The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOCKEY FRANCHISE

Mr Chiarelli: The Friends of the Ottawa Senators say the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the Senators' Palladium site is the subject of political interference and that massive amounts of money are being spent to make this a test case at the expense of Ottawa-Carleton.

This so-called open government has officially refused a freedom-of-information request to say how much money it is spending to kill the Ottawa Senators' Palladium site in Kanata.

The NDP member for Ottawa Centre has made it clear she thinks the Palladium is a playpen for the rich.

This government, for ideological reasons, is hell-bent on a job destruction strategy. It killed Toronto's Ballet Opera House and 1,700 jobs. It killed Hamilton's Red Hill Creek Expressway and 11,000 jobs. Now it would drive the Ottawa Senators' site to Hull, Quebec, and lose 4,000 construction and 5,000 permanent jobs for Ottawa-Carleton.

On behalf of the Friends of the Senators group, I am sending across the floor 3,000 letters to the Premier's desk, letters of support for the Senators' Palladium site, telling this government to accept its responsibility. The Premier used his power to kill the Red Hill Creek Expressway and he used his power to kill the Ballet Opera House. Now he should use it to create jobs in Ottawa-Carleton.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs Marland: The Minister of Transportation recently announced two measures to improve transit accessibility for disabled persons. I commend the minister for doubling incentive grants for accessible taxis. As I said in this House on 23 April, just 28 communities in Ontario operate only 52 accessible taxis. The increased funding will add to this vital service.

However, there are serious gaps in GO Transit's plans to make more stations accessible to persons with ambulatory disabilities. If only 30 GO stations are made accessible by 1993, many parts of greater Toronto will remain out of reach to ambulatory disabled persons by public transit. I hope the minister will ask GO to fast-track the required changes to all stations.

The biggest gap is Union Station, "the nerve centre of our integrated transportation system," to use the minister's own words. GO plans to complete a feasibility study of Union Station. In other words, it will be several years before the key station in the GO network is accessible. Without Union Station, ambulatory disabled commuters cannot use GO rail to reach downtown Toronto, and without accessible TTC subway stations, disabled GO users cannot reach most job, education and recreation locations in Toronto from Union Station.

For disabled persons in the GTA, there are too many pieces missing from the transit jigsaw puzzle. We can and must do better.

DEVELOPMENT DEPOSITS

Mr Perruzza: On 6 May I informed this House that Mayor Mel Lastman and North York city council returned approximately $25 million worth of deposits to a group of developers in North York's downtown. This action represents a double standard that exists in the city of North York: When developers are in a crunch they get breaks; when home owners cannot pay their property taxes the city never comes to their aid.

I was surprised when the Conservative member for York Mills told this House that North York council's concern was to create jobs and boost the economy. In his zealous haste, the member neglected to do his homework on this matter. If he had asked one of his more experienced colleagues, he would have found out that Mayor Mel Lastman and North York city council have virtually given away the kitchen sink. Even North York Councillor Berger, a conservative watchdog of municipal expenditures who also endorsed the member for York Mills during his provincial election campaign, called the returning of this $25 million an immoral act.

If the member had checked he would have found that a group of developers has come to control almost all of the development density wealth in North York's downtown. They can make fortunes by simply selling and flipping land and associated densities. Instead of returning their deposits and letting the developers off the hook, council could have extended the building schedules or developed parallel agreements that would have obligated developers to build their projects to create jobs and boost the sagging economy. Instead, North York council's action has resulted in no projects being built, no job creation and no economic growth.

The member for York Mills should talk to his grass-roots representatives and get his facts straight before he comes into this House and makes statements that are embarrassing to both himself and his constituents.

LOGGING AT SCOTSDALE FARM

Mrs Sullivan: Scotsdale Farm in North Halton was bequeathed by the Bennett family to the people of Ontario in the mid 1980s. The 500-acre farm is set in the Niagara Escarpment, with virgin hardwood forest that slopes down to the Bruce Trail. The upland woodlot has been described as being worthy of nature reserve designation. The property is in the trust of the Ontario Heritage Foundation. It is a heritage conservation gem.

Yet today that virgin woodlot is being logged as part of an experiment in which both the Ontario Heritage Foundation and the Niagara Escarpment Commission are partners. There are 215-year-old beech trees which have been sawn down. Ash trees more than a century in age, and some of more than eight-foot circumference, lie ready for delivery to a sawmill. Other trees are marked for cutting. This is all being done in the name of research to prove to private woodlot operators that selectively logging their woodlots could be profitable.

We know the effect of selective logging in woodlots. We do not need new information that comes from the destruction of property that is a public trust and we do not need the profits from sending that wood to a sawmill.

Along with many others who are committed to the preservation of our natural heritage, I am demanding that the Minister of Culture and Communications and the Minister of the Environment intervene immediately and stop the logging at Scotsdale Farm and that they stipulate that no further cutting on this property will be allowed.

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to bring to the attention of the House and to the Minister of the Environment a very serious and puzzling situation taking place in her ministry. My constituents Noah and Linda Pierce have twice applied for a development permit to build a home for their family and create a working farm. On both occasions the Niagara Escarpment Commission rejected their application.

Twice the Pierces have appealed the commission's decision, and twice the commission's hearing officers overruled the commission's decision, announcing that its opinion lacked merit and recommending that a permit be granted. These were two separate occasions and two different hearing officers.

The latest such recommendation occurred on 12 January 1991, yet on 17 May the Minister of the Environment wrote to the Pierces advising them that she was rejecting her own staff's advice and failed to give any reasons. Her decision is all the more bewildering, because the officer personally visited the site while the minister has never seen it.

Why does this minister pay staff if they have no function? Does she not respect their opinions? If she feels they have no value, why does she continue to employ them? I feel that the Pierces and the public in general, who pay these salaries, deserve an explanation.

1340

PARTNERS IN CHANGE PROJECT

Mr Malkowski: I would like to inform the House of the Partners in Change project in the riding of York East. Partners in Change is the first needs assessment ever conducted in Canada by observing a year in the life of a municipality. The purpose of the project is to improve access to municipal and community services for racial and ethnocultural communities.

I would like to congratulate Dr Vandra Masemann and the mayor's committee on multicultural and race relations, and His Worship David Johnson, the mayor of East York, for undertaking this project.

Partners in Change signals true commitment by the people of East York to work together to ensure that all of our citizens have access to services.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mrs Caplan: It is with great sadness and concern that I rise today to speak briefly about the crisis of increasing public cynicism in this province.

In the election campaign, the NDP touted its high ethical and moral standards. In the speech from the throne, the Rae government said it would address cynicism by making commitments to listening to people, setting clear standards of conduct for ministers, members and senior civil servants; and creating a greater sense of integrity in governing. They have not done this.

The Premier and his NDP government have broken faith with the people of Ontario. Too many incidents show that this government says one thing and does another. In fact, that is about the only thing that has been consistent over the past 10 months, the lack of consistency from this government: invitation-only, closed-door, so-called public consultations on Bill 4, the Farnan incident, and then I got a call of interest from a constituent.

This constituent was appalled and very cynical, because while a few weeks ago when the Premier was responding to the truckers' protest and said at the time that the "law must be enforced," my constituent pointed out to me that the Premier was arrested at Temagami for breaking the law and has never even apologized for that incident.

That is why public cynicism is increasing and that is why it is getting worse. It saddens me that this government has not done what it said it would do. The confidence of the public is at stake on this important issue.

BUDGET

Mrs Cunningham: Yesterday, the Mike Harris task force on the Ontario budget concluded public hearings in London. Five of the six presentations we heard from yesterday came from people worried about the impact this budget will have on our province.

London Mayor Tom Gosnell and Deputy Mayor Jack Burghardt made a joint presentation which described how southwestern Ontario has been hit harder by the recession than any other part of Ontario. Over one quarter of the job losses in Ontario in 1990 and 49% of the job losses in January 1991 occurred in the southwestern region.

The mayor also pointed to a litany of taxes and programs, admittedly coming from both the provincial and federal governments, that "should scare the hell out of the citizens of Ontario." He concurred with my party's view that this budget is pushing Ontario in the wrong direction at a time it least can afford to do so -- the people spoke -- aggravating this province's deteriorating competitive position.

The mayor's concerns were echoed by Bryan Thomas, president of the London Chamber of Commerce, who told us that London was well on the road to economic recovery before its budget gave their recovery a "kick in the stomach." He advised us that he was organizing a coalition of small business people opposed to the budget.

I cannot describe for members in 90 seconds all the concerns the people of Ontario have. Our task force was set up to listen to the people. The task force will now halt its hearings because we believe that an all-party committee should be a more effective forum to study the budget and we look forward to others voicing their concerns to that committee.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Ferguson: As was widely reported yesterday, a major manufacturer in my riding announced plans to close one or perhaps both of its operations, potentially laying off 2,000 workers. The announcement was certainly a shock and a stunning blow to the workers and their families, and it was in fact to all the people of Kitchener.

The rubber and tire industry has long had a history in our community, dating back to 1890. The closing will have a harsh impact on my riding. We are talking about a $60-million payroll, as well as $2.4 million in provincial tax.

Having had an opportunity since yesterday to review documentation from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and having then spoken to company officials on this matter, it has become increasingly clear that the previous governement knew this company was in trouble as far back as 1987 and did nothing. The former Liberal government was approached by the company to ask for assistance and the minister of the day did nothing at all.

In the last 24 hours, I have been speaking with local union leadership officials as well as company representatives. This morning in my riding, along with my colleagues the member for Kitchener-Wilmot and the member for Guelph, I met with union officials, the mayors of both Kitchener and Waterloo and the regional chairman.

My colleagues and I will be making every effort to salvage this, which is something that should have happened five years ago. That is disgusting --

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat. The member for Kitchener, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It is obvious everyone is awake and perhaps if we could now continue.

MEMBER FOR SCARBOROUGH WEST

Hon Ms Swarbrick: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would like to thank very sincerely and deeply all the members of this House who were so kind and sent wonderful support to me while I was away recently.

I especially want to thank the Premier, who has been tremendously supportive, and the Minister of Citizenship for the work she has done on my behalf while I have been away. But my deepest thanks to all members; they have all been tremendously kind.

I may not be here quite as much as I would like for the next little bit, as I go through a course of chemotherapy treatment, but because of the wonderful prognosis people have with breast cancer these days and that I certainly do, I look forward to coming back in totally robust health as my chemotherapy ends. I thank all the members very much.

1350

VISITOR

The Speaker: I ask all members to welcome to our midst today, seated in the Speaker's gallery, Maria Elvira Salles Ferreira, the state assemblywoman for Minas Gerais State Legislative Assembly, Brazil.

WALTER WATTS

The Speaker: I would also like to bring to members' attention the coming retirement of one of our longest-serving Ontario Government Protective Service officers. Walter Watts has served Queen's Park for the last 18 years.

[Applause]

The Speaker: Yes, indeed, it deserves applause. To survive 18 years here is worth applause. For the majority of this time, he has held the rank of supervisor in the Ontario Government Protective Service. Walter has been the commander of the session's platoon since 1985.

Walter always expected the best out of those who worked for him and he is highly respected in return. Walter has enjoyed serving the House and the members of the Legislative Assembly as session's supervisor. In this capacity he has led the Speaker's daily parade, bringing dignity and pride not only to this but to all parts of his duties. Indeed, he led the parade today on this, his retirement day.

Walter Watts came to the security service following a long and outstanding career in the military, where he served from 1943 to 1970. During these years, Walter served as an infantryman, a paratrooper in the Arctic with the Royal Canadian Regiment and with the Canadian Airborne Regiment in Korea.

Walter will be retiring to Mariposa county. He and his wife, Leona, have acquired a peaceful property where Walter plans to devote his time to the study of military history and the maintenance and upkeep of his 400 handmade military models.

I would like to wish Walter long health and happiness in his retirement and thank him for the service he has given to the members, the staff and the visitors over the years. Would you join me in thanking Walter.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Hon Mr Rae: On 18 April, in response to a question from the member for St George-St David, I undertook to release a list of financial interests divested or exempted under the conflict-of-interest guidelines. Today I am releasing that list.

Eldon Bennett of the law firm of Aird and Berlis prepared this list on the basis of the public disclosure statements released by Commissioner Evans and interviews with each of the affected members. I should make clear to members that those members of cabinet and parliamentary assistants who are not included on the list do not have financial interests affected by the guidelines.

In addition to the list I am making public today, I want to inform the Legislature that I have asked two parliamentary assistants, the member for Sarnia and the member for Downsview, to divest themselves of assets in order to avoid perceptions of conflict.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Hon Ms Carter: I am pleased to be able to announce that later today I will be introducing amendments to the Power Corporation Act. These amendments will establish an improved legislative framework which will enable Ontario Hydro and the government to work together more effectively for the continued economic, environmental and social wellbeing of the province.

In the November 1990 throne speech, the government announced new energy directions that will concentrate more of our resources and efforts on controlling demand for energy. Included was a moratorium on the development of new nuclear generating stations. We have told Hydro to redirect this spending to conservation.

The new direction means we will be taking initiatives designed to produce significant reductions in energy demand across the board: in transportation, in industry, in commercial and institutional buildings and in housing.

The primary goal of our energy policy is to ensure a safe and reliable supply of energy while providing for increased protection for our environment and the economic and social needs of the people of Ontario. That is a commitment.

Nous reconnaissons qu'il est necessaire qu'Ontario Hydro puisse mieux repondre aux priorites du public et du gouvernement afin que la politique energetique de l'Ontario soit mise en oeuvre de façon efficace.

En octobre dernier, le Conseil des ministres a decide d'etudier des moyens de rendre Ontario Hydro plus apte a repondre aux besoins, y compris la possibilite de modifier la Loi sur la Societe de l'electricite.

Nous considerions alors d'apporter des modifications legislatives habilitant le gouvernement a donner des directives sur l'orientation des politiques en s'inspirant de la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques, qui autorise le gouvernement federal a dicter les activites de ses entreprises publiques. Le processus decrit dans la Loi, qui prevoit une consultation sur le contenu et l'effet des directives, est efficace.

Les amendements a la Loi sur la Societe de l'electricite que le gouvernement presente aujourd'hui lui confèrent le pouvoir de donner des directives sur l'orientation des politiques et reflètent les grandes preoccupations du public concernant l'environnement et son desir d'avoir un droit de regard sur les activites d'Ontario Hydro. Ces amendements reflètent egalement l'importance constante de la gestion de la demande et de l'utilisation judicieuse de l'energie dans les politiques energetiques.

Previous governments have amended the act to expand Hydro's business and purpose to include the production and sale of heat energy, the provision of energy conservation programs to encourage safe and efficient use and conservation of energy and the encouragement of the parallel generation of electricity.

The amendments we are introducing today take further steps in the same direction by making it easier for Hydro to meet energy efficiency and environmental objectives; increasing Hydro's ability to meet public priorities and its involvement in the government's energy directions; improving Ontario Hydro's responsiveness to public attitudes and concerns and ensuring that its activities are in the best interests of the people of Ontario; expanding Hydro's role in ensuring an energy efficient future for Ontario; and enabling local utilities to play a greater role in conservation and energy efficiency programs.

The amendments I am introducing today also make changes in Ontario Hydro's board of directors in order to make that board more responsive to the attitudes and concerns of the people.

The size of the board will be increased by four members to ensure a wider representation of public interests. In addition, the Deputy Minister of Energy will be appointed to the board as a non-voting member to facilitate liaison and advice on government policy.

The amendments also provide that the board's chairperson will be the chief executive officer of the corporation. This was the status of the chairperson of Ontario Hydro for more than 80 years and is consistent with the practice in the provincial utilities of seven other Canadian provinces, where the chair is also the CEO. We believe this is the most efficient way to structure the corporation.

Other amendments to the Power Corporation Act being introduced today clarify Hydro's role in promoting the efficient use of all forms of energy and enable Hydro to promote fuel substitution where this is in the interests of Ontario and the customer. These amendments broaden Hydro's conservation focus and will help Ontario achieve the best mix of fuels needed to achieve our economic and environmental goals. In some cases, electricity is not the most suitable fuel. In residential heating, for example, if natural gas is available, there are often economic and environmental benefits to using gas rather than electricity. Changes to the legislation will give Hydro the ability to promote fuel switching where this benefits Hydro and its customers.

In other amendments I am introducing today, we are making changes to enable local utilities to capitalize the cost of energy conservation programs. This will encourage greater participation by municipal electric utilities in conservation programs and make such programs available to greater numbers of Ontario residents.

Many local utilities in the province have already seen the value of conservation and efficiency. Amending the PCA to make it easier for local utilities to participate in conservation programs will bring substantial benefits to Ontario. The amendments will also help make energy conservation and efficiency programs available to people who are not direct customers of Ontario Hydro.

The amendments I am introducing today will increase Hydro's responsiveness and accountability to public concerns and priorities. They recognize that Hydro is a public utility. As a public utility, Hydro's activities must be in the best interests of the people of Ontario. At the same time, under these amendments, Hydro retains its independence to implement its day-to-day activities while ensuring that the government can carry out its responsibility to make sure Hydro's activities serve the public interest.

This government has made a commitment to new energy directions for Ontario. The amendments before this House today will enable Ontario Hydro, with the help of our local utilities, to assist us in creating a path to an energy future that is more sustainable.

