The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

REPORT OF CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the report of the chief election officer.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AGRICULTURE IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Ramsay: I am glad to be here this afternoon, for sure.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food will be aware of the economic difficulties faced by northern Ontario during this recession. The minister also knows that the development and marketing of agricultural initiatives provides an important opportunity to diversify northern Ontario's economy.

The minister has had in his possession ever since he became minister a consultant's study on a number of northern programs designed to develop agricultural opportunities in the north. The study clearly documents the success of funding for northern agricultural development and the need for continued assistance.

One of the most successful programs under this funding was the northern Ontario marketing assistance program, which was begun in 1987. This program increased the number of farmers' markets in northern Ontario from seven to 22 over the last three years and has raised the revenues from $100,000 to $1.5 million. This program has truly helped diversify the northern economy and helped northern Ontario become more self-sufficient in food production.

Most of the northern Ontario programs expired as of 31 March this year. Because of the NDP's lack of commitment, the Sudbury farmers' market and others like it will be further stalled in their attempts to grow. The government is cancelling these programs. To quote the ministry's own consultant's study regarding the northern marketing assistance program, "This program responds to the area of greatest need for development in northern Ontario agriculture;...understanding of the marketing process and developing specific market initiatives."

These are important to the people of the north, and the people of northern Ontario demand this.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Runciman: More than 1,500 residents of Ontario have mailed coupons to the Committee for Fair Action in Insurance Reform, saying they want the Premier to keep his promise to restore the right to sue for innocent accident victims. I ask the page to put those on the Premier's desk.

This overwhelming response to a single newspaper ad shows that the people of Ontario want the right to sue restored. They want the Premier to keep his promise.

Two cabinet ministers have indicated recently that the right to sue will not be restored. Instead, we will see a government-run insurance plan similar to the current Workers' Compensation Board and the right to sue will not be part of that plan.

A number of people have written letters to the FAIR committee to explain why they deserve the fundamental right to sue. For example, Peter Samec of Ridgeway writes, "If Mr Rae backs down from his promise he will be depriving us of our freedom to pursue and fight for something that is rightfully ours in the first place." Mr and Mrs Stephen Parsons of Thornhill write, "You should be able to anticipate the outcome for you and your party if you fail to keep this most important promise."

I have asked the Premier a number of times whether the right to sue will be included in his new insurance plan. He says a decision has not been made. Well, I say a decision has been made. He has capitulated to the whims of his no-tort troika on the front bench and the right to sue will not be restored.

If the Premier does not agree, let him prove me wrong. Let him restore the right to sue.

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Mr Wiseman: I rise today to acknowledge the excellent work done by the Durham Board of Education in the area of environmental awareness. Since this is Earth Week, I think it is appropriate to describe the efforts of the Durham Board of Education in promoting environmental solutions in their schools.

On 12, 13 and 14 April, almost 100 teachers, parents, custodians, trustees and board members attended the second environmental summit at the Leslie Frost Centre, Dorset. The theme of the summit was "Making It Happen." What the theme statement refers to is making all the action plans and initiatives happen in the classroom and in the schools of Durham in order to bring about meaningful and lasting changes in students' attitudes and behaviours.

These initiatives include creating worm composters in the classroom to compost student lunch scraps; recycling fine paper, tins, glass; creating composters for the composting of yard waste and digesters for cafeteria scraps; the promotion of garbageless lunches; the studying of wetland habitat; and the development of ecologically sound purchasing practices for the schools and boards. Another very important, environmentally progressive goal of some of the participants of this conference was the planning of wildlife habitats on school property.

I think that some of these people should be mentioned: Pauline Lang, director of education; Bruce Walker, superintendent; John Briggs, teacher, G. L. Roberts Collegiate and Vocational Institute; Jim Cook, consultant, outdoor and environmental education; Don Farguson, consultant of geography and educational studies; Jan Montgomery, resource teacher; David Royle, Valley Farm Public School; and Jay Thibert, Highbush Public School. I would like to thank them for being able to participate in that conference.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN ST CATHARINES

Mr Bradley: I rise today to express my support for the plea of the St Catharines and District Labour Council for additional funding to permit the St Catharines Unemployed Help Centre to assist the jobless and their families in this period of recession.

In a letter to the Minister of Labour, President Gabe MacNally writes:

"Dear Bob:

"Just recently we have learned that several unemployed help centres received extra funding from your Ministry to enable them to assist workers involved in plant closures affecting 50 or fewer employees. These areas include Windsor, Cambridge, Hamilton and London.

"We in the St Catharines and District Labour Council must show some disappointment in the fact that the St Catharines Unemployed Help Centre was not made aware of, or was not considered for this extra funding.

"In the Niagara region, we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country at the present time. Plant closures affecting 50 or fewer are becoming a common occurrence within our region, as your ministry must be aware.

"The labour council has been the official sponsor of our help centre since its conception in 1983. We are requesting your ministry reconsider our help centre for this extra funding. If we cannot be considered for the full amount, maybe sincere consideration should be given to the idea of sharing this extra $200,000 funding between St Catharines and Niagara Falls.

"As I stated earlier, the type of worker these funds were created to assist is becoming a more common occurrence within our region and our assistance is becoming more of a necessity to our community.

"Your immediate consideration and response to our request would be greatly appreciated."

I fully support the plea of our labour council.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Carr: I rise to call to the attention of the House a major victory for women in Ontario. On Thursday 18 April the Ontario police forces conducted a province-wide sweep against 22 explicit sex video stores, seized large numbers of pornographic videotapes and laid criminal charges.

Halton Regional Police raided sex video outlets in Oakville, Burlington and Halton Hills and seized a total of 120 explicit videos. A number of these videos, depicting various acts of sexual degradation and violence, had received approval of the Ontario Film Review Board, whose chairman, Robert Payne, went on record as saying that the problem of the explicit videos was a political one that needed to be addressed.

1340

Well, it was finally addressed, but not by this NDP government. Police have had their hands tied by the Solicitor General, who refused to give directions on laying charges. The courts were powerless as the Attorney General refused to direct crown attorneys to proceed with prosecutions. Women feel betrayed by the new Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who refused to take a stand against sexually violent pornography. The public is angry that the Premier is looking the other way while community standards are dragged through the mud.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus and especially the member for Burlington South for his persistence in bringing this issue before the government and the Legislature. Thanks to this determination, women and communities across Ontario have won a great victory.

ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIAN MASSACRE

Mr Owens: Today I am rising in the House to recognize the 76th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. On 24 April 1915, the systematic slaughter of the Armenian people began. When it was over, close to two million men, women and children had been murdered at the hands of the Ottoman Empire.

The Oxford Dictionary defines the word "genocide" as the deliberate extermination of a people or nation. Using phrases like "tragic event" only serves to diminish the true proportion of this systematic extermination. By not calling it exactly what it was -- genocide -- the memory of those who perished would not be served in a just manner.

The Armenians have proved to be a strong and resilient people. They have survived the genocide, natural disasters in their homeland and recent political upheaval. In the face of great adversity, they have maintained a generosity of spirit which is a lesson to us all.

In closing, I would like to remind this House that we must never forget the atrocities which have been committed against the Armenian people. We must use the lessons we have learned to ensure that this never happens again and to ensure that the tears and anguish of the Armenian people are not in vain.

TIMBER INDUSTRY

Mr Conway: Two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of joining a delegation of Ottawa Valley foresters and sawmill operators on the occasion of their visit to New England. The purpose of the trip was to look at two very interesting wood-chip-fired electrical generating plants, one in the city of Burlington, Vermont, the second in Bethlehem in New Hampshire. Like the delegation, which consisted of a number of representatives of the Ontario government, I was very impressed by the application of that wood-based energy technology.

In my part of Ontario, where the forest industry has been extremely important for generations, it is no secret that at the present time the industry is in dire straits. One of the major issues that is contributing to a very difficult situation is that there is no market for the low-end material, whether it is the white birch or poplar standing in the forest, or the sawmill residues which are piling up to the consternation of, among others, the Minister of the Environment.

This technology in Burlington and in New Hampshire certainly left the delegation with a very distinct impression that there could be some application of that to at least my part of eastern Ontario. I would take this opportunity to strongly encourage the Minister of Natural Resources, superintendent of the vast crown lands of this province, and the Minister of Energy, in her capacity as architect of energy alternatives for the province, to look very carefully and constructively at the data which will flow back from that trip and to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food for any advice and support which he might like to offer.

ANNIVERSARY OF CHERNOBYL DISASTER

Mr Jackson: Friday 26 April marks the fifth anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe in Ukraine, the worst ever recorded in modern history.

Five years ago, the Chernobyl reactor blew tons of radioactive core into the atmosphere. Thousands of people died, while still hundreds of thousands more became chronically ill with diseases such as cancer from the effects of nuclear fallout.

The tragic human and environmental aftermath of Chernobyl continues, and the most vulnerable of Chernobyl's victims are the children. Cradled in the destructive shadow of nuclear clouds, these swollen and bald children are condemned to a life of unceasing pain and despairing uncertainty. As one Ukrainian scientist working in the Chernobyl area recently said: "We are unable to deal with this crisis alone. We need to draw on the expertise and assistance of the international community."

During Earth Week, on behalf of the children and other victims of Chernobyl, I call on the federal and provincial governments to increase efforts to provide that needed assistance, scientific and medical, especially in the area of advanced treatment for radiation-related illnesses. This Friday and again on 5 May vigils will be held in memory of the victims of Chernobyl, at Queen's Park, in which a choir composed exclusively of boys and girls from Chernobyl will participate.

Let us all join in their mourning. May it strengthen our resolve as legislators to help ensure a quick end to the incessant cries coming from Chernobyl. May our hearts hear those cries and may we reach out to those children, as we would our own.

DURHAM COLLEGE

Mr Mills: As members know, this is Earth Week and many activities are taking place around the province to highlight the environment and what we can do to protect it. Families in my riding of Durham East and across the province are worried about what the future holds. We all want clean water, clean air and a better environment for ourselves and our children.

I am pleased to announce today that Durham College in my riding is introducing a new program which will train students to help us in the ongoing fight to clean up the environment. Beginning in September, Durham College will be offering a new three-year diploma program in environmental technology. The focus of the program is to train students in the chemical and biological sciences as they relate to such areas as monitoring of air and water quality and waste management. For graduates this means excellent career opportunities in the public and the private sector.

Responding to the needs of the community is not new to Durham College. Last year the college helped 2,500 disadvantaged adults and laid-off employees to work towards their education goals.

I ask all members to join with me today to congratulate Durham College staff for developing this exciting new program, and that is one positive statement.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr McLean: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I have been in this Legislature some 10 years and I have never risen on a point of privilege before, but today I am, and I have two different points of privilege that I would like you to hear.

Some time ago the member for Perth recently brought to your attention her privilege as a member regarding question period. Two weeks ago, with unanimous consent of this House, you allowed the member for Perth to ask a question and a supplementary after the time for questions had expired.

It has taken up to 29 minutes for the first two questions in this House on occasion. Also, opposition parties usually get four questions each, which is normal on any given day, and we have had, on days, three questions. I know you will say it is the members' own time.

As Speaker, you have assumed the responsibility of chief presiding officer and first administrative officer of the Legislative Assembly. You are responsible for procedural deliberations in the House and for maintaining order and you are the final authority on all matters of dispute which may arise.

ROLE OF SPEAKER

Mr McLean: I understand that you have wined and dined support and maintenance staff of this building. You have wined and dined staff of members' offices with smorgasbord during working hours without members' permission. You have wined and dined the members with a reception featuring lobster, salmon and steak. Mr Speaker, I do not think you are responsible for providing services of a social director at the taxpayers' expense when food banks are virtually empty and people are going hungry.

The other day, on Monday the 22nd, the member for Etobicoke West welcomed some guests and you sent him a note and said that he could not do that. A short time later the member for York West welcomed someone. You listened and said nothing.

It is the duty of the Speaker to fulfil his or her duties as the rules indicate and control the business of the House in an orderly fashion. Since you appear unable or unwilling to do so, I think you should resign as Speaker.

The Speaker: To the member for Simcoe East, I appreciate the concerns which he brings to my attention. With respect to question period routine, I would like to refer the member to the statement which I made to the House Thursday past, and am pleased to inform the member that on that day in fact we had a record 15 questions asked, with, I might add, the co-operation of all members of the House, co-operation which I deeply appreciate. Yesterday, which was an unusual day -- shall we describe it as -- none the less we had 10 questions, certainly above the average which we had been accomplishing previously.

1350

I must also remind the member that it was not that long ago that in fact we were averaging 12, 13 or even 14 questions per day and that it was in the last two weeks where we experienced some difficulties. I anticipate that those difficulties have in fact been ironed out and that we will indeed be able to handle somewhere between 12 and 15 questions per day, or who knows, with the suggestions of certain members, even as many as 100.

With respect to the other matters raised, I certainly would be very pleased to communicate at a future date with the member for Simcoe East, but I appreciate him drawing these matters to my attention.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

MUNICIPAL ENUMERATION

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I would like to inform honourable members that the mailing of the 1991 municipal enumeration forms is now under way. Beginning today, my ministry will mail close to five million municipal enumeration forms to all households in the province. The enumeration forms will be accompanied by an information/instruction brochure that explains how the information collected during the enumeration will be used. One adult in each household is asked to check the accuracy of the pre-printed information provided on the form, make any corrections or additions necessary, sign the form and mail it in a postage pre-paid envelope by 10 May.

As members will be aware, the enumeration is conducted every three years, in the same year as the municipal election. One of the main reasons for the enumeration is to prepare preliminary voters' lists for the 12 November municipal and school board election. The information collected during the enumeration is also used to direct school tax support, to prepare lists of potential jurors and to update assessment records.

Since this is only the second time that the enumeration is being done by mail, the ministry has prepared a public information strategy to ensure that Ontario residents are aware of the enumeration process and understand the need to complete and return the form by 10 May.

The ministry is also offering a telephone hotline for anyone who has questions about enumeration or needs assistance in completing the form.

In addition, enumeration information kits have been sent to members' constituency offices and a wide range of organizations, ensuring that they are fully prepared to offer their assistance in the province-wide campaign. We hope that these groups will inform their members about the enumeration and, if necessary, help people with the completion of the form. The kit contains a form, a brochure, a poster and an article suitable for use in newsletters and bulletins.

I know that all members will join with me in making every effort to ensure that their constituents are aware of the enumeration and fully participate in it. The enumeration is, after all, a very important first step in ensuring that people get on the municipal voters' lists and that they have a voice in shaping their communities.

RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL ENUMERATION

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am very glad that the Minister of Revenue has made a statement today on her plans for the enumeration process for this year's municipal elections. I believe that the mailed enumeration system and forms that were implemented by the Liberal government in 1988 were the beginning of an effective initiative to ensure that all municipal residents are enumerated as conveniently and as close to home as possible.

This is still, however, a very new procedure, and proper staffing of that hotline that the minister has mentioned and the public relations campaign that will accompany the mailout are very, very important. I would suggest that human resources to the fullest extent be devoted to this fundamental human right, the right to be enumerated and the right then to vote.

In 1988, when this process was first begun, the ministries of Revenue, Education and Municipal Affairs determined major inadequacies in the self-identification of school board support. I was part of that process. Since that time, it has most unfortunately happened that school boards across this province have been solely responsible for educating the public on this matter. May I add, this has happened at a time when school board financing is on its tightest rope, when limited resources are available to school boards.

I want to bring to the House an injustice that sits still, and knowledge has been there for at least three years and nothing has been done, although we were on the verge of doing something as we proceeded. I hope that we are now going to know that the francophones in this province still in self-identification have a very onerous procedure to follow. If they do not self-identify correctly, they are automatically placed on public support, and that support is anglophone. Even if they are separate school supporters, they automatically go on public rolls in the English or anglophone sector school board.

I hope that this public information campaign will be directed particularly at francophones, the francophone community will be supported in its efforts to educate its residents and that tax dollars of the school boards will not have to be directed to this endeavour and that we will be using every media resource available in the communities across this province to make this as efficient as possible. I know that every MPP in this chamber will do his or her utmost to help all residents to be enumerated as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

I hope the minister will be able to identify her plans for market value reassessment as clearly as she has made this statement about enumeration, because yesterday's statement was certainly a teeter-totter political statement, and enumeration and assessment are very closely tied. We are talking about the largest community in this province and we still do not know what direction we are going.

Mr Stockwell: This is a bit of earth-shattering news from the Revenue minister today. I am happy that we are getting this forward.

I am still a little more interested, in particular, in market value assessment and her fence-sitting approach that she took yesterday, issuing a statement that really said nothing about where her party stood on the issue. More people in Metropolitan Toronto are asking me specifically about her party's position on market value assessment and where they are going. Very few have asked me about the mailing process for enumeration. Noble thoughts, good to bring it forward, but I hardly think it is the kind of earthshattering news that the people in Metropolitan Toronto would like to hear. The news that they would like to hear from her ministry and this government is, have they flipflopped on market value assessment like they have flipflopped on practically every other issue they addressed in Agenda for People and previous to the election?

The minister could also spend a little bit of time and her staff's time reviewing the cross-border shopping issue. We are losing potentially, in some cases, upwards of $1 billion a day. Her ministry cannot identify the amount of moneys we are losing. Her ministry cannot identify the amounts of money it is losing. They cannot seem to identify how much, where, when, and when she comes before a committee all she can say to us is: "Gee, we don't know. Why don't you blame the feds?"

There are a lot of pressing issues facing her ministry and a lot of pressing issues that the people of Ontario would like to hear about. This, I do not believe, is one of those pressing issues. If she could stand up and make a statement on any of those, I think the people in this province, particularly in the affected areas, would be very interested, not the least of which, as I said, is market value assessment and the cross-border shopping issue.

One point I would like to make within this is that the minister is enumerating the homeless. How does she propose to mail to the homeless to ensure that they get enumerated under this process of hers? I think that is a very important question, since her government has given the commitment to in fact enumerate the homeless and have them vote next election.

Probably, if this government carries on for another four or five years, that is what this province will end up with: homeless, penniless people without principles if they follow the lead of the government.

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

Mr Nixon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My point of order refers to rule 23(b), which prohibits a member from imputing false or unavowed motives to another member. The rule is one that has always been adhered to in this House, but the Premier, in his statement outside the House reported in this afternoon's Star by Mr Maychak, said as follows, referring to the opposition parties: "'They're not out for justice, they're out for revenge,' the New Democrat Premier said of his Liberal and Tory foes."

I want to point out to you, sir, that while he has every right to express an inappropriate decision, a personal decision, to the press, I hope you will tell him that a statement of that nature made in this House would be out of order and against the rules, and in that connection I can assure him that his personal assumption is incorrect.

The Speaker: I appreciate the member's raising the point of order with me and doing so before we start question period. The member may know that the rule to which he refers applies to activities within the House. The Speaker has no jurisdiction over statements made outside of the House, but none the less I take his comments seriously.

Mr Nixon: Normally, the challenge to a critic is a dare to repeat it outside the House. In this instance, I would suggest to the Premier and to you, sir, that he may not say that in this House. It is against the rules, it is wrong and it is incorrect.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Nixon: A question to the Premier: I was impressed and interested in the news release from the Attorney General that came to my desk yesterday, and it says as follows, "We have asked an outside police force, namely the RCMP, to review all circumstances surrounding the incident." The incident is the reference to the Solicitor General's office inadvertently and without his knowledge interfering with the proper course of justice by writing a justice of the peace and asking him to reconsider a certain charge.

Under the circumstances, that we now have the Solicitor General's activities and his office's activities being reviewed by the RCMP, would the Premier not consider it appropriate, while he considers the final disposition of the minister, that he ask him to step aside until the RCMP make their report to the Attorney General and, hopefully, through the Attorney General to this House and the public?

