The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Mahoney: The Minister of the Environment has really put the cat among the pigeons in the region of Peel. When the Britannia landfill site was opened in 1977, an agreement was entered into by the city, the region and, most important, by the citizens that the Britannia site would exist for 12 years. Out of necessity and by mutual agreement, that period has been extended for the time being.

The 27 March order in council issued by the Minister of Municipal Affairs took away planning authority for 500 metres surrounding this site. Is this not a crystal-clear message that the original agreement will now be ignored and the Britannia landfill site will be extended indefinitely?

Part of the Britannia agreement was that the city of Brampton would take the next Peel regional dump site. Obviously that arrangement means nothing to the minister. She has taken site 6B in Brampton off the table and frozen development around Britannia with no consultation with the people.

The minister comes into her portfolio on a white charger, acting like Annie Oakley, saying she is going to solve all the problems by having municipalities and the people of the province adhere to the 3Rs. We all know that the fourth R, re-election, is the only one she and her colleagues are really concerned about.

Annie had better get her gun, because if she thinks she can simply extend Britannia without consultation or discussion with the citizens or the city, there will be a showdown with Hazel McCallion at high noon on the main street of Mississauga for the battle of her life.

Peel has gone through the site search process and this minister has undermined that process. She has ignored past agreements and shown the mayor and council that she cares not for consultation but only expediency.

ORILLIA PERCH FESTIVAL

Mr McLean: The annual Orillia Perch Festival celebrates its 10th anniversary this year. Thousands of anglers, young and old, male and female, converge on the Sunshine City each year to test their fishing skills in the waters of Lake Simcoe and Lake Couchiching.

During the 10th anniversary edition of the Orillia and District Chamber of Commerce Perch Festival, which runs from 20 April to 11 May, avid anglers will be vying for more than $125,000 worth of prize money. This year there will be 72 specifically tagged perch, each with a value of $500, and those who reel in one of these tagged perch will be eligible for a $10,000 grand prize.

I congratulate the Orillia and District Chamber of Commerce for organizing and sponsoring the perch festival, which has continued to grow during its 10 years of existence. The annual event is an excellent example of how the people of Orillia are eager to promote our community in an atmosphere of fun and festivity.

I would like to take this opportunity to invite my colleagues in the provincial Legislature to come to the Sunshine City to do battle with the mighty fighting perch, one of the finest pan fish in all of Ontario. If members need more information, I urge them to call the Orillia and District Chamber of Commerce Perch Festival hotline, 705-326-4424.

DAFFODIL DAY

Mrs Mathyssen: Many of the members here will already know April is Cancer Month across Canada and Friday 5 April is Daffodil Day, the kickoff for the major annual fund-raising drive of the Canadian Cancer Society.

The Canadian Cancer Society is a national, community-based organization of volunteers whose mission is the eradication of cancer and improvement of the quality of life of people living with cancer. The society supports research into the causes and treatments of cancers and provides education programs designed to raise public awareness about the importance of prevention and early detection of this terrible disease. As well, the society has always been there for people living with cancer through its patient service programs, working to meet the social, emotional and psychological needs of cancer patients and their families.

On Friday and Saturday of this week, many of the 150,000 volunteers of the society in Ontario will be selling daffodils in public places throughout our province. As well, throughout April, door-to-door canvassers will be approaching people in their homes to raise funds for the important work of the Canadian Cancer Society.

There are many here in this chamber whose lives have been touched by this devastation among those near and dear to them: fellow workers, constituents, neighbours and family members. The daffodil which I wear today is a symbol of the hope which exists in many hearts that cancer can and will be beaten. The role played by the Canadian Cancer Society throughout Canada and in Ontario is an important one in this fight.

I know I am joined by my fellow caucus members in the Legislature today in wishing the Canadian Cancer Society all success with this year's drive.

Mrs Fawcett: I too believe that it is appropriate that we in this Legislature direct our attention to this pervasive disease of cancer, the second most frequent cause of death in Ontario. It is predicted that in Ontario over 40,000 new cancer cases will be reported this year. Even more frightening is the fact that the incidence of cancer is increasing at a rate of 4% each year.

The provincial government plays a pivotal role in cancer control and prevention. There is the obvious -- funding for hospitals, health promotion and educational programs, volunteer programs and research -- and the less obvious -- anti-workplace-smoking legislation to attack the most preventable causes of cancer.

Yet we are reminded today, and also by daffodils being sold by volunteers throughout the month of April, that 35% of all deaths in Ontario are cancer-related.

This simple fact has moved more than 150,000 volunteers from across Ontario to become involved with the Canadian Cancer Society. These individuals promote public education messages, raise funds and become involved in the emotional support and comfort of cancer patients. If ever there was a driving force behind an organization, these nameless, devoted thousands are it, and they deserve our thanks and support.

While cancer is still the second highest cause of death in Ontario, research has led to improvements in diagnosis and treatment and in survival rates. Statistics indicate that the overall survival rate of childhood leukaemia has increased by 60% since 1970. So there is hope. There is momentum in the research that is being done, and there are you and I, upon whom the continued success of this very important work depends.

1340

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Turnbull: Last week the Minister of Revenue responded to a question about the reassessment presently occurring in the city of Toronto by saying it was strictly for the purpose of updating records and not for the imposition of market value reassessment.

I have in my hand a copy of the assessment form sent to all of the homes in North York. It states very clearly the purpose of this reassessment: "Metro Toronto council has requested a general reassessment to be implemented in 1992 for taxation in 1993."

Will the minister come clean and now admit that she either misled the House or did not understand the workings of her own department? Which is it?

This reassessment is costing the taxpayers of Toronto at least $11 million and is directly related to the decision of Metro council to implement market value reassessment. The government has not yet announced the decision on whether it will support market value reassessment. As Mayor Eggleton recently said: "At best, they're squandering millions without a plan. At worst, they've made up their minds, but are pretending they haven't."

It appears there is a choice: incompetence or deviousness. Will the minister come forward and admit to this House just what her government is planning?

REST HOMES

Mr Huget: On 25 March receivers Ernst and Young announced that it had obtained permission of the Ontario Court to close Sarnia Lodge Rest Home. The closure will result in the forced relocation of 17 ill and handicapped residents.

Sarnia Lodge has been a target of complaints for more than a decade while passing through a series of owners. In August 1989 a doctor noted the "totally unacceptable" hygiene of an elderly, mentally handicapped resident he found with human faeces and maggots in her shoes.

The home's last owner, Ultra-Care Management of Peterborough, purchased the home in 1987 and was placed in receivership for unpaid debts in November 1990. At that time there were complaints about the hygiene and confinement of residents and workers complained of difficulty cashing paycheques.

On 13 March 1991, nine registered nursing assistants were notified their jobs would be terminated to cut costs, and they expressed concerns about unqualified staff dispensing medication. On 21 March 1991, Ernst and Young announced it would close the home and relocate the residents to whatever facility would accept them.

Vulnerable residents in this province deserve much better treatment than this, and I urge my government to proceed as quickly as possible with legislation to protect these and many other vulnerable citizens in Ontario. There must be standards and regulations for these homes, and I urge all members of this House to support the legislation when it is introduced.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Chiarelli: Premier Bob Rae has failed to replace Johnny Carson's The Great Karnak as prime time jokester. The Premier has opened the envelope with the answer. It says, "Government-run automobile insurance." But the Premier fails the test. He cannot find the envelope with the question.

Is the question how to provide more affordable premiums? How to restore the right to sue? How to provide better service? How to increase benefits with no additional cost? How to displace 40,000 private sector employees? Or is it how to win an election?

Premier Karnak will not return to Johnny Carson's prime time until he can find the question to go with the answer, "Government-run auto insurance." Can the Premier tell us, what is the question?

DAFFODIL DAY

Mr Eves: It is my privilege to rise in the House today on behalf of our party to remind the people of Ontario that April is Cancer Month. Today is Daffodil Day. It is celebrated across Canada. We will be given the opportunity to show our support to the cancer society by purchasing and wearing daffodils.

The tradition of Daffodil Day began one spring day many years ago when a group of cancer society volunteers decorated the tables for a cancer tea with daffodils. The early spring blooms are a reminder of hope and renewed life. Today this tradition is supported by numerous volunteers in their fight against cancer.

This week we will be given the opportunity to support the Ontario Cancer Society by purchasing daffodils at subway stations, in the street and shopping malls this weekend.

I would also like to ask the members to support this worthwhile cause. Last year $2 million was raised in the province of Ontario alone, and this year we are hoping to raise even more money. For those who are interested, daffodils are available in front of the Legislature today between the hours of 1 and 3 pm.

I want to take this opportunity to suggest that all Ontarians support this very important battle against cancer.

I think I would be very remiss if I did not extend on behalf of my party, and probably all members of the Ontario Legislature, our sincere best wishes, hope and prayers for the member for Scarborough West for a full and speedy recovery.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Drainville: I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues here in the Legislature to the efforts of a small band of women in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton who have been working to fight abuse against women in the county of Victoria.

In 1983 a group of women formed the Victoria County Women's Resource Services. Their mandate was to educate the public and help provide services for abused women. This is a volunteer group currently headed by a very capable and dedicated woman by the name of Ruth Martin.

Currently the one in eight women in Victoria county who are abused by their husbands or boyfriends trek as far as Peterborough to find shelter. With a focus on finding solutions for family violence, Victoria County Women's Resource Services has undertaken to purchase a home in a friendly residential area of Lindsay to provide a temporary home for 18 women and their families seeking shelter from abuse.

The group is renovating the home to hold 10 bedrooms and is actively fund-raising within the community. The group has worked hard to gain the support of the local community and local government, and it is my great privilege to commend them for their work in the community and to hope that many more communities in Ontario can help to educate and stop both wife and child abuse.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RACE RELATIONS

Hon Ms Ziemba: Today I rise to talk about anti-racism and our strategy. Racial tension is mounting in our society. One in 10 Ontario residents is a potential target of racism as a racial minority or an aboriginal person.

Our traditional approaches to combating racism have not worked. We have focused on relations between the races while overlooking the underlying bias in attitudes and institutional practices. The signs are clear. Too many aboriginal and black young people drop out of school, and there are barriers to public and social services.

We know that racism creates divisions between people. It excludes and marginalizes individuals and robs the community of economic potential by blocking access to opportunity. Racism hurts all Ontarians by frustrating the achievement of a fully productive and equitable society.

Our government has the political will to confront racism head on. As the throne speech proclaimed, "We know that to achieve our social and economic goals, we must strive to achieve access, equity and the protection of the rights of all members of our society." My portfolio as Minister of Citizenship with responsibility for human rights, disability issues, senior citizens and race relations brings together the concerns of groups who have been isolated and left out. It is my job to provide leadership to achieve our government's equity objectives.

We will condemn racism in all its forms, both individual racism and the more subtle but pervasive systematic barriers that exclude people on the basis of their race. We will mobilize Ontario's people and all key sectors to combat racism. To do this, it is my pleasure to inform the House that our government is introducing an anti-racism strategy for Ontario. We are backing our commitment with nearly $7.5 million in new money over a two-year period. This amount is a significant increase, doubling the current budget of the race relations directorate.

1350

The strategy will reflect a series of guiding principles. These guiding principles will inspire all our efforts. They are as follows:

1. Ontario recognizes and respects the unique identity of aboriginal peoples and the need for a distinct approach to anti-racism measures for aboriginal people. We will be guided by the first nations in formulating a unique anti-racism policy.

2. Ontario government ministries, their agencies, boards and commissions must take an active leadership role in combating racism.

3. All government services must recognize the racial diversity of Ontario and take this into account in the design and delivery of programs.

4. Ontario is committed to developing a new co-operative relationship with local government, community groups, labour, non-profit agencies, the broader public sector and business in recognition of the need for shared responsibility and joint leadership in combating racism.

5. Ontario is committed to anti-racism initiatives that are open and inclusive, that reach out to diverse communities and advocate an effective voice for those who have been not heard.

Our anti-racism strategy has five components.

As the first element in our strategy, we will develop and implement an Ontario anti-racism policy to replace the Ontario policy on race relations. The existing policy, based on the rather vague concept of race relations, fails to address the hard reality of racism. It also lacks implementation guidelines. The anti-racism policy will allow our government to renew the vision and strengthen the commitment to combating racism through concrete action.

Second, we will develop a mandatory Ontario public sector anti-racism strategy covering all ministries and their agencies, boards and commissions. This government-wide strategy will show our determination to lead by example. It will require all provincial government organizations to take specific initiatives and be held accountable for combating racism.

Third, the government will consult community groups and work with ministries, their agencies, boards and commissions to ensure that all new and existing policies, programs and legislations comply with the new anti-racism policy. The new Police Services Act, proclaimed recently, illustrates the potential that legislation has a positive impact on the racial climate. We will follow closely the effectiveness of this legislation and its impact in our communities. We will seek more ideas and public input on how policies, programs and laws should be reformed.

Fourth, we are establishing the Ontario anti-racism secretariat as a strong advocacy body to spearhead the fight against racism both within and outside the government. The secretariat will be created by restructuring and enhancing the race relations directorate. The new organization will carry out crucial policy development, research and evaluation roles. It will provide both consulting advice and financial assistance to help various sectors plan and implement anti-racism programs. It will organize anti-racist public education initiatives to change attitudes.

Finally, we will appoint the Ontario Anti-Racism Advisory Group to provide ongoing input on the progress of the anti-racism strategy over the next two years. This volunteer group will include strong community representation, plus members from the private and broader public sectors.

It is important to underline that the anti-racism strategy for Ontario will complement the legislated employment equity program to be developed by the employment equity commissioner. While the commissioner will deal exclusively with workplace discrimination, the anti-racism strategy will address racism in all sectors of our society. The strategy that we are announcing today will focus on such issues as bias in the school curriculum, discrimination in the provision of services and stereotypes in the media. The anti-racism strategy, like employment equity, represents a commitment to access, equality and full participation.

I also want to stress that we plan to take a sectoral approach in implementing the anti-racism strategy; that is, initiatives will be tailored to meet specific needs in the public sector, the community, the private sector and the broader public sector. Let me briefly describe some key priorities.

In the public sector, our goal is to ensure access and equity in the provision of government services. The Ontario anti-racism secretariat will consult widely across the public service, both unions and management, in preparing the Ontario public sector anti-racism strategy I mentioned earlier.

In the community we will, for the first time, provide core funding to community-based groups so they can plan and operate anti-racism programs. A stable financial base will enable these local organizations to concentrate on advocating for people who have been excluded from existing programs and services. We want to strengthen these community groups so they can work with government in a more meaningful way in planning policies and programs. Our aim is to provide a voice for those who have been forgotten.

In the private sector, we plan to encourage employer associations and unions to reduce systemic discrimination through organizational change. We will fund demonstration projects for this purpose.

Finally, in the broader public sector we intend to work with municipalities, hospitals, school boards, colleges and universities and their related ministries. We ask everyone in today. In conclusion, racism is not a partisan issue, is not an issue that we must take lightly. This is an issue for which we must all share responsibility to build a future where racism is no longer tolerated or condoned.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Hon Mr Buchanan: I rise to inform the members of the House of a new initiative my government has undertaken for the farmers of Ontario.

Ontario farmers have been labouring under the burden of difficult economic times. Projections for 1991 indicate a worsening financial situation, with net farm income declining substantially and continuing high real interest rates.

The seriousness of the farm economy situation and the need for immediate action to provide relief were made clear in the report of the agricultural finance review committee. As members will recall, the agricultural finance review committee, chaired by my colleague the member for Essex-Kent, was appointed in October, shortly after we formed the government. The committee consulted farmers and agricultural organizations across the province to find solutions to farm finance problems.

A key recommendation of the committee's report was the need for immediate, targeted provincial interest assistance to help farmers who are most in need. The report recommended that a targeted financial relief program be initiated to help farm families cope with current economic conditions. Such a program would help offset high interest rates paid by farmers and provide bridging to reduce cash flow pressures in 1991. I am pleased to report that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and this government are proceeding with a $50-million, one-year farm interest assistance program that will provide an immediate financial cushion for Ontario farmers in financial need.

Although the implementation of the gross revenue insurance safety net program is expected to improve the stability of future farm incomes, the benefits of the gross revenue insurance program will not be realized until 1992. Consequently, Ontario farms could be left unprotected from real high interest rates, resulting in further decline of the financial position of Ontario's farm and rural communities. The new program will provide immediate short-term assistance while the ministry considers long-term financial credit options for farmers.

The 1991 farm interest assistance program is targeted at farms in need of financial assistance as determined by all positive sources of income. It will offer grants of up to $8,000 for farms operated by an individual owner and up to $12,000 for farms with one or more owners.

I realize it has been the custom of previous governments to announce financial programs for farmers as part of the provincial budget. However, the Premier and my cabinet colleagues recognize that Ontario farmers will be making decisions for spring planting very soon. In order for them to make the best use of this program and in order to restore some security to their enterprise, we are pleased to make this announcement today.

1400

RESPONSES

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Curling: It is important of course that we address the concern about racism in our society. Recently we saw the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in our society. The strengths, as I read and listened to the minister, are strengths within her statement here. The announcement of the increased stature of the secretariat I am very happy about and the independent capacity that she has placed on that secretariat will of course assist in bringing more clout to counter the racist aspect of our society today.

I have noticed too that the minister has put more money there to give resources for the policymaking process. We have a lot of talk about racism and I hope that this government will not only talk about racism, but do something about it. We also know that concern about racism should cross party lines. Too often we have taken ownership of it by party lines and decided that we are the only persons who can deliver the aspect of eliminating racism. I hope that we do not do that.

Again, as we have this wonderful statement here, there are many other areas that have not been addressed. Areas like the Ombudsman area that need a lot of support have not been addressed. It will never make any difference at all with the $7.5-million secretariat that we have here. The Ontario Human Rights Commission: With the tremendous backlog that is there, people are discouraged and feel they should not bring their case to the Ontario Human Rights Commission or to the race relations directorate. People must feel that they have access to these people and that they can be dealt with.

Today, for instance, I was with the standing committee on the Ombudsman and in about 10 minutes or 15 minutes it was adjourned. It is an indication of how seriously the government and all of us must take this other committee. I was appalled to see the behaviour there.

These are small indications that tell us that $7.5 million, $10 million or $15 million will not solve racism. It is a collective effort to wipe it out of our society. The opposition here, the party here, is in strong support of eliminating racism and making sure that racism does not exist in our society, and of giving access to people who want to be a part of this society. I am glad that the aboriginal people have been recognized and that we can now look forward to seeing that we can address this very grave issue.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Cleary: I am glad to see that the opposition questions in the House have provoked a timely agricultural announcement, and I am glad that the announcement clarifies a similar announcement that the member for Essex-Kent seemed to have made a few weeks ago. When asked by our leader the member for Brant-Haldimand about the need for the program two weeks ago, the Premier told the House that any new agricultural program would be announced at the time of the budget, which seemed to be different from the statement of the Provincial Auditor. Under repeated questioning the Premier changed his tune in saying the funding would come soon. We are glad to see that today is the day.

