Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION

Mr Mancini: Last week the Minister of Transportation announced that he had received an award for innovations in bicycling policy. We have to question what the minister could possibly have done to merit such an award. It could not have been for his decision to give an engineering firm $150,000 to ask the public what it thought about bicycling. Yet there have been no other bicycling-related announcements from the minister.

Looking beyond cycling, the award could not have been given to the minister for his decision to leak the cabinet decision to cancel the Red Hill Creek Expressway. I do not think the people of Hamilton would think an award was in order for that policy.

As well, it could not have been for the minister's decision to break the NDP election promise to extend GO Transit rail service to Peterborough and to Brantford.

It could not have been for his losing his copy of the Solicitor General's letter on parking tickets. Surely those actions do not merit an award.

I am sure that Ontario truckers facing a 31% increase in diesel fuel taxes from this year's budget do not feel the minister deserves an award. Fare hikes, layoffs and service cutbacks by the TTC do not justify any kind of award either.

We cannot find any reason why anyone concerned about transportation policy would give the minister any kind of award. In fact, the only member of cabinet who might be eligible for an award on bicycling policy is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who actually bicycles to work. Unfortunately, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has her driver follow her in her ministerial limousine as she cycles in order to transport her briefing books.

MAXVILLE CELEBRATIONS

Mr Villeneuve: Good news from eastern Ontario. On 28 June the village of Maxville, my home community, will celebrate its centennial with a homecoming weekend. This is the highlight of our centennial year, which has special events throughout 1991.

Maxville, in historic Glengarry county, traces its roots back to Scottish settlers and Loyalist times. The Scots began arriving in the area in the 1790s, but as late as 1851 the census then showed no record of Maxville. With the coming of the railway in the 1880s, the settlement grew.

Today's phone book lists MacDonalds, MacDonells, McEwans, MacGregors, MacIntoshes, MacKinnons, MacLeans, MacLeods, MacMillans, MacRaes, McNaughtons, etc, which explains why Maxville was originally spelled starting with "Mac."

Today, the village of some 850 people and the surrounding area also has its share of Bourdons, Derouchies, Guindons, Seguins, even Villeneuves and many others.

On Friday 28 June, the celebrations will begin with a wine and cheese party and will continue Saturday with the centennial parade, opening ceremonies and entertainment. On Sunday, after church and an ecumenical lunch at the United Church, entertainment continues at the fairgrounds and ends with a barbecue and fireworks.

Many members will remember that Maxville is also the home of our Glengarry Highland Games, the biggest and best in the country. Everyone is welcome to visit us.

WORKERS MEMORIAL DAY

Ms S. Murdock: Tomorrow marks a tragic anniversary in my riding. On 20 June 1984, a rockburst killed four miners at the Falconbridge mine in Sudbury.

A rockburst occurs when pressure builds up along the fault line of a rock and the rock ultimately bursts to release the pressure. That rockburst incident prompted the Sudbury Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers' Union, Local 598, to organize memorial services to commemorate the workers and their families in the tragic accident and thus Workers' Memorial Day was born.

Over the years, Workers' Memorial Day has grown from a small event in remembrance of the Falconbridge rockburst to a day set aside to pay tribute to all workers who have died in the performance of their duties. Workers' Memorial Day now honours workers from all walks of life, from police officers to lumberjacks. This day also commemorates the untold numbers of workers who have perished due to industrially related diseases, many of which are not being acknowledged as such at this time.

The anniversary of the rockburst at Falconbridge obviously has special significance for me and the people of my riding. But Workers' Memorial Day is an opportunity for all of us to acknowledge the tremendous sacrifices and losses that are realized by working people across this province. At 10:12 am tomorrow, the time of the rockburst at Falconbridge seven years ago, I urge all members to pause and reflect on the lives that were lost, not just at Falconbridge but all over this province.

COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER

Mrs Fawcett: I have in my hand a copy of the Colborne Chronicle. This weekly newspaper keeps the village of Colborne and surrounding area up to date and aware of the latest happenings in the village and throughout the county. One might ask, "How is the Chronicle different from any other newspaper of its kind?"

This terrific paper has just been named winner of first place for the best front page, second place for the best all-round newspaper, second place for the best editorial page and has been awarded the Canadian Community Newspapers Association blue ribbon for excellence in the association's 1991 class 1 better newspapers national competition.

The editor of this national award-winning paper is Eileen Argyris, who has been with the paper for 12 years. For nine of those years, Mrs Argyris did everything involved in getting the paper to the press -- layout, typesetting, photography, editing, page design, reporting, editorials and soliciting advertising.

1340

No matter what is going on in the community, Eileen is there with her trusty camera and notepad. Whether it be the annual figure skating carnival, Summerfest celebrations, special events at the public schools in the area, library news or council meetings in Colborne or Cramahe, all events get comprehensive reporting and picture promotion every week. The insightful editorials are always articulated clearly and are very thought-provoking.

I am sure all members will join in congratulating the editor, Eileen Argyris, for producing this award-winning weekly newspaper. The community and the paper's owner, Northumberland Publishers, are very proud of the blue-ribbon community newspaper, the Colborne Chronicle, and its editor, Eileen Argyris.

YUN YEE CHOW

Mr Eves: Last Thursday, the University of Toronto faculty of medicine named this year's recipient of the Dr Louis R. Harnick Memorial Award. This award is one of the University of Toronto's largest post-graduate medical awards. The Dr Louis R. Harnick Memorial Award was established by friends, relatives and associates of Dr Harnick in appreciation of his outstanding leadership in the field of radiology.

A fund was established to make an award for a fourth-year medical student with a specific interest and aptitude in diagnostic radiology. Candidates for this award are interviewed and expected to demonstrate the qualities that exemplify the standards, priorities and style of Dr Harnick -- leadership, compassion, community service and service to the medical profession with a high regard for the quality of life.

This year's winner is Yun Yee Chow. Yun Yee Chow, while achieving very high marks in medical school, stands out as a very highly motivated individual. Her well-rounded personality combined with her enthusiasm for excellence in the field of radiology make her a truly deserving recipient of the Dr Harnick award.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario and the late Dr Harnick's son, Charles, my colleague the member for Willowdale, I would like to congratulate Yun Yee Chow.

TOWN OF INGERSOLL

Mr Sutherland: I had the great pleasure of participating in the town of Ingersoll's Heritage Day parade last Saturday. While Heritage Day is meant to be a celebration of Ingersoll's past and present, this year's event took on a greater significance.

On Tuesday 4 June, Ingersoll lost some of its heritage as a result of a fire on the main block of the town. In all, five buildings, including some that were built in the 1800s, were lost. Residents living above the five businesses escaped with only the clothes on their backs. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured as a result of the blaze. The fire threatened to burn down the entire main block. However, effective teamwork by the Ingersoll fire department in conjunction with fire departments from surrounding communities prevented the blaze from spreading.

The people and businesses of Ingersoll are resilient and supportive of each other in time of need. Within a few days, several of the burnt-out businesses had reopened in new locations. The Salvation Army co-ordinated a clothing drive and found temporary accommodation for those tenants who lost everything. A benefit concert is also planned to raise money to help those residents affected by this fire.

I would like to congratulate the fire departments, the Salvation Army and all those people in Ingersoll who have provided support to the people and businesses of Ingersoll. As a resident of Ingersoll myself, I know that each time I walk up the main block of the town it will feel like a large piece of heritage is missing, but the large turnout of people who came out to participate in Heritage Day events and watch the Heritage Day parade makes me confident that the town of Ingersoll will recover from its devastating fire and continue to demonstrate pride in its strong heritage.

ANTI-RECESSION PROGRAM

Mr Miclash: Throughout the fall and winter months, the NDP government kept telling northerners who were losing their jobs and giving up hope to wait, wait for it, wait just a little bit longer, until the anti-recession fund money starts to flow and then everything will be peaches and cream in northern Ontario.

It has been said that the only jobs this NDP budget will create will be those in the United States, but let me bring to the attention of this government an example of one of their job creation projects going to Manitoba.

Notwithstanding the NDP's opinion on the awarding of contracts for the Kenora bypass to Manitoba contractors, which arose during the election campaign, this government recently announced $772,000 to the town of Ignace for the construction of a much-needed public library in that town. However, the jobs this money will create or maintain will be in Manitoba because the contract was tendered to a Manitoba firm.

This of course happened because the NDP has no criteria for the anti-recession funds to ensure that they be spent in Ontario to create short-term jobs in Ontario. It is another example of NDP mismanagement of the anti-recession program, one which can only mean fewer jobs in northern Ontario.

I urge the minister to investigate immediately how many other cases like this have taken place, where job creation contracts have gone to create jobs in other provinces, and to put the necessary controls in place to ensure that this cannot happen again.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr Tilson: Later today I will be introducing a bill to provide taxpayers with better access to information about how their tax dollars are spent at both the provincial and municipal levels. This bill reflects my conviction that taxpayers have a right to know the details of salaries and wages paid to provincial and municipal employees. It also reflects my frustration as a member of this assembly with not being able to obtain information through either the order paper or the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act on public sector wages and on severance and termination packages.

I would note that these frustrations are shared by my constituents of Dufferin county who, because of the current law, have been unable to learn the percentage increases in the salary and benefits packages paid to senior county staff over the last three years. I find it offensive that taxpayers cannot have access to details on an expenditure which accounts for between 40% and 50% of the county budget.

I trust that all members committed to making government more open and accountable will support this bill. I hope the government itself will endorse this effort to reduce the level of public cynicism about its institutions by improving our ability to scrutinize its operations.

WELLAND ROSE FESTIVAL

Mr Kormos: Most members of this Legislature know I am from Welland-Thorold, down in the heart of the Niagara Peninsula. One of the great things that happen down there come summertime, and especially the month of June, is the Welland Rose Festival, beginning at the beginning of June, when it should begin, and culminating this coming Sunday, 23 June, with the Welland Rose Festival parade.

That parade attracts people from all over this province as well as friends from south of the border, American friends of ours who visit Welland and enjoy the spectacle, because to call it anything less would be an understatement.

It does not happen without the hard work of a whole lot of people; the honourable members know that. These are people like Jeff Ward, who is the chairman of the rose festival committee this year; people like Jennie DiMarco, the chairperson of the rose parade committee; people like Joan Bosilevac, the chairperson of Day in the Park.

It is also people like Denise Coring, who is the chairperson for the first time this year of the coronation ball. She has done a whole lot of hard work -- a long-time member of the rose festival committee putting in exceptional effort this year. It is people like Sherry Boudreau, the co-op student working in the rose festival office; people like Sandy Rudyk, the office supervisor; Claude Breault, the second vice-president of the rose festival committee; Jim Montgomery, the first vice-president; Michelle Mercier, former Rose Queen, Brock student, and now active in assisting the organization. They are the sort of people who make it a great success.

Sunday 23 June, 1 pm, Welland. Be there.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I would like to ask permission of the House for unanimous consent to make a statement concerning Occupational Health and Safety Week.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

1350

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon Mr Mackenzie: As honourable members will know, this week is Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week. Maintaining sound health and safety practices in the workplace is something we should all strive for on a daily basis. The aim of Occupational Health and Safety Week is to remind us of that important goal.

This is the sixth year that the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering has sponsored the event with support from the Canada Safety Council, Canadian Standards Association and Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. Throughout the week there will be organized campaigns across the country to increase awareness of the vital need for effective health and safety programs.

We are privileged to have in the members' gallery today John Irwin, the chairman of the Ontario steering committee for Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week.

On behalf of the government of Ontario, I would like to commend these organizations for their commitment to the promotion of health and safety in the workplace.

This year's theme is "Excellence: Today's Goal, Tomorrow's Reward." It reflects the Ministry of Labour's goal to provide a solid foundation for the best health and safety conditions possible in the workplaces of Ontario.

At the beginning of this year, the ministry implemented Bill 208, a bill that requires equal participation by labour and management in ensuring better health and safety on the job. There are now 20,000 to 40,000 more businesses across the province that are required to have health and safety committees. The bill also created a bipartite Workplace Health and Safety Agency which will develop training standards for the committees and co-ordinate the activities of the provincial safety associations.

Last week I announced major amendments to the construction projects regulation that will contribute greatly to safer and healthier working conditions at construction sites. Among the changes are amendments designed to reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries caused by falls from heights, trench cave-ins and electrocutions.

As well, another new regulation was enacted last week to provide firefighters with safer protective clothing. The approved clothing will provide superior protection from injuries caused by heat and flame.

These important improvements to health and safety legislation and regulations were made after close consultation with health and safety groups across the province. My ministry intends to continue to work closely with labour, management and safety organizations to demonstrate this government's commitment to improved health and safety in the province.

RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Offer: I am pleased to respond on behalf of our party to the week that has been designated as Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week. This week not only identifies the need for health and safety in the workforce, but the very purpose behind the health and safety legislation in Ontario as outlined in Bill 208.

I am particularly encouraged by this year's campaign theme, which is "Excellence: Today's Goal, Tomorrow's Reward." As honourable members know, excellence is achieved through teamwork; that is, partnership in managing risks in the workplace. This is the fundamental principle that lies at the heart of Ontario's occupational health and safety system.

I would also like to welcome John Irwin as the chairman of the Ontario steering committee for Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week.

I believe it is now appropriate to bring to the attention of the Legislature the objectives for this week. These are: to increase awareness of employees towards current occupational health and safety programs; to increase awareness of employers towards the benefits of occupational health and safety programs; to increase awareness of the general public towards occupational health and safety programs; to increase awareness of employees and employers of the purpose and role of the occupational health and safety professional; to inspire the development of new occupational health and safety programs and activities by organizations which will help reduce occupational injuries and illnesses in the future.

I think the minister would agree with me and all members of this House that when even one worker in Ontario dies or is injured in the workplace as a result of a job-related accident or disease, that is one worker too many. It is and remains incumbent upon all of us as legislators to instil a safe working culture in Ontario which will ensure, and continue to ensure, that every week is occupational health and safety week in the province.

Mrs Witmer: I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise on behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party and join the members from the other two parties in recognizing Occupational Health and Safety Week.

The aim of this week is to make all citizens in this province aware of the vital need for sound health and safety programs in our workplaces. We must all focus our efforts on minimizing the risk of death and injury for workers and providing as safe a workplace as possible. In order to do this effectively, our occupational health and safety laws must be kept up to date and relevant to the changing nature of the workplace.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate those individuals and organizations who sponsored events this year to promote this very special week. I would like to thank them for their commitment to the promotion of health and safety in the workplace.

This is a good time to focus on safety in the workplace since many of our young people will be looking for employment for the first time as they look for summer jobs. Statistics show that there are more young people hurt on the job than older workers.

I would like to conclude by indicating our party's commitment to working with all others in this province to make our workplaces even healthier and safer in the years ahead.

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr Cleary: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I brought an extremely important matter to the attention of the Minister of Natural Resources on 3 June and I have only received an empty acknowledgement from a staff person.

Mohawk Indians of Akwesasne are demanding that all area fishermen buy authorized Mohawk licences to fish in waters between Cornwall and Lancaster. Natives have said that anyone caught without a Mohawk licence faces penalties of fines and impoundment of boats and equipment. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Natural Resources has said that fishermen need only an Ontario resident's sports fishing licence to fish in Ontario waters.

Frustrated fishermen in the area are angry and are threatening to carry guns. I am afraid that any confrontation may have tragic results. Since the Premier is going to be in the riding --

The Speaker: The member for Cornwall, it is not a point of privilege. It is certainly a matter possibly for question period. It is a matter that the member may wish to raise with the minister responsible, but I appreciate your drawing it to my attention.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr Nixon: I have a question of the Treasurer leading from his comments made rather informally yesterday that he had decided to change in some way his gas guzzler extension announcement in the budget.

Can he not announce to the House, in an area that just as desperately needs adjustment, that he is contemplating a change to the imposition of a 31% increase in the diesel fuel tax as it is imposed on the trucking industry? I need not bring to the minister's attention the economic problems truckers are facing. He is well aware of them.

Hon Mr Laughren: I should clarify something that the leader of the official opposition said. What I said yesterday was that we were working very hard to try to fine-tune the gas guzzler tax in a way that satisfied a lot of differing demands of that kind of tax.

On the diesel tax to which the member specifically refers, I have not contemplated making a change in that. I do appreciate the fact that there are problems in the trucking industry in this province. I would remind him, however, that those problems were there long before any increase in the diesel tax.

Mr Nixon: I think the honourable Treasurer is correct when he says the problems have been growing for many years. But he would also be aware that his announcement in the budget of a large increase -- two 1.7-cents-per-litre increases, apparently following the visit of the lobbying association connected with the trucking industry -- was considered a decision by the minister that was difficult to understand.

He would be aware from the information that comes from the industry of the numbers of people involved. They estimate 230,000 involved with $5 billion in economic activity. The fact that every day bring lists of bankruptcies, the most recent being Glengarry Transport with 800 drivers, and the Ontario operations of the Canadian Transport Group the most recent one with 153 drivers, shows that this is a matter leading directly to unemployment. It is a matter over which the minister has direct control and on which he might very well adjust his tax decision.

Can he not see fit in his mind to give them the same treatment that was given the gas guzzler tax sufferers and give further consideration in this regard?

Hon Mr Laughren: I would remind the honourable member that even before the truckers came to see me and to see the Minister of Transportation, the minister, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, took a major step towards helping to resolve the problem in the trucking industry by declaring a moratorium on the issuance of new licences. As well, the minister is conducting a study into the competitiveness of the industry and has assured the people in the trucking industry that the study will be complete in August, if my memory serves me correctly. At that point, he will be reporting back to the trucking industry.

1400

Mr Nixon: We recognize the government's penchant for regulation, and we will be looking at this carefully to see how it benefits the industry. But the minister has to be aware of the appearance in this situation, where the Canadian Auto Workers had a very powerful spokesman indeed to lobby for it. He had no trouble to get in to see the Treasurer and probably has regular meetings with the Premier as well. Once Bob White, the vice-president of the NDP, indicated some displeasure with this, the Treasurer was very quick to indicate publicly that he was going to reconsider and, yesterday, that he was going to fine-tune.

I think this would be very acceptable indeed, particularly to the Canadian Auto Workers. For the independent truckers, they do not happen to have a strong union voice. I hope it is not unfair for me to ask the Treasurer if he is prepared, along with the leader of the government, to represent all the people in the province, not just those who can knock on the doors of the temporary high and mighty with the imprimatur of a labour union. Does he not understand that not all the workers in this province are unionized but they must have a positive response from the Treasurer and the Premier?

Hon Mr Laughren: That is a most unfortunate characterization put by the leader of the official opposition. I remind him that when the truckers had a problem, they came in to see me. The door was open, they saw me, and they saw the Minister of Transportation. As well, when we talked about the gas guzzler tax, it was the industry that came in to see me. It was the dealers who came in; it was the representative of the workers, the union, CAW came in, and it was the environmentalists who came in. Why the member persists --

Mr Nixon: Because the Treasurer won't see the truckers.

