The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BILINGUISME EN ONTARIO

M. Poirier : La communauté franco-ontarienne a tenu, au cours de la dernière fin de semaine, à Toronto, son premier Sommet de la francophonie ontarienne. Le but de cette assemblée était d'élaborer un plan de développement global de la communauté franco-ontarienne.

J'ai noté avec intérêt la présence vendredi soir du ministre fédéral des Affaires constitutionnelles, le très honorable Joe Clark. Dans son discours, M. Clark a exprimé, entre autres, le souhait de voir d'autres provinces suivre l'exemple du Nouveau-Brunswick et se déclarer officiellement bilingues. Évidemment, l'invitation était surtout lancée à l'Ontario, vu les circonstances. Et quelle fut la réaction du gouvernement néo-démocrate de l'Ontario en guise de réplique au souhait de M. Clark et à celui de la communauté franco-ontarienne ? Le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones, de passage au Sommet le lendemain de la visite de M. Clark, réaffirmait la position des néo-démocrates que l'Ontario ne serait pas déclaré officiellement bilingue, mais que l'accent serait plutôt mis sur le développement des services à la communauté franco-ontarienne.

Voici donc le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones qui vient nous dire encore une fois le maintien du statu quo, en utilisant les mêmes paroles répétées ad nauseam par les anciens chefs des gouvernements conservateurs de l'Ontario. Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil. Quel retrait des belles paroles et de l'engagement du premier ministre, au cours de la dernière campagne électorale, à faire de l'Ontario une province officiellement bilingue.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD ANIMALS

Mr Villeneuve: I rise to report a growing health and environmental problem which is threatening all of rural Ontario.

The farm financial situation is causing many farmers to abandon the use of deadstock dealers in disposing of dead cattle, calves and hogs. They are simply unable to afford the fees being charged. Deadstock dealers have been forced to make up for 80% declines in rendering revenue and approximately 70% declines in the revenue from hide sales alone.

Under the Dead Animal Disposal Act the farmer must either bury a dead animal under at least two feet of earth within 48 hours of the loss or have it removed by a licensed deadstock dealer. As fees have gone up the number of animals removed by dealers has in some cases dropped by up to 60%. An increasing number of dead animals are being disposed of by farmers, sometimes in violation of the act. During winter, for example, we know that animals are not being buried in the frozen ground and they are often just dumped.

The health and environmental implications are rather obvious. This government simply cannot allow deadstock dealers to disappear. We need them to protect our health and our waterways. So far this government is reviewing the act. It wants to research alternative disposal methods and to launch a communications campaign.

That is not good enough. Without dealers, the problem will escalate. This government has its own study of the industry which indicates major operating losses for the foreseeable future. We need action, not ads.

ANNIVERSARY OF CHIN RADIO-TV INTERNATIONAL

Mr Perruzza: Today I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate CHIN Radio-TV International for its 25th anniversary, which it celebrated on Thursday 6 June. Mr Lombardi, the founder and president of CHIN, has spent more than 40 years promoting multiculturalism and multilingualism because he believed there was a need to serve new Canadians in their own language so they could participate in their communities and eventually become citizens.

Mr Lombardi once told his loyal listeners in a New Year's message: "Most of you who speak out in languages and cultures other than English and French came over as landed immigrants. You chose this Canada of ours as your new home. Some of you came as disabled persons, the result of war. Some of you landed as an adventure. For whatever reason you came, you stayed. To those of you who stayed to help, to rebuild your lives, to raise families, to contribute immensely to the fabulous growth of our city, our province, our country, let me say thank you for your daring, for your courage, for your love of democracy and for your Canadian style." Today I would like to say thank you to Mr Lombardi and CHIN for everything they have done for our multicultural communities.

CHIN Radio is one of the most extensive multicultural-multilingual broadcasting radio stations in the world. Today CHIN broadcasts in 30 languages and more than 30 cultural communities in the greater Metropolitan Toronto and southern Ontario areas and has weekend service on Global TV and CITY TV. CHIN is always reaching out to the communities it serves in an effort to bring people of all ages and cultural backgrounds together. One example of this is the annual picnic, which brings together 250,000 people each year.

Again, I would like to congratulate CHIN for its 25 very successful years and wish it many more.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Mahoney: I would like to bring to the attention of the House and particularly to the Minister of Health the recent article in the Mississauga News with the headline "Ambulance Cutbacks Put Lives in Jeopardy."

It goes on to say, "Recent cutbacks within the Halton-Mississauga Ambulance Service may have cost a life," according to a medical attendant. This attendant, who requested anonymity to avert reprisals at work, which is scary in itself, said he and many fellow ambulance officers feel their safety and patients' health are at risk because of recent Ministry of Health changes that have stripped down emergency services.

He illustrated the point with a story of an ambulance worker who said a crew stationed in the Cawthra Road-Queensway area had to respond recently to a call at Dixie Road and Eglinton Avenue to an elderly person who had been found without vital signs. The response time was over 10 minutes, a very lengthy time, I am sure the minister would agree. This man felt that had the station at Dixie and Britannia roads been staffed that shift, the response time could have been cut to five minutes.

I would ask the Minister of Health to ask her staff to look at this situation and to review the level of ambulance service in our community. I would also ask her to look at the Shapiro report, which recommends regional ambulance service in our community. In fact, it was a resolution by Frank Bean and his council that supported that exact situation occurring. I recognize the smirks are because we did not do it, but we certainly supported it. I supported it as a local member and I would ask for her help in this very important issue.

VICTOR LING

Mr Eves: It is with great pleasure that I stand today in order to pay tribute to Dr Victor Ling for his outstanding achievement in having won one of the world's most prestigious international awards in cancer research, the General Motors Kettering medal.

Dr Ling will be honoured today for the most important recent discovery in diagnosis or treatment of cancer. This acknowledgement is extremely important because it is the first time a Canadian scientist has won this award, considered second only to the Nobel Prize for cancer research.

Dr Ling is the head of the molecular and structural biology division at Princess Margaret Hospital-Ontario Cancer Institute and is also a professor of medical biophysics at the University of Toronto. I would like other members of the Legislature to join with me today in congratulating Dr Ling for having made all Canadians and the people of Ontario extremely proud.

1340

RECYCLING

Mr Drainville: Exciting developments are happening in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton around the development of recycling projects. Specifically, I am proud of the efforts of the Victoria Recycling Association to effectively reduce the amount of material ending up in our landfill sites. Our efforts, as I mentioned in an earlier statement, are recognized as being among the most effective in the province today.

Our community is also actively working to use recycled material in manufacturing. Using the resources of the ministries of the Environment and Industry, Trade and Technology, I am working side by side with our municipal governments and local businesses to make Victoria-Haliburton a leading community in the fight to have a safe and economically sustainable environment. We are developing plans to make significant inroads into streaming what was once considered waste towards the production of useful commodities.

It is the efforts of the residents, businesses and local government of Victoria-Haliburton which will stop the destruction of our environment. It is the job of politicians and government to help them create a vision of what a green world can be, and then to support their efforts. In other words, we must all think globally and act locally.

I ask the members of this House to join me in thanking the members of the Victoria Recycling Association for their efforts to make our world just a little bit better to live in.

NEWMARKET VETERANS

Mr Beer: Communities across the country are currently welcoming home armed forces personnel who served in the Persian Gulf. It is my pleasure to rise today in the House and tell you of a group of veterans who have continued their service long after their battle years were over.

This week, the Newmarket Veterans' Association celebrates its 75th anniversary of public service in the Aurora-Newmarket area. This association was started in 1916 by four First World War veterans who were determined to give as much in peacetime as they had in war. It has grown into a community of over 300 caring men and women who quietly go about the job of making ours a better place to live.

Fellow veterans and their families who need moral or financial support can turn to the members of the NVA. Local branches of organizations such as the Canadian Cancer Society, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, St John Ambulance and the Salvation Army can depend on the vets to help in their annual campaigns. As well as caring for the living, the NVA takes great pride in the care and keeping of our local war monuments and the cemetery plots of fallen comrades.

This is an organization dedicated to remembering those who fell in battle and those who have passed on since. They live the words that most of us consider only on Remembrance Day, "Lest we forget." Please join me in congratulating the members of the Newmarket Veterans' Association on the occasion of their 75th anniversary and thank them for their past, present and future service to community and country.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mrs Cunningham: This afternoon in the Legislature I will be introducing my private member's bill, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, 1991. This bill will make the wearing of helmets mandatory by bicyclists on our roads.

Each year in Canada over 60 children will die in bike accidents, most from head injuries. Over 5,000 children will be seriously injured. The statistics are overwhelming.

Bicycle safety helmets are highly effective in preventing head injury. In fact, it has been determined that wearing a helmet can decrease the risk of bicycle-related head injury by up to 85%. A bicycle helmet is the most important single piece of equipment for reducing the incidence of serious head injuries. Rehabilitation following a head injury is long, and in many cases the consequences are permanent.

Wearing an approved bicycle helmet is a preventive measure, yet in a study at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in 1988 it was found that even after an accident fewer children wear them. Legislation is vital to reducing cycling injuries and deaths.

This bill is scheduled for debate on 27 June during private members' hour. I look forward to support from all parties for referring this non-partisan legislation to a standing committee for further debate. It is necessary to protect citizens from head injury tragedies and the ongoing disabilities that change their lives for ever.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr Christopherson: It is with pride that I rise to inform members of this House of an innovative and creative initiative that is taking place in my community.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Child Poverty Forum is a project intended to mobilize the community to develop a comprehensive, community-based strategic plan for the elimination of the effects of poverty on children by the year 2000. Since it is necessary that solutions involve the many sectors that make up our community, groups representing labour, business, education, health and recreation will meet with people living the day-to-day reality of poverty to develop a concrete plan of action.

Hamilton-Wentworth is the first community in Canada that is taking this approach in looking at the root causes of child poverty. According to Mike Pennock, director of the Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton and District, "Solving the monumental and serious problem of child poverty has never been attempted by a community in Canada." Mr Pennock has already received numerous calls and requests for information from across the country, including from the government of Saskatchewan.

Once again, the people of Hamilton-Wentworth are displaying leadership in joining together, setting community priorities and doing something about it. They have my wholehearted support, and I am sure the members of this House will join me in commending their efforts and wishing them every success.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I would like to invite members to welcome this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, the Honourable Evan Walker, member of the Victorian Legislative Council for Melbourne province, Australia.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

The Speaker: Yesterday, the honourable member for Ottawa Centre rose on a point of order concerning the appropriateness of certain words used during question period by the honourable leader of the third party, the member for Nipissing. At the time, I undertook to review Hansard and report back to the House.

My examination of Hansard has confirmed my first impression. The use of the words complained about do not constitute a valid point of order because the leader of the third party did not accuse another member of this House of lying. However, his words could be taken to imply that the minister had accused a member of the public of lying. While this is not contrary to our rules, I do agree with the honourable member for Ottawa Centre that it is a breach of parliamentary etiquette, and I would encourage members to be very responsible in their use of language in our chamber.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, in view of your comments today and the ruling that the comments I used were not unparliamentary, I appreciate your confirmation of that. I also appreciate the advice you are giving to the members of the House.

Mr Nixon: Are you debating the ruling?

Mr Harris: No, I am not. I am taking the advice of yourself, Mr Speaker. I regret very much the statements that were made by the minister. I also suggest to you that the allegations and the implications the minister referred to offended me, and I pointed that out. But the language has offended some member of the House, and I will withdraw it.

The Speaker: Thank you.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM / RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Hon Mr Rae: I want to report to the House on my recent discussions with the leaders of several provincial governments, the chiefs of the first nations of Ontario and the Right Honourable Joe Clark, Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs for the government of Canada.

In my meeting with Mr Clark, he informed me that the federal government plans to release a constitutional discussion paper at the end of the summer, which it will refer to a new constitutional committee consisting of 15 members of Parliament and 10 senators. It is proposed that this committee will hold public hearings and will meet with legislative committees in many provinces as well as with others in the autumn and winter months leading to a report in February 1992.

As members know, the government of Quebec plans to establish two committees of the Quebec assembly, one to discuss the impact of sovereignty, the other to deal with any proposals from the rest of Canada. Legislation on a referendum on sovereignty for Quebec to be held in either June or October 1992 is currently before the National Assembly. Other provinces have either begun, or are now establishing, public discussions on the Constitution.

In my recent meetings, I made clear the following points: Ontario wants to respond to the clear and compelling need to make the government of Quebec a full and willing partner in the Canadian Constitution. It is not in the statement, but I might add parenthetically that this sentiment which I expressed on behalf of the government was fully shared by Premier Ghiz, by Premier McKenna and by Premier Cameron. I think it is important that opinion take note of the fact that I found a great deal of willingness on the part of those three provinces to make the inclusion of Quebec in the Constitution a matter of priority for them.

I also stressed that the government of Ontario wants to ensure that the first nations of Canada, the aboriginal people, are recognized as having an inherent right of self-government entrenched in the Constitution. Indeed, I am proud that we have reached agreement on a statement of relationship with the Chiefs of Ontario, a document that I believe is one of the most important in the history of our relationship with the first nations.

Ontario also wants to strengthen the economic union, and we see a strong need to guarantee Canada-wide standards for social and economic programs whose funding and integrity are now being challenged.

J'ai abordé, en outre, la question du processus constitutionnel, en soulignant le grand intérêt que cette ronde de discussions constitutionnelles accordera à la compréhension et au soutien de la population canadienne. J'ai également fait part de toute l'importance que revêtirait, après le mois de février, un groupe chargé de représenter les Canadiens et d'étudier tout ensemble de propositions à soumettre à l'assemblée législative du pays. Quoique tous les premiers ministres ne s'entendent pas encore sur la forme

précise que pourrait prendre le processus de consultation publique, tous conviennent que cette réforme constitutionnelle se doit d'être différente de celle qui l'a précédée. Cette question a fait l'unanimité.

While many governments share our concerns and objectives, they have others as well. In my visits with maritime premiers, I heard little support for the current Senate and a number of proposals as to how to give provinces and regions access to decision-making at the federal level. There is real concern about the need for more efficiency and less duplication in the delivery of government programs at all levels. Premiers Ghiz, McKenna and Cameron underlined in our discussions that regional inequality is an important issue for their provinces.

Premier Bourassa has made it clear to me that Quebec feels it has been excluded by other Canadians twice in the past 10 years during the process of constitutional renewal. Both the Bélanger-Campeau report and the Allaire report now point to a dramatic reduction in the role of the federal government and an equally significant increase in powers for the government of Quebec. The message was clear: There is no simply going back to Meech.

Par ailleurs, le gouvernement du Québec s'est montré peu disposé à débattre les questions constitutionnelles qui ne figuraient pas à l'ordre du jour qu'il avait établi, car il estime avoir le droit d'exiger que la priorité soit accordée aux questions qui le concernent. Mais comme je l'ai vivement fait remarquer à M. Bourassa, les Canadiens dans l'ensemble souhaitent que cette ronde de discussions englobe un plus grand nombre de points.

This summer there will be further meetings and discussions between and among premiers, parliamentary committees and Canadians generally. I have invited Mr Bourassa to Ontario. He has accepted and we are still discussing the date. I shall be travelling west and to the Yukon this summer. The premiers' conference will be held at the end of August and will centre on constitutional questions.

I know that our own select committee is planning to continue its work. I believe that committee, representative of all the parties in the Legislature, will continue to play a vital role in reaching out, not only to Ontarians but also to other legislatures, assemblies and people across Canada.

It is vital that all of us, in our work here in Ontario and across the country, work towards the widest possible consensus around both process and substance issues as the constitutional issue takes hold. I carry no magic answer around in my back pocket to this most crucial set of issues. I wish I could report to this Legislature that I found one on my trip, but we all know it is not that easy. This will be difficult, but if we understand the costs of failure and the advantages of success, it is possible.

SKILLS TRAINING

Hon Mr Allen: I am deeply concerned, as many members of this House are, about the recession that has caused so many plant closures and layoffs. These have resulted in hardship and suffering for workers, families and communities throughout Ontario. Our government has recognized this and has introduced special programs to help workers deal with the traumatic dislocation by layoffs.

Recently in Hamilton, for example, I announced a $2-million fund for colleges to enable them to help Ontario workers who are laid off because of major plant closures. At the same time, I announced another $1.5-million multi-skilling training program for workers at Stelco in Hamilton. Both are examples of co-operation and partnership in action.

I want to announce today another such agreement, one to retrain workers who have been laid off at Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie. Those workers will need counselling and training. Together with Sault College and the Canadian Steel Trades and Employment Congress, or CSTEC, which represents business and labour, we have reached an agreement to retrain these workers. Under the agreement, approximately 330 laid-off Algoma Steel workers will start this September the retraining needed to help them find new employment.

Some 200 of the group of 330 will be enrolled in new classes being created expressly for the laid-off workers at Sault College. Costs for these new classes, which are expected to be about $2.6 million over two years, will be shared equally by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the CSTEC. If required, additional classes may be added in future, but this will depend on the continued financial support of CSTEC by the federal government.

Training will be provided in four engineering technology programs: computer, electrical, environmental and mechanical, as well as in business, correctional worker and carpenter-cabinetmaker programs, and possibly a stationary engineering program.

Roughly 130 of the 330 have already been accepted into a variety of programs at Sault College. CSTEC will pay the $800 tuition fee for the 130 students and the province will pay the normal operating grant to the college to cover the remaining 90% of the cost of training them.

I am very pleased that this partnership of government, labour, business and education has resulted in an agreement that will benefit laid-off workers and the community of Sault Ste Marie. Our government is working with all groups to address the serious consequences of this recession and we will continue to seek new solutions and new partnerships to soften the blow on Ontario's communities and its economy.

LONG-TERM CARE

Hon Ms Akande: I am pleased to announce to the House today the government's plans for the redirection of Ontario's long-term care services.

