The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ORDERS AND NOTICES

The Speaker: I would like to bring to the attention of the members of the House a clerical error that appeared in Orders and Notices published under today's date. The error in question is to be found on page 4 of that document under the heading of "Special Debates: Opposition Day," standing in the name of the leader of the third party, the member for Nipissing. In the second line of that notice the word "laughs" was printed inadvertently, whereas the correct word should have been "layoffs."

This will be corrected in the next printing for Monday 26 November 1990. On behalf of the journals branch, I apologize to the leader of the third party and regret any embarrassment that this error has caused.

REPORT OF COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the 15th report of the Commission on Election Finances.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

REGULATION OF FINANCIAL PLANNERS

Mr Chiarelli: Later today I will be introducing a bill which would give individual investors and consumer groups new protections and rights for a broad range of investor products.

The time has come for tighter legislation for the regulation of financial planners in Ontario. In Ottawa, over 2,500 investors recently lost up to $185 million as a result of the failure of seven financial planning firms. In Kitchener, investors lost up to $125 million in what Financial Post reporter Diane Francis recently described as a financial horror story.

In the absence of government regulation, such fiascos are only bound to get worse. Compounding the problem will be new federal legislation integrating financial institutions, which will create an onslaught of marketing of investment products in an increasingly competitive marketplace that will require new consumer protection measures.

The Premier has called for a kinder and gentler Legislature. I would therefore ask that he kindly and gently approve this timely and necessary bill for second reading and have it referred to committee for further review and adoption.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Witmer: November is Wife Assault Prevention Month. Eliminating violence against women is one of the most critical challenges facing us. Every community in Ontario offers tragic evidence that far more needs to be done. It is estimated that one in eight women suffers abuse in her marital relationship. Half of the women who seek refuge in a shelter are turned away due to a lack of space. This province still has not enacted victim's rights legislation, and now we hear from the Attorney General that some 3,000 sexual assault cases may be dismissed because of the backlog in our courts.

I am very disappointed by this government's lack of response to violence against women. All that it has done is to extend the previous government's program. Women who were looking for some indication in the speech from the throne were disappointed.

Although other, less serious problems can be addressed at a future time, the problem of wife abuse cannot wait. The time for action is now. This government must take bold initiatives and provide adequate and permanent funding to do the job that needs to be done. Bold initiatives must be taken in three areas: public education, police enforcement and support services for victims. All three are critical to eliminating the abuse of women.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION SAFETY

Mr Dadamo: As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, I have been asked to look into public safety issues. At this time I would like to commend the Toronto Transit Commission for its exemplary safety record and also to express my ministry's support of safety initiatives undertaken by transit systems throughout the province.

As well, I wish to bring to the attention of the House that the week of 4 to 10 November was proclaimed TTC Safe Drivers' Week. The TTC dedicated this week to honour its employees, who have worked hard to bring the people of Ontario the safest transit system in North America.

For the 19th time in 25 years, the TTC has won the American Public Transit Association's Silver Award for safe driving. This award is given annually to the North American transit system with the best overall passenger and traffic safety record.

The TTC has not only established its enviable safety record, but it continues to improve on this record. May I add that last year was its safest year yet.

Mr Speaker, I wish to congratulate TTC drivers, employers and managers in achieving such a high level of safety for our citizens. So I ask you and members to join me in showing our appreciation and congratulations for its strong dedication to safety.

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

Mr Bradley: I am relieved that the new government has finally decided to continue the policy of the previous Liberal government to decentralize provincial government operations and, specifically, to confirm the announcement of former Government Services minister Chris Ward to move the Ministry of Transportation to St Catharines and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation to Niagara Falls.

The location of these ministries in the Niagara region will allow our part of the province to diversify its economy, which has been consistently affected by fluctuations in the national economy, and will in part insulate the Niagara region from the effects of a recession. The economic spinoffs of the construction of new government buildings and significant permanent payrolls will give a real boost to an area which has traditionally experienced higher rates of unemployment than the provincial average.

The location of the Ministry of Transportation complex in the central part of St Catharines would be a major factor in the revitalization of our downtown area, as it would breathe new life into businesses in the core of the city and encourage others to establish commercial and retail firms in this section. It would also allow young people and others in our city to remain in St Catharines rather than having to move to other parts of the province to gain job opportunities.

In addition to the obvious benefits to the Niagara region, the decentralization of the ministries will permit savings in the form of a reduction in the rental costs incurred in Metropolitan Toronto and the infusion of thinking from small communities in government decision-making.

To those of us who have worked hard to convince the provincial government to move the MTO to St Catharines, the confirmation of this progressive step is good news and will allow Mayor Joe McCaffery to refer to St Catharines with accuracy and pride as the transportation capital of Ontario.

1340

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mrs Cunningham: The government's throne speech contained no commitments for post-secondary education in Ontario. Without specific programs or initiatives, the statement that "our human resources will be key to our economic future" rings hollow. Colleges and universities have already suffered five years of Liberal neglect and underfunding. The situation is so bleak that the Council of Ontario Universities labelled the previous government's policy directions "a blueprint for mediocrity."

From the throne speech, one would assume that the New Democratic Party is content to maintain the status quo. The 1989 Tripartite Committee on Interprovincial Comparisons reported that Ontario ranked ninth out of 10 provinces in operating grants per student, yet there was no mention of the long-standing NDP commitment to bring Ontario's operating grants up to the national average.

Colleges across the province are running deficits, yet the restructuring of our community colleges, as recommended by the Vision 2000 report, was not mentioned. David Peterson's commitment to post-secondary education did not match his rhetoric about the need for a highly skilled work force to maintain our economic competitiveness.

In the throne speech, the Premier gave us some more fanciful statements. Let us hope that, unlike its predecessor, this government will make a real commitment to post-secondary education in Ontario.

USE OF MUNICIPAL STATIONERY

Mrs Caplan: The speech from the throne talked about "integrity" and "standards of behaviour." The speech also said that "when mistakes are made, the government will admit to them."

Here is a situation that will give the new Premier an opportunity to live up to that commitment.

Will Ferguson, the member for Kitchener and parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, was being questioned by the Kitchener-Waterloo Record about his use of Ministry of Municipal Affairs letterhead to endorse the campaign of a candidate who hopes to replace the member for Kitchener on city council next week. On 17 November, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record quoted the member for Kitchener saying that he was "too busy to run out and get a separate piece of paper just to satisfy someone's concern at the Record."

We all agree that if an MPP wishes to endorse candidates, he or she has every right to do so. The journalist's question had to with propriety. Should the member be using ministry letterhead for this personal, partisan, political purpose? Does not the use of letterhead imply that there is a government endorsement for this candidate?

The K-W Record journalist asked a legitimate question of propriety.

When asked again at a later date to respond to the impropriety concern, the member said that the paper cost one and a half cents and that the alderman who was questioning ought to "get a life."

Is the use of letterhead for this purpose acceptable to the Premier? Is the member's attitude and conduct acceptable to the Premier? Surely he will agree that the people of Kitchener-Waterloo deserve an apology.

Interjections.

ORDER OF MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

The Speaker: Members may find this hard to believe, but the Speaker made an error and missed seeing the member for Middlesex, whose turn it was in rotation for a statement. With your forgiveness, I will allow the member for Middlesex and then move to the Conservative Party.

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, I am just wondering with respect to the rotation. You are going to go to us next and then to the Tories and back around to us. Will we have enough time?

The Speaker: That is correct.

Hon Miss Martel: We will have two more.

The Speaker: Yes, no problem.

SHELTER FOR WOMEN

Mrs Mathyssen: Of all women murdered in Canada in 1987, 61.7 per cent died as a result of domestic violence. This startling statistic points to the devastating toll that domestic violence takes upon the family. Children exposed to these attacks become either victims or batterers themselves, and the battered spouses live in a state of perpetual fear, isolation and self-doubt.

Rural women are just as vulnerable as their urban sisters. In response to this, a group of dedicated Strathroy and area women have worked for many months, with the kind assistance of my predecessor, Mr Reycraft, to establish a resource centre and shelter for the women of Strathroy and area.

On Monday 19 November, a resource centre offering counselling, information, education, referral services, speakers and a lending library was opened in the town of Strathroy.

A shelter for area women will be opened next year. Currently, there is no shelter available to rural women between Sarnia, Goderich and London.

I would like to recognize the previous government's efforts on behalf of battered women and applaud the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues for ensuring that the funding and support for the vital work to stop the hurting for assaulted women and their children, both urban and rural, will continue.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Health the disinterest in proper health care facilities by the previous government in my riding of Grey. Although there is a similar situation in Hanover, the Meaford General Hospital stands out as a classic example of discourteous treatment given to my area.

The Meaford General Hospital's expansion was approved for funding in 1986 and the community began to raise money to fulfil its part of the agreement. The project, which began in 1988, was put on hold by the ministry. In 1989 they were told their planning had to change direction.

A year ago, they began the major undertaking of rewriting the project, as requested, with an emphasis on community involvement. They included day care, ambulatory and outpatient services.

They presented their revised plans to the former minister on 16 May, more than six months ago. To this date, they have heard nothing.

As the minister will understand, the people of Meaford are confused and discouraged. They have met the government's specific requirements and their efforts have not been acknowledged. Fund-raising results have suffered and declined, yet the expansion is vital to the health of the community.

The present minister can take no blame for the shortcomings of her predecessor. However, I am hopeful that by bringing both these cases to her attention we can assist in this instance and prevent future situations of this sort.

FIRE PREVENTION

Ms Haslam: I want to inform the members of the House that Sunday 7 October marked the beginning of the 68th anniversary of Fire Prevention Week in Ontario.

As members will appreciate, since the House has not been sitting, this is the first opportunity to reaffirm our support for fire prevention and public safety in the home and at the workplace. In particular, I want to recognize those who have demonstrated outstanding initiative and ongoing commitment to fire prevention.

This government is committed to ensuring that the message of fire prevention is conveyed throughout the province. To recognize the initiative and dedication of members of our community, I wish to introduce the 17 recipients of the 1990 Ontario Fire Prevention and Public Education Awards.

The winners are: the city of Brockville, the Markham Fire Department, Beaver Lumber of Markham, the Sertoma Club of Chatham, the Rotary Club West of Oakville, the Brampton Fire Prevention Association, the Rotary Club of Sarnia, Chubb Fire Security, Eveready Mississauga and the Toronto Fire Fighters War Veterans' Association.

Individual achievement awards are presented to Fred and Betty Brooks of Chatham and Charles Harris of Caledonia.

Our media award winners are CKCO-TV's Romper Room, the Canadian Statesman of Bowmanville and Skyline Cablevision's Information Gloucester.

These recipients are present in the gallery, and I know that all the members will want to join me to extend their appreciation and congratulations to each of these distinguished guests.

1350

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: While we appreciate the announcement made by the previous member, it is quite improper for a member of the government benches to make a statement on behalf of a minister in private members' statements.

I just want you to note our objection to it, not in terms of this particular statement, because we are fresh into the game and if they had sought unanimous consent to do so, we would have even allowed any member to make that statement, but I do believe that the ministers are given 20 minutes in order to make their statements and that they should be done during that period of time.

The Speaker: First of all, the Speaker appreciates the point of order that is raised and I will be communicating with the House later on with respect to the point of order. The member may well be aware that if the member for Perth is a parliamentary assistant, then she may not make such a statement as she did. However, if she is not the parliamentary assistant for that particular ministry, then any member is at liberty to make a similar statement. However, I have listened carefully to the member's point of order. I will review it and I will be reporting back at my earliest convenience.

Hon Miss Martel: On a point of order, if I might, Mr Speaker: There was some great confusion on our side today, there is no doubt about it. I have apologized to both of the House leaders and it will not happen again in future, but I apologize to all members of the House for this happening today.

The Speaker: That is very much appreciated.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I would like to provide the House with information about amendments to the Employment Standards Act that I will introduce this session. I believe these amendments will make an important and positive difference to the lives of working parents and assist in our government's goal of equality for women workers.

Our government believes that mothers and fathers should have the right to stay home to care for their child following birth or adoption and they should be able to do so without fear of the loss of their job.