1400

WAGE PROTECTION

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am pleased to make a statement today regarding amendments to Bill 70. Since the government first announced Bill 70 to create the employee wage protection program, there has been unanimous support for the principles behind the program. The focus of the program is to help workers who lose their wages as a result of bankruptcy, insolvency or other circumstances to recover at least some of that money in as timely a way as possible. We must never lose sight of this purpose.

Bill 70 was initially developed through extensive consultations between my ministry and a number of groups. Those consultations have continued following the tabling of the legislation. As result of these discussions, the government has taken the decision to introduce amendments to address some of the concerns expressed during those consultations.

These amendments will centre on the liability provisions and the appeals process as set out in Bill 70. First, we will introduce an amendment that will ensure that the liability under Bill 70 for unpaid employees' wages will be limited to directors only. This removes the provision for officers' liability. As well, we will restrict the liability for directors to just wages and vacation pay that became payable during the term of the directorship. This will remove any liability for debts due after the director has left that position.

These amendments will make all liability consistent with the various corporate statutes governing directors' obligations to employees. It means that we are not introducing any liabilities that do not already exist. To expand corporate liability beyond what already exists will likely require more discussion as part of any broader review of corporate law that takes place, rather than through amendments to the Employment Standards Act for one particular purpose such as the employee wage protection program.

During the discussions following the introduction of Bill 70, particular concern was raised about the status of directors and officers of not-for-profit organizations. The amendments that I have announced should resolve these concerns. However, to reassure volunteer directors who may have been unaware of their existing statutory obligations under the Ontario Corporations Act and the Co-operative Corporations Act, the government will be putting forward an amendment exempting directors of non-profit organizations from the enforcement provisions in Bill 70 for non-payment of wages and vacation pay. However, the existing directors' liability, which is a maximum equivalent to six months' wages and 12 months' accrued vacation pay, will remain under the Ontario Corporations Act and the Co-operative Corporations Act.

Despite this exemption for directors of non-profit organizations, their employees will continue to have full access to the employee wage protection program. The corporations, as employers, will continue to have the obligation of making sure that their employees are paid in full.

In addition to these amendments, I will also be submitting an amendment to help speed up the appeals process. Bill 70 now requires a hearing within 45 days of filing. With this proposed amendment, impartial referees will be required to make their decisions within 90 days of the initial hearing. In exceptional cases, a senior referee will be permitted to grant an extension to this timetable.

Other concerns such as insurance costs have been raised during the debate on Bill 70. We believe that here too the amendments I am announcing today will address these issues.

There have also been questions about federal bankruptcy laws. Under the present federal bankruptcy laws, these workers are unsecured creditors for wages over $500. This means they are among the last to collect money that is owed them, and in most cases they get nothing.

I wish to assure all members that discussions are continuing with our federal counterparts to ensure the harmonization of federal and provincial programs, particularly if the federal government should introduce any changes to its current legislation.

The main purpose of Bill 70 is to establish the employee wage protection program, an extremely important and necessary step to help workers in this province. Since the Premier made the first announcement of the program last October, more than 13,000 workers have filed claims with the employment standards branch of my ministry for money owed to them. These workers are putting their faith in our ability to help them at a time of need and anxiety.

The employee wage protection program is a way of ensuring that all workers are able to exercise the rights that are theirs under law even if their employers are unable or unwilling to comply.

The government has listened to the concerns expressed regarding directors' and officers' liability and has acted. I will make the amendments available in the near future, and I propose to introduce them as soon as possible in response to these concerns.

I now strongly urge all members of the House to allow quick passage of Bill 70 so workers can receive the moneys they are owed as soon as possible.

ALGONQUIN PROVINCIAL PARK

Hon Mr Wildman: I am pleased today to respond to a public review of the Algonquin Provincial Park master plan by the Provincial Parks Council. Algonquin Park is a world-famous park that has been a vital part of Ontario's natural and cultural heritage for close to a century. In 1993, the park will be a central focus in the celebration of the provincial parks centennial.

The document I am releasing today includes a new goal statement for Algonquin Park. The goal is to provide protection of natural and cultural features and to continue providing opportunities for a diversity of recreational, wilderness and natural environmental experiences that have minimal impact on the park environment. The goal is also to continue to enhance the park's contribution to the economic, social and cultural life of the region.

This new goal statement emphasizes the primacy of protection in the management of Algonquin Park. It indicates this government's commitment to conserving the natural and cultural legacy of the park for all Ontarians.

The Provincial Parks Council has done an excellent job of reviewing the complex issues of park management, and I have accepted the vast majority of its recommendations.

I would like to make clear that the council completed its work on this project in 1990. The review therefore does not deal with the question of the Algonquins of Golden Lake exercising their aboriginal right to hunt and fish in the area they claim as their traditional land, which includes Algonquin Park. As I have announced previously in this House, the province is committed to begin negotiations on the Algonquins' land claim by 15 June.

The commitment includes an agreement to negotiate interim arrangements with the Algonquins of Golden Lake regarding their aboriginal right to hunt and fish for food in the area they claim. The arrangement will include subagreements for deer and moose hunting and fishing that will specify seasons and areas for hunting and fishing, levels of harvest and measures to protect park values, and will ensure enforcement and conservation and protect public safety.

Other interested groups are being consulted on proposals for these interim arrangements. Until there is an agreement on the principles, fishing activities by the Algonquins of Golden Lake will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

In its report, the Provincial Parks Council has made a total of 117 recommendations regarding all aspects of the park and its management. Among the recommendations I have endorsed are the increase in size of nature reserves in the park to 41,000 hectares from 31,000 hectares; the banning of new roads from nature reserves within the park; the development of three new hiking trails, and the development of a marketing strategy for the park in co-operation with local tourist associations, businesses and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.

In addition, the Algonquin Forestry Authority will continue timber management and harvesting within the recreation/utilization zone of the park. Priority will be placed on maintaining a healthy forest that provides wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. We will also ensure a yield of wood products for the region's economy.

The Ministry of Natural Resources will investigate alternatives to the use of herbicides for silvicultural purposes in the park. A study will also be done on the establishment of a wilderness zone for the east side of the park, to be completed by 31 December 1993.

1410

Water-skiing and related activities will be banned from all Algonquin Park lakes and waters as of 1 June 1993. Boat horsepower on the lakes where leases are held which currently allow unlimited horsepower will also be limited to 20 horsepower as of 1 June 1993 except for utilitarian purposes by youth camps, lodges and outfitters.

The recommendations in this report will form the basis for a revision of the Algonquin Provincial Park master plan, which will be completed in the spring of 1992. I believe the recommendations and my responses to them demonstrate our government's commitment to the protection of the conservation legacy of Algonquin Park and provide us with a strong direction to enhance the enjoyment of the park by Ontarians in the next century.

RESPONSES CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Nixon: When the Premier announced his conflict-of-interest guidelines on 12 December 1990, he must have thought they would automatically be responded to by all members of his cabinet and, where the application was, by all members of his caucus. Now, six months later, he is announcing that he is finally satisfied. It has been a long and tortuous situation indeed, so with the announcement today that at least two of the parliamentary assistants have been directed by the Premier to divest certain properties, the interesting aspect is that at least one of those assistants was not even aware of the necessity under the guidelines that the property be divested.

It is almost reminiscent of the situation involving the Solicitor General, where he did not seem to be aware that it was necessary that he inform his staff they should not be contacting the judiciary. In the instance of the Minister of Community and Social Services, the commissioner has found that she was clearly going against the guidelines and in fact the law, but indicated that she did not mean to. She does not appear in these guidelines.

It is interesting to see the numbers of members of the cabinet who do hold some properties. I believe that the Premier has shown once again a certain weakness and a lack of commitment, even though the guidelines are strict. Now, six months later, we have had his most recent report.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mrs Sullivan: I would like to respond to the statement from the Minister of Energy. All members in this House believe that Ontario Hydro should be responsive to public concerns and to government priorities. The amendments which were brought forward today build on a foundation which in fact was put forward in the 1989 amendments to the Power Corporation Act by the former government. Those amendments ensure that Ontario Hydro would be responsible to government policies and that energy conservation and efficiency and environmental objectives were pursued. I think of the initiatives in that legislation which enabled municipal utilities, for example, to capitalize conservation initiatives as important matters.

There are some concerns, however, that I would like to raise which have been brought forward in these amendments as outlined. I would like to comment briefly. First, it seems to us that this government's reason for legislating the requirement that the chairman be the chief executive officer is that the government was unhappy with the board's selection of Al Holt as president of the corporation. Had the government done more than pay lipservice to consultation with Ontario Hydro, surely there would have been discussions with the board, with the government putting forward its views on who the chair, the chief executive officer and the chief operating officer should be. In the absence of a consultative role, the government has moved to a legislative route.

The presence of the deputy minister on the board provides a clear signal that policy advice from the government which should be transmitted directly from the Minister of Energy will instead come from the bureaucracy, and that the minister is merely a lame duck.

ALGONQUIN PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Ramsay: We applaud the minister's increased emphasis on protection and recreational objectives with regard to Algonquin Park. However, I would like to say that the minister is playing a little fast and loose -- and I would ask him to check this out -- in his press release and statement when he says he is going to increase the nature reserve by 10,000 hectares, but then in his report says: "...subject to further review. It will be decided by the end of this year." He does not say that in his statement and I think that obviously the public should be aware of that. I would also suggest, for the centenary of the provincial parks, that maybe he clear up all the old park management plans. That would be a good way to celebrate provincial parks.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mr McClelland: I would like to respond briefly to the statement made by the Minister of Labour regarding Bill 70. It is obvious the minister has seen the light with respect to this bill. It begs a number of questions. This bill is so badly flawed and so ill-conceived that one has to wonder how it ever got through cabinet in the first place. In fact, I would still suggest that he is so far off base that the only proper thing he can do is withdraw it and start afresh.

The minister talks about broad consultation. Obviously, that broad consultation had no impact on the drafting of the legislation. The least the minister can do is commit to going to broad public hearings on this matter and revisit this whole thing. He clearly showed a lack of understanding on how business operates in this province. It makes absolutely no sense. He is committed still to extending liability to the corporate sector. He has stated that.

The buzz-saw that ran through cabinet that the minister talked about has clearly run into a roadblock. He should revisit this entirely, withdraw the bill, start afresh, do the proper thing and think this through. Obviously, it begs the question: Who knows what is going on over there? Does the minister understand the business community? I am glad he has listened. He should listen again, rethink it, start afresh and do it properly.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Harnick: The conflict-of-interest guidelines are causing this government more trouble than anything they have gotten into. They have accomplished no more than the disclosure rules under the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. They have not added anything to the credibility of this government. Further, when we look at what has gone on in this Legislature for almost the last two months dealing with the Solicitor General, it is quite clear that even though we have these guidelines, they are not going to be enforced. Therefore, they have not accomplished what the government set out to make them accomplish.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mrs Witmer: I am pleased the Minister of Labour has finally emerged from darkness and seen the light. I am pleased he has recognized this bill for what it was, an irresponsible piece of legislation that was very poorly conceived. He talks about consultation. I am extremely disappointed that there was not an effective consultation process. An effective consultation process occurs when all the views are considered.

Unfortunately, that was not done. We are now at a point where we are adding amendments to a bill that has not even gone through second reading. If the minister had taken the time initially to listen to all the players, we would not have spent the money, the time or the energy. Most of all, there would not have been more jobs lost in this province.

I would like to point out that, according to the legal community, the Canadian Bar Association, "This proposal to our knowledge has already caused investors to back away from attempted workouts of Ontario corporations with the result that jobs that might have been saved have been lost." The minister has said to me repeatedly, "Why are you holding up this bill?" I say to the minister that the threat of this bill has contributed to job loss in this province and also to keeping companies out.

ALGONQUIN PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr McLean: I would like to comment briefly on the statement by the Minister of Natural Resources. We are pleased to see the minister has finally released the long-awaited Algonquin Park review.

We agree that conservation and the park's natural and cultural legacy is important for all the people of Ontario. We must wonder why the minister did not release this paper earlier since the issue of the Algonquins of Golden Lake is not covered. We were led to believe the report was delayed to include the interim agreement with the Algonquins.

However, we must wonder why the report was delayed as long as it has been. We have also been told that interest groups are being consulted on proposals for the interim agreement with the Algonquins. We hope the minister will consult widely with the people of the province.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Jordan: I would like to comment on the Minister of Energy's statement regarding the changes to Ontario Hydro. I must say that today is a very dark day for Ontario Hydro.

The Ministry of Energy was established in 1973. Its purpose was to ensure that Ontario has an adequate and secure supply of energy that meets the needs of the residents and industry at reasonable prices in a manner consistent with environmental protection. The Minister of Energy reports to the Legislature for Ontario Hydro, and I stress that. The Minister of Energy reports to the Legislature for Ontario Hydro and the Ontario Energy Board, which function independently of the ministry.

What we have here today is nothing more than a framework to give the government an opportunity to socialize Ontario Hydro. I suggest that the Minister of Energy might just as well go the next step and appoint herself chairman and chief executive officer of the utility and make it a direct arm of the government. There will be no long-term planning, it will be run on a day-to-day basis and we will see a continual downgrading of the industry to a minimum electrical service.

1420

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Premier in response to statements made over the last two days by the Solicitor General in response to questions. The Premier would be aware that the Solicitor General has indicated that he gave written instructions to his staff about contacting the judiciary. When we read the contents of those written instructions they say, in part, as follows, "Your constituency office staff may represent constituents in their dealings with tribunals and boards."

I think the Solicitor General is correct when he says his staff might not have taken that as a direct indication that they should not write to judges. In spite of the unbelievable aspects of his staff not knowing that to begin with, and since this direct quote comes from directions from the Premier's office, will the Premier indicate whose fault it is that the staff received totally inadequate written instruction?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, the question has to be put in the context of the conflict law which is there as a matter of record and, second, the conflict guidelines which came out on 12 December. The memorandum the member is referring to was intended to help people. It was intended to clarify and give people a sense of the judgements that they had to make on a daily basis, but I do not think there has ever been any question about the inappropriateness of people getting in touch with the judiciary. That has not been an issue. That has not been challenged by anybody, either on this side or on any other side in public life for the last 20 years.

Mr Nixon: The Premier is correct in this, and if his Solicitor General read the guidelines that were presented to him on his swearing in, he should have known about it as well. The Premier is taking a strange tack indeed when he excuses the Solicitor General for not passing that information on to his staff, particularly in these events, when the staff are totally responsible for their actions and cannot rely on the support either of the Solicitor General or the head of the government.

The Solicitor General went on to say that he had verbally instructed his staff not to contact members of the judiciary. However, his staff, under the capable assistance of lawyer Clayton Ruby, has told the RCMP they received no such advice. How does the Premier square that with his guidelines to the minister and his understanding of the approach to the responsibility of ministers, since the RCMP indicated the staff did not receive the instruction, but the minister said he gave the instruction?

Hon Mr Rae: The only documents I have seen say that a couple of the people who were interviewed were not aware of written guidelines. But as far as I am concerned the minister has said in the House -- he has said on a number of occasions -- that he has spoken to his staff both here and in his constituency about what is appropriate and what is not, and I am satisfied with the minister's explanation.

Mr Nixon: Certainly the Premier should be satisfied with his minister's explanation because he has not called for his resignation. But the Premier, although he has not read the RCMP report, and will not, must have read the summary that was prepared by the officials of the Attorney General's department, even though they themselves were the subject of at least some of the -- can I use the word "investigation."

It was there that it was indicated clearly that the two people the Premier mentions just in passing who were interviewed, who happened to be the people who had written the letters, had not received oral instruction. So what is the Premier going to do about that? Is the RCMP wrong? Are they stupid? I do not use the word "lying," because, of course, why should they? What conclusion does that leave as far as the Premier is concerned?

Let me put it in these terms, if the Premier will permit me: The Premier has indicated the Liberals and others are vindictive in continuing this, yet he knows and he has read, as I have read, the editorial comments from every significant newspaper in the province, including the Cambridge Reporter, "Solicitor General Must Step Down."

If he is going to maintain his guidelines and he finds they are unsatisfactory to the opposition, he may be able to live with that. But since they are unsatisfactory to the people in the province, at least through the free press, who are looking at it in this particular regard, is he contemplating the adjustment of his guidelines so that actions similar to those exemplified by the Solicitor General will be seen to be acceptable when in fact by impartial review they are totally unacceptable and have no place in any democratic cabinet?

Hon Mr Rae: I have already made clear what I hope will happen. The matter of guidelines has been referred to a committee. It has been discussed in a committee. I have made it clear in answer to questions on a number of occasions that I am looking forward to a report with respect to the general question of guidelines and the conflict-of-interest law. I look forward to making changes in the law which I hope will improve it, because that is the approach we are taking to this question.

Mr Nixon: But the Premier is not looking forward to sending the matter to the standing committee on administration of justice, which might give him another kind of report on this specific matter, in spite of the fact that the employees said they received no written or oral instruction.

ONTARIO SCHOLARSHIP AWARD

Mr Nixon: I would like to continue with this matter, but I am so concerned that the government has announced the end of the Ontario scholarship award that I want to ask the Premier about this important matter.

