The House met at 1330.
Prayers.
INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER FOR BRANT-HALDIMAND
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the chief election officer and laid upon the table a certificate of a by-election in the electoral district of Brant-Haldimand:
This is to certify that, in view of a writ of election dated January 27, 1992, issued by the Honourable Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario, and addressed to Don Jones, returning officer for the electoral district of Brant-Haldimand, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of Brant-Haldimand in the Legislative Assembly of this province in the room of Robert Nixon, Esq, who, since his election as representative of the said electoral district of Brant-Haldimand, has resigned his seat, Ron Eddy has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election, which is now lodged of record in my office.
(Signed) Warren R. Bailie, chief election officer; Toronto, March 13, 1992.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I have the honour to present to you Ron Eddy, member-elect for the electoral district of Brant-Haldimand, who has taken the oath and signed the roll and now claims the right to take his seat.
The Speaker: Let the honourable member take his seat.
REPORT OF COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that on Thursday, February 27, the 15th report of the Commission on Election Finances containing recommendations with respect to the indemnities and allowances of the members of the Legislative Assembly was tabled with the Clerk's office.
LEGISLATIVE PAGES
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would invite all members to join me in welcoming the eighth group of pages to serve in the 35th Parliament of the Ontario Legislature:
Tori Barker, Northumberland; Robin Baweya, York Centre; Charlotte Brathwaite, Downsview; John Brooks, Simcoe Centre; Jennifer Charlton, Hamilton East; Cameron Couch, Oriole; Patrick Davis, Eglinton; Kimberley Forsythe, Algoma-Manitoulin; Ronald Fox, Yorkview; Erin Grainger, Durham Centre; Alain Habib, London South; Bruce Karn, Elgin; Terra Kitzul, Chatham-Kent; Jennifer Lawrance, Kenora; Aaron Lazarus, Windsor-Sandwich; Jason Lee, Oakville South;
Peter Levine, Quinte; Mark Linsao, Etobicoke-Lakeshore; Christopher Little, Middlesex; Cameron MacNiven, Grey; Andrea McNair, London North; Brianne McVeigh, Simcoe East; Karl Murch, Parry Sound; Jason Nardari, Port Arthur; Cheryl Paton, Mississauga West; Brandon Sheppard, Norfolk; Amanda Sully, Carleton; Jos van Straaten, Wellington; Laurie Warden, Cornwall; Carrie Yakimovich, Scarborough East.
Would you please welcome our pages to our assembly.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
ECONOMIC POLICY
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Last October, the Premier promised to eliminate finger-pointing, yet unbelievably, yesterday's speech from the throne was dominated by blaming the recession and the federal government for all of Ontario's ills. The speech offered no responsiveness and little immediate help for the unemployed people of Ontario.
Blaming the recession and the federal government for all his woes will not wash. Overspending by this government is a problem and the Premier knows it. He has raised spending to 19% of gross domestic product, an all-time high and fully 5% above the historic norm. No former government has come close.
The Premier is fooling no one. His runaway deficits are a real factor in slowing Ontario's recovery. His government has increased spending to an all-time high. The saddest part of it all is that they did it not because they had to but because they wanted to.
The NDP claims to be the champion of the poor and the unemployed and to have their support. After yesterday's speech, we now see what the Premier's strategy is. He's successfully working on his re-election campaign: the more poor and unemployed he can create, the better his chances.
Mr Premier, people want to cooperate with your government, but you are still giving us the banal policy of blame, bailout and bafflegab more appropriate to a banana republic.
1340
CANCER MONTH
Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I want to remind the members of this Legislature and residents across the province that April is Cancer Month in Ontario. Last Friday was Daffodil Day throughout Canada. I am delighted to report that some 6.2 million daffodils were sold and millions of dollars have been raised to fight a disease which accounts for one out of every four deaths in Canada. Daffodil Day began in Toronto almost 40 years ago when volunteers holding a fund-raising tea decided to decorate their tables with daffodils. It was felt these early spring blooms represented both hope and renewed life.
There is reason for hope. Most of the funds raised during Daffodil Day and Cancer Month go directly to research, and this research is producing positive results and advancements. In 1960, only three out of every 25 victims of childhood leukaemia survived. Today, 18 out of 25 will survive this dreaded disease. With each day, remarkable advances are being made in the detection and treatment of many types of cancer.
This is precisely why I would urge members of this distinguished assembly and all citizens of Ontario and across Canada to keep hope alive and join the fight to beat cancer. Let's band together during Cancer Month and help the Canadian Cancer Society meet its fund-raising target of $24 million.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): April is Cancer Month. The daffodils are a welcome sign of spring. Last Friday I took the opportunity to go around my riding of Scarborough East and visited a number of locations where volunteers for the Canadian Cancer Society were selling the flowers. In talking to the women and men and passersby, it was evident that many people whose own lives have been touched by this disease in others feel an urge to participate from a sense of duty.
They and all of us who have experienced the disease are expecting a number of things when donating. We would like a cure to be found, but we have to be realistic about the tantalizing complexities that keep turning up even as we get closer to understanding cell biology. We expect that some of the funds are used to investigate epidemiology, refining our knowledge of risk factors, if not causes. We expect counselling and education so the anxieties of facing the unknown are minimized for patients and their families. Along with the key role of doctors and hospitals, we want complementary services such as hospices and home care to be available wherever needed.
In expressing my appreciation to the volunteers, I would like to emphasize how important their participation and caring are at all stages. The important medical writer Dr Julian Tudor Hart reminds us that health care, all the way from diagnosis to terminal care, should be active production by patients and their families. I recall having the privilege of participating briefly in the domiciliary terminal care of a man with a brain tumour and found it particularly moving.
I am sure all members of this House will join me in expressing thanks and appreciation to all who selflessly involve themselves in alleviating this disease.
TEACHERS' DISPUTE
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): My statement today is directed to the Minister of Education. The Ottawa Board of Education teachers have been on strike since March 23, leaving 23,000 high school students wondering about their future. Last week, the Carleton Board of Education went on strike. Those two strikes have consumed a total of 12,500 lost person-days. Your mediator has called the Ottawa Board of Education and its striking secondary school teachers back to the table to test their movements, if any. Your Premier, my Premier, was quoted as saying the hefty wage settlements are now out of reach. To me, that's a clear message. What will be your approach and the mediator's approach in the next few days? The students, parents and taxpayers in Ottawa-Carleton cannot wait for ever to resolve this painful situation in Ottawa-Carleton. The school year of our students is at risk. We need your guidance. More than 20,000 students are running out of patience.
TARTAN DAY
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I would like to thank everyone who assisted me in making Ontario's first Tartan Day such a success.
I would especially like to thank the Premier, who kindly recalled the House so that we could celebrate together. I am only sorry that he had so many other things to think about that he forgot his plaid tie.
The Lieutenant Governor deserves thanks for agreeing to be piped into the House in honour of the day, and I am grateful to George Henderson of the town of Dundas pipe band, who ably performed the task.
I was overwhelmed by the response which I received from municipalities advising me they had passed similar resolutions, and I am very appreciative of the support from private citizens as well as from many communities in my riding which held events with Scottish flair and colour over the last few days.
I would like to thank my colleagues from my caucus and from the government and the official opposition who got into the spirit of the day and brought us all a little closer together.
Finally, I would like to thank someone who would have loved to see Tartan Day but didn't quite make it. I met Andy MacDonald of the Brantford Highland Games because of my resolution. In a very short time he became a staunch supporter and a friend, and I know Tartan Day became the focal point of his life. My greatest hope is that yesterday and all April 6ths to come will meet and even surpass Andy's expectations.
NATIONAL FESTIVAL OF ENGINEERING WEEK
Mr David Winninger (London South): I am pleased to rise in the House today to draw members' attention to the first National Festival of Engineering Week. The festival began yesterday and will run to April 11.
The festival is a celebration of engineering and an opportunity to tell Canadians about the many contributions engineers make to everyday life.
"Engineering our Future" is the festival theme and includes issues such as energy needs, health, transportation, communications, the environment and sustainable development and their linkages to our global competitiveness.
Festival of Engineering '92 events will include the release of the final report of the Canadian Committee on Women in Engineering. That committee was formed shortly after the tragedy at École polytechnique in Montreal. The report is expected to recommend ways to make women feel more welcome in the engineering profession.
The Association of Professional Engineers of the Province of Ontario, the regulatory body of the practice of professional engineering in Ontario, is directly involved in organizing the event through its Ottawa chapter.
Festival of Engineering Week recognizes professional engineers and their engineering accomplishments. I should also like to recognize two professional associations which represent the views of engineers and engineering businesses: the Canadian Society for Professional Engineers, a member service organization, and the Consulting Engineers of Ontario, an organization which represents the commercial interests of the profession.
GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I'm pleased to note that the NDP government has finally confirmed an announcement made on May 14, 1990, by the former Liberal government for an Ontario government building to be located in Cornwall.
I might question the Minister of Government Services' method of informing the Cornwall NDP Riding Association of the announcement before details were made known to the public. Apparently the minister not only believes but also practises the saying, "Membership has its privileges."
In any event, the $30-million building will be consolidating the provincial courts along with a variety of provincial government offices scattered throughout the region. While the NDP threw site selection into turmoil, the building will remain, as originally planned, in the downtown core where a hotel construction project was abandoned.
It is unfortunate to note that the NDP foot-dragging has delayed the completion date until 1995, a full 12 months behind the Liberal agenda.
As well, the former Liberal government had also promised to bring additional jobs to the Cornwall area by transferring a ministry, agency or department. While the Premier has failed to reaffirm that commitment, I hope an announcement will not be long in coming.
1350
POLICE SERVICES BOARDS
Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I bring to your attention a letter to members from the appointments coordinator of police services boards in the Ministry of the Solicitor General. The letter is most disturbing because it seeks applications from those citizens of Ontario whom the government would describe as being "politically correct."
The letter doesn't ask members of the House to submit names of local citizens whose background and experience would be especially suited for police board issues and responsibilities. Instead it seeks individuals whose "interests and attitudes reflect the government's commitment to community policing and employment equity."
One can only conclude from this letter that the individuals whom the government is seeking to appoint must be like-minded with current NDP philosophy. It is reasonable to conclude that these individuals will be scrutinized by the government to ensure that they're in tune with what the Premier wants, rather than what the community may really need. The result would be more police services boards representing interests that are reflective of the Susan Engs of the world, rather than the beliefs of the majority of citizens in these communities.
I appreciate the opportunity to submit names of citizens from my riding to serve on local police services boards, but I'm concerned that this exercise is nothing more than window dressing, that the government won't heed the recommendations of opposition members and instead will select appointees who can pass the socialist litmus test. This approach doesn't bode well for policing in Ontario.
GIRL GUIDES OF CANADA
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Every young woman who has raised her three fingers in the Girl Guide Pledge recognizes the name of Mrs A. H. Malcolmson, founder of the Girl Guides of Canada in 1910 in St Catharines, Ontario.
For more years than I care to remember, young women all over Ontario have banded together for friendship and to experiment in arts, crafts, camping, outdoor activities, first aid, homemaking and sports. Today's Girl Guide organization is a giant national network that still embodies the vision of Mrs Malcolmson to provide a place where young women can direct their energies towards self-improvement and service to others. In addition, today's Girl Guides explore career opportunities and leadership training and they are also learning how to take their rightful place in today's changing society.
Today, seated in the members' gallery, are some of the Girl Guides from my riding, together with their very fine leaders. Their visit today is to allow them to see their provincial government members at work. Please join with me in welcoming the 1st Orono Girl Guides.
VISITORS
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before continuing with routine proceedings, I would invite members to welcome to our midst this afternoon three former members, all seated in the members' gallery west: Vince Kerrio, Niagara Falls; Allan Furlong, Durham Centre, and David Smith, Lambton.
MEMBER FOR BRANT-HALDIMAND
Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I hope the House will allow the representatives of the three parties to say a few words to welcome the newly elected member for Brant-Haldimand.
Interjections: Agreed.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed.
Hon Mr Rae: I want to congratulate personally the honourable member, and on behalf of the government caucus tell him how much he is welcome here as a newly elected member, and say that he won in a by-election and he won in a way that could hardly be questioned. Certainly, speaking personally, I can say I did my best to make sure someone else was representing the riding, but I also say to him personally that I can recall the two days in which I was introduced to legislatures on by-election wins and I know the feeling of pride which he quite rightly has and his family has on this day.
I want to say on behalf of members of the government caucus that he is welcome here. I hope he enters into the spirit of cooperation and fair play, friendship and jocular camaraderie that of course has always marked the debates in this House.
I say to him that I know as well he would want me on this day to say how much we have appreciated the contribution of his predecessor, and indeed his predecessors. The former member for Brant-Haldimand was a symbol of this Legislature for the time he served here. He is now, of course, a symbol of loyalty and good confidential advice to the first minister with respect to issues overseas. He is someone for whom we have only the fondest memories.
The honourable member will be serving in his own way, which I know will reflect well on his constituents. I simply want to welcome him and say how much we are looking forward to his participation in the debates in this House.
Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I too wish to welcome the member for Brant-Haldimand. I have not had the opportunity to shake his hand formally yet and to chat with him. I plan to do that today. I was in the Brant-Haldimand riding four or five times prior to his election, singing his praises, telling the people of Brant-Haldimand the kind of member I thought he would make should he be elected to represent them.
I want to echo some of the comments made by the Premier. We were pointing out perhaps the deficiencies that may have been there and exhorting the tremendous qualities of David Timms and the other candidates who were there. But the election is over. The member certainly did win, as the Premier said, fair and square and convincingly. I too remind the member that he is following in some very large footsteps that will long be remembered in this Legislature.
I remember the first day when I was first elected. It was not in a by-election. There were 22 of us across the back row. We were on that side at that time. We were part of this evolution: What goes around comes around. We are working our way back there. I had the company of 21 others in my caucus at that point in time. I can remember how nervous I was and how proud I was. There is a feeling in your stomach that this really is an honour and a privilege, and indeed in spite of the perception today in politics, it is a pleasure and it is an honour.
I want, on behalf of my caucus, to welcome the new member for Brant-Haldimand and wish him well. I am told by the member for Grey, who knows the member quite well, that not only are they planning a partnership in goat farming, perhaps even as I speak, but they will be planning partnerships in this Legislature as well because the member for Brant-Haldimand, like the member for Grey, is a rather free-spirited, commonsense free-thinker who will want to weigh the issues independent of party restriction and vote with his conscience and with his constituents. We welcome that too.
Welcome to the member for Brant-Haldimand.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Needless to say, I am absolutely delighted to join in welcoming our newest member in the Legislative Assembly. As the leader of the third party was remembering his moment of first election, and the nervousness and pride with which you first take your seat, I was thinking of that same feeling. I can well recall that I was surrounded by an even larger support group of colleagues than the leader of the third party on the occasion of his election. Things do change.
The leader of the third party also spoke yesterday of the important support of family to any of us who serve in this elected assembly. With that in mind, before making a few comments about our newest member, I would like to acknowledge the presence of Janice his wife, his son Wes, and a niece, Leslie Wilkenson. He has another son, Mark, and a daughter, Allyson, who were not able to be with us today but who have been very much a part of Ron's political career as they were of his campaign. I know all members of his family will be providing ongoing support in a very real way. We know how important that is.