Hon Mr Rae: For all the reasons I gave yesterday -- as I heard the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, he accepted entirely the statement and the word of the Solicitor General -- that he did not authorize the letter, that he did not write the letter, that he had nothing to do with the letter, that the letter was not sent by him or approved by him, but that it was sent and written by other people, I think it would be exaggerated and in the circumstances unfair of me to ask or to expect that the Solicitor General should step aside. From what I have heard and from all that I heard yesterday, I have not heard anything to suggest that the Solicitor General has done anything wrong at all.

Mr Nixon: It is certainly not my intention to thrash all the old straw other than to say to the Premier that we are aware of all those matters, and yet the doctrine of ministerial responsibility is one which the Premier must understand. He has said so and reiterated it on uncounted occasions. If I have any criticism of the Solicitor General, it is that instead of saying, "I refuse to resign," as one of the previous ministers said, he should have offered his resignation.

In my view, the decision is not with the Solicitor General. There is no doubt that under his responsibility there is a clear interference with the course of justice. But the responsibility would lie then, as of course it does whatever the Solicitor General says, totally with the Premier whether he continues permanently or whether he continues while the RCMP investigate these activities.

The implication in the Premier's comments is clear, that the RCMP will not be investigating the Solicitor General. Can he assure us, therefore, that the RCMP will not be questioning the Solicitor General as to his responsibilities over his staff or the inadequate exercise of his responsibility that permitted an employee of the Solicitor General to write such a totally inappropriate and unacceptable letter?

Hon Mr Rae: The Leader of the Opposition would know full well that it would be utterly inappropriate for me to comment at all on the police investigation, and it would be, except to say that from what I have heard from what has been put before me as the first minister, from all that I have heard, the Solicitor General did not write the letter; he did not approve the letter; he did not authorize the letter; he did not sign the letter; and he did not send the letter. In that circumstance, I continue to believe that the Solicitor General should be held politically responsible for the mistakes he makes and for the things he does that are his fault, but it is not fair to hold him responsible for things that are not his fault.

Mr Nixon: The Premier knows and has said previously that ministers are responsible for the actions they take and for the actions of their office. We understand the circumstances, but I am particularly concerned that the Premier indicates he can say nothing about this since it is now under police investigation. It seems strange that he would indicate publicly to the House that the whole matter is absurd and ridiculous and then ask the Attorney General to put a lid on it all by calling in the RCMP. That is precisely what has been done.

If the implication is that the Premier cannot respond to questions because the RCMP has been called in, then I would say in this instance the Premier is further shirking his undoubted responsibilities. What has he got to say about that?

Hon Mr Rae: What I have to say about that is this --

Mr Nixon: I had to make it interrogative.

Hon Mr Rae: I understand that.

What I have to say about that is this. First of all, the basic facts of the situation and what I was responding to yesterday are quite simply this: Was the Solicitor General at fault for having written a letter, for having sent a letter, for having done any of those things? The minister has stated in this House and I have the assurance from him and I have absolutely not a shred of evidence -- no one has suggested that he is not telling the truth in that regard, no one at all.

To suggest that I would in any way, shape or form have any comment to make or interfere in the scope of any questions being asked anybody at any time by the police is completely improper. It would be entirely improper in terms of the way the world works for the first minister to be involved in any way, shape or form with respect to a police investigation.

Mr Scott: The Premier's response, and my question is to him, to this whole issue over the last couple of days indicates clearly that he needs a vacation, a paid vacation, of course, and I know all members of the House would be delighted to see him have it.

The possibility that he could denounce as absurd, meaningless and ridiculous -- I do not think he used the word "hooey" in this context -- the very allegations against the Solicitor General and then the very same day turn around and regard it as sufficiently important to call in the Mounties for a thorough investigation shows that the grip is slowly loosening at the Premier's office.

The Premier has basically two defences to this. The first is that it is all an act of revenge. My office did not write this letter trying to fix a case; the Solicitor General's office did. So we will leave that one there for the moment. The second defence is that the Solicitor General is innocent because somebody signed his name on the letter in his office. Section 24 of the guidelines, as the Premier knows -- he wrote them and I guess he must have read them -- makes perfectly plain that the minister is responsible for the actions of his office. Indeed, it would be an absurdity if he was not responsible for the actions of his office. Yesterday the minister told the House he had authorized his staff to write and sign letters with his name.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Scott: The question I want to ask, because I want to be interrogatory in form too, is a question the Premier used to ask often, and it is this: In the face of the minister's admission that he authorized his staff to write and sign letters of a routine nature, which is admitted, how can he argue that the minister is not responsible for his acts? To use the Premier's phrase, where does the buck in this administration stop? Is it going to stop with some young woman in Cambridge in the minister's office, or is the Premier going to take his responsibility seriously?

1410

Hon Mr Rae: As I have learned since 6 September, the buck stops with me. I have made a judgement and I will be judged accordingly by the House, by the electorate and by everyone else. I understand that.

I would say to the member for St George-St David that the Solicitor General did not write the letter; he did not sign the letter; he did not authorize the letter; he did not send the letter.

I go back to a basic point of fairness. The minister is responsible for answering questions. He is responsible for taking on the policy questions. He is responsible for the conduct of his administration. I appreciate that. If a letter goes out that should not have gone out from his constituency office, that no one thinks is appropriate, it would be unfair, in the circumstances, to say the minister should be fired, should resign, should be dismissed, should be gone simply because of that fact. I stand by that judgement.

I think the people who are watching, who could appreciate in their own lives, in their own offices, in their own experience, should ask themselves the question: Do they think that they should be fired if somebody else sends out a letter in their name? Is that what they think? I do not think they think that.

Mr Scott: The people of Ontario who are watching this presumably will want to know that all the police officers who work in the Ontario Provincial Police for the Solicitor General, and all the police officers for whom I had the honour to act in practice in many years in municipalities across Ontario, when faced with an allegation that has justified a criminal investigation, step aside from their job. They are paid while they are away. I am not asking that the Solicitor General's pay should be docked -- heaven forbid -- but I am saying it seems to me entirely appropriate that he should meet the standards he imposes on police officers all across the province of Ontario and that are contained in the Police Act.

When will the Premier require the Solicitor General to do what every policeman in Ontario is expected to do as a matter of custom and of law? We do not need one rule for police officers and another rule for ministers selected by the Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say to the member for St George-St David that there is no allegation against the Solicitor General. There is none.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: No, there is none. No, there is not. If I could be permitted to respond, I have never heard of an instance where a police chief or a police officer was fired or was asked to step aside because of something a secretary did or a member of the office staff did. I would ask again that members --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David says, "Get a grip." Members opposite should let me return a favour and tell them to get a grip and put this in some perspective.

Mr Scott: Yesterday, when he was trying to appeal to the audience in TV land in making his points, the Premier emphasized the importance of fairness. I refer not only to police officers --

Interjections.

Mr Scott: The members on the other side of the House can hoot me down, but they are going to have to deal with the people of Ontario.

A police officer against whom an allegation is made that is serious and that is subject to police investigation is suspended with pay. A public servant, among the thousands of public servants who work for this government, who confronts an allegation that warrants a police investigation is suspended with pay. I know the Premier may be short-staffed in that cabinet, but why is it that when he and the Attorney General submit the Solicitor General to a police investigation by an outside police force, this man, unlike all those others who work for the province day in, day out, is not suspended, is entitled to carry on his job? What job? The job of enforcing the law against an allegation that he tried to fix a criminal case.

Hon Mr Rae: The Leader of the Opposition talked about statements that are made inside and outside the House. I want to say to the member for St George-St David in all sincerity that if he is making the allegation --

Mr Scott: It is the letter. Read the letter.

Hon Mr Rae: No, no. The member cannot get around what he said. His words are there. I just want to say to him that what he is saying in the House is what no one else is saying. There is no such allegation that has been made, until he just made it, against the member for Cambridge. There is no such allegation.

I would say to the member for St George-St David that the reason that I have made my judgement --

Mr Scott: Read the letter.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the member for St George-St David, who is so busy heckling at the moment, that the basic facts of the case, as I understand them, have not been disputed by anyone. I have made a judgement for which I will myself, at some point or other, by the electorate and by others, be judged. I stand by the judgement, and that is that in this instance, where we have absolutely not a shred of evidence to suggest that the member was involved, that he authorized, that he approved, that he thought it was proper -- when in fact we had the clearest indication that this is not something he would have or could have authorized or would have done -- I want to suggest to the member for St George-St David that in those circumstances it would be improper and unfair of me to simply say to the member, "Begone because of something that happened in Cambridge, in your constituency office, of which you were entirely unaware." I do not think that is any different a standard than I would apply to a public servant, than I would ask to be applied to anybody who is working for a living.

Mr Harris: Since the Premier is really not interested in conducting any kind of investigation into this vis-à-vis his own guidelines, which I assume the RCMP is not being called in for, I would like to ask the Solicitor General specifically -- and quite frankly I am disappointed that it is being left to question period and to this House to have to pursue this, but I see no other option in the abdication of the Premier's responsibility. So I ask the Solicitor General: Yesterday, he admitted that he had given blanket authorization to his staff to sign his name to routine correspondence.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The last time I counted, there was one Premier. The question was directed to the Premier and therefore --

An hon member: No it wasn't. It was to the Solicitor General.

The Speaker: Sorry, to the Solicitor General. There is only one of him, and so I would expect one person to be responding. I would like the leader of the third party to be able to place his question.

Mr Harris: I will repeat, since some people in the government started to yippity-yap before I got a chance to finish. The Solicitor General said yesterday, I believe -- I can bring out the Hansard, if he likes -- that he gave a blanket authorization to his staff to sign his name to routine correspondence. That is what he said: routine correspondence.

1420

We now know that two of those letters were sent out to members of the justice system. I would like the Solicitor General to tell this House if he, as Solicitor General, as the chief law officer of the crown, ever specifically instructed his staff that they were never, never to send any correspondence as part of this blanket authorization for those letters he gave them, that they were never, never to send any correspondence to anyone connected with the justice system. Did the Solicitor General instruct his staff with that?

Hon Mr Farnan: Let me point out a couple of facts. Number one is that "blanket" means "all." So there is an error in the interpretation of the leader of the third party. There was never any blanket authority given to my staff. There was permission for them in terms of some routine letters. So now we have a distinction; some letters are routine and some letters are not routine. When I go back to my constituency, a member of my staff has distinguished some letters that are not routine. That means there is a distinction made.

Let me add this point. In terms of guidelines, conflict guidelines were sent to my constituency and received by my constituency on 4 March. Those conflict guidelines clearly indicate that writing to the judiciary is inappropriate. Now, my understanding is that the letters in question are after that date. So the answer is yes, both in writing and verbally I have said there must be an arm's length from the Solicitor General to the judiciary. Yes, yes, yes.

Mr Harris: Let me be very specific. Not by way of some correspondence that went to his staff, but I would like the Solicitor General to tell me if he in person instructed all of his staff directly that they were never, never, never to write a letter, any correspondence, to anyone connected with the justice system. Did he instruct his staff, he personally, he as Solicitor General, verbally, directly?

Hon Mr Farnan: On numerous occasions, from the very moment that I was elected Solicitor General. The first briefing I got from my deputy minister was that there must be an arm's-length distance between this office and the judiciary. I went back to Cambridge and I took my ministry staff and I said, "Look, our policy is arm's length, arm's length from the judiciary." The answer is yes.

Mr Harris: I do not know why the Solicitor General has difficulty answering the question directly. There was some --

Interjections.

Mr Harris: Well, members can all laugh. The RCMP will be asking the question. There is a difference in suggesting arm's length and saying, "You are never, never, never to send a letter." That is directly the question.

This morning, on CBC Metro Morning, Richard Johnston, a key member of the NDP, stated, "The real question of ministerial responsibility is whether or not Mr Farnan's staff were instructed never, never to do any correspondence that was directed to the justice system in the position of minister." If that instruction were not specifically given, not by way of ministerial staff saying, "Don't forget the arm's-length thing," not by way of a memo that went out from the Premier's office with guidelines -- he said, "Never, never," and if a direct instruction were not given, then the minister is culpable and should have to leave the cabinet. Does the Solicitor General agree with that assessment?

Hon Mr Farnan: I have difficulty following the rambling thoughts of the leader of the third party.

I will make two points. I have reiterated, because it is very, very fundamental to my thinking, I have consistently reiterated to my staff that I believe in the principle of separation between my office and the judiciary. I have emphasized that. Not only have I emphasized it by telling them, I have emphasized it by example, by not being involved in such a process.

Mr Harris: My second question is to the Premier. After three days there has been no ministerial acceptance of responsibility by him as first minister, there has been no ministerial acceptance of responsibility by the Solicitor General. All we have heard are accusations against employees.

An hon member: And against the opposition.

Mr Harris: And against the opposition, that is quite true.

I would ask the Premier whether he believes that responsibility lies with him or with the Solicitor General.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me try to say with respect to this question of ministerial responsibility, and indeed the responsibility of the Premier, that I am here on a daily basis, as are other ministers, answering questions. We are responsible for the conduct of the administration. We are trying to provide answers and we are trying to indicate clearly the responsibility of the government for what happens.

I realize that as first minister, given the nature of our political system, I perhaps bear a little bit more responsibility for the conduct of the government than do others. But I think it would be a mistake to leap from that basic constitutional assumption, which is central to our parliamentary system, to the next step, which is the one which he is asking us to take, that every mistake that happens leads automatically to the firing and the pillorying of one member of the cabinet or another or of one member of the government or another.

I do not think that is what constitutional responsibility is all about. That is the difference that I have. I am prepared to answer and to take responsibility and to take political responsibility for what takes place and to exercise judgement. The member for Ottawa Centre demonstrated that last Thursday in terms of her willingness to take responsibility for what happens. There is no question about that. But I think there is a difference in leaping from that to suggesting that every time somebody on staff makes a mistake the minister gets fired, because that --

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat, please? Supplementary.

Mr Harris: We have had Ministry of Health staff accessing and disclosing confidential information. We have had Ministry of Northern Development staff writing inappropriate letters on behalf of the minister. We have had NDP riding presidents making announcements on behalf of the government. We have had NDP faithful posing as members of the Legislature, in the case of Simcoe West. We have civil servants writing and signing letters for the Premier and now on behalf of the Solicitor General on police matters. I suggest to the Premier that on all of these matters the buck stops with him.

I am suggesting to him as well that his lackadaisical, laissez-faire attitude to all of these matters is leading members of his party and of his staff and his ministers to not treat the guidelines seriously. He has set himself up to be chief judge and enforcer of the cabinet and thus their staff. Somebody then has to take responsibility. The Solicitor General, the chief law officer of the crown, has not taken that responsibility, much to the disgrace of his position, for all Solicitor Generals before him. Will the Premier take that responsibility?

1430

Hon Mr Rae: I hope the leader of the third party will understand when I say that I have a slightly more positive view of my record and the government's record than he does.

I will say to him quite simply that, in the basic sense of our political system, obviously I take responsibility for the conduct of the government, but I also have to exercise some judgement on an individual basis and on individual days. I would say to the member just in response that he was a member, that he was here, that he was in the government -- I do not think he was in the cabinet, but he was certainly on this side of the House -- when Mr Miller's budget was found on the street. For two days, we had a very extensive debate in the House on what it all meant. There was a similar debate in Ottawa when the budget was leaked in Ottawa, for which the Minister of Finance could not be held responsible.

I must say, on balance, I believe that a fair assessment would be, yes, to blame us and hold us, in every direct sense, politically accountable for what happens -- that is fine -- and then to say, "Look, Mr Speaker, it's only fair that when the ultimate penalty, the penalty of being fired, of being dismissed, should relate to questions of personal responsibility and personal conduct with respect to the overall administration of" --

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

Mr Harris: There is no question that the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines have been violated. I do not think that is in question by anyone. The question is, who is going to accept responsibility for this? So far, all we have heard is that we are going to blame staff and we are going to have an RCMP investigation.

This breach of the Premier's guidelines will not be part of the RCMP investigation. We have already heard that. Will the Premier today agree to send this matter to the standing committee on administration of justice of the Legislature, where it can be fully investigated by all parties of the House, where the staff will have an opportunity to come before the committee so they can have their side of it, since on this political argument, since on the breach of the Premier's guidelines, they are the ones who are being accused and found guilty in absentia? Will the Premier agree to that?

Hon Mr Rae: There is, as the leader of the third party will know, an investigation going on at this point. I would say to him again that he has made an allegation and an assertion that the guidelines have been broken. With great respect, the member has already indicated that he took steps with respect to making it clear what the guidelines are. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that he at any time, contrary to the allegation made in this House by the member for St George-St David, had anything to do with any suggestion whatsoever with respect to interference or anything to do with the justice system at all. Therefore, my basic answer to the member is that we take responsibility for what is taking place in the government in the broadest sense. It does not mean that people get fired every time something happens.

Mr Nixon: The Premier has reiterated his defence on a number of occasions. The part of it that has come to my special attention during the last few minutes is the implication that somehow this is just a little mistake that has happened, that the minister did not properly select his staff for competence, that he did not properly instruct them, that somewhere, somebody up in Cambridge wrote a letter that was improperly signed. It has come to our attention that a number of letters to justices of the peace in this regard have been mailed improperly, that a letter went to the Minister of Transportation which the minister denies ever having received, in spite of the fact that it was a clear intrusion into the administration of justice. The Premier says that every time something like that happens, surely we should not require a resignation.

I think his defence would apply perhaps to the fact that his cheque-writing machine signed a letter for the Premier to somebody up in Barrie about some natural resources matter that had to be corrected. Frankly, that did not have any great impact, according to the stories that we have heard, and the Premier's office got in touch with him and said that letter should not have been signed. We are not calling upon the Premier for his resignation for that purpose.

But he is a lawyer, may God help me, he is a QC. He must understand that this is not just an ordinary intrusion or a mistake by an employee or even by a jejune minister, whatever that is. This is an instance where the Solicitor General, through his office, has interfered in the freedom of the justice system.

I cannot believe that the Premier will continue in this stonewalling, repetitious defence when in fact the matter is much more serious than he is prepared to accept. Frankly, if it goes to a committee, as suggested by the leader of the third party, that would be useful, but it is tantamount to us saying "Well, you win, I guess you are right, your man is going to be maintained simply because of the authority of the Premier and in spite of all of the facts. If it goes to a committee, that's fine."

Will the Premier not give further personal consideration to this matter, and at the very least, move the Solicitor General out of his responsibilities until the RCMP report on this matter?

Hon Mr Rae: The member says, will I give further consideration every time he asks a question. He is entitled to ask questions on this for as long or as often as he likes. I understand that.

I just want to say in response that I have made a judgement which I feel, despite all the controversy yesterday and so on, on balance is still the right one to make, and I would also say to the member that he has in his question, as did the member for St George-St David, drawn conclusions with respect to the conduct of the minister and the conduct of others which are entirely unfair and which extend well beyond, if I may say so, the conclusions that can fairly be drawn.

I do not want to say anything more than that except to say that I really think that in the circumstances the Leader of the Opposition is simply going too far, and I would just make that observation.

Mr Nixon: The Premier has made his judgement on his minister, and now he is making his judgement on me. While I presume he is the final arbiter for the minister, I have an independent position in this and I reject his view.

All I can do is look at this administration and see that the RCMP are investigating the Solicitor General and his office. If he is denying that they will ask him questions, then he really is out to lunch.