Farmers will be concerned, however, that the application for the program will not be available until late May, another two months from now. I would therefore like to call upon the minister to do everything he can to ensure that the program is administered quickly and the cheques get out promptly. As it is now, farmers probably will not get any real cheques until late summer at the earliest.

This is the first real announcement for funding that this minister has made since he took office. It is important to note that while we support this announcement, the government funding announcement today shows how successful the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program that the Liberal government had was. There may be some changes, but the interest rate assistance is a package of OFFIRR by another name, and I would not be surprised if the farm community calls it OFFIRR.

The minister will be aware that pre-budget submissions of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which will be meeting with the cabinet later this afternoon, called on the NDP to introduce an OFFIRR-type interest rate program. It is important to note that the announcement falls far short of the government's $100-million election promise.

The minister mentioned the new federal safety net program in his statement, but he will not mention why the government is refusing to implement the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement this year. The minister will know that the federation of agriculture has told the government that it is important that we implement MISA this year.

The Liberal government allocated over $30 million in interest rate assistance during the five years, and the party will continue to pressure the government to live up to its responsibilities to provide direct assistance support to agriculture and not force the burden on to cash-strapped farm communities.

Mr Villeneuve: I too want to say thank you to the Minister of Agriculture and Food because --

[Applause]

Mr Villeneuve: Don't get carried away on the government benches. Now, don't get carried away.

I want to welcome the federation of agriculture here and I want to tell them to come back every week, really. If this is what it takes -- great. However, all joking aside, agriculture is facing some of the most difficult times it has ever faced. We have less than 3% of the population out in rural Ontario providing us with all of the food that we take for granted. We have the same people tightening their belts, with reduced net income for the seventh year in a row. Yes, $100 million was promised by the Premier and his government in the small paper called --

An hon member: The agenda for power.

Mr Villeneuve: The agenda for power. Yes, we forget about that. We tend to forget. However, the agenda for power said $100 million. He has fulfilled the first recommendation in the report of the member for Essex-Kent, the first one. We have six more to do, and certainly there is only $50 million left.

Farmers, when they have the money, will spend. When farmers spend money, it has a ripple effect on the economy of times seven. So the Premier should give $50 million to the agricultural community, he should multiply that by seven, and the people in small-town rural Ontario will be the ones to benefit. It is not a handout. It is something that was well earned by the agricultural community.

Agriculture faced the most difficult time ever last year with interest rates well up into the teens and yet with reduced income. I hope the GATT negotiations work because if they do not, the minister had better get ready to provide a lot more money to our agricultural community or else we will have closed the barn and farm door. That would be terrible because agriculture is the most basic industry of this province, and we very often take it for granted.

We are looking for a little more funding and support for agriculture. The minister should remember that we need a strong voice. We have the federation of agriculture here today, and it could well be the strong voice to lobby for those people out in rural Ontario who are very often too busy providing food, providing all of those things that we take for granted. I thank the minister for this announcement, and I look for more from him in the near future. It is planting time, and farmers do need that support. Let the minister send them a good message.

1410

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Cousens: On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus and our leader, the member for Nipissing, I too would like to endorse a strong anti-racism strategy for Ontario. This is something indeed that all of us from across this House and across this province have to have a strong commitment to: equality for all people.

The statement today by the minister responsible for race relations reflects something of the genuine and deep concern that we all must feel and exhibit in our actions and deeds. We have to break down the walls that people build around their small communities so that everyone can begin to understand each other, for who they are, what they are, and what they can contribute to our society. Where their needs are real, we can then do something to help solve them, and do it through the educational system as the minister suggests so that we start with our young people and build it up throughout.

I am concerned that, as a ministry and as a government, when the minister starts to talk about it being a non-partisan issue, he has a chance here when he sets up his anti-racism advisory group to include Liberals and Conservatives and people from other parties. I think other ministries in the government are continuing to just put in their favourite people. Let's open it up so that everyone from the province participates.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission: I have the results here of the failure as a government. When one looks at the fact that it takes 13 months to resolve a case right now, on average, before the Ontario Human Rights Commission, that is something this government should deal with. The minister cannot stand in the House and say he is solving a racial problem when he has something like 2,950 complaints waiting to be processed. Therefore, the government has to act on that.

The next thing which is also shameful is that when the minister talks about money being put into it, he is transferring money from one pot into the other pot. I am not convinced that this is new money he is allocating today. If it were, it would be worth announcing afresh.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mrs Sullivan: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday the minister made a third statement in a series of what we see as piecemeal and disconnected announcements about the way she is dealing with the garbage crisis in Ontario. The minister said unequivocally that regions within the greater Toronto area would not be permitted to ship their waste outside of the GTA boundaries. As a result of this announcement, confusion reigns.

Can the minister clarify for the House whether this is a province-wide policy, or does the policy just apply to the GTA? In other words, should Storrington scrap its contract to ship its waste to West Carleton? Should Kingston stop its search for a site outside its region? Many municipalities across the province are looking for a clarification. Will the minister answer in a straightforward and unequivocal way, does this policy, restricting the shipping of waste outside municipal boundaries, apply to all municipalities in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: The statement that I made yesterday, which the member describes as piecemeal, reflects the steady progress of this government towards an integrated waste management approach. What we have done is dealt with waste reduction and reuse, and I made a statement in this House to that effect. We are looking at the Environmental Assessment Act, and yesterday my statement was made in my capacity as minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. That statement reflects on the decision of this government to put in place a waste management public authority that would be responsible for finding disposal sites within the GTA for the residue that is left over after there is serious reduction and reuse and composting of the waste.

Mr Offer: The minister should be aware, and I verified this as of last week, that the Britannia landfill site will be at capacity this December. I have in my possession a copy of an order in council dated 27 March which froze all development around the landfill site. The minister has indicated there is to be a public authority that is not yet in place. There are to be guidelines, which none of us have ever seen. The Britannia landfill site will be at capacity this December. The minister has frozen development around the site. Her legislation, regulation, criterion, whatever she wishes to call it, is not yet in place. These facts add up. The obvious answer is that she intends to use her emergency power to expand the Britannia landfill site.

My question is whether the minister will make a commitment today not only to the residents of Mississauga North in my riding, where the site is located, but indeed to all of the people in the region of Peel, that before she exercises her emergency powers in expanding the Britannia landfill site, it will be done with full public consultation and under an environmental assessment hearing.

Hon Mrs Grier: I would like to make a distinction between the long-term solution to the GTA waste crisis issue that I addressed yesterday and the very immediate problems we are facing and in fact have known about for many years with respect to the imminent closure of sites such as the Britannia Road site. The approach of this government is going to be as aggressive as possible with the 3Rs and to reduce the amount of garbage, in the expectation that we will have a long-term site available as soon as all of the existing sites within the GTA are completed. But in recognition of the fact that there may be a brief shortfall, I indicated yesterday that I have asked my ministry to examine all possible alternatives for meeting that shortfall. When that examination has been completed, l will be more than happy to share it with the member.

Mr Sorbara: Part of the minister's announcement yesterday indicated that without study, without environmental assessment, without one shred of supporting evidence, the garbage from three million people in Metropolitan Toronto is going to be dumped in York region. She said that this morning on Metro Morning. She said she made that decision because York region had entered into a tentative partnership with Metropolitan Toronto to consider the prospect of disposing garbage in Kirkland Lake, and on that basis she said the long-term solution to Metropolitan Toronto's garbage problems shall be in York region.

I have two parts to my supplementary question. First, given that the minister would not propose to dump garbage in the southern part of York region, which is as urbanized as the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and given that she would not want to expand the Keele Valley landfill site because that site sits right on the headwaters of the Don River, and given that she supports the freeze of development in the Oak Ridges moraine, which is a very sensitive environmental site, and given that she would not want to put that garbage in the water basin of Lake Simcoe -- I have just described for the minister all of York region -- what site does she propose to choose arbitrarily to dispose of Metro Toronto's garbage?

Second, what studies did the minister undertake, or what environmental assessment did she do, in order to decide that it should be York region and not Durham or Peel, and will she table those studies in this House? If she cannot table those studies, will she admit to this House that her decision to choose York region was entirely political?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member seems to misunderstand the way in which the environmental assessment process works. The public authority that is going to be established will set in place environmental criteria and screening criteria, just as any other proponent of a landfill site does, and on the basis of those criteria, sites will be selected. Those sites will be subject to an environmental assessment process. The decision as to the acceptability of those sites will be made by the Environmental Assessment Board, and I can assure the member that all of the studies, all of the options and all of the participation available to anybody under the Environmental Assessment Act will be available to him and to the residents of York region as we go through that process.

1420

SMALL BUSINESS

Mrs Caplan: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology who, as we all know, has responsibility for small business advocacy as part of his responsibility in this province. The issue I would like him to address today is the issue of cross-border shopping, which recently has reached crisis proportions in the border communities right across this province.

Losses in Ontario this year for small businesses are estimated in the $600-million-a-year range, and it is expected to increase this year -- and these are reports by the minister's own staff -- by 25% to 30% in 1990 alone. These are his own ministry's estimates. The answers we have been hearing from the Premier and from the Treasurer are meetings and studies and talk. From the small business advocate in this province, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, we need action.

I would ask the minister today if he is going to turn his back on the people of this province who need jobs, the municipalities that need assessments, whose economies are draining away across the border, I would ask him a very specific question and I would like a time-line answer: When will he do something for the small mom-and-pop operations in the border communities across this province that are bearing the brunt of this serious, serious issue?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Of course I as minister would not and nor would this government ever turn its back on small business or any business in this province. I might cite for the member as evidence of that claim --

Mrs Caplan: When are you going to do something?

Mr Sorbara: You are a disgrace to the ministry.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can appreciate that the members opposite do not wish to hear these facts, because they probably did not do too great a job when they had the portfolios. None the less, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology has provided some $25,000 to fund development of a marketing framework to help small business, particularly in relation to cross-border shopping.

We have met with representatives of many communities, Cornwall, Fort Erie, Kingston, Niagara Falls, St Catharines, Sarnia, Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay and Windsor, in consultations to help these border communities in the problems they face. There were recommendations that have come out of those meetings, and their representatives have in fact appeared before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and have brought forward recommendations.

I can assure the member that this ministry, which has been very active and very supportive by way of funding, will continue to pursue these concerns to try to better the circumstance for all border communities in this province.

Mr Cleary: The Premier promised during the election campaign to bring in low-interest loans for small business. I am proud to state that businesses in my riding have started offering a low-interest loan program to keep local consumers' dollars in our community. However, figures already reveal a 20% unemployment rate in the Cornwall area. Clearly, we must improve the economic health of our community and increase the employment opportunities in our workforce.

The Minister for Industry, Trade and Technology must act today before one more business closes in my riding. Will he bring forward the Premier's election promise to help merchants in my riding and all cross-border communities with low-interest loans?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, through the Ontario Development Corp, entertains many, many companies that are seeking assistance in terms of loan guarantees or outright loans. I will not repeat the information I have just given to the previous questioner, although all of that is in fact quite factual.

Mr Scott: That's what you say to win elections; it has nothing to do with your policies now.

Hon Mr Pilkey: That is an interesting point of view; it does not happen to be correct. But I think I have responded very accurately in regard to the active response of this government and of this ministry by co-operating with those border communities and, as indicated earlier, we will continue to do so to aid those businesses in any way we reasonably can.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Essex South.

Mr Scott: You won that election; now perform. Do what you promised the people you would do.

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, we have --

Mr Scott: Perform. You are the government.

Mr Sorbara: Allan Pilkey has not made one minister's statement in this House. He's been here six months and he has not said a thing.

Mr Scott: You have got all the levers of power. Now use them or get out of here.

The Speaker: You are going to have to shout over the top of your colleagues.

Interjections.

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, we have here in Ontario --

The Speaker: The member for Essex South, just a moment.

One of your colleagues has been waiting patiently to place a question. He cannot do so unless his own members of his own caucus stop providing interference for him.

Mr Scott: My frustration at the unwillingness of this government to respond to its promises is causing me to --

The Speaker: Whatever frustrations members may feel have nothing to do with the orders and procedures of this House. When order has been restored, then the member for Essex South will have the floor.

Mr Mancini: Across the floor from us, we have one of the most anti-small-business governments in the history of Ontario. We have a Minister of Labour who wants to raise the minimum wage to over $9 an hour; that will help small business. We have a Minister of Colleges and Universities who does not have the backbone to cancel a course on American shopping habits for Canadians. We have a Minister of Energy who said in the Legislature that gasoline prices were not high enough for the corporate barons who run the energy corporations.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health was referred to as Dr Do-Little. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is Dr Do-Nothing. We have a situation in Windsor and Essex county where the Windsor Chamber of Commerce estimates 1,000 jobs will be lost in 1990 alone due to --

Interjections.

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, I did not stop.

The Speaker: Maybe you should have. Would the member just take a seat for a moment? The member for Essex South knows full well that ample preamble to this question has been given. Would he please succinctly place his supplementary?

Mr Mancini: I was moving right into that supplementary, but I just wanted to remind the Premier of what his ministers have been saying.

What is wrong with the Tories today? Is something wrong with the Tories today? The Windsor Chamber of Commerce has estimated we will lose 1,000 jobs this year alone due to cross-border shopping. High taxes are one of the problems. Will the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology make some kind of commitment to lower the sales tax, lower the gasoline tax, or do both?

Hon Mr Pilkey: We cannot do those things that are not in our power. Those things that we can do, we are doing, have done and will continue to do to address this situation.

1430

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Cousens: Yesterday, the honeymoon ended for the New Democratic government. I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It relates to her statement yesterday.

In opposition, the minister and her party were strongly opposed to any shortcuts or exemptions under the Environmental Assessment Act for proposed landfill sites. On 20 November the minister told this House that her plan to deal with the waste management crisis included the establishment of a new public sector authority to search for and select the waste disposal site. However, in the meantime, the minister also admitted that she did not rule out using her emergency powers under the act to bypass full assessment hearings on expanding existing sites if necessary.

Yesterday in her statement we learned that an interim site search team has been directed to find not one but three landfill sites within the GTA, with search and environmental screening criteria to be announced at a later date. Who is setting the environmental agenda for this government? First, she is opposed to environmental exemptions, next she has a phantom garbage authority looking for a long-term site under a full environmental assessment, and then she says she might use her emergency powers to extend existing sites. Now we have an interim committee looking at three sites only in the GTA that may or may not face full environmental assessments.

When will this minister come clean with the people of this province and tell them what really is on her agenda? Just what has changed over the last six months, or over the last five years?

Hon Mrs Grier: I will try to make it as clear and as simple and as straightforward as I can. Nothing has changed over the past six months. In November I announced that this government's waste management situation would be that we would move aggressively on waste production. We have done that. I said we would examine the Environmental Assessment Act and the process by which municipalities and proponents right across the province go through environmental assessments. We are doing that. I said I would set up a public authority to find a long-term disposal site for waste within the GTA, and yesterday I announced further details of that. It is entirely consistent and follows in rapid succession from my announcement last November.

Mr Cousens: The Ministry of the Environment has become a three-ring circus. The minister is the juggler and it is a juggling act between the province, the regions and the municipalities and she dropped the ball.

I would like to share with the minister some quotes from the Toronto Star today. One notable reaction to the minister's announcement is from Councillor Dale Martin, a prominent member of the New Democratic Party caucus in Metro, and Mr Martin -- it is the first time I have ever quoted from the man -- states: "This is totally unworkable. It's not based on reality. It's politics." I would like --

An hon member: New Democratic Party politics.

Mr Cousens: That is what he said, and it was the Toronto Star that said it too.

I would also like to refer the honourable minister to another article from last December regarding the deal which Metro Toronto had signed to ship 30 million tonnes of garbage to the Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake. It stated: "In a letter to Metro council, Environment Minister Ruth Grier encouraged Metro to go for the Kirkland Lake deal and use its reserve funds -- now sitting at more than $200 million -- to secure rights to this site."

Who is setting the policy for her government? Why did she support the arrangement in December and four months later turn it around and tell the House, "Oh, the impact on a remote community of disposing of refuse from four million people is unthinkable." Why is it she has turned it around so fast?

Hon Mrs Grier: I do not know which of the mixed metaphors to address first, but let me just say that perhaps the member is correct when he says waste disposal has in the past been politics. The difference is that under this government waste disposal and waste management policies are environmental. That is the difference, and that is the basis for my decisions.

Mr Cousens: The minister had better go and have a little private chat with Mr Martin. He is one of her friends. The fact is, he is the one who accused the minister of playing politics. I am saying she is just proving again that this is not question period; it sure is not an answer period because we do not get answers to our questions.

My final supplementary centres on a statement by Chairman Frank Bean of Peel region in response to the minister's latest declaration that the GTA must be responsible for its own garbage. He said: "Good luck, lady. Where are you going to look?" I would like to ask the minister the same question: Where is she going to look when in fact she has got this alias interim site selection team going around looking for a place? Why do I not answer the question for her? She has not solved the problem at all. She will not admit but I am sure she has every intention of expanding Keele Valley; she is going to expand Britannia in Brampton; she is going to develop Whitevale in Durham, and she is going to do it without a full environmental assessment. Will she deny that now?

Hon Mrs Grier: I did not take this decision expecting the people who had made a commitment to ship Metro's waste to some part of rural Ontario to be happy with the fact that I had said they had to be responsible for their own waste. For everyone the member can quote, who is unhappy with my decision, I can perhaps quote back to him, from Pollution Probe, from Northwatch, from environmental groups in Kirkland Lake, in New Liskeard, in North Bay and in Timiskaming that feel the decision this government made yesterday was the most appropriate decision for the environment. That is what matters.

Mrs Marland: My question is to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area and the Minister of the Environment. I am embarrassed that the minister would stand in this House a few minutes ago and refer to municipalities shipping their garbage away from their local jurisdiction as an example that she just gave in response to the member for Markham.

The minister knows full well that in the region of Peel, the Britannia site, which is located in Mississauga, never discussed shipping its garbage out of the region of Peel and if anybody must know that, the minister should. She said a few moments ago that she wants to give a very clear, simple and straightforward answer. I am going to give her a very clear, simple and straightforward question. On any of the sites that she is considering as an option, will she submit them to a full environmental assessment?

Hon Mrs Grier: Yes, the long-term site for disposal of residues within the GTA will be subject to an environmental assessment.

An hon member: Ask it again.

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: She has answered it. The minister has given us the answer. She is only going to submit the long-term sites to a full environmental assessment. That is the answer we feared; now we know the truth. We know these interim sites will not be subjected to a full environmental assessment, and that is even worse news than her announcement yesterday.

The answer is out now and when this minister talks about reduction and reuse, I think it is time we came out of the darkness, into the light and realized this is not Alice in Wonderland; this is the real world. I never thought I would stand in this House and praise the former minister, the member for St Catharines, but I want to tell the minister that the decision she has made in terms of waste management is a decision he could have made five years ago. He chose not to make it five years ago because he was not going to cop out on a responsibility as he saw it, a responsibility that the minister was concerned about at the time when she was on this side of the House. I cannot believe the minister changed her mind.