There have been three by-elections since my first election to this place. If I recall correctly, the first by-election was won by the Progressive Conservative Party, the second by-election was won by the New Democratic Party, and it seems only fitting that the third by-election would be won by the Liberal Party. I would suggest that any sense of rotation stop there.
1400
Of course, as the Premier has noted, the riding is considered to have been a long-time Liberal riding held by a very esteemed former colleague of ours. There was some question during the by-election about whether it was indeed a Liberal riding or a Bob Nixon riding. We are very pleased to have been able to confirm, with the results of the by-election, that it is indeed a Liberal riding and will now become a Ron Eddy riding for some long time to come.
There is just no question that the new member for Brant-Haldimand comes well prepared to make an invaluable contribution to our caucus and the work of this Legislative Assembly and will in fact be a very fine representative for the constituents of Brant-Haldimand. He has accepted the responsibilities for our caucus as associate critic of Municipal Affairs and Agriculture and Food, and he has an extensive background in both areas. He was reeve of South Dumfries township from 1978 to 1991, a Brant county councillor from 1978 to 1991 and served as warden of the county in 1981.
We look forward to the contributions he will make to our deliberations. Quite clearly, we will be well informed and aware in those areas, as in many others. We celebrate his election and look forward to sharing a long political career with him.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I want to express my appreciation to the Premier, the leader of the Liberal caucus and the leader of the Progressive Conservative caucus for the best wishes they have extended to me. I deeply appreciate the kindnesses extended to me by many members of this House. I want you to know that I realize the deep responsibility I bear in being elected the member for Brant-Haldimand, in that I am reminded daily by many of my constituents of my many responsibilities. Thank you for welcoming me.
MINISTER'S COMMENTS
Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rise on a matter of some delicacy, but I think it is important that we get your ruling as early into this new session as possible. Parliamentary practice prohibits one member from calling or implying that another member is a liar. In fact, if a member does that and does not withdraw that remark, he is banished from the House by the Speaker with the aid of the Sergeant at Arms. We have a situation where the member for Sudbury East has admitted she is a liar. She has taken the unusual step of getting independent, scientific corroboration that in fact she is a liar. If we as members refer to her as a liar, will we incur the wrath of the Speaker, and if we do, why?
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the matter the member has brought to my attention. He may know that it has been the subject of a committee's deliberations and that the remarks attributed to the member were not made in the House. Of course, whatever remarks are made are dealt with at the moment they are made. But I certainly appreciate the member's interest in this matter. No doubt he will be following the committee's deliberations on this matter as well.
ORAL QUESTIONS
UNEMPLOYMENT
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday 523,000 men and women may have been at home watching the throne speech who would rather have been employed. These 523,000 people, 9.9% of the workforce, would probably not have appreciated your throne speech commitment to take a longer view. These people want action now.
As the government was presenting its throne speech, 145 workers at Maple Leaf Mills in Brantford were still digesting the news their company gave them on Friday that their plant would be shutting its doors for the last time at the end of the day. Clearly we can't save those particular 145 jobs in Brantford as those numbers get added to the unemployment list, but would the Premier tell us how his throne speech offers any hope to the 523,000 people who are unemployed today?
Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think the throne speech sets out very clearly not only an approach on the part of the government but sets out very clearly things that we are doing, things that we have done and things that we will do. I think it's very important perhaps for the Leader of the Opposition to recall that this past year this government had the largest capital budget, the largest works budget of any government in Canada and of any government in the history of Ontario: nearly $4 billion of funding, over $600 million of anti-recession funding. We've been told by people in the construction industry that if it wasn't for what we were doing in housing and if it wasn't for what we were doing in the anti-recession fund, construction would have been far worse off than it has been.
We have worked with the private sector in a number of examples. I could show you a number of examples where we have worked very hard, from General Electric to de Havilland, to Kapuskasing, to Algoma --
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his response, please.
Hon Mr Rae: -- to create jobs and to save jobs. We've set out very clearly the need for workers, business and industry to work together, and I think in terms of the investment we are making, the investment we are encouraging others to make and the work we are doing together as a province that in fact there is cause for hope in terms of a recovery in this province. It's going to take time and it's going to take work, but it is being done.
Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the note of optimism in the Premier's response, and once again he takes a longer view. Looking back and commenting on the short-term job creation of capital projects, we can be appreciative that some provided some relief in a rather desperate situation, although we wonder about the $700-million anti-recession fund having become a $400-million fund over the course of that time.
What I would really like to do is to keep taking the Premier back to specifics, to talk about real people and real programs, so I would like to return to the concrete, real-life experiences of people in the community of Brantford, which I just happen to be focusing on this afternoon. The Premier will be well aware that the community of Brantford has endured a very long period of industrial decline and it continues to face some very real economic challenges. But this community has taken on those challenges, and since 1989 the community has been running a program that assists people on social assistance to find work, to create small businesses and ultimately to create jobs. The program, as of January 1992, had a 94% success rate. Would the Premier, then, explain why on Friday, April 3, 1992, a letter was received by Business Initiatives Unlimited of Brantford informing it that the funding for a training program it offers will be cut?
Hon Mr Rae: I would obviously have to see the correspondence which she is referring to. I can only say to the honourable member that when it comes to training across the province we are now investing more than any government has before, and we will be investing even more in the years ahead.
The Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. She knows full well that she, as leader of her party, and members of her party comment all the time -- in fact, the member for Ottawa West was on his feet today saying how the deficit was out of control; he was saying the deficit was the problem. Now Liberals are saying this.
The Leader of the Opposition and members of the Liberal Party cannot be doctor both ways for the rest of their time. They have to make up their minds. We have to indicate very clearly that on the capital side we're going to be making investments, and we're going to have to be doing whatever we can to bring things under control.
1410
Mrs McLeod: It is precisely because we want to offer responsible opposition on this side of the House that I am asking the Premier about his government's own stated commitments. I want to come back to the real situation so we can get past the rhetoric and on to the reality.
The particular program in Brantford that I've asked the Premier about -- I appreciate the fact he may have to look into the details of it, but there is an issue here that I want to bring to his attention and to the attention of his government -- assisted 53 individuals to start 49 businesses through the self-employment incentive option. As of January 1, 1992, there were 45 businesses operating and they employed 74 people.
The rationale for the cut is, and I offer it to the Premier as I would not expect him to be aware of the specific situation, but I quote from the letter sent to the program: "It is unfortunate that we must take this action, as we are aware of the excellent results achieved by the projects. The ministry, however, as well as the entire provincial government, is experiencing severe financial constraints."
Fair enough, but I remind the Premier of the statement in his own speech from the throne. One of the most positive aspects of the speech from the throne was a commitment to a new training strategy that will put social assistance recipients and workers whose unemployment insurance has run out back to work.
The people of Brantford were already doing what the government said it intends to do. How can the Premier rationalize the action of cutting this program in light of all the fine words in the speech from the throne? The words just don't meet with the action.
Hon Mr Rae: I will obviously look into the very specific example which the Leader of the Opposition has raised. But I want to make it very clear to the members of the Liberal Party and of the House that we are fully committed to extending the job training work of the government and of groups across the province. That is precisely what this government is committed to. That is what we have done. We can show you chapter and verse across the province where that is exactly what has taken place.
INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question again is for the Premier. Again I return to the statements and commitments that were made in the speech from the throne yesterday, a speech in which the Premier talked about creating a flourishing business climate in Ontario. I think the Speaker and his government acknowledged in that speech from the throne that the best way to create the jobs he has just been talking about wanting to create is indeed through that flourishing business sector. The companies, that flourishing business sector that is needed, say, on the other hand, that they need a favourable climate for investment.
So we look at the speech from the throne to ask, in what way does this create a favourable climate for investment? The government indicates it wants such things as the Ontario pension fund, which the pension fund holders are not so sure they want. It wants a worker buyout bill, which won't create new jobs. But it seems to contain nothing to restore investor confidence in this province. So I would just ask the Premier if he can tell us precisely what his economic plan will do to restore investor confidence in Ontario. What message did the Premier want the business community to take from his throne speech yesterday?
Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): It is very clear that with respect to training, with respect to dealing with the regulatory gridlock which this government inherited not just from the honourable member's government but from previous governments, this is a reality we have to contend with. We also have to do everything we can to see that government and industry are working together.
We can find the practical examples. The member spoke disparagingly in her question of the Ontario investment fund and of the worker ownership plan, but I want to say to the honourable member that I look forward to a debate in which the Liberal Party of Ontario says we don't need more capital investment, we don't need to encourage pension funds to invest in Ontario. I look forward to the Liberal Party going up to Spruce Falls, going into Kapuskasing and going into Sault Ste Marie and saying it's opposed to worker ownership, when that was the only option that saved not a few hundred jobs but thousands of jobs. Let the Liberal Party take that message into those communities.
Mrs McLeod: I can appreciate why the Premier would prefer to avoid the thrust of the question. The thrust of the question that I want him to address today is how in fact his government can create the kind of climate for investor confidence that will ensure that companies don't fail in the province of Ontario and that we can attract new investment. So let's get back to the specifics, to the reality.
Last year over 3,600 businesses across Ontario declared bankruptcy and hundreds more left this province because of this government's policies. Right now businesses are making critical investment decisions and, quite frankly, many of them are looking at other jurisdictions that seem more attractive as places to do business.
I would like to take the Premier's attention to the centrepiece of the NDP agenda, the proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. In the throne speech, the government clearly indicates that it is going to proceed with the legislation despite the fact that a great deal of public uncertainty exists about the wisdom of the initiative. Business has said it is worried about the directions of the policies of the government, that they contribute to a widespread sense of insecurity.
Given the stated concern of the Premier for the economic renewal of this province -- and his throne speech is a clear indication that a strong business sector is essential to that economic development -- can he explain why his government is committed to going forward with this legislation in spite of all the expressed concerns?
Hon Mr Rae: For a very simple reason. The reason labour relations reform is crucial is because there are too many people -- many of them women, many of them new Canadians -- who have been left out of the prosperity of the 1980s. They did not get to benefit from the paper entrepreneurialism and the paper profits which were the feature of the Peterson years and the Peterson government, of which the honourable member was such a strong supporter.
As we head into the 1990s and as we head into a more realistic era, we have to ensure that women and the people who are newly arrived in Canada have the same access to organizing and the same access to collective bargaining as people did in the 1940s and the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s. We believe it is an important aspect of a human right for people to be able to collectively bargain and to establish more effectively their relationship at the table.
We think the time for union-bashing and for saying unions have no place in the role of a modern economic state is over. It is time for management and labour to sit down at the same table and work things out. That is why we are doing it.
Mrs McLeod: I guess the frustration for us on this side of the House is to understand why the government seems so unable to relate one question, one set of initiatives, to the next question and the next set of initiatives. This question is about all those people who need a more equal opportunity. It is about the 536,000 people who are sitting at home, unemployed, because there are not jobs for them to go to. That is why we are concerned about business confidence. That is why we are concerned about whether or not there will be investment in this province, and according to the throne speech, that is what this government's concerns are supposed to be.
The frustration is that the government simply doesn't understand how much damage this proposed legislation can do. Most people in the province believe that far from encouraging the kind of cooperation and the kinds of partnerships which the Premier has just talked about, the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act will actually undermine confidence in the economy and will harm our competitiveness. According to recent public opinion polls, the vast majority of Ontario residents want the government to abandon the proposed amendments and concentrate on improving the economy in the province.
I once again ask the Premier to explain precisely how the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, which he has just outlined so positively, will actually reinvigorate the private sector and encourage it to invest in Ontario and in the workers of this province.
Hon Mr Rae: The Leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest that the right to organize is somehow antithetical to the economic prosperity of this province. If that is the position of the Liberal Party, that is a new one on me. I always thought the Liberal Party -- going back to David Croll in the 1930s -- was a party that was more prepared to walk with the workers and more concerned about walking with the workers than anything else. Now we have the Liberal Party showing its true colours in the 1990s; that is to say, that even to mention the word "organize" or the word "bargain" all of a sudden is going to be bad for business.
Let's look at the facts. The facts show that on February 27, 1992, Statistics Canada released a report showing, with respect to investment plans in Ontario and manufacturing and equipment spending for 1991, $20,356,000,000; for 1992, $21,050,000,000 -- a 3.5% increase in expected and anticipated investment, which is comparable to investment plans right across the country. I say to the honourable member that she had better get her facts straight and not simply listen to the billboard rhetoric with which she's so clearly become infatuated since her election as a leader.
1420
ECONOMIC POLICY
Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. I don't want to engage in billboard rhetoric. In asking this question, I am not, as you have accused the Liberals, union-bashing. Quite frankly, I'm not interested in hearing you business-bash. What we are interested in are the 500,000-plus men and women in Ontario who do not have jobs, for whom you signed extended pink slips yesterday with your war games approach to reforming labour laws.
Premier, there is no question that your approach -- without getting into the specifics, not bashing anybody -- will cost this province investment and jobs. Business has called on you and labour to work together with it to establish a tripartite task force. Will you today reconsider their offer to work cooperatively, not only on labour law reforms and amendments, but on the other issues of job creation, job retention, good-paying jobs, and allow them to be truly one-third equal partners with labour and you and come to the table and work cooperatively to seek the reforms that we all want in this province?
Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): That's exactly what we're doing. The Premier's Council on Economic Renewal, if I recall correctly, has certainly got more than one-third business participation. It has a broad cross-section of people involved. I've asked Mr Michael List, who's the vice-president of Semi-Tech, to head up a task force on investment. I've asked Mr Curlook from Inco and Leo Gerard to work closely on the organization of work. The president of a subsidiary of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is working hard on lifelong learning.
I particularly want to tell the honourable member that I agree with him entirely that we do have to have people from all sectors working together very hard on all aspects of government policy. That's exactly what we're doing. That's exactly what's happening. With respect to industrial strategies, with respect to job creation, it's the Premier's Council on Economic Renewal that I have asked to do this work. I'm very pleased to tell the member that the Premier's Council members have been working very hard. They're coming up with some very good studies, very good work and very good proposals for the government. We intend to take them very seriously.
Mr Harris: I suggest to the Premier that this province, the unemployed, and those who are concerned about keeping their jobs cannot afford nine or 10 months of an elevation of the rhetoric on the union side or by some of those on the business side. We cannot afford that, regardless of what you think of the individual issues. That absolutely must be stopped.
The fact of the matter is that in proceeding you are ignoring that seven years of Liberal and NDP policies have skyrocketed the costs of doing business in this province. You continue to follow down that same path. That seems to be your solution. You continue your anti-business attitude. You continue to fan and fuel the flames of discontent between two sides that must be brought together. Premier, we need cooperation; we don't need more finger-pointing.
I ask you, for the sake of the 500,000-plus unemployed, the million or so who are on social assistance, those who are concerned about losing their jobs, those who want to better themselves in the jobs they have, to scrap this confrontational approach, to sit down with business and bring labour -- because you can do it, you can bring business and labour to the table and talk about jobs for this province before any more damage is done.
Hon Mr Rae: I say to the honourable member that I agree very much with the second half of his question. I do not see its connection to the first.
I think responsible reform of our industrial relations has got to be part and parcel of the extraordinary changes that are going on in the workplace today and of the amount of industrial change that is happening. I think it's got to be seen as part of the package which we pull together.
