The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, only last week I spoke to you regarding the dangerous situation on the east end of the Kenora bypass. This conversation followed three serious accidents, in one of which a young man lost his life.

Well, the news from Kenora at 10:05 this morning was not good: the same corner, another accident. Two people from Saskatchewan were injured and are at this moment in the Lake of the Woods District Hospital.

There was a commitment made to the people of Kenora on September 15, 1989, almost three years ago, that: "The new east connection will begin immediately following the completion of the bypass. It will consist of an interchange using the existing highway as the main road and having bypass traffic use ramps to access the bypass."

Minister, the people in my riding are growing increasingly impatient. As people are killed or injured on this corner, you continuously drag your feet. How many more accidents will it take before we see the equipment on site to get the project under way? We need action not eloquence, and we need it immediately.

HERSHEY CANADA YOUTH TRACK AND FIELD MEET

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Smiths Falls, home of Hershey Canada, recently hosted the second annual Hershey Canada youth track and field meet for over 300 students in Lanark-Renfrew.

The man originally responsible was Donald P. Cohen, founder of the Hershey youth program. He has organized a national track and field program as the way to promote friendship, participation and sportsmanship through physical activity. The main idea is not to participate to win but rather to win through participation.

The track meet is for youth between the ages of nine and 14. Sprints, long distances, the standing long jump and the softball throw are some of the events competed in. A regular pair of running shoes is all an enthusiastic youth really needs. Dr Cohen's encouragement of fitness is at a level that doesn't stress fancy uniforms but rather the importance of dedication and hard work.

To the many people from Hershey Canada, from president Rick Myers to Jim Sheridan of Smiths Falls, and all the communities of Lanark-Renfrew, I commend their dedication and personal efforts towards such a worthy cause, the future of our children.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Today I would like to share with my colleagues information about a very serious labour dispute concerning the Sault Star, the local daily newspaper in my riding. On Friday, June 19, 65 employees from Local 746 of the Communications Workers of America were locked out. Subsequently, the Sault Star hired replacement workers to fill in while the lockout continues.

This lockout and the hiring of replacement workers is an excellent example of why we should focus on labour relations reform in Ontario. If the proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act were already in place such an incident would never have occurred.

The Sault Star lockout is an extremely serious and contentious matter. It will last indefinitely as long as the company maintains these replacement workers on its payroll. A lockout does not lead to a speedy or a satisfactory labour resolution.

In this generation these offensive tactics are a step backwards for labour relations. We should be focusing on progressive attitudes and procedures where management and labour associations are concerned. With these critical changes to the OLRA, incidents such as the Sault Star lockout will be left in the Dark Ages where they belong.

MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Yesterday afternoon I received a brown envelope from a concerned employee of the Ministry of the Attorney General. The envelope contained a new organization chart for the director of communications with the following notation:

"Even though there is much protest against the rising court fees and there seems to be no hiring of new crown attorneys, the Attorney General's office has given a director of communications, Anji Husain, permission to hire five new middle managers."

These new employees' responsibilities include media and question period analysis.

At a time of restraint when women will be forced into legal clinics, when lawyers are being asked to throw more dollars into the legal aid pot, when court fees are raised to taxation levels, what do we see? We see the Attorney General, the minister of inertia, calling on new spin doctors to create the impression of action where none exists.

The process started on June 9 with a news release stating, "Ministry announces major review of legal aid as court system faces massive financial problems." Yet the details of not one new initiative were actually confirmed. We see words like "examining," "exploring," "developing."

This minister needs spin doctors to make an illusion of action out of inertia.

1340

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to share with the members of this Legislature what the people of Dufferin-Peel think about the NDP government changes to the Labour Relations Act.

I have received over 600 letters and countless telephone calls from concerned citizens within Dufferin-Peel and beyond who are terrified that these new labour laws will unfairly tilt the balance of power. No one believes there's anything in this legislation that will create jobs. Ninety-five per cent of the people who completed surveys felt that the government should deal with the economy and job creation. No one believes that labour law reform should be this government's top priority.

People are scared. They think this new legislation will hurt our already struggling economy. They fear for their jobs. They fear for their families' jobs. They fear for their friends' jobs. They fear what this government will do next to crush our once proud province.

This government preaches about its great consultative process. When will they start listening to the people who are concerned about its priorities. The people of my riding and the province have spoken. Above all else they want a strong economy and they want jobs.

This government must listen to the people of this province. Unless this government starts facing the real problems our constituents have to deal with, the NDP will continue to make Ontario an economic dinosaur in the 21st century.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Most people when they think of Sudbury unfortunately still think of the time a number of years ago when we were the practice grounds for the American astronauts. They couldn't be further from the truth.

Twenty years ago, because of past forestry and mining activities and such natural events as forest fires, approximately 10,000 hectares of land surrounding Sudbury was laid barren. Today, in 1992, the regional municipality of Sudbury has won two more awards for its regional land reclamation program. We won the 1992 United Nations Local Government Honours Award, which was presented at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro this month. Second, we won the United States 1992 Chevron Conservation Award presented in Washington, DC. I should point out that we were competing with 214 other municipalities throughout the world for the international award.

Through a massive regional land reclamation project, 3,000 hectares of the most damaged land has been revegetated. It's been a $15-million project employing 3,200 people from a wide variety of government grants as well as private sector contributions.

I'm sure members of the House will join me in congratulating the regional municipality of Sudbury on the two awards it has won, the tremendous achievement it has claimed and the environmental naturalization of the Sudbury area. As well, I invite you all to come and visit us and see how green we are.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): The increase in Canadian consumer purchases in the US has led to declines in retail sales in Ontario, especially in our border communities. Cross-border shopping has a negative impact on our economy as valuable consumer dollars leave our province and go towards helping the American economy. Last year Canadians made some 59 million trips to the US. An estimated $2-billion to $3-billion worth of goods was purchased in the US by Ontario residents.

A group in northwestern Ontario, the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce citizens out-shopping committee, has embarked on a crusade to keep those Canadian dollars at home where they will create jobs and a stronger economy. The group is lobbying both the federal and provincial governments to proclaim July 4 as Shop Canada Day. Just last Friday, the federal House of Commons unanimously voted to proclaim Shop Canada Day. As well, the group is selling sweatshirts that read "Shop Canada -- It Makes a Difference."

My honourable colleague the leader of the official opposition and member for Fort William and I would like to encourage the Ontario Legislature to also proclaim Saturday, July 4, as Shop Canada Day.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES POLICIES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is directed to the Minister of Natural Resources. It has to do with the statement he made the other day with regard to zebra mussels and the preventive attitude he is taking towards them.

Some time ago, we had the opportunity in estimates to deal with this very important issue and at that time we indicated the importance of prevention. Since that time, zebra mussels have entered Lake Simcoe and many small lakes in Ontario. I would have thought if the ministry had taken some initiative two years ago, there would have been a lot of preventive measures taken in our small lakes in Ontario.

The other part of what I want to say is the fact that nurseries are closing in Ontario and fewer trees are going to be planted. I've been getting a great deal of correspondence from the people in Midhurst and area with regard to the closing of the Midhurst nursery. The indication I have is that Midhurst nursery is one of the most productive and efficient operations in Ontario. Mr Minister, you can look forward to many petitions and letters from people in that area with regard to that very issue, and I hope that by the end of 1992-93 you will have enough information that you will reverse your decision and not close that nursery at Midhurst.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I rise today to honour my colleagues on the local council in the town of Pickering. I do so because I feel it's important for politicians from all levels of government to recognize their fellow politicians. It is important because, despite our political differences, we are all in the business for one reason: to serve the community.

Last week I was honoured to be invited to meet with this council in a public forum. Although my commitments in the Legislature made this meeting difficult to schedule, I was able at the last minute to appear in the council chambers and they received me graciously and warmly. I was happy that council gave me the opportunity to address them but, more important, to do so in front of the constituents we all serve. I believe this mere gesture alone was an important message to send to the community -- that is, that not all politicians are out to discredit one another.

There is no question that the line that divides local and provincial jurisdiction is a fine one. It is important that we work together to ensure that the people of our community are receiving the best representation possible. After last Wednesday night, the people of Pickering can feel good about that.

Whether the issue is development of environmentally sensitive areas or the siting of landfill sites, it is important that the lines of communication between the province and the municipality are open. After all, it is only through communication, negotiation and resolution that people are well served.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): Today it is my pleasure to table the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Unregulated Residential Accommodation. As the members will recall, Professor Ernie Lightman was appointed within 24 hours of the coroner's inquest into the death of Joseph Kendall at Cedar Glen in Orillia. Dr Lightman, an economist by training, is a professor of social policy at the University of Toronto and has published widely in both academic and popular journals.

The commissioner consulted extensively by travelling to seven communities across the province. He visited a variety of rest, boarding and retirement homes, met with residents, interest groups and members of the public, and reviewed 230 written submissions. The consultation process was thorough, open and well organized.

After analysing the issues that were raised, the commissioner produced the comprehensive 340-page report entitled A Community of Interests. This report includes 148 recommendations.

Research estimates that 47,500 potentially vulnerable adults live in unregulated accommodation in Ontario. Most of these residents are senior citizens or persons with psychiatric histories or developmental disabilities. These individuals are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. This government is committed to protecting their rights and their dignity.

My colleagues and I look forward to carefully reviewing Dr Lightman's report. I would like to acknowledge that Dr Lightman is in the studio today, along with his wife Leah Cohen and their daughter Naomi. Thank you very much, Ernie.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Stop the clock, please. I understand the statement the minister just made was not distributed to the opposition. I'm sure there's been an oversight. If the minister could attend to it as quickly as possible, by the time we reach response time the members will have had an appropriate amount of time to prepare for that.

Start the clock.

1350

CHILD CARE SERVICES

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): I am pleased to announce today that the Ministry of Community and Social Services will provide $110.5 million in Jobs Ontario Capital over the next two years to very significantly expand and improve the social service infrastructure in this province. This funding represents more than 120 renovation and construction projects, creating employment equivalent to an average of one year for about 1,500 Ontarians.

Funding for these projects is new and is part of Jobs Ontario Capital, a five-year, $2.3-billion fund announced by my colleague the Treasurer in the 1992 budget. This fund will support economic restructuring and promote community and social progress. Because helping Ontarians to get back to work is such a high priority of this provincial government, the project is being fast-tracked to create jobs on an immediate basis.

Most of the capital funding I am announcing today -- about $97 million -- will be used to build new non-profit child care centres and to renovate and expand existing non-profit child care centres. As a result, Ontarians will benefit in the short term from the employment this construction creates, and also in the long term with more child care spaces available to working parents. Of course, in addition, the staff working in these community-based centres will also swell the workforce.

Mr Speaker, $77 million of this new child care capital funding will directly support my ministry's previous commitment to fund up to 20,000 new child care fee subsidies over the next three years. Those fee subsidies are part of the Jobs Ontario Training fund. The training fund is creating work and training opportunities for people on social assistance and people who are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. My ministry is helping to make sure that people who want to participate in the program have access to child care.

Other projects being funded with the dollars I'm announcing today will provide community care for elderly people and people with physical and developmental disabilities as part of the long-term care initiative being led by my colleague the Minister of Health. Funding will also be provided for renovation or construction of facilities providing service to victims of wife assault, to children's services and to projects for young offenders.

The specific projects receiving funding will be announced over the next few months. In many of these projects we have partners in the communities who will be contributing funding, and we look forward to the opportunity to work closely with them. In fact, when provincial funding is combined with municipal and other contributions the total value of the projects I'm announcing today exceeds $118 million. Clearly this is an excellent example of governments and communities working together to create jobs and improve the quality of life for all residents of this province.

I had the pleasure this morning of announcing one of these projects in the St Lawrence neighbourhood of downtown Toronto. In that location, funding from the provincial government and the city of Toronto will combine to build a child care centre to provide families in the area with badly needed services.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr Speaker, before I start, the House leader for the official opposition asked that there be an additional two minutes in reply for each of the opposition parties, so that when they reply it would be seven minutes for each opposition party by unanimous consent.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

WETLANDS

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I am pleased to introduce today a wetlands policy statement under section 3 of the Planning Act that will give municipalities strong direction on the protection of provincially significant wetlands and will encourage them to protect other wetlands.

The policy states that no development should be permitted in southern Ontario in provincially significant wetlands. In the northern boreal region, no development should be permitted unless there is an environmental impact statement that shows there will be no loss of wetland functions either directly or indirectly.

Wetlands maintain and improve water quality, protect shorelines from erosion, aid in flood control, furnish fish and wildlife habitat and bring substantial social and economic benefits, such as outdoor recreational and tourism-related activities. More than any other habitat, wetlands contribute to the ecological diversity of the landscape. They accommodate fish, wildlife and plant species, some of which are rare, threatened or endangered.

Wetlands south of the Canadian Shield have been disappearing rapidly as a result of pressure from various kinds of development. It is estimated that more than 75% of the original wetlands in southern Ontario have already been lost. While we have an abundance of wetlands in northern Ontario, this does not compensate for the loss of those wetlands south of the Canadian Shield. Furthermore, the government also views the conservation of northern wetlands as vital to the long-term environmental, social and economic health of the province.

There has been extensive consultation in the development of the wetlands policy statement. Individuals, interest groups and professional organizations across the province who are concerned about the escalating loss of wetlands reviewed drafts of the policy in 1989 and again in 1991 before submitting their comments. The policy has been clarified and strengthened to meet many of the concerns and suggestions expressed by this wide cross-section of the Ontario public.

The wetlands policy comes into effect June 27, the day it appears in the Ontario Gazette. It will be jointly administered by my ministry and the Ministry of Natural Resources.

While making a public statement in a wetland this morning my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources indicated that over the next few months our ministries will consult other ministries and interest groups to develop wetlands implementation guidelines. The guidelines will assist planning jurisdictions such as municipalities and planning boards in implementing the policy statement. Those guidelines will be issued in the fall.

The wetlands policy statement is but one part of a comprehensive government program to protect wetlands in all areas of the province. This policy will complement other existing programs, policies and legislation.

PUBLIC HOUSING / LOGEMENTS PUBLICS

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'm pleased to tell the members of the House about a new planning process to improve the quality of life for people living in public housing communities across Ontario.

Plus de 200 000 personnes vivent dans les logements publics -- soit environ la population de Thunder Bay, Kingston et Barrie réunie. Ce processus de planification est conçu pour aider les gens qui vivent et travaillent dans les logements publics à trouver des solutions à quelques-uns des problèmes de longue date dans leur communauté.

Today I'm releasing a document called Planning Together, which outlines key issues identified by public housing tenants and gives direction to local housing authorities to help them work with tenants and community service providers to find community-based solutions.

These issues, which have been known for a long time, are tenant selection and transfers, discrimination, racism, harassment, property management, safety and security and receiving access to community services.

A fundamental problem underlying these issues is a lack of tenant participation. Right now, public housing tenants have no consistent or official role in the management of their communities. We think tenants should have a say in the way their communities are run.

That's why the Ontario Housing Corp, the board that oversees public housing in Ontario, is asking each of the 56 local housing authorities to form a local planning committee. These committees will be made up of tenants, housing authority staff and housing board members and community service providers.

The committees' mandate is to reach out within the public housing community to develop a local action plan, and I'm confident that these efforts will produce practical, community-based answers.

Les communautés se sont attaquées à ces problèmes de façons diverses et les solutions novatrices qu'elles ont trouvées constituent une grande partie du processus de Planifier ensemble. Nous savons que nous pouvons apprendre du passé et de ce que d'autres ont essayé.

An advisory group of tenants, housing authority staff and community service providers have worked very hard on developing this process. I'd like to acknowledge and thank the members, who join us in the gallery today, for their contributions. Among those who are able to join us today are Doris Dauphin, Joanne Lefortune and Evelyn Shore, who are tenants, Mary Garrett, who's a community agency representative, and Rolly Sauve, who is a housing authority representative. Thank you very much for your hard work and your commitment to the planning process together. I hope this process will strengthen the voices of public housing tenants.

In turn, I want to let people know we are committed to making local housing authorities, the Ontario Housing Corp and the Ministry of Housing more accountable to tenants. As we begin this local planning process to create stronger and healthier communities, I'd like to invite all my colleagues, regardless of party affiliation, to encourage public housing tenants in their ridings to participate.

1400

RESPONSES

WETLANDS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I wish to reply to the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs concerning wetlands. We on this side of course are happy that the government is finally moving on the wetlands policy. Over one year ago in this Legislature I urged the minister to move on this and to get on with it. But we are suspicious that on the day the environmental groups gave the NDP a D for its environmental performance we are finally seeing something about wetlands.

I tell you, on this side we're a little concerned that the municipalities may not be given the tools to implement this policy, and we would like to urge the minister to assure the House that the municipalities will not only be consulted but will be given the tools they need to carry out this important policy.

We are also concerned that the Sewell commission may be superseding this whole statement, so from that regard we think it's about time they moved. We want to see the results.

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I'd like to make a few remarks on the Lightman report today. My congratulations go out to Dr Lightman for the most extensive and informative report on rest and retirement homes in Ontario. The fastest-growing segment of our population, seniors, has been subjected to housing accommodation that is far less than satisfactory for far too long.

Dr Lightman has indicated that we as a society have adopted an attitude towards our most vulnerable citizens, those with developmental disabilities, psychiatric histories and seniors of: out of sight, out of mind. The warehousing of these individuals is no longer acceptable. We must recognize their basic needs of quality of care and reasonable rates for the places they call home.

I was encouraged by Dr Lightman's suggestion that we not overregulate the physical facilities and thus create another government-funded institution. What we must do is recognize the rights of the individuals in these facilities and ensure a quality of life for them.

Please, Minister, don't let this report be a dust collector. I urge the government to act now, before one more atrocity is committed to the most vulnerable individuals.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I too would like to commend Dr Lightman for his commission's report today. There are a number of positive things in there, including a bill of rights. However, one thing that gives me and our caucus great concern is the fact that Dr Lightman does not encourage a separate piece of legislation to cover the rest and retirement industry. For instance, their recommendation is that these rest and retirement residents would come under both the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Rent Control Act.