I will ask her to assure the people who surround any of the interim sites in the greater Toronto area that they will have protection. She said yesterday that her announcement was made in an environmentally sound manner. Can she tell this House today how an environmentally sound manner exempts sites from full environmental assessment?

1440

Hon Mrs Grier: I am having some difficulty understanding the premise of the question. The Britannia Road site, if that is the one to which the member for Mississauga South is referring, is an existing landfill site that has been in operation for many years. The policies that I announced in November, the policies that I repeated yesterday, are that by reducing and reusing and recycling we will extend the life of that landfill and of other existing landfills as long as we possibly can. We will move with the public authority to find a long-term site that will then accept the waste when those other sites are closed. That is the policy. That was the policy in November, and that is the policy of this government.

Mrs Marland: For six years I shared the responsibility with this member, in opposition, for protecting the environment. We cannot believe that this member, now that she is in the government, is being so totally irresponsible. I would go as far as to say that the minister's answers in this House, following on her statement yesterday, are a betrayal of the confidence of the people of this province in her as an environmentalist.

I simply say to the minister that we can make this as clear and simple and straightforward as she seems to want it. She has been in this House, in opposition, opposed to the extension of the Britannia landfill site and to approving the Whitevale site and the extension of Keele and Brock because none of those sites, in her own words, were approved originally under a full environmental assessment. The minister has said to the former minister that she would be opposed to any expansion without a full environmental assessment. How is it that the minister could be so opposed to expanding existing sites that were approved under the EPA now without a full EAA? How can the minister possibly do such a complete, 180-degree-turn reversal?

Hon Mrs Grier: I really regret that those sites were approved without a full environmental assessment, and I suspect it was the member's party which was in power at the time that they were in fact approved. The member says this is not an environmentally supportive decision. Let me refer her to the release today of Pollution Probe which says, "Environmental groups have earned a victory with yesterday's announcement by Environment Minister Ruth Grier."

It is not my intention to extend the use of any site that I do not have to extend the use of. It is my intention to make sure we reduce our garbage to such an extent that we can then have a long-term site.

Mrs Marland: It's Alice in Wonderland.

Hon Mrs Grier: The member says it is Alice in Wonderland. I say to the member she knows the extent of the crisis that has been created in the greater Toronto area, and I think it would be more environmentally responsible for the member to help find a solution to the problem rather than to merely criticize the solutions that I have put forward.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Beer: My question is for the Treasurer. Last week the Leader of the Opposition asked the Treasurer a very specific question about what the government includes as part of the provincial commitment, indeed of the election promise that this government made, to pay 60% of the costs of education in the province. In reading over the Hansard of the Treasurer's answer, unfortunately the Treasurer did not answer the question. I think it is of great importance, when school boards across the province are now trying to set their budgets, that we have a clear statement from the Treasurer as to what the provincial educational funding policy is.

I would like to ask the Treasurer if he would tell this House, in terms of the 60% solution, if the government of Ontario not only includes the general legislative grants, the operating grants that have traditionally been used for that figure, but if the province of Ontario now has unilaterally decided to add to the general operating grants those moneys that are spent for educational capital and those dollars that are provided to the provincial teachers' pension plan. Will the Treasurer state specifically what is included in the 60%?

Hon Mr Laughren: When we made the transfer announcements to the school boards earlier this year, we increased the amount of transfers by, as I recall, 7.9%, considerably above the rate of inflation. We felt then and I feel now that that was the most we could possibly do.

Mr Mahoney: That wasn't the question.

Hon Mr Laughren: I thought the member was seeking an answer.

If one breaks it down in the traditional way as to what percentage of the cost of education is paid for locally versus provincially, we made no change whatsoever when we computed the percentage that we are now paying for the cost of local education. We have not at this point in time altered at all what makes up the 40% that is paid for by the province roughly versus the 60% that is paid for at the local level.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: I said approximately; a little more than 40%. I think the member is anticipating something that simply has not happened, namely, a reconfiguration of the components of what goes into the provincial share of the cost of education in the province.

Mr Beer: This is an absolutely incredible response from the Treasurer. Perhaps he would like to pick up and read the testimony that was given before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, where the Minister of Education said not only did the 60% figure include the dollars that the government spends on educational capital and the money that it provides to the teachers' pension plan but that was always the understanding that she had, even during the election when the commitment was made.

The Treasurer would know full well that if anyone in the previous government had tried an answer like that, it would have been deemed to be unacceptable. So we are left with a situation where the educational community and the property taxpayers have no idea of what the province's policy is with respect to 60%.

Let me try to help the Treasurer with some approaches and solutions, because if he does not know what 60% means, we have got to find out and we have got to find out quickly. Last year the select committee on education in its third report presented a clear approach to solving this problem. They set out a time frame of some eight months. Most recently, the advisory committee to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Hopcroft committee, presented its proposals and said that it supported fully the recommendations from the select committee, which, as the Treasurer will remember, had members from the New Democratic Party. It was a unanimous report and indeed included the present Minister of Municipal Affairs.

My question to the Treasurer is, will he fast-track the issue of educational financing to his NDP tax commission and direct that it take the select committee's proposal and come back to him in time so that before the 1992 budget he will be able to bring in real changes to the split between the provincial share and that which is laid on the local property taxpayer and clarify so people understand fully what he means by 60%?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I think the member would acknowledge the fact that we have made a commitment, that we are not backing down from our commitment to provide quality education in the province of Ontario. As well, I think it is fair to say that we do intend to increase the component of the cost of education that is paid for at the provincial level as opposed to the local property taxpayer. I think, however, that it would serve no purpose to try to disguise what goes into the 60% versus the 40%.

1450

Mr Mahoney: Why are you doing it then?

Hon Mr Laughren: We are not going to fool anybody if we suddenly change the rules of the game. Nobody is attempting to fool anybody. The taxpayers in the province of Ontario are not stupid. They know full well that if somebody tries to change the name of the game simply by changing what goes into one percentage versus the other, there is only one group of taxpayers in the province of Ontario and that is them, so we are not attempting to fool anybody. If and when the numbers are computed in a different way, we will be very straightforward, we will be very up front with the people and say: "This is what used to go into the numbers on 40% versus 60%. This is what now goes into the numbers on 60% versus 40%.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I am sure the minister is aware that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is here today and I am sure he is also aware that in the last five years the spending on Ontario agriculture as a percentage of the agricultural provincial product has gone down considerably and it is still slipping. The gap has more than doubled since 1985.

This government talks about a level playing field, but it does not exist in agriculture. Our support level is at 18.1% as opposed to, as an example, in Quebec where it is almost double at 34%. The national average is at 23.4% of the gross product value. Does the minister and his government intend to let this situation continue and let farmers really fall behind all the rest of society, as they have in the last five years?

Hon Mr Buchanan: No, we do not intend to let the farmers fall behind. I would remind the member that we have participated with the federal government in the gross revenue insurance plan, which was some $39 million, and we have today announced a $50-million program which brings it up to close to $90 million that we are putting into the farm community from the provincial Treasury. We in this government are committed to working with farmers and assisting wherever possible. We will continue to do so in the future.

Mr Villeneuve: I want to make sure that not only the minister but all cabinet members, and indeed all the members of government, know that the spending on agriculture is about 50% of the amount of money that comes in, for example, from the tobacco tax, which is directly from agriculture. The government's spending on agriculture is 50% the amount of money that it takes in on the tobacco tax.

I want to cite an example: In 1987 the Alberta government kept its canola crushing plant open. However, here in Ontario, right here in downtown Toronto, Central Soya has announced the closure of all its crushing facilities here in Toronto. What does the minister propose to do for the 25,000 soybean growers in the province who actually generate the second-largest income crop from soybeans? What does the minister intend to do for them now that these crushing facilities are closed down?

Hon Mr Buchanan: We are consulting with farmers and with the companies. But I would like to point out to the member that the plant in Toronto, as I understand, closed because profits were not sufficient. It was not a matter of losing money, as I understand. They were not getting the return on the investment that they wanted. It is very difficult for a government to respond when a company closes down on that basis. We are concerned about the soybean growers and we will respond and assist wherever we can, given the financial situation that we are in.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Dadamo: I would like to ask a question of the Solicitor General. On average, Windsorites spend in the neighbourhood of some $3 million a week in the state of Michigan, and as much as $69 million annually. Windsor Star reporter Richard Brennan made this known to people in Windsor in an article last week. Plus, for every $100,000 spent in the United States from Windsor and Essex county, it is estimated Windsor loses one job. Further, some 650 retail jobs quite simply vanish.

In my riding of Windsor-Sandwich, many of my constituents are contacting my office regarding Sunday shopping and many of them have expressed that they can no longer afford to shop in Windsor and are looking to stretch their dollars. What assurances can the Solicitor General give to this House that concerns of border towns will be addressed in the upcoming legislation regarding Sunday shopping?

Hon Mr Farnan: I was very encouraged at the lead-off question by the official opposition this afternoon, when it clearly distinguished between the two issues, seven-day-a-week cross-border shopping and Sunday shopping, two very distinct issues. Our border communities are fully aware that the loss of Ontario shopping dollars is more clearly and more closely tied to the federal government's economic policies. The high dollar, high interest rates, the GST and free trade are all items that are affecting the economic policies and are hurting our border communities.

Despite that, I am aware that border communities are faced with special problems. I am meeting with the mayors of the border communities this Friday at 3 o'clock and I intend to discuss the very issues that the member has raised in the House this afternoon.

Mr Dadamo: At last night's city council meeting in Windsor, council voted 6 to 3 in favour of Sunday shopping, with hopes of trying to salvage an already devastated retail economy. Will the Solicitor General take any steps to help move this motion from Windsor city council?

Hon Mr Farnan: Under the current legislation Windsor, and any other community, has the right to pass such bylaws. However, I want to make it very clear to this House and to the people of Ontario that from the very start we made it clear that we would be introducing legislation, that the basis of that legislation would have a common pause day. I am prepared to work with all of the groups involved. Indeed, I have made arrangements to meet with the opposition critics next Wednesday to discuss progress in this area. We will be coming forward very soon with legislation, and I would ask the province to co-operate with us, not to take too hasty action but to look for the legislation that will be coming forward soon.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Ms Poole: My question is for the Minister of Housing. Day after day in this House we are hearing a litany of broken promises, promises broken by the NDP, and today I am afraid that I have to add to that list.

In this House on 17 December 1990, I asked the Minister of Housing if he intended to keep his government's promise of 20,000 non-profit homes per year to be built by 1992. The minister was very specific in his answer, and I will quote from Hansard:

"Because of the process of reallocation and speeding up the Homes Now program, next year it is our projection that we will produce in this province and start around 20,000 units, the largest number of housing starts ever in the history of this province."

Recently, at an affordable housing conference in Belleville, this same minister was quoted again. But, doing his best imitation of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, the minister this time had a very different story: "We won't be able to do 20,000 a year under the current fiscal situation. I would mislead you to say anything different. We simply can't afford it."

Will the real Minister of Housing please stand up? Is he or is he not going to build those 20,000 non-profit homes, and if not, why not?

Hon Mr Cooke: The answer to the question is yes, the housing will be built in this province. Our reallocation of the Homes Now program has made a substantial difference. When the member's party was in power, if we had continued to follow the route it was following under Homes Now, we would have delivered less than half of the 30,000 units that her party promised. We are going to come close to delivering the full 30,000 units. I think that is a pretty substantial accomplishment. So we are doing the best job we can with the resources we have, and I can assure the member and the members of the Legislature that for this government, housing is a top priority.

1500

Ms Poole: I find it very interesting that the Minister of Housing did not say he was misquoted in the article in the Belleville newspaper, which made it very clear that they were not going to keep their election promise of 20,000 units. If the minister is saying right now in this House that he is going to keep that promise, l would like a target date of when they are going to have those 20,000 non-profit homes built, and I want a commitment of a specific date, not, "We are, some time in the future." Is he going to build it every year in the three years until 1992?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think there are a number of variables, as the member will know. As we allocate housing, the one confusing thing that I have discovered so far is that there are three different dates: You allocate a unit, commit a unit, start it and then finish it, and the statistics are incredibly confusing.

I have not seen the Belleville newspaper, but I can assure the member that it is my view and the view of this government that we intend to keep our commitments that we have made on housing and the commitments under the Homes Now program for reallocation. The member will judge us by the accomplishments we achieve in the housing field. I think that even she will be proud of the accomplishments of this government for the establishment of housing.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Education. I think all members of this Legislative Assembly, plus school boards and teachers across the province, are most concerned about the ongoing accommodation challenges facing the school boards in Essex county.

I also believe that there is not a person in this Legislative Assembly who will not remember the ongoing negotiations around Bill 30 in 1985. Many of us were very actively a part of it, and certainly members of the minister's party. I would like to quote to her the Education Act, clause 136v(2)(d), which is the old Bill 30: "...in a community that has only one secondary school operated by a public board, that the secondary school will continue to be operated by the public board despite the election to provide secondary education by a Roman Catholic school board having jurisdiction in the community" -- and I underline -- "unless the public board decides otherwise."

Is the minister planning to rule in accordance with Bill 30 if required to do so?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I must say it is a great relief to have a chance to actually speak directly to this question, given the kind of indirect innuendoes that have occurred around it. I think it is very important for us to be very clear about how serious this issue is, how painful it is for the children and young people and families in Essex county, so I thank the member very much for asking the question.

The issue in Essex is extremely complex. The previous government did the best it could to try and resolve the problem by allocating the funds for the building of two Catholic schools. They put more than $22 million into allocations for that area so that in fact school transfers would not be necessary in order to ensure that everyone was accommodated.

What occurred there was that St Thomas of Villanova Secondary School was prevented from buying the property and building the school that was planned because of an Ontario Municipal Board challenge by the community. That challenge was upheld by the courts, and so this fall that area found itself unable to deal with the issue in the way it had planned to do it by the building of a Catholic school, as the previous government had allowed it to do. In November, both boards decided that the sharing of the facilities that was going on to accommodate the students was no longer feasible and they voted to cancel that sharing agreement, leaving 500 students of St Thomas of Villanova with the prospect of no school in September.

At the request of many citizens, including parents of those children and many representatives, I went to Windsor to meet with the directors and chairs of the boards of education in the Essex region and the Windsor region to see if there was some regional resolution that could be reached to the problem, and I encouraged them --

The Speaker: I realize this is a very important and sensitive issue and that both the question and the response are quite complex. At the same time, there is some pressure in question period to try and get as many members as possible on the floor for questions, so perhaps we could move to supplementary and at that opportunity the minister may wish to perhaps make a few more brief remarks.

Mrs Cunningham: She had hoped the boards would solve the problem at the local level, and certainly all of us would agree with that, but given that they may or may not, there are still basic ground rules, I believe, to these negotiations. There would not be a member in this House who would not believe, along with the minister's former colleague, although she was not here at the time, probably one of the more outspoken individuals during the discussions and the many sincere and emotional presentations that were made.

The whole committee was chaired by Richard Johnston, and I am sure the minister in fact would agree with his concerns as he responded over and over again in Hansard in this fashion -- this is Mr Johnston speaking: "We have seen a recognition, especially in the single-school communities, that those single schools have got to be maintained and cannot be lost." With that, I would ask the minister, what is her interpretation of a single-school community and will she then be acting in accordance with Bill 30?

Hon Mrs Boyd: What I have done is to refer the issue to the Planning and Implementation Commission. The commission has said that facilitation has not reached an agreement and has recommended that a mediator be appointed, and if a mediated settlement cannot be reached that a tribunal arbitration be set. In that case, the tribunal or arbitrator, whichever was recommended, would be aware of what the act said, would be aware of the concerns about single schools and would certainly be asked to rule in accordance with the overwhelming evidence around single-school necessity in the area, if that is what is presented.

FAIR TAX COMMISSION

Mr Huget: My question is to the Treasurer. Taxes are a topic of interest in my riding and I am sure generate lively discussion all across this province. In my discussion with constituents, the subject of tax fairness and tax reform always comes up, and I am frequently asked about the Fair Tax Commission. Could the Treasurer please tell this House if the commission is up and running and what its current activities are.

Hon Mr Laughren: I should say that when I go back to my constituency, that is probably the most-often-asked question I get too; so I understand why the member for Sarnia would hear that question. To the member for Sarnia and to all of those people across Ontario who are seized with this question, I should tell them that the commission had its first full meeting about 10 days ago, as I recall. They are now establishing a set of priorities on which of the tax measures that I have asked them to examine they will do first and when they will get those reports back to me.

To answer his question, the commission is off and running now and it is setting the priorities, at arm's length from me, I might add, to determine what its priorities should be.

Mr Huget: Members on the opposite side of this House constantly rant and rave about how the commission supposedly was stacked in favour of the NDP. Could the minister please reply to these charges.

Hon Mr Laughren: I hope this will lay to rest once and for all that these are lobbed questions.

I must say that when the commissioners were selected, I did not know what political party, if any, they belonged to. However, I would like to express my appreciation, which I should have done earlier, to the standing committee on agencies, boards and commissions for drawing to my attention that almost half of the members of that commission were indeed card-carrying members of the New Democratic Party. I was not aware of that until the all-party committee brought that to my attention. But I should remind the members as well that because approximately half were members, much to my surprise, of the NDP, that means that the other half were not.

1510

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Curling: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, who has the responsibility for human rights. As the minister will know, allegations of discriminatory practices on the part of employment agencies have been persistent and pervasive, and this is intolerable in our society.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission recently investigated allegations of discriminatory behaviour on the part of two Metro employment agencies; those were TES Contract Services and Ian Martin Associates. This was done after a Canadian Civil Liberties Association survey showed that 12 out of 15 agencies called were willing to discriminate, upon request by employers.

With respect to the terms of the settlements reached with these agencies, the chief commissioner herself stated, "If the standards we are proposing are widely instituted, in the future visible minorities, women, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities will receive fair and equal treatment when using the services of employment agencies."

Will the minister commit her ministry to ensure that the Employment Agencies Act is amended to provide for meaningful sanctions in cases of discrimination, including stiff fines for agencies which discriminate and revoking agency licences where necessary and to allow the commission to make regular audits of agencies' hiring practices? It is a good time to put some concrete proposals that would really put some teeth into that policy of anti-racial discrimination that she announced today.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I would like to thank my honourable critic for asking me this question, because, yes, it is a very important issue when discrimination is before us. As the member is probably aware, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, as he said, has investigated these cases, which I applaud, as the arm's-length commission has that responsibility. They took this initiative and did it and they did it well and I am very pleased that they took that initiative to do that. We will be continuing to do that sort of thing.

Also, with our legislation on mandatory employment equity, we will ensure that this will not happen again, that people will not be discriminated against based on age, colour or sex. We are very pleased that we are moving quickly. Our government has taken very concrete steps to try to create an atmosphere that removes racism and creates a better atmosphere for equality and equity in our community.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Scott: Mr Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. Yesterday during question period a question was raised about a course that is run at Durham College of Applied Arts and Technology to teach students in the program how to shop on the American side of the border. The matter was I think one of the lead questions put to either the Premier or the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

The minister responded by saying he had no authority to cancel such a course and indeed he would not anyway, because if he was interested in shopping, he thought it would be a course that he would like to take to learn how to shop on the American side of the border. We know that the minister subsequently had a visit from the Premier and was almost Kormosed.