Over the past several months, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Citizenship with responsibility for seniors' issues and disability issues and I have studied the problems associated with Ontario's outdated approach to meeting the long-term support needs of elderly persons and people with physical disabilities. I would be remiss if I did not recognize the important contribution to this review process of the former Minister of Health, the member for Ottawa Centre.

My colleagues and I have reviewed the reforms proposed by the previous government as described in its policy paper Strategies for Change, and I wish to acknowledge its work in this area, in particular the contributions of the then ministers of Health, Community and Social Services, senior citizens' affairs and disabled persons.

In order to establish a long-term care policy framework consistent with the values of this government, we were guided by four basic principles: the primacy of the individual and his or her right to dignity, security and self-determination; promotion of racial equality and respect for cultural diversity; the importance of family and community, and the right to fair and equitable access to appropriate services so that people who use the service can make informed choices.

1400

We have been aided in our deliberations by the thoughtful and constructive ideas in letters, submissions and briefings from those who use and need the services, long-term care providers, their associations and the public at large.

We have reviewed our options, not only in terms of program policies but in light of the enormous economic challenge Ontario faces in this time of recession. We have recognized a great need across the province for services that will help people to live in their own homes and communities.

Therefore, I am pleased to announce today that the long-term care redirection will proceed. Even in the current fiscal climate, our government will commit the financial resources necessary to chart this new course. To that end, $647 million will be invested on long-term care services by 1996-97. Of this amount, almost $440 million will be for community programs. The remaining one third of the total dollars will be spent on facility care.

Our government will reduce the over-reliance on facility services and will shift emphasis to the development of creative, community-based service options. We will do this in three ways.

First, we will invest heavily in long-term care services provided to people in their own homes. Services such as nursing visits, homemaker visits and attendant care will be increased, new responsive eligibility criteria are under development to ensure these services are delivered in a more flexible fashion and no user fees will be charged for nursing and homemaker visits, respite services, attendant care, personal care and support services, and day programs in recognition of the essential nature of these social and health services.

Second, we will significantly enhance our commitment to community- and neighbourhood-based support programs delivering vital services such as Meals on Wheels and transportation. We also intend to introduce a more flexible funding formula for community support programs that will provide 100% funding of approved costs after deducting charges for service use and local funding.

Third, we will make a substantial investment in supported housing programs for elderly persons and people with physical disabilities. This will afford them the choice to continue to live in their own communities with care and with support. Priority will be given to the development of support programs in co-operation with those planning non-profit housing. We will be consulting with people who use and need services and providers in the development of these programs.

I mentioned earlier that we are investing heavily in community programs to lessen our reliance on institutional services. This is evidenced by our commitment to shift, over the next five years, a minimum of $37.6 million in funding from the provincial hospital budget to long-term care community-based services. While this represents less than 1% of our hospital expenditures, it establishes an important principle.

We will actively pursue more savings from long-term care facility redevelopments. While the overall number of long-term care beds will not be increased, strategies will be developed in partnership with communities to realign resources to those communities in greatest need. Nursing homes, homes for the aged and chronic care hospitals will continue, of course, to have a role to play. They are still needed to care for people with needs that cannot currently be met in the community.

Significant change is required in this sector. Therefore, approximately $200 million will be added to the budgets of existing nursing homes and homes for the aged. This will ensure that the ever-increasing care requirements of residents can be met effectively. These funds will be generated by increasing both the provincial subsidy and the basic fees for accommodation. These increases will be carried out on an income-tested basis with no charges for health and personal care services. Quality care will be affordable to all, regardless of their financial situation.

Funding reforms will be introduced that will match financial support to the actual care requirements of residents. Measures will be taken to ensure that this increased funding is transformed into tangible service improvements.

In order to effectively co-ordinate access to a full range of services, we will consolidate our current home care and placement resources in 40 new agencies. Job security for workers in these programs is a high priority for this government.

These agencies will carefully assess the needs of the individual and purchase the appropriate services in the home, as well as respite and day programs, for them; provide information, advice and referral services to people who might need help to locate support such as meal programs or volunteer transportation; assess the needs of the individual and co-ordinate access to long-term care facilities, and be governed by new boards which will represent the communities they serve and include local members appointed by the provincial government. We will seek advice from communities as to how these new agencies can be implemented and how productive relationships can be formed with organizations which currently plan, govern and deliver services.

We have much work to do. The most important phase of our redirection will soon begin. A consultation paper will be available in the summer, and a comprehensive people-oriented and community-focused consultation will begin in earnest this fall.

The ministers of Health and Citizenship and I believe that the consultation process is an important part of the product. We believe the principles we used in establishing our policy directions would ring hollow if those directly affected by our decisions were denied the chance to shape the future in a significant and meaningful way. Our consultation will be more broad and far-reaching than any which had previously been considered. We are inviting a group of people representing those who need service and those who provide services to help design the consultation process.

We will consult people who need services and their families; advocates and care givers; native, francophone and multicultural communities; labour and women's groups; health and social service providers and planners; municipalities, and other interested groups. Community by community, we will ensure that our policy directions are subject to scrutiny and that a range of opinions as diverse as our Ontario society is brought to bear on the consultation.

We have outlined what we would describe as preferred options. However, much is still to be decided. For example, we want to consult on the direct funding approaches for people with physical disabilities. We want to consult on innovative ways to support the critical role played by family care givers. We would like to know what kind of training and support homemakers need to provide a high standard of service.

These are only a few examples of the types of questions to be discussed during the consultation. The decisions made must be tailored to the unique requirements of particular communities, both geographic and cultural.

Finally, the process of consultation and decision-making will lead to the introduction of new legislation necessary to support the redirection of our long-term care services. Long-awaited changes in our approach to services to elderly persons and people with physical disabilities are finally becoming a reality.

It is my hope and the hope of my colleagues that a system will be built that is sensitive to the uniqueness of each individual, sensitive to their rights as well as their needs, and reflective of basic values held by all Ontarians.

1410

RESPONSES

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Nixon: I viewed the Premier's progress through eastern Canada in the government's Tiger Moth with a great deal of interest, as he went from provincial capital to provincial capital and finally to the NDP convention.

I understand at that convention, he, speaking to a very critical audience, got 19 standing ovations, two more than his federal leader, and quite severely insulted the leader of the government of Canada when he said that for any leadership in Canada the people and the provinces would have to turn to Toronto and Ontario. That might appeal to the NDP, but perhaps might not be the message that is generally acceptable to all people across the country.

His support for a constituent assembly seems to have faded somewhat, and I appreciate the fact that the Premier himself makes a virtue of his flexibility when he has withdrawn from that particular proposal, since nobody but himself and a couple of others have given it much consideration.

There is something that should be discussed at length, and that is the Premier's commitment, which we all share, for self-government of the first nation community. I hope he has examined that carefully enough to know that a rational conclusion would lead many thoughtful people to support a special provincial administration for the first nation community. That is something that surely he would be giving careful attention to.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs McLeod: I will respond very briefly first to the statement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities and just indicate that we do welcome the training proposals and the fact that they are tripartite training proposals. We would only urge that both he and his government continue to address the need for retraining that is not just based on a crisis situation. I would also look at the fundamental challenges of the restructuring which is taking place in our resource-based industries, and most particularly the very acute need to address the ongoing crisis in Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs McLeod: If I may, I turn to another question of long-term planning, and that is the statement by the Minister of Community and Social Services, and ask why it has taken so long to reaffirm the directions and the proposals of the Strategies for Change document that was introduced in this province last May.

After the extensive consultation that was carried out last summer, why is the minister now only talking about more consultation? I have to ask what the minister has been doing for the last eight months while seniors and disabled people across this province have waited and wondered what it was that this government planned to do and why there had been no response. The government has now emerged from what has really been eight months of in-house meetings among ministers and it has said: "Yes, indeed, we do need to respond to the need for enhanced services, in-home support for seniors and the disabled. Yes, we do need to respond to the crisis in access to extended care beds in our institutions. Yes, indeed, the dollars for long-term care reform that were committed by a Liberal government are appropriate and are needed, in fact, almost to the very dollar."

I think this government knows what is needed, it knows what directions have to be taken. It has known that for a year, and now it is proposing more consultation. There is not a single plan here that leads us to immediate steps towards implementation.

I would ask the government whether it is now possible, after this last eight months, to have in place multilevel care funding for January 1992, which was the proposal of the previous government, and when it is going to be possible for it to actually extend integrated homemaking services and expand the in-home care support available to seniors and the disabled.

I would really have to suggest that we are not yet seeing any evidence that there is going to be an immediate, enhanced and enriched service for seniors and for the disabled who need long-term care across this province.

It has taken a whole year to get back again to the point where we left off last May, and I can only describe this as being a whole year lost.

Mr Phillips: I would like to add my comments to my colleague's and to say I have been pressing for this for at least six months. Frankly, it is very similar to the Strategies for Change. I had fully expected the reason the government was taking so long was that it had some changes in mind. We have now wasted six months and we essentially have very much the same recommendations that we had six months ago.

There are some questions in here of course that we will be asking. One is in terms of no more long-term care beds. I realize we do not want to add significantly to long-term care beds, but I am not sure the long-term care beds currently are necessarily in the right geographic areas in the province.

Certainly I was interested to note that the government is planning to extend, I gather, user fees and nursing homes and homes for the aged, and we were looking for the specifics of that. They are talking about moving money from hospitals. I would just suggest to them that hospitals in this province are changing the way they deliver services and are responding to our changing demographics. I would urge the government to be very careful, as it moves funding from the hospitals, it does not cut into some important programs that are designed to meet the long-term care needs of the people of this province.

Mr Jackson: I too would like to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Community and Social Services about redirecting long-term care services. As has been stated earlier, we have been waiting over a year for a response to the previous government's excellent working paper on this subject. We welcomed a statement, but when one examines the substance of it, there is cause for considerable concern. Questions such as, "How long will people have to wait?" are legitimate questions, given that the only firm dates being mentioned are 1996 and 1997.

When we look at the acuity rates of many of our geriatric patients in this province, when we look at the near collapse of several of our delivery systems in this province, when we look at the immediate crises being faced by these people, we ask, "At what price will they have to wait?"

It is a policy of the minister's government to continue with the offensive cutback of municipal non-profit homes for seniors in this province, and yet we have no replacement. Her coterminous minister, the Minister of Health, is overseeing the reduction of geriatric beds all across this province. Where are these people going to go?

The minister talks about respite care. In most cases, our most frail elderly live with another person of comparable age, and all we do is accelerate pressures on their good health because we do not have some of these programs co-ordinated in place.

The minister has brought to this House a statement, and I guess the statement that concerns me the most is that the minister might even actually believe what she said, that these long-awaited changes in our approach are finally becoming a reality. The minister is finally making a statement; that is all she has done today.

But if senior citizens in this province and people who require that kind of service are relying on the minister to meet their needs, I only remind them that, as this government runs up a $10-billion deficit, there is precious little attention for seniors in this province. The Treasurer indicates that he is going to get us out of that deficit. How can seniors believe that the minister will take care of their long-term care needs in this province when this government is going to run us into debt that badly?

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Cunningham: I would like to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Colleges and Universities by saying that we are encouraged to see the minister work with business and labour in the retraining of people who have lost their jobs through unfortunate circumstances at Algoma Steel. We certainly encourage this as a model.

As I always have said, what we are looking for is a comprehensive skills training and retraining program in Ontario. My great criticism would be that this is just one small part of what we really need. We all know that the measures taken by Canadian firms in spending private company dollars are minimal compared to what they do in the United States of America and other countries. We are looking for investment by the private sector in skills training and taking responsibility for our young people. What we really need is comprehensive reform.

I have said it before and I will say it again: We have not dealt with the declining enrolment in technology programs; we have not talked about the issue of apprenticeship-journeyman ratios; we have not talked about the program to promote the role of colleges in the provision of customized contract training services for companies; we have not talked about the centres of specialization, of a cost-effective way to get state-of-the-art equipment into our colleges, and we have not talked about encouraging our school systems to develop the articulation agreements and new guidance counsellors with the school systems and the colleges across this province.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. We need the minister to work harder and his government to work harder for a comprehensive training program for people, not only who have lost their jobs, but young people who want to be part of the real world in Ontario today.

Mr Harris: I too want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities and say that obviously we support the tripartite initiative to help with the retraining of the laid-off workers in Algoma. But I want to say we are very disappointed that we have to rely on ad hoc programs. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of workers in Ontario losing their jobs, and we have no overall plan for all of them. It really is sad that it takes this kind of concentrated tragedy taking place in various communities to push the government.

Finally, I hope as well that the program is providing, with the new skills, some method for accessing jobs in Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, because they are not going to find them with this government's policy in Ontario.

1420

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to rise to correct the record of the comments I made yesterday regarding the situation at Deer Lake, which is 190 kilometres north of Red Lake in the riding of the member for Kenora.

This is a community with a population of 600. The forest fire started yesterday at noon immediately north of the village and spread quickly. The fire is now about 150 hectares in size and has burned six buildings. The Ministry of Natural Resources fire crews, aided by CL-215 heavy water bombers, were able to save the town's nursing station.

A total of six buildings, including homes and log cabins, have been destroyed, as well as equipment, including snowmobiles and outboard engines. There have been no injuries, I am thankful to say, but more than 350 residents, including women and children, older persons and those with respiratory problems, have been evacuated from the village. Some residents have been flown to the town of Cochenour, just north of Red Lake, and others have been taken to the town of Red Lake.

Nine Ministry of Natural Resources fire crews and a provincial fire team are at Deer Lake to fight the fire, assisted by native fire crews. As I said, there are four CL-215 water bombers at the scene and an emergency response team has been assigned to the fire.

ANNIVERSARY OF UKRAINIAN SETTLEMENT

Mr Jackson: Could I seek unanimous consent from all members of the House to recognize Ukrainian Pioneer Heritage Centennial?

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mr Jackson: I would like to thank all members. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the coming of the first Ukrainians to Canada. On 7 September 1891, Ivan Pylipiw and Vasyl Elyniak became the first two officially recorded Ukrainian immigrants in this country and thus began the first wave of Ukrainian settlement.

In 1895, Ukrainian Professor Joseph Oleskiw wrote two publications about Canada that served as information sources for those Ukrainians wishing to move here. He also met with Canadian government officials to negotiate immigration arrangements. In 1899, Cliff Sifton, acting on behalf of the Canadian government, signed a contract for the recruiting of immigrants to Canada.

It was also in 1899 that my maternal great-grandparents, Mr and Mrs Nicholas Kyryliuk, residents of the Ukrainian town of Sapohiv, arrived in Halifax harbour on 5 June. They, along with about 200,000 other Ukrainians who settled mainly in western Canada, began their new lives in this adopted country under some very harsh challenges. In those early years, there were many struggles, but their strong religious faith and their love of their new land saw them through.

The links between Ukrainians in Canada and in their ancestral homeland continued strong and unabated. Many Ukrainian immigrants sought to escape political, cultural and religious repression, which was at its zenith at the coming of the Bolshevik communists to power at the end of the First World War. In the 1930s, Soviet terror claimed the lives of 10 million Ukrainians in Stalin's man-made famine. In the 1940s they saw the development of armed Ukrainian resistance to their colonial oppressors in the national struggle for freedom.

Throughout their 100 years of history in Canada, Ukrainians never forgot their ancestral homeland. Whenever Ukraine suffered, they suffered. Whenever Ukraine rejoiced, they rejoiced with them. We know their work continues to this day and has been recognized in their support for the victims of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

Today we will be joined in the House and we are honoured to have, as a special guest from Ukraine, a leading figure who is on tour, Archbishop Vladimir Sterniuk. Vladimir was sentenced to 10 years in Siberia for refusing to abjure his faith and he returned to western Ukraine to lead his underground church ever since, secretly ordaining priests and bishops and serving his people. The Soviet KGB has arrested him 18 times since his release from Siberia and His Excellency has lived to see the rebirth of his church and his faith in his beloved homeland.

The Ukrainians of Canada know what a precious commodity freedom is. That is why they value their presence and their life in Canada. They were quick to volunteer in each of the world wars, and today Ukrainian culture is an integral part of Canadian life. Canadians of Ukrainian background have made significant contributions to Canada's continuing development as a nation. Ukrainians in Canada have truly gone far in a short time from those early settlers with spades and plows in their hands, to the Governor General's office in Ottawa.

As the chairman of the centennial committee of the provincial council of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, I would like to take this opportunity to invite all members to join in the festive celebrations, with traditional songs and dances, to mark today's occasion which will take place at 7 o'clock this evening on the steps of the main lobby in the Legislative Building, beginning with the unveiling of a special plaque to honour the early Ukrainian pioneers, which will be presided over by the Minister of Citizenship for the government, as well as the Minister of Citizenship from the former government, John Yaremko, who presided over the plaque unveiling 25 years ago. A reception will follow in room 228 and all are welcome to attend.

Mr Ruprecht: I am delighted to join the distinguished member for Burlington South in recognizing a date of great importance to Ukrainian Canadians, the 100th anniversary of the arrival of the first Ukrainian settlers in Canada.

As the member has introduced some people already, I would like to continue this tradition and introduce today in the gallery Yaroslav Sokolyk, president of the Ukrainian Canadian Committee, Toronto branch, and Bohdan Maksymec, president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, who are with us in the audience.

The first major wave of Ukrainian immigration to Canada occurred between 1890 and 1914. Most of those leaving the Ukraine settled primarily in rural areas. The second major immigration occurred during the two world wars and resulted in settlements throughout the prairie provinces. Then between 1947 and 1954, approximately 34,000 Ukrainians who were displaced by the Second World War arrived in Canada, and many of them made their homes in Ontario. By 1981 -- this will be of great interest to all members of this House -- 25% of Ukrainians lived in this province.

Today we celebrate the Ukrainian Canadian presence in Ontario and their participation in building a strong, united Canada. They helped build the west. They participated in all democratic institutions, including the political parties, all three political parties, even the labour movement, and we find Canadian Ukrainians placed in positions of leadership in every walk of life in our country.

