Hansard Transcript 1994-May-10 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I was disappointed to learn last week that the NDP government is closing another eight provincial parks in northern and eastern Ontario, meaning that 40 more people have been put out of jobs thanks to this government.

The Liberal caucus has been trying for months to make the government see the relationship between allowing the private sector to operate the campgrounds and the spinoff effects that will occur in the region. I've raised the matter with the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, her parliamentary assistant, the Minister of Finance and, recently, the Chairman of Management Board. Mr Charlton told me on April 13 that OPSEU president Fred Upshaw would be meeting with local unions to work out some kind of an agreement on contracting out and successor rights.

Local OPSEU officials are upset that they have heard nothing about the progress being made. Apparently, the discussions are at a standstill because Mr Upshaw's staff is on holiday.

Unemployed men and women in eastern Ontario want to work. Students want summer jobs. Business people want tourists in the area. Opening the parks would go a long way to help eastern Ontario recover from the recession.

Investors are set to pump money into the Raisin River and Charlottenburgh parks if the government is only willing to make an effort to work things out quickly. Eastern Ontario deserves nothing less.

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and it concerns her government's job-killing program to shut down business in Ontario.

Minister, a growing number of people in Simcoe East, like Chris and Ross Coneybeare, believe your tax-grabbing corporation filing fee, imposed two years ago by regulation with no public debate, is a form of blackmail and a barrier to job creation, driving thousands of business corporations and charitable non-profit organizations out of business.

The business community is indicating strongly that it is sick and tired of the taxes, the fees, the regulations and the red tape your government is using to strangle competitiveness and kill jobs.

Minister, you force companies in Ontario to deal with countless government departments or agencies. You tie them up with thousands of regulations. You blackmail them with costly annual fees. You force employers to waste valuable time every year completing your forms and complying with your regulations.

On page 14 of this document, the Common Sense Revolution, Mike Harris recommends removing barriers to job creation and economic growth. The Common Sense approach involves appointing "an arm's-length commission on red tape to review all regulations affecting business. Any regulation which can't be justified will be eliminated within 12 months of a Harris government taking office."

Minister, join the revolution to ensure Ontario once again becomes an economic powerhouse full of hope, opportunity and real jobs.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): Mr Speaker, do you remember Mike Harris, the so-called Taxfighter? He has a new name now. It is the Culture Fighter.

The only revolution he will cause is to destroy our valuable cultural industries and erode our sense of cultural identity. Is this a revolution Ontarians want?

The Culture Fighter wants to privatize TVO. The Culture Fighter says he is a believer in free trade and in getting what he calls the "best deal" for his advertisements. So much for culture being protected under free trade.

This government has worked consistently even in these difficult times to ensure that Ontario's growing cultural industries sector remains strong. We have made investments in arts institutions. The Ontario Publishing Centre was established by this government to help preserve our cultural identity and to increase the economic viability and growth of Ontario's important magazine publishing industry. This government established a minister's advisory committee on cultural industries. Together, industry, government and labour are working to develop a strategy to position cultural industries as a key player in Ontario's economy.

Cultural industries are a dynamic sector with the potential for high growth. They comprise an $8.6-billion industry and account for over 200,000 direct and indirect jobs.

Investing in cultural industries means investing in economic renewal and in jobs for Ontarians, a priority of this government. It also means investing in preserving our cultural identity. This government understands the vital importance of expressing who we as Ontarians, and Canadians, are.

I truly shudder to think of the consequences for Ontarians should the Culture Fighter -- or should I say the Culture Destroyer? -- ever be allowed to impose his party's damaging views and policies --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): It's time today to look at the Tory record on user fees in health care. Where does the Progressive Conservative Party stand on this issue?

For years it has been difficult for Ontarians to figure this out, as the Tory position seems to change with the wind. But all of a sudden the party has decided that there will be no user fees under its new program. Instead, there will be something called a health care levy.

For those Ontarians lucky enough to earn more than $50,000 per year, the Tories are asking for a mere $100 to help support the health care system. If you earn more than $150,000 a year, and we think many Tory supporters do, that contribution amounts to $3,000. So the Tories won't ask you to pay $5 when you visit the emergency ward; they'll just ask you to pay your fair share once a year so that you can receive health care when you might need it.

Isn't this a user fee? Isn't it a user fee when you have to pay for a service such as health care? Do the Tories not understand that asking Ontarians to pay for their health care is just that: asking them to pay a user fee?

We encourage Ontarians not to worry about this proposal. After all, there is still lots of time before the next election, lots of time for the Tories to once more change their position.

1340

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I rise today to express great concern over the process which led to the decision to keep eight provincial parks closed this year.

The announcement was made on May 3, only 17 days before provincial parks officially open for the summer tourist season. Without any warning, businesses and communities that make their living from tourism were told that the expected influx of people and money was not coming.

In order to save $275,000, this government is willing for forgo nearly $7 million in spinoff revenues to local economies. To take such an action without consultation with the people who would be directly affected is shameful; 17 days' notice for such an important change is simply not acceptable.

The people of Kenora, Geraldton, Barry's Bay, Campbellford, Dryden, Collingwood and Port Dover deserve better than this. They should have been given notice of such a decision so they could prepare themselves for the terrible loss to their livelihood.

Municipalities or even private interests should have been given the opportunity to run these parks, either on their own or in conjunction with the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Why was this option not even considered? Governments should work for the people, not against them. Cuts to ministry budgets can and should be implemented using common sense.

GREEN COMMUNITIES

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Today I would like to share with members my pleasure with last week's budget and specifically the expansion of the green communities initiative that Minister Wildman announced the details of yesterday.

The green communities initiative provides communities with advice and funding to promote energy and water conservation as well as waste reduction.

As some of you may know, my community of Sarnia was one of the pilot projects under this program. I have seen the success in my community and I'm proud of the results. To date, the seven green communities -- Atikokan, Cornwall, Elora, Guelph, Peterborough, Port Hope, and of course Sarnia -- have proven to be a success.

These communities can be proud of the facts: Water consumption is down 25%, energy consumption is down 15% and waste generation is down 15%.

The new funding of $41.8 million over the next three years for home green-ups and green industrial analysis is a welcome move. The success stories from Sarnia and the other six pilot communities will attest to the value of the program.

I am encouraged by the expansion of this initiative. Its good environmental sense and the greening of homes and industry will create 11,000 jobs over the next three years.

I'd like to give my support to this program and see it continue to grow in order that we can achieve not just greener communities but a greener Ontario and help to put people back to work in the process.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Yesterday I informed the House of Mike Harris spending $600,000 to hire Americans to help in his bid to regain the corridors of power here at Queen's Park.

Unfortunately, my statement seems to have angered the Progressive Conservative House leader, who wanted me to correct the record about Mike Harris and his American revolution. He told me that my statement that Mike Harris hired an American producer and director was completely inaccurate and incorrect.

I want to be completely fair, so I would like to correct the record. It turns out that Mr Harris hired only an American director and an American cameraman. You'd think that after having been caught using American talent, Mike Harris and his Progressive Conservative Party would be embarrassed and would apologize to the people and specifically to the talent of Ontario. Not so. He still continues to believe that the brightest and the best talent is only to be found in New York.

How can we believe that this man will put people back to work in Ontario when he can't even hire highly qualified Ontarians to work on his own political campaign?

Yesterday I gave Mike Harris this American flag. He sent it back to me. I'm not surprised. Today I have another present for Mr Harris. I took the liberty of purchasing two directories: (1) Who's Who in Canadian Film and Television, a 600-page directory listing Canadian talent, and (2) the Canadian Film and Television Production Association document, with another 100 pages of Canadian talent, most of them within walking distance of Queen's Park. I would ask a page to come and take both of these documents over to the House leader, who can give them to Mr Harris.

OPPOSITION PARTIES

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I rise today to give thanks to the honourable member for Mississauga West. We and the Liberal Party sometimes have our little differences. We have an agenda; they don't. We have policy ideas; they don't. We have a message to deliver; they don't. But there are times when we and the Liberals can put aside these petty partisan differences and agree on the basics.

It was in that spirit no doubt that the member for Mississauga West rose in the House yesterday and again today to promote the Mike Harris Common Sense Revolution. As a result, we have received a torrent of news coverage again, making it clear that the Common Sense Revolution is founded on four essential steps needed to restore prosperity in Ontario, to which our leader and our party are committed.

These are, unlike the Liberals: a 30% cut in personal income tax, a 20% cut in non-priority government spending, a balanced budget in four years, and the creation of 725,000 new private-sector jobs. They don't believe in any of those things.

We are particularly grateful that as a direct result of the intervention of the member for Mississauga West, our television commercial featuring our leader Mike Harris was again broadcast directly into several hundred thousand Ontario homes at no expense, thanks to you. Just phone 1-800-903-MIKE for your Common Sense answers.

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I'm pleased to stand in the House today to share with you and my colleagues the positive impact this government's budget is having on my riding of Lambton.

I was honoured recently to announce, on behalf of the Minister of Health, the funding for a community health centre to serve the north Lambton town of Forest and the first nations communities of Kettle and Stony Point. This funding reflects the commitment this government has to improving health services to rural Ontario.

This government also has a commitment to the environment and improving services in rural Ontario for water lines and sewage projects. Recently in the county of Lambton millions of dollars were allocated for projects in Lambton, including my most recent announcement of over $13 million to the township of Bosanquet for a water line system that will allow Bosanquet to plan for its future. It will have the services to attract industry and plan for its growth. The project will create 300 person-years of employment during its construction. Several other projects have been allocated to Plympton township, Moore township, Oil Springs, Enniskillen township, Sombra township and the town of Petrolia.

Our government has laid out a plan for Ontario: investing in jobs, preserving services and lowering the deficit. I am pleased to see our plan is working for my riding of Lambton county.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, you would understand that in the few days following the budget we come to the House wanting to ask questions related to the budget. With the Premier and the Minister of Finance not present in the House to respond to questions about the budget, I still feel it's important that we have the opportunity to raise our questions. I will therefore place my first question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Minister, you are responsible for economic development in the province of Ontario, and as the minister responsible for industry and trade, I think you know the importance of financial stability to this province. You know how crucial that kind of stability is to attract investment and to be able to rebuild our economy. We are now five days past the budget and this province has once again been put on a credit watch. This is clearly a serious matter for investors and a serious matter for taxpayers. Investors watch those credit ratings for signs of a stable economy. Taxpayers are concerned because, at the end of the day, if we have another credit downgrade, it will cost them more money.

Minister, does your government have any estimate of how much the three previous downgrades to this province's credit rating have already cost the people who pay taxes in this province?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I know that the member opposite asks the question from a genuine concern with respect to the province's credit rating, and will understand that in the message that we tried to deliver to the province and to those who watch the province's finances in this budget we have tried very carefully to pursue a course which we think brings economic stability to the province, one which still creates the opportunity for investment in job creation, one which has the deficit continuing to track down on a steady basis with a projection of a balanced operating budget over the next four years, one which continues to control expenditures in a very dramatic way compared to past expenditure increases over the decade and one that doesn't bring new tax increases.

With respect to the notice today from the Canadian Bond Rating Service on the credit watch list, it is not an unusual thing for that organization to put the province on a credit watch while it engages in discussions with the Minister of Finance and his officials with respect to their final decision on credit rating. Those meetings are taking place and we hope that we will come through that having some stability. I know the member's question is specifically with respect to what the additional costs are. Yes, of course, if there is a downgrade in the credit rating, there are additional costs in the costs of interest that are attached to that. I'm sure that --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- Finance has the numbers she's specifically asking for -- I don't have those at hand today -- and can undertake to get those to you. But I think the issue that is really important for all of us is to understand that the balanced budget that we've put forward, a balanced approach of a downward deficit, of no taxation increases and of expenditure controls is really designed to bring some stability. We hope the credit rating agencies see that and that there remains some stability in their review of us as well.

Mrs McLeod: If the Minister of Economic Development and Trade can produce an answer to the question of how much the previous downgrades have cost the province, that would actually be a major step forward from the answers the Minister of Finance has given us in the past, so I welcome that response. In fact, as we have raised this issue with the Minister of Finance formerly, the question of how much the credit downgrades have actually cost this province and cost the taxpayers of this province, he has consistently refused to give us an answer.

We know that the Ministry of Finance officials have an estimate of how much it has cost. They have told us that they have a method for calculating what it costs taxpayers when you get a credit rating downgrade. Their estimate is that every time the credit rating gets one downgrade, and we've already had three, borrowing costs go up one quarter of 1%. I confess that on its own that may not sound like a lot, but this government has already had three downgrades. You have borrowed about $37 billion over the last three years, and that would put the cost to the taxpayers of this government's financial mismanagement in the neighbourhood of at least $150 million, just for the cost of the downgrades.

Has the Minister of Finance ever briefed even the most senior members of cabinet on the costs of having the credit rating downgraded, and would he confirm, do you suppose, if he were here, that the impact of these three downgrades that this government has already experienced has cost taxpayers at least $150 million?

Hon Ms Lankin: We have had endless discussions in cabinet and in caucus about the cost of borrowing and about the need to bring the deficit under control and to have the province's deficit move on a downward track. That's why you see the budget the way in which it was presented by the Minister of Finance, which accomplishes exactly that.

I agree with the member opposite when she says that a downgrade would cost an increase in the cost of interest on any borrowed money, on any outstanding debt, but to simply equate that into an amount and say that this is what the taxpayers have paid in addition absolutely refuses to look at the other measures that we have taken with respect to bringing expenditures under control and reducing expenditures. I would put to the member opposite that during the period of time that her party was in government, we saw health care costs, for example, in a budget of about $16 billion then, increase at 11% to 12% per year through the whole time that her government was in office. We have been able, through major reforms in the health care sector, to bring that increase down to less than 1%. Those are the kinds of offsets that we have had to deal with in order to deal with the increased cost of borrowing.

I share the member's concern. I think it's very important to bring economic stability to this province, to bring that deficit under control, which we have done.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: We took dramatic steps last year to be able to accomplish that, and the results of that are in this budget and in the projection in the years to come.

Mrs McLeod: We agree that the bottom line is that credit downgrades cost the taxpayers money and they most certainly keep investment from coming into this province. We are concerned. We are concerned that once again we are on a credit watch; once again we face the possibility of more downgrades.

The downgrades that this province has experienced are just more evidence that no one believes this government's numbers any more in spite of the lengthy answer that the minister has just given me. It is no wonder that nobody believes the government's numbers, because this government has reported $30 billion in deficits but it is actually borrowing $37 billion. The credit rating agencies are not fooled by those kinds of games. Certainly the Provincial Auditor isn't fooled by those kinds of games. As Minister of Economic Development and Trade, you surely should know how important the credit rating is and how important, above all, the credibility of the government is. A downgrade is a sign of financial instability. It drives investors and the jobs they bring to Ontario away from this province.

Minister, since no one is fooled by the kinds of numbers that your government uses in presenting its budget, will you urge the Minister of Finance to stop playing those numbers games and to start reporting the deficit as it really is?

Hon Ms Lankin: I know that the member opposite asked similar questions of the Minister of Finance yesterday and got a very direct answer. No one is trying to fool anyone, and your continued assertion of that really does a disservice to the public.

This is the budget document. Here it is, right on page 1, in fact right opposite the very first page of the document: We have the operating deficit, the capital expenditure and the total budgetary requirement, which is the borrowing requirements that the member talks about. It is there. It is reported.

With respect to the auditor's comments, the Minister of Finance has said those comments will be incorporated in the way the financial statements are produced. The financial statements come out later in the year. You will see all of that incorporated. That commitment has been made by the Minister of Finance.

The member opposite speaks as if Ontario is the only province which is dealing with credit rating agencies in its post-budget period and looking for those kinds of stable responses or positive responses from the credit rating agency. She would suggest we are the only province that has gone through a downgrade. Look at the economies of all the Canadian provinces and our federal government. We are at a AA2 in terms of Moody's; so is Alberta, a Tory province. Let's look at a Liberal province, Quebec. They are at an A1. Every province is facing these problems.

What I have a problem with is the member opposite and her credibility on this issue of the deficit when day after day after day she and the members of her party stand here and talk to us about spending more money in health care, social services and all sorts of areas. At the same time, they say, "Don't raise taxes." At the same time they say, "Bring the deficit down."

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: It doesn't add up, and neither does her agenda for this province.

1400

FIREARMS OFFENCES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Attorney General. Minister, again today we're hearing about crime, and specifically we're hearing about more gun-related crimes. There has been another shooting, this one in North York. We are also hearing today from the federal Justice minister, and the federal Justice minister is urging provinces to prosecute gun-related crime with vigour.

Clearly, on this issue we are talking about provincial jurisdiction. It is up to you as Attorney General to give instructions to Ontario's crown prosecutors on how they approach their recommendations on sentencing for crimes involving guns.

The most recent statistics show that more than 80% of criminals convicted of using guns during their crimes receive the minimum sentence of one year for the gun offence. Minister, do you believe the public is being adequately protected when 80% of criminals using guns receive the minimum sentence? If not, what action will you take to ensure that Ontario crown attorneys are prosecuting with vigour on gun-related crimes?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I'm very pleased to have an opportunity to answer the member today, because indeed we have, within the last couple of months, sent to all crown attorneys a new crown policy manual, included in which is the policy around firearms offences.

It is very clear from that crown directive that we expect the prosecution to be very vigorous, that we expect the crown to be looking at the possible sentencing requests based on the kinds of crimes that are involved in the particular charges, and within the sentencing parameters that are set -- and everyone in this place is well aware that judges make sentences based on recommendations -- we expect the prosecution to be vigorous and the request for sentencing to be vigorous.

I would say very clearly that our crowns are well aware of the concern of the public. They also are concerned. They deal with these matters every day and they feel very strongly about the protection of society. I have every confidence that those policy directives are being obeyed.

Mrs McLeod: We were able to obtain, with a certain amount of reluctance, a copy of the manual that you issued to crown attorneys the past January, and it tells prosecutors to point out that the use of a firearm to commit a crime is an "aggravating factor." Your manual does not provide any instruction on how prosecutors should approach sentencing, and nowhere in the document does it advise prosecutors to aggressively pursue harsher sentences.

It is obvious that we can't control the sentences that judges hand out, and I certainly believe that judges have to remain free from political intervention. But you do have some control over the kinds of sentences the crown seeks, and obviously criminals are more likely to get lighter sentences if the crown does not even ask for stiffer sentences.

Minister, I think you would surely agree that there are certain instances of gun-related crime -- armed robbery, house invasion, sexual assault -- that have to be treated more seriously. Using a gun in these kinds of crimes is surely more than an "aggravating factor," as your manual describes it.

Will you issue explicit instructions to crown prosecutors specifically listing those gun-related crimes that you believe to be serious and directing the crown to seek harsher sentences when a gun is used during these crimes?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Well, the member recognizes that judges need to be independent and need to make their sentences based on the facts that are presented before them. Similarly, crown prosecutors are the ones who are experienced in knowing what the factors are surrounding particular crimes. They know about the number of particular charges that may be laid; they understand about the principle of totality in sentencing; they are experienced in knowing what kinds of factors go into that.

We certainly have given very, very strong direction to crowns that this government intends to put the resources of the justice system into the area of violent crime. More minor property-related offences are dealt with more effectively at the early end of the system so that those resources are there for the vigorous prosecution of violent crime, particularly violent personal crime.

I would say that the crowns are well aware of the seriousness of any weapon -- not just guns but any weapon -- used in the commission of an offence, but the member has to be aware that an "aggravating factor" has an important legal connotation. It means that the crime that has been committed is the one that is serious, that has the highest penalty within the sentencing structure, and that the aggravating factor of the use of a weapon is --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- an additive to that. Our crowns do use that as an aggravating factor and they do argue for harsh sentences.