The amendments I will bring forward provide natural and adoptive parents with up to 18 weeks of unpaid leave to care for their child with the right to return to their job on completion of the leave. This leave is in addition to the 17 weeks of unpaid pregnancy leave and job rights already provided in our legislation.

For example, in a two-parent family, a natural mother now will be entitled to 17 weeks of pregnancy leave plus 18 weeks' parental leave. The father will also be entitled to 18 weeks, so between them the two parents can provide a total of 53 weeks' care for their new child.

The proposed amendments reflect the government's commitment to helping working families. They come at a time when it is increasingly necessary for both parents to work. The proposed changes will allow working parents to care for their child. The changes will also more than match the length of time unemployment insurance benefits for parental leave will be paid under the UI program.

Under the federal plan, women giving birth were already entitled to 15 weeks of maternity benefits. Bill C-21 gives parents an additional 10 weeks' payment of basic parental benefits.

As honourable members know, federal unemployment insurance benefits are paid to employees taking leave relating to birth or adoption. But it is the provincial Employment Standards Act that provides employees with job protection while they receive those benefits.

The proposed changes will reduce to three months the time a parent will have to work with the same employer to be eligible for leaves. At present, the qualifying time is just over a year.

We believe that Ontario workers are committed to their jobs and loyal to their employers, but it is necessary to recognize the changes in the employment patterns in today's society.

Ontario men and women want secure employment, but they also want to be able to plan for their futures and for their families' futures.

The addition of parental leave and the reduction of qualifying time will be retroactive to 18 November, the effective date for the federal changes under Bill C-21.

Seniority and pension benefits will accumulate and life insurance and extended health care benefits will continue during the leaves provided for in the provincial amendments. This change will assist women who in the past have found they lost pension and seniority credits needed when they retired or wanted to pursue their careers.

The employer's right to require a pregnant employee to leave early will be repealed and the provisions of the Human Rights Code will prevail. The code requires employers to accommodate the needs of pregnant employees, unless they can show it would cause undue hardship for the business. The employee must give two weeks' notice before the intended date of beginning leave and four weeks' notice before returning to work.

These amendments are timely and reflect the government's commitment to respond to the needs of women and workers with family responsibilities.

RESPONSES

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr Offer: In response to the honourable minister's statement, let me first make it very clear that our party is and has always been supportive of harmonizing with changes to the federal unemployment insurance program, especially with respect to family leave and job protection. We think this is a step that is absolutely necessary in marrying job protection with job leave.

Having said that, I must indicate some surprise and some dismay that the minister's first statement is just directed to what is of course a very important area. I think it is important that the minister recognize that we are in the depths of a recession. People are losing jobs each day. There are thousands and thousands of jobs which have been lost in this province, and we need some action in terms of the creation of jobs, not just protecting those jobs. The minister will be aware that 3,700 jobs at General Motors were lost; 93 at Alcan in Kingston; 143 in Whitby; 80 at Delta Faucet in Bowmanville; 230 at Greb in Kitchener.

Though I and our party certainly do support the direction in dealing with family leave and family protection, I must indicate that we are very dismayed that his first speech in the middle of a recession does not create one single job. People need those jobs now.

We are, I must say, as I have indicated, supportive of the initiative, disappointed that there has been no job creation. Much as in The Wizard of Oz, the minister is acting like a cowardly lion. He is allowing industry and jobs to leave this province along the yellow brick road out of the province. Get on with the job. Let's create jobs.

Mr Sorbara: I too want to congratulate the minister for saying that he intends to introduce this bill at some later date. His leader, in the throne speech and elsewhere, has said on a number of occasions that he wants his government to be characterized by integrity. I think if the statement by the minister were fully characterized by integrity, he would have said at some point in it that the program he is announcing and the bill that he is introducing were really put together by the previous administration, for a time under my direction at the Ministry of Labour and for a time under my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt while he was the Minister of Labour.

It is something that we all agree must be done in this Legislature. It follows upon what the federal government has done under its changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act and completely harmonizes those provisions. I am glad he is doing that. I am wondering why it is that he does not introduce the bill this afternoon. His statement said, "I will soon be introducing that bill." I note that he makes the bill retroactive, and that is good as well, because these provisions have to be fully harmonized with the implementation of the federal program. This is going to help working women and working men when they adopt children and when the spouse bears a child.

But it seems to me that the minister, who has heard the announcements that I made at one point in this House and the announcements that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt made in this House on this topic, and because of the fact that a bill already exists in the ministry to deal with all of these things, could have simply acknowledged that, could not have stood there and taken credit for this great new program that the new government is introducing and could have presented a bill this afternoon.

We have sat here now for two days and we do not have any legislation to work on. I appreciate that the cabinet is just getting together, and perhaps the legislation committee has not had an opportunity to meet. But the bill is not a complex one. It involves some minor changes to the Employment Standards Act, it provides important guarantees, but working men and women have been expecting this in this province for quite some time. A great deal of consultation was done on the bill. As I listened to the minister's statement, he seems to have acknowledged that he ought not to go beyond that consultation and ought to put into place a bill that everyone agrees is a good idea.

So perhaps later on, in the weeks and months to come when he introduces the bill -- I hope it is sooner rather than later -- he can acknowledge that this is something that I think probably every member of the House is going to support and that it really is a consensus that this province needs to do this at this time.

1400

Mrs Witmer: I would like to applaud the minister for his announcement today. I appreciate the positive steps that he has taken on behalf of working families in this province and I am glad that they were able to follow the initiatives taken by the federal government. I am glad the federal government was able to lead the way.

However, I certainly hope that the minister will take into consideration that this new legislation will create some difficulties for small business and I hope that there will be some consultation with those people.

I am also disappointed that at a time of layoffs and a serious economic recession there has not been another new initiative adopted at this time.

Mr Sterling: I would like to add my congratulations to those of the Solicitor General to the various groups that have received the Ontario fire prevention and public education awards. In particular, I would like to thank --

The Speaker: Order. Just so we all remember, we are responding to statements, and today we have one statement, and each party of course is allotted the full five minutes to respond to that statement.

Mr Sterling: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: That is specifically why I made the reply at this time -- to point out the problem with the minister's statement being made out of order in the original intent.

Mr Daigeler: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: In the previous House, the Speaker had the custom of recognizing past members when they were in the House, and I would just like to ask whether you will continue to follow this pattern and welcome the former member for Scarborough West, who is in the galleries.

The Speaker: The Speaker is certainly prepared to recognize former members. Normally if the Speaker is informed of that, he is always quite happy to welcome former members, and I gather that you already have.

Prior to the beginning of oral questions, I would like to draw members' attention to the tradition which we encourage members to follow, directing their question to the Speaker, who will be listening quite intently, and those who are responding directing their answer to the Speaker, who will be listening quite intently to the answer. Perhaps this will help us to set a decent tone.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Sullivan: I am really startled by the lack of detail and the lack of a time frame for action which was included in the minister's announcement yesterday. My question is to the Minister of the Environment, relating to her garbage plan.

On this side of the House, we are pleased that the minister has adopted our waste reduction targets and continued the emphasis on the 3Rs. We too believe that garbage can be gold and we have worked very hard to maximize those efforts.

However, with the establishment of her garbage authority for the greater Toronto area, we are concerned that she is starting from scratch again and merely exacerbating an extremely tight time frame. The minister has failed to provide any details regarding the establishment of her authority, the appointment of a chairman and its members, the budget of the authority or any detail of a public consultation process relating to site selection.

My question to the minister is, can she please advise the House today when her garbage authority will be up and running and when it will process its first load of waste?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am sorry I cannot give those precise answers today, but let me assure the member that my authority will not be starting from scratch. There has been a lot of work done by the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee, which was established by my predecessor as Minister of the Environment. A lot of the work in preparing for the site selection process has already been undertaken. A lot of investment has been made in that. That effort will not be lost.

It is our intention by way of the authority to regularize, if you will, the work of SWISC, which was not an authority founded on any kind of legal basis. The authority that we are proposing to establish will be done in co-operation with the regional chairs, and I am very pleased to be able to tell the House that I have the cooperation of the regional chairs and will be meeting with them very shortly in order to provide the kind of answers which the member has asked for. As soon as those time frames and details are available, I will be sharing them with the House.

Mrs Sullivan: It is very clear that the minister has herself accepted full responsibility for garbage, and yet it is also clear that the minister does not know when she will have an operational landfill facility for the greater Toronto area. Just yesterday she called the situation a crisis, yet she has made her garbage authority responsible for garbage dumps only.

If reduction and recycling are in fact her real solutions, can she explain to the House why her authority has not also been given the responsibility to implement and accelerate the 3Rs?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think my statement in the House yesterday made very clear the priority that this government is going to give to the 3Rs. The mandate and exact construction of the authority, as I have previously said, has not yet been determined because I do not want to do that unilaterally. I am going to be working in a partnership with municipalities across this province on the 3Rs and I know that I am going to have that kind of co-operation.

What we will be doing, in contrast to earlier plans, is making sure that the tipping fees and the revenue generated by the disposal of what waste remains are in fact reinvested in the 3Rs. We will be doing that with firm and aggressive and decisive programs from my ministry, in contrast to some of the actions that have been taken in the past.

Mrs Sullivan: I am interested that the minister has indicated that her consultations will be across the province, because in fact her announcement yesterday addressed only the waste crisis in the greater Toronto area. Since her government has assumed responsibility for the garbage crisis across the province, can she tell the House how and when her announcement yesterday will assist other municipalities, such as Windsor-Essex, which are facing garbage crises in their communities?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am sorry that my statement obviously lacked some clarity for the member. My statement began by announcing this government's commitment to the 3Rs, a commitment that extends across the province. The assistance, the direction, the leadership will be given to municipalities from one end of this province to another, not merely in the greater Toronto area.

The other initiative that I announced yesterday was an acceptance by this government of the discussion paper and the comments that had been generated by my predecessor with respect to some of the shortcomings in the Environmental Assessment Act. The amendments that we will be introducing and the improvements that we will be making, building on that consultation, to the Environmental Assessment Act will obviously apply not just in the greater Toronto area but right across the province.

1410

Mr Sorbara: My question is also to the Minister of the Environment regarding her plan to solve the garbage crisis. The minister's own statistics indicated that some 4.3 billion tonnes of solid waste are currently being generated in the greater Toronto area. Assuming that the minister is successful with these plans, and I hope she is, in meeting the reduction commitment of 25%, she has now assumed full responsibility for finding a home for over three million tonnes of garbage annually, so a garbage gap exists. Without consulting the people directly affected by existing landfill sites, such as Keele Valley in my riding, she has arbitrarily condemned these citizens to more garbage.

Yesterday in this House and last night on television, she said that she was prepared to use her emergency powers to make those sites stay open after they had reached capacity. Just three months ago, her leader stood on the site in Maple and made a solemn commitment that there would be no extension without a full environmental assessment.

Will the minister not embarrass the Premier? Can the minister confirm that she will conduct a full environmental assessment before allowing the expansion of any of the existing sites, or will she just exempt Keele Valley and the others, as she has recently done by imposing an emergency order on the Wasaga landfill site in the northern part of the province? She should not embarrass the Premier, I say to her.

Hon Mrs Grier: If that is the question, do I intend to embarrass the Premier, no, I do not intend to embarrass the Premier.

The premise of the member's question was this issue of a garbage gap, which is a phrase that I have not heard before, but I assume the member means the time frame between which the existing dumps are full and the new long-term site is on stream. It is the intention of this government, and that was the focus of my statement yesterday, to make sure we do not have that garbage gap.

We will do that by aggressive and decisive action to exceed the 25% target of waste diversion that was set by the previous government, and also by giving a lot of energy and resources to the long-term search for the long-term site, which will be undertaken by the authority that I indicated was going to be established.

Mr Offer: I want to first indicate that I certainly support the concerns of the member for York Centre about the extensions to existing sites, and indeed the approval process and the consultation that is going to go on with the people in that area. As the minister will be aware, the Britannia landfill site in the region of Peel is currently located in my riding. I can assure her that while Peel is very pleased that it is now absolved of the responsibility for solving the garbage crisis, it is still concerned about how she will deal with the garbage when the Britannia landfill site is absolutely filled to ski-hill proportions by December 1991.