This brings its own set of problems because, for instance, under the Landlord and Tenant Act, a landlord is required to give 24 hours of written notice before entering the tenant's unit. This is simply not practical and in fact is dangerous in the case of the residents of rest and retirement homes because quite often they would need their medication and they would need checkups, and the operators could not do this if they are restricted by the Landlord and Tenant Act.

I urge the Minister of Housing and the minister responsible for seniors' issues to look at one piece of legislation to govern rest and retirement homes so they can be specifically addressed.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I would like very briefly to reply to the Minister of Housing on her announcement on the public housing efforts to improve the quality of life for tenants. This announcement is very welcome, particularly the section that says they are going to ensure tenant participation. I urge the minister and the government to take some of the money they've been pouring into the non-profit and co-op sectors and start spending it on the crumbling infrastructure of Ontario Housing Corp stock. It desperately needs it, and unless you're going to do that, the rest of it is camouflage.

CHILD CARE SERVICES

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'd like to respond to the announcement of the Minister of Community and Social Services on the capital announcement. As usual, this is a reannouncement. In fact, we don't even know what it's a reannouncement of because we've had 20,000 child care spaces over three years announced twice: $77 million. We've had an announcement of $10 million to replace the commercial day care centres that will close rather than convert, an announcement made as late and as long ago as last December. No one knows whether these things are totally included or they make up the total.

The other questions that are asked about this announcement: Are all these dollars going to be directed to licensed child care centres? Very many people in the community want to know that. Are they directed to formal as well as informal settings? And, the big question of the day, will the municipal partners pick up these components of the child care system? We understand maybe not. As usual, then, the announcement leaves many more questions than answers.

There are many people in this announcement. There are the elderly and disabled. May I say, I think this is a token allocation to people who have been waiting a long, long time. We have almost $100 million for child care centres and we have $7 million for community residential alternatives for two very needy groups -- the aged and the disabled. They get less than 10%.

The other groups that are mentioned are the victims of violence and those who serve in children's services and the young offenders. We all know they have real needs.

But there is a very major crack in today's announcement. This government made a great flourish when it made the jobs for youth announcement on June 5, but in today's announcement we see not one mention of youth. We see not one long-term strategy for the youth of this province. They have other needs besides jobs. The youths I'm talking about are the youths who are homeless in this province. In fact, there are 6,000 in this city at this very moment. There is not one dollar directed to a youth centre or a youth shelter, and they are really, most of them, in very makeshift settings. There are real needs here. They are truly community based. There are many success stories and they are done in spite of this government's efforts. This government yields to the ad hockery process when it deals with youth.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'd like to respond to the Minister of Housing's statement. I indicate to the minister that I would have been happy to attend if I had been invited earlier than 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon. I couldn't change my schedule at the last minute to attend.

In essence, this statement is based totally on the wrong premise. The very fact that in the press release the minister refers to healthier public housing communities says it all. We do not need public housing communities. We need to have assistance for people who require housing, who have the basic need for that housing, which is unaffordable and unattainable for them. To put them in segregated, concentrated communities is totally wrong. It makes those people live with a stigma. This report from the Ministry of Housing announces the problems. It talks about vandalism, youth gangs, alcohol and drug abuse, anti-social behaviour, break and enter, child abuse, weapons. It also talks about name-calling, graffiti and physical violence.

Those are the words from the Minister of Housing. The Minister of Housing's solution is to build more of these -- more concentrated, segregated social housing.

The solution our party supports is yes, to look after the people who need help, without question, but to give them a direct shelter subsidy allowance, give them the money so they can choose where they live, that they don't have to live in a social housing complex with all these problems identified by the minister, so they can choose to live in the communities they've always lived in and can have access to the same kinds of buildings people who don't need subsidized housing need.

The way that is achieved is by treating everybody like a human being with the dignity they deserve. The dignity people who require assisted housing need is the dignity to choose where they live so they're not living in these concentrated, segregated communities with the associated problems -- problems that are clearly identified in this report.

When this minister is identifying the problems and saying that we're going to build more and more of these communities, why is she adding to the existing problem by creating more of these communities? Give the people who need help the direct shelter subsidy allowance and let them choose where they wish to live.

1410

CHILD CARE SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I would like to first respond to the Minister of Community and Social Services in her continuing pursuit of putting the private day care operators out of business and displacing the children who are being served in those centres and the parents who have, at least until recently, had the free choice in this province to put their children in these centres.

First of all, any expenditure in this Legislature which creates meaningful jobs is a worthy project and worthy of support. But what is implicit in this minister's announcement today is that in spite of 250 private day care centres which have closed in the last three years, many of which are still sitting idly, all conforming to the proper zoning, all available and ready and wanting children to go in them, this minister is going to build the same facilities across the street. Now there's real good NDP management.

You are so choked up on your own ideology that you won't even allow the bricks and mortar to have a memory of the private sector as it relates to private day care centres; $100 million dollars for day care expansion when you know that there are thousands of vacant spaces sitting out there ready for you to put those children and those subsidies in.

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Now I'd like to change the tone of my voice and thank Mr Lightman for his outstanding report. It's 150 recommendations. It represents a body of extensive research which will help guide all parties in this House. However, what is of concern to me, having attended the press conference this morning, is that there are no costs, no guidelines and, we can only surmise, no commitment from this government.

Bob Rae started saying in 1982 that the golden years of seniors are in jeopardy unless we move quickly to give them a bill of rights, until vulnerable adults are given a bill of rights. He reiterated it in 1986 and in 1989, yet the minister came to a press conference today and said: "I have to read the report. We need time to study it."

The truth is that what this government will move on quickly is putting all these regulated homes under rent control. I have news for you. The death of Joseph Kendall could not have been avoided by putting these facilities under rent control, yet we're going to put them now under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Dr Lightman says we should have a system to fast-track evictions of these residents because they could be causing disturbances with other tenants. They could be causing disturbances because we are housing an increased number of psychiatric patients who are being moved out of institutions and placed in communities without any planning on the part of this government to ensure that they have housing. These people cannot move into the rhetoric of a government; they need accommodation.

Nowhere in this report does it deal with and nowhere has the government confirmed its commitment to an abuse registry so that these seniors and other vulnerable adults can be moved out of these residences and put into emergency shelter. Nowhere is there a reference to those emergency shelters and a commitment to really ensuring the safety of the Joseph Kendalls of this province.

RESIGNATION OF COMMITTEE MEMBER

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Today I submit my resignation from membership on the standing committee on public accounts and on the standing committee on estimates.

By way of explanation, there were numerous reports in the media yesterday to the effect that the three parties had reached agreement on new rules for this House. That statement is patently incorrect. What has happened is that there has been what I believe to be a rather humiliating surrender to the government. The only justification for that surrender I can submit to you, sir, is that when the power of the state has a gun at your head, it is a rather imposing experience.

If I just might, I am all the more saddened by this time in the House because these new rules are being brought forward by a party that has participated, over the past 30 years in this House, with eminent politicians like Dalton Camp, Farquhar Oliver, Jim Renwick, Elie Martel, Bob Nixon and Mike Breaugh to create a more independent and a more relevant Legislature. The current government is determined, in its new Ontario, to have all the power to itself. I simply say that the people of Ontario should take the appropriate caution.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for York Centre, he may note that for any member who wishes to resign from any particular committee, it's not necessary for that member to announce that resignation in the House. However, I do appreciate the fact that he has informed the House and understand the concerns that he has expressed very clearly.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Prescott and Russell has the floor. The very patient member for Prescott and Russell is waiting for an opportunity to gain the floor. I would be pleased to recognize him if his colleagues would allow me to do so.

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): Mr Speaker, may I seek unanimous consent to talk about Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day?

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed.

SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE DAY / FÊTE DE LA SAINT JEAN-BAPTISTE

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : Comme vous le savez, aujourd'hui, le 24 juin, c'est la journée de la Saint Jean-Baptiste, et contrairement à certaines des rumeurs, ce n'est pas seulement la journée des Québécois et des Québécoises mais c'est également leur fête.

Ce matin j'écoutais les médias de langue anglaise avant de quitter mon chez-moi et tout le monde souhaitait une heureuse fête nationale aux Québécois et Québécoises. Mais ça ne fait que confirmer que des fois, chez mes frères et soeurs de la communauté de langue anglaise, on connaît mal la communauté globale canadienne-française à l'échelle du Canada. Peut-être qu'on connaît moins bien le million de francophones hors Québec, peut-être qu'on sait moins bien que cette communauté francophone de l'Ontario a célébré, en 1989, ses 350 années de vie communautaire dans cette superbe province.

À titre de Franco-Ontarien j'ai un souhait à faire tout haut.

1420

I have a wish to make as a fourth-generation Franco-Ontarian in a community that's been here for over 350 years in Ontario. In this difficult time of constitutional negotiations where the clock is quickly running and solutions seem to be harder to find than expected, I can only hope that more and more people of the English-language community can take the time to join their other colleagues from that same community who have understood and do understand that the francophone community in Quebec and outside of Quebec, and particularly this one in Ontario, have contributed a lot to this province.

We are Ontarians. We are proud. I come from an area that even dates from the French regime, la seigneurie de Longueuil. I hope that in the coming year we will come together, English and French, and that we will recognize what the world outside of Canada has always recognized in this fine country: that this is indeed one of the best countries in the world and that we can do it together, English and French.

Merci, Monsieur le Président.

M. Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & Grenville-Est) : I want to address the same subject as my colleague the member for Prescott and Russell. As one whose ancestors have been here since 1666, I certainly reinforce the sayings of my colleague.

C'est le 24 juin, la Saint Jean-Baptiste.

Au nom de mon parti, je souhaite à tous nos francophones canadiens, qu'ils demeurent au Yukon, au Nouveau Brunswick, en Colombie-Britannique, ici en Ontario ou n'importe où dans notre beau pays, bonne fête à l'occasion de la Saint-Jean.

Je profite aussi de l'occasion pour souhaiter à la communauté francophone de Toronto et d'Ottawa, qui célèbrent leur Semaine francophone, une excellente joie de vivre, sans compter les plusieurs communautés à travers l'Ontario qui célébreront, soit aujourd'hui soit en fin de semaine, cette fête qui nous permet de revivre nos origines culturelles ensemble et en français.

Je suis fier que nos Franco-Ontariens peuvent s'unir en ce jour pour fêter ensemble notre langue et culture françaises, une langue, pour plusieurs d'entre nous, préservée depuis plus de quatre siècles.

Qu'est-ce que l'avenir réserve pour la francophonie canadienne? J'ai l'espoir que la dualité linguistique continuera d'être une caractéristique du Canada. Nous devons évoluer pour demeurer compétitifs dans un marché mondial. Les Canadiens doivent faire l'effort pour conserver et même renforcer la dualité linguistique. Sinon, nous aurons perdu un de nos atouts tout particuliers à nous ici, les Canadiens.

En plus, le Canada continue à poursuivre une richesse multiculturelle et une diversité d'héritage. C'est ce qui nous donne tout spécialement une identité culturelle, sans compter nos trois groupes d'origine dont nos autochtones, nos francophones et nos anglophones. Je crois que c'est ce qui nous unit en tant que Canadiens.

Bon anniversaire et bonne Saint Jean-Baptiste à tous et chacun.

L'hon Gilles Pouliot (ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones) : Monsieur le Président, c'est aujourd'hui le jour de la Saint Jean-Baptiste, une journée très importante pour tous les Canadiens français au Canada. La Saint Jean-Baptiste, vous savez, c'est pour nous, depuis près de 150 ans, une occasion de célébrer notre francophonie, notre culture, et de nous affirmer non seulement en Ontario, mais d'un océan à l'autre. Ce qui était au début une occasion de célébrer le solstice d'été, le jour le plus long de l'année où les jours plus doux nous revenaient enfin, est devenu depuis ces temps une occasion de célébrer notre joie de vivre.

Cette année c'est doublement important, puisque nous commémorons et célébrons aussi le 125e anniversaire du Canada. Aujourd'hui, ce 24 juin 1992, les célébrations auront lieu partout au Canada, mais plus particulièrement en Ontario, à Ottawa, notre capitale, cette ville superbe où on attend comme à tous les ans plus de 500,000 participants venus non seulement de l'Ontario, mais de partout au Canada, et de quelques états des États-Unis aussi, pour nous aider dans la collectivité à célébrer ce jour mémorable.

Ici à Toronto, au forum de la Place Ontario, vous pourrez assister ce soir à une représentation donnée par six artistes franco-ontariens, un spectacle formidable, Monsieur le Président. On vous invite à y participer, ainsi qu'à Sudbury, à Hearst, à Kingston, à London -- des défilés, des soirées, des feux de joie ont été organisés partout en province.

Je vous rappelle aussi que notre gouvernement s'est engagé non seulement à reconnaître cette réalité de nos 543,000 Franco-Ontariens, mais aussi à vous assurer que dans l'avenir, les services qui ont été acquis vont continuer de l'être. On remonte la pente. En ce jour de la Saint-Jean, nous en sommes fort reconnaissants.

My friends, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day is indeed a special occasion not only for francophones but for everyone to celebrate. I wish to echo the sentiments of my friends Mr Villeneuve, Mr Poirier and others as well. We have so much to be thankful for. I only wish that sometimes we would stop and look at ourselves the way other people look at us. I am the luckiest person in the world, but it was easy, for I was born in Canada.

Bonne Saint Jean-Baptiste.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I wonder if I could ask the indulgence of the House to add a couple of words, given the significance of this day in our sister province of Quebec and of the situation in which we now find ourselves.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed.

Hon Mr Rae: If that's agreeable to the House, Mr Speaker, I promise I will be very short.

In addition to celebrating a day which is of great importance to the 500,000 francophones who live in our province and who have made such an enormous contribution to our life as a community for literally hundreds of years, I think it is worth perhaps recalling on this day, which is a day of great emotion and significance in our sister province of Quebec, that we say directly to the people of Quebec we want to build a Canada with you.

Our whole understanding of Canada must include Quebec, it does include Quebec and we celebrate Quebec's life in the country as a very positive part of our national life and certainly as a very important part of our definition and understanding of Canada. We are going to be doing everything we can to create a process of constitutional reform which will allow us to have one country and which will allow the country to remain united. Ontario remains very deeply committed to that policy and that practice of inclusion and of building a partnership with all of our sister provinces, including the province of Quebec.

Monsieur le Président, je veux dire tout simplement, non seulement à nos concitoyens francophones de la province d'Ontario, une communauté d'un demi-million de personnes qui a contribué beaucoup à la vie publique, à la vie nationale et à la vie provinciale, mais aussi à nos concitoyens dans la province du Québec, en cette journée si importante et historique et émotionnelle pour tous les Québécois, que nous ici en Ontario, dans la province-soeur et fraternelle de la province du Québec, voulons toujours créer un Canada uni. Nous allons travailler pour renforcer les valeurs canadiennes que nous partageons. Surtout en ces mois, en ces jours et en ces semaines si importantes, nous allons travailler de concert comme Ontariens et comme Canadiens avec le gouvernement et avec la population québécoise pour créer un Canada plus fort et plus uni. Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Président.

1430

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Mr Speaker, might I have unanimous consent to briefly say some words on behalf of the life of Paul Michael Semple?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed? Agreed.

PAUL SEMPLE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I rise on behalf of all members in the House today to commemorate a hero. Paul Michael Semple, a Ryerson photography student with a promising career, had everything to live for. On Monday of this week, Paul joined his friends in responding to a call for help in the streets of Toronto. As he rushed in the direction of the screams he heard, he saw a woman who had been assaulted and struck over the head by a gang of four youths. Paul immediately hurried to her assistance and in the ensuing struggle was fatally stabbed. Paul was pronounced dead upon arrival at Toronto Western Hospital.

According to his friends, Paul was a good-natured student. "The kind of guy who wore his heart on his sleeve," is what the Toronto Sun said this morning. He was extremely compassionate. Paul's death was senseless, but today we honour Paul as Toronto's great hero who made the supreme sacrifice of his life in the act of aiding an assaulted woman and her child. On behalf of all members of this House I extend our sincerest condolences to Paul's family and friends. Those wishing to do so may make a donation to the Paul Semple memorial fund at the office of development and alumnae at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'd like to join with the member for Burlington in paying tribute to Paul Semple for this act of courage which I think every member of this House commemorates today as we speak of this unfortunate incident.

We ask very often that people in our society not simply allow incidents of this kind to pass, not simply look the other way. There is a parable in the Bible that talks about those who would walk on the other side of the road and ignore someone in trouble. We have an example of a person this week who has in fact ended up giving his own life to defend others, a person who was prepared to get involved in assisting another.

There are people in our society who are particularly vulnerable to assault. Unfortunately that group of people is a growing segment of the population: those who are now subject to this kind of assault. But this gentleman obviously saw people who were in some trouble. He could have turned the other way. He could have sought help in a different way, and perhaps it would have been too late in that instance. But he decided to take it upon himself to intervene where many would be tempted to turn the other way. Unfortunately, in this case he has paid with his life.

Those who have perpetrated this crime no doubt will be sought by the police and hopefully brought to justice. But what is important in our society, I believe from this instance, is that it will send perhaps the wrong signal. It'll send a signal out there that if people are prepared to become involved in an incident of this kind, if they are prepared to go to the aid of a fellow woman or man or child, they could be placing themselves in a position of vulnerability, even a position where death might be near. It is our hope that people don't draw that conclusion from this instance, and the best we can do, I suppose, because there is anger in many of us -- I certainly have personal anger at seeing this circumstance coming about here in Ontario and our country, anywhere in the world -- but also there is a feeling of loss of an individual who cared so much about others.

I watched, as I'm sure all members of the Legislature did who were able to watch a newscast, the people who knew this gentleman, who had worked with him, who had had him as a student and spoke very highly of the fact that this person did care about others. Certainly I'm sure the sympathy of everyone in this Legislature and the appreciation of everyone in this Legislature goes out to him and his family.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I too would like to rise, on behalf of the government, to express our condolences to the family and to his friends. Although I had not met this young man personally, he did live in my riding of High Park-Swansea.