I say to the honourable member that if he can do anything on his side to discourage an atmosphere of confrontation and crisis creation, I would appreciate his using whatever influence he can. Certainly, from our perspective, we're doing everything we can to be positive and constructive and to put things in a positive light with respect to the possibilities of real reform in the province. That's what we're trying to do. We may disagree with respect to one or two pieces of legislation, but I don't think any of us disagree on the need for us to create a prosperous province.
Mr Harris: The Premier says he's doing everything he can and I say to him the business community is saying there's one more thing he can do. He can try to find the solutions that will allow us to cooperatively move business, labour and government forward in the years ahead. He can try to find those solutions, whether they're labour legislation changes or other changes in how we operate, by doing that in a cooperative fashion and setting that example right up front. Business will come to the table and labour will come to the table if he asks them to do it. That really is what we're calling on you to do today.
In the throne speech yesterday you sent a clear signal that investment isn't coming to this province and that those here are looking elsewhere and those outside aren't --
Interjection.
Mr Harris: Well, your throne speech said: "We're going to get into the pension money. We're going to borrow. The government is going to subsidize." You as much as admitted that the private sector, which has a free choice, doesn't find this province a lucrative place in which to do business, invest and create jobs.
Now I ask you, because you can help to send out this signal, why won't you take the same cooperative, tripartite approach of Michael Harcourt, the NDP Premier of British Columbia, and bring business, labour and government to the table in a tripartite, cooperative way? It has labour and business singing his praises and really has the support of the province to find the fundamental changes that will allow us to work more cooperatively. Why won't you take the Michael Harcourt approach instead of the Bob Rae confrontational approach?
Hon Mr Rae: If I can be very direct with the leader of the third party, the government of British Columbia is in fact studying and working on labour relations reform, and we're doing it cooperatively too.
We've had meetings of the Premier's Council. We've had the lengthiest consultation with respect to the proposals. I can't recall a piece of legislation that has had as much discussion and consultation. Obviously the package that is presented to the House will be very much based on the need for us to listen to the people and learn from what they're saying.
The member keeps saying, "Bring people to the table." That's exactly what I started doing on September 7, 1990.
Mr Harris: You brought part of this province to the table and you excluded the other part of this province. The private sector part of this province hasn't had an equal place at the table.
1430
RETAIL STORE HOURS
Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is also to Buffalo's man of the year, the Premier of our province. Last year, 882 retail businesses in Ontario went bankrupt. Thousands of other retail businesses shut their doors, throwing thousands of people out of work, most of them women.
Premier, yesterday you could have saved thousands of retail jobs in this province at no cost to the taxpayer. I would ask you, will you today not only undo the damage but restore as well several thousand jobs to the retail sector, jobs you have lost, jobs that have been threatened, jobs we continue to lose because both you and the Liberals, on the issue of Sunday shopping, will not allow workers who wish to work, consumers who wish to shop and businesses who wish to open to do so on Sunday?
Hon Bob Rae (Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I just want to say to the honourable member that, again, I would ask him to put some things in perspective. The retail industry across North America, indeed the retail industry now in Europe, is suffering severe change. The retail industry across North America, regardless of jurisdiction with respect to what the hours may be in one particular state or province or another, is going through a serious change.
I would say to the honourable member that when he thinks there is a one-on-one connection between what the hours of opening are going to be with respect to any one day of shopping or another and what is happening in the retail industry, you've got to look at the GST, you've got to look at the general recession, you've got to look at the ways the consumers are choosing differently and the way discount stores are taking over, you've got to look at a whole range of things in terms of coming up with an effective strategy, and that is what we are trying to do.
Mr Harris: I guess I would like the Premier --
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): What are you going to do about the gasoline tax? What are you going to do to lower the gasoline tax?
Mr Harris: Listen, I understand the Liberals support them on closing Sundays and having this ridiculous municipal option, but there are some in this province who think there are other alternatives. I say this to the Premier: A recent survey found that 74% of those who shuffle off to Buffalo on Sundays would spend their money in Ontario if stores were allowed to open on Sundays.
I suggest to you that, yes, there are other things out there causing difficulty in the retail sector, but this is one you have exclusive control over. This is one you as Premier can do something about. Every single Sunday you refuse to allow stores to open, we are losing tax revenue, we are losing business and we are losing jobs -- the Retail Council of Canada says up to 50,000 jobs if those 74% of people would stay in Ontario on Sundays. They are saying to me, "When is Buffalo Bob going to take the first step in stopping this retail haemorrhage and prove he's truly committed to jobs and economic activity in this province and allow those to open who wish to open and those to work who wish to work?" When will you take that step and demonstrate that commitment to Ontario workers?
Hon Mr Rae: I want to congratulate the leader of the Conservative Party for so effectively avoiding the billboard rhetoric he promised us in his first set of questions, but I would say to the honourable member --
Mr Harris: That was then; this is now.
Hon Mr Rae: "That was then; this is now." I understand. That was five minutes ago; this is now. I understand that.
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.
Hon Mr Rae: I am sure the member for London North is now fully supportive of the question that is being posed.
But let me say to the leader of the third party: The fastest-growing period in the cross-border shopping problem, which is a real problem, happened to occur in that period of time when stores were more open in Ontario than at any other time. That is a curious fact which seems to fly in the face of the premise of the question.
I will only say to the leader of the third party that we are obviously looking at all the facts. We are discussing very intensively with people in the retail sector what we can do on a number of issues, and we will be responding to that.
Mr Harris: I have not pretended that opening Sundays will stop and correct the whole cross-border shopping problem. I didn't say that. I'm dealing with the part of the problem that occurs now on Sundays. I'm dealing with the 74% of the people who are going across the border on Sundays saying: "We'd stay home. We'd stay in Ontario if we could shop in Ontario on Sundays." That's the group we are talking about. That alone is 50,000 jobs in this province. When are you going to send some hope out to those 50,000 workers who don't have jobs today who could have if you'd move with the times and recognize what's going on in this province?
Hon Mr Rae: We have worked very closely with local chambers in all of the border communities.
Mrs Caplan: No. You've done nothing.
Hon Mr Rae: No. We have initiated several programs which have been quite effective in pointing out to consumers the advantages of staying at home to shop. We have done everything we can to persuade consumers that the option of staying here is the option that makes the most sense, that many of the savings people think they are going to be getting cross-border are not really there. We are working in a most cooperative way both with cross-border communities and with cross-border chambers, and we are going to continue to do that.
TEACHERS' DISPUTE
Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education and it concerns the two strikes in Ottawa and Carleton. Minister, I want you to focus on the human dimension of these two strikes, particularly the 27,000 students, some 12,000 of whom have now been without education for over two weeks, the rest of whom have been out for almost a week now.
Minister, in doing that, I want you to think about and put yourself in the place of the average student, the average student in his or her final year who is seeking to get to university or to community college. I want you to put yourself in the place of the special needs student or the parents of special needs students, and I want you to think about what they are facing.
The question, Minister, is: What specifically are you, as the representative of the government that said this year there would be a 1% transfer payment to school boards, saying to ensure that those two disputes are going to be resolved? What are you saying to the Education Relations Commission about bringing the parties together in seeking a solution? What specifically are you doing to ensure that those young people are back in the classroom where they need to be?
Hon Tony Silipo (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and Minister of Education): I appreciate very much the question and the sentiments behind the question, because the sentiments the member has expressed have been exactly the kind of sentiments that have been in my mind in looking at this issue and in monitoring very closely what has been happening. I think he will appreciate, as other members will appreciate, that there has to be a continuing respect for the collective bargaining process and the relationship that exists at the local level between the school board and the teachers' federations here in this instance.
I am continuing on a daily basis to be kept up to date on what is happening. I continue to express my concerns, publicly and privately, about the inability so far of the parties to come together and resolve the dispute. I continue to monitor the situation very closely through the Education Relations Commission, which, as the member knows, has the responsibility for not only monitoring the situation but assisting the parties to come together. It is obviously their role to advise me at a particular point in time if they feel that is impossible to do.
Mr Beer: I am sure everybody appreciates the sentiments the minister has expressed, but sentiments are not going to help these young people either in moving on to university or to college, moving into that next grade level, or, if they have special needs, ensuring they get the kind of education they are going to require to go on in life.
The question then becomes, if the minister says we must respect the collective bargaining procedures, and I am sure we all do, at what point then, Minister, do you believe that the education of these young people is in jeopardy? As the minister knows, that is the critical consideration the Education Relations Commission has to take. The minister was a member of a school board. The minister was the chair of the Board of Education for the City of Toronto. I think we would like to know and the people of this province would like to know, just how long is he prepared to see these young people out of the classroom? Until Easter? Until May 24th? Until June 28th? When, Minister, will the education of these young people be in jeopardy and when will you ensure that they get back into the classroom?
Hon Mr Silipo: I think the member will appreciate the fact that I cannot give him a specific date and that, in fact, to do so would be completely inappropriate. That is a decision and a call I will have to make at some point and that the cabinet may have to make. I, quite frankly, hope that it does not have to come to that.
I have said very clearly and can restate here in the House that no matter what happens I will do everything necessary to ensure that the education of our students in that area of the province is not affected in terms of either the school year with respect to students going on to post-secondary education or indeed with respect to meeting the special needs of some of the students.
I also think the solutions are there. As the member may well know, we have just reached a settlement with our own teachers who teach in the provincial schools in a package that I think, on the monetary level of 2.5% of the first year and 1.67% over the second year, going back to September of last year, plus some other benefits and other improvements, provides a reasonable package for people in that instance and also some guidance for people out there if they choose to see that.
1440
EDUCATION FINANCING
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Like my colleague from York North, you are very much aware, as are other members of the House, that the school systems are in chaos right now across this province, not just to do with strikes but to do with program cuts and teacher cuts.
The reason I say that is that on January 21 you told the boards they had transfer payments for the next three years of 1%, 2% and 2%, when the boards have enforced, with their options, increases of 1%, 2% and 2%.
The boards right now are cutting programs, they are cutting staff, and they have told you, Minister, that they have no other options. You are criticizing them for the positions they are taking. You are criticizing them for saying that these programs are being cut. You are speaking on behalf of the trustees and parents, you are saying they are making the wrong cuts and that you have better ideas.
You used the word "solutions" earlier today in responding to the first question. Why don't you give the solutions to the boards so they can implement them now, today, and show some leadership? What are your solutions?
Hon Tony Silipo (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and Minister of Education): I would have to say that I remain concerned and worried about some of the actions school boards have taken, very specifically in terms of some of the decisions around the reduction of programs and reduction of staff.
We have recognized that the low transfer payments are causing some problems out there. We also recognize that there are other solutions. We have talked to people about some of those solutions. In fact, we are putting in place some procedures, and by forcing boards to cooperate on an administrative level we believe there can be reductions in costs on administrative and other levels. Indeed, we have also said to school boards and teachers' federations that they need to be addressing the question of salaries and other issues related to compensation, which we know account for large parts of school board budgets. Those are issues that need to be addressed.
We met just yesterday with representatives of school boards, teachers' federations and support staff unions to talk about the way in which the transition funds, which we still have to outline, can be used to assist with that process, and we will continue to talk with them about that.
Mrs Cunningham: The minister says he is concerned about what the school boards have done. I can tell you that the parents and students of this province are concerned about what you have done. I can tell you right now that you have a lot of choices in solutions to problems. I'll give you one today and you can tell me what you're going to do about it. Let's hear from you.
On the whole issue of new programs that are being mandated by the ministry -- September 1994, junior kindergarten; 1993, integration and destreaming -- those are your programs, and if you want them, Minister, you should pay for them 100%.
My question to the minister is clearly this: Will you put a moratorium on those mandatory program requirements that you thought up in your office without asking the public? In spite of saying you are monitoring and listening, will you put a moratorium on, because that's what they've asked you to do, and stand up in this House and tell us you're going to do it today?
Hon Mr Silipo: I have to express some surprise at the member's question with respect to indicating that issues like destreaming and junior kindergarten are issues that I've thought up in my office, when they've been in public discussion for four or five years now. Let's be really clear about that.
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Apology accepted.
Hon Mr Silipo: Having said that, I was about to say that I have no hesitation in taking credit for pursuing those issues and other program reform issues because I believe wholeheartedly that they are important to the kind of progress we want to bring about in education.
On the money side, we continue to provide funding for the development of kindergarten initiatives. We have said very clearly, and I have no hesitation in reiterating today, that with respect to the destreaming initiatives, we will put in place appropriate retraining provisions for teachers in conjunction with teachers' federations. We have already had some discussions with them about that.
We recognize very clearly that the funding system as a whole is inadequate, needs to be revamped and needs to be changed. That is why we have speeded up the process of reform of our education finance process to a point that will hopefully give us an ability to start making some changes, even as of next year.
ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE DISABLED
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is for the honourable Attorney General. The Ministry of the Attorney General has announced a toll-free number which persons with disabilities will be able to call about barrier-free courts. Can the honourable minister explain just how this service is going to work and what disabled people can expect when they call through?
Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I would like to thank the member for this very important question. It is true that we have announced a toll-free number for all individuals who suffer from disabilities in terms of access to public buildings. It is a 1-800 number that is operated by the Ontario Office for Disability Issues. This office has been given a data bank on all of the province's courts which shows whether they are accessible.
If the court to which a disabled person has been summoned is not accessible and he calls this number, he will be given advice as to the nearest courts which are accessible and the services that can be provided to him. We want to assure individuals who are suffering from a particular disability that we will do the most we can to ensure access to our courts.
Mr Malkowski: Can the minister tell me what is being done to make sure that all of the courts in fact become barrier-free?
Hon Mr Hampton: As the honourable member will know, not all of the courts in Ontario are accessible at this time. Only about 18% of the court facilities are in fact owned by the government, and through the Ministry of Government Services we are doing our utmost to ensure that those that are not accessible will become accessible over the next couple of years.
With respect to the facilities that are leased by the government, when it comes time for renewal of the lease, we ask that the landlord ensure or undertake to make the building accessible; otherwise we search for new facilities which are accessible. Over the next two years we believe that all of the court facilities in Ontario will become accessible to individuals suffering from disabilities.
EDUCATION POLICY
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Education. When the minister was appointed to the position of Minister of Education, I think there was a sense of optimism felt among the school boards around the province, certainly in my own community, a feeling that a person who had been a member of a school board for 12 years in a large city would understand the difficulties and the problems that the school boards face with funding.
Interjections.
Mr Mahoney: I am particularly interested in how excited the Tories get over these issues when I am not sure what they want; they want to eliminate JK or whatever.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Spend, spend.
Mr Mahoney: They do a good enough job on their own.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.
Mr Mahoney: I do like getting them excited, Mr Speaker. You forgive me.
The Speaker: Perhaps you could place your question.
Mr Mahoney: My question to the minister is that he recognizes the difficulty the school boards are having, that communities are upset. You are quoted as saying that you were not particularly happy about reports about layoffs; you felt there were alternatives. Today you apparently have said in media interviews that it's irresponsible for the Peel board to cut junior kindergarten.
They have a $20-million shortfall in their cut program. How do you answer the people at the board? How do you answer my constituents who are calling to say their 6,000 kids are going to be out of junior kindergarten next year, that 125 teachers working in that program are going to be out of work next year, and you're doing absolutely nothing? What advice do you give me to tell them about these program cuts?