That is reality. We are nearing total capacity of the Britannia landfill site. Members of Peel region were being briefed this morning on the full implications of the minister's announcement. They were advised that the financial implications for the region of Peel could reach in the area of $100 million due to increased transportation costs, increased costs of paying tipping fees at other landfill sites and the lost revenues to the region that they were currently receiving.

My question to the minister, on the basis of her announcement yesterday, is whether she and her government are able to confirm today that they will provide the financial assistance to the region of Peel, the $100 million necessary to meet the crisis that she has imposed on them by her announcement.

Hon Mrs Grier: The crisis did not start on 1 October. The problem landed on my desk on 1 October.

Britannia was due to close at the end of 1991 and the cost that the member has indicated would have to be absorbed by the region of Peel would be absorbed because the region would have to bring its waste to Keele Valley.

I am very pleased to be able to tell the member today that the chairman of the region of Peel is aware of the announcement I made yesterday, obviously, and I am looking forward to meeting with him and to having his co-operation in working on just some of the issues that the member has raised today.

Mr H. O'Neil: Notwithstanding the government's best efforts to increase the 3R efforts, there is a garbage crisis in Metropolitan Toronto and the greater Toronto area may require additional landfill sites.

The previous government directed the communities within the greater Toronto area to find an interim solution within their own boundaries and a willing host site for the long term. By eliminating the interim sites, which she did in yesterday's announcement, she absolved the communities within the GTA of any responsibility to find new landfill sites within the region.

Will the minister confirm today that communities like Marmora, Warwick township and Flamboro are not candidate sites for Toronto's garbage? I ask this question especially concerning the very strong statements she made to the TNT, Take No Trash organization, in Marmora, and to the Minister of Agriculture and Food during the election.

Hon Mrs Grier: What we did by our decision yesterday was to reject the interim process that had been established by the previous government, because we thought that process was not in the best interests of the environment. What the previous policy did was to take shortcuts with the approval process, while on the other hand refusing to accelerate the reduction process. What this government is going to do is accelerate the progress towards real waste reduction and waste reuse. Any long-term site for Metro's excess waste or the GTA waste will be subject to the full environmental assessment process.

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

Mr Harris: Yesterday the Premier, in response to my question about anything in the throne speech that would entice business to locate in Ontario, thus creating jobs in Ontario, made great light of the $700 million that his government is spending on infrastructure. This was an announcement that was in the throne speech. It was a very specific announcement and was touted very proudly yesterday as the answer.

I wonder if the Premier could tell us today where the $700 million is coming from to pay for that infrastructure.

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I think the Treasurer should answer that question.

Hon Mr Laughren: I thank the Premier. To the leader of the third party, I think it is a fair question. There is no doubt that most of these projects will be started and completed in the calendar year 1991. Of the cost of $700 million, most of that will come out of the 1991-92 budget or fiscal year. There will be some that will come out of the 1990-91 budget year, but it will not be a lot.

I think the leader would appreciate the fact that by the time you make the announcement of the specific projects and get them going -- we want that to happen very quickly. I might add that because we anticipate the recession to be primarily in the calendar year 1991, by the time we get them off the ground and going, by the time we start paying for those projects, it is after the beginning of the fiscal year on 1 April 1991.

Mr Harris: I did not ask when the Treasurer was going to pay the $700 million. I thought I was quite specific. The Premier asked me yesterday to be very specific and we would get specific answers. The question is, where is the money coming from, not when the Treasurer is going to spend the money. Now, I would assume that unless the Treasurer has come up with a new way, there are three ways, three possible sources of this money: $700 million of new taxes, $700 million added on to the deficit, or the Treasurer is going to cancel $700 million of other programs. Could he tell us which of those three.

Hon Mr Laughren: I suspect that the leader would not be surprised to learn that it is going to be a prudent combination of those three.

1420

Mr Harris: Can you tell us which of those three it is?

Hon Mr Laughren: It is a bit simplistic to imply that it is one or another of those three. When we bring in the 1991-92 budget, there will be detailed in that document the way in which we will be paying for programs and also details of our borrowing program, and details of course of any tax changes. So I do not think it is a mysterious process, but that is how we propose to do it.

Mr Harris: I appreciate the Treasurer's answer. It was very clear in the throne speech that somehow or other this is what must be done. He has identified the $700 million. I want to be clear today that he has said he will do all three. He will raise taxes; he will cut other programs; he will increase the deficit to pay for it. Can he tell us if he has any idea which of those three is going to bear the brunt of it, or did he just make the announcement and say, "We'll figure it out in a year from now when we have to pay it"?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I know the leader is a fair minded person and he would not want to put words into my mouth that I had not said. To be fair, I did not say that we were going to pay for it by raising taxes. I said that it will be paid for by a combination of tax revenues that flow into the consolidated revenue fund and by any borrowing that the province does and by constraints on existing programs.

I do not think there is anything unusual about that, and for the leader of the third party to stand in his place and say that I said we were going to raise taxes in order to pay for the $700-million program is simply not fair. I said that we will, in the normal course of events, pay for the $700-million program in the normal way that we pay for programs around here: a combination of borrowing, taxation and expenditure constraints. I do not see anything mysterious or unusual about that.

Mr Harris: I thought the original answer was quite up front and straightforward, and I was prepared to accept that. Now what he is telling me is that he really does not know how he is going to pay for it; that he will just announce it and worry about it later. That is the traditional way it has been done for the last five years, but it is not good enough for the people of Ontario. It is not good enough.

FOOD CONTAINERS

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I think the minister will recognize this box that I am holding as a container that was used for packaging by McDonald's Restaurants. McDonald's has now announced that it will ban this packaging in all its restaurants in Canada as part of its fast-food packaging.

I would ask the minister if she agrees with McDonald's decision that it is helpful to the environment to ban this type of packaging, and if she does, recognizing there are far more fast-food restaurants in this province than McDonald's, does she have any criteria for these other restaurants and any guidelines for them that they should be following in this province as well?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me tell the member that I do agree with McDonald's, and I applaud its action in cancelling the use of those clams, I think they call them. Tomorrow morning I am going to be meeting with the class of schoolchildren who I think initiated the action. I am going to be meeting with them because I want to emphasize that the war, the attack, the efforts to reduce waste that this government has initiated are not just on the part of the government; we have to involve consumers. Consumers, with their dollars, have a great deal of power, and if consumers begin to say to packaging companies, "We don't want that amount of packaging," I am sure they will respond as has McDonald's.

It is certainly my intention to work with industry to make sure that happens, but if it does not happen and if it does not happen fast enough, we will not hesitate to regulate.

Mr Harris: I am pleased the minister agrees with the decision on behalf of McDonald's and I agree with her in giving credit to the students who brought this issue to the fore in the timetable.

I also have a second container that I would like the minister to look at, a sort of a clam-type package. To give the minister an idea of the size of it, this container as well holds a hamburger. This container, though, is a little different.

Interjection.

Mr Harris: No, it is the same size of hamburger, as a matter of fact.

The difference is that this environmentally troublesome package does not come from a fast-food restaurant. This comes from the legislative cafeteria. I wonder if the minister can explain to me why McDonald's is so far ahead of the government cafeteria and of the Legislature in meeting the environmental concerns we have with that excess packaging.

Hon Mrs Grier: I think that is a very good question. I took some pride as a member of the opposition in making sure that disposable cups were no longer in the opposition lobby. I am glad they are now no longer in the government lobby. I certainly take your point that we have to be leaders in greening this province and it is certainly my hope that we will not be able to get those containers in the legislative cafeteria very shortly.

Mr Harris: Yesterday the minister stood in her place and gave us a great speech, and a great lecture to all industries and all individuals, people in this province, about recycling and reducing and reusing. Yet it is obvious to me that we are still not practising what we are preaching right here in the Legislature itself, and it falls on all of us because this building is one that falls under the jurisdiction of our newly elected Speaker and all members of this Legislature.

Politicians have all kinds of environmental solutions for everyone else. Would the minister agree with me that we cannot expect others to be following all the preachings that we give them until we clean up our own act ourselves? Will she give us a timetable for this kind of packaging and other environmental initiatives that she and the other ministers are talking about, when you look at the single-pane windows in this Legislature, when you look at the other energy-saving devices?

Hon Mrs Grier: I absolutely agree with the member. I think we have an obligation and a responsibility to be as environmentally conscious in our daily lives, in our offices and in everything we do, as we expect anybody else to do. I have already been asked by the Chairman of Management Board to share with the members of this caucus some rules on how to green your office.

The Speaker: I appreciate both the question and the comments by the leader of the third party and am pleased to advise him that this comes under the jurisdiction of the Speaker and he will be reporting back to the House on this matter in very short order.

1430

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is it going to be your idea that from time to time the Speaker is going to answer questions directed quite properly to ministers in this Legislature?

The Speaker: The member, I think, knows full well the position of the Speaker and his role and responsibility. I listened quite intently to the question and the comments by the leader of the third party and recognized that the subject he brought to the floor of the House is one which comes under the direct responsibility of the Speaker. It is the Speaker's intention to follow through on the suggestions made by the leader of the third party, which suggestions, I take it, are generally the wishes of the House in its entirety. So I will be responding to the House as quickly as possible.

Mr Elston: On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: It seems to me that the question itself was in the process of being answered by the minister. She alone can choose not to or point out that the question is not in her bailiwick. If she determines that she wishes not to answer and says it should be addressed to the Board of Internal Economy or to the Speaker, then I think that is okay, but I think it is unusual indeed that the Speaker would stand in his place to interrupt an answer given fully and freely of her own volition by the minister. I would hope perchance that we could get a very early understanding that if ministers are proceeding in order, under the standing orders, to answer a question put to them, they be allowed to complete their answer to the House.

The Speaker: It is never my intention to interrupt any member of the assembly without just cause. If I interfered with the minister, of course she has my apology. I brought it to your attention because it seems to me that one of the principles of the Speaker is to inform the House as quickly as possible of matters which affect the House, and that is what I attempted to do.

We will now move on to questions.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Minister of Health. I think she will appreciate that most people found the throne speech quite surprising in that it made virtually no mention of health, either in specifics or, frankly, even in terms of the thrust the government plans to take. I must say that the people of Ontario, particularly those involved in the health area, are looking for direction from the minister in terms of her goals. Over the next few weeks, I will be asking the minister questions that will help to bring out those goals, and I would like to start today with the people of northern Ontario, who are anxious to know her plans for the health care system in northern Ontario. My specific question is, can we expect and can we get a commitment from the minister that she will be announcing those plans before our Christmas recess?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I would like to thank the Liberal Health critic for his commitment to help me enunciate the health goals of this government.

In terms of the serious problems which still exist in northern Ontario in the health care delivery system, I would like to let him know that I will be addressing each of those concerns in an itemized way over the next few weeks and months. I cannot promise I will produce a total picture that will paint a heaven on earth in northern Ontario for health care services, but I will address myself earnestly to the needs that exist there and work towards the goal of providing equality in health care services for our northern members, as members of the New Democratic Party have always done.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate the answer. I might say to the minister that she is no doubt aware that six of her cabinet colleagues studied this matter in some considerable detail. It is not as if it requires more study. In fact, I think the conclusion that was reached in that report, which her leader tabled here in the House, suggested a couple of things. It says, "The members must appreciate the fact that what is needed is action, not further review and study." So I can appreciate that she is looking at other areas, but in this particular case I think her colleagues spent 18 months studying it. I think they outlined in detail the blueprint they promised to the people of the north. I do not think she needs more study. What I am looking for is a commitment by the minister that she plans to implement what was promised in this study conducted by six of her cabinet colleagues, including the Premier. As I say, in this particular case I think she might have to move more quickly than she had planned to.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: Certainly the member is correct in saying that the studying has been done. The question of addressing each of the items which need to be addressed in the north will be undertaken by this minister and by this government over the next several weeks and months.

I have already had several contacts with people in northern health services, both informal and formal. We will continue having those contacts and building up a reserve of knowledge and information about which priorities we should be addressing first. I will be looking for quick action on the elements of northern health care policy which need to be undertaken now and should have been undertaken long ago, let me point out.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Cousens: I would like to commend the Minister of the Environment for her acknowledgement yesterday that we face a crisis in waste management. There are a number of concerns that I would like to address.