Hon Mr Laughren: That is not true; I have seen the truckers. Why the member insists on playing the trade unions in this province as some kind of bad actor is beyond my comprehension.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: As a matter of fact, we are most anxious to work with the business community, along with working people in this province, to make sure that we develop the kind of partnership that was never there when the Liberals were in office.

NATIVE ISSUES

Mr Conway: I have a question for my friend the honourable member for Algoma, who is responsible at one and the same time for this government's management of provincial parks, fish and game policy, timber management, crown lands and native affairs.

I would like to ask my friend arising out of his statement to the Legislature last week, about the dispatch of an unheard-of law firm named Sack, Goldblatt and Mitchell to act as this government's negotiator in the question of the land claim of the Algonquin first nations in my part of eastern Ontario.

Can the member for Algoma, as the minister responsible for his several, not entirely compatible responsibilities, indicate what specific direction the New Democratic government has provided to its negotiators, Messrs Goldblatt etc, as they go forward to negotiate a framework to resolve the Algonquin land claim?

Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciate the member's question. This is a very important issue. I want to say parenthetically that I do not believe there is any inherent conflict in the many responsibilities the member enumerated.

The instructions specifically to the law firm are quite straightforward. They are to enter into negotiations to identify the issues related to the land claim, the areas involved, the need for the conclusion and finalizing of interim subagreements with regard to the exercise of the aboriginal rights to hunt and fish. They are to be specifically responsible for wide consultation with other interested groups in the area from various fields such as the naturalist community, the parks community, the tourist industry and so on. As the member will know, that process is on its way.

The initial meeting was held at Golden Lake last Saturday, and this week there have been consultation meetings taking place; one was held in Huntsville last night. The law firm is responsible for finding out what the concerns are of other groups specifically with regard to the negotiations and representing them at the negotiating table.

Mr Conway: Still, the consultation meetings are the best-kept secret in my constituency. The Ottawa Valley press this week is replete with very positive, upbeat stories from all sides about the progress being made, and, given the significance and the sensitivity of this claim, we are undoubtedly encouraged by this.

The question of the 80,000 people I represent in a county whose entire territory is subsumed in this land claim is this: What is on the table? What are Messrs Goldblatt et al, mandated by the executive council of this province, to negotiate?

Would the minister care to comment, for example, on this possibility? Would he comment, in the negative or in the affirmative, that one of the possibilities is a willingness by this government to turn over entirely, on a permanent basis, the management of Algonquin Provincial Park, as we have known it, to the Algonquin first nations?

Hon Mr Wildman: I guess the short answer is no. In adding to that, I do not want to prejudge the negotiations. Obviously we have to identify the issues and determine how we can reach a settlement which is a win-win settlement, an agreement that is acceptable to both sides.

I frankly do not understand why the member is unaware of the meetings. There was one held last night in Huntsville, and one the night before in Barrys Bay.

Mr Conway: As the local member, I do not ever recall being informed, and I met a lot of people who were very interested to know about the meetings who were not informed.

Mindful of this government's anxiety, I am sure, to avoid anything like a Meech Lake catastrophe or the Alan Pope fiasco of some years ago, since the minister does not want to talk about what is on the table or what the government is prepared to negotiate by way of substance, would he perhaps answer this question: What kind of constituent assembly does the New Democratic government of Ontario imagine and plan for to involve the scores of stakeholders whose economic and recreational livelihoods are materially and vitally affected by whatever happens in these enormously important talks?

Hon Mr Wildman: I want to emphasize once again that we as a government have emphasized to our negotiators that it is their responsibility to consult as widely as possible with all the stakeholders my friend enumerated. It is incumbent upon them to do that because we must inform them of what we are doing, we must determine what their interests and concerns are so that we can properly negotiate with the Algonquins of Golden Lake first nation and represent their concerns at the negotiating table.

In terms of a constituent assembly, that is sort of a novel approach to negotiating. The Premier has indicated that we would entertain that approach in terms of the negotiations and discussions around the Constitution of Canada. Negotiations of a land claim are somewhat different, I am sure the member would understand, in terms of the kinds of issues involved. We cannot really anticipate having a multitude involved in the negotiations directly, but they must be involved in the consultations around that negotiation, and we are committed to ensuring that they are.

1410

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Harris: My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. On the weekend, the Toronto Star reported that auto insurance companies must seek bureaucratic approval to cut their premium rates. Can the minister explain to me why some well-established companies, in business for a long time in this province, have had to wait months and months on the bureaucracy to lower their rates and pass savings on to Ontario consumers?

Hon Mr Charlton: The leader of the third party, when he is preparing for questions like this, should perhaps have his research staff check a little more carefully in terms of the approvals process.

First, the member will know that the approvals process was set up a year ago on the passage of Bill 68, a piece of legislation introduced and passed by the former government. Second, there has been only one application to the Ontario Insurance Commission regarding a rate reduction, an application which was turned around in two weeks. The member should know that nobody has been held up for months and months as a result of the regulatory process.

Mr Harris: I realize the Liberals set up this disastrous bureaucracy, but the minister is now in charge of this disastrous bureaucracy. If the minister wants to blame the Liberals, I understand that and I blame them as well for their part in this disaster we are dealing with.

I would like to know if the minister has made any representations to the Treasurer on behalf of Ontario consumers and drivers with regard to all those policyholders of the province who are insured with Dominion of Canada auto insurance, which had a rate application proposal ready to go to the government to lower rates by 3% to 5%. When the budget came out and increased the tax on insurance companies by 3%, in effect the Treasurer of Ontario took that 3% to 5% rate cut right out of the pockets of drivers and consumers.

I would like to know what representations the minister, who I presume is the advocate for drivers and consumers in this province who must buy the government's compulsory auto insurance, has made to the Treasurer and to the cabinet on behalf of consumers of auto insurance in this province.

Hon Mr Charlton: The leader of the third party seems to fail to understand what has happened with auto insurance premiums in the province and the profitability which has evolved under the Ontario motorist protection plan brought in by the former government.

The profits for the last half of last year, after offsetting the losses in the first half of the year, equalled $250 million; profits for the first quarter of this year equalled $229 million. The fact that Dominion has not proceeded with a rate reduction application is the choice of Dominion. Others, as I have suggested, have proceeded with their rate applications. The profits in the industry indicate clearly that premium reductions should be happening across the board. Unfortunately, the insurance companies are not following that responsible route.

Mr Harris: The question had to deal with insurance companies that wanted to follow that route, but the Treasurer plucked that money out of the drivers' hands before they had a chance to pass it on to the consumers and the drivers of this province.

I wonder if the minister can explain to me why last Christmas Eve State Farm hand-delivered the application to the Ontario Insurance Commission and was not able, with the final approval and nod, until three months after that to pass on the savings to consumers, and what he is going to do to ensure that when the auto insurance companies -- those that do not get the taxes and the money taken away by the Treasurer and the Premier -- to expedite it so that those savings can be passed on immediately to consumers?

Hon Mr Charlton: First, the member again should do his research just a little bit more carefully. State Farm did not file a rate application for a rate reduction. What State Farm filed was a rate application for a complete reworking of its classification system, including adding one additional class which most of the other companies in this province already had. There was no overall rate reduction provided by State Farm, but it provided a very complex submission, which had to be reviewed. The basic rate applications for increases or decreases are turned around on average in two weeks, as I have already suggested.

Mr Harris: The minister says there has only been one. It took three months, but he has an industry average of two weeks. Give me a break. He has only got one to base his average on, he told me, and it took three months.

Mr Villeneuve: You didn't say there was a reduction, right?

Mr Harris: That is right.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Harris: My second question is to the Premier. On 6 June, a Burlington company received these 17 envelopes, 17 of them to one company, each with a 40-cent stamp on it, each, I assume, costing the private sector an average of at least a buck, probably more than that, to send a letter out.

These were from the Workers' Compensation Board. All the envelopes were mailed on the same day. All these envelopes contained one sheet of paper. Each paper was a form letter confirming a claim.

This may be profitable for Canada Post, but it is one more example of the type of waste by government and government agencies that is driving taxpayers and businesses across this province absolutely bonkers. This type of mismanagement could only occur in the public sector and in crown corporations.

I would like to ask the Premier, why does his government not have some form of commonsense controls in place to prevent this type of bureaucratic waste of money?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the member points to an interesting suggestion with respect to an improvement in efficiency. I am sure people at the Workers' Compensation Board will be interested in hearing his suggestion. I think he points to a problem. I would not diminish it or belittle it in any way. I think it is a good consumer and business-friendly suggestion and I will certainly bring it to the attention of WCB.

Mr Harris: I brought it to the Premier's attention in that spirit, because what we have is something costing $17 instead of $1, or a 17-times cost on this type of thing.

Anybody who receives mail from the Ministry of Housing or others will know this is rampant and widespread in the government.

The director of the Allied Boating Association of Canada indicated that 750 copies of a 7-page kit describing proposed new regulations to ban discharge of waste water were sent to him for distribution to his association. He believes the kits must have cost about $500 to send to them. This particular individual has a total of 80 members in his association.

Can the Premier tell me what type of controls he has in place in all of his ministries to ensure that this massive amount of paper -- in this case for the environment, most of it going back into dump sites somewhere in the environment -- that we do not continue to waste these kinds of dollars on postage, on letters, on garbage that is being sent out daily from ministry after ministry in this government?

1420

Hon Mr Rae: Again, the member will appreciate that I am not familiar with all the facts of the case which he has described. I would just say that if there are any extra copies, they can always be sent back. But I would certainly say to the member that, again, I think he points to a problem, I think he points to an issue that people are becoming increasingly aware of. We are working at it within the government in terms of trying to reduce the paper flow and trying to turn the government into a more environment-friendly, user-friendly place. All these suggestions, which are very positive and very constructive, are ones we will certainly want to look at.

Mr Harris: Let me try another. I brought an issue to the Premier's attention some time ago about a $40 courier bill for a letter from his office. My office is receiving calls daily from taxpayers complaining about how this government is wasting money.

One taxpayer called this week to tell me he received information from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation by courier that could just as easily have been sent by mail. When he phoned and told staff at the ministry there was no rush, he was told, "Don't worry, we usually send these things out by courier."

In these tough times, the private sector is forced to tighten its belt. Companies like General Motors have to cut costs to survive. It is unacceptable to me, it is unacceptable to taxpayers, to businesses, to families, to have this government carry on wasting money daily, just in the simple communication to constituents. The Premier would know that a courier has to cost 5, 10, 15 times, in his case 40 times, more than simple mail.

Since we brought to his attention the flagrant abuse in his office, are there any directives or is there any action he has taken to ensure that we cut down on this kind of bureaucratic waste?

Hon Mr Rae: The suggestions the member is making are very positive ones. I do not think there is anybody in this House who looks with favour upon examples of waste. When you can show examples of conspicuous waste, I think it is important that everyone hear about them and that we try to improve the situation. I think what the member is suggesting is something that everyone can agree on. No one is in favour of that kind of thing.

I would just point out to the member that in terms of our overall approach to the budget, we have insisted to ministries that they severely restrict increases in departmental expenses to no more than 2% over the last year. That is going to require some efficiencies just to be able to reach that level.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Elston: I would like to return to the content of our notice of want of confidence motion yesterday and ask the Premier if he is familiar with the fact that one of his members, who advertises himself as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, has gained a benefit for one of his constituents in front of the LLBO and in fact has bumped four other applicants from their hearing schedule so that his constituent may receive an early hearing. Is it the Premier's view that it is perfectly in compliance with his conflict-of-interest guidelines and his code of conduct for parliamentary assistants that they are able to receive preferential treatment for their constituents over other valid applicants in front of a provincial tribunal?

Hon Mr Rae: The member has made an allegation. I think I owe it to the House and to others to look into it, as I think would be fair in the circumstances, and to try to get back to the member.

Mr Elston: I will send the material that I have at hand to the Premier, but I must say that the information which was given to us includes the following, and I will quote from written material:

"For more than two weeks, the Premier's office has been aware of these concerns. Undertakings to inquire into and respond to the matter have not been met and the method by which the highest political office in the province has handled the complaint has been totally unsatisfactory."

Since his office in fact has not responded for more than two weeks to this matter, and since the Premier's office has known about this incident, predating the one of confidence, predating the interesting events that transpired here last week, I wonder if the Premier can now tell us that his office is totally without control or responsibility when it comes to the matter of conflict of interest and inquiring into the conduct of his members.

Hon Mr Rae: I do not think, in fairness, that is fair. The member will appreciate that there is a very real difference between an allegation that is made and an investigation which is carried on in terms of looking into the allegation and proving the allegation. I think the member knows perfectly well, as well, that if there is a concern with respect to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, there is a procedure to be followed with respect to filing a formal complaint with Judge Evans. These provisions are there, and I would say to the member that if he has such a complaint or comment to make, that is another place where he can take it as well.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. On 11 April the minister announced her decision to ban all future municipal solid waste incinerators. However, there are examples of incineration which do not precisely fit that definition of municipal solid waste incineration. The minister's position on these related practices is not clear.

For instance, a company in my riding, St Lawrence Cement, wishes to burn refuse-derived fuel in its cement kilns. I know the minister is very familiar with their proposal. As the name of the fuel suggests, it is derived from municipal solid waste, but it has been processed so that it no longer is municipal solid waste.

Does the minister's ban on municipal solid waste incineration include the burning of refuse-derived fuel?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am sure the member is well aware of the kind of semantic definitions we get into when we are talking about refuse-derived fuel and the forms in which it comes. There are those who say that shredded tires can in fact be refuse-derived fuel, and there are those who take the general definition of municipal solid waste, what is usually picked up by municipalities, from which pellets or bricks are created; is that burnable?

The policy I announced on behalf of the government was that all future incinerators designed to burn municipal solid waste would be banned in Ontario and that I would look into the operations of the existing and already approved municipal incinerators.

I made the point that there are a number of specialty incinerators. The member's colleague raised the issue of biomedical waste yesterday, and I know there is wood waste and those others, which we are quite frankly looking at trying to clarify the definitions, but we have not yet announced any policy with respect to that.

Mrs Marland: The minister did not make it quite clear whether she considers refuse-derived fuel a municipal solid waste in another form, and I would appreciate that answer. I have written to ask the minister that, by the way.

Also, in the minister's announcement she said she would review the Peel resource recovery incinerator in Brampton, which has not opened and which she just referred to a minute ago. The Peel resource recovery facility would incinerate more than just municipal solid waste. It would also incinerate the huge amount of garbage that comes off the planes from Pearson International Airport. As the minister knows, the garbage from planes must be disposed of in the vicinity of the airport since international regulations prohibit returning the garbage to its destination. Airline garbage is not solid municipal waste, so again it is unclear whether the minister's policy announcement applies to it.

Can the minister tell this House whether she will permit airport garbage to be incinerated, and if not, where she will dispose of it? Will she permit airports to incinerate solid waste because it is on federal lands? There is no federal air zone freeze.

1430

Hon Mrs Grier: The member raises an issue with which I suspect both she and I are very familiar, having constituencies in municipalities abutting the airport. As she will be aware, and perhaps other members of the House are not, the federal government has been struggling for some time with what to do with the waste from international airlines. Again, we are into definitions. Essentially, it is food waste and packaging waste and all the things that come off a plane, which if it were collected from a hotel in downtown Toronto would be municipal solid waste. Under the federal Department of Agriculture guidelines it cannot be landfilled, and that has been a very real issue.

What I said with respect to the Peel incinerator was that we were reviewing its certificate of approval. The member indicated in her question that this incinerator was presently licensed to burn the waste from the airport. That is not my understanding of the situation, and examination of that would be part of the review of the certificate of approval we are currently undertaking.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, having received a copy of the record from the member, I wonder if I might possibly give an answer to his question.

First of all, I had the distinct impression from his question that the member wrote the letter. It was not; it was his constituency assistant. She says: "I have been asked to find out why his client must wait so long for a hearing and, second, if there is any way of shortening the waiting period. If you could respond to this letter, the above Bracebridge constituency resident would be most appreciative."

This is for a licence under the name of Uncle Buck's Sports Lounge. The executive director of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario says in response to this request of Uncle Buck's for a speedup: "As a result of the applicant's plea for urgency, and having received telephone calls from the applicant" -- and he advised the applicant of the process -- "four applications for licences which predated the application by Uncle Buck's were bumped." There is no reference at all in the correspondence or anywhere else to there having been any interference by the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay whatsoever.

Mr Elston: What the Premier did not read was the final page, which I knew he would not, because the testimony printed in front of his very eyes and underlined so he could distinctly see it is an indication that the hearing was held because pressure was put by Mr Hutton. He said Mr Hutton said, "You would not believe the pressure we put on the member so that we could get this hearing now."

It is quite clear that the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay's office represented the facts on behalf of the lawyer for Uncle Buck's and that in fact this was made as a change.

It is obvious the Premier takes the easy way out, and in this case the Premier must still answer the question: If it was so easy for him within 15 seconds of looking at the material, why is it that over two weeks elapsed before his office would reply to the people who responded to the early hearing date for Uncle Buck's Sports Lounge?

Reading the full material, it is obvious the pressure made was what caused the change in the date. How does he address the concerns of the applicants who were bumped?

Hon Mr Rae: If you look at the record --

Mr Bradley: Read the page.

Hon Mr Rae: I have the last page right here. It says:

"With all due respect, Mr Chairman, you will not believe the pressure I had to put to bear upon my local member of parliament to make sure the hearing was this month. The board wanted to have it in July or August."

If you look at that statement there is nothing to suggest pressure, either in the response from the executive director or in the correspondence, which is not from the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay; the correspondence is from a constituency assistant. This is the heavy pressure we are hearing from the constituency assistant: "I have been asked to find out why the client must wait so long for a hearing and, second, if there is any way of shortening the waiting period." If that is pressure, give me a break; put it in some perspective.

The Speaker: Before proceeding, just a reminder to the member for Sault Ste Marie, who believed he was next on the list. By our practice, when a member of the cabinet or the Premier stands to respond to a question asked earlier, there is a supplementary added, but we then move next in rotation beyond the government party. That is our practice. If you want to change the rules, go to the rules committee.

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

Mr McClelland: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Last October she made a speech to the Recycling Council of Ontario. In that speech she stated her intention to maintain and continue to enforce the existing regulations with respect to soft drink refillable containers as of 1 April 1991. We have the figures in for this past April and they indicate the refillable container returns are at 13%. The regulation states and requires that 30% of containers be refillable. Is it still the minister's intention to maintain and enforce the existing regulations?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member is quite right. The challenge I had issued to the soft drink companies was to meet the regulation of 30%. They have not done that, so the data submitted by the companies and the information has been referred by me to the investigations and enforcement branch of the ministry.