Mrs McLeod: Surely, Minister, the use of a gun in serious crimes is more than just an "aggravating factor," and your own manual should recognize that. This is an issue of enormous concern to people in this province, and their concern is that you are prepared to see their safety and their protection as paramount.

The courts and the crown prosecutors simply have to respond to that public concern, and the public is getting more and more concerned about the increase in violent crime in our society. Violent crime increased more than 65% between 1981 and 1991, and I am afraid that the public is losing faith in the justice system's ability to stop that increase in violent crime. That's why they need to know that you are prepared to take action to deal with those very real and very serious concerns about crimes that involve guns.

You believed that you had to do something, that it was in your jurisdiction to do something when you issued that manual in January, but it seems to me that simply reminding the prosecutors that guns are bad does nothing to restore faith in this justice system.

The Speaker: Would the leader place her question, please.

Mrs McLeod: I ask you again, Minister, will you revise that manual? Will you issue clear instructions to your prosecutors to seek stiffer penalties beyond the minimum for gun-related crimes, and just as importantly, will you ensure that your guidelines are publicized and circulated widely to the public so the people of this province know that you are taking action?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I'll answer the last question first. The multiplicity of questions may have me confused, so I'll answer the last one first.

The crown manual is a public document. It is also a very thick public document and, no, we do not intend to spend our resources circulating it to all the population of Ontario, but it is available in crown prosecutors' offices and is not a secret document.

Number two: No, I do not believe that it is the role of the Attorney General to issue blanket instructions to crown attorneys who are in courtrooms dealing with specific crimes that may be a multiplicity of crimes when they have to deal within the parameters of sentencing. It is not appropriate because there is a principle of totality and there is a principle about the hierarchy of the kinds of issues that they need to deal with, which you cannot deal with in a blanket kind of thing.

We certainly make it very clear to our crowns that use of a weapon is very serious. They are well aware of the public's concern. They are well aware of their responsibility as officers of the crown to do everything they can to ensure that public safety is paramount in the work that they do, and I will not intervene in that work and assume that they are not doing that task. I have every reason to believe that they are doing that task, and I have every confidence that they have as deep a concern as the member opposite for public safety.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Just before continuing, I wish to invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon and seated in the Speaker's gallery, Dr Sinadinovski, a member of the Macedonian Parliament. Welcome.

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): In the absence of the Minister of Finance, I think I'll direct my question to the Chair of Management Board.

Minister, when the Progressive Conservative Party last governed in the province of Ontario, we enjoyed the privilege of an AAA credit rating. Unfortunately, since that time, there has been mismanagement, and I point to the fact that for the past four successive years, the borrowing in the province of Ontario has exceeded $10 billion, largely to pay operating costs and interest on the debt. I point to the fact that the provincial debt at the end of this year will be $90 billion. I point to the three downgrades in the credit rating of the province of Ontario.

Minister, these downgrades cost the taxpayers money. That's already been alluded to today. Today Ontario is on credit watch. There's no surprise in that. My question to you: I hope that you are able to provide the information. The downgrade we face today is the most serious, being at the AA- level. A downgrade below the AA- level is the most serious. Will you confirm that, number one, and will you confirm the fact that a downgrade will not only cost the taxpayers of the province of Ontario one quarter of 1% on interest rates but will also reduce the pool of investors?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'd like to refer the question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, who is acting as Deputy Premier.

1410

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The member's question is much like the question from the Leader of the Opposition which I gave full answers to earlier. I confirm his assertion that any downgrade in the credit rating is something for a government to be concerned about.

Certainly it is one of the issues we looked at very seriously as we put together this budget and as we looked very seriously at the issue of continuing to reduce the deficit and the borrowing requirements of the province at the same time as being able to have a situation where we didn't raise revenues in the province. We thought that was an important balance to strike.

I think the member asked specifically, is a downgrade to a single A one that would be of concern to the province? It absolutely is. At that point there are certain lenders who would no longer lend to a provincial agency by virtue of the legislation that governs them or their corporate policies etc. So of course that would be very serious, and of course we are in the course of meeting with bond rating agencies and going over all of the numbers with them and showing them that there is a very serious plan for expenditure control and deficit reduction --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- and one that we hope will bring them to the conclusion that they should stay with Ontario with respect to the stable rating that we have at this point in time.

Mr David Johnson: Madam Minister, you did confirm that the pool of lenders would be lower with this particular downgrade, and I thank you for that information. The other part of the question was, would you confirm in fact that the interest rates would go up by one quarter of 1%? I hope in your answer you will address that aspect.

What the bond raters are concerned about, Minister, is that the debt is growing faster in the province of Ontario than our economic growth. They're also concerned, of course, with the $1.6 billion that in the budget has been hidden in the crown corporations.

They're also concerned about the fiddling with the pension payments of some $300 million, and of course they're keeping an eye on the sale of assets, which apparently we're going to lease back, assets such as snowblowers and ferries and air fleets and trucks and items such as that.

They're also worried, Madam Minister, about the fact that Ontario Hydro has a huge debt, that the Workers' Compensation Board has a huge unfunded liability, that pension plans in the province of Ontario have a huge unfunded liability, all of these factors added together, and they're telling you and your cabinet that we must get spending under control or we must reduce this deficit.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr David Johnson: The question is: Minister, will you confirm that the downgrade in fact will cost the taxpayers one quarter of a percentage point, and in terms of this downgrade by itself $25 million to $50 million, just in terms of this one particular downgrade to the taxpayers?

Hon Ms Lankin: Perhaps the member wasn't here when I responded to the Leader of the Opposition and her questions earlier. I think it is common knowledge that a downgrade in credit rating costs the province more then to borrow. There are all sorts of ways in which you can try and compensate for that in the way in which you issue your bonds, the markets you sell to etc, but generally speaking, yes, there is an increase in the interest rate. You have to try to be strategic in your borrowing in order to overcome that.

The other thing is, in order to keep to your deficit projections, you would then have to look, if there was an increased cost in borrowing, at expenditure reductions in order to balance that off, or if there were any additional revenues that came to the province to balance that off.

I think one of the important things that the member mentioned was the issue of expenditures, and quite frankly I hope that the bond rating agents will see that there is a very good-news story to tell in Ontario with respect to expenditure control and expenditure reduction.

Just to talk about the interest rate for a moment, last year we would have been spending more on public debt interest, had we let the deficit go to the $17 billion it would have arrived at, than any other single government expenditure program. We believe that's the wrong thing. We don't want to see our money going offshore to banks and bond holders and others; we want to see it spent on services for people here in Ontario.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: It's so important to have this turnaround, which we have accomplished. For the second year in a row, our program expenditures are going down. That's never happened before in the history of Ontario. It is an important step that we have taken, a responsible step.

Mr David Johnson: Well, I guess the answer is that the minister doesn't know how much this downgrade, or indeed previous downgrades, have cost the taxpayers of the province of Ontario.

But, Minister, you raise the expenditures. You talked about the expenditures and you referred to the budget. I found the budget very interesting in that it blamed the expenditure problem on the Liberals. I must say that to a large degree we agree with you. The Liberal spending increased by 4.5% above the rate of inflation each and every year during the Liberal reign; 4.5% by the Liberal Party. In that you have a point.

Madam Minister, would you contrast that kind of expenditure with what is being recommended through the Common Sense Revolution? Through the Common Sense Revolution, we are recommending a 20% expenditure cut. We are recommending tax cuts.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member place his question, please.

Mr David Johnson: I think the people of the province of Ontario know that we have to cut expenditures in the province of Ontario. Maybe the Liberals don't know that, maybe the NDP doesn't know that, but to get the deficit under control, expenditures have to be cut.

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mr David Johnson: That's what the Common Sense Revolution says. That will create jobs, that will promote economic growth.

Madam Minister, my question to you is, have you heard the message? You are being told you must cut expenditures to maintain the credit rating, to maintain the services for the people of Ontario. We must get government costs under control. They must be cut.

Hon Ms Lankin: I think the point I've been making in my responses to the member is that in fact we believe it is necessary to bring expenditures under control in the province of Ontario, and we have taken very major steps in that direction.

Let me point out to the member that the taxpayers look at the records of all the parties. Let me suggest that between 1980 and 1981, that fiscal year, through to 1984-85, when the member's party was in government, the nominal increase in expenditures at that point in time was 11.5% every year. From 1985 to 1989-90, when the Liberals were in power, it was 9.7%. From 1990 through to 1994-95, it is 2.8%.

The member may say, "Okay, wait a minute, account for inflation," and that's fair. You should. So let's take a look at the numbers: under the Tory years, average increases of 2.9%; under the Liberal years, 4.5%; under the New Democrat years, 0.9%.

We invested in greater expenditures in the early years of the recession. We have taken steps in the last two years to reduce program expenditures.

While I agree with the sentiment that it's important to get expenditures under control, I disagree with the American revolution that's being suggested over there, a massive slash-and-burn approach which would put people out of work.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: First calculations in the education sector are that 10,000 workers would be put out of work. Is that your idea of stimulating the economy? Is that your idea of creating jobs? Is that your idea of creating stability in communities -- people who have the money to spend and the confidence to spend? There's no common sense in what I hear from that party.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Today in the Toronto Star it was announced that not alone with just the housing development of the Toronto Island building, there is now being talked about an additional 80 units being applied for through the Ministry of Housing, through a board called the Flying Toad housing co-op.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: It does. It truly does sound like an NDP organization to me.

Having said that, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, it will come as no surprise to you that the application is for a parcel of land adjoining Ward's Island and Centre Island, and that piece of land is not only zoned by the local municipality as parkland but it is also on a floodplain.

1420

Mr Speaker, through you to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: I know that you would know full well the hazards and dangers of (a) building on floodplain and (b) developing parkland. I'd like to know if you have had conversations with the Minister of Housing, and if so, what is your position with respect to developing, for single-family residential and multi-use residential, parkland on floodplains?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I want to welcome the honourable member to his new responsibilities as the critic of Municipal Affairs and say that he has a high standard to live up to. The member for Don Mills always asked intelligent, well-thought-out questions until today. I always enjoyed answering the questions of the member for Don Mills.

Let me just respond then to the Toronto Star article which the honourable member has cited. First of all, the Flying Toad non-profit housing cooperative project will compete with other non-profit housing co-ops under the current Ontario non-profit housing program. The discussions between the co-op and the Ministry of Housing have gone on for about three years now, and they'll be processed like any other application.

There is an error in the Toronto Star article which the member should be aware of; there are a number of errors, but let me just deal with the one that refers to the co-op: namely, that the co-op does not have to apply to the city of Toronto to have the area rezoned as residential. That was done under the legislation and I'm sure, since he took a personal interest in the legislation, he'd be aware of that.

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to thank the minister for welcoming me to my new role, but I'd like an answer also to the question. I did realize that they didn't have to apply to the city of Toronto because of Bill 61. You carte blanche took over Toronto Islands, and in fact allowed Flying Toad co-op to apply to your government, circumventing local procedures that NDP people used to believe in called the Planning Act.

The Planning Act says that if you want to rezone parkland on floodplain and try and develop it, you have to go to council and have a public hearing. When you people used to believe in that stuff, this kind of application wouldn't have got past square one, and I know they don't have to go to the city of Toronto council; that's why I'm asking you. You're protecting the people of the city of Toronto when it comes to co-op applications from Flying Toads.

So, Mr Minister, I put it to you: As Minister of Municipal Affairs, are you in favour of developing parkland on floodplain in Metropolitan Toronto? If so, this sets a new high-water mark as to where co-op housing can go, and in my opinion completely abrogates what we used to believe in, the Planning Act, sir.

Hon Mr Philip: There's no violation of the Planning Act whatsoever. The member doesn't know what he's talking about.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Etobicoke West has the floor.

Mr Stockwell: He clearly didn't understand the question, because as it went in his ear he kept hearing echoes.

Mr Minister, it's clear it contravenes the Planning Act. The Planning Act states, at least as I understand, in Metropolitan Toronto you can't build on floodplain since Hurricane Hazel. It also states, in most municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto that I've read the Planning Act for, that they will not develop parkland unless the rezoning application is taken through the city of Toronto or the city that's applicable.

I ask the minister directly: How can you not understand that it contravenes the Planning Act, for heaven's sake? It's on parkland, on floodplain. Give me any example of any site of any development that the city of Toronto has approved on floodplain in the last 25 years and that the Ministry of Housing has approved.

I ask you directly, Mr Minister: Do you support this application to put co-op housing on parkland on floodplain on the Toronto Islands?

Hon Mr Philip: I'm tempted to say that flying toads are able to exist on floodplain, but I won't.

The member's shaking his head; that's the rattle we heard earlier. The co-op housing project will follow all of the normal procedures of a normal application and it will be looked at accordingly.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It's NDP élitist housing, that's what it is.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Mississauga South.

NON-UTILITY GENERATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question's to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I'd like to ask the Minister of Energy, who's responsible as well for Ontario Hydro, to indicate to the House today what his government's current policy is with respect to Ontario Hydro's purchasing electricity from independent or private power producers. I ask the question in light of recent reports that the utility has ended its moratorium and has entered a number of arrangements, including some kind of an arrangement with Suncor.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): As the member will know, Ontario Hydro has been negotiating over some time with a number of private sector companies and consortia with regard to the possibility of non-utility generation. The corporation, in light of its surplus, put a moratorium on further acceptance of applications for such proposals while confirming a number last year at either the 1992 or 1993 rates.

The matter to which he refers relates specifically to proposals by a number of companies in the Sarnia Chemical Valley and is designed to ensure that they will remain customers of the Ontario Hydro grid and ensure that they will remain and continue to be important producers of jobs and economic development in the Sarnia region.

Mr Conway: It's my understanding that in recent days your cabinet has executed an order in council confirming a deal, I gather, that Ontario Hydro has made with Suncor. The details of that Suncor-Ontario Hydro deal have not been made public, though it is my information that Ontario Hydro has concluded a multimillion-dollar deal with Suncor. A big part of that deal turns on Hydro's payment of millions of dollars in compensation to Suncor so that Suncor will not now proceed with a power facility of its own. Can you confirm the details of the Ontario Hydro-Suncor deal and will you make the details public?

Hon Mr Wildman: As I indicated in my previous response, Ontario Hydro has entered into an agreement with Suncor which yields a number of benefits. Hydro retains Suncor's load at a time of substantial surplus capacity and will not lose it as a customer, Hydro gains a flexibility to meet the future demand in the area quickly should the need arise, and a commitment is obtained from Suncor to invest in energy efficiency, thus improving both the environment and competitiveness in the refining sector.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. One of the recommendations of the Yeo inquest was the provision that bail hearings for those accused of violent sexual crimes be heard before a judge rather than the current practice of appearing before a justice of the peace. Minister, can you tell me why your ministry has rejected this recommendation of a jury?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): We have a long-standing tradition in the western justice system of the place of the justices of the peace to hear bail complaints and so on. While we acknowledge and, in our response to the Yeo inquest, clearly indicate our need to ensure that justices of the peace are aware of the provisions they have to limit the actions of violent offenders, the responsibility they have to ensure public safety and so on, we do not agree that the only way to achieve the safety of the public is to switch things into courts, given the crowded nature of our courts and the really serious problems we have of dealing with issues in a timely fashion. We believe it can be dealt with by a very clear instruction and education of justices of the peace, and that is the way we have proceeded.

1430

Mr Harnick: Minister, bail is a very critical procedure in any criminal case. It's critical because it involves the liberty of the accused person. It's also critical because it involves the security of the community. What I want to know is whether, in your opinion, judges are better qualified to deal with bail hearings or whether justices of the peace are better qualified.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Under given circumstances, where full information is available before a justice of the peace, I see no reason to make any assumptions on any kind of blanket situation about who is more qualified. This is a very specific area. It is an area that requires very, very clear instruction and clarity about how the law works and so on.

We have a very long-standing tradition in our justice system that lay magistrates are the first entrance to the justice system. I would say to the member there is no reason to make an assumption based --

Mr Harnick: Who's better qualified?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Willowdale, please come to order. Has the minister concluded her response?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I would just repeat what I said to the member, that there is no reason to make an assumption that qualifications involve what he assumes, and that we believe we have dealt with the issue of public safety in an appropriate way.

The Speaker: The Minister of Community and Social Services has a response to a question asked earlier by the honourable member for Burlington South.

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm glad to provide the member with some of the information that I undertook to bring back to the Legislature. The member asked a few weeks ago about the relationship between the situation around support payments and the number of incidents of social assistance cases.

We don't have statistical information -- although I hope some of the measures we're putting in place will give us this information in future -- that tells us to date the number of people who have had to apply to social assistance because of a default in support payments.

But what I am able to tell the member is that it's certainly our experience that, first of all, often the amount of support payment would not in and of itself be sufficient to keep someone off social assistance in these cases, because we are dealing often with small amounts of support. Second, I indicated to the member last time he asked this question that I was sure that the situation overall had improved vastly, and I'm able to give the member some statistics which do in fact reflect that that is the case.

In 1989-90 we had, between direct support payments collected through the ministry and those collected through the family support plan run through the Attorney General's office, 46,600 cases of support payments. By 1993-94, that amount had almost doubled, to about 88,800. That shows, particularly in the family support plan, where the greatest increase has taken place, that we have made some significant inroads in increasing the number of support payments --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Silipo: -- and the amount of support payments in those cases and therefore reducing the weight on social assistance costs as well.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): First of all, the auditor identified this as a problem in 1992 and the minister's department undertook that it would resolve this problem statistically and get proper data. The minister is standing in the House today and saying he's not done that, even though he told the auditor and the public accounts committee he would.

My second point is that he's quoted 1989-90 stats, before SCOE and support enforcement was in place in this province, and compared it to 1993 statistics. Quite frankly, the fact is that the welfare case load has tripled during that period of time.

My question still remains, to this government and to this minister, that there are large numbers of defaulting parents who are not making their payments to families and to their children, and both parties are now going to get social assistance. It is your ministry that appears in court and suggests to the court that it will allow the writing-off of these taxpayer dollars. And that, Mr Minister, is the question you cannot report to this House today with any certainty about how widely held this practice is becoming in Ontario, when evidence in our courts is quite the contrary.

Hon Mr Silipo: No. In fact, I can indicate quite clearly to the member what our policy and approach is in these cases. The member's quite right that we have the right, and take that right quite seriously, to intervene in cases, and we in fact are looking at how we can strengthen our approach as a ministry in that process. But we only agree to waivers of support in instances where there are issues of violence involved. We do not agree, generally, in other issues. Of course, it is up to the judge in each particular case, on a number of factors, to decide whether there will be a waiver of partial or all of any amounts owing on the support.

But the position of the ministry is very clear, and, as I indicated to the member, we are continuing to look at ways we can strengthen our role in that process so that the objective we all want to see, which is to support women to get the fullest amount of support they are entitled to, and at the same time continue to reduce the weight on the social assistance system -- they are both objectives we can do a better job of achieving.

NON-UTILITY GENERATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, we asked the question about Suncor very carefully because we did not have clear information from media reports about the deal made between Ontario Hydro and Suncor. Your answer leads to a great many further concerns.

In the two conflicting reports we were seeing in the media today, one said that Ontario Hydro, consistent with lifting the moratorium on cogeneration arrangements, had entered into a four-year option to buy power from Suncor. If Hydro exercised that option, it would build an electricity and steam generating plant. That seemed to be consistent with cogeneration production.