The award of the Ontario scholarship does not go that far back in history, but certainly back farther than my involvement in public affairs. Most of us have friends and children and others who are proud of the fact that their average 80% was not only recognized by a certificate signed by the minister but by an award of dollars, which is understandable.

How can the Premier possibly have supported in cabinet the withdrawal of this award at the very time we want to encourage scholarship?

Hon Mr Rae: I am going to let the Minister of Education answer that question.

Hon Mrs Boyd: We certainly agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we do want to encourage our young people to excel at their studies. One of the issues for us was whether the Ontario scholarship program as it is currently set up would in fact do that.

When it was brought in in 1959, the $400 award that went along with the Ontario scholarship was approximately 80% of the tuition fee that was charged at universities. It was dropped to $100 in 1973 and now is only about 6% of the normal cost of tuition, so the financial aspect of it is no longer as impressive as it was at one time.

Indeed, the honour part of it still remains. Students this year will get their certificate designating them as Ontario scholars and during the next year we will be consulting with the community, parents, students and teachers, to find a way to have a more complete and complex honour program for students that honours not only students who are going on to university but students who are of excellence in other ways.

1430

Mr Nixon: I would simply express to the minister -- by the way, I regret that it was referred to her, although she is certainly knowledgeable. This is a budgetary matter, frankly, of quite signal importance. We will deal with the Minister of Education in this regard because it is her signature on a piece of paper that is going to be cranked out by some fax machine somewhere to replace the cheque and will be held to the breasts of the scholars who say: "My God, isn't this great? I'm glad I did my homework."

I would suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that while I have the highest regard for the minister and her signature, it is not going to replace the tangible award that has been associated with achieving 80%. Would she not say and would she not see that this, associated with her rejection of our testing and joining in the testing process across Canada, is a further deprivation of the sorts of awards that are designed to improve scholarship, and that in fact this is going to be seen as a slap in the face by parents, good children, school boards, good scholars, and those who want improvement in our education?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We are faced with a time of real difficulty, and the opposition has consistently talked to us about how we are going to manage the finances in this province. They have talked about the funding of education and they have talked about the need for us to put as much of our money into the actual educational process as possible. We agree. The Ontario scholarship program is now costing over $2 million a year, and it is $2 million that we believe firmly is better spent in other ways in order to encourage scholarship among our students. We do not think that the size of this monetary award was what students in our system worked towards. We do think they worked towards the honour and the recognition from their peers and from their government, and they will continue to get a certificate, not a faxed message.

Mr Nixon: I am interested that the Minister of Education, in her efforts to save money on education, although she spent $7 billion, is saving $2 million. At the same time, her colleagues in the front row are giving the doctors an additional $484 million; her colleagues in the front row are giving 5.8% plus 11% increases to the public service; her colleagues in the front row are increasing the expenditure of a $43 billion budget by 13.4% to $52 billion, and she cannot find $100 for Ontario scholarship. Where are her priorities? What is the matter with her leadership in the search for quality in education?

Hon Mrs Boyd: In our budgeting process, we worked very hard to get as high a transfer payment level as possible to go to the school boards to be used in the classroom for our students. At 7.9%, we were the second highest transfer amount in the budget. It was difficult for us and in fact we were criticized by the opposition for having given that high a percentage. We believe that is the way our money should be spent. Indeed, if we are going to be responsible fiscally, we have to make some tough choices that the previous government was not prepared to make.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Harnick: My question is for the Solicitor General. I am quoting from the Globe and Mail on 4 June last. The Solicitor General was quoted as stating as follows:

"I carried out my responsibility. I brought back the message of separation. I brought back the message of arm's length from the judiciary. My senior member of staff understood that. A part-time member of staff made a mistake."

I am now quoting from the statement the Solicitor General made in the Legislature on 23 April. He stated:

"I looked into this matter immediately, and I have learned that the letter was written by one of my constituency staff, who was on probation and who sought direction from a more experienced staff member."

Now the Solicitor General has told us that he reiterated time and time again to his senior staff person to remain at arm's length. If his part-time or probationary person went to a more senior person, how come that senior person did not know to tell that person not to write the letter to the judiciary?

Hon Mr Farnan: All I can say is that all of those staff in my constituency office have had discussions with the RCMP. They have made their statements, and the statements of those members stand. I made my statements in the House and I made my statements to the RCMP, and my statement stands.

What is very clear is that a senior member of my staff not only heard and understood; she implemented my direction, and that is very clear in the report of the RCMP. But a part-time member of my staff feels she did not hear that direction. That is the distinction.

Mr Harnick: I am going to ask the Solicitor General again, now that I have heard his nice speech. The fact of the matter is that the senior person that he keeps saying had instructions was also the person he said was the person who was consulted with by his junior people. If that is the case, he has told us two completely inconsistent things.

If the senior person was consulted and the senior person was also advised by the Solicitor General, how did the letters get written?

Hon Mr Farnan: One of my problems is that I do not try to hide inconsistencies. If, for example, there is an inconsistency, that is a reality. This is as open and clear as a book. I ask people what happened. If somebody says to me, "I consulted a senior member," I listen to him and I actually believe him. If I am informed of that and I give that as information, it is because it has been told to me. If I make a statement to the RCMP, it is because of the facts as I have presented them in the House to the RCMP.

I can tell you, Mr Speaker, the easiest thing in the world is coverup. But to face an inconsistency, I am prepared to do that. Certainly a part-time member of my staff made an error on a parking ticket. That is what happened. He did not take the direction that was given. A senior member of staff heard the same direction and followed that direction.

Mr Harnick: The Solicitor General has indicated that the inconsistencies are clear. I will agree with him. The inconsistencies are clear. The explanations are absolutely implausible. Now I am going to ask him for the third time how it came to pass that his senior constituency person advised the junior person and the letter was written, yet the Solicitor General says he gave the senior person instructions. I put it to the Solicitor General that he is misleading this House, because if he gave those instructions --

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale.

Mr Harnick: May I point out my predicament? My predicament is --

The Speaker: Order, please. Many members have predicaments at many times. Mine is the precise words that I hear uttered. As you know, I heard words that really should not be uttered here.

Mr Harnick: I will withdraw those words.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Guelph, come to order. The member for Willowdale will place his question, please.

Mr Harnick: I would like to know from the Solicitor General who is telling the truth. Did he really advise the senior person? Because the junior person certainly says that he did not, and the senior person was the one the Solicitor General told this House advised the junior person. How could it be? Could the Solicitor General please give us an explanation to make the inconsistencies clear?

Hon Mr Farnan: It is very simple. I went to my constituency. On a consistent basis I informed my staff there must be separation, there must be arm's length. It is very clear from the report of the RCMP that the senior member of the staff understood that message and implemented that message.

It is also clear that a mistake was made by a part-time member of staff on a $32 parking ticket for an 82-year-old man after she had received from the clerk of the court the advice to phone the justice of the peace. An honest mistake was made by a junior member of my staff in an effort to help a constituent. My statements in the House remain the same.

1440

TIRE RECYCLING

Mr Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I would like to go back to a matter raised with the minister last week. She has told the House on a number of occasions that every community in this province must take care of its own waste. However, we now have two exceptions to this dictate. First, we have the shipping of waste from Kingston to Ottawa-Carleton and now we have some 800,000 tires being shipped to the United States from the P & L tire site in the Hamilton area.

I am led to believe that they are going to Indiana. I have tried to find out what will happen to these tires in Indiana. However, my staff has contacted every major tire recycler in Indiana, yet no one knows where they are going or what will happen to those tires.

There is a very good chance that these tires will simply be landfilled, stockpiled or incinerated, a wild departure from the statement the minister made on 27 May when she said, "We did not wish to see those tires incinerated, either accidentally or purposefully."

Does the minister have any idea what exactly will become of these tires once they leave Canada? Can she guarantee that these tires will be recycled and that they will not be landfilled, stockpiled or incinerated?

Hon Mrs Grier: When this question was raised with me before, I think last week or the week before, I indicated to the House that I hoped to be in a position to sign a contract for the removal of the tires from the dump, the P & L site, by the end of that week, and gave my position that it was not our intent to sign a contract that would result in anything other than recycling and reuse of those tires. The contract has not yet been signed, so I am not in a position to answer with any degree of definitive facts the member's question.

Mr Cousens: Last week the minister's rationale for shipping the tires to the United States was that they were considered to be unsafe and a risk to our environment. She further stated, "We have to take those decisions that we consider are in the best interests of the environment, because that is our bottom line."

It turns out that the United States has well over two billion tires of its own that it is stockpiling, that it does not know what to do with. They are dumped all over the place. In Detroit there are buildings just filled with used tires. You find tires in the back roads and concession roads, the same way you find them dumped all over the place here, on private property or empty land or in landfill sites.

The US has as big a problem with old tires as we do. I am concerned that once those tires are shredded and leave Ontario, they will be handled by individual states for treatment that may include the incineration of those tires.

The Speaker: And the interrogative part?

Mr Cousens: I am coming to it, Mr Speaker, very quickly. I have also been informed that eight Ontario bids for this contract were refused. Who were these firms and why was the American bid considered more environmentally sound than the Ontario bidders?

Hon Mrs Grier: With all due respect to the member, I think the questions are premature. As I indicated to the House, a contract has not been let for the removal of the tires from the site. Our ministry is considering the merits of the various bids that have been received. Some were not acceptable, did not meet the terms of the tender and therefore have been rejected.

It was certainly my hope when I first addressed this issue that I would be in a position to describe the tender that had been let by the end of that week. It has turned out not to be possible to sign a tender in the time frame I had originally intended, but I agree with the member that the disposal of scrap tires is a very real problem.

As I have explained to the House before, we are looking for a long-term solution for the tires that are accumulating in this province. As a result of the funds that have been allocated from the tire tax fund to my ministry, there are a number of pilot projects under way and I am confident we will find a long-term solution that will not be incineration for these tires.

Mr Cousens: We do have a problem, and I think the minister is part of it. She makes an announcement and then nothing happens. What happens when those tires are shredded, disappear from this province and become a commodity in the United States? Who knows what is going to happen with them?

It seems to me, and it seems to people who are looking at what is happening in her ministry, that something hypocritical is going on. First of all, she has millions of dollars in the tire tax fund to develop Ontario's own tire disposal system. Second, she has an Ontario scrap tire advisory committee, where members are resigning out of frustration with her delays and what is going on in her ministry. She also has here in the province of Ontario and in Canada the expertise to do something, and yet she persists in exporting Ontario's problems to other places.

This is not just a case of money and jobs; it is a case of where Ontario has a situation and she has raised a moral question around how she is going to handle these tires. How much longer is she going to allow a foreign country to take responsibility for our tires and perhaps risk the hazard of an environmental problem which we ourselves have created? I think the minister is putting us in a position where she is saying one thing and then not doing anything. What she is doing can end up having environmental impacts that are against what she has said she was going to do.

Hon Mrs Grier: There are a number of facts that I think need to be made plain with respect to how we are handling the tire problem in this province. First of all, we want to make sure they are safely stored. The site, which is I think the first point the member made in his first question, is a site with which we have been very concerned; 800,000 tires up till recently not stored in a safe way is a problem, and we have to address that short-term problem of what to do about that site.

In the long term, we have been expending up to $10 million from the tire tax fund to look at made-in-Ontario solutions to deal with an Ontario problem. Those solutions have every prospect of bearing fruit and providing secondary industries here in this province that will enable us to look after the problem we create and a solution that I hope will involve the manufacturers of tires assuming some stewardship of their product and being part of the solution, not just part of creating the problem.

With respect to the P & L site, I have indicated to the member and to the House that we have a very immediate problem that has been addressed by looking at contracts from those people who felt those tires could be shredded and reused. That is the bottom line: to reuse the product, not just dispose of it.

1450

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Conway: My question is of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and it concerns the announcement made by his colleagues yesterday about the new government's retail business holidays policy.

In his capacity as one of the economic development ministers, would the minister help me understand how it is that what his government announced yesterday will help in any material way the several Ontario border communities which are currently suffering from the haemorrhage that is cross-border shopping?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I cannot assure the member that every decision and every public policy this government makes will dovetail with every difficult circumstance that is present here in Ontario. What I can tell the member is that there is a wide variety of concerns with respect to cross-border shopping. Many of them are federal, in that it is a federal border and federal customs and excise officers who patrol, monitor and enforce the laws of this land at those particular borders.

We have been very active in our ministry with the border communities. I think if the member checks with the mayors of those particular communities, they will attest to that fact, how this government has been very helpful and continues to join hands with them to seek solutions. As a matter of fact, we will be meeting with the task force of the provincial government, the mayors and the federal government, I believe on 25 June or 2 July, to further pursue answers and responses to this difficult situation.

In fairness, I would like to add that in the investigations we have pursued to date there are no simple, quick, magical answers to this difficult problem, but we are committed to continue to persist in finding those kinds of remedies that will redress this difficult situation.

Mr Conway: I can tell the minister in response to his invitation that we talk to the mayors of these communities. This very day the Liberal task force is in one of those cities, where the mayor has said that the government of Ontario, in its most recent budget, undertook measures that have made the cross-border situation worse and that yesterday's announcement in respect of the new retail business holidays policy has in fact made the situation worse than it was two days ago.

In light of that kind of testimony being offered, I repeat, can the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, in his responsibility as one of the economic development ministers and as one of those signatories to An Agenda for People, help me and help the people of those border communities understand in some specific way how yesterday's policy will do anything but aggravate the haemorrhage of cross-border shopping?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I wish to thank the member for the question. I think it is presented, interestingly enough, in quite a fair and open way, and I appreciate that.

It very well may be that circumstance does not help the very complex situation of cross-border shopping, and for those who express that it may exacerbate the difficulty in some way, that also may in fact be true. I can tell the member very honestly, though, that it is the position of this government -- and it was also stated in An Agenda for People -- that we support a common pause day and all that goes with that for the protection of workers and those who support that kind of circumstance as an ideology.

I regret if there is a modicum of circumstance that negatively impacts on that alternative situation, but I would conclude with this: I believe even if we had not passed this situation, we would still have the cross-border shopping problem. That in itself would not have solved that very complex and broad-based problem.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mrs Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I heard my colleague the member for Kitchener accuse the former Liberal government of not helping the 2,000 workers at Uniroyal in Kitchener-Waterloo. I understand the minister is going to be meeting with company officials next Monday morning. I would like to know what he is prepared to do to help those 2,000 Uniroyal workers and the thousands of other workers in this province who have lost or are about to lose their jobs. What is the government prepared to do? What incentives will the minister provide to keep those jobs and those employers in Ontario?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I appreciate the question. In fact, I will be having that meeting on Monday afternoon next week. In the discussions I have had and that other government officials have had with that company, it has indicated that quite frankly the tire industry is sick. There is a situation where there are low car builds, a situation where there is an overcapacity in the marketplace, and all of that, of course, is having an impact on pricing. It has been suggested to me that there is such an oversupply that it would be equivalent to closing seven tire plants.

This particular company, I believe, has lost somewhere around $1 billion, and it is joined by other major players in the marketplace such as Bridgestone and Goodyear that are all, on an industry-wide basis, suffering this malaise of the softening market. As a matter of fact, I noticed in the media today that the chairman of one of the major tire companies in the United States has resigned. He chaired a company that has racked up significant losses.

In terms of what this government is prepared to do, we are prepared to meet with this company, to meet with the bargaining unit, to discover if there is anything we can do to ameliorate this very difficult market-driven situation and to see if there is some way we might assist to obviate the need for this unemployment.

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

Hon Mr Pilkey: I would close with this, Mr Speaker. I and yourself and the other members of the House were misled by statements of another member opposite yesterday, when he suggested that they had --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I respectfully suggest the minister may wish to withdraw those remarks.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I will, if it is the rule, but it is a fact.

The Speaker: I think we have been through this routine before.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the members come to order. It is not up to me to determine the veracity of statements, but rather to maintain decorum in the House. In that regard, I would ask the minister if he would withdraw his remarks.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Mr Speaker, in order to maintain the decorum of the House and to follow the rules, I will withdraw the remark. I will simply indicate to you then that a suggestion was made by a member opposite that the government of that day had put millions of dollars into the plant in Kitchener, and the record will attest that this is not factual.

Mrs Witmer: I appreciate the fact that the minister is going to try to help the Uniroyal workers and I look forward to seeing him take very positive and concrete steps to do so. However, I personally believe that it is becoming abundantly clear that many of the policies of the government are not aiding in the creation of new jobs and we are not maintaining the jobs we already have. His policies might be creating jobs in New York state, but we have lost 248,000 jobs since the new NDP government took office and started spooking investors.

In the Hamilton area, for example, a Swiss company has decided not to participate in a project to develop a health sciences business park because --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Kitchener will come to order. The member for Waterloo North is waiting patiently to place her final supplementary. Would she do so.

Mrs Witmer: I mentioned that since the NDP took office we had lost 248,000 jobs in this province and we have started to spook investors. In the Hamilton area --

Interjections.

