 10th anniversary edition of the Orillia and District Chamber of Commerce Perch Festival, which runs from 20 April to 11 May, avid anglers will be vying for more than $125,000 worth of prize money. This year there will be 72 specifically tagged perch, each with a value of $500, and those who reel in one of these tagged perch will be eligible for a $10,000 grand prize.

I congratulate the Orillia and District Chamber of Commerce for organizing and sponsoring the perch festival, which has continued to grow during its 10 years of existence. The annual event is an excellent example of how the people of Orillia are eager to promote our community in an atmosphere of fun and festivity.

I would like to take this opportunity to invite my colleagues in the provincial Legislature to come to the Sunshine City to do battle with the mighty fighting perch, one of the finest pan fish in all of Ontario. If members need more information, I urge them to call the Orillia and District Chamber of Commerce Perch Festival hotline, 705-326-4424.

DAFFODIL DAY

Mrs Mathyssen: Many of the members here will already know April is Cancer Month across Canada and Friday 5 April is Daffodil Day, the kickoff for the major annual fund-raising drive of the Canadian Cancer Society.

The Canadian Cancer Society is a national, community-based organization of volunteers whose mission is the eradication of cancer and improvement of the quality of life of people living with cancer. The society supports research into the causes and treatments of cancers and provides education programs designed to raise public awareness about the importance of prevention and early detection of this terrible disease. As well, the society has always been there for people living with cancer through its patient service programs, working to meet the social, emotional and psychological needs of cancer patients and their families.

On Friday and Saturday of this week, many of the 150,000 volunteers of the society in Ontario will be selling daffodils in public places throughout our province. As well, throughout April, door-to-door canvassers will be approaching people in their homes to raise funds for the important work of the Canadian Cancer Society.

There are many here in this chamber whose lives have been touched by this devastation among those near and dear to them: fellow workers, constituents, neighbours and family members. The daffodil which I wear today is a symbol of the hope which exists in many hearts that cancer can and will be beaten. The role played by the Canadian Cancer Society throughout Canada and in Ontario is an important one in this fight.

I know I am joined by my fellow caucus members in the Legislature today in wishing the Canadian Cancer Society all success with this year's drive.

Mrs Fawcett: I too believe that it is appropriate that we in this Legislature direct our attention to this pervasive disease of cancer, the second most frequent cause of death in Ontario. It is predicted that in Ontario over 40,000 new cancer cases will be reported this year. Even more frightening is the fact that the incidence of cancer is increasing at a rate of 4% each year.

The provincial government plays a pivotal role in cancer control and prevention. There is the obvious -- funding for hospitals, health promotion and educational programs, volunteer programs and research -- and the less obvious -- anti-workplace-smoking legislation to attack the most preventable causes of cancer.

Yet we are reminded today, and also by daffodils being sold by volunteers throughout the month of April, that 35% of all deaths in Ontario are cancer-related.

This simple fact has moved more than 150,000 volunteers from across Ontario to become involved with the Canadian Cancer Society. These individuals promote public education messages, raise funds and become involved in the emotional support and comfort of cancer patients. If ever there was a driving force behind an organization, these nameless, devoted thousands are it, and they deserve our thanks and support.

While cancer is still the second highest cause of death in Ontario, research has led to improvements in diagnosis and treatment and in survival rates. Statistics indicate that the overall survival rate of childhood leukaemia has increased by 60% since 1970. So there is hope. There is momentum in the research that is being done, and there are you and I, upon whom the continued success of this very important work depends.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Turnbull: Last week the Minister of Revenue responded to a question about the reassessment presently occurring in the city of Toronto by saying it was strictly for the purpose of updating records and not for the imposition of market value reassessment.

I have in my hand a copy of the assessment form sent to all of the homes in North York. It states very clearly the purpose of this reassessment: "Metro Toronto council has requested a general reassessment to be implemented in 1992 for taxation in 1993."

Will the minister come clean and now admit that she either misled the House or did not understand the workings of her own department? Which is it?

This reassessment is costing the taxpayers of Toronto at least $11 million and is directly related to the decision of Metro council to implement market value reassessment. The government has not yet announced the decision on whether it will support market value reassessment. As Mayor Eggleton recently said: "At best, they're squandering millions without a plan. At worst, they've made up their minds, but are pretending they haven't."

It appears there is a choice: incompetence or deviousness. Will the minister come forward and admit to this House just what her government is planning?

REST HOMES

Mr Huget: On 25 March receivers Ernst and Young announced that it had obtained permission of the Ontario Court to close Sarnia Lodge Rest Home. The closure will result in the forced relocation of 17 ill and handicapped residents.

Sarnia Lodge has been a target of complaints for more than a decade while passing through a series of owners. In August 1989 a doctor noted the "totally unacceptable" hygiene of an elderly, mentally handicapped resident he found with human faeces and maggots in her shoes.

The home's last owner, Ultra-Care Management of Peterborough, purchased the home in 1987 and was placed in receivership for unpaid debts in November 1990. At that time there were complaints about the hygiene and confinement of residents and workers complained of difficulty cashing paycheques.

On 13 March 1991, nine registered nursing assistants were notified their jobs would be terminated to cut costs, and they expressed concerns about unqualified staff dispensing medication. On 21 March 1991, Ernst and Young announced it would close the home and relocate the residents to whatever facility would accept them.

Vulnerable residents in this province deserve much better treatment than this, and I urge my government to proceed as quickly as possible with legislation to protect these and many other vulnerable citizens in Ontario. There must be standards and regulations for these homes, and I urge all members of this House to support the legislation when it is introduced.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Chiarelli: Premier Bob Rae has failed to replace Johnny Carson's The Great Karnak as prime time jokester. The Premier has opened the envelope with the answer. It says, "Government-run automobile insurance." But the Premier fails the test. He cannot find the envelope with the question.

Is the question how to provide more affordable premiums? How to restore the right to sue? How to provide better service? How to increase benefits with no additional cost? How to displace 40,000 private sector employees? Or is it how to win an election?

Premier Karnak will not return to Johnny Carson's prime time until he can find the question to go with the answer, "Government-run auto insurance." Can the Premier tell us, what is the question?

DAFFODIL DAY

Mr Eves: It is my privilege to rise in the House today on behalf of our party to remind the people of Ontario that April is Cancer Month. Today is Daffodil Day. It is celebrated across Canada. We will be given the opportunity to show our support to the cancer society by purchasing and wearing daffodils.

The tradition of Daffodil Day began one spring day many years ago when a group of cancer society volunteers decorated the tables for a cancer tea with daffodils. The early spring blooms are a reminder of hope and renewed life. Today this tradition is supported by numerous volunteers in their fight against cancer.

This week we will be given the opportunity to support the Ontario Cancer Society by purchasing daffodils at subway stations, in the street and shopping malls this weekend.

I would also like to ask the members to support this worthwhile cause. Last year $2 million was raised in the province of Ontario alone, and this year we are hoping to raise even more money. For those who are interested, daffodils are available in front of the Legislature today between the hours of 1 and 3 pm.

I want to take this opportunity to suggest that all Ontarians support this very important battle against cancer.

I think I would be very remiss if I did not extend on behalf of my party, and probably all members of the Ontario Legislature, our sincere best wishes, hope and prayers for the member for Scarborough West for a full and speedy recovery.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Drainville: I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues here in the Legislature to the efforts of a small band of women in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton who have been working to fight abuse against women in the county of Victoria.

In 1983 a group of women formed the Victoria County Women's Resource Services. Their mandate was to educate the public and help provide services for abused women. This is a volunteer group currently headed by a very capable and dedicated woman by the name of Ruth Martin.

Currently the one in eight women in Victoria county who are abused by their husbands or boyfriends trek as far as Peterborough to find shelter. With a focus on finding solutions for family violence, Victoria County Women's Resource Services has undertaken to purchase a home in a friendly residential area of Lindsay to provide a temporary home for 18 women and their families seeking shelter from abuse.

The group is renovating the home to hold 10 bedrooms and is actively fund-raising within the community. The group has worked hard to gain the support of the local community and local government, and it is my great privilege to commend them for their work in the community and to hope that many more communities in Ontario can help to educate and stop both wife and child abuse.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RACE RELATIONS

Hon Ms Ziemba: Today I rise to talk about anti-racism and our strategy. Racial tension is mounting in our society. One in 10 Ontario residents is a potential target of racism as a racial minority or an aboriginal person.

Our traditional approaches to combating racism have not worked. We have focused on relations between the races while overlooking the underlying bias in attitudes and institutional practices. The signs are clear. Too many aboriginal and black young people drop out of school, and there are barriers to public and social services.

We know that racism creates divisions between people. It excludes and marginalizes individuals and robs the community of economic potential by blocking access to opportunity. Racism hurts all Ontarians by frustrating the achievement of a fully productive and equitable society.

Our government has the political will to confront racism head on. As the throne speech proclaimed, "We know that to achieve our social and economic goals, we must strive to achieve access, equity and the protection of the rights of all members of our society." My portfolio as Minister of Citizenship with responsibility for human rights, disability issues, senior citizens and race relations brings together the concerns of groups who have been isolated and left out. It is my job to provide leadership to achieve our government's equity objectives.

We will condemn racism in all its forms, both individual racism and the more subtle but pervasive systematic barriers that exclude people on the basis of their race. We will mobilize Ontario's people and all key sectors to combat racism. To do this, it is my pleasure to inform the House that our government is introducing an anti-racism strategy for Ontario. We are backing our commitment with nearly $7.5 million in new money over a two-year period. This amount is a significant increase, doubling the current budget of the race relations directorate.

The strategy will reflect a series of guiding principles. These guiding principles will inspire all our efforts. They are as follows:

1. Ontario recognizes and respects the unique identity of aboriginal peoples and the need for a distinct approach to anti-racism measures for aboriginal people. We will be guided by the first nations in formulating a unique anti-racism policy.

2. Ontario government ministries, their agencies, boards and commissions must take an active leadership role in combating racism.

3. All government services must recognize the racial diversity of Ontario and take this into account in the design and delivery of programs.

4. Ontario is committed to developing a new co-operative relationship with local government, community groups, labour, non-profit agencies, the broader public sector and business in recognition of the need for shared responsibility and joint leadership in combating racism.