I raise the question, Mr Speaker, because during question period today -- and this is the issue of personal privilege -- the honourable minister waved a form in his hand and tried to get your attention. He was going to tell us that as a result of being Kormosed he had found he had the power and had cancelled the course. I wonder if, in respect of the privileges of all members of the House, you would allow him the opportunity to make that statement now.

The Speaker: No. One moment, please. The member has raised an alleged point of privilege. I assumed he wanted a response. The member knows full well it is not a point of privilege which he has mentioned. He has, however, brought to my attention something of information.

Hon Mr Allen: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege because the member has alleged, first, that I said there was nothing that I could do about this issue and, second, that I somehow favoured the matter at hand.

It was very plain in my answer yesterday that I said that such courses were entirely inappropriate, and the member can go back and check the Hansard record and find that out. But I want him to know at this point in time that over the past two days I and my staff have been in touch with Durham College. We have discussed this question with them, and the president has informed me today that no such activities of this kind will be pursued by the college in future.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr Curling: I rise on a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker. This morning I attended the standing committee on the Ombudsman at about 10 o'clock. As I have raised many times in this House, I am very anxious to partake in this committee. Upon attending this committee, we had the Ombudsman there in attendance to explain her role. This is about the third or fourth time I have attended this committee and, about 15 or 20 minutes into committee, they have adjourned this committee.

I think that I would like to express my views. I have been elected here to serve, and my rights and my privilege have been violated by this cancellation of the Ombudsman committee. I say that because we hear many times in the House that we would like to address issues; we talk about human rights, we talk about race relations and we talk about the Ombudsman and we cannot even meet. I cannot meet to express that.

One comment by the member was that he was not ready. This government has been in power for the last six months. The standing committee on public accounts and many other committees have met numerous times and have dealt with other issues, and the Ombudsman committee is not yet able to meet properly. I think my rights have been violated.

The Speaker: I appreciate the concern which you raise. It is not a point of privilege, but the member may wish to raise this matter with the committee and may wish to do so at his earliest convenience.

PETITION

ELECTROLYTIC EPILATION

Mrs Witmer: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I present a petition that has been signed by 1,794 residents of the province of Ontario. Many of those who have signed the petition are present in the gallery today, and I would like to thank them for travelling from all parts of Ontario for the presentation of this petition.

The petition states:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we are citizens of the province of Ontario and we are angry because the provincial health plan (OHIP) continues to pay the full cost of hair removal by epilation to doctors who do not perform the service personally,

"We petition that this is a cosmetic procedure that is consuming an increasing volume of tax dollars paid to doctors under the guise of an important and necessary medical treatment. We submit that epilation by electrolysis should be immediately de-indexed from the OHIP schedule of payments. We are asking you to spend less, not more."

1520

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

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

Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(14), the report was deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

Mr Mills moved first reading of Bill 65, An Act to amend the Election Act.

M. Mills propose la première lecture du projet de loi 65, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale de 1984.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr Mills: Briefly, the purpose of this bill will be to allow the indication of a candidate's political party on ballots used in provincial elections.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 24, An Act to control the private use of Cards issued and Numbers assigned to Insured Persons under the Health Insurance Act.

La motion de troisième lecture du projet de loi suivant est adoptée :

Projet de loi 24, Loi contrôlant l'usage dans le secteur privé des cartes et des numéros attribués aux assurés en vertu de la Loi sur l'assurance-santé.

CITY OF LONDON ACT, 1991

Mrs Cunningham moved second reading of Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Mr Villeneuve moved third reading of Bill 31, An Act to amend the Representation Act, 1986.

Mr Villeneuve: This effectively changes the name of the riding to S-D-G & East Grenville. We have the warden of the united counties of Leeds and Grenville, the reeve of Edwardsburgh with us today, my friend David Sloan. He was one of those who were not represented.

Motion agreed to.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS

Resuming consideration of Mr Laughren's motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this debate in the presence of the provincial Treasurer.

Some members of the House may not be aware, and just to show how the New Democratic Party is no different from any other government -- perhaps even our government members might have done this, I do not know; I cannot believe they would have -- but the Treasurer was quite willing to appear before the standing committee on estimates to deal with his estimates. I have always thought that it was very important that the one time a minister should be present for the consideration of estimates was when, in committee, a specific time was established for the estimates. That is when I thought the minister should be there.

The minister in this case indicated that he was unable to appear on the afternoon of one of the estimates but was prepared to adjust his schedule early the next week so that he could appear before the committee. The NDP members to a person blocked this from happening and therefore short-circuited the process. The NDP members, who in opposition and who on the campaign trail and who in the various halls of the province of Ontario have extolled the virtues of open government and accountability and accessibility, were in fact those who blocked the committee from having the Treasurer before us and therefore shortened the estimates process.

The Treasurer, to his credit -- and it is not often that we are prepared to give credit to people -- was prepared to be before the committee, but obviously somebody had given marching orders to the members of the committee, probably someone from on high in the pink palace or wherever it is, that they should in fact block this accessibility to the Treasurer of this province.

But we do have the opportunity this afternoon to discuss some items, and one of them I am concerned about as we approach the date of the provincial budget is that of the deficit in the province of Ontario. One has to expect that when there is a recession on, there is going to be a deficit. The federal government has run one for a number of years, even in good times, and many of the other provinces have been involved in deficit financing. There is a recognition that this is part of the process. I think we would be foolish and unfair if we were critical of the Treasurer or the government for running a deficit. What we have to be careful of, however, is that this government does not allow the deficit to balloon totally out of control.

One of the ways that you get people accustomed to an increase in the deficit is you start floating figures out there as to how high it might be and then of course you come in substantially below that particular figure. Then everyone says, "Well, isn't it nice, Pink Floyd," as they call him. We are not supposed to be personal, but they call him Pink Floyd. I call him Blue Floyd on many days when he is busy tightening the screws in certain areas where he should not be.

But we have a situation where there are at least forecasts of deficits and now the latest one I have heard from the Treasurer -- he may have a later one after that -- was something around $3 billion that he was quoted as talking about. It should not be allowed to balloon out of control. There should be designated expenditures by the government and I think we in this party certainly support specific expenditures in the capital field designed to produce new jobs, not as the Minister of Transportation has stated -- and I am sure the Minister of Transportation is concerned about this -- that his ministry has provided funding for some municipalities which are then quoted as saying: "Well, we were going to undertake these projects anyway, so they really won't be creating new jobs with this provincial money. But we are happy to get that money from the provincial government."

If you are on a municipal council, of course you are going to be happy in an election year to be able to save some money, to be able to keep your taxes down at the property tax level. But it is not, as I think the Treasurer would hope, going to produce the new jobs that the Treasurer had been hoping it might.

The Treasurer has a very difficult job, as all people who have held that office will tell you, because the Treasurer is the person who has to say no, and in an NDP government, where you have ministers who want to spend money like wild people -- I have to be careful what I say these days, because you cannot say things any more, so just "wild people," I will put it that way, who want to wildly spend money. He has to be able, along with the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet, to examine every one of those potential expenditures.

1530

Now with a new government in power, members of the civil service understandably may feel that this is the time to add to their staff, that this is the time to add new programs, that this is the time to expand programs, and in some cases that might well be justified. But what the Treasurer and the Chairman of Management Board have to do is be very tough and examine each of those expenditures to ensure that deficit is not going to go totally out of control so that in fact we end up borrowing more money, that we end up adding to the debt. This is something, I am sure, that nobody in the province of Ontario wants to do, because it is one more thing which discourages business from locating in Ontario. I will get to that in a moment, and the moment is going to be now; I am going to get to that.

So what we have to do overall is we have to stop business -- and I do not say that in a punitive way, but halt the bleeding away out of Ontario of business, the loss of jobs on a permanent basis out of the province of Ontario and attract new capital to the province of Ontario and attract people in our own province to invest in this province in areas that will create permanent jobs.

Every community you look at, and my own community of St Catharines is no different from others, is losing jobs. Previously in recessions we looked at the losing of jobs and said: "Well, that is awful. It is a strain on the people. It is difficult on the families who have to suffer through this." But what is of more concern in this specific recession is that many of those jobs are being lost permanently in our communities. Part of this is because of what the business community and those who might want to invest in this province perceive to be the agenda of the government in the province of Ontario.

Many of the people who are big in business are going to say this is a -- they use the word "socialist" government, and we in opposition from time to time use it. The government does not like to use it any more; it says it is "social democratic." When they are anywhere near power, it is social democratic, but I can remember when the Treasurer was a member of the Waffle group of the NDP. He would have been proud to call himself a socialist instead of a social democrat.

Hon Mr Laughren: Still am. Nothing's changed.

Mr Bradley: He still is, he says.

What is happening is that we are in fact having a situation where people are leaving the province. Where they have an investment, they will keep that investment going as long as possible, but they will not add to it, and when the crunch comes, they leave on a permanent basis. They are closing down and moving out, not just laying off. Part of that is attributable to the atmosphere created by the election of this new government and its anti-business rhetoric, which we hear from time to time.

Hon Mr Laughren: Not any more.

Mr Bradley: "Not any more", says the Treasurer, since he and the Premier went on bended knee to the barons of Wall Street, and begged for mercy. I understand that and I was not overly critical of that. I would like, in jest, to say to the Treasurer and to the Premier that they have done so, because they used to make fun of other people and other governments that would do so. But that is a necessary step for the Premier and for the Treasurer, to indicate to people outside of this province that somehow investment is still welcome and to encourage people, as I say, in our own country who want to invest, to invest right here in the province of Ontario.

What is even more interesting to observe is not so much the jobs that are going away -- that is going to happen in a recession and we have to be very concerned about that -- but it is the fact that people are now not even considering Ontario for investment purposes in the future, because of (a) uncertainty, and that is the easiest to say, the uncertainty, but (b) because of the perception that this government is going to punish people in business in various ways.

As I have said on many occasions in this House, I do not come from a business background. I am not a lawyer who deals with business. I am not a business person. I have no relatives whom I know of who are rich, or anything like that. I come from a trade union background and I live on a street in my community where most of the people, or at least the majority of people, work in the automotive industry and in industries that service the automotive industry. Those people, when they speak to me about their problems, yes, they are concerned about justice and, yes, they want a good contract to be negotiated by their union with the company. They want fairness; they want a safe workplace; all of the things which are justified.

They are also concerned, however, that the new government might be doing things that would chase the businesses away. They are people who may not themselves invest in business. Some do; some do not. But they are concerned that General Motors or Dana Corp or TRW Canada in my own community or many other industries in other communities do not decide that they are going to leave the province of Ontario and take away those jobs that are so important to those people, that put bread on the table, that allow them to have some of the amenities that they have earned over the years.

I encourage the Treasurer, and he has his NDP tax commission there that he now concedes has a good number of New Democrats on it who are going to obviously bring in a recommendation that is pleasing to him. We had an opportunity to interview them. I know that the member for Etobicoke West asked many of them whether or not they had been affiliated with the New Democratic Party, just to establish where they might be coming from. I think it is important that we have a greater variety of people on commissions of this kind, so that we get a genuinely open-minded report coming forward instead of one that they think is going to please their political masters who appointed them. So that is something the Treasurer has to address.

Now, we recognize that nobody in Ontario wants to see taxes increased. The Treasurer has that opportunity. It is a tricky situation for him. I am not one who in exaggeration will say, "Well, here is a long list of things you can spend on," and then, "We don't want you to raise taxes." We recognize a need for a deficit in this recessionary period -- not a large deficit, but a deficit. We recognize as well that targeted spending can be effective, and some of the targeted spending that I would suggest -- and I may be biased in this area, and I say so with no apologies -- is in the field of the environment.

We have a need for the upgrading of sewage treatment plants from one end of the province to the other. I listened to the federal government, which made a submission during the election campaign to the electorate that said, "We are going to spend $125 million cleaning up the Great Lakes." Mr Speaker, you are from the Ottawa area, and you would recognize that to upgrade the sewage treatment plant in Ottawa from secondary to primary would cost $400 million. The provincial share in that case is a little over $100 million.

We recognize, if you multiply that across the province, that it is a hefty sum of money. It has two positive effects, however, that kind of expenditure. One positive effect is obviously that it improves the environment because it improves the effluent. The second positive effect is that it creates jobs, and it creates jobs pretty quickly. There is a good spinoff from those jobs, and therefore we are in a position to improve our economic situation. It keeps a lot of businesses going. For medium-sized construction businesses, for instance, it allows them to keep people on staff who may go somewhere else. These are good, skilled people who are often in demand.

We have a number of waste management sites that can use remediation in this province. We are always going to have that, and that is, I think, a valuable expenditure for the same reason that the last expenditure was. We have water treatment plants that would fall into the same category, where there can be specific expenditures, right across the province.

1540

I know there will be many people in the province who will be looking to the Treasurer for 100% of the funding because there has been a precedent which has been set now, the ramifications of which will be felt right across the province. So I expect that every municipality in this province will now be demanding 100% funding for water treatment purposes because of the precedent that they have set.

It is good election stuff, and it puts a smile on the face of the local member, but this is where it is a different choice when you are governing from when you are not governing. Because that precedent means that every municipal official in this province could probably make a case for 100% funding. That is what happens when we acquiesce to 100% funding.

Maybe that is the route they want to take. If they do, they had better announce it to the province, but that is exactly what they are going to get, every municipality in the province. So they have to look at what is nice to have, what puts smiles on the faces of the local members, what puts a smirk on the face of the local member as opposed to what is good public policy in this province. That is the difference when you are in government from when you are sitting over here. That is how people will judge the government, on the competence, the managerial competence of this province.

I think the Treasurer, who has been on this side and has been Treasury critic, is a person who is aware of that and knows exactly what I am talking about when I mention that. I will tell the members that he is going to have every municipality on his back for the same treatment.

He will find that the people of Chelmsford will be looking for the same funding. The next time I go to my old home town of Sudbury, I am going to tell them how the Treasurer's government was kind enough to give 100% funding in one particular case, and they will all want that. They will want it. Blezard Valley will want it, Azilda will want it, Capreol, Valley East. The former member from Capreol will be certainly phoning me up, I am sure. No, I guess he cannot. Somebody will be phoning me up from Capreol. My relatives in Capreol will be phoning me up to ensure that they have the same kind of funding available to them.

Now we get into the issue that the member for York North raised today, the Education critic for the Liberal Party. I well remember, when the New Democratic Party was on this side of the House, how it talked about paying 60% of the cost of education in the province, but it was 60% of the operating cost, no throwing in everything else the way previous governments liked to.

I used to ask questions of Bette Stephenson when she was the minister. She would say, "Well, James" -- as she always called me -- "what you do not understand is that we pay into the teachers' superannuation fund; we pay all of these capital costs; we have these indirect subsidies which go to education. You do not understand that it is not really 49%" -- or whatever it was then -- "of the cost of education."

When we hear the Minister of Education talk about it, she starts to suggest that there are going to be some strings there. When my friends in the Ontario Teachers' Federation were going across the province of Ontario in this campaign and previous campaigns, and when they are in the House, when they are making representations to us, they are not looking for all of these strings. They are not saying, "You get the money if you do this," or, "You can go ahead and count teachers' pensions, or count this or count that." They did not say that. They are expecting this government to deliver 60% of the cost of education being paid on an average across the province. We recognize that in some municipalities it will be lower than others; that is understandable. I would not be a demagogue and say that in every municipality it must be 60%, because I understand that. But on the average across the province, 60% of the cost of education will be paid.

I suspect the government is beginning, as it has in so many cases, to change its mind once it is sitting in the seat of government, and that we will not see that paid. I know that the members of the teachers' federation who were very quick to say that it was child neglect or something like that during the campaign will be the first -- because they are fair and non-partisan, because their people at the very top are not New Democrats, just in the pocket of the New Democrats, because they are fair minded people without a political affiliation that they are prepared to demonstrate -- that they will be calling this government to account if it does not fulfil that promise. I am absolutely certain of that because I know the members of the teachers' federation in my area expect that that will be the case.

Now we have situations and there has been some of this happening. One cannot always be negative in this situation. Some of this has happened, and I am sure whenever the government does something right it is because it got the idea from those of us in the official opposition. Sometimes at least --

Hon Mr Laughren: Either that or they got lucky.

Mr Bradley: Or they got lucky, as the Treasurer says. That is true. But a lot of schools have needed some upgrading and repair. I am not talking about making them fancy. I am talking about basic things like the roof or the boiler or something like that in the school, walls that need repairing, the upgrading so that it meets the safety standards as it relates to fire and other things. Those kinds of things have to be done. This is a good capital expenditure, and I call for the Treasurer to increase that specific kind of expenditure while he is holding the line or cutting at some other areas where he determines, along with the Chairman of Management Board, that the expenditure is not necessary in a specific year.

Of course, there are people living in portables, and when we recognize that is going to be a long-term problem, students being in portables, it is wise for the government to invest in a new building. If it is short-term, the government will say, with some justification if it is just getting people over a hump, for instance, and it is not many, this is good planning to utilize them. But in many cases there is an obvious need there and that need can be met. We all recall during the election campaign that they said they were going to meet such needs.

The universities and colleges are in situations -- and again, I am not asking the Treasurer to fund unnecessary expenditures and he knows this -- where people dream up something they would like to have. But there are many essential buildings that may be required or that require repair in certain colleges and universities in this province, and again, that can create jobs with a good spin-off. The time to do that is in a recession. In good times we find that the private sector is able to handle most of that.

In terms of hospital needs -- and the Minister of Health is here this afternoon -- right across the province we heard from candidates who ran in the last election how much money would be needed to fund needed hospital renovations and additions and perhaps even new construction. The Treasurer, the Chairman of Management Board and the Minister of Health all have to be cognizant not simply of the capital expenditure but of the operating costs as a result; therefore they will find reality will dictate that they cannot do all they would like to do. But there are some needed expenditures we think could be made in a time of recession.

One of the answers the Treasurer and others will give all the time, and the members of the Progressive Conservative caucus are used to listening to this and perhaps sometimes come to the defence -- the wise ones do not; the wise ones stick to the provincial level -- but they will say it is the federal government's fault. Everything is the feds, and heaven knows those high interest rates and the high dollar and some of the federal financial policies have not been helpful. But let's not let the provincial government off the hook simply by saying that.

We hear about free trade. I used to be worried about free trade because when we were in government, Premier Peterson indicated his opposition to the free trade agreement which was signed by Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan and said he was going to work towards trying to stop that. I can remember, in a position not far from here, the man who is now the Premier of Ontario denouncing David Peterson because he did not stop free trade with the suggestion that he, when he was the Premier, would be stopping free trade. He was going to thwart it. He would not implement anything that would assist free trade. Well --

Mr Fletcher: That was then.

Mr Bradley: The member for Guelph says, most appropriately, "That was then and this is now." At least, I completed that for him; I do not want to put words in his mouth. He said, "That was then."