1450
Hon Tony Silipo (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and Minister of Education): The advice I would offer the member is to do whatever he can to get the school board to look at other ways in which it can manage its fiscal problems. What I am doing specifically with the situation in Peel is that I have written to the chair of the board asking to meet, and I gather he is interested in meeting with me to discuss the actions the board has taken.
I can reiterate, as the member has said, that I find the action irresponsible. I believe there are other ways these things can be handled and I don't think that, at a time when we as a province are moving towards broadening junior kindergarten, it makes a great deal of sense for a school board to be cutting back on that particular program.
Mr Mahoney: First of all, I am quite confident Mr Kent would be delighted to meet with you, but I think he is a little frustrated because it's quite apparent to him that the meeting is going to be useless and that you don't have any suggestions.
You have talked about other programs. Are you suggesting they lay people off? When they propose to do that, you say you don't want them to do that, that there must be other ways. When they cut programs, you call them irresponsible.
Minister, you are supposed to be leading this province in the area of education. You are supposed to be directing and giving ideas to the school boards about how they can solve their problems. The bottom line of all this is not the elected officials on the Peel board and it is not you and your mandarins in the ministry. It's the kids who are going to suffer as a result of your ignoring their plight.
Now the people are marching in the streets in Peel. They are organizing demonstrations. They have invited you to a television program tomorrow night. I'm sure it hasn't even filtered down to you, and I'm also sure you won't go. I'll be there and I'd like to give them some answers from you. Are you prepared to look, with the Peel Board of Education, at a creative way in which it can maintain junior kindergarten, or are you simply going to sit back and fiddle while these kids are taken out of school and then are going to have to look for day care or other alternatives? Minister, we'd like some answers.
Hon Mr Silipo: I've been talking to school boards, including a meeting I had in February at the headquarters of the Peel board. We talked about a range of things we were going to be able to do and were going to try to do, from the issue of the transition funds, which we are working on, as I've indicated in response to an earlier question, to the question of capital spending, which I know is an area that will interest the Peel board very much. We have indicated that we are looking at some innovative ways which we think will be of some use to the school boards in that area.
Particularly with respect to JK, as I've indicated, I've said time after time that we are more than happy to look at creative alternatives to the standard way of providing junior kindergarten. I'm happy to say to the member that at least one school board, the Grey County Board of Education, has taken up that offer. It has put forward to us a proposal which we think makes a great deal of sense and which is now being developed in consultation between that school board and our ministry officials.
So there are lots of possibilities out there, among which I would include the need for school boards to sit down with their employee groups and, within the confines of the fiscal situation we are living in, to look at the range of possibilities that are there. They know what those answers are.
ECONOMIC POLICY
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Treasurer of Ontario, who, I might add, now issues his fiscal forecasts with best-before dates on them. Yesterday it was announced by your government that you were planning to implement what were described as "stringent financial measures." The last time I heard you were implementing stringent financial measures, the deficit was at $9.7 billion.
Can I ask you, Treasurer, if these stringent financial measures include wage caps of l% and 2%? It seems to me that you would help your Minister of Education out if you could implement these kind of wage caps that would solve the financial crisis for the hospitals, school boards etc. It is a reasonable request heard right around this province. Considering that you are looking at a $14-billion or $15-billion deficit next year, people are being laid off, hospital sections are being closed and schools are in desperate need, why not a 1%, 2% and 2% wage cap?
Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I appreciate the question from the member and indeed welcome all members back to the assembly to what I think is going to be a very important session. I would take the member back a little bit in time, if you will indulge me, Mr Speaker. Earlier this year, and even last year, there were suggestions from the Conservative caucus that there should be those kinds of wage caps on the Ontario public service as well. This government felt that we did not want to do that and that it was an indication of a last resort that we did not think was appropriate.
We sat down with the civil servants of this province. We negotiated in a very tough way on both sides, and the public service of this province saw itself as part of the solution, not just part of the problem, and worked out an arrangement with the government in which it is going to get a 1% wage increase this year and a 2% increase next year. I say to the member for Etobicoke West that I do not believe that kind of heavy-handed approach is appropriate, unless, of course, it is totally the last resort. I have no reason to believe we have reached that kind of impasse, and we want to work things out in a much more creative way.
Mr Stockwell: When do we reach the final last resort? You can't hold the line on your record $9.7-billion deficit; you are talking about a $14-billion or $15-billion deficit next year. We have hundreds of thousands of Ontarians out of work. When is the desperate time, Treasurer? When do we reach that point in time when it becomes plainly obvious that some desperate, imaginative -- for your party -- alternatives need to be examined?
I don't know when that point is, but the people of Ontario are asking, "Why can't we have a broader public sector cap of 1%, 2% and 2%?" Treasurer, people are happy to have a job today, let alone an increase. Why can't you ask the broader public sector? Bail out the hospitals, bail out the schools, bail out the taxpayers. Tell the broader public sector to accept 1%, 2% and 2%. It's very simple and, sir, may I add, it would resolve many of your problems.
Hon Mr Laughren: I find the member's suggestions not creative and not imaginative at all. It's just an instinctive reaction on the part of the Conservative Party in this province. It's nothing more than that.
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.
Hon Mr Laughren: I will try and give a serious response to what I think is a serious question, and I hope that members opposite will give me the opportunity to do that.
I believe the member will acknowledge the fact that the Ontario public service, the hospital workers, the Hydro workers, negotiated a good agreement with this government. I wish the member for Etobicoke West would stop making the assumption that if somebody works in the public sector in this province, he or she is the enemy of the people. This is simply not the case. They are out there doing very hard work under very difficult conditions, at least as difficult conditions as the ones under which the member opposite toils. We are determined to do what we can to make sure negotiations go on with everyone in the broader public sector in this province in the fairest way possible that does not abandon the collective bargaining process.
1500
ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities and Minister of Skills Development. The people of Brantford fully support the initiative shown by our government when it comes to the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. In fact, if this initiative had been in place under previous Liberal or Conservative governments, perhaps the workers who lost their jobs when Massey and White went down would have had training opportunities and programs to re-enter the job market as quickly as possible.
Although we do support this initiative wholeheartedly, we have some concern about the boundaries of the local committees that will be formed out of this initiative in conjunction with the federal government. Can the minister tell us how these boundaries were determined and what criteria were used?
Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities and Minister of Skills Development): The member has indeed touched on a question of significant debate in the consultations that are taking place around the local board structures. We proposed a map with boundaries on it because we wanted to have a focused and intelligent discussion around something, a map to talk to rather than something blank where everybody would then end up proposing boundaries that were all over the map, literally speaking.
There were very clear criteria used to establish those boundaries: for example, population movement and work patterns; the nature of the economy and the region; the actual institutions that presently exist to deliver training like Canada employment centre boundaries; or the college catchment areas. Half a dozen labour market characteristics were used to set up the boundaries. It was done very responsibly and very carefully. I know the member has some concerns in his own area and I would be happy to respond to him on this and further questions on this issue.
Mr Ward: With regard to the issue of the boundaries as far as the local committees being formed through the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board in conjunction with the federal government are concerned, the people of Brantford, the trainers who put on the programs for the citizens of the Brantford and Brant areas, feel that we have more in common with the citizens of Haldimand than we perhaps have with the citizens of Hamilton. They are working very hard in consultation with your ministry and with the OTAB project itself. What they are considering and are hopeful for is that there may be some possibility of having the boundaries changed. Is that a reasonable request to be looked at?
Hon Mr Allen: For example, Perth-Huron is also interested in being associated with Grey-Bruce; they are not, on the present map now. I am very interested in hearing the results of the local board consultations, which will be reporting back to me in about a month and a half. At that point I will be interested particularly in hearing the information they have picked up around the validity of the board structures that are proposed and the boundaries they think would work better in their regions.
I am quite happy to look at that, but there is one critical question. In order to put in place a single structure of federal-provincial boards for single-stop shopping around training, it is critically important for us to honour an agreement we have with the federal government. That agreement requires that we not exceed the mid-20s in boards. We cannot go on adding boards endlessly in order to meet the boundary problems that people have concerns with at this point in time.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the minister conclude his response, please?
Hon Mr Allen: I am happy to respond to the concerns, but I will also have to honour an agreement somewhere else.
HOSPITAL BEDS
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): My question is to the Minister of Health. I want to ask the minister about a local hospital problem. The Willett Hospital in the town of Paris opened its doors in 1922 and has provided great care since then. Over the years it has encountered a number of obstacles that have threatened its existence. In 1977 the Conservative government announced its intention to shut the hospital doors for good. It did not. But its future is in peril right now.
Last night the board of governors decided that in addition to beds already closed and the jobs already cut, it has two choices: close even more beds or shut the doors of the operating room. Unfortunately, it seems they will be obliged to do both.
What advice can I take to the people of Paris who are wrestling with the impending cuts? What steps are you prepared to take to help the Willett Hospital ensure the quality of care remains despite the cuts? How can the Willett Hospital and other hospitals in this province plan for the future when your government does not provide any plan, vision or strategy for the restructuring of the health care system?
Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health and minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy): I was about to congratulate the new member on his first question, until his last statement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me assure you that in fact I think we have gone a great way to try to set out a vision and a set of planning guidelines and tools for communities to use, a process in which district health councils come together with hospitals and hospital workers to plan for the programs we require on a local community basis and on a regional basis.
There is no doubt that these are very difficult times with respect to planning in the hospital sector and trying to give all the assistance and encouragement we can. You may know that in addition to the 1% increase in transfer payment announcements there is also potential access to the transitional assistance fund. I am hoping to have that information for both your hospital and other hospitals very soon, in terms of what that will provide; that might make it easier for them to do their planning. May I also say that with respect to trying to help hospitals in planning, we have tried to give a three-year horizon for a better planning option.
With respect to the Willett in general, you may also know that there have been proposals from your hospital to look at the issue of developing a clinic for acquired-brain-injury programming. This is an area I am very interested in. As a result of the steps we have taken on restriction of out-of-country referrals, we are trying to look at a program for repatriation back to Ontario of patients who have acquired brain injury. I'm interested in expanding those services. We've already taken some first steps and we're looking at what the second phase of that expansion should be. The hospital has been encouraged to put together a proposal.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude her response, please?
Hon Ms Lankin: When that comes forward, and when we have the full light of what is available in terms of expanded resources in this area, I'd be pleased to review that proposal and talk to the member about it.
VISITOR
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome to our midst this afternoon, having been seated in the members' gallery east, a former member of the assembly for Scarborough Centre, Margaret Renwick. Welcome.
MOTIONS
PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS
Mr Cooke moved that, notwithstanding standing order 94, private members' public business not be considered until Thursday, April 23, 1992, and that the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 1 to 4 inclusive.
Motion agreed to.
HOUSE SITTINGS
Mr Cooke moved that, notwithstanding standing order 8(a), the House shall meet at 1:30 pm on Thursday, April 9, 1992, and Thursday, April 16, 1992.
Motion agreed to.
COMMITTEE SITTING
Mr Cooke moved that, notwithstanding any standing order, the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly be authorized to meet from 10:30 am till 12 noon on Wednesday, April 8, 1992, to complete the writing of the committee's final report, pursuant to the reference of the House on December 19, 1991. For all purposes associated with the completion of the referral of the House of December 19, 1991, the membership of the committee and the subcommittee shall be the same as it was immediately before the commencement of the second session of the present Parliament, and the committee may consider all evidence received during its deliberations prior to the commencement of the second session, April 6, 1992.
Motion agreed to.
1510
PETITIONS
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD RULINGS
Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition to submit today which has been signed by some 1,357 signatories. Those signatures come from over 100 municipalities in the province. The petition reads:
"Whereas municipalities throughout Ontario are having planning decisions overruled by the Ontario Municipal Board in developers' favour; and
"Whereas rulings by the OMB are made contrary to the recommendations of planning professionals and residents; and
"Whereas rulings are made on technicalities and do not take the intent of the Planning Act into account, resulting in inappropriate development; and
"Whereas the existing Planning Act does not differentiate between significantly different developments covered by the same zoning; and
"Whereas there is no protection against home purchasers being misled about future developments in the neighbourhood; and
"Whereas there is no opportunity for local residents to effectively object to developments which directly affect them,
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"That the operation and impartiality of the Ontario Municipal Board be examined;
"That recent OMB rulings be reviewed, giving full consideration to the recommendations of municipalities, planning professionals and local residents;
"That amendments be made to the Planning Act to avoid zoning ambiguities;
"That legislation be introduced to protect home purchasers against unacceptable future developments;
"That there be a procedure at OMB hearings for local resident groups to effectively object to developments which directly affect them; and
"That we ask for a hearing before ministers related to the above issues."
I submit this petition and I have signed it in support.
VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICES
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Today I am presenting a petition with respect to the very serious concerns which exist in my riding concerning the apparent government intention to close licence-issuing offices. It reads as follows:
"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:
"We agree with the licence issuers: Licence-issuing offices should stay in the small towns, as they are now."
I am affixing my name to this petition as well.
SALE OF PARK
Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): "We, the undersigned, do beg leave to petition the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario and the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario."
All the residents of Dunsford, Ontario, are upset and are opposed to the sale of their park. They therefore ask the department of highways to accept the offer of $10,000 which was offered to it by the council of Dunsford and the township of Verulam council and maintain that special area as a park for their children.
I have also signed this.
EDUCATION FUNDING
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): "To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows."
This petition is signed by 34 people, urging the government to establish an advisory committee that will review the funding of education as it pertains to independent religious schools.
I have signed it and added my name to this petition.
REPORTS BY COMMITTEES
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr Kormos from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:
Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:
Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act, 1991 / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société de l'électricité.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr Brown from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:
Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:
Bill 121, An Act to revise the Law related to Residential Rent Regulation / Loi révisant les lois relatives à la réglementation des loyers d'habitation.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mrs Caplan from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:
Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:
Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act / Loi concernant la gestion des déchets dans la région du grand Toronto et modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
[Later]
Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Before we proceed to orders of the day, I ask for unanimous consent to revert back to reports by committees.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous consent?
Interjections: Agreed.
Hon Miss Martel: It is my understanding that the reports of two committees, in particular Bills 143 and 121, have been sent in error for third reading. They should be sent to committee of the whole House.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 121 and Bill 143 be ordered to committee of the whole?
Interjections: Agreed.
The Speaker: So ordered, Bills 121 and 143.
COMITÉ SPÉCIAL DU RÔLE DE L'ONTARIO AU SEIN DE LA CONFÉDÉRATION / SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM
M. Drainville du Comité spécial du rôle de l'Ontario au sein de la Confédération présente le rapport final du Comité et propose que l'étude du rapport, conformément à l'article 36(b) du Règlement, soit inscrite dans Feuilleton et Avis.
Mr Drainville from the select committee on Ontario in Confederation presented the committee's final report and requested that it be placed on the Orders and Notices paper for consideration pursuant to standing order 36(b).
La motion est adoptée.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Very briefly, the select committee on Ontario in Confederation met, as you know, for a long period of time and responded, I think very directly, to the needs and aspirations of Ontarians as they expressed themselves across this province as to the future of this country. I believe this report is a full one and addresses many of the issues that have been raised and I look forward to debate in this House on that matter.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
Mr Hansen from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the interim report on the pre-budget consultations of 1992 and also the report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs on its pre-budget consultations, 1992.
Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I would like to thank all the committee members who were on the committee -- as Chair, I was able to have a good working committee there -- and all the people who came before the committee for their presentations.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 23rd through 30th reports, inclusive, and moved their adoption.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 104(g)14, the reports are deemed to be adopted by the House.
1520
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
ALARM SYSTEMS ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES SYSTÈMES D'ALARME
Mr McLean moved first reading of Bill 2, An Act to regulate Alarm Systems / Loi réglementant les systèmes d'alarme.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I just have a short explanatory note. The purpose of the bill is to regulate alarm systems. The bill establishes a licensing system for persons engaged in the business of providing alarm services and persons employed as alarm installers. The bill provides for investigations regarding the suitability of persons applying for licences and investigations of complaints against persons providing alarm services.
In addition, the bill prohibits the sale of alarm systems not meeting minimum technical standards and requires occupiers of real property on which alarm systems are installed to notify the local police of the installation.
Finally, the bill establishes a system of fines for false alarms that cause the unnecessary response of the police, the fire department or an ambulance service. Higher fines are specified for subsequent false alarms occurring within 12 months of a first false alarm. The bill also permits a court to order the disconnection of an alarm system after the third false alarm within a 12-month period.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
THRONE SPEECH DEBATE / DÉBAT SUR LE DISCOURS DU TRÔNE
Consideration of the throne speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.
Ms Swarbrick moved, seconded by Mr Bisson, that an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:
To the Honourable Henry Newton Rowell Jackman, a Member of the Order of Canada, Officer in the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, bachelor of arts, bachelor of laws, doctor of laws, honorary lieutenant colonel of the Governor General's Horse Guards, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us.
Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): I attended a conference of young people the other day. These young men and women in their teens talked about their dreams. They talked about their dreams of becoming the best they can be, of ending racism, of peace and of making social change and that all of us may have our dreams come true.
What is my government doing to help make the dreams of these young people come true? My government is committed to economic renewal, to get people back to work and to restructure Ontario's economy to bring about greater fairness in the workforce these young people will soon enter.
These young people are a reflection of the coming reality that, by the year 2000, 85% of Ontario's workforce will be composed of women, of people of colour, of aboriginal Canadians and of disabled people. Our workforce has changed dramatically from the workforce that existing laws were designed to deal with.
My government is extending a strong hand and a clear invitation to all sectors and all groups in Ontario communities to work as partners with us to build that renewed economy restructured to meet the realities of today's workforce of capable women, people of colour, aboriginal Canadians and disabled people.
What is the reality of the Ontario economy that my government inherited? What is the reality of the Ontario economy young men and women see ahead of them that their parents are now struggling to cope with? Canada's federal government has also been actively restructuring our economy, leaving in its wake a devastating destruction of jobs. Federal policies of the Canada-US free trade agreement, the high dollar, high interest rates and the GST have been gutting Canada's manufacturing jobs, and 80% of those job losses have been in Ontario.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has shown that to find a period of greater collapse of manufacturing employment one has to go back to the Great Depression. In 1929 it fell 29.7% before bottoming out in 1933. The current net destruction of manufacturing jobs at 23.1% shows no sign of stopping. After the net loss of 461,000 jobs between June 1989 and October 1991, manufacturing now employs only 15% of the total Canadian labour force, which is likely the lowest in the industrial world. The CCPA document shows that federal policies were directly responsible for these jobs losses and that 65% of the jobs lost are due to permanent plant closures.
From January 1989 to November 1991, federal policies have added almost 500,000 people to Canada's unemployment rolls, pushing the official unemployment rate up from 7.8% to 10.3%, which is 1,423,000 people. If we add to this the 800,000 laid-off workers who are no longer considered to be part of the workforce because they had ceased looking for work more than six months earlier, that is another 6.5%; add 93,000 still considered part of the workforce but not seeking work because they've become discouraged or are awaiting replies from employers, that is another 1%; add 502,000 working part-time because they can't find full-time work, that is another 4.2%, and the unemployment-underemployment rate rises to 21%. These add up to a human crisis which rivals the 1930s. The final nail in the coffin for what is left of Ontario manufacturing jobs may well be driven in by Mr Mulroney's and Mr Bush's proposed North American free trade agreement.
It is consistent with the heartlessness of the current federal government that at the worst economic times since the 1930s it has reneged both on promises for labour adjustment programs to help get people back to work and on legal, written agreements with Canadian provinces to maintain its share of financial support for our education and health care systems and for our social assistance programs.
Because Ontario has suffered 80% of Canada's manufacturing job losses, our province has been hit the hardest by far by the federal government's decision to cut back from 50% to 28% its share of funding of our social assistance program. This decision by the federal government will gouge $4.5 billion from the Ontario budget this year alone at the same time that the federal government has cut back unemployment insurance benefits, forcing people more quickly on to provincial social assistance programs.
1530
My government did not create this economic nightmare, but my government is taking the responsibility for trying to clean up the mess created by federal policies. We are taking on that responsibility at least until the Canadian public has a chance to replace Brian Mulroney with that increasingly impressive woman from the north.
Ontario's NDP government believes that people do not need governments to walk them backwards to mean and miserable economic conditions. We need governments prepared to lead us forward to increasing prosperity and to increasing social harmony or, as the young men and women at that conference said, to the realization of their dreams of becoming the best that they can be and of all of us having our dreams come true.
What is my government doing to help make the dreams of these young people come true? First, we are investing in people. In recent consultation meetings with community leaders in my riding, time and time again I heard calls for government to cut waste, duplication and excess administration. Time and time again I heard calls for better and more coordinated training to provide business with the skilled workers it needs. Time and time again I heard calls for greater use of welfare funding to help people get back to work.
Our government is taking action on all these fronts. We are creating the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, which will bring the 48 different training programs now run by 10 different ministries under one roof. The Ontario Training and Adjustment Board will be directed by a partnership of business, labour and community groups working with the provincial government to ensure that Ontario's restructured economy will have a highly skilled workforce.
My government will soon be announcing details of a combination of training programs and child care to help people get off social assistance and back into the job market. We laid the groundwork for child care reform last year by providing for the conversion of child care into a non-profit, quality system. We will now be increasing the number of affordable child care spaces available to support working families and to help parents on social assistance get back to work.
But what does today's world consist of for young people? Women now make up half the workforce. The ethnic and cultural mix at work is far more diverse. In recent years there has been a rapid expansion of employment in the service and retail sectors, with workplaces employing smaller numbers of workers, many of them part-timers, often women and members of minority groups. Their work is frequently characterized by low wages, few benefits and limited opportunities.
The Ontario Labour Relations Act has not been updated for 15 years, and it is geared to the needs of a primarily male workforce in large workplaces. This does not reflect the reality of today's workplace and workforce. A number of legal and practical obstacles in the present Labour Relations Act now denies access to collective bargaining for large numbers of employees, particularly women, part-timers and members of minority groups in the rapidly growing service sector.
We like to claim that we are a democracy. We say Ontario workers have the right to join a free union, something we all claimed workers in Poland should enjoy. Yet the reality in Ontario is that most people are terrified to whisper the word "union" in a non-union workplace. In fact, many people are afraid to be identified with the union in unionized workplaces. They are afraid of being fired or of limiting their opportunities for advancement.
Those who are leading the campaign of terror against reform of the Ontario Labour Relations Act claim that we are going to tilt the balance of labour relations in Ontario. What balance? I come from the labour movement. I remember well the many frantic calls for help we frequently received at the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto from workers who had been treated abominably by employers, but when I proposed meeting with them about the possibility of helping to form a union at their workplace, most backed off in fear. They hoped the Ontario Labour Relations Board or the Ministry of Labour might be able to help them, but there was seldom anything they could do.
What about when workers come forward with the courage to help bring a union into workplaces where employees need representation? Those meetings with those workers sometimes resembled the infamous Watergate meetings with Deep Throat as we helped people to overcome their fears and tried to ensure that the employer wouldn't find out and wage a campaign to scare people off.
I also felt that I was training a team of private investigators to identify all of the employer's locations, to try to identify the names of the people who work there, to identify their phone numbers and their addresses so that you could contact them after hours, and to identify the people's position so that you could determine what bargaining unit they belonged to.
So again I ask: What balance now exists? It is my government's reforms that will finally create some balance in labour-management relations in Ontario.
It is the Ontario NDP government that has at long last given priority to creating equality for women on all fronts. It is this government that has finally put women into the corridors of power; that has unwaveringly protected women's right to choose in the area of reproductive rights; that is paving the way towards an affordable, quality system of child care; that has championed pay equity and is now extending it to the women who have been left out; that is providing for the automatic deduction of support payments for women and their children, and now it is our government that is willing to ensure that women, including immigrants and minority women, will enjoy the right of free collective bargaining in Ontario. The fact that many labour unions are predominantly male is not the fault of unions. It's the fault of Ontario's labour laws which discriminate against the workplaces in which women predominate.
When I was 19 years of age I knew nothing about unions, but somebody invited me to get involved in the union in my workplace. I decided, "What better way to get to know about it than to get involved?" I learned all right. Some of the young people I told you about at the beginning of my speech have dreams about making social change. It was through my union that I learned about social change. It was never taught in the school system. It was through my union that I learned that society changes by people coming together and sharing their dreams, like those young people were, and working together to make them come true. I learned that unions and the collective bargaining process have contributed immensely to making Canada the civilized nation that it is today, by paving the way for benefits like medical insurance, sick leave entitlements, workers' compensation, severance pay, unemployment insurance, decent hours of work, pensions, health and safety protection on the job and, more recently, for dental plans, prescription drug care and increased day care.
These are now benefits that most of us enjoy and take for granted, unionized or not. Well, many of these benefits are not enjoyed by the workers, mostly women workers, in the retail and service sectors and in other small workplaces. The people waging this campaign of terror against these reforms to the Labour Relations Act claim that they will drive business out of Ontario. This campaign reminds me of the one that was waged against Ontario's health and safety reforms a few years ago. Its claims were unfounded. This campaign reminds me of the threats of doctors when Tommy Douglas's government introduced medicare in Saskatchewan. Thank God his government didn't back down. Well, neither will we.
When I have discussed with business people in my riding the reality that in almost all cases these reforms will simply bring Ontario's laws up to date with what already exists in other Canadian provinces and that these reforms can in fact help to improve productivity, they have pointed out that the real problem is not the reforms themselves; the business people in my riding whom I have talked to have pointed out that the real problem is employers' perception of the reforms.
So what we need is the assistance of enlightened business people and other community leaders to help us to change that perception so that it matches reality. The reality is that in today's economic crisis, society is crying out for a new era of cooperation in our labour-management relations, and this government's reforms can make that new era happen.
To reach that new era of cooperation, we need business to take the high road. We need business to deal with the reality and not with an outdated perception. We must look to the future and not to the past. In most successful economies in Europe the laws assist unions and management to work together as partners in building those strong economies. In Ontario, antiquated labour laws force unions and working people to work underground trying to organize without getting caught by the employer. Why should workers be afraid to organize? They are simply standing up for a better life for themselves and their families and want their share of respect.
1540
Our present laws polarize unions and employers, pitting both sides against each other. Laws that cause both sides to see each other as the bad guys are in desperate need of reform. If we are serious about renewing the Ontario economy, then both sides have to come together as equal partners. Ontario needs labour laws that will foster a win-win situation and result in greater mutual respect and productivity.
When those same workers decide that they must go on strike to stand up for themselves, they do not do so lightly. They know they are going to go without pay and that their families may face hardship when they do. For most workers, going on strike goes against the grain of what they ever expected or wanted to do. Is it fair that these workers, who have given up all their income to go on strike for what they feel is basic fairness, are then faced with an employer using replacement workers to operate business as usual and maintain its profits?
We must remember that strikes occur in less than 5% of collective bargaining situations. I expect that with labour law reforms improving labour-management relations, that figure will be reduced further. But when Ontario workers arrive at the point where they are fed up and not willing to take it any more; where they feel forced to stand up democratically to defend themselves by going on strike in their families' interests, then businesses should not be allowed to hire replacement workers to conduct business as usual.
The province of Quebec legislated against replacement workers 14 years ago in 1978 -- I repeat, 1978 -- and Quebec's major employer group dropped its court challenge to that law, citing the relative harmony it has brought to labour-management relations in that province.
We need that kind of labour-management harmony in Ontario. We need reform of Ontario's labour relations laws to bring labour-management relations into a new era of workplace harmony, productivity and fairness.
As my government invests in our people, we invest in all of our people. We are restructuring our economy to more fairly compensate all groups. For too long our society assumed that jobs done predominantly by women must, by definition, be of less value than jobs done by men. In opposition, New Democrats forced the previous government through the 1985 accord to introduce pay equity legislation to begin more fairly to compensate women for the work they do. But many women were left out under the legislation introduced by that government.
Before Christmas, my government introduced legislation to enable more women to be paid for the true value of the work they do by allowing them to be paid wages that compare to men's wages in the same proportion as their jobs' value compares to the value of men's jobs in their workplace. This session, my government will introduce legislation to bring more equitable wages into workplaces where there are no men to compare duties and pay rates to; for example, community organizations like child care centres, garment factories employing only women. We will do this by providing a mechanism to identify men's jobs in other organizations that make sense to use as a proxy for comparison to those women's jobs.
As I mentioned earlier, one of the dreams of those young Ontarians I met with the other day is to end racism. One of the most harmful forms of racism prevents men and women from being employed in jobs for which they are qualified, simply because of their race. Yes, that form of racism is still alive and well in our province and it is applied both against people of colour and our aboriginal peoples.
Toronto's Urban Alliance on Race Relations recently won an award for its study against racism. In the study they used black and white actors to go to job interviews, presenting themselves with exactly the same skills and qualifications. They found out that white actors were offered three jobs for every one job offered blacks.
It was only last year that the racism of referrals by employment agencies and of the requests made to them by employers was clearly exposed.
Yes, that discrimination is still being exercised in many places against women, and yes, that discrimination is still being exercised against disabled people who want and are able to be productively employed in jobs suitable to their qualifications.
Opponents of mandatory employment equity argue that people should be appointed to positions based simply on respect for their qualifications. On that point, we are in strong agreement. The necessity for mandatory employment equity has come about, however, because in the 1990s that is still not happening. The biggest myth we need to dispel is the myth that employment equity will mean the appointment of unqualified people. That is not the case. Employers who hire unqualified women, people of colour, aboriginal people or disabled people will simply be undermining what our government is trying to do.
Employment equity means undoing the wrongs of the past that have divided our community. Employment equity means creating a society where all of our people work effectively together at all levels. Employment equity means making the dreams of today's young people to end racism come true.
The Premier and our government have worked hard to try to persuade the federal government to join us in a capital works program that would create jobs and invest in our future. Again, the federal government says it can't or won't do anything to help. The federal government claims it is worried about its budget deficit, which it let get badly out of control when times were good.
But there is more than one deficit in this country and in this province. There is the deficit of jobs, there is the deficit of retraining programs, there is the deficit of an increasingly unsafe and unhealthy environment which is driving up health costs from the soaring cancers and other diseases it is causing, and there is the deficit of deteriorating physical assets like our water and sewage facilities which the municipalities have long been warning us about.