I think what we should be reminding ourselves is that there are individuals in our society who are willing to go out -- risk their lives -- to assist and to help other individuals. He went out in the middle of the night when he heard the screams of a woman, and he wanted to come to her assistance. We often forget that people will be good neighbours, will try to assist and will try to help. Instead, we always hear about the individuals who do wrong.

This young man, as my colleagues have stated, was a person who had high potential, who would have made a very good adult in finishing his career. We are all very deeply shocked and deeply regret the loss of this needless death, and we certainly wish things in our society were not so that they would bring about an incident of such.

However, we must remember that people must continue to try to be good neighbours, try to be good citizens, and I think this individual shows all of us that we must continue to strive for those goals.

I wish the family well and I know all of my colleagues on this side of the House extend our condolences to his family and to his friends and to all of his colleagues. I hope we can reflect on this incident to make sure that we can continue to strive to make a society that would not require such a needless death.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The kind and thoughtful remarks by the member for Burlington South, the member for St Catharines and the member for High Park-Swansea will be forwarded to the family of Mr Paul Semple.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AIR QUALITY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. The Premier might be interested in knowing, before I place my question, since we have been pressing him to answer a number of questions on the environment, that this particular question in fact was intended for the Minister of the Environment and in her absence I shall have to direct it to the Premier.

The Premier I'm sure is well aware that it has been almost two full years since the clean air program was initiated. The aim of this program was to revise the outdated regulation 308 of the Environmental Protection Act of this province dealing with air pollution. This particular program was the result of an extensive government and public review that dated back to 1985. According to the economic analyses that were undertaken on the proposals, benefits would emerge not only for the environment but for the economy, and the proposals and the new regulations would remove uncertainty from those planning in the industrial sector and would provide for growth in the environmental protection industry of the province.

There was a six-month consultation proposed on the draft regulations. That six-month period expired a full year and a half ago. We have seen nothing of the draft regulations since then, and I would ask the Premier if he can tell us what the status of this particular draft proposal is. Where does it stand now?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can only tell the honourable member that, as far as I'm aware, this matter is still being reviewed by the minister. The minister has been very much engaged on a number of fronts. The clean air front is certainly one of them, and I'm sure she will be coming forward with proposals for cabinet discussion and for public discussion, but that's as much as I can tell the honourable member about where matters now stand.

Mrs McLeod: When the Premier uses words like "considering" and "discussing" it raises our continuing concern about a lot of words and no action at all.

I was perhaps particularly concerned with an announcement that was made by the Minister of the Environment and the Attorney General of the province a little bit earlier this month when that announcement focused solely on reporting the number of convicted environmental offenders in Ontario for 1991. It seems to me that while the Minister of the Environment has occupied her time establishing a brand-new reporting service on environmental polluters, she has simply failed to take any positive and proactive steps to work with industry to actually achieve sound environmental management.

I would ask the Premier why this government fails to actually follow through on work that had already been done, specifically on the clean air program. Why has it taken a year and a half for us to see any result at all? Why is there no action contemplated? Is there any kind of alternative program, or is there simply no action at all?

1440

Hon Mr Rae: Perhaps the member is now discovering why I refer many of these questions to the Minister of the Environment. But I would say to the honourable member that when she says no action is being contemplated, I think she reads too much into my first answer.

What I said was that this was an area which the minister is still obviously very actively reviewing within her ministry. To the best of my recollection there's been no recent cabinet discussion on this question, though I can assure her that there has been very active cabinet discussion on a number of other environmental issues which the minister has been very actively engaged in promoting and on which I think that quite soon we are going to be able to report some very considerable progress.

Mrs McLeod: I think on this issue, as on other environmental issues that we've been directing towards the Premier in the past weeks, he would prefer to have the questions referred to the Minister of the Environment so that he does not have to explain the complete lack of action of his government or in fact the complete retreat from environmental promises which his government, under his leadership, has made in the past. This is yet another of those issues in which the record of promises has been broken completely.

I would refer to what now seems to be a totally discarded Agenda for People, but I'll refer to it anyway, in which the NDP said it would overhaul the air pollution laws. Then in the June 19, 1990, document, also apparently discarded, Greening the Party, Greening the Province, there was a promise to speed up air pollution regulations by completing current programs more expeditiously than is planned.

Now, two full years later, on a program that was already essentially in place, the only action this government has taken on the issue of air pollution has been the announcement asking the federal government to ban a list of 21 toxic chemicals, many of which are currently not used, some of which were banned already by the previous government or are within the jurisdiction of the province to unilaterally ban itself.

The indecisiveness and the inaction of the Minister of the Environment and this government on these environmental issues are having dramatic impacts on both the environment and the economy of this province, and I would ask when this Premier, this minister, this government are going to stop talking about what they plan to do while they retreat from all their past commitments. Specifically, when is this government going to begin to take some positive and some proactive steps to protect the air quality of this province?

Hon Mr Rae: The answer to that is: Soon. But I would say to the honourable member that I think much of her rhetoric is a little excessive, given the record of the minister, given what she has done and given the clear commitments that have been made. I think we saw yesterday with respect to a number of issues that the criticism of the minister that I've heard is that she's taken action and it's action with which some people disagree. I don't think this minister could ever be accused of inaction. This is a minister who has acted. She has taken tough decisions that were left on the back burner by previous governments for years on end. She's acted well, she's acted effectively, and I'm proud to have her as our Minister of the Environment.

Mrs McLeod: The only rhetoric on environmental issues is in the continued non-answers of this government, whether through the Premier or the minister.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I would turn now to the smoke and mirrors of the budget and another set of critical issues. The budget was delivered a full two months ago, but still hundreds of thousands of people in this province remain unemployed. Hundreds of economic renewal projects, many of them related to municipal infrastructure, particularly municipal sewer and water infrastructure, remain mired in a bureaucratic maze and millions of dollars for economic renewal remain unallocated.

On Monday, fully four months late, the Minister of the Environment finally announced that just 30 municipalities would receive money this year for sewer and water capital projects. At least twice that many are actually ready to put shovels in the ground on these projects. Across Ontario, communities like Moose Creek and the town of Roxborough are ready with important developments, but they stagnate because this government's budget for municipal water and sewer projects has either been chopped or is simply being dribbled out a little bit at a time.

Can the Premier explain why his government is helping just 30 municipalities with these extremely important sewer and water capital infrastructure projects? Is it because this is indeed all the money there is for these capital projects, or is it because his government just can't get organized to get the projects approved?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I find it ironic that the member would choose a week in which we announced several environmental projects across the province, in which we've announced tens of millions of dollars of public expenditure to proceed this year to say there are more projects we could have funded. By definition, there will always be more projects to fund than there is money. That's a reality which the member, when she was a minister, knew full well, though the economic circumstances when she was in office were completely different from the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Our capital budget is large; our capital budget is substantial. It's the highest in Canada in terms of all the provincial governments. It's a very substantial budget in terms of where we're at. I can tell the honourable member that we are doing whatever we can to respond to municipal needs as effectively as we can.

It's very easy -- and Lord knows, we all know how easy it is -- to stand up and say: "Just spend more money. Here's a project that wants approval. There's another one over there." We have approved dozens of projects, funds are going across the province and the member knows full well that the major criticism we received from her group last year was that we were spending too much, not that we were spending too little.

Mrs McLeod: My questions are very specifically related to the announcements this government is making. That's why I've chosen this time. The purpose of these questions is to expose some of the smoke and mirrors of the budget announcements that are being made. I would remind the Premier of a budget that trumpeted all the job creation that his Jobs Ontario Capital funds and Jobs Ontario Training funds were going to bring about. We are questioning the priorities and the management of this government to actually be able to do more than just announce and reannounce the same programs over and over again. We want to see where the real job creation is. We want to see where the priorities are.

In my supplementary, I take the Premier to another announcement that has just been made within the hour. That was the announcement of the Minister of Community and Social Services of $110 million in capital for child care spaces -- undoubtedly needed child care spaces -- but the minister has only actually announced one specific project. She speaks of future announcements that are going to be made and the partnerships with communities that are going to make these projects possible.

We keep hearing over and over again that this particular partnership has already broken down, that municipalities cannot afford to support even their existing child care spaces. I remind the Premier that these are the same hard-pressed municipalities that can't afford to carry out those capital infrastructure projects their communities need. In many communities that reality is causing child care to pay a price.

I would ask the Premier what assurance he can give us that municipalities will in fact be willing partners in these new projects, or is this last capital fund announcement just more smoke and mirrors?

Hon Mr Rae: In response to the Leader of the Opposition, I can say to her that we understand the fiscal position of the municipalities. In many cases their position is as difficult as ours, though I must say in many instances, if we look at their overall borrowing ability, many of them are doing better than the province in relative terms. That happens to be a financial reality.

The member is ignoring the fact that the province announced in the last budget the creation of 20,000 new subsidized child care spaces. Those subsidized spaces will be fully funded by the provincial government.

Mrs McLeod: I was not ignoring that fact at all. I was taking the Premier back to the reality of the pressures that municipalities are facing with existing child care spaces.

Let me try one more focus on the government's budget, which is now, as of next week, at the end of its first quarter. One of the other major job-creation projects announced in that budget was the Jobs Ontario Capital and Training funds. This was the fund in which the government was to set aside $176 million to train people currently unemployed. So far the only announcement has been this week's announcement of 271 jobs in Guelph. The problem we know this government is finding is that the agencies that are to do the training simply can't participate in the program. To do the training, they first have to commit to finding jobs for the people they will train. Because of the desperate situation every community across this province is facing economically, there are simply no jobs for those people.

1450

I would ask the Premier what assurance he can give us that there are going to be anywhere near the 10,000 jobs that were promised to be created through the Jobs Ontario Training program. We ask over and over again, where are we going to find the jobs created that are needed for people today?

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): That's 9,700 to go.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David, whose contributions to the debate are always worth listening to, says we have --

Mr Scott: Well, why don't you answer the question?

Hon Mr Rae: Perhaps you'll just permit me to answer. He says we have 9,700 to go. I would say to him that we know we have many more announcements with respect to the Jobs Ontario Training fund, and we know full well that there are a lot of people out there who are willing partners and who want to be partners with us in the training initiatives. We saw that in the youth announcements which I made in cooperation with the chairman of the Bank of Montreal, Mr Matthew Barrett. He was there with us with respect to the youth employment announcement. We've had more buy-in and more participation from the private sector than ever before.

The honourable member has also failed to mention the 1,000 pre-employment spaces we've created, and the extensions we're doing of apprenticeship programs and the kind of money we're putting into those programs. I would only say to the honourable member that we are determined to move ahead on all these fronts, on the Jobs Ontario funds: the jobs training fund and the jobs youth fund. We're moving in each of these directions, and we're moving substantially with the assistance and participation of the private sector, of voluntary groups, of non-profit groups and everyone else and it's going very well. It's not going as well as the Liberal Party would like, but in our view it's going as well as possible, given the very tough circumstances we inherited from that same Liberal Party which was in government during the fat years.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier and regards what has been viewed as a most inflammatory comment made at the NDP convention by the member for St Andrew-St Patrick. When asked about identifying blacks for a youth employment program, she responded by saying, "No one seems to have a problem identifying us when they want to shoot us." Premier, do you condone Ms Akande's comments?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can only say that the member for St Andrew-St Patrick -- and I don't know all the context of the remarks she made -- is somebody who's serving the province extremely well. She's worked very hard on the youth employment program and has worked very effectively on that plan. She's somebody who I think is well known for being outspoken and very direct. I would say that in terms of the contribution the honourable member for St Andrew-St Patrick has made to this province and to the whole question of improving the condition of people of all backgrounds and races in this province, Ms Akande has my support.

Mr Harris: Premier, yesterday I asked the Solicitor General about Ms Akande's statement, because the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association had condemned her remarks as grossly irresponsible.

The Solicitor General, the top cop in the province, in spite of the fact that the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association had issued a press release earlier, said he was not aware of the comments that were made or of their context. I find that, in and of itself, shocking.

Premier, would you not agree that if you're truly serious about improving race relations -- and I believe you are -- that Ms Akande should apologize to the police in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: It's my sense --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for York Centre.

Hon Mr Rae: It's my sense, from everything I've seen, that when you look at the overall context of the comment, I would say to the honourable member that there was no mention by Ms Akande of the police in any way, no mention of the police at all.

Mr Harris: Mr Premier, it is in view of the overall context of what's happening and of the role you've assigned her that makes it so important.

When you announced your task force on racism, Ms Akande shared the stage with you. Her role as parliamentary assistant was to address the problems of racism in our province. Premier, far from helping the situation, Ms Akande's remarks have only fuelled the fires, and in my view and in the view of most Ontarians and anybody I have talked to, she only has two options: She can admit that she made a mistake and apologize, or if she stands behind these inflammatory, derisive remarks and is not prepared to withdraw them, she should admit that she is not the appropriate person to act on behalf of the Premier in the task you have given her, and she should resign. Premier, if she's not going to apologize, will you ask her to resign?

Hon Mr Rae: If you look at the contribution the member for St Andrew-St Patrick has made with regard to the youth employment effort and the work she's done in that area, I think it's important to reflect on that when you think about the contribution she's made.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): This is what you said about Shelley Martel. Get real.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): If you can accept a liar in your cabinet, I guess you can accept that.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: There are a lot of people in this province, Premier, who really don't understand at all what's going on.

The Speaker: Would the leader of the third party resume his seat, please. The member for Leeds-Grenville, what was heard was an unparliamentary remark. It is not helpful and it's certainly not parliamentary language to say in the House that another member is a liar. I would ask the member to withdraw the remark.

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, even though it's accurate, following your advice, I will withdraw it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Attorney General. Mr Attorney General, you have given, and directed your office to give, local merchant Paul Magder an ultimatum: either pay $1 million in fines before his appeal is heard or close on Sunday while the rest of the province is free to open. Can you explain to me, Mr Attorney General, why officials from your office are insisting that Mr Magder's be the only store in the whole province that must close on Sunday before you will drop that request for the $1 million in fines before his appeal is finally finalized?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): In view of the fact that this issue is currently before the court, I am reluctant to comment on it. But I will say this: There are a number of issues, including a contempt issue, which are currently before the court. The court will deal with that contempt issue as it feels appropriate. It would be most inappropriate for me to express an opinion on that issue at this point in time. I think the leader of the third party knows that.

Mr Harris: Surely you would agree with me -- and nobody's disputing the fact that Mr Magder apparently broke the law, however ridiculous and unfair that law was for him and his business and in his circumstances -- that he is legally entitled to ask for an appeal, which is what he is doing. I suggest to you that you have unfairly prejudged his case by demanding he pay $1 million in fines before the Supreme Court has finally passed judgement on this whole affair.

Attorney General, you have admitted, I think, that your government and the old Sunday closing law were unfair. What I don't understand is why you have directed your officials to insist, as a condition of dropping the demand for the payment of the fines, that Mr Magder do something you've told everybody else in the province they don't have to do; that is, close on Sunday.

Hon Mr Hampton: I can confirm that apparently there is something near $1 million in unpaid fines. That is the subject of a contempt hearing before the senior courts in Ontario. The court has been conducting hearings into that matter. I can confirm that is part of the matter before the court at this time and I feel it would be appropriate to let the courts of Ontario handle this issue.

1500

Mr Harris: Yesterday, Mr Attorney General, you dropped Sunday opening charges against music store owner Marty Herzog. Yet you continue to harass Mr Magder, who has long been a thorn in the side of the Ontario government, for a period when three different parties have been in power. Given that insisting on bankrupting Paul Magder appears to most in this province to be nothing other than petty revenge, would you not agree that today you drop your silly condition of telling Mr Magder he cannot open his store on Sunday when everybody else can as a condition of not having to pay the $1 million in fines?

Hon Mr Hampton: I expect that at some time in the near future courts in Ontario will have an opportunity to rule on this matter. I believe it should be left in the courts' hands at this time.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier help me and the people of Ontario understand what his parliamentary assistant, Ms Akande, intended when she said in Hamilton last weekend that no one seems to have a problem identifying the black community "when they want to shoot us"?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I wasn't there when the remarks were made. I'm not aware of the question that was asked or the context of the answer. All I can say is that in everything Ms Akande, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, has done -- if you reflect on the words of the Lewis report, it talked about the fear and concern that's present in the black community, and I think that's the context in which perhaps her words should be understood.

Mr Conway: It is because I have the Premier's parliamentary assistant's words before my very eyes that I re-ask the question. Can the Premier help me and the people of Ontario understand what his parliamentary assistant meant or intended when she said last weekend in Hamilton that "No one seems to have a problem in identifying us" -- namely the black community -- "when they want to shoot us"?

Hon Mr Rae: I don't think I can add further to the first answer I gave the honourable member.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): The Minister of Labour is now in possession of a report from the task force on agriculture-labour relations. The task force represented both producers and workers in the agricultural industry, and it told you that agricultural labour relations had to come under a separate act, that agriculture was very much different from most other sectors. After meeting with the agricultural groups, why is it still your ministry's position that you want to keep all your options open and especially the option of regulating agriculture under the Ontario Labour Relations Act?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The member should know that the report will be available to all members of the House I think probably either Friday or Monday, and it seems to me that he might wait to see what recommendations we actually make as a result of the report.

Mr Villeneuve: Mr Minister, you have to realize that it's your responsibility to the people out in Ontario's rural community and not to Ontario's labour leaders such as Bob White and other very special interest groups that your government seems to cater to quite a lot. Farmers don't need the added insecurity of Bill 40 hanging over their heads during a growing season. What they need is assurance from the Minister of Labour that all references to agriculture will be removed from your present Bill 40 and that the right to organize will be recognized in a separate agriculture-labour relations act, along with the prohibition of lockouts and strikes. Would you not today, Mr Minister, assure our rural community that there will be special legislation and Bill 40 will have nothing to do with agriculture?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have a strong feeling that most of the rural community already has some assurance that they've had a good hearing and that their thoughts and views and recommendations have been listened to by this government.