That is an example of how reality has set in. The Premier of Ontario cannot easily stop free trade, whether it is with the United States or Mexico. Even though he suggested he could, obviously he cannot. I know those who were so critical of Premier Peterson on the free trade issue will be equally critical of the present Premier for not stopping free trade, when he suggested he would find some way of not being co-operative and stopping it.

1550

Some of the socialists are now speaking up and I know this is important to them. One of the things that the third party, as it was at one time -- then it was the second party now the first party -- has always felt strongly about and had some interesting support for, a good cross-section of support among nationalist people in Canada, was for retaining as much as possible what is important within the realm of Canadian control.

I know that within the NDP caucus there would not be very much support for allowing a major natural gas company like Consumers' Gas to go into foreign hands, because I remember the Premier in opposition suggesting this should never happen. I know each and every one I look at in the government benches believes that should not happen, but large as life, when he became Premier, he allowed Consumers' Gas to fall into foreign hands. Not only that, but he had some apologists who were formerly very critical of the provincial governments, Conservative and Liberal, who said, "We understand why they have to do this." The very same people who on principle were critical of Liberal and Conservative governments had now become apologists for the NDP.

When Varity Corp was allowed to shuffle off to Buffalo --

Mr Stockwell: They held the door.

Mr Bradley: The member for Etobicoke West would suggest that perhaps they found out where Buffalo was by taking the course at Durham College on shopping in the United States, a course allowed by this particular government.

I want to compliment them on something, first of all. The Environmental Youth Corps was established by the previous government under a previous Environment minister with the support of all members of the House. I see that the government has not cut this. I compliment the government on continuing this program, because I do not want this speech to sound as though it is simply negative about the government. It gets credit for that.

In another area I am particularly concerned about, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, after much prodding from the opposition and much public dissent on this issue, today announced a half measure to assist some farmers in the province of Ontario. So the reconvening of the Legislature has some effect. The government would like the House never to sit probably, because governments do not like to be subjected to the daily question period, but there he was rising in the House.

Those who represent rural ridings, and those who do not but who know the situation, know how difficult it is for farmers. In my area of the province of Ontario, the Niagara Peninsula, the problem is twofold. I can remember well Stephen Lewis standing in this House and talking about the disappearance of agricultural land in the province. I can remember when the CBC was interested in this issue, when it was a big issue for the CBC when this was leaving. It was one that was featured all the time and the CBC did some excellent documentaries on this. The Globe and Mail ran some columns. It was a big issue.

It continues to be a big issue and there is a difference between now and in 1975 and 1976 when some of us at the municipal level were attempting to fight the expansion of urban boundaries into the good farm land in the Niagara Peninsula. The difference is that the farmers by and large were on our side in those days and today they are not, not because they do not want to be farmers, not because they do not enjoy working with the soil or working with animals, but because it is too tough to make a living on the farm.

That is why we as a society have to make the choice. I have said to people, who perhaps do not want to hear this sometimes, that if they are going to assist the farmers they have to do it in one of two ways: You pay more for your food or you somehow provide some financial assistance to farmers to make that a viable business.

Canadians have not shown a desire to pay more for their food. Indeed, the former member for Welland-Thorold used to crusade in this House with some justification. He used to come in with something he had bought in Buffalo or Niagara Falls, New York, a food item or another item, and he would say, "This is what it costs there and this is what it costs here and why is that the case?" He was speaking as critic on behalf of the consumers of Ontario.

But if we in this province and other places are not prepared to pay more for food, then governments have to come forward with programs to make agriculture viable, because today the amount of money that is being offered for that land for development purposes is far more than it was in the past. Restrictive boundaries are an answer, and I strongly support the regional municipality of Niagara sticking to the boundaries it has set, each of the municipalities there sticking to the present boundaries. In fact, I previously opposed even the boundaries that are there now. However, they were approved in those days. The government should stick to those, but to do so, to be fair, the necessary funding must go to the farmers.

To university students in an environmental studies class at Brock University, for instance, who are obviously the kinds of people who would want to save the agricultural land, I said, "Are you prepared to do that if it means that the NDP government in Ontario is going to raise tuition fees?" We have been critical of that because in opposition the government said it was going to eliminate them or cut them or something. But it was when I was in opposition; just a few weeks ago I was speaking to them.

Hon Mr Laughren: What is the link here?

Mr Bradley: The link is that the government cannot have everything. If they want to spend, they may find that they have to establish priorities, that maybe each one of us will have to make a sacrifice if we want to retain that agricultural land, some of the things we would like to have. That is a message I think increasingly will have to get out to the people we represent if we want to be honest with them.

The Chairman of Management Board is here this afternoon and probably recognizes better than anybody in the government, even more so than the Treasurer, how difficult it is to keep the expenditures in line, to manage those expenditures properly. What she is discovering and what the Treasurer is discovering is that everybody would like to have everything. They would like to save the agricultural land, they would like to have no increase in tuition fees, they would like to have new hospitals being built and they would not like to see an increase in taxes. That is a difficult thing for the government to do and people will be watching carefully to see --

Hon Mr Laughren: She can handle it.

Mr Bradley: The Treasurer says she can handle it. I presume that means the Treasurer's job. There is a word out there somewhere, and it is always somewhere, "They say." I remember John Diefenbaker used to say, "They say." They say the Chairman of Management Board has her eye on the Treasurer, that she would like to be the Treasurer of the province of Ontario. Perhaps if she shows herself to be a tough but fair manager as Chairman of Management Board, she will find she will be sitting in the chair of the Treasurer and he will be the Minister of Correctional Services or some other portfolio he may have.

An hon member: Do you want some water?

Mr Bradley: I could probably use some more water, because it is becoming a problem. Now, I do not want to hog the whole time, because I know some of my colleagues and some of the Conservative members want to say something. They have been working hard as well and I know some of the government members, some of the NDP members, will want to rise to apologize for all of the promises that are being broken. They will want to talk about Consumers' Gas. I cannot think of anybody who would not want to, if they really wanted to be honest.

I have given the Treasurer perhaps a little bit of advice some of which he will take and I know he will take credit if it works out all right. Perhaps even some in opposition may claim the prodding of the opposition was what changed things. We are in difficult economic times, the worst I can recall, although our parents, those of us who are about that age, will tell us about the Depression of the 1930s and how difficult it was and there are many similarities to what is happening now. It seems to me that Ontario as the economic leader, as the economic base, as the industrial base of this country will have to take a leadership role in turning the economy around and do so without allowing the deficit to get way out of control and put us in even worse economic straits.

1600

Mr Runciman: I appreciate this opportunity. I am not going to concentrate essentially on the government's estimates. I want to make some comments with respect to the honourable member's intervention. The irony of it: I think of we in the Conservative Party, listening day after day to questions and interventions of this nature from the Liberal Party, the past government of this party which governed for five years, I guess it was, and brought us, I think, over 50 tax increases during that period of time and brought us to the point where we now have the highest taxes of any jurisdiction in North America.

We also recall, going back to the election of 1990, the then Treasurer, now the acting leader of the official opposition, talking about how wonderful this Liberal government managed the economy of the province of Ontario and the fact that we were going to have a surplus. Of course, once the new government assumed office, we found out the story was significantly different and now the new Treasurer is facing an onerous burden with respect to the deficit that he has to look forward to in this fiscal year and the coming fiscal year.

I wonder about the training of the members opposite in the new government, why they do not on occasion raise these matters. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was responding to a question today and I do not know why he did not raise matters like the fact that the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology drives a Mercedes Benz. We are talking about looking after the ordinary working men and women in this province, and that sort of thing has been occurring in the past and former Liberal government. I know, members may say that is the sort of thing that should not be raised, but I think it is a point that should be made. I think those points should be made and should be put on the record on a very regular basis and perhaps we have to do it if the government members are not aware of the facts or, for a variety of reasons, are unwilling to participate in that sort of a debate. I do not know. But I would like to weigh those facts on the table.

We are certainly going to continue to do it because we feel, in the exceedingly good times that the Liberals experienced while they were in office, we had record numbers of tax increases placed upon the people of this province and now we talk about cross-border shopping as an example of the problems facing this province in an economic sense. We are in this problem because of the Liberals, because the Liberals in the past five years of misgoverning this province whacked the taxpayers with tax increase after tax increase after tax increase.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciated the comments of the members opposite. I want to clear up one matter of process, if I might. It was my understanding this afternoon that -- I do know that there are about five hours left for consideration of all the concurrences and I was told that I was expected to be here until 4 o'clock. I am not sure whether the opposition was aware of that or had any objections if I left at 4 o'clock, and I wanted to clear that up before a decision was made, because I do understand the concerns of the opposition when a minister is absent.

On that same theme, I just want to respond to the member for St Catharines, who commented on my absence at a standing committee on economic affairs for the consideration of the Treasury estimates a couple of months ago. At that time I was led to believe, as a matter of fact, by the Chairman of the committee -- it was the estimates committee -- that I would be required at certain times and not other times. I arranged my schedule to accommodate those times and then found out, when I got to the committee, that the arrangement had not been agreed to by all parties.

I am sorry there was a disagreement because over the years I have probably, as a member of the opposition, learned more and, quite frankly, felt I accomplished more as a member of committees, and I am a very strong believer in the committee system in this place. I appreciated the comments of the member for St Catharines and also the member for Leeds-Grenville and I only regret that there is not more time in which to continue the debate.

Mr Stockwell: I understood that the Treasurer had to leave at 4 o'clock. That is quite acceptable and I am certain that his staff will read him Hansard and outline the concerns I have.

Mr Bradley: Of course, he will watch this tonight on the repeats.

Mr Stockwell: He will see it on repeats. Although I think it is a difficult job, I do not really believe that our minds come around the issues to the same end, and I can understand if the Treasurer has a disagreement with me here and there on what the budget should look like.

The difficulty the Treasurer is faced with today is there are not really a lot of options when one is in this economic position. The argument will be made -- and not just from Conservatives, but I think Liberals and even a few New Democrats -- that the taxpayers cannot be hit for any more money; they are tapped out. Taxes are considerably higher than they should be; business are having a very difficult time surviving; taxes today are the bane of most businesses' existence. They find, I think, that provincial, federal, municipal taxes take away any profitability that their businesses have to operate.

The argument could be made by some that we could go on fed bashing or municipal-government bashing, but we all have a stake in that problem, and one of the more poignant arguments came forth during our discussion on cross-border shopping. Not to slam the provincial government specifically, but this is an example of where some taxes are different and where certain levels of government are hammering the taxpayer.

If one looks at the pricing of gasoline in the United States, one will find the supplier and the retailer and the federal government are in fact taking proportionately about the same amount out of the cost of filling up your car with gas. The difficulty and the competitiveness end of it comes from the provincial and state portions.

The provincial government in Ontario, in comparison with the state government of Michigan, charges about three times more on a gallon of gasoline. Three times more; that is exactly where the competitive angle comes in. This is exactly why there are businesses that have a very great difficulty in surviving. Ours is about 24 cents a litre and in the state of Michigan it is about 8 cents.

There is a perfect example of why someone wants to cross-border shop, and I will get to cross-border shopping later within my statements today.

It is very indicative of the difficulties the business community faces today. It is no secret that the business community is very concerned about this government. It is no secret that the business community is very nervous about the policies and platforms that this particular government stands for.

The difficulty the Treasurer faces today is that he has to balance deficits, taxes and competitiveness against the Agenda for People. Probably that is the number one reason why there has been some backtracking on the Agenda for People. Even the members opposite will admit that there has been backtracking on the Agenda for People, that it is a given.

The question one must ask is, why? Why has there been backtracking, considering the fact that the government has been on this side of the House for a number of years and it stood very firm on a number of policies? A couple that were outlined were Consumers' Gas and Varity.

Why was there such a dramatic 180-degree turn on the government's position? The simple rationale, the simple reasoning is that reality does not deal with the government's position on the Agenda for People. They were not dealing in reality. The reality of the situation is, the consumer is basically overtaxed, the deficit is too high and we are losing our competitive edge.

There has been some talk about attracting new business. Being in business, I have always found it is easier to maintain the business one has rather than trying to attract new business. I am not suggesting for a moment it is not worth some effort and some moneys to try and attract new business. But one of the most important customers one has is the person that one is presently doing business with.

The questions, I think, that this government has to be asking itself is not so much: How do we attract new industry? How do we attract new technology? Good questions. What the government has to ask itself is, "Why are the businesses that are and have been operating at a profitable margin in the province of Ontario today and for the past number of years, leaving?" Why are those businesses closing up and either crossing the border or simply closing down their doors?

1610

I think, if one was to do an investigation of these businesses, one would come to the very simple conclusion that it is no longer profitable to operate in the province. Why is it not profitable? The argument was made just recently that the Liberal government was responsible for some 50 or so tax hikes. It is true that that is very difficult from a business point of view, to continue absorbing tax increase after tax increase after tax increase. When they close these businesses, jobs are lost. The manufacturers lose an outlet to which they can send their product to be sold and retailers may lose an opportunity for a manufacturer to be -- there is the member for Durham being interested. I am glad to see he is interested. He will probably be crossing the floor when they open the Whitevale dump.

This is the dilemma that businesses are faced with today. My position to the Treasurer is that before he goes about determining how far to go on his Agenda for People or how carefully to implement it, he had better understand that the tax position and the deficit position are leaving our businesses in a totally uncompetitive position. Rather than worrying about attracting new businesses, he should be more concerned with maintaining the present state.

The New Democratic Party during the last election had the misfortune of doing something that was very rare, I think, among other parties in the past. They had the misfortune --

Mr Fletcher: We won.

Mr Stockwell: No, there is always a winner. They had the misfortune of writing down their campaign commitments. Their campaign commitments were written down in the Agenda for People.

I honestly believe that the Premier wrote down whatever popped into his head. If a landfill site was being asked for in a certain region, he simply drove his car or his bus out to the landfill site and said: "No. I am not going to allow it to be developed." If a tax was needed to protect certain workers, without investigation the Premier simply said: "Yes. We will do it."

The most telling example of this, the most painful example, was his lame response yesterday to the member's question on the Peterborough-Havelock GO line or rapid transit line. The Premier stood up in this House and quoted a series of numbers that made the line totally inoperable, made it impossible to run any kind of reasonable deficit on that line, and the Premier made a very valid argument, a very businesslike argument had a very straightforward, sensible approach. The question that must be asked is, if those figures were available and if that logic was so obvious, why in God's name did the Premier promise to build it? It is just painfully clear that the Premier promised anybody anything to get elected.

Now he has voiced all these promises, none of which he can keep. He has a Minister of Education who is totally confused about 60% of funding. She went into the committee not having any concept of what they meant by 60% of funding. She left even more confused. Now we have a Treasurer trying to defend the undefendable statement that she made at the committee level. We have a Treasurer who is trying to balance the promises that the Premier made off the top of his head on that thumbnail sketch, the Agenda for People, with the reality of taxes, deficit and competitiveness.

My friends across the floor are going to argue about all kinds of benefits that workers will have under their government. I do not disagree with them. Some of the platforms and programs that they are announcing or putting forward would certainly benefit some workers. But the small group that they benefit will bear no price. It will bear no benefit to the people who lose their jobs because companies will no longer be profitable. Whether they like the word "profit" or whether they do not like the word "profit", that is the fact of the democratic society. That is free enterprise, and if you are not a profitable operation, you do not continue operating.

The fact is that the Labour minister is already looking at another program. I think he calls it the wage protection fund. The wage protection fund is a really nice concept. If a company closes down and there are moneys outstanding to the employees through severance packages or through pension plans, then the government will generate revenue to fund these people who have lost their jobs. It is a really tremendous idea.

The only difficulty is, where do you generate the revenue to pay these people? You generate it from the same source that the health plan generated it from, and that is the business community. And the last thing the business community needs now, with its uncompetitive standing, with cross-border shopping, with 50-odd tax increases in the last five years and with the recession, is a new tax. It is simple economics. It is not difficult; it is not hard to grasp. It is simple economics.

If members do not believe me, they should go up to the registrar's office, down to any of the local communities, to the city halls around this province and investigate the number of businesses that have declared bankruptcy, investigate that number. It is a startling, alarming, scary number. Why are they declaring bankruptcy? They are declaring bankruptcy because they are not competitive. Recession or not, it is academic: they are not competitive.

Now we come to the very crucial argument, the one that is shouted out from the other side on practically every issue, and that is fed-bashing and the federal government's inaction or ineptitude. I am not going to defend the federal government on all its policies and initiatives. I do not feel it necessary. Frankly, I do not agree with the federal government on all its policies and initiatives. I will say this: It was the leader across the House who promised to tear up the free trade agreement. He promised to do that should he be elected. Why has he not torn up the free trade agreement? Mr Peterson promised and the Premier did the same thing.

We are entering a free trade agreement with Mexico. Where is the Premier on this issue? The Premier is not heard from, including the church mice here who continue to mouth the party line but do nothing to stop or alienate the Mexicans from signing a free trade agreement. The government is blowing smoke. They cannot stop it. There is not a prayer that they will. They should stop telling the people of the province that they can do anything about it. They may raise the hackles of this party in power, they may be upset, they may shout and squirm, but they should do something about it, tear it up. They cannot, so they should quit mouthing that party line, because it is ringing very hollow.

The next issue we come to is the GST. The government promised a revolt on the GST. The revolt was painfully inadequate. The revolt was known by no one except maybe a few of the government's local cronies. No one has not paid the GST. The GST has been implemented and the government has done absolutely nothing about it. Some revolt. The government has been a painful disgrace when it came to the GST revolt. They have been that for one simple reason, because they have wanted to fed-bash. I agree there could be times to bash the federal government, but they should quit telling us that they are going to do something about it. They cannot. They have certain parameters, certain areas where they can make some changes. They do not happen to be in the GST; they do not happen to be part of free trade. They happen to revolve around the provincial issues that the government may deal with.

Those provincial issues -- social programs need to be held. We must hold the line on social spending, there is no question in my mind, if the government wants to bring in a reasonable budget with a reasonable deficit. I accept the fact there is going to be a deficit. I accept the fact it could be a reasonable deficit. What I do not accept is a deficit of $5 billion, $6 billion, $7 billion, $8 billion or $9 billion. The number one reason the federal government is in trouble today is because it has a huge deficit, a deficit piled on top year after year after year. That government today is hamstrung from doing any real fighting in the recession because the deficit chews up too much of its money.

The shortsightedness of this party across the floor in believing that the government can provide all the programs that it has established in An Agenda for People, provide for those programs and not increase the deficit considerably, is naïve, it is shortsighted and it is not helpful or fruitful for the people of the province. It gives very few of them very little benefit.

There should be wage caps on public employees. I have no time for the argument that public employees should not have wage caps. The people in the private sector will be happy to maintain their jobs this year. In the public sector, some of these ministries are talking an average of 12% to 14% increases in their ministries. Do members realize that, in times of people getting laid off, plant closures, 12% to 14% increases in ministries? That is unreasonable.

1620

Again, I expect certain members of this party across the floor to understand that. There are obviously others who I do not think will have any understanding of it. They have never been elected to such a position, they have never represented these types of people, but they are going to feel it come next election, because a lot of these people are not going to have jobs. They are still going to be out of work and the government is going to have allowed 12% and 14% increases in the public sector.