1500

The Speaker: Would the member for Waterloo North place her question. The member for Waterloo North has --

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Surely you have enough control over this House to have these members called to order. It is impossible for my colleague --

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: You see? I cannot even speak now.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs Marland: To have two members raise a sign in this House the way they just did and for that action to be ignored, I respectfully suggest to you that the decorum on that side of the House leaves a lot to be desired. When my colleague --

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat. First of all, I draw to the member's attention that indeed the members who did what was done were called to order. As the clock continues to tick, your colleague is waiting to place a question. I would ask the co-operation of all the members in the assembly so that the member for Waterloo North can complete her question and we can get on with the orderly business of this House.

Mrs Witmer: I would like to give an example of a company in Hamilton. A Swiss company has decided not to participate in a project to develop a health sciences business park because, as the company's lawyer explained in a letter to the region:

"The current provincial government does not show any desire to give any incentives to business to settle in Ontario. My client is very pessimistic that any significant national or international business would consider opening for business in Ontario, particularly in view of the 29 April 1991 deficit budget."

How does the minister reconcile that analysis with the government's line that Ontario remains a good place for investment?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Ontario does in fact remain an excellent place to invest.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take a few moments to address the very serious question that the member raised. I would like to indicate --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Mr Mahoney is going to listen in just a moment, I am sure.

The Speaker: If the minister would address his remarks to the Chair.

Hon Mr Pilkey: We do have present here a recession which is a North American recession. There are problems in Canada; there are problems in the United States. We are also facing a circumstance of global competition which is making it difficult here in our home markets. We have a federal government circumstance where we have a free trade agreement, which the members opposite well know about. We have federal policies with respect to our high dollar which are impacting these corporate decisions. We have a circumstance of high interest rates, although I am very pleased to see that the governor of the Bank of Canada is reducing them. We also have the circumstance of the previous government and the budgets of the previous Treasurer, who incorporated a very large number of taxes which corporate Ontario were not pleased about.

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

Hon Mr Pilkey: I think all of us, federally, provincially, or even the previous government, have to be concerned with the slippage in the competitiveness of Ontario industry, Canadian industry and North American industry. It will be important for all of us to continue to offer programs --

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

Hon Mr Pilkey: -- and circumstances that restore the competitiveness to Ontario industry.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Wessenger: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I am extremely concerned about the ongoing need for better health care for Ontario children with emotional and mental health problems. This issue has been brought to my attention by constituents, by service providers and by the human services planning council in my riding. They are concerned about the long waiting lists for counselling services and the lack of residential care beds. As the situation is not isolated to my riding, I would ask if the minister can bring this House up to date on the work being done to address this situation.

Hon Ms Akande: I too am concerned about this situation, and it is a situation which, once again, we have inherited. We have been very conscious of the numbers that have been recorded, and there is great debate and not much conclusive evidence about those numbers, but if there is one child on a waiting list, that is one too many.

We have initiated several things, including a study to better identify and assess the needs of children so that they can be more appropriately and immediately met. Another thing we have done is to move towards integration of services, and in the communities where that has happened, those children have been served very quickly and very directly.

Mr Wessenger: I am just wondering if there are any other practical ways in which this whole area is being addressed.

Hon Ms Akande: One of the things we have attempted to do is to employ those who are most directly involved with the children. I am meeting this very evening with the Ontario Association of Children's Mental Health Centres. I will be addressing them at that time, and later some of us will be meeting to discuss the consultation that is going on around that very issue.

Mrs Caplan: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Is he joining us in this question period?

The Speaker: Do you wish to direct a new question? The member for Wilson Heights.

TAX INCREASES

Mr Kwinter: I have a question for the Treasurer. I want again to return to the question of the gas guzzler tax.

On 17 May 1991, the Minister of Energy met with 15 retail auto dealers in Peterborough. I do not know if she conveyed their concerns to the Treasurer, but she was told of the severe pressure the retail auto industry is experiencing. In particular, Jack McGee of Jack McGee Chevrolet-Oldsmobile-Cadillac told her that he had to lay off 17 employees, which represents 24% of his total workforce, and to his knowledge -- he has been following them up -- not one of them has found alternative employment.

When the new gas guzzler tax comes into effect on 1 July, it will exacerbate the business problems of all the dealers like the Jack McGees in Peterborough and the Shelly Schlueters in Kitchener.

Can the Treasurer tell us what he is going to do? His colleague stood up and acknowledged that he had made a mistake. When is he going to stand up and acknowledge that he has made a mistake and rescind this tax that is a punitive penalty to the auto industry?

Hon Mr Laughren: I certainly would not hesitate to stand in my place and admit I made a mistake if I were convinced that was the case. Since the member last asked the question last week, I have gone back and talked to Treasury people about the inventories in the car lots, and as well the Treasury officials have met with the car dealers, at least one of the associations, if not several of them. We are examining that whole question.

I would say to the member opposite that the gas guzzler tax was put in for a couple of very specific purposes, namely, fuel conservation and environmental purposes. I think, to be fair, the member opposite did not suggest that any layoffs that have already occurred in the car lots were a result of a tax that has not yet been implemented, and I certainly concur with that, but I think that the member should be fair and acknowledge the fact that there is a very specific purpose for this gas guzzler tax and those are admirable purposes.

Mr Bradley: The Treasurer has now heard from the Canadian Auto Workers. He has heard from the automobile manufacturers. He has heard from the automobile parts manufacturers, and that is the component that everybody forgets in this, the parts manufacturers. He has heard from the automobile retailers indirectly and the car dealerships, and now he has heard from Friends of the Earth, an environmental group. There appears to be a consensus developing in the province that this tax on auto workers is simply a tax grab on the part of the Treasurer and his government, disguised as an environmental initiative, and that this is going to have an extremely detrimental effect on the automotive industry, which is so important to the entire province.

In recognition of this, will the Treasurer now agree to my request of some time ago, almost after the budget, that he withdraw this particular tax, a punitive tax on an automobile industry which is under unprecedented competition at the present time, and would he replace it with incentives to individuals in Ontario to purchase new vehicles which have much better fuel efficiency and much better pollution control equipment and thereby meet both goals of improving the environment and improving the prospects of the automobile industry in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I should point out to the member for St Catharines that there is at work as we speak a group consisting of the Big Three and Treasury officials to try and see if there is an alternative. At this point in time I am not convinced there is, but I do not want to prejudge the work of that committee.

I would say to the member for St Catharines that the only person who has accused me of engaging in a tax grab is the member for St Catharines, the former Minister of the Environment. For the former Minister of the Environment to stand in this place and ask me to withdraw an environmental tax I find passing strange.

1510

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Carr: My question is to the great communicator, the Solicitor General. I do not know how he did it, but he seemed to alienate all sides on the Sunday shopping issue.

I think the headlines in one of our daily papers says it best, "'Wishy-Washy' Sunday Plan Angers Cities, Labour, Stores." In Metro they called it a chaotic mess. One of the councillors said, "I'm disappointed because (the province) said they were going to (decide which stores would open), and I naïvely believed them." Even Cliff Evans, the Canadian director of the United Food and Commercial Workers, said, "I'm very unhappy because it does not remove the local municipal option." The Ontario Chamber of Commerce said it would tear apart its members. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said the legislation only adds an extra layer of bureaucracy for small and medium businesses.

Why did the Solicitor General take the chicken way out and throw it into the laps of the municipalities?

Hon Mr Farnan: Let me communicate in a most direct way with the member for the third party. I am standing here presenting the principles upon which this government stands. We stand upon the principle of a common pause day. We are prepared to provide municipalities with provincial guidelines, something that the Conservatives and Liberals have never been able to do.

We recognize tourism as a cornerstone of our economy. That is where we stand. We stand behind the protection of retail workers. That is where we stand. We stand for leadership in supporting family and community values. We will not duck a difficult issue. Where does the member stand?

Mr Carr: We have told this House many times where we stand. We have told this House many times that we stand for getting a new Solicitor General in Ontario. That is where we stand.

Tourism Ontario -- and I am glad the Solicitor General brought it up -- said that Sunday cross-border shopping by people in Ontario increased by 32% between February and March of this year, following the reimposition of the Sunday shopping restriction in Ontario.

My question is, will the Solicitor General tell us if his legislation will help the cross-border shopping problem?

Hon Mr Farnan: Cross-border shopping is seven-day-a-week shopping. If there is a bargain across the border on a Friday, people will cross the border on a Friday. They will cross the border on a Saturday. Indeed, for a bargain they will cross the border on a Sunday. Even when we had wide-open Sunday shopping, there was an increase of the outflow of dollars across the border.

What the member does not realize is this: We are not talking about cross-border shopping; we are talking about a common pause day for Ontario. That is what we are talking about. This government is going to stand behind that. That common pause day will be founded upon provincial guidelines, tourism as a cornerstone of the economy, protection for retail workers and the support of family and community values.

CHILD CARE

Hon Ms Akande: I have a response. I would like to answer a question which the member for Burlington South asked me on Monday. I had said at that time that I would respond in this House.

First, there are three child care centres in Ontario which have been built in part with ministry funding but have yet to open. Two of those centres are involved in the establishment of boards, which he knows is very important for non-profit centres, and also in the establishment of certain procedures in subsidy uptake, and they will be opening shortly. The third of those centres is really the result of a recent move to new facilities, where the francophone population it was directly serving is more situated.

The second part of the question requested some information about a non-profit child care centre in Richmond Hill. A study in York region has established Richmond Hill as an area which has a great need for child care services. Observatory Lane was not built with any ministry money. There has been some funding in terms of other support services.

Mr Jackson: I fear the minister did not really hear the question that was presented to her. How many day care centres are actually constructed and are available to be opened and have not opened, and how many of her government's tax dollars were to be used? That was the question.

The response failed to specifically mention Genesis project and Observatory Lane, the two projects I brought to the minister's attention in the House earlier this week.

The minister's staff has not advised her adequately, fairly or properly. My information, which has been shared with Global News, which broke this story recently after I raised it in the House, is that the management at Observatory Lane contacted a local operator last December and asked if it would come forward and take over the property. As we stand here, that property is still empty and vacant and has been since September.

I will ask the same question: Can the minister please advise this House just how many day care centres have been constructed that are sitting vacant waiting to be opened in this province, the funding for which the province has assisted in? How many centres are involved?

Hon Ms Akande: As I said, and I will say again much more clearly and distinctly, there are three centres which have been built with ministry money. Two of them are in the process of establishing boards and getting on board in terms of subsidies. Another is concerned with re-establishing. It has moved its site because of its population distribution.

The member referred to Observatory Lane. I have said clearly that ministry money was not involved in the actual construction of the site, that the site was completed not last September but in March 1991, and that the ministry money for that particular Observatory Lane has been involved in the other supports that are directed towards the establishment of child care.

Genesis is not yet complete. The internal supports of Genesis are not totally finished, and it is due to be opened later this year.

1520

The Speaker: New question.

Ms Haeck: Mr Speaker --

The Chair: The member for S-D-G & East Grenville.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Would the member take her seat for a moment. The practice that has been followed in this chamber is that when a minister stands to respond to a question raised earlier there is a supplementary allowed. We go back to rotation, but it goes to this side and then there and here. Based on a bit of confusion over there -- I sense there was some confusion -- you would have to wait until the rotation came back around to your side again in order to ask a question.

I apologize to the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, but I will recognize the member for Oriole, who clearly had indicated to me earlier that she wished to place a question but did not stand because of the confusion which occurred.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Caplan: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In opposition the NDP criticized the municipal option as the chicken way out. The mayor of Windsor recently indicated that under the new NDP Sunday shopping legislation the city will likely implement a bylaw to declare the so-called tourist exemption for the entire city. Could the Minister of Municipal Affairs please explain the difference between the municipal option, which they so criticized in opposition, and this so-called tourist exemption?

Hon Mr Cooke: I would be very pleased to explain the difference for the member, and I suggest she might also want to get a briefing from the ministry, because there are simply no parallels between the legislation the Liberal Party brought in and the legislation being suggested by this party.

The approach the Liberal Party took when it was in government was to say the entire issue was being turned over to municipalities. This government is saying there is going to be a common pause day, with the exception of tourist areas, which will be defined at the local level. The definition of a tourist zone and the criteria for the tourist zone are clearly spelled out in our legislation. It is the first time that has been done. There is no confusion at all, other than in the mind of the critic for the official opposition.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: During the course of question period the member for Chatham-Kent uttered a phrase which I would ask that he consider withdrawing from the record. Perhaps it is with Hansard. He referred to corporate welfare bums. I for one find it offensive that any member of the House would stylize any person under any circumstance requiring social assistance as a bum. I would ask the member for Chatham-Kent to withdraw that offensive phraseology. I would ask him if he would consider it. This is a sensitive matter in this province at this time and the usage of that language is most inappropriate.

Mr Hope: I do withdraw.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT (PROVINCIAL JUDGES' COMPENSATION), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES (RÉTRIBUTION DES JUGES PROVINCIAUX)

Ms Lankin moved first reading of Bill 117, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984 respecting Provincial Judges' Compensation.

Mme Lankin propose la première lecture du projet de loi 117, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1984 sur les tribunaux judiciaires en ce qui concerne la retribution des juges provinciaux.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptee.

Hon Ms Lankin: Today I am tabling for first reading a bill dealing with compensation for Ontario provincial court judges. This legislation represents the original package introduced by the former Chairman of Management Board in 1989. The bill codifies in statute recommendations supported by all three parties in the standing committee on administration of justice of the last Parliament.

The legislation is a result of a consultative process starting with the Ontario Provincial Courts Committee, more commonly known as the Henderson committee.

The Henderson committee, with a representative for both the government and the judges, plus a neutral chair, was reconstituted in 1988 and reported to the former government in September of that year.

The report was then referred to the standing committee on administration of justice, where it received unanimous support.

The former Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet tabled legislation to implement the majority of the Henderson committee recommendations in December 1989, but it did not receive passage prior to the change of government in 1990.

However, the former government did maintain the salary increases of the judges without legislation during this period. This bill codifies current practice.

Any increase to judicial salaries will be tied directly to changes in the average industrial wages index, capped at 7%. This feature parallels a similar provision for federal judges. It also reinforces the independence of the judiciary by ensuring that determinations of judges' salary levels are made independent of the political process.

As well, the bill ensures continuation of the review process -- the forum through which provincial judges and the government will discuss compensation issues. It brings to fruition the work of the Ontario Provincial Courts Committee.

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

Ms Carter moved first reading of Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Mme Carter propose la première lecture du projet de loi 118, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Societe de l'electricite.

1533

The House divided on Ms Carter's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de Mme Carter, mise aux voix, est adoptee :

Ayes/Pour--60

Abel, Akande, Allen, Boyd, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Hampton, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays/Contre--32

Arnott, Bradley, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Jackson, Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McLean, Murdoch, B., Nixon, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poirier, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could I beg the House's indulgence to have unanimous consent to revert very briefly to reports by committees please?

Agreed to.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Jackson from the standing committee on estimates presented the committee's report and moved its adoption.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 58(b), the estimates not selected for consideration by the standing committee are deemed to be concurred in.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's ninth report and moved its adoption.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(14), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

1540

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

La Chambre en comite plenier.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE RÉGIME DES OBLIGATIONS ALIMENTAIRES ENVERS LA FAMILLE

Resuming consideration of Bill 17, An Act to amend the Law related to the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders.

Reprise de l'etude du projet de loi 17, Loi portant modification des lois relatives a l'execution d'ordonnances alimentaires et de garde d'enfants.

The Chair: Yesterday the House agreed that all divisions requested with respect to the committee's consideration of Bill 17 be deferred until clause-by-clause consideration of the bill was completed. Accordingly, I call in the members for the deferred divisions.

1551

Section/article 4:

The House divided on Mr Harnick's amendment to section 4, subsections 3.4(11.1) to (11.3) of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 28; nays 56.

The House divided on Mr Harnick's amendment to section 4, subsection 3.8(10) of the act, which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

L'article 4, modifie, est adopte.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

Le projet de loi, modifie, devra faire l'objet d'un rapport.

On motion by Miss Martel, the committee of the whole reported one bill with certain amendments.

À la suite d'une motion presentee par Mlle Martel, le comite plenier de la Chambre fait rapport d'un projet de loi avec certains amendements.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Resuming consideration of Mrs Grier's motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of the Environment.

Mrs Marland: In rising today to speak on the subject of the Ministry of the Environment concurrences which, as you and I both know, Mr. Speaker, is really speaking to the function, responsibility and actions of any given ministry, I certainly wish I could be standing to commend the current minister and the work she might have done as Minister of the Environment for the past 10 months.

Unfortunately, as we stand here on 5 June 1991, we have to recognize not only that things have not improved with a new government and a new minister in this province, but that things have become worse. The area of concern to our caucus and certainly to me as the spokesperson for the greater Toronto area and representative for Mississauga South, part of the region of Peel, one of the regional municipalities included in the greater Toronto area, is the current crisis in waste management --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. If you want to hold conversations, I suggest you hold them outside.

Mrs Marland: The foremost concern for every one of us in this Legislature should be where this province is going to be with its waste management 12 months from now. We have known about the crisis emerging for the last four or five years. We have not had any new sites approved for landfilling either industrial or residential waste. We are now in a situation where existing sites are being contemplated for expansion, those sites which, when they were originally approved, had a lifespan limit to them.