I can remember a number of events where thousands of Ukrainian Canadians participated. I think most members will also remember the black ribbon days which were organized to lift the Iron Curtain and introduce some semblance of freedom into the Ukraine: freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, and freedom to vote for different parties.

Thousands again came to us right here in front of the Legislature to commemorate the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, which really indicated to all of us in the west how slipshod the Russian government was in running the nuclear power plants in the Soviet Union.

How about, just in 1988, the 1,000 years of Christianity in the Ukraine? A great tradition that all of us are proud of.

What about the parade that thousands of Ukrainians attended in 1980 in order to keep Canada together? Thousands of them signed a petition in order to keep Quebec within Canada.

Today, we need Ukrainian Canadians again very clearly in order to keep Canada alive and keep Canada together. Ukrainians of Canadian descent are proudly Ukrainian but they are also fiercely Canadian. To quote the Honourable Lester Pearson: "Our Ukrainian settlers, by their industry, tenacity and resourcefulness, carved out of the lonely, unbroken prairie a new life for themselves and new wealth for their adopted country. All Canadians are in debt to those sturdy pioneers. By preserving your own identity, your own language and culture and traditions, you have added something of great value, of strength and colour, to the Canadian character."

1430

Hon Mrs Coppen: On behalf of our party, I rise to speak today on the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the arrival of the first Ukrainian settlers in Canada, because I am a granddaughter of such settlers. I would also like to thank the Minister of Citizenship for giving me this privilege since, as the member for High Park-Swansea, she represents the largest community of Ukrainian Canadians in this province.

Many of those early immigrants who arrived in Ontario at the turn of the century came with the hope of making a new life for themselves and their families, not unlike today's immigrants. Like all new immigrants they had many obstacles to overcome. My own paternal grandparents were one of those families. They settled in Saskatchewan. They farmed all their lives and faced many personal tragedies, such as the loss of two children to diphtheria.

Ukrainian Canadians have made important contributions to this country and to this province. We recognize those contributions whether they be from crane operators, teachers, provincial police officers or authors. In just one generation Ontario's Minister of Citizenship, John Yaremko, was a Ukrainian Canadian and so is His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, the Right Honourable Ray Hnatyshyn.

I am proud of our tradition of hard work and honesty and of our customs. We maintain those customs as a small tribute to our parents and grandparents and we honour them for the sacrifices they had which have made our lives so much more meaningful.

Our government is proud of this province's diversity and we are committed to working to preserve and to benefit from it. We must welcome all immigrants to Canada, as our families were welcomed, and appreciate all that they bring to us.

I would also like to inform members that later today I will accompany the Minister of Citizenship as she has the honour of unveiling a plaque here at the Legislative Building commemorating this very special anniversary.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LAYOFFS

Mr Nixon: I have a question to the Premier which, in a sense, comes out of a statement from the Minister of Colleges and Universities about a tripartite retraining scheme for Algoma Steel, where 3,500 jobs are going to be lost, according to the program put forward by the Premier's task force.

This has to be added to the 1,000 to 2,000 jobs that were lost in Kitchener two weeks ago in the Uniroyal Goodrich closing, the up to 1,700 jobs that will be lost if de Havilland follows the course that is evidently charted by its new foreign owners and the 420 jobs lost at Abitibi-Price. I just list those as an indication of the state of our economy. The Premier will be aware that the Treasurer, always being moderate and speaking the truth, indicated that Ontario was not coming out of the recession and that he did not join his colleagues, the other treasurers, in indicating the recession was over.

On that basis, is the Premier satisfied with the results of his policy, since our loss of employment is continuing at such a destructive rate? If not, what other plans can he present to the Legislature to ameliorate the situation that is devastating so many communities in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: That was such a long preamble, I just want to state a couple of things in answer to the preamble.

First, there is no final determination as to the ownership of de Havilland. That matter is now before Investment Canada. There has been no transfer of ownership.

Second, there has been no proposal by my task force with respect to Algoma. There has been one plan that has been prepared by Dofasco, and that is now being discussed by all the partners. The honourable member is leaping from conclusion to conclusion as he tries to arrive at the worst-possible-case scenario.

Finally, with respect to his preamble the member said the Treasurer said we were still in the recession. I think what the Treasurer said -- I think he is being cautious -- is that we are not out of the recession yet, but it is also fair to say we can already see some signs in the economy that show things are improving. I will not underestimate for a moment the seriousness of the situation and I will not underestimate for a moment that the recession has been enormously serious.

The restructuring that is going on is one that requires a concerted response. I am meeting with the Premier's Council all tomorrow afternoon, tomorrow evening and into the next day as we begin to look hard at the restructuring taking place, as we begin to look at the policies we need to put in place in terms of training, in terms of new capital investment, in terms of encouraging industry to invest in research and development and in terms of how we can go about encouraging the creation of new, well-paid jobs across the province.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I take this as my central task as Premier. If the Leader of the Opposition is asking me if am I satisfied with how well things are going, I would say to him only that I do not look upon what is going on with any complacency at all. It is the biggest challenge we face as a province, and we are doing everything we can to meet it.

Mr Nixon: I will try not to comment on the length of the Premier's unsatisfactory answer. Since he does not like the numbers I have put together, what does he think about Statistics Canada, which found that there were 31,000 fewer jobless in Canada last month than the month before but 12,000 more jobless in Ontario?

This is in light of the fact that this is the first month following a budget where a deficit of $9.7 billion was justified on the basis of job creation and an additional $700 million was spent by this government ostensibly to create jobs. Yet the record continues to deteriorate. The Premier has indicated that he is not satisfied, but surely, as the leader of a social democratic government, he must be in a position to provide the leadership that is going to turn this around. In spite of his best efforts, it is getting worse. The people are dissatisfied. What is the Premier going to do about this totally unacceptable situation?

Hon Mr Rae: There is a very serious recession. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if his leader had not called an election last September and he were still in office, we would have a very serious recession. The former Treasurer, in his heart of hearts, knows that full well. That may be why they called the election. I do not know.

I will only make this simple point to the Leader of the Opposition: I was interested to see we had the support of John Kenneth Galbraith, the dean of North American economists and someone not unknown. He said we were the only government in North America that was tackling the recession by investing in infrastructure and doing our very best. That is exactly what we are doing, and we are going to continue to do it.

Mr Nixon: I might have a little more confidence in the Premier and my good friend and well-known liberal, John Kenneth Galbraith, if there were some results to their brave efforts. But instead of positive results, we seem to be getting further into the difficulties of mounting unemployment. This great government, with its close connections to the labour movement, with all of the main presidents of the unions being vice-presidents of the NDP, does not know what to do except wait for the capitalist economy to solve its problems for it.

As a matter of fact, the Premier has not given his basic solution which he gave to the Hamilton Spectator in response to a question from Emelia Casella, who asked, "What the devil are you going to do about this?" I paraphrase her words. He said, "The question there really is what more can we do to give a sense of pride and a sense of patriotism to industry."

Once again, he is solving major problems with slogans, because in fact his policy is a policy of heavy debt, heavy tax and heavy-handedness in this regard and really most of the business community believes that his policies are driving business and opportunities out of this province. What is he going to do to reverse this situation? Only he, as leader of this brave democratic socialist government, can act at this time.

[Applause]

Mr Nixon: While a scattering of his support responds with approval in that connection, the people out there are very much concerned indeed about the inadequacies of his policies. What does he plan to do to correct this situation?

1440

Hon Mr Rae: First, let me say to the people of the province that I think everybody in this government shares their concerns and takes them enormously seriously. When I talk to business leaders about taxes, if there is any government they single out for its incompetence, for its heavy-handedness and for what it has done to small business and large business, it is the government for which the Leader of the Opposition was the Treasurer for five long, hard years. That is the reality and he knows it full well.

If he wants to have an argument about what has happened to Ontario's tax structure, if he wants to have an argument about what has happened to Ontario's competitiveness and if he wants to have an argument about what has happened in terms of business confidence, let me say that the former Treasurer has a heavy burden to carry in terms of his own personal responsibility for the situation which we found when we took office in September. He knows that full well.

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

Hon Mr Rae: The decision that we as a government made this year, to invest, is a decision of which I am proud and a decision which I am confident will contribute far more jobs to the economy than if we had sat on our hands and simply watched the deficit increase the way the Liberals were doing when they were in power.

Mr Nixon: We are still the only government since 1948 that paid down the provincial debt. It is interesting to see what the Tories are going to do about that, what the NDP are going to do about that, spending their way out of recession. What a policy that is.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mr Nixon: While the Premier wipes his chin in satisfaction, I will direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. She, as well as all other sensitive people in the province, will know that the Liberal task force visited Smiths Falls yesterday and was astounded to learn that the Ministry of the Environment has yet to act on the grave situation involving that town and many others in the province. I mention the village of Clifford and the town of Fort Frances, where the lack of sewage disposal facilities has totally suspended any sorts of development or job opportunity development in those communities.

In the case of Smiths Falls, the facility requires $20 million and the town has a total budget of only $9 million. What is the minister doing to assist in solving these problems that are affecting the economy of the province so extensively?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that I am indeed well aware of the backlog in spending on infrastructure renewal that exists across this province, and in fact across this country, since the evacuation of that responsibility by our federal government some years ago. What this government is doing is looking very seriously at the amount of capital spending that can be put into the rebuilding of those sewage treatment plants, especially in areas where we know that the capacity has been extended. I think if the honourable Leader of the Opposition will look at the increase in my ministry's budget that was included in the budget and in the deficit which he finds so very hard to accept, he will see that is precisely what we are doing.

Hon Mr Rae: You complain about the deficit, then you get up and ask for more spending.

Mr Nixon: The Premier is just aching to answer this question in his own typical situation, but the minister would be aware that in the 1991-92 conditional grant allocation for municipalities which she is referring to that deals with this, the amount of increase for sewer and water projects was 0.8% in a budget increase of 13.4%. We know where the money went, but it certainly did not go for sewer and water.

How can the minister indicate that the budget of this province is allocated, at least in part, to this important responsibility for cleaning up the sewage and for giving and guaranteeing clean water when in fact the Treasurer did not allocate those dollars? They have done nothing but simply blame other governments -- thank God, not ours, because under the leadership of the member for St Catharines we took great strides to correct this situation.

Hon Mrs Grier: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition wants to be fair, because I know the Leader of the Opposition is inherently a fair individual, and I am sure, in looking at those figures, he would want to add to them the $700 million that was part of the Treasurer's anti-recessionary spending, a major proportion of which went to municipalities for precisely the kind of spending that the Leader of the Opposition is asking about.

Mr Nixon: The honourable minister had the good grace, not shared by the leader of her government, not to blame us for inadequate policy. Just as our proposals for long-term care have now been accepted by the government after the former Minister of Health put them through her fine-tooth comb, surely the minister should be aware that our proposal for a water and sewer corporation, which was part of last year's budget -- it would have been in operation 1 January this year -- is a reasonable alternative that would move towards these solutions. Is she going to accept that concept, and if not, what is her alternative?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am well aware of the proposal by the previous government that such a corporation should be established. I am also well aware that under the previous government's view of what that corporation would do, it was seen, frankly, as a pro-development tool to encourage urban sprawl and the development of areas where perhaps that might not be the appropriate solution.

As the member is well aware, our government has asked for a review of that concept and a deputy minister has been appointed, responsible to me and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I am sure a response as to the future of that corporation will be available shortly.

Mr Scott: Bob is getting tired of this ideological baloney. Get going. Do something.

The Speaker: Order, the member for St George-St David.

Hon Mrs Grier: Regardless of whether the funding comes to an independent corporation or whether the funding comes from my ministry or from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the bottom line is spending. We are very aware of that. We are very aware there has been inadequate spending on sewer and water for five years, and we realize that is a problem that has to be addressed.

Mr Nixon: There is $484 million extra for doctors, 11% extra for civil servants, but no clean water for Smiths Falls.

1450

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Harris: If I can get it in over the leader of the Liberal Party, the tax man himself, I wonder if I could have a question to the Premier. Would the Premier tell us what restraint measures, if any, he has put in place in his office and the Cabinet Office to cut costs during this recession?

Hon Mr Rae: With respect to my own estimates, I think the leader of the third party will find that in the Office of the Premier there has been a pretty modest increase, I think of a few per cent, and in the Cabinet Office an increase of 7.4% overall, year over year. With respect to the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, there are some changes with respect to the situation because of the seriousness of the constitutional crisis, which members from all sides have been asking us to respond to. But on the whole, our spending estimates -- I think I am correct in saying this; at least, I sure hope I am -- are certainly well below the overall increases that have taken place in the rest of the government.

Mr Harris: I know the Premier thinks 7.4%, on top of the bloated bureaucracy Premier Peterson had, is somehow or other his idea of restraint. I can tell him that taxpayers do not think a 7.4% increase is.

I would like to point out a specific increase. Not only has the Premier not cut costs and waste in his offices, he has increased his spending by a substantial amount. I would like to ask about one in particular. The Premier is now spending an additional $325,800 of taxpayers' money for, and I quote from his estimates of the Cabinet Office, "Increased work for daily briefings for the Premier for preparation for question period."

How can the Premier justify spending an additional third of a million dollars to prep himself for question period when his Cabinet Office already costs taxpayers some $8 million a year?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I am sure there are many --

Mr Scott: If we don't ask any questions, can we have the money back? I'll give up if I can have the money back.

Hon Mr Rae: If I can just get over the response from the member for St George-St David -- I think his bow-tie is too tight today -- I would only say that, first of all, the member refers to an $8-million budget. That is incorrect. The 1991-92 estimates are $5.8 million. I think we are both reading from the same sheet.

Second, when the member uses his quotation for the explanation, he conveniently leaves out two other aspects of an explanation of why there is a $325,800 increase. I just think it is important for people to know that there has been some very selective reading by the leader of the third party. It says, "Large amount of additional correspondence to deal with; increased work for daily briefings for the Premier for preparation for question period, and managing corporate issues."

I can only tell members that I am told by my staff that, for whatever reason, we have had an extremely enlarged flow of correspondence in comparison with any --

Mr Scott: It's people complaining. Read the letters.

Hon Mr Rae: I do read the letters. I can only tell the leader of the third party that since 6 September, there has been an extraordinary increase in the flow of correspondence. It may have something to do with our being a more open government than our predecessors.

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

Hon Mr Rae: We also have an increased need to deal with freedom-of-information requests and, I might add, other inquiries that were put forward by members of opposition parties and others with respect to the work of government.

Mr Harris: The $325,000 is over and above -- I mean, the Premier already got some 7.4%, as he talks about.

Hon Mr Rae: No, it's not over and above.

Mr Harris: No, that is right, he got 7.4%.

Hon Mr Rae: Yes.

Mr Harris: And then he got $325,000 more here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Scott: People have got to spend their way out of a recession in their own way.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I know. This is quite a lively exchange. It would be helpful if the leader of the third party could direct his supplementary question to the Chair and allow but one member on the government side to respond.

Mr Harris: I want to zero in particularly on the $325,000. In an average sessional year, we estimate the Premier answers some 300 questions. That means taxpayers now have to pay, in addition to the $5 million or $6 million or $8 million that is being spent there, an additional $1,000 for every question the Premier answers. Quite frankly, we and the people of Ontario do not think we are getting our money's worth.

The average taxpayer does not make $1,000 a week to support his entire family. I would like to know what the Premier has to say to the people who have to support, through their taxes, an additional $1,000 of their tax dollars that go up in hot air every time he gets up on his feet to answer a question.

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, the leader of the third party talked about an $8-million expenditure. It is a $5.8-million expenditure. Okay, so there we are.

Then he talks about 7.4%, and then he adds on another $325,000. He should know full well the 7.4% is the full amount. The $325,800 is included in that amount.

The actual expenditure for 1991 last year was $6.6 million, so in fact our estimates for next year show a reduction of some $800,000 overall in comparison to what was spent last year.

Then he makes the allegation, when I have already told him that we are talking about having to deal promptly with public correspondence -- when I became Premier, I was concerned about the length of time it was taking for the public to get responses to the questions they were putting to us and I asked that we speed up the turnaround time and that we make sure we were improving that in terms of service to the public. I think we are being careful with public expenditure in the Cabinet Office and in the Premier's office, and I will compare that expenditure with the leader of the third party's any day of the week.

Mr Harris: I do have a second question for the Premier, but when I clearly said that the Premier's office and his Cabinet Office cost taxpayers more than $8 million, he conveniently left off the Premier's office. I assumed that the Premier's office was support staff for him. Maybe it is for Bob White, maybe it is for somebody else, but I assumed he was the Premier and that money was for him.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Harris: My second question is to the Premier. He will know that I have long called for and been supportive of stronger legislation to protect the rights of workers, not just to have Sunday off as a matter of fact, but for all full-time workers to be able to have a day of the week off that suits their family circumstance.

Yesterday the Solicitor General tried to explain away his earlier comment that the government's legislation to protect employees from working on Sundays is weak and unenforceable. Since he obviously had a hand in this legislation and in drafting this bill, I would like to ask the Premier if he believes that his party's and his government's new legislation will allow workers the right to refuse to work on Sundays.

Hon Mr Rae: I do feel that it provides for that right, and I do feel that, in the circumstances, it makes an important statement about the rights workers have, just as our occupational health and safety legislation, which was produced by the member's party when the Conservatives were in office and supported by all three parties, also provides for a right to refuse unsafe work. It seems to me that it is important for legislation to contain those rights, and that is exactly what the legislation does.

Mr Harris: We agree it makes an important statement, one that we support and have been calling for for a considerable period of time. I accept the Premier's assurances that in fact it is more than an important statement but it actually provides protection. But there are thousands of Ontarians who want the opportunity to work on Sundays: students who need extra money; parents who need two incomes; thousands of struggling retailers all across Ontario, but particularly in tourist communities and in border communities, who want to open on Sundays, who need the additional revenues to stay in business.

If the Premier is convinced his labour legislation is so strong that it protects every single retail worker who does not want to work on Sunday, can he explain why we need his other bill, which is merely a new version of the current Liberal law?