The Ontario Provincial Police, which are subject to the Solicitor General's direction under the Information and Privacy Commissioner, are trying to find out what happened in the Ministry of Health that ended up in the unfortunate resignation of the Minister of Health. The Conflict of Interest Commissioner is reviewing the submission made by the Minister of Community and Social Services. We are awaiting that matter as well.

The former Attorney General has said to the Premier, "Get a grip on yourself," but I say to the Premier, while all those things are going on, this is a clear-cut case that rests solely with him. Will he not accept the advice of myself, the opposition members and learned members of the community at large, in spite of his view that his fairness principle is being accepted, that the Solicitor General must not and cannot continue with his responsibilities?

Hon Mr Rae: I think it is fair to say that I simply have a different opinion than the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Harnick: I am not a QC, so I am somewhat confused about some of these answers. I guess that might be the reason.

My question is to the Premier. If there is no problem here with motive, if the Solicitor General has not done anything wrong and it was all someone else's fault, if it is not a serious situation, why are the Mounties being called in to investigate? That is my question.

1440

Hon Mr Rae: I have nothing at all to do with the RCMP investigation.

Mr Harnick: I am somewhat shocked that the Premier, who heads this government, has no idea why the RCMP are investigating. Would the Premier tell us who is being investigated and what is being investigated if nothing is wrong?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member is a lawyer and I know he would hate to live in a system and in a society -- as I would -- where the Premier of the province would pick up the phone and say to the police, "Conduct an investigation" in such and such a situation. We do not live in that kind of a society. Thank goodness, we do not live in that kind of a society.

Mr Harnick: Great contradiction here, Bob.

Hon Mr Rae: No. There is no contradiction whatsoever. The allegation has been made. It has been stated in the House and has been said on a number of occasions. The Leader of the Opposition said the Solicitor General is under investigation. That is not correct. The circumstances surrounding the sending of the letter and the letter itself are the subject of an investigation. What will conclude from that, what will be the result of that, what consequences will flow from that, neither I nor the member for Willowdale nor anybody in this House can possibly comment on or know because it is not for us to decide in any way, shape or form.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr O'Connor: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As the minister knows, all five regions in the greater Toronto area are undergoing an official plan review. In the case of York region, I would like to point out that for the very first time an official plan hopefully will be developed. York region has seen unplanned urban sprawl and a real estate bingo that constituted planning under previous governments.

What is the minister doing to ensure that the official plans in these areas across the province are going to reflect the high expectations of the people that this government takes planning seriously?

Hon Mr Cooke: The ministry officials from Municipal Affairs have met with officials from York region on several occasions. The member is correct to indicate that York region is working on an official plan and, I might say, the first official plan for that region. They have been working on it for a number of years, and we have indicated very clearly to the officials as well as the elected council of York region that criteria and principles of good planning including the environment, protection of agricultural land, and the moraine up in that area must be protected before we in this government and my ministry will approve the official plan.

Mr O'Connor: Is the minister confident then that this will protect rural areas, the agricultural lands and the natural area including the Oak Ridges moraine, which I have a large portion of in my riding?

Hon Mr Cooke: I certainly appreciate the interest that the member shows in this very important planning issue in our province. I can assure the member that we are determined to use all of the powers that are necessary under the Municipal Affairs legislation to ensure the people of that region that a good and effective official plan is approved by that council and by this government.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Attorney General. It is a two-part question. First of all, will he tell the House whether he discussed with the Premier or anybody in the Premier's office the propriety of or any interest in calling an RCMP investigation before it was called? Second, is the investigation broad enough so the RCMP can interrogate and investigate the Solicitor General?

Hon Mr Hampton: To reply to the honourable member's question, the investigation into the incident was launched by myself after conferring with senior legal advisers in the Ministry of the Attorney General. That decision was discussed with no one else other than senior legal advisers in the ministry.

The second part of the question is that the RCMP have been advised to conduct an investigation into the incident, and I want to say to the honourable member that just on the material that I have received and I have reviewed with senior legal advisers in the Ministry of the Attorney General, there is some complexity to this issue.

Mr Scott: I think the Attorney General is very wise not to express any conclusion about the investigation, but I think we have it clear, do we not, that the RCMP investigation authorized by the Attorney General of the province is broad enough to permit the interrogation of the Solicitor General and is broad enough to permit the RCMP to recommend criminal charges, if it is their wish to do so? Whether they will be laid or not is another question. I have that right, have I?

Hon Mr Hampton: To respond, I did not instruct the RCMP as to who they were to interrogate. As I understand it, senior legal advisers met with the RCMP and outlined the information they had. I would expect that the RCMP will interview whoever they feel they have to interview in respect to investigating this incident.

I would also say to the member that I would expect that as a natural, normal course of these matters, once the RCMP have collected all the information which they believe is relevant, they will come back to senior legal advisers and will sit down and present that information and they will discuss the legal relevance of it at that time.

Mr Harris: To the Attorney General: He has heard all of the statements that the Premier has made, and he is a member of his cabinet, saying that it is not a serious matter, no problem with the Solicitor General, we are dealing with a five-week probationary employee who inadvertently made a mistake. Why, when this was the Premier's response, did the Attorney General call in the RCMP?

Hon Mr Hampton: I would not assume some of the conclusions that the leader of the third party has assumed here in terms of who is to blame, etc. I make no assumptions as to that in terms of the enforcement of the law, no assumptions whatsoever. I merely say to him that when an incident like this happens, if I, as Attorney General, did not order an investigation into that, I am sure if I came into the House I would be pilloried for not having ordered an investigation. I feel it is only appropriate in terms of law enforcement in the province that we investigate these incidents.

Mr Harris: We are finding out some very, very strange motives for how the justice system is being administered by this government. I want to be very clear on a matter that was raised just a moment ago, and that is that the Attorney General decided, in spite of all the statements that his Premier had made, to call in the RCMP to conduct an investigation, and in making that decision, he had no discussions with the Premier or the Premier's office and the advice that he got was from his senior advisers, he got no advice from the Premier or the Premier's office before he made that decision to call in the RCMP.

Hon Mr Hampton: To be very clear, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss with any member of the cabinet any aspects of this incident. I meet with senior legal advisers in the Ministry of the Attorney General. We look at the incident that we have in terms of the facts that we receive and we try to determine if there may be some legal significance to those facts.

Based upon the information and the facts we received, we determined, again with the advice of senior legal advisers in the Ministry of the Attorney General, that it would be appropriate to investigate this incident to see if the incident has any legal significance to it in terms of who may have breached the law, if there was any breach of the law.

1450

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mrs MacKinnon: My question is to the honourable Minister of Education. A number of my constituents in Lambton county have raised questions as to whether school boards are obliged to provide French-language education to francophones. Could the minister please clarify this matter for my constituents?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The right of francophone parents to demand an education in French is there in our Constitution and has been upheld by the courts. It is provided in a number of ways in the province and there is that right. In some cases, there is an individual school board. In most cases, it is as a section of another school board.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Conway: My question is to the Premier and it concerns the conduct of the Solicitor General. As I hope my friends will observe, I have tried to be dispassionate in this. I rise today because, quite frankly, the Premier encouraged me to recall the Miller incident of the famous Ontario budget of 1983, in which there was a leak, a very interesting matter which members may recall where certain reporters were able to find pieces of the budget in a waste disposal site somewhere in the city of Toronto.

Taking the Premier's advice to recall that incident, I went back to Hansard of that famous Friday morning in May 1983 and, following the Premier's advice, I read what he had to say about the then Treasurer at the time.

Mr Bradley: What did he say?

Mr Conway: Time does not permit, but I say most seriously that on that occasion of Friday 6 May 1983, the member for York South, the then leader of the New Democratic Party, was full and clear about the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. He said, and I quote, that the then Treasurer had no choice but to resign, because the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, sometimes tough, sometimes rough, left no room.

The Speaker: And your question?

Mr Conway: Mindful of that incident and mindful of the standard the Premier then established, in light of what his own Solicitor General has done, how can he not ask the Solicitor General to step down by virtue of not only his own guidelines but also what he said about what Frank Miller did and what the Premier said that Frank Miller was duty-bound to have done?

Hon Mr Rae: I think it is important to note that the establishment of constitutional precedent, if you like, or the establishment of a basic set of rules is established by what actually happened in that instance. In that instance it was the general view, I think, of the public and of people that --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the member for Renfrew North, whose dispassion on partisan issues is well known, that in the Wilson case, which I also referred him to, my reaction was very different. In fact, I had a very different reaction even from the leader of my federal party in public. I was in fact quoted against my federal leader because I said that I thought it was ridiculous to demand Mr Wilson's resignation when he had nothing to do with the circumstances involving the situation.

I would only say that given all that has taken place over the last time, given the precedents that have clearly been established here and elsewhere in the Commonwealth, I do not believe that the doctrine of ministerial responsibility applies that far. I just do not believe it.

Mr Conway: Having taken the Premier's advice to read what he said in calling for Frank Miller's resignation, I read to the House part of what the then leader, the now Premier, said in demanding the then Treasurer's resignation. I quote:

"If sometimes" these doctrines of ministerial responsibility "mete out a justice that seems a little hard in some circumstances, that is the way it has to be to protect the basic traditions of this place, to maintain the essentials of budget secrecy and to maintain the principle that a minister is responsible for what goes on in his jurisdiction and in his department." He concludes that a responsible minister "must bear personal responsibility before us, as representatives of the citizens of this province, for sins of commission and for sins of omission as well."

I repeat: Applying the Bob Rae standard of 1983 on top of the Bob Rae guidelines of 1990-91, how is it that the Solicitor General ought not to withdraw, at least until such time as this Mountie investigation has concluded?

Hon Mr Rae: For the simple reason that he neither authorized nor wrote nor sent nor had anything at all to do with the letter, and I do not believe for a moment that the doctrine of ministerial responsibility extends in that direction.

Mr Harris: I know the assertion that the Premier makes, that Frank Miller in fact authorized and encouraged and said, "Let's see if we can leak this sucker," will bc well received by the former Premier of this province to whom the Premier makes that --

Hon Mr Rae: Don't be silly.

Mr Harris: Well, the Premier should listen to the question and read his answer and tell me what else a former Premier of this province can imply that he is saying.

My question is to the Premier. I was quite shocked, quite frankly, and I am a little disappointed that when I went to ask the Attorney General why he called in the RCMP, in effect he said: "To create a political smokescreen, because you would be upset here. That's why." The only reason he gave me was that the opposition would be upset.

Given the fact that the Attorney General by the way of his answer seems to be implying that, and I happen to believe it is a political smokescreen, will the Premier agree to send this matter to the justice committee and give it the power to bring before it the people involved in this, so we can get to the matter of his guidelines?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, with respect to the first part of the member's question, the suggestion is completely unfair in the circumstances in terms of my answer to the previous question, completely unfair, and the member knows it is. His second allegation, with respect to the answer of the Attorney General, is totally without any foundation whatsoever. It is an allegation drawn out of thin air that is entirely inappropriate. If the member wants to talk about the rules of the House, it is an allegation against the Attorney General which has no place.

I would just say to the honourable member that we have done what I think in the circumstances is the fairest thing. The decisions made by the Attorney General have been totally independent of the political process, and to suggest otherwise is completely unfair in the circumstances.

1500

Mr Harris: The Premier will recall that when he was in opposition, when these matters came up of whether the Premier was doing the right thing or not, whether he felt he was covering things up or not, or whether we felt it was being thoroughly investigated or not, he, his party, called for these matters to be sent to a legislative committee. I think that was the case with the member for Oriole, I think that was the case with René Fontaine. I can tell the House that the last major bell-ringing incident in this House was over whether or not the matter of the Solicitor General, then Joan Smith, would be sent to a legislative committee.

The Premier felt strongly enough then that these matters should be sent there to be resolved that he participated in, and many would say led the fight, to hijack this Parliament and ring the bells. Now I am asking the Premier to apply the same standards that he felt then were so important. Will he refer this matter to the standing committee on administration of justice so that we can have a thorough investigation?

Hon Mr Rae: If there is a higher standard than referring the matter to the RCMP and asking them to look into an incident, and if the leader of the third party says, by asking the RCMP, that somehow the Premier is involved in a coverup, what could be more ridiculous than that? Ridiculous.

The Speaker: I would just like to announce that the time for oral questions has expired.

MEMBER'S COMMENT

Hon Miss Martel: I have a point of order which I would like to raise with you at this time, Mr. Speaker: I would refer you to page 8 of our standing orders, section 23, which states very clearly: "In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she" -- and I would refer you to both sections (h) and (i) -- "(h) makes allegations against another member" and "(i) imputes false or unavowed motives to another member."

I was hoping that the member for St George-St David would get up and withdraw the comment. We have the printout from Hansard which says very clearly -- this is in the words of the member for St George-St David -- "The Solicitor General is being investigated by the police because he tried to fix a ticket."

I think that is an allegation which should be withdrawn.

Mr Scott: I withdraw any impropriety that is made in those remarks. I simply draw the attention of the House and you, Mr. Speaker, to the letter from the Solicitor General which has led the Attorney General of Ontario to invite the RCMP to conduct an investigation.

Mr Wiseman: Come on, Mr Speaker. He either withdraws or he doesn't.

Mr Scott: Those are the facts, and the investigation is either into the impropriety of the act or for some other purpose.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If we are all at least a little bit relaxed, the point of order was quite properly raised by the government House leader. All members will certainly recall the practice that normally when it is raised, the member about whom the point of order is raised, has --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I do not intend to shout over other members.

Mr Scott: I said that I withdraw any impropriety.

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

Mr Scott: It is ridiculous.

The Speaker: I realize that. What I wish to draw to members' attention is the fact that when a matter is raised, the member of whom it is about has the opportunity to respond, and if it is an allegation, a simple withdrawal is sufficient, without explanation. I take it the matter has now been resolved.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Miss Martel moved that notwithstanding standing order 94(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 17.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

NURSING HOMES

Mr Brown: I have three petitions, all to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly. They are signed by a large number of my constituents who are protesting the inadequate funding for nursing homes.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr McLean: "It is with dismay and concern that I have learned of the recent decision of the Ontario Film Review Board to permit the unrestricted distribution of uncensored pornographic films and videos. We see this as a further step in the undermining of the moral values of our province and community and the corruption of our youth. As our local member of the Ontario Legislature, I respectfully request you to register our concern and seek to address this further deterioration of the moral fibre of our nation."

That is from the Bethel Baptist Church in Orillia.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Brown: I have a large number of petitions from constituents in the Elliot Lake area and they say:

"To the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas the cancellation of out-of-province contracts has resulted in more than 2,500 job losses in the mining community of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas the unemployment rate in Elliot Lake is at more than 62%; and

"Whereas economic diversification efforts require time before results can be experienced, and without a strong anchor industry in Elliot Lake, any diversification effort becomes tremendously difficult; and

"Whereas Ontario Hydro, which is ultimately responsible to this government, made commitments to Elliot Lake and its mining companies which resulted in the community's rapid and widespread expansion in the early 1980s; and

"Whereas Ontario Hydro has the means to stabilize the economy of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae and his New Democratic government made a specific promise to the community;

"We petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To fulfil that promise to the people of Elliot Lake by instructing Ontario Hydro to purchase all of its uranium requirements from within the province of Ontario, namely Elliot Lake, until economic diversification efforts in the community are successful."

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr McLean: "To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas, the French Language Services Act, 1986, Bill 8, continues to elevate tensions and misunderstandings over language issues throughout Ontario, not only at the provincial but also at the municipal levels; and

"Whereas, the current government disputes its self-serving select committee findings, intends to encourage an increased use of French in the courts, schools and in other provincial services to ensure that Bill 8 is working well to the best of their concentrated efforts; and

"Whereas, the spiralling costs of government to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the duplication of departments, translations, etc, to comply not only with the written but also the unwritten intent of Bill 8; and

"Whereas, the spiralling costs of education to the taxpayers are being forced even higher due to the demands of yet another board of education -- French-language school board,

"We, the undersigned, request that Bill 8 be repealed, its artificial structures dismantled immediately, and English be declared as the official language of Ontario in government, institutions and services."

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the seventh report of the committee and moved its adoption.

Motion agreed to.

1510

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ACCESS TO COURTS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'ACCÈS AUX TRIBUNAUX

Mr Scott moved first reading of Bill 77, An Act respecting Access to the Courts.

M. Scott propose la première lecture du projet de loi, Loi concernant l'accès aux tribunaux.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr Scott: The purpose of this bill is to amend the access to justice act by altering what is called the law of standing which permits the category of people who can sue in litigation in our courts. The bill essentially implements a recent recommendation made by the Ontario Law Reform Commission.

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE MINISTÈRE DES COLLÈGES ET UNIVERSITÉS

Mr Perruzza moved first reading of Bill 78, An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act to require the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council for transactions respecting university lands

M. Perruzza propose la première lecture du projet de loi 78, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur le ministère des Collèges et Universités en vue d'exiger l'approbation du lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil pour les opérations relatives à des biens-fonds des universités.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr Perruzza: This bill would require universities, before they engage in disposition of publicly acquired lands or engage in long-term leases, to ask for permission of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to be able to do that.

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT (AVIATION FUEL), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE (CARBURANT AVIATION)

Ms Wark-Martyn moved first reading of Bill 79, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act in respect of Liability for Tax on Transfers of Gasoline, Aviation Fuel or Propane.

M^me Wark-Martyn propose la première lecture du projet de loi 79, Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence concernant l'assujettissement à la taxe lors de transferts d'essence, de carburant aviation ou de propane.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: This bill will close the loopholes that currently allow airlines to attempt to avoid the tax on aviation fuel used to refuel their aircraft in Ontario. These amendments will result in the consistent application of tax between domestic and foreign air carriers and between aviation fuel purchased both in and out of the province, while preserving approximately $41 million in revenue annually.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon Mr Laughren: I move government notice of motion 18.

The Speaker: The Treasurer moves government notice of motion 18.

Hon Mr Laughren: Notice of motion 18 states that the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing 1 May 1991 and ending 31 July 1991, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the supply debate this afternoon.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I just want to consult with the table.

I am sorry. I did not follow the procedures properly, Treasurer.

Mr Laughren moves that the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing 1 May 1991 and ending 31 July 1991, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon Mr Laughren: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If that is the worst you ever do to me, I shall not complain.

The members will know, although there may be some members newer to the chamber than others, that this is a tradition in which we have a very broad-ranging debate. The members might also know that while this allows us to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other expenses until 31 July, the rules actually state that it could be a six-month period. But there has been a tradition in the last number of years that it be somewhat less than six months. So this will take us through until the end of July of this year, which means, of course, we will have another one of these invigorating debates before we adjourn some time in June, I hope. I look forward to the debate this afternoon. It has traditionally been a very unrestrained debate and I look forward to hearing from the members opposite as well as those members from my own caucus who will be making a contribution to the debate.

Mr Bradley: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this free-ranging debate which deals with the government of Ontario and its business, particularly as it relates to the funds that are required for the government of Ontario. I do not want to repeat much of what I had to say yesterday, because it was a new and unique address to this Legislative Assembly where I introduced some ideas that perhaps the government has not thought of, and some it has thought of and perhaps rejected, and others that it has adopted. I must give the Treasurer credit, from time to time, when he does accept ideas from the opposition and of course takes the full credit for them, which one does in government. I certainly do not allow that to happen very often.

I want to deal with a number of issues which I think are important to my part of the province and to the entire province. The way I perhaps will relate this is that the Niagara Peninsula has some problems which are unique and some which are common to the rest of the province. Perhaps if I use specific instances from our part of the province, people would understand what everyone is facing in these difficult economic times.