LABOUR FORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARDS

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities regarding the geographic boundaries of the local labour force development board in Essex and Kent counties. According to the report, the city of Windsor, Essex county, Kent county, Chatham and southern Lambton will comprise one local board. Kent county council and Chatham city council are concerned about the potential inequities this could cause for Kent-Lambton area residents, especially considering the greater number and diversity of the industries in Essex and Windsor. There is also some fear that the needs of Kent and southern Lambton would be dwarfed because of the greater number of apprentice training positions available in Essex county and Windsor.

As representatives of both Essex and Kent counties, along with my colleague Mr Hope, the member for Chatham-Kent, we do see some of the merits in these points. So I ask the minister, could the county of Kent, the city of Chatham and the southern Lambton area be grouped together to form a separate local labour force development board?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities and Minister of Skills Development): First of all, I should say that the local board consultation that was held by two separate travelling panels ended its work at the end of May, has been working on its report back to the ministry and will be completing that report very soon. That report will then go before the first Ontario Training and Adjustment Board structure for consideration later this summer or in September. But in the first instance --

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Where is the legislation?

Hon Mr Allen: That's coming in due time. It's all on course; it's all on track. The question he asks, however, pertaining to Kent county, which I must say the member for Chatham-Kent has brought before me on many occasions, does raise the question of the number of boards and their boundaries. We have indicated very clearly throughout the consultation that it's going to be very difficult to move beyond the number of 22 boards we have, that it will not be easy to reduce the scale and size of given boards, and that with regard to the concerns that individual regions have, we will work out balanced labour market policies that will address all of the different components in each labour market area, regardless of its size or strength vis-à-vis other groups and components.

Mr Hayes: I must say to the minister that I'm not totally pleased about the answer, but if an additional board isn't possible, is the minister flexible enough to consider changing the geographic boundaries within which the board operates?

Hon Mr Allen: The question as to the boundaries is one I've answered on many occasions. These were boundaries drawn to talk to, but they're also boundaries that are not cast in stone and it is possible to look at variations of them in order to adapt to what might well be better labour market areas than the ones that are presently defined.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have another question for the Premier. Mr Premier, if you have nothing to say to me, the Legislature and the people of Ontario about the conduct of your parliamentary assistant in respect of her statements at Hamilton, what do you suppose that says about your leadership on a matter and issue that is one of extreme sensitivity to the people of Ontario at the present moment?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I have tried to provide effective leadership on the question of relations between all the people in the province over the time that I have been Premier and before that time. It may be a leadership that the member for Renfrew North doesn't agree with or doesn't like, but I've tried to do so in terms of the appointment of the Lewis commission, in terms of the actions we've taken, in terms of the efforts we've made with respect to youth employment and other issues. When you look at the overall record of the government, or my record as leader of the government, I think you'll find that my leadership has been there very clearly.

Mr Conway: Mr Premier, your parliamentary assistant said in this province a few days ago, "No one seems to have a problem in identifying the black community when they want to shoot us." To date you have taken no action. You will not say whether you think that is inappropriate for your parliamentary assistant. Do you not think, Mr Premier, as the leader of the government, that you have a first-order obligation, consistent with the high standards that were articulated in your November 1990 throne speech about integrity in government, to stand in your place as Premier of Ontario and say that what your parliamentary assistant said in Hamilton last weekend was inappropriate and unacceptable and that she should, as a matter of honour, on her own behalf and on behalf of her government offer an apology to the people of Ontario for those remarks?

Hon Mr Rae: I will only say to the honourable member that when I consider the overall contribution the honourable member from St Andrew-St Patrick has made, when I consider the fear and the anguish that I think she has expressed over her life and over her career, when I think of the contribution she has made, that's the record I consider in responding to the comments that were made by the honourable member.

1510

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): On Monday I had this question of the Premier. It's certainly given the Premier an opportunity to meet with the member for St Andrew-St Patrick to find out the total context of the comments she made that have alarmed many, many people. I'm concerned that it has not alarmed the Premier more, but I wonder if the Premier could make a commitment that he will meet with the member for St Andrew-St Patrick to follow this up further and come back to the House with a full report. If you're not prepared to do that, why have you not already made that short effort of talking to your parliamentary assistant to understand fully the context in which she made these statements?

Hon Mr Rae: I meet often with the member for St Andrew-St Patrick. I haven't happened to have had a conversation with her since the convention. I am sure that opportunity will arise.

Mr Cousens: Inasmuch as this is very much an issue of importance to the House and to the people of the province, would the Premier make a commitment that he would meet with the member for St Andrew-St Patrick on this particular issue and report back to the House tomorrow on his action and on his understanding of what she said and what she thought it meant and possibly corrective action on his part that could lead to what our leader has suggested, either an apology or a resignation from this member in that particular capacity.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm sure that opportunity will arise.

Mr Conway: My question is again to the Premier on this matter. I want to say, Mr Premier, that I know something of the work that's been done by the member for St Andrew-St Patrick and I appreciate her efforts on behalf of her constituents both in St Andrew-St Patrick and elsewhere. Having said that, Mr Premier, she's your parliamentary assistant. She's working within the guidelines established by your government, guidelines that expressly call for that which will increase respect for government, guidelines that call for a reduction of cynicism and guidelines that seek to curtail arrogance and the abuse of power.

Mr Premier, let me repeat. Your parliamentary assistant said at Hamilton last weekend, "No one seems to have a problem in identifying the black community when they want to shoot us." Ordinary Ontarians are wondering and are asking what was intended by those remarks made by your parliamentary assistant and dealing with the very sensitive question of race relations. Do you not think that, as a minimum, you should ask your parliamentary assistant to apologize for those remarks, having regard to your own guidelines of November 1990?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I would say to the honourable member that of course I will talk to the honourable member and to others about exactly what it is she said and what it is she meant. But I would say to the honourable member that one also has to consider the context of the debate in which this was said --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The honourable member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: Let me say that I know the Premier is a smart and honourable man. I know as well that the member for St Andrew-St Patrick is a good and decent and concerned, public-spirited individual. I accept that, and we understand generally speaking the context in which these remarks were made.

Does the Premier not understand, given the context, given that we're talking about race relations in Toronto and in Ontario in the spring and summer of 1992, that it is altogether inappropriate and completely inconsistent with the Premier's own guidelines for anyone, any of us, most especially the Premier's own parliamentary assistant, to say what the honourable member for St Andrew-St Patrick said in Hamilton last weekend? Surely the time is now, on a matter of principle, for the Premier to stand up and say: "It was wrong. It was inappropriate. On behalf of my government, I apologize." Will he now do that?

Hon Mr Rae: Before I do anything, I will certainly want to talk to the member for St Andrew-St Patrick and to others. But I would say to the honourable member, let us reflect as well on what Mr Lewis talked about in his report in terms of the fear and the anguish that exist in the black community -- if I may say so, a fear and an anguish that have been described not just by the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, but by many, many other people inside the black community and outside the black community. I think we have to be sensitive to that as well, and I see that as part of my job as Premier as well.

The Speaker: New question? The leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): To the Premier: This very question was put to you two days ago by the member for Markham -- two days ago. Yesterday this question was raised in your absence by myself to the Solicitor General. Today, three days later, you are telling this House you haven't had a chance to think about it, to look at it, to talk to your parliamentary assistant.

Now, Mr Premier, the issue goes beyond your parliamentary assistant. Condoning these remarks for three days now makes them your remarks, makes them yours as the Premier on behalf of the government. Now, three days after this has been raised by the parliamentary assistant, speaking on your behalf as your parliamentary assistant, and confirmed in the media by Ms Akande that the "they" she was talking about was the police -- in case you're having difficulty with the context, Ms Akande confirmed in the media yesterday that the "they" she was referring to was the police -- will you now as Premier apologize to every police officer in Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I will undertake to do what I said I would do in response to other questions that have been asked on this. I will obviously discuss the context of the remark and what it is that Ms Akande said, and then I will report back to the House.

1520

Mr Harris: Mr Premier, this was the answer we got on Monday. Now two more days have gone by with absolutely no action, with no comment from your parliamentary assistant, with no comment from the Solicitor General, the top cop, who says he didn't even know about the remarks even though the police association issued its press release earlier. We find that hard to believe. Now today, Mr Premier, you say you'll look at it.

Would you not agree with me, Premier, that your government's, yours, your parliamentary assistant's and the Solicitor General's silence on this matter is in fact condoning the comments and condoning the statements? Would you not agree that no one is going to be perceived as able to bring parties together and no one is going to be perceived as being able to provide a sound and reasonable voice if not only are they not part of the solution but indeed their rhetoric is part of the problem? Will you deal with that, Mr Premier, in issuing your apology now, the apology of the Solicitor General for suggesting to us yesterday he'd never heard of it and the apology or the resignation of the parliamentary assistant?

Hon Mr Rae: I will do what I undertook to do in answer to previous questions.

PROPOSED HIGHWAY

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation.

Interjections.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I'm trying to hear the question.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): He wants a road to his dump. That's what he wants.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member take his seat. The member for Durham West.

Mr Wiseman: I have to chuckle because for the first time in a long time the member for St George-St David has actually come very close to the question. It has to do with a road. It has to do with the building of Highway 407 and its relationship to M6, which is a landfill site on the boundary of Pickering and Markham.

It seems that the Interim Waste Authority has sought to locate a landfill site on what can only be referred to as the preferred site for the 407. I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation what communications the Ministry of Transportation has had with the IWA with respect to this road.

As well, it should also be known that the 407 is planned to go through the middle of one of the sites north of Whitevale. I would also like the minister to respond to that in context as well.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Terribly complex indeed, but most insightful. The member for Durham West follows this important dossier really on a daily basis. Yes, the Ministry of Transportation, in its relationship with interim waste management, recognized the possibility for overlap.

The Interim Waste Authority is an arm's-length agency presently conducting a six-stage study. What we want to make sure of here is that there is no overlapping and that the environmental concerns are well taken into consideration each and every step of the way, and yet allow Transportation to proceed with this important project.

Mr Wiseman: A few weeks ago I rose in this House to talk about what I branded the Liberal road -- it started nowhere, went nowhere, had no direction -- the Taunton-Steeles connection. Not only is it a Liberal road that has no direction -- no end and no direction -- it seems that in order to give it some kind of meaning they were going to connect the Taunton-Steeles connection with Whites Road and the building of Whites Road would be right through the middle of another landfill site to the south of Whitevale. I'd also like to have the minister's comments on that, given that there is an environmental assessment completed on that road.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member for Durham West is right on. There has to be a beginning, a middle and an end to each project. Taxpayers in the province of Ontario cannot be asked to be patient endlessly. They want to see a shovel in the ground. We're almost there. The site selection -- there are two sites here -- will take place by 1993. It will allow the important link of Durham West with Metropolitan Toronto. I find the question very insightful. Stick with us, we're almost there. You will see shovels in the ground, real work being done under this administration.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a question for the Premier: Some 20 months ago in your first speech from the throne you, in very eloquent phrases, reminded the province that your government's first challenge was to earn the trust and the respect of the people of Ontario, that your government's integrity would be measured by the way this government is run and your relations with the people you serve. "Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever they exist."

You went on, I thought quite helpfully, to observe that when the Rae government makes mistakes, it will admit them. Mr Premier, I understand the difficulty and the delicacy of this situation, but how --

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): You are really so sensitive.

Mr Conway: I'm being very, very honest with my friends opposite. To have a parliamentary assistant to the Premier say what Ms Akande said for whatever reason, under whatever pressure in Hamilton last weekend is, I submit, a clear breach of the Premier's own self-described standard of conduct that's contained and outlined in that speech from the throne.

Does the Premier not agree that the time is now to admit that his parliamentary assistant made a mistake and that he is prepared to give the public an explanation and an apology for that mistake?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I listened very carefully to the member's question. I would only say to him, I'm not sure what I can add to what I've said before. That is to say that obviously we all are aware of the fact that the things that people say can have a different impact on different people and can be taken in different ways by different people. We also understand the importance of that in what it is that people say.

I also think one also has to have some appreciation, as I've said before, of the words that are contained in the Lewis report and elsewhere of the sense of very, very deep concern that exists in the black community and elsewhere which has been expressed by a great many people with respect to their situations. I would say to the honourable member that obviously we'll all reflect on what's happened. I'll reflect on what's happened. No one in this House has a monopoly on any particular set of issues or set of concerns. I certainly have come to understand and learn that.

I would say to the honourable member that obviously I will listen and reflect on what he's had to say and what others have had to say. That's exactly what I now intend to do.

1530

Mr Conway: We're not talking about any person on the street who might have had an opinion on these subjects; we are talking about the parliamentary assistant to the Premier of Ontario who said these words -- let me say again -- "No one seems to have a problem in identifying the black community in this province when they want to shoot us." That wasn't an ordinary, regular person on the street; that was the Premier's parliamentary assistant. He doesn't seem to understand that there is a difference. His own standards of conduct, so eloquently offered here some months ago, recognize that and give to the Premier a leadership responsibility in enforcing that conduct for ministers and parliamentary assistants.

Will the Premier give me the assurance that tomorrow, in this House, he will stand and make a statement to the assembly and to the people outside this chamber as to what was intended when the parliamentary assistant to the Premier made those comments and what, if anything, the Premier of Ontario is going to do about it?

Hon Mr Rae: I will obviously take into account what the honourable member has had to say. An issue which has taken up as much of this period of questions as this issue has is one to which we will all respond.

The Speaker: New question the member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): We've spent all this time trying to improve the integrity of this place. I hope the Premier will review what he has said today because tomorrow we'll be back at it, I can assure you.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is to the minister responsible for native affairs. Mr Minister, your government has recognized the aboriginals' right to self-government. Now it would appear you intend to allow reserves, not the province of Ontario, to regulate the operation of charitable gaming. I refer to statements that have been made specifically with respect to the Gaming Services Act which we are debating today. My question to the minister is, what assurances can the minister give the people of Ontario that the gaming practices on native lands will be regulated the same as on non-native lands?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): The member has raised a very important question and one that I'm sure he will understand I have to be careful in responding to. As you will know, there is a case being tried involving a Shawanaga first nation at this point.

However, I would point out to him, without commenting on that case, that we have in Ontario, in a statement of political relationship that was signed by the Premier, myself and the chiefs, and in our discussions at the constitutional table, recognized the inherent right of self-government for aboriginal people. That means we in this province, and I guess if the constitutional passage goes through, we across Canada -- the federal government and other provincial governments -- will have to deal with aboriginal governments on a government-to-government basis. That means in recognizing the inherent right, we will have to negotiate arrangements for how that right will be implemented, which laws will apply when and under which jurisdictions.

I can't give a more specific answer than to say that the implementation of the inherent right is a matter for negotiation over a period of time prior to its being judiciable before the courts.

Mr Tilson: It at least seems to have been said that the Gaming Services Act isn't going to apply to reserves. Those statements have been made. You've made some statements. I realize there are continual negotiations, but we need for you to be clearer on this subject, notwithstanding that you're entering into these negotiations. We need to know what other pieces of provincial legislation are going to be exempt under the natives' right to self-government -- the Highway Traffic Act?

Hon Mr Wildman: I don't think the member heard my first answer. If you deal on a government-to-government basis and you recognize self-government, then --

Mr Tilson: I heard your first answer. It bothers me.

Hon Mr Wildman: I don't know. The member says he's bothered by that. I would say the member should be aware that all members of the legislative committee of this House on the Constitution unanimously endorsed the concept of the recognition of the inherent right to self-government. That entails with it, inevitably, the negotiation of the transfer of jurisdictions from one government to the other and the negotiation of an orderly implementation and transition to determine which laws will apply in which cases and in which jurisdictions.

That is not an answer I can spell out right now and it is an answer that all aboriginal leaders and leaders of the provinces and the federal government are attempting to grapple with at the constitutional table. It's not a matter that can be put forward in two minutes and 45 seconds in this House. I don't think the member is really serious in putting this question before this House.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. Madam Minister, you might be aware that a number of months ago the clay and glass gallery in the city of Waterloo held a ground-breaking ceremony in order to construct a new world-premier facility. It's the first gallery of its kind. Recently the gallery has run into severe economic financial difficulties, and as a result the city of Waterloo council was approached as late as last week in order to secure some additional funding so that the gallery could continue to build and hopefully have an opening date set soon.

I want to say to the minister that there are a number of construction workers who depend on this facility being completed for their livelihood at the moment.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is that the question you are asking? You said you would ask a different question.

Mr Ferguson: I understand that the member for St Catharines has a little bit of difficulty recognizing that or understanding that. Could the minister advise me whether there will be any capital funds flowing from the minister to assist the completion of the gallery?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): I must tell the member that there are many galleries, there are many museums, there are many facilities that are in a bit of financial difficulty. It's not unusual in a time of recession that many individual facilities find themselves in this position. However, the money just isn't very prolific in my ministry right now for major capital programs. There are many applications already into my field offices. Some have been into my field offices since 1989.

I would like to suggest to the member and any other members who have these galleries that would like to have capital money to go through the process. They should contact local offices -- in this particular case one of my field offices is located in Kitchener -- and the field services staff would be more than willing to discuss their needs and their concerns and put in an application, should it be necessary.

Mr Bradley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm willing to seek unanimous consent of the House to allow the member for Kitchener to ask the question that he said on Friday, June 19, he was going to ask in the House. It says "MPP Blasts Firefighter Hiring Plan." He said he was going to ask a question in the House about that. If he wishes, I'm willing to have unanimous consent.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there unanimous consent for the member for Kitchener to ask a question? Afraid not.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Mr Cooke moved that, notwithstanding the order of the House approving the dates of committee meetings during the session, the standing committee on regulations and private bills be authorized to meet following routine proceedings today for the purpose of considering Bill Pr50 and that the standing order requiring five days' notice be waived.

Motion agreed to.

1540

PETITIONS

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition which has approximately 75 signatures on it, people from Guelph township, Puslinch township, Uxbridge, Peterborough, Mount Albert, Harriston, Clifford and Mount Forest, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the above-mentioned implementations;

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I have affixed my name to this petition.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I have a petition that is signed by approximately 3,000 members from the Hamilton-Wentworth area and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, do hereby request the Minister of Health for the province of Ontario to restore the service provided by Chedoke Hospital in the city of Hamilton to the level enjoyed by the community prior to 1978."