An example I give to the House today is the Britannia landfill site, which is in the region of Peel. When the Britannia landfill site was originally opened, it was to be open for 12 years. Those 12 years were in fact up last year, in 1990. We have had already a 12-month extension to the life of the Britannia landfill site because a solution has not been found as to where the region of Peel would be able to dispose of its waste had that site been closed last year on time.

1600

What has happened, and why the situation has become even more critical, is that we now know that the only sites which this Minister of the Environment is going to subject to a full environmental assessment are the long-term sites. We have heard this Minister of the Environment stand in this House and admit that the interim landfill sites will not be subjected to a full environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act.

Members may ask where that leaves the people of this province and where it leaves particularly the people in the greater Toronto area, who by the sheer numbers of their population generate the greatest volume of waste. We know that the public are becoming more aware of waste reduction. Every one of us in this House, I assume, is practising waste reduction as a model to his or her constituents. In so doing, we cannot overturn the crisis that is with us today in terms of volume of waste that has to be disposed of. We can, in the long term, remediate where we are today, because hopefully the next generations will not create the volumes of garbage that we have today in Ontario through our past practices.

However, in the region of Peel, the Britannia landfill site was approved originally under the Environmental Protection Act. That was how landfill sites were approved at that time. I have sat in this House now for six years with the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and I have heard her. I speak from the same hymnbook, so to speak, the same melody and completely in agreement about the fact that landfill sites should not be approved for use in this province without a full environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act, not the Environmental Protection Act.

However, since this member has become the Minister of the Environment, we have heard two totally different statements from her. One statement was that she would not permit site B in the region of Peel or the landfill site in Durham to proceed, because under the former Liberal government's policy they were going to proceed under the Environmental Protection Act. I agreed with the minister when she said that this was not a full enough assessment, but we now have a situation where this same minister is saying something totally opposite, 180 degrees in the other direction. She is saying she may expand the Britannia landfill site, the existing site which was approved under the Environmental Protection Act. So on the one hand she will not approve new sites under that act, yet she will expand an existing site.

The other problem is that while we now know that only long-term sites will be subjected to a full environmental assessment, we also have no delineation as to the term of an interim site. We do not know what an interim landfill site is. We do not know whether interim is six months, six years or 20 years. Our concerns are that if a landfill site operates at all without an environmental assessment, we cannot know whether that is going to be a safe operation or a safe location for that kind of facility in terms of the preservation of the environment.

I simply say, on that subject alone, that unfortunately this Minister of the Environment not only has set policies which are totally opposite to those she espoused when she was the critic for the Environment in opposition, but she has also, since she has become the minister, even contradicted those statements in terms of what sites should be subjected and what will have to be allowed to expand under emergency conditions.

The other little caveat to all of this is that she has also said the expansion of existing sites in emergency conditions may involve the acceptance into those sites of garbage generated outside of their immediate region. It is quite possible, for example, that the Britannia landfill site will be the only one with capacity a year or 18 months from now because it has been extended and expanded, even though legally it does not have the capacity.

The reason I say "legally" is because the Britannia landfill site is in the region of Peel but it is in the city of Mississauga, and the city of Mississauga has a signed agreement that this landfill site would close on a certain date. That date has already been extended once, and if the minister, through a ministerial order, says that date will be extended again, it will be in violation of a written agreement with the city and the people surrounding that site, a blatant violation of a contract in writing with that community.

The worst part is that in an emergency situation, to use the minister's own statement, the garbage that may be taken into that site may be all of Metropolitan Toronto's garbage. If that is the only game in town at that point, it may well be that the region of Peel will be the recipient of not only Peel's garbage but all of Metro's garbage.

What we have in terms of waste management in this province by this New Democratic government is a big, fat zero. We have no waste management today in this province. I think we have to realize that if this government is going to sit back until the garbage is being piled in the tennis courts and the municipal parks around the greater Toronto area, we will then have confirmation of the fact that not only have the New Democrats in opposition criticized the former Liberal government for their inaction on waste management, but they have actually compounded the situation by making sure that no solution was found.

Sure, they have appointed a waste management advisory council and have said they are reviewing the situation of the waste management crisis in the province, but it does not take much reviewing. The facts are there. The facts were there three and four years ago. The fact today is that there is no solution for waste management other than reduction, with which we all agree, and in the short term, reduction will not be the solution.

I wish to touch briefly on a number of other areas that come under the Ministry of the Environment, other than the fact that we are running out of capacity for waste. I would like to talk briefly about the tire tax money. The tire tax came in under the former Liberal government and was effective in June 1989. At the time that it was introduced -- I think in fact it says in the bill that it would be to enhance environmental programs. The former Minister of the Environment, the member for St Catharines, is in the House at the moment. I think if I am wrong he will correct me. But I think, to paraphrase the bill, that the tire tax money was to be used for environmental programs in this province.

1610

That tire tax has now been in effect in this province for two years, and it is my understanding that in those two years we have collected over $100 million. In two years, it is also my understanding that of this over $100 million, we have actually had assigned to the program of resolving how to dispose of these tires a mere sum of something like $17 million or $18 million.

There is a question that needs to be answered by this government in order to make it accountable to the public, even though it was not its tax; I concede it was the former Liberal government's tax. This government has $80 million to $82 million that has been collected under the guise of: "You buy a new tire and you pay $5 tax on each tire. But that is a very good thing, you know. That is $5 that is going to be contributed to environmental programs." I simply ask: Where are the environmental programs? Where are the solutions to the disposal of used tires?

We do not see the stockpiles of used tires getting any lower. In fact, today my colleague the member for Markham, who is the spokesperson for the Environment for our caucus, very eloquently asked the Minister of the Environment why she is permitting tires to be sent to the United States for disposal, including incineration. That question was very well put by the member for Markham, because that is an answer that needs to be given, and the answer was not given today.

The fact is that not only do we have money being collected -- and, I would suggest, in a very questionable manner, because that money being collected I guess goes into the big, deep black hole called the general revenue fund. When it gets into the general revenue fund it is gone for ever, and it is not allocated for the purposes for which the public understood it was being taxed.

We recall the big outcry when everybody had to pay $5 on a new tire, not only when they were replacing tires on motor vehicles and bicycles and wheelbarrows, as I recall originally, and of course truck tires, but when they bought a new vehicle with brand-new tires on it. They still had to pay the tire tax. What a farce. What an absolute farce. We have been taking $5 from the public on every new tire purchased in this province, and the money has not gone to that purpose for which it was designed when that tax was originally introduced.

I may just ask in passing as I leave this subject: Is it not ironic? When that bill was introduced and I was the Environment critic for our party, I stood in this House and pleaded with the then Treasurer to make sure those funds were designated for the environment, because we all know about that general revenue fund, the black hole. I moved an amendment on the floor of this House that the money collected on tire tax would be designated for environmental programs. The government at that time would not accept that designation. The result is that the money has been collected and it has not been spent on environmental programs. I think both the previous government and this government owe the people of this province an explanation about that money collected under the guise of one thing not being appropriated for that cause.

Another area that I would have hoped this Minister of the Environment might have had her staff address by now, and on which we might have seen some direction and policy coming from this government, is the subject of motor vehicle emissions. Obviously when we have a city the size of ours and the volume of motor vehicles increases every week, we can see very easily around us what the impact on the environment is of those motor vehicle emissions.

I know that the new motor vehicles today have catalytic converters and engine modifications that have reduced the emissions compared to what they were 20 years ago, but the irony is that the automobile manufacturers still do not have to develop and apply anything in the design of their cars to guarantee that those emissions will be reduced for the life of the engine. It will take a government initiative to require automobiles in the province of Ontario to have reduced carbon monoxide emissions. The only way that will happen is if they say for all cars up to a certain age, that as long as they are on the road, that engine has to have the modification whereby the environment is protected. It is the air we breathe, and even though we try to encourage the public to leave their cars at home and use public transit, we still are never going to achieve enough reduction in the use of private automobiles. In any case, we have public vehicles which have to be used which also contribute to the carbon monoxide emissions. So we hope to see some direction from this ministry on that subject too.

In the time remaining I obviously could not cover all the subjects I wanted to. I wanted to talk about the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement. We have a MISA program that is not going anywhere. We still have a lot of problems with pollution in our lakes, waters and streams. All of these things this minister was concerned with when she was the critic. I hope in this next 12 months we will see some changes where this minister is taking strong action on those areas with which she has concern.

Mr O'Connor: It is with great pride and pleasure that I rise today to speak in the House on the estimates for the Ministry of the Environment. In my capacity as parliamentary assistant for the minister, I feel it is a privilege to be working with a person of such vision. Since taking over as minister she has introduced the foundations for a comprehensive strategy for a green government.

Mr Bradley: How many parliamentary assistants are there over there? Everybody is a parliamentary assistant.

Mr O'Connor: She has courageously tackled difficult problems that the member, interjecting from across the floor, at times found were too difficult to tackle, and he avoided those issues. She has tackled them.

Our government is proud of the 3R waste reduction program that was announced this February. The program was designed not only to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill sites, but more importantly, will help to change the attitude from a consumer society to a conserver society. In fact, I have received a lot of letters of support for our waste reduction program, the most recent being from Mrs Harrison's grade 4 class from Uxbridge Public School. They wanted to let me know about an advertising promotion that was very wasteful and they wanted to make sure we were aware that this was going on. I brought it to the minister's attention and sent it on through to the company that was promoting this product and told them these students had given this to me.

Several weeks ago we had a former page in this Legislature from my riding who came down to visit us from Joseph Gould School. She was telling me about a newly formed environmental club and she was really excited because this new club was going to join Uxbridge Secondary School in a cleanup of parts of the town.

1620

I am glad to speak about these estimates by the Ministry of the Environment because it allows me to address the waste reduction action plan of this government, which will divert 25% of our waste by 1992 and 50% by the turn of the century. Although these targets have been talked about in the past, this is the first time a farsighted major reduction program has been announced by a government.

The program has four important directions to ensure that we are able to achieve these objectives. First, strong regulatory measures will reduce at the source the amount of valuable resources that will eventually end up in the disposal system. Second, the financial and technical systems will be developed to divert these materials from landfills and put them into useful production and reuse them. Third, the program will help create a healthy market for these materials that have been recovered through active 3R programs. Finally, the program has introduced an education component to educate the public both on the 3R program and the need to change from a wasteful consumer society to one oriented to conserving our precious and limited resources.

Education is the key issue. We have to change our wasteful ways. I am happy to say that it appears people are responding to environmental issues and problems, and are starting to reduce, reuse and recycle. Another way people are showing their awareness is through cleanup and remediation efforts. One example happened during Earth Week. In my riding, constituents gathered at the Uxbridge brook and planted trees. The event was co-ordinated by the Uxbridge Conservation Association in conjunction with the township.

As I was sitting in the House here a couple of weeks ago before the debate on estimates was interrupted, the member for Scarborough Centre told me he had the pleasure of attending an environmental awareness awards night sponsored by the Board of Education for the City of Scarborough. He told me how the students from his elementary and secondary levels were invited to develop displays set up on the principles of the 3Rs. My colleague was so impressed by the level of ingenuity and commitment that the students took and the pride they had in their projects.

Another example of remediation was at Jacksons Point, at the north part of my riding, where last month over 700 volunteers took part in cleaning up the grounds of the Salvation Army camp. In addition to cleaning up, they renovated the cabins and buildings and installed a new playground. I had the pleasure of being at that event and actually took part in planting a number of trees. It shows that these people are concerned about their environment.

Last month there was an event that takes place every year, and Boy Scouts from all across Canada take part in a program called Trees for Canada. I would like to congratulate the many people involved in this Scouts Canada program, for their part not only in educating but participating towards protecting and enhancing the environment. It is a terrific program.

It is very clear that we must begin to deliver the message about conservation of our environment to our children as young as possible. These young people are our future leaders, workers and consumers. They must go forward with their goals for conservation and preservation of the environment. It has to be a first priority. I am confident that my son, Patrick, and his generation will be able to take a look back at decisions made by this government and the management on their behalf for the future and decisions being made by the current minister.

I would like to turn to another decision our government has made that shows our environmental vision. The Niagara Escarpment is a landform that stretches 725 kilometres from Tobermory at the tip of the Bruce Peninsula to Queenston on the Niagara River. There is a diversity of ecological and geological features which makes the escarpment one of the most dominant topographic features of all of southern Ontario. This is also one of the province's principal outdoor recreation areas. The escarpment contains a wide diversity of plants and animals which are rare, threatened or endangered. As well, it contains the head waters of many major rivers. UNESCO named the Niagara Escarpment a biosphere reserve in February 1990.

Our government has demonstrated its commitment to protecting and preserving important and significant areas like the Niagara Escarpment by having the Niagara Escarpment Commission report directly to the Minister of the Environment. The ministry has provided funding to ensure that the commission's mandate is protecting the environment and that it can be carried out.

I have given but two examples of the forward-looking policies that our government implemented, but we have a lot more that I would like to talk about and our time is limited. One thing happening this week is a conference taking place about a festival and the impact that development is having on the Lake Simcoe area. I think it is very important.

In closing, I want to add that this year's debate was around the previous government's estimates. I look forward to next year when we can discuss the estimates developed by our minister. The Treasurer has announced in his budget an increase of 19% to the Ministry of the Environment which demonstrates further that our government's commitment is to the environment.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for consideration for concurrence in supply has expired. I must now put all the necessary questions.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

On motions, supply for the following ministries and offices was concurred in by the House:

Ministry of the Environment;

Ministry of Community and Social Services;

Ministry of Treasury and Economics;

Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs;

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, votes 2901 and 2903 only.

SUPPLY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 1991

Mr Laughren moved first reading of Bill 119, An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending on 31 March 1991.

M. Laughren propose la première lecture du projet de loi 119, Loi autorisant le paiement de certaines sommes destinees a la fonction publique pour l'exercice se terminant le 31 mars 1991.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptee.

Mr Laughren moved second reading of Bill 119, An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending on 31st March 1991.

M. Laughren propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 119, Loi autorisant le paiement de certaines sommes destinees a la fonction publique pour l'exercice se terminant le 31 mars 1991.

Mr Conway: I would like to participate in the second reading debate of this particular item, consistent with what I call the Laughren precedent.

Hon Mr Laughren: Oh, that hurts.

Hon Miss Martel: Sixty seconds, Sean.

Mr Conway: No, I repeat, for the benefit of my friend the member for Sudbury East, consistent with the Laughren precedent. If the member for Sudbury East does not remember, I do, and I do not mean to be dilatory today, but I do want to talk about some of the issues that any supply, of course, speaks --

Mr Bradley: Go ahead and be dilatory. The dilatories are next.

Mr Conway: No, I am not into that game any more. Maybe I once was. I think I probably once was, 10, 12, 14 years ago, but I do not see it --

Hon Mr Laughren: Less than that.

Mr Conway: Less than that? Seven or eight years ago.

Mr Bradley: Back when you were 15.

Mr Conway: Back when I was 15, my friend says.

Hon Mr Laughren: Right after he was elected.

Mr Conway: I can hear my friend the member for St Catharines actually mustering enough nerve to raise the pay bill. I will not get into that business, because I know my friends opposite know my views on that subject, as does my friend the member for Sudbury East and the member for Nickel Belt.

I want to talk about the supply bill in relation to certain of the economic questions that face the Treasurer and the province. Some of this I have said before, but I must say, in recent days, I have had the opportunity, particularly at the local level, to meet with a number of manufacturers in my county and I am increasingly concerned about the situation in which the province finds itself. Let me say at the outset, and I think I have said this before, I have a great deal of sympathy for my friends opposite who now occupy the Treasury bench. There are more than a few days when I am glad it is my friend the member for Nickel Belt and not myself, because it is not easy. I am sure his colleagues would privately, if not publicly, agree with that observation. The recession continues. The suggestions are made by some that we are about to pull out of the worst of it, and I hope we have. I am actually hearing at home from some in the retail sector that there are some signs, with new car sales, for example, that the bottoming out has ended and that there may be some blue sky ahead. I really hope that is true.

What I really wanted to talk about today, though, is the business and investment climate in which we now find ourselves. I would have to think that the number one priority for all of us in the assembly is job creation, employment, the protection of jobs that have developed over the decades in Ontario, a recognition that a very considerable transition is occurring in very substantial portions of the Ontario economy, and therefore a need for a good adjustment policy is clearly before us.

I will tell the Treasurer what I know he has heard from other people, and that is simply this: there are growing signs abroad in the land that some of the actions being contemplated by the new government are having a deleterious effect on the investment climate, the climate in which hopefully new jobs are going to be created across the province.

Let me say as well that he has taken a shellacking, as they would say in Renfrew, over the budgetary course he has pursued. I say to some of my friends who are not New Democrats that they should not be --

Mr Klopp: All your friends are New Democrats.

Mr Conway: There are some things I do not regret about not being in government. One of them is dealing with my friends who are New Democrats in a way that I think my friend the member for Nickel Belt can understand as I took the call the other night from my friend Ross Hall. Would the Treasurer do me a favour and tell our mutual friend McClellan that he would be wise to understand the sensitivities there? I am sure he will get the point, because as I said to Ross Hall, "Ross McClellan is younger than you are and I am younger than both of you, so I do not, in five or six or 10 years' time, want to carry this burden any further than is necessary." I have already relayed one of the messages in the Treasurer's hand. It certainly helped a bit.