In yesterday's statement, the minister stated she would be suspending the Environmental Assessment Act exemptions for the Whitevale and Brampton sites. Does this mean that she will be reversing the exemptions announced by the former minister, and if so, when will they be announced in the Ontario Gazette?

Hon Mrs Grier: A letter is being prepared that will be sent to the board. I confess to being unfamiliar with the process of how they get gazetted. But I will be indicating that the hearing scheduled for 26 November should not continue.

Mr Cousens: What I would like the minister to do is also confirm that she will reverse the order of the previous minister on those two sites, and that will mean that there is not going to be a possibility of a dump site there without there being a full environmental assessment. There is still a chance and, unless she acts on it in this way, we are going to be concerned that there is still that likelihood. The dancing in the streets last night really might not have been worth while.

Another question to the minister: She also stated that she would be asking Metropolitan Toronto and Peel region to delay final closing of the existing sites and that she would be using her emergency powers under the Environmental Protection Act if necessary. This was referred to earlier today. Is the minister telling this House that she is prepared to bypass the public hearing process for landfill expansions? Does this not fly in the face of her election commitment that the public must be involved in determining landfill extensions?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me clarify the situation with respect to expanded capacity should there be an emergency. Let me make it very clear that I do not expect that there will be an emergency, that I am fully confident that the plans I announced yesterday of expediting the search for a long-term site and moving aggressively on reduction of waste will avoid the need for interim sites.

I think it would have been irresponsible of me not to acknowledge the possibility that there could be an emergency. I felt it was important to make it very clear from the outset that in the event there is an emergency, I would be prepared to use my emergency powers to make sure we did not have garbage piling up in the tennis courts, landing on the fields and all of the things that have been done. I would do that by using my emergency powers to keep open and expand Keele, which is an existing site; if that was not sufficient, Brock, which is an existing site; if that is not sufficient, Britannia, which is an existing site. Should there be an even more extreme emergency, which I do not for one moment anticipate, then the initial work that had been done on the two green field sites of 6P and P1 would be work that might make it possible for us in an emergency to use those sites without the full benefit of an environmental assessment. But it is not my intention to get to that point.

1440

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Ms Haeck: My question is directed to the Minister of Government Services. I know that the people of St Catharines will be happy with the decision by this government to decentralize. I would like the minister to elaborate on the proposed move of the Ministry of Transportation to the Niagara region. It has been announced in this House that the move is going forward, but I know that the city of St Catharines would like more information. Will the minister expand on her remarks of yesterday?

Hon Ms Lankin: Yes, the move will go ahead. As the member knows, an issue of great concern to this government is that of preservation of agricultural lands, in this case in particular, preservation of tender fruit lands below the Niagara Escarpment.

Therefore, in the letter I sent to the mayor of St Catharines, I detailed that we would be consulting with the community with respect to a number of items but, in particular, the exact location of the building. I am sure the member can understand that the building of a new head office to house up to 1,400 jobs and the potential influx of a number of new people to the area may give rise to concern about placing stress on the tender fruit lands.

Additionally, I think that in the letter I indicated that we would consult with concern particularly to environmental issues, preservation of the fruit lands and concern with the regional plan, as I understand it, which directs development to above the Niagara Escarpment. Therefore, the exact location of the building will come about as a decision of the result of those consultations.

Ms Haeck: Could the Minister of Government Services at this point provide my constituents with an idea of the implementation plans and at the same time address the issue of fairness to employees?

Hon Ms Lankin: In the original announcement that had been made by the previous government, the St Catharines move was designed to be completed in 1996-97. Over the next three to four months we will be completing a review of the complete implementation and timing. We may well be in the position, once we have decided on the final location of the building, to move some jobs in advance.

We will be looking particularly at the issue of a human resource package. The member may be aware that when the announcements were made in June and July, there was no announcement of how employees of the government would be treated under this move. We will be working with senior management, managers and the bargaining unit with respect to assistance in relocating employees and their families; also with respect to placement of individuals who will not be relocating, retraining, those sorts of initiatives, the cornerstone of that being a job offer guarantee which is similar to the previous government's northern Ontario relocation program human resource package.

RENT REVIEW

Ms Poole: My question is for the Minister of Housing. First of all, let me congratulate the member on his elevation to cabinet. I think members from all sides of the House will truly agree that there is no one more deserving of the portfolio. Tenants have been calling my office in confusion about conflicting statements made by the New Democratic Party as to its rent control policy, and certainly the incredibly brief mention of housing in the speech from the throne on Tuesday did nothing to help. I would like the minister to clarify which of the following two statements are correct.

The first statement comes directly from the NDP's An Agenda for People, which was its campaign platform: "New Democrats would bring in rent control. That means one increase a year based on inflation. There would be no extra bonuses to landlords for capital or financing costs."

Perhaps the minister would just take a look at the second statement, which is from the Financial Post on 8 November 1990: "In a significant policy reversal, Ontario Housing Minister David Cooke now says that the New Democratic Party government will permit landlords to charge higher rents that include costs of capital improvements to their buildings."

Will the minister tell me which statement is true?

Hon Mr Cooke: After being minister for six weeks, I think I understand what the member said at the beginning of her statement. There is a plot to get even with me by somebody out there.

I appreciate very much the member's question and I want to indicate to her that the purpose of our review and the announcement that we will be making as soon as we possibly can will be very clear. It will have one objective, and that is to clean up the mess that we have in the current rent review system.

Both landlords and tenants in this province understand very clearly that the rent review system is not working. It is simply not working, and it will be our objective to bring about a fairer system. But the basic principle in that system will be one that I am sure the member agrees with me on, and that is that tenants have to be protected against unconscionable rent increases in this province.

Ms Poole: That is something I can certainly agree with the minister on. I think our goal is to protect the tenants of this province.

But I would remind the minister that the wait and the uncertainty are creating great anxiety. Tenants are confused about what the minister is going to do. At the same time, landlords cannot even borrow money from the bank to effect repairs and maintenance. The situation cannot go on.

Would the minister please tell us right now, today, the date when he will be announcing his policy on rent control?

Hon Mr Cooke: I would like to be very specific but I can tell the member it will be very soon. Tonight I will be meeting with the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario. I have been meeting with tenants' organizations and landlords' groups. I am sure the member would also agree with me that part of the process of developing a policy has to involve consultation. That consultation is taking place.

As soon as I have an announcement to make or as soon as there is an announcement that can be made, we will make that announcement, but I can tell the member, and I reinforce, that tenants of this province will be protected under NDP legislation.

FARMERS' INCOME

Mr Villeneuve: In preparing his speech from the throne, the Premier is obviously not aware that realized farm net income was forecast to be down again this year, for the third year. Realized net farm income this year will be lower than in 1989 and 1988 and indeed will be lower than it was in 1983. After allowing for inflation, it will be lower than it was in the last 15 years.

The government has announced plans to raise the minimum wage and yet, in agriculture, workers are getting less than the minimum wage at present. How much lower do farm incomes have to go before the government gives them a little bit of parity with our urban citizens?

Hon Mr Rae: I think in the circumstances it would be appropriate for the new Minister of Agriculture and Food to answer that question.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I would be very pleased to answer that question. The member may know that we have been consulting across the province with a number of farmers and farm groups, and the member has identified the number one problem for farmers across this province. We have talked about solutions. One of them is perhaps for consumers to pay more money for food, and that has been reported in the press.

The problems facing the farm community, though, in some ways go beyond the farm-gate price. We have problems in the farm community with credit. We have fluctuating interest rates which are driving farmers out of business. We have problems associated with securing loans in order to put crops in. There are a number of problems associated with credit, and we are addressing the credit issue very directly.

My parliamentary assistant is going to be conducting a number of hearings across the province to address the farm credit issue. In the spring, we hope to be able to announce some solutions to the farm credit problem. The solution in terms of commodity prices is a much larger one that requires education of consumers, of urban people, and we hope to address that problem in the near future.

1450

Mr Villeneuve: I thank the new minister, and congratulations. However, he does have a major problem, and income and the stability of farm income is the major problem facing him and his government.

We must bring in new programs to counteract what is happening in other countries and in other provinces. Our producers need action for a strong voice, and there have been recommendations for one strong voice. We need an answer from the minister. Our producers need an environmentally beneficial fuel ethanol policy, which is win, win, win for the producers and for the consumers. When can we expect initiatives that will address these very real problems and at least send a signal to our agricultural community, which is getting very low prices for its commodity now, that this government is willing to extend some form of assistance?

Hon Mr Buchanan: In terms of the ethanol issue, I would like to report to the member that if we can show that burning ethanol or producing ethanol from corn has a net energy gain -- in other words, we do not spend more energy in producing a bushel of corn to provide ethanol than we get out of it from the ethanol itself -- then we will move ahead with ethanol and we will talk to our federal counterparts in terms of introducing legislation that will make that a possibility.

On the issue of commodity prices and protection, one of the things we are going to do to try to protect the commodity prices that are decent in the province today -- and those are commodities generally that are produced under supply management -- we are going to GATT to try to protect prices of those commodities such as milk and eggs and chicken. We are going to try to protect the farmers in that sector. We need to do more in other sectors, I would agree with the member, and we will be working with farm groups and individual farmers to try to address that problem over the life of this government.

BUSINESS PRACTICES

Mr Owens: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As the minister is aware, there was a draft consultation paper on consumer and business practices circulated in July 1990. I would like to know what the status of that paper is.

Hon Mr Kormos: I cannot tell the member how pleased I am to be able to answer that question, because indeed in July 1990 a draft consultation paper was released. We applauded it when it was released by the previous government. We recognize the hard work that a whole lot of people put into preparing it, but when I saw it once again after assuming my position at the ministry, I said, "This simply isn't good enough for an NDP government," and we intend to do better. So we are reviewing it with that in mind.

Mr Owens: Keeping the minister's comments in mind, I would like to ask the minister, what specific improvements is he looking for in this code?

Hon Mr Kormos: A whole number of things that the previous government clearly did not think were important enough for consumers here in the province of Ontario. We want to look at plain-language legislation so that people other than lawyers can understand contracts and agreements that consumers enter into. We want to look at a requirement here in this province that new cars have to carry the retail price sticker so that consumers know what they are buying and how much they are paying when they are buying what is for most people the second most expensive investment during the course of their lifetimes. We are looking at the prospect of a new car lemon law so that we can get tough on behalf of consumers, rather than roll over and deliver them to the manufacturers and the wolves that would prey on them. We are engaging in consultation with the community and with the members of this assembly to prepare a consumer protection code that will be the leader in North America.

FOOD BANKS

Mrs McLeod: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister will be aware that on Monday of this week the Anglican diocese of Toronto and the task force on food banks made a very clear statement that direct funding of food banks is inappropriate and should not be reinstated. Bishop Terence Finlay said quite firmly that the problem we are dealing with is not hunger, or even a lack of food in food banks; the real problem is poverty. Jennifer Harris of the task force on food banks presented a number of recommendations which would represent an immediate response by government to a complex problem of great urgency.

Can the minister tell the members of this House how she will respond to these recommendations and whether she will move quickly to implement each of them?

Hon Mrs Akande: I am very happy to answer the member's question. We are in fact looking at emergency measures to address the needs of the food banks. In fact, I am meeting this week with a group of very distinguished and well-known people who have led these food banks for quite some time. We are, in fact, addressing the problem.

Yesterday I spoke of the long-term measures which speak to the food banks. But the member is quite right -- the issue is poverty. The issue is, as I said yesterday, interministerial, and the response, in a long-term way, will be dealt with by all the members of this ministry to in fact solve the problem of poverty in this province.

Mrs McLeod: I am pleased to hear the minister make reference to emergency measures because while, as I indicated yesterday, the talk of long-term plans is important, it is obvious that promises and plans are not going to feed hungry people. But the discussion of emergency responses also gives me a certain cause for concern, because the Premier has in the past been very critical of the Liberal government's decision to eliminate the emergency shelter and assistance program, a decision which was made only after it had been shown that social assistance reforms had in fact had a very immediate effect on food bank use. This criticism continued throughout the August election campaign.