I think first of all of the message that I delivered to the House this afternoon, and that was an appeal from the St Catharines and District Labour Council for some assistance for the St Catharines Unemployed Help Centre. I remember when help centres were first established. I think, if my memory is correct, a lot of these were arising from a previous recession. There were some people who were a bit sceptical at the time that they could be of assistance to people, that it would be a duplication of service for the Unemployment Insurance Commission and other agencies. I think there was a compelling case made, largely from people in the trade union movement, but others I think who had a social conscience in the community, that in fact unemployed help centres across the province could be of some assistance.

1520

Indeed, in the kind of recession that we are facing today, with the figures that Gord Wilson, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, provided when he visited St Catharines recently -- and he had a rather fine selection of quotes and pieces of information that he provided in a packet. It dealt largely, in this case, with the federal government and its transgressions, but certainly there were opportunities for the provincial government, as I indicated to the news media later, to act in many areas of interest.

I thought it a rather interesting gathering of people. I saw that there were people from various labour councils around the Niagara Peninsula there, and much of what Mr Wilson had to say on that occasion was certainly commendable and certainly something that we could agree with.

I am going to channel that into the provincial area this afternoon and say that I certainly agree with the St Catharines and District Labour Council and Gabe MacNally's letter that they have reason to be disappointed, that the Minister of Labour did not either indicate there was going to be additional funding available or was not prepared to provide that funding to the unemployed help centre in St Catharines as of the date of that letter being written.

I know the people who work there; I have known them for years. They have provided assistance over and above that which could be provided through the agency known as Employment and Immigration Canada, because they have counselled people individually, people who are pretty depressed when they are hit with the kind of unemployment we see today. As Gord Wilson says, we are now in a situation where about 48% of the jobs that disappear in the province of Ontario in this recession are jobs that are unlikely to return. That is different from the last recession, where about 25% to 28% of the jobs might have been jobs that would not return specifically for people at the end of that recession.

So I thought the compelling case that he had made, combined with the letter which the St Catharines and District Labour Council provided to all of the members from the Niagara Peninsula and specifically directed to the Minister of Labour, commended itself for some immediate action. I hope that as a result of my intervention in the House this afternoon, the Minister of Labour will give reconsideration, will inform the St Catharines and District Labour Council of the availability of funds and indeed will provide those funds so that it can carry out this very needed service in our community.

Those are the kinds of services that indeed are required as I look across this province. I think, to be fair, we have given a period of time now where the government has had an opportunity to act. I heard during the election campaign and previous to that, when the governing party was in opposition, much discussion about what was required in terms of the health care needs of the province of Ontario. I well remember the questions which were directed to the government of the day with some vigour, by candidates in the Niagara region and other parts of the province, outlining the very real needs to increase and expand and enhance the health care services that are available.

There were a number of projects, which were advanced from hospitals in the Niagara region, from other health care facilities and from individuals and groups, that I think were worthy of funding. We have not seen many of those translated into action at this time. I would have thought that, particularly with the recessionary period there, this government could have a double positive impact that would be fighting for jobs in the area; that is, beginning construction and generating economic activity which would produce even other jobs, and second, of course, providing needed health care facilities.

I directed a question in the House to the then Minister of Health regarding the need for a computerized axial tomography scanner in the Niagara region, and she has indicated in her response to me that it was in fact one of many that must be considered. I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Health has to always consider all of the needs of the province of Ontario, not any specific needs. Those of us who represent specific areas of the province, it is our responsibility to draw that to the attention of ministers. So I do hope that there will be a confirmation of the approval of that CAT scan machine, because there are hundreds upon hundreds of people who simply cannot get a CAT scan done on an elective basis. There are a lot of elective cases. People say, "Well, it's elective so it's not so important." That is not the case. For instance, in some cases involving the Workers' Compensation Board, there is a need for a CAT scan machine to be utilized and that is considered to be elective rather than emergency in many of those cases. That is just one instance.

I do hope that the government will fulfil its promises, will fulfil in fact the obligations which were indicated by the previous administration. Then we can enhance health care in the province.

It is interesting to note that now that the NDP is the government, however, the new Minister of Health is talking about controlling health care expenditures. I did not hear one word of that when they were in opposition. No talk of control then, only people rising daily in the Legislative Assembly. The member for Windsor-Riverside, who was the former critic, was aggressive in pursuing issues related to health care in the province, as was his role and responsibility as a member of the opposition. Yet I hear from the new minister that in fact one of the priorities is going to be controlling health care costs.

That is going to be interesting to some of the people who perhaps felt the previous government, or the government previous to that, were not prepared to put the kind of money into the health care system. I will certainly report to those people what the new priority is.

When I look around the province of Ontario I see that there are other responsibilities. The community college in our area, Niagara College, is one which has been quite successful over the years. It is looking for funding for a St Catharines campus. The one that exists at the present time is somewhat inadequate. There is a need for a new campus and it would be nice to see the government, in its priorities as it proceeds with its programs, have money to enhance those opportunities.

It is particularly important because we recognize that community colleges in this province are very much involved in the retraining of workers in this province. I know the concern that this government must have for the workers whom I represent and whom it represents around the province of Ontario.

There are other circumstances. The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority is on a budget which makes it very difficult for it to carry out its responsibilities. I suspect this is the case in the Grand River Conservation Authority and virtually any across this province, that there is inadequate funding to carry out those environmental projects and other projects which are necessary to ensure that the province is a better place in which to reside. I know that the new government will want to address those very genuine needs because it used to be critical of what its members referred to as cutbacks in years gone by.

I also know that there is an opportunity -- and this is a difficult question to deal with. Those of us in opposition, as when the NDP was in opposition, tend to have answers which are more instant than the government and suggestions that governments do not always implement with the degree of rapidity which we would like to see.

One of the problems that we have, for instance, in the various borders of the province -- and I know the member for Sault Ste Marie has raised this in his area, and people in the Thunder Bay area and the Cornwall area and so on. One opportunity to enhance what we have to offer on the Canadian side is to provide some additional funding to the "Shop Ontario" group which, I think, had $15,000 and would like to have more money to assist in putting forward a positive case.

It is very difficult -- and certainly the Treasurer knows this, among all people -- to close the gate, to say, "Well, you can't go over the border, you can't purchase anything on the other side of the border." Many people who are dependent upon Canadians buying their products for their own jobs are sometimes the people who cross the border to do that shopping as well.

We have a lot to ask. We have a lot to show for on this side of the border. Sometimes it is putting it in the most positive light that can be helpful. I hope that the government would be pleased to be able to enhance and expand upon those particular efforts to put forward the positive case for the province of Ontario.

I should raise as well the financial aid to farmers, and I know the member for St Catharines-Brock, who is here, and the member for Lincoln, who was here a moment ago, would share my views, and I have spoken in the House on this -- the Minister of Agriculture and Food is here -- that we have some excellent agricultural land in this province but it is going to be hard to retain that agricultural land unless farming can be made viable, unless we can put the necessary resources in the hands of farmers so that they are not forced to sell their land.

1530

I should note that even some people who are strongly supportive of the preservation of prime agricultural land have sold off parts of their land simply out of economic necessity; not for any other reason than economic necessity. I would encourage the government, and I have said this to many other people in defence of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, if it embarks upon this kind of program, if people want to have the farm land preserved, it has to do one of two things. They have to pay higher prices for the food or they have to be prepared to accept that the government is going to provide some assistance.

Politically, if you look at any country across the world, whenever governments allow the price of food to go up there is an uproar in that country. I suspect what we are going to have to do here in the province of Ontario is have the government provide specific assistance and come up with some innovative plans to retain good agricultural land. As I have said on other occasions, it is not simply for this year and it is not simply for this generation, but it is for future generations in terms of keeping prices down and competitive in terms of international prices. We know that as soon as the products disappear from our agricultural land, we can be sure that imported product prices will go up considerably.

In addition to that, I think we have a moral obligation in the long run to feed those parts of the world, to provide the kind of agricultural products that the rest of the world could use to maintain their lives for themselves and for their children. So I encourage that, and I encourage the government to remain restrictive in the interim in terms of what it is prepared to do in terms of the Planning Act.

We all know that if you give blanket severances or approval for new boundary expansions and so on, that is the end of agricultural land. I suspect the Minister of Agriculture and Food would not easily entertain that. The Minister of the Environment, who is entering the House now, would certainly not want to see that happen and I think, by and large, most of the people in the province would not.

By the way, I should add that there has been a feeling, perhaps, in urban areas -- you hear it expressed, and the Minister of Agriculture and Food knows this; he hears it expressed because he deals with people who are both from urban and rural settings -- "Are those farmers ever going to be happy? They are really not in bad shape," and so on. Visit the farms in the province of Ontario, indeed right across this country, and you will see that agriculture is hurting. I hope that the Treasurer in his budget is prepared to allocate sufficient funds for the Minister of Agriculture and Food to be able to assist farmers in a meaningful way to stay on the farm.

There is another issue that is of specific regional interest to me, and that is the Niagara Regional Police inquiry. As members know, the cost of that is rather substantial; it has been a rather lengthy inquiry. I know that members of the New Democratic Party stood in this House to demand such an inquiry a number of years ago, and so I know that they will feel pangs of conscience over there in terms of providing some financial assistance to the local community to meet the obligations that are the Niagara Regional Police Commission's financial obligations in terms of the Niagara Regional Police inquiry. As this inquiry comes to an end and the government can assess all of the costs, and what the results have been, and can remember that many of its own members called for an inquiry of the police in the Niagara region, it will be prepared to provide that kind of funding to alleviate the obligations of the local taxpayers in the Niagara region.

I touched on the issue of Falconbridge the other day because I knew that the Treasurer -- I read these things. One of the things about being in the Legislature for almost 14 years is that I tend to remember some of the things that the people who are now in government said when they were in opposition. I remember not only the member for Sudbury East, who is now the government House leader, but her father, who, as a colourful opposition -- I almost said leader because we often thought he was the opposition leader, but he was the House leader in one of the opposition parties at one time -- teamed up with the member for Nickel Belt in demanding that Falconbridge refine its ore, hopefully in the Sudbury basin, but certainly in Ontario or in Canada.

When he has the opportunity to do something differently he says: "Well, the devil made me do it, and I can't do it now, you know. I can't do it now that I'm here. It is something the previous government did and we have to live up to that obligation." It is all right for him to change other rules. I had the quotes the other day. I wish I had them today, but I do not. But I had the quotes and they were perfect quotes.

Then he was going to nationalize Inco -- we all remember that -- because he thought that was an appropriate thing, and it was in the NDP platform. I thought that was one of the first things the new Treasurer would insist upon as a condition of sitting in the cabinet, that in fact Inco would be nationalized. What do I find? I do not like using these terms in the House, repeating them even, but I find that Pink Floyd is really Blue Floyd, that really he is not going to do those things.

Even though he is holding up a pink pen at the present time, I say to people in the province, when he has had the opportunity to be the Treasurer and to implement many of these policies, like his leader, now the Premier of this province, he has changed his mind on so many issues and changed his style so often that he just sounds like any other politician. I always thought -- I really thought -- he even had me convinced on the government side when he was in opposition; he even had me convinced that somehow the NDP was holier than everybody else. I really believed that at one time, and I thought that rather interesting. I wondered what would happen if they did get in power, and I find out when they assume the role of government that in fact they are the same as every other politician -- not worse. I do not point and say, "They're worse than everybody else, and isn't this awful?" I simply say that they are the same as everybody else.

The member for Renfrew North was standing in the House, reading back to the Premier of this province a quotation from the Premier when he was in opposition. We could do that on a daily basis, but he has changed his mind and I suspect the Treasurer has on many issues as well.

The people in eastern Ontario who are here today -- and we have members in the House from eastern Ontario who say that they are very disappointed with what the government has done for eastern Ontario in terms of the allocation of funds and the attention paid to eastern Ontario. They recall when the previous government was in power that a lot of attention was paid to eastern Ontario, that the funds were flowing into eastern Ontario. Now, when we have a new government in power, it ignores eastern Ontario. I guess they do not have enough members there. I cannot really figure out what the reason would be.

But they were quick to do some things. I must give them credit. They move quickly when they have to move quickly. When it came to removing the oath of allegiance, they moved quickly and secretly to do so, even though in the Legion -- I would think in the Beamsville Legion, in the Smithville Legion, in all the Legions across the province of Ontario, Prince Edward-Lennox, certainly in Tillsonburg -- I am getting calls and letters from all over Ontario, from people who say, "You know, it was not just the fact that they were removing one of our important institutions, so important to our forefathers and foremothers and others."

What was really galling to them was that it was done behind closed doors, and even in Niagara-on-the-Lake and Merritton -- and I see the member for St Catharines-Brock here. I heard a report from the Merritton Legion the other day that they were livid. Even those who had voted NDP were livid that behind the backs of the population of Ontario they removed the oath of allegiance to appease somebody -- heaven knows who -- in this province.

I was distributing the other day to the Premier -- I gave him one of the coins, the commemorative coin from the last visit of the Queen to the province of Ontario, and I hope he treasures that. I know that I wear proudly the pin of the province of Ontario, which I think tells an awful lot about our tradition, and I know, when it is convenient, members of the government do so as well.

Whether it is Chatham, Binbrook, East Zorra township, South Dumfries, North Dumfries, Mitchell, Monkton, Fullarton, wherever it is, the people of this province are disappointed that this government has done this behind the backs of everyone, and I suspect behind the backs of the caucus. I never know those things. The brain trust that the member for Welland-Thorold talked about: I wish I could remember the name he used to describe them, the little clique of people within the Office of the Premier. There are some nice people in there, do not get me wrong. I like some of those people on a personal basis, but these people --

1540

Hon Mr Laughren: Name names. I want to hear who you like.

Mr Bradley: I will not name anybody I like because that is rather dangerous. I should use the line I used the other day in the House so I could get another laugh out of it, if I could. The Treasurer will remember that I said, "You people promised the moon, and that is one promise you delivered on." I told my brother I would say that if he were watching television today.

Going to some of the others, I am a member of the teaching profession and I well recall the promise of this government that it would assume 60% of the cost of education. So at the first chance they get -- and the former Minister of Education is here; he will be interested in this -- to move in the direction of assuming 60% of the cost of education, they are in full retreat. I can hear the bugle of retreat. Larry French from the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, who is usually up in the gallery watching carefully, I know would be disappointed that they have fallen backwards instead of moving forward on that promise. I suspect when they finally do try to move in that direction, they will throw everything including the kitchen sink in and say, "See, we pay 60% of the cost of education." I know if they do that they can find that about 58% of the cost is paid today, if you put it all in.

We know the government will not keep that promise, and I know that my friends in the Ontario Teachers' Federation and all of its affiliates will be vociferous in calling this to its attention, as they have in years gone by; as will others.

I hope not to lose my voice. That is not something shared by members of the government, I am sure.

I would like to get into something else about the Charter of Rights. It is great when you can do this in this kind of debate. This is where it is freewheeling. I know all my colleagues agree with this when I get into this.

I must say how disappointed I was in what is referred to as the Askov decision, where it was stated that if people did not receive a trial in a certain period of time, somehow, under the Charter of Rights, they could be excused, not acquitted but the trial would be thrown out and the person would not have to live up to his or her responsibility.

Governments have tried -- the Attorney General is trying and the previous Attorney General was trying -- to move these. I am not one who points fingers so much at the Attorney General in this case, or previous attorneys general, as I do in this case at the Supreme Court, especially at the Supreme Court, because I think that is a wrong-headed decision on the part of the Supreme Court. I really do think it is a wrong-headed decision that it would allow this to happen.

For the member for Ottawa Centre, I hope she recognizes this, because she has been a member of this House and I think she would understand it. Maybe she is philosophically in agreement with the Supreme Court on that decision, and that is fair. I would not criticize her for taking that position. But she has to recognize, as all members of this House have to recognize, that the courts are beginning to take away the power of the legislative assemblies of Ontario and the rest of the provinces and of the federal Parliament, and I do not agree with that. Some people do agree with that, and I accept that, but I do not believe that should be the case. Therefore, I think it is unfortunate that that court should dictate what the policy of her government or any other government should be, and that is what is happening with government. The Treasurer will know this, and the Chair of Management Board will know this, that what governments can do is dictated largely by decisions of the court, and I hope all members of this Legislature know that. I know the member for Ottawa Centre is hellbent that she is going to score some political point on this. She can do that if she wants to, but I am telling other members of this Legislature that their powers are being eroded as a result of what has happened constitutionally.

I look at the Treasurer, and I know that what the Treasurer is facing in this province and will face for many years to come as a result of decisions of this kind is in fact a dictation of government policy. People who are really perceptive will know this. Governments will find out that their room to manoeuvre in terms of finances is confined by court decisions which dictate what they shall do -- not what they ran on, but what they should do.

Therefore, I disagree strongly with that decision and other decisions of the court which force this on governments. I do not agree with that, and I really believe that elected legislatures should not be overruled by courts on those kinds of matters. It is most unfortunate.

Ms Gigantes: What's your solution? Let's hear it. We didn't get a vote on how long criminal cases should be backed up.

Mr Bradley: Well, I am going to say to the member for Ottawa Centre, she was the Minister of Health at one time. She would not be able to spend as much money as is necessary or she would like as Minister of Health if a Supreme Court is dictating that the money has got to be spent somewhere else, and if she thinks that is right, I disagree with her. I disagree vehemently, and I suspect many members of this Legislature --

Ms Gigantes: How long do you think people should wait for a trial?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. After he is through, I will say, "Questions and comments." You will have the floor then.

Mr Bradley: Anyway, I wanted to vent that particular opinion that I have. But I really think that is something that all of us who are elected will have to assess carefully and really think about carefully, how much your priorities and how much your obligations and how much your room to manoeuvre is influenced by court decisions, not only the decisions which are made, but when the Attorney General comes to those members as a cabinet or as a caucus and says to them, "If we don't do this it's going to cost $500 million, but if we do it it'll only cost us $350 million," it may be an area where they did not want to move at all; they have had other priorities. It may have been something a previous government was interested in and, frankly, they do not think is that important. But the court says, "You've got to do it," or the Attorney General comes to them and says, "If you don't do it it's going to cost us twice as much, or at least substantially more." Members should think about that, and I know that there is no easy solution, but it is a circumstance that they face. I know that the Treasurer and the Chair of Management Board particularly will find that out.

I wanted to look at a couple of other areas which I think are of significance, but I would like to know how much time I have taken at the present time, if I could figure that out.

Some hon members: Too much.

Mr Bradley: "Too much," say some members of the opposition. I wanted to save some time for the member for Renfrew North. He certainly will add to me, but I wanted to touch on another matter which I think is important.

The member for Perth is here today. She disagrees with me on this, and I expect that that is going to be the case. She has disagreed with me for -- she does not want me to say how many years -- a number of years or something like that. She is also originally from St Catharines, and I want to report to her that I will get her the special edition. The centennial edition of the St Catharines Standard came out last Sunday, 100th anniversary. It is a wonderful package put together and I will personally get her a copy of that so she will be aware of some of the happenings in the Niagara Peninsula.

She sits with me on the government agencies committee, and I know she disagrees with this, and we have exchanged views. I will not say we have fought on this, but we have exchanged views on this many times, and that is the appointments process in the province of Ontario.

There is a major gap between the perception and the reality. The perception which the government attempted to set out -- and I might say with a good deal of success. As a politician, you admire it when the other side is with some success able to get its message across. I do not think it is accurate. I will not say it is misleading, that is against the rules of the House, and I do not even want to say it is misleading anyway. I just think it is inaccurate to say that there has been a drastic change in the appointments system.

1550

What has happened, which I think is positive, is that people being appointed do appear before the committee, and it is a limited amount of time and so on, and there is a limited number of people who can appear, but I think that is rather interesting. However, the committee does not have the power, despite what I have read in some places, to reject.