At any rate, I say to my friend the Treasurer that I am not one of those who takes the view that any government ought to or could have balanced the budget in this particular climate. Someone has written, and I think perhaps the Treasurer has said, that if one took just the 1983 budgetary plan that Frank Miller offered, we would be looking at a $6-billion to $7-billion deficit this year. I am not making any bones of the fact that I do not think it would have been wise or possible to have balanced or nearly balanced the books for fiscal 1991-92. I will say that as part of a government that was fairly generous with expenditure plans, I bear some measure of that responsibility and I accept it quite readily.

What I do say to my friend opposite is that the plan for the next three years beyond this fiscal year is what is causing the concern, the $34.8 billion worth of accrued deficit within the first four years of the New Democratic administration, of whatever duration we can now only speculate, but it is clearly going to be not less than five years. To contemplate a deficit that will roughly double the provincial deficit, that is, the deficit that has accrued over 125 years, to double that within four years is no mean feat. I think Keynesianism has certain appeal, but whether it has that much resilience is not yet clear.

There is no question that the degree of tolerance that the new government has shown in respect of deficit financing has raised some alarm bells, many of them in quarters where there are not a great number of New Democrats normally or naturally found, but that I do not believe diminishes the merit of that argument. The question then, of course, is to what degree we can contemplate deficits. I certainly am one who is concerned about the $35-billion total over those four years. As I have said on earlier occasions, that figure can be achieved only if one accepts some fairly generous assumptions about growth, about tax increases and presumably about the actions of the federal government. I hope the most optimistic forecasts are the order of the day.

When we look at, and certainly in my role as a local member when I hear from constituents on, the key question today, which is the financial management and the employment question, the deficit is very quickly cited. I have to point out that just last week the Minister of Education made some announcements in my part of the province that have been very well received. That too, of course, is part of the plan and must be understood as such. But the deficit in that order of magnitude has certainly created a very high level of concern with the people in my constituency, who are in the business of either making or trying to attract investment to create new wealth, to create new jobs or to sustain the jobs that are there.

Second, and here I must skate very carefully because I do not want to excite any particular ideological passion on the other side, for I am one who fully accepts how a social democrat will view the world rather differently than perhaps a Nixon-Peterson Liberal or a Robarts-Davis Tory --

Mr Sutherland: What is the difference?

1640

Mr Conway: My friends opposite observe, what are the differences? In a province where there have not been marked ideological variations among the main political parties, I think it is not an inappropriate observation. But I think it is interesting, as people now look at some of the key indicators, particularly in the discussion of and in the area of wealth creation, that there are differences. To their credit, the New Democrats are quite prepared to go about a different course, not just in budgetary policy, not just in terms of tolerance for gargantuan deficits relative to anything we have seen beforehand in this province, but also when one looks at the key question of labour-management relationships, something that is of growing interest in the community outside Queen's Park, I think there is an understanding that the new government has a different perspective, and I respect that absolutely.

In some ways, whether it be in Yorkview or in Huron or in Elgin or in Frontenac-Addington or in Renfrew North, I think we all have to understand that this relationship is, at the very least, an evolutionary one. What was acceptable in the 1960s is of course not necessarily going to be acceptable in the 1990s.

I must say that when I hear some of what I am hearing about some of the new initiatives the new government has either introduced or is apparently contemplating around alterations in that labour-management relationship, I am honour-bound to say to my friend the Treasurer that there are investors out there who are increasingly concerned about what this will do to the balance between those two key partners, labour and management, and what it will do in terms of the overall climate.

Some will say: "Well, to hell with them. If they can't read the signals, if they can't live with the new realities, then let them go elsewhere." Of course, in the day and age of the 1990s, people are doing that in spades, not just in this economy but across the globe. The mobility of capital and technology is absolutely dramatic. I could not have imagined some of what I heard, for example, the other morning when our task force was in the peninsula hearing from people who are in what I would call light manufacturing about job losses from that part of the province to the Mexican corridor, about which I know nothing. I was very struck that there was as much mobility as apparently those people in the business community are reporting.

When I read, as I did the other day, a profile of job losses in the Canadian steel industry, an industry that we were heralding just a few years ago in this place because of its efficiency, because of its competitiveness, I find it absolutely mind-boggling that we could have lost something like 10,000 or 15,000 jobs within a very short period of time. I know people in the labour movement are certainly concerned and not at all happy about that and are working very vigorously to arrest the trend.

Those jobs, apparently, are going, and thousands have gone. What it must be like, for example, to be sitting in on those negotiations at Algoma Steel, I cannot imagine. Again, I am glad I am not there. I say to my friends opposite, as I meet in an area of traditionally very high unemployment, which is my constituency, when we read now that communities like Windsor and the peninsula and parts of resource-rich far northern Ontario are experiencing unemployment rates of 15% and 20%, some of my constituents say: "Well, welcome to our world. That's all we've ever known." But that does not change the reality for people living in either Sault Ste Marie or in Kapuskasing or in Pembroke.

When I have, in the space of one week, representatives two of the largest private sector manufacturers come to me and say: "Listen, we together employ 600 or 700 people in this area, traditionally high in unemployment. If you people don't understand what the cumulative effect of these actions are" -- and to be perfectly fair, they point the finger at me for some of the actions that our government undertook or initiated a couple of years ago.

In both cases, they said: "You know, it wasn't anything singly, but it's the cumulative effect. We understand what you're trying to do, but does the Minister of the Environment not understand what the Minister of Revenue" -- and all members have heard this. I do not want to take members' time, but in both cases these are Canadian-based operations with facilities in the United States. They do not want to leave and they are not even threatening a pullout, but they are saying there is a question of competitiveness and that if governments are not sensitive to the total burden, that may tip the competitive advantage in favour of not just the Americans but the Belgians, the Malaysians, the Mexicans. Then that is going to have, they say, a real and immediate effect on 600 or 700 people I represent who have jobs that are, in relative terms, paying some not unattractive rates of wage.

I also represent a community where we have a very significant federal government payroll and our private sector is, as a result, perhaps not as significant or as dynamic as it might be in Nickel Belt or in Huron or in Oxford. But operating on the assumption that we cannot all work for government, as some of us have sort of since the day we left university, we have to be concerned about the health --

Hon Mr Laughren: It's good to have something to fall back on, isn't it.

Mr Conway: Well, thanks to some of my friends over there, I have some repayments to make, I suppose, in that connection. But we do have to be concerned about the health of our private sector, and I say to my friends opposite that as they contemplate the changes they want to make on the labour-management equation, I hope they will very seriously think about the signals we will send, not just to the domestic community but to the community beyond, just as I say to my friend opposite, the Treasurer, when one realizes how dependent we are for offshore capital just to fuel the government spending, both locally and nationally, one must understand the difficult position in which any Treasurer finds himself or herself as he or she goes to New York or Frankfurt or wherever.

These are important issues. They are not just academic diversions. These are matters of bread and butter. My constituents more and more talk to me about their jobs, about what they need to do to maintain those jobs, about what they want governments to do to assist in the creation of new wealth and new employment.

That then leads me to another question in this regard, and here I might be a little more political than in either of those previous observations, and that is the announcement today from the member for Peterborough, the new Minister of Energy, relating to the Power Corporation Act. Again, I have no great speech to make about the right of the new government to make changes in a critically important relationship between the government of Ontario and the Hydro board. I will even go so far as to say that I was surprised at some of the actions the so-called rump board undertook with respect to the appointment of a president. Irrespective of what the Power Corporation Act says, good practice would suggest that what one would call a close consultation might have been expected between the corner office and the Hydro board with respect to the choice of the number two person at Hydro. I hear that there is no little bit of upset, as I can understand, at both levels, quite frankly.

My point in this, however, is that we voted, as members may have noticed, against the introduction of the amendments, something that I am not very proud of at a parliamentary level, but on policy ground, I want to be as far away from this initiative as my happy little legs will carry me.

1650

I repeat, I do not dispute the right of the government to do this. I say as well that we have been there before. In an aside earlier today, I said to my friend the Treasurer, "I never thought in 16 years that shortly after the election of the first social democratic government in Ontario, on matters of Hydro and patronage we would in some ways be going back to the great days of Howard Ferguson." They have done that, and I am going to talk a little bit about patronage in a moment, because it is just a bit of fun.

What they have done is essentially -- and I know, because I used to give it to Elie, that wonderful book by H. V. Nelles called The Politics of Development. I think perhaps my friend the Treasurer has read it. Reading those wonderful tales of particularly the Hearst government and the Ferguson government and the Whitney government as well, Hydro was a direct emanation of the government, and the nightmares and the misery. I think it was Hearst who just pulled his hair out and said he could take no more as Premier of the blackmail -- his word, not mine -- that the sainted Adam Beck was offering the poor beleaguered government of Ontario. My grandfather, who was here in the days of Howard Ferguson and Mitchell Hepburn, talked about the politicization of Hydro by both Liberal and Tory governments.

Why anybody in 1991 would ever want to get as involved in Ontario Hydro as the new government does is beyond me. As a partisan, I hope they get so deeply buried in this that I will not even see their greying mane, and I suspect after about six months or 16 months that is precisely where they will be.

Hon Mr Laughren: Why?

Mr Conway: My friend opposite says, "Why?" He was elected in 1971. Many of the new members will not remember that shortly upon the resumption of Parliament after the 1971 election, the new era with William Davis, this Legislature was seized of one of the great debates of the 1970s, and it was "poor Bill Davis" and Gerhard Moog and the great scandal around the Hydro building.

Hon Mr Laughren: What has that got to do with this?

Mr Conway: What has it to do with this? Very simply this: The Power Corporation Act, 1974, which act the government wants to substantially change -- its right entirely -- was a direct emanation of the entanglement in which poor Willy Davis found himself with Gerhard Moog and all his works. If the members go back and look at those debates, and I would have thought the late Jim Renwick, who served so splendidly on that committee -- if Jim Renwick were here today, I wonder what he would think now times have changed. I just say to my friends the members opposite: For the government of the New Democratic Party to turn back the clock to about 1969 or 1971, and to simply put to rest the principle of the Power Corporation Act, as it is is doing, in my view, with this --

Mr Bradley: Jim Renwick wouldn't let them pass this.

Mr Conway: Well, he might, because times change, but I simply say at two levels this initiative causes me concern.

Mr Bradley: What happened to Ish? That's what I want to know.

Mr Conway: That is not a fair comment, I say to my friend, just not a fair comment. I will talk about something in relation to that in a moment.

I say that for the new government to go back to the relationship of the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, where Les Frost and Bob Saunders, where Bill Davis and Gerhard Moog, where those people were just altogether too close together for their own comfort, at a time when there was not nearly the focus or the scrutiny, is beyond me. Someone, I think it was the Leader of the Opposition, said earlier today: "Mark this day, 5 June 1991, because this will be a day to remember. It will not be obvious for probably two or three years" --

Hon Mr Laughren: Why is it so dramatic?

Mr Conway: No, I say to my friends opposite, it has nothing to do with the dramatics.

Hon Mr Laughren: We will see.

Mr Conway: My friend is right, we will see, but if one has any experience with this part of the resource sector in Ontario government and politics, one is mindful of some of the identified sand traps. It is not clear to me why the ladies and gentlemen opposite wish to return to this, but as I say, I am --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I certainly want to tell my friend we made some changes in 1987 or 1988, whenever that was, but I do not want to get into a debate about that. The government has the right to do it.

I am concerned on two levels. First, it is absolutely clear from what the minister says that this government wants a far greater say in the direction and the operations of Ontario Hydro. They have the right absolutely to do that. I think it is a dangerous course of action that in many respects has been tried before and has led to more difficulty than benefit, but of course, what goes around must apparently come around as well.

Second, in terms of the business climate, one of the key questions in this province has always been about the availability and the price of energy, and the Treasurer knows that. I must say that if I were a business person and I were looking at this against the backdrop of the budgetary policy, against the backdrop of the labour-management changes that are being contemplated, I would look at this and this is another extremely important ingredient that would give me great cause on two levels: first of all, the very obvious politicization of Hydro; second --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I say to my friends opposite that there certainly always was a measure of politics, no question about that. We are talking here about the nature of the relationship. The government has made a choice. I do not fault them for it, they have a right to do this. I am just making some observations about what has happened in the past, how it was we came to get the Power Corporation Act of 1974.

Those people are different. The times are different. They may be able to avoid all of those joyous things that nearly sent Bill Davis to the canvas in 1973, that caused just about every Premier I can think of of any duration more headaches than I think any Premier has time for. At any rate, if they want to do it, go ahead and do it, but there is the politicization of Ontario Hydro, to a greater degree than I think we have seen in the recent past.

Mr Bradley: More New Democrats on the board now. Patronage persists.

Mr Conway: I am going to come to that in a moment, I say to my friend from St Catharines, but I would like to just say two other things about this.

One is that the policy the government seems to have invested itself with totally is on the demand management side. If I am a resource investor in northern or eastern Ontario and I am looking at this and I go to the Hydro office and say, "What kind of supply can you offer for the new mill," or whatever, unless it has changed -- the recession has been the best conservation strategy one could have hoped for. I am not happy about that, but boy, if you want a good conservation strategy, you hope for the kind of recession we have had in the last year. It has kicked the skids from underneath the demand that roared through the period 1984 to 1989. It has been at one level an unexpected blessing, at least on the energy account.

But I am looking at this, and what do I see the minister saying? She is saying, "We're going to meet the future demand by conservation on the one side, significant conservation."

Interjection.

Mr Conway: That is of course a very good question. My friends from northern Ontario who have been here for a while will remember the day that the skies opened and a deluge fell down upon us all over the question of time-of-use rates. I will never forget it. Real conservation, big league conservation, which at a certain level I support -- I am a single person. I have a very idiosyncratic lifestyle. I eat at off hours, I do all kinds of domestic chores off hours.

1700

Hon Mr Laughren: I've heard about your place.

Mr Conway: I am not advertising at all.

I say to my friends opposite that if they are talking about conservation in a significant way, and they may want to do this, they are talking about rigorous time-of-use rates, like big time. That is shifting particularly the residential demand around in a noticeable way, in a big league way.

For me, I would be very happy, because the members opposite are going to give me a benefit. But for my constituents who are married with children and where both spouses are working, oh boy, I cannot wait for the meeting in Binbrook to discuss that. Oh, I tell members, in Embro they will be interested. Conservation at that level takes on a feel that is substantially different than the rhetoric.

I look to this and say, "What is the energy policy of the government?" It is conservation. Fair ball, no problem. How is the government going to achieve some of these targets? Given some of the growth rates that the Treasurer is talking about -- and I hope he is right; I hope he has even understated it; I pray he does -- if he gets those growth rates with the kind of installed capacity we now have, we are going to see some energy crunches around here that we have not seen, perhaps, ever before. Maybe we have to experience that.

But again I am thinking from the point of view of investment, attracting investment for new job creation or the sustaining of what we have had. My friends opposite will know that, for good or for ill, one of the best cards Ontario has had is reliable and relatively well priced electrical energy.

Mr Klopp: We have got to pay for Darlington.

Mr Conway: Listen, I have been more critical of Darlington than this government could ever be, but now it is charged with the responsibility of office. In downtown Hensall they will expect the lights to be maintained. That foundry in Wingham was told in our time: "I'm sorry, there is not enough juice. You are going to have to tool down for a while." I do not think the word ever got out, and I was really glad it did not.

Mr Hope: They are still out now.

Mr Conway: Well, I know they are out, but I think for other reasons. But there was an industrial plant in the time we were in office, as I recall, that was either put on notice or actually told that its power supply was going to have to be reduced.

My point is that we have never experienced that, by and large, in this province. I live on the Quebec border. It has been a reality in west Quebec for as long as I can remember: power that is interrupted, power that is not as strong as residential consumers would like. That is not a great part of the Ontario experience that I have had in 25 years.

I have no problem with conservation, I say to my friends opposite, but if they are going to do what my honourable friend the member for Peterborough says, on the basis of the growth assumptions made in the budget -- and I hope they are right -- the meanest, toughest character over there is going to have to be the Minister of Energy, because that person is going to have to do some things that are not going to be very popular. They are probably going to be virtuous and may even be right, but I tell members that they are not going to be popular, and time-of-use rates just come to my mind as one little example.

Mr Sutherland: Good leadership.

Mr Conway: Exactly, absolutely, and that is why the member gets paid the extra money. Listen, I am not quarrelling about any of that. But I look at this statement today. I see a marked change in the Hydro-government relationship. I see --

Mr Klopp: Marc Eliesen --

Mr Conway: Marc Eliesen, my friend, we appointed, so we bear some responsibility. By all accounts --

Hon Mr Laughren: I wouldn't say you did it.

Mr Conway: I am not saying we regret it. It was once said of imperial Britain that she had no permanent enemies and no permanent friends, just permanent interests. I think of that when I think of Marc Eliesen. I tell you, a big league technocrat is Marc Eliesen, and I am sure that he will genuflect to the supplications of the honourable member for Huron. I am sure that he will want to be as convivial and as consensual and as consultative as a big league technocrat wants to naturally be.