The Premier, as Leader of the Opposition, last March questioned whether the social assistance reforms could in fact have changed the demand for food. His continued criticisms would lead us to question whether the Premier doubts that social assistance reforms can eliminate poverty and the need for food banks, or whether perhaps support for such fundamental reform is not likely to be forthcoming in time to deal with a very urgent situation. May I simply ask the minister, does her government intend to reinstate direct funding for food banks?

Hon Mrs Akande: Let me say clearly that this government intends to respond to the emergency needs of food banks, not by funding them, but in a way which will in fact put food in those people's mouths, yet work in a way so that we do not further institutionalize food banks.

RENT REVIEW

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. We listened to the member for Eglinton and watched her cue cards, and I am afraid the question that was asked still has not been properly answered.

I would like to say that we certainly all agree that there is a great deal of confusion surrounding the government's rental policy. An Agenda for People did state that an NDP government would bring in rent control with no extra bonuses to landlords for capital and financing costs, yet now the throne speech states that the government will revise rent review.

On 8 November the minister reassured landlords that the realities of the marketplace have forced him to seek a system which would please landlords as well as tenants. Yet three days later at the annual meeting of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations, he told tenants that the legislation would deliver on his party's election promise.

Will the minister stand in the House today and clear up all this uncertainty by telling the people of Ontario what measures his government intends to introduce to deal with rental housing?

Hon Mr Cooke: I would like to indicate that the member is correct on all counts. We are going to be fair to landlords and we are going to offer proper protection to tenants across this province. We have indicated all the way along the line since the current legislation was passed that we did not support the current rent review legislation. We opposed it when we were in opposition, we opposed it during the election and we oppose it after the election because it is unfair to tenants and it does not offer enough protection to tenants.

We said before the election, we said during the election and I am telling the member today, we are going to bring in a system of rent control that offers real protection for tenants.

1500

Mr Tilson: I understand the minister voted against the very legislation that he is trying now to revise. Given speculations and concerns in the rental housing industry, will the minister confirm or deny that he intends to introduce a moratorium or freeze on all outstanding applications in the system while the government figures out what to do, and whether any future changes will be retroactive?

Hon Mr Cooke: What I will confirm to the member is that we are working and consulting with landlord and tenant groups across this province, and as soon as the consultation process is over, we will make an announcement in this House of how we are going to offer real protection and rent control for tenants.

NUCLEAR POWER

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the Minister of Energy. I will take this opportunity as well to congratulate the minister on her recent election and elevation to the cabinet.

In a letter signed by the Premier, dated 14 August 1990, to the major provincial environmental groups, including Greenpeace, the Premier stated that the NDP supports no nuclear reactors in Ontario and a phase-out of existing nuclear reactors. My question to the minister requires a simple yes or no answer, and it is this: Does this government intend to honour this promise?

Hon Mrs Carter: Unfortunately, when we came to office the situation was as we found it, not as it would have been had we been the government in previous years. The electricity supply of this province was already 50 per cent nuclear and billions of dollars had already been spent on the construction of further nuclear facilities, that is to say, the Darlington stations.

In view of the fact that these stations were 80 per cent completed and $12.5 billion had already been spent, we decided that the only sensible thing to do was to complete them. We could not phase out power stations which in fact were providing, as I said, 50 per cent of the province's power.

However, we feel that our emphasis on conservation, energy efficiency, the bringing in of independent suppliers of energy and the development of other hydroelectric stations will give us a very good margin of energy supply, so that we do not need to initiate the building of any further nuclear power stations.

Mr McGuinty: I am new to this House, but trying to understand the answers given to questions by the members opposite is often like trying to grab smoke.

In the throne speech, this government stated that it was placing a moratorium on nuclear power facilities in this province. There can bc no doubt that the question of meeting Ontario's future electricity needs is an important one. That is why the former government set in motion an environmental review process strengthened by intervenor funding, an independent review of Ontario Hydro's options to meet our future electricity needs.

My question for the minister is this: How long is this moratorium going to be in place? In particular, I ask her whether this moratorium is to survive beyond the completion of the environmental assessment hearing which is to review Ontario Hydro's demand-supply plan.

Hon Mrs Carter: As members know, we are continuing the environmental assessment process as originally planned. We feel that this gives the people of this province a chance to make their feelings known and it gives us the possibility of having a thorough exploration of the whole issue. The moratorium, however, is not limited to the duration of the inquiry. I believe some of the media have reported that it was for three years. It is an indefinite moratorium. There is no time limit on it. We have every confidence that our policy of energy conservation, efficiency and, as I said before, the bringing in of parallel power developments will make the development of further nuclear power stations unnecessary in the foreseeable future.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, I believe we have the unanimous consent of the three parties. With respect to the Orders and Notices paper of today, page 4, the special debate with respect to opposition day, because of standing order 41(c), we no longer are able to change the date by which that opposition motion is to be debated. I believe we have unanimous consent that it be changed to read: "Notwithstanding standing order 41(c), to be debated on Thursday, November 29, 1990. Treasurer of Ontario."

Mr Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FINANCIAL CONSUMERS ACT, 1990

Mr Chiarelli moved first reading of Bill 3, An Act to provide for the Protection of Financial Consumers.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Chiarelli: The purpose of the act is (a) to require suppliers, agents and financial planners to disclose to consumers important information about named financial products; (b) to inform consumers that they have responsibilities as well as rights when they invest in named financial products; (c) to set standards for financial planners and to provide for their licensing; (d) to make remedies available so that disputes about named financial products can be resolved efficiently and effectively, and (e) to encourage the use of readily understandable language in the financial marketplace.

CONYORK CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING LTD ACT, 1990

Ms Poole moved first reading of Bill Pr18, An Act to revive Conyork Construction and Engineering Ltd.

Motion agreed to.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

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

Mr Nixon: I am honoured to have the responsibility once again of leading off the opposition comments on the legislative agenda put forward by the government of the day.

While I am here in a recycled capacity, the Premier and his colleagues are there for the first time, as they have told us so often. Perhaps it would be appropriate, having been a long-time observer of the conduct of the affairs of the House, if I were to say that I have been quite satisfied with the responses of the Premier and his colleagues in these two question periods. I feel that both opposition parties have put a point of view and have elicited some information and some guarded responses, a little bit of condescension, which I suppose we can understand when we realize that power corrupts, although we did not expect the disease to penetrate quite so deeply by the second day.

I should tell you, Mr Speaker, that in my lighter moments I expected the government to collapse by Christmas, but I am now thinking more in terms of Easter. I also want to say that we are looking forward to many interesting question periods and exchanges of views as the work of the province comes before the House.

I have also already congratulated you, sir. I do not want to reiterate that other than to give you our assurances etc. But I was taken by reports of your comments outside the House in which you indicated that the larger numbers of women elected to the House would have some sort of leavening effect which might lead to a kinder, gentler approach to the discussion of public affairs. I am sorry if I may be paraphrasing you improperly, but I did feel that this generalization would surely not reflect your own experience in previous incarnations here. You may remember our mutual good friend Sheila Copps was on some occasions moved to express a view rather clearly and persistently.

But one of the biggest changes, of course, is in the present Minister of Health. I have had the good fortune to be associated with her for a number of years, particularly when she was a researcher, commentator and interviewer for CBC radio and television. I have always known her to be incisive but I have also known her to be -- I suppose there are a number of adjectives, but the one that comes to mind is "aggressive," perhaps "prickly." I have a feeling that the present Premier, in interviewing the prospective members of cabinet, right at the very desk in the office I presently have the honour to hold, must have woodshedded a number of people. I can see him having a discussion with the present Minister of Health and saying, "Evelyn, you're great, but cool it off."

I hesitate to discuss in any great detail the discussion he might have had with the present Minister of Financial Affairs, because I think he has been very subdued so far in the House, although I was glad to see him on his feet today. One of the areas of concern I have is that so many of the initiatives that the minister in charge of car insurance will be carrying is the postponement of any initiatives in this connection.

I can tell you that I, along with all the people of the province, had been looking forward with a great deal of anticipation to the speech that we heard read by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor the day before yesterday. It may not surprise you, sir, that I was somewhat disappointed when -- and perhaps I will give you a slow pitch -- it was very much like the other speeches I have heard over the years. It was very long on principle, some homily, quite a lot of motherhood, if you want to think of it that way, apple pie, and there is another adjective that I will not use in this House, sir, because even you might interrupt the flow of the debate.

The disappointment really lies, of course, in the vagueness of the approach. The people of the province certainly expected the election of our first socialist government to come forward with an innovation. Frankly, I expected perhaps that the program of the government would not be put in the mouth of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, who might have been asked simply to open the House and call on divine guidance, which certainly the government of the day needs, and leave it to the head of the government to put forward -- in my view, it might be a more modern practice in a Legislature -- the position of the government.

I have always found it a bit awkward when views expressly relating to the political position of one political party are required to be read by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor. That is our tradition. People think of me as a traditionalist and I do not mind that, but I would certainly suggest, perhaps to this Premier's successor, one of my friends, that such an innovation might be undertaken.

I know also that perhaps people related to the New Democratic Party had hoped for a kinder, gentler Legislature, the paraphrase of George Bush's hopes, along with "a million twinkling lights" and "read my lips" and those things that he has added to the lexicon of political quotery. It has ended up in this Legislature that we are asked to be kinder and gentler.

As everybody knows in this House, I have always had those attributes, have always been willing to cede the floor and be as agreeable as I possibly could be. But my colleagues and I have an important responsibility as well, one that most people who understand the democratic system feel is as important as the responsibility of the government.

It has changed slightly in that frankly, number one, looking at the conduct of our affairs in this House, the first responsibility is to see that every day the House sits for an hour we and the other members of the House put questions without notice to the members of the government, which they are required to respond to as they see fit. The people viewing on television and in the media gallery and the people in here make their own judgements and in the long term add these judgements up as to whether the government should receive the continuing support of the electorate.

I do not intend to dwell on the history of this, but certainly a few years ago, when I first became a member, there was no question period. Actually, because of that, even during the debates that would go on through the rest of the day and usually three or four days a week into the evening, most of the members of the House would be present.

I think the honourable members who are newly elected may be disappointed to find if they stay in the House to listen to a debate like this, and I appreciate the fact that a number of them have survived at least the first five minutes, they will find themselves quite lonely. Cabinet ministers particularly, who have a lot of pressure on their time, and I know this to be true, will be expected by their officials and certainly their political advisers to get themselves back to the office and start doing whatever it is cabinet ministers do. I vaguely remember.

I appreciate the fact that people are here and I hope that, as we move into the work of this session, it will be possible for an actual debate to take place on legislation and various resolutions and that the question period itself will not be seen to be the only thing that happens.

Some honourable members may recall that we have adjusted the rules and modified them substantially, so that the debate can involve members, and at the end of each speech -- except for the formal leadoff speech, I should warn members -- it is quite possible and in order, and in fact very desirable, that honourable members will get up and question the speaker, and if they do not want to question, make comments, naturally usually in support of the comments, but they could be otherwise if that were the decision.

We have to criticize. Question period is important. I am very impressed with what we have put forward with the Conservatives and the private members. It is working very well. I do not want to be presumptuous to judge, but I think it is working very well. Also, it is our job to criticize. There are those who say opposition members hear a speech from the throne and immediately say it is vague etc. That is true.

They say, "Why don't you just say it's all good?" We do not believe it is all good. We do believe that An Agenda for People, which was the program upon which the New Democratic Party received the responsibility of government, has been largely ignored, that those important social programs, which I am sure the main supporters of this party have been looking forward to, have really been put in a subparagraph indicating that over the next five years these important matters having to do with social programs will be dealt with.

1520

One of the things that concerned me early in the question period was the estimable, newly appointed Minister of Community and Social Services, in response to my colleague our critic, indicated that it would take her at least three months to clean up the mess that she inherited, which really means, I guess, that the people who are hungry and ill-housed and who have been the subject of so much direct criticism are going to have to continue that for at least three months until the honourable minister gets her act together.