There should be a hiring freeze adopted. There is no need at this time to increase staffing at the provincial level, none whatsoever. No one is increasing staff. The Liberals increased staff by -- I believe the number was 10,000 people over that period of time. We are up to something like 90,000 people working for the province of Ontario, which is unreasonable, too many. They are underworked, they are overpaid and there are too many of them.

The last time that a government looked at a hiring freeze was during the Conservative government. They cut out a considerable number of jobs that were very redundant. There is redundancy in the workforce. It should be examined and cut. It generates the government money to carry forward on the programs that it wants to do. It is only redundancy and it helps the government do the programs that it promised it would do.

The cross-border shopping issue is another painful example of dollars and cents, and the issue comes down to dollars and cents. People are crossing the border to shop in American cities because it is cheaper. Case closed. It is cheaper to shop in American cities. There are no two ways about it. People do not cross the border because it is more panoramic. They do not cross the border because they enjoy the drive. They do not cross the border because a relative happens to work at that border station. They cross the border because they can get products significantly cheaper than they can in Canada.

Many of the statements that were made at the cross-border committee meeting revolved around a number of issues, but what it came back to, and the consistent message we heard, was that it is less expensive to shop in the US. The question then comes down to the point of why it is less expensive. There has got to be a reason. There are a few points that some of committee members made. I see a couple of them sitting here today.

One was the interest rates. Yes, that does affect the price, there is no doubt about it. To the mark that it is today, I doubt we are going to see 50%, 60%, 70% less. The interest rates do not affect prices to that degree. Real estate was also mentioned. Yes, real estate can play a major role in cross-competitiveness but, again, it is not going to make up that vast difference in cross-border shopping.

The real reason can be examined in the gasoline issue. Why is gas cheaper in the US? Very simple, the provincial tax on gasoline is three times higher than the state tax. If it is three times higher, your competitive edge is lost. The federal tax is identical. The federal tax in the United States and Canada on gasoline was identical. The provincial tax is three time higher than the state tax. There is the loss of jobs. There are the cross-border difficulties that we are faced with. There is the reason why people can cross the border and buy things significantly cheaper. In this province people are paying a tremendous amount of money in taxes. That goes without saying: If you are going to get it cheaper, you are going to pay less with taxes, you are going to cross the border all day, all week, all month and all year.

The government can strike as many committees as it wants. They can give as many inducements as they want. Until they get competitive on the price point of view, just ask any retailer: You open two stores that are selling the same product. One person sells it at half the price of the next. The person who is selling it at half price is very busy. Why? Because people are intelligent consumers today. They shop price and they are going to shop price, and as long as we are not competitive we are going to have a flow of traffic cross-border. We may as well put K mart turnstiles up at the borders, swing them one way on Friday and swing them the other way on Sunday, because if we are not competitive we are not going to retain the buying power.

One of the members suggested we had to create more community pride in hoping to retain certain consumers. Maybe that would work to a small degree, but it will not be effective. The campaign will be effective for a minor amount of people, a small percentage, and then those people will be lost as well.

As retailers will tell you, if you are not competitive on price, you are not going to sell the commodity. It is that simple. If this government does not want to deal with the issue, that is fine, but it is absolutely pointless for it to strike committees, absolutely pointless for it to continue to go out consulting. They are going to hear one line: "If you're not competitive, you're not going to sell your product. You're not competitive because your taxes are too high."

The other difficulty that this government has is, as I said before, the Agenda for People. This party has no intention now of fulfilling the Agenda for People. It is a hopeless dream, it is a long-since joke. It is absolutely hopeless. I cannot believe they actually signed it. It was so hilarious that they even produced it, but to have the now Premier sign that document -- I personally believe it will be the death knell for his next campaign, because people are going to pull out this Agenda for People and every promise this government is going to break.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food stood up here today and he got -- there must have been a fresh supply of fish come in -- standing applause from the backbenchers on announcing he is only going to break his promise by 50%. That is bonus; that is a superb government. This is what they consider success. "We're only going to break our promise by 50%." That is good. That is unbelievable. It is incredible that members opposite should think that is what they consider to be good government. They have the small business loans out there. They have the home ownership loans out there. They have 60% of education funding, minimum $7 billion, minimum commitment.

We had the Minister of the Environment standing up here today, and honestly, it was embarrassing to watch her trying to defend a position that she had been putting forward from this side of the House. She has totally, absolutely reversed her position from when she sat on this side of the House. Members of the government party should talk to members opposite who were in this House before, should go talk to them about what the position was, should go ask them what the Minister of the Environment said when she was on this side of the House. They should go get the facts, and I am asking them to get them from their own members, because the facts are very clear: She has totally reversed her position, changed her tune from when she was on this side of the House.

Those members from Durham will know, because come next election, those people in Whitevale will not be happy with the government's response. They will not be happy with this interim site. They will not be happy with this emergency power. They will not be happy with no environmental assessment hearing. They will not be happy with any of it. Those members are going to be in big trouble, and Norah Stoner and some of the other Liberals will be back, as well as a few Conservatives, I am sure, to remind the people of exactly what the government party promised.

In conclusion, I think the Treasurer has a very difficult job. I hope, and against all odds I hope this, that he has an understanding that any more increases in taxes are absolutely, totally unacceptable to anybody. I think it is very clear in any of the polls you see, any of the people you talk to. It is not even a question of they do not want taxes; it is a question of nobody can afford taxes any more. I would ask that all the honourable members opposite go back to their local ridings this weekend, walk down Main Street and knock on the doors of all those store owners, or walk into the manufacturing sectors or the industry sectors and knock on their doors and ask them, "How are you going to be able to afford tax hikes?" They will tell you they cannot.

I would ask this Treasurer, when he is doing his budget, not to ram the deficit. It serves no one's purpose. It is simply a cheap, political manoeuvre by gutless, spineless politicians to stand up and defend what they are spending the money on. It is nothing more than that. It is mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's future. It is gutless and it is spineless. If the Treasurer has not got the guts to stand up and defend his spending, then he should not spend it. If he has the guts, then let him spend it, but he should not put it on the deficit, because it only becomes larger and larger and more difficult to manage. I am not certain that the Treasurer will understand that. If he takes this home and reads it for a couple of days, he may.

1630

Last, I would hope that the Treasurer realizes that competitiveness is the most important issue we face in the future. It all comes back to deficit and taxes. Competitiveness is not necessarily just attracting industry, although I think, as I said before, it is important. Competitiveness has a lot to do with retaining industry, maintaining business, keeping communities operating, keeping jobs open. No one is going to be happy and very few will benefit if the programs that he announced today or in his budget cost business so much money that other businesses will have to close and people will lose their jobs.

It is economics. It is the sad reality of economics. They are going to have to learn it, they are going to have to understand it, and they are going to have to preach it back in their local communities, because I know they are going to be disappointed with the budget. They are going to be disappointed that he did not implement his Agenda for People. They are going to have to study. They may have to pick up a book and read it. But it will be very interesting when they start defending the Treasurer and his position on the economy and his position on taxes and when he starts explaining to those people to go out to explain to their community why the Agenda for People is totally impossible to continue and enforce and keep promises on.

Mr McLean: I just want to comment briefly on the remarks of my colleague the member for Etobicoke West. There is a lesson in what he has had to say here this afternoon, and that lesson goes back some many years. I remember when the Minister of Government Services at that time reduced the number of civil servants from 84,000 to 76,000 over a period of some six years. l remember that in the 1981-82 budget of the Treasurer at that time an incentive was put out with car dealers across the province, to the manufacturers across the province, a rebate in sales tax to stimulate the economy. We should not forget these things that took place back in the last depression, and I think the Treasurer would do well to go back and read some of the Hansards and some of the Treasurer's budgets in that period of time, because it will show that you can make do with less.

When you read the estimates of the ministries for 1990-91, with 1991-92 soon coming up, you can see the increases in many cases of 29%, and 15%, a tremendous increase in their budgets. Do members know where it all is? Most of it is all in administration. I have a copy of all the administration budgets in the estimates. Members can review that and it shows where the government over the last five years had an average expenditure increase of 11%. They cannot continue to spend, and the Treasurer would do well to go back and read some of those Hansards over the past several years.

Hon Mr Pouliot: With respect to the remarks by the previous speaker, namely, the member for Etobicoke West, regarding the role of the civil servants, I find it most difficult under the circumstances to sit idly by and have those fine women and men, who number in the tens of thousands and who on a daily basis go beyond the call of duty, being referred to as "underworked and overpaid." I know that the member is a man of courage, and if so, he shall and will take advantage of the standing orders, which will allow him opportunity to do what is right -- we all make faux pas, slip of the tongue -- and to correct the record and to apologize to those people, because they, women and men, numbering in the tens of thousands, are making our jobs an awful lot easier, but more important, Ontarians, people who are paying this man's wages are benefiting indeed.

Mrs Cunningham: I have missed listening to you, Gilles.

Interjections.

Mr Pouliot: There is some acquiescence, a spontaneous response from some of our friends, and it is difficult, because solidarity is something that is cherished here, but again, more important, I cannot and shall not sit idly by while our brothers and sisters in the civil service, with no recourse, are being maligned.

Mr Bradley: A brief response to the previous member's intervention: I did not catch whether he said this or not, but I know his colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville did say so. I watched during the campaign. Everybody during campaigns runs a certain kind of campaign. I saw this ad that talked about 33 tax increases or something of that nature. Of course, that includes any of the fees that are involved in government and so on that increase from time to time; you count all those up.

What the member I am sure forgot, because I cannot believe that he would deliberately just talk about any increases in taxes, was that the previous government eliminated some 28 taxes that were put in place by the previous Progressive Conservative government.

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: I recognize that that always stirs up a little bit of trouble there. I recognize that those of us who sit in the official opposition some days, just as others in the House, have hoped to be on that side. I know that members have often heard me say, "The enemy" -- I do not say that in an awful way or anything -- "is over there." The Progressive Conservatives, some of them, not all of them, of course --

Mrs Cunningham: Not me.

Mr Bradley: Not the member for London North.

Some of them would see us as the enemy over here. I know the member for Leeds-Grenville had just forgotten the fact that the previous Liberal government had eliminated 28 Tory taxes and I wanted to help him out by reminding him of that in this House today.

Mr Stockwell: After the pounding that those people took, I am not sure anyone would call them the enemy any more.

With respect to the wonderful comments from the member for Lake Nipigon, I stand behind the statement that I firmly believe we have way too many employees provincially, that they are way overpaid and they are way underworked. I have no problem with that statement. I have always made that statement.

Some hon members: Shame.

Mr Stockwell: There is no shame in that statement. If the members opposite do not believe it, then they are living in Shangri-La. They have not gone out to a work site provincially, or been to the Ministry of Transportation at Keele St and Highway 401, or seen some of the operations that take place. If they believe this government is efficient, they need a lot of help, because this government is not efficient, never has been efficient, probably never will be efficient, because government is basically an inefficient operation. Very few governments have other governments in competition. That breeds efficiency. It matters not what the person thinks of the province of Ontario. If he wants to do business with the government, he has got no other option. He must go to the government offices, because there is nobody else in business competing against them.

With respect to the comments from the member for St Catharines on slamming Liberals, I do not have any difficulty with the statements made by the member for Leeds-Grenville, but I do agree with him on one point. Yes, I think the enemy is on the other side. I do not have any difficulty in directing my comments that way. The Liberals lost the election, we lost the election, they won the election. They are supposed to be implementing policies and procedures. They are obviously not. They are supposed to be putting forward the Agenda for People. They are obviously not. They are supposed to, as his leader said, be doing work, doing business. They are obviously not. I wish they would do something, but if they are going to do the budget, the only thing I ask is no deficit, no new taxes, become a little bit responsible.

1640

Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate. I listened with interest to the critic of the Treasury from the third party and, as always, found it interesting, stimulating. However, I also found it to be representative of a very narrow viewpoint of how the province ought to be run and I found it representative of a very small segment of the population, since I think that every position that the honourable member articulates was very much enunciated in the last election and I do not believe, quite sincerely, that anywhere near the majority of the population of the province holds those views. I do not mean that in a partisan fashion, except to say that there has been a recent poll that makes a difference. I am talking about the election, where all of this was talked about. So to suggest that this government and this party are completely out of touch with what the people of Ontario want, I have a great deal of difficulty accepting that as being the reality.

Just a few points, if I might, because I think they need to be acknowledged. First of all, I find it interesting that the member for Etobicoke West would hold the position that all governments and everything that is done in the public arena is bad for the citizens of Ontario or for the population at large. I gather that he would be much more comfortable if there were references to the Stockwell hospitals that would exist throughout the province or the Stockwell schools that would exist or the Stockwell police department and a number of the other important public sector services that are provided by the government for the public. I understand that if you were to go into the United States or to other jurisdictions, it might be arguable and it might be acceptable that some of those examples would be acceptable in the private sector. I would suggest that clearly Ontarians and Canadians in general reject that.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The member is standing up suggesting that there were examples I used that should be privately run operations. Not once have I ever used those examples, and I would ask, if he is going to give examples, that he use accurate reflections; if not, that he not use them.

The Deputy Speaker: That is a remark that you have passed. It is not a point of order.

Mr Christopherson: I guess the member can dish it out, but he does not feel he can take it. I wish to be fair. I am suggesting that the impression and the arguments used, if extended or if used as examples, could include what I am suggesting. I do not believe, if the member checks the Hansard, that I was clearly suggesting or misleading anyone listening to a different conclusion. I get tired of hearing consistently that social programs have to be cut, that government itself is inefficient and that there are services provided that clearly could be better delivered by the private sector just because it is the private sector. I do not accept that and I do not believe that the people who elected me or the people who elected this government accept that point of view. That is why I am taking the time to raise the points in argument.

The opposition parties like to suggest that this government is afraid to talk about the word "competitiveness" and to recognize the needs of business. I would ask any of those who want to include those suggestions in any of their further speeches to perhaps check the speech that the Premier made, not to a business audience, not to a constituency that would want to hear that message, but to his party at the first convention following our election to government. In it he talked about the need for competitiveness for business in this province and about the need for a viable, strong economy. He said we will do everything we can to make the business sector as strong as possible, because quite frankly he saw it as the other pillar for providing the kinds of social programs and social justice in which he believes and in which this government believes.

I think it needs to be said very clearly that this government is prepared to acknowledge the need to remain competitive and to take the measures that are necessary that we feel would provide and put this province on a competitive footing, as we have serious and massive changes, not only around us in the context of Canada and North America but indeed on a global level.

There have been suggestions that the anti-recession program has not met the mark, but I must say that, quite frankly, I have found the criticisms and the attacks by the opposition members on our anti-recession package and anti-recession measures to be very weak and ineffective. I believe that that measure was an amount of money that has been accepted, by and large, by the people of this province, and business -- I would hasten to offer an opinion on -- has agreed that the amount of money was the correct balance between recognizing that deficit spending is something we have to be very cautious of but that in a time of recession governments do have a responsibility to do what they can to offset the very serious and human damage that happens during the course of a recession.

I would say that, other than a few details and a few little glitches here and there, by and large, that measure, that approach, one of the first serious programs of this government, has been exceedingly effective and I believe has made a difference and will continue to make a difference in the communities.

Now it is not a panacea -- it was never meant to be but it was meant to be a measured response by a government that cares, doing what it could in a time of the most serious recession since the Second World War. I feel very good about that and I think the fact that the opposition parties have not been able to lay a glove on that program by and large is proof of the fact that the program has been as effective as we had hoped it would be.

The suggestion has been made, and I suspect will continue to be made, that there should be neither deficit increases nor any increases in taxes, while at the same time we should be magically meeting a lot of the very serious needs that our colleagues across the way raise every day in question period, not the least of which is a lot of the social programs, the food bank needs that are out there, the education needs, the health needs. All of these needs we must meet and we have made obligations in An Agenda for People to do so. I feel very comfortable echoing the position of our government that over the course of our government, over the term of office, we will move to implement the promises and the commitments that were made in An Agenda for People.

What we are not prepared to do is to back away from the needs of a lot of people in this province who are looking to us to take as many steps as we can in implementing An Agenda for People as quickly as we can. But the members of the public want us to do it in a fashion that is responsible because they understand the depths of this recession. They understand the constraints that we are under and they want us to do the best job we can with those goals in mind, with An Agenda for People in mind. l believe that is exactly what we are doing and I believe that is exactly what the upcoming budget will reflect.

1650

The last thing I would like to talk about is the consistent argument that every time we raise a legitimate concern about a measure taken by the federal government, all we are doing is fed-bashing and passing the buck. I would be prepared to acknowledge that from time to time in certain answers, as has been the history of any government and any individuals, one will include in one's answer, in defence of measures one has taken, everything one can, even if it is a bit of a reach. I do not think it is such a breach of understanding to acknowledge that does happen from time to time.

But what I have a great deal of difficulty with is the suggestion that it is not fair to talk about what the GST has done to this economy and what it has done to inflation, which by the way is supposed to be the federal government's major attack.

Free trade: Free trade has exacerbated this recession of the province of Ontario beyond any measure, and that is hurting our ability to fight the plant closures that we are seeing. Free trade is an example of a measure taken by the federal government that has exacerbated this recession and has hurt this province more than if it had not taken that measure. It has led and induced a lot of companies to leave this province, and to not acknowledge that is to deny the facts, something the opposition says that we will never deal with, and yet on this question it is the facts. It has hurt the situation. It has caused more people to be put out of work than if it had not been in place, and we have every right and every justification, I believe, in saying so and acknowledging that.

The same holds true for the high interest rate and the high Canadian dollar, which almost every person who came before our committee in pre-budget consultations has acknowledged had a great deal to do with worsening and quickening the recession that we have in the province of Ontario.

I say all of this not to point out every bad measure that Prime Minister Mulroney and his Tory government have taken that has hurt this province, because I think that speaks for itself. I have raised it to acknowledge the fact that I believe it is legitimate from time to time to acknowledge what has caused the recession and caused the deficit which this government has had to answer for and which we have had to deal with. I believe, recognizing that this whole process of talking about estimates is a little bit silly in this case since these estimates were not ours in the first place, it has given us all a chance to talk about our favourite economic and budget issues.

But I do believe that the upcoming budget will show the commitment that this government is prepared to make to the promises contained in the Agenda for People, and it will do it in a fashion that protects and promotes the economy of the province of Ontario, which is what we were elected to do.

Mr Phillips: Just to respond to the member, I was intrigued because I think he felt that by perhaps yelling loud enough it became the truth. I just want to respond to some of the points that he made and to point out to the government my concerns about the employment situation.

Believe me, this government's job creation program of $700 million is important. It will create, I think, about the equivalent of 20,000 person-years, jobs, over the life of it. Remember this, though. Every single day since they have come to power, 1,500 people a day have lost their jobs in this province: seven days a week, every single day. For five years, I might say, during the life of the previous government, every single day 300 jobs were created. So I am just saying to them, as they look at their employment creation programs, that it will take approximately 10 days of their regime to eliminate the 20,000 jobs that they are creating through the recession program. So they are going to have to have more than just that.

An hon member: That's important.