I see that the member for Lincoln has absconded with something. I will not elaborate on that, but in midstream he has distracted me. Where was I?

It was here on the perception and reality, and the perception is that the government has made a drastic change, that somehow the Premier has depoliticized the appointments system in the province of Ontario. Well, it has not happened.

I do not mind that the government makes those appointments. When you win the election -- and I am not going to play the game of, why do we not have proportional representation, now that it is convenient to me. I am not going to do that. The rules were the rules. When the election is called, you win by the rules, you win, and that is it, you have the responsibility, congratulations. And if you make your appointments -- and you consult the opposition once in a while; you may consult others, that is fine -- you can make those appointments; that is your prerogative. The opposition will say, "Isn't it awful? All these New Democrats are being appointed," and so on. Some people might say yes, some people would say, "No, it's their turn, and they can be appointed if they see fit."

What is happening is that in fact the committee does not have the right to reject. The committee cannot reject. It can vote against, but the Premier and the Premier's office do not have to pay any attention. The group that the member for Welland-Thorold made reference to does not have to pay any attention. Besides, it will be a frosty Sunday in July when the government members vote to reject an appointment made by the Premier of this province. I would be one of the most surprised people in the committee if that were to happen. So the committee does not have the right to reject or to veto the appointments put forward by the Premier and his advisers.

Second, we cannot as a committee call any independent witnesses forward. For instance, there may be a person put forward for the position of -- and I see today the chair of Hydro has been announced. It did not come to the committee first, by the way, to say, "What do you think of this?" It is announced and then it goes to committee and you are supposed to get the rubber stamp out and put the rubber stamp on.

There may be justification for having someone come forward, maybe Energy Probe, for instance, before the committee and say, "This is why we think this is either a good choice or a bad choice." Does the committee have that right? No, it does not, or to accept written representations in a formal way; the committee does not have that power to accept those. That is a distinct disadvantage.

I do say, in fairness to the person proposed for the position by the Premier's office, that in fact that person should have the right to respond in any way to those. There is no question about that. They should have the right to respond.

But there is no provision for third-party intervention in this case. That would very much help the committee. In some cases it would take the wind out of the sails of the committee, opposition members, for instance, who think that, "Here's a person who has a long NDP background and the only reason they're getting it is because they're NDPers."

I will tell members something. If we had some independent third parties in there saying, "We don't care about that part of it, but we think this person is particularly competent," it would peel away some of the arguments that the opposition would have, I think with some justification. The time is too limited that we have to deal with that as well.

In addition to that, we cannot deal with reappointments. For the life of me, I do not know why the government members would not want to deal with reappointments, because they were appointed by Liberal and Conservative governments. I would sure as heck, if I were a government backbencher, want to be there, able to get at some of those people, and yet they do not have that opportunity as well.

There are other problems as well. We do not have the ability as a committee to deal with all order-in-council appointments. We tried to get a list one day of all the order-in-council appointments that are made by the government and then, a second category, all those that would not come to the committee. We could not get the list. It was going to be delayed.

The government NDP members in committee, I have noted, act just the way Liberal and Conservative government committee members did years ago. They do the bidding on the instruction of their chief government whip. I am not critical of that. Do not get me wrong; I am not critical of that. I am simply saying, do not pretend it is different. It is not different.

I had hoped to speak about 25 minutes in the House this afternoon. I should have had a watch in front of me to see what it was. Members of the opposition cannot wait for me to sit down. The member for Lincoln has sent over something that --

Mr White: We are the government now, Jim.

Mr Bradley: Yes, the government; sorry. It is hard to come to that conclusion, even though I spent eight and a half years previously in opposition, and what fun it was then, just as what fun it is now, because there is a different perspective.

By the way, I said when I was in government, and some of my friends in the Legislature will know that I said when I was in government, and I say it today, that the role of the opposition is extremely important. I remember when I was in cabinet, the member for Renfrew North and I, who sit in the House today, were members of a cabinet and had served in opposition, the member for Renfrew North even longer than I, and the reaction of those in cabinet who had never been in the Legislature before to the yammering of the opposition, as compared to those who had served before in opposition, was substantially different. I always recognized that, even though I was angry as could be at some of the people on some days in opposition, that was their role, and if they were not performing that role, then democracy would not be the beneficiary.

The member for Lincoln has sent across something that is designed to have me sit down. He has tantalized me with a chocolate bar this afternoon, and I guess that is the kind of bribe that probably will make certain that I do not continue this afternoon. But I have enjoyed the opportunity to make this intervention this afternoon on behalf of, I hope, the people of the province of Ontario and to encourage some debate on issues that I think are important to our province.

Mrs Haslam: As the member for St Catharines has indicated, we do sit on the same committee, and I do take this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House some discrepancies in the way he looks at the committee and the way I look at the committee, and I do appreciate this opportunity.

He mentioned that when we are looking at people who come before this committee, they are all New Democrats. I would like to point out that there are many more non-New Democrats than there are New Democrats. In the first few times that we had people come in to us, the first question that opposition members often asked was, "Do you have a party affiliation?" and the answer was no. If it was not, it was usually, "Well, yes, I've contributed to the Liberal" or "I've contributed to the NDP."

For instance, Andy Brandt came forward and I took the opportunity to ask him if he was a member of a political party, and he was very upfront and said, "Yes, I am," and I said, "Which party are you a member of?" He told me, and he actually indicated how much he had donated to the party. His comment was, "Much more than I can afford to donate to the party." But I did want to draw that point out.

The openness in the process, as I see, for this particular committee is the knowledge by people out there that there are these binders of agencies, boards and commissions available, that they can go into a constituency office, that they can go into a library, that they can go into a municipal office, that they can find out where these boards, agencies and commissions are indicated and what their criteria are to serve on them. The one that one of the members mentioned was the red goatmeat commission, and that one just really amazed me -- we have many agricultural commissions -- and I think it is important that the people in the riding of Perth know what these agencies, boards and commissions are all about and have the opportunity to know how to get on them.

I can see that my time is running out, and so in the words of the member for Mississauga West, the bottom line is that in the process of re-examining all of these procedures we appreciate that.

Ms Gigantes: I would just like to comment very briefly on the statements that were made by the member from St Catharines concerning the backlog in the courts. Whether one agrees with him about the role of the judiciary and the judicial system in determining how we make decisions in a democratic system or not, I think he would have, in fairness, to acknowledge that there was a backlog in the courts of Ontario when this government assumed responsibility in the fall of last year which was absolutely irresponsible.

The backlog was enormous. The length of time for which people were being expected to wait for a trial and disposition of the charges against them was intolerable. I think that he speaks to this matter to try to cover up the fact that the former Attorney General, who had plenty of warning on this subject, really had quite irresponsibly ignored it, and that over many years. I remember well this issue being raised in 1985 in this Legislature and the Attorney General assuring us there was no problem.

I also find it quite galling that he speaks on this matter from the point of view he does, while the member for York Centre will frequently shout from the opposition bench that this government is responsible for the fact that the courts have determined that people must be brought to trial in a reasonable length of time, that this government is responsible when tens of thousands of cases have been dismissed. Responsibility lies with the former Attorney General, as the member for St Catharines well knows.

1600

Mr Sutherland: I just wanted to make a few comments with regard to what the member for St Catharines said, particularly about the role of the opposition. He was highlighting how he felt when he was in cabinet that the role of opposition was extremely important in terms of the democratic process and in terms of keeping governments accountable. I want to agree with him on the statement that it certainly is a very important role.

However, I also want to compliment him on his speech for talking about some real issues that affect the people in his riding, talking about unemployment issues and other issues that were of concern. I just hope, after what we have heard the last couple of days in question period, that more members within his caucus and within the opposition will start talking about the real issues affecting the people of this province of Ontario rather than trying to make news headlines and get sound bites. I think the people of Ontario will be much better served if there are more opposition members talking about those specific issues that the member for St Catharines was bringing up this afternoon.

Mr Phillips: I would like to compliment the member on his comments and to reinforce what he was saying about employment, and that is, we are looking very much forward to the government coming forward with some employment creation ideas, as the member pointed out and gave one specific recommendation in his remarks.

Every single day the province is losing 1,600 jobs. It is an enormous legacy that the government is leaving to this province. We now have more people unemployed in Ontario than at any time in the last 50 years. We have not heard one recommendation to create permanent jobs out of this government -- $700 million, yes, for 10,000 jobs for a year. We lose that many jobs in a week in the province.

Believe me, we are looking to this government, and I hope the budget on Monday will be the litmus test for the government, will be a job creation budget. Every single one of the members, myself included, go back to our ridings and never before, at least in the last 50 years, have we seen so many people suffering so much in this province through unemployment.

I have not heard one announcement, not one announcement in this Legislature, to create permanent jobs in this province. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology has not made one single statement in the House that will create permanent jobs in the province.

I am getting angry about this because we have now waited six months. We have had not one single recommendation, nothing. We will be evaluating the budget on Monday in terms of job creation, because let me warn all the members opposite that they are going to live with this legacy for four years and then the people of Ontario will have a chance to speak, and they will speak loud and clear.

Mr Bradley: Two minutes is a limited amount of time to respond, but I will attempt to do so very briefly.

I would say to the member for Perth, who had an interesting intervention, that in fact what will happen with her government is it will have the odd Liberal and Conservative, the token Liberal and Conservative, come before the committee, particularly early so it does not look like it is partisan.

They will find the overwhelming number of people that they appoint in fact are NDP or NDP sympathizers, and I am not being critical of that. They are the government, and I do not expect that they are going to be appointing to agencies, boards and commissions people who have exactly the opposite point of view or philosophy to the government. I expect that they will be appointing people of ability. I expect that from time to time there may be people from other parties who they appoint, but that the overwhelming majority will continue to be from the New Democratic Party.

To the member for Oxford, I would simply say to him he should look at Hansard. Hansard is very useful. I used to get Hansard even before I was in the Legislature, the federal and provincial Hansard. People think it is boring reading, but it is not. It is rather revealing reading. I think if he wants to get a better perspective on what goes on in the House -- and it is difficult; it is a very confrontational place. Even though you might think we enjoy it, many of us do not enjoy the confrontational end of things as much as you might imagine. I think the member has to look at what the NDP members had to say when they were in opposition, and playing a legitimate role in opposition, before the member is critical of others.

I remind members, by the way, that Andy Brandt was a Liberal at one time; I should tell the member for Perth. Finally, to the member for Ottawa Centre -- I have found the member for Ottawa Centre, who just accused me of something, imputing some motives, to be one of the most partisan people I have ever dealt with in this Legislature, and she does not deny that and she says that in directness and honesty. I think I attempted to put forward a case where governments are forced into certain circumstances by virtue of --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Oakville South.

Mr Carr: I would like to add to the debate, if I could. I was looking through some of my notes over the last week or so in anticipation of the budget. I was a little bit surprised, being a new member, to find out that there is a bit of an anniversary today. A year ago today was the day the previous budget was introduced, 24 April 1990.

I was a little bit surprised. I thought I was seeing things when I read the communiqué, but it was interesting, as I read it. The headlines were from the communiqué that came out from the Treasurer of the day, the now leader of the official opposition. It was an interesting headline. It said, "Ontario balances budget," and it said in the subheading there, "This year Ontario will have no deficit and we will achieve a surplus of $30 million." The surplus was going to be $30 million. One year later, we have gone from a $30-million surplus -- one year to the day -- to a $3-billion deficit. As we sit here, we wonder why people are cynical about politicians. In a year, we have gone from a surplus to a $3-billion debt.

I looked through some of the statistics that were in some of the books that were released as a result of that and they show very clearly the accumulated deficit. They went back all the years, from 1981 all the way through to the present budget plan and when you look at it, everything continually went up. The total debt per capita kept growing and growing year by year. The amount of spending went up year by year. In fact, I guess the last government was attempting to show what a great job it was doing. They put it very simply in charts, all the increases in spending. They put it in charts. The increased spending kept going up and up, but when you look at the critical areas, health care, we actually ended up worse off.

When that previous government came in, we had a fine health care system. At the end, we had waiting lists. When you look at education, they talk about all the increases in spending that went into education and yet versus the rest of the world, we declined over the period of time when they were in government. When it comes to the environment, they talk about the increase in the spending, pages and pages about the increase and the amount that was spent and how they spent more and more.

I am not all that old and I can remember the day when you could swim in the Humber River. In fact, my kids cannot even swim in Lake Ontario today. Even when it comes to the environment, we spent more and more and things got worse and worse. Then we wonder why the public out there is a little bit cynical and a little bit sceptical about politicians. They have reason to believe it because here we are with a document praising what fine financial shape we are in and then one year later, as I guess has been said by all three parties, we have a tremendous economic problem in this province.

1610

I will reflect a little bit on where it all went. I think it is important for all the members to take a look at this. This was the Treasurer's quarterly report that went out. When you look at it, there was a dramatic drop in revenue. As I reflect on where it is, it lays it out very clearly. It is very simple. You do not have to be a mathematician or an accountant to read it. It lays it out: One side is revenue; one side is expenditures.

On the personal income tax side we actually had a little bit more this year, almost $1 billion more that came in than was anticipated. I guess that was a result of some of the money that comes back from the federal government through the personal income tax. But the retail sales tax is down $672 million. Corporations: The amount they contributed -- projections -- was down $775 million. The gasoline taxes are down. The fuel taxes are down. The land transfer taxes were down. Everything is down, virtually, from what the projections were. The reason they are down is because economic activity has stopped in this province.

When you look at the corresponding side, the expenditure side, you see expenditures are up: Community and Social Services, almost $0.5 billion more; the reason, of course, is because more people are out of jobs and are now collecting social assistance. So that is up dramatically. You look down and there are some capital accounts that are up by $389 million, and then the guarantee for the UTDC that is thrown in there as a result of it.

What we have in this province, over one year to the day, is projections that were totally useless, completely off the mark, by the previous government and completely wrong when it came to expenditures and to revenue. Everything was off, completely off the mark.

We had the famous change in government. We now have a socialist government that has taken over. I was reflecting on an article by Terence Corcoran and this is what he said: "Ontario's socialist government, rejected by 62% of the voters last September, is moving ahead smartly in what appears to be a revolutionary approach to managing the province's economy: government by moratorium.

"A moratorium is an authorized suspension or deferment of action, a strategy the economically befuddled New Democrats have applied to several sectors over the past few months."

I think that says it all. We are sitting here with the mentality of a government where all it continues to do is to complain and blame the next guy. I think that is what has added to the cynicism out there. On the one hand you have a government that is completely wrong about its projections; a year later you go from a $30-million surplus to a $3-billion deficit -- and it might even be worse; the Treasurer will let us know what it will be in the budget. So here we are. We have a complete and absolute lack, on the part of the public, of any confidence in what they do. They legitimately have to have some concerns because we are so far off the mark continually in the way we are talking about it.

As I went through some of my notes and pulled some of the things out, I looked at what Ontario's major small-business concerns are. These are the people who generate the economic activity to generate the revenue. These are the people who generate the revenue that produces all the funds for the Education minister and for the Community and Social Services minister. We should be listening very clearly, because when you look at it, this is where the revenue is coming from. This is what pays for it.

There are two groups that basically pay for it. The one group, of course, is the personal income tax, and those people have spoken very clearly. They spoke in a poll we commissioned, which I talked about briefly yesterday, where 81% of the people said our taxes were too high. The people generating -- we will round it off a little bit -- the close to $16 billion that comes through the personal income tax, the people out there are saying our taxes are too high.

On the other side of the coin, we have a lot of faxes back there.

Hon Mr Laughren: Oh, that's gross.

Mr Carr: The Treasurer is talking about the fax. I think we were very kind. Actually, in the picture of him he looks very well, and the caption is: "Do you know this man? You should, because sooner or later his hands will end up in your pocket."

We have asked people to fax us if they are concerned about taxes. The fax number is 325-9902. In spite of the fact that the picture looks very good, the people of the province have spoken: 81% are against the tax increases. As I said before, the big problem is that it is not only Conservatives, it is not only Liberals, it is New Democrats who are saying that as well. It is everybody. When you get to 81%, everybody is saying it. Every political affiliation and every group is saying, "There's no way you can tax us any more."

That is on the biggest line item, on the taxation revenue. That is from the people.

When the Canadian Federation of Independent Business commissioned a poll, when it asked, for those who responded the big concern was the total tax burden. The second factor was the government regulation and paper burden. The third was the cost of the municipal government, and actually way down below there was the availability of financing.

So what the small businesses in this province are saying is that the number one problem they are facing is not the availability of financing through high interest rates, it is the total tax burden that they face in this province. Second, it is the government regulation.

I would encourage the Treasurer, as he reflects on his budget, to take those things into consideration. When taking a look at who is generating the revenue, let's take a moment to listen to what they have to say. Let's take a moment to listen to what the two people on the top of the revenue line are saying -- the personal income tax, the people of this province that pay close to $15 billion, and also the corporations. They are saying that there is no more to be had.

So I take a look at some of the statistics and go through the summaries that came in through the budget process, which was a good process, where we went through and took a look at all the interest groups. It said, "Government should create an environment in which business can thrive without government handouts and bureaucratic encumbrances," and that was part of the whole process.

For the members of this Legislature who did not get a chance to sit on that committee, it is very interesting, the pre-budget consultation summary produced by the research department. It is very interesting reading and I am sure the Treasurer has had a chance to look at it. If you do look at it, you see very clearly what the people of this province are saying. When you go through what they talk about, they talk about the deficit, they talk about competitiveness, they talk about taxation, they talk about social services, skills training -- everything you would want to know about a province is in here from the groups that have been affected. If they read nothing else, I say to the members, take a look at this. Because at the end of the day, that is how it is going to be judged.

The ironic thing is that when the report came out, the first line of recommendations of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs said, "The committee is disturbed by the lack of adequate levels of social assistance benefits to those in need."

Actually, I went a little bit further. I did not just read the summaries in this report; I actually read the briefs. They are quite literally piled on my desk to almost my height. There were a tremendous amount.

Hon Mr Laughren: To my height.

Mr Carr: The Treasurer's height. But the problem is, and the facts of the matter are that when you look at those submissions, that is not what the first line of the recommendation should say, because that is not what the vast majority of people said. Again, we get back to why people are cynical about politicians.

Here we have a process where you have stacks and stacks of material that comes in before the finance and economics committee, and then it is totally disregarded by the people who were sitting there and listening to the process. Then we wonder why the people get cynical about the process. That is why they get cynical, because they tell the politicians over and over again: "This is what we would like to see." Then they come out with this report which is their own personal agenda of what they would like to see; not what the people said, which is what the process is supposed to be. They came out with their own personal agenda of what they would like to see.

So if they want to get some credibility back into the process with politicians, let's start listening to what they say. Let's start listening to the 81% who say the tax burden is too high.

I want to take just a quick moment to talk about the difference between this recession and the previous recession.

In the previous recession, Ontario fared better than any other province. When we look at it, Ontario in the 1981-82 recession was better than any other province. It fared better than Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, all the other provinces. We did better. Now when we look at it, Ontario is worse. In fact, in the statistics that are laid out there, we see very clearly that Alberta and British Columbia actually had a net increase in jobs. That group has the same federal government, has the same policies from the federal government, and yet they actually increased the number of jobs that were created.

Ontario fared worse than any other province. So we have to sit back and ask why. Why were we the worst province of any of the provinces? We have the same federal government for all 10 provinces. What did we do that the other provinces avoided doing?