There was a certain degree of condescension in that particular answer which concerned me, because the idea that may have somehow accrued to the New Democratic Party that it is the only one with knowledge or concern in this regard is incorrect. Some honourable members know perhaps how personally sensitive I am about that myself and while there are a number of keys that can turn on my mild irritation, that probably is the principal one. So I look forward to discussing it perhaps in more detail as the government program comes forward three or four months from now, and perhaps we will take it as our responsibility to see that the minister and her officials get right at their big cleanup program and bring forward their solutions.

We had the strange impression, I suppose, that they had some solutions: that they knew about automobile insurance; that they knew about the environment; that they knew about northern development; that they knew about education; that they knew about all of these areas which now they are "studying." They think by using the magic word "consultation" that they are going to be home free. Some of them think that consultation is all there is to it. I will tell them, the more they consult, when they finally decide, the more people will say they did not consult. Many people think consultation is agreement. Just a warning, because they will find out about that.

Governments must lead. They must get whatever information they require to make a decision, but the government's approach, with the vast array of consultative measures that it has talked about, is going to delay the action that the electorate expected from this brave, bushy-tailed group of socialists who find themselves, as they say, for the first time on the inside.

The implication, I guess, is that everybody else is on the outside, and this concerns me very much and leads me to say something that sometimes pushes the button of the Premier, and this is something that I may return to, that is, this halo complex, the fact that unless you are a social democrat or a democratic socialist, somehow you do not have any conception of what the community needs or in fact what the responses should be.

So we have to criticize and we will do so, and we hope that our criticism is constructive. But that is not always possible and it is not always the proper thing to do because the government, with the resources of the disinterested but capable members of the public service, comes forward with a number of alternatives. They will finally make a choice, according to the Minister of Community and Social Services, and we will be asked to debate that and perhaps amend it to some extent.

We have to also ensure community input, and I would say that the New Democratic Party has been good at this in the past, but this is changing rapidly now as well. It began, of course, with our standing and select committee system, which goes back into the mists of history, where citizens could apply to the clerk of the committee and bring forward their views as long as it suited the members of the committee to hear them. Of course, this is an important basis of our parliamentary process, and going back many, many years right to the founding of this Parliament, the people have always had the right, and they understood that -- and who is to deny it -- to assemble in front of the building and express their views on certain policies that they may support or they may oppose.

It has often fallen to my lot, as a spokesman for the Liberal Party over the years, to go out on the front steps and not always receive the 100% approval of those people present, and I know what that is like. It is certainly the responsibility to be there, just as, I believe, in a democratic society those people who are expressing their views should have the right to out what the alternative views are as well.

We must ensure community input and involvement. The last one concerns me. I have been persuaded that the opposition has the responsibility to stop legislation it considers to be bad. I did not use to think that. I used to think that in a Parliament, the government of the day had the right and the responsibility to present its program, it had the right to have it fully debated and it had the right to have it decided democratically.

My own experience is that the opposition put forward by the present government party, the New Democratic Party, was the most obstructionist that I have experienced in 27 or 28 years in this chamber. There is no doubt in my mind that the endless repetitions of reading petitions and filibustering has interfered with the course of the public business of Ontario in a way which, in my experience, was irresponsible and unconscionable.

I say that to you, Mr Speaker, because you have indicated in your leadership and direction of this House that it is your intention to see that every member has his or her opportunity to express a view, and of course these things will eventually be settled by democratic vote.

My experience is that this has not been the example set by the present government party. Most people would forget something that I shall never forget: that, as Treasurer of the day, I was even prevented from reading the budget of the province to this House by the obstructionist NDP opposition. So when you give me any stuff about being kind and gentle, please remember that it would be a breakthrough on the part of the opposition party, not following the example of the government party, and I want to make that clear.

I think also, and I say again, that we do share the responsibility for making this chamber function. If we get into a position where acrimony divides us on issues, then I believe that it is wrong. I believe that it is important to debate the issue strongly and with a background of information reflecting the views of the community wherever possible, but always accepting the responsibility to express our own views, not just the views of the pollsters and something along the same lines to express our own views, not just the views that somebody has placed in our hand by way of a script.

There is an interesting rule in here, Mr Speaker, that you are aware of and that some people wish I would not observe quite so carefully, which is that we are not supposed to read a speech. In fact, if people are reading speeches, they come to a more rapid conclusion. I just indicate that some members may wish that I were reading a script today. But I think it is important, particularly when you look at other parliaments, many of them unruly, many of them based on the same legislative parliamentary procedure background that we accept, which are able to conduct their business with people expressing their own views, not just those views that are placed in their hand.

I do not want to be condescending or presumptuous; I just simply say to all of us as members and even to the Minister of Community and Social Services, who is looking so scornfully at me at this moment -- and I sense that she has no trouble expressing her own view -- that it is important that we are here to speak for ourselves and not really for anybody else. I am going to end up my speech a few minutes from now by returning to that comment.

There is no place for acrimony; there is room for good, tough debate and even to have an enjoyable time. I was just thinking that I mentioned other parliaments. It is interesting to note, for example, and maybe the Premier would note this as well, that in that Mother of Parliaments at Westminster, they were able to shed a Premier by just lifting an eyelash. Prime Minister Thatcher, highly regarded around the world, went away to a conference and, almost as if she was president of Upper Volta, came back to find that she was out of office.

What a marvellous flexibility in the parliamentary procedure there would be. I suppose that applies to opposition party leaders as well. So anybody who thinks that by observing the Parliament at Westminster we are miring our thought processes in even more amber must realize that in fact in many respects this Parliament, this Legislature, is probably slower to evolve than others.

1530

We have a series of prohibitions here that are in a sense honoured in the breach. You, Mr Speaker, pointed up one today, "Please address the chair." We will not talk about that; it is good advice. There have been a couple of slipups in the rules. The honourable House leader mentioned it. Our own House leader has commented. The Conservative House leader, ever alert, is there. So we have lots of people safeguarding those things.

One of the prohibitions is the use of the word "liar." It is in many respects the ultimate parliamentary obscenity. You cannot work in a Legislature if you truly believe a person with whom you are debating is a liar. So almost any other word can be used here, even the words that my kids use. Those words are okay here, but you cannot call a member a liar, and if you do you are out. I can recall that the honourable House leader's father, an estimable friend, and I had a contretemps about this. As a matter of fact, it held the House up for about three days.

Hon Mr Wildman: Elie did that?

Mr Nixon: Yes. It would be an interesting debate to look up if they want to see some of these things. I simply mention it because, as I move slowly through my remarks, I want to come to the election campaign. You can understand, Mr Speaker, why for good reason I do not want to dwell on it, but it began with a press conference involving the present leader of the government. Having read the transcript, I can see what happened, but the headline was, "NDP Leader Calls Premier Peterson a Liar." I found that so offensive --

Interjections.

Mr Nixon: If they did not, then they do not know what I am talking about and I cannot help them but I can pity them. I think they would know this if they actually read the exchange. This happens to everybody, to politicians in a press conference, that the press kind of chivvy you: "You mean to say you think he is a liar, blah-blah-blah?" "Yes," he said, "I have to say he is a liar because he did not keep a political promise."

Can you imagine that, Mr Speaker? Something that Premier Peterson had said in a campaign, he did not do after the election and the leader of the present government called him a liar. Well, nobody else found that offensive in the House, at least on that side, but I did, and I just want to tell members why I found it offensive.

In July 1990, the Leader of the Opposition: "If Varity, in whose creation the governments of Ontario and Canada were deeply involved, is now permitted by means of some settlement to move its headquarters to the United States, what does that say about the Liberal government's approach to industrial policy? It clearly says there is no interest in defending anything. We can't let the whole economy be swept out beneath our feet." On 18 October 1990: "Premier Bob Rae approved a package deal which allowed Varity to move its head office to Buffalo, New York."

A quote from the Leader of the Opposition, March 1990, on Consumers' Gas, "It should be a public utility, publicly owned." The Premier, 7 November 1990, "It makes economic sense to approve the sale."

I am not going to use the example set by the present leader of the government, who used the word that the people on that side, by their interjections and comments, do not worry about, because I do not use that word and I do not believe he is a liar. I do not believe that. I know he is not, just as I know that David Peterson was not and is not a liar. It is just a clear indication, however, of where politicians can be led in the exuberance, I suppose, of the moment. I do believe, however, that the public out there -- it has been the New Democratic Party more than anybody else -- is becoming cynical. They are wondering about our politicians and they are feeling that with the election of the NDP, here is a party that is not going to engage in that sort of thing. They believe that and it is great that they do.

I just want to tell members that I believe there has to be an acceptance of the motives as being useful and directed towards the improvement of provincial politicians on all sides. Members may get sick of me preaching about it, but this is surely the occasion, as we begin a new Parliament, where, from my point of view, it is worth saying.

I have a high regard for the Premier. Some of the things that I have said about him and that I may say about him later in this speech are critical. That is what I am here for. That is what I am paid to do. My colleagues are paid to do the same thing for this government and offer alternatives. That is my job. I want to be personally critical of the Premier in using that word at that time and under those circumstances.

I was also appalled, frankly, at the response of the media as if, okay, Fighting Bob comes out of his cage. The lesson there may have led to victory, but if that was one of the reasons then I feel a little more comfortable in defeat.

I am interested to know that the people who responded to unkept promises in this regard were not too much upset. As a matter of fact, my own view is that when they look at An Agenda for People, many of the people who voted for the NDP, in some instances against the Liberal candidate, are hoping that the government does not keep all of its promises. Not everybody is either a social democrat or a democratic socialist. The government finds itself in office with a special responsibility. It has an opportunity to bring forward its philosophies and its concepts, but it also has the responsibility to assess what is said in this House and to act accordingly. It has a full majority and can do as it wishes when it gets to the point where the House decides, by its vote, its approval or otherwise. But that responsibility is special in its circumstances.

The comment by the Premier that is not quite in the class I have already described that I want to talk about was, and I believe he said: "What can I do? The cupboard is bare. They didn't leave us a nickel in the till." I have to say something about this --

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I bet you do.

Mr Nixon: -- because I am the person who stripped the till, according to the Minister of Health, who is coming to life. The till is a remarkable one. It has a cash flow on a daily basis of about $125 million. If one wishes to do it on a business day, five days a week, my rough calculation is about $180 million a day. So there are a couple of nickels there.

It is true that our budget, my budget, previous budgets have allocated a good deal of this to expenditures over which governments have little or no control. But a new government can set its own priorities. If you think too much is going one place and not enough to another, by flicking your eye or the Treasurer doing whatever he does over there, these things can be changed.

I was interested in the exchange with the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, when the Treasurer was asked where the $700 million was coming from. That is a relatively easy answer. It is about three days' revenue. That is what it is. As a matter of fact, in his budgetary comments he indicated that part of the unallocated additional money he needs for this year's budget is going to go to pay doctors. He said he did not want to tell us how much that was of the almost $800 million unallocated that he put in the budget on behalf of the taxpayers this year, but there is some indication that it would be at least $300 million. He did not want to be specific, because of course somebody in the government is dealing with the doctors in a new pay arrangement.

Perhaps I should not reveal any secrets. I do not have any to reveal, other than to say that as I recall, in general terms, there is about $200 million or $300 million or a number in that area already in the budget for that purpose.

It is interesting to note, when the honourable Treasurer is criticized by the Conservatives about the $700-million fund to cover the whole of the unemployed in the province of Ontario, that as I estimate it there is at least $400 million that the Treasurer has given himself to deal with the doctors. It is interesting that he puts those in those particular categories. I will deal with that in a moment.

1540

I want to talk about the budgets because in 1989-1990, the budget that concluded last March, we had a fully balanced budget. We did not plan it that way. I wish I had. The revenues that came from many, many sources were well above and beyond the projections that came from the economists and fiscal experts, the same ones, and very, very good people they are, who advise the present Treasurer.

More money was there. We pre-flowed some, as somebody pointed out, for school capital and hospital capital, and still we were able to pay all the bills including all the capital in one year, the first time we have had a balanced budget, a fully balanced budget -- the Premier commented on that very appropriately -- in 20 years. We even had enough to pay down the provincial debt. The last time anybody did that was George Drew in 1948. We actually reduced the provincial debt by something around $400 million. I was very proud of that.