I attach my name hereto.

TRAILER PARK RESIDENTS

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): This petition is signed by a little over 2,000 members, again from the Hamilton-Wentworth area, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the operations of Courtcliffe Park year-round trailer park in Carlisle, Ontario, have fallen under receivership through no fault of the residents; and

"Whereas the receivership company has petitioned the courts to have all operations of the year-round park wind down and have all 400 tenants evicted as of July 1, 1992; and

"Whereas all investigations show that relocation options are inadequate and investment in the park's viability is less of a burden on the social services system than full closure of the park;

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

"Make available financial assistance through the Ministry of Housing or any other ministry that may be of assistance; provide the means to allow the residents to continue to be self-sufficient and continue to contribute to the community; allow residents to retain affordable housing by assisting to make operations viable at Courtcliffe Park; initiate a provincial inquiry into the circumstances leading to this crisis, resulting in a provincially regulated mobile home industry."

Again, I hereto attach my name.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

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

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the impact that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

These petitions have been signed by individuals of Phillips Cables, the Toronto Construction Association, the Mississauga Construction Association, Albany International Canada Inc, Allpriser Ltd, Canada's Plumbing and Heating Price Guide, and G&W Electric Ltd. I have signed my name to these petitions.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Education is planning to amalgamate certain art-related courses at the year one secondary school level into one course in a proposed program called the Transition Years; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned residents of Ontario, including secondary school students of the aforementioned courses, feel that this decision is unacceptable on the grounds that it eliminates the in-depth study of the affected courses; and

"Whereas we understand that the aforementioned decision was taken in recognition of the difficulties faced by some students during their transition from elementary to secondary school, but reaffirm that this plan is the incorrect one; and

"Whereas we believe that this decision jeopardizes the value of all the above programs to future students in the first year and later years of secondary school;

"We petition Her Majesty's Legislative Assembly:

"That the Ministry of Education reconsider the aforementioned decision so that first-year secondary school students in Ontario may continue to enjoy the level of instruction that they receive in the affected art-related courses for many years to come."

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we, as citizens of the province of Ontario, believe the constitution of any genuinely democratic society truly belongs to its people and that our views on any changes to Canada's Constitution must be heard and final approval of such changes must be given by the citizens of Ontario;

"Whereas up to this time there has been very limited opportunity for input from grass-roots Ontarians,

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

"We request of you who administer the affairs of the province to make available every opportunity for the people to see and understand fully what the new Constitution, and/or any amendments thereto, will mean to each of us, and then will make provision for a final 'say' by the people of Ontario by way of a binding referendum."

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a further petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Innisfil landfill site is situated on an aquifer of which the water is distributed through an underground system of rivers and springs, and at the base of the dump are the headwaters of Lover's Creek, which meanders through the natural countryside and eventually deposits its waters into Lake Simcoe; and

"Whereas the Innisfil landfill site is situated on a parcel of 50 acres of land of which 15 acres are natural wetlands; and

"Whereas there are signed affidavits to state the Ministry of the Environment directed soils laden with oils and gas to be disposed of at the site; and

"Whereas from the period from 1969 until 1990 there has been little if any monitoring of what has been dumped into the site,

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

"To close the Innisfil landfill site and have the site brought back to as natural a state as possible."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition signed by 48 residents of Middlesex county petitioning the Legislature to "reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I have affixed my signature as required.

HYDRO PROJECT

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a petition signed by 1,495 constituents and summer residents.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is the intention of Ontario Hydro to erect a new hydro transmission line (Sudbury to Toronto reinforcement project) in part along a proposed new transmission line corridor in the lands between the French and Magnetawan rivers of central Ontario;

"Whereas the proposed routes for the new Hydro transmission corridor would:

"(a) cross the Loring Deer Yard, the largest winter concentration complex for white-tailed deer in the province of Ontario, and (b) cross the Parry Sound wildlands in addition to the existing corridor, and that these areas are of unique biological interest and figure prominently in the current and future tourism potential of the area,

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

"We request, in view of the impact the proposed routes would have on the ecology and economy of the lands between the French and Magnetawan rivers, that Ontario Hydro expand the use of the existing transmission line corridor for the new hydro transmission line of the Sudbury to Toronto reinforcement project."

I have affixed my signature thereto.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): I have a petition signed by 53 residents. The petition is formulated by the Citizens Initiatives and Referendum Committee and it reads:

"Whereas we, as citizens of the province of Ontario, believe the constitution of any genuine democratic society truly belongs to its people and that our views on any changes to Canada's Constitution must be heard and final approval of such changes must be given by the citizens of Ontario;

"Whereas up to this time there has been very limited opportunity for input from grass-roots Ontarians,

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

"We request of you who administer the affairs of this province to make available every opportunity for the people to see and understand fully what the new Constitution, and/or any amendments thereto, will mean to each of us, and then make provision for a final 'say' by the people of Ontario by way of a binding referendum."

1550

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have here six petitions signed by approximately 200 people, and they read as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the official plan of the township of King states that 'the township of King has traditionally been a rural municipality within the region of York,' and that 'the township possesses a significant amount of land which has historically been, and remains, devoted primarily to agriculture,' and

"Whereas this document also states that 'agriculture is an important land-based activity within the township,'

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

"We oppose the provincial government's proposal to take prime agricultural land in King township and turn it into Metro and York region's megadump."

I have signed this in support.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with 52 signatures from constituents in my riding of Dufferin-Peel. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the recent death and injury of five youths within the riding of Dufferin-Peel has deeply disturbed the residents; and

"Whereas these deaths might have been prevented if legislation concerning graduated licensing had been in place; and

"Whereas we would like to prevent further deaths and injuries to our new drivers and young people;

"We would like to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

"Bring forward legislation to introduce graduated licences within the province of Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

PESTICIDES

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition, and it's 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 feel that the urban cosmetic use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers is unnecessary since viable alternatives exist. Pesticides are being registered, marketed and used with inadequate, incomplete, obsolete and invalid testing. No pesticide has been proven absolutely safe. Pesticides have been linked to a number of serious health problems in terms of both acute and chronic toxicity. Many people are vulnerable to these effects, including children, the elderly and the environmentally sensitive. Pesticides and fertilizer nitrates contaminate surface water and groundwater and have been linked to a number of serious adverse effects on the environment. The manufacturing of some pesticides and fertilizers contributes to global warming. Pesticides adversely affect a wide variety of non-target beneficial organisms. Insects, fungi and weeds are becoming increasingly resistant to pesticides.

"Therefore, we request the House eliminate the use of synthetic pesticides for cosmetic reasons in urban areas of Ontario immediately or by 1993 at the very latest."

LANDFILL SITES

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 19 proposed sites in the region of York as possible candidates for landfill, two of which are in the riding of Markham;

"Whereas the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act, section 5(3);

"And whereas the government has promised each person in Ontario the right to a full environmental assessment, including the right to a review of all options as it pertains to waste disposal in Ontario,

"We, the undersigned" -- some 250 people, residents of that area -- "protest and petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future options for the disposal of greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of disposal sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area, where a 'willing host' community exists who is interested in developing new disposal systems for the greater Toronto area waste."

I have affixed my name to this petition and hope the government understands the importance of it.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province,

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

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of eight names from residents in my riding. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the amateur sports teams and charitable organizations across Ontario derive their financial support from the proceeds of bingos and various Monte Carlo nights; and

"Whereas the NDP government is planning on legalizing casinos and other forms of gambling; and

"Whereas this action will render it increasingly more difficult for amateur sports teams and charitable organizations to raise funds to support amateur sports and charities; and

"Whereas the volunteers who operate these facilities are not looking for handouts and seek only to raise funds to support their amateur sports teams and charitable organizations,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the government maintains the ability of these amateur sports teams and organizations to continue to raise needed support money through bingos and various Monte Carlo nights."

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act,

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

That is signed by over 100 from the riding of Lanark-Renfrew. I affix my signature.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

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

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr White from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report and moved its adoption.

The committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the City of North Bay.

Bill Pr30, An Act to revive The Sher-Bassin Group Inc.

Bill Pr41, An Act to revive Port Elgin Sportsmen's Club.

Bill Pr43, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill Pr32, An Act respecting the City of North Bay and the Township of East Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI RELATIVE AU GOUVERNEMENT LOCAL DANS LE DISTRICT DE PARRY SOUND

Mr Cooke moved first reading of Bill 77, An Act to amend the District of Parry Sound Local Government Act, 1979 / Loi modifiant la loi intitulée The District of Parry Sound Local Government Act, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I believe there's a unanimous consent that I move second reading of the bill.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): That may be awkward in that we are in a portion allotted for introduction of bills. I have no way of knowing if there are other bills which need to be introduced. I'm wondering if the minister could stand that down for a moment.

Hon Mr Cooke: Sure.

TOWNSHIP OF UXBRIDGE ACT, 1992

Mr O'Connor moved first reading of Bill Pr56, An Act respecting the Township of Uxbridge.

Motion agreed to.

1600

LIVESTOCK, POULTRY AND HONEY BEE DAMAGE COMPENSATION ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR L'INDEMNISATION EN CAS DE DOMMAGES CAUSÉS AU BÉTAIL, À LA VOLAILLE ET AUX ABEILLES

Mr Buchanan moved first reading of Bill 78, An Act to provide Compensation for Damage to Livestock, Poultry and Honey Bees / Loi prévoyant l'indemnisation en cas de dommages causés au bétail, à la volaille et aux abeilles.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): This bill provides for a new act which will replace the former Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act. Amendments under the new act have three main purposes: to increase maximum compensation rates paid to farmers for predator damage to livestock and poultry, to expand the classes of predators for which compensation can be paid and to introduce other housekeeping amendments to bring the act in line with current needs.

The amendments proposed here are part of our ongoing efforts to bring legislation in line with current realities. The changes we recommend today were developed in consultation with farmers and others who will be directly affected by them.

I trust that members will also support these much-needed amendments.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI RELATIVE AU GOUVERNEMENT LOCAL DANS LE DISTRICT DE PARRY SOUND

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr Speaker, if I might now, with unanimous consent, move second reading of Bill 77.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Do we have unanimous consent to move second reading of Bill 77? Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Cooke moved second reading of Bill 77, An Act to amend the District of Parry Sound Local Government Act / Loi modifiant la loi intitulée The District of Parry Sound Local Government Act, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 11, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'imposition des corporations.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We now have a deferred vote on Bill 11 from yesterday. We will have a five-minute bell to call in the members.

1609

The House divided on the motion for second reading of Bill 11, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 60

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard;

Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Ward (Brantford), Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 36

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Mancini, McLean, Miclash, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

Bill ordered for third reading.

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 16, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund / Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We are resuming debate on the second reading of Bill 16. The honourable member for Mississauga South, Mrs Marland, had the floor. Further debate? The honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on the bill, which is designed to provide the Treasurer with the authority to borrow, on behalf of the people of Ontario, $16.5 billion, and to express our concern about the government proceeding with it and to express our concern about where this bill is leading us, and that is to continue to run up substantial debts in the province. Because it flows directly out of this year's budget -- and I'm pleased the Treasurer's here -- we will be pointing out our concerns about his financial plans which lead to the $16.5-billion budget.

I think I will start in terms of our concerns about your plans, with some of the assumptions you've built into the budget that I hope we will have a chance to substantially explore.

The Treasurer will know that he has assumed in this year's budget revenue from sale of assets, I believe of about $1.2 billion. We understand where the money will come from -- from the sale of SkyDome and from Suncor -- but if I'm not mistaken, that's about $200 million of the $1.2 billion. There's another $1 billion the Treasurer plans to get through the sale of public assets: land and, I gather, other assets as yet undefined. Then, as we look ahead to the next fiscal year and the fiscal year after that, the Treasurer's assuming a similar amount of money in both of those years from the sale of public assets.

The Treasurer will recall that when he issued his Ontario Fiscal Outlook, in that document -- that was issued, Treasurer, I think in January -- you indicated then, if I can find it here, and I will find it in a moment, on the sale of government assets that you were in a very preliminary stage of identifying what they were and how much revenue might be realized from that.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): They still are.

Mr Phillips: The Treasurer says they still are. That's our concern: Fundamental to the integrity of the budget is the Treasurer's ability to identify, this year, next year and the year after, public assets in the range of $1.2 billion. If I'm not mistaken, in terms of revenue realized last year from this source, total revenue from this line last year was $93 million. Total revenue from this line the previous year was $97 million, but the Treasurer's planning now to raise $1.2 billion in this budget, $1.2 billion in the next budget and $1.2 billion in the following budget. Treasurer, I would say to you that we are anxious to see the list of those assets. We're anxious to determine if it's realistic that we can be selling off those sorts of public assets.

We have a substantial concern about how realistic the Treasurer's numbers are in that area. The Treasurer also knows, I think, that we've got some significant questions about the fiscal stabilization number. I think most of the members are familiar with that: The Treasurer has requested from the federal government a total of $1.2 billion in what's called fiscal stabilization. My problem with this, as the Treasurer knows, is that the opposition has been asking the Treasurer to provide us with that document. On what basis are you making that application? The Treasurer will know we asked for that in December, we asked for it in January and we asked for it again in March, because a second element of his financial plan -- an important element -- is receiving from the federal government $1.2 billion in fiscal stabilization. I've said to the Treasurer that I believe --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The absconding debtor.

Mr Phillips: One of the honourable members said that what the government wants is $1.2 billion from the absconding debtor. I would say to my colleague that it's an interesting comment, because if you look at the budget -- and the Premier has almost made a career of attacking the federal government -- where is the largest increase in revenue by far? Mr Speaker, where would you think that's coming from? Remember the "absconding debtor" line? It's not coming from anything the Treasurer is doing to raise revenues locally.

The largest increase -- in fact, I think it's fair to say that over half the increased revenue coming to the province of Ontario this year will come from payments from the federal government, which is an extraordinary statement and one that I think many people in the province wouldn't appreciate because they think the federal government has dramatically cut back the provincial government, when the Treasurer is anticipating revenue from the federal government going from last year's $6.3 billion to this budget year's $7.7 billion.

Hon Mr Laughren: Stabilization.

1620

Mr Phillips: Those are your estimates, Mr Treasurer.

So I'm saying, as we debate the bill to provide the Treasurer with the authority to borrow $16.5 billion, the second area of significant question we in the official opposition have is around this fiscal stabilization and the applications that have been made. How realistic is it that the province will receive that? It was curious to many of us to see, I think perhaps one to two days after the Treasurer presented his budget, that unnamed federal sources said, in essence, that he must be kidding; that the likelihood of him receiving $1.2 billion in fiscal stabilization in this fiscal year is virtually impossible. So when the opposition have raised questions about where the numbers came from in the budget, that's another reason we raise it.

The third area we have questions about is on what the Treasurer I think called cash rescheduling. I think that was the term that was used.

Hon Mr Laughren: That's close enough.

Mr Phillips: The Treasurer can help me. Here it is: "rescheduling of cash payments." In the Fiscal Outlook document which was released about three months before the budget, in that document the Treasurer will recall that he said the government had a legal obligation for certain payments to be made to the teachers' pension and the public service pension. These are legal obligations under those two pension acts.

We now see in the budget what's called a rescheduling of cash payments, where the government will reschedule part of its matching contribution to the teachers' pension plan from the first business day in January to the first business day in April of each year. Surprise, surprise: The first business day of April is next fiscal year. So what's happened is that $565 million of payments that are due this fiscal year have been conveniently, to use the term here, rescheduled.

It's like all of us. We sometimes reschedule our cash payments too where we can't quite meet the payments.

Hon Mr Laughren: It's happened to me.

Mr Phillips: It's happened to many of us here. We reschedule our payments. We say to the bank, or to our credit card people, or to whoever we owe money, "Do you mind if we kind of rag the puck a little bit here for three months?"

The problem with that is that the payment doesn't go away; you just kind of postpone it. I will say to the Treasurer that we in the opposition -- and I understand the Treasurer will be appearing before our standing committee on finance and economic affairs some time in the weeks ahead, which we appreciate -- are going to want to identify the implications of this rescheduling of cash payments, because if what we're doing is simply artificially delaying payments that are going to have to be legally made -- and I understand you have to pay the interest on this to the teachers' pension, pay the interest to the public sector pensions -- and what it means is that we are loading up the next fiscal year, it is important to array that before the people of the province.

As we look at the budget -- and I will say, as I've said publicly, I trust the Treasurer; he's a person of integrity; there's never a question of that -- there are three or four areas which require at the very least illumination and where I hope, when all of the year unfolds, none of us in the opposition will feel that we were --

Hon Mr Laughren: Duped.

Mr Phillips: -- in any way misled, duped.

Frankly, I know the pressure that was on the Treasurer -- there's no question -- from the Premier's office: "The deficit must be below $10 billion, Treasurer." He probably used his first name, but I don't think I'm allowed to use that here. "Furthermore, you'd better get last year's deficit up a bit so it looks like it's coming down," which he very successfully did, I might add. He was able to get last year's deficit up from, I think, $9.7 to $11 billion, so this year's deficit is substantially lower only because last year's was substantially higher.

I hope, for the Treasurer's integrity and reputation, that in the interest of ensuring that the deficit was below $10 billion, we won't find when we look at this as the year unfolds that on fiscal stabilization, on the continuous sale of public assets and the rescheduling of cash payments we in the opposition weren't duped, to use the Treasurer's expression, because integrity's a very fragile commodity.

Other concerns we'd have on this borrowing bill: There are a couple of other elements in the budget that I'm not sure have been as fully illuminated as they might be. It's now less than a week away, July 1, which I think is next Wednesday -- a week today -- when, for the information of all those people who may be watching, your personal provincial income tax will be going up more than 5%. The provincial rate of income tax, as I say, will be going up in excess of 5%. That's not just for the over-$53,000 people but for everybody in the province.