5. Ontario is committed to anti-racism initiatives that are open and inclusive, that reach out to diverse communities and advocate an effective voice for those who have been not heard.

Our anti-racism strategy has five components.

As the first element in our strategy, we will develop and implement an Ontario anti-racism policy to replace the Ontario policy on race relations. The existing policy, based on the rather vague concept of race relations, fails to address the hard reality of racism. It also lacks implementation guidelines. The anti-racism policy will allow our government to renew the vision and strengthen the commitment to combating racism through concrete action.

Second, we will develop a mandatory Ontario public sector anti-racism strategy covering all ministries and their agencies, boards and commissions. This government-wide strategy will show our determination to lead by example. It will require all provincial government organizations to take specific initiatives and be held accountable for combating racism.

Third, the government will consult community groups and work with ministries, their agencies, boards and commissions to ensure that all new and existing policies, programs and legislations comply with the new anti-racism policy. The new Police Services Act, proclaimed recently, illustrates the potential that legislation has a positive impact on the racial climate. We will follow closely the effectiveness of this legislation and its impact in our communities. We will seek more ideas and public input on how policies, programs and laws should be reformed.

Fourth, we are establishing the Ontario anti-racism secretariat as a strong advocacy body to spearhead the fight against racism both within and outside the government. The secretariat will be created by restructuring and enhancing the race relations directorate. The new organization will carry out crucial policy development, research and evaluation roles. It will provide both consulting advice and financial assistance to help various sectors plan and implement anti-racism programs. It will organize anti-racist public education initiatives to change attitudes.

Finally, we will appoint the Ontario Anti-Racism Advisory Group to provide ongoing input on the progress of the anti-racism strategy over the next two years. This volunteer group will include strong community representation, plus members from the private and broader public sectors.

It is important to underline that the anti-racism strategy for Ontario will complement the legislated employment equity program to be developed by the employment equity commissioner. While the commissioner will deal exclusively with workplace discrimination, the anti-racism strategy will address racism in all sectors of our society. The strategy that we are announcing today will focus on such issues as bias in the school curriculum, discrimination in the provision of services and stereotypes in the media. The anti-racism strategy, like employment equity, represents a commitment to access, equality and full participation.

I also want to stress that we plan to take a sectoral approach in implementing the anti-racism strategy; that is, initiatives will be tailored to meet specific needs in the public sector, the community, the private sector and the broader public sector. Let me briefly describe some key priorities.

In the public sector, our goal is to ensure access and equity in the provision of government services. The Ontario anti-racism secretariat will consult widely across the public service, both unions and management, in preparing the Ontario public sector anti-racism strategy I mentioned earlier.

In the community we will, for the first time, provide core funding to community-based groups so they can plan and operate anti-racism programs. A stable financial base will enable these local organizations to concentrate on advocating for people who have been excluded from existing programs and services. We want to strengthen these community groups so they can work with government in a more meaningful way in planning policies and programs. Our aim is to provide a voice for those who have been forgotten.

In the private sector, we plan to encourage employer associations and unions to reduce systemic discrimination through organizational change. We will fund demonstration projects for this purpose.

Finally, in the broader public sector we intend to work with municipalities, hospitals, school boards, colleges and universities and their related ministries. We ask everyone in today. In conclusion, racism is not a partisan issue, is not an issue that we must take lightly. This is an issue for which we must all share responsibility to build a future where racism is no longer tolerated or condoned.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Hon Mr Buchanan: I rise to inform the members of the House of a new initiative my government has undertaken for the farmers of Ontario.

Ontario farmers have been labouring under the burden of difficult economic times. Projections for 1991 indicate a worsening financial situation, with net farm income declining substantially and continuing high real interest rates.

The seriousness of the farm economy situation and the need for immediate action to provide relief were made clear in the report of the agricultural finance review committee. As members will recall, the agricultural finance review committee, chaired by my colleague the member for Essex-Kent, was appointed in October, shortly after we formed the government. The committee consulted farmers and agricultural organizations across the province to find solutions to farm finance problems.

A key recommendation of the committee's report was the need for immediate, targeted provincial interest assistance to help farmers who are most in need. The report recommended that a targeted financial relief program be initiated to help farm families cope with current economic conditions. Such a program would help offset high interest rates paid by farmers and provide bridging to reduce cash flow pressures in 1991. I am pleased to report that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and this government are proceeding with a $50-million, one-year farm interest assistance program that will provide an immediate financial cushion for Ontario farmers in financial need.

Although the implementation of the gross revenue insurance safety net program is expected to improve the stability of future farm incomes, the benefits of the gross revenue insurance program will not be realized until 1992. Consequently, Ontario farms could be left unprotected from real high interest rates, resulting in further decline of the financial position of Ontario's farm and rural communities. The new program will provide immediate short-term assistance while the ministry considers long-term financial credit options for farmers.

The 1991 farm interest assistance program is targeted at farms in need of financial assistance as determined by all positive sources of income. It will offer grants of up to $8,000 for farms operated by an individual owner and up to $12,000 for farms with one or more owners.

I realize it has been the custom of previous governments to announce financial programs for farmers as part of the provincial budget. However, the Premier and my cabinet colleagues recognize that Ontario farmers will be making decisions for spring planting very soon. In order for them to make the best use of this program and in order to restore some security to their enterprise, we are pleased to make this announcement today.

RESPONSES

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Curling: It is important of course that we address the concern about racism in our society. Recently we saw the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in our society. The strengths, as I read and listened to the minister, are strengths within her statement here. The announcement of the increased stature of the secretariat I am very happy about and the independent capacity that she has placed on that secretariat will of course assist in bringing more clout to counter the racist aspect of our society today.

I have noticed too that the minister has put more money there to give resources for the policymaking process. We have a lot of talk about racism and I hope that this government will not only talk about racism, but do something about it. We also know that concern about racism should cross party lines. Too often we have taken ownership of it by party lines and decided that we are the only persons who can deliver the aspect of eliminating racism. I hope that we do not do that.

Again, as we have this wonderful statement here, there are many other areas that have not been addressed. Areas like the Ombudsman area that need a lot of support have not been addressed. It will never make any difference at all with the $7.5-million secretariat that we have here. The Ontario Human Rights Commission: With the tremendous backlog that is there, people are discouraged and feel they should not bring their case to the Ontario Human Rights Commission or to the race relations directorate. People must feel that they have access to these people and that they can be dealt with.

Today, for instance, I was with the standing committee on the Ombudsman and in about 10 minutes or 15 minutes it was adjourned. It is an indication of how seriously the government and all of us must take this other committee. I was appalled to see the behaviour there.

These are small indications that tell us that $7.5 million, $10 million or $15 million will not solve racism. It is a collective effort to wipe it out of our society. The opposition here, the party here, is in strong support of eliminating racism and making sure that racism does not exist in our society, and of giving access to people who want to be a part of this society. I am glad that the aboriginal people have been recognized and that we can now look forward to seeing that we can address this very grave issue.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Cleary: I am glad to see that the opposition questions in the House have provoked a timely agricultural announcement, and I am glad that the announcement clarifies a similar announcement that the member for Essex-Kent seemed to have made a few weeks ago. When asked by our leader the member for Brant-Haldimand about the need for the program two weeks ago, the Premier told the House that any new agricultural program would be announced at the time of the budget, which seemed to be different from the statement of the Provincial Auditor. Under repeated questioning the Premier changed his tune in saying the funding would come soon. We are glad to see that today is the day.

Farmers will be concerned, however, that the application for the program will not be available until late May, another two months from now. I would therefore like to call upon the minister to do everything he can to ensure that the program is administered quickly and the cheques get out promptly. As it is now, farmers probably will not get any real cheques until late summer at the earliest.

This is the first real announcement for funding that this minister has made since he took office. It is important to note that while we support this announcement, the government funding announcement today shows how successful the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program that the Liberal government had was. There may be some changes, but the interest rate assistance is a package of OFFIRR by another name, and I would not be surprised if the farm community calls it OFFIRR.

The minister will be aware that pre-budget submissions of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which will be meeting with the cabinet later this afternoon, called on the NDP to introduce an OFFIRR-type interest rate program. It is important to note that the announcement falls far short of the government's $100-million election promise.

The minister mentioned the new federal safety net program in his statement, but he will not mention why the government is refusing to implement the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement this year. The minister will know that the federation of agriculture has told the government that it is important that we implement MISA this year.

The Liberal government allocated over $30 million in interest rate assistance during the five years, and the party will continue to pressure the government to live up to its responsibilities to provide direct assistance support to agriculture and not force the burden on to cash-strapped farm communities.

Mr Villeneuve: I too want to say thank you to the Minister of Agriculture and Food because --

[Applause]

Mr Villeneuve: Don't get carried away on the government benches. Now, don't get carried away.

I want to welcome the federation of agriculture here and I want to tell them to come back every week, really. If this is what it takes -- great. However, all joking aside, agriculture is facing some of the most difficult times it has ever faced. We have less than 3% of the population out in rural Ontario providing us with all of the food that we take for granted. We have the same people tightening their belts, with reduced net income for the seventh year in a row. Yes, $100 million was promised by the Premier and his government in the small paper called --

An hon member: The agenda for power.

Mr Villeneuve: The agenda for power. Yes, we forget about that. We tend to forget. However, the agenda for power said $100 million. He has fulfilled the first recommendation in the report of the member for Essex-Kent, the first one. We have six more to do, and certainly there is only $50 million left.

Farmers, when they have the money, will spend. When farmers spend money, it has a ripple effect on the economy of times seven. So the Premier should give $50 million to the agricultural community, he should multiply that by seven, and the people in small-town rural Ontario will be the ones to benefit. It is not a handout. It is something that was well earned by the agricultural community.

Agriculture faced the most difficult time ever last year with interest rates well up into the teens and yet with reduced income. I hope the GATT negotiations work because if they do not, the minister had better get ready to provide a lot more money to our agricultural community or else we will have closed the barn and farm door. That would be terrible because agriculture is the most basic industry of this province, and we very often take it for granted.

We are looking for a little more funding and support for agriculture. The minister should remember that we need a strong voice. We have the federation of agriculture here today, and it could well be the strong voice to lobby for those people out in rural Ontario who are very often too busy providing food, providing all of those things that we take for granted. I thank the minister for this announcement, and I look for more from him in the near future. It is planting time, and farmers do need that support. Let the minister send them a good message.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Cousens: On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus and our leader, the member for Nipissing, I too would like to endorse a strong anti-racism strategy for Ontario. This is something indeed that all of us from across this House and across this province have to have a strong commitment to: equality for all people.