Hon Mr Rae: I will tell members what our legislation is. If they look at the history of this question in the House over the last several years, and the leader of the third party and I have both been here for the time this was being discussed, first of all at the end of the Conservative government through the 1985-87 period his then leader, Larry Grossman, got up and said he was on one side of the issue; then his party reversed itself and said no, it took a different position. One of the members of his caucus, the member for London North, has been a leader on this question.

We support a common pause day, recognizing the validity of the tourism exemption, and that is precisely the direction we have taken. It seems to me that it is a direction that is entirely consistent with the mood of the majority of the members of this House and of this assembly over the last decade, and that is all it is.

1500

Mr Harris: We are losing $2.2 billion and 14,000 jobs to cross-border shopping, part of that as a direct result of Sunday closings. Hudson's Bay estimates it lost 4,800 jobs since its stores were forced to close on Sundays.

Many believe the government's new legislation quite frankly is a sham. It does nothing to help ease the burden of our retailers. All it does is maintain responsibility for Sunday shopping to the municipalities, something the Premier vigorously opposed when he was in opposition, and on top of that it now passes on all the costs. It is provincial legislation against the objections of the municipalities, and now it offloads all the costs on to municipalities.

I ask the Premier, how does he justify this new legislation not being asked for by municipalities? They do not want the responsibility. He knows that well; that was his position. How does he justify bringing in this bill which reinforces that it is their responsibility, something he opposed, and now offloads all the costs of enforcing it on to the municipalities as well?

Hon Mr Rae: During the entire decade of the 1970s when the Progressive Conservatives were in office, the question of designating tourism was in the hands of the municipalities. That was true throughout the 1980s, when the member for Nipissing was a member of the cabinet of Frank Miller. The position we have taken as a government --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If the member for Etobicoke West wishes to make interjections, which of course we know are out of order, he needs to be in his seat in order to be out of order.

Hon Mr Rae: I can only tell the member that the balance we have struck, in terms of the tourism exemption and the fact that the municipalities are responsible for designating that, is not any significant change in the responsibility of municipalities from what was the case prior to the former legislation. Municipalities always had the responsibility with respect to bylaws on tourism.

What would the member rather have? Would he rather have a provincial bureaucracy with an additional cost of $1 million or $2 million? Is that the kind of solution he would like us to have? He should make up his mind in terms of what he wants.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Curling: I will direct my question to the minister responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Yesterday the CBC reported about the Ombudsman conducting an investigation into the operation of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. In that report, the Ombudsman discloses in part that due to the tremendous backlog choking the commission and the lack of adequate staff to process the investigative claims, many cases have been jeopardized because of that process. The minister seems to feel that the appointment of five commissioners, who will sit one week every three months, will somehow magically cure the serious problems afflicting the commission. Will the minister please advise the House how she expects the part-time commissioners to perform such miraculous feats?

Hon Ms Ziemba: First of all, the commissioners meet every six weeks and not every three months, and they meet for three days. But what I want to talk about is a new plan for case management. I think that is very important, because that is really what we want to address.

This year we have focused on supporting an effective case management plan and we are going to make sure that all staff working in other areas will be working on case management. There is a task force on older cases. This will be extended another year. These people who work on the task force doing the older cases are experienced staff who have a reliable background and are working very hard to make sure that backlog and the very serious cases are addressed quickly. We are fast-tracking and making a very straightforward process for the straightforward cases that can be addressed easily and quickly. The very complex cases are being assigned to experienced staff so they can be addressed in a meaningful way. We have also started an early settlement initiative and the early --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her remarks please?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. The case management program plan is very long and detailed. I am just saying that we have a definite case planning and are working towards that and we do have a lot more initiatives in place to settle the case management backlog.

Mr Curling: I should put to the minister again that the commissioners do not look after the day-to-day operation and they will not resolve the backlog, as she seems to have indicated. The $12 million the previous government, the Liberal government, put in there will end by October of this year. There is no money there. The minister did not fight for any other money. There was no money there to increase. We need money to employ people and to look after the backlog. Of course the Ombudsman stated in the report, as disclosed by the CBC, that it may be a good, sound management process, but the money is needed to do that.

Will the minister fight to get more money so that the backlog can be addressed? She should not depend on the commissioners to feel that when they meet occasionally, this will eventually clear up all the backlog.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Last year, $3 million of new money was allocated to the OHRC. We felt this year that the new case management program had only been implemented in September and needed some time to be addressed and looked into, and we did not feel we needed more money at this particular time to address that issue.

What we had to do was to look at how to address the case management plan. Obviously, last year the increase of $3 million did not address the backlog; it did not reduce the backlog; it did not make a difference. The $3 million made no difference at all. We just saw an increase in the backlog and that is how it was. We decided this year that we wanted to implement and use our money creatively in a fiscally responsible way and make sure the cases were managed in a very proper way. As I said, we have a very long, extensive process of making sure that we are fast-tracking and that there are new processes in place. The new commissioners who are going into place will work as a team with the commissioners who are there already and with the staff, to make sure the cases are handled properly.

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship as well. It deals with a problem of 1991 and I hope she does not try to give me an answer, like the Premier, that solves the problem of 20 years ago.

In the report last night that was aired by CBC -- and it is typical of the Liberals; they think the solution to every problem is to spend more money. I want to congratulate the minister for not falling prey to that trap, unlike virtually the rest of her colleagues, including the Premier and the Treasurer. What concerned me about the report was that $3 million of new money was added in 1989 and the backlog is longer. I understand the Liberals think they will spend even more money and that the problem will be even worse.

What does the minister have to say about allegations that the $3 million was misspent and that it went into middle management and not into hiring case workers and into the types of programs that would actually clean up the backlog? Could she give us a report on that?

Interjections.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I am having a hard time answering the questions, as my colleagues are saying to me that I am being called Mr Minister when I am really Madam Minister, but that is fine.

We were concerned about the way the money was spent last year and as we saw, the $3 million had been put into a budget. I am pleased to say that with the new process of case management and the fact that new staff has been hired -- a new executive director has been hired since that money has been allocated; she was hired in June of last year and she is working very hard to manage within the system.

I really have to congratulate the staff at the OHRC and also the commissioners because they have been working under a very difficult situation. When there is a big backlog, when the community is upset, there is concern and they have worked under great stress. Their morale has picked up. The turnover in staff has really diminished. In fact, they are at a low in staff turnover compared to other years. The staff is working very hard and trying to work in a team effort. I thank the member for congratulating us for not being fiscally irresponsible.

1510

Mr Harris: The second aspect of the report of last night that concerned me immensely was that instead of spending time solving the backlog, it appeared as though the staff at the Ontario Human Rights Commission were spending more of their time and effort in how they could thwart the investigation of another provincial government agency, that of the Ombudsman, which was in there trying to help and to make recommendations on how we could improve the system.

I wonder if the minister could tell us why one agency of this government is spending time and money thwarting an investigation by another agency of this government, both surely trying to come up with solutions to the problem of this horrendous backlog.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I really think the staff of the OHRC have worked very hard and very closely with the Office of the Ombudsman. I have the confidence of the staff. We have a lot of new staff, and this report was started in 1989. Since then, in those two years that have transpired, the staff has changed dramatically and the co-operation between the Ombudsman's office and the staff has been handled very well.

I have to say they have been working under extreme pressure, they have tried to accomplish miracles, they have now looked at a very good way of case management and they are working very hard to address their problems. I think we really have to support them. Human rights and people with human rights violations are the responsibility of everyone. Every one of us here -- and this is not a political discussion -- has to take responsibility to make sure that people do not have their human rights violated. I wish to have the co-operation of every member of this staff that we can eliminate racism and prejudiced environments.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT

Mr Winninger: My question is directed at the Attorney General. At present, family court judges, with the exception of the Unified Family Court in Hamilton, are limited in the rulings they can make regarding the best interest of children. For example, a judge cannot challenge the authority of the children's aid society to place or transfer a ward to or from a particular setting unless there has been a clear abuse of statutory authority, since judges at the provincial level lack the parens patriae jurisdiction of superior judges.

Given that in a Unified Family Court judges would have an overriding authority to assess whether a placement is in the best interest of the child and if necessary, to find alternatives to serve a child in his own family or community, what steps are being taken to establish a Unified Family Court across Ontario, since the report of the Advisory Committee on Children's Services recommended in November 1990 the creation of a Unified Family Court at the superior level?

Hon Mr Hampton: The question is indeed a good one and a timely one. We have indicated to the federal government our desire to talk about the concept of a Unified Family Court in Ontario, because we are certainly aware of the problems and concerns with respect to the family court structure as it now exists and are hopeful that we will receive a favourable response from the federal government.

Mr Winninger: When the Unified Family Court is established, will the jurisdiction of these judges extend to all cases concerning the welfare of children, including divorce and division of property?

Hon Mr Hampton: We are interested in talking with the federal Minister of Justice about the whole concept of the Unified Family Court. It would clearly be our goal to put in place a Unified Family Court which allows the court to deal with all issues pertaining to family law and to the best interests of the child.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Scott: It is always a pleasure to welcome the Premier back. When he has been out lecturing in lands where he has no responsibility, he comes back rejuvenated, behaving just like the old opposition member he still inherently is.

I would like to ask him about conflict of interest under his government. He supplemented the Members' Conflict of Interest Act with the much-vaunted Premier's guidelines, which were to put all matters to rest but which have -- what shall I say? -- not exactly been a roaring success on the ground.

After six months, we have seen the secret modification that went to his caucus. We have hired a Bay Street lawyer to figure out who divested and who did not and why and why not. We have seen ministers and parliamentary assistants obliged to answer about a wide variety of things.

One of the simplest things in the conflict-of-interest act is the rule respecting gifts, which provides, under subsection 6(1), that a member is not allowed to receive any gift in excess of a certain amount or any gift that is connected directly or indirectly with the performance of his or her duties.

An hon member: Question, question.

Mr Scott: We are coming to the question and I think he will be interested to hear it.

An hon member: Not getting paid by the hour here.

Mr Scott: I know he is not paid by the hour here. What I want to ask the Premier is what he would think if it came to his attention that the parliamentary assistant to the Chairman of Management Board received a very handsome cheque made out in his own name some six weeks ago for addressing a public meeting or a convention meeting on the subjects that are inherent in his ministry.

Hon Mr Rae: I think any such cheque should be promptly returned.

Mr Scott: What would the Premier make of the fact that the commissioner said it should be returned and that he wanted confirmation from the secretary to the Premier that it had been returned? What would he make of the fact that the request was made some three weeks ago, 23 May, and that there has been no response? There is no indication that the cheque has been returned. There is no letter in the commissioner's office from Mr Agnew that the cheque has been returned. Is this the way badly paid parliamentary assistants are going to be allowed to supplement their incomes under the Premier's guidelines?

Hon Mr Rae: I am sure that, in the interest of fairness, the member for St George-St David would want to give me a chance to ask the member about this. But let me make it very clear to the member for St George-St David that I am sure any such cheque should be returned. I have made that very clear and, as far as I am concerned, that is basic.

Mr Scott: So is it going back?

Hon Mr Rae: Absolutely, and I answer that in terms of my first question.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mrs Marland: My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. I was amazed and actually very disappointed that this minister announced the formation of an advisory committee on the new heritage legislation. The previous government launched a heritage policy review four years ago. Last May we finally received its new heritage policy and draft legislation. Fifty-four groups submitted feedback on the proposals. Now the minister's advisory committee will not report to him until November. In the meantime, our history is being torn down. My question is, given the urgent need to protect our historical buildings, why is this minister delaying the introduction of new heritage legislation?

1520

Hon Mr Marchese: This minister is not delaying the legislation I hopefully will be able to bring it once we have been able to bring all of the heritage activists together, and many of them are in this advisory group. Many of these members have been consulted about what the draft had put together, based on the consultations that had happened, and many of them have told us that their views were not reflected in that draft.

To be able to bring a comprehensive report together, I have put together an advisory group of heritage activists so that they can respond to the new draft, the new discussion paper we have put together. We are meeting in July, and in early September as well, to review all of this so we can have a comprehensive legislation or comprehensive policy that will protect our heritage buildings and our non-tangible heritage as well.

Mrs Marland: This minister is stalling. We have had four years of review and consultation. There is no reason the government cannot introduce the legislation now, then have it go out to committee for consultation and public input.

As a matter of fact, his parliamentary assistant, the member for Kingston and The Islands, said on 20 December, "I am sure that we realize they need support from the Ministry of Culture and Communications...in a strengthened heritage bill which will be introduced in the near future." That is six months ago that his own parliamentary assistant made that statement. In the meantime, London, Markham and Toronto have had to pass private bills to protect their heritage buildings.

Is that what this government advocates, a private bill for every municipality in the province in order to save our heritage buildings and with them our precious Ontario heritage? Is that really what this government is all about?

Hon Mr Marchese: I appreciate the member's concern and welcome the questions she raises. I want to assure her that this ministry wants to play a leadership role in making sure that we do not destroy our heritage, both our property and non-tangible heritage.

I want to point out to the member again that if we had put out the draft that was ready a few months ago, we would have delayed the legislation even longer, because those very people we would have consulted would have told us: "This does not reflect this. Go back and do it again." We would then have had to go back and consult again to make sure we had reflected their views accurately. What we are doing is making sure that all the questions are answered in the beginning so as to ensure the process is not delayed in the end.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Hansen: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I question the minister's statement regarding the retraining agreement for the laid-off steelworkers of Sault Ste Marie. Why was it necessary for this agreement to be made? Is the operating grant that the Minister of Colleges and Universities provided to the Sault College of Applied Arts and Technology not supposed to cover the cost of this type of training?

Hon Mr Allen: Certainly the colleges are provided with funds to accommodate this type of training, but not the unusual and irregular numbers of enrolments that occur under these specific circumstances, which the formula is not designed to accommodate. In point of fact, the enrolment at Sault College is entirely full in terms of the grant allocations that have been transferred for this year. In a discussion this morning with the president of the college, Ron Doyle, he told me they had had a 67% increase in applicants for the first year over last year's numbers.

We were faced with a very simple situation. Were we going to simply displace community members in courses to which they wanted access in order to give preference to the Canadian Steel Trades and Employment Congress and the laid-off workers in the Algoma community, or were we going to provide additional funds in order to make that happen? We decided to take the latter course, to help the college accommodate that unusual enrolment in order to provide training for those laid-off workers in the Sault.

Mr Hansen: How long will this agreement last?

Hon Mr Allen: In the first instance, the program will last two years, but it is open-ended in the sense that if the federal government is prepared to put further funding into the CSTEC part of the agreement and extend it over a longer period of time, this government will match that funding and prolong the program.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD ANIMALS

Mr Poirier: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As the minister is quite aware, operators of companies that retrieve dead animals from Ontario farms are going through some extremely difficult times, to the point that at least one of the major operators has ceased operations as of 31 May. His own ministry's recent audit of the finances of six typical deadstock dealers has shown that for 1991 the predicted average loss per operator will be about $125,000, and for some about $500,000.

Licensed deadstock recuperators used to pick up deadstock free of charge to farmers because they used to make some profit from the sales of animal hides, meat, bones and byproducts. Unfortunately, prices paid to deadstock dealers for these products have now fallen through the floor, to the point that some companies now want to charge the deadstock dealers for taking these products. How is the minister going to resolve soon this incredible predicament that farmers and deadstock operators are caught in?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I want to assure the member that this is not a new problem for this minister. This is a problem that we encountered immediately on 1 October, when we started dealing with it from my ministry's perspective. There were meetings with the operators. We met with the deadstock dealer-operator association. We have had several meetings with the various commodity groups. The member makes a good point when he states that the commodities they have to sell in order to cover their expenses and make a reasonable profit have been in serious decline, and projections are not good for the industry.

The meetings we had with the various farm commodity groups were an attempt to have these groups look at a checkoff or some way of providing money for the industry, rather than having a direct grant from the government. We were unable to resolve that issue with a checkoff; however, the commodity groups, producers, have supported the concept of user pay. The government has endorsed that concept. Not all the operators are happy with it, but they have been trying to cope with that system in order to continue to provide service.

It is a difficult situation for farmers when they are asked to pay for a pickup, especially when they have lost an animal, but it is a situation we are working with. We are going to advertise the seriousness of the problem and continue to monitor the situation.

Mr Poirier: The minister and his colleagues the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment will be especially interested in the following: We all know that the law says it is the responsibility of farmers to dispose of their dead animals by opting for one of two options -- either burying the animal under at least two feet of earth within 24 hours of its death or having it removed by a licensed deadstock dealer.

As the minister knows, some deadstock dealers caught in the sudden financial vise have tried to implement a direct user fee to the farmers for recuperating their dead animals. This has proved to be a fiasco as they have since noted a substantial reduction of deadstock picked up at farms. I wonder what is happening to the missing carcasses. Evidence seems to indicate that direct user fees result in the fact that carcasses may be disposed of in manners contrary to the law, with possible grave consequences to the environment and the public's health, especially in the winter months.

The best way to ensure that all farmers will call licensed deadstock dealers each time a dead animal needs to be picked up is for the minister to implement a commodity checkoff per animal or product unit sold by farmers. Would the minister please confirm that he will not implement a direct user fee for farmers, but instead will put in place soon a checkoff system?

Hon Mr Buchanan: We continue to explore that. We would need to work in co-operation with the various commodity groups if we were going to look at a checkoff. In fact, I personally support that. I think it is a much more uniform system and probably would provide better service to the farmers in rural Ontario. However, it is not up to me to impose that. We continue to have negotiations with the various commodity groups. Some of the groups do support the concept of a checkoff and others do not. With the closure of the one large operator in eastern Ontario to which the member referred, I think this will bring the problem more to a head and perhaps all of the livestock groups can come together and agree on a checkoff.