The other story was that Suncor had indeed abandoned plans to start construction of its own electricity and steam generating plant after striking a multimillion-dollar deal with Ontario Hydro.

Minister, your fairly cautious response to my colleague would seem to indicate that Suncor has indeed been offered a multimillion-dollar settlement to not produce electricity and to stay as a purchaser on the Hydro grid. If that in fact is the case, could you tell us today what the other implications are for other major power users?

I have just recently met with pulp and paper producers who are extremely concerned about the effect of hydro rates on their ability to keep operating, and they are certainly looking at alternatives to purchasing power from Ontario Hydro. That is true for other major power users. It is even true for municipalities. This has significant consequences --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the leader conclude her question, please.

Mrs McLeod: -- for every other major power user. What is this deal, and how does it affect the purchase of power from Ontario Hydro for other major power users?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I should clarify for the member that Ontario Hydro has entered into an agreement with Suncor to purchase an option for future delivery of power in exchange for Suncor's agreement to remain on the grid. That is to clarify -- I hope it clarifies -- for the member.

She may also be aware that in Sarnia a number of other companies -- Dow, Nova and Polysar -- formed a joint venture for increasing generating capacity in the Sarnia area. Hydro has also opened negotiations with the joint venture and reached an agreement for the purchase of 60 megawatts of power from that consortium.

1440

Mrs McLeod: Minister, the bottom line of your clarification is that Ontario Hydro has paid Suncor in order to keep it on the Hydro grid, in order to keep it purchasing electricity from Ontario Hydro.

The question still stands: What are the implications of this kind of deal for other major power users in the province of Ontario? And tell us what the rest of the policy means. How does this fit together? On the one hand, Ontario Hydro has lifted its moratorium, supposedly the moratorium, on cogeneration, on independent power production, because Hydro had a surplus. It has now lifted its moratorium. It is making deals for cogeneration, independent power production. Does that mean there's no longer any surplus? If that's the case, why is Ontario Hydro entering into multimillion-dollar deals in order to persuade Suncor to stay as a purchaser? While you're explaining, could you tell us how all of this fits with the Power Corporation Act, a piece of legislation which directs Ontario Hydro to sell power at cost?

Hon Mr Wildman: It is true that because of the agreement with the consortium, the joint venture, Ontario Hydro will lose 60 megawatts of load, but the revenue loss will not be substantial and will not affect the ability of Ontario Hydro to meet its commitment to provide energy at or below inflation rates for the rest of the decade.

It is very important to recognize that Ontario Hydro has made an agreement with Suncor which will mean that Ontario Hydro has an option for future delivery of power in exchange for Suncor's remaining on the grid, and that is the situation. The fact is, and I'm sure the member would agree, that in the Sarnia Chemical Valley the operations of all these companies -- Suncor, Dow, Nova and Polysar -- are central to the economic stability of that region. This agreement makes it possible for Ontario Hydro to deliver power at costs that are acceptable and to continue to manage the surplus, while at the same time ensuring that those companies remain and continue to make a contribution to the economic development and recovery of this province.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TRADE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Last week members received the annual report from the ministry, with a lot of glowing words about the minister and her deputy and the officials in her ministry in respect to what they're doing about job creation.

I want to ask the minister about, not job creation, but preserving jobs that are already existing in Ontario, good-paying jobs in clean industries that are making a very significant contribution to Ontario's economy. Of course I'm talking about Bill 119, the Tobacco Control Act, which we've been told will cost Ontario in the neighbourhood of 1,100 to 1,200 jobs; some estimates go as high as 1,900 jobs. Four hundred and fifty of those are in my riding, and close to 200 are in the riding of the member for Lanark-Renfrew.

I'm asking the minister if she and her ministry have had any input whatsoever into this legislation and the generic packaging elements and the significant job losses that will occur if indeed this measure proceeds.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'm certainly aware of the representations from the industry, the companies in particular in the member's riding, that have been made to the standing committee here and in Ottawa to the standing committee reviewing this issue with respect to generic packaging. I'm aware of their concerns about the potential impact on their industry if they're unable to adjust to the new conditions.

I would say to the member that his positioning of this as only an economic issue is one that I have a problem with, although I am most concerned about any impact on jobs and would want to work with the companies both to mitigate that impact and potentially to deal with adjustment strategies if the federal government does proceed with generic packaging.

This has very clearly been put forward as a health issue, one in which, if I look at the representations that have come from the Ontario Medical Association and others, the facts are very clear. Tobacco is the number one killer in our society, and anything we can do that prevents deaths as a result of the use of tobacco, anything we can do that preserves life, it is very important for us to work together strategically as governments to do that.

I understand, however, that from an economic point of view, if legislation for generic packaging is implemented, it would have a dramatic impact on printing industries that are currently in that business. We would have to work with those industries and those communities to deal with that impact and to have an adequate response to adjustment.

Mr Runciman: It's like most of the words from these ministers. They're meaningless in terms of caring about jobs. I haven't focused on the economic side of this. The government has refused to even look at the economic side of it, and the minister responsible for economic development hasn't even looked at it in her ministry. That's the response to my question.

Michael Perley of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco and Ken Kyle of the Canadian Cancer Society recently went public advocating generic packaging using multiple colours, which indeed would preserve these jobs and industries in Ontario and still accomplish what the government hopes to achieve in terms of generic packaging: different colours for different health warnings, a whole range of areas where we could use different colours.

Will the minister finally take a look at this issue, not simply from a health perspective but also the economic implications and see what she and her government can do to save these jobs in Ontario? The reality is that this amendment was brought in on the last day of the hearings. The people impacted upon by this, the communities, the families, have had no opportunity whatsoever to be heard in respect to this legislation. Will she now carry out her responsibilities and ensure that the economic side of this equation is looked at?

Hon Ms Lankin: Why is it always the case with the member opposite that you answer the question, you say you've looked at the issue, you say you've been involved in the issue, and he stands up and says: "The minister says she doesn't know anything about it. The minister says she's not involved"?

Mr Runciman: You haven't been involved.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Leeds-Grenville. Will the member for Leeds-Grenville please come to order.

Mr Runciman: We get that hot air from her day after day. All she said was, "I'm aware of it." She didn't say she was involved, playing an active role.

The Speaker: Would the member for Leeds-Grenville please come to order. He asked a question. Perhaps he would allow the minister an opportunity to respond.

Hon Ms Lankin: The amendment to the Ontario legislation that the member speaks to is one which would provide regulation-making powers for the government so that, if at such a time the federal government introduces legislation to bring around generic packaging, it could be implemented in this province as in all other provinces.

First of all, the member attempts to suggest that this amendment in and of itself is the cause of distress to the industry in the area. That's not the case. But that's almost a moot point, because the member does raise the fact that generic packaging and a change in the printing requirements for packaging for those companies which are currently involved in the printing of tobacco packages would have an impact. I think the suggestions that are being made around the potential use of multicolour and other things are things that all governments are looking at, at the federal and provincial level. In fact, we have been involved.

I said very clearly that if this comes to pass, our interest would be in working with those industries to try and either preserve those jobs or to be involved in adjustment strategies for the future. The member opposite might not like that answer.

Mr Runciman: Sit down. You are wasting our time.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville, please come to order.

Hon Ms Lankin: I believe it is a responsible answer; I believe it was one which deals with the real issue of jobs.

Interjections.

Mr Runciman: Claptrap, that is all it is. We are talking about jobs.

The Speaker: I caution the member for Leeds-Grenville to come to order. If the member refuses to come to order, he will be named.

SOIL CONTAMINATION

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, formerly industrial lands in the Port Union Road area of my riding of Scarborough East are being considered for rezoning to industrial. Inspection of the lands by members of community organizations and discussions with former workers is raising new concerns about the presence of hazardous materials in the soil. How will your ministry be involved in the protection of the community if these lands are developed?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I appreciate the interest of the member. I know this is an important matter in his constituency.

There are several industrial sites in the area the member describes; one is a Johns-Manville site which was decommissioned or cleaned up according to ministry standards in 1986-88. Also, there's a former General Electric plant, which is currently undergoing a cleanup and is nearing completion. The asbestos debris is being removed.

If development were to occur, the developer would be required to carry out air monitoring during the excavation and construction. The debris has been buried in an approved landfill site which is not slated for development. Since 1980, the ministry requires certificates of approval for landfill sites to be registered on title. If there are any proposals for development, we will act as we do with the about 20,000 requests annually from prospective purchasers and inform them of any environmental concerns prior to purchase.

1450

PETITIONS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has representation on JACPAT, which stands for the Joint Administrative Committee on Planning and Transportation for the National Capital Region; and

"Whereas JACPAT has received a consultants' report recommending a new bridge across the Ottawa River at Kettle Island, which would link up to Highway 417, a provincial highway; and

"Whereas the city and regional councils of Ottawa, representing the wishes of citizens in the Ottawa region, have passed motions rejecting a new bridge within the city of Ottawa because such a bridge and its access roads would provide no benefits to Ottawa but would instead destroy existing neighbourhoods;

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

"To reject the designation of a new bridge corridor at Kettle Island or at any other location within the city of Ottawa core."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy in his private member's Bill 45; and

"Whereas this bill will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex;' and

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas this bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority but with no PC support in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas the NDP government has indicated it will force private sector employers to pay same-sex spousal benefits; and

"Whereas redefining marriage and forcing the private sector to pay same-sex spousal benefits will have serious negative economic and social implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the NDP government to withdraw consideration of private sector spousal benefits for same-sex couples and refuse to pass the Liberal private member's Bill 45."

That's signed by 33 people from the Orillia and Coldwater area.

LAP DANCING

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition signed by people in my riding from Wheatley, Merlin, Blenheim and Tilbury. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to the ruling of lap dancing in strip bars. We feel this violates our codes of morality or decency and we want steps taken to overturn this decision."

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the previous provincial Liberal government of David Peterson announced its intention in its budget of 1989 of requiring all school boards to provide junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the provincial NDP government is continuing the Liberal policy of requiring school boards in Ontario to phase in junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the government is downloading expensive programs like junior kindergarten on to local boards while not providing boards with the funding required to undertake these programs; and

"Whereas the Wellington County Board of Education estimates that the operating cost of junior kindergarten will be at least $4.5 million per year; and

"Whereas mandatory junior kindergarten programs will force boards to cut other important programs or raise taxes; and

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high;

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

"We demand that the government of Ontario cancel its policy of forcing junior kindergarten on to local school boards."

I support this petition, Mr Speaker, and do you know what else? It's in our Common Sense document.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Since this is petitions, I won't comment on that last one.

I have a petition; we've had several of them read in the House. It was sent to me by R.G. Morgan, executive vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. It says, "To the Legislative Assembly," and it's regarding concerns regarding the firearms acquisition certificate. They wanted people who have hunting experience and have taken the hunter course to be grandfathered, so I present that now.

GAMBLING

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there's a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

This is signed by a number of constituents from Little Current in my riding of Algoma-Manitoulin.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy and his private member's Bill 45, supported by Liberal leader Lyn McLeod;

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority but with no Mike Harris Conservative support in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently with the legislative committee on administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

I'm affixing my signature in support.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products.

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains a provision that the government of Ontario reserves the right to regulate labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing or markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and other provinces rather than act on its own to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain packaging strategy the most effective method of protecting the Canadian public;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario continue to work with and pressure the government of Canada to introduce and enforce legislation calling for plain packaging of tobacco products at the national level."

There are some 14 signatures on this particular petition from St Thomas, London and the surrounding area.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I have a petition here from the Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and it reads similar to the others that we've heard in this House before.

This has been signed by people from various parts of Ontario. I present this petition in regard to the firearms acquisition certificate.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the NDP government is hell-bent on establishing a 20-bed forensic facility for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; and

"Whereas the nearby community is already home to the highest number of ex-psychiatric patients and social service organizations and hundreds of licensed and unlicensed rooming houses in all of Canada; and

"Whereas there are other parts of Ontario where the criminally insane could be assessed and treated; and

"Whereas no one was consulted, not the local residents and business community, not leaders of community organizations, not the education and child care providers, and not even," it says here, "the NDP member of provincial Parliament for Fort York;

"We, the undersigned residents and business owners of our community, urge the NDP government of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to accommodate the criminally insane in an expanded Queen Street Mental Health Centre until a public consultation process is completed."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

1500

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas several patients from the town of New Tecumseth are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments in Orillia or Toronto;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in New Tecumseth, and one patient is forced to pay for her own nurse;

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem even though they've known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in New Tecumseth and Collingwood;

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of New Tecumseth."

I've signed that petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I once again have another petition over guns and firearms acquisition certificates. This numbers over 1,000 from my riding alone and this is from, once again, my friends, neighbours and constituents, both seasonal and year-round. I'll just read the "therefores":

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I too support this petition and therefore I've affixed my name.

HEALTH CARE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP has always said it was against user fees in health care and other social issues; and

"Whereas the NDP promised it would never implement user fees for health care and other social issues; and

"Whereas the NDP has bowed to pressure from the Conservative Party and is now working to implement user fees in a number of areas; and

"Whereas the NDP government is now planning to implement a number of user fees by charging for various necessary drug treatments, annual checkups, psychiatric counselling and speech therapy for children and other necessary services; and

"Whereas the NDP government is trying to fool the public by saying that these are not user fees but rather copayments; and

"Whereas it has been shown that user fees do not make health services more accountable but only restrict access;

"We, the undersigned, urge the NDP government to reconsider its new policy on user fees and protect the integrity of our universal health care system by cancelling the proposed user fees on health care services."

I'll affix my signature to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy in his private member's Bill 45 and supported by Liberal leader Lyn McLeod; and

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority, but with no PC support in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently with the Legislative committee on the administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and future bills which would grant same-sex couples the right to marry and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

These are approximately 200 signatures from Markham, Smiths Falls, Peterborough and neighbouring communities.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I'm presenting a petition signed by 13 residents of the province of Ontario, and some are from my riding, the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, relating to Bills 45 and 55.

Since we've probably heard a lot of the preamble of this on numerous occasions, I don't believe there is any merit in repeating it, but the petitioners are against Bills 45 and 55.

I have signed in compliance with our rules, but I do not support the petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have another petition with literally hundreds of names from constituents worried about FACs.

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I have affixed my signature and will send this down to the Clerk.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

1994 ONTARIO BUDGET

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government (1994).

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Don Mills.

Applause.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I thank all my many friends on this side of the House for that wonderful reception and I am pleased to participate in the budget debate.

The budget debate, of course, is an opportunity not only for the government, but for the opposition parties to put out a roadmap for the future of the province of Ontario, to tell the people of the province the kind of approach that the government's going to take, that the opposition parties are going to take, in terms of government spending, in terms of the services, in terms of the approach to the economy, in terms of job creation, getting people back to work, in terms of approach to the business community, economic growth etc.

It's an opportunity to speak about a vision, about the future of the province of Ontario. I think it's pretty fair to say that we do see distinctly different visions and that we do see distinctly different approaches during this particular debate.

At least the Progressive Conservative Party has set itself aside in terms of its approach to what is needed in this province of Ontario, very distinctly, from the views of the other two parties.

As I go through this debate, and perhaps as the people of the province of Ontario have watched this debate, it's not clear entirely what the distinction is between the Liberal Party and the government, between the Liberal Party and the NDP, but I'm sure most people would recognize that the Progressive Conservative Party does have a distinctly different approach, one that I believe is required at this point in time in our history, to solve the economic problems of the province of Ontario.

The budget itself has been categorized in various circles as either a big bore or it has been categorized by the government certainly as what is needed to bring the province back to health. But as you'll see, the Progressive Conservative Party believes that the budget that was brought forward will not solve the problems of the province of Ontario, the many problems we face.

I would like to start with one misconception that is contained within the budget, one of many I suppose but one that's right up front, and that is that the people of the province of Ontario will experience no more taxes this year in 1994 than they did last year in 1993.

The government trumpets the fact that there are no new taxes, no tax increases, and the impression is out there that the people of the province of Ontario will not pay any more in taxes in 1994 than they did in 1993. It's simply not true, and I would like to show where that falls apart.

1510

Last year, in the budget, the government introduced a provincial sales tax on auto insurance, home insurance and various benefits. That sales tax was implemented partway during the year and that sales tax will this year be annualized. By "annualized," I mean that there will be an impact of one full year on the taxpayers of Ontario in paying that sales tax. The people of the province of Ontario in fact will pay, it's been estimated, somewhere over $400 million extra in provincial sales tax this year over last year as a result of that initiative coming out of last year's budget. That is money out of people's pockets. Those are real taxes that are being paid to this government over and above and beyond what was paid in 1993.

The government, also in last year's budget, increased the provincial surtax. That surtax had two stages to it: One stage was to be implemented last year and the other stage was to be implemented this year, 1994. The second stage kicks in this year. For example, for those people with taxes in excess of $5,500, the surtax will increase from 17% to 20%, an extra three percentage points of surtax, this year for those with provincial income tax in excess of $5,500. For those who have provincial income tax in excess of $8,000, the surtax increases another two percentage points, from 28% up to 30%.

Certainly the sales tax has increased this year, and also the personal income tax has increased this year. The people of the province of Ontario, just through those two taxes alone, will be paying an additional half a billion dollars, or thereabouts, in taxes to the province of Ontario this year.

I'm afraid to say that if you're a taxpayer and you've been reading the articles and you think that you will not be paying more taxes this year, I'm sorry but this government has disappointed you. In fact, you will be paying more taxes.

One other area involves the impact of the federal changes in taxation. The federal government, under the leadership of Mr Chrétien, has decided to claw back the old age tax credit for the senior citizens so that now the elderly, who formerly received a tax exemption, will have that clawed back. Those with an income in excess of $26,000 will have that amount clawed back. That will bring in about another $25 million to the province of Ontario.

Of course, we all know that during the federal budget the capital gains exemption was thrown out. That will bring in an extra $100 million to the province of Ontario, because the province of Ontario piggybacks on the federal tax.

There will be more taxes this year. There will be more taxes paid by the people of the province of Ontario, to the tune of $600 million to $700 million.

There's been a great deal of concern in the finance community over the past couple of weeks about the budget that has been brought out by the province of Ontario. Various economists have expressed a great deal of concern. Economists, I must say, are of the opinion that if the debt approaches 75% of the gross domestic product, then governments lose their flexibility to govern. That sort of debt, vis-à-vis that gross domestic product, creates problems in governing, and indeed if the debt approaches 100% of the gross domestic product, then the government loses complete ability to manage and economic ruin is just around the corner.

The international investment community looks at Canada as a whole. It doesn't look just simply at one particular province; it looks at Canada, it looks at the provincial governments as a whole.

Unfortunately, today in Canada when one tallies up the debt of the federal government, which is over $500 billion, the debt here in Ontario at $90 billion by the end of this fiscal year, and all the other debts of all the other provincial governments, the total debt figure is rapidly approaching the gross domestic product in Canada.

As a result, we in Canada compare with countries which have a similar ratio of debt to gross domestic product. Countries such as Argentina and Uganda, for example, actually have better ratios than Canada, according to fairly recent statistics. Other countries that would be in the same vicinity as Canada with regard to their debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio would be countries such as Ghana, Bulgaria and Algeria. Those are the kinds of countries that we are comparing with. When we bring in the debt that this provincial government has brought in over the last four years, bringing our debt to $90 billion, that is the sort of financial league we find ourselves in: the same league as countries such as Uganda, Ghana and Bulgaria.

I might say that the real concern here is that with a lot of Canadian debt now being placed in international markets -- the debt is not being placed here in Canada; it's being placed in the United States, it's being placed overseas -- these investors have no allegiance to Canada. If they sense that there is a risk, they have no difficulty in drawing out, they have no difficulty in removing their support, and they have no difficulty in demanding higher interest rates. The question of Quebec's separation could be a trigger point in terms of disaster in that regard.