The statement today by the minister responsible for race relations reflects something of the genuine and deep concern that we all must feel and exhibit in our actions and deeds. We have to break down the walls that people build around their small communities so that everyone can begin to understand each other, for who they are, what they are, and what they can contribute to our society. Where their needs are real, we can then do something to help solve them, and do it through the educational system as the minister suggests so that we start with our young people and build it up throughout.

I am concerned that, as a ministry and as a government, when the minister starts to talk about it being a non-partisan issue, he has a chance here when he sets up his anti-racism advisory group to include Liberals and Conservatives and people from other parties. I think other ministries in the government are continuing to just put in their favourite people. Let's open it up so that everyone from the province participates.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission: I have the results here of the failure as a government. When one looks at the fact that it takes 13 months to resolve a case right now, on average, before the Ontario Human Rights Commission, that is something this government should deal with. The minister cannot stand in the House and say he is solving a racial problem when he has something like 2,950 complaints waiting to be processed. Therefore, the government has to act on that.

The next thing which is also shameful is that when the minister talks about money being put into it, he is transferring money from one pot into the other pot. I am not convinced that this is new money he is allocating today. If it were, it would be worth announcing afresh.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mrs Sullivan: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday the minister made a third statement in a series of what we see as piecemeal and disconnected announcements about the way she is dealing with the garbage crisis in Ontario. The minister said unequivocally that regions within the greater Toronto area would not be permitted to ship their waste outside of the GTA boundaries. As a result of this announcement, confusion reigns.

Can the minister clarify for the House whether this is a province-wide policy, or does the policy just apply to the GTA? In other words, should Storrington scrap its contract to ship its waste to West Carleton? Should Kingston stop its search for a site outside its region? Many municipalities across the province are looking for a clarification. Will the minister answer in a straightforward and unequivocal way, does this policy, restricting the shipping of waste outside municipal boundaries, apply to all municipalities in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: The statement that I made yesterday, which the member describes as piecemeal, reflects the steady progress of this government towards an integrated waste management approach. What we have done is dealt with waste reduction and reuse, and I made a statement in this House to that effect. We are looking at the Environmental Assessment Act, and yesterday my statement was made in my capacity as minister responsible for the greater Toronto area.

That statement reflects on the decision of this government to put in place a waste management public authority that would be responsible for finding disposal sites within the GTA for the residue that is left over after there is serious reduction and reuse and composting of the waste.

Mr Offer: The minister should be aware, and I verified this as of last week, that the Britannia landfill site will be at capacity this December. I have in my possession a copy of an order in council dated 27 March which froze all development around the landfill site. The minister has indicated there is to be a public authority that is not yet in place. There are to be guidelines, which none of us have ever seen. The Britannia landfill site will be at capacity this December. The minister has frozen development around the site.

Her legislation, regulation, criterion, whatever she wishes to call it, is not yet in place. These facts add up. The obvious answer is that she intends to use her emergency power to expand the Britannia landfill site.

My question is whether the minister will make a commitment today not only to the residents of Mississauga North in my riding, where the site is located, but indeed to all of the people in the region of Peel, that before she exercises her emergency powers in expanding the Britannia landfill site, it will be done with full public consultation and under an environmental assessment hearing.

Hon Mrs Grier: I would like to make a distinction between the long-term solution to the GTA waste crisis issue that I addressed yesterday and the very immediate problems we are facing and in fact have known about for many years with respect to the imminent closure of sites such as the Britannia Road site. The approach of this government is going to be as aggressive as possible with the 3Rs and to reduce the amount of garbage, in the expectation that we will have a long-term site available as soon as all of the existing sites within the GTA are completed.

But in recognition of the fact that there may be a brief shortfall, I indicated yesterday that I have asked my ministry to examine all possible alternatives for meeting that shortfall. When that examination has been completed, l will be more than happy to share it with the member.

Mr Sorbara: Part of the minister's announcement yesterday indicated that without study, without environmental assessment, without one shred of supporting evidence, the garbage from three million people in Metropolitan Toronto is going to be dumped in York region. She said that this morning on Metro Morning. She said she made that decision because York region had entered into a tentative partnership with Metropolitan Toronto to consider the prospect of disposing garbage in Kirkland Lake, and on that basis she said the long-term solution to Metropolitan Toronto's garbage problems shall be in York region.

I have two parts to my supplementary question.

First, given that the minister would not propose to dump garbage in the southern part of York region, which is as urbanized as the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and given that she would not want to expand the Keele Valley landfill site because that site sits right on the headwaters of the Don River, and given that she supports the freeze of development in the Oak Ridges moraine, which is a very sensitive environmental site, and given that she would not want to put that garbage in the water basin of Lake Simcoe -- I have just described for the minister all of York region -- what site does she propose to choose arbitrarily to dispose of Metro Toronto's garbage?

Second, what studies did the minister undertake, or what environmental assessment did she do, in order to decide that it should be York region and not Durham or Peel, and will she table those studies in this House? If she cannot table those studies, will she admit to this House that her decision to choose York region was entirely political?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member seems to misunderstand the way in which the environmental assessment process works. The public authority that is going to be established will set in place environmental criteria and screening criteria, just as any other proponent of a landfill site does, and on the basis of those criteria, sites will be selected. Those sites will be subject to an environmental assessment process.

The decision as to the acceptability of those sites will be made by the Environmental Assessment Board, and I can assure the member that all of the studies, all of the options and all of the participation available to anybody under the Environmental Assessment Act will be available to him and to the residents of York region as we go through that process.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mrs Caplan: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology who, as we all know, has responsibility for small business advocacy as part of his responsibility in this province. The issue I would like him to address today is the issue of cross-border shopping, which recently has reached crisis proportions in the border communities right across this province.

Losses in Ontario this year for small businesses are estimated in the $600-million-a-year range, and it is expected to increase this year -- and these are reports by the minister's own staff -- by 25% to 30% in 1990 alone. These are his own ministry's estimates. The answers we have been hearing from the Premier and from the Treasurer are meetings and studies and talk. From the small business advocate in this province, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, we need action.

I would ask the minister today if he is going to turn his back on the people of this province who need jobs, the municipalities that need assessments, whose economies are draining away across the border, I would ask him a very specific question and I would like a time-line answer: When will he do something for the small mom-and-pop operations in the border communities across this province that are bearing the brunt of this serious, serious issue?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Of course I as minister would not and nor would this government ever turn its back on small business or any business in this province. I might cite for the member as evidence of that claim --

Mrs Caplan: When are you going to do something?

Mr Sorbara: You are a disgrace to the ministry.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can appreciate that the members opposite do not wish to hear these facts, because they probably did not do too great a job when they had the portfolios. None the less, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology has provided some $25,000 to fund development of a marketing framework to help small business, particularly in relation to cross-border shopping.

We have met with representatives of many communities, Cornwall, Fort Erie, Kingston, Niagara Falls, St Catharines, Sarnia, Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay and Windsor, in consultations to help these border communities in the problems they face. There were recommendations that have come out of those meetings, and their representatives have in fact appeared before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and have brought forward recommendations.

I can assure the member that this ministry, which has been very active and very supportive by way of funding, will continue to pursue these concerns to try to better the circumstance for all border communities in this province.

Mr Cleary: The Premier promised during the election campaign to bring in low-interest loans for small business. I am proud to state that businesses in my riding have started offering a low-interest loan program to keep local consumers' dollars in our community. However, figures already reveal a 20% unemployment rate in the Cornwall area. Clearly, we must improve the economic health of our community and increase the employment opportunities in our workforce.

The Minister for Industry, Trade and Technology must act today before one more business closes in my riding. Will he bring forward the Premier's election promise to help merchants in my riding and all cross-border communities with low-interest loans?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, through the Ontario Development Corp, entertains many, many companies that are seeking assistance in terms of loan guarantees or outright loans. I will not repeat the information I have just given to the previous questioner, although all of that is in fact quite factual.

Mr Scott: That's what you say to win elections; it has nothing to do with your policies now.

Hon Mr Pilkey: That is an interesting point of view; it does not happen to be correct. But I think I have responded very accurately in regard to the active response of this government and of this ministry by co-operating with those border communities and, as indicated earlier, we will continue to do so to aid those businesses in any way we reasonably can.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Essex South.

Mr Scott: You won that election; now perform. Do what you promised the people you would do.

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, we have --

Mr Scott: Perform. You are the government.

Mr Sorbara: Allan Pilkey has not made one minister's statement in this House. He's been here six months and he has not said a thing.

Mr Scott: You have got all the levers of power. Now use them or get out of here.

The Speaker: You are going to have to shout over the top of your colleagues.

Interjections.

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, we have here in Ontario --

The Speaker: The member for Essex South, just a moment.

One of your colleagues has been waiting patiently to place a question. He cannot do so unless his own members of his own caucus stop providing interference for him.

Mr Scott: My frustration at the unwillingness of this government to respond to its promises is causing me to --

The Speaker: Whatever frustrations members may feel have nothing to do with the orders and procedures of this House. When order has been restored, then the member for Essex South will have the floor.

Mr Mancini: Across the floor from us, we have one of the most anti-small-business governments in the history of Ontario. We have a Minister of Labour who wants to raise the minimum wage to over $9 an hour; that will help small business. We have a Minister of Colleges and Universities who does not have the backbone to cancel a course on American shopping habits for Canadians. We have a Minister of Energy who said in the Legislature that gasoline prices were not high enough for the corporate barons who run the energy corporations.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health was referred to as Dr Do-Little. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is Dr Do-Nothing. We have a situation in Windsor and Essex county where the Windsor Chamber of Commerce estimates 1,000 jobs will be lost in 1990 alone due to --

Interjections.

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, I did not stop.

The Speaker: Maybe you should have. Would the member just take a seat for a moment? The member for Essex South knows full well that ample

preamble to this question has been given. Would he please succinctly place his supplementary?

Mr Mancini: I was moving right into that supplementary, but I just wanted to remind the Premier of what his ministers have been saying.