1620

When we look, the big problem is that we tried to tax and spend our way to prosperity. Instead of generating economic activity and creating jobs, all we did was attempt to say: "We spent more." At the end of the day, we are not going to be judged on how much we spent; we are going to be judged on results. And unless and until we can get results which increase the economic activity in this province, the statistics are going to get worse and worse and worse. When we look at the revenue, which is declining rapidly, from the financial statements, unless we can generate economic activity in this province and start creating jobs, it is just going to get worse and worse.

A report that came out, again from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business -- these are small groups; these are not the large multinationals. These are the small operations that employ the vast majority of people in this province. They are small companies of people who have mortgaged their futures to try to get a business off the ground. And when they talk about where some of the concerns are, they focus on the high taxation in this province. It is kind of ironic that we stand up here today, when literally one year ago we had a budget that was introduced that is so far wrong and so far off the mark from the realities of today.

As I mentioned, there are only two things we can do right now. We have these problems, and we can either try to increase taxes -- I think everybody agrees that cannot be done -- or we can cut back spending. I do not think the other side is prepared to do that. Some alternatives have been proposed by our party in terms of limiting the wages in the public sector to help alleviate some of the problems. Those have been rejected, so the only other thing we can do is to run up the deficit in this province.

I related yesterday, and I think it is important for those members who were not there, what the debt servicing costs are in this province. I know the Treasurer knows these figures because they are surely giving him some sleepless nights. The interest charges alone in this province are $4.3 billion, and we are looking at almost $12 million a day in interest charges alone. That is why we have a problem. As I related yesterday, the big problem is that when deficits get out of control and get ahead of you, they take years and years before they start to come down.

I know some of the members opposite said: "Well, we don't have too bad a debt here. The problem isn't too bad, so we can afford to run it up a little bit." Well, what I say to them is that when they are paying interest charges of this high a percentage, it is already too high, and we cannot afford to run up the deficit any longer or any more in this province.

I was interested to take a look at some of the economic statements and to compare them. It was interesting reading to compare what happened in the budget of last year versus the economic statement in December. I will tell members that we are so far off the mark. My big fear is that the same group that was a part of putting together this previous budget, other than the Treasurer, will be the ones who are going to put together our new budget, and when they are that far off the mark, we have to be very, very wary.

I think what we need to do is be a little bit more conservative in our approach and not try to be too optimistic. What happens with these budgets is that we send them out in glossy, beautiful presentations; they put any annual report to shame. But the fact is, that is all they are. The only good thing about this last budget is the nice picture of the Ontario flower on the front. That is the only thing that is worth while, because they are completely off the mark. All the time and effort that went into the pages and pages of statistics -- the only problem is the statistics were all wrong. They are way off the mark. We have high charts talking about how we were going to spend, and they went right off the mark because we spent more time trying to project what was happening than trying to make sure that there is economic prosperity by trying to create jobs.

Unfortunately that is a problem we are at today. It is just a bit of a difference in philosophy. As I have said before, we may debate and complain to each other, but we are really here for the same reasons. We are all fighting for the people of this province, but we are coming at it from different angles. It really comes back to something that I think was said in the throne speech, when the Premier, because it was no doubt his throne speech, said that what we need to do is create more wealth in this province -- not redistribute it: create more wealth. I could not agree with him more. Unfortunately, the big problem is that the actions often speak louder than the words, and what we have done is not to attempt to create any more wealth in this province, to take a look at what the business community is saying and what people are saying to try and work with them, to try to ensure that we have economic prosperity.

What we have tried to do is throw up our hands with the wage protection fund and say: "We're not going to give people jobs. All we're going to do is make sure that we've got this big whack of money in social assistance, because we all know they're going to go on to that. And we're going to make sure that we don't put any money into training and apprenticeship and skills training to make sure these people have the jobs. We're just going to say that when they come out of work, we're going to have the money that's available."

So, as I have said many times, we are now looking at it. The line has been drawn in the sand. This government has been able to say it was the past government's fault and it is the federal government's. Starting Monday, that is not going to be the case. Starting Monday, it is going to be the Treasurer's deficit. It is going to be his taxes. The line has been drawn and we are going to be judging them year by year, day by day, and I hope the members opposite will see what our responsibility will be, to keep reminding them day in and day out of where we started when this government took over. And the people ultimately in the end will judge where they are.

As we sit here, the one last thing I would like to just sum up, if I could, is that it is an important function to look at the economy and finance, because those are the critical factors out here. So we may have come in with all of our prejudices on certain issues, but what we need to do is take a look at economic prosperity, because that is what will give us the money to ensure the social programs and the education and the environment remain sound in this province.

Mr White: I believe that my friend from Oakville South is very genuine when he says that what we should be looking at is a vibrant and lively economy which can alone sustain the kind of social goods that we want for all the people of Ontario. I believe him when he says that we are all elected and we are all dedicated to fighting for the people of our province, but I would like to bring to his attention a slight point in regard to the mention he made of how Ontario has fared worst under the free trade act, under the federal government, under the high-dollar deal that Mr Wilson may well have made with the federal Americans. I would like to point out that Ontario is, surprisingly enough, an industrial province with a large amount of industry that has been lost due to that deal. That is why we have fared worst.

I know in my riding we have had industries that have been there for generations that have lost, that have gone south, industries like Cobi Foods; Harvard Industries, which is an auto parts manufacturer; Industrial Glove and Garment. All those companies were lost due to the free trade and the high-dollar deal that the federal government made. I think that is why we fared worst, not because of the previous government's monetary policies or our own policies in our budget, and I think that what he should be looking at is another kind of a fax, a fax that says: "Do you wish to be associated with the federal Conservative Party or not? Should we disassociate ourselves, as the Albertans have, who have not fared so poorly?" That might be a good way to fight for the people of Ontario and stay a Tory.

Mr Phillips: I, too, want to comment on the remarks by the member and say I appreciate his thoughtful comments on the budget and the estimates. Just to remind ourselves, there are five years for which we know the facts: 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989. They are closed. Those were the five years where my friend, the former Treasurer --

1630

Hon Mr Laughren: Former friend, you mean.

Mr Phillips: Current friend, former Treasurer. Every single year in those five years the deficit was reduced to where there was in the final year truly a surplus. Every single year there were at least 120,000 new jobs created in the province. Every single day in the province there were 300 jobs created.

What are we seeing now? Again, every single day, not 300 jobs created; 1,600 jobs gone. We are seeing, instead of a surplus, a deficit of $3 billion. The Treasurer may say, "Well, that's the responsibility of the federal government, the previous government," but it is a $3-billion deficit. Last year there was a surplus; now a deficit. On Monday we may very well see a deficit even above that, perhaps $4 billion, perhaps $4.5 billion. But the points I would make are: the previous government, 300 jobs created every single day; a surplus in the budget. Now we are seeing every single day 1,600 jobs gone.

I think all of us in this House would acknowledge that Ontario is faring the worst. Seventy per cent of all the job losses in all of Canada are right here in this province. We are looking on Monday for the Treasurer to come forward with a budget that will create jobs; not temporary jobs, not jobs for one year, but permanent, quality jobs, instead of losing 1,600 jobs every single day.

Mr Turnbull: Just a few comments on the excellent address that my colleague the member for Oakville South made. He started talking first of all about the so-called budget of last year. Now, we all know how erroneous that document was, and indeed the electorate of Ontario was supposed to swallow the myths in that budget, of balance and of paying down the debt. We know what an illusory thing that was. It was as illusory as the Agenda for People was. We really have strained the credulity of the electorate beyond belief, because we should, as legislators, put forward documents that have some contact with reality.

We see that we have come from one Liberal administration that added $10 billion to the debt during the best five years that this province has known in the last 50, at a time when they were raising taxes, and now we say to the Treasurer: "Please, next week, don't do the same thing to us. Don't raise the debt. Don't raise taxes. Get wise."

We really have a serious problem in this province. It is a problem of competitiveness and it cannot be solved by heaping debt on to our children. It certainly cannot be solved by fooling people with supposed balanced budgets. We have to get down to the fact that if we want to spend, we have to tax, but people are being taxed to death. They cannot be taxed any more. So no more tax increases and no more debts.

Mr Hayes: We hear all these comments about the great way the previous government had surpluses, and there is a simple reason for that: It unloaded on the municipalities across this province. We get members up in this Legislature talking about losing jobs. There were lots of jobs lost in 1987 before this government took power, and Standard Tube in my riding, in Blenheim, is a good example.

I can tell members another thing that the Conservatives do not like, because of their cousins in Ottawa. I will use the example of Hunt Wesson Foods down in Tilbury. I called up the president of that corporation and asked if there was anything we could do to try to keep them in operation, to protect the farmers and protect the growers.

Mr Mahoney: And he said, "I am sorry; who is calling?"

Mr Hayes: He knew very well who was calling.

There were three main reasons that person told me why they were leaving, and they were: free trade -- which the Liberals also supported in 1987-88; they tried to pretend that they did not -- interest rates and the inflated Canadian dollar. Those are some of the key issues, and I am sure with the Treasurer --

Mr Mahoney: What about the GST? Did he like that? The one you supported.

Mr Hayes: And the GST on top of that.

A lot of the Liberal members in 1987 stated that as long as it did not hurt agriculture, for example, they did not have a real problem with it. These are some of the statements they made. I will tell members that it devastated agriculture in this province and this country.

We have a lot of faith in our good Treasurer here today.

Mr Carr: Just to reply very briefly to that, I referred to the document. I see the former Treasurer is back. When they talk about the deficit, the brackets mean deficits. In 1985-86, it was -- what? -- $2.6 billion; 1986-87, it was $2.6 billion; 1987-88, it was $2.4 billion; 1988-89, it was $1.4 billion; and then during the period they said there was going to be a $30-million surplus, and that went to -- what? -- $3 billion.

Mr Nixon: You missed one.

Mr Carr: Yes, that is the interim one. There is an interim one. We have got 1988-89. So I know these documents. But the big thing, when you look at it, is the fact that it was not just the deficit, because during that period of time, between 1984 and 1990, this country had the largest percentage increase of all the industrialized nations, with the exception of Japan. Japan, as a percentage, had a faster growth rate. Guess what? The funny thing was, it was the same federal government that is there today. The facts are, versus the United States, it did a better job versus West Germany and France. So during this period of time when we had the growth, the deficits went up, the taxes went up, and in the end I guess we ended up with 132% increase in taxes. The deficit still went up, and they try to claim to have done a good job.

I know it is difficult. I know the Treasurer was probably one of the few ones who was trying to hold the line. But none the less, there it is in black and white, and that is going to be the legacy of the previous government. That is why, in my riding, they did not win, because they taxed us to death, the deficit went up, and ultimately the services of health care, the environment and education got worse.

I was very pleased to participate in this debate today.

Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the opportunity to rise today and talk on this interim supply motion. I notice that the previous speaker spent a fair bit of his time talking about the budget of the last government and about what that meant and how that should be interpreted. If I have learned nothing else from being the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer, it is to attempt always in this place to be fairminded.

I think, in a spirit of fairmindedness, it needs to be said by someone from the government side that the $23-million surplus that became a $3-billion deficit after we took office was, quite frankly, unexpected. No one was forecasting it would take place. I say that having sat in as a member of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, which did pre-budget consultations, but also in representing the Treasurer at a number of other meetings, where there were presentations by many sections of our economy. Consistently they expressed, both in those private sessions and at the public sessions, the same message: that no one was expecting this recession to be as deep and as wide and as far-reaching as it indeed has become.

I think, in the interests of fairness, it needs to be said that this is not the fault of the previous government. We may have a number of disagreements with the way that they managed the affairs and a number of concerns with where their priorities were, but any suggestion that there was incompetence or deceit on the part of the previous government and its staff we reject. I think that needs to be said strongly in response to the suggestion from the third party of something different each and every time.

1640

Second, another speaker talked about the fact that, as far as he was concerned, we are just like every other government that got elected -- lo and behold, when the socialists of Ontario took office, the radical changes they expected did not happen -- and that we are absolutely no different from any other government. Obviously I am going to refute that position, and I think that one need look no further than the response of both the federal government and the provincial governments across the country to the recession that we face.

With one exception, the intent has been to ratchet down the fiscal policy of the provincial government at the expense of the very people who are already being hurt by this severe recession, and in the one exception, I would suggest that they are repeating a major mistake of the previous government, which is the sloughing off of financial responsibilities on to another level of government.

It is my understanding that in the province of Quebec there is a major, serious debate going on right now regarding the provincial government's position in offloading a lot of responsibilities down to the municipalities, and that obviously is not the way we have gone to date, nor intend to go. So if members look, they will see that this government is very different from the other governments of this country, both provincially and nationally, and I would suggest, to wear my partisan hat, that is why they are going to see more NDP provincial governments by the time this year is out than we now have in the nation.

It needs to be said again, what kind of measures have we taken? The $700-million anti-recession fund; the $500 billion that was kept in the pockets of consumers by the decision of this government not to put the retail sales tax on top of the Tory GST; the wage protection fund; the $32 million for the labour adjustment initiatives and a whole host of other issues and initiatives that are meant to provide as much buffer and as much assistance to the people of this province who are hurting during this recession as we can possibly do. We are going to see the culmination of those efforts on Monday when the Treasurer announces our first budget.

It was also mentioned by a previous member that we did not talk about managing health care costs during the election, and I think it is fair to say that any opposition party that becomes the government, particularly when it was not expected by most, is going to have to deal with a whole host of issues and a whole set of circumstances that it otherwise would not have to contend with. I do not offer that as some kind of apology or excuse, because I think we have been very forthright and upfront about what we have done, can do and feel we cannot do on the Agenda for People. But it is fair to say that there are going to be a whole host of issues over the next four years upon which not a word was spoken during the election, and I think that is probably true of any party that moves from opposition benches to government benches. So it is not unusual that we would now be addressing that issue.

On that issue, I think what is important is that our approach and our intent -- and this ties in to how we have been responding to the recession -- is not to merely slash and gouge a health budget by virtue of saying, "This is what needs to be done in tough economic times," but rather we are saying that we have found a system that is not as accountable as the public probably believes it is, certainly what they would want it to be.

It is our intent to get our arms around that system to properly manage the finances of the health care system of this province so that we can take the money that is available and more money that will be put into health care and it can be put into the places that it needs to be put into, and we can have the kind of desired results that will benefit the people of this province that we want to have, rather than this continuous shovelling of money into the system and nobody being responsible for it.

I have heard some people in this place say that the members of this government are not properly trained and do not have the background to deal with the management of the economy, to deal with the management of health care budgets, to properly manage things, especially in recessionary times. I would say to the members that we are probably more qualified than anyone else right now. Take a look at the makeup of our caucus. Look at their background. A lot of these people in the first instance are like myself, who spent a number of years on city and regional councils, who have known very well for a long time now what it is like to deal with tight money and have very critical issues pressing on you and wonder how you are going to pay for it and not have the advantage of running deficits and borrowing huge sums of money for general revenue but working within very, very tight economic restraints that are, quite frankly, decided by this level of government.

We have been there, and my colleagues that have sat on school boards have been there and they know what that is like. I would suggest that gives us the kind of qualifications needed to deal with an economy like ours at a time like this.

In addition, we have an awful lot of people whose background is from community activism. These are the people who have been dealing head on with the critical issues of the day, the real need that is out there in our communities across this great province, and they have been doing it on a shoestring. They know what it is to work 12, 14, 16 hours a day because the need is so great in their community but there is not enough money to hire the support staff needed.

I am not pointing fingers at previous governments. That would be rather silly; we are under a rather strong constraint situation ourselves. I say very clearly, and I feel strongly, that people who come from that lifestyle, from that world, who know those experiences, are very well qualified to sit in judgement of what the priorities are in this province and where the scarce resources ought to be allocated.

One of the things I would like to touch on before I close is something that I feel very, very strongly about, again because of my own background at the municipal level and, quite frankly, something that I see as a cornerstone of our ability to be successful at what we would like to do over the term of this government. That is the whole issue of partnership. There has been a lot of discussion on both sides of the House about partnership. What does it mean?

I am convinced that things like the Provincial-Municipal Social Services Review Committee, the Hopcroft report talking about the disentanglement issues, the whole question of transfer payments to the MUSH sector, to universities, hospital boards, school boards -- these are all some of our most contentious, controversial issues. Lord knows, hardly a day goes by that the 60% funding for schools does not come up and is not thrown out there for consideration.

I believe very strongly that it is in this area of partnerships that we can make some of the most significant and important changes during the life of our government. Because having come from the local level of government you learn very quickly that really is the front line of public service, of elected life. You also know that a lot of the quality-of-life issues are dealt with at the local level.

If we, as a provincial government -- and what this party believes in and has traditionally stood for -- are to achieve those goals, then I believe we have to be successful at making those partnerships work and they have to work in such a way that lets our colleagues at the municipal level, in the schools and the school boards and all of them, properly and adequately plan for the benefit of their own communities, make as many decisions at the local level as possible. That includes the devolution of health care decisions and social services decisions and community planning. I think that our ability to foster that relationship and to make a real difference there is one of the areas I will certainly judge this government on when, at the end of the day, I say, "How do I feel about what we have done and where we have been?" I feel very confident from the messages I am getting from our ministers that indeed it has the kind of priority that we need.

1650

Before I close on this issue, I would go so far as to say that I think we have a unique opportunity and indeed perhaps no alternative but to work very closely with business and labour and talk about how we, as an economy, are going to survive in the new world, the new structure, the new globalization, competitiveness, how we are going to deal with that. The old ways are not going to do it. It is going to require a partnership and it is going to require a lot of trust.

I do not suggest that this is going to come easily or quickly or without a lot of proof that all the partners are coming to the table, if you will, in good faith and that the ultimate decisions that are made reflect the interests of all those who are at the table, so that at the end of the day we have an economy in this province that can compete, that can generate wealth, that can provide the kind of jobs we want. But not the way Mulroney wants to do it. There is the problem. We are not going to sell out the interest of the ordinary working person to make that happen, but rather we are going to do it in partnership with the sectors which can make the difference. I believe that commitment is something we will see happen and I am convinced that we may not have any alternative.

In closing I would say, as I have said on many occasions, the public is not going to judge this government based on the first six days, nor the first six weeks, nor the first six months. At the end of our term, they will reflect on what we said we would do, what we accomplished and why we made the decisions that we did. I still remain as confident as I have from the day I entered this place that we will succeed at doing that and I look forward very much to Monday when we unveil our first major step towards that goal.

Mr Phillips: I always appreciate the member because I think sometimes the less he believes it the louder he yells it.

I just have a few comments on it. I appreciated the comments by the member where he said: "This government is going to do things differently. We're not going to do it like other governments have done and offload on the property taxpayer and of flood on other levels of government."

A very solemn commitment that was made by his government was to move to 60% funding for education. I know because an awful lot of the educational community worked with me and really hammered me on this, but the very first piece of evidence of whether the government was going to offload or not offload was its grants to the educational system. What happened? They made no move to move to 60%. In fact, the government actually decreased the amount of provincial funding for education and put more burden on the property taxpayer. There is less now for educational spending as a result of that decision by the Minister of Education than the previous government. So the very first piece of evidence of whether they are going to offload, they in fact offloaded it on the property taxpayer.

In terms of how people are evaluating and judging the government, they can only look at its actions. I quote the OSSTF because it has asked for this government to restore a much-needed level of integrity in the relationship between itself and this government as a result of the Minister of Education's pronouncements on the grants and 60% funding of education. People are watching this government. The very first piece of evidence of whether they were going to offload or not was their grants on education. They put more burden on the property tax, less funded by the province, so indeed people are watching and forming opinions.