Mr McClelland: The minister said she was going to vigorously and rigorously enforce the regulations. Have any charges been laid, and if not, why not? Is she going to maintain and enforce the regulations as she promised she would? Why have no charges been laid, if they have not? What is the minister going to do about keeping her promise?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member was a parliamentary assistant to the former Minister of the Environment. I am sure he knows full well that the charges are not laid by me. When the information is received and totalled, as it has been in the first two weeks of June, it is referred to the investigations and enforcement branch, and decisions beyond that are made by that branch. I indicated in my response to the first question that is precisely what has been done, that is how it ought to have been done and that is, I suspect, how it has always been done.

NATIVE ISSUES

Mr J. Wilson: My question is to the minister responsible for native affairs and Minister of Natural Resources. On 28 March he announced in this Legislature he had signed a statement of intent to begin the process of resolving the land claim of the Algonquins of Golden Lake, which he described as being very strong.

The government's position is apparently based on a five-year-old research report which contains a disclaimer that the report's author reached no conclusions and recognized that other facts might subsequently be found having a bearing on the admissibility of the claim.

Has the Ontario native affairs secretariat carried out additional research since the document in 1986 which assisted the minister in concluding that the Algonquins have a very strong land claim?

Hon Mr Wildman: The report to which the member refers is the report by Lise Hansen of the Ontario native affairs secretariat. It is certainly true that during the process of analysing the claim there will be other information available. That is of course one reason we are consulting with all groups, including the ad hoc committee represented at the meeting in Huntsville last night. We are looking forward to receiving more of the information they have as part of their research. The advice we received was based on the analysis done by officials in both the native affairs secretariat and the Ministry of the Attorney General.

1440

Mr J. Wilson: One of the problems is that the minister put the land claim together with the subagreements on hunting and fishing. The Ad Hoc Committee to Save Algonquin Park has been invited and has participated in discussions on the subagreements, but it has not been invited to participate in discussions concerning the land claim. I am specifically asking him about the land claim today.

The minister knows the Ad Hoc Committee to Save Algonquin Park released an information bulletin this morning and it examines the claim of the Algonquins of Golden Lake in great detail. As anticipated in the 1986 research report by his ministry, the committee has found other facts it believes are relevant to the land claim. In all, it points out no fewer than eight major flaws in the claim.

On the basis of the committee's findings, will the minister now undertake an in-depth historical and legal review of the Golden Lake claim to determine its validity and, until this is done, will the minister suspend negotiations on the land claim and the interim fishing and hunting agreements?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member raises some important questions, but I want to indicate that the preamble to his question is incorrect. Last night, specifically in Huntsville, our negotiator said to a representative of the ad hoc committee that he would be interested in receiving the research they have done on the land claim. If the honourable member has been informed that they have been told we do not want their information, that is completely incorrect.

The fact is that the interim agreements are directly related to the land claim. Obviously, there would not be a need for interim subagreements on the aboriginal rights if there were no land claim file we are now beginning to negotiate. There may be some inaccuracies in the Hansen report; I am not certain. But if there are, we are happy to discuss those and look at the research that indicates there are

I point out, though, there are also some inaccuracies in the paper presented at the news conference this morning. For one thing, it says I announced in January there would be unlimited recreational hunting and fishing and unlimited access by trucks, all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles to over 1,000 members of the Golden Lake band. At no time have I ever made such a statement.

ALGOMA STEEL CORP

Mr Martin: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Members are aware that those of us who work and live in Sault Ste Marie these days are on the edge of our seats as we await the outcome of the task force on Algoma Steel's future and watch the daily drama unfold.

A couple of particularly worrisome pieces are around the commitment to the city regarding Algoma Steel paying its taxes. We were hit not so long ago with an appeal of its assessment, which takes millions of dollars out of our pool of money. Just recently we found out that Algoma is not going to be able to pay its present instalment of taxes and in fact states it will have difficulty meeting its September commitment. This removes $16 million from city coffers.

What assistance, if any, can we expect from his ministry in light of these very serious decisions and the impact they are having on my city's ability to carry out its functions?

Hon Mr Cooke: I appreciate the question from the member. I also appreciate his ongoing interest and the many contacts he has made with our ministry to try to get this matter resolved and to achieve assistance for the people of his community.

Our ministry has been in touch with the city of Sault Ste Marie, and discussions will be going on to see what involvement and assistance we can provide. We have a program under our ministry to help communities detrimentally affected by drops in assessment due to the economy or assessment appeals, and we will be able to provide assistance. It is now just a matter of the negotiations and discussions with the city to see the level of assistance that will be needed in the member's community.

Mr Martin: In light of the very serious nature of this question and the fact that as each day goes by the money not coming in accumulates and the projects we have on stream, especially the anti-recessionary projects this government wants to participate in with the municipality, can the minister give me some time lines as to how quickly this will happen or some assurance it will be as quickly as possible?

Hon Mr Cooke: As a result of the conversations I had with the member earlier today, I have talked to ministry officials and impressed upon them, and they already understood very clearly, that his community needs an answer very quickly. I can assure the member that answer will be within the next few days. We are working with the community as quickly as we can to determine the level of assistance required, but the answer will be quick.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Miclash: My question is to the Minister of Mines. All indications are that the Ontario mining industry is in serious trouble. All we have to do is look at the facts. By the Minister of Mines's own account, nine mines have recently closed in Ontario. There are few prospects of new mines on the horizon, and when there is a potential for a new project, like Shoal Lake in my riding, the NDP seems to want to ignore it.

Ontario exploration expenditures have plummeted as well, and two days ago the Minister of Northern Development announced that the final 700 direct mining jobs in Elliot Lake are to be phased out in the next five years. This brings the total direct mining jobs lost to over 3,000 in Elliot Lake alone. The facts are clear: People are losing their jobs and, as I say, Ontario mining is in crisis; yet we have a Minister of Mines who continues to act as if everything is as it should be.

My question to the Minister of Mines is specific and direct. As late as 25 March, the minister told the House that there was nothing to worry about and that in fact mining employment levels are the same now as they were two years ago. Can the minister tell us whether he really still believes the statements he made on 25 March are accurate and if not, can he clarify this information for the House now?

Hon Mr Pouliot: If you choose to put the onus on the negative, you will say the mining sector has been somewhat or severely impacted. If you wish to put the onus on the positive, and therefore to look to the future with confidence, you will readily acquiesce that the mining industry is still an industry that contributes $7 billion to the economy of Ontario, that employs directly and indirectly 80,000 to 85,000 people and that among industrial sectors, mining pays the most money; it puts the most money into people's pockets.

We do not, unfortunately, control the price of gold. We do not have an input with the London Metal Exchange. We do not control whether a major corporation in Chile will significantly impact the price of copper, zinc, lead, industrial or other minerals. But all systems are go. We are spending $4 million with the Ontario prospectors assistance program to help prospectors. There is $11 million of taxpayers' money for junior exploration companies. That is not all. There is $30 million between the feds and the province so that mining will continue to have its rightful place under the sun and a leading role in the economic development of this province.

Mr Miclash: That answer is not going to stand well for the many miners who are out of work or for the many mining towns that have been closed down. By improperly representing the health of the mining industry, as the minister just has, he is actually jeopardizing any chance that this industry, vital to the economy of this province, as he indicates, is going to recover.

The Ontario mining industry is in a crisis and permanent job loss is the result. The minister knows that very well. Yet while the rest of the world is adapting to global technological changes, the NDP Minister of Mines is handing out fake gold coins reliving Ontario's past. While Quebec steams past us in terms of exploration incentives, the minister again is sitting on his hands, again blaming the federal government. While other jurisdictions are aggressively seeking out mining investment, this minister is content to oversee many programs that, as he indicated, were initiated by our former government.

Again, my question is a simple one. Can the Minister of Mines point to one significant new initiative, one personal intervention, anything that has renewed investor confidence, buoyed exploration expenditures or lured industrial growth in the mining industry to this province? One example of his own initiative since taking office is all I want.

Hon Mr Pouliot: As the member is aware, it is not the style of this government to take credit for the increase in the OPAP program. We work in the collective for the benefit of people outside these walls, whom I respect. After such a lengthy question, it would perhaps have been appropriate if the member opposite had come up, in the spirit of partnership, with some innovative, imaginative ideas.

Yes, he is right, we are constantly rising to the challenge by rearranging the dollars that are available to mining. We are very cognizant that you cannot turn gravel into gold. Only the opposition can pretend to do that. We know about our responsibility. In a mining town, while the going is good, you survive for five, 10, 15 and 20 years. We are most aware that resources are finite, that we have a responsibility to diversify. Fascinating, interesting. We are doing what we can to find other mines and yet we are diversifying. Not tales of Houdini, the real world of today.

1450

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Arnott: That is a hard act to follow, but I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and it deals with his moratorium on the issuance of new trucking licences.

On 25 April the minister announced he would issue no new trucking licences to applicants who wished to operate in Ontario. It has been suggested to me from a number of sources that the minister had no statutory authority whatsoever to do this and so has been acting without statutory authority for almost two months. Would the minister indicate whether this is true? If it is, when is he going to introduce the required amendments?

Hon Mr Philip: No, it is not true, and the legislation will be introduced hopefully before the House adjourns.

Mr Arnott: I do not understand the response. He said it was not true and yet he has to put forward legislation.

The minister has repeatedly been asked by the trucking industry for lower taxes to level the playing field so our carriers can compete against their US counterparts, but we have heard today from the Treasurer that he is not contemplating a reduction of the diesel fuel tax.

Would the minister care to share with the members of this House what specific initiatives he is considering, other than the licence moratorium and the registration and bonding of load brokers, to save Ontario's trucking industry? Can he assure the House that his plans do not include further reregulation of the trucking industry, such as the introduction of a route rate schedule?

Hon Mr Philip: I had a very interesting and favourable meeting with my federal counterpart, the Minister of Transport, in Ottawa last week. We are looking at a variety of proposals and seeing where we may be able to work together in a co-operative spirit to deal with the problems of the transportation industry that were caused, of course, by the deregulation by the federal Tories in Ottawa and the provincial Liberals here in Ontario.

I am pleased at the result of that meeting. The federal government does have a study, which is now before the federal Minister of Transport. He has said he will work jointly with me after he has had a chance to study that. Both my federal counterpart and I hope to work together with the trucking industry to resolve a very difficult situation, which was not created by this government but which we are willing to deal with.

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

Ms Haeck: My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. My riding is very fortunate to have a community information centre. It is called Information Niagara, and I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate them for a job well done. They have been there for many, many years. This centre serves St Catharines and the Niagara Peninsula, responding to people's inquiries for a variety of crucial community information; for instance, day care, community information in general, single-parent programs, housing, family assistance and questions relating to food and shelter.

I understand the minister has quite recently provided a 5.5% increase in operating grants for community information centres across this province. Given the current economic situation and the increased demand for the services provided by community information centres, is the 5.5% sufficient to provide these very valuable and necessary services and enough for the survival of CICs themselves?

Hon Mr Marchese: I want to thank the member for St Catharines-Brock for the question. There are approximately 76 community information centres across Ontario; 56 are supported by us. As the member has correctly mentioned, they provide valuable information about government and community services in Ontario, many of which have been traditionally marginalized, I should point out.

The community information centres have been experiencing chronic underfunding for many years. What is worse is that the previous government eliminated community information centres from the ministry's budget in a constraint program. What we have done as a government, which I think will help many of them across Ontario, is we have reinstated the full CIC budget into the ministry, and we have given a 5.5% increase in operating grants in 1991-1992, which is the most significant increase in over five years. As well, we have just announced a safety net funding program to prevent layoffs and reduction in hours of operations.

Ms Haeck: I would further like to ask what the future holds for community information centres in light of all the funding the minister has now put back into place?

Hon Mr Marchese: This government is undertaking a review of public access to government human services information. This review will look at how the average person obtains information from governments. It will also look at whether we are duplicating services.

We are also looking at how community information centres fit into the whole network of access to information. I think it is important for the Liberal Party as well. The Association of Community Information Centres in Ontario and other community organizations as well as other ministries will be part of an advisory group to advise us on how well people are receiving information in Ontario. We will have the recommendations of that later on this year.

Mr Bradley: I thought there was going to be some revenge for five years, three months and four days of those kinds of answers from me, but there is not.

JORDAN BRIDGE

Mr Bradley: Jordan Bridge is falling down. My question is for the Minister of Transportation, who would likely be aware that the bridge over Jordan Harbour is falling apart at this time. The mayor of Jordan, the mayor of Vineland, the mayor of Beamsville, the mayor of all Lincoln, Ray Konkle, has called for its replacement. In fact, he said: "It is not a question of if the bridge will fall; it is a question of when. They've got an accident waiting to happen. Three pieces of the Niagara-bound bridge have already fallen into the harbour, with the last piece measuring about 46 centimetres by 20 centimetres." The St Catharines Standard in an editorial on 17 June has called for its replacement.

Will the minister give instructions to his ministry to replace the bridge over the Jordan Harbour immediately to avoid an unfortunate accident and potential long delays for the member for Lincoln, the member for St Catharines-Brock and all the people in the Niagara Peninsula and the tourists? Will he do this favour for us? Will he announce this today and make everyone in the province satisfied and our visitors to this province as well?

Hon Mr Philip: I am so pleased the member has asked a question of me on this. I am sure he would be more familiar with Mr Konkle than I am, but I have read Mayor Konkle's statements. Indeed, there was a failure in the sense that there was a punching failure, which occurred in the deck of the south structure on 20 April 1990. It was a single, localized failure involving a piece of deck about the size of a dinner plate, not large sections of deck, as some people have indicated and as the press may have played up. I would not want the member to exaggerate the seriousness of the problem in any way, as some people may have.

I am sure the member, being a member of the standing committee on public accounts, would want value for money. The member knows we are committed to replacing that bridge in the next five years. I can assure him that my staff have examined the bridge, that we are monitoring it, that there is no safety problem and that the bridge will be replaced on schedule. But it would be completely premature to make major alterations to a bridge that is going to be replaced on schedule within the next five years. I am sure the member, being concerned about the taxpayers, would agree with the actions of the ministry.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I am pleased to acknowledge the presence this afternoon of five visiting police officers from New York City who are seated in the members' gallery west.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Under standing order 33(a) I would like to serve notice of my dissatisfaction with an answer provided by the member for Algoma, and I serve notice that I would like to pursue this at adjournment later today.

The Speaker: If the member will fill out the necessary documentation.

1500

PETITIONS

SOCIAL WORK

Ms Poole: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which contains some 120 signatures.

"Yes, I demand that the Rae government act immediately to introduce a social work act for Ontario. Without this urgently needed legislation, every member of the public in Ontario, including those most vulnerable and disenfranchised, remains at enormous and unnecessary risk.

"Mr Rae, your government must act now. Building a strong Ontario for tomorrow is dependent on protecting the children and families of today."

I have signed this petition and wholeheartedly agree with it.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Runciman: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly. It reads in an abbreviated fashion:

"We, the undersigned, request that the French Language Services Act be repealed and its artificial structures dismantled immediately, and English declared as the official language of Ontario and government, its institutions and services."

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Martin: The following people have signed this petition, and it is for the Minister of Transportation:

"We oppose any highway development that would encroach on the pristine environment of the Hiawatha conservation areas, including Kinsmen Park, Crystal Creek Conservation Area, Wishart Park and all Ministry of Natural Resources and fish hatcheries property, including adjacent buffer zones and watersheds. This includes the Ministry of Transportation-proposed highway corridor alternatives.

"We feel that any highway development within these corridors would degrade the quality of life in residential communities, have a high impact on the social environment, ski paths, trailways, and have a direct impact on natural environments that are currently enjoyed by thousands each year. In addition, substantial economic impact would occur on prime tax and recreation land.

"We strongly urge that the above proposed highway corridors not be given further consideration, and be removed from the list of alternatives."

I send this to the Minister of Transportation with a letter signed by myself.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Hansen from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendments:

Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa;

Bill Pr42, An Act to revive Magnum International Productions Inc;

Bill Pr65, An Act to revive Multimobile Corporation Limited;

Bill Pr75, An Act respecting the City of Chatham.

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr50, An Act respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr63, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 11th report.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES À L'ACCÈS À L'INFORMATION ET LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVÉE

Mr Tilson moved first reading of Bill 128, An Act to amend the Law related to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy.

M. Tilson propose la première lecture du projet de loi 128, Loi portant modification des lois relatives à l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr Tilson: The purpose of this bill is to amend the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1989 to provide access to information relating to the salary of public service employees.

The bill amends only the English version of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987; the Legislature has not yet adopted an official French version of this act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

Miss Martel, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved third reading of Bill 81, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Mlle Martel, au nom de M. Laughren, propose la troisième lecture du projet de loi 81, Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjections.

The Speaker: No? All those in favour will please say "aye."

Hon Miss Martel: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There will be a short debate on this, as I understand.

Mr Bradley: As we seem to be moving towards the end of the session, this is an opportunity to deal with the matters directly or indirectly related to this particular bill, and I will attempt to do so today.

There is a recognition that governments do not have all of their funds coming in immediately and that there is a need for at least some borrowing to take place in the province. We are concerned about the level of borrowing taking place, the amount of money required and the amount of interest that is going to be paid, but those matters have been dealt with rather extensively in the House in previous interventions, mine included, during second reading.

I did want to mention a couple of the things where I thought the borrowing would be applicable. I am concerned that if this bill goes through the money will not be allocated to these areas of great importance. One of them is the Ontario scholarship, which used to be offered in the final year of secondary school, which we used to call grade 13, to students who worked very hard and were able to achieve at least 80% in their six best subjects in that last year.

This was something a lot of students looked forward to, not only the recognition of being called Ontario scholars but the financial reward of $100, which was tangible recognition of the particular work on their part and of their achievement. It was a bit of an incentive for some who saw that they were close to the mark and perhaps were able to put in a little extra effort to mobilize the resources in appropriate fashion in order to achieve this. I expect that the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the members of which understand there is a great deal of good in providing this scholarship to young people in our province, would be opposed to this, and I am sure the government will be hearing from them.

Those young people I have discussed it with who in the past have received this particular award, or who were working very hard in anticipation of receiving it this year, are very disappointed that it is being discontinued. I ask members to think, for instance, if they were students working extremely hard in secondary school this year, recognizing that one of the titles they could attain was Ontario scholar and one of the rewards they could receive was the $100 scholarship that went with it, how they would feel to be told almost at the end of the school year that they were not to receive that money.

1510

I hoped the government would reconsider in its budget -- the largest budget; I think we are over $52 billion now -- that it would not take it out on the young people in our province. I have not come to a conclusion yet whether they are right or wrong, but some people in this province have suggested that the real reason is that the NDP does not like to reward success or excellence because somehow it elevates some people above other people. Certainly I am evaluating that particular point of view put forward. I hope that if the Minister of Education recognizes that there are some who feel this way, some who perhaps unjustifiably or justifiably have come to this conclusion, and that it is necessary to restore the faith of the young people in our province, the Ministry of Education and the government of Ontario. It was particularly disconcerting that the rug was pulled out from underneath them at the very last minute. It would have been bad enough had the government announced, "Next year you're not going to receive it." But taking it out at the very last moment I thought was rather mean on the part of the government.