1530

HOCKEY FRANCHISE

Mr Sterling: I also have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I advised his staff earlier today that I would be asking this question because I would like a real answer. How much is the minister spending to oppose the building of the Palladium for the Ottawa Senators in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton? How much is his ministry spending in opposing this application for rezoning of this land?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I cannot answer the question at this time; the Ontario Municipal Board hearing is taking place. This is a question of considerable note that is before the hearing and I do not feel it is appropriate for me to give out the answer to that question at this time.

Mr Sterling: If the Palladium is not built on its present site, everyone should realize there will not be Ottawa Senators in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

These hearings are going on for eight weeks. The ministry has hired top legal outside counsel; it has hired at least five, six or seven expert witnesses. The hearings are to go on for some eight weeks. I have heard estimates that it is going to cost the proponent, Bruce Firestone, who is appearing in front of the OMB today, probably in the neighbourhood of $1 million to go through this process. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food is the chief opponent to this application.

The people in eastern Ontario are asking why the minister is spending all of his resources to fight this particular application for 98 acres of perhaps class 2 agricultural land, when there are thousands and thousands of acres of class 1 agricultural land in southwestern Ontario going into urbanization with little but a nod from his ministry. What does he have against the Ottawa Senators? What does his government have against eastern Ontario?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I want to assure the member for Carleton that this government has nothing against the Ottawa Senators. What the ministry is doing is upholding the Food Land Guidelines which suggest that if there are alternative sites that are suitable, the farm land should be preserved. That is what we are doing, upholding the Food Land Guidelines which say if there are alternative sites, then that land should be preserved for farm land.

I would remind the member this is a new government that believes in preserving farm land, class 1 and class 2. These are not the old days. I remember back in the heyday of his party's government when we had 21 acres per hour going out of production. This government believes in preserving agricultural farm land.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude his remarks.

Hon Mr Buchanan: We will continue to fight to preserve agricultural land through the OMB and through other processes, because we believe it is very important to preserve the farm land and the farmers. We also believe it is important to have this hockey team in Ottawa. We think there are alternative sites and we will do what --

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

FRENCHMAN'S BAY

Mr Wiseman: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I attended a meeting last night with a number of residents who live around Frenchman's Bay in my riding. There is a considerable amount of concern developing over what is happening in Frenchman's Bay with potential silting up and development around the edges. I would like to ask the minister whether she has had a chance to review the situation with Frenchman's Bay, and what is happening with her ministry.

Hon Mrs Grier: I am glad to respond to that question because I know the area and the ecosystem of Frenchman's Bay have been considerably stressed over recent years and there is enormous pressure for development in that area. I am glad to be able to share with the House the fact that we have had a consultant look at all the reports -- and I think there are 20 of them -- that have been done over the years and prepare a comprehensive overview of the state of the bay.

My understanding is that the report is almost completed, at which point it will be released. I hope the local municipality and the groups in the area will have some public discussion and a public debate as to what we can do to protect that very special area.

PETITIONS

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr Jackson: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and to the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

This petition is signed by several hundred social workers and health care professionals and has my signature of support as well.

Mr Miclash: I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

This petition is signed by 74 people and I attach my signature to it.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Wood: I have a petition here, signed by 39 people in Kapuskasing. They are concerned about the accomodation mamagement information system plan they are talking about putting into effect which would involve a direct layoff of 1,200 people, and in the whole community it would involve 6,000 people. It is signed by 39 people, and it is my pleasure to present this in the House today.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Ramsay: I have a petition here that I am pleased to present on behalf of my constituents, although I do not agree with the contents of the petition:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

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

"Whereas the spiralling costs of government to the taxpayers 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 the French Language Services Act; and

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

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

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mrs Cunningham: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"We request the government to act immediately to introduce a social work act for Ontario. Without this urgently needed legislation, every member of the public in Ontario, including those most vulnerable and disfranchised, remains at enormous and unnecessary risk.

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

This petition is signed by 114 people from the southwest Ontario area including London, Brantford, Windsor and Stratford, and I have signed my name to this petition.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Callahan: I have a petition here signed by numerous people. It reads:

"Do you disagree with tripling the deficit? Have you had enough of tax increases? If yes, voice your dissatisfaction. Sign below. We will send this form to Bob Rae and Floyd Laughren."

I submit the petition and I have signed it myself.

1540

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MULTIMOBILE CORPORATION LIMITED ACT, 1991

Mr Offer moved first reading of Pr65, An Act to revive Multimobile Corporation Limited.

Motion agreed to.

MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTIONS INC ACT, 1991

Mr Mahoney moved first reading of Bill Pr42, An Act to revive Magnum International Productions Inc.

Motion agreed to.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA -CARLETON AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE D'OTTAWA-CARLETON

Mr Cooke moved first reading of Bill 123, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act.

M. Cooke propose la première lecture du projet de loi 123, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur la municipalité régionale d'Ottawa-Carleton.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

CITY OF CHATHAM ACT, 1991

Mr Hope moved first reading of Bill Pr75, An Act respecting the City of Chatham.

Motion agreed to.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

Mrs Cunningham moved first reading of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mme Cunningham propose la première lecture du projet de loi 124, Loi portant modification du Code de la route.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mrs Cunningham: The purpose of the bill is to amend the Highway Traffic Act to require that bicyclists wear helmets. The reason we are introducing this bill is that statistics in Ontario and Canada speak for themselves: 60 children will die in bike accidents in Canada this year, most from head injuries, and over 5,000 children will be seriously injured. Bicyclists with helmets have an 85% reduction in the risk of a head injury and an 88% reduction in the risk of a brain injury. The purpose of this bill is to prevent such tragedies, and we will be doing this bill two weeks from now.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

Reprise de l'étude du projet de loi 81, Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor.

The Speaker: Yesterday, pursuant to standing order 27(g), the division requested on the motion for second reading of Bill 81 was deferred until immediately following routine proceedings today.

1550

The House divided on Mr Laughren's motion for second reading of Bill 81, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de M. Laughren pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 81, mise aux voix, est adoptée :

Ayes/Pour -- 63

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Buchanan, Carter, Christopherson, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

Nays/Contre -- 28

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Carr, Chiarelli, Cordiano, Cunningham, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Marland, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch, B., Poirier, Ramsay, Runciman, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson, J., Witmer.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Le projet de loi devra passer à l'étape de troisième lecture.

OPPOSITION DAY: ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Kwinter moved opposition day motion 4:

That in the opinion of this House, this government has failed to recognize and address the massive deindustrialization and restructuring under way in the Ontario economy which has led to the loss of 248,000 jobs since the New Democratic Party assumed power, the erosion of Ontario's quality of life and the destruction of the fabric of manufacturing and resource communities. Therefore, this House calls upon the Premier and the Treasurer to provide leadership in establishing true working partnerships with business and labour to reorient the province's fiscal priorities, attract new investment and new jobs, improve competitiveness and train and retrain Ontario workers in order to enable Ontario industry and workers to compete in an increasingly global market.

Mr Kwinter: I rise to speak on a topic that is causing me some great concern. If members will look at the motion, it does not really blame the government for creating this problem. I do not think anyone would be as naïve as to think that on 6 September suddenly everything in Ontario went, as the expression goes, to hell in a handbasket.

There is no question there are cyclical things that happen in the economy and this government had the misfortune of getting into government at the time when the economy was down in the same way we had the good fortune of being in power during five years of unprecedented growth in Ontario. Again, I do not want to mislead anybody to think we would assume to take credit for those five years of unprecedented growth, growth that in fact was so unprecedented it was the leading economy in the industrialized world during much of that time.

What I do feel is that this government has failed to recognize and address the massive problems that are taking place, and what is even worse, it has exacerbated the problem.

I was at committee the other day and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology appeared to talk about cross-border shopping, and one of the causes was free trade, according to him. When I pointed out to him, "Could you tell me one single item that has either gone up or gone down as a result of free trade?" he said: "Technically, you're right. There's no question that that hasn't happened, but there is a climate, and free trade has created this negative climate." So what I would like to do is talk about some of the climate conditions that we have in Ontario and how this government has failed to address them.

Members will remember that on 30 November an ad appeared in the Wall Street Journal and it said, "Investors beware." It went on to talk about the problems under a New Democratic government in Ontario and it finished by saying, "If you once thought Ontario was a safe place to invest, think again." I want to hasten to say that I think this ad was irresponsible. I do not in any way condone the people who put the ad in the Wall Street Journal. Having said that, the fact is that this ad was in the Wall Street Journal; it reached a million decision-makers in the United States who were in a position to possibly affect a decision to invest in Ontario, and they saw this ad.

1600

On 17 December Barron's, which is the official organ of Dow Jones, the bible of the investment industry in the United States and for that matter the investment world, had an editorial, and the editorial is headed, "Ontario Hydra" -- not Hydro but Hydra -- "In Canada a New Socialist Threat Raises Its Ugly Head."

What is significant about that article, other than the fact that it is very derogatory about the government, is that during that week Margaret Thatcher was literally holding on by a thread in the United Kingdom, the Persian Gulf war was just getting under way, Mexico and the United States announced that they were going to be pursuing a North American free trade agreement, and there was significant news out of Europe 1992 and significant news out of GATT, but Barron's, an American publication, the official spokesorgan of Dow Jones, used its editorial page to deride what was happening in Ontario, saying, in its final words, "Let foreign buyers beware."

You add to that the budget that came out on 29 April. We already know what has happened there. The bond rating services have downgraded Ontario's credit worthiness. I admit that other than the money and maybe some embarrassment -- I do not know whether there is any embarrassment or not -- it is not that significant in itself, but it is really just one more thing to add to the picture of Ontario.

When the Treasurer went down to New York not too long ago, there were comments in the media by American counsellors for people investing in Ontario saying, "I'm telling my people to pull out."

Add to that Bill 70. Without question, the government has obviously seen the error of its ways and has retracted the most objectionable parts of Bill 70. But the major concern about Bill 70 is not so much its draconian provisions, but the fact that about 30 people in this government, the cabinet, sat down, must have heard all of the provisions of Bill 70, must have been told what it meant and what it was, and they thought it was fine. Obviously they thought it was fine because it was introduced, which meant that the Premier of Ontario thought it was fine, and that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology thought it was great. He must have thought it was great, or he has no voice in cabinet. The Treasurer obviously thought it was fine, and everybody else in that cabinet thought that Bill 70, with all its provisions, was just fine.

What happened, as we all know, is that the bill was introduced. I can say as a member of the previous government for nearly six years that we had some controversial bills. We had our share of them. But as to the angst and the negative impact on the business community of that act, I have not heard of anyone having that same feeling about any other bill that we brought in, and I have to tell members we brought in some beauties. I say "beauties" in the sense that they really alienated some people.

Obviously the message got through, but what has happened is that the feeling is there that here is a government that does not seem to really care about its ability to attract investment. Is that important? Should we worry about it?

I should tell members that Ontario is one of the most trade-dependent jurisdictions in the world and one of the most investment-sensitive jurisdictions in the world. When you take a look at the major plant closings, almost without exception they are all controlled by offshore companies.

The sad part of this tale is that if a Canadian company goes bust or shuts down, that is normally because it has gone bankrupt or the owner has died, or for some reason the company goes down. When you have these multinationals going down, the main reason is that either the plant they have is no longer competitive, is not productive, or there has been a corporate decision to rationalize, to downsize, or as some would call it to rightsize, and they take a look at all their options. They have lots of options and that is one of the benefits and one of the problems of having foreign investment in your jurisdiction.

I have used this line before, but Tennessee Williams wrote A Streetcar Named Desire, and Blanche Du Bois, in one of her final lines, says, "I have always been dependent on the kindness of strangers." That is really what Canada is. Canada has always been dependent on the kindness of strangers. When we wanted our resources developed, we had to go to the United Kingdom, to the United States and to other European countries, and more recently we have gone to the Far East, to Hong Kong, to Korea and to Japan, and we are very active. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology will tell members that we have a network around the world trying to attract industry and investment to Ontario.

It is competitive, I can tell members. I have sat down and negotiated with companies like Ford, where we are competing intracompany. I remember a situation where there was a decision whether the plant should go to St Louis, Missouri, or whether it should go to Oakville. The decision is made at the boardroom table and the people at Ford in St Louis are as anxious and as determined to get that plant as the people in Oakville.

What happens is that the board sits there and has to make a decision. I can tell members that in politics your past comes back to haunt you. We constantly dredge out what members said in opposition and what the Premier said in opposition. We bring that out to bolster our arguments and to try to deflate the arguments of the now government.

These people do the same thing. I can tell members that these plant managers and these vice-presidents are saying: "Instead of going to Ontario, take a look at this. Look at this ad. Look at this article. Look at what they have done. Why would you possibly go to that jurisdiction when you can do it here and you know what you are getting? You know we have this progressive environment and it is something we can in fact build on." That is a problem and that disturbs me, because what it is doing is making it more and more difficult for us to go out and attract this kind of situation.

The attracting of investment and new jobs is as much dependent on the perceived climate as it is on any of the cash incentives or any of the other inducements that are there. It is something that is almost impossible to counter because you do not know when it is being used against you. I am very disturbed that this seems to be something that is not of great concern to this government, and if that is the case, so be it and we will take our chances. That, I say, is a sad commentary.

The other thing I want to talk about is competitiveness. There is a, surprising to me, total unawareness, it seems, certainly by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, of what competitiveness means. Yesterday, in a response to the leader of the third party, he talked about "the United States, and the disparity which sets us in an uncompetitive position, if they do not understand the impact of the free trade agreement and how that has disadvantaged the Ontario trucking industry and any number of other industries, if they do not understand the North American free trade agreement and what the potential impact with Mexico could be here, they do not understand competitiveness. It is not the Treasurer of Ontario who does not understand it; I think it may be the treasurer in Ottawa who does not understand the word 'competitiveness.'"

1610

I can only say that the minister has no idea what he is talking about because what he has done is to outline what is uncompetitive, not competitive. If he talks about Mexico, it has nothing to do with competitiveness; it means that we are not competitive with it, that we are uncompetitive. As a result, there is no desire to attack that particular problem.

Let me tell a story that puts it into practical terms. It is one we deal with, or we will be dealing with very shortly. It was alluded to by the Premier today, and that has to do with de Havilland.

De Havilland is an aircraft company in Toronto very close to my riding; it is probably 1,000 feet out of my riding. It has around 5,000 employees. It is the largest employer in Metro Toronto. It is owned by Boeing, the largest and most successful aircraft company in the world. It has a product, the Dash-8, which is one of the most successful short takeoff and landing aircraft in the world. It has orders for this airplane. As a matter of fact, the last time I heard, they had about 100 aircraft on order. That is a very healthy order book for this aircraft.

They want to get rid of that company, and the question has to be, why? Boeing is the largest and most successful aircraft company in the world. It is their business to sell airplanes. They have a successful airplane that people want to buy. Why would they possibly want to sell that company?

The answer is very simple. At the present time they are building five aircraft a month in that plant. Figure it out: That is 60 a year; they have over 100 orders; it is going to take them a couple of years to fill their existing orders. The sad part about it is that every time they build an airplane, they lose over $1 million dollars.

They felt that if they maybe built six a month, which would fill their customers' orders sooner, they might be able to effect some savings. They did a cost analysis and found that if they built six a month, they would lose more than $1 million an airplane. What is really the saddest part, and what really points out the uncompetitive aspect of that company, is that its statistics and studies show that if it was building that airplane in Seattle, Washington, where its head office is and where its main plant is, it could build three a month and make money.

They have said, "There is no way we can continue to subsidize our customers to buy this plane, and as a result we are selling out." The new buyers, Aérospatiale from France and Alenia from Italy, have taken a look at it and said:

"We are certainly not interested in buying this company just to lose money. We will buy it on the condition that we can restructure it, which means we are going to have to do some very radical things. We are going to have to cut down on the work force. We are going to have to out-source some of our materials. We are going to have to get competitive. That is what we are talking about when we talk about competitiveness. If we cannot compete, there is no reason for us to buy it."

Immediately, the response of this government is: "No way. You have to keep those jobs. You have to be uncompetitive because we are not prepared to let you buy that company and be competitive. We insist that you pay for the honour of losing money and staying uncompetitive." That is a silly kind of argument. That is the typical kind of response that we are getting.

We are getting exactly the same thing at Algoma. I have great sympathy for the workers who are there. It would be a terrible thing to have people lose their jobs, but let us not continue to kid the troops. Dofasco, which is one of the most successful and the largest steel company in Canada, just bought it three years ago. They have decided they are going to write off $700 million. They did not say, "We are going to sell it to somebody." They have determined that they are taking their investment, they are writing it off and they are not going to support that company any more. The response I would have made is, "What can we do to make that plant more attractive to Dofasco or some other investor to keep it going?" But that was not the response. The response is, "We're going to put a plan in to save those jobs."

The goal is laudable, the method makes no economic sense. What we have to do, instead of putting money in to save jobs -- and I know that sounds heretical. How can you possibly turn your back on workers? I am not advocating that at all. What I am advocating is that what we have to do is create wealth. We have to create a viable entity, which in turn will keep those jobs, and then you are not artificially propping it up until the next crisis, where then suddenly you have that problem and you have to shut it down anyway.

A perfect example of that is Sysco Steel in Nova Scotia. That company has been a sink-hole for years and years. The federal government and the provincial government have been pouring money into it, even though any objective observer will say there is no reason for that company to be in that particular range of business, same way as Algoma.

There are areas where Algoma is very competitive and there are other areas where it is no longer competitive. There has to be a realization that we have to be able to make that distinction. That means this government has to change its orientation. That does not mean turning its back on one sector or the other, but it means looking at the total picture.

Notwithstanding that there is a strong labour orientation to the government and notwithstanding that there is where a lot of its support is, if it is going to deal with the workers fairly, if it is going to serve the needs of Ontario, if it is going to serve the needs of the business community, it has to be able to make those tough decisions. It has to be able to say, "Yes, we are going to provide funding to do certain things, but that doesn't mean we're going to provide funding to prop up an unviable entity that is just going to be a drain on the public purse and is going to have to be addressed later on."