Those are some of the reasons why the financial community is very concerned about the debt that this province of Ontario is bringing in.

One of the other reasons that the financial community has registered extreme concern pertains to the ability of the Minister of Finance to forecast. Let me give you an example of some of the forecasts the Minister of Finance has put forward in this House.

One year ago, the minister forecast a deficit this year of $6.8 billion. The new forecast in the new budget that we're debating today is $8.5 billion. So in the course of one year, the deficit forecast of the Minister of Finance has gone from $6.8 billion to $8.5 billion. Indeed, the borrowing this year is forecast at $10.2 billion.

That raises the question as to, what is the deficit? What does the word "deficit" mean any more? We used to think of the word "deficit" in the province of Ontario as being a subtraction of what you spent versus what you brought in. If you spend $50 billion and the revenues are $40 billion, then the deficit is simply $10 billion. Well, there's a new way of accounting in the province of Ontario and it's no longer that simple. The deficit is now forecast at $8.5 billion, but the spending is $10.2 billion.

One year ago, program expenditures were forecast to be $42.6 billion this year; now they're forecast to be $43.5 billion, an increase in the forecast of expenditures of $1 billion in the space of a year.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): They said it went down.

1520

Mr David Johnson: The member for Etobicoke West says, "They said it went down." Do you know what the story is there? It's a very interesting story. When they said the spending went down, the minister was comparing the actual spending for 1993 with his forecast figure for 1994-95. Indeed, last year the actual spending in the province of Ontario on programs -- this does not include the interest on the debt -- in the province of Ontario was $43.9 billion. The problem is that the original budget was $42.9 billion.

The minister spent $1 billion more than he budgeted for on programs in 1993. He overshot his spending. Is this news? I don't think this is any news in the province of Ontario, but he overspent his spending by $1 billion in 1993. The silver lining for the minister, though, is, because he overshot his spending, because he couldn't bring the budget in on its target, now his new budget for 1994 is actually just a little bit less than what he actually spent.

In reality, the comparison should be budget to budget, and the budget last year was lower than the budget this year for program spending, so by any fair comparison the spending, even on programs, is up. It is up by about 1.5% year over year, yet the minister in the budget speech has indicated his pride in reducing the program expenditures; total expenditures, I might say, which include the interest on the debt.

I only wish that in my budget, if I have a mortgage on my house, I could take the cost of that mortgage out of my own personal budget and say that the rest of my expenditures were down for the year. That's essentially what the minister is doing with his budget. He's ignoring the debt interest payments in his budget and he's saying the rest of his expenditures are down. But they're not down, to start with; they are over the budget of last year. Secondly, you can't remove the interest payments on the debt from your budget. Those are real numbers; they have to be paid. People who have lent the money expect to be paid.

The real expenditure in the province of Ontario is forecast at $51.5 billion this year. Last year at this time his forecast was $1 billion less, so you see, all of the forecasting has been erroneous. The minister has missed his forecasts. This is another reason why the financial community is very concerned with not only this particular budget but with the financial state of affairs of the province of Ontario.

This is not a recent phenomenon, I might say. The whole term of this minister has been riddled with problems in forecasting the deficit. Two years ago, the forecast for last year's budget was an $8.1-billion deficit. The actual deficit came in at $9.4 billion and, again, the actual financing, the amount by which the debt was increased, is $11.6 billion, so the forecast was out by a considerable amount for 1993.

The forecast for 1992 -- and this is perhaps the year of most concern on record in Ontario -- the original deficit forecast was $8.9 billion, the actual deficit was $12.4 billion and the borrowing was over $15 billion; over $15 billion in borrowing in the province of Ontario for the 1992 year.

One of the irritating little phrases in the Ontario budget, and there are many phrases that are more political in nature -- and I have to say I find the budget somewhat unprofessional in that regard. There are many phrases that are more political in nature than they are professional in dealing with the budget situation in the province of Ontario.

One of the phrases is, "cutting the deficit by more than 30%." The Minister of Finance would have us believe that this government has made a great achievement in that the deficit has been cut by 30%. When you look at the words, he's specifically referring to the years 1992 to 1994.

In 1992 he claims the deficit was $12.4 billion and in 1994 he's claiming a deficit of $8.5 billion. I guess if you work that out, that's about a 30% decrease, but in actual fact, as I've already noted, the borrowing during those two years was a difference between $15.5 billion in 1992 and the current estimate, which is over $10 billion of borrowing in this fiscal year.

I don't think it is any reason to take credit for a 30% reduction in the deficit when the deficit in the spending, or at least the spending in particular, is in excess of $10 billion, unprecedented in the history of the province of Ontario. In fact, we've had four successive years where the borrowing in the province of Ontario has exceeded $10 billion. I don't think that is any reason for joy in the budget. I don't think that's any reason to say in the budget, "What a great achievement we have accomplished in the province of Ontario."

The minister's comment, when that is put to him, is that his forecasting has not been spot on. That's a mild understatement when the accuracy of the forecasting has been so dreadful. It certainly has not been spot on.

Another one of the irritating phrases that is contained in the Ontario budget says that we are "managing our budget without raising taxes." It's a phrase contained in the budget. We are "managing our budget without raising taxes." Firstly, there will more tax revenue coming in from the people of Ontario, and I've already outlined how these tax revenues are coming in: more in personal sales tax, home insurance, auto insurance. The surtax is increased this year. Through the federal tax changes, there'll be more tax revenue. People of the province of Ontario will be paying more taxes in 1994. Firstly, the phrase is incorrect.

Secondly, the phrase uses the words "managing our budget." Let's look at the management of the budget of the province of Ontario. Let's look at a $90-billion debt at the end of this fiscal year, a $90-billion debt that has grown from less than $50 billion when this government took office. In the space of four short years, the debt has grown from under $50 billion to $90 billion. Is that good management? I think not.

Let's look at the percentage of revenue that goes simply to pay the interest on that debt. In 1990, when this government took office, 8.8 cents out of every dollar that we paid in provincial taxes went to pay the interest on the debt. Every citizen in Ontario, of the taxes that they paid, 8.8 cents went to pay for the interest, just the interest, on the debt. That was in 1990. If that seems bad enough, today, just four years later, almost 18 cents, 17.6 cents to be exact, goes simply to pay the interest on the debt. Is that good management? I think not.

In 1990, in Ontario, we had a population of 10.5 million people. The debt for each man, woman and child in the province of Ontario was just over $4,000. Again, that is a very frightening statistic, one that causes a great deal of concern, but today the forecast that the minister has outlined in his budget indicates that the debt for every man, woman and child in Ontario, where we will have a population of just over 11 million in 1994, has grown from just over $4,000 to over $8,000 that each one of us owes. In a sense, this is a debt on each one of us as a resident of the province of Ontario. That's the debt of the province of Ontario, over $8,000 for each one.

1530

Now you may say inflation accounts for some of that and that it's perhaps not just fair to look at the mismanagement of the deficit and the debt because when you take into account inflationary statistics, then the picture changes. Well, let's look at the income of the people of the province of Ontario. How have incomes changed during that same period of time?

Indeed, in 1990, if you were to take a simple division of the number of people by the incomes in the province of Ontario, you would find that the average income per capita was $22,833, to be exact. In 1994 that figure is $23,579, an increase of only 3%. So while the debt has almost doubled in the province of Ontario, while the amount of money that we all have to pay just to pay down the interest on the debt has doubled in the province of Ontario, incomes in the province of Ontario have only gone up by 3%. Government spending during that same period of time has gone up by over 20% during those four years. Incomes have gone up 3%, government spending has gone up by more than 20% during those four years. Now, I ask you, is that managing our budget well? Obviously not.

The government has indicated that it's cutting the overhead by 16% in this budget. This budget claims to cut the overhead. It doesn't define terribly well what overhead is but it cuts the overhead. The references made are to greater use of teleconferences, less travelling and that sort of thing, but when you consider that the reality is that the increase in the spending has been 20% over the four years of this government, that is the bottom line.

The government claims to be "putting our own house in order," another one of those irritating little phrases that is contained in the budget: "putting our own house in order." How do they put their own house in order? They replace courier systems with electronic mail. This is how they do it, replace courier services with electronic mail and fax machines.

I don't know how many fax machines we may have now in the province of Ontario. Perhaps that's why spending has gone up by 20% and why the debt is at $90 billion; I'm not sure. But here we have this one little efficiency. They claim to be eliminating one million pieces of paper. One wonders who's running around counting all these pieces of paper to make sure that they're eliminating one million pieces of paper.

They claim that the number of ministries has been reduced from 28 down to 20, thereby saving some money. Of course, that's old news; that happened about a year ago. But the interesting aspect to that is that when you look at the number of parliamentary assistants now, we have 32 parliamentary assistants. So, yes, I suppose a year ago at some point they did reduce the number of ministries a little bit, but we have many more parliamentary assistants.

These are the things that we are being distracted with in this budget, but the net reality is a debt of $90 billion. That's the real bottom line, a debt of $90 billion in the province of Ontario that has to be paid off by the people of this province.

We talk about job creation in this budget, and the government indicates that 350,000 jobs are being created. This is attributed to the courageous and confident leadership of Premier Bob Rae. Through his courageous and confident leadership, 350,000 jobs are going to be created in three years.

Yet when I compare 1990, over 4.9 million people in the province of Ontario were employed. How many are employed today as we speak? Today, 4.8 million people. There are fewer people employed today, in 1994, in the province of Ontario than there were in 1990 when this government took office. This is the approach of this particular government to jobs and employment in the province of Ontario.

Now, is that the strength and the confidence of a courageous government? I think that demonstrates the mismanagement of our economy, and this is a sad mismanagement, I want to say. The unemployment rate in the forecast for 1994 is 10.3%, and that is a sad state of affairs, the greatest tragedy perhaps in the province of Ontario: a 10.3% unemployment rate in the province of Ontario. I talk to those people and I'm sure other members of this Legislature talk to people who are unemployed, people at all levels: professional people, working people, people with no skills and people with many skills.

The reality is that the economy, under the management of this government, is in such poor shape, even though the United States, for example, our neighbour to the south, has been booming and the jobless rate is almost half the rate that we have in the province of Ontario. Yet we are not experiencing that in Ontario. Ontario is lagging. The economy of the province of Ontario is lagging other provinces in Canada. It's lagging the growth that's being experienced in the United States to the south.

It's lagging because of the financial mismanagement of the province of Ontario and because of the approach of this government to business in the province of Ontario. Motions and legislation such as Bill 40 tend to depress the incentive of business to invest in the province of Ontario and create jobs. That's what has happened and that's the tragedy of our province.

This afternoon we were talking about the bond rating agencies. One of the other tragedies that could indeed happen very shortly is that because of the sad state of affairs, the $90-billion debt, and because the deficits continue to be enormous and the amounts of borrowing year in and year out of this province of Ontario continue to be extraordinarily high, unfortunately it's quite possible that this province could be downgraded in credit rating again. It has already been downgraded. In 1990 we had an AAA rating in the province of Ontario. It's down to an AA-. Three downgrades we've experienced; three downgrades in the last three years.

This costs the taxpayers money. The taxpayers may say, "Well, why does that bother me?" The reason is because it costs this province more to borrow money at the lower credit rates, and that money then is not available to pay for our other services. There's obviously only so much money that the taxpayer can give. The taxpayer is being asked to give too much money already. There's only so much money that the taxpayer can give, and if that money is being used to pay interest on the debt, then it's not available for health or drugs or any other services that we need in the province of Ontario. Services like education suffer if our credit rating is low and if the interest on the debt continues to climb.

It could even get worse because the factors in the budget -- for example, the budget assumes a prime lending rate of 6%, but the prime lending rate is already in excess of that and the likelihood is that the prime lending rate, through the next three-year period that the budget is forecasting, will be much higher than what is forecast in that budget. That will have certainly a dampening effect on recovery, on revenues, on jobs in the province of Ontario, and undoubtedly drive the deficit up. So the reality is that this deficit, again, is almost certainly understated.

1540

The conclusion is that the government is caught between sort of a philosophical rock and a financial hard place, that from a philosophical point of view this government does not want to cut budgets. Although they've indicated that they've made an attempt at it, if you look at the expenditures -- and certainly the expenditures are higher this year than last year -- the expenditures have not been cut to the extent that needs to happen with the financial situation that we're in at the present time. This government has a philosophical concern about doing that.

Of course, the financial hard place is that with the deficit and the borrowing requirements exceeding $10 billion each and every year for the last four years, Ontario is going to have a problem with its credit rating. The amount of money that has to be consumed each and every year in the budget just to pay the interest is so enormous that services are being squeezed out. Education is being squeezed out, health is being squeezed out. That's the financial reality of what's happening and that will continue. It is perhaps the number one problem that the budget is facing.

I have to smile when I see that in the budget the stone of course is being cast towards the Liberals in terms of the Liberal spending in their five years in power. The budget does make a very obvious reference to the fact that Liberal spending during the five years in government increased by 4.5% above and beyond the rate of inflation. Take out the rate of inflation, and the spending for each and every year in the Liberal reign was 4.5% per year above and beyond the rate of inflation. That's true, and it's a good point for the government to mention that.

The NDP, I must say, inherited a mess. They inherited a problem. Expenditures had gone out of control when the NDP came into power in 1990. However, rather than recognizing that and trying to rein back on those expenditures, they actually tried to accelerate the expenditures to bring us out of recession. As soon as they realized that wouldn't work, it was too late and the spending had gone out of control.

It certainly brings to mind the Liberal record during the five years before, and I noted in the response yesterday from the leader of the Liberal Party that great delight was taken in terms of going back into history, going back to 1981, I guess, or 1980 or before that, going back into ancient history and trying to pick warts on the government back at that particular point in time.

It was perhaps not surprising that the leader of the Liberal Party didn't mention the tax increases that were brought in, the tax increases that laid the table for the problems that this particular government now is trying to deal with; the tax increases in 1985 and 1986, when there were six tax increases. One tax increase, for example, the corporate income tax change, generated $205 million from the corporate community.

We may wonder why we have bankruptcies in the business community, why businesses are having difficulty in the province of Ontario and failing and why jobs are not being created. Indeed, there's a Liberal document, which I'll get to in a few minutes, which says we should take a breather in the economy, a breather in terms of taxes. Well, it may be a little bit too late to recognize that, but one of those taxes was back here in 1985-86, a corporate income tax change that generated $205 million.

At that particular time there were more changes: passenger and commercial vehicle registration fees increasing by 12.5%, certainly more than the rate of inflation; sin taxes were hiked; there was a markup on spirits and wines and a 12-pack of beer. Some $64 million apparently was generated through that avenue, and on and on it goes.

Land transfer taxes were increased. An additional tax on the purchase of a property in excess of $250,000 generated another $30 million apparently. The personal income tax rate was increased by the Liberal government back in 1985-86 from 48% to 50%, and a 3% surtax was imposed on personal income tax in excess of $5,000, generating $321 million worth of taxes.

These are the kind of taxes that took place early during the Liberal regime, and then when the new leader of the Liberal Party came on stream -- she wasn't the leader at that particular point, but she certainly was in the government back in, let's say, 1988-89 -- again we had more taxes.

Indeed, well over half of the current Liberal caucus, which is now saying in one of its brochures that perhaps it's time for a breather in terms of taxes, although they're not very specific as to what that means, now we look back on 1988 and 1989 when they were here, the vast majority of them, including the current leader, Lyn McLeod, who was here during that period of time, and what did she do then, what did they do then? The retail sales tax was increased by one percentage point to 8%, generating $960 million worth of revenue. That's one increase they made back then.

The Ontario personal income tax was raised again, a second time. The first time was during the Liberal reign back in 1985. The second time, in 1988, the personal income tax was increased again, up to 51%, and 52% the following year, 1989: $286 million in taxes generated. The tobacco tax was increased again. The gasoline tax was increased. These were all the tax increases during the 1988-89 year, some six tax increases. I wonder if somebody with that record of tax increases should really be criticizing this particular government and this particular budget.

The big year, though, if we're looking at the record of the official opposition -- and bear in mind again that this is an opportunity for the official opposition, the Liberal Party in this case, to express its points of view. I think they have to also look at their record, what their record has been. We're not going back that many years. We're going back to 1989 and 1990, and we're looking at the record.

This is the party that says we should take a breather in terms of taxes. But what did they do just barely over four years ago, five years ago? Increase the personal income tax again. That seemed to be one of the favourites of the Liberal Party, to increase the personal income tax. This time it was to 53%.

Gasoline and fuel taxes increased again. That seems another favourite of the Liberal government back in those years. The tire tax, the infamous tire tax, was imposed in 1989 by Lyn McLeod and many of the people who sit here today in the Liberal caucus. The tire tax: $5 on every new tire. I will give credit to the NDP that in its previous budget it removed that tire tax. That tire tax cost the people of the province probably $200 million, and a small fraction went into recycling. It was simply a way to generate revenue that was brought in under a Liberal government.

The Liberal government brought in the gas guzzler tax. The Liberal government brought in the commercial concentration tax. I can recall the Treasurer, Bob Nixon. Many of the Liberal caucus members today were in that particular government. Bob Nixon is not here today, of course, but it was his budget, his commercial concentration tax, and he couldn't explain it to the press. I can recall that very vividly. It was a tax focused just on the greater Toronto area; it was a tax to generate revenue. It's a tax that now, thankfully, has been eliminated. More changes were brought in to the land transfer tax in 1989 and 1990.

These are all taxes that were brought in by the Liberals: 16 tax increases in 1989, 33 tax increases during their regime. This is the same party that had the nerve to stand up here yesterday and criticize this particular government for its financial management. Here they are, only five short years ago, bringing in all of these tax increases and bringing in spending, Liberal spending, at 4.5% each and every year above the rate of inflation. Is it any wonder that we have some difficulty in our economy today?

1550

The Liberal plan has been issued. The Liberal plan is entitled the Lyn McLeod Task Force on Jobs. This plan apparently contains the vision for the Liberal Party of the future. I would like to quote a few of the phrases, because I will be getting down to the Progressive Conservative plan in a few minutes, and these plans really need to be contrasted with the budget that's been brought forward by this particular government so that the people of Ontario can tell the difference, where the different parties are headed.

The Liberal vision has five parts for success. Part 1 is -- and perhaps you can judge how specific this is -- "We need to chart a bold new course." That is the number one part of the plan for success of the Liberal Party: "We need to chart a bold new course." They go on to say, "We are going to have to get the commitment of all of Ontario to the benefits of embarking on this vision," whatever this vision is, "of a bold new future -- one that embraces the future and gears the economy to that future." So we need to embrace the future and gear the economy to our embrace, I suppose; I don't know exactly. That is the number one plank of the Liberal policy statement. A rough translation: "Elect us and we'll think of something to do. We can't tell you right now what we're going to do, but we'll think of something."

The number two plank is "Letting the economy breathe." I've referred to this before. This is the same party that brought in 33 tax increases, that in one year alone, 1989-90, brought in 16 tax increases. But now they have come to the conclusion that we should let the economy breathe. They say, "As difficult and challenging as this will be, we can -- and must -- find solutions to an economy that finds itself struggling with a heavy tax load." Well, they're absolutely right. Where did that tax load come from? Largely from the five years of Liberal reign in the province. A rough translation of that section is, "We, the Liberals, recognize the damage we've done with our tax increases, but we really don't know what to do about it, so we'll let the economy breathe," whatever that means.