We had some police officers here from New York City. I was wondering whether those officers would be people with golden helmets and part of a special precision team in New York state, as we have in Ontario. The member for Algoma-Manitoulin was telling me that the OPP Golden Helmets precision team visited Little Current or one of the other communities in his constituency for the last time as the OPP Golden Helmets. He explained to me how sad the people of that community were that the NDP government was removing this tradition and taking away from the police force of Ontario a very good public relations component, a good relationship with the people of this province. They said, "This must be in keeping with the fact that the OPP Pipes and Drums are disappearing" -- another institution which has been so well received, particularly in the smaller communities of the province, certainly in my own community in the grape and wine festival parade, where some of the largest and most boisterous rounds of applause come when the Golden Helmets come down St Paul Street in St Catharines or when the Pipes and Drums are heard from a distance.

But the Golden Helmets are disappearing and the OPP Pipes and Drums are being silenced by a government that simply does not seem to care about the traditions that have been built up in this province over the years. The member for Durham East is a man who respects tradition, and in his heart of hearts he probably believes the funding should be restored for the Pipes and Drums, which have instilled pride in so many, not only in Canada over the years but in a place across the large pond called the Atlantic Ocean. I lament that.

The Minister of Health was here earlier. She smiles each time I rise because she believes I am going to ask her a question about the CAT scanner, or lack thereof, in the Niagara region. I thought when the Treasurer was borrowing the large amount of money contained in this bill, that he was borrowing part of it for Ministry of Health operations. He would not have to borrow it, mind you, for the capital cost of a CAT scanner or one of the other machines similar to it to serve people in the Niagara region, because the capital costs would be assumed by the people of the community, who would be delighted to have the opportunity to raise those funds. But of course they need the permission of the Ministry of Health.

We heard the stories the other day of some animals, in the middle of the night, being able to get some CAT scans in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area. People were concerned in St Catharines and Niagara Falls and Virgil and Niagara-on-the-Lake and Bismarck and Camden and the very many communities in the Niagara Peninsula when they heard that it was available for animals, but we could not get a second CAT scanner to serve the people of the Niagara region, people who have to wait some four months to receive this service in many cases, and people who have to go through discomforting and disconcerting tests which are much more intrusive than a CAT scan would be, also the people who have to head to the United States to receive this service, costing the taxpayer additional money and costing themselves additional money to go to the United States. I would have hoped that when the Treasurer was borrowing, he was borrowing for the purpose of the operating cost of this CAT scanner for the Niagara region.

I would have liked to have gone to the Niagara District Health Council's annual meeting today, because this is the number one priority for it, but of course I said I would be in the Legislature today, raising this particular issue once again and drawing it to the attention of the NDP government, which in opposition seemed to be so much in favour of good investments in health care and is now being stingy and taking a long time dithering and delaying about putting a second CAT scanner in the Niagara region.

I see members from the Hamilton area here. They have CAT scanners in their hospitals that service people in their area. Sometimes people are fortunate enough to be able to access those. The members for the Hamilton area know that the CAT scanners they have are necessary to serve the people in their immediate area and that they do not want their people bumped from the list because someone has to come in from outside, someone who does not have that service available to them. I hope the Treasurer will reconsider that.

The registrar general's office: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will be interested in this. The move has taken place to Thunder Bay, and the staff do their very best to attempt to service everyone in Ontario, including the MPPs. Something the minister probably does not know is happening, however. I have to keep this relatively confidential, because it is in a confidential area. The member for St Catharines-Brock would be aware of this; her office received the same telephone call yesterday. This is from social workers who are dealing with adoptive parents. They cannot call my office or the member for St Catharines-Brock's office or any other office to get us to assist in obtaining a birth certificate in an expeditious manner because of confidentiality. These are certified birth certificates, the long birth certificates, we are talking about. Because they are dealing entirely in confidentiality, they cannot share that information with any of the members of the Legislature. I know one person said she had waited since October for one of the long birth certificates.

What is disconcerting is that people are now hiring lawyers in Thunder Bay to expedite the service. I do not mean in any illegal fashion at all. They happen to be in Thunder Bay and they happen to know the law. People are now having to spend -- how much does a lawyer make an hour? Any lawyers in here? -- whatever they make an hour. It can be very expensive, depending on the quality, I guess, of the lawyer or the community, but it is costing these people some considerable sum of additional money than it would otherwise to get these expedited. When they say expedited, they mean a matter of weeks, not a matter of days.

I am glad the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is here. I know she would be concerned about this. I know she will look into this matter, because no one should have to hire a lawyer in Thunder Bay, no social workers, no adoptive parents should have to hire a lawyer in Thunder Bay to do this work, which should normally go through the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Knowing her concern, I know she will be quick to look into that.

I heard the leader of the third party raise the issue of waste. Earl Armstrong in St Catharines, a person who speaks his mind on many occasions, spoke to a number of MPPs and government offices about getting information from the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. The Chair of the Constitution committee is here today. He is one of my favourite members of the House because he knows how to vote politically on all the issues that come up on private members' day. I always tell the members of the NDP they should watch him, because he is a smart politician.

Anyway, his committee -- and it is not his fault personally; I do not want to attribute it to him or to any of the members of the committee -- I know the members want to get the information out. This is a dilemma. I should not be understanding of the government, but I am going to be understanding.

1520

These people have received three and four and five copies of certain things coming from that committee, and they have received it in pretty expensive mailing operations. I hope this government and all of us who are associated with the Legislature, and all members are in this category, would do our best to provide the information expeditiously, but at the same time to do it in a way which is economic for the people of this province and environmentally sensitive.

Hon Mr Pouliot: It's the other guy. The third party does it better.

Mr Bradley: Certainly the leader of the third party as his lead question raised this issue today, so it must be important.

I mentioned that Jordan Bridge was falling down. Certainly the mayor of the town of Lincoln, Ray Konkle, has had his photograph taken taking photographs of the bridge falling down. It is not only a matter of the people who go in boats under the bridge, and the cement falling down and the wood falling down on those people, but what is important to those of us in the peninsula, and we know this, is that I would not want to see the member for St Catharines-Brock delayed getting to the Legislature for a vote which could cause the downfall of the government because the bridge is falling down. I would not want to see damage to her car, because she would have to access the insurance system and she would find out that the rates are remaining quite low, despite the chagrin of this government at that fact.

Mr Scott: Peter Kormos will have introduced fault by then.

Mr Bradley: I know there is another member who has a Corvette, and he likely would not be faced with a problem with this, because the Corvette moves more quickly than some of the other vehicles and he is unlikely to have this problem.

But it is a serious problem. Some may remember reading the story about a situation in New York state where a bridge fell down and I think there were some fatalities and some people who were hurt. We do not want this to happen. It is a heavily travelled road. I know, as the minister has pointed out today, there is a schedule five years from now when the bridge is to be replaced. I hope the minister would consider accelerating that, particularly in view of the fact we are in a recession. It is money that has to be spent anyway. It is not new money, it is not over and above, it has to be invested anyway. Therefore, this problem, which has arisen since the NDP came into power, is one that must be solved by the New Democratic Party.

I also would like the Treasurer, when he is borrowing money and when he has to talk to the other ministers, to consider using his influence with the federal government, which is considerable -- I saw that he was getting along very well at the recent federal-provincial meeting; he said no one was picking on him at that particular meeting -- to bring about a situation where one of the Department of National Defence contracts goes to Port Weller.

The reason I say that is that the Treasurer's government is borrowing money, and one of the reasons he is borrowing money is to construct a new ferry for Pelee Island. This was negotiated by the previous Liberal government and confirmed very well, and I gave credit, by the new government of Ontario to go through with this contract. That is helpful to Port Weller. The province is doing its share. I hope the Treasurer, when he is talking about this loan bill to his federal minister, will indicate that Nora Blyde of St Catharines is correct when she says that Port Weller needs more contracts, that we need employment. We have to bring it back to its days of 800, 900 and 1,000 employees. The federal government has it within its jurisdiction to do this.

The member who sits in the chair now, a member from eastern Ontario, knows of a concern when he sees so many contracts of a federal nature going to an adjacent province and his municipality perhaps does not have the same access to those. I share that concern with him, and I hope that the federal government, when it is considering this, will remember that our Treasurer is in the midst of attempting to fight a recession and that he needs some federal government help. One of the best ways to do that is to invest money in the province by having a contract for a minesweeper or one of the other major contracts for the Department of National Defence going to Port Weller Dry Docks in St Catharines. I know the representatives of the union in that case -- Dave Brown has called me on a number of occasions, and other representatives of the union -- would appreciate this as well, because they are people who are excellent workers and people who require this to keep bread on the table for their families.

I also would like to talk about the tax on auto workers one more time, because the borrowing will be influenced. That is how I get this into this particular debate. The Treasurer will say that perhaps I have raised this too often in the House, but I do not think you can raise anything too often.

I want to say I at long last have a glimmer of hope, because while the Treasurer talked before about some meetings he would have with others about this matter, he has now suggested he is going to, I think he used the word "fine-tune" this particular tax measure. I want to commend him on at least taking that step of fine-tuning, because certainly auto workers in my constituency, the CAW bargaining unit in my constituency, and I am sure in all auto-making communities in the province -- the Minister of Labour would be on my side on this. I know he is probably the buzz-saw in cabinet now who is making the Treasurer sit up and think about these matters, because he and I have been on the same platform at the CAW hall, Local 199, in St Catharines fighting for many of the same causes in years gone by. I know he is on my side on this issue, and it is good to see that he is there.

I see the member for Lincoln and the member for St Catharines-Brock. They probably both agree with me. I do not expect them to rise in the Legislature and say so, because both would like to be in the cabinet some day and you do not get into the cabinet by rising in the House and publicly pestering the Treasurer or any other members of government. But I am sure that behind closed doors they have made similar representations, because the member for Lincoln, for instance, was a valued employee at General Motors who knows the operation there probably as intricately as any member of this Legislature, and he knows how important that industry is to the city of St Catharines and the Niagara Peninsula.

Hon Mr Laughren: Who?

Mr Bradley: I am referring to the member for Lincoln on this occasion.

I was reading a story about the Treasurer in the Hamilton Spectator that said he had roots in southern Ontario as well, in the Haldimand area, so he understands, I am sure, and he has had it brought to his attention by representatives. You often have a hard time, and the member for Lincoln would understand this, and some other members, bringing management and labour together. They disagree on many, many items, particularly in terms of collective bargaining.

But our Treasurer has brought labour and management together on an issue by imposing a tax on auto workers in this province. He has done this, and the company has said, "This is bad for our sales; this is not good for the auto industry." The union has said, "This is bad for our workers and their employment prospects." All of them understand that we are in the midst of the deepest recession since the 1930s, and they understand that the competition that is being faced today is unprecedented, from offshore, from Mexico, from Asia, from South America even, now, from Europe and certainly from the United States. They know the imposition of this tax at this time is unwise.

The Treasurer has chastised me in the House from time to time to say: "You were the Minister of the Environment. You should understand the reason we're doing it. It's for the environment." I wish I could believe that. I would never say that the Treasurer would be misleading the House, because he is a man of integrity and he would not do that. But I know generically what Treasurers are like, right across the country, and the thing they like most is putting their hands on the money of the taxpayers in the province, of getting revenues. I suspect -- I could be wrong; the Treasurer would tell I am wrong -- it is a tax grab disguised as an environmental tax, disguised as a conservation tax.

1530

I really believe our Treasurer should not just tinker with it, not just -- what is the word we are using now? The word they were using in the newspaper that said he was doing something with the tax.

Hon Mr Laughren: Fine-tuning.

Mr Bradley: Fine-tuning. He should not just fine-tune it, because it is not that our vehicles in Ontario would not benefit from some fine-tuning; what they really need is replacement.

Mr Conway: That is what John White attempted to call his famous energy tax.

Mr Bradley: John White, a former Treasurer of this province, attempted to call his energy tax "fine-tuning," and of course he had to withdraw his tax.

Mr Conway: He tried to call his backdown fine-tuning.

Mr Bradley: It was a backdown.

I would say to the member for Renfrew North, who intervenes in this debate, that I have already promised the Treasurer that if he withdraws his tax I will not call the retreat. I have promised him that. A strategic withdrawal, perhaps; a retreat, never. I said I would publicly compliment him if he totally withdrew this tax and replaced it with a financial incentive for people to purchase new vehicles in Ontario.

Hon Mr Laughren: What about the revenues?

Mr Bradley: What would that do? First of all, it would increase revenues for the Treasurer. That is what he is most concerned about. How would it do it? More people would buy vehicles; they have to pay sales tax --

Hon Mr Laughren: Sounds like Reaganomics. Ronald Reagan is a Liberal.

Mr Bradley: No, no. They have to buy vehicles, they pay sales tax and it increases the revenues. It is interesting that the number one concern of the Treasurer as he interjects is revenue. I thought the number one concern was the environment. Now I hear it is revenue. He says, "What am I going to do for the revenue?" I am suggesting to him that he will benefit from this stimulation of the provincial economy.

You say, "What does that do environmentally?" Environmentally, what it does is the following. Brand-new vehicles have far better emission controls than the older vehicles. Second, their fuel efficiency is far better than the older vehicles' is. So if the Treasurer is really interested in an environmental gesture of importance, he accomplishes both by following my direction and suggestions. He improves the air quality, he improves the fuel efficiency in this province, and at the same time the bonus is this: he gets some cash from it, although maybe not as much as he would like. But the other benefit is for the auto workers in this province, people who live in my street and whom I and others in this Legislature represent, who would then see increased sales of vehicles and so the assembly plants do much better economically and the parts plants, those who produce parts for the vehicles in this province, do better.

Mr Hope: They get most of their parts from the States.

Mr Bradley: The member for Chatham-Kent says they get most of their parts in the United States. I will have to check with representatives of the CAW in St Catharines and my neighbours --

Mr Hope: Local 199.

Mr Bradley: Local 676 at Hayes-Dana as well. I will check with those people, add in 199 in St Catharines and I will check with my neighbours who work in various auto plants and parts plants in our area to see if indeed most of the parts are made in the United States and they do not have to worry about the Treasurer's tax on auto workers. I will have to see if that is the case. I somehow do not think so from my conversations so far with those individuals and what I have read about what they have had to say.

Anyway, I look forward with anticipation to the announcement of the provincial Treasurer of this change. I hope it is momentous. If he does it in the Legislature instead of waiting until the Legislature stops, I want to be able to rise in this Legislature and pay tribute to a Treasurer who had the intestinal fortitude and wisdom and consensus-seeking ability, as had the Minister of Labour who did the same thing with Bill 70, who did a lot of consulting with people and then came in and said, "It's not the bill I wanted originally, but I understand it's probably a better bill the way I have developed it." I will look forward to the Treasurer doing that. Knowing that he is the open-minded person he is, everyone who represents Chelmsford over the years and Walden and many of those fine communities, Chapleau and others --

Hon Mr Laughren: Shining Tree; do not leave out Shining Tree.

Mr Bradley: Shining Tree -- would be a person who would think possibly about that potential change.

The other thing I think this loans bill deals with, and I wonder about passing it, is patronage.

Hon Mr Laughren: You are running on a bit, though.

Mr Bradley: The Treasurer suggests I sit down right now. I have observed the New Democratic Party in the federal Parliament over the years. I used to get the federal Hansards. I still have them down in my basement. Some would suggest I have everything down in my basement -- newspapers, you name it, it is down there; even the federal Hansards.

I have observed the New Democratic Party. I used to read the speeches of David Lewis, and what an eloquent orator he was in the federal House. Son Stephen, in the provincial House, I had the privilege of sitting with for some period of time.

Mr Conway: Stephen was so eloquent and so pure that when Brian Mulroney called he said, "Ready, aye ready."

Mr Bradley: I was not thinking of that patronage appointment because I think that was a good choice. I happen to think that when Ian Deans, former member for Hamilton Mountain in the federal Parliament, took the federal appointment at $94,000 -- it would be over $100,000 now -- that was fine; it was a good appointment and I did not become angry with him.

When Ed Broadbent took his appointment from Brian Mulroney at over $100,000, no one heard me get up in this Legislature and object, because I know that was a good appointment to a commission which deals with human rights. When Stephen Lewis was appointed as ambassador to the United Nations, I did not object to that; I think it was an appropriate appointment.

I was convinced, as perhaps the Speaker was, that the NDP was different; that somehow there would not be the list of patronage appointments. Now I look in my own area and other areas and see that all the New Democrats are getting appointments.

Hon Mr Hampton: We are appointing former Liberal MPPs as judges.

Mr Bradley: The Attorney General interjects. I am not standing here to object to that. I am standing here to object to the fact that the New Democrats portray themselves as different from other parties. The Treasurer and I probably agree on the matter.

This morning before the committee, Michael Cassidy, former leader of the NDP, was just appointed to the Ontario Hydro board. I have not seen a more partisan performance before a legislative committee than I saw with Michael Cassidy. But I expected it. I happened to like Michael Cassidy; a lot of people in the NDP apparently did not. I admired him. I did not agree with him all the time, but I thought in the House he made some interesting points against the government of the time.

Mr Conway: They would not even know that his father ran for the Liberal leadership and was denounced, I think, after the fact by his son.

Mr Bradley: But there we are in committee. We do not vote this week on this. I have to give it some serious consideration.

We have had several New Democrats who have been appointed to various positions. There is a token Liberal and a token Conservative who are appointed, but by and large this bunch makes the Liberals and Conservatives look like amateurs when it comes to patronage appointments. My concern was, I was always led to believe the New Democrats were different, that they are a different breed of people in terms of public morality and ethics and that things such as patronage would disappear.

The Premier set up a committee of the Legislature which, of course, is somewhat of a joke because the government has the majority, there is so little time to consider the appointments, it is just going through the motions. But there is Michael Cassidy before the committee this morning saying, was it not nice that we have this new process. He just zipped right through the committee and his appointment was confirmed.

1540

Ish Theilheimer, who was the many-time candidate for the NDP in Renfrew North, did not even have to go to the committee. He was appointed right away.

I remember when we used to sit around the cabinet table and there would be some really good former Liberal members and we would say, "We can't appoint those people because that's political patronage to do it." But I look at these people and they do not worry about that. Ish was there right away.

I had a number of people who were perhaps not happy with me in the Liberal Party because I would not champion the cause of former candidates or necessarily those who had worked hard for the party. What happens now? The NDP is not different. What we would conclude in this Legislature over the last nine months is not that the NDP -- I had better be careful when I say this -- was measurably worse then the other parties but that it is the same as the other parties.