De Havilland is a perfect example. De Havilland has had a long and glorious history. Some members are old enough to remember the Second World War, when they were building the Mosquito bomber. When it was found that they were no longer competitive, the federal government stepped in and turned them into a crown corporation, put hundreds of millions of dollars into that company and eventually decided: "That's it. We've put far too much money into this. We can no longer reasonably afford to keep propping it up. We're going to sell it." So they sold it to Boeing. Unfortunately, Boeing had to take over a situation that it could not deal with. They could not deal with it because it was not productive.

I know a lot of my colleagues want to speak, but I want to talk about one other aspect, which again I think contributes to the problem. That is the double-edged sword of free trade with the United States and free trade with Mexico. Lord knows, I was the spokesperson for our government and I am not opposed to free trade. I never have been and I do not think any clear-minded individual can be opposed to free trade. That is the way of the world. GATT is going to make free trade a fait accompli. By the year 2000 most of the tariffs are going to be removed.

I think the deal was a terrible deal. I think we gave away far too much for what we got, and that is why I opposed it. I think they gave away the store, but the thing people should realize, and it is sad how few people do realize this, is that before the free trade agreement went into effect, 80% of the trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States was duty-free. The other 20% that was in place had an average tariff of between 7% and 10%. That 20% is going to be removed over the next 10 years, and two years have already gone by.

1620

So the impact of free trade is negligible, other than in the minds of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and some others, who blame free trade every time they get an opportunity to blame something. Without question, psychologically the impact of the free trade agreement may have sort of got manufacturers in Canada tuned in to the fact that they are into global competition, but the direct impact has been very, very small.

It is the same thing about Mexico. I hear these Chicken Littles saying the sky is falling and, "If we get involved with a free trade agreement with Mexico, you know what is going to happen to us? It's all over." That is again patently absurd. At the present time, 80% of the trade between Canada and Mexico is duty-free. There is no prohibition about any company in Canada going to Mexico to take advantage of its cheap labour. It is not going to change with the free trade agreement.

One has to understand that Mexico is not unique when it comes to cheap labour. We are into that kind of global economy right now. Taiwan, Thailand, India, Brazil, Singapore -- every one of them is a cheap-labour jurisdiction that is competing with us now. What people do not realize, particularly the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, is that our two major competitors are Japan and West Germany, and they are very high-wage countries with high standards of living. They are the guys who are beating us in the marketplace.

The guys who are out there with $2-an-hour labour are not a factor. We are not that kind of economy, so it makes no difference. We are not trying to say to our workers, "These guys can do it for $2 an hour and you're going to do it for $20." That is the kind of mentality that is going to put us into what someone once described Canada as -- a Third World country with illusions of grandeur.

What we have to do is become a niche player. We have to train our people to the point where we are not providing them with labour opportunities that are easily duplicated by the people in Mexico or Thailand, Taiwan or Singapore, Poland or China, or any of these other underdeveloped or newly industrialized countries. What we have to do is get our workforce -- and we are blessed with a superior workforce that has the ability to be trained, that has the ability to be directed -- to the point where we can compete with anybody. We have excellent role models.

Northern Telecom is a leader in telecommunications in the world. It is a Canadian company, it is organized labour. No problem; it does its thing. It is a world leader in that field. We have Spar Aerospace, another world leader. We are very strong in such areas as transportation, telecommunications, petrochemicals, computer software and resource technology.

Unfortunately, we are also very weak in a whole other range of areas and we, as a government, have to address that. We have to make sure that people are sensitized to the fact that: "Yes, the job you had yesterday and for the last 20 years is gone. We're sorry that it's gone, but here are some new opportunities."

What is happening is also a sad commentary on what we are doing. I had hoped to have the opportunity to question the Minister of Colleges and Universities when he talked about the program to retrain the workers in Algoma. I hope they are not training those workers to make candlesticks, when the day they graduate someone is going to invent the electric lightbulb. When I hear people saying, "We're going to train these people," I get a little suspicious, because I am saying, "What are you training them for?" Is this going to be a make-work program? Are they just going to be put into some kind of program to say: "Hey, we're putting some money into this program. We are training you, but when you graduate, you may or may not have a job"? That is something that concerns me, something for which I found no comfort in the budget. There was nothing in there talking about a specified, direct program.

In closing, I would like to talk about the area of research and development. It is sad that a country with the potential of Canada and a province with the potential of Ontario is devoting so little time to research and development. We are doing better than most in Canada but certainly not well enough. At the present time, of the leading jurisdictions in the world, it is interesting that Israel is number one, a tiny little state. Among the major powers, you have Japan, which has about 3% of the gross domestic product, the United States with 2.8% and Canada at 1.3%. Ontario is at 1.7%, so you can imagine where Canada would be without Ontario in it.

Unless this government makes a conscious decision to direct its resources to getting the kind of technological capability that will allow us to compete, we are going to find ourselves woefully inadequate in the global economy. We are going to see a province that is enjoying one of the highest standards of living in the world deteriorate. We are going to be like the little boy at the candy store with his nose pushed up at the window, watching the goodies on the other side of the glass and not being able to get to them.

I would strongly recommend to the members on the government side that they have some input into what is happening, to make sure that the standard of living we have come to enjoy in Ontario is maintained, not only for ourselves but for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr Sterling: I have the responsibility as the critic for the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, and I want to say that I appreciated the comments of the proposer of this motion, the member for Wilson Heights. However, it is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. For him and his party, the Liberal Party, to complain that 284,000 jobs have been lost since the New Democratic Party assumed power and to foist the blame upon the governing party for that development is really outrageous, albeit I think this government has exacerbated the situation dramatically, particularly on 29 April, when it brought down a $9.7-billion deficit. But for the Liberal Party of Ontario to put forward a resolution like this is really quite amazing.

Let's remember what happened during the election. Why did the Liberal Party lose in the last election? Remember that the member for Nipissing brought forward in the first two weeks of the campaign the fact that the Liberal government raised the provincial debt by $10 billion in the five most prosperous years of our history. It was significant that the Liberal administration increased taxation 33 different ways over the five most prosperous years, when revenues were growing without any tax increases.

Revenues naturally increase if our incomes go up, because there is more income tax. We all pay more income tax if we earn more money.

But that was not good enough for the last Liberal administration: 33 different ways of taxing us in new ways, and that raised 132% more revenue for the government of Ontario over those five years. Can members imagine what that did for people who were trying to invest in their businesses -- finding new taxes, day after day?

1630

The people of Ontario, during the good times, were able to pay those taxes, but what did they do with the revenue? They did not say: "Look, these are good times. We should pay off the times when the debt had been accumulated in this province," to, I believe, about $30 billion. They did not say, "Let's pay down that debt because, you know, in the future there may be some bad times coming, and so we should save for a rainy day," and we are now in the rainy days of a recession.

The Premier was right today, when the leader of the Liberal Party asked a question about the NDP government and losing the jobs and the economy, etc. Why did the government call an election before it was three years into its mandate? Because they knew what was coming down the pipe. They knew they were headed for a recession and they did not have the guts to stay there and fight the recession with the mandate that they had. They did not want to be honest with the people, and the people caught on. I think that, in a lot of ways, this resolution points to the arrogance of the past government. For them to blame this new government for all of the recession and what is happening is really unfair. That is the tenor of what the Liberal Party has been doing over the last little while. They are trying to shift all of the blame for their incompetence over the last five years on to these new fellows.

The final slap to the public of Ontario was a $40-million election, an unnecessary election, which the people did not buy, and they threw these rascals out: 94 they had before, and they came back with 35. They did not elect us because, I think, of extraneous reasons. Our federal cousins were not very popular at that time and people linked us to them and, therefore, they did not choose us. So they chose these fellows over here, these fellows and women, to run this province. Unfortunately, they were served a dog's breakfast. People's expectations were raised as to the amount of services, the money that was there. It seemed like a bottomless pit. That is the idea people had in this province, that we could continue to increase our social services and there was no bottom to the barrel of money that was there to spend on these things. But we know that is no longer true.

The new government came in and, unfortunately, it did not realize the errors of its predecessors, the Liberals. It brought forward, in my view, an irresponsible budget, a budget calling for a $9.7-billion deficit, and today we passed a bill in this Legislature, just prior to this debate, to give the Treasurer the right to borrow $12 billion, which is going to be paid off, hopefully, by our children and our grandchildren.

Over the past two weeks, our party has gone across this province and talked to many people about the New Democratic budget, and the people are not only blaming the New Democratic Party but they are blaming the Liberals as well. They are saying, "Hey, you can hit the New Democrats, but you've got to talk about the Liberals as well, because they led us into this." They talk about our federal cousins as well, and we do not make any excuses for any of the three, in terms of their ability to run their particular governments.

We believe, though, that it has got to stop. People want to talk about the ability to invest in this province, or the ability of our children to have jobs here. I think that, regardless of what political stripe you come from, the motive is the same. The motive for me, for my Conservative colleagues, is not to provide business with irresponsible profits. It is not to provide people with protected environments. It is to provide our children, our constituents, with good jobs, good-meaning jobs, with as high a standard of living as possible. I think we are all trying to achieve that.

We, though, in this party, particularly under the leadership of the member for Nipissing, believe that it can only be done through responsible fiscal management. We do not think that the last Liberal government provided that, and we think quite detrimentally of the direction we see coming from the New Democratic Party.

I do not want to attack the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology on a personal level, because I think he is a fine fellow and that kind of thing. But when I walked into this House and I looked at the seating arrangement of the ministers when this was originally set up, I was a little bit upset to see the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, which has heretofore been one of the most powerful ministries in government in terms of the influence of that minister, sitting in the back row. I do not think that has any reflection on the minister or the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, but I think it is a mindset in this government, and that those who deal with the business sit in the back row. They are at the back of the line, and those who deal with labour, labour unions, sit in the front row.

We know the Minister of Labour sits in the second row in this government. I think the Minister of Labour should be in the second row, but I think the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology should be beside him, if that is in fact what we wanted and intend to create, the perception that business is welcome in Ontario. I have got to tell members that that visual effect does have some kind of impact when you walk into this Legislature because, generally speaking, the more senior, the more influential people get closer to the leader, because they advise the leader of their feelings and are required to advise him from time to time.

We went across this province and talked to a number of people across this province. Quite frankly, after listening to a number of people in these hearings, some presentations were good, some were so-so good, but some were very good. Unfortunately, the very good ones were absolutely frightening. We heard from probably 50 or 60 different presenters.

When we were in Ottawa, two young fellows came before us who were members of the Renfrew Junior Chamber of Commerce. The member for Lanark-Renfrew had contacted them. These two young fellows are members of the Junior Chamber of Commerce of Renfrew and are also going to university. They are in their second or third year of university. They came in front of the committee. It was frightening to hear them talk about leaving Ontario for opportunity elsewhere. They said to us that they thought we were being unfair -- and I am using the generic "we" -- we as politicians were being unfair in terms of not meeting our obligations to pay for what we were spending. Why should they, as the youth of Ontario, pay for our excesses? That was a message that they delivered to us in Ottawa. It is frightening when you hear young people say: "Well, you know, Ontario is not the land of opportunity. Maybe we're going to look somewhere else."

Another interesting person who came forward was Bob St-Cartier, who owns a small electrical contracting firm of 50 people. Fifty people work for him. He was a hands-on, hard-working electrician who had built up a business. He said quite frankly to us, "Look, if I could move this company to the United States and work there or work in another jurisdiction, I'd do it." That is a terrible admission in terms of our inadequacy to deal with small business here in Ontario.

1640

Another submitter to the committee was David Mason, the chief tax adviser for Arthur Andersen and Co. He related to the committee about going to a seminar held in Ottawa where he was asked to speak about setting up business in the United States. Over 100 people were there. The conference was oversubscribed by two to one. He said what was even more disheartening for him, as an Ontarian and as a tax consultant and somebody who liked Ontario and liked Canada, was that these were bright, intelligent entrepreneurs and technical people who were going to pick up and leave.

In Peterborough, a person from the business association talked about his consultations with the people who are involved in the residential moving business. The people who are in the moving business in Peterborough are experiencing a whole host of moves by young, entrepreneurial engineers and scientific people who are moving from Peterborough down into the United States.

But perhaps of all of the presentations the one I think had the most sobering effect on our leader, the member for Nipissing, and on the member for Etobicoke West, the member for Leeds-Grenville, the member for Simcoe West and the member for York Mills and a number of other people who were involved was a presentation by Bill Fraser. Mr Fraser is the president of CompAs Computer Assembly, which employs 400 people in Brockville and 460 people outside of this province. He was not only representing his company; he was representing other larger endeavours in the Brockville and eastern Ontario area.

He told us a story of a company that had moved out of Kingston two years ago which had been there for years and years. It made picture frames, picture framing material, etc. That company moved to Watertown, New York. They are now shipping their product back here to Canada, paying the duty on it, even though there is duty on their particular product, and they have moved from a red line to a black line in running their business.

Mr Fraser started this company, was one of the founders of it. One of the most sobering parts of it all was when he said that although he is a Canadian and a person who has been in Ontario and worked in Ontario all of his life, he now has come to the realization that he probably will end his working life in the United States of America. He is going to be forced to make that decision because of the inhospitable environment for business in this province.

I think the proposer of this resolution, the member for Wilson Heights, said in his opening remarks that there were some great beauties in terms of legislation that the Liberals brought into this Legislature, and there were, things which were difficult for business to assume and take on. Employment equity was a great idea but very costly to implement. That was a non-productive piece of legislation which did not produce a cent more of revenue for business or for workers but was put on to the backs of private business, or is being implemented into that now.

We saw the employment health tax, which is not really a health tax at all. It is just another tax; it is a payroll tax. We saw increased taxes of all and different kinds. We saw new regulations on business. One of my concerns when the member for Wilson Heights was sitting across the floor as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was whether or not he had real impact in that cabinet whereby he was saying to some of his colleagues who were bringing forward more and more regulation, more and more taxes: "Hey, stop it. You've got to stop it. You've got to protect business. Business has to be influenced to stay here."

Now I am afraid that with the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology sitting in the back row, with some of the stories we have heard about the influence of labour over this government, we have a government that does not want to listen to its Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I am not trying to say that because it is the member for Oshawa. I do not care who it would have been in terms of appointment to that ministry. It could have been Sam Jones or Joe Doe, or whoever. I do not think that this government is going to give any priority to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I think that is wrong and it is bad for the business community in this province.

I see in the members' gallery Bill Laidlaw, who works with Glaxo, which is a large pharmaceutical firm here in Ontario. I know that the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry has been concerned about seeing the minister, about talking to the minister, about influencing the cabinet so that it is able to invest money in this province to undertake research and development to keep the jobs here in the province. It is a very, very complex issue with regard to not only dealing with them but also dealing with health care policy for payment of generic drugs, etc.

I think it is important that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology listen to people like Mr Laidlaw, who has an interest in this debate this afternoon because he wants to stay in Canada and in Ontario. He wants his company to invest here in Ontario and Canada. The minister has to take his case to his other people and say, "Hey, there may be some short-term political pain, but in the long term it will be good for the investment of more bucks and goods jobs in Ontario if we listen to some of the advice we're given from people like Mr Laidlaw."

The budget hearings by our caucus quite frankly were discouraging in terms of hearing a lot of depressing news from people across this province who heretofore have invested their lives and savings into this province. We believe this government is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction. We believe this government has got to pick up the idea that it must restrain its spending.

Excessive spending now means taxes tomorrow. We agree with the part of the resolution of the member for Wilson Heights that says this minister and this government have to find some method of working in partnership with business. They certainly have not demonstrated it to us yet to this date. But notwithstanding that it leaves us in a far better political position that they carry on as they are now, we do truly hope that the government will see the folly of its ways, will introduce some spending restrictions, will treat business equally with labour, as I believe our government did prior to 1985, will listen to both and will take some of the advice for a change.

Mr Jamison: I am pleased to stand and respond to the motion put forward. One of the concerns I have in the immediate motion itself is that one of the numbers seemed to implicate this government in the loss of that magnitude of jobs in this province.

Ontario's economy has been experiencing the worst recession since the Second World War. This downturn, which has affected all industrial economies, has produced pressure for significant structural changes, and that pressure will continue to be felt for the rest of this decade. The economy's capacity to adapt to structural change has been impeded by a rate of productivity growth that has been below that of many other industrialized nations for the past several years. The effects of structural change are magnified again by globalization. In 1990, 65% of major layoffs were the result of permanent plant closures, in contrast with the recession in 1982, when 24% of layoffs were permanent.

1650

As parliamentary assistant to the minister, I have had the opportunity to speak to a number of manufacturers from across this province. If there were one singular thing that would help, one singular action that would help turn the manufacturing sector around and help keep plants in this province at this point in time, these manufacturers have pointed out very clearly to me it is the level of our Canadian dollar that hinders them from exporting product from this country into other markets. Unfortunately, the government of Ontario has little means of controlling that level of the dollar.

I have listened pretty patiently, and I can tell you that in my opinion, from the time we took office as a government, the vibrations, the message that has been delivered by both opposition parties concerning the New Democratic Party, the duly elected government of Ontario, is one of fear. I say that in their heart of hearts, they should realize that they are not doing a service to this government, to this province and to the hard-working people of this province by spreading these rumours.

I can tell members that the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology has not only kept all of the programs in place, but has expanded programs to ensure that the business climate in this province is one that will remain very good. Ontario still is one of the best jurisdictions in North America to do business in.

It is something that really makes me wonder. The official opposition was the government prior to the election and, as the third party member just really pointed out, called for a $40-million election. Many of us could not figure out why at that particular point. We are not complaining, of course, but we had a feeling that it was odd that that election would be called at that point.

It was called because they knew very well that we were headed into a recession that could be deeper than the 1982 recession and could last longer and last till the end of their natural term. We find ourselves today really wondering what the actual thought was. I tend to believe it was that in itself.