What is wrong with the Tories today? Is something wrong with the Tories today? The Windsor Chamber of Commerce has estimated we will lose 1,000 jobs this year alone due to cross-border shopping. High taxes are one of the problems. Will the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology make some kind of commitment to lower the sales tax, lower the gasoline tax, or do both?

Hon Mr Pilkey: We cannot do those things that are not in our power. Those things that we can do, we are doing, have done and will continue to do to address this situation.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Cousens: Yesterday, the honeymoon ended for the New Democratic government. I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It relates to her statement yesterday.

In opposition, the minister and her party were strongly opposed to any shortcuts or exemptions under the Environmental Assessment Act for proposed landfill sites. On 20 November the minister told this House that her plan to deal with the waste management crisis included the establishment of a new public sector authority to search for and select the waste disposal site. However, in the meantime, the minister also admitted that she did not rule out using her emergency powers under the act to bypass full assessment hearings on expanding existing sites if necessary.

Yesterday in her statement we learned that an interim site search team has been directed to find not one but three landfill sites within the GTA, with search and environmental screening criteria to be announced at a later date. Who is setting the environmental agenda for this government? First, she is opposed to environmental exemptions, next she has a phantom garbage authority looking for a long-term site under a full environmental assessment, and then she says she might use her emergency powers to extend existing sites. Now we have an interim committee looking at three sites only in the GTA that may or may not face full environmental assessments.

When will this minister come clean with the people of this province and tell them what really is on her agenda? Just what has changed over the last six months, or over the last five years?

Hon Mrs Grier: I will try to make it as clear and as simple and as straightforward as I can. Nothing has changed over the past six months. In November I announced that this government's waste management situation would be that we would move aggressively on waste production. We have done that. I said we would examine the Environmental Assessment Act and the process by which municipalities and proponents right across the province go through environmental assessments. We are doing that.

I said I would set up a public authority to find a long-term disposal site for waste within the GTA, and yesterday I announced further details of that. It is entirely consistent and follows in rapid succession from my announcement last November.

Mr Cousens: The Ministry of the Environment has become a three-ring circus. The minister is the juggler and it is a juggling act between the province, the regions and the municipalities and she dropped the ball.

I would like to share with the minister some quotes from the Toronto Star today. One notable reaction to the minister's announcement is from Councillor Dale Martin, a prominent member of the New Democratic Party caucus in Metro, and Mr Martin -- it is the first time I have ever quoted from the man -- states: "This is totally unworkable. It's not based on reality. It's politics." I would like --

An hon member: New Democratic Party politics.

Mr Cousens: That is what he said, and it was the Toronto Star that said it too.

I would also like to refer the honourable minister to another

article from last December regarding the deal which Metro Toronto had signed to ship 30 million tonnes of garbage to the Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake. It stated: "In a letter to Metro council, Environment Minister Ruth Grier encouraged Metro to go for the Kirkland Lake deal and use its reserve funds -- now sitting at more than $200 million -- to secure rights to this site."

Who is setting the policy for her government? Why did she support the arrangement in December and four months later turn it around and tell the House, "Oh, the impact on a remote community of disposing of refuse from four million people is unthinkable." Why is it she has turned it around so fast?

Hon Mrs Grier: I do not know which of the mixed metaphors to address first, but let me just say that perhaps the member is correct when he says waste disposal has in the past been politics. The difference is that under this government waste disposal and waste management policies are environmental. That is the difference, and that is the basis for my decisions.

Mr Cousens: The minister had better go and have a little private chat with Mr Martin. He is one of her friends. The fact is, he is the one who accused the minister of playing politics. I am saying she is just proving again that this is not question period; it sure is not an answer period because we do not get answers to our questions.

My final supplementary centres on a statement by Chairman Frank Bean of Peel region in response to the minister's latest declaration that the GTA must be responsible for its own garbage. He said: "Good luck, lady. Where are you going to look?" I would like to ask the minister the same question: Where is she going to look when in fact she has got this alias interim site selection team going around looking for a place? Why do I not answer the question for her? She has not solved the problem at all.

She will not admit but I am sure she has every intention of expanding Keele Valley; she is going to expand Britannia in Brampton; she is going to develop Whitevale in Durham, and she is going to do it without a full environmental assessment. Will she deny that now?

Hon Mrs Grier: I did not take this decision expecting the people who had made a commitment to ship Metro's waste to some part of rural Ontario to be happy with the fact that I had said they had to be responsible for their own waste. For everyone the member can quote, who is unhappy with my decision, I can perhaps quote back to him, from Pollution Probe, from Northwatch, from environmental groups in Kirkland Lake, in New Liskeard, in North Bay and in Timiskaming that feel the decision this government made yesterday was the most appropriate decision for the environment. That is what matters.

Mrs Marland: My question is to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area and the Minister of the Environment. I am embarrassed that the minister would stand in this House a few minutes ago and refer to municipalities shipping their garbage away from their local jurisdiction as an example that she just gave in response to the member for Markham.

The minister knows full well that in the region of Peel, the Britannia site, which is located in Mississauga, never discussed shipping its garbage out of the region of Peel and if anybody must know that, the minister should. She said a few moments ago that she wants to give a very clear, simple and straightforward answer. I am going to give her a very clear, simple and straightforward question. On any of the sites that she is considering as an option, will she submit them to a full environmental assessment?

Hon Mrs Grier: Yes, the long-term site for disposal of residues within the GTA will be subject to an environmental assessment.

An hon member: Ask it again.

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: She has answered it. The minister has given us the answer. She is only going to submit the long-term sites to a full environmental assessment. That is the answer we feared; now we know the truth. We know these interim sites will not be subjected to a full environmental assessment, and that is even worse news than her announcement yesterday.

The answer is out now and when this minister talks about reduction and reuse, I think it is time we came out of the darkness, into the light and realized this is not Alice in Wonderland; this is the real world. I never thought I would stand in this House and praise the former minister, the member for St Catharines, but I want to tell the minister that the decision she has made in terms of waste management is a decision he could have made five years ago.

He chose not to make it five years ago because he was not going to cop out on a responsibility as he saw it, a responsibility that the minister was concerned about at the time when she was on this side of the House. I cannot believe the minister changed her mind.

I will ask her to assure the people who surround any of the interim sites in the greater Toronto area that they will have protection. She said yesterday that her announcement was made in an environmentally sound manner. Can she tell this House today how an environmentally sound manner exempts sites from full environmental assessment?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am having some difficulty understanding the premise of the question. The Britannia Road site, if that is the one to which the member for Mississauga South is referring, is an existing landfill site that has been in operation for many years. The policies that I announced in November, the policies that I repeated yesterday, are that by reducing and reusing and recycling we will extend the life of that landfill and of other existing landfills as long as we possibly can. We will move with the public authority to find a long-term site that will then accept the waste when those other sites are closed.

That is the policy. That was the policy in November, and that is the policy of this government.

Mrs Marland: For six years I shared the responsibility with this member, in opposition, for protecting the environment. We cannot believe that this member, now that she is in the government, is being so totally irresponsible. I would go as far as to say that the minister's answers in this House, following on her statement yesterday, are a betrayal of the confidence of the people of this province in her as an environmentalist.

I simply say to the minister that we can make this as clear and simple and straightforward as she seems to want it. She has been in this House, in opposition, opposed to the extension of the Britannia landfill site and to approving the Whitevale site and the extension of Keele and Brock because none of those sites, in her own words, were approved originally under a full environmental assessment. The minister has said to the former minister that she would be opposed to any expansion without a full environmental assessment.

How is it that the minister could be so opposed to expanding existing sites that were approved under the EPA now without a full EAA? How can the minister possibly do such a complete, 180-degree-turn reversal?

Hon Mrs Grier: I really regret that those sites were approved without a full environmental assessment, and I suspect it was the member's party which was in power at the time that they were in fact approved. The member says this is not an environmentally supportive decision. Let me refer her to the release today of Pollution Probe which says, "Environmental groups have earned a victory with yesterday's announcement by Environment Minister Ruth Grier."

It is not my intention to extend the use of any site that I do not have to extend the use of. It is my intention to make sure we reduce our garbage to such an extent that we can then have a long-term site.

Mrs Marland: It's Alice in Wonderland.

Hon Mrs Grier: The member says it is Alice in Wonderland. I say to the member she knows the extent of the crisis that has been created in the greater Toronto area, and I think it would be more environmentally responsible for the member to help find a solution to the problem rather than to merely criticize the solutions that I have put forward.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Beer: My question is for the Treasurer. Last week the Leader of the Opposition asked the Treasurer a very specific question about what the government includes as part of the provincial commitment, indeed of the election promise that this government made, to pay 60% of the costs of education in the province. In reading over the Hansard of the Treasurer's answer, unfortunately the Treasurer did not answer the question. I think it is of great importance, when school boards across the province are now trying to set their budgets, that we have a clear statement from the Treasurer as to what the provincial educational funding policy is.

I would like to ask the Treasurer if he would tell this House, in terms of the 60% solution, if the government of Ontario not only includes the general legislative grants, the operating grants that have traditionally been used for that figure, but if the province of Ontario now has unilaterally decided to add to the general operating grants those moneys that are spent for educational capital and those dollars that are provided to the provincial teachers' pension plan. Will the Treasurer state specifically what is included in the 60%?

Hon Mr Laughren: When we made the transfer announcements to the school boards earlier this year, we increased the amount of transfers by, as I recall, 7.9%, considerably above the rate of inflation. We felt then and I feel now that that was the most we could possibly do.

Mr Mahoney: That wasn't the question.

Hon Mr Laughren: I thought the member was seeking an answer.

If one breaks it down in the traditional way as to what percentage of the cost of education is paid for locally versus provincially, we made no change whatsoever when we computed the percentage that we are now paying for the cost of local education. We have not at this point in time altered at all what makes up the 40% that is paid for by the province roughly versus the 60% that is paid for at the local level.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: I said approximately; a little more than 40%. I think the member is anticipating something that simply has not happened, namely, a reconfiguration of the components of what goes into the provincial share of the cost of education in the province.

Mr Beer: This is an absolutely incredible response from the Treasurer. Perhaps he would like to pick up and read the testimony that was given before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, where the Minister of Education said not only did the 60% figure include the dollars that the government spends on educational capital and the money that it provides to the teachers' pension plan but that was always the understanding that she had, even during the election when the commitment was made.