The Premier changes his tune. The Premier is a different man today than he was before. I used to watch him in opposition. Some of our members resented the Premier of the province of Ontario, Bob Rae, when he was Leader of the Opposition. I remember he called for my resignation at least once or twice -- everybody did at one time or other -- and people said to me: "Don't you dislike Bob Rae for that? He is so unfair. There is no evidence at all of tainted fuel. Here he is. He has his members walking out and he puts on a big show and he wants you to resign. Don't you resent that?" I said: "No. That is the role of the Leader of the Opposition."

The Leader of the Opposition has the role and responsibility to criticize and to establish standards. My objection is to how the Premier's standards have changed now he is the Premier instead of the opposition leader, and how his own members, when they commit indiscretions, are allowed to continue in cabinet or are allowed to be apologized for, when I can recall that his standards were different in opposition, when he pointed the finger and called for everyone's resignation.

What does that say? It says that Bob Rae is the same as any other politician we have seen in Ontario. It is part of government; it is part of opposition. I could say he is worse, but I am waiting to make a judgement on that. I have always liked the member for York South as an individual. Members of this Legislature know that, but I certainly have found my view different today watching how his standards have changed in government from when they were in opposition.

I know the member for Renfrew North is probably interested in making an intervention in this particular debate. I do not think he has spoken on this, but before I finish, I just saw something else I should mention. When the Treasurer is borrowing the money, I want him to know there is a rally on the bridge at Port Weller on 30 June. This rally is set up by Nora Blyde, who wants to see that federal government contract. I want the people of this province to know about that.

I have many other issues we could deal with, but in fairness, we are in third reading of this bill and third reading is why it should not be read. I want to give other members an opportunity to make some interventions because I will have a chance, when the tax bills come before the House, to make my representations at that time. I will have a chance to talk about whether the tax is going to provide money so that the Minister of Education can provide 60% of the cost of education, as the NDP promised the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and other teacher affiliates with which I am well acquainted and in which I know many people. I could deal with a number of other issues, but I really believe the member for Renfrew North probably has a contribution to make of some significance that should be permitted at this time.

Mrs Haslam: I was almost out the door today when I heard the member for St Catharines get up and talk about a committee that I serve on, and I thought perhaps I would share some other, clearer views of that committee with people.

We are trying to be very different. We have opened up the process, we advertise for these positions out in the community. That book is available. I know my riding office has it; I know my library has it; I know I have one in my office right now. Anybody who wants to come and look at a job can do so. I have people come in and say they would be interested and I always say: "Please make an application. Here is the process. Here are the forms." I think that is very, very good for the community. They feel there is now an open process, that they all have a chance at some of these positions.

Let's face it, I do not give patronage positions. I do not say: "Here is a New Democrat here. Here is a New Democrat there." They send in a resume, they send in their job application, and I think that is very important.

When the member talks about voting for Michael Cassidy this morning, I find that very strange because the only person there besides the four government members was one other member. One other member bothered to show up to vote today, and I find it very, very interesting when he says, "Gee, we don't want to have him come in."

It is very interesting, when we interview people, one of the first questions is, "Are you a member of a political party?" We have had more Liberals come up there, we have had more people with no allocation to any party whatsoever, and when they finally find somebody that says, "Yes, I am a member," there is utter shock. They grab their hearts, they go, "Oh my God, an NDP is going to get a job there." Talk about theatrics. It is just amazing to sit in this committee and look at the surprise and shock on their faces.

I see my time is up, but I just feel it was important to bring the true things out in this debate.

Mr Bradley: In reply, I mention first of all that when Mr Cassidy was before the committee, there were four Liberal members sitting there, even though three is all that are allotted, and all were involved in the discussion of his appointment.

The appointments in the province have been advertised for some period of time now. They have got a new book. It is all nicely bound and very colourful, and they think this is something new. Those have been advertised for some period of time now in changes made by the previous government.

The government majority in the committee ensures that anybody who is appointed by the Premier of Ontario will in fact be appointed. I am sure there may be some consultation with the members of the NDP caucus ahead of time, to tell them that these are the people who are going to be appointed.

There is a very limited amount of time available to question these people. Frankly, the committee could have sat the entire morning questioning Michael Cassidy on his views on Ontario Hydro and his qualifications to sit on that particular board. We were very concerned that this board is becoming a political board, which will be instructed and directed by the Premier's office, the corner office in this building. That is why we were concerned and why we wanted to ask those questions.

We know we cannot call independent witnesses. We cannot call somebody else in to say, "Michael Cassidy is not qualified," or "Michael Cassidy is qualified for the following reasons." Nor can we receive formal written representations in that regard. We are limited in the number of people we can see coming through this particular committee.

It is essentially a sham. It is an illusion of some kind of scrutiny and process that makes a difference when in effect it is simply a rubber stamp for the Premier of Ontario to make his patronage appointments. He has every right to make those appointments. He was elected as Premier. But he does not have a right to portray this committee as independent and useful.

1500

Mr Turnbull: This of course is a routine type of bill, getting borrowing authority. What is not routine about this is the enormous amount of money we are talking about. The government wants authority to borrow $10.4 billion in the fiscal year 1991-92, which accounts for $9.7 billion of the debt it is running up and $639 million for debt retirement.

We see that the province's total debt will be $51.7 billion in 1991-92, which is up from $42.3 billion last year. As a percentage of our gross domestic product the total debt will increase from 15% in 1990-91 to 18.3% in 1991-92. Per capita debt will jump from $4,338 last year to $5,226 this year. That is an increase of 20.5%, and according to the budget documents, we are going to see an increase in debt load of up to approximately $8,000 for every man, woman and child in the province within the next four years, this government's mandate.

I am absolutely alarmed. I am struck by a couple of the comments that were made to the Treasurer on his sojourn to New York, where he attempted to sell this ridiculous budget of his. The comment was made, "There is an absolute lack of reality." Another commentator said, "This is lotusland ostriches." Indeed it is true. We have a government which admittedly does not have any experience. Unfortunately they are getting the experience the hard way, and the whole of Ontario is paying for that experience.

I have a very strong belief that I should speak to this issue constantly, irrespective of what government may be in power. That is the fact that if we as a society believe we need that vast array of government services, then we should at least have the decency to pay for it in taxes. We should not leave that debt to our children, and that is what we are doing --

Mr Carr: And our grandchildren.

Mr Turnbull: And our grandchildren indeed.

Mr Hope: It sounds like a Conservative slogan.

Mr Turnbull: It is a Conservative slogan. The member across the way is exactly right. This party very clearly believes in living within our means. It is something which has been very good for Canada over the years, and as we move away from that value, we see that the options that are open to this province and indeed the country are severely limited.

I have often heard comments made by the governing party with respect to the federal debt. I am not happy with the debt, which certainly was Trudeau's debt, but the federal government has not wrestled it down. I ask the Treasurer if he wants to repeat the mistakes that were made at the federal level. Does he want to pile up that debt so we do not have options in the future, we have no manoeuvring room? Eight thousand dollars per man, woman and child by the end of this government's mandate. That is absolutely frightening. It does not just hurt Ontario, it hurts the whole of Canada. Any effort to reduce the interest rates in Canada are defeated by this level of government borrowing.

The Treasurer is nodding his head. I do not know if he is going to sleep or if he is agreeing with me or what, but it is indeed a fact that we directly attack the ability of the Bank of Canada to reduce interest rates when we go out and have huge public borrowings. Not only that, but we also have the problem that private industry has to suffer because of this. Money becomes less available to them.

We have had 14 tax increases in the last budget, a little over $1 billion worth of taxes, but the worst is yet to come. When we peruse the budget documents, we see from the revenue forecast -- this is the Treasurer's revenue forecast, obviously based upon the kind of growth he is predicting for the economy -- we are going to have something in the region of $9 billion or $10 billion worth of extra taxes before this government's mandate is over, and I do not know if our industry can take it.

We have had 40 tax increases from 1985 and business is concluding that this is a very bad place to do business. I was struck by comments that were made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology in Paris this week: "We expect the economy to begin recovering later this year. We are now forecasting an average growth of nearly 4% in each of the next three years."

If we are going to have that kind of growth, why on earth do we continue to run the huge deficits that are predicted? There is no excuse for this. If you run a deficit in a year when you have a great recession, given the fact that I understand the Treasurer is a Keynesian economist, then Keynes would surely dictate that you would pay it back in the years when you recover. But there is no projection for the payback of that.

A further comment was made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology in Paris: "The forecast is based on the underlying strengths of the province's economy, strengths that give Ontario a competitive edge in the global economic race, strengths that we must constantly build on to maintain our competitive edge."

That is absolutely correct, but we are not helping our competitive edge with some of the silly laws that are being brought forward. Thank goodness this government has had the sense to take away some of the absolutely ridiculous aspects of Bill 70.

The worst about that is the message that it sends out to business. If any of the unions think the government is doing them a favour, they are wrong, because companies are leaving and they are very quiet about it. They just simply leave very quietly.

Interjection.

Mr Turnbull: I have a rather foolish member across the floor raving on about free trade, the same member who made the statement before, quite erroneously, that most of the auto parts are sourced from the United States. He obviously does not understand numbers and he should indeed examine the record. Last year was the first year in history that Ontario had a positive balance of trade with the United States and a big chunk of that was from the automobile sector. In other words, free trade has given us a positive balance of trade. Amazing.

The member can stick his head in the sand as long as he wants. I can tell him the trouble is that industry is not sticking its head in the sand. It is leaving, and it is leaving with our jobs, jobs for our children, jobs that allow people to pay taxes to give all of the support services we hold dear to have a good, solid, compassionate society.

Another comment was made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology: "As such, we believe that long-term competitiveness in today's global economy is achieved through a well-trained and educated workforce, partnership between labour and management, concern for the environment and investment in both innovation and research and development."

I could not have said it better. That is exactly what we need, co-operation. But this is not a government which is showing any co-operation. It is showing all kinds of sham consultation, but we know how the consultation is reflected in the legislation that is coming down. We have seen it in the housing bill, a bill that is totally flawed and is dedicated to driving the private sector out of housing.

If they want to be honest and say, "We do not want any private sector housing," frankly I will disagree with them, but I will have a lot more respect for them, instead of driving down people's investments and then forcing them out of business.

The impact on business is quite profound. Ontario has been losing jobs at a much faster rate than any other province in Canada. We are losing 12,000 jobs per day.

Mr Mammoliti: Why?

Mr Turnbull: One of the NDP members is asking why. Indeed the member should ask himself the same question. The answer is that --

Interjections.

1600

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order. The honourable member for York Mills has the floor and is very legitimately participating in the debate. If any other members want to participate in this debate, let them resume their seats and they will have their turn. Interjections are out of order, particularly from members who are not in their seats. The honourable member for York Mills, please continue.

Mr Turnbull: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: The heckling reflects the nervousness this government has over the fact that this province is losing jobs faster than the other provinces, and the reason for that is the bad decisions this government is making. That is 12,000 jobs a day. Our real gross domestic product is expected to shrink by 3.3%. Now any government in its right mind that would like to see its citizens prosper does not relish a reduction in its gross domestic product.

It is not all of its making, I have to say. There is a world recession on and frankly, yes, they took over the fiscal mess from the Liberals when they took office. We know that. Nevertheless, they are the government and they have a responsibility to ensure that the children of all the people of Ontario have a future. The way they are going about it, there is no future.

I am struck by the number of my personal friends who are talking about leaving this province. These are people who have brought jobs and prosperity to the province. l am particularly perplexed at the hyperbole that comes from the governing party. It just simply does not understand what this government is doing to the economy, and it certainly does not recognize the strengths the Ontario economy had and the significant social directions in which the Conservative Party took this province in 42 years of good government. I think an awful lot of people are beginning to look back to those days with great relish.

I was knocking on some doors a couple of weeks ago, and there was a wiry little Scot who said he had been an NDP supporter all his life since he came over from Scotland, and he had been a socialist in Britain. He was blaming the Bob Rae government. I was quite curious. I thought we would get some harangue about the Mulroney government. It is nothing to do with me but I expected that, but he was blaming the Bob Rae socialist government in Ontario, and he said he will never vote NDP again.

Nevertheless, it is not too late for them. If they have aspirations to form the next government, then reform the government now in such a way that there are policies which are consistent with continuing the Ontario dominance in Canada in terms of the economic base.

We saw all kinds of promises in the last election broken. We saw promises that we would have a lessening of the tax burden on householders and that education would be borne more by the province, but that is not being done. We see the commercial concentration tax, a tax they spoke against, which the Liberals brought in; they have declined to do anything about this.

Mr Carr: And now they love the revenue.

Mr Turnbull: And now they love the revenue. Is that not true?

I guess every government is allowed to rethink its policies. We are simply saying that they should rethink their policies in a sensible way which is consistent with keeping our industrial base. Otherwise they will have nothing to govern. Do they want to put out a sign, "The last person out of Ontario, switch off the lights"?

We have further comments from the member for Oshawa: "We realize that governments alone cannot create sustainable prosperity. Instead, governments can and must create conditions where labour, business and members of the community can co-operate to create economic growth."

They will not create economic growth in a mood of panic, and there is among the business element a mood of panic today. This is something they urgently need to address. This is their responsibility. They can laugh at it if they wish, but the province is going down and it is going down very quickly. If they do not read the financial papers and do not understand the reality of the Ontario economy, I am sorry, but at least there are some members of the government who can read those papers and understand them, and they must know the reality.

They have to get some control of the fiscal affairs of this government. They should not spend our children's future. That is just deferred taxation. If they want the taxpayers of Ontario to have the benefits that they think they need, ask them and then tax the people. I do not advocate any more taxes. I am saying we cannot afford any more taxes. But I am saying further than that, if they really need those services, then let's at least be honest, people from every party, and pay the taxes that are needed to support this province so we do not disappear into a sea of debt we will never recover from. I have doubts that at the federal level any party will ever be able to get rid of the debt. They should not repeat the mistake here.

Mr Mahoney: Do you want more taxes?

Mr Turnbull: I do not want more taxes. Basically we have to start cutting services. The best way to start is that we have to look at every single ministry and have sunset clauses so that we look at the program and see if it is delivering value at a period set out after every legislative move. We really believe they should have cut the broader public service sector's pay increases. Some senior civil servants are going to get an $11,000 increase this year. We know the senior civil servants do not like what they are doing, but the government should not try to buy their allegiance. It has to rely on people in guaranteed jobs at a reasonable amount of money doing their jobs.

If we had kept the broader public service down to a 2% increase this year, we could have saved $750 million. That is $50 million more than this government's job initiative. They could have funded it out of that.

Simplistically, the government says: "Oh, no. You're taking it out on the backs of the workers." No, we are not taking it out on the backs of the workers. These are senior civil servants who are getting $11,000 a year. How dare they spend the taxpayers' money in this irresponsible way? There is no need to borrow this amount of money if they would manage the economy proper!y, which they are not doing.

Eventually we are going to have to pay the bill and the only way we can pay the bill is by stopping spending now so that we do not further add to the bill. We need private sector jobs, not public sector jobs. We need to stimulate that and give confidence to the private sector, and they are not sending messages at the moment which give the private sector confidence.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: If they think it is funny that companies are leaving the province, they are dead wrong. They are 180 degrees in the wrong direction at this moment.

Hon Mr Wildman: We have all heard that phrase before.

1610

Mr Turnbull: They will hear that phrase again too; 180 degrees in the wrong direction. They know it and they know they are dropping in the polls, but opinion polls should not be the reason that drives a government to good legislation. It should be the sense that says, "We want to protect the economy and the base which allows our citizens to earn a living," and I am not talking about adding more public service jobs; I am talking about private sector jobs which pay taxes and pay for their salaries.

Mr O'Connor: The previous speaker in this House talked about the fact that our children are going to have to pay for this. Let's take a look at some of the children he does not talk about. Let's talk about the one in seven children in this province who has to rely on social assistance for food. Let's talk about the 40% of the people who are dependent on social assistance in this province who are children.

Mr Mammoliti: He does not care about them.

Mr O'Connor: Does he not care about them? Maybe he does not care about those children, but those children really matter to us. He never talked about the one quarter of a million jobs that have been lost in this province since last spring as a direct result of the free trade deal. He does not talk about the costs that we as a government are going to spend, $4.9 billion on social assistance to recognize people's needs. People are what governments are all about. We are here to recognize the needs of people, and by gosh we are going to do it.

He does not care about unemployment, about the people unemployed running at 10%. He does not care about them. The Canadian federal government does not care about them. They have cut the Ul payments and they have cut the social transfer payments. We do not need that.

He has not mentioned the fact that corporate taxes are down because we are not making as much. They are down by $1 billion. In fact, that is a lot of money that we could be using right now. We have not increased one corporate tax in that budget.

What we have to look at here are the needs of the children he has talked about. I do not think that the one in seven children who has to rely on social assistance for his next meal should be the one who has to pay that price, because I do not think the people of Ontario think we should not feed the children of this province. Thank goodness we have a government that recognizes the needs of children and reacts in the right way.

Mr Ruprecht: The member for York Mills is talking about the debt load. As all members know, in this Legislature it lends itself to a certain amount of partisanship, but on the whole the fact that comes through loud and clear is that this government is either unwilling or unable to come to grips with the economy, which is in a downspin, and the question remains, what will this government do to stop investment from leaving the province and the daily job losses we have to sustain?

Partisanship aside, would all of us not and should all of us not be interested in ensuring that every Ontarian has a right to a job, has a right to an adequate lifestyle? I think essentially that is the question and it simply cannot be that this government is only looking after the interests of its own constituencies. That obviously cannot be the case, because we are being approached day after day by group after group that is unable to get access to this government. We can provide the names of those organizations and the government, the NDP, has come to this place saying it will consult widely with everyone.

My friends, the fact remains we all have a responsibility not only for consultation, but a reflection in the law being produced, of what is taking place in this Legislature, in the economy, and we simply say, "Let us move in the right direction and get the job done."

Mr Carr: I would like to add to the debate because I would like to make a couple of points in reply to the statement by my colleague.

To put in perspective what the cost will be to this province at the end of the mandate of this government, the interest alone on the debt will be $1 million an hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year; not to pay for programs for children, education, health care or the environment, just to pay the interest on the deficit alone.

I get to reply and two minutes is my reply time; $30,000 will be spent in that two minutes, not to pay for health care, the environment, or for those children, just to pay the interest on the deficit alone.

One thing the people on the other side do not realize is our social programs do not depend on the compassion of government, they depend on a healthy and prosperous economy. This group does not understand, and when they destroy the economy as they are doing it is going to destroy the social programs that, ironically, they care so much about.

The mentality of this government: Anything that moves, they tax it, and if it still moves they regulate it. When it goes out of business they subsidize it. That is the socialist way. By the time four years are up we are going to be in sad shape because we are not going to have any money to pay for the social programs. We are just going to be paying the interest. In the two minutes I have stood up here we will spend $30,000 just on interest and it is a crime.