It is true that the deficit will rise this year from $3 billion to an expected $9.7 billion. However, this increase is not based on unrestrained spending. It reflects decreasing revenues and real cuts in federal support and increased demands for social services. The recession will erode provincial revenues by up to, at the latest projections, $3.7 billion in 1991-92. Federal decisions to restrict support for health care and education will result in a further $1.6-billion projected funding shortfall for Ontario in 1991-92. Added to that is the fact that social assistance spending, which is a statutory obligation, will rise by $1.4 billion, or 40%, in this fiscal year. So when we find the opposition parties talking about the deficit and how scary we have become, I can tell members that, very simply, the deficit, by this government not moving in any direction, would have been $8 billion or thereabouts.

I find it is very easy to talk about free trade and how it has affected us. One thing that is for sure in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology is that yes, plants are moving to their home base. Multinationals are moving that way. Why? Because they do not have to have a branch plant here.

It was a poorly negotiated deal. I tend to agree with the member that we are moving into a trading bloc scenario, but we have to be very careful about how we do that. I would like to remind the opposition party that free trade in 1987 was not negotiable for it unless six specific conditions were met. Those conditions are not met even today, and they went very silent on the issue afterwards.

The member for Wilson Heights talked about our Bill 70 legislation. Bill 70 proves that we are listening. We are not here to do harm to the business community. We would like to see business thrive and prosper in this province, just as much as any of the opposition parties, and we will be working hard at that. Just today the Premier made reference to that in one of his answers to the many questions that come from across the floor.

I would like to leave some time for other speakers, and therefore I will wrap up. Again I say that many of the problems we are experiencing in the business community today evolve around federal policies. Just today, in one of the local newspapers, an article headlined: "Tory MPs Rip Government" -- their own -- says: "Ottawa -- Two Tory backbenchers tore into the government yesterday over massive GST profits and outdated bankruptcy laws that force businesses to close." It seems odd to me that we have that happening in federal politics but that, as our provincial Tory party is so quick to point out, we should be cutting, cutting, cutting at any expense. I find that not to be the case with their brothers in Ottawa.

Having said that, I will at this time give time to other members to address the motion.

Mr McClelland: I appreciate the opportunity of participating in this, I believe, very important resolution brought before this House by my colleague the member for Wilson Heights.

I want to take just a brief moment to draw attention to a few comments that were made by our friend the member for Carleton in the third party. I think it is important to note that at the time of the change in government there was in fact still a net job creation in this province. The member for Carleton indicated that the trend was certainly not simply the result of the change in government, and that in fact is the case. We are all very much aware of that.

But the resolution that it seems to me the member did not read -- I am sure he understands it but chose to skirt around -- talks about a strategy to address the problem. Nobody denies for a moment that we are in difficult times. Nobody denies for a moment that we knew a year or so ago we were headed for difficult times, but the challenge put to the government of the day is to respond to those difficulties.

I say to the member for Norfolk that again he stands in this place and talks about the federal government. We are not talking about the federal government. The new men and women opposite were elected to do a job in Ontario. Their cabinet colleagues have the levers of power in this province to respond, adjust and do things to make things happen. It is the height of naïveté for them to continue day after day to blame it on other people.

1700

The federal government has an impact on what takes place in Ontario -- doubtless that is true -- but certainly this government has some responsibilities and it is time it began to address them, to look at some strategies about job creation and address the very real concerns of the people in this province.

In the very few moments I have, I want to draw attention to a great concern I have. I could talk about small business and the impact it should be having on the economy in the province. Close to 80% of new jobs created are created by entrepreneurs.

I say to the ladies and gentlemen on the government side that Venture is not just a show that takes place on Sunday nights after the CBC news. Venture capital comes in from one of two things. It comes in to create new jobs or to turn problem companies around. This government does not understand that, it seems to me. They do not understand the impact their policies are having on people who want to create jobs. They should wake up, smell the coffee and understand that the future of this province is determined in part by what they will do in the next four years, not by whom they will blame. They should take some proactive positions.

I am glad the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is here today. He is a man I admire as a friend. I respect him a great deal as an individual. But where is this ministry in terms of job creation in the small business sector? What is the minister doing? What has he done to help those people? Two thirds of the people who find their first job find it in the small business sector.

The youth in this province has begun to see tremendous difficulty. Youth unemployment from May 1991 was at 16.4% in Ontario. That is 165 young men and women out of work who have no future in terms of their employment at the present time. That is an increase of 31,000 young men and women out of work over the previous month. This cannot go on continually. The minister has to respond. He has to be proactive and come up with some initiatives. He should look at our friends in Quebec and what they have done: an opportunity to do some on-the-job training, some hard programs and some direct addressing of the issues at hand.

At the risk of being a little parochial, I want to make some comments about the area I represent. This story could be told 130 times over, more or less, with various adjustments for the area. In the region of Halton-Peel, 1,055 individuals in 146 businesses went bankrupt in the first three months of 1991. What is the response of the government? Manpower says this will be the slowest third quarter for hiring, and 13% of responding companies have said they plan layoffs. That is up 10% from last year. Manufacturers of durable goods are still showing a negative outlook. Only 17% of manufacturers say they will hire; 19% are saying they are expecting further layoffs and cutbacks. The question comes again by way of the resolution by the member for Wilson Heights: What is the government going to do about it?

Think of my friend the member for Timiskaming. He is concerned about jobs in the north. The member for York North wants to know what this government is going to do in the education system, how it is going to adjust that. The member for Mississauga West has often talked about small business. Where are they responding? What are they doing? Every time we ask those questions, the only answer we get is: "It's those terrible people up in Ottawa. They're not doing anything." I am not going to take issue with that. The issue is, what is this government going to do about the problems it has?

We recognize the problems. Yes, we understood we were facing those. They can speculate all they want about the reasons for the election being called. There a number of reasons for it. One of them was that the government of the day needed to have the confidence of the people to deal with it. They were given that confidence of the people, who put their faith in them. They formed the government largely by accident, I say. Largely by accident, 38% of the people of Ontario voted for them and they formed the government, but there they are sitting there.

Hon Miss Martel: We didn't want an election in summer.

Mr McClelland: The government House leader can chat away all she wants and try to deny the fact, but she is in power now. She should respond and do something about it. She should take the initiative, take the levers of power in hand and not be afraid of them. She should have real consultation, sit down with the business community and begin to understand, because she certainly does not understand, how business operates in this province. She should work with them and attract some investment into this province so that we will have a brighter future for the young people and for those who are unemployed and waiting for them to do something.

Mrs Witmer: Throughout this province we continue to be faced with the trauma of lost jobs. Each day we learn of new business and plant closings and more unemployment. Although I have heard reference made to the fact that the federal government is responsible, we need to recognize that three quarters of all job losses in Canada have occurred here in Ontario and three quarters of the total decline has been in the manufacturing sector. Indeed, 248,000 jobs have been lost since the NDP government assumed power in this province last September. Last month we saw the provincial jobless rate climb to 9.7%.

This has had a devastating impact on Ontario's quality of life. It has contributed to the destruction of the fabric of manufacturing and resource communities. In my own communities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge, 28 factories have closed their doors permanently. This means that more than 3,000 jobs have been lost for ever, and this does not include the many small plant closings and layoffs or the potential loss of 2,000 jobs at the two Uniroyal Goodrich tire factories in Kitchener.

These job losses will have and are having an impact on the quality of life in my community. Many of the employees of these companies that have been with us since the early days of Kitchener-Waterloo, the people who have built our educational facilities and our hospitals, who have provided financial and emotional assistance to those in need of help and who have volunteered their time, will long be remembered for what they have done in our community. However, this government needs to look at the future. This government needs to recognize and address the present reality. It is time to provide workers with the training and retraining they need to enable them to compete in an increasingly global market. It is time to respond to the need to improve our competitiveness with our major trading partners.

At this point I would like to add that competitiveness does not just mean creating jobs; rather it means creating the types of jobs that command high and rising wages. It is time for this government to make every effort possible to attract new investment and jobs. It is time to reorient Ontario's fiscal priorities and establish a true partnership with business, labour and the educational community.

This government needs to recognize that low-skilled manufacturing jobs are moving and will continue to move to cheap labour countries in the Third World and southern United States. It is unavoidable that anything else would happen. We need to prepare our people for high-technology jobs and for the skilled jobs in some 300 occupations that currently cannot be filled. Unfortunately, the present government does not appear to have a plan of action to educate our citizens for those jobs.

It is time the government encouraged business, labour and educational leaders to work together in an attempt to keep our province economically strong and diverse, to encourage them to embark on a path to establishing true partnerships. It is time to pool our resources and prepare our young people and our present labour force for new job opportunities and not lament the ones that have been lost.

We need to develop a new vision for this province; however, this will only be successful if we set aside our ideological differences and are truly committed to working together on behalf of all the people in this province. The key to provincial prosperity and corporate success in the future will be our education and training systems. In an age of global competition, value added products, technological change and rising international productivity it is the quality of our workforce that is going to determine whether we succeed or fail.

We need educated and skilled workers to sustain our province's industrial competitiveness. Ontario will only be guaranteed a place in the world market if our workforce remains flexible, innovative, mobile and educated. It is time to develop a coherent and comprehensive human resources strategy with a focus on education and training systems.

1710

We need to take a look at post-secondary education because we know that the workforce between now and the year 2000 will require almost half of those individuals to have five years of combined education and training beyond high school.

If we are to restore prosperity to this province and provide jobs for those who are unemployed, partnerships must be established. However, not only must we focus on creating new jobs; we also need to ensure that we retain the jobs we already have. In order to do this, we must ensure that we do not burden our industries with additional taxes and costs. We need to carefully evaluate the impact of all new legislation, such as that of Bill 70, as well as the new labour relations amendments and employment equity.

This government must start asking itself, can we afford this new legislation? Will it lead to further job loss? That is the question. It is not whether the legislation is good or bad, but whether we can afford it in its present form and at this time. Bill 70 in its original form was unfair, shortsighted and ill-conceived. It would have done irreparable harm to the fragile industrial fabric of Ontario. It shattered the confidence of the Ontario business community and potential investors. It was creating a powerful disincentive to doing business in this province. It was contributing to and accelerating job loss and the closure of businesses.

I find it difficult to understand why this bill was introduced in its original form. In order to avoid such chaos in the future, I would suggest that meaningful and effective consultation take place. The measure of effective consultation is a policy which reflects a fair balance of the expressed views and concerns of all parties. Unfortunately, a belief exists in this province at the present time that the government is only paying lipservice to consultation and that it is only responding to the unions' agenda and not that of the private sector and business. It appears that the government is not interested in striking a balance that reflects the views of different interests in the province. I encourage the government to participate in meaningful and effective consultation. If this consultation does not take place, more companies will move out and jobs will be lost.

In conclusion, I call upon the government to truly encourage the establishment of partnerships with business, labour and the educational community. I encourage it to reorient its fiscal priorities. I encourage it to make every effort to attract new investment and new jobs. Finally, and probably most important, I encourage it to embark upon a program to train and retrain our workers in order to enable us to compete in an increasingly global market. It is only in this way that we can strengthen the economy in Ontario, and it is only in this way that we will make sure all the people in this province have access to meaningful jobs.

Mr Huget: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion of the member opposite. The economic situation in Ontario is a matter of deep concern to this government. The province of Ontario has borne the brunt of the federal free trade agreement, which has had a devastating effect on our manufacturing and industrial sectors. The erosion of federal social programs, including unemployment insurance, has contributed to the destruction of the social fabric referred to by the members opposite.

We have lost over 300,000 Canadian jobs in the manufacturing sector since the spring of 1989. Ontario government data shows that in 1990, two thirds of the jobs lost were due to plant closures rather than layoffs. These losses are in part related to the free trade agreement, in part due to our high dollar and its negative impact on our competitiveness, and the close relationship to the high dollar and the free trade agreement. The sum of these parts is producing a major structural change in our economy which will have a profound impact on our industrial, economic and social policy strategies.

We must understand the changes that are reshaping our whole economic and social structure in Ontario. There are three main factors impacting on the types of jobs that are disappearing and the types of jobs that will be in demand in the future: One, we are seeing a long-term shift from the production of goods to the production of services as the primary source of job creation; two, our industry is restructuring in response to shifts in the competitive positions of other countries; three, technological innovations in the production of goods and services are creating the need for different types of companies employing a different and highly skilled labour force.

With the trend towards declining tariff barriers allowing cheaper foreign goods into our marketplace, finding the way to compete both domestically and globally will be a massive challenge that we have to face. The provincial government is determined to assist those affected by the unfair economic and social policies of the federal government.

This government has made a commitment to the people of Ontario that it will take what measures it can to alleviate the effects of the recession. That commitment was affirmed through the provincial budget, in which the decision was made that people must not be deserted in times of economic hardship.

The motion put forward by the member opposite refers to the need for "true working partnerships with business and labour." I would like to inform the House, as others before me have done, that this government is committed to forging partnerships with those sectors. This is not a commitment in name only. It is not mere rhetoric. Establishing partnerships, consulting with stakeholders, drawing interested parties into the decision-making process are fundamental tenets of this government. This is a commitment on which this government has clearly taken action. This is a commitment on which this government has demonstrated leadership.

I would like to turn specifically to the issue of the energy policy of this government as an example of the kinds of partnerships that have been formed and the programs which have resulted. As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy, I appreciate this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the work which has been done since this government came to power.

In the throne speech, the government announced new energy directions for the province of Ontario. The Minister of Energy has made conservation and energy efficiency first priorities. As the members of this House will know, sound energy policy is central to our future. On a general level, we know that our current energy consumption rates are not environmentally sustainable. We all want a healthy, prosperous economy and we all want a cleaner environment. Reducing our energy use through conservation and efficiency can take us a long way towards achieving these goals.

Our economic security and ability to compete in the future depend on careful use of our resources now. Greater energy efficiency cuts costs and helps business become more competitive. The Minister of Energy has worked with business to assist that sector in adopting efficiency standards. Moreover, the drive for energy efficiency will help create a whole range of new business and manufacturing opportunities in Ontario in the energy efficiency and conservation field.

New markets for energy-efficient products will appear, and entrepreneurs will have fresh opportunities to make new products, provide new services and create new jobs in every region of this province. We have been pursuing these efforts in close consultation with the business community. Both business and government recognize that greater energy efficiency is essential to the future of Ontario, both for its environment and its economy. It is this kind of investment in the future of our province that the federal government should be pursuing, not the Mulroney strategy of high interest rates, a high dollar and free trade.

1720

Mr Runciman: I want to indicate that my party is going to support the motion of the member for Wilson Heights. I certainly have a lot of respect for the member. I have known him since his election to the House. He succeeded me as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and we jabbed at each other across the floor for a number of years, as I was then the critic for CCR and he was the minister. I must say he did an outstanding job as the minister, with those responsibilities placed upon his shoulders, and always carried himself well as a member of the executive council in the Liberal government, one of the few people in that government I can say that about, the member for Wilson Heights.

I want to touch on the motion and what the member is indicating are his concerns and his party's concerns. But before I do that I want to indicate it is clear that when the next election does arrive on the scene we are going to see the socialist government turfed out. It is a one-time phenomenon which could seriously injure this province for many years to come.

The real choice for the electors in the next provincial election is going to be between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party of Ontario, so I think it is important that I spend a few moments talking about the record of the Liberal Party of Ontario under Premier David Peterson and the fact that it is indeed being critical of the current socialist government. The Premier stood up today and blamed all the ills of the current economy on the Liberal Party, on the Liberal government, and there is a great deal of truth to that. I interjected on that point that the Premier and his cohorts were responsible for putting the Liberals in power in 1985, so if there is some responsibility there the Premier and the NDP have to share that responsibility for putting the Liberals in office.

I sat through hearings on the budget in Kingston last week with my colleague from Etobicoke, and we heard some very disturbing testimony in respect of things that are happening in this province. We heard from Bill Fraser, who is representing something called the Industrial Alliance of major manufacturers in this province: Du Pont, Procter and Gamble, Black and Decker. This gentleman was saying he was terrified about what was happening in this province, and he talked about the burden placed upon them by the Liberal government of the past five years.

We are talking about the highest taxes in North America, but we are also talking about administrative costs when we look at pay equity, at the workplace hazardous materials information system, at the kinds of administrative costs generated by legislation and intervention in the private sector by the previous government. Of course, all the indications are that we are going to get more of the same from the current socialist government, so people in business and industry have no reason to feel confident about the future.

Mr Fraser told us he has worked and lived in Ontario all his working life and always wanted to continue to work in Ontario, but he now feels that without question he is going to end his working career as a resident of the United States of America. He is very much concerned.

When we look across the floor on a daily basis, when my colleagues, the finance critic or the Industry, Trade and Technology critic, or when any of us get up and express concerns about what is happening in this province, the kinds of responses we get from the NDP members are indeed scary. Mr Fraser has a genuine right to be terrified about the economy and the future of this province because of the response of the socialist members.

Only one of them has any business background whatsoever, I am led to believe, the current Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I want to say he is another gentleman who has some semblance of common sense, perhaps because he has a modicum of business experience. But the responses we get from these members, the scoffing and the constant reference to the free trade agreement as the only cause for the current state of decline of the Ontario economy, are ludicrous. There may certainly be some element of responsibility with respect to the free trade agreement and what has happened with the value of the Canadian dollar with respect to the determination of the free trade agreement, but for them to use that as a constant excuse -- you look at the policies they are bringing in, the tax burden they are continuing to place upon the shoulders of Ontarians -- and then to simply slough that off as a responsibility of the federal government is ludicrous.

Someone once said that socialism will only work in two places: in heaven where they do not need it, and in hell where they already have it. There is a lot of truth to that.

We have genuine concerns. Let us talk about the labour legislation being considered by the Minister of Labour. Look at what he did with the wage protection act. He scared the bejabers out of people.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): Order, please. Would the members please come to order. It is becoming a little more difficult for me to hear, and I do listen to the debate. The member for Essex-Kent would please refrain.

Mr Runciman: You are suggesting a new career for the member, Madam Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville will please continue.