Then we went on to this present fiscal year. The economists who work for the Treasurer, whoever he or she may be, have to make judgements and provide advice, and they indicated that the rate of economic growth would slow down but that there would still be positive growth -- no recession. They listened to Michael Wilson -- and why should they not? -- who said that interest rates would come down to average 11.15%. In the event, the average was very little below 14.5% and it has just moved a bit below 13% more recently. They brought forward the recommendations that were in the budget that the present Treasurer criticized rather effectively during the debate at that time, but nobody indicated, as I can recall, that those projections were unnecessarily optimistic or pessimistic.

At the time, we had hoped that real growth in the province would continue and that we would in fact be able to pay the bills and have a very small surplus, estimated originally at $30 million. By the end of the first quarter, at the end of June, the report came. Just about the end of July the estimates from the fiscal experts was that the surplus would be reduced and would be about $23 million. They indicated welfare costs were going up and revenues were going down.

Many things were happening at that time. Oil prices were changing. The interest rates, because of the Bank of Canada policy -- the Premier has commented on that -- were staying well above 14%. Bankruptcy rates were going up. Revenues were dropping and there were many, many changes occurring.

As a matter of fact, it was not until the newly elected Premier asked for a fiscal review that the number was first made public that we might in fact be in a $700-million budgetary deficit -- I point out, a huge amount of money, as a matter of fact the total amount of money that the government has allocated for special job creation. I think it was estimated at about 4.5 days' revenue. Not that we should go in and correct and go back to some arbitrary, rigid balance, but at that stage it could have been done if there were an arbitrary, rigid Treasurer or anybody who felt that somehow that balance had to be maintained.

I simply want to tell members that this particular approach is one that is not uncommon, and just as the rate of growth was well beyond what the economists projected over the last three years, so the rate of descent and the collapse of the economy was well beyond what the economists, both in the Treasury of Ontario and the experts around the country, particularly at the federal level, had projected.

At the end of the second quarter, the Treasurer did what I do not blame him for. He decided to look around in the government -- I know he would have quite a bit of help doing that -- to find areas where bills could be paid and dumped into this pot, as I mentioned, and hang in a few albatrosses around the neck of those nice guys who were going out into the wilderness. I do not blame him for doing that.

It is true that under the Urban Transportation Development Corp contract, going back four years, we had to fulfil the contracts and pay the money for the shortcomings in the specifications of a large number of very, very expensive public transit systems that were sold by the previous government, so it turns out of course that those Conservative guys are responsible all the time, either they or Michael Wilson; I forget which.

That bill, very appropriately, was paid this year; there is no reason why. We had planned to pay for it when all the bills were in, and I did not want to take on an extra $400 million of expenditure this year. Why should I? It can be done next year, and that is an appropriate time.

The Dome situation: We could talk about that a lot. I expect one of our committees will be looking at that and the experts can come in and talk about it, but for the Treasurer to say, "Gosh, I've got $300 million to pay off on the Dome at the same time we are having Bob White" -- Oh, he is not up there today -- "go downtown and do a number on these businessmen and intimidate them."

Interjection.

Mr Nixon: Bob White intimidates me.

I have a feeling that the Treasurer, who should have learned negotiations at the feet of the Steelworkers or somewhere, somehow did it rather strangely when he said: "Oh, Senator Eyton, I've $300 million here and we're going to fix this. How much have you got?" It is a very strange way to do business.

To put it in this year's budget is really inappropriate, so what he did was he found revenues were down $1 billion. There is no reason to question that. I hope that the revenue slide is not beyond that, and it may very well be, because the economy is changing very rapidly.

However, according to the Treasurer, expenditures are up $1.5 billion. Social programs are escalating for reasons that we might very well debate in the House some other time. Certainly they are largely associated with the economy, but there are other reasons that are very disconcerting. Presently, according to the more recent report, they are up $360 million over the projections and I am afraid they are going to be much higher than that.

Then the Treasurer said: "I need a contingency fund. A lot of things are not looked after in Nixon's budget. There are the doctors. God, we have to fix those without delay. There's the Dome situation. There are others."

As a matter of fact, he put this on my poor quivering shoulders and set it out in his Ontario Finances for the end of the second quarter. At least he did not mislead anybody; he just said, "Contingency fund, $743 million." In other words: "I'm not sure what this is. I have an idea but I don't want to tell you. We need another $750 million," which I called a slush fund.

Somebody in the gallery said: "Slush fund? You wouldn't call it that, would you?" Listen, there is nothing illegal about a slush fund. It is just a handy wad of money that the Treasurer has to spend when he wants to. And why should he not ask for it, particularly if he can give the political bill to somebody else?

I thought it was worth while saying this because I meet Liberals around the province and their eyes avert because somehow or other I left some kind of a fraudulent $2.5 billion.

Hon Mr Laughren: That's not fair.

Mr Nixon: I appreciate the rather sardonic interjection of the Treasurer, because to give him his due and there is a lot due in this regard, he did not needlessly capitalize on this situation.

It would have been so easy, and it was so easy for others, to say: "Whoa, what are we going to do? Not a nickel in the till. The cupboard is bare. How can I build the opera house? How can I buy Consumers' Gas? How can I increase social payments? How can I pay more money to schools? The cupboard is bare."

The cupboard has a new $180 million a day, and the government has the responsibility to establish its priorities. That is what the members opposite wanted. The people have decided to give them that responsibility and it is our job to observe what they do and to point out effective and useful alternatives, and that is what we intend to do.

I will just say -- I probably get needlessly defensive here, because after all I am interim, like a brightly coloured maple leaf falling down in the fall -- that nobody was misled. The civil servants did a good job. Our fiscal position is excellent. The NDP government decided to add on at least $1.5 billion. The Liberal government left it with the only double Triple A credit rating in Canada, and now it is their baby and we want to see what they do with

I referred to the recession and the unexpected speed of its onset, almost onslaught. Eleven thousand jobs have been lost in the last two months; I hesitate to say since 1 October because even I am not prepared to blame the new government for all of those difficulties.

I applaud the allocation of an extra $700 million for job creation. I was interested to see that great Liberal, the mayor of Toronto, say it was just excellent and he could not wait to add some more money from Toronto, and the Treasurer recently said that the fund will grow to $1 billion for job creation. Apparently, there will be about 14,000 jobs, according to the comment made by the Treasurer. We look forward to that, even though he said that, however fast they will get these under way -- and I understand it would be relatively the same shelf of programs that has been available in the Treasury and that he does not expect to have to pay for many of them until next year -- we are a little worried about that time scale.

1550

Mr Speaker, I think you should know that in the budget that is presently the basis of the conduct of our fiscal affairs, there is about $3.2 billion of capital works. These are already under way. They involve many environmental programs; they involve new roads and bridges; they involve northern development, schools, hospitals and all sorts of municipal structures -- by far the largest capital program in the history of the province.

These additional jobs are welcome but they will do very little to help those who are laid off in manufacturing, the resource industry and the agricultural industry. The honourable member, who I do not believe is in his place, but who was asking questions on agriculture this afternoon --

Mr Villeneuve: He is right here.

Mr Nixon: Noble, sorry. I thought his question was very good.

From our point of view, our position was to have a very large capital works program, $3.2 billion. A program for decentralization was certainly one of the cornerstones to assist many communities which are single-industry or very cyclical in the economy to offset the depredations of this recession. These 6,000 recession-proof government jobs would certainly be a boon to these communities, and I am very glad indeed that the present government has decided to go forward with that and I appreciate the comments made by the honourable minister in this regard.

However, and the point was made by the leader of the third party yesterday, there is no program for the attraction of additional capital to the province in the creation of jobs, and this is certainly something we will want to see worked on by the Treasurer, particularly as he accompanies the Premier to New York and Tokyo, perhaps London, the capitals of the world, in conveying the fact that the Premier is so concerned about: That in fact we do not have a socialist government here at all, that we have a party that was socialist when it came up to the election but is now the friend of big business, that big business can trust it, that in fact the Premier's new friends are in Bay Street and Wall Street. This is something that must give a lot of people downtown a feeling of relief, because far from the socialist impact that the Treasurer used to talk about, and he still believes this -- and I challenge him to challenge me, as he raises his fist clenched in this House -- he still believes that the resources --

Interjections.

Mr Nixon: Mr Speaker, since our antiquated rules governing television do not permit the cameras to pan, I think the people would be interested to know that the Treasurer was banging his shoe on his desk in the finest tradition of Marxist-Leninism.

I am not sure that the Premier is going to take Pink Floyd with him wherever he goes, because a funny thing happened on the way to Wall Street. They stopped the big limousine with the smoked windows. The Treasurer got out with a couple of his minions and insisted on going to the Bronx to see the depredations of rent control, and that is why the landlords feel that there is hope for them yet.

But when it comes to the fears of the business community, the business community has said, and it appears in the business press, that the Premier is intelligent -- we all know that -- and that he is a capable person -- we all know that -- and that business people do not have to worry about it. After all, he let Victor Rice take his boodle and go to Buffalo; he let his friends the Reichmann brothers sell off the biggest natural gas utility we have here and take the money back to England to invest it. So they say, "There isn't a socialist government here" -- that is for sure -- "it is a pussycat government."

It is a government that is so afraid that its new-found business friends might not approve that it has done what politicians must never do, and that is change its spots, bend over backwards, do all of these mixed metaphors that really mean that the people who thought they were electing a socialist government -- maybe feared they were electing a socialist government -- do not have to be afraid of that any more. Nothing wrong with that.

Mr Speaker, you will be glad to know that I am getting through my notes rapidly.

I appreciated the fact that the honourable member raised the questions on agriculture. We support his concepts. I think it was because I was going to speak about it this afternoon that I would indicate my agreement.

I have had the opportunity during the last two months to do a little farming for the first time in a long time. Some of the people around home were glad that we are starting a small cleanup campaign. But we got out the mouldboard plows -- the Minister of Agriculture and Food might object to that -- and got back in the fields and did some plowing.

When I was presented, for example, with the bills for plowshares, for some tractor repair, for sprays -- God help me -- fertilizers etc, I was amazed that the situation on the farm, which I was aware of and had been reading about, had depreciated so rapidly. We are corn producers on our farm. I am just quoting a paragraph from the November December issue of the Corn Producer:

"At-harvest prices of $100 per tonne, far below true costs of production of even the most efficient, are bad enough. But this fall we have seen an inordinate increase in these costs of production: for example, increases in propane prices of at least 50%, coupled with very high at-harvest grain corn moisture percentages, necessitating greater propane uses for grain drying, much higher fuel costs for harvesting and fall tillage, higher fertilizer prices caused by demand from offshore buyers."

The honourable member in his comments talked about net farm income in Ontario. The net farm income in 1990 is forecast at $837 million, a decrease of 27% from 1989, and the rough average means that working farmers earn about $11,000 each from their farming operations.

I simply point this out to the members of the government and the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I have not congratulated him on his appointment; I do not even see him here. But this is an area of policy that is going to have to be dealt with in a way that is much more specific than the words in the speech. The words in the speech from the throne said, "to improve programs to stabilize farm incomes." If they are stabilized at their present level, the agriculture industry is dead. The words were ill chosen.

I wish -- and this is an instance that I referred to earlier in my remarks -- that I could say we have the easy solutions. Obviously we do not. I could recount to the House the initiatives taken by my colleague the member for Timiskaming and by Jack Riddell, who were Ministers of Agriculture and Food over the last five years, in supporting farm income through interest supports etc, but even during those years, net farm income continued to drop.

The honourable member for Middlesex in her speech yesterday very properly pointed out that sometimes the only refuge financially for farmers is to try to sever a lot. It is interesting. In my farm community of South Dumfries township, if there is a severance of a farm lot of a reasonable size -- and I do not mean a small lot; I mean an acre or an acre and a half -- that is in any way desirable, that lot is worth $100,000.

1600

To a farm family that is probably in its fifth or sixth generation and that has always had plenty of money to send the kids to agriculture college or whatever they felt they should do, had enough money to trade their car occasionally, had money to maintain their equipment -- even in latter days a few would occasionally spend a long weekend in Florida -- what has happened to them is that, really, they have been totally left out of our modern economy.