But I make the point again: In this policy this government is basically telling the business community that we are going to change the way Hydro does business. We are going to look to the 1990s and beyond with the following offering: a moratorium on nuclear power.

That is big news in my county, and I am not very objective on this subject and I have to put my prejudice on the table. The second largest employer is the Chalk River nuclear laboratory. They look to this moratorium and they shudder, because obviously they have a real and vested interest.

Hon Mr Laughren: You know it was the right thing to do.

Mr Conway: I do not agree that it was the right thing to do, but I respect the government's right to do it. I just simply say, what does this policy say? A moratorium on any new nuclear, a big campaign on conservation which has got built into it -- that is a real Trojan horse, my friends, and when the little surprises and the big surprises start to fall out of that, as they will, we will be back here talking about it with a greater degree of particular interest.

Mr Bradley: What will Michael Cassidy say?

Mr Conway: Michael Cassidy is an economist and I think he will bring a real insight to that board.

The best part about the strategy is, where is the new generation coming from? As best as I can understand it, we are going to get that by burning gas to create electricity. The next time I am in Alberta I want to have some conversations out there, because I think the Albertans are going to be really interested in that policy. I would be very surprised if the Alberta government is going to be neutral on that subject.

Just so that I put my cards on the table, that appears to be the way in which the government is going to meet, in the intermediate term, substantial portions of the new growth, by burning natural gas, a hydrocarbon, to create electricity, and co-generation as well.

I hope, by the way, that there is some co-generation. I was delighted to see that the Ministry of the Environment released a report the other day essentially saying that there were more possibilities. I say to my friend opposite that in my county there are things we can do with using the wood waste and sawmill residues to generate electricity, more, quite frankly, as a forest initiative than as an energy initiative, although the latter is a very important part of that policy.

I agree with my friend the member for Oxford; I really do hope we see more co-generation. In my area that is 15 or 20 megawatts; maybe it is 50. We will maybe get a couple of hundred -- maybe we will get a couple of thousand megawatts. I do not ever expect to see another hydraulic plant in my lifetime. If this government has its way, apparently we will never see another nuclear plant.

Forget the new demand. Within the next 10 or 15 years we are going to have to start replacing a lot of the capacity that is now 25, 30 or 35 years of age, so we are going to need thousands of megawatts just to stand still. Apparently, outside of co-generation and big league conservation, we are going to get this by burning western natural gas to create electricity. As I say, if the Albertans are neutral on that Ontario policy, I will be surprised. I hope I am going to be surprised.

I am just simply saying, then, what does it say to me as an investor? I am looking at this energy policy and I am going to say that it is right up there with the budgetary policy. I hope my friend opposite is right, I would say, but if he is wrong -- One is reminded of the Mitterrand government in the first couple of years, coming in in France after the Valery Giscard d'Estaing right-wing conservatives, and I must tell you, Mitterrand was a big league doctrinaire socialist for the first 18 or 24 months. He did not mix any water with his wine, and he was prepared to run the deficit; he was prepared to do a whole series of things. At the midpoint of his first term, one could hear the tails of his frock-coat snap as he made a 180-degree turn.

Now, of course, we have Mitterrand the pragmatist, and I understand the nature of the pragmatism. He has to run a government. He has to meet the community expectation. Mitterrand's deficits in 1989-90 bear not very much resemblance to what he was offering in 1983-84, in part because the assumptions of those initial budgetary outlays were shown to be completely unrealistic.

1710

So I am an investor wanting to invest in Shining Tree or in Chapleau or in Espanola or in Renfrew or in Eganville. I look to this budgetary policy, I look to the labour-management policy, I look to the energy policy, and what do I see? I see a great deal of uncertainty, a great change in some of the balance and, quite frankly, more hope than even the people of Chatham-Kent were forced to confront in the last election.

I say to my friend the Treasurer that he cannot build or maintain a dynamic, modern, industrial economy on prayers and hope alone. I think he must be more realistic. He must understand what it is that creates wealth. He must understand, as I know my friend the Treasurer does, that it is not just the United States, but it is all of the emerging and all of the traditional players who are competing for much of the same business.

All of us expect that the social programs that make this province so distinctive, relative to a lot of those other people, can and ought to be maintained, but they are only going to be maintained if we continue, by whatever means, to create new levels of wealth that will replace some of the old wealth that is presumably going to fade away. But none of us can be misled to believe that by dint of legislative action we ourselves are going to create this wealth. We can certainly create conditions that will destabilize and destroy a wealth-creating environment.

Hon Mr Laughren: Or reinforce it.

Mr Conway: Absolutely.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, that is what we are doing.

Mr Conway: That is not the appearance and it is not the feel of some of what he is doing. I do not intend to impute motives, and I do not expect it to be done --

Hon Mr Laughren: I will withdraw.

Mr Conway: He does not have to withdraw.

They are smart people. They have to understand. It was good to see the Minister of Labour get up today and acknowledge that what the members from Mississauga --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I am not into that kind of politics.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): Order, please.

Mr Conway: I say to my friend the Treasurer, as the members for Wilson Heights and St Catharines were quizzing him today about the gas guzzler tax, that he is a smaller and a bigger man than John White. Remember John White's famous budget, to put another sweater on? Poor old John, largely because the government caucus said, "John, this isn't going down very well in Lambton and a few other places," John White withdrew a budgetary initiative. Who can forget the retreat of Allan J. MacEachen in the face of --

Hon Mr Laughren: Darcy McKeough.

Mr Conway: And Darcy McKeough. That was a minority government, and having played a role in that little policy, not to brag, but --

Hon Mr Laughren: But what?

Mr Conway: Just to digress, I say to my friend the Treasurer, I remember the day in March 1978 walking into the leader's office with this strategy as the way to avoid getting near to an election. That was the basis on which I made the offer and two months later we were sitting on the precipice of an election. Fortunately, Bill Davis and not Darcy McKeough decided which way we would turn, as Peter Raymond's wonderful film The Art of the Possible made plain, which dealt with that famous budget crisis. My point is simply that other treasurers, MacEachen and --

Mr Bradley: Walter Gordon.

Mr Conway: I am thinking of people who were in majority governments. Allan MacEachen and John White were both treasurers in majority governments and they changed budgetary initiatives, in both cases I think in large measure because the government caucus just said it could take the heat no longer.

Hon Mr Laughren: That was in 1977.

Mr Conway: In 1978.

Mr Sutherland: There was no election in 1978.

Mr Conway: That is right, but we still had a minority Parliament in 1978.

The Acting Speaker: Members are reminded to address your remarks through the Chair and not across the House, please.

Mr Conway: The budget crisis came in the spring of 1978 after Michael Cassidy was elected leader and we had this OHIP problem.

I want to say about the Hydro policy, the energy policy, that it is certainly going to add to the concern. I think it is going to destabilize the investment environment unnecessarily. My friends opposite will not necessarily agree, but I am hearing from people who are not wild-eyed right-wingers that they are increasingly concerned about the new government's idea of wealth creation.

I know my friends opposite have heard, as I said to some of them last week, that just reading the Oxford county press reminded me that I was right in that observation.

Mr Bradley: But what about Ish?

Mr Conway: I guess I have to say something about this. Here again, I think that the new government's first appointment in my county, the NDP's candidate, is no great surprise. I do not fault them for that. And I was glad to see Michael Cassidy get an appointment, because I was pained on that day in November of last year when there they were -- there was the pantheon of social democracy, at least in Ontario over the last 40 or 50 years, complete with Ted Jolliffe, who I was delighted to see here. I saw Donald MacDonald, I saw the Lewis entourage and I saw Ted Jolliffe. I looked all about me and I saw the labour major-domos. I kept looking. I thought, "Is somebody missing?"

Mr Bradley: It wasn't Ian Deans.

Mr Conway: Actually, Ian was not here.

But I want to say to my friend the Treasurer and to the member for St Catharines, as I looked at all the crowd before me I could not see the former member from Ottawa, but then I looked into the bleachers, and way up in the bleachers in a far corner, gowned in tweed and leather patch, was the former member for Ottawa and the Islands.

I thought: How cruel is this blood sport of politics? How brutal can it be? How incredibly insensitive and cruel can it be? I asked my friend Ross Hall the other day, "Why do you think they would remember?" But to see Michael Morris Cassidy, MBA, up in that corner looking down from the bleachers, I just was pained, because how quickly they forget. Of course, to see Michael Cassidy on the Hydro board makes me feel good because he was a party leader who went through tough times.

He is not the only New Democrat I am pleased for. I see Richard Johnston is the new chair of the Council of Regents, and by my reckoning, he is probably earning about $110,000 at that job. When you add $25,000 worth of legislative pension, he is at least $130,000. Richard Johnston, wonderful fellow, a real ornament to this Legislature over the years. If I am right, and I think I am, I thought of two things: At $130,000-plus, he is a long way from the welfare diet that made him famous here 10 years ago.

Then I thought, is it not interesting, because Richard Johnston was the guy in 1981-82 who took on the member for York South in the famous leadership race. Actually, Richard Johnston said some interesting and rather critical things about the member for York South. I remember those comments, because he said, basically: "We need a true socialist as leader of this party. We don't need some kind of milquetoast Liberal. We need a true socialist, and I am that person." He and Jim Renwick went from the union halls of Riverdale to the snowbanks of Huron county, and he lost.

But the great paradox of the blood sport of politics is that in losing he won, because 10 years later he is earning about $35,000 more than the Premier himself.

1720

Hon Mr Laughren: Is it all money to you, Sean?

Mr Conway: Not at all. I am just talking about the supply of money to feed the appetite of the new government. I see Odoardo Di Santo, a good friend of mine, brought to the high office in which he is now found.

Unlike some of the caterwauling oppositionists, I do not blame the new government for doing what I have always expected New Democrats would do when they got the keys of office. They are so quickly and completely in the trough that you can just see the faint outline of the tail. I will observe, but I will not complain because I say to my friends in the community, what did you expect?

Hon Mr Laughren: What did you do when you were in power? What did the Liberals do?

Mr Conway: My friend opposite says he expected something else. I did not.

I will judge my conduct as part of that government with the first eight or nine months of the new government any day, any place. Boy, did we make some mistakes --

Hon Mr Laughren: On appointments?

Mr Conway: On appointments. I only say this to some of the new people, and it is not fair to expect them to understand some of what went on before they got here. My own experience in this was rather different from perhaps that of other people because there are things I miss about not being in government, to be sure, but I have to say there are some things I do not miss.

On the very top of the list of the things I do not miss was what I thought to be an endless list of supplicants whom I will not embarrass by mentioning by name. But as of 7 September, I was a free man again and I am glad my constituents can see what they see and read what they read.

Hon Mr Wildman: How profound.

Mr Conway: Well, on the question of government appointments, they look and they see some fascinating things and I tell them: "Settle down. You're the people who thought this gang -- these are the new masters of Tammany Hall." The poor old Liberals and Tories are the kinds of people who sort of apply for the government grants. You have to understand the New Democrats. They not only apply for them, but these are the people who write the proposals.

The deafness, the delicacy, the completeness of the NDP patronage system is breathtaking. I feel like Lyndon Johnson dealing with the Vietcong. Where are they? They are everywhere. God, do they not understand the Marquess of Queensberry? These people will not come into an open field. They are everywhere in these hills. They are in the bush, they are in the swamp, they are sub-marine, they are subterranean, you name it. There is no end. They are shameless and that is part of their charm. They are utterly without shame or without contrition.

Mr Bradley: I thought they were going to be different.

Mr Conway: The member for St Catharines, of all people, how could you be so naïve?

I do not fault the government opposite, although I say to my friends opposite that there are some indications of worrisome developments. I was really struck. A friend of mine said to me a couple of weeks ago, "You should have been there. You ought to have been there, at Glendon College about six weeks ago." Apparently the Ontario taxpayer paid for it either through the Cabinet Office or the Management Board office for a session.

I would love to have been there. I understand the now Minister of Health and the now Chairman of Management Board was there. This was a workshop sponsored by the Cabinet Office and the Management Board of the province, at Glendon College on 18 to 20 April, and organized by the political science department at York University. That wonderful Leo Panitch, a colleague of Neil Brooks, these people will not even know who these guys are. It will not be the back bench that does the government in. It will be the Neil Brooks's and the Leo Panitchs at a certain level.

Am I happy about this? I am ecstatic about this, because apparently at a cost of several thousands of dollars a bunch of the loony left, the Bennites, the Militant Tendency from London, were brought over to Glendon College to explain to these poor folks from the Cabinet Office and from the Management Board how to democratize the process of policymaking in the modern environment. What was wrong with that?

Mr Bradley: That would be a good order paper question.

Mr Conway: I am going to put an Orders and Notices question. I want to see just --

Hon Mr Laughren: So you don't like Leo.

Mr Conway: It has nothing to do with Leo.

Hon Mr Laughren: So you are not a Leoite.

Mr Conway: I am not a Leoite, but I have some sympathy for Neil Kinnock, and Kinnock stands now on the brink of 10 Downing Street. If he is there, it is because after about seven or eight painful years he has rid himself of the Barnacle Bennites. The poor taxpayers of Downsview, Denbigh and Cornwall are now paying thousands of dollars to bring the loony left from London, England, to acquaint these public servants --

Hon Mr Laughren: How did you get on this.

Mr Conway: They are bureaucrats. This is supply. We are voting supply and we spent thousands of dollars, apparently, to bring the Bennite fringe, the Militant Tendency, for two days to socialize and acclimatize the good men and women in Cabinet Office, many of whom I know, and I can just --

Mr Hope: Ah ha.

Mr Conway: Because we inherited those people and they served us very well. Some people came. For example, Tom Coleman was there when I was there. Tom Coleman was Stephen Lewis's press secretary. The first cabinet meeting I went to, Tom Coleman was there, and he served the government of which I was a part in an absolutely exemplary fashion. I have nothing but the highest regard for those people. I think Tom was hired by Alan Pope as press secretary of Natural Resources after Stephen left. My point is that I know those people, or many of them. All I can imagine is them sitting there with Leo Panitch and the Bennite fringe and being inculcated in the new ways of public policy. What do members think they think of that in downtown Bismarck or Shining Tree? I think they would be very surprised. I think they would see that as an overtly partisan act that properly belongs at the caucus office or at the annual meeting, closed as it is to the general public.

Hon Mr Laughren: At Shining Tree they had a tailgate party.

Mr Conway: Did they? All right. I am going to put an order paper question. I almost wanted to call Gerry McAuliffe. I thought, God, when Gerry is finished with Bernard Ostry, he has to meet Tony Benn's ambassadorial friends. This will certainly blow the caffeine out of every middle-class cup all across Ontario. But apparently we spent a lot of money, and do members know what? Apparently this is not unusual, and the partisan in me says: "Oh, God. Don't even say anything. Just quietly, hopefully, prayerfully encourage them to do this and much more of this."

Hon Mr Laughren: You didn't hold conferences by the radical middle.

1730

Mr Conway: He is talking to people who were quite vigorously bounced from office. We know the feeling. As I say, the partisan in me says, "Why would I even raise a scintilla of interest in this?" I just hope old Leo and the militant tendency are in there working overtime, because that will give us an opportunity at a certain level we do not even deserve.

But I say to my friends opposite that these are the kinds of things I think really give pause to those of us who are asked to vote supply. Today, for example, we had an interesting exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Education around a decision taken by the Ministry of Education.

Mr Bradley: Another tradition taken away.

Mr Conway: Again, my friend the member for St Catharines goes on about tradition. He is more of a traditionalist than I am.

What caught my eye about the Ontario scholarship program announcement was the bottom part of the press release. The minister on behalf of the government basically says: "Times are tough. People expect restraint. We have decided to make the tough choices and we are cutting out this $2-million expenditure." I thought to myself: "Now isn't that interesting? This from a government that has just put $484 million more into this year's account of the $5-billion medical payout."

Hon Mr Laughren: Less than you were going to put in.

Mr Conway: What might have been, my friend. It is as Pierre Trudeau once said to Ed Broadbent, who endlessly engaged in these hypotheticals. I think Trudeau's line was, "My friend from Oshawa, if my grandmother had had wheels, I suppose she could have been a bus."

But what does that matter? If the minister wants to sit here and hypothesize endlessly, it is his right. Again, Stephen Lewis comes back to me in these moments, because this wonderful chamber resonates with his eloquence. The word that was, is and will be for all time seared across the recesses of my brain, the ultimate Lewisism, is "chutzpah."

I say to my friend: Can he imagine Stephen Lewis having to stand here and comment on or defend a socialist government doling out $500 million more to the best-paid professional union in the country and standing up days later and saying, "Restraint is the order of the day and we must take $2 million from the high school students" -- the high-achieving Ontario scholars none the less?

What kind of comment is that? Stephen Lewis would choke on the kind of perversion that these priorities speak to. It is unbelievable. There is an argument to change the Ontario scholarship program. God knows that as minister I heard about it every year, and for good or for ill, I resisted it. However, to offer this initiative as a restraint measure when the government has done what it has done to satisfy the appetite of the common front -- August or September 1990 -- is positively breathtaking.

As I vote supply, I observe some things. There are losers in this economy at the present time: the people at Uniroyal who unfortunately, for whatever reason, are going to be out of work; the hundreds of people in the forest industry in my county who are out of work; the scores of people in the farm community who are seeing their incomes deteriorate as we speak; the thousands at Algoma Steel and Stelco whose jobs are disappearing. And thousands more are clearly suffering the pain, the real and deep and in too many cases permanent pain, of this recession. But there are winners.