The Treasurer would know full well that if anyone in the previous government had tried an answer like that, it would have been deemed to be unacceptable. So we are left with a situation where the educational community and the property taxpayers have no idea of what the province's policy is with respect to 60%.

Let me try to help the Treasurer with some approaches and solutions, because if he does not know what 60% means, we have got to find out and we have got to find out quickly. Last year the select committee on education in its third report presented a clear approach to solving this problem. They set out a time frame of some eight months.

Most recently, the advisory committee to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Hopcroft committee, presented its proposals and said that it supported fully the recommendations from the select committee, which, as the Treasurer will remember, had members from the New Democratic Party. It was a unanimous report and indeed included the present Minister of Municipal Affairs.

My question to the Treasurer is, will he fast-track the issue of educational financing to his NDP tax commission and direct that it take the select committee's proposal and come back to him in time so that before the 1992 budget he will be able to bring in real changes to the split between the provincial share and that which is laid on the local property taxpayer and clarify so people understand fully what he means by 60%?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I think the member would acknowledge the fact that we have made a commitment, that we are not backing down from our commitment to provide quality education in the province of Ontario. As well, I think it is fair to say that we do intend to increase the component of the cost of education that is paid for at the provincial level as opposed to the local property taxpayer. I think, however, that it would serve no purpose to try to disguise what goes into the 60% versus the 40%.

Mr Mahoney: Why are you doing it then?

Hon Mr Laughren: We are not going to fool anybody if we suddenly change the rules of the game. Nobody is attempting to fool anybody. The taxpayers in the province of Ontario are not stupid. They know full well that if somebody tries to change the name of the game simply by changing what goes into one percentage versus the other, there is only one group of taxpayers in the province of Ontario and that is them, so we are not attempting to fool anybody.

If and when the numbers are computed in a different way, we will be very straightforward, we will be very up front with the people and say: "This is what used to go into the numbers on 40% versus 60%. This is what now goes into the numbers on 60% versus 40%.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I am sure the minister is aware that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is here today and I am sure he is also aware that in the last five years the spending on Ontario agriculture as a percentage of the agricultural provincial product has gone down considerably and it is still slipping. The gap has more than doubled since 1985.

This government talks about a level playing field, but it does not exist in agriculture. Our support level is at 18.1% as opposed to, as an example, in Quebec where it is almost double at 34%. The national average is at 23.4% of the gross product value. Does the minister and his government intend to let this situation continue and let farmers really fall behind all the rest of society, as they have in the last five years?

Hon Mr Buchanan: No, we do not intend to let the farmers fall behind. I would remind the member that we have participated with the federal government in the gross revenue insurance plan, which was some $39 million, and we have today announced a $50-million program which brings it up to close to $90 million that we are putting into the farm community from the provincial Treasury. We in this government are committed to working with farmers and assisting wherever possible. We will continue to do so in the future.

Mr Villeneuve: I want to make sure that not only the minister but all cabinet members, and indeed all the members of government, know that the spending on agriculture is about 50% of the amount of money that comes in, for example, from the tobacco tax, which is directly from agriculture. The government's spending on agriculture is 50% the amount of money that it takes in on the tobacco tax.

I want to cite an example: In 1987 the Alberta government kept its canola crushing plant open. However, here in Ontario, right here in downtown Toronto, Central Soya has announced the closure of all its crushing facilities here in Toronto. What does the minister propose to do for the 25,000 soybean growers in the province who actually generate the second-largest income crop from soybeans? What does the minister intend to do for them now that these crushing facilities are closed down?

Hon Mr Buchanan: We are consulting with farmers and with the companies. But I would like to point out to the member that the plant in Toronto, as I understand, closed because profits were not sufficient. It was not a matter of losing money, as I understand. They were not getting the return on the investment that they wanted. It is very difficult for a government to respond when a company closes down on that basis. We are concerned about the soybean growers and we will respond and assist wherever we can, given the financial situation that we are in.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Dadamo: I would like to ask a question of the Solicitor General. On average, Windsorites spend in the neighbourhood of some $3 million a week in the state of Michigan, and as much as $69 million annually. Windsor Star reporter Richard Brennan made this known to people in Windsor in an

article last week. Plus, for every $100,000 spent in the United States from Windsor and Essex county, it is estimated Windsor loses one job. Further, some 650 retail jobs quite simply vanish.

In my riding of Windsor-Sandwich, many of my constituents are contacting my office regarding Sunday shopping and many of them have expressed that they can no longer afford to shop in Windsor and are looking to stretch their dollars. What assurances can the Solicitor General give to this House that concerns of border towns will be addressed in the upcoming legislation regarding Sunday shopping?

Hon Mr Farnan: I was very encouraged at the lead-off question by the official opposition this afternoon, when it clearly distinguished between the two issues, seven-day-a-week cross-border shopping and Sunday shopping, two very distinct issues. Our border communities are fully aware that the loss of Ontario shopping dollars is more clearly and more closely tied to the federal government's economic policies. The high dollar, high interest rates, the GST and free trade are all items that are affecting the economic policies and are hurting our border communities.

Despite that, I am aware that border communities are faced with special problems. I am meeting with the mayors of the border communities this Friday at 3 o'clock and I intend to discuss the very issues that the member has raised in the House this afternoon.

Mr Dadamo: At last night's city council meeting in Windsor, council voted 6 to 3 in favour of Sunday shopping, with hopes of trying to salvage an already devastated retail economy. Will the Solicitor General take any steps to help move this motion from Windsor city council?

Hon Mr Farnan: Under the current legislation Windsor, and any other community, has the right to pass such bylaws. However, I want to make it very clear to this House and to the people of Ontario that from the very start we made it clear that we would be introducing legislation, that the basis of that legislation would have a common pause day. I am prepared to work with all of the groups involved. Indeed, I have made arrangements to meet with the opposition critics next Wednesday to discuss progress in this area.

We will be coming forward very soon with legislation, and I would ask the province to co-operate with us, not to take too hasty action but to look for the legislation that will be coming forward soon.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Ms Poole: My question is for the Minister of Housing. Day after day in this House we are hearing a litany of broken promises, promises broken by the NDP, and today I am afraid that I have to add to that list.

In this House on 17 December 1990, I asked the Minister of Housing if he intended to keep his government's promise of 20,000 non-profit homes per year to be built by 1992. The minister was very specific in his answer, and I will quote from Hansard:

"Because of the process of reallocation and speeding up the Homes Now program, next year it is our projection that we will produce in this province and start around 20,000 units, the largest number of housing starts ever in the history of this province."

Recently, at an affordable housing conference in Belleville, this same minister was quoted again. But, doing his best imitation of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, the minister this time had a very different story: "We won't be able to do 20,000 a year under the current fiscal situation. I would mislead you to say anything different. We simply can't afford it."

Will the real Minister of Housing please stand up? Is he or is he not going to build those 20,000 non-profit homes, and if not, why not?

Hon Mr Cooke: The answer to the question is yes, the housing will be built in this province. Our reallocation of the Homes Now program has made a substantial difference. When the member's party was in power, if we had continued to follow the route it was following under Homes Now, we would have delivered less than half of the 30,000 units that her party promised. We are going to come close to delivering the full 30,000 units. I think that is a pretty substantial accomplishment. So we are doing the best job we can with the resources we have, and I can assure the member and the members of the Legislature that for this government, housing is a top priority.

Ms Poole: I find it very interesting that the Minister of Housing did not say he was misquoted in the

article in the Belleville newspaper, which made it very clear that they were not going to keep their election promise of 20,000 units. If the minister is saying right now in this House that he is going to keep that promise, l would like a target date of when they are going to have those 20,000 non-profit homes built, and I want a commitment of a specific date, not, "We are, some time in the future." Is he going to build it every year in the three years until 1992?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think there are a number of variables, as the member will know. As we allocate housing, the one confusing thing that I have discovered so far is that there are three different dates: You allocate a unit, commit a unit, start it and then finish it, and the statistics are incredibly confusing.

I have not seen the Belleville newspaper, but I can assure the member that it is my view and the view of this government that we intend to keep our commitments that we have made on housing and the commitments under the Homes Now program for reallocation. The member will judge us by the accomplishments we achieve in the housing field. I think that even she will be proud of the accomplishments of this government for the establishment of housing.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Education. I think all members of this Legislative Assembly, plus school boards and teachers across the province, are most concerned about the ongoing accommodation challenges facing the school boards in Essex county.

I also believe that there is not a person in this Legislative Assembly who will not remember the ongoing negotiations around Bill 30 in 1985. Many of us were very actively a part of it, and certainly members of the minister's party. I would like to quote to her the Education Act, clause 136v(2)(d), which is the old Bill 30: "...in a community that has only one secondary school operated by a public board, that the secondary school will continue to be operated by the public board despite the election to provide secondary education by a Roman Catholic school board having jurisdiction in the community" -- and I underline -- "unless the public board decides otherwise."

Is the minister planning to rule in accordance with Bill 30 if required to do so?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I must say it is a great relief to have a chance to actually speak directly to this question, given the kind of indirect innuendoes that have occurred around it. I think it is very important for us to be very clear about how serious this issue is, how painful it is for the children and young people and families in Essex county, so I thank the member very much for asking the question.

The issue in Essex is extremely complex. The previous government did the best it could to try and resolve the problem by allocating the funds for the building of two Catholic schools. They put more than $22 million into allocations for that area so that in fact school transfers would not be necessary in order to ensure that everyone was accommodated.

What occurred there was that St Thomas of Villanova Secondary School was prevented from buying the property and building the school that was planned because of an Ontario Municipal Board challenge by the community. That challenge was upheld by the courts, and so this fall that area found itself unable to deal with the issue in the way it had planned to do it by the building of a Catholic school, as the previous government had allowed it to do.

In November, both boards decided that the sharing of the facilities that was going on to accommodate the students was no longer feasible and they voted to cancel that sharing agreement, leaving 500 students of St Thomas of Villanova with the prospect of no school in September.

At the request of many citizens, including parents of those children and many representatives, I went to Windsor to meet with the directors and chairs of the boards of education in the Essex region and the Windsor region to see if there was some regional resolution that could be reached to the problem, and I encouraged them --

The Speaker: I realize this is a very important and sensitive issue and that both the question and the response are quite complex. At the same time, there is some pressure in question period to try and get as many members as possible on the floor for questions, so perhaps we could move to supplementary and at that opportunity the minister may wish to perhaps make a few more brief remarks.