Mr Sutherland: I would like to compliment the member for Hamilton Centre on his comments and want to pick up a little bit on his comments about the issue of partnership talking in terms of competitiveness. We have heard some members today talk about the issue of taxation and say that, if we just reduced taxes somehow, that would automatically make us competitive. While certainly everyone has got to be concerned about taxation issues and how they relate to competitiveness, they are not the only issues related to competitiveness.

I was talking with a friend yesterday who worked on a report released by the federal government that looked at the issue of competitiveness and how we did. The number one issue seemed to be a question of a skills shortage. We have not allowed people the opportunity to develop themselves and to develop their potential in skills, and that is going to make it very difficult for us to be competitive.

While we have had previous governments, certainly going back 10 or 15 years if you look at things, that would lower taxes and think that was going to solve the problem. But we never had a skills development policy 10 years ago; we never had a skills development policy 15 years ago. I think the most significant step that was taken in that way was by the previous government with its Premier's Council on skills in the global economy.

But I also want to talk about another issue of partnership, and that is in the post-secondary education system and how we have allowed a system to develop in this province where people cannot, once they complete their college education, get credit for what they have accomplished in the university system. Likewise, transferring within from university to university, frustrates a lot of individuals and discourages them from developing their full potential in skills. I certainly do hope that our minister will be able to deal with that issue and hopefully make it a much more co-operative effort.

Mr Bradley: I have a comment. I thought that the member would deal with the whole issue. I know how difficult it is when you are trying to spur economic development, but I hoped the member would deal with the issue of environmental assessment and whether this government is prepared to put aside environmental assessment for the purposes of speeding up a project. The reason I say that is the member asked a question in the House about environmental assessment, and in his supplementary he said:

"My supplementary would be first of all prefaced by thanking the minister for finally moving this assessment along. We have been waiting a long time to get this project moving. Given the fact that it did take over a year for this assessment to go through the Ministry of the Environment, what assurances can the minister give this House that the government is committed to improving the environmental assessment process?"

The conclusion I drew from this was that one of two things had happened. I realize it is an important project for the member and for members in that area, but that statement makes it appear as though the Minister of the Environment speeded up the environmental assessment process. Therefore, if that were the case, the member would want to take credit for that happening, so that the government could have the GO service at a more convenient time to him and to his constituents. If that were the case, of course, the Minister of the Environment would have broken the law. On the other hand, perhaps the process was not speeded up and the member cannot claim credit for that.

So one of the two has happened: Either, when the member asked this question on 26 March 1991, page 211 of Hansard, what he said about the environmental assessment being speeded up was not accurate or the Minister of the Environment is in trouble for speeding up that process. Knowing the minister as I do, I would be extremely surprised if indeed she would have intervened in that process to speed it along. I suspect that what the member was taking credit for in fact did not happen. I wondered why in his speech he did not address that issue.

1700

Mr White: I want to thank the member for Hamilton Centre for his excellent speech. There was one small point I wanted to pick up on following his discussion of responsibility, and that is very simply that I think there are two elements of budgetary responsibility. One is the financial accounting element of responsibility, the element that might be perceived by some financial wizard, but the other element -- I think it is even more important -- is the element of responsibility to all levels of government, to all the citizens of our province.

We have had situations where property tax dollars have skyrocketed. We have had the offloading that the third party has spoken of. Now I see in my area municipal taxes are not going up by more than 3%. School board taxes are not going up. Peculiar, peculiar. How is it that for years those taxes have skyrocketed and now they are not? Does this have a relationship to the moneys that have been transferred?

Mr Hope: I think so.

Mr White: I think it may indeed, and I think that the member mentioned the excellent planning in the health field, and our Community and Social Services minister, who did not offload welfare costs on the municipality.

I think at the end of four years, our responsibility will show. When the federal government introduces free trade and says that it will have help for those workers who have been dislocated, what help have they got in this province? They have a $1-billion cut in transfer payments. We are penalized for being an industrial province. We are penalized for being the victims of free trade. What a cruel joke, and that shows no responsibility whatsoever.

Mr Christopherson: First, just to respond very briefly to the member for St Catharines, every time I have spoken he has felt that it is necessary for him to dwell on this one statement. I would just suggest to him very clearly that the day he is ready to start debating the substantive issues of the day with me instead of for ever trying to find some particular nuance to the very first question I asked in this House is the day that I am prepared to stand up and start responding to credible comments from him.

To the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I would suggest that, again, in the first announcement of transfer payments, I think it would have, quite frankly, been irresponsible, as it would be in this first budget, for us to be stampeded into changing the entire relationship in just a few months. There is a recognition, I believe, on both sides of the House that it is one of the most complex, sophisticated funding relationships that this province has with our funding partners and that we need to be absolutely sure of what we are doing and that the desired result is exactly the one we were seeking.

I think that is why the Fair Tax Commission and the process of disentanglement discussions with our municipal partners is the right approach and the one that will lead ultimately, I believe, to a new relationship that reflects the needs of both and gives our partners much more of an opportunity to deal with the issues that they have at hand instead of for ever seeing their partner at Queen's Park being the root cause of so many of their problems.

To my other colleagues who have spoken, I thank them for their gracious comments and for adding to the points that I have tried to raise here today.

Mr Conway: There is an old parliamentary maxim that there shall be no supply without a redress of grievance, so I thought in the spirit of that tradition I might take the opportunity this afternoon to talk about a number of things that might relate to the business of the province.

I have been on the road a fair bit lately, so I have been able to reflect quite a bit about the public's business from a somewhat different perspective. I want to today talk about six or seven items in the time permitted and will be happy to welcome back my friend the Treasurer, who I know will be back very shortly.

The reason I would like him to come back is that one of the most enervating experiences of being on the road in the last couple of weeks was being on the road on a brilliant Sunday morning, I think it was a week ago last Sunday, and to have heard Centrepoint on CBC Radio's flagship program, CBC Sunday Morning. I do not know whether any of the members over there heard it, but if they did not, they ought to get the tape, because the member for Nickel Belt, the Treasurer, was featured at some length, as was the about-to-become New Democratic Premier of Saskatchewan and, as I suspect, the about-to-become New Democratic Premier of British Columbia. I quite agree with my friend the member from Hamilton Centre, I think --

Mr Nixon: Not if the people out there find out about this government.

Mr Conway: Well, I think in fairness it has to be said that the electoral prospects for the New Democratic Party in the country look quite inviting and I think nowhere more so than in Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

I have to tell members that if they did not hear the full 60 minutes of Centrepoint on CBC Sunday Morning, they ought to get the tape, because listening to Mike Harcourt made me think I was listening to Frank Miller, and listening to Roy Romanow made me think I was listening to something between Mackenzie King and David Peterson, and listening to the Treasurer made me think I was listening to Bill Davis. If ever a protest movement was or is being becalmed, surely the NDP in Canada, on the basis of CBC Sunday Morning, made the point. I am just sorry that my friend the Treasurer is not here. He was so mellifluous in his compromise. I mean, he was not even a Liberal in a hurry. Pink Floyd: You have got to be kidding.

I just simply offer that as something that my friends opposite might like to listen to, that is, for those who will not be apoplectic upon hearing that Marc Eliesen, the limestone kid, is as of this afternoon the chairman- designate of Ontario Hydro. It must be the Premier's way of celebrating Earth Day. Oh, I can hear the phones ringing in the Minister of the Environment's office: Marc Eliesen, chairman-designate of Ontario Hydro. I am sure that somebody's research office will be on the phone to Winnipeg, and it will not be long before this place becomes a very interesting debating society as to what kind of energy future we are going to have in this province.

I have to say simply this about that. I fantasize about the struggle between the member for Peterborough, the Minister of Energy, and her servant, Marc Eliesen, chair of Ontario Hydro. There is much to excite me about that fantasy, and I know that the rank and file of the New Democratic Party are going to be very interested to see how that all plays out in the coming --

Mr Bradley: Do you think the rating agency that said there would be no loss of the triple A rating listened to Sunday Morning before they made their announcement?

Mr Conway: Well, if the rating agencies listen to Sunday Morning, I will tell the members they would rest very comfortably in their conservative pew, and if they did not find the current Treasurer of Ontario comforting, the Premier-elect of British Columbia would have made them positively ecstatic. At any rate, I do not want to spend too, too much time on that, except to say that being on the road, one hears some very interesting things.

This past weekend, I did what I have never done before and may not ever do again. I drove from Saturday morning in Pembroke to Saturday evening in Hearst and Sunday reversed the trip, some 1,700 kilometres. I was reminded of what a wonderful and magnificent land this is, but I was looking at gasoline prices, and I thought today, since no better opportunity would be presented to me --

Mr Bradley: They are monitoring them. Don't worry.

Mr Conway: I have to say that since we last discussed some of these matters, which for me was last fall -- and I want to repeat that at that time I said I think this new government ought to be given at least six or seven months to develop a program consistent with its electoral manifesto. I have tried to be restrained and I will continue to do that for at least a few more days, because I think 29 April 1991 will really begin to tell the tale about the saints walking through the corridors of power, the NDP in office. I think we are still a few days away from the beginning of the really important new directions.

But I must say in the presence of my friend the member for St Catharines that it was troubling. It was almost tear-creating to read from the Minister of Energy her several responses to me and my constituents over the course of the past four or five months, when we have seen in this province gas price differentials the like of which I have never seen in 16 years as a member of this Legislature. I am not expert about very much, but I live in an automobile and I drive on a weekly basis through much of southern Ontario and quite often through a good bit of northern Ontario. Through many weeks of 19 November 1990 through April 1991, I have seen on a weekly basis, on a daily basis, as much as a 19-cent-per-litre differential between my home in Pembroke and my office in Toronto.

1710

Mr Bradley: In NDP Ontario?

Mr Conway: In NDP Ontario. I have to say that while I was not at any of the caucus meetings, members can appreciate -- and I say, in the Treasurer's absence I can appreciate -- the feeling of angst and unfulfillment he must have had, together with the government House leader, who for years went to church basements in Warren and Noelville and Chapleau and all those marvellous parts of the Sudbury basin decrying the want of action by other governments. And this winter, in the midst of a very serious economic downturn, I saw, and the province saw, gasoline price differentials of a truly extraordinary kind, and I got the most abject and pathetic letters from the minister, signed by her own hand, worrying about the profitability of the oil companies, and a variety of other perfectly inane observations. So, on behalf of my constituents in rural Renfrew county, who have no OC Transpo, who have no TTC, who are wholly dependent on the half-ton truck and on the automobile for transport, to say nothing of all of those people who must depend on home heating oil, I just want to say they had no protection. They got no redress from the NDP in power.

I have to ask the question, albeit rhetorically, do this Treasurer and his colleagues in the executive council ever imagine a day when they will nearly keep their commitment to do something about gasoline prices? Let me be very clear. I do not ever expect a uniformity of gasoline prices across the province, but I do expect government to do something about alleviating a burden which this winter, in many cases, got to be as much as 70 cents a gallon, and we heard nothing but the rather pathetic observations of the Minister of Energy, which I will not bore this House with by repeating this afternoon.

My friend the member for St Catharines talked about his anxiety over the Askov case, and when he said that I must say I was reminded of being in Texas a couple of weeks ago and I was particularly struck by the news in Texas around Easter. The story there was, and I am sure it is ongoing, that the Supreme Court of that state had thrown out the education funding formula of the state and it set a very near and fixed deadline as to how and when it was to be overhauled. You have never seen a scramble like the Texas legislature running about trying desperately to meet the court order, and I gather the court order was, "If you don't do it by April 15," I think it was, "we'll do it for you." I suspect they are well on their way at the present time.

I had some sympathy for the member for St Catharines in his observations this afternoon because, though he sounded rather like Sterling Lyon in those great debates prior to --

Mr Bradley: My doctor likes it.

Mr Conway: Well, I say that most sincerely. The member for St Catharines has never disguised his view about the role of parliamentary versus judiciary sovereignty, and I did not agree with Sterling Lyon on very much, but I will say that he made the case against the Charter of Rights more passionately and, in my view, more effectively than anyone else back in the period 1979-82. But he lost, and so we have today the situation that my honourable friend complained of. I am not going to engage the debate except to agree with him in this sense, that serving in any Legislature, and more especially serving in any executive council in this land, post-1982, is to serve in a substantially constrained environment. That is a reality, and I think there is certainly a case for that. How good a case remains to be seen.

But imagine then adding additional ingredients to that, and that takes me to the Ontario Medical Association agreement that has been bruited about by the press and some of my friends, including the Leader of the Opposition. I just want to simply make a few observations about this. I will say to members, being on the road, I came out of northern Ontario even more concerned than I was, having spent a lot of time in the winter in my own constituency where unemployment is everywhere. The number of people who are out of work in the resource sector in my county is like I have never seen it in 16 years. It is quite true what has been said by others, that this time it appears in all too many cases that the job is not a layoff, the job is a goner.

Mr Martin: It is free trade.

Mr Conway: My friend from Sault Ste Marie says it is free trade. I think that may be part of it, but obviously I do not believe that is the entire question. Certainly in the lumber sector that is a part of it. The dollar is clearly a part of it, but so are a number of other factors.

As I meet people at home, and in the north on the weekend, what I hear may be coming very soon in Red Rock and Kapuskasing and Hearst did not make me feel very good at all and it almost made me feel like I was glad I was not in government, because there are some almost intractable problems that my honourable friends opposite are going to have to solve. I wish them well in that. It is not going to be easy, and I hope I am going to be responsible in my criticism.

I ask members to imagine, against that, talking to farmers who see their quotas evaporating or talking to loggers in sawmills who see their jobs washing down the Ottawa River basin; to imagine reading in the Ottawa Citizen about the OMA-Ontario government agreement. Boy, that is a very good agreement. I do not represent one constituent outside of the medical profession who would not give his all to have a shred and a shard of that. I know how difficult it must have been for the member for Ottawa Centre to work her way through that, I know some of the discussions our friends over here had and I know some of the positions I then took and I am quite prepared to talk about some of those today or later.

I wondered, as I read the paper a few weeks ago or a few days ago, how it would feel, as you went to the food bank or as you went to the unemployment office, to read about this agreement. I suspect, deferential as we are in this province, that you would feel: "I want my doctor well paid and this will probably do it. Those Liberals seemed to be fighting a lot with those doctors and this is peace in our time." So there would be a lot of my constituents who would probably say, "Well, on that level, I'm glad they've done it," but as they find out more about this agreement, they would wish, pray and hope for some little opportunity to have some small piece of that heaven.

I come back to my point, the point made by the member for St Catharines about losing some sovereignty, if that is the word, to the courts. Excepting that, Mr Speaker, think about what is left. With what is left, we start contemplating the notion of binding arbitration. I have no difficulty saying outside of the cabinet what I said inside the cabinet on that principle, that there are few things I find more distasteful. I recognize the conflict of interest in which one finds oneself as player and referee in this business. That charge has been made by a number of people, and I heard it from the medical profession over and over again.

As I read the reports of this agreement, I get very excited and not in a very pleasant or positive way. This government, on behalf of this Legislature, appears prepared to turn over under certain conditions to the arbitrator, who has to look at the general state of the Ontario economy, an arbitration of a multibillion-dollar account. That, together with the implications of the Charter of Rights, has the capacity to reduce this Legislature, if not to a nullity, to something damned close, and I really worry about that. I hope it works.

1720

Ms Gigantes: Relax.

Mr Conway: I hope it works. My friend the member for Ottawa Centre says, "Relax," and I am disposed to take her advice. But when I look at this agreement and I see binding arbitration, I see the Rand formula, I see the kind of fee increase -- and we will not even talk about utilization, a point that honourable members over here have been trying to make, not understood by very many people in the chamber and certainly not understood by very many people outside. But I really think this agreement is going to be the subject of a lot of debate over the coming months. I have even some suspicion that the Rand formula concept will be so controversial with the radical minority within the Ontario Medical Association that it just might not fly.

Ms Gigantes: Which side?

Mr Conway: I repeat that I suspect there is some chance that the Rand formula, the closed-shop part of this arrangement, will be so wildly controversial for that 8% or 10% of the medical profession with which I have had lots to do over 15 years that it might just scupper the deal. I hope -- well, I should not say any more than that, just that I will be watching. I appreciated the former minister's point the other day, "Give the membership a chance to reflect," because she was speaking very knowledgeably on that account. But when I think back to the common front that met the former government in the last election --

Mr White: And found them wanting.

Mr Conway: And found them wanting, very legitimate. I have no difficulty with that.

I think after six months, part of the common front, the OMA, has already got apparently binding arbitration, very generous fee increases and the closed shop. I see that the new Minister of Health, the Chair of Management Board, is well on negotiating with another part of the common front about the right to strike and some other very important and passionately held views. God knows what will happen when that last part of the common front gets to negotiate with the government around its requirements going back to last summer.

More and more I feel like I am in the American Congress. I will be very interested to see how the common front is dealt with in the coming weeks. My guess is that it will take another four to five months before we see the final picture of the redress that this government offers the three pillars of the common front. But if the OMA agreement, such as it has been presented to us, is any indication, Larry Grossman truly is going to look like second-hand Rose in these matters.

Of course, being on the road, I have had the opportunity to travel, as I said earlier in the House this afternoon to New England with a group from my county to talk about and to look at some technology that will hopefully deal with an economic crisis, quite frankly, in my area around, "Whither the forest industry?" We went to New England to look at these power plants, and I say again, without wanting to repeat myself -- and I appreciate the interest of other members. I know the member for Hastings-Peterborough, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, has been very actively involved in this, and I think he and I have a job to do with his colleagues in government to make sure that every reasonable and constructive effort is made to allow the Ontario government to look at this kind of technology as perhaps a way of providing a market for all of this low-end junk that is choking the industry and ruining a very productive forest. I say that sincerely on behalf of the hundreds and thousands of people whose livelihood in Bancroft, in Barry's Bay, in Denbigh and so many other places is so dependent on this sector, one of the most troubled at the present time in the Ontario economy.

When I was on the road in New England, I accepted an invitation from an old friend. Again, I am sorry the Treasurer is not here, because someone whom I know the member for St Catharines knows well -- I am trying to think who over there would remember Wendell Fulton.

Wendell Fulton was for years a -- what shall I call him? -- a Queen's Park representative of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. Wendell is a very good friend of mine. He is now retired to his native New Brunswick and he is doing some work there in the public interest. He said to me, when I was up in New Hampshire: "Make sure that you come across to New Brunswick. I want to talk to you and show you some things." And I did. But he said: "As you do, I want you to stop in Bangor, Maine, at a place called The Wholesale Depot." So on the recommendation of a very good friend, I went, as he said, in the interest of understanding cross-border shopping, to a place the like of which I have never seen before.

I have been very concerned, living two and a half hours away from the American border in Pembroke, at the increasing loss of retail business to the big border malls at places like Watertown and Messina in my case. I know you, Mr Speaker, are even more familiar with that. The impact of this cross-border shopping initiative is absolutely serious and becoming all the more so.

On the advice of my friend Wendell Fulton, I went to The Wholesale Depot. I hope and I pray that one of these is not built somewhere across one of those international bridges in southeastern Ontario, because if this ever happens to us, we will face what apparently all of Fredericton and Woodstock, New Brunswick, are now experiencing, which is that virtually everyone in the place on days is coming three hours down Interstate 95 to shop for bargains that are just unbelievable. That is one place in the United States where I did see some things that troubled me a great deal.

I must say on the cross-border shopping account that there were many places in Texas, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine where, quite frankly, I think we have a job to do, because many of the so-called advertised deals are no deal at all. I could not believe a number of things, and I want my friends opposite to know that I went on no spending spree. I bought about $40 worth of used books at the University of Vermont bookstore and that was the extent of my purchases, save and except a small, little bit of material for my father, which members can maybe guess about. He is a smoker.