Mr Hope: Have you felt it before? How can you talk about it if you haven't felt it?

Mr Conway: I say to my friend the member for Chatham-Kent, I have been very fortunate. I have had a job that has paid me a very attractive rate of income since the day I left Queen's University 16 years ago. Once every three or four years, I have had a job interview and I have been fortunate enough, for whatever good or bad reason, to have survived those six job interviews -- five, actually, because the first election was not a renewal of contract. I have been very fortunate. Some NDP colleagues of some experience might privately observe, "Too fortunate." Thanks to the legacy of Elie Martel and Jim Breithaupt and others, I may never really suffer the pain that ought to be mine.

But I say to my friends opposite, there are winners in this economy. Oh, absolutely. The Ontario high school students are losers today, because the government has decided to draw a line in the sand, and the line of restraint is drawn as a graduation gift, in June 1991, to the graduating class of 1991. So restraint is going to be shouldered by the kids who are in high school. But the common front, oh, the common front. The doctors, the public servants, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation poll captains, to their credit, have apparently cashed in, in a significant and substantial way, the credits owed from the great campaign.

Mr White: How?

Mr Conway: To those people who ask how, I simply say we do not have $2 million for the Ontario scholars, but we have $500 million more for the doctors. We have got --

Hon Mr Wildman: I thought it was the OSSTF you were talking about. Now you are talking about doctors.

Mr Conway: Well, I say --

Interjections.

Mr Conway: Anybody who has -- ah, there he is: the dyspeptic son of Mars, the member for wherever.

I say to my friends opposite that there are clear winners. Before the week is over, I think my friends opposite, whether they are going home to Maidstone township or Dover township or Downsview or Shining Tree, will have a better understanding of what some of this might mean, that arguing the case of restraint on the backs of high school graduates is not a winning formula. It would be interesting to note, for example, how much the Bennites cost in relative terms. I have gone on too long. I simply want to say that --

Mr Bradley: There's that Minister of Education now.

Mr Conway: I said earlier that I was very pleased with the Minister of Education's announcements in our area last week, and I give her credit for a number of the initiatives that she has undertaken. I am the last person, I suppose, to say that, because I have, in this sense, a complete and total conflict of interest. So my comments really do not count for very much. I have tried to discipline my

not-always-disciplined tongue on those matters.

I simply say that there are a growing number of concerns about what the government is up to in terms of the investment climate, creating new wealth. I think most people certainly appreciate that social democrats are going to be better than most of the rest of us when it comes to addressing a number of the social concerns, whether it is in the area of -- well, I will not enumerate the several that I could, but there has always been the question of how well socialists would deal with the economy.

I cited the Mitterrand example because there we have seen, over nine years, a very marked change in course. One remembers the experiences of the Blakeney government as it drew to a close. As I said on an earlier occasion this session, I heard on CBC Sunday Morning a few weeks ago Premier-elect Harcourt and Premier-elect Romanow, and I would take them home to the chamber of commerce before I would take some of my own colleagues home. They were suffused not only with Rotarian bonhomie, but with an incredible measure of good old right-wing common sense, get the trains running on time type of thing.

What people like Tommy Douglas and a couple of those radicals in the Barrett government must be thinking.

1740

Hon Mr Wildman: Tommy balanced the budget.

Mr Conway: Oh, listen, to hear Romanow was to really be reminded that there are some protest movements that are more becalmed than others. I say again, we expect the government is going to be tossed about on the stormy sea of circumstance. Who could be more impressed by members opposite than the members over here about the contortions around the new Retail Business Holidays Act. To hear the member for Windsor-Riverside, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, defend the policy today is really something. I thought he was absolutely mind numbing, because as Jim Coyle in today's Ottawa Citizen rightly observed, the exemptions in this act are large enough to run a $10-billion deficit through them.

Listen, I do not fault them for it, because they are not stupid people. They understand the realities my friend the Minister of Natural Resources understands, what Sault Ste Marie has to have. They should just sit there and think about these exemptions. You could qualify under so many criteria as to make it ridiculous.

I am waiting -- and I think the member for Nipissing was much closer to the mark than I can hope to be on this subject -- for a few months, maybe even a year or two, when the public hearings start and when there is a request for intervenor funding, and then when there is a request for judicial review. All the while, poor old Windsor, or poor old Chatham, or poor old Pembroke, or poor old Cornwall haemorrhages with a growing loss of retail, and I am not happy about that and I think there are some things we can and should be doing about this cross-border shopping.

But to hear the members opposite trying to defend this policy as something consistent with what they offered on the common pause day plank in the Agenda for People, do members know what that is like? That is like asking me to believe that the Premier's office did not know within seconds that the Deputy Attorney General had been advised by someone in the justice stream that some kind of contact had been made by the Solicitor General's office.

I was not there, but I have been watching the last month and there have been two developments, one here and one in Ottawa. I like the member for Cambridge. I think he is a good fellow. He has worked hard and I have some real sympathy for him in this unfortunate situation. But I have been quietly listening to the defence here, and then I go home at night and listen to the Al-Mashat case, and all I can say from five and a half years in government is that both defences, particularly the defences offered here and in Ottawa around what people in the Prime Minister's Office and the Cabinet Office knew and did not know, both of those rationales are, on the basis of my experience, so outrageously incredible as to be, quite frankly, an insult to my intelligence, although I think in Ottawa there has to be some kind of a security proviso that cannot be talked about, but that is not the way the system works.

I know the people, that staff, this Premier and this cabinet. They are good people. Some of them have long been friends of mine. They are very good people. They are bright, they are quick, they are well-connected.

Mr Hope: Are you looking for a public appointment?

Mr Conway: Absolutely not. No, because I understand the sensitivities, that people would say: "Well, those oppositionists are a priori negative. They are just incapable of being balanced or being anything but difficult."

Hon Mr Wildman: I would never suggest that you are unbalanced.

Mr Conway: I say to my friend the member for Algoma that I have got a file about his days in another life and I have the lacerations to prove, some of them pretty bloody close to the belt line, I might add, about one in particular that he knows about in the last year, really close to the belt line. I am not even saying it is above the belt, but I have done the same, so I cannot accuse him of anything that I am not guilty of myself.

For me to be told that -- I think it is Mary Hogan -- the Deputy Attorney General knew for 10 days and that the Premier and/or Peter Barnes did not know. Absolutely implausible, incredible and, if I really think about it, an insult to my intelligence and the intelligence of this informed legislative community.

There is one rationale that I can think of but I would not accept, that there is -- and this is essentially the one being offered in Ottawa. I am being asked to believe in Ottawa that somehow David Daubney, who I also know and greatly admire -- he is a very good former member of Parliament and parliamentary assistant and a good lawyer, Joe Clark's chief of staff, and Arthur Kruger, the Deputy Minister of Immigration, one of the most polished and experienced public servants in the land. I am being asked to believe that these people are that stupid. I just will not believe it.

Ross McClellan may be a lot of things, and David Agnew may be a lot of things, but dumb and unconnected they are certainly not. So I do not know what kind of a defence the government wants to mount, but the one being offered here is right up there with the one being offered around the Al-Mashat case, has been incredible to the point of insulting my intelligence if no one else's. I make my observations on the experience that I had and I do not think it has changed a great deal in the intervening five, six or eight months.

We will see in the coming days how new initiatives unfold around the economic agenda, where I started my comments on supply. I say again that the government has undertaken some initiatives I think are quite praiseworthy and I feel they should be commended, whether it is in the area of controlling the out-of-province OHIP costs -- it is not going to be as easy as the first press release indicated. Some of what they are doing in the area of, say, co-generation on the energy front is also very encouraging and I think has application in communities like my own and I would encourage them in that regard.

We have seen a number of initiatives that are really starting to tip the balance that is going to be absolutely critical if we are going to have wealth creation: the budgetary policy, particularly the four-year deficit of $35 billion; the labour-management relationship, which appears to be losing quickly and substantially its balance; the energy policy, which appears to be losing its security and its balance.

We are going to see soon a program having to do with auto insurance, and I have to believe that too is going to be a signal for the business community, those people who invest in the province to create the wealth on which we depend, as legislators, for many and all of the programs we want to continue to offer.

In conclusion, I say to my friend the Treasurer that he has I believe the experience, the discipline and the toughness to, as best as can be hoped for in a world of social democrats, sometimes illuminated by the Militant Tendency, to hold these potentially destructive forces at bay -- destructive in this critical sense, that if this package I have pointed to is of anything like the character I have imagined, it will very quickly destroy so much of the good work he wants to do by completely ruining the revenue side of his budgetary plan for the next four years, and will continue to create the impression that this is not a place in which to invest and it will in ways that, in some cases and perhaps in many that are unintended, accelerate the growing pattern of deindustrialization in this province. My friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has commented that in the last year alone we have lost something like 15% of our manufacturing base. We must be sensitive to that. We must not, as government or as party politicians, undertake, purposefully or inadvertently, measures that are going to drive investment and therefore jobs and employment prospects for the young, middle-aged and older people in this province out of Ontario and elsewhere. If that is the legacy of this kind of social democratic budgetary and related policy, then I suspect it will be a long time before my friends opposite are given the opportunity to return to the Treasury bench. I hope that is not so.

I say again that in the last 10 days I have been approached by thoughtful people in my community who are significant employers who are increasingly concerned about what they see happening, who are not unwilling to criticize the Peterson government for certain initiatives that they feel began the process, but see the new government as heading down the path of very serious concern that they say will cost real jobs today and many more jobs, employment opportunities and tax revenues in this decade and beyond.

1750

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Any questions or comments on the presentation of the member for Renfrew North? Seeing none, further participation in the debate, the member for Oakville South.

Mr Carr: I was hoping somebody would comment so I would not have to follow the previous member. It is going to be a bit of a letdown, I suspect, with guerrilla warfare and men from Mars and so on. The only good thing about its being close to 6 o'clock is that I think my kids are at home, so they will probably be able to watch the debate.

Hon Mr Laughren: They will be watching cartoons.

Mr Carr: Just before Polka Dot Door actually. Polka Dot Door they would turn on anyway, so my kids might get a chance to participate in watching me.

I think it is rather important to talk a little bit about the kids, now that I am on that topic, because I think unfortunately what we have, as we sit and now have our first budget of this government, is a deficit that probably will be going on for the children who are out there who may be watching. I am a little concerned because I decided to run and quite frankly get to spend time away from the kids, because I was upset, I was angry, I was in fact -- the man from Mars, there he is -- a little bit discouraged with what was happening under the past government. The people in my riding obviously felt that way; that is why I was elected.

But as we sit here today, what we got with this deficit is something we never imagined would have happened in this province just a few short years ago. A $10-billion deficit is what we are looking at here in this province -- close to $10 billion. What is a few hundred million among friends? We are almost at $10 billion. When you look at it, you see that it took us 132 years to get to $38 billion, and in four short years under the first socialist government in the history of this province, we will double it.

Some people from the outside look at it and say, "It is $38 billion, $72 billion, $69 billion; whatever it is, it is all very confusing." Most of us who do not think in terms of billions too often, sometimes lose the fact of exactly what that means. But when you put it in simple terms, just to pay the interest alone is going to cost this province, by some economists' predictions, almost $1 million an hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days of the year -- not to pay for education, not to pay for health care, not to pay for all the other wonderful programs; just to pay the interest alone on the deficit. I think that is something people can recognize and understand.

The previous speaker spoke, I guess, almost an hour. It was certainly very amusing, but I think it was about an hour. In the course of his debate, we spent $1 million, or will, by the end of the projected deficit; $1 million an hour just to pay the interest alone, not for any programs. The sad part about that is that a lot of that interest is going out of this country. That is a very simple fact that all of us can understand. As we sat here and listened to the previous speaker, in approximately an hour's time we spent almost $1 million just to pay the interest alone. I think most people can understand that. In fact, at 6 o'clock, when my kids turn to Polka Dot Door and the next program, which is on at 6:30, in an hour's period of time we will spend in this province almost $1 million servicing the debt.

When people look at it and say, "What does $72 billion mean?" -- a lot of people think it is "million." It is not; it is "billion" with a "b" -- it means we have to pay the interest on that and somewhere along the line we are going to have to pay that to the people we owe the money to. As I said earlier, the worst part is that a lot of that debt is owed to foreigners.

The previous government owed about $3,700 for every man, woman and child in this province. There is some debate on what it will be, but the total debt, when people put it in perspective and also put it in pretty simple terms, will probably be easily about $7,000 for every man, woman and child in this province. That is what the debt will be. When you sit here and look at the members opposite and say, "You owe $7,000, and you owe $7,000, and you owe $7,000, and you owe $7,000," and we go on and on -- unfortunately there are so many of them over there I could go on and on -- but $7,000. I look at my own family: three kids, a wife. There are five of us and we will owe approximately $7,000 each. Quick mathematics looks at it and says in this province we are in sad shape.

I had the pleasure of speaking to a group of high school kids, and we talked about all the issues -- health care, the environment. I guess they were a grade 10 class, and I spoke with them. A couple of them, who I guess maybe because of the speaker I was were not too enthusiastic but when I got to the point when I said how much the debt was and how much they are going to owe, came up afterwards and said: "What are you people doing to us? What are you doing to our next generation? Not only are you ruining the environment, how are we going to pay for this? How are we going to pay for this debt that you people are running up?"

When people put it in simple terms, not $72 billion in percentage of gross domestic product and some of the things that economists talk about, but in simple terms, for every man, woman and child we will owe at the end of the mandate approximately $7,000. That is a very sad commentary on this government, because there will never be any opportunity for tax relief. We have tax revolts going on in this province right now, but there will never be any opportunity for tax relief with a deficit like that, because in fact what you have to do if you want to ever, in any period of time, reduce taxes, is to get government spending under control.

As I related, I think it was the last time I spoke, 80% of the people in this province -- and that includes NDP members, Liberals and

Conservatives -- believe we should control spending. Instead of doing that, what

did we do? Inflation is at about 5.4%, and we have a spending program that is going to be about 13.4%. It is inflation plus, and then we wonder why people are a little bit cynical and sceptical about the political process.

My friends opposite talk a little bit about what happened federally, and I guess I related last time in here that Jeffrey Simpson was the one who said in his article that during that period of the runup from 1980 to 1984, the deficit doubled under our friend Mr Trudeau. The fact is that when you get on that deficit cycle, you can never get off, because you know what happens -- you have to pay the interest on the debt alone. That works out to almost $1 million an hour. You cannot get off that cycle. Then years later you have to have cuts in programs, because literally the country and the province are bankrupt.

We did not learn from history what happened federally in the early 1980s, when they tried to spend their way out of it. We did not learn from that, and as one of the people said, I guess going way back, if you do not listen and learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it, and that is what we are doing here.

I guess it is 6 o'clock. Polka Dot Door is calling for my kids, so I will move adjournment of the debate and will pick up at a later date.

Hon Miss Martel: If I might raise a point of order and ask the members to deliberate: Last week there was a pretty specific commitment made at the House leaders' panel to deal with orders of business every day this week without a problem. Today everything that appears on the order paper was in fact what we were to deal with. We have not gotten half as far as we were supposed to, but what I would ask at this point is whether we can have some consent at least to have the member finish, and finish third reading of the particular supply bill.

I have some agreement from the member who was to speak next for the Conservative Party that she would prefer to be able to do her speech with respect to the Ontario Loan Act, which we have scheduled in case tomorrow. So I would ask if I can get some consent at this point to at least finish third reading of the supply bill and get done with that particular piece of business.

The Acting Speaker: The government House leader has requested unanimous consent that the member for Oakville South terminate his participation in the debate and that he be allowed to continue and complete his participation in the debate, at which time we could then call for questions or comments and then we could terminate the debate on supply. Is the House in agreement?

Agreed to.

Mr Carr: I will be very brief. I hope the kids have not already turned the station to Polka Dot Door. They can flip back very briefly.

I just wanted to wrap up very quickly and I wish I had a little bit more time, because there were a few points that I did want to make. But I will just conclude my remarks by saying that when you get on the cycle of deficit spending you can never get off. I hope that as we sit and reflect over the next little while that we think of some of the people who are coming up during the next generation who are going to have to live with the tremendous deficits that are out there. I was very pleased to get a chance to participate in the debate.

Hon Mr Wildman: I just want to say that I am disappointed that the Conservative member did not proceed when he had the opportunity just because he apparently feels that his children were not watching. Perhaps someone else might have been.

The Acting Speaker: I do not think that was participation. I believe that was a matter of opinion.

Hon Mr Laughren: May I express my appreciation to the members opposite for allowing us to conclude the debate on the supply bill and to assure members that there will be an opportunity, I believe tomorrow under the Ontario Loan Act, to engage in a similar kind of debate for those members who wish to -- even though I find it hard to believe that they would wish to have something to say about the budget and the budgetary process of this government. Having said that, I do appreciate the comments of the member and I enjoyed very much the dissertation of my friend the member for Renfrew North.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptee.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

La motion de troisième lecture est egalement adoptee.

The House adjourned at 1805.