In a recession like this, work can be done far cheaper than in boom times. Capital spending encourages recovery and helps the private sector to remain productive. We saw that in the 1930s when it took a war to get us to spend our way to recovery.
We do not need wars to create economic recovery -- that is, unless we are talking about a war against unemployment, against damage to the environment, and against poverty and violence. As an advocate of our young people's dreams of peace, those are the wars I am prepared to wage and those are the wars my government is prepared to wage by investing in our province's infrastructure.
The federal government may not have the morality or guts to wage these wars, since George Bush hasn't started them first. The Treasurer, however, will be presenting our battle plans for a capital works program in his next budget.
Although some business leaders may not like our government, our government likes business. As someone who used to specialize in economic development issues with the Metro labour council and as somebody who believes very strongly in the importance of investing in business, I am tremendously proud of my government's new programs for investing in business and of our list of success stories to date.
The Ontario investment and worker ownership program will soon allow tax credits to individuals who buy into a labour-sponsored investment fund to create jobs and encourage employee ownership. This program will give business new sources of capital and give workers a bigger place in workplace decision-making, a move that will boost productivity. This plan, which will become law in this legislative session, will save jobs by letting workers buy viable plants threatened with closure.
1550
Already we have used this program to save hundreds of jobs in Kapuskasing and provide a new future in that community. We also led and coordinated the economic plan that saved thousands of jobs at de Havilland Aircraft in Toronto.
The Premier and our government have worked hard to save thousands of jobs at Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie. Our sale of the Urban Transportation Development Corp to Canadian-based Bombardier Inc saved 860 jobs. It brought more capital investment to this province and kept our only manufacturer of rail mass transit equipment in Ontario.
My government is working to create jobs while actively investing in our environment through the development of a green industry strategy for Ontario. For me this is a dream coming true. I worked in the area of planning environmental industries for Toronto's waterfront through the Crombie commission when I worked at the labour council. I am delighted to be part of a government that is creating jobs through the development of green industries and is establishing a waterfront regeneration trust to take an ecosystem approach to the regeneration of Toronto's waterfront for economic renewal, housing, shoreline protection and a waterfront trail for us all to enjoy.
Our government is actively investing in research and development for new products that we can make here and sell in global markets. Our focus includes new environmental industries, the health care field and the transfer of new technology to industry and the marketplace. A prime example is the help we gave to Canadian General Electric which resulted in its largest investment ever in Canada. CGE, its unions and our government are working together to create jobs in Ontario by making state-of-the-art energy-saving lamps to sell throughout North America. Employment in the plant will increase to 740 by 1996. This project is typical of the environmental services our government is working to develop in this province.
Our new energy directions are geared to creating jobs while lowering demand for electricity in order to reduce the need for more generating facilities, thereby saving money and protecting the environment at the same time. The potential is for an environmental services market of at least $7 billion in Ontario. This government will be working with Ontario businesses and their unions to help them use that opportunity to create products, services and jobs while protecting our environment and consequently our health.
The Ministry of Energy, along with the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and Ontario Hydro, has set up the demand-side management business development project as an entry point for businesses that want support from the $6-billion fund Ontario Hydro will use on energy conservation measures by the year 2000. At the same time the Ministry of the Environment is supporting the development of recycled products industries like one I know of in my riding for housing construction materials.
Another innovation of our government that is designed to create new investment capital and new jobs is the legislation being dealt with this session to encourage the creation of more worker-cooperative ventures and to strengthen credit unions. Cooperatives have an important role to play in rebuilding local economies. I know from experience how important cooperatives have been in the housing sector where they provide affordable housing in a way that gives residents a vested interest in maintaining their housing units and common areas in a good state of repair. Our incentives to encourage business cooperatives and credit union investments will help create and boost small business as another engine driving economic renewal in this province.
A woman from Pollution Probe knocked on my door in Scarborough recently collecting donations for her organization's excellent work. She was excited to tell me about the environmental bill of rights that Pollution Probe and other environmental groups are negotiating with business through the coordinating leadership of the Ontario government. Our government will be introducing that environmental bill of rights into the Ontario Legislature this year, following a model of partnership work with business and citizen environment groups.
Our government's commission on planning and development reform in Ontario, under the coordination of John Sewell, will publish its proposals this session. The fairness and integrity of land use and land development decisions are crucial to serving the public interest and protecting our environment. They have a serious impact on our economic wellbeing. Again, the Ontario government has taken responsibility for changing a system that has for far too long been causing the public to become cynical about government systems that impact upon their lives and livelihoods.
My government has also heard the concerns of its citizens that too many projects crucial to the creation of needed construction jobs are being lost in seas of government red tape. While zoning approvals, flood control considerations, environmental and other items must be weighed, they can't continue to prevent projects from getting under way in a reasonable period of time, especially when people are crying out for the much-needed jobs that these projects offer.
Again, this government is determined to make systems work. The Minister of the Environment has been paving the way with her innovative handling of the Spadina subway and the Spadina light rail transit projects, but the process needs to be improved. The government will be streamlining regulation by identifying ways to free up job-creating development projects that have been caught in red tape. My government is appointing a provincial facilitator to move projects through the necessary processes.
In the series of budget consultation meetings I held with my constituents in Scarborough West I heard time and time again the demands of the public to make the Ontario public service more efficient and effective in its delivery of services. They know that programs like OHIP have been growing at an average rate of 13.4%, while we have seen no corresponding increase in the health of Ontarians. They know that every percentage point of increase costs them money. In the case of OHIP it costs them $53 million.
Ontario's NDP government did not create the present structure of inefficiencies in government, but we are taking the responsibility for correcting these long-standing problems. In our first budget in 1991 we tightened most ministry finances by 5%; this year we cut ministry budgets by a further 10%. We imposed a year-end freeze on discretionary spending to avoid the last-minute spending of surpluses.
Last year we froze salaries of cabinet ministers, MPPs and senior government officials. Since this fall our government has been putting 21 of Ontario's largest and most costly programs under intensive scrutiny. Our ministers are making changes and developing action plans to ensure that this government will prove to be the most efficient, effective managers this province has ever seen, and we will be doing it while protecting Ontario's needed services, not by cutting and slashing them.
We will do this, as the Minister of Health is, by working closely with all parties in the health care system to restructure it to provide accessible, affordable, appropriate health services for all while shifting the emphasis to health promotion and disease prevention and long-term care reform that will help support people to live independently in their community wherever possible.
We will do this, as the Minister of Community and Social Services is, by restructuring our social assistance program to a system that supports people in making the transition back into the Ontario workforce.
We are doing this, as our president of treasury board did, by showing leadership in the collective bargaining process and negotiating agreements with our staff that responded to their non-monetary concerns while living within financial settlements that are appropriate to today's fiscal realities.
We are also doing this while having introduced a record of accomplishments in our short time in office that is already so long that the only way to readily convey it to people is to encourage them to call our constituency office to obtain a list.
1600
I started out my speech by telling you about the dreams expressed by young people at a conference I attended the other day. These young men and young women talked about their dreams of becoming the best they can be, their dreams of ending racism, their dreams of peace and of making social change, their dreams that all of us may have our dreams come true. As there are no magic wands in this life, my government has developed strong, creative programs to make these young people's dreams come true. We have developed strong, creative programs to renew Ontario's economy, which has been so badly damaged by federal policies. We have developed strong, creative policies to bring about the needed restructuring of Ontario's economy to bring it into a new era of workplace fairness, increased productivity and greater labour-management harmony. We extend a firm and friendly hand to all partners in Ontario's economy to join with us to help make these young people's dreams come true.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It is with pleasure that I welcome back to the House -- as some people may not know -- after a prolonged illness the member for Scarborough West. I want to thank her on behalf of the government and the people of Ontario for her address to the speech from the throne. I knew her for a long time before coming to this House, and she is certainly an asset to the people not only of her riding but also this government and the people of this province. She is a person of integrity and I salute her.
Getting into a debate around the speech from the throne, I think one has to go back a little bit and take a look at what has happened since the NDP was first elected to government on September 6, 1990, a date I remember quite fondly and I guess others opposite don't remember with as much fondness as I would. But I think we have to look back first of all at some of the reasons this government was elected and also at some of the things that have happened since then.
I think it's no surprise that we were elected to government on the heels of the worst recession since the last Depression, since the 1930s. I think people, when they went to the polls on September 6, 1990, were looking out there, were looking out into Ontario but generally looking across this country and really having some fears about what they saw out there. They were somewhat fearful at what was happening within their own local economies in communities such as Timmins, Toronto, Sault Ste Marie and Windsor, and looking at the effects this recession was starting to have on their families, on the people within their communities and on what was really happening, at the underpinning of that problem they saw out there.
Not only did they fear what was happening within the economy, but I think they feared that possibly politicians, may I say, and certain political parties, were not being up front with them. They were saying: "Listen, we need a little bit of straight talk. We want somebody to go into government and to speak about the issues that are not only important to us as constituents from the voters' perspective, but also to talk about what some of the problems are fundamentally within this economy and what some of those changes are that we have to enact to address what's happening."
We have heard the rhetoric for some eight years; we know it well. We hear a number of terms that have been I would say somewhat invented over the last eight years. We know there is a problem within the economy of not only Ontario but Canada and globally.
But I have to ask the question, why did this really happen? To sit here and say it is the problem and the responsibility and the fault of the New Democratic government of Ontario is really misleading on the part of the people who take that line, because I think most Ontarians recognize that the problem arose much before we came to government on September 6, 1990. The problem with the economy had been happening over a period of years, and what happened is that we got elected at the time those changes were really taking effect.
I think it was in great part due to that that the people chose the NDP in Ontario, because they said: "We realize as constituents of Ontario that there are changes to be made, and the question is, who do we most trust to make those changes and who will not sell us down the road?"
That is not speaking badly of other political parties. It is a question of perception. People said, "We've seen what the party has stood for for years. We've seen what NDP governments have done in Saskatchewan, under the stewardship of people like Tommy Douglas and other people such as Allan Blakeney and other governments across the province, and never has the NDP forgotten there are people in this equation."
To address problems in our economy it is not just a question of looking at the bottom line, much as some people would like to say from some of the business community -- not all -- and many of the members of the opposition, especially the third party. I think people recognize that it is not just the bottom line that has to be looked at; we need to take a look at how people fit into this equation.
When the government came to power, we had some decisions to make, and one of the first decisions we had to make was drawing up our first budget. We came to power at a time when the federal government had abdicated its responsibility to this province to a certain extent and had been cutting back its transfer payments. This is not a new phenomenon; it did not start last year. It started in 1984, and especially in 1988 after the election of Mr Mulroney and his Conservative government, because they were in a tough fix: They were trying to balance their budget. Rather than trying to find creative solutions to bring partners together, they reacted the best way they knew, and you cannot fault them for that. You can fault them for the effect, but you cannot fault them for trying. If that is something of a quandary, I will explain.
They said, "We need to balance our budget, so what we will do is transfer responsibility for programs that we as a federal government have control over within federal regulations and legislation and we will have the provinces pay for that." But I think the effect is even more interesting than that when you look at it, because the federal government's direction was that it did not believe in many of these programs.
They said: "If we as a Conservative government in Ottawa were to go out and say the things we really feel, people would hammer us. So how do we deal with it? We underfund the programs." By underfunding those programs, they thought -- and they might be right to a certain extent -- people would say, "We need to tighten our belts so far that we may lose some of those programs and have them slip out of our pockets." So they embarked on this process. I do not fault the Liberal government of the past for that problem. It is a problem they inherited, and the Conservative government prior to 1985 was faced with the problem of federal governments successively offloading their responsibilities on to the provinces.
The Conservative government prior to 1985 and the Liberal government from 1985 to 1990 decided they would try an innovative approach. They did some things I have to give them some credit for that were not too bad, but they also adopted the same idea. They did not come up with creative thinking. They did not try to find new solutions. They said, "Let's go look in our old bag of tricks and see what we can pull out of there." One of them was to offload. We have seen school boards lose funding, down from 60% to 44% today. We have seen what happened with regard to offloading on to the municipalities and what happened in some of the sectors with social services. They passed on the responsibility not because they wanted to, but because they had to balance their books as well. They said, "We'll pass it down to the next level of government and we'll let the municipalities and the school boards worry about that."
Again, I do not say it is because they wanted to do wrong; it is because they did not know any better. They did not come to government and say: "Maybe there are other solutions. Maybe we have to make some tough decisions, but maybe we can find ways of addressing those problems in a more proactive way." Remember, it is not just the bottom line; it is also people.
On arrive aujourd'hui en tant que gouvernement néo-démocrate et on se dit, oui, là on a des décision à prendre. On est arrivé l'année passée avec un budget. Il y avait 9,7 milliards de dollars comme déficit, mais on a réalisé, en faisant ce budget-là, qu'on avait vraiment deux choix autrement que augmenter le déficit.
Le gouvernement aurait pu dire, premièrement, à cause de la perte des transferts fiscaux du fédéral aux provinces : "On peut augmenter les taxes des personnes de l'Ontario. On peut faire payer la différence par le monde." La différence est bien près de 10 milliards de dollars, pas d'argent nouveau, dont le gouvernement provincial dit : «Écoute, on a une couple de piastres et puis on achète des votes et puis on s'en va dans la province dépenser de l'argent.» Non. Des 9,7 milliards de dollars dont on parle, 90% est directement responsable de ce qui est arrivé dans l'économie de l'Ontario à cause de la récession. Ceci veut dire, premièrement, des pertes des revenus pour la province, et deuxièmement, une augmentation des coûts des services que nous donnons. Mais le fédéral a commencé son petit exercice en 1984 en disant : «On va couper les fonds et puis eux-autres on va les faire faire notre "dirty work", comme on dit en anglais.»
On aurait pu augmenter les taxes pour être capable de retrouver cet argent-là. Mais franchement, 10 milliards de dollars, où va-t-on chercher ça ? Augmenter les taxes de 10 milliards de dollars pour balancer un budget pour avoir la beauté de dire, en tant que gouvernement, «Oui, on a un budget balancé -- » Monsieur, le Président, vos taxes, les miennes et celles des citoyens de Timmins et de Iroquois Falls et de Matheson et de toute la province auraient augmenté au point qu'on n'aurait plus pu payer.
L'autre choix qu'on avait était très simple aussi. On aurait pu dire : «On s'en va chercher notre épée, et coupe, slash away les programmes. On n'a plus besoin de ça. Coupez-en pour 10 milliards de dollars.»
Soixante-quinze pour cent sur la moyenne de tout l'argent que le gouvernement de l'Ontario dépense est dans les secteurs de santé, d'éducation et des services sociaux. Je ne crois pas pour une seconde que, en 1992, le monde de la province dirait qu'il veut couper dans ces secteurs-là. Mais il n'y a pas 10 milliards de dollars qu'on peut aller chercher dans les dépenses du gouvernement. Ceci est au contraire de ce que l'opposition, expressément, nos amis les Conservateurs ont à dire : «On peut arranger ça. Vous mettez des wage freeze et puis vous allez mettre les bottes aux travailleurs dans la province et ça va tout arranger les problèmes.» Non. Il n'y avait pas de 10 milliards de dollars pour faire ça.
Quels choix avait-on ? On avait le choix de dire qu'on va avoir le courage et la fortitude, comme gouvernement, pour dire, «Oui, on va le prendre sous le menton.» On réalise qu'on ne fait pas balancer le budget sur le dos des personnes de l'Ontario. On a une responsabilité, comme gouvernement, et on va la prendre.