I will say to the Treasurer that he has been personally careful on this matter, but we've now got at least two members of the NDP caucus who have, in my opinion, sent out information that was not correct, if I can choose my words carefully, in saying to their constituents, "Don't worry; if you're making less than $53,000, you're paying no more personal income tax." That's not true. That is not true. As you know, Treasurer, we had in mid-May a session in here where the Minister of Education, Mr Silipo, acknowledged that he was incorrect in his constituency communication and committed to correct it.

Just so everyone is aware -- and this is the irony, because I find it unfortunate -- there's an incredible battle between the provincial NDP government and the federal Conservative government. As I've said other times in the House, the public are getting increasingly cynical about all of us politicians blaming other levels of government. In this particular case it's really ironic because, as the NDP members will know, you all ran on the basis of eliminating income tax on those living at or below the poverty line. It is the most ironic thing to me that Mulroney, the Prime Minister, reduced personal income tax on the working poor and the Treasurer has made the decision to move in and recoup that -- not only recoup it, but for every dollar they reduced it the Treasurer in 1992 is recouping $3. So the working poor felt, "Finally I'm getting a little bit of a break; my personal income tax is going down" --

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Thanks to Brian Mulroney.

Mr Phillips: Thanks to Brian Mulroney, thanks to the federal government. Then surprise, surprise, on July 1 the Treasurer will move in.

Hon Mr Laughren: Private transfers.

Mr Phillips: The Treasurer said "transfers." The problem I have is that I know you've got the battle with the federal government and I understand that, but I just say to the Treasurer that if he was going to really show Brian Mulroney what's what, it's an odd way to do it: tax the working poor.

Hon Mr Laughren: Look what he did to us.

1630

Mr Phillips: The Treasurer said, "Look what he did to us," but I say that if I'm the working poor, I'm caught in the middle of it.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, no.

Mr Phillips: The Treasurer said, "No, no," but how else am I to interpret it? The Treasurer just said, "Look what he did to us; therefore, look what we're doing to him." What we're doing to him is that we're taking up the personal income tax on the working poor.

Hon Mr Laughren: He did it to the poor. That's a strange argument for a Liberal.

Mr Phillips: Strange for a Liberal? I think if you tracked the Liberal administration, there was a systematic reduction in the personal income to the working poor. Certainly, Treasurer, I think you will recall quite clearly the basis on which you ran, as I've said many times. I assume you played a fairly important role in the drafting of the Agenda for People. I carry this with me all the time because it was the document that was the manifesto; it was the commitment.

"We are proposing that individuals or families living at or below the poverty line should not pay Ontario income tax. The cost of this move for the current tax year is estimated at under $200 million, less than one third the cost of the tax break given to wealthy Ontarians by way of special treatment of capital gains."

The point I'm making here is that I understand that in tough times you may not be able to deliver every element of your agenda, but it's ironic in the extreme that you chose to go in the opposite direction. I don't think the people living at or below the poverty line ever thought for a moment that you would increase the taxes on them.

Hon Mr Laughren: The Ontario tax reduction.

Mr Phillips: The Treasurer says, "The Ontario tax reduction," and for some people who are -- I just go by the document the Treasurer provided. He's asking me to respond to the questions he's thrown at me and I have to do that --

Hon Mr Laughren: No, you don't

Mr Phillips: -- but the Treasurer said, "What about the tax credit?" I look at this document and it says -- this is for 1992 -- that if you're out there right now and you're making $40,000 -- now the dreaded Brian Mulroney actually reduced your taxes by $30 this year, but Treasurer Laughren has stepped in and he's increased your taxes by $95, right on July 1. We're exactly a week away. You'll all see that, the people out there who are at $40,000.

At $30,000, again the Prime Minister came in and said, "We've given you a tax reduction." Now it's $20 and I'm not saying that's huge but that's all obviously after-tax dollars, and Treasurer Laughren stepped in and increased the taxes by $55 for 1992. So those people who were expecting a modest break have seen it disappear. Imagine you are making $10,000, and the Treasurer has actually increased taxes on those people.

The point I make is this, and I hate to say it, but any time that I get a government document now, I get out the magnifying glass. Actually the Treasurer laughs at it, but there are documents that you actually have to have a magnifying glass to see the fine print on. It is more difficult than dealing with some door-to-door salesperson.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: I'm serious, Treasurer. The document that explained -- and people out there may be under the impression that if you're earning less than $53,000 you pay no more tax.

Hon Mr Laughren: It goes into 1993.

Mr Phillips: You have to get the fine print out to realize that's 1993, not 1992. That's an amazing surprise, because we're dealing with the 1992 budget, but it's in 1993.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: The Treasurer says "Modestly," but it is essentially a 1992 budget. That was one part. The other part where you really had to get to the fine print was that you should be aware that the reason you're paying no more taxes is because "While the federal government has cut your taxes, we've increased them," but it's never spelled out. There's a little, wee fine line that says, "The reason you're paying no increased taxes is because the feds have cut it and we moved in."

Treasurer, if this had ever been in reverse, if you'd ever cut the tax on the working poor and Mulroney had dared to step in, there would have been -- whatever is parliamentary to say, Mr Speaker.

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): Gerry, go ahead.

Mr Phillips: No, I won't say it, because I think we want to have a civil debate in the House in terms of the personal taxes.

The other element of the budget that the Treasurer and I have had our discussions on is the jobs. Believe me, I'm not saying, "Spend more money." I'm just saying, Treasurer, that the people out there want to know what to realistically expect.

I don't have to tell anyone in the House the misery that's occurring out there right now. The unemployment rate in Ontario is 10.9%. In reality, it is at least 13%. I think the Treasurer would acknowledge that, because there are at least 100,000 who have dropped out of the labour market. That takes the unemployment rate up by 2%, Treasurer, as you know. So the real unemployment rate is running around 13%.

The youth unemployment rate, which I've spoken on often in the House -- people speak lots in the House; not necessarily everybody hears it -- publicly in the documents is running around 18%. In reality, Treasurer, it's around 25%, because a huge number of those young people have dropped completely out of the labour market.

I understand the proposal the government has put forward for summer jobs. I realize the difficulties with finances and I realize how challenging the solution is. The fact is that the summer program you've announced will create about 10,000 jobs. That's 1% of the youth labour force, as you know. I'm not belittling it. I understand it's a significant amount of money. The real solution rests, as we all know, in getting the economy rolling.

I will say to the Treasurer that on the job side, every month we expect the unemployment rate to drop. The May figures were the most disappointing numbers I've seen in years, without exaggeration. As you know, Treasurer, it was about now that it was your expectation the economy would begin to turn. I've hoped you were right.

I will say, though -- and this is where each time I raise this you shake your head no -- that on the capital side in your budget there are three elements to your capital program: your Jobs Ontario Capital fund, your base capital spending and your Jobs Ontario Homes fund. That is your job creation program in the budget. All I say about that is that if you add up those three programs in this fiscal year, the one we are now into, it is less money than you spent last year in those same three programs.

The Treasurer shakes his head, but this is according to your budget: "I am announcing today the Jobs Ontario Homes fund with a commitment to support 20,000 new non-profit housing units. These homes will be allocated over three years" -- so I tend to think one normally divides three into 20,000 and you may get 7,000 units a year -- "and are in addition to the 10,000 non-profit homes that were provided in last year's budget."

What I'm saying is there were 10,000 homes provided in last year's budget. I believe there is money in here for 7,000 homes this year. If I'm wrong, I know the Treasurer will correct me when we get into the debate, but my point is you're holding out hope for those in the construction trades and you're saying you have a substantive capital program, the largest in the history of the province. Last year's capital program was supposed to be $4.2 billion, as you recall. You cut $400 million out of it. Why did you cut it out? According to your own documents, you cut it out in order to balance the reduction in revenue, so it wasn't cut for any reason other than that.

1640

My point is this: I think the only thing worse than doing what you're doing is doing what you're doing but leaving the impression that you're doing more. I believe you have a responsibility to the people of the province to be candid with them and say, "Listen, our capital program in 1992-93 is a little bit less than it was last year, and the reason it's a little bit less than last year is we don't have the money, but we'll do the best we can with it." But to leave the impression that it is a substantial program in new job creation is holding out false -- not only false but incorrect -- hope. There's less money spent in the capital area in this budget than on last year's budget.

The reason for my raising these various issues is to illustrate for the Treasurer why we have concerns about his financial plan and to say that, frankly, it is our hope the public auditor will have an opportunity to look at -- I'm glad to see the Treasurer agreeing. He has no problem with that and I never thought he would. I am anxious that when he comes to committee -- I appreciate the chance to outline for him orally the issues that I raised in a letter to the committee so he has an understanding of the things we would like to see when we arrive at the committee.

This gets us to the servicing of the debt. The challenge I think we all have when we talk about debt is that the numbers are so large they become difficult to internalize; they become difficult for each of us and we sort of say, "Well, does that have any impact on me at all?" I think that's the challenge the federal government has. The federal debt is $420 billion now --

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: It's around that, and that number, it seems to me, is so large that individuals have difficulty relating to it and have difficulty in figuring out, "Does that have any meaning for me?" Consequently, I think various parties have let the national debt rise.

In your speech from the throne this year you had a line that I thought was appropriate. I'm paraphrasing, but I think it's very close. In there you said that every single dollar we spend on interest is a dollar we can't spend on health care or on community services or on education, and it's true.

The problem the federal government is in, as the Treasurer knows, is that for every dollar of taxes the federal government raises, it spends 34 cents, and it's probably approaching 35 cents, just to pay the interest on the debt. They never pay the debt down; that's just to pay the interest on the debt. So with every dollar we're paying to the federal government, we're paying 34 or 35 cents to service the debt.

As I say, what does that mean to us? Frankly, the way I sometimes try to think of this is putting it in my own terms. I try to think of me as an individual. What we've done, and what we're all doing, is to continue to spend more money than we are raising. I think we know in our own personal lives that if you do that over a long period of time, you've got a problem, and the federal government has a real problem that it is almost incapable of managing now.

As the Treasurer knows, the deficit of the federal government has been running at $30 billion a year. No matter whether it's good times or bad times, it's still at that level. The problem we're getting into here -- and I thought the Treasurer himself in this Ontario Fiscal Outlook document articulated it quite well. I hope I can find this quickly before you get impatient, Mr Speaker. The Treasurer asked in the document, "What kind of problems does a larger debt load present?" and what are we talking about in debt load?

When the Rae government took over the debt of the province, as I guess we all know, the debt of the province was running at about $42 billion. At the end of this fiscal year, two years, it will be $63 billion. I have not seen a real up-to-date one, but I would think the Treasurer's projections right now would probably indicate that two more years from now it will be around $84 billion or $85 billion.

In other words, the debt will double in the first four years of your regime and that is serious, serious to this extent: I think all of us have to begin to realize there are about 10 million people in the province, that the per capita debt when the Rae government came in was around $4,000 per capita, and that at the end of four years it will be around $8,000 per capita. I think we all have to begin to think that is our own debt, that we owe that money and that we're going to have to pay the interest on that each year. If it happens to be that you are in a family of three or a family of four and there's one wage earner in that family, that one wage earner will be required to pay the debt on $30,000 to $35,000 worth of debt each and every year.

It was the Treasurer himself who said in his document that the first problem with this kind of debt is the interest that must be paid. "Over the longer term, borrowing at high levels means the public debt interest will rise as a share of revenues. If the province were to continue on the 'no-change' track," interest payments "would increase from 11.6% of revenues in 1991-92 to about 20% of revenues within four to five years."

I'm afraid, Treasurer, you may be on that track where for every dollar of revenue we raise, 20% of it will go to servicing the debt. As the Treasurer knows, the cost of borrowing may also increase if our credit rating goes down, and the credit rating has gone down in the province. It's gone down twice. Just so all of us know the cost of that, each time our credit rating drops one point, the cost per billion dollars' worth of borrowing is $2.5 million. We've dropped it twice, so the cost of borrowing $1 billion has gone up about $5 million. When you realize that our total debt is going to go to $80 billion and the increased cost per $1 billion is $5 million, we're talking about the potential here of a $300 million expenditure. So we're talking of substantial amounts of money as a result of our credit rating dropping.

Where is all this leading, Mr Speaker? It leads to us having concerns about the Treasurer's plans to borrow $16.5 billion. It leads us to repeating the concern we had a year ago when, if you remember, Mr Speaker, we said that last year's budget was wrong. We said: "You're heading down the wrong track. You've got to begin a program of restraint." The Treasurer, I think, said, "No, we're going to spend our way out of the recession." The Treasurer shakes his head, but that's exactly what --

Hon Mr Laughren: I said we can't spend our way out of a recession.

Mr Phillips: No, this was a year ago. You've changed your mind, I know. I'm talking about what you said a year ago. I know you're saying now you can't spend your way out of the recession, but a year ago you said you could spend your way out of the recession.

Hon Mr Laughren: Being disingenuous.

Mr Phillips: He's distracted, Mr Speaker, but I'm talking about what you said 12 months ago, not what you said a month ago. The Treasurer said, "We're going to spend our way out of the recession," the Premier said, "We're the only jurisdiction in North America that's right; all the other ones are wrong," and we on this side said, "No, you really have to begin a restraint program." We were frankly not listened to. We went through the charade of the budget hearings last summer, and we are where we are. Now the Treasurer is beginning to change his tune, and he is saying: "We can't spend our way out of the recession. We have to get our spending under control."

1650

I will say to the Treasurer that for the reasons we've articulated I hope we're wrong. I hope the fiscal stabilization comes through. I hope very much that the Treasurer will identify for us the assets he's going to sell that will raise that billion and a half dollars each year. I hope he can articulate for us that the rescheduling of these cash payments will not simply delay, until next year, this year's problem.

But we are now running the risk of the province not being in control of its finances. The Treasurer said in the budget, if I'm not mistaken, that on the economy, on the job side, the spring will be the time. Here we are. "Job gains expected to resume in spring." We're now, as of the 21st, out of the spring. I'm hopeful that when the June numbers come out in early July the Treasurer will have been right. The Treasurer says job growth over the 1992 second quarter to the 1993 first period will be 125,000 net jobs. I will say to the Treasurer right now that jobs are running 60,000 behind. So you've now got 10 months to create 185,000 jobs, I think, as the Treasurer will appreciate.

The other thing I would say is that the Treasurer, I think, in this document said, "Housing to lead economic recovery" -- again, gosh, I hope you're right -- "69,000 starts predicted in 1992." The Treasurer will know that the figures released for the month of May, seasonally adjusted, projected for the year on the basis of year-to-date numbers, show that housing starts in the province are going to be well less than 50,000.

The reason we're raising all these things is because a year ago the Treasurer said he was right, the opposition was wrong, and frankly I think even he in his more candid moments may say he was pretty close to being wrong last year, that last year's budget simply didn't work.

What we're saying to the Treasurer this year is that the people of Ontario are counting on him. They're counting on the job starts. They're counting on the 125,000 incremental jobs. They're counting on the housing starts. They're counting on the fiscal stabilization. They're counting on you finding the billion dollars a year of land and other assets to sell. They're counting on this cash rescheduling.

Because we've got our doubts about that, we have difficulty in supporting the Treasurer's bill to go to the market for $16.5 billion. The Treasurer knows that we will continue to pursue these areas with him. I appreciate the support he has for us also in engaging the public auditor to look at the accounting practices he's used.

But there's a burning issue out there right now. It is clearly jobs and the need to get Ontario working again. I would say to the Treasurer that my concern is that the budget is so far not producing it. Time is going by very quickly and I would hope we would see the signs of a strong upturn in jobs and the economy very quickly, or else this budget will unravel even further than I'm afraid it might.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments.

Mr Stockwell: I think some of the issues that were brought forward by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt have been here since this government was elected. The member has brought into question some of the government's numbers, statistics, promises and arguments it had put forward during the 1991 budget, and now during the 1992 budget.

It has been very clear in my mind and, I suppose, to everyone -- financial analysts, the banks, all leading sectors -- that fundamentally this Treasurer has been virtually wrong on every count, whether it's housing starts, deficits, debt financing, job growth -- regardless. It's very difficult to find anywhere in any budget where this Treasurer has been right.

I suppose the difficulty of standing here and debating today the 1992 budget or the borrowing of money is that we are debating on some figures that I think are morally wrong. They're known to be wrong from across the floor. This Treasurer knows in his heart of hearts, as the Premier likes to say, that the numbers he has put forward are absolutely and totally inaccurate. He knows they're inaccurate; we know they're inaccurate, and one day during the next 12 months he's going to have to admit they're inaccurate.

I find it very frustrating having to sit here and debate these numbers and argue about the deficit and so on and so forth, when the member from Scarborough points out very clearly, without debate, how wrong this government has been when it came to the financial matters of this province. But that's the job we've chosen and I'm certain we will continue this debate.

The Acting Speaker: Further comments and/or questions?

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I'd like to congratulate the member for having outlined one of the basic problems of all the economic forecasts of this present government. When you take a look at them, whether it's the budget, the throne speech, any of their bills or the press releases that accompany them, I think you have to have a copy of George Orwell's book, Nineteen Eighty-Four, handy and open it to the page where they talk about Newspeak and doublespeak, because that's the impression I get when I hear the forecasts from across the floor. Everything is stated in a way that is acceptable to the public.

The intentions are good. The programs are written in such language that unless you really analyse it, you find it difficult to oppose. But when you look at what the effect will be, you have to start reanalysing yourself and rethinking whether you can support it or how you can show your opposition. It's one thing to oppose; it's another thing to prove that your opposition is based on something reasonable.

One of my basic problems is that the language accompanying the budget presents a completely different picture than an analysis of what the effects of the budget will do. For instance, the first two budgets this Treasurer brought forward have made a $10-billion deficit commonplace. Just think back to before this government took power. It would have been outrageous to even think of presenting a $10-billion deficit, much less implementing it.

The Acting Speaker: Further comments and/or questions.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I, too, want to congratulate my colleague for a very clear presentation of just what this budget is all about. What it did for me, and what I hope it did for people watching, was to demonstrate just how dramatic and necessary it is for people in this chamber to have the opportunity to stand in their places and explain to the people of the province about particular things, most importantly, the question of deficits and borrowing.