Mr Phillips: Yes, it is important, but they are not going to be able to spend their way out of this employment dilemma. They are going to have to begin immediately to create jobs -- believe me, they are. They can say it is all the federal government's problem, but I will cite another case for them. At the same time as they have seen at least 200,000 jobs leave this province, six of the 10 provinces of this country have actually seen the job numbers increase. So it cannot all be the federal government's problem. Somehow or other six of the 10 provinces have been able to increase employment. So when they say, "Well, you're being too negative," when we say, "Do not blame the federal government," I think they can appreciate one of the reasons. As we look at the budget, government members, I say to them, job creation is going to be crucial. Every single community in this province is suffering, and now is the time for action.

Mr Turnbull: The first thing I will say in answer to the speech that we heard before is, tripe, utter tripe. Those are the only words that come to mind. During the election we heard the now Premier saying over and over again that he was going to tear up the free trade agreement. I have seen a lot of paper thrown on the floor here but I have not seen free trade hit the floor yet; very curious.

The Royal Bank came out with statistics the other day suggesting that there had been an increase in the amount of investment that had been made by Canadian companies in Canada directly as a result of the free trade agreement. Now, it must be most unfortunate to them when facts are brought forward by a completely independent institution which really violate their view of the world, but the fact is there are companies increasing their investment in Canada.

However, they are not increasing their investment in Ontario. Investment in Ontario is going down. Why? Because their government was elected, because they have not provided an environment that business feels comfortable investing in. They have every opportunity any day of the week to tear up the free trade agreement if that is what they -- they promised they were going to do it. Why do they not do it? I happen to think it is a good idea and I happen to think that the people of Canada will prosper in the long term.

Yes, there will be readjustments. We saw that in Europe. For example, when Britain entered the common market there was a wrenching readjustment; however, they became competitive. I think what this government has to urgently address itself to is our competitive position. We are now in Ontario the most heavily taxed administration in North America.

Mr Drainville: About three nights ago I was poring through my well-leafed copy of Edmund Burke. I knew we were going to be speaking about these estimates, and after hearing day after day the lugubrious outpourings of the opposition, I had the opportunity to read again the words that said, "It is a general popular error to imagine the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare."

What we see is complain, complain, complain. The honourable member said he had words he wanted to speak to the House. I will give him words. The words are "jobs, jobs, jobs," said by Brian Mulroney, "sacred trust," said by Brian Mulroney and "rolling the dice," said by Brian Mulroney. Those are words that will come to haunt the economic situation in this country and in this province for years to come because when it comes to jobs -- let me be clear about this -- the government's aim has been very straightforward from the beginning.

1700

We have established a $700-million program to ensure that the people of this province get the support they need in a recession. The honourable member opposite indicated all the jobs they created when they were in the boom times. They did not leave us with that boom time. They did not leave us with money in the till. We were left with a situation where we had to start from scratch, and we have.

As to the much-vaunted sacred trust of the Prime Minister of Canada, we are trying to establish assistance in this province to ensure that those who are in need are given the support they need. We are trying to ensure that rolling the dice is not the means by which politicians will make gains in their society, but rather that we will set coherent, good policies for the people of this province.

Mr Bradley: I thought when the member for Victoria-Haliburton rose in the House that he would in fact be rising either to extol the virtues of the government for spending money on a new logging road in Algonquin Park or denounce the government for building a logging road in Algonquin Park, because he will remember, in one of the press releases that came out, that one of the things the government was bragging about in terms of its anti-inflation program was spending money, allocating funds for the building of a logging road in Algonquin Park.

I know the member for Victoria-Haliburton is extremely concerned, and has been in the past on a very sincere basis, about the fact that there may be some valuable forests that would be disappearing. Where in the province of Ontario would we find people believing that Algonquin Park was anything other than a preserve? Certainly a New Democratic Party government would not want to encourage the kind of activity we hear is going to be taking place in Algonquin Park, with the possibility that motor boats will be running, the possibility of hunting and other activities the members of the New Democratic Party denounced while in opposition.

Because in principle the member was prepared to put it on the line, I would have thought he was prepared to go to jail in one particular case because he was very much opposed to a logging road, I thought he was going to rise in the House today to say he was prepared to lie down in front of the bulldozer, to go to the Treasurer, to go to the Minister of Natural Resources and say, "We shall not have a logging road in Algonquin Park, and certainly if there is going to be one, we should not be accomplices by providing the funding for that." I have been disappointed that in fact that has not been the case.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre, you have two minutes to reply. Do you wish to take them?

Mr Christopherson: I would just perhaps comment on the --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Cambridge was wondering why he could not have the floor. We have a maximum of 10 minutes. The member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr Christopherson: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt talked about the need for job development and my colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton talked about the fact that when we hear that argument, we cannot help but comment on the fact that we just went through the biggest boom this province has ever seen. There seemed to be so little preparation for this day which, given the cycle of business that we have, was bound to happen. Nothing was done. We find it very difficult to accept that in six months we are expected to eradicate all that neglect, although I will say that over the course of this term in government it is our intention to do just that. In the short term, we have done things like the wage protection fund which, although it comes after the fact and is not an answer for everything, is something that was on the plate of the previous government for an awfully long time. If it had been in place, then perhaps we would not have to scramble as we are doing to put it in place as quickly as possible to help those people.

What we are looking at is the future of this province. We are looking at where the growth is, what our position is, competitively speaking, in a new global world market. We understand that need. It is not going to be solved in the next few months, it is not going to be solved by the next question period tomorrow, but I believe by the end of this term in office we will have that plan in place that puts this province back on the course it belongs on, which is for a strong economy to pay for the kind of social justice we all want.

Mr Bradley: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I just listened to what the member had to say and I felt that my privileges and the privileges of all members of the House were affected by this, because he did not explain how he managed to speed up the environmental assessment process in Hamilton Centre for that road.

The Deputy Speaker: I think you, a veteran of the House, would understand that this is not a point of privilege.

Are there any other members in this House who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is my understanding that in the normal rotation, at some point we are going to switch to the Mines estimates. I know the minister is here and the critics are here, and it was my understanding that the parliamentary assistant to Treasury was indeed wrapping up that section. If I misunderstand, I would look for your direction on that.

The Deputy Speaker: When the motion was introduced, the debate was started by the minister. The rule says he has to close it, so therefore the parliamentary assistant cannot close the debate. The debate must continue until such time as there are no more people to debate. I understand that the member for Cambridge wants to debate. That is his privilege.

Mr Mahoney: Is it normal that there would be a proper rotation, since we have listened to the parliamentary assistant?

The Deputy Speaker: We have had the member for Hamilton Centre. The question was asked, "Are there any other members in this House who want to debate?"

Mr Mahoney: I believe there are.

The Deputy Speaker: No other members stood up except for the member for Cambridge; therefore I recognized the member for Cambridge.

Mr Mahoney: It was only on a point of privilege, that is all. You really are not going to stick to the rotation, because I think our members were anticipating that we were going into the Mines portfolio. Seeing the minister here, we were anticipating that happening. If that is not happening, then I believe we would like to continue the debate on the Treasury estimates and perhaps we have some folks who would --

The Deputy Speaker: There is agreement with the member for Cambridge that I continue the rotation. I will then recognize someone from this group. Is there unanimous consent?

Hon Miss Martel: My apologies. I will try to clear this up as best I can. I just got in from another meeting. It is my understanding that the member for Cambridge does want to participate in the debate, so we would like him to have the opportunity to do that. However that is accommodated is fine by me if there are other members on both sides of the opposition who do want to continue to participate.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: I was actually here today, Mr Speaker --

Hon Mr Farnan: Mr Speaker, a point of privilege.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. The member for Mississauga West.

Hon Mr Farnan: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Given a ruling that I was recognized --

The Deputy Speaker: I asked if you would authorize that I continue in rotation and you said yes, so therefore I will recognize you after the member for Mississauga West has spoken, and a member for the Conservative Party, if that party so wishes. The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: I thought that today our agreement -- there is obviously some misunderstanding or miscommunication, because clearly the agenda for the day as laid out in advance under agreement by the House leaders, I believe, was that we would indeed deal with Treasury, then we would move to Mines, then if there were time left we would move to seniors and to Energy. I was prepared to speak on the senior citizens' estimate, but since it appears, it being 5:10, that we are not likely to get to the seniors' estimates today, considering the fact that the Solicitor General wishes to speak to Treasury, then I will address my comments, somewhat ill prepared, but I will think of something, with regard to Treasury.

The way this system works is that all of these estimates, as I understand it, tend to flow together and that we talk. I appreciate the fact that the Minister for Citizenship ordered some more letterhead and business cards and we will catch her later. The Minister for Citizenship, race relations, human rights, disabled and Senior Citizens' Affairs I have, with respect, referred to as the mother of all cabinet ministers, considering the size of her portfolio. She is here today, I think, anticipating that we would have dealt with senior citizens' estimates. Had there been some co-ordination on that particular point -- not to get the House leader out of joint here; that is how I understood things were going to flow -- the cabinet minister would have had an opportunity to deal with that.

1710

Let me deal with something with regard to the whole concept that we have heard which has to deal with living up to promises and to commitments.

One of the things that concerns me about many of the statements that come out of the back bench of the government is this concept that we have got to defend it whether it is right or wrong, this concept that they truly believe, even though we have sat through one full session of the Legislature. We are now into our third week, nearing the end of our third week of the second sitting of this Legislature, and we were all prepared to give the government the time and the Treasurer the time to implement the programs or to come out honestly and tell us, "Well, we really cannot implement those programs, we really cannot do what we promised we would do," and to back off of those positions.

But what do we get? We get people standing up in the Legislature, members of the back bench, almost like they are reading the notes that were prepared by Mr Agnew or someone else in the Premier's office. I think one of the things that surprises the people of this province the most is that they really thought that even though they had elected a number of people who were inexperienced, maybe they would have some free spirits. There not only do not appear to be any free spirits. There appear to be a substantial number of what I refer to as trained seals. There appear to be nothing but members who are willing to sort of spout the party line instead of being concerned about the economic realities and what is happening in the province.

Talk to me about this deficit. I am fascinated that we have a minister over here trying to suggest that somebody cooked the books in his statement. The reality that we know is that there was, I believe, $700 million in lost revenue because of the fact that there was reduced retail sales. So there is retail sales tax that has been reduced.

The Treasurer, when he held his press conference announcing this mysterious $2.5-billion deficit that the government was supposedly left with, was asked as the very first question by the press corps -- this is the facts -- did the Liberals lie? I do not have to answer it; the Treasurer answered the question. He said, no, they did not lie, nobody lied. We had lost revenue from sales tax.

We had lost revenue from land transfer tax that no longer came in because the housing market was down. The parliamentary assistant or backbenchers should not stand up now and perpetrate a fraud upon the people of this province that the government has been left with some cooked books, because it is simply not true and they know it is not true.

All we ask the government is, put it out there and tell us what the problems are. We asked this in question period. Tell us of the economic program. Tell us what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is doing. Tell us what the government is doing for small business.

I spent a year in that ministry as the parliamentary assistant in the small business advocacy section. I have met with all the groups; I understand their concerns and they are frightened to death of this government. The government wonders why, when it brings in legislation and just makes it retroactive. They just pull it out of the hat and say, "That is it, we are going to go back two or three months."

They know what I am talking about; I am talking about Bill 4. Not only do they make that retroactive, but because of the retroactivity of it, they actually wind up going back as far as 18 months where people had approvals and conditional orders. If it was not for our Housing critic, the member for Eglinton, if it was not for her tenacity fighting the majority in the standing committee on general government on Bill 4, in getting the minister to agree to a Liberal amendment, there would have been tens of millions of dollars thrown down the drain. What puzzles me and what they do not seem to understand is the economic reality, what happens when they just wipe out tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts around the province, jobs.

I remember the very day after the Minister of Housing stood up in this House. This is their economic policy. They want to talk about Treasury estimates and their economic vision of this province. This is how it goes. Their Minister of Housing stands up and he says: "Here is our new legislation. It is retroactive." I remember that night on the late news. I saw people loading up their trucks out of apartment buildings all around the province and the cameras were there. These were workers. These were supposed to be the government's people. These are supposed to be people who believe in the government's philosophy and they are scratching their heads and they are saying, "I do not believe this. Did Bob Rae really do this?"

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): We are talking about the Treasury.

Mr Mahoney: Madam Speaker, is there a problem? I am on Treasury. I am talking about the impact that a bill had on the job loss in this province. I would also point out to you that estimates go the entire gamut and everything that occurs in Treasury has an impact on every single ministry in this province. I think it is totally in line and I would hope that you would agree that we talk about the various ministries and the impact that the lack of attention perhaps that the Treasurer is paying to those ministries is creating. In the case of Bill 4 and the housing industry, what the government did is put thousands of people around this province out of work.

I am seeing a phenomenon. I received two phone calls this week from what I would consider upper-middle-income executive types, friends of mine I went to school with, grew up with. One of them is in the computer software business. The other one is in the mortgage insurance business. Good friends, known them for years; they have families, homes. One lives in Oakville. One lives in my riding. These are people who have had these jobs; they have been careers. They have had these jobs for 20 years. Each one of them has got -- you do not care about them, I understand that. I do not care how they voted. One of the things that the members have to understand, and the NDP has such difficulty with this, is that once you are elected, you represent everybody in your riding. You represent the NDP voters, you represent the Liberal voters and you represent the Conservatives; you represent the independents and you represent the people who did not vote. It does not matter.

Mr White: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member is supposed to be speaking about the Treasury estimates, not giving us a lecture in parliamentary democracy.

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: Was that a point of order? That was not a point of order. Maybe after they have been around here a little bit they will understand that the Treasury estimates, as I have said, impact on the entire province, on every facet of this province, on every aspect of this government. Maybe they should understand that. When I get a member chirping from the clouds up there and telling me what I should be speaking about, frankly I do not think he has a clue what he is talking about. On the estimates and on the matters of concern to all of us in this House, the people of this province would like to know legitimately and have a right to know what this government is prepared to do.

I have been sitting here saying do one thing, a baby step, that would be helpful, and what have we seen? I have already told the members. The first thing we see is retroactive legislation that puts thousands and thousands of people out of work, that bankrupts small landlords all around the province. These guys think that we live in the province of Toronto; the reality is that we live in the province of Ontario. They just pass shotgun legislation that may help certain aspects of Toronto. That is fine, but it has a rippling effect on the economy. Is there any concern about that? No, what I see is people blindly standing up, defending policies that they are not clear on, that they perhaps do not understand the impact of.

1720

Mr Perruzza: Point of order.

Mr Mahoney: They have a Minister of Housing who has already announced that he is incapable of delivering the 20,000 houses they were going to deliver.

Mr Mammoliti: Point of order. Sit down.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair would remind you that the point of order is for me to decide. I do not need you to tell the honourable member to sit down. Point of order?

Mr Perruzza: Yes, Madam Speaker. I have been listening attentively to the member for the Liberal Party -- I believe he is from Mississauga -- for the last 50 minutes and it seems to me that he keeps recycling the same message, not precisely using the same words or the same terminology, but it seems to me that it is the same message over and over again. According to the standing orders of the House, the arguments have to be fresh, the ideas have to be new and they have to lead to some conclusion, to some point. He seems to be floating and floating and floating and recycling the same argument over and over and over again, and I think that you are well within your purview to sit the member down if he continues to do that. That is my point, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: It is not a point of order.

Mr Mahoney: I understand there is a class coming up at the University of Toronto that is being conducted for new members of the Legislature.

An hon member: On cross-border shopping?

Mr Mahoney: No, it is not cross-border shopping. I do not believe they need to take a bus; they can walk to it. But I hope for the sake of some order in this Legislature that they have on that agenda a section that deals with what is and what is not a point of order, because frankly I find a lot of the time being wasted by the antics of the individuals.

Mr Perruzza: Point of order.

Mr Mahoney: Here comes another one. I rest my case.

The Acting Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Mammoliti: Madam Speaker, what does this have to do with Treasury?

An hon member: Good point of order, George.

Mr Mammoliti: Thank you.

Mr Mahoney: Madam Speaker, shall I stay seated while the member for Downsview makes another point of order, or would you like me to continue?

The Acting Speaker: I would assume, looking at the clock, that you are about to wind up, so you may continue.

Mr Mahoney: That is a very brash assumption on your part, Madam Speaker. I do not know on what you base that particular suggestion.

In any event, getting back to the estimates and the concern, what again the honourable members across the way fail to understand is the impact Treasury has on every ministry. I have said that and I have to repeat it because obviously it is not getting through. The Housing minister had said he would build 20,000 new units per year. He has to get that money somewhere.

We understand that they get a certain amount of money in the non-profit housing that is a pass-through from the federal government. We understand that. We understand that our government implemented the very first unilateral non-profit housing program in the country and we understand that the current government would like to carry on with that very sensible, good policy. But I have read quotes where the Housing minister has said he is unable to, because he has not got the money and he cannot get the money.

He has not come out in this Legislature with a statement. I have not heard a policy statement where this minister has come out and said, "I must rise, Madam Speaker, to tell you that because I'm broke and I can't get the dough in my ministry and the Treasurer won't give me any allocation, I can't build any more houses." I have seen little quips and quotes and concerns about that, but I have not seen it. What is the Treasurer doing to address that? We hear all kinds of things. We hear that this budget is going to start us on the road to solving all of the problems and the promises that were laid out in the Agenda for People.

I heard my honourable colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt the other day ask the Ministry of Health for help. Talk about a ministry that eats up, what, over one third of our tax revenue. One third out of every dollar that comes in here goes out to the Health ministry, yet I heard the member for Scarborough-Agincourt ask a question to the minister, get a non-answer and then plead with her to give an answer that he could take, with some believability, back to his people. The problem we are having is that we are not getting the answers to the questions that we have an obligation to put forward.

If the problem is in Treasury, then the honourable Treasurer should tell us that. If indeed that is not where the problem is, then perhaps the honourable Treasurer should point some fingers as to where the problem is. Is there a lack of understanding or comprehension? We want to be reasonable. We want to be fair. How much time does he need?

Let's talk about the Ministry of Community and Social Services. We have a minister who was asked what is she prepared to do to help in this recession, to help end food banks. They do not want to be institutionalized. What do they do? The very first thing the minister does is put $1 million in their hands and they say:

"We don't want it. We don't want to be institutionalized. We want you to abolish it. Take the $1 million and put it into housing, because the way you solve the hunger problem in this city, in this province, is by providing shelter to single parents and the working poor so that they are not paying 50% and 60% of their income out to put a roof over their kids' heads. That's the way you solve it."

Mr Sutherland: You did it for five years.

Mr Mahoney: Well, let the government tell us how long it needs, I say to the member for Oxford. Tell us how long. They have had eight months now. People keep saying it is six, but it is really closer to eight. We are prepared to get some answers. Let them put out an agenda. They put out An Agenda for People. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt calls it the agenda for power, and rightfully so, because that is all it was. It laid out a government program. We would like to see the government's agenda today.

I do not know what five means. Someone is flashing five at me. Is that a high five perhaps?

