The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Beer: I rise today with a message for the Minister of the Environment. Earlier today, I and colleagues from the Liberal caucus met with representatives from the north from the municipalities of Kirkland Lake, Englehart and Larder Lake, as well as representatives from citizens' groups who are anxious to see the government reopen and look at the whole question of the integrated waste disposal system being proposed for Kirkland Lake by which refuse from Metropolitan Toronto would be taken north and developed there as an economic asset to the north.

What these groups have been saying to us is that at no time will the minister listen to them. She has refused to speak to them, to meet with their representatives to discuss this proposal. Yet right now the hearings are beginning to look into the various sites in the regions around Metropolitan Toronto and the greater Toronto area to see where future disposal sites will be.

It seems clear that one of the things the minister should do is to direct that the Kirkland Lake proposal be part of that review. We are asking that the minister get away from her ideological response to this issue and simply ask what these people have asked, that it be submitted to a proper environmental review on the same basis as any other. In that way we will know whether in fact the Kirkland Lake proposal will be safe for the residents of that area, and everyone will be served. But the minister has to take the first step and direct that this project now be part of the review that will be carried out to find alternative sites for the greater Toronto area.

BUDGET

Mr Carr: In the wake of the first NDP budget, our province is now saddled with a $9.7 billion deficit, the biggest in our history. In addition to tripling the provincial deficit, the Premier and the Treasurer have added $1 billion in new taxation measures and promised further increases in government spending. The only way to end this recession and save jobs in Ontario is to cut taxes and reduce government spending. This budget is 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

People ranging from children to business leaders are worried. Ken Harrigan, the president of Ford Motor Co in my riding, has stated that the Premier promised business and industry that economic recovery would take priority over social reform, and that if this budget is an example of economic recovery, the Premier is going in the wrong direction. The auto industry is the fuel of economic recovery in this province, and it does not make sense to tax new cars as gas guzzlers when what the government should be doing is getting old cars off the road.

My own three children agree with young Sarah Fudge of North Bay, who has written: "The NDP say that they want the best environment for their children to grow up in and pass on to their children. Does this include the economic environment? Yes, we have to help those in need, no one can argue with that. There are better ways than this. Please try to get them to listen. It's our future that hangs in the balance."

JOB CREATION

Mr Dadamo: I would like to counteract what the member for Oakville South has talked about this afternoon. As the member of the Legislature representing the riding of Windsor-Sandwich, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the members of this House that a third shift is being added at the Chrysler plants in Bramalea and Windsor. As a result of this move, 5,000 new direct jobs in the auto industry and indirect support service jobs are being created in our economy when jobs are badly needed. It will also mean the production of as many as 90,000 more mini-vans a year in the area. It is the biggest single increase in employment in Windsor since the mid-1960s.

In addition, the CAW has negotiated a significant reduction in working hours. The Canadian Auto Workers union has negotiated a seven-hour day at these two facilities when the three shifts become operational. Workers will receive eight hours' pay for the seven hours worked in the plant, and any hours worked beyond seven hours will be paid at time and a half.

As well, this agreement, to be ratified in the month of June, represents an historic breakthrough for both auto workers and all industrial workers at home and internationally. It is an excellent example of a company increasing its commitment to Ontario, proving that it is worth while to invest in the province of Ontario. It also recognizes that having motivated high-wage workers with the latest equipment is the best road to economic recovery and success in the 1990s.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Caplan: I would like to share with members of the House a motion that was carried at a recent board of directors meeting on 24 and 25 May in Delhi, Ontario, at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. It was moved by Howard Moscoe and seconded by Bob Foulds. It said:

"AMO opposes the rigidity of the Minister of the Environment's order that municipalities are prohibited from exporting waste beyond municipal boundaries. AMO believes that in those situations where there are no safe and viable alternatives and there is a willing host municipality, the export of waste should be permitted and that the government should modify its position accordingly."

This motion was carried by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

The delegation that I met with this morning, along with members of our caucus, were very dismayed because this NDP government and this Minister of the Environment have denied them a hearing, have refused to meet with them. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has not even been able to arrange a meeting between the Minister of the Environment and these northern municipalities.

What they are asking for is reasonable and fair. They are asking for an environmental assessment evaluation of a comprehensive waste management alternative which may prove better for the environment than anything we have seen to date in Ontario. Their demands are reasonable, and AMO says as well that this government should reconsider its position.

1340

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mrs Witmer: Last Tuesday night, 21 May, I joined more than 200 women from my community in conducting a safety audit of the streets, alleys and parks of Kitchener-Waterloo to determine just how safe or unsafe our twin cities are for women.

I would like to congratulate the Kitchener-Waterloo Sexual Assault Support Centre, as well as all of the women who participated, for organizing this important and very successful exercise. The large turnout is a clear indication that women are extremely concerned about the increasing number of sexual assaults and that they are prepared to take action to make sure the environment in which women walk is made safer.

In visiting various areas in the twin cities, the participants suggested ways in which the risk of sexual assault could be reduced. These included such measures as the installation of additional lighting, sidewalks or cutting back bushes and trees. The mayors of both cities have pledged to take action on the recommendations which will result from this safety audit.