Hon Mr Wildman: I listened with interest to the comments of my friend opposite and I want to point out that while everyone in this House recognizes that important social programs, particularly in a period of economic downturn like this, are dependent on the revenues that come to the government from ordinary citizens and the corporate sector. We all must recognize we did not increase any corporate or income taxes in the budget because we did not want to send the wrong message to industry.

One of the major problems, besides the downturn in revenues because of the economic situation, is that the federal government has decided to cut transfer payments and put a cap on transfer payments to this province which has significantly limited the revenue this government has to meet the needs of those people who require assistance.

To have a member of the Conservative Party in this House attack the government when his own government in Ottawa is one of the causes of the problem is an indication of how far they have gone in missing the boat in meeting the needs of the people of this province.

1620

Mr Turnbull: I am pleased we have managed to wake up the sleepyheads across the floor. They may have taken some notice.

I will start out by saying that the member for Durham East is totally, utterly without foundation when he makes his allegations about my concern for children. I have been out collecting with the Salvation Army for years and I am proud to say I was the vice-chair of the North York appeal this year because I cared about people. I care about getting help to the people who most need it, not this socialist nonsense of help everybody, and then take away taxes and destroy the industrial base.

Further, regarding the nonsense about the free trade deal, unless we wake up in this country that we need free trade we are finished because every other major country in the world is going into a large trading block. If you want to look at what happened in Argentina when they closed the door, their standard of living dropped and eventually they had hyperinflation and they do not know if they will ever be able to solve it.

As I pointed out before, there is a positive balance of trade Ontario had with the United States last year because of the other sector. Additionally, I want to point out that the suggestion that those people earning over $80,000 a year are not paying more taxes -- are paying substantially more taxes. The government is managing to obscure the reality. The government can fool itself by pretty little speeches about the fact that we do not care. We do care, we care more than the government, obviously.

Mr Conway: I want to participate again in a debate I think is really important, given the fact we spent so much of May in an interesting diversion. This is one of those relatively few opportunities we will have before adjournment to talk about the general issues and the specific concerns I think all members have. l will try to be as brief as I possibly can, but I will probably take 10 or 15 minutes to cover four or five areas.

I was really interested by the previous speaker's observations. There is no question that he, like his colleagues, feels passionately about the budgetary policy to which this bill speaks because this is a borrowing bill and the government has outlined a plan to borrow, to deficit finance to the tune of $34,8 billion over the next four years. It is their right and they have explained why they plan to do that. But it is interesting listening particularly to the members for York Mills and Oakville, two vigorous spokespeople for their party who feel very strongly about the fundamental inappropriateness of such deficit financing. I certainly respect their views.

I will say, however, something I have said before in this session. While a lot of right-wing Tories feel as my friend the member for York Mills feels passionately, I well remember those days, as my friend at the Hansard table will remember, when perhaps the most eloquent spokesman for the fiscal right wing of the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario was sitting across the way as Treasurer when I first came here in 1975, W. Darcy McKeough, a very competent fellow.

Mr Hope: In whose opinion?

Mr Conway: In my opinion. He was here for 15 years and anyone who ever had the benefit of engaging the former Treasurer and member for Chatham-Kent had to believe and respect that the honourable former Treasurer was a very powerful figure.

I mention this simply because when I came here in 1975 the Conservative government of the time, then some 32 years in office, offered a budgetary plan in the fiscal year 1975 with, as I recall, an expenditure plan of about $12 billion but with a $2.2 billion deficit.

Mr Carr: Their taxes were much lower than your government, Sean, much lower. You taxed us to the limit.

Mr Conway: My friend the member for Oakville says that -- undoubtedly, that is not my point. My point is simply that we were prepared to tolerate 15 or 16 years ago on a budgetary plan of $12-billion worth of expenditure a $2.2-billion deficit. I do not fault the then government for doing that, but I often think now, "Why weren't there people marching in the streets?" because extrapolating a $12-billion budgetary expenditure plan to, say, a $45-billion or $50-billion expenditure plan, one would correspondingly have a $7-billion to $8-billion deficit.

In fact, in 1983, in the midst of a very severe recession, another very vigorous right-winger, Frank S. Miller, Esquire, then Treasurer, confronted with what must have been a terrible situation, I think had a budgetary plan calling for expenditures in the neighbourhood of $30 billion, and he was offering a $3.3-billion deficit, which I understand.

That is not to say we have a licence, any one of us, to continue in good times and in bad the kind of deficit financing that apparently all governments have found good reason to engage in the last 20 years.

I simply mention that because the great benefit of 6 September is that in Ontario the three major and traditional parties have now, or will have had, experience in government. It is useful for opposition members to offer opinions and advice as to what they would do, but I think people watching this debate and reading the printed Hansard would expect to see some relationship to what we say in opposition, for example, to what we do in government. I simply make the point that when the Progressive Conservatives were in office, for very good reasons, they were prepared to run deficits unheard of at the time provincially.

I suspect, for example, that in 1975 the budgetary plan paid some attention to the political realities. It was an election year. It was an election in which it looked like the hegemony of Frost, Robarts and Davis might in fact come to an end. It did not come to an end but Davis, to his credit, was prepared to spend not a few dollars to take every precaution reasonable people might expect him to take.

Mr Carr: He cut taxes, that is why.

Mr Conway: The member for Oakville said he cut taxes. In fact, he probably did cut taxes. One of the things he did that was a pecuniary benefit to me was that he offered first-time home buyers a $1,500 grant I qualified for. I was happy to get it. I did not need it particularly, but I got it. That I got it 16 years ago in an election year was particularly noteworthy.

I just say to the member for Oakville and the member for York Mills, though, they should be careful because the day will come when they or their party will be returned to the Treasury bench. There is no question about it. In fact, it may be next time. One of the things we would do well, all of us, having had the experience of being in opposition and now coming to government, is being perhaps a little more disciplined in what we say.

I look back on some of the mistakes we made over five and a half years. The members opposite are correct, that we spent to the extent we did in good times is something that probably bears some reflection. There is no question about that. I also take some pride in the fact that for whatever reason, particularly buoyant times probably being the most obvious, I think it was in the fiscal year 1989 for the first time in 20 years the budget was in balance. I will be perfectly honest in saying the incredible growth of that year was more responsible for that possibility than anything else. There is absolutely no question we spent very handsomely, often with enormous pressure to spend even more by the members in the other two parties.

I wanted to participate in this debate this afternoon because, like my colleagues in the official opposition, I have been on the road recently with the caucus task force looking at the budget. I have been struck by what I have been hearing. I have not visited all the venues, but in recent days I have been in Smiths Falls, Kingston and Peterborough.

It has been very interesting. I have been hearing some very critical things about the Liberals in office. It has been a humbling experience to sit there and take it and, boy, did we have to take it the other day in Kingston. Some not very complimentary things were said about our stewardship. I thought some of the criticism was very correct and I did not have much by way of response.

But I want to report some other things, and I think this is supported by the various polling companies. Quite apart from the political preference question, it is really interesting to look at the detailed public opinion research about what people are thinking out there.

1630

Having been here now for almost 16 years, I will say that the deficit issue, as my friend the member for York Mills and I am sure my friend the member for Oakville South are going to point out shortly, is a real issue. Most interestingly, it is a particularly real issue for my generation, the so-called boomers. The boomers, apparently, have a very different attitude about public finance than their parents. When I think about my parents, of course, their formative years were the Depression years and the war years, in which government had no choice but to contemplate deficit financing the like of which we have never known in this country.

I am no expert on public finance, but if the members really want to look at deficit spending they should go back to the period of the 1930s or the war years, and people much more knowledgeable than I will point out that for every good reason we ran huge deficits relative to our taxing capacity and relative to the political culture of the time.

For example, it was in 1935 or 1936 that Norman Rogers, as the newly minted federal Minister of Labour, probably the only really knowledgeable Keynesian at the federal cabinet table, was trying to explain to people like Mackenzie King that the Depression was not going to go away and that there were going to have to be some dramatically different things contemplated. I am going to tell the members, old Willy King, who thought he was an advanced reformer, was in fact a real fiscal conservative, and Norman Rogers lost more than he won.

When we get into the war years, we see again, for all kinds of reasons, deficits. If the members want to see deficits, I will take them through a long litany of deficits. We had provincial governments during the Depression that were in fact bankrupt. The provincial government of Saskatchewan was bankrupt because of the particular circumstances of the Prairie economy. I do not mean this as a criticism. The fact is that weather and international markets had ruined the lifeblood of the Saskatchewan Treasury. No politician is going to be able to escape those kinds of external forces.

My point, however, is that the deficit issue is a real issue, and it is a real issue because public attitudes are changing and they are particularly changing in the 25-50 age group. One of the interesting things about the American public opinion that is related is that the over-60 crowd is becoming quite liberal and the under-60, the 25-45 crowd, is becoming quite conservative --

Interjection: Even in Florida.

Mr Conway: Even in Florida, I would suggest, because of course if you are over 60 you understand something about your health care requirements, you understand something about those other social programs that are going to be an inevitable part of the aging process.

My friends the members opposite decry the GST, and I understand why; I think I have probably done some of that myself. The fact of the matter is that I cannot imagine -- would anybody here accept the job of being Minister of Finance for Canada? I would not. Quite frankly -- and I think it is one of Jacques Parizeau's arguments for separation, which I do not share -- the situation in which the federal finance minister now finds himself is virtually impossible. There is no room to manoeuvre. People have absolutely had it with taxes, and I understand that. We had better all understand that.

My friend is here from Oakville and I do not know what his views on the subject are, but I know what his predecessor's views on spending tens of millions of additional dollars on perfectly worthwhile school projects in Oakville are. Maybe it was more north Oakville than south Oakville, but we all have as local politicians a mountain of pressure to spend more money.

I sat the other day in the very attractive boardroom of the Kingston and District Chamber of Commerce, and there on the wall was a beautiful colour photograph of the panorama that is Kingston. Was I getting lacerated about government spending. As I listened to this criticism, genuinely felt and beautifully offered, I kept looking at this wall picture. If ever there was a government town in Upper Canada, it is Kingston -- beautiful universities, marvellous schools and colleges, an array of federal institutions that bespeak John A. Macdonald's lifetime of parliamentary representation for that wonderful community.

I say to myself and I said to the chamber: "I agree with you that taxes are too high and spending is perhaps too easy. Let us look to that wall and you tell me where in Kingston you want the scalpel applied." That is the point where this discussion has now got to come.

I represent an electoral district that in significant measure is a wholly owned subsidiary of the consolidated revenue fund of the government of Canada. I am not complaining about that, but that is reality. The big employers in north Renfrew are Atomic Energy of Canada, Camp Petawawa and the National Forestry Institute. There alone we have about 5,000 or 6,000 of the best paying, most secure, relatively speaking, jobs anywhere in eastern Ontario outside of Ottawa and Kingston.

Have I got an interest in that federal Treasury? You want to believe it. Everywhere I go in my own constituency people say: "We've had it. You are too liberal in your spending. You are spending everywhere." They apparently believe "that gang in Ottawa" is even worse. So when I say, "All right, remember, though, you are asking Don Mazankowski or whomever -- David Barrett, should he be the next Minister of Finance is sitting there with" -- ah, my friend the member for Durham York was going on about a series of cutbacks. I know what he is talking about. But with all of the so-called cuts we continue to run annual federal deficits of $30 billion.

You could say, "Well, tax the rich." The problem with taxing the rich is that they have more mobility than the taxman. I have no brief to carry for the rich, but I am simply looking at the public finances of the Dominion government and of the local governments in the provinces, and I am telling the government, we have a problem. We all have a problem.

I say the deficit is going to be a real issue in the 1990s in a way it was not in the 1970s or 1980s, and demographics apparently are going to drive that maybe more than anything else, although the cumulative effect of the kind of deficits we have been running will also be a factor.

I say to my friends everywhere, I think we have reached a point where we are really all going to have to change the way we do business. My friend and former parliamentary intern, Christopher Waddell, now national editor of the Globe and Mail, I gather was here the other night. I was not able to hear his lecture to the group, but I gather Chris had some interesting things to say about his perspective on changes in national politics. From what I heard of his address, I think he is on the right track.

One of the things I am hearing, and from the most interesting sources -- my good NDP friends, my lifetime Tory relatives and my Liberal supporters -- is that they will pay no more taxes; they have had it. They think governments do wonderful things. They appreciate all of the great services, but they have reached the absolute threshold of their tax tolerance.

That is a very serious message that we are all going to have to take account of.

I have been in government; I have been in the opposition. I say to my friend, as I say to my own constituents, who in many respects have a vital interest in government spending because if you work for the Department of National Defence or you work for Atomic Energy, you do relate very directly to the consolidated revenue fund. As I say, I am very proud to have those institutions in my community and I will fight, as I have in the past, to protect those facilities in every reasonable regard. But deficits and taxes are going to be a significant issue for the 1990s and the kind of borrowing we have seen federally and certainly to some extent provincially over the last few years is going to become much more prominent in the public debate.

To me, the issue in the budgetary policy for this government this year is not the $10-billion deficit. It is quite high. I do not think even Frank Miller or Darcy McKeough or even the member for Brant-Haldimand could have offered a deficit at anything less than about $7 billion without a lot of blood on the floor.

To me, the real issue in this plan is the out-year spending, the $34.8 billion because that will effectively, in a four-year period, double the cumulative deficit of Ontario in the post-Confederation era.

1640

The issue here again is, as the federal government is finding, when you build the mountain of debt to a certain height, you lose all manoeuvrability and you are just left with the politics of cutbacks and very few options.

As I say, I appreciate the difficulties that my friends opposite are going to confront. My worry, quite frankly, is that if we are not careful in managing this issue -- and I say this to Progressive Conservatives, middle-of-the-road Liberals, and good social democrats -- we are going to invite and produce a Thatcherite counterreaction that is going to mow all of us down. I hope that does not happen. I do not believe it will happen if we do some of the things we are going to have to do. This is going to mean for all of us, I think, a fundamental change in the way we think about making policy, and in the way we deliver programs.

For example, it is quite clear that there is a strong reaction to the GST, and I accept all of that, but at a totally different level. This business of a whole bunch of governments having a whole bunch of different tax collectors running around is starting to be noticed by people. All they know is that they are paying all of the bills. They hate the GST, of course, but they are not particularly impressed with the government growing every day as policy has required it to grow in the business of tax collection.

Mr Bradley: They know this government is going to expand the tax base to be the same as the GST.

Mr Conway: I say to my friend from St Catharines, any government is going to have to expand the tax base. I do not expect anyone sitting over there -- I do not expect an Ian Scott as Treasurer, I do not expect a Gary Carr as Treasurer, I do not expect a Dennis Drainville as Treasurer -- to stand in his place in years to come and imagine not expanding the tax base. To imagine that is just not to regard any of the history of the fiscal policy and budgetary developments over the last 40 or 60 or 80 years. I think, quite frankly, one of the things we are going to have to start doing is stop insulting the intelligence of people by telling them that it is going to be so. They know taxes are going up. They are not happy.

It was interesting. I was at the barber this morning, and all my barber wants to talk about is tax on booze and tax on cigarettes. I argued the government's case; I think the government's case is a good case. I spent an hour, and I have to tell the members of this House, l did not move my barber one centimetre, because for him, he just sees it as a clear and visible sign that they are piling more taxes on life's little pleasures. When you make the case, as Benoit Bouchard did last night about cancer, he just says, you know, "Get out of here."

This jurisdiction now has the most highly taxed cigarettes, and if it does not have the most highly taxed beer, it is close to setting that record as well. The public is very much, I think, like my barber. They are not connecting, in many cases, the costs of wonderful programs. How many people do the members opposite know and represent who really understand the costs of health care? Most people hear the numbers and their eyes glaze over. I understand why, but With the demographics I talked about earlier, were the aging population of this jurisdiction and country to double between the decades of between 1990 and 2010, or whatever it is, and with the knowledge that we consume the vast majority of our health services in the last months of our lives, the members opposite can figure it out. The health spending, if we do not make dramatic changes, is going to go right through the roof. I repeat, and it is going to be members -- I am looking at some of the very youthful ones whose age group is saying: "We've got news for you. We're not paying, so you can do whatever you want, but this is it. This is where we draw the line."

I see some very significant pressures building that are going to have to be addressed. I saw the Journal the other night, and I must say I did not find it very elucidating, because it essentially spent most of the time in the hospital corridors. If you were watching that, I am not so sure you would come away and say, "I'm getting so much value for the billions I'm spending on health care."

In the presence of my friend from St Catharines I want to say something that also grows out of the debate in Smiths Falls and Kingston, and I will take some criticism as a former cabinet minister in a former government, but if people are fed up with deficits and taxes, they are starting to notice a few of the input costs. People are starting to notice what they are paying for garbage, and they are not very impressed. In fact, in Smiths Falls and Kingston we had the mayors detail what the increased costs have been in the last three years, and I repeat, for most of that we were responsible.

Talk about a ticking time bomb. In Smiths Falls we were told the municipal cost for garbage has tripled in something like the last two or three years. Kingston, I think, is now spending $1 million a month on just shipping the stuff out, not even collecting it, and the growth is exponential; that is, the cost. That of course is showing up on tax bills. We had mayors pleading with us, saying, "Do you people at Queen's Park not understand that with the best of intentions, all you are doing is making Laidlaw fabulously wealthy and driving our local taxes through the roof?"

I understand it is not easy, and I expect my friend from St Catharines to kick me, but I heard some pretty telling criticism about our policies that in the main appear to be being carried forward by the Deputy Premier, the now Minister of the Environment. If what I heard is to be credited, in a year or two the tax bills are going to have added to them garbage bills that are going to be outrageous in the minds of most of Ed Broadbent's ordinary Canadians.

On the garbage question, I realize it is not easy. But we as a Liberal government and they as a New Democratic government have been continuing with a policy that appears determined to make every consultant in the country fabulously wealthy. We debate and we debate and we consult, and it is all wonderful. But time is passing. The bills are mounting as we speak.

I think of that day 11 or 12 years ago when Harry Parrott stood up in this House and said: "We've got the answer to the toxic waste problem. The government owns a whole bunch of land in the Grand River basin near Cayuga and that, my friends, is going to be where we will locate what nobody will want." All hell broke loose. Harry Parrott, wonderful fellow, hardworking, wellintentioned, and poor Harry was driven back into a pathetic retreat, because any hydrogeologist worth his salt was able to come to the Legislature and say, "I can't think of a better way to contaminate the water supplies of Dunnville and Brantford," so Cayuga went out the window in an instant.

I think it was about 1979 or 1980 that the Davis government, I thought to its credit and with much acclaim, created the Ontario Waste Management Corp. I am not going to go through all of that, but a decade later we have spent over $125 million and we have had some great debates and we have not turned a shovelful of sod in Bismarck, Lincoln county, or anywhere else to deal with a problem that was of urgent and pressing necessity 15 years ago.