1610
The problem since that time has been that there has been a lot of misinformation within the public. We know it well. Some people in the business community have a vested interest in not seeing a New Democratic government in the province of Ontario -- not all, not the majority, but some. The role of the opposition -- we know it well; we were in opposition for years -- is to discredit the government of the day so that one day they may sit, Mr Speaker, on your right hand.
So they went out, made a lot of discussion and started a lot of dialogue within the province. They said: "Oh, the deficit, look at that. They're spending crazy deficits out there. Jeez, is that ever terrible." They didn't say what they would do; that is my point. They didn't say if they would find that $9.7 billion from programs. Were they going to cut it out of health care? Were they going to cut it out of education or social services? Were they going to increase taxes by $9.7 billion or were they going to do a combination of both? Were they going to increase taxes 50% of the $10 billion and cut programs equally? No, I do not think they would have done that either. I think they would have made some similar decisions. They may have done it a little differently, but I think they would have realized there are people in this equation and we have to keep that in mind when we are doing budgets. We have to remember that people are affected.
So we made that decision and we did a number of other things when we announced our throne speech last year. We said, for the first time in Canada, probably in North America and maybe even the world -- who knows? -- we were going to turn around and make sure that a few basic things happened for the people of Ontario in regard to programs.
We said, for example, that we would establish a wage protection fund so that when workers are put out of work through no fault of their own, and sometimes through no fault of the company because of the economy, they would be paid the wages due. As members, we have them coming to our constituency offices. If there is money in the coffers of the company -- and sometimes it is not their fault; I wish they would make better plans on how they were going to do this -- the worker does not get paid. The worker is always the last to be paid when it comes to situations like that. So we put together the wage protection fund and said we were going to make sure workers are paid in the end.
We also said that of the 70% to 75% of people who pay support, in the event of divorce or separation, to their wives, husbands or children, we were going to make sure that money was paid in one form or another. So what did we do? We put together the family support plan. We said we were not going to have the situation continue where people do not take the responsibility. Again, the 130 members in this assembly, and I imagine in most assemblies across this nation, have a similar problem. We stood boldly and said we needed to address this problem, so we brought an innovative solution. We said we would make sure we have regulation through legislation, that if there is a separation and if you owe support, the money will be collected, but not out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this province, as was the situation for years. Nobody had the resolute fortification to be able to deal with that.
What else did we do? We enacted a change in regulation around rent control. We said, "No more will be the day where landlords" -- not all, but some landlords do this; we know them all -- "would have the opportunity of passing off excessive rent increases to their tenants because they decided to do some things in order to increase their revenue." We said we would put a block to that. We will say, "Only in those cases where you can prove on paper that you have an increase in rent you must pass on because of increase in municipal taxes, because of increases in hydro or water bills or actual things that are going on with your building, will you be allowed to do that." Nobody likes laws, nobody likes regulation, but we must have them within our society in order to make sure we have a fairness in how things are driven as far as service within this province.
We did a number of other things. We put in place an anti-recession program where over $700 million was targeted to capital works projects across this province. We have seen that money in the ridings across this province. I know in mine it kept many people working until this day, projects such as what's happening at Northern College in South Porcupine, projects such as the Ontario Provincial Police building that is now being built in South Porcupine as well for our local detachment there, the waterfront development project down in Mattagami River etc.
That money was targeted for capital works programs that were needed. Why not do them now? The rates are better because there is quite a bit of competition in the local markets in regard to construction firms and people who bid as far as materials, and at the same time we're able to put people back to work. We have people working even today and for the next year on many of those projects because of that money we targeted. In this throne speech we indicated what direction we want to take as well. That will be laid out by our Treasurer in our next budget.
We also said we have to take a look at what happens with the environment. The Minister of the Environment put together a program, the 3Rs and the Waste Management Act, to say, "Listen, we need to find long-term solutions to our garbage crisis in this province." Not just shipping garbage all over the province anywhere you want to go and anywhere you can find a hole, such as Kirkland Lake, but taking a look at a situation and saying, "We need to have long-term planning so that we can work towards solving the problems that are not only happening today but the problems that may arise in the year 2000 or 2010." It's not as visible to people sometimes when you take that kind of approach because nobody has ever done it this way. It has always been short-term planning on the part of the government.
I can go on at length about the things we announced in the last budget and the last throne speech, but the point is that this government -- yes, a New Democratic government and a socialist one at that -- said, "We will recognize that there are people in this equation." Being fair to business doesn't mean to say you put the boots to people or workers or our constituents; it means to say you have to draw a balance, and 99% of the business community recognizes that. There is a small percentage of them who have a little agenda they would like to carry out, and when I talk to local business people in my riding they recognize that as well and respect what we're trying to do.
Interjections.
Mr Bisson: The other point that I would like to make is that I got into talking about some of the problems -- we hear the opposition yelling. They hate hearing the truth; it drives them crazy. Jeez. They're crying now.
I started talking about some of the things that are affecting our economy today. If we take a look at the problems that are happening in our economy, we have to take a look at what has happened. There have been fundamental changes in the way the Canadian economy and, I would say to a certain extent, the North American economy operate. Why has that happened? That has happened to a great extent because the rules have been changed.
If we go back and take a look at what happened historically in our economy here in Canada, we had a recognition when we started this country: We said the Canadian model has to be different when it comes to an economy. Why? Because of two major factors. First, it is the largest country in land mass today, but back then the second largest in the world, with the smallest population. As such, government had a very important role to play in how it delivered services not only to the people but also to industry.
When we were in the midst of developing, for example, our transportation industry, either through rail or through airline services through Air Canada etc, the governments played a very active role and, yes, ran crown corporations. Why? Because they realized in the situation of Air Canada that if you left it entirely in the private sector in a country with the large land mass and small population we have, the corridor from Quebec City to Montreal to Toronto to Winnipeg going west to Vancouver would have very good service, but Timmins, Whitehorse, Dryden, Thunder Bay, those communities would have very little service, and some would have absolutely none.
1620
So the governments of the day said -- they were Conservative and Liberal governments; they did have a conscience at one time -- "We have to turn around and we must take responsibility as a government." The idea is that you have a corporation set up in that way so that the marketable routes that make money are able to offset the costs of operating those routes that don't make as much money or lose, so that Canadians from coast to coast are able to have equal access to the transportation net we have.
At the same time they did that they recognized that, if industry were to develop within Canada, we had to have that infrastructure in place and that, if left strictly within the private sector, it would not happen. That is just one example. If you look at companies such as Northern Telecom you can get into another story, where regulation allowed individual companies to practise a monopoly in particular areas so that they had local markets to make the money necessary to develop the research and development they needed so that they could become world leaders. That did not happen at the whim of the economy; it happened because of government regulation and direction, recognizing that it had a responsibility to play within this economy.
Leading into this throne speech I have to make a few observations. The first observation I have to make, and I guess it doesn't surprise me, is that question period today was much as I expected, where opposition members took their usual role and said: "Listen, there's nothing good the government had to say in this throne speech. It was all awful."
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): No, there was nothing.
Mr Bisson: They are yelling that again. Why? Because they're not going to admit there is something that's good in this thing, because it's not in their best interests. They are the opposition. I think we can draw our own conclusions.
What is more interesting is that last night I made a point of being at my office in order to watch a news telecast and pick up the papers afterwards to see what was being said around the throne speech. When you look at communities outside of the greater metropolitan area I think the reporting was actually quite fair in some cases. I've seen some of the clippings that came in this morning from various papers across the province that said that, for what it was, it was a budget that was aimed at dealing with the economic problems of this province and that, recognizing the situation and that there are problems in the economy, the government took the leadership in order to demonstrate that's the direction it felt was important -- what we have been saying from the very beginning.
But what was interesting is that some of the responses that came out I dare say were written before the throne speech was even read by Mr Jackman. I noticed some of the business community, some of the large lobby, the friends of the member for North Bay and others, were out there right away bashing and saying, "Oh, this is terrible stuff." I thought it was a very good message. I think the message we were sending to the business community is what we have been saying from the beginning: "We're prepared to work with you, we're prepared to find solutions, we're prepared to do the types of things that are necessary to help business along in this province, but you must recognize that business also has a responsibility." The responsibility is making sure that they take their responsibility in regard to our economy. I would say that it's not the majority view, but some people within the business community actually take the view that there is more to gain out of bashing this government than there is to gain in any other way.
The point I am trying to make is that it's quite counterproductive for a business community that is trying to stimulate growth within the local economy, in order to allow the small business sector to flourish, to be out there yelling Chicken Little and trying to scare away any investment that could come into Ontario and trying to discourage consumers from buying products made in Ontario or sold in this province. They are supposedly purporting to be the representatives of the business community. They are not helping the small business community in my area. They are trying to scare people away. I would say they have a lot better to do than take the direction they do now. They should be trying to work with this government and others to find solutions to what is affecting our economy today.
Interjection: Be part of the discussion.
Mr Bisson: They need to be part of the discussion, exactly.
What did we say going into this throne speech? We said a couple of things. One of the things we recognized and said within the throne speech is that a government, let it be provincial or federal or municipal, does not have all the answers. We must work cooperatively among all levels of government to be able to find solutions.
Part of that equation is there. Many communities across Ontario and the provincial government have been working quite well, and in some aspects the federal government has been working well with us, but when it comes to the budgetary process, $4.5 billion is what we lost this year because of the abdication of responsibility of the federal government. We put the blame squarely where it was.
I heard one of the members of the official opposition -- I forget the member's riding -- saying, "Oh, there they go pointing a finger again." Yes, I will point a finger where it is due; to do otherwise would be irresponsible. The federal government has a responsibility, and we expect it to hold it up and maintain that responsibility in making sure we find ways of funding those programs that are necessary. If they don't have the money, they can at least sit down with us and work out an agreement on how we can work together cooperatively to find savings in order to make sure those programs are funded.
We have been going through that process within our ridings since last year. Within my own community I have been sitting down with hospitals and school boards and homes for the aged and other transfer agencies and trying to come to terms with how we operate those institutions within the fiscal constraints we have today. The process is difficult, because never before has it been the case in Ontario where both the management side and the workers' side, through its unions, have had to sit down together to try to come to some solution in regard to their problems, but the process works. One school board in my riding has found $660,000 in savings by looking at its internal budgets and finding ways of saving money within its internal budgets.
The traditional response on the part of the opposition would have been: "Lay off staff, cut out workers. We don't need those. Let the teachers go." That is what they wanted us to do, but they went inside and they found $660,000 by working cooperatively. With teachers, custodians and support staff, they put together a committee of people to look at that.
There is still room to go, but like I say, the process is difficult because it challenges. We have never done it in that way before.
Quand je regarde ce qui est arrivé dans le secteur des hôpitaux dans mon comté, c'est la même histoire : des problèmes très difficiles faisant affaire avec la situation fiscale de ces institutions. Quand les hôpitaux sont d'abord venus nous parler, on a essayé d'encourager ce processus de s'asseoir avec les travailleurs et avec la gérance de la compagnie pour trouver des solutions. Ça a été un processus très difficile.
Ils sont arrivés à beaucoup de leurs buts en s'assoyant ensemble afin de trouver des solutions dans leurs organisations entre la gérance et les travailleurs et trouver des solutions aux problèmes fiscaux qu'ils ont aujourd'hui. On a encore du chemin à faire, mais on a marché beaucoup de chemin ensemble en travaillant ensemble sur le problème.
C'est ça la clé. Quand le chef du troisième parti a fait le point dans la période de questions en disant que oui, c'est important que les travailleurs et les entrepreneurs s'asseoient ensemble pour trouver une solution aux problèmes, il a eu parfaitement raison. C'est la première fois que le chef du troisième parti se lève dans cette Chambre pour dire quelque chose dont je peux dire, «Oui, je l'appuie.»
Après cela, il est allé directement dans l'autre direction en trouvant quelque chose à critiquer, mais le point était là. Je l'encourage, comme l'a fait le premier ministre de la province, à aller s'asseoir avec les chefs des secteurs d'entrepreneurs dans la province pour trouver des façons de travailler ensemble, parce que c'est possible.
Quand on regarde Kapuskasing, c'était très difficile de trouver une solution. Ça a pris de huit à dix mois. La communauté s'est mobilisée jusqu'au point de venir à Queen's Park et de crier qu'elle voulait avoir de l'action. Nous, on n'a pas eu peur dans cette situation. On n'a pas dit: «Oh, mon Dieu, c'est assez de pression qu'on a besoin de faire quelque chose bien vite afin de leur plaire». Leur plaire, ça n'était pas la question. La question était de faire ce qui était notre responsabilité.
Mais on a dit que ce n'était pas seulement notre responsabilité. Kimberly-Clark avait une responsabilité ainsi que la municipalité et Hydro Ontario. Ensemble, avec les travailleurs, on a trouvé des solutions pas mal différentes de ce celles qu'on a vues dans la province avant 1990. On a été capable de sauvegarder cette entreprise pour les années à venir à Kapuskasing. Ça a été difficile, mais ça a été possible.
1630
On a vu les mêmes exemples : Algoma Steel à Sault Ste-Marie. On a vu le même processus. Au-dessus d'un an de s'asseoir entre le syndicat, le gouvernement, la compagnie et la municipalité pour essayer de trouver des solutions internes dans la communauté qui peuvent voir cette compagnie-là aller vers l'an 2000. Je suis confiant qu'on peut le faire parce que c'est en s'assoyant ensemble qu'on peut trouver des solutions à nos problèmes à longue terme. Le problème que je ne peux pas vraiment comprendre avec l'opposition c'est qu'elle regarde des solutions à court terme. Ils me disent, comme député du gouvernement, «Prenez des dollars et arrangez le problème.»
Premièrement, ils ne veulent pas qu'on ait un déficit ; deuxièmement, ils veulent qu'on dépense l'argent pour arranger les problèmes. «Donnez encore de l'argent pour les écoles, donnez pour ci, donnez pour ça.» Ce sont des solutions à court terme. C'est exactement pour ça que la population de l'Ontario a dit, «On veut avoir un changement.» Elle a élu un gouvernement néo-démocrate. On a fait la même reprise en Saskatchewan et en Colombie-Britannique, où on regarde le Parti néo-démocrate pour du leadership et où on dit : «Les solutions à court terme avec de l'argent ne marchent plus. Il faut trouver des solutions terriblement différentes qui montrent l'initiative de coopération entre les différents secteurs pour arriver à des solutions de très grands problèmes.»
Comme vous le savez, on voit que 18 milliards ou 19 milliards de dollars de notre budget sont dépensés directement dans le secteur de la santé, ce qui représente environ 24 % de toutes nos dépenses en Ontario, au lieu de donner seulement de l'argent et d'arranger les problèmes comme ils ont fait dans le passé.
Cela marchait comme ça ici, le système budgétaire : J'ai été dans un hôpital quelque part en Ontario. On disait : «Si tu ne me donnes pas encore de l'argent pour balancer mon déficit, tu vas avoir de la publicité et la communauté sur ton dos bien vite. Donne-moi de l'argent.» Mais le gouvernement ne veut pas avoir ça. «Tiens, on vous donne d'autre argent. On augmente les coûts. Oui, 5 $, 2 $, c'est tout ce que j'ai mais on monte les coûts.» Ce n'était pas de la gestion. Ce n'était pas de la bonne gérance.