At any rate, I was really concerned about the impact of cross-border shopping, not only in our part of the province, but what I saw in New Brunswick and Maine troubled me, quite frankly, more than anything I have seen in my part of southeastern Ontario. I would hope -- and the Minister of Revenue is not here, but the Treasurer is not far away -- that the government is making very vigorous representations to the Minister of National Revenue for Canada, the unbelievable Otto Jelinek, who seems to think that part of the solution is putting express lanes on the international bridges.

That to me is madness. I cannot believe -- though I am sure there is some argument and I am no expert -- but that has to be a madness of a gilt-edged kind. I would expect the Treasurer of Ontario to be making daily, if not hourly, representations to the government of Canada that that is clearly not acceptable. If the member for Sault Ste Marie and others are supporting that argument, and I am sure they are, I wish them success.

But I want to say it is also one of the reasons I am going to be intrigued to see how in the coming days the government is going to deal with the so-called pause day legislation. I understand exactly the pressures the government faces. They are precisely the pressures, and the government has exactly the same options, as any government in this province has had and will have for some time to come.

I am sure that the member for Ottawa Centre has some kind of view of this that is so idiosyncratic that it might contain the grain and the kernel of a painless solution. If she can do that, I just encourage her in every respect. But I will be very interested to see how this government decides the pause day question with a view to the incredible hurt that is being felt and inflicted upon the retail sector right across the province and the thousands of jobs that are affected as a result of that.

A couple of more observations before I turn the floor over to others. A few weeks ago I had the distinct honour to represent my friend the member for Halton Centre in the Environment estimates. I was pleased to do so. I do not know a great deal about the Environment estimates, but I was doing the best I could and I was really struck by -- like the leader of our party, I have no end of esteem and regard for the member from Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the current Minister of the Environment. She is committed. She is sensible. She is incredibly diligent and she is, I know, a fair-minded person.

1730

I am telling members, I am seeing some things develop that cause me some real concern, and it raises again a fundamental issue around the way we do business in politics today. Increasingly we all know what we are against. I will tell members the menu of what we are individually and collectively against goes on and on and on.

I listened to the minister during those hours of estimates and I had a very clear notion of what was not on, and I think I understand why it was not on. I have no clue, really, as to how the government is going to solve the problem in the short and in the intermediate term. She is opposed to incineration and she is opposed to a variety of other things, which, as I said earlier, I can understand.

But what are we going to do? Some very good ideas have been offered and some of them have been brought forward by the new government and the previous government and the government before that. I read in the newspapers a short while after those estimates that Toronto, despite what it might have been led to believe by this government and others, will not be allowed to transport its garbage outside of the region, for reasons that were brilliantly put by the Minister of the Environment. A few days later we read in the Ottawa Citizen -- actually, it was the Kingston Whig-Standard, where by the way I am reading these days some truly remarkable stories, I say to my friend -- well, no, that is not quite polite. But I just could not believe the story I read in the Whig-Standard then about Kingston being allowed for, again, reasons that I understood, to truck its garbage up to the Laidlaw facility hard by Kanata.

Ms Gigantes: What would you have them do?

Mr Conway: My friend the member says, what would I have done? In this respect I will say, they are the government. I am trying to understand their government policy, and the policy in Toronto is, understandably: "No transport of this waste outside of the region. Solve it yourselves." In Kingston, the answer is, "You may go to Ottawa." I think I understand some of the casuistry that caused that pair of decisions.

I say to my friend the member for Ottawa Centre and elsewhere over there that I am absolutely convinced that where we are headed in the next few years is the nightmare scenario. The nightmare scenario is, because I listened with such attention to what the member and the Minister of the Environment said, and it could not be more clear -- and I hope I am wrong, but I would offer a wee wager, with the proceeds to go to some good cause -- that within the lifetime of this Parliament this Minister of the Environment or at least a Minister of the Environment in this government will be forced to expand one or two or three of the current landfills without any opportunity to discuss that. That, I am absolutely convinced, is where we are going to be in two or three years' time, and I just raise that now because I think there are a lot of people who are going to be very anxious to know what the government is for.

In a similar area, I have been paying attention to what the Minister of Energy is about. I admire the Minister of Energy's commitment to the energy cause. I really admire the Minister of Energy's commitment to finding energy alternatives, and that is why I hope she is prepared to support my friend the Minister of Agriculture and Food and myself and others in this wood energy technology if we can show it to be viable in my part of the province. I am very interested to see the developments in the energy debate. Again, I might be a little negative here, and what I say of a criticism of the current government in some real way applies to perhaps our government as well.

I think we all understand what we are opposed to, and I would go one step further. My guess is, we are going to have a great deal of difficulty, though I will fight long and hard for this, to move forward with some additional nuclear capacity. I know others will oppose me in that. There are a lot of people who are violently opposed to the nuclear option, and the opposition I can understand although I do not share it.

I personally believe that we will not in my lifetime ever build another new hydroelectric station in this province, and I have a county that is scarred, if I can use that word, with these relatively benign facilities, benign in the sense of their general consequences. I think most people would agree that producing electricity by dropping water is probably relatively benign. I do not think we are ever going to build another one of those facilities in my lifetime, and I am 39 years of age. I cannot imagine that anyone will support building a coal-fired plant.

My guess is that what we are going to have -- and have some we must, if only to replace a lot of the stock that is going to be up for renewal in the next 10 to 15 years. My impression, listening to the debate, is that all we are going to be able to rely on -- not all, but perhaps the workhorse of the alternatives will be natural gas-based electrical energy.

I hope I am wrong, because the price and the environmental consequences of that are really interesting, but I am listening and I am all for conservation. This recession has proven to be the most effective conservation-of- energy scheme that anyone could have ever imagined. But I say again in the area of energy, as I did a moment ago in the area of garbage that we know what we are opposed to. We are opposed to a lot of things, and one of these days this government and this Legislature are going to have to decide what they are in favour of, particularly as we all look at the issues surrounding the economy. I am not going to repeat some of the data that were offered earlier by the member for Oakville South, but there can be no question about the economic circumstances in which this province finds itself.

This is not a recession like other recessions. The member for Scarborough North, who sits to my immediate right, was talking a few days ago in this Legislature about a number of the statistics and I am going to just repeat a very few of these. Everyone knows about the unemployment rate, everyone understands what is going on in terms of the social assistance rolls, and I do not think that needs to be repeated by me this afternoon.

But I think it is important to observe again that over the past year Ontario has lost roughly 15% of its manufacturing base, and all indications are that those jobs are gone and gone permanently. Within that, our auto parts sector has lost almost 11,000 jobs and some 15% of its workforce. The steel sector has lost almost 10,000 jobs, some 24% of that sector alone. The textile sector is off 21%; furniture has been reduced by some 36%, and on it goes. But steel and auto parts are the mother lode of this economy, and there are a whole series of factors at work in this.

I say to my friends opposite, like them I am very anxious to do everything I can to ensure the social safety net, the wonderful programs that you really understand when you look at this province from downtown Austin or downtown Burlington, Vermont. I do not share the kind of Thatcherite right-wingism that really makes me sick. Because I will tell members that one does not have to be in Texas very long to understand what violent crime is all about and how that makes people change their daily lives, and to have Texans talk about this wonderful health care system that we have and we ought to fight to the death to protect. I understand the enormous heritage that is there and I want to do everything I possibly and reasonably can to sustain that.

But let me say, as I conclude my remarks, that the wealth-creating capacity of one of the world's most successful economies, certainly in the last 50 years, is under an enormous strain. No amount of cheap politics on my part or easy partisanship on the part of others is going to change what is happening in the steel sector or what is going on in the auto parts sector. I wish it were as easy as saying no to the Mexican-American-Canadian free trade talks and I wish it were as easy as saying, "That Canadian-US free trade deal is terrible," and certainly parts of it are and some of it has impacted very seriously on my communities.

1740

But I repeat: It behooves all of us to understand that the wealth-creating capacity of one of the world's most successful economies is under an attack the like of which it has not experienced ever before in the modern period. I am confident that there is a way out of this difficulty. I do not know who it was earlier today who said, but I support him entirely, that we must increase investments in those areas of our economy that are going to allow us to compete in those areas of enterprise and opportunity where there will be a hope of succeeding so that we can generate the kind of dollars we are going to want to have to maintain the social safety net and all of those wonderful programs that we hold dear. But that surely is the business to which we must turn our attention.

I applaud the Treasurer in some of the initiatives that he has taken over what has been a very, very difficult winter. I applaud him when I know he fights back some of what Stephen Lewis would call the wackos in the democratic left who would have him buy into panaceas that are just that.

So I conclude my remarks by saying that, like Charles Kuralt, I found life on the road to be a truly interesting and edifying experience.

Mr White: I will be brief. I want to thank the member opposite for his very learned, interesting discourse. I am sure that he will make a very valuable contribution to American academia.

I did want to pick up on one small point which he mentioned, which was the commitment he evidenced to the nuclear power industry. I think that nuclear power obviously has a significant place in Ontario at the moment. However, I think it behooves us to wait until after the full assessment, which has commenced just a few days ago before we make our commitment to it. There is, after all, a large number of groups which are invested in serious study of this issue, some 23 groups, and Ontario Hydro itself and the provincial government as a bystander. It seems to me to be a little precious to be making this kind of commitment before we have had this learned discourse before that body.

I know in my riding on Monday I was pleased to see the Minister of Energy addressing a group called Durham Nuclear Awareness. She said we were not going to close nuclear plants, but rather it is a serious concern: How do we supply the energy needs of our province? People in Durham Nuclear Awareness, many of whom are committed opponents, like the members of CUPE Local 1000 who work in those power plants, 60% of whom live in my riding, were all able to support in common the Minister of Energy, who did an excellent job in discussing this very complicated issue. I think it behooves us to do that prior to making a commitment to a particular form of energy.

Mr Mahoney: I want to congratulate the member for Renfrew North. It has been some time since I have had the opportunity to enjoy his prose, which he used to share with us in past years and go on at some length with his learned experience around the province. I really do congratulate him.

I was interested in his comments in relationship to the Ministry of Energy and the Minister of the Environment, who is here now. She may or may not have heard them, but I am convinced she heard them on television. I am convinced there is a strategy, actually, between the two ministries. I am convinced that the Ministry of Energy is going to allow the brownouts to occur so that we do not see the garbage that will be piling up in our streets and our parks. That is clearly the long-range thinking in the plan of the government and of both ministries.

I was interested in some of the interjections about the faults of the past government, because the reality is, if you talk about my community in the region of Peel, they were ready to go. As a matter of fact, dating back to when I was a member of regional council, they were ready to go. The hearings were done. I mean, they were in a position where if this minister had allowed them to proceed, we would not now be looking at the requirement to freeze development around the Britannia sanitary landfill site, which is the clearest indication I have ever seen that this minister and this government intend to expand the Britannia site for some time, contrary to agreements entered into by Mississauga council and Peel regional council to ensure that the next dump site went into the city of Brampton. That will not occur now. There will be an expansion of Britannia to take all of Peel's garbage, and the minister knows it.

Mr Phillips: I am pleased to respond to the member's comments and say how much I appreciated his observations on his own riding and on other parts of the province on a firsthand basis, to remind us of what I think is going to be the major challenge for the budget on Monday, and that is to kickstart the economy once again.

As I think all of us now know, 1,600 jobs are lost every single day in this province -- 1,600 jobs a day, seven days a week. As the Treasurer is fond of saying, the job creation program created 10,000 jobs for one year only. We lose that many jobs in a week. So I appreciate what the member has brought to us, as I say, a firsthand exposure of the challenges around the province.

I think he also pointed out quite correctly that Monday, when the budget is presented, will be an important day for the new government. It is the day when it fully assumes the responsibility, as I am sure the Treasurer would appreciate. We will be looking very much at that budget on Monday to kickstart the economy. It is extremely important that the confidence of the people of the province be restored on Monday, that we begin to see a job creation program. As I said, in the previous five years we saw 100,000 jobs created each year, 300 jobs a day, and in the last year we have seen 1,600 jobs a day lost. I am very much looking forward, as I said, on Monday to a program that will assure all of us that we will begin looking at what is finally job creation.

Mr McGuinty: It is a pleasure to hear from the member for Renfrew North, who is always a model of dispassion, moderation and complete objectivity.

I was pleased to hear his comments and the relationship -- I guess the dilemma -- that is being faced by both the Minister of Energy and the Minister of the Environment. They seem to have taken an approach with the utmost sincerity. I do not think anyone can doubt their motives, but I would term it as essentially they are advancing policies of hope. They are hoping, for instance in the issue of the Toronto area garbage, that if we clamp the lid on, by espousing or praying to the holy trinity of conservationists, the 3Rs, the people will remedy the problem themselves.

The Minister of Energy has indicated that through a promotion of energy conservation efficiency and collateral generation, the people of the province will effectively curtail the need for future generations. I would bring to the attention of both ministers the lesson that may be offered to us by Big Green, the resolution which failed, unfortunately quite miserably, to pass in California.

That resolution required, if it were passed, a severe infringement on the lifestyle of the people of California. There were restrictions in terms of operating a gasoline barbecue within the municipal limits, driving a car within certain areas of the city. The lesson there was that although it met with a great deal of support at the outset, ultimately it failed, and I think there is some limitation that we ought, as reasonable and responsible representatives, to acknowledge.

1750

Mr Conway: I must say to the Treasurer, by the way, the most interesting part of my travels was meeting in Fredericton a young girl who cherished a letter most felicitously written by the Treasurer himself. So he should know that he has got a fan club. I think he knows the person to whom I make reference.

I want to comment briefly on the comment made by the member for Durham Centre. My point is simply this: Whether it is in the environment question, in the energy matter or in all others, to govern is to decide. The public will rightly expect that a cabinet and a Legislature will not only listen to all of those people in the community who rightly will want to have their views expressed and heard, but at the end of the day, whether it is garbage disposition or the kind of electrical energy that is going to allow this economy hopefully to continue to produce the wealth that we all want to redistribute in health care, day care and a variety of other wonderfully good causes about which there can be no disagreement, the public of Ontario will rightfully assume that the government will govern by making some decisions, admittedly in tough, tough areas.

Of course, I know all about the environmental assessment hearings. I noticed that they are under way, launched on Earth Day. My only question is: Is there any prospect that those discussions will be concluded in such time as to give this government or a successor government any hope of making decisions that are going to meet whatever community need there exists? That is my point.

Of course we want to listen and we are going to have to look at options. I have said for years and I say again that I support very strongly the nuclear power options, not as an exclusive way of meeting the energy needs of today and tomorrow but as an important and positive part of that program. But I understand how others might disagree.

To govern is to decide. I await the decisions, most especially of Monday and the days to follow.

Mr Stockwell: It is with interest that I will await Monday's pronouncements from the Treasurer on the state of the union, the state of the economy and the state of the New Democratic government.

They have a document that they have in fact endorsed, with many of their recommendations and priorities, that ran an election for them, that was the engine for their thoughts. That particular document is the Agenda for People.

The difficulty that this government has today is that during those times when the election was being fought in many different ridings in this province, the Agenda for People was used as a quick statement when it came to specific issues. The economy at the time was very, very different, the situation was very different with this particular government in opposition, and now the Treasurer comes forward next Monday with a budget that has many people in this province hoping. The budget that the Treasurer will bring forward next Monday will be a blueprint for this government and this province on how we are going to go about recovering from this daily recession, 1,600 jobs per day. How are we going to recover from this difficulty that we have found ourselves in?

More and more, it is becoming an Ontario-led recession. It is very clear that this province is having great difficulties resolving itself to that conclusion. We have dropped in the unemployment rate by two or three positions in this country. Our manufacturing sector is being, as suggested, assaulted; it is being annihilated. The sectors that are on the serious list would number higher than ever in this province, than ever in the history of this province.

The NDP's Agenda for People addressed spending, it addressed program expansion and it addressed inequities that the NDP felt were in the system. The difficulty that this government faces today is that the Agenda for People did not deal with unemployment, with job shutdowns, with plant closures and with an economy that is slowly slipping over the edge.

Mr Mahoney: How slowly?

Mr Stockwell: Not very slowly. I guess it is getting a little quicker every day.

The dilemma that I think this government faces is it does not really have a plan on how to address the issues that we as constituents of the province face. They do not have a plan on job creation. If they had a plan, I am certain it would be here before us today.

We are going to hear about job creation in the budget, we are going to hear about deficit finance and we are going to hear about government spending. Some of the major planks that this political party stood for in the election have been passed off on the Fair Tax Commission they have been passed off on an interim housing bill, they have been passed off on the standing committee of government agencies and they have been passed off to other agencies and boards in this government.

On Monday this government will come forward with a budget that is going to put the people of Ontario back to work. This government is going to come forward with a budget that is going to resolve government spending and is going to resolve all the problems that the people of this province face. I will look forward to that budget, because in the history of the party that is governing today its members have had glib, one-sentence answers to very difficult and strategically cumbersome problems. All their problems have been stated in this Agenda for People, and all their responses to the problems, their solutions. At this point, they are almost laughable. The agenda for landfill is exactly that; it is an agenda for landfills.

I say to the Treasurer, we will ask for his job creation programs, we will ask to see how he is getting out of the lives of business so that it can take the people out of the food banks. More business has taken people out of food bank lines than any government in the history of this country. The Treasurer is going to have to get serious about a whole bunch of issues, not the least of which is job creation and wealth. Where is wealth created? He is going to have to learn the very difficult lesson and his party is going to have to learn the very difficult lesson that wealth is created in the private sector.

By increasing taxes and ramming it on to the people's backs with wage protection funds and so on, the Treasurer is not creating any new wealth. The Agenda for People spoke about new spending, new programs and new taxes. The Treasurer had better realize he is going to have to get into the real world and deal with job creation, business creation and real unemployment. Until he deals with those factors this Agenda for People will be practically worthless.

I cannot wait for Monday to see what this socialist democratic government has come up with to put this province back on track. After Monday, I do not want to hear any more about free trade, I do not want to hear any more about the GST, I do not want to hear any more about the unfair federal government. What I want to hear about are the programs and initiatives that this government has come up with to put the people of this province back to work. When the Treasurer comes forward on Monday, the initiatives had better be there, because the people in this province are waiting to see his answers to their problems.

One suggestion I would make to the Treasurer is that he examine all facets of this particular province when it comes to spending, when it comes to housing starts, when it comes to construction jobs, when it comes to the manufacturing sector, when it comes to cross-border shopping. He has every sector in trouble right now. He has a recession that is being felt in this province worse than in any province across this country. He is losing 1,600 jobs a day. No more excuses. The excuses time is over. It is time for action, it is time for initiative, it is time to stand up and be counted. On Monday the Treasurer is going to be assessed, and if he comes forward with a pale package, a hopeless, pale package such as the Agenda for People, he will be a dismal and colossal failure.

I accept the fact that he cannot fund schools 60%. I accept the fact that he is going to have to backtrack on landfill sites. I expect him to backtrack on a number of these initiatives. What I do not want to see him backtrack on is real employment, real growth and a real sector improvement that puts the people of the province back to work.

Noting that it is 6 o'clock, Mr Speaker, I will be more than happy to adjourn the debate for today.

Hon Mr Laughren: You have lost the audience, Chris.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): It now being 6 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, 25 April.

Hon Miss Martel: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It was agreed among the three House leaders to have a voice vote on this matter today. I would ask for the consent to proceed with that.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: We revert back to Mr Laughren's resolution. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

An hon member: No.

The Acting Speaker: I heard a no.

All those in favour of Mr Laughren's motion please say "aye."

All those against Mr Laughren's motion please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1802.