As you know, in a short time we'll be voting on rules that will limit significantly the rights of the minority -- ie, the opposition and the third party -- to investigate, to explain to the people of Ontario just how dramatic this borrowing will be, not just on the present situation but on their children and their grandchildren.

It amazes me that the press, who would have great consternation if we were to interfere with their rights to report freely and totally, are not even here. They're not concerned about it. The fact doesn't seem to bother them about the rights of their parliamentarians to investigate in the most fundamental way the cost, not just to the present generation but to future generations.

In fact, these rules do not even allow you, Mr Speaker, if they intend to invoke closure, the right to come to the assistance of the minority to assist us and allow us to do the job we're supposed to do. I find that really passing strange because it's so essential. It's essential to a free and open democratic society, and we're finding that the walls are just simply being closed in on us. We're finding that this may very well become a situation where the government just rules by edict. Surely that's dangerous when they're borrowing $16.5 billion.

1700

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. Seeing none, the honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt has two minutes in response.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate the comments of the members. The message for the Treasurer is one I hope he will take seriously: that the opposition is growing increasingly suspicious of the government. I repeat what I said earlier in my remarks. Your personal integrity's never at stake, but I don't get a government document any longer that I don't look at with a great deal of suspicion. There are certain items of high principle for me. I resent extremely deeply the use of the OPP investigation. I can never forgive the government for that and I never will and I can't stop myself from resenting that. There are certain things in the way the budget's presented that I think if you had examined it, Treasurer, on reflection you wouldn't have let happen.

My colleague from Brampton South mentioned the rule changes. I can understand in the orderly conduct of a government why you'd want them, but I know the Treasurer in opposition believed strongly in the role of opposition. I actually think that if he hadn't been in Europe when these were developed we may not have seen the rules that we saw. I believe that.

As I say, I continue to have confidence in the Treasurer, but I increasingly view with scepticism the actions of the government. Sometimes when you'll see the opposition in a particularly angry mood, it's because increasingly the trust is sapping from the place.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 16, second reading? The honourable member for Carleton.

Hon Mr Laughren: Here we go, the leading edge of the eastern wedge.

Mr Sterling: As the Treasurer says, perhaps I am a leading wedge.

I'd also like to acknowledge for my colleague the member for Etobicoke West, Mr Christopher Stockwell, when he rose in response to the member for Scarborough Centre's remark, that the Treasurer's remark was, "Now we get the voice of reason," and I think that's a tremendous compliment for the Treasurer of Ontario to pay --

Hon Mr Laughren: He was a great critic.

Mr Sterling: -- to my colleague Mr Stockwell, because Mr Stockwell understands exactly what this --

Hon Mr Laughren: He should be the critic.

Mr Sterling: I think he was a good critic, actually.

Hon Mr Laughren: He should still be.

Mr Sterling: And maybe he should still be the critic. Maybe we should have somebody else still as the Treasurer as well, but I guess it's always a matter for debate, Mr Speaker.

Today we are discussing Bill 16, which gives the Treasurer and the government of the day the right -- which they must come to this Legislature for, thank goodness -- to come here in order to get the right to borrow $16.5 billion. Now a billion is 1,000 million, so we're talking about 16,500 million dollars, which is what this government is seeking to get authority to borrow from various and different sources.

I want to talk about perhaps two things. The need for the government to come here and ask for such a large authority to borrow is in fact an acknowledgement of its failure to manage the province's fiscal resources and control its spending, an acknowledgement of its lack of ability to do that in a meaningful and a responsible manner. To have to come here and ask the Legislature to borrow about what was being spent some seven or eight years ago in total, in my view is a sad day for Ontario. That $16.5 billion represents approximately a third of the budget of Ontario at this time.

The government borrowing money not only acknowledges its inability to control the expenditures of the province and its lack of ability to pay for those expenditures but it also is an acknowledgement that the government has no future plans next year in order to be able to meet its spending plans, because this power extends not only to the end of 1992 but to the end of 1993.

I suppose the Treasurer has no option because of the decisions he has made along with his colleagues to come here and ask for this authority. We understand that. But there is a side-effect to this: If the Treasurer of Ontario has to go out and borrow 16,500 million dollars, that means the private sector has a very much more difficult time going out and competing against the government in order to borrow those selfsame dollars. By the government having to go out and borrow 16,500 million dollars, what this Treasurer in effect is doing is forcing the interest rates up because he is competing --

Hon Mr Laughren: They're going down, Norm.

Mr Sterling: They would be going down faster if the Treasurer wasn't in the same market as the private sector, and he knows that. Although inflation is very low, thanks to the federal government's policies and not this provincial government, this government has forced inflation up. That's what all the economists are saying: that governments are the largest inflationary pressure in Canada and in Ontario.

It has a double-barrelled effect: (1) some future government is going to have to pay this back because it seems that this government is incapable of managing the resources and the fiscal matters of this province, and by the time this government leaves office in 1995, which we predict it will do, it will have doubled the debt of Ontario. When they came in, there was a debt of approximately $43 billion. By the time they leave the debt is probably going to be around $85 to $90 billion. So thanks to you, the next government, in order to service that debt, in order to pay the interest and to pay the principal back, is going to have to go to the public and ask them for approximately $5 billion to $7 billion a year in order to pay off your overspending.

I don't want to talk a long time on this particular matter. I just want the public to understand that as we go on and borrow more and more money, as required by this government through its fiscal policies and its management of the financial affairs of this province of Ontario, be it the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party which is elected in 1995, our problems will be exacerbated by this government because it is adding a terrific amount of debt while it is in office. They're going to double the debt in five years and they're going to require the next government to add perhaps two or three points to the sales tax in order to just service the debt that is going to be added by them to the provincial consolidated debt.

1710

We of course will not be able to support this borrowing power which we are giving to the Treasurer, and in closing, I would just like to ask the Treasurer -- because he will have an opportunity to respond to my remarks -- if he still sticks by his predictions of a $9.9-billion deficit for the fiscal year 1992-93. We know last year he was off by $1.2 billion. Can you imagine the Treasurer being off by $1.2 billion?

I can understand a person being out by a couple of hundred dollars or even a couple of thousand dollars, but being out by $1.2 billion? How many Lotto 649s would you have to win in order to make that up? That's a huge amount of money the Treasurer was off his mark on last year, and I'd like to know how many thousands of millions of dollars the Treasurer's going to be off by this year. We'd really like to get an update.

Last year, as you remember, as late as December, I think as late as January of this year, the Treasurer was saying, "Everything seems to be on line," but then when we got his statement with regard to the budget, all of a sudden he was out by $1.2 billion. In three months, how can you miss the mark by $1.2 billion?

Even if you accepted that it was a small percentage of the total budget over a year, the Treasurer was saying in December and January: "No, we're right on line. I'm only going to be causing a debt in this year of $9.7 billion." But we find out two or three months later that he was $1.2 billion out. We'd like to know from the Treasurer whether or not his prediction of a deficit of $9.9 billion is still accurate.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Seeing none, further debate? The honourable member for Brampton South.

Mr Callahan: There are people in this province today, and in order to maintain their confidence in politicians, they have to be able to have a vision for the future. They have to be able to see that at the end of the tunnel there's some hope, not just for them but for their children.

The Treasurer in his first budget talked about trying to fight inflation. He brought in a budget that was geared towards creating jobs. Yet we've seen day after day my colleague in the House indicating that 420 jobs are being lost, I think he said daily. That budget didn't do the job and he's back here for the second round. He's talking about borrowing a significant amount of money, money that most Ontarians would be staggered by, $6.5 billion.

One has to say to oneself that a government can govern in terms of its own political philosophy, but when its own political philosophy does not meet the acid test of being able to give Ontarians some belief that there is a present and a future that's not burdened with a mortgage that will never be paid off where we'll get ourselves into the situation in the United States where they're in the trillions -- that's the T-word, Mr Treasurer. We're now in the B-word. The next one is the T-word.

I think people recognize that the New Democratic Party's philosophy is that government can do it better than anyone else.

Hon Mr Laughren: Nonsense.

Mr Callahan: The Treasurer says, "Nonsense," but we have seen time after time the introduction of particular types of initiatives in this House that have at least driven the private sector out of being a partner. One thing that makes me proud to be part of my party is the fact that we believe you have to care for people. There are areas where government should truly be involved. Medicare is a clear example of that. We have the finest health care system in the country and in the world. But you can't intrude into it totally. You have to have that fine balance of partnership. You have to have a partnership between the private sector and the government.

I once had a friend who said that government has no right to get involved in anything that perhaps can't be done better out there in the private sector. I don't want to fall too far to the right and say that everything should be done by the private sector, because clearly there are areas of concern. There are people who, not because of their own misdoings, cannot survive in our society. There are areas of concern that are very necessary, such as health, where there is public involvement, as it has taken place through medicare.

When the government of the day allows its political philosophy to be so inundating that it can't see the possibility of partnership with the private sector in this smooth balance, you then find that government, because it takes upon itself all these responsibilities, soon finds it is placed in a position such as the Treasurer finds himself in today, having to borrow $6.5 billion.

At the same time, I think the anger of the taxpayers I've experienced and that we've all experienced is not so much the question that they're being taxed; they understand that. I think if people see value for their dollar and they understand that things are coming from that dollar, they're prepared to allow you to borrow and they're prepared to be taxed.

Unfortunately, Mr Treasurer -- and all the blame certainly doesn't fall at your feet, because you've taken office at a time of a recession -- but I have to go back to the premise that no political party has the right to simply follow its own political philosophy and sort of just let everybody flow in the wind.

I find that's what's happening, Treasurer. I hate to say it. There's no room for for-profit day care and yet people want that choice. They want to be able to select that. Yet we heard today that there's all sorts of money being allocated for non-profit day care.

Non-profit day care obviously is good. I've sat on committees where we looked into the issue of parents being on the boards of directors of these non-profit day care centres and perhaps having a greater interest, but I have to say that this a fallacy that's being blinded by the New Democratic Party's philosophy, "The government knows best."

A friend of mine once indicated that if we get to the stage where it's just a government-run operation, it'll cost government twice as much to run something as it would the private sector. We're losing the confidence of the business community. We're losing the confidence in fact of even the union rank and file.

I have up in my office -- and I wish I'd brought them down for this debate; perhaps it's more appropriate for a debate on the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments -- these letters that are being received from union rank and file saying: "We don't agree with the provisions of the Ontario labour relations amendments. We want you to stop it."

I suppose what we have to tell them is that the government of the day, as it does in everything -- and this is why we're in this conundrum of having to borrow an ever-increasing debt -- has decided that these amendments will be put through and in fact will come about. Of course, with the rule changes we have, obviously that's going to be a very simple task for the government because it's going to have muzzled us. They're going to have muzzled the representatives of the people of the 130 ridings in this good province.

I have to say to you that many of the problems of this debt that we are going to see ever increasing over the next budgets that are brought in are going to be a direct result of the government trying to become the provider of everything.

Mr Treasurer, I say to you on behalf of the residents of my riding who are New Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives -- on behalf of the same makeup of citizens of this province of the 130 ridings -- please examine the question of government and realize that there has to be more than just the philosophy of the NDP government. If you do that I think you will find you will give a ray of hope and the debt will not continue to increase. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this debate.

1720

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments on the member's participation in the debate? Seeing none, further debate.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Carleton was speaking earlier about which member would be the voice of reason when it comes to the finances of this province. I have some concern when the Treasurer suggests it's unreasonable to attack their position as I personally and, I suppose, our party have taken when it comes to finances, deficits and budgets in Ontario. Quite frankly, I think the Treasurer has little, if any, room at all to lecture anybody when it comes to budgeting, deficits and projections. I'm not sure how far you have to go back to find a Treasurer who has been absolutely as clearly wrong on projections, deficits and numbers as this particular one.

Hon Mr Laughren: Two years.

Mr Stockwell: The Treasurer suggests two years. I don't think you're right any more, because once this deficit comes in this year, it's going to easily exceed the deficit or projected revenue Mr Nixon suggested this province would have and what eventually turned out. I think he probably was about $2 billion or $2.5 billion off the mark. There's some debate about how much he skated on those figures. The NDP says this much and the Liberals say this much, but the real fear is that this Treasurer is going to be $4 billion or $5 billion off the mark this year. We're basing our borrowing capacity --

Hon Mr Laughren: That's what you said last year and you were wrong.

Mr Stockwell: I was absolutely dead right last year. You chatted on at length during the year to anyone who would listen about being spot on when it came to the $9.7-billion deficit. If anybody was spot on, I was when I suggested your deficit would be considerably higher than $9.7 billion, Mr Treasurer. When I told you that you said we just don't know what we're talking about on this side of the House. In the end, who didn't know what they were talking about? We had something in the neighbourhood of $11 billion in deficit. If this Treasurer hadn't made half a dozen restructuring programs during the year that deferred expenditures to the following year, your deficit would have been exceedingly higher than $11 billion.

Furthermore, as we go into this, the absconding debtors, as the member for Scarborough was speaking about earlier -- the federal government, which you claim owes you another $1.2 billion, which everyone in this room knows you will not collect but will not admit it --

Hon Mr Laughren: Want to bet?

Mr Stockwell: Do I want to bet? Boy, would I like to bet with this Treasurer on his numbers in this budget. Absolutely, sir. You just name the amount and I'll give you odds.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Those guys are nuts about gambling.

Mr Stockwell: That's right, that this government's nuts about gambling is probably the truth.

They're out here to borrow $16.5 billion to continue the operation of this province. What is very frustrating is that there is nothing the opposition parties or the public in general can do to ensure that the figures put forward by this government are truly accurate. That is frustrating from purely an accounting point of view and from a credibility point of view.

There's no doubt in my mind that the manoeuvre this Treasurer made on the teachers' pension borders on the fraudulent. When he pushes the teachers' pension contribution back one day, and that day moves that expenditure from one fiscal year to the next so he would not have to show that as a deficit in this fiscal year, that is bordering on the fraudulent. May I suggest there is not a reputable accountant in this province who would sign off on that accounting report. He wouldn't sign off with that kind of accounting. Now the Treasurer goes ahead and does it.

Further, he still has in his operating budget the $1.2 billion from the federal government which, it is getting more obvious every day, will not come to this government. So you can add an additional $1.2 billion to the deficit that sits at $9.9 billion today. Add to that the $500 million or $600 million in the pension fund contribution and you're well over $2 billion right now, and your $9.9 billion goes all the way up to $12 billion.

We end up getting into long-winded debates on a bunch of fabricated numbers. That's really what it comes down to, fabricated numbers. This isn't even smoke and mirrors; this isn't even creative accounting. These are, bottom line, fabricated. You can't use other parliamentary terms, so "fabricated" will have to take their place today.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Is that like a lie?

Mr Stockwell: Similar.

We now get into the debate about the $16.5 billion. I find it very frustrating to now be debating the $16.5 billion when this Treasurer will not come clean with the public about just how much money he and his government are in debt. I always believe, whether it's in local politics, provincial politics or federal politics, if you're going to spend the money on programs and initiatives, have the guts to stand up and defend the expenditure. It's that simple. With the creative accounting and the fabrications in this budget, what is becoming more and more clear about this government is that it doesn't have the guts to defend the spending limits it is making.

Mr Mahoney: Would you?

Mr Stockwell: Of course not. I would never agree to this kind of expenditure, but I always thought the socialists were going to go about this province and change things. Yes, it was going to cost money but they'd stand up and defend those expenditures. They don't. It really is frustrating for your average citizens in this province when they don't know the economic situation of their government.

I remember last year talking about the budget with a couple of members across the floor, and this is how out of touch these members were. Last year when the Treasurer announced his $9.7 billion deficit, the backbenchers in that party didn't even know the deficit was cumulative. They honestly thought the Treasurer was retiring the debt every year and it wasn't cumulative. So it doesn't take a genius to figure out exactly how he's fooling his own caucus. I think he wishes he could do the same with the members across the floor and the people in the province.

Now to the $16.5 billion. Today in these tough economic times it's very difficult for any business to borrow money. It's very difficult for anyone to get money at this time, particularly when there are governments out there crowding out the capital market when they go out and borrow this kind of money.

They do a couple of things and I don't know if they realize it or not; they should. When they borrow this money, the $16.5 billion, most of it comes from offshore. They beat their chests proudly and say, "We've gone out and borrowed and our triple A credit rating is only down to double A something." They proudly crow about going out and borrowing this money. It was the fastest they snapped it up.

The difficulty is that when you go out and borrow money offshore, two things happen. The first thing is you've got to entice an offshore investor to buy your debt. This Treasurer, as he's done in the past couple of weeks, travels the world and looks for people offshore to buy his debt.

Mr Mahoney: Suckers.

Mr Stockwell: Not suckers. Do you know why they're not suckers? Because this Treasurer has to give them something for buying his debt. What does he give them? He gives them higher interest rates than they'd get in any chartered bank or investment, simply because he needs the money to meet his payroll.

1730

Mr Mahoney: So we're the suckers.

Mr Stockwell: So we're the suckers. He's offering higher interest rates to these investors. So the same group of socialists who constantly argue about the high interest rates are the ones who are, in fact, propping them up when they go to seek $16.5 billion in offshore money.

What else happens when you seek offshore money? Because you've now attracted this, there's more interest in your dollar. Clearly there's more interest because you've got offshore money buying $16.5-billion worth of it. So what happens? Your interest rates go up to attract the investment; when there's investment there's action; when there's action your dollar goes up. The same socialists who constantly whine and wail about the high Canadian dollar are exactly the people who are pushing it up because they are seeking offshore money to service their unquenchable need for debt. Absolutely counterproductive, and certainly against what I would consider to be responsible socialist public policy.

Having said that, the real fear that you're faced with as a constituent and taxpayer in the province of Ontario is: As the Treasurer, Mr Laughren, has told the public in no uncertain terms, his deficit is going to be $9.9 billion, and accordingly he's based his borrowing needs on that. The dilemma he's faced with is that he knows full well his deficit is really $14 billion. He's going to have to go out and find an additional $4 billion or $5 billion in money. So the whole cycle happens again; he goes out to find money; the offshore money pushes up your interest rates; the interest rates push up the interest in your dollar, and your dollar goes up. And this from a Treasurer who's a socialist who has constantly whined and wailed about the high Canadian dollar. It's really counterproductive.