Mr Runciman: I want to calm down, and perhaps that will calm down the troops across the floor as well. Both the Liberal Party and the current government have a lot of responsibility to share in respect of the current state of the Ontario economy. There is no doubt the federal government has some share of the responsibility there as well, but we are in Queen's Park, in Toronto, and the government is responsible for the largest economy, in provincial terms, in Canada. Ontario is often referred to as the economic engine of Canada. We are very quickly losing that and there does not seem to be any ability to recognize the very serious problems we face in this province.

We are increasing payouts for social assistance recipients. We are increasing social assistance in terms of housing. We are doing all sorts of things with respect to people who are losing jobs, but we are not doing anything whatsoever on, and there is no effort to address the question of job creation, none whatsoever. We talk about entrepreneurs. We talk about people who create jobs.

Interjection.

Mr Runciman: Yes, the public service. That is the socialists' only answer: growth in the public service. That is not a long-term answer for this province. We have to create a climate to encourage private sector investment if we want to create jobs. We want to see the economy grow; we want to continue to prosper in this province, and we are not getting that kind of approach from this government.

As I said, Bill Fraser, representing some significant industries in this province, is terrified -- and I am quoting him directly -- about the future of this province. He sees no way out under this socialist government. We across this floor can see no way out because of the jabbering. Madam Speaker, just listen to the kinds of interjections we are hearing today: no recognition whatsoever of the very serious problems they are creating and continue to create, many of which were policies fostered by their predecessors in the Liberal Party.

We in the Conservative Party are standing by our principles in respect of free enterprise. We are going to continue to fight this government every day, day in and day out, week in and week out, to make sure the future of this province is secure. We alone, in the Conservative Party, have a record that we can stand by with pride, and we are going to continue to fight this government, as I said, on a daily basis to preserve the future of this province for our children and our grandchildren.

Ms S. Murdock: I am pleased to rise today to speak to this resolution. It is my intent to focus on the second half of the statement from the member opposite, which is to "reorient the province's fiscal priorities, attract new investment and new jobs, improve competitiveness, and train and retrain Ontario workers in order to enable Ontario industry and workers to compete in an increasingly global market."

The only comment I will make on the first part of this resolution is that many of the problems stated -- and those problems do exist -- were here long before we ever formed the government. I am glad to hear our official opposition recognizes that our eight months in office have not been the cause of the erosion of the quality of life in Ontario. Rather, the economic problems did not suddenly occur on 6 September.

With the entrenched bureaucracies, both in and out of government, it is absolutely and totally foolish to think that changes to the outer infrastructures of society would happen so quickly. However, the second part as stated is what must be done for Ontario to move ahead. Both the Premier and the Treasurer of our province are already providing leadership in establishing true working partnerships with business and labour to do the very things necessary to change our direction.

1730

We in the Ministry of Labour are finding that the bipartite working groups are working at different levels and are finding that compromise does work. We know that working together is going to be how, in the end, Ontario's and, indeed, Canada's future will be decided. We need only look to countries such as West Germany, Sweden and France to see how their economies have moved from serious deficiencies to viable markets.

Germany can be used as a prime example. A high percentage of their economy is based on exports, as ours will have to be. Their government set up an industrial strategy to develop an export market, but soon realized that there had to be a partnership among the socioeconomic players through which labour, business, government and other economic agents such as banks together would share the decision-making and the responsibility for labour market programs.

What happened? It is one of the best-developed industrial strategies in Europe today. Government there has admitted that without the kind of partnership it has now, it would have foundered.

Within the context of that partnership is the concept of co-operative management, something that I, when I did my business degree at the University of Windsor, believed in and worked towards: that working together with our employees is a must, and it must be the foundation of change for Ontario's future.

It has taken many years to have employee participation on health and safety committees throughout this province. Those companies that have believed in their employees and have asked for their participation on education committees, training programs, and production and process suggestions have found that not only have working conditions improved, but so have output and industrial relations. In fact, what they have developed is a trust that both groups have a vested interest in the maintenance of the company in a viable market.

A few weeks ago I spoke about the Workers' Compensation Board to an employers' group and, not surprisingly, the complaints made by both stakeholder groups are quite similar. In the question and answer period after my speech, I was asked why we did not want technological change -- we, New Democrats. My answer, after some surprise, was that never have we as New Democrats ever opposed technological change. What we recommend and suggest to industry is that by advising of such change when it is contemplated, the potentially displaced workers can be retained, so that when the new technology is installed there will not be large numbers of unemployed. Not only that, but we ourselves as a government have to be strong participants in introducing new technologies into the workplace.

The point about retraining brings me to the whole idea of the need for training and retraining in this province. It is monumental. The government cannot do it alone. Private-sector participation in Canada needs dramatic improvement, and compared to other industrial nations we are abysmally low. Is it any wonder that the German economy has improved when the Germans have spent four times as much money on formal training in their country per worker as we in Canada have?

There is no doubt that:

1. An industrial strategy needs to be developed. We are doing that.

2. Training and retraining is required, and we are working on that through our labour adjustment package, which is going to be coming through the House.

3. Building partnerships with labour, business and other economic groups is being done and must be established so that our competitiveness -- not a dirty word -- in a global market will improve and so that new investment and new jobs will be a reality.

Mr Klopp: I take this opportunity to stand and debate this issue. I think the way the slant was given by the honourable member, he said, on one hand, "We know the problem was not created on 6 September," but then by the time he got done, he makes it sound like we created the problem and we carry on. He made the assumption that we created the plan that created the problem, when in reality it was New Democrats over the years who have said to the previous governments over and over again, "What you're sowing today, down the road will not work."

In fact, I draw one easy example. It is the agricultural problem that we have seen in this province. Those seeds were sown very greatly back about 1979 or 1978 when the interest rates started to climb. As a person who was in agriculture and just starting out at school, I remember the teachers told us: "Borrow lots of money. Buy your neighbour out. Good times are here. Interest rates will never go up. In fact, they're going to go down. Don't lock in your interest rates." When a few of us questioned that kind of analogy, taking business at business school, we were told: "You must be listening to your fathers. They have the old Depression theory. That'll never happen again."

My friends, by 1981 the interest rates skyrocketed. Many of my friends were caught in that swirling river of not having their loans locked in. The government of the time was told by the New Democratic Party: "We can fix that. Yes, it's going to cost a little bit of money to subsidize those interest rates, but it'll get those farmers staying on their farms." But that Tory government said: "No, no. It's a free-market enterprise. We don't touch it. We've asked some bankers." They ignored the problem.

I guess there were a few of us who said, "Well, maybe they're trying to get rid of farmers, so it's a good way to go." Unfortunately, now today we see 10,000 fewer farmers than we did back then. We see at least 38% of the farm community in deep financial problems. The saddest thing of all is, that problem created the fact that we now have people who are farmers taking jobs away from people who could have jobs. Not only that, when you have 10,000 fewer farmers you have 10,000 fewer farm families buying goods, creating wealth in this province.

There is an example of bad planning, planning that was started way back then which has now come to light. Unfortunately, I wish I could have been wrong back in 1978. I said, "No, maybe the teachers are right. Maybe a few of these people are right." But unfortunately they still have their jobs and many of my friends are gone. In fact, too many of my friends and one is too many, have actually committed suicide because of those kinds of problems.

We sit here now and we talk about business and labour getting together. I have an example clearly in my riding, since we got in power, of recognizing that everyone has an island, but as a government which truly does not pick any favourites but says, "Let's be firm and fair," labour and business and a bank got together and saved some jobs.

The member for Leeds-Grenville had to stand up here just a few minutes ago and say there is only one member in this party who is a business person. I guess the Conservative Party has forgotten that farmers are also business people. Mr Stewart must turn in his grave to think that kind of ignorance and arrogance -- I take that back, Mr Speaker --

Mr B. Murdoch: Will all the farmers stand up?

Mr Klopp: Right on. You are one, you are one. That kind of attitude truly does cause great concern because there are business people out there who have not been a member of the NDP, who have not realized that we have been in power in Saskatchewan, we have been in power in Manitoba, we have been in power in British Columbia, and we have balanced budgets and done, if I may say so, as Eugene Whelan said at an Ontario Federation of Agriculture meeting when he was the Liberal minister -- there was a farmer who stood up and was all upset about how the Tories and Liberals had both been in power and they had not listened to the farmers. They were going to give money to the oil companies but they could not find any money for the farmers. I could not believe it. Mr Whelan said, "Well, you know what they did in Saskatchewan when the other governments wrecked the whole dang place? They voted in the NDP, who fixed everything, and then they voted them out and let the Tories and Liberals back in."

I could not believe it, but the man spoke what he felt. When the member for Leeds-Grenville makes that kind of assumption it makes the paper, but it really does create undue fear, as was pointed out by the honourable member in his remarks. He brought up two papers that said, "So-and-so said get the hang out of Ontario." I appreciate their version of things. They want to have their cake and eat it too. So does labour. I would, as a member of the federation, lobby government that I want this, this and this, and at the end of the day if I did not get it, well, it was their fault.

We all have our positions, but the bottom line is, we are a government that is taking long-term planning seriously and it takes time. As one good Conservative fellow in my riding said, "This time I'm voting for you because the two previous governments for the last 10 or 15 years have forgotten about long-term planning." The member for Leeds-Grenville used a little saying and I am going to use a little saying. Any good thing we have gotten in the last 10 or 15 years in this province has not been because of government but in spite of government. I take the responsibility seriously of walking slowly and carefully, but I please wish that the members opposite would not use so much rhetoric to scare people.

1740

Mr Wiseman: I would like to take a few minutes to take a look and put Ontario's industrial strategy within the context of the Canadian industrial strategy as we are seeing it unfold from the federal government.

The primary goal of the federal government is to attain zero inflation. As recently as about a week and a half ago, I had the pleasure of meeting John Crow, who is the president of the Bank of Canada. At that dinner and in that speech he indicated that his goal was zero inflation.

How do we to achieve zero inflation within the context of the Canadian industrial strategy? We achieve this zero inflation by putting people out of work, by raising interest rates and by having bankruptcies. This is not really helpful to Ontario in its intent to try and move down a road for a long-term strategy.

I would like to revisit just for a moment if I might the impact of this strategy on the Canadian economy, and particularly on Ontario. In 1987, the value of the Canadian dollar was 73 cents, the inflation rate was 4% and the unemployment rate in Ontario was around 7%, but in the GTA area it was less than 4%. Since then we have seen the inflation rate rise, the interest rates rise and the unemployment rate rise, all because the central bank has raised the central bank rate to a point where businesses are going out and closing.

Today we have an 87-cent dollar, which is a 20% increase for businesses to operate. I have talked to the businessmen in my riding. One of them said that it is very difficult for him to compete and stay open while the dollar is at 87 cents. It has added a 20% cost to his exports in doing business in the American market.

Interjections.

Mr Wiseman: The Conservatives are bellowing like a bunch of hyenas over here, but the fact is that policy was allowed by the federal government at the G-7 conference when Brian Mulroney was sitting there, the great guru of transcendental meditation. It allowed the dollar to rise, putting our manufacturers at a tremendous disadvantage.

Interjections.

Mr Wiseman: They can heckle all they want, but the reality is that John Crow is going to pursue his bank rate to 2% or less inflation which is going to create huge problems for the economy in Ontario.

Hon Mr Pilkey: This is rather a complex issue and I welcome the opportunity to address it. I did have a series of prepared remarks I wanted to give here this afternoon, and no, I have not lost them, but time, as I see by the clock, really does not permit me to go through all of them. What I am going to do is revert to some crib notes that I have taken throughout the debate and perhaps speak more specifically to the resolution that was offered by the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the member for Wilson Heights.

I think the member for Carleton was very fair in his comments earlier when he suggested that this resolution, directed at the New Democratic Party and at this ministry in particular, was well off the mark and perhaps akin to the phrase about the pot calling the kettle black. I think that is appropriate when we look at the facts and see that under the previous government and during the time spent in the ministry under the sponsor of this motion, the recession was well under way. As a matter of fact, I believe even during his tenure employment had dropped by some 109,000 people, and during the next six months employment dropped a further 115,000.

We have heard many comments as to the reasons, whether the former minister wants to blame the present minister or vice versa, or the members of the third party raise their concerns as to whose problem it is. But the fact of the matter is that all of us here, all of us in North America -- the USA, Canada and Ontario -- are suffering difficulty from this recession. It is not solely based here and it is not solely created here.

If I might address the resolution, it speaks of the need to have true working partnerships. I gather that is something the previous government was not able to achieve because it complains about it on this particular day. It is true that as we look round the globe, we see the interaction of not just business or not just labour promoting their own agendas, but they are joined by a third party and that is the government of that particular country.

They have come together as a single force, not as opposing groups, not as confrontational groups, but they have channelled all of their efforts collectively. They have focused them in order to compete successfully against all the other world traders. That is exactly what this government needs to do, that is what this province needs to do and that is why this government has spoken so critically about partnerships.

It is our intent to develop them. We have started to develop them by meeting with a wide variety of sectors, having advisory councils and seeking the support and interest of all those people, whether they be in business, labour or associations throughout this province.

The second thing the resolution talks about is fiscal priorities. If the former government had been re-elected, the former Treasurer probably would have been looking at an $8-billion deficit. There was no way out for that government. We have already heard the comments on why it called a snap election. I do not think anybody is slow and we appreciate the reasons why it did that.

This government spent in additional and new funding in this budget $1.5 billion. Half of it went on an anti-recession program and the other half went to maintain services for the people of this province. The Treasurer quite aptly, and I think properly, decided to fight this recession and not the deficit, because people -- individuals, families and single-industry communities -- in this province are suffering and they need help. They do not need it tomorrow and they do not need a lot of political excuses. They needed the help today and they got it.

The resolution also speaks to the question of attracting new investment and new jobs. I even hesitate to say this, with the support I received earlier, but to be objective for a moment, Ontario is not the only government in this nation of ours that sets fiscal and monetary policy. There is something called the national government, the federal government, and the policies that it espouses and provides. I think, in fairness, not just in the words of myself and of those who are economists and write in the trade journals, but people who run businesses and people who are members of unions have expressed concern over some of the policies of the federal government in terms of the high dollar, interest rates, free trade, the goods and services tax and the deregulation that it has imposed on many industries.

It is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is done to create competitiveness and productivity. On the other hand, we see the Ontario trucking industry laid open to what I believe to be unfair competition with the United States. The federal government and the former Liberal government here in Ontario supported that and we see the kind of results that we have on industry and people who are laid open to that kind of competition without the proper time frames and adjustments.

We also hear questions in this resolution about improving competitiveness, and certainly we do need to improve competitiveness. There is any number of ways that needs to be done. One of them is with respect to the government policies I just alluded to at the federal level, here at the provincial level and also on unit labour costs. It will come as a shock to some members opposite to hear me say that, but quite frankly, compared to our US competitors, we have fallen behind and that problem needs to be redressed if we are to regain our former position.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. Members should not be interjecting, particularly when they are not in their seats. The honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has the floor. Please continue.

1750

Hon Mr Pilkey: We do in fact need to bring forward new initiatives. We need to build on some of the programs -- I must admit, some of them positive -- by the previous government, to encourage investment in this province; but we need to add to them. We have, by way of the manufacturing recovery program, allocated $57 million, going to help 200 companies and tens of thousands of employees maintain their jobs and be in a position when this recession is over to be an active and positive influence in this particular province.

One of the other things we have to do is to get innovative. We have doubled the Innovation Ontario Corp's budget, almost $22 million, so that we can provide dollars to those companies that need those seed dollars so that they can be involved in the new technologies and the new processes that will allow us to position ourselves in the competitive global market.

We have done all of these things and we have also been very active on an international scene, and I must give the previous government some credit for this. They established and worked with a large number of international offices. We have continued that. We are attempting to enhance that. We are trying to make them even more aggressive so we can open export markets for Ontario companies to maintain and create further jobs and employment in this province of ours.

The resolution also speaks of the need to train and retrain. It sounds like a sort of self-indictment, but I guess it was not done before and so we as the new NDP government need to do it. I can assure members, in fact, we will. The partnerships are being forged, the new programs are being put together and they will be announced in this House very shortly.

In the 30 seconds remaining, I would like to simply close with this: Business has always been welcome in Ontario; business will continue to be welcome in Ontario under the New Democratic Party government. I hope we will collectively understand the difficulties we all face, and I hope that collectively we will ensure a socially, environmentally and monetarily profitable province for the people and for the business community of the province.

Mr Kwinter: Unfortunately, there have been so many comments made I do not have enough time to respond to all of them, but I do want to respond to a couple.

I look around the House and there is hardly anybody here that I can see -- there may be one, but I do not see anybody -- who was part of the accord of 1985. The government has to understand that a lot of the policies it is now decrying are policies that were negotiated during that accord and have carried over. It would be a very good idea to take a look at some of those things to see what it is they are doing.

The other thing I would like to comment on is that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was talking about some of the things that were happening. I listened very attentively as a member who has sat here for a number of years. Every time there is any kind of concern, the government members stand up and lay it off somewhere else: "Blame it on the feds. Blame it on someone else. Whatever you do, blame someone else, but not me." Nine months have gone by, the baby is theirs. It is their baby, they have to deal with it.

It is not rumour. The member for Norfolk was talking about the rumour. All they have to do is read any business publication, any editorial in any of the major newspapers, any of the columnists, and they all say the same thing: This government is not friendly towards business. It is not a rumour, it is a perception. It is a perception that is there and they had better do something to change it, because unless they do, we are going to be in a situation that is now happening. We have the same federal government in Ontario as we do in British Columbia, but British Columbia's gross domestic product is growing, ours is diminishing.

1801

The House divided on Mr Kwinter's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 34

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carr, Chiarelli, Cunningham, Curling, Elston, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Henderson, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Murdoch, B., Nixon, Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Scott, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Witmer.

Nays -- 54

Abel, Bisson, Buchanan, Charlton, Christopherson, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Frankford, Gigantes, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The House adjourned at 1804.