Nous on a dit, «On a besoin de changer le processus», mais ce qui est le plus intéressant c'est qu'on regarde des réformes à long terme dans le secteur de la santé pour des manières d'intégrer nos services communautaires de santé, pas seulement dans les hôpitaux mais directement dans la communauté. À la longue ça veut dire que ça va être moins cher pour l'Ontario, et qu'on pourra liver un service qui est meilleur. C'est de la planification à long terme et non pas à court terme.
Qu'est-ce qui a été dit d'autre qui faisait affaire avec le discours du trône ? On a dit qu'on avait aussi besoin de changer un peu comment on fait l'investissement en Ontario. On ne peut pas toujours aller chercher de l'argent dans les poches des autres. Je me rappelle bien que Mulroney a dit en 1984 quand il a été élu : «Le Canada est ouvert pour les affaires. Venez donner de l'investissement à notre pays.» C'est beau avoir de l'investissement d'en dehors du pays, mais si on veut contrôler son économie, premièrement on a besoin de développer une stratégie d'investissements économiques directement dans les frontières de son pays ou de sa province. Deuxièmement, on ne peut pas aller chercher de l'argent dans les poches des autres quand ils n'en ont pas. Il faut trouver des solutions internes.
On a dit dans le discours du trône que c'est important et qu'on va continuer avec nos progrès dans les fonds d'investissements des travailleurs et autres programmes qui peuvent aller chercher de l'argent directement en Ontario pour le réinvestir dans nos usines qui emploient des personnes de l'Ontario et qui construisent des produits dans notre province. On a dit, «On va aller regarder dans le fonds de pension.»
Ça fait peur au monde mais il faut comprendre : si je suis un employé d'Inco, on prend mon argent dans le fonds d'investissement de pension et on va investir ça ailleurs. La plupart du temps, l'argent de ma pension n'est pas investi dans une compagnie ontarienne ; il est investi quelque part à l'extérieur du Canada ou même outre-mer.
La question dit qu'il faut changer ça. Au lieu de prendre cet argent et faire des investissements quelque part au Japon, aux États-Unis ou ailleurs, les investissements du fonds, on les fait dans les entreprises ontariennes, des milliards de dollars. Une affaire que le secteur des affaires sait c'est qu'il est extrêmement difficile des fois de trouver l'argent nécessaire pour avancer un projet. Avec les changements qu'on a vus dans les banques, avec les années ça devient de plus en plus difficile.
J'aimerais vous raconter une petite histoire. J'ai dans l'audience aujourd'hui mon père, qui a été «businessman» dans ma communauté de Timmins pendant une trentaine d'années. Dans les années 50, quand il a commencé son entreprise, c'était comme le reste du monde dans le temps. Il avait un rêve. Il avait l'espoir d'opérer son entreprise lui-même. L'histoire est qu'il y avait 30 $ dans sa poche, un peu comme moi aujourd'hui. Ça fait bien des poches de ce genre-là. Trente dollars dans sa poche, une idée et puis un banquier qui était un peu chaud à l'idée, qui lui a donné la chance d'investir dans son commerce jusqu'au point que pendant 30 ans, mon père en fait sa vie. Il a aussi fait la vie d'autres personnes qui ont travaillé pour lui.
Le problème qu'on a aujourd'hui dans notre économie, c'est que cette chance n'est plus là. Les banques ont changé leurs règlements, au point que c'est très difficile pour la personne avec une idée d'emprunter de l'argent. Les banques ont investi l'argent en d'autres pays outre-mer qui ont fait faillite, et à cette heure ils n'ont plus d'argent à investir dans notre province. Ils ont pris les économies qu'on leur a données dans nos comptes de banque, et ils sont allés investir celles-ci ailleurs. Donc, il n'y a plus d'argent pour nous autres en Ontario. On dit, «Il faut changer ça un peu. On va regarder au fond les investissements faisant affaire avec les pensions pour établir un programme qui fait du bon sens afin de mettre l'argent directement dans la province d'Ontario.»
L'autre affaire, c'est qu'on a besoin de faire du développement en ce qui concerne les systèmes financiers à travers des «co-op» pour assurer qu'on peut utiliser ce mécanisme pour aller chercher l'investissement nécessaire pour l'Ontario et les entreprises dans la province, et leur donner cette chance-là.
L'autre affaire qu'on a mentionné, c'est très important.
Recently a group was put together in northeastern Ontario, initially a very small group of people, called Save Our North. Save Our North started out with people within the mining industry, prospectors initially and eventually developers and actual mining companies, saying, "We have fundamental problems with what happens in the country called Canada and the province called Ontario in how we deal with investment, in how we deal with putting projects together when it comes to mining." This group started talking about some of its ideas, and let me tell you, they were pretty radical ideas to some people.
They talked about, for example, the fact that we had problems with overlapping regulation. Nobody will argue that we don't need to do what is important to protect our environment and workers and health and safety conditions, but they said there were problems with regard to regulations and how we get permitting for actually bringing mining properties into production.
They started working with this particular member for Cochrane South, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Mines, and the member for Sudbury East, who is the minister, about trying to find solutions to those problems. This small group eventually became what I would term a movement, and started getting the various people across northern Ontario to say, "We have to look at the question of regulations and overlap and the rest of that, and finding ways of solving some of our problems."
Based on the initiative of our ministry and the minister, the member for Sudbury East, to whom I really have to take my hat off, we have been able to announce, not only at the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada meeting last week, some of our initiatives with regard to one-window shopping and other issues, but we were able to carry that through in the throne speech.
What we said was this. Last week we signed memoranda of understanding between the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Mines in order to have a one-window approach to permitting within the province, so if I am a prospector or developer in Ontario, I can cut away the confusion in how I can bring that property on line. I can go to one window called the Ministry of Mines and get that permit. That process has now started. We have signed the initial MOUs. There is still work to be done, but we are getting along there.
We also said there and we reiterated in the throne speech yesterday that we have to take a look at the question of regulations, at how some of those regulations overlap. If I am an investor and I am trying to invest -- I don't care if it's in a mine or a pulp and paper mill or whatever -- we have to make the process much simpler, again so the process is not so cumbersome that the only people who understand it and can make money out of it are consultants and lawyers, so the process is there to help people with money to invest. We are enacting a program of making sure we can find ways of cutting that regulation to streamline the process to allow investment to happen more easily.
We also said something interesting, probably the first time it has been done in Canada, and it will be very interesting to see how this comes out. One of the things we said we were going to do is make some reforms in streamlining the process for investing in the province. If I have an idea with regard to an investment I can go to one window, and those people can put me in touch, or try to work out my plan with me so that I can bring that project from the idea stage to the development stage and create jobs. The whole idea is to get away from the duplications and problems within interlapping regulations. That is very important, because that's where the savings could be found -- not billions and billions of dollars, but that's where some of the savings could be found.
1640
One of the things this government embarked on recently is that many government members have been out within their communities and ridings talking to the people about pre-budget consultations and saying to them, "We want to hear what you have to say." The process has been quite interesting. When we get our groups of people together from communities, the municipal hall, school boards, business, industry, labour, along with social agencies, the first thing is to say: "Here's the exercise. This is how much money in total we bring in as a province. This is where it comes from. This is how much money goes out, and this is what it's going for. This is where it is spent. If you were the government, what decisions would you make based on what's happening within the economy, in regard to possible increases that may happen in next year's budget due to the effects of the recession and the $4.5 billion we've lost from our uncle, Mr Mulroney in Ottawa, who didn't help matters much" -- another $4.5 billion, thank you very much, Prime Minister -- "and how would you deal with that?"
The process has been interesting. I think it's been informative, not only for me as a member and other government members, but it's also been informative for the people who have participated in these meetings. They've basically come to the conclusion that there are very few ways a government can actually go out and save big dollars. You can save the small ones, and the small ones may amount to a couple of hundred million dollars, but to save the amount of money we need to balance off in the long run, we have to take a look at doing some long-term reform within the major programs, such as health care, education and social services.
People have started to talk about it in my community. I'm not saying this will happen, but they're starting to ask, "Can we do something at the school board level with regard to going to a confederated school board model rather than having two boards of education?" That's scary to some people, and I understand, because both boards are there for very good reasons. People have been asking themselves, "What can this possibly save us in the long run, delivering the educational dollar directly to the student and not spending so much on the administration side and duplication of services?" They look at the questions of what long-term care reform could mean for the delivery of health care within our community, but also what it means in saving dollars in the long run.
The exercise we did was quite interesting because every time somebody had an idea we put a cost figure on it, based on the numbers we had within the presentation. In some exercises, we decided we'd try to save anywhere from $2 billion to $4 billion in the 1992-93 budget year. Where you made up the money and being able to even get close to $2 billion was by doing some very radical things such as confederated school boards, long-term care and other ideas with regard to attacking the whole question of how we deal with some of the universality questions within some of the programs we delivered. If we were lucky, we came up to maybe $1 billion, $1.5 billion, $2 billion. People realize that this trick is not as simple as the opposition would have you believe and that the government really has a difficult road ahead. If we're going to try to maintain essential services for the province, it's going to mean that in time of recession we have to run a deficit.
It's been a very informative process. I'll tell you, it's something I quite enjoyed and I think a lot of the people who participated have found quite informative. As a matter of fact, I handed to the Treasurer this afternoon a report of those four committee meetings we did. We will be sending that back to all the people who participated. I thank them for the participation.
The other thing the government said in the throne speech -- and the member for Scarborough West touched on it -- is that we plan on making changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. I'm not going to expound on that in any great detail because I think the member for Scarborough West put it very squarely. If we're going to build an economy that responds to the changes it's facing, it's going to mean we have to find better ways of industry and the workforce working together through the trade unions. In order to do that we must take down the barriers we have today that allow that to happen and take the confrontation out of the system.
She was quite right when she talked about the experiences we've seen in other jurisdictions, where things such as anti-scab legislation and other mechanisms have been put in place to take away that confrontation. When you look at Quebec today, with that legislation since 1976-77, it went into the process with the worst labour relations in the country to become one of the best. Even industry recognizes it. When we look at the strength of the European economy such as Germany, Switzerland, France and others, it is greatly because they have industrial harmony within their organizations that allows both the management and the workers of those industries to get together to make some of the decisions and find some solutions to some very tough problems within those industries.
It is government, I repeat, that is doing this and realizing that there is more to a budget than just the bottom line, there is more to a throne speech than the bottom line, that there are people in this equation. The important part in doing all this is realizing we have to do this together.
One of the things we fear most within any society and within our own personal lives is change. Quite frankly, that is a little bit of what's happening within Ontario today, as in other jurisdictions. What's happening is that our economy is changing and, respectively, what's happening is that our lives are changing and governments are changing the way they do things. Any time you invoke change, people have a great resistance to it. It means you can no longer hang on to that hitching post that you always knew was off there to your left or your right, depending on your political persuasion, that you could grab on to and say, "That's the way it is."
Now that we have to go through these changes, many people can't find those hitching posts any more, and they don't have those traditional things beside them that they can lean on. That is scary, and we understand that, but I think nobody in Ontario would say that what you can do to solve the problems is do like the ostrich and bury your head in the sand and forget that you've got problems around you, because that won't solve them.
People recognize that we have to change fundamentally the way we do things, but in order to do that we have to bring the people together to build the partnerships and allow them to happen. More important, we have to go through the educational process, and I certainly hope the opposition members and some members within the business community and others will help us make that change. I don't hold my breath, because I remember what their function is: Criticize, don't give flowers; it doesn't give you any votes.
The other thing we have to remember in solving some of these problems, and I touched on it a little while ago, is that we can't just throw money at problems. After three months away from the House and coming back yesterday, in the first question period the opposition asked us to throw money at a problem again. I say again, we can't do that. We need to find innovative solutions that allow us to enact the change that is necessary and be able to find ways to control cost.
The other point is, and this also came up in our pre-budget consultations, I again heard a member from the third party, the Conservative Party, the same people who brought us the GST, free trade, deregulation and the rest, say that maybe what the Ontario government should do is set wage controls. I just want to remind people of one thing: When that exercise was tried back in the 1970s under the stewardship of the then Prime Minister, Mr Trudeau, who was greatly respected in this country for some of the things he did and hated for others -- that is the plight of the politician -- what we found again was a short-term solution. For one or two years they were able to control the cost of wages within, first of all, the public sector, and that spilled over into the private sector.
I remember being at the bargaining table and my employer saying: "Oh, God, we can't do anything. We know we're making money. You know, the price of gold is way up there, and we can't give you more than a couple of per cent because the federal government has put wage controls on," so we settled. But what happened was that when we came out of that period of restraint and we took out the wage controls, what we ended up with was massive inflation, because workers said: "Listen, we were dealt a raw deal and we remember that, and now is our chance to be able to go to the bargaining table and get what we lost."
If the Conservative Party is going to preach to me about being the bastion of business and free enterprise with all the good ideas, it is a very ridiculous solution, because we recognize it is short-term. It is not long-term planning. Better to sit down with your employees and try, first of all, to open your books if you have to and to say: "Listen, this is how much money I've got; these are the difficulties I have. What can we do to work together in order to get us out of that?"
We have seen that example in the negotiation of the settlement between the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, our biggest union within Ontario for the public sector, and the government in coming to a collective agreement in the end that made some sense. It wasn't what people wanted. The employees would rather have more of an increase, but they recognize as workers, because they are responsible people, that if it wasn't there, you couldn't give it. Much better to take that approach and build the relationship between both parties and bring down the confrontation at the bargaining table and within the workplace so that we can move forward and get together, be able to find how we can deal with the situation of the day, and not get back into the exercise that we have seen doesn't work with regard to wage controls, which, in the end, when the regulation is taken out, only brings us high increases in the rate of inflation. It does not give us anything.
I just want to say in closing that a throne speech is basically a direction which a government gives, through a document, as to where it wants to go in its next agenda with regard to this Legislature. I think people in Ontario, when they heard the throne speech yesterday, recognized that the government of Ontario recognizes that in order to be able to advance our society both on a social and economic level we need to make sure we have a strong economy. We recognize as a government that we can't do it alone, and we have never said we could. We have to do this in cooperation with all levels of government, from the federal government down to municipal governments, and with the private sector, to find solutions for it. We are saying we have our hand out there and we want to work with people in order to be able to find some of the solutions. We will put together the regulations and programs necessary in order to assist the business community, not forgetting there are people in this equation, making sure we build up social responsibility and our responsibility as a government to make sure people are not done wrong by for the sake of balancing the books or trying to help the economy. We have to remember there is a balance.
I certainly hope the members from the third party who show concern will take this opportunity to speak to their federal cousins within the Mulroney government and try to help Ontario and other governments across this country and work together to try to find solutions in the long term for our problems.
J'aimerais remercier les députés de l'Assemblée et les autres personnes qui ont la chance de regarder le débat d'avoir eu l'occasion de leur parler un peu du discours du trône. C'était un honneur pour moi, en tant que député provincial de Cochrane-Sud, d'avoir eu l'occasion d'appuyer la motion sur le discours du trône de la part de Mme Swarbrick.
On motion by Mr Mahoney, the debate was adjourned.
On motion by Mrs Coppen, the House adjourned at 1653.