Mrs Cunningham: She had hoped the boards would solve the problem at the local level, and certainly all of us would agree with that, but given that they may or may not, there are still basic ground rules, I believe, to these negotiations. There would not be a member in this House who would not believe, along with the minister's former colleague, although she was not here at the time, probably one of the more outspoken individuals during the discussions and the many sincere and emotional presentations that were made.

The whole committee was chaired by Richard Johnston, and I am sure the minister in fact would agree with his concerns as he responded over and over again in Hansard in this fashion -- this is Mr Johnston speaking: "We have seen a recognition, especially in the single-school communities, that those single schools have got to be maintained and cannot be lost." With that, I would ask the minister, what is her

interpretation of a single-school community and will she then be acting in accordance with Bill 30?

Hon Mrs Boyd: What I have done is to refer the issue to the Planning and Implementation Commission. The commission has said that facilitation has not reached an agreement and has recommended that a mediator be appointed, and if a mediated settlement cannot be reached that a tribunal arbitration be set. In that case, the tribunal or arbitrator, whichever was recommended, would be aware of what the act said, would be aware of the concerns about single schools and would certainly be asked to rule in accordance with the overwhelming evidence around single-school necessity in the area, if that is what is presented.

FAIR TAX COMMISSION

Mr Huget: My question is to the Treasurer. Taxes are a topic of interest in my riding and I am sure generate lively discussion all across this province. In my discussion with constituents, the subject of tax fairness and tax reform always comes up, and I am frequently asked about the Fair Tax Commission. Could the Treasurer please tell this House if the commission is up and running and what its current activities are.

Hon Mr Laughren: I should say that when I go back to my constituency, that is probably the most-often-asked question I get too; so I understand why the member for Sarnia would hear that question. To the member for Sarnia and to all of those people across Ontario who are seized with this question, I should tell them that the commission had its first full meeting about 10 days ago, as I recall. They are now establishing a set of priorities on which of the tax measures that I have asked them to examine they will do first and when they will get those reports back to me.

To answer his question, the commission is off and running now and it is setting the priorities, at arm's length from me, I might add, to determine what its priorities should be.

Mr Huget: Members on the opposite side of this House constantly rant and rave about how the commission supposedly was stacked in favour of the NDP. Could the minister please reply to these charges.

Hon Mr Laughren: I hope this will lay to rest once and for all that these are lobbed questions.

I must say that when the commissioners were selected, I did not know what political party, if any, they belonged to. However, I would like to express my appreciation, which I should have done earlier, to the standing committee on agencies, boards and commissions for drawing to my attention that almost half of the members of that commission were indeed card-carrying members of the New Democratic Party. I was not aware of that until the all-party committee brought that to my attention. But I should remind the members as well that because approximately half were members, much to my surprise, of the NDP, that means that the other half were not.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Curling: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, who has the responsibility for human rights. As the minister will know, allegations of discriminatory practices on the part of employment agencies have been persistent and pervasive, and this is intolerable in our society.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission recently investigated allegations of discriminatory behaviour on the part of two Metro employment agencies; those were TES Contract Services and Ian Martin Associates. This was done after a Canadian Civil Liberties Association survey showed that 12 out of 15 agencies called were willing to discriminate, upon request by employers.

With respect to the terms of the settlements reached with these agencies, the chief commissioner herself stated, "If the standards we are proposing are widely instituted, in the future visible minorities, women, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities will receive fair and equal treatment when using the services of employment agencies."

Will the minister commit her ministry to ensure that the Employment Agencies Act is amended to provide for meaningful sanctions in cases of discrimination, including stiff fines for agencies which discriminate and revoking agency licences where necessary and to allow the commission to make regular audits of agencies' hiring practices? It is a good time to put some concrete proposals that would really put some teeth into that policy of anti-racial discrimination that she announced today.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I would like to thank my honourable critic for asking me this question, because, yes, it is a very important issue when discrimination is before us. As the member is probably aware, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, as he said, has investigated these cases, which I applaud, as the arm's-length commission has that responsibility. They took this initiative and did it and they did it well and I am very pleased that they took that initiative to do that. We will be continuing to do that sort of thing.

Also, with our legislation on mandatory employment equity, we will ensure that this will not happen again, that people will not be discriminated against based on age, colour or sex. We are very pleased that we are moving quickly. Our government has taken very concrete steps to try to create an atmosphere that removes racism and creates a better atmosphere for equality and equity in our community.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Scott: Mr Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. Yesterday during question period a question was raised about a course that is run at Durham College of Applied Arts and Technology to teach students in the program how to shop on the American side of the border. The matter was I think one of the lead questions put to either the Premier or the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

The minister responded by saying he had no authority to cancel such a course and indeed he would not anyway, because if he was interested in shopping, he thought it would be a course that he would like to take to learn how to shop on the American side of the border. We know that the minister subsequently had a visit from the Premier and was almost Kormosed.

I raise the question, Mr Speaker, because during question period today -- and this is the issue of personal privilege -- the honourable minister waved a form in his hand and tried to get your attention. He was going to tell us that as a result of being Kormosed he had found he had the power and had cancelled the course. I wonder if, in respect of the privileges of all members of the House, you would allow him the opportunity to make that statement now.

The Speaker: No. One moment, please. The member has raised an alleged point of privilege. I assumed he wanted a response. The member knows full well it is not a point of privilege which he has mentioned. He has, however, brought to my attention something of information.

Hon Mr Allen: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege because the member has alleged, first, that I said there was nothing that I could do about this issue and, second, that I somehow favoured the matter at hand.

It was very plain in my answer yesterday that I said that such courses were entirely inappropriate, and the member can go back and check the Hansard record and find that out. But I want him to know at this point in time that over the past two days I and my staff have been in touch with Durham College. We have discussed this question with them, and the president has informed me today that no such activities of this kind will be pursued by the college in future.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr Curling: I rise on a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker. This morning I attended the standing committee on the Ombudsman at about 10 o'clock. As I have raised many times in this House, I am very anxious to partake in this committee. Upon attending this committee, we had the Ombudsman there in attendance to explain her role. This is about the third or fourth time I have attended this committee and, about 15 or 20 minutes into committee, they have adjourned this committee.

I think that I would like to express my views. I have been elected here to serve, and my rights and my privilege have been violated by this cancellation of the Ombudsman committee. I say that because we hear many times in the House that we would like to address issues; we talk about human rights, we talk about race relations and we talk about the Ombudsman and we cannot even meet. I cannot meet to express that.

One comment by the member was that he was not ready. This government has been in power for the last six months. The standing committee on public accounts and many other committees have met numerous times and have dealt with other issues, and the Ombudsman committee is not yet able to meet properly. I think my rights have been violated.

The Speaker: I appreciate the concern which you raise. It is not a point of privilege, but the member may wish to raise this matter with the committee and may wish to do so at his earliest convenience.

PETITION

ELECTROLYTIC EPILATION

Mrs Witmer: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I present a petition that has been signed by 1,794 residents of the province of Ontario. Many of those who have signed the petition are present in the gallery today, and I would like to thank them for travelling from all parts of Ontario for the presentation of this petition.

The petition states:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we are citizens of the province of Ontario and we are angry because the provincial health plan (OHIP) continues to pay the full cost of hair removal by epilation to doctors who do not perform the service personally,

"We petition that this is a cosmetic procedure that is consuming an increasing volume of tax dollars paid to doctors under the guise of an important and necessary medical treatment. We submit that epilation by electrolysis should be immediately de-indexed from the OHIP

schedule of payments. We are asking you to spend less, not more."

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's sixth report.

Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(14), the report was deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

Mr Mills moved first reading of Bill 65,

An Act to amend the Election Act.

M. Mills propose la première lecture du projet de loi 65, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale de 1984.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr Mills: Briefly, the purpose of this bill will be to allow the indication of a candidate's political party on ballots used in provincial elections.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 24,

An Act to control the private use of Cards issued and Numbers assigned to Insured Persons under the Health Insurance Act.

La motion de troisième lecture du projet de loi suivant est adoptée :

Projet de loi 24, Loi contrôlant l'usage dans le secteur privé des cartes et des numéros attribués aux assurés en vertu de la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé.

CITY OF LONDON ACT, 1991

Mrs Cunningham moved second reading of Bill Pr29,

An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Mr Villeneuve moved third reading of Bill 31,

An Act to amend the Representation Act, 1986.

Mr Villeneuve: This effectively changes the name of the riding to S-D-G & East Grenville. We have the warden of the united counties of Leeds and Grenville, the reeve of Edwardsburgh with us today, my friend David Sloan. He was one of those who were not represented.

Motion agreed to.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS

Resuming consideration of Mr Laughren's motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this debate in the presence of the provincial Treasurer.

Some members of the House may not be aware, and just to show how the New Democratic Party is no different from any other government -- perhaps even our government members might have done this, I do not know; I cannot believe they would have -- but the Treasurer was quite willing to appear before the standing committee on estimates to deal with his estimates. I have always thought that it was very important that the one time a minister should be present for the consideration of estimates was when, in committee, a specific time was established for the estimates. That is when I thought the minister should be there.

But we do have the opportunity this afternoon to discuss some items, and one of them I am concerned about as we approach the date of the provincial budget is that of the deficit in the province of Ontario. One has to expect that when there is a recession on, there is going to be a deficit. The federal government has run one for a number of years, even in good times, and many of the other provinces have been involved in deficit financing. There is a recognition that this is part of the process. I think we would be foolish and unfair if we were critical of the Treasurer or the government for running a deficit.

What we have to be careful of, however, is that this government does not allow the deficit to balloon totally out of control.

One of the ways that you get people accustomed to an increase in the deficit is you start floating figures out there as to how high it might be and then of course you come in substantially below that particular figure. Then everyone says, "Well, isn't it nice, Pink Floyd," as they call him. We are not supposed to be personal, but they call him Pink Floyd. I call him Blue Floyd on many days when he is busy tightening the screws in certain areas where he should not be.

But we have a situation where there are at least forecasts of deficits and now the latest one I have heard from the Treasurer -- he may have a later one after that -- was something around $3 billion that he was quoted as talking about. It should not be allowed to balloon out of control.