The third point is, "Redesigning the machinery of government." They say, "Our economy is still struggling to do business in a 90s world with government programs and structures that seem more geared to the 60s world." That may be true, but it's interesting that during the period of time they're talking about, they were in office for five of those years. If indeed we still have the structures that are geared to the 1960s, what on earth did they do during their five years in office?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Good point.

Mr David Johnson: Yes, it is a good point. They had five years to address those structures, and they're still back in the 1960s. I guess they're not too interested in hearing about this, but they did absolutely nothing.

The fourth point is "Making Ontario the 'home of the best workforce.' We believe we can make Ontario the home of the best workforce in the Americas." Here's where you have to listen very carefully. "This will involve a strong commitment to embracing the future economy" --

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): In America.

Mr David Johnson: Well, that's what it says: "We believe we can make Ontario the home of the best workforce in the Americas." I guess that means North America, South America, Central America, you name it. But then they say, "This will involve a strong commitment to embracing the future economy...." Does anybody know what that means? We're going to embrace the future economy. I hate to be too critical. There's a real talent in writing one of these things. You have to write something that sounds impressive and something that --

Interjection.

Mr David Johnson: We'll get to that in a minute. There's a little more substance in the Common Sense Revolution -- a whole lot more substance. You can understand what's being said. You may not like what's being said, and I suspect there will be people who will and people who won't, but at least you know what's being said.

What do I mean when I say, "This will involve a strong commitment to embracing the future economy?" I don't make any sense out of that at all. That's the Liberal policy. That's number four out of five.

Number five of the five is "Providing the tools for the future." Here's another one of these you have to read very carefully: "For our job-creating private sector to thrive, we must ensure that the financial tools as well as the important infrastructure for growth are available."

That sounds remarkably similar to redesigning the structure they talked about earlier, but no specifics. What do they mean? What are they going to do? "We must ensure that the financial tools" are there and that "the important infrastructure for growth are available." What does that mean? They're going to spend more money, that we're going to sink deeper into debt? We're going to be more in debt than the $90 billion?

It's very short on specifics. It has no specifics, other than that in one place, buried in here somewhere, they do say they will decrease taxes by 1% a year, I think it is. Maybe that's the breather they're talking about, I don't know. That is just a minor tinkering that will certainly not solve the kind of financial problems we're dealing with today.

However, they do have great hopes for this plan, as unspecific as it is. They say that the job creating sector "needs to have the confidence that Ontario's finances are under control and being well managed." The task force recommends a goal of "achieving a balanced budget within the first mandate." Within the first mandate, the Liberals are going to balance the budget if the people of the province of Ontario elect them into office.

How are they going to balance that budget? Well, you've heard how. They're going to chart a bold new course, they're going to let the economy breathe, they're going to redesign the machinery of government, they going to make Ontario the home of the best workforce, and they're going to provide the tools for the future. That's how they're going to balance the budget.

Now, you tell me what that means and you tell me how you're going to balance the budget on that basis. It boggles the mind.

There are no specifics. Are they going to cut the cost of government? Do I see in the Liberal document any place where they're going to cut the expenditures of the province of Ontario? No, I don't see that.

Do you know what it boils down to? It's not said here, but it boils down to a total dependence on revenue growth, that the economy will boom beyond all expectation. If the economy booms, more money will come in, and that more money coming in from taxes will balance the horrendous spending that has taken place through the last 10 years of government. That is the total Liberal plan. I really doubt that it's going to be successful.

1600

But you can see the difficulty some parties face. It's not easy to say that expenditures must be cut, because when expenditures are cut, there's always somebody to stand up and say, "If you cut that expenditure, somebody over here may suffer, or may feel they're going to suffer." I think that's the problem the Liberals have. They can't say they're going to cut expenditures. This is just too difficult for them, because they are attempting to be all things to all people. When you try to be all things, one of the problems you have is facing up to expenditure cuts in the budget we have.

I want to shift, as time is fleeting by, to talking about the third party. I've talked about the provincial budget that's been put forward by the government, that has led us to $90 billion of debt, that's led to lower employment rates in the province today than four years ago, that's led to four successive years of double-digit borrowing, and when I talk double-digit, I'm talking billions of dollars, more than $10 billion a year for four successive years. This is the kind of thinking that goes into the government's budget.

This is not a remedy for the problems facing the province of Ontario. This is not a course for the future of the province of Ontario. Any success from this budget is purely out of a hope for revenue growth. And that's where the Liberal paper, the Lyn McLeod Task Force on Jobs, and the Ontario budget are remarkably similar. They rely totally on revenue growth. If the revenue doesn't grow, if the assumptions are incorrect -- and the assumptions over the past few years have been woefully incorrect -- the revenue will not be there, the budget will not be balanced, and our situation will worsen and the interest payments will increase.

Interjection.

Mr David Johnson: We're getting a little mock from the other side here, but these two documents are remarkably similar, the Liberal document and the NDP budget. They talk about fiddling around with a few modest tax changes, both of them. They talk about revenue growth. They talk about cutting some red tape, but we don't know from either document what red tape is going to be cut. Do we know what the NDP is going to cut in terms of red tape? Not really. Do we know what the Liberals are going to cut in red tape? No, they're even less specific than the NDP. So those two documents are roughly the same.

Now, we come to the third document, and this will draw a rise, I'm sure, from one or two people who are listening. The Common Sense Revolution is the Progressive Conservative approach to the financial future of the province of Ontario.

Mr Sutherland: No it's not, it's Mike Harris's. You haven't got your message out there. It's Mike Harris's, not the PCs'.

Mr David Johnson: Notwithstanding the doubt from the other side of the floor, the Common Sense Revolution contains five key points. I've already said there's another document that contains five points. I've read those five points and they're totally unspecific. You wouldn't know what on earth they meant. The Common Sense Revolution that Mike Harris and the Progressive Conservative Party is putting forward also has five points. Let me read you those five points.

These five key points are for job creation in the province of Ontario. This is a job creation program. The Common Sense Revolution is geared at generating 725,000 jobs in the province of Ontario in four years.

Point 1 of this plan is to cut provincial income taxes by 30% over three years. About half that cut would occur in the first year. A 30% cut in three years: Now, that's very specific. It would actually lower the rate, which today is at 58% of the federal tax, to 38% of the federal tax.

For a middle-class Ontario household with an income of $50,000, that would mean a more than $4,000 reduction in taxes in the first three years through the Common Sense Revolution approach.

Ontario is overtaxed. The reason this point is being put forward, the reason it's necessary to reduce the taxes, is that Ontario is overtaxed. We have just about the highest tax level in North America. For example, the marginal tax rate in the province of Ontario is 53.2% today, in Quebec it's under 53%, in Alberta it's 48%.

Comparing Alberta with Ontario, there's a difference of over five percentage points in income tax. This is one of the taxes that's making our economy so uncompetitive.

We would cut this. For that family with an income of $50,000 that I mentioned, it's $4,000 less in taxes. Put that money back into their hands and they will spend that money on consumer goods and purchasing and they will create jobs that way. That's how you get the economy going. Put money in the hands of the taxpayers and they will spend it much more wisely than governments will spend it and create jobs.

That's the first point, to cut provincial taxes. The second point is to cut government spending. We have to cut spending to be credible. You simply can't cut taxes and expect to balance your budget down the road, and certainly one of the requirements of the Progressive Conservative Party is to balance the budget. We are going to cut government spending. The total spending will be reduced by 20% in three years.

However, there are exceptions to that. The three exceptions are health, classroom education and law enforcement. Those are the three areas.

We have discussed this program with many people across the province of Ontario, in many different forums, and we have found that the people of Ontario value and consider top priority health, law enforcement and classroom education. Those are good investments for the people of Ontario, and those are expenditures that have to be protected.

That's not to say, for example in the health area, that we shouldn't investigate fraud and eliminate fraud. Indeed, as part of this document, there's a suggestion of some $500 million in fraud that could be eliminated through the health system, so that for sure has to be done.

But those are the three programs that need to be protected. Beyond that, we need to cut spending by 20% to achieve our objectives.

The third point is that we need to cut the government barriers to job creation, investment and economic growth. It seems to me that all three parties are saying this to some degree, but where this party differs from the other two is that the other two are very unspecific about how they would cut barriers to job growth. We come right out and say that we would eliminate Bill 40.

Bill 40 has discouraged investment in the province of Ontario. This is a labour bill and it is discouraging investment. People will say to me: "Well, the world didn't fall apart. We passed Bill 40 over a year ago and the world is still round and it's still turning and the sun still shines every day."

But have you checked the unemployment rates? Have you checked the lack of growth in the province? Have you checked the fact that in the United States the economy is booming, and in the rest of Canada, the economy exceeds the economy in Ontario? Have you noted those numbers? Have you seen that in the province of Ontario our economy is lagging behind just about everywhere else? Maybe that is an indication that there are policies in place in Ontario that are discouraging growth, discouraging job creation. For sure it is the answer, and the second answer is that Bill 40 is one of those problems, so we'll eliminate Bill 40.

Another avenue we would pursue is payroll taxes. If you ask -- and we have: The Progressive Conservative Party has had a task force meeting with small business leaders right across Ontario. They tell us time after time after time, no matter where you meet, no matter if you meet in North Bay, or meet with the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, in London, in Windsor, no matter where you meet with the business community, that payroll taxes are a tremendous disincentive to job creation and to growth.

1610

Payroll taxes include the workers' compensation premiums, which are the highest in Ontario of any province. Newfoundland has a rate that is somewhat equivalent to Ontario, just a little bit lower, and for every $100 of payroll, the other provinces are almost $1 less in terms of the premiums for workers' compensation. So certainly workers' compensation is one vast concern with the business community in the province of Ontario. A second concern there, I might add, is the tremendous unfunded liability of workers' compensation of some $12 billion, but I'll leave that aside for the time being.

Another area is the employer health tax, that out of payroll the employers are required to pay an employer health tax. We would eliminate the employer health tax for small businesses, businesses with a payroll of under $400,000. This has been done in other jurisdictions. It is an encouragement for job creation. If there's one thing I will note in this budget that the NDP have brought forward, they have recognized that very fact. The government has suggested that for new jobs, the employer health tax not be applied. So they have recognized the fact that payroll taxes are killing jobs. But they didn't go far enough, and we're suggesting that for all small businesses, payrolls under $400,000, the employer health tax be eliminated.

We're also suggesting a freeze on Ontario Hydro rates for the next five years. I know for many businesses the payments to Hydro for hydro usage are a key component of their budget, and this will be a break. I hate to call it a break, because it's almost a requirement in our economy that businesses know what their hydro rates are going to be and know, hopefully, that the rates aren't going up. We think it's important that the rates not go up for Ontario Hydro. This will require that the chairman of Ontario Hydro be given leeway to make efficiencies within the Hydro system. That process has been started, and it will need to carry on.

The workers' compensation premiums that I mentioned earlier that are very high: We've said to cut them by 5%, because Ontario is the highest at the present time.

We say encourage the private sector to provide child care for working parents. This particular government has a bias against the private sector being involved in the day care field. I can tell you that the Progressive Conservative Party has no such bias. We recognize that the private sector has supplied excellent day care in many areas of the province of Ontario, and we would encourage the private sector to be involved.

Those are some of the government barriers we would cut, and that's the third point.

The fourth point is that we have to cut the size of government. Currently, we have somewhere in the vicinity of 90,000 employees who work for the province of Ontario. The reality is that when we are incurring deficits of $10 billion or thereabouts, or at least spending requirements of $10 billion and more a year for four successive years, to pay the salaries of employees of the province of Ontario and to pay for the interest on the debt as well, we simply can't afford the size of government we have today.

The only hope, again, the other two parties have is that the economy will boom and that somehow the revenues will come in and we'll be able to pay all these salaries. But it hasn't happened in the past, and the financial community is saying, "You are treading on thin ice." What we have to do is reduce the size of the bureaucracy. We have to downsize government.

You know, this is not a new concept. In my earlier career, I worked in the private sector for a large firm. I won't name the firm. But that firm has gone through many downsizings to continue its existence. That firm, to make a profit, to continue to exist, had to react to its financial situation. It could not run up deficits year after year. It could not run a total debt.

It does not have taxpayers, as this government does, and this government thinks it can just go back to the taxpayers and get more and more and more money to cover the deficits and the debt. Well, it can't, number one, but certainly the private business I worked for couldn't do that, and that business had to downsize. It had to react. It had to cut costs. Over the course of the time that I've been familiar with that company, it has probably gone through four or five downsizings, perhaps averaging 2,000 people a time. The downsizings involve attrition, people who normally leave, they involve perhaps sweeteners in the pension and some simply involve layoffs. That's a fact of life, but the company has to remain competitive.

That's what we need to do in government. Why doesn't that same concept of competitiveness apply to government? Why shouldn't government only have the level of staff that it can support? Our estimations are that over the course of the next three years, we'll have to downsize by 13,000 people. They have 13,000 people who will have to be downsized.

As soon as I say that, I know in the past there have been cries of: "More unemployment; higher unemployment rates. What are these people going to do? Are they going to go on welfare?" That's where the other parts of the program click in. By reducing taxes, we encourage economic growth. By reducing the employer health tax, by reducing workers' compensation, we encourage growth in small business as we create jobs. As a matter of fact, through this budget, we are suggesting there will be 725,000 new jobs created. If I can trade off a loss of 13,000 jobs for a gain of 725,000, that's a pretty good trade. I'll take that any day.

I see scepticism in the ranks of the NDP. I'm not surprised at that, because that's not the way you approach government.

Mr Sutherland: That's not the whole plan.

Mr David Johnson: If you were just sceptical of me, then I could tolerate that -- I'll have to tolerate it anyway -- but this plan has been reviewed by the chief economist of Midland Walwyn, a very respected firm. He's looked at all the assumptions here, looked at the job assumptions, looked at the creation of 725,000 jobs, looked at the cuts in taxes, the cuts in spending, and he says this plan will work. I put it to you, do I trust the chief economist for Midland Walwyn or do I trust the member opposite and his scepticism? I can tell you who I trust.

That's the fourth point, to cut the size of government. You can see already that these points are very specific when I compare them to the points in another plan which says that we need to chart a bold new course.

Mr Stockwell: What does that mean?

Mr David Johnson: Well, we don't know what course we're on now, so I guess any new course would be a bold new course, I suppose. I don't know. When I compare a statement like that with the specifics of the Common Sense Revolution, I think you can see who has got a better idea of where they're going.

Mr Stockwell: We do.

Mr David Johnson: We do. Exactly. The Progressive Conservative Party does, and I think in the final analysis the people of the province of Ontario will agree with that.

This plan is being put out as we speak. Mike Harris is going across the province of Ontario. Mike Harris is going into communities right across the province of Ontario in the next couple of weeks and is bringing this plan and is getting a tremendous reception.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): At the taxpayers' expense.

Mr David Johnson: This plan is paid for by the Progressive Conservative Party, not by the taxpayers.

The fifth point is that we need to balance the budget. This plan will balance the budget in four years. The NDP plan and the Liberal plan to balance the budget is to hope for growth; pray to whatever direction we pray to and hope that the economy comes up and takes care of all the expenditures we have in the province of Ontario. That's a hope that has never worked in the past, but still they cling to it today.

The Progressive Conservative Party says it will balance the budget. It will not be easy. It will require 20% cuts coupled with the job growth, and the budget will be balanced in four years.

We go beyond that. I don't think it's actually contained in here, but I must say that our party is committed to balanced budget requirements in the future.

Mr Stockwell: Legislation.

Mr David Johnson: Legislation to balance the budget. It's surprising how many states in the United States have balanced budget requirements or have limitations in terms of what they can spend. I didn't bring this with me, but I know that the states of California, Colorado and Idaho have restrictions on what they can spend. Mike Harris has said that this is what we need in Ontario, that we need legislation brought in to restrict the spending. Once we get the budget balanced, then there have to be restrictions.

1620

The government members say: "Oh, that won't work. What about this or what about that?" But municipalities live under those rules and have lived under those rules since for ever, and they work. Municipalities balance their budgets; they have to. The province of Ontario should be required to balance its budget.

Now, a member will say, "Well, we've got welfare problems in the province of Ontario." I can tell you, Metropolitan Toronto has welfare problems too.

Mr Stockwell: And it still balances its budget.

Mr David Johnson: It still balances its budget, as the member for Etobicoke West says. If Metropolitan Toronto, with a budget of -- it's a smaller budget, I'll grant you, but it's $3.5 billion to $4 billion, which is fairly sizeable, each and every year, and a key component of that is welfare. If Metro can balance its budget, why can't the province of Ontario? And it should have the same legislation for the province of Ontario to balance its budget.

I wanted to shift to one other avenue before I run out of time. The Common Sense Revolution will only work if everybody is involved, if we are all involved. The cuts are right across the whole provincial bureaucracy, the tax reductions across our economy, but the politicians have to be involved as well. It's no good for the politicians to sit back and say to the people of Ontario: "We're cutting these expenditures, we're cutting those expenditures; they may affect you. That's the reality of life in the 1990s. We have to balance our budget." The politicians have to be involved as well.

The Common Sense Revolution is saying that to show leadership, we should reduce the number of members of provincial Parliament in the province of Ontario. We have 130 MPPs at present; we're going to reduce that to 99. We're reducing it to 99 because that's how many federal ridings there are. There are 99 federal ridings; we'll just keep the same number. We'll hope for some economies with the federal government in terms of its electoral machinery perhaps conducting the provincial elections. We want to avoid duplication. If the federal government can run a federal election in the province of Ontario, perhaps it could run the provincial election and we could make a payment. We could reduce costs by doing that sort of thing. So we're going to reduce by 24%, from 130 down to 99; 31 MPPs will be reduced.

In addition, for years and years, as long as I've been in politics -- and I was first elected in 1972, actually, in the borough of East York, as an alderman at that point in time and then served as alderman and mayor through these years -- I can recall the public outrage at the pensions, particularly of federal and provincial members of Parliament. You might say the municipal pensions are nowhere near as lucrative as the provincial or federal elected representatives' pension.

We say it's time to abolish the MPPs' pensions. Again, this is a form of leadership. I'm sure it won't be too popular in this House, but frankly, the pension level of the MPPs is way too generous. It's much more generous than the private sector would ever contemplate. It's time to eliminate the MPPs' pension.

MPPs will be involved in the RRSP program, as many other people in the province of Ontario are. That's fine.

It's time to eliminate the tax-free benefits paid to politicians, and roughly one third of the salary is tax-free. I think it had something to do with the expenses, but it simply doesn't make sense. At a time when the economy is under such duress, we need to show this sort of leadership. It has to start from the top, and that's how we're going to do it. The members of provincial Parliament are going to be under the same kind of program as the government as a whole.

The welfare system will have to be reformed, and I know this is going to be one of the hot spots of the Common Sense Revolution. The welfare system and the family benefits system expenditures today, I believe, will be about $6.8 billion, from my recollection, one of the largest budgets for the province of Ontario. Certainly the payments through the welfare system in the province of Ontario are the most generous bar none. The eligibility requirements are the most liberal. The payments far exceed the average of the rest of Canada.

It would be nice to pay people if they're under difficult circumstances and find themselves without employment. It would be nice to pay them even more money, but the reality is that we don't have that money and the reality is that by paying money that we don't have, which is what we're doing in the province of Ontario and incurring year after year of deficit and debt, we're squeezing out money available for other programs that we need.

Through the Common Sense Revolution, we're saying that the welfare payments will have to be reduced. They'll be above the national average, they'll be 10% above the national average, but that'll still be lower in many cases than today. But we will allow people to earn back the amount that's lost, those who are on welfare.