We now ask the Treasurer to defend this budget, defend the job creation program, defend the capital works program, defend a lot of programs that have been put in place. I think some very poignant questions have been put to this Treasurer, but I think the most interesting of all the questions that have been put has been the tax on the working poor. Here we have a government in this budget that has often stood and chanted about the problems of the working poor -- the poor, period -- and the concerns they have about surviving in this tough economy and in this country, and you look across this floor at this Treasurer, a socialist Treasurer, who has just increased the taxes in these tough economic times. On whom? He's increased the taxes on the working poor: the people who can least afford to pay.

Mr Mahoney: Shame. How do you sleep at night?

Mr Stockwell: I don't know how this Treasurer sleeps at night. After reading back through Hansard and the self-serving rhetoric that this Treasurer used to spout in this House -- I read back in Hansard, and thank God there is Hansard, because it helps you to get these people back on the record. But the self-serving socialist rhetoric that this member spouted about the working poor and taxes and the tax that we need to levy against the capitalists and the rich and the corporate powers-to-be, this is the Treasurer who stands in this House today and offers a tax reduction to businesses and increases the taxes on the working poor. Brain leaks, some suggest, I'm not sure, but certainly a complete about-face on the rhetoric that was offered when this member was on this side of the House.

The really ironic part about this debate that we have today is, this is the Treasurer, the socialist, who increased taxes on the working poor, and I think all these members across the floor should remember that when they go back to their local constituencies, look everybody in the face -- particularly those who aren't making a lot of money -- and say, "Don't worry; Floyd raised your taxes." Have a heart when you go back to your socialist regimes back there in your constituencies, because the only jurisdiction in this province that gave the working poor a break on their taxes was those heartless souls in Ottawa, Brian Mulroney and the federal Conservatives. Often browbeaten --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Here they are. You see, they don't even know that. The catcalling from the backbenchers -- they don't even understand that Brian Mulroney gave the working poor --

Hon Mr Laughren: We're all stupid but you, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, now we have the Treasurer suggesting that they're all stupid but me, in essence suggesting that I'm the only one that's right on this; in fact they're wrong.

Hon Mr Laughren: You're the only one.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, it is true, and the Treasurer knows full well that what I've just said is absolutely accurate. It's so accurate that in this House this Treasurer had to stand before the opposition benches and admit to that, and that the information the Minister of Education was passing out to his constituents would be considered factually incorrect.

Before the caterwauling continues again from the backbenchers in the socialist caucus, why don't you go look up the tax provisions this year? You will see, without a doubt, the only person who gave the working poor a break this year was the federal Conservatives, and the people who -- don't shake your head; that's a fact -- clawed back the money on the working poor was your government, at three times the rate the federal Conservatives gave them a break. That is absolutely shameful, and from a socialist party it is hypocrisy at its height. From all that they said in the past --

Hon Mr Laughren: You are so reasonable.

Mr Stockwell: I'm reasonable on this. I'm very reasonable on this. I am so reasonable that I haven't used any unparliamentary language. I'm very reasonable on this.

What I don't understand is how this Treasurer, with everything he's said for the past 20 or 18 years he was here, can honestly look himself in the mirror today with the budget he delivered a few short months ago. You don't lend any credibility to your party when you come forward with taxes on the working poor, after everything you said and stood for previous to that. I find it absolutely unbelievable, and I go on the record in saying so.

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): Unbelievable.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, it's unbelievable. Frankly, you should be ashamed, in my opinion -- beyond unbelievable, after everything you stood for and said in the election, not the least of which was a minimum corporate tax. Those were the people who were going to fund the socialist agenda -- a minimum corporate tax.

You know what they found out when their Fair Tax Commission reported back? These corporations weren't dirty dogs. They weren't doing anything illegal. They're very much within their rights and they were paying the proper taxes. What they found out was that there was no well to go to to pay for all these exorbitant promises they made during the election.

So who pays for these promises? Future generations, because they're acquiring debt at a record level, and the working poor, whom this Treasurer increased taxes on, and the Premier agreed to it. That's who's financing the promises they tried to make during the 1992 election.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, he never agreed.

Mr Stockwell: Excuse me?

Hon Mr Laughren: The Premier never agreed.

Mr Stockwell: The Premier must have agreed. He must have agreed.

Although I think the Treasurer does make light of this, it's certainly something that must hit home when he goes into caucus or cabinet to debate. It must be something that really sticks in their craws: that they're the government that increased taxes on the working poor. That's got to bother you. That really must bother you, Mr Treasurer, and it really must bother you, the backbenchers.

I look at the Minister of Community and Social Services, who spends a lot of time looking to help people who are in need, who spends a lot of time in the social service division, yet your Treasurer was the one who increased the taxes on the working poor. That must bother you when you get into cabinet. It can't do anything else but.

But this comes to a far greater debate, and that debate is this: Why is it that the NDP has been relegated to such an embarrassing public position? Why? Well, it's because of two reasons.

One, in opposition they made promises that were absolutely impossible to keep. That's the first: promises that were absolutely and virtually impossible to keep. The first would have been publicly run auto insurance. They found that to be an absolutely impossible promise to keep from a financial end. So when they had all these promises hung out there in the wash and they got elected, it became apparent that they couldn't keep them all.

The second difficulty they're faced with is their inability to manage money. They have absolutely no capacity to manage money. I think that comes from their background in history, simply because they were advocates in most instances and they've never actually had to manage the finances. Having been given the responsibility of managing the finances, they've been total and absolute failures.

I quoted a number the other day. Even the Treasurer suggested it was incorrect, so I went to doublecheck. This number is correct: From Confederation right through to 1985 when the Conservatives left office, this government acquired $25 billion in debt. Do you realize, Mr Speaker, that in that 115 or 118 years they acquired $25 billion --

1740

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Listen up. This is an interesting statistic: $25 billion in debt. The socialists have been in power for two years and they've acquired $25 billion in debt -- $25 billion in two years. From Confederation to when the Tories left office in 1985 they acquired exactly the same amount.

Mr Morrow: What year did that start, Chris?

Mr Stockwell: From Confederation to 1985. It has taken 100-plus years to acquire $25 billion. In two short years this government has acquired that kind of debt. It is concerning to me and it is concerning, I'm sure, to all constituents.

Mr David Winninger (London South): How much interest do you pay on your party debt?

Mr Stockwell: How much interest do we pay on the party debt? There's a question of a major purport. There are a few million dollars outstanding. If you assume 10%, that's a considerable sum of money for us, yes. What that has to do with the $25 billion in debt you have acquired in two years, I'm not sure, but thank you for the information.

What has become very obvious to me is that this government doesn't have any capacity to manage the finances --

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Do as I say, not as I do.

Mr Stockwell: If you want to get into a debate on who can manage finances and who's better at managing them, I'm prepared to get into that debate.

You've acquired $25 billion in debt in two years, and you point to that with some kind of pride. It's terrible, unbelievable. You've acquired so much debt that future generations will be paying for that, and it's like a laughing matter. It's something you point to with pride. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves.

Deficits and debt are nothing but deferred taxes. If you don't have the guts to tax the people for your programs, don't introduce your programs, because the people who are going to have to pay these taxes in the future won't have the ability because you'll be so far in debt.

As we get around to the $16.5 billion, I recall back to that day when you introduced the 1991 budget and I suggested your deficit figure was incorrect as well as being way overblown and it shouldn't have been that high. I clearly didn't know what I was talking about. I remember the Treasurer suggesting I couldn't be any more wrong. Well, I couldn't have been any more right. Now we have to sit here today and debate about this budget that is truly a fantasy -- the $9.9 billion.

The comments I wanted to make were I think really salient. They're the points I want to give to this Treasurer when he comes back in a few months and tells us his deficit is going to be higher. If there's anything I'd like to see this government do before it leaves office, and maybe it will simply because it'll know it's going to opposition, it is one simple thing. It's non-partisan and it's a reasonable request. I would ask this Treasurer to have an accounting consultant come in and set down hard and fast rules by which --

Hon Mr Laughren: That's what we have an auditor for.

Mr Stockwell: No. You see, this is what they say, and every government uses that excuse. I understand. The auditor is just asking, "Are those numbers correct?" "Well, yes, substantially they're correct." What happens is they fool around with where the budget is here, they fool around with this number and they come up with $9.9 billion in debt, when you know full well, Mr Treasurer, it's more than $9.9 billion.

What I ask you to do is bring in an accountant to set down hard-and-fast rules about how a government may set its budget so that when we compare budgets from year to year, from deficit to deficit, you're comparing apples to apples. What happens today and why we end up in these fruitless debates is the Treasurer insists he's right right up to the point when he's wrong. They're fruitless, because we talk about a $9.9-billion deficit and your caucus believes it and you know it's wrong, Mr Treasurer. You know that number is wrong. That's why it's fruitless, because these people behind you believe you. They believed your $9.7 billion.

So I ask that he bring in someone -- an accountant, consultant, whoever -- to set down hard-and-fast rules about how a budget may be delivered and proper accounting functions that will be put in place so the treasurers of the day will not play fast and loose with taxpayers' money and bring forward smoke-and-mirrors budgets that have absolutely no relationship to reality. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. I know --

Hon Mr Laughren: I think you're losing your grip.

Mr Stockwell: The Treasurer suggests I'm losing my grip, but I don't think that's unreasonable. I think it's a very reasonable request. Any business has to live by that when it reports back to its shareholders. There's a standard and categorical way you report back. Any business that files its taxes has to file in a certain fashion. The only people who don't have to live within those rules are the Treasurer and the government itself.

I would suggest that if in fact that were the case, this Treasurer could not pawn off the teachers' pension contribution by a day, this Treasurer would not be allowed to show $1.2 billion in transfer payments, this Treasurer would not be trying to reopen and negotiate a doctors' agreement that was set for seven years and this Treasurer would not be allowed to say that the deficit is $9.9 billion, when in reality it's $14 billion.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments. Further debate?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this bill, which really does essentially provide the House with its budget debate. I don't believe we've had one for reasons I think we all understand. I'm always interested and --

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Is this the budget debate?

Mr Conway: In effect it is, and I'm not complaining. We had other business that kept us from the budget debate. Quite frankly, this afternoon I'm going to treat is as a budget debate, and I don't profess to bring the same level of wisdom and the specific knowledge my friends Mr Stockwell and Mr Phillips brought to the debate.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, Mr Phillips.

Mr Conway: No, I think Mr Stockwell made some very good points. I want to begin in a sense where he left off. I share some of his concern, though unlike him I've got some responsibilities of recently having been in government in this province.

I suppose the fundamental question I want to raise this afternoon is the one about how we in this political culture of ours deal with the spending pressures that are out there that drive all of us to the requirements that are contained in Bill 16, which is essentially authorizing on its passage the government to borrow some $16.5 billion worth of money to fund a variety of good works.

I will say, perhaps a bit provocatively, to my friend the member for Etobicoke West that there are none of us in the room who, if we were sitting in the Treasurer's chair today, would be looking at a budgetary situation that would, in light of what happened over the last generation, including the sainted Frank Miller, I would submit, be in a position to argue this year for a deficit of probably less than $6.5 billion. One would have to really see a lot of blood flow to get to that figure.

A few days ago the member for Etobicoke West, Mr Stockwell, and I were chatting about one capital work in the city of Toronto in which he had a direct involvement and I had a parenthetical involvement, and those were namely the circumstances that brought us to the construction of the SkyDome. I think it is in a way a point illustrative of the general concern, how do elected officials stand in front of a train, such as that train which brought together significant elements of the political élite, the media cognoscenti, particularly the publishers of very distinguished papers here in Metropolitan Toronto, and leaders in the business community? I suspect, though I don't remember, but I'm sure the leadership of the Toronto construction unions were there as well.

Back 10 years ago, it was an article of faith that Toronto particularly and Ontario generally, to say nothing of the greater Dominion beyond, had to have the Dome. There were people, to be fair to my friend Mr Stockwell, and others in the New Democratic Party and Liberal oppositions of the day who raised some general and specific points of protest. I think it is fair to say the protesters lost, and lost decisively. I think as democrats we have to understand that. I'm going to just use this example, though there are several others, where concerns around the issues Mr Stockwell has rightly brought to this debate were brought and swept aside in a tide of civic boosterism which would have one believe that Toronto could not be a world-class city without the domed stadium.

Ten years later we look back, and I have to say in credit to my friend Mr Stockwell that I think he was much more gutsy than I probably could have been in his position, standing, complaining and voting against that at the Metro level. Some of us did it here. But I repeat, the protesters were in the minority, they lost and we now have the domed stadium and our friend the current Treasurer has been -- I was going to say manfully but that's a very prejudicial term and I won't use it -- heroically dealing with the financial legacy of that visible and magnificent sign of the world-classedness of Toronto.

1750

Similarly, across the entire political waterfront, we face all kinds of examples which make the case that taxpayers want, understandably, a growing range of high-cost services, particularly in areas like health care, environmental protection, education, social services and transportation, while at the same time they feel burdened with an ever-increasing level of taxation imposed by all levels of government.

What are we to do about this? One of the interesting articles I have seen recently appeared in the Buffalo News a couple of weeks ago and I wish I had brought it down. My friend Bradley brought it back from one of his recent cross-border prayer meetings in that part of western New York. A political scientist from Georgetown University has in recent weeks gone out and interviewed, on an anonymous or confidential basis, a very ecumenical group of senior members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, and they offer their comments in this article.

One of the observations -- and, as I say, I regret not bringing the article down -- was simply one of the senior senators saying: "Well, as far as I can tell, we have in Washington exactly what most Americans want. We have at one and the same time a growing panoply of expensive services and a mountain of debt to go along with it." That is what the politics of the 1970s and 1980s have been all about. To a substantial extent, it is true in this jurisdiction and much of Canada.

I well remember the days when we were in government and we tried, as a government in very sunny economic circumstances, to draw the line. Does my friend from Etobicoke remember that fateful day when Treasurer Nixon had the guts to restrict, to flat-line the unconditional grants to municipalities? I mean, all hell broke loose.

Hon Mr Laughren: Who would criticize?

Mr Conway: Well, everyone criticized. I think even the honourable member from Glengarry probably chimed in with a word of protest on behalf of the good and expecting municipalities of his wonderful region in eastern Ontario. But we now find ourselves in a situation where routinely -- that is, in every year of the current mandate -- we will be spending, on the regular account, approximately 20% above revenue. That is a very significant departure from the historical norm in this province.

I must tell a little story because my friend from Glengarry will appreciate this. A half a century or more ago when my grandfather was in this place, one of his best friends was a dour Scotsman from Glengarry named Jim Sangster. My grandfather used to say, years and decades later, that on every budget day Jim Sangster would -- well, my grandfather actually had a little bit of doggerel. I only remember a couple of lines but it is one that is appropriate. He used to say: "You know, Jim Sangster sat in the seat ahead. He heard the budget and he said, 'We're broke.'" Jim Sangster, in the Depression of the 1930s, would die several times over if he were here today to see what we have now come to.

I understand the pressures that have brought the current government to that, and I accept my share of responsibility for some of the spending patterns in the salad days of the 1980s that have led to the current difficulty, but it is a very real difficulty.

I look at the Treasurer and I look at his two budgets and I'm reminded of the kinds of gyrations that characterized the Mitterrand administration in the early years of the 1980s. In fiscal policy and in energy policy, but particularly to date in fiscal policy, the Rae-Laughren government really looks a lot like the Mitterrand administration of the early 1980s.

What is most interesting about the 1992 Ontario budget is just how dramatically different it is from the 1991 budget. It has got to be observed that if ever there were a sharp turn in the road, it was the sharp turn that is characteristic of the 1992 budget.

But I make the point to members and to anyone watching that the fundamental dilemma in which we find ourselves today, not just as politicians but as citizens in this community, is, how are we going to deal with the fact that we are building a growing pile of debt that must be repaid at some point, that is going to continually put pressure on our interest rates, that is going to gradually redirect money away from programs to interest and debt charges and increasingly reduce the number of options any government will have?

I think the Treasurer understands that. I don't know that most members understand that, and quite frankly most members aren't paid to understand the particular burdens the chancellor of the exchequer must shoulder on an hourly basis. But I repeat, we are looking at public policy that is driving us further and further into this hole, and we are looking now at a public that has less and less patience with the bills that are coming due.

It has been observed by other speakers in this debate, and let me repeat it, that in the mandate of the Rae-Laughren government, the debt incurred on the account of the Ontario government, exclusive of Ontario Hydro, will approximately double itself. That is significant. In the period from the mid 19th century to 1990, we piled up something in the neighbourhood of, what, $27 billion, $28 billion. I forget the actual number.

Mr Stockwell: About $35 billion.

Mr Conway: My friend from Etobicoke says approximately $35 billion worth of debt was piled up by the provincial governments from the era of Sandfield Macdonald to David Peterson. But in the course of the period 1990 to 1995, we are going to add another $35 billion worth of debt to that account.

Interjection: If they're right.

Mr Conway: If my honourable friend opposite is right, and there is some good reason to believe they are not right.

Let me be fair: This will not be the first government to miscalculate in this connection. Bob Nixon, it's well known, in the budget of 1990 apparently miscalculated the severity of the impending recession.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Just a little bit.

Mr Conway: Well, he did, apparently, and miscalculated --

Mr Winninger: Just a few hundred million.

Mr Conway: That is correct. He miscalculated by something in the neighbourhood of $700 million. I simply say to my honourable friends that your record last year was worse, not better, than that.

Undoubtedly you were wrong for all the right reasons, and I say to my friends in the Conservative Party what I've said before: I remember the day in 1975 when I came here. It was an election year. In that year -- I'm speaking now in general terms -- the Davis-McKeough government was spending something like $12 billion, and it was running, on that $12 billion worth of expenditure, a deficit of some $2 billion. That was, when I think of it now, a very substantial debt-expenditure ratio. I think it was occasioned, quite frankly, by the reality of 1975 being an election year.

[Report continues in volume B]