That is our frustration. We sit here as opposition and we say, "We've got four years of this, four more, maybe a bit more, and we would like to see some kind of constructive proposals coming forward." We need to have something to criticize other than inaction, and every day in the House that is what happens. We get a few announcements from the Attorney General, doing some good things that are all Liberal policies, that were all put in by our government. Take a look at the acts on Orders and Notices. Take a look at them. All this government is doing is instituting Liberal policies. They are not putting forth any kind of platform that they can be judged on or that we can criticize in a constructive way to put forward amendments. They are doing nothing.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask you to continue talking on Treasury estimates.

Mr Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I would look to you for some direction, because as I have said before, the Treasury impacts on every ministry. I am talking about the impact that the various line ministries have as a result of their lack of co-operation from the Treasurer. I do not know how I can be any more fair or any more clear than that.

The Acting Speaker: I have been listening very carefully, and in the last few lines I felt that you strayed just a little too far. You may continue on Treasury estimates.

Mr Mahoney: I will attempt to satisfy your needs in that regard, Madam Speaker.

The reality is that this province is in an economic recession. We have heard the parliamentary assistant describe it as the most severe since the Depression. Yet we hear about the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology having afternoon naps in his office instead of addressing the issues that are of concern to the people of this province.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I said, "We hear," with good authority. We know a few folks at MITT.

What concerns us on this side of the House, aside from the sensitivities and inability of members opposite to face reality, is that we are not seeing anything out of the honourable Treasurer to be brought forward in a constructive way. We look forward to the budget. While I do not worship at the altar, to quote the former Premier, of a balanced budget, I do believe it is important that there should be responsibility in deficit financing and that if the --

1730

Hon Mr Pouliot: You don't have to kill the clock, Steve.

Mr Mahoney: I could kill the clock and probably start up again tomorrow if the minister wants me to. No problem.

While we understand that it is important that certain programs be implemented, we are very much afraid, and I can tell members that the small business community is very much afraid, that there will be a deficit ranging in the $6 billion to $10 billion range, that we will start on a proportionate basis approaching the travesty that exists in Ottawa under this lack of economic leadership.

The minister points out that we will start approaching the deficit problems in the United States on a proportionate basis, and that causes grave concern, I believe, to the business community, and the signals that have been sent by this government are that either it does not understand or it does not care, "We are going to lay most of our foundation in dealing with our good friends in the labour movement and we are going to set our policy and our direction based on dogmatic philosophy that has no place in this free enterprise society."

The estimates that we are going to be moving to, and I look forward to addressing many of the concerns around the Senior Citizens' estimates when we finally get an opportunity to get there, but I think that those are issues -- that is not a line ministry, but there are five specific areas in there that require funding attention by the Treasurer and they are not being put forward.

We have not heard about any serious funding commitments about northern Ontario. This anti-recession fund of $700 million has generated $34 million to people, out to the actually on the street, $34 million out of $700 million, and yet how many times have we heard this Treasurer reannounce and reannounce his anti-recession crusade? I think it is a charade. It is a disgrace.

Now we have the Minister of Transportation admitting that the money that goes to the municipalities need not be used for job creation. They can use it, if they wish, to deliver a service to the community that, in a municipal election year, they might find of some interest and some benefit to their constituents. They need not create jobs with it. There are no strings.

What we have got are unconditional grants to the tune of $700 million, $34 million of it disbursed willy-nilly throughout the province, the balance still waiting, I assume, for all kinds of wonderful presentations where NDP members can show up and say, "Me and the Premier brung you this cheque," and they can just simply feather their own nest and further their own cause. In some cases, we have even had defeated NDP members making announcements of some of these dollars going out in ridings -- an absolute disgrace, and I think the Premier himself was totally embarrassed about it.

Mr Jackson: Which Premier was that?

Mr Mahoney: The present Premier. Which Premier is the member talking about, Bill Davis?

Mr Speaker, back to you. I am getting all kinds of signals, and I will save some of my energy for my work as the seniors' critic for our party to work with the honourable minister. And I appreciate the fact that she has sat here, and due to some miscommunication, perhaps on my part, we have not had an opportunity to get to the seniors' estimates, but I would certainly hope that we will, because there are many concerns, and I think the minister knows there are many concerns, that revolve around how we treat our seniors and what this Treasurer is going to do. Members want to talk about Treasury estimates, what this Treasurer is going to do for senior citizens in this province. Up to now they are being ignored, I say with respect. They are being totally ignored. The only programs being implemented are Liberal programs. That is true of every ministry, so perhaps the minister need not yet feel ashamed.

But, ladies and gentlemen, it is time to get to work. It is time. They may be on a honeymoon. The people of this province are not on a honeymoon. They are out of work. They are out of work and many of them are out of food and they are out of luck and they are looking to the government for help.

Mrs Cunningham: I believe that we are all here this afternoon to listen to the debate on estimates, and I also believe that in looking at the estimates I have to say that up until now the Treasury was one of the few, if not the only, forecasting agency projecting positive growth in Ontario in 1991, and that was in spite of everything that was happening in our country. As recently as January we saw the Treasurer saying that growth would expand by 0.5% in real terms, and unfortunately we now see in March that he is saying it will actually shrink in Ontario by some 3%.

My great concern in listening to the debate this afternoon is that again we have not heard anything that will encourage the public of Ontario in this government's programs for, first of all, making our province more competitive, and I am now talking about skills development, skills training, giving people hope, preparing people for the future, instead of just always, in a very negative fashion, talking about how bad things are.

We do recognize the $700 million that was put forth as a first step, but there have even been criticisms of how that money is being spent and we are depending on the government to come back and give us a good evaluation of how that program is working.

In the few seconds remaining, I would like to leave the government with our observations of a meeting in London last week where a labour leader paints the grim picture of jobs, and this was at a very happy occasion when the London Unemployment Help Centre was given a cheque for $200,000 from the Ontario Minister of Labour. We had to sit there and listen to the worst speech, given by Gord Wilson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. For those members who know him, go talk to him. It was the most depressing speech I have ever had to listen to -- nothing positive at all.

Mr Hope: It is a pleasure to speak on what was supposedly a debate about the estimates in themselves and about the government and what we are doing today. As I start listening to some of the good economic times I hear, "What are you doing to help the workers currently today?" As a person who has represented workers for 13 years I started to listen to some of the comments, saying "What are you doing? You are listening to the debate today about the free trade agreement, about being competitive." Nobody has ever given an explanation about competitiveness other than called it concessions to the members' wages as we look at it.

But I would like to refer back to the good times, to when we talk about the good economies under the Liberal government when it was in power during the three years of the accord and the two years after when it held the majority government and did not put forward an agenda that the people could accept. As we start looking at the good economic times, we start saying, "Well, how come the NDP isn't doing something today?" During good economic times we did not prepare ourselves, and I am talking about the government at that time did not prepare itself, in making sure that we could stay in that competitive market.

We heard the member for London North stating about skills development programs. All that the government did was put money into the program and not develop a good program that would make us effective in the high tech that was coming to us.

When he talks about our education course, that we represent everybody in our constituency office, let's make one thing clear: Most of us who come from the labour movement have represented all people at all times, whether it be through our organization or through the people in communities who did not have the pleasure of belonging to a labour union. We represented them in making sure. Now when he can give us an explanation talking about a course at university, it is undermining. We are used to that. We know how to represent our people.

Mr Phillips: I want to compliment the member for his remarks and to compliment him particularly for responding to what I think was an unfortunate comment by the member for Lake Nipigon, who said that he inherited books which were cooked. I think the Treasurer would be the first to acknowledge that that was not the case, and as you look at the books, the Treasurer would say, "Those books that we inherited were exactly as the Treasury prepared them and reflected exactly the conditions as they were found."

I would point out to the members opposite, and particularly to the member for Lake Nipigon, that a majority of the deficit that they have this year is as a result of spending decisions that they decided to take. They will find out as they analyse it. It is very nice to lay it on the previous government; I realize it is very convenient. But the books were not cooked, and the Treasurer will be the first to acknowledge it. It was only a month ago the Treasurer was in saying that the deficit would be $2.5 billion. The Treasurer is now saying it is $3 billion. We do not say the books were cooked. It was only four months ago I said in the House that I felt the revenues should be substantially higher, and indeed the revenues are substantially higher.

So I resent very much the comment, which I think Hansard would support, that the government inherited books that were cooked. The Treasurer himself I think is an honourable individual who would acknowledge, as the Speaker did, that the books it inherited were exactly as they were and as they should be.

1740

The last point I would make is that as one looks over a five-year period, the previous government did indeed balance the books, indeed had a surplus every year that the previous government was in. The deficit was reduced until there was a surplus. So I am very pleased that my colleague was able to clarify the fact that the government inherited books that were not cooked.

Hon Mr Pouliot: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: With the responsibility for francophone affairs, having to be subjected, on a point of personal privilege indeed -- I for one make it a point of honour not to impute motives. I am really appalled and shocked that the people I represent would have to face, with the highest of respect, such a disgraceful display. This is not a pool room. This is not where the worst of society comes to congregate. We have serious business. The member is the one, and we have no business --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. It is not a point of privilege. It may well be a point of information. It may even be someone's opinion. However, it is not a point of privilege, and I will now recognize the member for Burlington South.

Mr Jackson: I appreciate very much the old adage that if you scratch an NDPer, you will find a Liberal in a hurry, or if you scratch a Liberal, you will find an NDPer in a hurry, or however that expression goes. There is also another expression I appreciate very much, and that is that it is unfortunate when people get elected to this House, when they are in government, they sometimes act in an arrogant fashion, and when they are in opposition, they sometimes act as though they are self-righteous. I just wanted to publicly thank the member for Lake Nipigon and the member for Mississauga West for treating us to both those important emotions.

I also wanted to thank the member for his long presentation on the economy. He should get some sort of award for speaking for 20 minutes without once mentioning 53 tax increases in the preceding five-year period. He should receive some sort of award. Then again, I understand that he went through an entire election without mentioning it and that was some sort of record of 45 days.

But more important, to the members of the government who stand in their place, particularly the member who is so enamoured by his roots in labour, who is not sitting in his seat so I cannot find his riding -- Chatham-Kent -- I remind the member, if he believes what he said in this House, then I ask him to approach the Treasurer about his blatant discriminatory funding policies for day care workers in this province.

There are CUPE workers in this province who are working under contract in private day care centres and the government has discriminated against them by not funding them properly. The truth of the matter is that the Treasurer has all the money he needs to buy those private operators out, but the government has not got the money for those women for their pay equity, and they deserve it.

The Acting Speaker: We have now had our maximum questions and/or comments. I would ask the member for Mississauga West for a two-minute rebuttal.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I would not describe them as maximum. I guess you meant time-wise. Certainly with the exception of my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I thought they were lacking and were nowhere near maximum and were obviously not well thought out.

Mr Abel: Sounds biased to me.

Mr Mahoney: I am a little biased. I think he makes a lot more sense than the member does.

Let me just tell you, Mr Speaker, that what I have been trying to point out -- and you will notice I was trying to be serious, because I think this is such a critical issue, the economy and where we are going and what the government is doing -- I really want the members to think in terms of, and I have said this to the members before, what they say to their people back home, like the two fellows I told them about who phoned me this week who are now out of work. They have lost those jobs. What do I tell them? "Send me a copy of your résumé and I will be happy to circulate it wherever I can." But in reality, what do you do about it? The government is supposed to have job creation. Well, that is exactly what the government is doing. It is supposed to have --

Hon Mr Pouliot: We created 54 jobs on this side.

Mr Mahoney: No, not work creation for the people opposite. We know that they have a lot of make-work programs in their offices and we know that they can shuffle memos back and forth and they can give non-answers in question period. We understand that. What we need are job creation programs, to the member for Oxford, who does not understand work. He just got out of school, for goodness' sake. They need job creation programs.

They should talk to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. They should talk to the only minister up there who has any understanding of what it is like to have to work in the real world. He has a business. The rest of the members of the government all live in a dream world, a bunch of little socialists, sitting in a back room trying to plot overthrows. They have not got a clue; they have no policies and they have not done a damn thing.

The Acting Speaker: I would like to remind all members to place their comments through the Chair and maybe it would not agitate everyone quite as much as it has.

Mr Cousens: I am inclined to believe that the Liberals need a tetanus shot. It just seems as if, when they rushed out of government, they did not have the full medical. That was then; this is now.

Mr Mahoney: Now we are going to get it from the pulpit.

Mr Cousens: Yes, the member will get more than that if he can sit in one place long enough and let someone give him a lesson or two.

It is unfortunate that this House does not have the Treasurer here to suffer the abuse that he just went through, because I would like to put him through some more. There is a sense in which today a number of us from this House, certainly from our caucus -- I saw our leader the member for Nipissing and as well about five deputy ministers who attended the Fraser Institute round-table luncheon when Sir Roger Douglas spoke. Sir Roger was the finance minister for the government of New Zealand from 1984 to 1988. His subject was how the government of Ontario can achieve socialist ends by capitalist means, so we were all there hungry for information to find out just what might happen. He had some very excellent points which our Treasurer -- and if I had known he was not going to be there, I could have probably arranged to get him a free ticket.

The fact of the matter is that what we really have to look at are jobs, employment opportunities, the creation of an environment in which business can prosper and in which our society can build and grow. The government does a great deal to help create that environment if in fact the government is not contributing to it but sucking like a big vacuum the lifeblood of the whole productivity of the province through overtaxation. Is it any wonder then that businesses are closing down, moving elsewhere and not able to thrive in a competitive way in our own province?

Part of the message that the honourable Sir Roger Douglas gave us today had to do with the importance of maintaining a competitive scene in the economy. That is one of the things they set out to do in New Zealand, to allow businesses to be competitive with one another. Instead of letting the state run everything, instead or having the state regulate everything, they opened up the market system. Instead of just saying the state had to own everything, they were more interested in allowing others to get involved. In fact, quite surprisingly in that environment of socialist New Zealand, which it had been for so many years with the changes they brought about, they were able to free up the economy. They were able to sell off the telephone system. They were able to improve service. They were able to introduce other competitive fixtures.

1750

One of the great dangers that is happening here in this province right now is of the high cost of doing business. The workers' compensation costs, the high cost of the employee health tax, the high cost of pay equity, the high cost of taxes, all of these things combined, which make it a beautiful province to live in, are making it uncompetitive, uncompetitive for other businesses, other people to come into this province.

While this government is in power, the great danger is that these companies that might be looking at an opportunity to establish their business in Ontario are moving elsewhere, and those that are here are moving out.

I am not just talking about the insurance industry; we are seeing it happen with State Farm. They went and started to build a new head office in Scarborough. They dug the hole, got it started, and then the president of State Farm chanced to have a meeting with the then Minister of Financial Institutions. When he learned just how poor a direction this government was taking, he went back and cancelled the whole construction project. Therefore, all you have is a hole with a fence around it, and State Farm will not be building that new edifice in Scarborough as it had originally planned.

That is what you call government interference, government cutting into the free enterprise system, government coming along with its own set of rules and regulations and therefore prohibiting the free market system from somehow floating to the top with the best to survive and people will be served. The government could act as a regulatory body rather than one that takes it over. You know what happens when government takes over anything; it kills it.

Unfortunately, 38% of the population of Ontario felt that it was time for a change and gave it to this government. This government will destroy Ontario not through all the small things; it will be through a combination of those things. You just keep adding all these little things up and before you know it, why establish a business in Ontario? Companies and businesses will not. This government is not giving an incentive to the small business person to come out and start a business, because what it does is it takes all the money away from him or her. Anyone who has a small business today, if they --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. On a point of privilege, the honourable Minister of Mines and member for Lake Nipigon.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Merci. Je m'excuse. I have to apologize first and foremost, of course, to the member for Markham, who was doing so well. I have made a faux pas for which I wish to apologize. It does not come easy. In a moment of passion in the debate I have questioned the accounting system employed by the ancien régime, and I could have used the term, "cooking the books." I wish to withdraw those remarks with apologies to the House. What I meant to say was that one had to be a mathematical genius to begin to understand the way they conducted their accounting business.

Mr Cousens: The member for Lake Nipigon is a very honourable man; he is very careful to follow parliamentary procedure, not to call people hypocrites and not to call them liars and not to call them other things, because that would be wrong. So I commend the honourable minister for his way of getting around the parliamentary procedure. I happen to respect the way in which he twists the words in such an intelligent way. I do want to --

Mrs Cunningham: He is such a tricky one.

Mr Cousens: Oh, he is a tricky man.

There are other subjects I wanted to touch on in the many hours that remain. First of all, the tire tax. The government is now collecting $5 a tire. Where is it going? This government has got well over $100 million in the tire tax fund. How much of that is going into recycling tires?

National Tire in Toronto has to bring in imported shredded tires from outside this province to have them used in its recycling process. Less than $10 million has been spent by the province of Ontario in promoting recycling and yet it has well over $100 million in that pot. I have to find that extremely unacceptable.

You cannot look at a ministry today without being critical of the way in which it is failing to address the needs of our community and the way it is breaking the dream. There is not any doubt in our minds that the honeymoon is over for this government. After six months in office we are beginning to realize just how it is failing the people of Ontario.

In my own area in York region -- and there is still a chance the honourable Minister of Community and Social Services will correct the situation -- the children's aid society has threatened to resign because it is not getting sufficient funding to maintain the services of the society. Here we have the fifth largest children's aid society serving the fifth largest number of people in the province and it is getting the 13th level of funding. So something is seriously the matter. It was not corrected by the Liberals and it has to be corrected now because the inequity that is taking place within our community is certainly a serious problem, so that is one other ministry. When you look at the Ministry of Community and Social Services talking about serving the needs of people, in our own community we have the Water Street project, where we are hoping to have accommodation of seniors and others with physical handicaps in the same building, we have the building under construction and the money is not forthcoming from the ministry -- a tragic situation.

What about employment for students this summer? When you look at the economy, this government is not doing a thing to help students and yet tuition next year will go up approximately $500. I understand York University is going to increase the cost of room and board by another $500. It could be $1,000 more per student next year, so what are they doing about it? What is going to happen to help create an environment for jobs for young people this summer? I happen to know the number of people who are concerned about their own young people who are going back to university, want to pay their own way and cannot do it because there is not a job out there. There are thousands of university students, thousands of others in this province who are going to be impacted just by what it is doing as a government in failing to address the needs of young people in our society.

I have to see it as a serious problem when in fact its own Ministry of Natural Resources is cutting back on the Junior Ranger program. There are certain things the government can do and one says, "It is good to cut back." I want see us be fiscally responsible, but I want to see us create a climate where people can have a job -- that is the basis of a strong society, so that a person can go out, earn his money and look after his home and his family and be responsible for himself -- create a climate in which people will want to be enterprising and competitive, not a climate in which people are saying: "I wish I could move to the United States. I'd like to get out of here. I'm sick of what's going on in Ontario." People cannot afford to pay the double-digit tax increases on their property taxes, education costs continue to go through the roof and who is paying for it? We are seeing every level of government abdicate its responsibility to the taxpayer and we are beginning to see a tax revolt which is just beginning. It is a snowball that is rolling and it is going to get bigger and bigger.

The House adjourned at 1758.