Today, primarily, if you earn money when you're on welfare, you lose dollar for dollar from welfare what you earn in income. There really isn't much incentive to go out and work when you know that whatever you get you're essentially going to have to lose on the welfare at any rate. We're suggesting that we would allow people, if their income is reduced as a result of the cuts that we're making through the Common Sense Revolution, to go out and work and we won't take back any of that money that they earn up to the point of their former income. There's no need for them to lose any revenue, but part of it will be from the welfare system and part of it will be from going out and getting part-time work.

We are clearly stating that the seniors and disabled are not part of that program. The seniors and disabled should not be on welfare in the first place. They deserve to be protected. They deserve to be in a separate program. They deserve to have the same income as they're having today. They deserve to be protected and their income guaranteed. That's 170,000 people, seniors and disabled, on benefits in the province of Ontario today, and we would take them right out of the system.

Of course, we talk about welfare fraud and the overpayments. There are various estimates. One estimate in here is about a quarter of a billion dollars a year. That has to be tackled. We are suggesting that able people on welfare, except single mothers with very young children -- we would exclude them -- but other than that, if you're on welfare, you have to be involved in retraining, you have to be involved in doing some sort of work or you have to be involved in some sort of community work. That only makes sense on the welfare program. These are some of the aspects of that.

This is not just a program. Again, it has to be right across the board. It's not just a program where the MPPs are going to suffer or people on welfare are going to be encouraged to go out and get work or training, but it's a program that's going to cut subsidies to business.

1630

The business community has told us that the best thing we can do for the business community is to reduce taxes. Cut the taxes, cut the red tape and the business community will thrive. Way below that is the dependence of the business community on subsidies and grants from government.

Frankly, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, for example, which represents I think some 80,000 businesses across Canada, has told us that the number one thing to do was to cut the taxes, and if the business grants and subsidies fall, then you've done business a world of good by cutting the taxes.

So we're going to cut the grants, we're going to take them at their word. We're going to cut the taxes, but we're going to cut business grants. We're going to take $200 million out of business grants. There's some perception that this is on the backs of the poor or something like that. This program is right across all sectors of our community.

Government housing: The Provincial Auditor has said that the costs of building the non-profit housing far exceed the costs in the marketplace. He has estimated that the subsidy on one two-bedroom unit is $1,000 a month. The taxpayers of the province of Ontario are paying $1,000 a month in subsidy. That's a number that boggles the mind. It's hard to comprehend. You can hardly believe it's true. That's how expensive the housing is that's provided by the province of Ontario. We have to put a freeze on that, and this is contained in the Common Sense Revolution, a saving of some $250 million in that area.

I'm down to the last few moments, so I'll just say, here is a different vision of the province of Ontario. Here is a vision that says we need to recognize the realities of the 1990s. We need to look at the state of the province of Ontario. We need to look at the huge unemployment rate that we have, the fact that we have fewer people employed now than when this government took office. We need to say to ourselves, what can we do to correct that?

What we need to do is to set the table for the private enterprise to grow, to encourage growth. This is laid out in the Common Sense Revolution. We need to cut the taxes, we need to cut the government deficit, we need to cut government expenditures and we need to start tackling the debt, that $90-billion debt of the province of Ontario. We need to make Ontario competitive. By doing that, the jobs will be created, the people will be put back to work and we will balance our budget.

The Common Sense Revolution is a vision of the province of Ontario, of full employment, where people who are able to work will be given the encouragement to work and will be given the opportunity to work. This is a vision of participation, a vision of generating wealth and success shared by all the people of the province of Ontario. This is the vision of the Common Sense Revolution. This differs substantially from the visions of the other two parties, which are really somewhat indistinguishable, in my view.

I have a motion. I think in the remaining time I'd better read my motion to make sure that I do get that on record. This is a motion to amend the amendment to the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

I move that the amendment to the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government be amended by deleting the words after the words "Failing to implement this realistic plan" and adding thereto the following:

"Recognizing that the 1994 budget does not radically reform the tax-borrow-and-spend policies which have been pursued in Ontario for the past decade by successive Liberal and NDP governments that have undermined both the economy and finances of the province of Ontario; and

"That the budget, in so far as it is lacking in detail, vision and courage, appears to have been written by the Liberal Party of Ontario which in office sowed the seeds of the province's current fiscal and economic crisis; and

"That the budget fails to respond to the demands of Ontarians for a revolution in the way government conducts its business and for a reduction in the size and cost of the public sector; and

"That the budget ignores the need to substantially lower the deferred tax burden in the form of multibillion-dollar deficits on the people and economy of Ontario; and

"That the budget again missed the opportunity to foster the development of a competitive entrepreneurial culture in Ontario by failing to provide meaningful and substantial tax relief to small businesses, workers and consumers, by ignoring the need for reform of the welfare system which currently discourages initiative and promotes dependence and by refusing to eliminate regulations and laws that are strangling investment and job creation; and

"That the budget did not include any proposals to ensure that the province would be able to continue to adequately fund priority programs; and

"Finding that the budget failed to implement a range of commonsense measures including a 30% reduction in personal income tax, a small business exemption from the employer health tax, a 20% reduction in non-priority government spending, the appointment of an arm's-length commission to eliminate anti-business regulations, a reduction in the Workers' Compensation Board premiums, the repeal of job-killing labour laws, measures which would have helped balance the budget while creating some 725,000 new jobs, this House declares that it has lost confidence in this government."

That is my amendment and those are my comments on the 1994 budget.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Further debate?

Mr Sutherland: I'm pleased to speak towards the budget presented by the Minister of Finance. I want to talk a little bit about what's in the budget and then I want to make some comments about the so-called Liberals' jobs plan and the alleged Common Sense Revolution that has been put forward by the Tories.

In last year's budget we set out a plan to invest in jobs, preserve services and control spending while reducing the deficit, and that plan is working. We're seeing the results.

1640

We created or saved, with our partners, 147,000 jobs last year. This year we'll do even more, more than 166,000 jobs. We've cut the deficit by more than 30% from two years ago, and we're on track to have a balanced operating budget in 1998. We've reduced program spending for the second year in a row while maintaining, not slashing, services. And because our plan is working, we are able in this budget to have no new taxes and no tax increases. In fact, this budget even has tax cuts.

Our plan does three things: It invests in jobs, it maintains services and it controls spending while reducing the deficit.

Let's take a look for a moment at our jobs record. Last year we created or saved thousands of jobs, many in my riding, when I think of Jobs Ontario Community Action announcements, when I think of Jobs Ontario Capital. Of course, those are jobs that would be gone if Lyn McLeod or Mike Harris had their way. They want us to get rid of Jobs Ontario Training. I heard the leader of the official opposition say, "We're going to scrap Jobs Ontario Training." I had a round table with some of the businesses in my riding who are using Jobs Ontario Training, and do you know what they told me? One business that's using it said, "We have not used a government training program in 20 years, because they don't work with us, they don't meet our needs," and they're saying, "We are very happy with the Jobs Ontario Training program, because it is meeting our needs."

This budget also invests a great deal of money in jobs through the more than $3.8-billion investment in Ontario's infrastructure. That's more than we spent last year. With our partners, we will be creating a tremendous amount of jobs.

This budget also sends a clear message to employers: The time to hire is now. This budget introduces a new tax credit for small and medium-sized businesses that will reduce their costs of research and development. It sends a clear message to employers that we're going to cut red tape. Business owners will be able to register for their company name, sales tax, employer health tax and workers' compensation in one place instead of four. That again is sending a very clear message, unlike the Liberals, who say, "We're going to cut 50% of the red tape."

If you're going to cut 50% of the red tape, you have to define what 100% of the red tape is. Some business people tell me environmental assessment is red tape, that the Ontario Municipal Board is red tape. Are the Liberals saying they're going to get rid of them? Are they going to cut that in half? If you say you're going to cut 50% of red tape, you have to define what 100% is. Of course, the Liberals are so vague in all their policy statements, they haven't identified that for people.

Besides the capital investments, besides what we've done in terms of incentives for small business with research and development, we're also making it easier for business to access capital through the changes we're making to allow loan and trust companies to provide more capital, and labour-sponsored funds, as well as co-ops. There's a tremendous investment in people, in training and work experience for many Ontarians, particularly for our youth and women. This budget funds a new program to increase jobs and training for people on social assistance. It increases the number of child care spaces to 68,000. And we can do all of this because the plan we implemented last year is working.

Of course, we would be able to do more if Ontario was receiving its fair share within this Confederation. We know Ontario is only getting 29-cent dollars on social assistance, compared to many other provinces that are getting 50%. I hear the Tories, in their Common Sense Revolution, and others say, "Well, your social assistance rates are too high."

Let's be very clear about this. The agreement that was set up said that the federal government is to pay 50% of the dollars. If the federal government wants to renegotiate what 100% of those dollars should be, fair enough. If they didn't do that in the first place, that doesn't mean they should discriminate against Ontario and only give us 29 cents when they're giving other provinces more. When we look at that, and at the fact that we only get about half of the money that many other provinces get in terms of services for new immigrants to help them settle in the province, the fact that we get less money for training and adjustment, it clearly shows we have to rework those numbers, look at how Ontario fits into the Confederation and ensure that we get our fair share.

No one is saying we should get the exact amount of dollars back to Ontario that we put in, in terms of federal income taxes. We understand and we recognize and we respect the right of transfer payments to other provinces, but it is very clear that we have not been getting our fair share.

I now want to turn to some of the public services and some of the public agencies. I've listened in this House for the last three years to lectures from the Liberals and from the Tories about the Workers' Compensation Board. If you look at the Liberals' jobs strategy, they say they're going to do something about premiums with the Workers' Compensation Board. The Common Sense Revolution says something about that. Of course, what they try to project is that all the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board have been created by this government.

Well, I have before me -- I asked legislative research to provide me with it -- what the unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board has been every year since 1980. It is very revealing, because in 1980 the unfunded liability was only $400 million, a very manageable amount. However, by 1985 it had risen to over $5 billion. The Tories try to tell us we had 42 years of wonderful management. From 1980 to 1985, over a five-year period, the unfunded liability under a Tory government went from $400 million to $5 billion, and they call that good management?

We only wish the record of the Liberals had been better, but unfortunately it's not. When they came into power in 1985, they inherited a $5-billion unfunded liability, but by the time we get to 1990, that unfunded liability is closer to $10 billion. Of course, we hear from the Liberal members saying, "We managed that very well."

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): This had better be a point of order, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: It is a point of order, Madam Speaker. The point of order is that when he refers to the WCB deficit figures, he should do so with a quorum in this House.

The Acting Speaker: Would the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: We will resume the debate. The member for Oxford.

Mr Sutherland: As I was saying, the unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board in 1980 was only $400 million; by 1985 it was over $5 billion. As I was saying, the Tories claim wonderful management of the province for 42 years. That clearly didn't occur. Unfortunately, with the Liberals, as I said, it was $5 billion, but by the time they were out of office it had risen to $10 billion.

When the member for Mississauga West releases his great plan on how to reform the Workers' Compensation Board, we're supposed to expect him and his party to have credibility in dealing with the real issues here. Their track record shows they let the unfunded liability climb out of control.

However, as we know, it is only our government that has provided real leadership in dealing with the real problems at the Workers' Compensation Board, to put it on a sound financial footing. We had to make the tough decisions, because the Tories ignored it, didn't manage it, and the Liberals ignored it and let the unfunded liability get out of control.

1650

Then we come to the other issue we hear a lot about: Ontario Hydro. We hear a question in question period every day from the Liberals and from the Tories about the problems at Ontario Hydro and its large $34-billion debt. Well, where did that $34-billion-debt come from? It didn't just appear after September 6, 1990. Of course not. It built up through those 42 wonderful years of Tory management, and then it built up through the five years of the Liberals. So again, when they say they're going to deal with Ontario Hydro, the track record of the Liberals and Tories says: "No, we don't manage it. We just let it run by itself. We don't provide the direction, we don't provide the leadership, but we sit here every day in question period and say it's" this government's fault.

We've heard criticism too about the pension plans and unfunded liabilities in the pension plans. Let's just look at the track record again. Why are those unfunded liabilities high, in those pension plans? One reason is because the Conservative government used to borrow from those pension plans. How did they borrow from them? They borrowed at reduced rates, at 2%, 3%. You can make your books look very well and balance your budget, even when you're running a deficit, if you're borrowing large sums at 2% to 3%, when that may be below what the prime rate was at the time. You can do very well, but the problem is that you get an unfunded liability.

I will give the Liberal Party credit. They did decide in 1989, particularly with the teachers' pension plan, that they weren't going to continue on that track of borrowing at a low amount, that they were going to set out a plan to help repay that. They do get some credit for that.

But for the Tories to talk about managing everything effectively for 42 years, when we look at the Workers' Compensation Board record, when we look at Ontario Hydro, when we look at the public pension plans, it simply does not wash.

Likewise, the Common Sense Revolution doesn't wash. What they're saying is reduce taxes by 30% in three years, reduce spending on non-priority items by 20%, and all of a sudden 725,000 jobs are going to be created. First of all, let me tell you, no one in Ontario believes they're going to cut income taxes by 30%. Second, no one believes they're going to achieve those figures, and I want to explain why.

During the Liberals' five years, probably the best economic growth period we've had since the Second World War -- the Liberals were fortunate to be in government at that time, when things were just booming and the money was rolling in -- I believe over 700,000 jobs were created in that five-year period. The Tories want the people of Ontario to believe that after we've gone through all this restructuring, after all the job losses in the businesses that have moved away due to free trade, due to all the other changes occurring in the economy, interest rates etc, other federal economic policies, after we lost all those jobs, they really believe that in the next three years -- they're saying three or four years -- they're going to create more jobs, or just as many jobs as occurred in the best economic period, in the 1980s. And then the member for Don Mills has the gall to stand and say, "The NDP budget is simply relying on economic growth." Well, the Liberal plan is simply relying on economic growth.

I have today's Globe and Mail, an article by Martin Mittelstaedt on the Tory Common Sense Revolution. The Tories had this economist the member for Don Mills cited, Mr Mullins, who works for Midland Walwyn. But it's interesting that in here he's quoted as saying, regarding their projections about balancing the budget --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: If he's going to talk about the Common Sense Revolution and Midland Walwyn, I would expect there to be a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Would the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Oxford may now resume.

Mr Sutherland: As I was saying, the Tory Common Sense Revolution, so-called revolution, says that they're going to create 725,000 jobs, and they're going to do that through a 30% tax decrease in three years.

I believe during the Liberal period from 1985 to 1990 there were over 700,000 jobs created in that time. That was probably the best economic period since the Second World War. That occurred in spite of the Liberal government policies.

But the Tories expect that they're going to somehow be able to balance the budget by cutting these taxes 30%, and after free trade, restructuring etc, the high dollar and high interest rate policy of their federal predecessors, that somehow all of a sudden they're going to have the same amount of job creation that occurred in the last half of the 1980s. No one's going to believe that. They understand job creation is a much more difficult thing.

The member for Don Mills was saying, "Well, the NDP budget simply relies on economic growth." He says that about the Liberal policy.

I was quoting, from today's Globe and Mail, an article by Martin Mittelstaedt looking at their so-called Common Sense Revolution. It's quite interesting, because the economist they put this by, a Mr Mark Mullins, from the investment bank Midland Walwyn, is quoted as saying as to how the Conservative strategy is going to work: "'You simply have to rely on growth,' Mr Mullins said, adding that if there is a recession, 'then forget it.'"

So how does the Finance critic, the member for Don Mills, have the gall to stand up in here and say that this policy is going to be wonderful, that the NDP's budget simply relies on economic growth so you can't rely on that, when this policy is all based on that?

To say that you're going to create 725,000 jobs in three years in the 1990s, after everything we've gone through, when that's about the amount we created in the last half of the 1980s through the boom period, stretches everyone's credibility. This approach that the Tories are taking, which in all essence and in all fact is just a repeat of Reaganomics of the 1980s, is just very simply, if you cut taxes, then all of a sudden all these jobs are going to be created and you're going to have tremendous economic growth. Well, we know what occurred in the early 1980s under Reaganomics. They cut the taxes all right. They cut the taxes at the upper end, and what happened? The deficit rose tremendously.

Mr Stockwell: They didn't cut spending.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Mr Stockwell: What did they do to spending? Did they cut spending? No.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Sutherland: I want to move on to some other aspects of this so-called Common Sense Revolution, the so-called other parts of the Common Sense Revolution. This comment about going to cut the number of MPPs from 130 to 99, the same number as federal members: You know, that may be a good suggestion. Maybe we should do that.

1700

But I want to tell you that this is a very cynical move put forward in the Common Sense Revolution, and, Speaker, you know why it is? Because the Tories can't implement that in their first mandate. They're making that part of, "This is what we're going to do in government." But of course, we're getting down below the time when the riding boundaries can be changed for the upcoming election. They couldn't do that until they're actually in power, but they'd only be able to do that for the following election.

Mike Harris is going around the province right now saying: "I'm going to reduce the number of MPPs. Aren't I wonderful?" He's not quite saying, "Oh, I can't do that till my second term because the rules don't allow it." The rules don't allow it to occur until the second term. I consider that a bit cynical.

Then comes this other part, the 20% cut in government spending on non-priority items. You see, the Tories have finally realized that health care is important. They finally realized it's important. I'll give Mike Harris credit on this one. the Tory party has finally realized that user fees simply don't work in health care. They finally have come to that conclusion. I give them credit for that.

The point is that what they're saying is that they want to cut government spending by 20%, except in their priority areas. Health care is considered a priority. They're not going to make any evaluation as to whether it's effective or not, whether everything we're doing in our health care system is effective. They're just going to spend the same amount of money.

Classroom spending -- and they don't clarify whether they mean classroom spending at all levels, also college and university -- is not going to be reduced. They only say "education," maybe meaning only elementary and secondary; I'm not sure. "We're not going to reduce that spending." With all due respect, in the education system that takes up about 75% to 80% of the cost.

By the time you add in health care at $17 billion, the education system at another $8 billion or $9 billion and law enforcement at over $1 billion, you're getting up to over half the entire provincial budget.

Of course, that's also mentioned in this article by Mr Mittelstaedt, because what he is saying is that over half of the budget isn't going to be touched. If you're going to get that 20% reduction, that means that out of all the other non-priority ministries you've got to cut them far more than 20%.

Speaker -- and I know you're very interested in this ministry -- that means Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs may face a cut of up to 30% to achieve that 20%.

How about Natural Resources? The new member for Victoria-Haliburton was on his feet today talking about eight parks that aren't going to allow camping. They're still going to be open, but you're not going to be able to camp overnight, and there aren't ministry staff.

Do you know what a 30% reduction in the budget for the Ministry of Natural Resources, this savings we've made on these eight parks, means? Do you know what you'd have to do to the park system to achieve those types of savings?

That's what the policy is suggesting. Until the Mike Harris so-called revolution explains that, they're the types of impacts we're going to see in Ag and Food, Natural Resources, Culture, Housing, Municipal Affairs and a whole wide range of other so-called non-priority ministries.

I now want to turn to the official opposition party, because it released and said: "We've got this great strategy to get Ontario going again. We're going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs." There's only one problem with this strategy: It's about as clear as mud. Just listen to some of the things that they're going to do.

They're going to reduce taxes by 5% over a five-year period. At least they're a little more credible on what can be done on reducing taxes. I'll give them some credit for that.

They're going to look at a payroll tax credit for companies hiring new workers. In our budget we're doing it, because we're a government of action and we're out doing it.