My point is simply that 10 years later, $125 million later, we do not even have a site started, though lots of good work has been done. If the city of Kingston, if the town of Smiths Falls, if the city of Sault Ste Marie, if the town of Haliburton is forced into a paradigm of that, we will have revolt, because people cannot and will not pay the bills that are consequent upon that kind of endless debate.

1650

Good debate, good input; I do not even mind some intervenor funding. It all has to happen. But to govern is to decide, and somebody somewhere soon has to start making some decisions. They are not going to be popular. People are going to fight to the death to avoid a landfill. I support entirely the new initiatives about reduction and all the rest of it, but we are kidding ourselves if we think this can continue over the lifetime of this government and certainly over the lifetime of most of us in this Legislature. The deficit issue, the tax question will just drive us to some decisions. I just hope they are the right ones.

My friend opposite says the government has embarked on new policies in energy, and there is no doubt about that. I do not really know the Minister of Energy, but she seems like a very decent, quite committed sort. Some of her energy policy I find scary, ill-founded, unwise and dangerous. There is no question in my mind that she means every word of it.

I represent, as I said earlier, a very large research community that has a vested and vital interest in the Ontario and Canadian nuclear option. They think the Minister of Energy is mad. They just cannot believe that anyone who is as apparently sincere and thoughtful can really mean what she seems to mean in the area of energy policy. If pursued to the full extent, her policy will eliminate one of the significant employers in my constituency, so we will have to fight her on that very vigorously. She may say and some of her colleagues may argue that I am being alarmist, but we have been reading her speeches very carefully, and boy, she not only means apparently a moratorium on nuclear for the moment, but if you were to listen to her and credit her, she seems to feel that the nuclear option has no place in the Ontario energy future. I disagree fundamentally, but that is the fun of politics. That is the essence of politics; different people, different perspectives.

My friends opposite are embarked upon a dramatically new policy for Ontario Hydro, and it has to be said briefly that the Elliot Lake announcement the other day makes this plain. I only say in this connection that I think government of whatever stripe in the 1990s is going to be confronted with no little bit of pressure around taxes, and I think taxes are going to start to mean garbage rates. I think they already mean it, but from everything I hear, garbage rates. I mean, I have got some people I am sure for whom the garbage rates are now higher than the actual real property rates on their home, separating out school taxes.

Hon Mr Wildman: Water rates.

Mr Conway: My friend the member for Algoma says something about water rates, and I think that is probably true as well, because we are all in favour of the environment, which means we want to have the best possible communal systems, with every bell and whistle to protect against those, for me, unpronounceable concepts the former Minister of the Environment, the member for St Catharines, was for ever bringing to question period. That simply means the old water plant that might have cost $50 million will now cost, of course, $250 million, and that will show up on the rates.

But given what I think is out there about taxes, I am absolutely astonished that the new government wants to put escalating Hydro rates into that mix. They are brave people. I commend their courage, if not their wisdom, because I repeat: In a very few years I think we are going to have people obsessed with the concern around taxes and they are going to start to note garbage rates, and now I think we have a policy in place that is going to show Hydro rates. I own a house and a cottage and I have been noticing, even without this --

Mr Hope: No advertising.

Mr Conway: No, but I have a cottage in which I have electric heat. I know all of the reasons, and I am just looking at the rates. Over the bad old Liberal days I am watching them go up. As the crown corporation now becomes a fundamentally reorganized instrument of government policy --

Mr Sutherland: I believe it's called accountability.

Mr Conway: My friend opposite says it is accountability, and believe me, when Howard Ferguson embarked upon his energy policy, he thought the same thing. This government is not in that sense any different, though it does have a different perspective. Howard Ferguson believed in running Hydro as a direct instrument of the Conservative government of Ontario. This government apparently has the same view, and it is entitled to that. I do not have a problem with their believing that. I do not believe it, but if this government wants to do it, it has won that right.

My point is simply this: As Hydro rates in the coming years begin to reflect, not power at cost, as we used to know it, but power taking into account not just economic costs but adjustment costs, social costs and other government priorities, all of which in themselves will be widely praised in Elliot Lake and in Haliburton and in West Zorra township, when Aunt Maude gets the bill and she sees rates that are 50%, 70%, 150% of what they were five and 10 years ago, this government will have gained her attention in a real and lasting way. But this government intends to do that, and who am I to say that it should not proceed.

Apparently, at the same time, this government wants to take charge of insurance rates, and again in a way I would not. I say to my friend the former Attorney General, "Can you imagine a day some years hence when our honourable friends opposite are thinking about perhaps going back to meet the people and they have not only government-regulated taxes to explain, but they have government-controlled Hydro rates to explain, they have garbage rates to explain and they have electricity rates to explain?" I cannot imagine --

Mr Scott: They'll want to get Howard Pawley on the phone.

Mr Conway: I was going to say, they might want to get Howard Pawley on the phone, and a more toxic combination of things I cannot imagine. From a purely partisan point of view, I hope this government gets at it, it gets into it so quickly and so deeply that there is no recovery.

My friend the member for St Catharines sent me a note and said, "You should remind them Wacky Bennett used to bury a lot of provincial debt in his crown corporations." The member is the kind of person who would know more about British Columbia's Social Credit than I would, but I am sure he is right.

At any rate, I just want to say to my friends opposite, as we contemplate a multibillion-dollar borrowing initiative, that this touches very directly on the new politics. I would disagree with my friends in the Conservative Party. It will not make a tinker's damn of difference who is over there. We are all going to be confronted with the reality that this government is not going to be able to tax much more, that the big-ticket items that drive government spending, health, welfare and education, roughly 67% of all government spending -- think about the demographics of the boomers and apparently their changing attitudes about what they will pay for and the demographics of an aging population and what that will mean in terms of the consumption of the really expensive, highly desirable and absolutely, fundamentally valuable health and social services, and I think it has got the makings of a really interesting conundrum. We will have to find our way out of that.

There are two other things I want to quickly mention, and one has to do with energy as well.

I thought it interesting earlier today that the member for Nipissing, the leader of the third party, raised the point about government spending, and he raised I think about 15 or 18 WCB letters to one company in Burlington.

I went to my office yesterday and I picked up something called "Energy Matters, Let's Use It Wisely." I do not know whether this government's members have seen it, but they should read it.

I want to say to my friend the member for Algoma, because he will appreciate this, if the member for Nipissing -- and God forbid that the member for Parry Sound should see this. If they are offended by those letters, well, I was going to say they might have a meltdown over this, but they would not, because what did this remind me of? This reminded me of Hughie Segal and Billy Davis. I thought there was a new gang over there, but look at this.

First of all, I am sure the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer and Minister of Economics will want to investigate the cost of this, to say nothing of the environmental inappropriateness of this. It begs a question.

We probably did some of this, but I have not seen one quite this glossy in quite a while. On the front page there is a quite warm picture of the minister. That is fine.

1700

Mr Scott: Which minister?

Mr Conway: It is the Minister of Energy, but some of the members are in the printing business. I think the member for York Mills had some affiliation with the printing. This is high-octane gloss. I would like to know, I do not really want to know because I --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: But this is Bill Davis circa 1974 at his most extravagant worse. It is a good question.

Hon Mr Wildman: Why is it in blue?

Mr Conway: That is another good question. But it gets better. We have about 15 separate pages and the breathtaking part about this is the glossiness. There is virtually nothing new in this. I know there is new energy policy in a big way. The new NDP Hydro is a different Hydro from the one I have known in my lifetime. I commend them for the marked difference in that policy direction.

I am not saying this government is continuing with certain energy policies as usual. In fact, one of the tasks I intend to pursue over the break is to try to make people aware of just how dramatic a change the present government has planned for Ontario Hydro. It may be a change that will be widely applauded and generally accepted, but I have been reading those power corporation amendments and looking at and reviewing that Elliot Lake position and this is as significant a change in public policy as I have seen in my 16 years. I think the public will be interested in that. We should be talking about that and I certainly will be talking about it over the coming months.

I will not embarrass my friends opposite by reading it, but this is high-gloss, high-cost pap with virtually nothing new in it, though there are some variations on a theme. They should not let the leader of the third party see this because the tax fighter and a lot of taxpayers will see this. I know it is not a big-ticket item, but the people will understand this and they are not going to be very happy.

Which consulting firm got the contract? Somebody made a bundle preparing this. The government has spent a small fortune printing and circulating this. I am not going to bother with an Orders and Notices question in that respect, but I think it is a sign that --

Mr Scott: He'll bring it up on Monday. He'll ask about it.

Mr Conway: No, I expect my friend the member for Algoma will go back to Treasury Board or cabinet and say, "What was Conway going on about?" Some good person from the Ministry of Energy is going to say: "Minister, this is not what that carping oppositionist would have you believe. You must understand." Of course the Minister of Natural Resources will understand because he used to ask these questions. He will take a look at it and say: "Brother or sister in the movement, I want you to know you can't do this any more. We're different and in downtown Blind River they wouldn't be impressed."

The final point has to do with a serious matter, in my own constituency, that I raised in question period today and I am really pleased that my friend the minister with the several responsibilities I talked about earlier today is here. I know members opposite are going to be interested and that my friend from Haliburton is vitally interested, as are the member for Bracebridge, the member for Parry Sound and the member for Nipissing. Five or six of us have electoral districts that are immediately contiguous to Algonquin Park.

This afternoon I want to talk briefly about the Algonquin Park question. Let me say at the outset that unlike some, I view the Algonquin land claim as a serious matter. I do not see it as frivolous. I do not share some of the views articulated earlier today that it is somehow not as serious as some of the suggestions seem to make one believe.

I am careful to say what I say in the presence of the former minister responsible for natives affairs because the learned member for St George-St David is quite expert on the legal dimensions of this, if not the local politics. What do we have? We have negotiations under way, and for the moment I am not interested in talking about negotiations around the interim agreements. But I represent Renfrew North, which is two thirds of the county of Renfrew. The other part of it is ably represented by my friend the member for Smiths Falls, Montague township, and I also represent a portion of south Nipissing, not well known, but that is why I am classified as a northern member and get an extra cent on my mileage allowance.

At any rate, I have been watching this over the last number of years and it is a very sensitive and delicate question. To be perfectly honest, I spend most of my time now talking to constituents who are having a lot of difficulty with this government's rather expansive interpretation and application of the Sparrow decision. I am sure the member for Haliburton has had some of those experiences as well. I will continue to explain and defend Sparrow, and I will continue to explain and defend the very significant legitimate interests of the first nations community at Golden Lake, which sits in the very heart of the electoral district I represent.

We have a situation now that is extremely delicate in this respect. Before I go on, let me say I have known the honourable minister for 16 years. We came together as freshly scrubbed innocents in the intake of 1975. I know him to be a very diligent, compassionate and extremely hardworking individual.

Mr Mancini: He's far from perfect, though.

Mr Conway: I will say something that will probably anger him. I have said it elsewhere and I will repeat it today. There has been a lot of discussion around this place about conflict of interest, and in the main I have tried to stay out of it because I have difficulty with it. It is something we will talk about another day.

In my respectful view, by virtue of his Premier, good fellow that he is, the member for Algoma has been put in a conflict of interest that is basic and fundamental that no one, not even Solomon himself, could resolve. I say it on the basis of my experience in government. To be Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for native affairs at one and the same time is in my view impossible. I am sure the member for Algoma will do a very good job in trying, but I could not do it and I would not even try. I am not so sure the Algonquin case is not the case that is going to make the point about this conflict. I can see situations where potentially the minister would be in court arguing both sides of this case.

I know people are going to disagree, and the Premier would not have accepted this criticism because I am sure it was put to him as he formed his executive council. I repeat, to be the minister responsible for the management of our timber resources, our crown lands, fish and game policy and parks, all of which are really interesting responsibilities, and at the same time to be responsible for native affairs, given the substance of the land claim at issue in my part of eastern Ontario, with all due respect, I think is impossible because there is a fundamental conflict there. The member opposite will probably disagree with that.

Let me move on to the next question. I was away on the budget tour last week. He made a statement on 13 June, I think, in connection with the really serious startup by the new government to settle the land claim. I give him full credit for this. I think in some respects he has really picked up where the member to my left, the former Attorney General, was proceeding, in the main. I am not familiar with all of the particulars.

As I understand it, we have a situation where negotiations began quite spectacularly and ceremonially last Saturday at Golden Lake, and the coverage was excellent, I thought. As far as I know, the people at the table are Mark Krasnick, on behalf of the office of native affairs, and a wonderful and competent public servant he is; Howard Goldblatt, representing the law firm of Sack, Goldblatt and Mitchell, who are acting as lawyers in support of the government in the land claim question; and the band. Those are essentially the three parties central to the discussions.

1710

Hon Mr Wildman: But MNR and Tourism are also there.

Mr Conway: MNR and Tourism, according to the minister, are lined up in support of the government. I have been up this week because I was home last weekend. I was talking to some of my friends in the Ministry of Natural Resources, good people, who want to see a resolution of this. I have never seen the nervous concern at such an olympian height. I came away from a long meeting last week almost not knowing where to turn. This is very delicate and it is not going to be easy.

We have had some experience in this jurisdiction. We went through the battles of Temagami and earlier efforts around a fishing agreement, and we did not get it all right by any stretch of the imagination. I remember, and I made reference to it earlier today, you had to have been here in 1983 to see Alan Pope twist in the wind in a way I would not have thought possible and being publicly attacked by some of his ministerial colleagues. My worry is that we have the potential now for a very small group of people to negotiate an important issue, but my friend from Haliburton, my friend from Bracebridge and indeed all of us will have to sell whatever is negotiated.

The Premier said to me today, "Well, do you want to be briefed; do you want to be at the negotiations?" It is not my place to be at the negotiations. We have a duly elected government that has that responsibility and it has good people doing this. I am not worried about that, but I am worried about what is on the table. I do not expect to be told in advance, because I am no fool when it comes to negotiations, all that is on the table. I think it was Richard Crossman who said that a modern parliament has three privileges because it has been neutered of its great old authority. It has the privilege to encourage, the privilege to be consulted and the privilege to warn. I am really here to warn in this one respect.

I hope there is a good settlement and one that is fair and just at last to the Algonquin First Nations, who have been part of my life since the beginning. I know these people well and I meet regularly with the chief. It goes back a long way in my family. There is no question they have been shabbily treated. They are owed a justice, without any doubt.

What I see really causes me concern because good as the people from Sack, Goldblatt and Mitchell are, I do not think they have a great deal of expertise in native affairs. And Mark Krasnick is a wonderful fellow and enormously competent, but his focus is native affairs and he is very good at it; and the band, of course, good people, supported by excellent people.

I suspect that at the core of those negotiations there will be quite a shared view around a number of things. I hope there is to a certain extent. I am thinking about all of those other people out there, because I expect that this government, or any government, is going to want to negotiate a reasonable and just deal for those first nations peoples at Golden Lake. That is my assumption. I think it is the fair and just thing to do for any self-respecting politician.

I also assume that whatever is negotiated is going to mean significant change in the way we have done business in and around Algonquin Park. I might be wrong, but I was reading the papers today, the Ottawa Valley Weekly Press and the Ottawa Citizen, and everything I hear from Howard Goldblatt and from the chief and his representatives makes me believe that whatever is negotiated is going to be noticeably different from what we have known, in way the Algonquin First Nations relate to the public domain that have been the crown lands of eastern Ontario, including Algonquin Park.

On the basis of those assumptions, what is my warning and what is my fear? In some cases it is the worst nightmare of Meech Lake and the valiant efforts Alan Pope made years ago, some of my worst nightmares as the Minister of Education dealing with the highly sensitive question of minority language entitlements guaranteed by the Canadian Constitution in the school system of Ontario.

When I sat down with the francophones, their representatives and the ministry lawyers, we could often come to a pretty quick and easy understanding of what the charter entitlement meant. Where my nightmare began was thinking about going to Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay and explaining why the charter required the following difference. I know my friend from Sault Ste Marie and my friends from Thunder Bay in the last decade went through no little bit of turmoil in some of the languagerelated issues that in part grew out of those education questions.

I think particularly of the remarkable heroism I saw in the former member for Sault Ste Marie, who took one enormous load of abuse around this question and that could not have been easy. But what was relatively easy was the in-house negotiation about, "This is what the charter has done." We all agreed to it. Nobody could be opposed to it. "This is what it will mean and this is what it's going to mean everywhere in the Dominion," and off we went. All of a sudden we found town halls that could not contain the crowd that wanted to come and passionately debate, if not fight to the last drop, the actual implementation of a charter entitlement.

In conclusion, my concern is simply this. I expect the negotiations to be successful and I expect that whatever is negotiated will mean significant change for the way we have done business in various aspects of crown land management in and around Algonquin Park. But all I know is that I represent some 70,000 people whose entire livelihood is going to be affected by those negotiations. Communities like Barrys Bay and Whitney and Stonecliffe and Pembroke and Eganville and Haliburton and Bracebridge and Bancroft and Maynooth, as the minister well knows, have vital, economic and recreational issues, interests and values at stake in these negotiations.

My nightmare is simply that Howard Goldblatt, the chief, and Mark Krasnick are going to get a deal. The cabinet is going to want to affirm that deal, and the member for Victoria-Haliburton and the member for Hastings-Peterborough and the member for Renfrew North and the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay are going to have to go out on the road and sell something to people that is going to perhaps come as a gargantuan surprise and a reminder that all of those bad old possibilities in the Meech Lake process have not died.

My worry and my warning is that, in fairness to the Algonquin first nation community, which community we all want to serve, we owe it to those people and all of their friends and neighbours, whether they live in Killaloe or Bracebridge or Bancroft or Haliburton, in the most appropriate and open and constructive way possible -- and that will not be easy -- to involve those people in what is being offered and being discussed. Most of my last weekend was going around telling people that all they had heard as to what was on the table was probably not true.

Further to that horrible school mess in which we found ourselves five and six years ago, an announcement was made in June 1984 that was wide and open. Thirteen months elapsed before we got around to an actual bill, which a lot of people did not like but they could at least see for what it was and what it was not. But 13 months had allowed to build an enormous steam that blew the lid off one government and almost blew the lid off ours. I will tell members, I do not want to see anybody, if I can possibly avoid it, in that terrible situation.

The issues, not just of justice but of social peace, are important in this, and we owe it to everyone to do this right. My concern with what I heard today was that there perhaps are some people in the government who think they can dispatch Howard Goldblatt around to a number of communities to, quietly and by invitation only, explain to a few people what, sort of, is being discussed.

1720

I understand the reason for doing that, but I want to make plain that in the end, the people who are going to have to sell this and make this work are going to be the elected members of this Legislature, including my friend the member for Victoria-Haliburton, my friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough, myself, the member for Lanark-Renfrew, particularly the six or seven of us who are immediately adjoining Algonquin Park.

This is an issue of great importance, not just provincially but nationally. It requires justice, sensitivity, but most of all, great care. That is the warning that this afternoon, particularly in the interest of justice to the Algonquin first nation, I want to respectfully offer my good friend from Blind River.