There should be designated expenditures by the government and I think we in this party certainly support specific expenditures in the capital field designed to produce new jobs, not as the Minister of Transportation has stated -- and I am sure the Minister of Transportation is concerned about this -- that his ministry has provided funding for some municipalities which are then quoted as saying: "Well, we were going to undertake these projects anyway, so they really won't be creating new jobs with this provincial money. But we are happy to get that money from the provincial government."

If you are on a municipal council, of course you are going to be happy in an election year to be able to save some money, to be able to keep your taxes down at the property tax level. But it is not, as I think the Treasurer would hope, going to produce the new jobs that the Treasurer had been hoping it might.

The Treasurer has a very difficult job, as all people who have held that office will tell you, because the Treasurer is the person who has to say no, and in an NDP government, where you have ministers who want to spend money like wild people -- I have to be careful what I say these days, because you cannot say things any more, so just "wild people," I will put it that way, who want to wildly spend money. He has to be able, along with the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet, to examine every one of those potential expenditures.

Now with a new government in power, members of the civil service understandably may feel that this is the time to add to their staff, that this is the time to add new programs, that this is the time to expand programs, and in some cases that might well be justified. But what the Treasurer and the Chairman of Management Board have to do is be very tough and examine each of those expenditures to ensure that deficit is not going to go totally out of control so that in fact we end up borrowing more money, that we end up adding to the debt.

This is something, I am sure, that nobody in the province of Ontario wants to do, because it is one more thing which discourages business from locating in Ontario. I will get to that in a moment, and the moment is going to be now; I am going to get to that.

So what we have to do overall is we have to stop business -- and I do not say that in a punitive way, but halt the bleeding away out of Ontario of business, the loss of jobs on a permanent basis out of the province of Ontario and attract new capital to the province of Ontario and attract people in our own province to invest in this province in areas that will create permanent jobs.

Every community you look at, and my own community of St Catharines is no different from others, is losing jobs. Previously in recessions we looked at the losing of jobs and said: "Well, that is awful. It is a strain on the people. It is difficult on the families who have to suffer through this." But what is of more concern in this specific recession is that many of those jobs are being lost permanently in our communities. Part of this is because of what the business community and those who might want to invest in this province perceive to be the agenda of the government in the province of Ontario.

Many of the people who are big in business are going to say this is a -- they use the word "socialist" government, and we in opposition from time to time use it. The government does not like to use it any more; it says it is "social democratic." When they are anywhere near power, it is social democratic, but I can remember when the Treasurer was a member of the Waffle group of the NDP. He would have been proud to call himself a socialist instead of a social democrat.

Hon Mr Laughren: Still am. Nothing's changed.

Mr Bradley: He still is, he says.

What is happening is that we are in fact having a situation where people are leaving the province. Where they have an investment, they will keep that investment going as long as possible, but they will not add to it, and when the crunch comes, they leave on a permanent basis. They are closing down and moving out, not just laying off. Part of that is attributable to the atmosphere created by the election of this new government and its anti-business rhetoric, which we hear from time to time.

Hon Mr Laughren: Not any more.

Mr Bradley: "Not any more", says the Treasurer, since he and the Premier went on bended knee to the barons of Wall Street, and begged for mercy. I understand that and I was not overly critical of that. I would like, in jest, to say to the Treasurer and to the Premier that they have done so, because they used to make fun of other people and other governments that would do so. But that is a necessary step for the Premier and for the Treasurer, to indicate to people outside of this province that somehow investment is still welcome and to encourage people, as I say, in our own country who want to invest, to invest right here in the province of Ontario.

What is even more interesting to observe is not so much the jobs that are going away -- that is going to happen in a recession and we have to be very concerned about that -- but it is the fact that people are now not even considering Ontario for investment purposes in the future, because of (

a) uncertainty, and that is the easiest to say, the uncertainty, but (

b) because of the perception that this government is going to punish people in business in various ways.

As I have said on many occasions in this House, I do not come from a business background. I am not a lawyer who deals with business. I am not a business person. I have no relatives whom I know of who are rich, or anything like that. I come from a trade union background and I live on a street in my community where most of the people, or at least the majority of people, work in the automotive industry and in industries that service the automotive industry.

Those people, when they speak to me about their problems, yes, they are concerned about justice and, yes, they want a good contract to be negotiated by their union with the company. They want fairness; they want a safe workplace; all of the things which are justified.

They are also concerned, however, that the new government might be doing things that would chase the businesses away. They are people who may not themselves invest in business. Some do; some do not. But they are concerned that General Motors or Dana Corp or TRW Canada in my own community or many other industries in other communities do not decide that they are going to leave the province of Ontario and take away those jobs that are so important to those people, that put bread on the table, that allow them to have some of the amenities that they have earned over the years.

I encourage the Treasurer, and he has his NDP tax commission there that he now concedes has a good number of New Democrats on it who are going to obviously bring in a recommendation that is pleasing to him. We had an opportunity to interview them. I know that the member for Etobicoke West asked many of them whether or not they had been affiliated with the New Democratic Party, just to establish where they might be coming from.

I think it is important that we have a greater variety of people on commissions of this kind, so that we get a genuinely open-minded report coming forward instead of one that they think is going to please their political masters who appointed them. So that is something the Treasurer has to address.

Now, we recognize that nobody in Ontario wants to see taxes increased. The Treasurer has that opportunity. It is a tricky situation for him. I am not one who in exaggeration will say, "Well, here is a long list of things you can spend on," and then, "We don't want you to raise taxes." We recognize a need for a deficit in this recessionary period -- not a large deficit, but a deficit. We recognize as well that targeted spending can be effective, and some of the targeted spending that I would suggest -- and I may be biased in this area, and I say so with no apologies -- is in the field of the environment.

We have a need for the upgrading of sewage treatment plants from one end of the province to the other. I listened to the federal government, which made a submission during the election campaign to the electorate that said, "We are going to spend $125 million cleaning up the Great Lakes." Mr Speaker, you are from the Ottawa area, and you would recognize that to upgrade the sewage treatment plant in Ottawa from secondary to primary would cost $400 million. The provincial share in that case is a little over $100 million.

We recognize, if you multiply that across the province, that it is a hefty sum of money. It has two positive effects, however, that kind of expenditure. One positive effect is obviously that it improves the environment because it improves the effluent. The second positive effect is that it creates jobs, and it creates jobs pretty quickly. There is a good spinoff from those jobs, and therefore we are in a position to improve our economic situation. It keeps a lot of businesses going. For medium-sized construction businesses, for instance, it allows them to keep people on staff who may go somewhere else. These are good, skilled people who are often in demand.

We have a number of waste management sites that can use remediation in this province. We are always going to have that, and that is, I think, a valuable expenditure for the same reason that the last expenditure was. We have water treatment plants that would fall into the same category, where there can be specific expenditures, right across the province.

I know there will be many people in the province who will be looking to the Treasurer for 100% of the funding because there has been a precedent which has been set now, the ramifications of which will be felt right across the province. So I expect that every municipality in this province will now be demanding 100% funding for water treatment purposes because of the precedent that they have set.

It is good election stuff, and it puts a smile on the face of the local member, but this is where it is a different choice when you are governing from when you are not governing. Because that precedent means that every municipal official in this province could probably make a case for 100% funding. That is what happens when we acquiesce to 100% funding.

Maybe that is the route they want to take. If they do, they had better announce it to the province, but that is exactly what they are going to get, every municipality in the province. So they have to look at what is nice to have, what puts smiles on the faces of the local members, what puts a smirk on the face of the local member as opposed to what is good public policy in this province. That is the difference when you are in government from when you are sitting over here. That is how people will judge the government, on the competence, the managerial competence of this province.

I think the Treasurer, who has been on this side and has been Treasury critic, is a person who is aware of that and knows exactly what I am talking about when I mention that. I will tell the members that he is going to have every municipality on his back for the same treatment.

He will find that the people of Chelmsford will be looking for the same funding. The next time I go to my old home town of Sudbury, I am going to tell them how the Treasurer's government was kind enough to give 100% funding in one particular case, and they will all want that. They will want it. Blezard Valley will want it, Azilda will want it, Capreol, Valley East. The former member from Capreol will be certainly phoning me up, I am sure. No, I guess he cannot. Somebody will be phoning me up from Capreol. My relatives in Capreol will be phoning me up to ensure that they have the same kind of funding available to them.

Now we get into the issue that the member for York North raised today, the Education critic for the Liberal Party. I well remember, when the New Democratic Party was on this side of the House, how it talked about paying 60% of the cost of education in the province, but it was 60% of the operating cost, no throwing in everything else the way previous governments liked to.

I used to ask questions of Bette Stephenson when she was the minister. She would say, "Well, James" -- as she always called me -- "what you do not understand is that we pay into the teachers' superannuation fund; we pay all of these capital costs; we have these indirect subsidies which go to education. You do not understand that it is not really 49%" -- or whatever it was then -- "of the cost of education."

When we hear the Minister of Education talk about it, she starts to suggest that there are going to be some strings there. When my friends in the Ontario Teachers' Federation were going across the province of Ontario in this campaign and previous campaigns, and when they are in the House, when they are making representations to us, they are not looking for all of these strings. They are not saying, "You get the money if you do this," or, "You can go ahead and count teachers' pensions, or count this or count that." They did not say that.

They are expecting this government to deliver 60% of the cost of education being paid on an average across the province. We recognize that in some municipalities it will be lower than others; that is understandable. I would not be a demagogue and say that in every municipality it must be 60%, because I understand that. But on the average across the province, 60% of the cost of education will be paid.

I suspect the government is beginning, as it has in so many cases, to change its mind once it is sitting in the seat of government, and that we will not see that paid.

I know that the members of the teachers' federation who were very quick to say that it was child neglect or something like that during the campaign will be the first -- because they are fair and non-partisan, because their people at the very top are not New Democrats, just in the pocket of the New Democrats, because they are fair minded people without a political affiliation that they are prepared to demonstrate -- that they will be calling this government to account if it does not fulfil that promise.

I am absolutely certain of that because I know the members of the teachers' federation in my area expect that that will be the case.

Now we have situations and there has been some of this happening. One cannot always be negative in this situation. Some of this has happened, and I am sure whenever the government does something right it is because it got the idea from those of us in the official opposition. Sometimes at least --

Hon Mr Laughren: Either that or they got lucky.