They want to put a lid on soaring Workers' Compensation premiums. I already articulated how the unfunded liability went from $5 billion to $10 billion during their five years in government. If they'd wanted to put a cap on the premiums, they could have done it by making the significant changes and reforms that really needed to be done while they were the government.

Cutting fees like the $50 annual corporate filing fee: Let me tell you, this new language of the Liberal Party, and we heard it again yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition -- the Leader of the Opposition was the former Minister of Colleges and Universities. I was president of the student council at Western. I used to come down and lobby the minister on different issues, but I want to tell you, when she increased tuition fees she never called them a tax.

Of course this is the new language of the Liberal Party. Now that they're in opposition, tuition fees are a tax when they're increased. They weren't when she was the minister. Likewise, when fees for licences or that are increased, they're called taxes. I'm almost tempted to say that this is the new politically correct language of the Liberal Party. However, that terminology is getting so overused it's inappropriate, but it's kind of like almost an Orwellian manipulation of language here.

For the Leader of the Opposition to call tuition fee increases, when she's the former Minister of Colleges and Universities who did raise tuition fees, to say that they're taxes and she never called them that before -- of course on their policy on tuition fees, I saw the Leader of the Opposition on Focus Ontario a couple of weeks ago criticizing this government for being very clear and up front that we're only going to 10% this year, 10% next year, unlike the tremendous wide-open policy of the Common Sense Revolution. But where does the Leader of the Opposition stand? A moderate tuition increase. What does "a moderate tuition increase" really mean? No one knows.

We know they favour tuition increases, but they don't want to be specific about anything. They don't want to be specific about what they're going to do with WCB. They don't want to be specific about what they want to do with tuition. "An aggressive campaign to market Ontario as a business-friendly place." Well, that's very specific. That really tells us a lot about what they want to do.

They're going to reduce government spending to shrink the deficit, they claim. They don't really say how. At least I give the Tories credit. They're very up front. They say: "We want to slash the money for Natural Resources. We don't care about natural resources. We don't care about rural Ontario and Agriculture and Food. We don't care about culture and the arts. We'll slash those budgets."

But the Liberals don't tell you. They just want to say, "We want to reduce it." They claim about balancing the budget, and then they go on about helping small and medium-sized businesses to get funding with the chartered banks. They don't say what their policy is. They just say they're going to do it. That's why I say the Liberals' jobs plan is about as clear as mud. It's vague, fuzzy, feel-good terminology. There are no specifics there.

Let me just say, as I mentioned earlier, in our budget we clearly outline how we're going to help small business get more access to capital by reforming loans and trusts, allowing them to provide more funds, labour-sponsored venture capital funds, co-ops etc.

This is what the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party are saying is "our jobs plan to get Ontario back to work." Vague, fuzzy, feel-good, nice, warm, fuzzy terminology, but where are the specifics? Speaker, as you would know, where's the beef in this? There isn't any. There isn't any substance to it and the people of Ontario clearly want to see specifics.

I understand that tough decisions are going to have to be made by any party, and let me tell you, this government has made some real tough decisions: our decisions in terms of last year with the social contract, expenditure control plan, the decisions we made at WCB. But we made those tough decisions. We've demonstrated courage.

We've shown true leadership in difficult times to make the significant changes to our public services so that they will be sustainable in a period when the government is going to have less revenue. We've done that. We've made those tough decisions, but we've also done that in a compassionate and caring way and with respect to trying to maintain those services, not just slash them.

I hear the members of the opposition every day now, they're getting pretty confident. As a matter of fact, I'd say they're almost getting arrogant, because they get up and say, "You know, when we're in power next year" and "You're going to lose" and "When we're in power, we're going to do this" and "Your days are numbered."

1710

Let me be very clear. I clearly understand the political climate out there. It is going to be tough, quite frankly, for any government to get re-elected when you have to make very tough decisions. I recognize that fact, but I want to tell you, if the people of Ontario ever sent a clear message on September 6, 1990, it's that they don't appreciate arrogance.

When I hear members of the official opposition getting up here and saying, "When we're in power next time, we're going to do this," and I see them in the back benches, the critics, saying, "Boy, I can hardly wait to be a cabinet minister again" or "for the first time," getting ready to get the cars and all the perks of office. Maybe they can go on another trip to Italy and spend $2,500 a night in a hotel.

When I see the Tories, when I see the third party people thinking about cabinet and then I just think about -- I see we have new critics' positions. I see the new member for Victoria-Haliburton is the Natural Resources critic, so I guess he's anticipating, if the Tories were to be elected, he'd be the Minister of Natural Resources. Of course, there won't be a ministry left because by the time you cut 20% -- or, sorry, 20% of non-priority, which means more like 30%, 35% in Natural Resources -- what's there going to be left for him to be a minister of? There isn't. So you can amalgamate ministries.

When I hear this arrogance coming across from that side, I'm only saying, don't prejudge the people of Ontario. I understand we all are going to have a tough time.

I don't have much time left. Let me just say that this is a very good budget because it invests in jobs. It's maintaining services. It's controlling spending while reducing the deficit. It provides incentive for small business people to hire and to hire now. This is the right budget for the economic recovery and it is a much different contrast to what the official opposition or the third party are presenting.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions or comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I didn't think there were questions and comments allowed in a budget speech.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): They are.

Mr Bradley: They are? Then I have a little question. Are we going to agree that there will not be? Is there an agreement?

Mr Stockwell: I am going to make one.

Mr Bradley: Are you going to make one?

Mr Stockwell: Yes.

Mr Bradley: The member is going to make one, apparently, so here we go. Anyway, I'll take my two minutes, or my 1:42, to say that I always enjoy hearing the member for Oxford speak at this time. What I find unfortunate, when there's an individual who has some excellent comments to make, is that they aren't as balanced as they might be, although I must say, in certain instances, he was conceding certain points to both the opposition parties.

One of the things I hope would not happen to such a young, enthusiastic person is that he wouldn't simply become a shill for the Premier and for the members of the cabinet. That happens, I can tell you, in any government. That's why I really look for people to express some independent point of view.

I expect he's going to be devoted to supporting the government position, but I really believe it would be nice to hear in the House -- just as some of us in the opposition, you would hope, would be conciliatory -- that the member would in fact not simply give the government line.

I can't believe that in his heart of hearts, when he was at the University of Western Ontario putting the case forward for removing tuition for university students altogether -- I'm sure he really believed the New Democratic Party was going to abolish tuition altogether. Now he's in a position of having to defend another increase, this one 20%. I just find that unfortunate.

I think the member should get up there and be more independent, should challenge his own cabinet the way he probably does in caucus. Do so in public and he may find that is the best route into the cabinet.

Mr Stockwell: It becomes difficult listening to a member in the government question the motivation and the sincerity of documents produced by opposition parties when his party that he so proudly represents in this place had the nerve to campaign on An Agenda for People.

Talk about a document that was just loaded with inaccuracies and fundamental problems inherent in this document that couldn't possibly be adopted. How do you have the nerve to stand up and criticize anyone when you were talking about no tuition fees for university students; when you were talking about 60% funding for education for all of Ontario, including Metropolitan Toronto -- that cost you billions of dollars; when you were saying that you won't have any garbage dump sites in the GTA -- none of them would be operating, you were going to eat the stuff; when you were talking about day care coming out of a roof with so many day care spaces; when you were talking about non-profit housing -- you've never lived up to the numbers you commented on; when you were talking about balanced budgets and a minimum corporate tax at 10% that was going to raise billions of dollars?

You have the nerve to stand up and say to anybody in opposition that maybe the documents they bring forward don't have the ring of truth, that "This number isn't deadly accurate" or "That number isn't deadly accurate," when you have this saddled like a millstone around your neck? My goodness, have you no shame, to stand and lecture us on what our policies are, after you campaigned in 1990 on this manifesto that isn't worth the paper it's printed on?

You haven't lived up to government-run auto insurance. You've sold out on casino gambling. The list is endless. The backtracking is unbelievable. Your political career in this place has been spent on ice skates. You haven't stood up for one value you campaigned on. I don't want to hear you question our credibility when this sits on my desk day after day listing the absolute disgrace your government has become when it campaigned on these kinds of social democratic issues. Stop it. It doesn't make any sense.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I really enjoyed the speech made by the member for Oxford. He described what the budget of Ontario is all about this year, which is in keeping with what the New Democratic government has been doing for the past three or four years, that is, to set a plan in place that says you need to find a way of balancing the social realities along with the economic realities.

The member for Oxford in his speech really described what the budget of Ontario was all about and tried to stick to the text in regard to letting people know what we've done, what the options were, understanding that yes, there were some difficult choices that needed to be made and that this government was prepared to make them.

I also appreciated the comments the member made in regard to the no commonsense revolution the Conservative Party has brought forward. I too sat and read that document. As a matter of fact, I went to my riding last weekend and sat with a number of business people in my riding, trade unionists, various people throughout my riding. When I sat down with all those people on the weekend, they said, "There's no common sense in this document."

I was also interested to note when I read the paper on Monday morning, a business column in either the Globe or the Toronto Star said: "My God, there's no common sense in this document. This whole document is about nonsense."

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to have a quorum in the House. I'd also like the member to name one business person he sat down with who said the Common Sense Revolution didn't make sense. In the meantime, while they're checking for a quorum, I challenge him to name one business person who said that.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check to see if we have a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: When the member for Etobicoke West stood up and ranted for about 35 seconds, the member for Cochrane South had a good minute on the clock, and that hasn't been reinstated. I would respectfully request that this be reinstated.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I look for some direction here. The time has gone away.

If you take a look at this morning's Star article, it is quite clear what the business community is saying. It was the same thing with the people I met with on the weekend in Iroquois Falls and Timmins. The people I talked to were very much concerned about the document the Conservative Party has come out with. They see it with a high degree of scepticism, because that's exactly what it is.

1720

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I listened intently to the member for Oxford, and I don't think once did I hear him talk about this government's commitment to either children or the more vulnerable, whether they're disabled or the people on social assistance. I don't know whether the members of the government have been examining this year's budget to see what kind of priorities have been set in it.

Members of the art community, for instance, came to me on the weekend, and see just a constant downward trend to their funding; a source of employment, we all know, in our communities. Members of the social assistance recipients group came to me and said, "They're talking about our rolls going down," but in fact the budget suggests that there will be a 2% increase in social assistance in this 1994 budget year. Smoke and mirrors again.

We're projecting a smaller labour market growth this year than last, down from 1.4% to 0.9%, less than 1% growth in labour predicted in this budget. These are the figures I'm taking from the government's budget.

The people I'm most concerned about are those who have no one to speak for them, and that's the children of this province. The Premier's Council on Health, Wellbeing and Social Justice, the subcommittee on children's services, yesterday gave a report, and the Premier came forward in a very non-enthusiastic way introducing the document.

The children's aid societies, the children's agencies, the vulnerable children of this province demand a commitment from this government, and they didn't get one in budget 1994.

I wonder where the heart, where the compassion and where the justice of the NDP government has gone. It certainly has not been present in this chamber.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Oxford has two minutes in response.

Mr Sutherland: I want to thank all my colleagues who responded.

What I was trying to do was talk about what we've actually done in this budget, which I said was to provide job creation, maintain services and show a decline.

The member for Etobicoke West talked about the Agenda for People. I know we haven't done everything in the Agenda for People the way we specifically outlined it there. But I want to tell you what we have done: The minimum corporate tax is done, employment equity is done, more pay equity is done. We've increased non-profit housing. We've increased child care. We have done auto insurance reform and we have done the Environmental Bill of Rights. To me, that's a pretty impressive record, realizing we're in the most difficult economic times since the 1930s. We've done a lot of the Agenda for People.

I was talking about the facts of the budget, but I was also trying to outline some of the history of how we got to the situation we did. Because the Tories, during their 42 years in power, didn't manage Hydro, because they didn't manage the WCB, because the unfunded liability went from $400 million to $5 billion from 1980 to 1985, because it went from $5 billion to $10 billion in 1990, we created a structure that wasn't sustainable in a downturn economic time.

We have to make significant changes in health care, we have to make significant changes in education, and yes, we have to make significant changes in our social services.

This government has the plan. This government has been working hard and we have provided the leadership, in cooperation with our transfer agencies, to make the very, very tough decisions to ensure that those public services will be sustainable in the future, because they weren't managed by previous governments.

The Acting Speaker: Before we proceed, I want to remind all members that interjections are out of order. There will be an opportunity to question and comment. Further debate?

Mr Bradley: In discussing the matters found in this budget, I want to mention certain things that I think are very helpful for members of the House to recall, and to talk about what we would like to see happen in the future in our province.

The first thing I want to do is discuss a matter I raised with the Treasurer in the House just yesterday, the matter of the spending of completely taxpayers' dollars to purvey what I consider to be government propaganda.

I enjoyed the speech of the member for Oxford. He defended the government. That's his job; that's his role. He had a few independent quips in there, but that's generally his role. I hope all members of the government will get up, when they have a chance, to defend this, and they're going to be out on the hustings doing it.

What I object to -- and I've objected to it for years and years, but I don't think I've seen as blatant an example of it as I saw this past week -- is the government spending some, I think the figure the people in Finance gave me was, $275,000 to put out a pamphlet in all of the newspapers of Ontario that uses quite obviously the government's slant.

The Treasurer, when I asked him the question, said, "Well, of course, you must know that there are facts in there." They're the facts according to the Treasurer, and again I respect the fact that if he goes out to speak to the Canadian Club or any organization he speaks to, he will present the facts as he sees fit, but you have here such things as: "Ontario's budget plan is working. The government's plan is working. Deficit down 30% from two years ago. Government spending under control. No new taxes. No tax increases" and so on. And you go inside and the same thing is found as the government extols its virtues.

Again, if the New Democratic Party wishes to put out a pamphlet of this kind, I think that's useful for the electorate to be able to choose whether they believe that or what the Liberal Party puts out with its money or the Conservative Party with its money. What I object to -- and I hope if I'm ever, by some fortune, part of a future government, a government of which I am part will not participate in this kind of very bald government advertising, government advertising which is, in essence, propaganda, because I think there are things government should do.

When there are rabies problems, for instance, if they have to say to people, "Here are the problems. Would you watch for this?" that's information. That's good information, and sometimes, when there are regulatory changes the government is making and it simply states those regulatory changes, that's useful for the public to know. I would defend a government, even a government from which I sit across, for that kind of advertising, but this is the worst case I've seen. It's odd how many people mentioned this to me after getting this and wondering who would pay for this and why this piece of information would come out in the way that it did.

The members may think it's smart, and I guess, in its very capital-P political sense, it's smart politics, and you can sit there with a smirk on your face and say, "Aren't we smart? Look what we put over on everybody," but I don't think that's what the people of this province are looking for. You can try to defend it. I think you would be justifiably appalled, were you in opposition, just as I think the Treasurer would have been and the Premier would have been had a Conservative or Liberal government put out a document of this kind.

Again, the government has, in its hands, a lot of ways of purveying information. The budget document itself, that it puts out, is one. When people ask me for it in my constituency office, even though it is the budget according to the Ontario government, I provide copies of that, because while the Treasurer's speech is in there -- in essence he speaks from it -- there is, I think, useful information in there. If they ask for any other information on what my view might be, I'm prepared to provide that as well, but I don't mind doing that. Even as an opposition member, I provide a lot of information that the government provides to all members of the Legislature. I simply want to record my great dissatisfaction with that particular trick on the part of the government because I don't think it serves us well.

The budget itself: Probably the people who described it as a non-event described it best, and maybe that's what the government feels it should do at this time. I was looking for a budget that would in fact restore the economy of Ontario to what it was in our boom years. That's going to be difficult, that's a real challenge, but I think people recall, as the member for Oxford did, those years between 1985 and 1990 when Ontario enjoyed the fastest-growing economy anywhere in North America, and where a lot of people were making investments in this province because they had confidence in that economy. In fact, there were some who said it was an overheated economy because people were so eager to make those kinds of investments.

It's going to be hard to come back to that era again. The competition's tougher; the government has gone through a difficult economic time. But I was looking for something in the document that would move us substantially in that direction. I'm not objective, obviously; I'm making a subjective evaluation. I did not find that.

1730

Second, I asked myself whether the budget would restore the confidence of the objective rating agencies. I don't like the fact that bond rating agencies have any control over us. I don't like that fact, but they do. As the leader of the Liberal Party mentioned today in her question in the House to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, there is a cost for the government losing its AAA rating. I know that in the difficult times faced in the early 1980s, the Conservative government lost its AAA rating. It went down to something below, I can't recall exactly.

Ms Murdock: Single A.

Mr Bradley: Single A, says the member for Sudbury, at that time. It bounced back. The Liberal government brought it back to AAA and it's down again.

Governments tend to be -- at least treasurers -- obsessed somewhat with this. I don't think one should be obsessed but I think it's an important, objective indicator of how the province is moving. That's why I think it's important that the government explain clearly, when it presents its budget, why it is that if its deficit, which is recorded at $8.5 billion, is $8.5 billion, it borrows somewhere around $11 billion. That would indicate to me that there are funds out there that have been moved off books to other places. The rating agencies are smart people. They spot these things quickly. The opposition looks for those things, obviously, and the media, but I don't think that it really changes much to move them off to crown corporations.

In fact, I've always preferred that the elected people have control over those expenditures. I think any government, whether it's Conservative, Liberal or NDP, that starts moving things to crown corporations is doing a disservice to the people because, as I've said in the House on many occasions, we are the only people -- we, the elected representatives -- whom the people can get at. They can't get at the heads of these crown corporations. They can't get at these agencies that are away from government. But they can speak to each one of us. They can write to us, telephone us, meet us in person to talk about their problems. That's why I worry when governments move in that direction.

I asked myself as well, when it was coming up, is it a budget that's going to produce jobs? It will produce some, I think; there will be some. Those who are in the margin particularly, who were trying to decide whether they were going to make an investment or not, with some of the programs, that may tip some of them in that direction, and that's good to see that. I don't think it'll produce a substantial number of jobs. In fact, the number of jobs to be increased predicted by the government this year as compared to last year is actually lower. I would have thought that if we were coming out of the recession, as the Treasurer says we are and we all hope we are, we would have seen a greater number of jobs created, because all of us, when we talk to our constituents, know that there is a tragedy of unemployment out there. The number one concern, bar none, with most of the people in our province is, are we going to have jobs for our young people, are people in their middle ages who are thrown out of work going to be able to get jobs and are the people who are closing in on retirement going to be able to get jobs? I think that's where we all have to move.

It's difficult for a government. It's interesting watching, as I do from a perspective of being here since 1977, an NDP government extol the virtues of fiscal conservatism, because my experience, when I was on the other side of the House, was that the government could never spend enough money. All the excellent critics who sat over here from the New Democratic Party suggested, for instance, in health care, if you were increasing it 11%, it should be much more because the genuine needs were out there. Today, a former Health minister, now minister of economic affairs, was up extolling the virtues of fiscal conservatism and saying that there's virtually no increase in the budget.

So when we look in the context of what happened in boom times, I should tell you that when I was a minister, I listened to the opposition, Conservatives and New Democrats, justifiably asking governments to move into new areas, to provide new programs, to provide services that people said they wanted. Things have changed. We can't have it that way any more. But I just want to remind members that that's the kind of pressure that was there in those days, rather than the pressure to cut.

I also like the fact that the government is participating in an infrastructure renewal program. When the federal government announced, during its election campaign, in its famous red book that one of the significant components would be infrastructure renewal, I was very pleased with that. I remember some of the advertisements I saw that demeaned that kind of work. I think there was somebody shovelling dirt from one hole into another that was put out by the party in power at the time. I'm not supposed to say "Progressive Conservative" any more, because I don't hear that used by my Progressive Conservative friends.