Mr Ruprecht: The member for Renfrew North has spoken eloquently on this subject and indicated to us that the Liberal task force had gone from city to city across Ontario and everywhere it went the task force received the same message. That message was simple: tax nausea, tax sickness.

These people did not only want to come and tell the government of the day what they think about the budget, but they even came to the very steps of the Legislature to demonstrate. The people who came to demonstrate are not the normal crowd of people. They were not little old ladies in tennis shoes. They were not truckers in cowboy boots. No; they were white-collar people trying to stop bankruptcies.

That simply means that the bankruptcy rate we see in this province today has never been steeper and never been higher and never been sharper before. I would only hope that it will not be this government that will be held accountable four years from now for the increase in bankruptcies.

What the government is doing is changing the very fundamental issues of the economy. That, to us, indicates a bad foreboding. The government is treating this economy like an incredible bread machine that does not have to be oiled and runs without ingredients. If that is the government's idea of how an economy runs, it will be sorely mistaken when the people of Ontario in four years cast their ballots and hold Judgement Day on this government.

Hon Mr Wildman: I listened with care to my friend the member for Renfrew North and I must say that I found his comments, as usual, to be thought-provoking, careful and eloquent, and I want to respond to a number of things he said.

First, I will not respond to the comments he made about the deficit except to say, very briefly, that his view of the temper of the times is quite accurate. It is going to be a problem for whoever is in power, as he indicated. But I want to deal particularly with what my friend had to say with regard to the negotiations with the Algonquin first nation from Golden Lake.

I am sure the member recognizes that in terms of the negotiations themselves it is clear from the point of view of the first nation that this government was elected to represent the people of the province, and all of the interests therein, whether they be naturalists who care about parks, the environment, people involved in the tourist industry who have a direct relationship to Algonquin Park, anglers and hunters, municipal leaders, members of the general public. It is our responsibility to inform them, to understand what their views and concerns are and to represent them at the negotiating table, just as the chief and council of the Algonquins of Golden Lake are elected by their people to represent their concerns in the negotiations.

I want to say also that I take very sincerely his concerns with regard to the negotiations as they relate to the issues that are before us.

Mr Jordan: I just wanted for a couple of minutes to compliment my colleague the member for Renfrew North for bringing this serious matter before the House, because I realize the seriousness of the consequences of what is taking place in these negotiations. I realize the adjustments that are going to have to be made in my riding in the tourist industry and with the people generally. Someone like my colleague is well qualified to put forward the concerns, not only of his riding, but as he said, of the people generally of the area but really the people of Ontario and Canada, regarding the solution to this.

Earlier I thought that he was too busy worrying about the closing of the registry office in Almonte, but we have that well under control, and I am glad he has spent as much time as he has on the real concern of Renfrew North.

I am sure the minister, if not aware before, is more aware of the changes at the present time, and the unrest in Lanark-Renfrew right now is that minority groups are controlling the province. This is their concern in language, in education, and the different major expenditures of the government.

Hon Mr Wildman: You are lowering the tenor of the debate.

Mr Jordan: I do not mean to do that, but I just want to express to the minister that the feeling of the people out there is not good.

Mr Conway: I want to thank my colleagues for their observations, and I take the honourable member for Lanark-Renfrew's mild rebuke about my, perhaps, too great an interest in the north Lanark registry office. It is good to hear him being territorial because that is a very good way to be. He reminds me of a young Bud Wildman, who used to be similarly territorial when anybody intruded on his territory 15 years ago.

I want to just, in summary, make the point again on the Algonquin question. My concern is simply this: Whatever is negotiated, and I repeat, I hope it is a good and successful negotiation, in the end there will be impacts, undoubtedly, on the entire non-native community, and those people are very interested in what is going on. They want to see justice for their friends and neighbours at Golden Lake, and they expect we are going to find a just solution. But they will also expect that as people negotiate on behalf of the government, their -- meaning the non-native -- interest in the park, and all of the recreational and economic interests that are going to be central to that negotiating table, are going to be understood, spoken to, and respected.

If we do not do that, if the circle is too tightly drawn, we will get, perhaps, an agreement among the parties now at the table that, God forbid, would be absolutely unacceptable to the local community, which wants justice, but will expect not only justice for the Golden Lake band, long denied, but a true and legitimate negotiation that is going to pay heed to and have an interest in their very significant interests, whether it is in timber management, recreational values, or community impact.

1730

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): Thank you. Would you take your seat for a minute, please.

I would like to just remind members that this is third reading of the bill, that in principle it has been passed, and that brevity should be adhered to when we are looking at third reading of a bill. It is just a reminder.

Mr Conway: If I could just speak to that point of order, Madam Speaker --

The Acting Speaker: No, it is not a point of order.

Mr Conway: It is a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. I have not made a point of order. I was just reminding members this is third reading, in the interest of brevity.

Mr Conway: On that point of order, because that is a reminder that deals with orders of this place, and I just want to make a point. We are dealing today with a loan bill that will rightly empower the government to borrow billions of dollars and I think it is a matter of considerable and comprehensive interest.

As the government House leader rolls her eyes, I would say finally that all we are doing in the opposition today is what her illustrious colleagues and perhaps she herself did when I was government House leader. I made those points and they were arrogantly dismissed by the NDP which rightly wanted to talk on third reading about matters of this kind.

Mr Scott: Madam Speaker, I am very conscious of the reminder that, contrary to the practice of the House, you were good enough to provide. I hope it will not add unduly to the length of the remarks I intend to make.

I recognize this is an important loan bill, but the shape the debate has taken this afternoon as a result of the intervention of the member for Renfrew North who wants to discuss the problems of Renfrew and the surrounding community in light of the Algonquin negotiations and the Algonquin land claim. Because of the presence of the honourable minister responsible for native affairs and Minister of Natural Resources in the House, for which we are grateful, this is an opportunity not to be put off simply to convenience the Lieutenant Governor -- although I would love to do that generally -- to have a short but important debate about native affairs which is all too rare an event in this House for reasons we understand, the priority of other pressing business, and so on.

The minister has important responsibilities in native affairs, which I had for some six years, and it is hard to imagine a minister who could be better qualified by instinct, training, background and by spirit, if I may say, to effectively discharge those important obligations. I want to say a word about them in light of what my colleague, the honourable member for Renfrew North, has said about potential conflict of interest because the minister responsible for native affairs is also the Minister of Natural Resources.

That allegation has been heard in the House before. I think it was made initially in the last parliament, perhaps by the member for Algoma -- am I not right? -- when it was asserted that because I was both minister responsible for native affairs and Attorney General, and therefore charged in the latter capacity with settling litigation the Algonquins or others might bring, I confronted a conflict of interest. It was a serious point which I think the honourable member for Algoma, certainly a member of his caucus, raised. I take it seriously and no less seriously because it is advanced afresh and vigorously by the member for Renfrew North.

At the end of the day, it is a difficulty that ministers by and large, with the assistance of their other colleagues, are able to overcome. It does not, however, avoid a perceptual problem in the general public, which is a very real one and will affect this minister more than it did me.

I am very conscious of the patient and moderate way the member for Renfrew North has put his point. He is committed to the negotiations. He recognizes their importance in the scheme of things both for the Algonquin people, other native organizations that may indirectly benefit from the negotiating experience, and in the interest, clearly, of all the people of the province. He has accurately described, as I understand it, the situation that will be found at the bargaining table, in which place the minister, his deputy or a group of deputies perhaps, will represent all the people of Ontario. In the course of that bargaining, of course, they represent all the people of Ontario which includes in a real sense the aboriginal people of Ontario who are entitled to have their own counsel and to present their own governmental case to the government of Ontario, but for whom the government of Ontario has a real responsibility in the sense of fair dealing. I am sure the present minister will make every obligation, as I hope the past one did, to discharge that.

It is useful to learn from experience, and the member for Renfrew North in describing his concerns and advancing his warning, made a collateral reference to the fishing negotiations in the northwest that I think is worth emphasizing. He described, with no glee at all, a picture of the former member in this House, Alan Pope, who as Minister of Natural Resources had negotiated on behalf of a previous government a fishing agreement in the northwest and who was left swinging in the wind as his colleagues, observing the dimension of the agreement, one by one or in groups of twos or threes promptly abandoned him.

When we came to office in 1986, the pressure to negotiate a fishing agreement was of course even greater than it had been in the early 1980s, and we looked at the experience of the previous government. The previous government was well-intentioned, I believe, and the minister of the day was committed to making a breakthrough in an extraordinarily difficult area, no less difficult than the area the minister contemplates negotiating now. More complex in some ways, but less complex than in other ways, but it would have been a breakthrough.

We analysed what the previous Conservative government had done and we drew the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that the difficulty the previous Conservative government had got into in the course of those negotiations was that they had tried to negotiate the agreement behind closed doors and produce an agreement acceptable to the indian governmental organizations and to the government of Ontario, and then to present it to cabinet, the Legislature and the people for approval.

That failed. While there was no alarm in the public mind during the negotiation process because none of it was public, the stakes were not clearly identified, nor the concerns publicly identified. As soon as the terms of the agreement became public, ministers of that Conservative government began to abandon ship. One of the first to leave the ship was a member for an adjacent constituency, whose initials were LB and for whom detail is not here necessary.

That effort failed, and it was our view when we came to government in 1985 that it failed because the negotiations had taken place behind closed doors. I draw that to this government's attention because we, in 1985 and I hope throughout to 1990, believed in open government, open negotiations, widespread consultation with a variety of people.

We decided we would open a new kind of process --

Hon Mr Wildman: You kept the document secret.

Mr Scott: The minister is laughing, but he has not heard all the laughs yet.

We decided we would conduct an open process in which the proposals on both sides of the table would be publicly advanced, so that citizens could look at what native people sought and at what the government of all the people was prepared to make by way of response, so we could go out and native governmental organizations could go out to the communities and say, "Here is what they are asking, here is what we are proposing, here is where the deal is coming down to." So at the end of the day, as I said to my bureaucratic staff, when the agreement is achieved there will be no surprises. Everybody in all the communities who are interested -- and were they interested -- will be able to follow it day by day in the weekly press.

1740

We started that process, we committed ourselves to it. We sent Ministry of Natural Resources people hither and yon all through the northwest to explain its simplicity, its beauty, its charismatic characteristics that would permit everybody to be heard, to understand and to approve as we moved step by step to the fishing negotiations. And we would thus achieve an agreement. It might indeed have looked rather like the previous Conservative agreement, but it would contain no surprises and achieve the very kind of public approval which is so important and to which the member for Renfrew North referred.

That process, I regret to say, though extremely well-intentioned, did not work. What happened? The first document that came out was the proposal the aboriginal organizations made. It was a startup proposal. I had been through bargaining when Howard Goldblatt was in short pants -- or whatever they wore in the early 1960s and I knew the first proposal on the table was not very often the form the agreement ultimately took.

As an experienced minister, and my bureaucrats were the same, we were not intimidated by the initial proposal the aboriginal people made essentially for the first time in a public way. I do not have to tell the minister, because he was living around there then, but I should tell my other colleagues that when that proposal landed on the streets of these towns in the northwest, you would have thought Magna Carta and a whole lot else was seriously at stake.

The problem with that exercise is that the public did not always understand the nature of the negotiation process. They did not understand perfectly that the government would not respond positively to every one of the submissions. I remember it was shortly before, dare I say, the election of 1987 when public meetings were held in the northwest. More people attended the public meeting at Red Lake than live in the town. So great was the excitement and the real deep-felt anxiety the people had about these aboriginal negotiations.

We had to put that effort on hold -- a hold the minister has not yet removed but perhaps shortly will -- not because the proposal was misunderstood by the public, because that could have been corrected. We did that because a more fundamental defect in the process developed and appeared. The defect was that people in the northwest recognized aboriginal people would be at the bargaining table with their lawyers and their representatives. They saw that the government of Ontario would be at the table, with our lawyers and our representatives, and the government at the table was going to be represented by whom? The minister responsible for native affairs. They did not see that anybody else was going to be at the table. The tourists, fishermen, hunting people and the people of those communities and the municipalities said, "Who is going to represent us in that bargaining?"

I tried, as the Minister of Natural Resources is no doubt trying to say, as he said in the two minutes allocated, "I represent everybody." The difficulty is, at the end of the day, it will not wash. The irony is, and I know the minister will confirm this -- it is hard to remember now -- but in 1985, there had never been a government in a long time like we had when the Liberals came to office. I do not ask the back bench to go crazy with anxiety, that is not to say we were perfect or we will ever be there again, but 1985 represented a fundamental change in governance in Ontario and it is hard to recognize how far we have come.

The interesting thing was that in 1985, 1986 and 1987, the government of Ontario was recognized as the most progressive government in Canada, with the possible exception of the NDP government in Manitoba, with respect to aboriginal affairs. I do not say that boastfully, I say that simply to describe what happened.

The tourist operators, the communities in the northwest at all those meetings looked at us and said: "You're going to represent the aboriginal people. We understand it when you bargain with their governments, but who is going to represent us?" When I said, "I will, the government of Ontario will," they said, "We know you're going to try, but as you're already the minister for native affairs representing the native people, we're not entirely sure that you're going to represent us the way we would want to be represented."

That is a conflict of interest that may not be technically real, but it is a perceptual difficulty that got Alan Pope into impossible trouble and frankly got the previous government into very grave difficulty in trying to negotiate the fishing agreement. The problem was that it was insoluble at the time. We set up, as the minister knows, a committee of non-aboriginal users, under a very distinguished lawyer from Dryden, to give us advice about how that conceptual sense of non-representation by non-aboriginal users could be cured.

Should these people be at the table with the government and the aboriginal people? If they are not at the table, and that presents some real problems, how should they be briefed on developments? If you brief them fully on developments, what other obligations do you have to other citizens' groups and what other obligations do you have to legislative and other groups that are interested in the process? The Dryden group, as I call it, produced an extremely interesting paper with a lot of imaginative suggestions. Not all of them will appeal to every ministry, and I frankly say that not all of them appeal to me.

Hon Mr Wildman: Where is it?

Mr Scott: It is right in there, and I suggest to the minister that he runs a risk. I hope it is not a great risk, but he runs a risk that in the northeast the conceptual conflict, "Who is going to represent the people who live here? Bud Wildman is already representing the native people," will develop.

The tougher the negotiations get, and they will be very tough and very hard in the best sense, the more real that conceptual difficulty is going to be and the more that conceptual difficulty is going to get in the way, not of making a settlement at the table, but of making it possible to persuade people all across the province, and particularly in the area, that the settlement is the right one.

I am as committed as the minister is, and I think he knows this, at his initiative and the initiative of the government to negotiate effectively, directly and at whatever dispatch can be achieved, to bring to a head these enormous not only land claim issues, but also self-government issues. The problem is that the fishing negotiations under two governments have indicated we lack a mechanism to provide public assurance that the results we are getting are either understood or appropriate.

The problem that I am concerned about with the Algonquin negotiations is, it seems to me, that it does not include that mechanism. I know that it would be a tragedy, and I know the minister thinks this, if what happened to me in the northwest happened to him in the northeast.

I add only one warning to what the member for Renfrew North has said, and it is that, if that occurs, the process to which the minister is so committed will be fundamentally set back. He does not want that, I do not want that, I do not think anybody in the House wants it. I do not think it is in the interests of the public.

I would encourage the minister to move as directly as he can to develop some kind of mechanism. There are a number of models -- none of them is perfect, each of them has advantages and disadvantages that will provide an assurance to the non-aboriginal users, particularly in the adjacent municipalities, that their concerns are not only represented in a general way by ministers of the crown, but are in concrete form taken account of by either participation at the table, which I do not directly recommend, or participation at a kind of second tier of negotiations at least, so that these communities and these groups will know from day to day what is going on.

1750

At the end of the day, I think the best assurance that people do not get alarmed and overreact is to be certain that they get knowledge at the appropriate times and in the appropriate way and from the appropriate authority as to what is actually happening and get a level of participation that meets their own community needs.

I congratulate the minister on his initiative, as I support the third reading of this important money bill, and I hope he will be able to give us the assurance that some mechanism to take account of the concerns that have been raised by my colleague and others today is addressed.

Without such a mechanism, the task may succeed. He may get away without the mechanism. But if it does not succeed, it will cause serious difficulties not only with respect to this claim, which will then be driven to the courts, but to many other claims in other parts of the province, which I know the minister is anxious during his term to address as effectively as he can.

We wish him well. Those who have had experience that is now his are very concerned, and we hope that he will have an opportunity in the next few months to address this important aspect of the work he has undertaken.

Hon Mr Wildman: In the interests of time, I will be as quick as I can and will hope for another time as I did the last time.

I want to address one particular matter, and that is the question of conflict of interest. The former minister who has just spoken will recognize that while I am the minister responsible for native affairs and must represent the needs and concerns and aspirations of the native people, I am also the Minister of Natural Resources, the minister responsible for the timber, for the wildlife, for the wilderness, for the wetlands, for the users of those resources. I must represent them too. That is not a conflict of interest in my view at all.

Even if there were two separate ministers, two different ministers, they would have to come together at some point to resolve these issues, because these issues with regard to land claims mean that the Ministry of Natural Resources is central to any kind of a settlement. Those two separate ministers, if they were indeed separate, would have to come together in the final settlement.

I want to also say in these particular negotiations that were referred to by the two previous speakers, I do not anticipate that they will be swift. They are long, they will be complex, and I think even an optimist would believe we would have them settled within two years.

I think it is important for us to take into account the concerns raised by the two previous members and the spirit in which they raised them. It is incumbent upon us to inform and to be informed about the needs and concerns of the non-native resource users, in this case those who use the park particularly, and in that sense all Ontarians.

I take their concerns at heart, but I do not believe that it is a fundamental impossibility to resolve these issues. I recognize it is necessary for all of us in this House to approach them with goodwill in order to be able, as my friend the member for Renfrew North said, to sell those settlements when they are met.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member for St George-St David like to wind up for his final two minutes?

Mr Scott: No, thank you.

1800

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

La motion de M. Laughren, mise aux voix, est adoptee:

Ayes/Pour -- 47

Boyd, Buchanan, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Rae, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Wessenger, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays/Contre -- 20

Bradley, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Cunningham, Elston, Eves, Henderson, Jackson, Jordan, Mahoney, McClelland, Miclash, Offer, O'Neill, Y., Scott, Sola, Sterling, Turnbull, Witmer.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

Hon Mr Alexander: Pray be seated.

The Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present meeting thereof, passed a certain bill to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The following is the title of the bill to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 81, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Projet de loi 81, Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to this bill.

Au nom de Sa Majesté, Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur sanctionne ce projet de loi.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

Hon Miss Martel: There has been an agreement among the three House leaders to recess from this point until 7 for dinner, and I would so move at this point.

The Speaker: Miss Martel moves that the House recess until 7. Do we have unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

The House recessed at 1812.

[Report continues in volume B]