Mr Bradley: Or they got lucky, as the Treasurer says. That is true. But a lot of schools have needed some upgrading and repair. I am not talking about making them fancy. I am talking about basic things like the roof or the boiler or something like that in the school, walls that need repairing, the upgrading so that it meets the safety standards as it relates to fire and other things. Those kinds of things have to be done.

This is a good capital expenditure, and I call for the Treasurer to increase that specific kind of expenditure while he is holding the line or cutting at some other areas where he determines, along with the Chairman of Management Board, that the expenditure is not necessary in a specific year.

Of course, there are people living in portables, and when we recognize that is going to be a long-term problem, students being in portables, it is wise for the government to invest in a new building. If it is short-term, the government will say, with some justification if it is just getting people over a hump, for instance, and it is not many, this is good planning to utilize them. But in many cases there is an obvious need there and that need can be met. We all recall during the election campaign that they said they were going to meet such needs.

The universities and colleges are in situations -- and again, I am not asking the Treasurer to fund unnecessary expenditures and he knows this -- where people dream up something they would like to have. But there are many essential buildings that may be required or that require repair in certain colleges and universities in this province, and again, that can create jobs with a good spin-off. The time to do that is in a recession. In good times we find that the private sector is able to handle most of that.

In terms of hospital needs -- and the Minister of Health is here this afternoon -- right across the province we heard from candidates who ran in the last election how much money would be needed to fund needed hospital renovations and additions and perhaps even new construction. The Treasurer, the Chairman of Management Board and the Minister of Health all have to be cognizant not simply of the capital expenditure but of the operating costs as a result; therefore they will find reality will dictate that they cannot do all they would like to do. But there are some needed expenditures we think could be made in a time of recession.

One of the answers the Treasurer and others will give all the time, and the members of the Progressive Conservative caucus are used to listening to this and perhaps sometimes come to the defence -- the wise ones do not; the wise ones stick to the provincial level -- but they will say it is the federal government's fault. Everything is the feds, and heaven knows those high interest rates and the high dollar and some of the federal financial policies have not been helpful. But let's not let the provincial government off the hook simply by saying that.

We hear about free trade. I used to be worried about free trade because when we were in government, Premier Peterson indicated his opposition to the free trade agreement which was signed by Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan and said he was going to work towards trying to stop that. I can remember, in a position not far from here, the man who is now the Premier of Ontario denouncing David Peterson because he did not stop free trade with the suggestion that he, when he was the Premier, would be stopping free trade. He was going to thwart it. He would not implement anything that would assist free trade. Well --

Mr Fletcher: That was then.

Mr Bradley: The member for Guelph says, most appropriately, "That was then and this is now." At least, I completed that for him; I do not want to put words in his mouth. He said, "That was then."

That is an example of how reality has set in. The Premier of Ontario cannot easily stop free trade, whether it is with the United States or Mexico. Even though he suggested he could, obviously he cannot. I know those who were so critical of Premier Peterson on the free trade issue will be equally critical of the present Premier for not stopping free trade, when he suggested he would find some way of not being co-operative and stopping it.

Some of the socialists are now speaking up and I know this is important to them. One of the things that the third party, as it was at one time -- then it was the second party now the first party -- has always felt strongly about and had some interesting support for, a good cross-section of support among nationalist people in Canada, was for retaining as much as possible what is important within the realm of Canadian control.

I know that within the NDP caucus there would not be very much support for allowing a major natural gas company like Consumers' Gas to go into foreign hands, because I remember the Premier in opposition suggesting this should never happen. I know each and every one I look at in the government benches believes that should not happen, but large as life, when he became Premier, he allowed Consumers' Gas to fall into foreign hands.

Not only that, but he had some apologists who were formerly very critical of the provincial governments, Conservative and Liberal, who said, "We understand why they have to do this." The very same people who on principle were critical of Liberal and Conservative governments had now become apologists for the NDP.

When Varity Corp was allowed to shuffle off to Buffalo --

Mr Stockwell: They held the door.

Mr Bradley: The member for Etobicoke West would suggest that perhaps they found out where Buffalo was by taking the course at Durham College on shopping in the United States, a course allowed by this particular government.

I want to compliment them on something, first of all. The Environmental Youth Corps was established by the previous government under a previous Environment minister with the support of all members of the House. I see that the government has not cut this. I compliment the government on continuing this program, because I do not want this speech to sound as though it is simply negative about the government. It gets credit for that.

In another area I am particularly concerned about, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, after much prodding from the opposition and much public dissent on this issue, today announced a half measure to assist some farmers in the province of Ontario. So the reconvening of the Legislature has some effect. The government would like the House never to sit probably, because governments do not like to be subjected to the daily question period, but there he was rising in the House.

Those who represent rural ridings, and those who do not but who know the situation, know how difficult it is for farmers. In my area of the province of Ontario, the Niagara Peninsula, the problem is twofold. I can remember well Stephen Lewis standing in this House and talking about the disappearance of agricultural land in the province. I can remember when the CBC was interested in this issue, when it was a big issue for the CBC when this was leaving. It was one that was featured all the time and the CBC did some excellent documentaries on this. The Globe and Mail ran some columns. It was a big issue.

It continues to be a big issue and there is a difference between now and in 1975 and 1976 when some of us at the municipal level were attempting to fight the expansion of urban boundaries into the good farm land in the Niagara Peninsula. The difference is that the farmers by and large were on our side in those days and today they are not, not because they do not want to be farmers, not because they do not enjoy working with the soil or working with animals, but because it is too tough to make a living on the farm.

That is why we as a society have to make the choice. I have said to people, who perhaps do not want to hear this sometimes, that if they are going to assist the farmers they have to do it in one of two ways: You pay more for your food or you somehow provide some financial assistance to farmers to make that a viable business.

Canadians have not shown a desire to pay more for their food. Indeed, the former member for Welland-Thorold used to crusade in this House with some justification. He used to come in with something he had bought in Buffalo or Niagara Falls, New York, a food item or another item, and he would say, "This is what it costs there and this is what it costs here and why is that the case?" He was speaking as critic on behalf of the consumers of Ontario.

But if we in this province and other places are not prepared to pay more for food, then governments have to come forward with programs to make agriculture viable, because today the amount of money that is being offered for that land for development purposes is far more than it was in the past. Restrictive boundaries are an answer, and I strongly support the regional municipality of Niagara sticking to the boundaries it has set, each of the municipalities there sticking to the present boundaries. In fact, I previously opposed even the boundaries that are there now. However, they were approved in those days.

The government should stick to those, but to do so, to be fair, the necessary funding must go to the farmers.

To university students in an environmental studies class at Brock University, for instance, who are obviously the kinds of people who would want to save the agricultural land, I said, "Are you prepared to do that if it means that the NDP government in Ontario is going to raise tuition fees?" We have been critical of that because in opposition the government said it was going to eliminate them or cut them or something. But it was when I was in opposition; just a few weeks ago I was speaking to them.

Hon Mr Laughren: What is the link here?

Mr Bradley: The link is that the government cannot have everything. If they want to spend, they may find that they have to establish priorities, that maybe each one of us will have to make a sacrifice if we want to retain that agricultural land, some of the things we would like to have. That is a message I think increasingly will have to get out to the people we represent if we want to be honest with them.

The Chairman of Management Board is here this afternoon and probably recognizes better than anybody in the government, even more so than the Treasurer, how difficult it is to keep the expenditures in line, to manage those expenditures properly. What she is discovering and what the Treasurer is discovering is that everybody would like to have everything. They would like to save the agricultural land, they would like to have no increase in tuition fees, they would like to have new hospitals being built and they would not like to see an increase in taxes. That is a difficult thing for the government to do and people will be watching carefully to see --

Hon Mr Laughren: She can handle it.

Mr Bradley: The Treasurer says she can handle it. I presume that means the Treasurer's job. There is a word out there somewhere, and it is always somewhere, "They say." I remember John Diefenbaker used to say, "They say." They say the Chairman of Management Board has her eye on the Treasurer, that she would like to be the Treasurer of the province of Ontario. Perhaps if she shows herself to be a tough but fair manager as Chairman of Management Board, she will find she will be sitting in the chair of the Treasurer and he will be the Minister of Correctional Services or some other portfolio he may have.

An hon member: Do you want some water?

Mr Bradley: I could probably use some more water, because it is becoming a problem. Now, I do not want to hog the whole time, because I know some of my colleagues and some of the Conservative members want to say something. They have been working hard as well and I know some of the government members, some of the NDP members, will want to rise to apologize for all of the promises that are being broken. They will want to talk about Consumers' Gas. I cannot think of anybody who would not want to, if they really wanted to be honest.

I have given the Treasurer perhaps a little bit of advice some of which he will take and I know he will take credit if it works out all right. Perhaps even some in opposition may claim the prodding of the opposition was what changed things. We are in difficult economic times, the worst I can recall, although our parents, those of us who are about that age, will tell us about the Depression of the 1930s and how difficult it was and there are many similarities to what is happening now.

It seems to me that Ontario as the economic leader, as the economic base, as the industrial base of this country will have to take a leadership role in turning the economy around and do so without allowing the deficit to get way out of control and put us in even worse economic straits.

Mr Runciman: I appreciate this opportunity. I am not going to concentrate essentially on the government's estimates. I want to make some comments with respect to the honourable member's intervention. The irony of it: I think of we in the Conservative Party, listening day after day to questions and interventions of this nature from the Liberal Party, the past government of this party which governed for five years, I guess it was, and brought us, I think, over 50 tax increases during that period of time and brought us to the point where we now have the highest taxes of any jurisdiction in North America.

We also recall, going back to the election of 1990, the then Treasurer, now the acting leader of the official opposition, talking about how wonderful this Liberal government managed the economy of the province of Ontario and the fact that we were going to have a surplus. Of course, once the new government assumed office, we found out the story was significantly different and now the new Treasurer is facing an onerous burden with respect to the deficit that he has to look forward to in this fiscal year and the coming fiscal year.

I wonder about the training of the members opposite in the new government, why they do not on occasion raise these matters. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was responding to a question today and I do not know why he did not raise matters like the fact that the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology drives a Mercedes Benz. We are talking about looking after the ordinary working men and women in this province, and that sort of thing has been occ