I'm not trying to be partisan in this sense. I'm simply pointing out that I think, as an individual, that infrastructure renewal is important, and when the federal government made those funds available, and Ontario got by far the lion's share of those funds -- the Premier has not mentioned that, nor has the Treasurer, but I'm sure they will when they have the opportunity to do so -- those funds can be used well.

Some of us served on municipal government as well, and if they were good programs, if they were good projects, not something people just dream up, I think they can be positive for the economy, because if you put a good infrastructure in place, people are more inclined to invest in your area and, second, it creates jobs along the way. And they're not menial jobs. They're not low-class jobs, as some tried to say. They're important jobs to our economy. So I encourage the government to continue to participate in that program.

I noticed in the budget, and perhaps others did, that the government, interestingly, took in its budget and recorded as revenue the money it was getting from the federal government for infrastructure renewal, and then it turned around and recorded as its own expenditures in the field of capital funding the same federal government funding. Now, I'm sure that in tomorrow's debate the Premier will be happy to point that out to everyone. It's something he overlooked, I know, but he will be inclined to point that out, I think, tomorrow. So infrastructure renewal I think is a good program that's worthy of a good deal of support.

I noticed that there was a press conference this morning. It was sponsored, I saw on the television screen, by Mark Morrow, the NDP member for Wentworth East, I think is the riding, and one of the posters they put up was something that said, "Is the Party Over?" Now, this is the pressure the government faces, because these people would believe that the NDP has sold out its own traditional virtues. Where you're getting pressure, perhaps from outside, to cut expenditures, these people believe you should stay with your original program. This was held down in the studio today. It talks about a conference on alternatives to the NDP government to be held Saturday, June 4, from 9 am to 5 pm at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

I watched that press conference, and again it demonstrates the difficulties the government faces and all the pressures that you face. It had such people as Ron Martin, John Clarke, Stephanie Payne, Cherie MacDonald, Greg Pavelich, Jason Hunt and Shauna Richler-Lancit, who are all there to make a case in favour of the NDP living up to what it believed at one time, as the member for Etobicoke West says, what was contained in the Agenda for People. Wayne Roberts was speaking at 11:30 on --

Mr Stockwell: Didn't he write a book?

Mr Bradley: He wrote the book Giving Away a Miracle.

Mr Stockwell: That's it.

Mr Bradley: He was the co-author with George Ehring, and these people wrote an excellent book. I gave out several as Christmas presents. They gave out an excellent book. It was reasonably priced, and it talked about the fact that the NDP had abandoned its original agenda.

You'll be happy to know that some of the people speaking there were Leo Panitch of York University, Greg Albo of York University, and Barry Weisleder of OPSEU and John Coones of OLBEU were among the people participating.

They came up with this poster.

Now, this is difficult. I don't know how many people will show up on June 4 at OISE, but what I want to demonstrate is that all the pressure doesn't come from one direction on the government. These people are obviously dissatisfied, and some of the business community on the other side, and I feel a bit sorry for a government when it faces that kind of pressure.

I wanted, however, to talk about the budget itself and some of the fees that I see. The government said that there will be no new taxes, but I think what people have to remember is that there was just not an opportunity to put any more taxes forward. No government in its right mind in the present economic circumstances is going to increase taxes. This government has already increased taxes by over $4 billion, because it felt in its own mind it needed those taxes to be increased.

1740

As we get near the time for, dare I say it, an election, it is clear that the government is not going to do too many things that are going to annoy the electorate out there. So we see so-called no new taxes. But if the new taxes come into place, if these taxes come into place and the economy improves, you'll find that revenues will increase considerably for the government. They've already put those tax increases into place and they've increased fees. I saw a figure that said, and I think it was accurate, almost $400 million in new fees were introduced by this government to bring even more money into the government coffers. So we are seeing those.

The students who are out there, and many people know them, are facing a 20% increase in tuition fees. Now somebody told me, I didn't see it myself, that the American revolution -- sorry, what's it called? -- the Common Sense Revolution calls for almost unlimited increases in tuition fees for people. That's difficult, because it really means going back to the old days when only those who were rich and privileged could go to university or community college.

I don't think we want to go back to those days when that existed, so I think it's important that when there are increases -- and I don't think there's anybody who realistically and honestly can stand in this House and say there should be no increases, but when I saw the kind of increase that's contemplated, 20% for instance, which is well above the inflation rate, which one usually uses as kind of a guideline, the inflation rate out there as an increase, that is very excessive. Students, I think, are justifiably concerned about that. I know the members who are recently out of university, some of whom are in this House, would probably in their heart of hearts agree with that.

I wanted to deal with jobs in Ontario, and this brought me to an interview I heard on The World Today on CFRB. This interview was with Mr Tom Long. Is he the president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario?

Mr Stockwell: No.

Mr Bradley: The member for Etobicoke West says no. That's my understanding. I see several heads nodding in the House. Mr Long was asked about the Progressive Conservative Party of Mike Harris employing a major US guru on politics and how to promote a political party. I think his name is Michael Murphy, and my recollection is he ran Jesse Helms's campaign in South Carolina or North Carolina; I forget which it was. It was quite a nasty campaign. It was effective, we can say that, but it was a bit nasty.

When Mr Long was asked, "Why didn't you employ somebody in Ontario?" -- because I think we've got a lot of good people in this province to be employed. I'll tell you who found this out was Audrey McLaughlin when she went to California. She ended up firing the person, by the way, who was responsible for that, to her credit, because they went outside the country for this kind of talent as well. But we've got it right here in Ontario, a lot of good people in Ontario, and I'm surprised that one would go to the Republican national campaign to get someone of this kind who had participated in these kinds of election campaigns.

So they asked Mr Long when they asked about hiring somebody from outside, from the United States --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We should have a quorum, I think.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check to see if we have a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for St Catharines may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Bradley: I've been corrected by members of the Progressive Conservative caucus, who tell me that Mr Long is not the president of the party but the campaign director. I think he used to be the president of the party at one time. Thanks very much.

Anyway, he had the following to say when John Stall asked him why they hired outside of the country, outside of Ontario. He said: "Well, John, when you've got a message that is different and as big as the one we want to deliver, we had to be sure we went for the best. The fellow we used is actually an old friend of mine, who is one of the leading media consultants in the United States." Indeed, Jesse Helms agreed with that, but I just quarrel with that, when we want to create jobs in Ontario, that we go outside.

I thought perhaps there was something further in the interview that would be useful. I wanted Mr Laughren to be able to talk about why this happened. He said, "In the case of the fellow that we're talking about, he's been involved in a number of very tough political fights in the States." I can think of one, watching the commercials I used to see on TV from the Carolinas when Jesse Helms was running. "And he was able to help us to develop an approach to the voters that, frankly, has never been seen in Canada before."

I suspect that's true; I suspect that's very true. It's never been seen in Canada before, and for good reason, because we've never wanted that kind of campaigning. We've never wanted that in Canada, but we're going to see that now, unfortunately.

Finally, it says, "Tom Long, who runs the campaign for the Ontario Conservatives, defending his position hiring Americans to do some of the consulting and film work for this new campaign." That's the way he ended the interview.

I suspect there are a lot of people in the Progressive Conservative caucus, because I know them personally and I like them, who don't necessarily agree with everything that Tom Long says and does, just as they probably didn't agree with the purchase of the jet when Premier Davis and his government purchased the jet, $10 million for the comfort and convenience of the cabinet and senior government officials.

I remember they were working on it -- I know you'll be surprised, Mr Speaker -- in Houston, Texas. I think it might have been constructed in Canada. They took it down to Houston, Texas, to put the "appointments" inside; that's the word that's used. The interior decorating was taking place. I used to get up and ask the Premier about it once a day, every day in question period, and he was very annoyed. I don't know why, because I though he would be proud of every government program.

Interjection: It couldn't land at many airports.

Mr Bradley: Well, it couldn't land at many airports, I remember that well. It's all there.

But I don't want to spend time on the Progressive Conservatives and all of the tax increases, because I'm a person who likes to look to the present and the future. Therefore, I want to express a personal concern. Not everybody agrees with this, and I understand the difficulty of budgeting these days, but I looked at the environment budget in Ontario. If there's one thing a lot of people believed in Ontario, it was that over the years the New Democratic Party had a very strong commitment to the environment and that this would be reflected in the resources, the staff and the budget of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. It's dropped appallingly since this government has been in power.

You can say, "Everybody else's budget has dropped as well." The way you govern, in my view, is that you pick those areas which are most important to government. It sends a strong message out there to the environmental community, who are objective -- not members of the New Democratic Party, but objective -- when we see that in 1990 the budget of the Ministry of Environment and Energy was over $400 million just for operating costs, not even taking into consideration the capital costs, and that today that has dropped to $276 million. That's a very, very significant drop. That means that the ministry is unable to carry out its mandate, as it should have been, and that concerns me greatly.

I also want to talk a bit about untrammelled slashing of budgets. I think a lot of government members in their heart of hearts would agree with this. I've listened to people who are ultraconservative in terms of spending -- in fact, I went to the announcement of $32 million going to Niagara College, and the Premier was there, the minister was there, and those of us from the Niagara region were sitting there. I looked out into the audience and saw members of the taxpayers' coalition, and I know that over the years they have been very diligent in looking at all the expenditures that are made. As I looked out at the audience as the Premier brought the good news to the Niagara region, the hands were coming together in applause.

1750

I said on that occasion that I was pleased to see that even those who had found fault with the expenditures of government recognized the importance of an investment in education and were there to applaud as $32 million was given to Niagara College by the government of Ontario from the taxpayers of Ontario. It's always interesting to observe what is important to some and what isn't important to some, and how even those who are fiscal conservatives are pleased to see money forthcoming in their own area.

I want to talk briefly about what happens when you just slash and burn, when you just cut everything. I mean, the government has cut a lot now. We in the opposition don't like giving you any credit for that, but you have made some cuts. We don't always agree with where they are. I would suggest that there are other areas than some of the areas they've chosen. But a lot has been cut now.

I'm going to tell you, those who advocate tremendous further cuts, radical further cuts, are going to get down to programs that hit everybody. That means the people in Linhaven Home in St Catharines -- you could say that's any home in Ontario -- who have Alzheimer's and who had staff there to service them on almost a 24-hour basis, to provide some relief for the families and so on, are not going to get the same service today. They can't provide that service because the money isn't there. That's even with just what's happening now, let alone further cuts.

That means that the hospitals can't provide the kind of service they want to provide, and that means that Sarah McLaughlin in St Catharines, who's a very disabled young girl in St Catharines, who has multiple disabilities, is unable to get the kind of service she needs, that her parents yearn for, because already budgets have been cut back. Not because the government wants to, not because they're mean people, but because they have made this decision that they have to cut the way they have.

My point is that if you go into drastic further cuts, those are the people who are hurt. Many times I meet with people who say: "The number one priority is cutting the provincial deficit. It's important. We have to be fiscally responsible." That's when they're wearing one hat. Then I meet them and they're on the hospital board, and they say, "Our hospital needs more money," or they're on the board of a university and say, "But the university needs more money," or they're on the children's aid society and they say, "We're underfunded."

It's interesting to see those hats, because that's the hat a government has to wear, that's the hat that I as a legislator have to wear: the one of making tough decisions about where you're spending money. To those who advocate those radical policies in terms of taking money out of the system, who say, "You can simply cut taxes way, way down and there's no problem," that is not necessarily an answer. Some of the supporters of those people -- and I'm not saying it's any political party; I don't want to put it in a party context, but there are individuals out there who believe this who should see that we're going to be down to really cutting where it hurts on individual services to people.

The municipalities will have to pick it up, yes, and others will have to pick it up in the private sector, yes. I'm even seeing today a movement towards more and more medical costs being paid privately, because governments have felt that crunch.

That's a caution I put out there. Don't destroy everything we've built in this province. Don't destroy everything we've built in this country that Progressive Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats and others have been proud of over the years, many times established by a Conservative government, many times established by a Liberal government and built on, and many times brought forward by an NDP government.

Let's choose carefully. Let's choose what is absolutely essential. Let's put out the welcome mat for business in our province, create an atmosphere that makes people want to invest here. Let's do all of those things. But let us never forget that those of us who are elected to this chamber are elected primarily to defend those who cannot defend themselves, those who cannot speak for themselves. They're not the rich and they're not the privileged, but they are the people of this province whom we are elected to serve.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make a few comments with respect to the member for St Catharines. I quite often find his comments amusing, and today of course has not been an exception, particularly his comments with respect to the Progressive Conservative plan for the time when they attain the government, specifically the plan to cut provincial taxes, eliminate the deficit, cut WC premiums and other such matters.

The member for St Catharines has had a wonderful time probably treating it in a frivolous sort of manner, and he has his right to do that. The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives do have a plan, and I haven't really heard too much of a plan from the Liberals or the New Democratic Party with respect to how they propose to govern if they are able to persuade the voters to vote in the next government.

I will agree with the member for St Catharines on a couple of issues. One of them is that of course this budget really doesn't say too much. It has talked about how, oh, they're going to do away with the employer health tax for a year, and that's only on individuals who are being hired for the first time. They're also going to do away with the delivery-of-dirt tax. They're not going to do away with the tax on dirt, but they're going to do away with the delivery-of-the-dirt tax. The tax on dirt still exists; the tax on aggregates still exists. It's only the delivery. So that has been a rather deceptive point of view that's put forward by the government.

I would have hoped this government would have talked about how it's going to cut back on the tremendous waste that's accumulated over a number of years. I would have hoped they would have talked about doing away with many of the plans and the programs that this province not only can't afford but simply doesn't have the need to do. But none of that has come forward in this budget. All we've talked about is they've said, "We're not going to have any new taxes." The problem is, we do have new taxes with respect to the deficit.

Mr Perruzza: I'm happy to participate very briefly in this debate and respond very quickly to some of the comments that have been made. I have here the Ontario Budget 1994. We all, every one of us in this House, got a copy of this budget. You know that; you remember. It happened just a few short days ago. We were delivered this by the pages as the Treasurer read this budget.

My Liberal colleague is angry that not every Ontarian got this budget. He is angry that we communicated through a news ad to Ontarians some of the more salient facts in the budget, because my Liberal friend doesn't want to provide Ontarians with the information that's in the budget. That's what it is.

He's saying, "Don't tell Ontarians that in the budget you have a provision that allows people to go out, those who normally wouldn't be able to buy a home, to buy a home. Keep that information from them. Keep it in this big, thick document here at Queen's Park. Don't tell them that in a news ad, because then they would know. Don't tell Ontarians that you're going to be investing money in roads and sewers and creating jobs across the province. Don't do that, because I'm going to be angry, because then I'm not going to be able to rile them against you. Don't tell Ontarians that there are going to be no tax increases because we want a recovery to happen. Don't tell them that, because it will be harder for me as a Liberal to go out and incite people, rile people and generate pessimism, undermine confidence and defunct the economy, because that way I will not be able to gain power in the province of Ontario." I say that's wrong.

Mrs O'Neill: I found some of the remarks of the member for St Catharines amusing, but I certainly didn't find them frivolous. I feel that he, again, is one of the few in this debate speaking about people with real needs.

He brought to our attention people with disabilities. This budget did nothing for those kinds of vulnerable people whom he ended his speech in mentioning.

1800

The special-services-at-home people have been trying to get a meeting with their minister for four months -- nothing happening. On the other end of the spectrum, tax reform, child care reform, social assistance reform, educational finance reform: You can go through every single page of that budget and you'll never see those words, but they were commitments of this government.

The budget is the main policy statement of any government, and those things that were there, flagships, are gone. They're gone off the books and everyone knows that. The main concern of the people in this province who are providers of services in this province is that their needs are only met through the social contract cutbacks. They're not mentioned in any other place in this budget.

I think it's very sad that children, the best resource of this province, are no longer part of the priority of this government and are not brought forward to the House of this Legislature by this government.

Early intervention of children at risk is a very good way to spend our money. It's much better than what we're talking about now, and that is spending at the other end to intervene when it's too late with young offenders.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Stockwell: I take special pride, considering who I bumped out of rotation.

One measure, I think, of the speech given by the member for St Catharines on which I like to think of governments is, "In difficult times such as the times this governing party has ruled...."

Difficult times generally dictate optionless choices, and optionless choices basically are that you have to go ahead with cutting and paring and downsizing and making a group of decisions that you probably are less than comfortable with, should you be on the left of centre in the political spectrum.

The more interesting time to look at a party in power is when parties are in power during good times, because during good times the need to be more fiscally responsible is not necessarily as public.

I think of the last five years of the Liberal Party and I think the member for St Catharines makes a very valid point. Nobody ever asked the member for St Catharines to balance budgets or to bring in low deficits. All they wanted the member for St Catharines to do was spend more money.

I think in the Liberal period they did spend a lot more money; there's no debate about that. When you measure the spending from the year they took over to the year they left power, they spent a lot of money. They did tax for it, too. I give them credit: They only added $10 billion to the deficit during that five-year period. They did pay for what they spent through increased taxes.

I think the point that needs to be asked about the Liberal Party today is: What kind of party are we faced with if it were lucky enough to get in government? Are we faced with the party we see today where fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and spending are a priority? Are we faced with the party that was in power from 1985-90, where spending and tax hikes and environmental concerns were priority one?

It's a question that keeps nagging my mind, and maybe the member for St Catharines can help me, because I find it a bit of a conundrum. I can't seem to nail them down.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. This completes the time allowed for questions or comments. The member for St Catharines has two minutes in response.

Mr Bradley: I enjoyed the speakers of each of the political parties in this. I simply think that the member for Downsview missed the point if he doesn't understand it. I don't object to the use of your party funds to put that message out. I simply object to governments anywhere doing it, and governments have over the years.

I appreciate the remarks of the member for Ottawa-Rideau. I think that her commitment to those who are most vulnerable in our society is an extremely important commitment and one that we can't forget.

The people who are most vulnerable often are not heard because they don't have a lot of money and they don't have a lot of influence in our society. That means that we, as individuals, have to reach out to them and find out what their problems are and how, in a most efficient fashion and a most compassionate fashion, we're able to deal with their problems. I don't think there's anybody here who would reject funds to be devoted to those who are very vulnerable in our society.

The member for Etobicoke West, as always, puts his questions nicely. I guess that is a choice that people will have to make. I cannot go to the extreme right. I've always been what I consider to be a moderate in our society over the years. I've been in the political centre, sometimes a little to the right of centre, sometimes a little to the left of centre, depending on the issue and what's important in the day. I think that's where the people of Ontario have been. That's where many Progressive Conservative governments were over the years.

When Bill Davis and his government, of which Mike Harris was a part, levied all kinds of taxes on the people of Ontario, it's because they wanted to pay for programs that that Conservative government felt were important in that particular day.

I anticipate that all governments are going to govern according to the times in which we find ourselves, just as the Conservatives were big spenders when it allowed them to do so.

The Acting Speaker: It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 11, at 1:30 pm.

The House adjourned at 1806.

May 10, 1994

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

HEALTH CARE

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

GREEN COMMUNITIES

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

OPPOSITION PARTIES

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

FIREARMS OFFENCES

VISITOR

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

NON-UTILITY GENERATION

JUSTICE SYSTEM

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

NON-UTILITY GENERATION

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TRADE

SOIL CONTAMINATION

PETITIONS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

LAP DANCING

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

FIREARMS SAFETY

GAMBLING

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

TOBACCO PACKAGING

FIREARMS SAFETY

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

HAEMODIALYSIS

FIREARMS SAFETY

HEALTH CARE

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

1994 ONTARIO BUDGET