The idea that is certainly widespread among intelligent people in this House that we have to stop the severance of any land for anything other than the production of food has simply further cut off the access for any saving revenue they might have. With the views expressed by members of the New Democratic Party government, that planning must further be centralized and in fact the decisions will be made more and more by nameless, faceless bureaucrats at Queen's Park as to whether this sort of development at the local level will take place, the farmers are certainly abandoning that even as an alternative.

So there is going to be a good deal of discussion of important matters here, but I would say to the Treasurer that the free fall of the farm economy that has certainly been experienced during this crop year is something that is going to have to call for his full attention.

I should say something just in passing. Our family has grown wheat every year since the people originally bought the land at a good and fair price from the native community and, according to any records we have, this was the best crop we have ever had. The price is roughly comparable to what my grandfather got in 1937 for wheat. In other words, the more you grew, even though it was the best crop ever, the more money you lost. This is tough. If it were in any other area of the economy, there would be outrage.

I was not even going to raise this, but people keep sending us stuff in the mail. There was a memo that indicated that some people in the New Democratic Party who are concerned about this are concerned about most other issues well ahead of the farm economy. I think it is important that I say something about it. I do not think I have to declare my interest as a farmer, but I should tell the members that the House is going to have to come to grips with this.

I was not going to spend much time talking about specific areas of social policy, but the minister, in her comments yesterday, stimulated me a bit in this regard. It goes back to something else that I have already indicated I am sensitive to, which is the feeling among many members of this House that the Liberal Party is not sensitive to these matters and that during five years we did not respond to it.

I think the honourable members would be aware that Ministry of Community and Social Services spending during our five years moved forward rather dramatically. Last year, the increase alone was 16% overall at a time when federal support was limited by the initiative of a federal Conservative budget that is presently being tested in the courts.

I am proud of the fact that it was our government that instituted the Social Assistance Review Committee report. When the recommendations came before the government, I think it is generally known that I was one of the less enthusiastic about moving forward with the recommendations. Since these decisions are collegial, they were taken, and we accepted 80 of the recommendations for a cost of $415 million above the standard cost plus inflationary cost.

This was a very large and dramatic increase in expenditure. It meant that our social programs were -- I hesitate to use the word "generous," but the payments were the largest, however inadequate they were, of any jurisdiction in Canada in the large area of basic payments covering most of the people the Ministry of Community and Social Services deals with. I believe this means they were the best in North America, however inadequate they were and are. The idea that somehow some heartless, redneck farmer-Treasurer kept this tied down to the point where the programs did not go forward is simply not true and I would be very surprised, if this government lasts five years, if its record of commitment of public dollars will exceed what we did during the last five years. There are many areas that we are proud of having accomplished: The increase in the number of child care spaces exceeded 60% and we doubled the number of subsidized spaces.

Perhaps the thing I am most committed to and most proud of is the policy on long-term care, which certainly was approved by the government and made public and envisaged an increase of expenditure of $2 billion over the next six years. I am very anxious that the review that the government would undoubtedly be undertaking in that regard would result in an announcement, because I think it is the most important step forward taken in this area since medicare itself. Certainly I am a great believer in the importance of that program and I trust that the government is not going to delay its implementation.

I will just say in passing that I am very interested in the Premier's initiatives in constitutional reform. We know what is happening in Quebec. We know about Mr Mulroney's citizens' forum. The Premier was good enough to say to the leader of the third party and myself that he wants this as devoid of partisan politics as possible and has undertaken to keep all of us as members of the House fully informed. I think he can rest assured that the debates in this House will be of the same high calibre as they have been in the past. He himself, of course, took a leading role in these matters as Leader of the Opposition. I think many people are wondering what Ontario intends to do as they see other jurisdictions, the federal and provincial governments, moving forward to organize themselves in participation for what may be one of the most important debates in the history of our country.

I would also like to say that I was interested on opening day to meet so many people who are not necessarily Liberal but whom I have come to know reasonably well and admire over the last five years. A picture of six or eight of them was, I believe, in the Toronto Star today. They were sitting in the second row of the gallery, and they are the principal labour leaders in the province of Ontario. Three of them, I believe, were -- are -- members of the Premier's Council on technology, so I got to know them there. Certainly I got to admire their contribution, which was not partisan but very much useful in establishing the goals for the allocation of provincial resources in making employment and keeping the economy growing.

But I had a feeling when I looked up there at my friends Leo and Bob and the others that they had a bellyful of canaries, that they were looking at a government that they considered theirs. I have expressed this concern before. The feeling that somehow the people who the members of the present government considered to be outsiders are now insiders, I say again, is unacceptable, because those people always had the ear of government and in fact were present at the councils and areas of advice at the very highest level.

It is generally known that the New Democratic Party gets all of its political financing, with the exception of a very small amount, from labour. I think this is a matter that must concern them, because I remember probably at this stage five years ago the then Leader of the Opposition was castigating the then Premier for getting all his money from big business and only responding to that particular side of the economy.

I think there is a balance in this, but there is no doubt that the labour leaders, the bosses of the labour unions, the ones that have the checkoff, that support with that tiny trickle of two or three cents a day that firehoses into $2 million or $3 million a year, look on the government as their private property. For example, I like the section on employment and safeguards in there. I remember when similar sections were negotiated by Bob White with the auto industry he was quoted with alacrity that this should become the law of the province. Presto, it is about to be. As a matter of fact, the legislation is pure Bob White, if that is not an oxymoron.

It concerns me also that the Toronto Star on 3 November had a report entitled "Labour Wants Say in NDP Policies, Document Shows," an article by Leslie Papp. The quote:

"An Ontario Federation of Labour memorandum indicates some labour officials want a direct hand in shaping New Democratic Party legislation....

"The memorandum obtained by the Star urges labour to help draft government policy, not just express an opinion.

"Authors of the document also want public funds to hire administrative assistants for labour representatives on Ontario commissions and councils.

"'The involvement which we are seeking goes well beyond what is usually connoted by terms such as "consultation" and "access." We wish to be involved in a substantive way in the formulation of new legislation and new programs' the document says."

1610

It is very proper that the Premier, when asked about it, said he knew nothing about it and rejected it, and of course he would. I am talking about the attitude of organized labour in this regard and I want to express my concern. The government very properly has stated that it is there to represent and act for all the people. The danger is there. Who pays the government's political costs? You know. Who sits in the gallery and admires the government's victory? You know. I simply point that out as a warning.

The Premier may feel that his new-found business friends are going to come to his personal support. I think probably there is a history of premiers who feel, as they go to the lunches in the bank boardrooms and are given the dish of salted nuts and the specially prepared cider and look at the $50,000 art collection -- per picture, that is -- of these very interesting and hospitable people, that it is their personality, their technique at the keyboard, whatever it is, that is making them attractive. I just give the Premier the warning.

I really do not have to warn him, because he is a regular guy. After all, he was raised on Embassy Row and he has had the salted nuts and all that, so he is beyond that. But they are not his friends, just as they were not my friends. On a personal basis, I believe they would be. They know where they are going to vote, they know where some of their money is going to go, and our friend the member for Nipissing does not have to do anything but sit back, smile and charge $1,000 a pop for a glass of ginger ale and what they choose to call hors-d'oeuvres.

So I have to say to the Premier that he and I are out of it. We have a lot of friends there, but there they are. All of us, however, whether we respond to big labour or big business, arc approached by big lobby groups. My friends in the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, for example, are well-known lobbyists. They are usually sitting up there, but perhaps they knew I was speaking today. I am a member of a very effective lobby, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The list is lengthy: the Ontario Federation of Labour, the doctors in the Ontario Medical Association, the municipalities, the lawyers.

They come and talk to us in the consultation, which is right there as the most important thing that any of us do apparently. We spend a lot of time talking to these people and stroking them, being nice and respectful and receptive and being as responsive as we can. But eventually even the Minister of the Environment has to decide and Greenpeace does not like it or the Day Care Coalition does not like it. All that feeling that, "I thought everybody loved me," and now all of a sudden there are a few people who do not. We found out about that in spades.

I think all of us, of course, to do our responsibilities, have got to listen to these people and respond as frankly as we can and then decide with whatever input we have by way of consultation what is best for all. I think we must beware that many of these groups put their demands in terms that, "This is best for the province," and in their view it probably is, but it is a single issue and in some respects very self-serving. That is why the government is hard-pressed to please everybody. The Premier already knows that that is not possible.

I think it brings me perhaps to the philosophical value of liberalism, which has always been doubtful in the minds of some socialists. As a matter of fact, they have often felt that if they wanted to eliminate one political adversary, it should be the Liberals first, because they could deal with the bloated capitalist function. It worries them that in fact we do have a sensitive and conscientious approach to social issues -- I do not exclude anybody from that -- that we are not directly responsive to organized labour, that we know where we stand with our friends in big business. But we of course are left with the only constituency that really makes sense in a modern democracy and that is everybody -- the individuals. We respond to them by way of our policy. We respond to them by way of our responses in this House and that is why, even though we find ourselves in a small degree of political disarray but with a substantial caucus of capable men and women, 36, that we really have not just the middle ground in policy but we have the foundations of democratic support.

It is on that basis that we are confident, having received a temporary setback, that we will move forward again by working hard, by putting forward viable and effective alternatives, that we will regain the confidence of the people and once again assume the responsibility of office. I hope I am here when that happens, but I can assure members that even if I am not, which is unlikely, it will occur. We look forward to that day.

I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that we listened carefully to His Honour's words. I read in the paper that you had the legs cut off the throne so that it would be a bit more comfortable, and it may be why, when the Honourable Lieutenant Governor was reading, his knees got in the way of his projection. We listened to the speech carefully indeed and, like many citizens of the province, we felt that there was not a ringing approach to a new socialist nirvana that could be brought in by the implementation of the Agenda for People. We knew much more about what the new government was going to do before the speech from the throne than after. Afterwards, everything was fuzzified.

There is going to be lots of review, even of automobile insurance. Mel Swart has been brought in to help the minister make up his mind. It is typical of Mel Swart, as one of the finest politicians who ever was, that I read he will not take any money for this. He probably will not even get money for gas to come over from St Catharines. He is a great guy that way and I hope that he is more successful than the Premier in keeping the new minister in check and keeping him moving forward in the implementation of full tort, driver-operated automobile insurance. There is a sense already that the government has not quite decided what it is going to do about this and it may even be late spring before it can make that decision.

So there are many areas of concern and inadequacy in the speech that was put forward by His Honour. I would say again that the Lieutenant Governor did an admirable job. He did not even indicate any distaste in the words that were put in his mouth by the Premier for that, and you would have thought that in fact he was born and raised a socialist. As a matter of fact, I think maybe he was. I saw him at the swearing in of the new government, when he seemed to be almost as enthusiastic as Bob White and some of my other friends. But the Lieutenant Governor always does an outstanding job, does it with dignity, and I know that everybody in this House appreciates his work.

So, having expressed some of my views in these matters, which I consider to be of importance in the conduct of our business, having also expressed my dissatisfaction and disappointment with the leadership that has come from this new government, it is my duty to move, seconded by Mr Conway, this amendment to the motion.

The Speaker: Mr Nixon moves, seconded by Mr Conway, that the following words be added to the motion:

"This House regrets that the new government has failed to put forward a legislative agenda which deals adequately with the issues facing the province, and that this House condemns the government:

"1. for its failure to fulfil commitments made in its Agenda for People, specifically those social reforms which the new government advocated so forcefully while in opposition such as child care, social assistance rates and legislative reforms;

"2. for its failure to respond adequately to the worsening recession, particularly the absence of any initiatives which would encourage new investment and new job opportunities for the people of Ontario;

"3. for its total failure to clearly establish policy priorities and funding commitments in such fields as the environment, health, education, agriculture and northern development."

On motion by Mrs Cunningham, the debate was adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Miss Martel: Before we adjourn, I would like to inform the House of the business for next week, pursuant to standing order 53.

On Monday 26 November, we will continue with the debate from the speech on the throne and the House will adjourn at approximately 5 pm as per consent of all three parties.

On Tuesday 27 November and on Wednesday 28 November, we will continue with the debate from the speech from the throne.

On Thursday 29 November, we will have an opposition day, which now stands in the name of the leader of the third party.

The House adjourned at 1623.