While the safety audit will not immediately eliminate violence against women, it is an important first step in raising public and municipal government awareness about the dangers faced by women at night, and it will contribute to making our community a safer place in which to live.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr Drainville: The leader of the third party spoke two weeks ago of a letter that cost approximately $60 to send by courier. I would like to share a comment by Lord Samuel, a British statesman, who said, and I think these words could be addressed to the third party, "Do not choose to be wrong for the sake of being different."

I use this particular statement because as the leader of the third party virulently attacks the spending of $60 on one hand, he is wasting $290,000 every single day that he prevents this House from debating the budget; $290,000 is what it costs to run the Legislative Assembly every day. The leader of the Progressive Conservative Party has now delayed this House to the tune of $3 million. If it continues to the end of this session, it will be significantly more than that.

The leader of the third party claims to be a tax fighter; in fact, he is a tax waster. He is abusing not only the system which allows free expression of such a small minority view, but even worse he is disdainful of the will of the people and should allow this government to proceed with its business at no further tax waste. We say that the government needs to get on with the business so the people of Ontario can receive the support they so richly deserve by legislators in this House.

PENSION REFORM

Mr Chiarelli: On the important issue of pension reform, the NDP agenda for power is clear. It promises that pension benefits should be indexed, pension surpluses belong to employees, and employers should not be allowed to take contribution holidays.

Earlier this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that contribution holidays were legal. In response to this decision, the then minister, the member for Welland-Thorold, promised legislation this year. Just two weeks ago, the current minister indicated in this House that he has done nothing to stop DRG Inc of Toronto in its plans to withdraw pension surpluses, a proposal which clearly violates the spirit of the moratorium on pension surplus withdrawals and the Premier's own stated policy that pension surpluses belong to plan members.

The people of Ontario see the government doing nothing on pensions. Will the Premier at least tell us how and when his open government will consult with the public on this very important issue, and when he will answer a William Mercer Ltd report of 5 March that strongly recommends that the NDP's pension proposals not be implemented? The people of Ontario want to know: What is the Premier really up to on pensions?

SEXUAL ABUSE OF PATIENTS

Mr Eves: When doctors take on responsibilities of life and death, they also take a Hippocratic oath which enshrines them with absolute trust. The oath reads in part as follows: "In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction, and especially free from the pleasure of love with women or with men."

Today I would like to commend the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for unanimously endorsing the recommendations of the task force, which proclaimed an absolute intolerance of sexual abuse of patients by doctors. The task force, which travelled throughout the province, was given a mandate to recommend improvements in the manner in which the college deals with complaints of physical and sexual abuse of patients, develop guidelines for doctor-patient relationships, recommend education training for both doctors and patients, and make recommendations to change laws and legal procedures brought before the college about sexual abuse by doctors.

Most important was the recommendation that stated the college adopt a philosophy of zero tolerance of sexual abuse of patients by doctors, and then changing many college procedures and policies to be more effective and sensitive to such abuse.

We as legislators can join with respect to the last recommendation: changes in the legal and legislative systems to correct the bias against sexual abuse victims. If we all do our jobs, I am sure we will make the lives of patients that much more tolerable in the province of Ontario.

EAST YORK STUDENTS' ACHIEVEMENTS

Mr Malkowski: It is with much pride that I rise today to inform the House of the achievements of four outstanding students from the East York public school system.

Scott Davies from Marc Garneau Collegiate Institute and Wai-Yin Shum of Cosburn Middle School represented Metropolitan Toronto at the Canada-Wide Science Fair, which was recently held in Vancouver, British Columbia. Both of these students devoted many hours of research and preparation for their projects.

The town of Morotomi, Japan, extended an invitation to young people around the world to draw scenes that reflect the places where they live. The judges selected the designs of Pattie Pantev of East York Collegiate Institute and John Koutras of Westwood Junior High School. Pattie and John's artwork will be made into colourful, traditional Japanese ceramics, and then displayed in Morotomi's gallery, alongside the work of children from around the world.

The achievement of these students makes East York schools and the Ontario education system shine in the global community.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I invite all members to welcome to our gallery this afternoon Her Excellency Mary Madzandza Kanya, the high commissioner for the Kingdom of Swaziland. Welcome.

1350

CAROLYN THOMSON

Hon Mrs Coppen: It is with sadness that I mention today the death last week of Carolyn S. Thomson. This remarkable young woman died at the age of 30 after a courageous battle with cancer.

Carolyn fought this battle with the same fierce determination and sense of humour that she had lived her life with. Many will remember Carolyn as a legislative intern in 1986-87. She was the intern who always asked the first question and the most pointed question when the interns met with the cabinet ministers and other political leaders.

One of the goals of the internship program is to explore the ideals of all political parties. Carolyn shared this goal as an intern, as she chose to broaden her horizons by working with Susan Fish and with Joan Smith when she was chief government whip. During this time she developed friendships and gained respect in all three parties.

Carolyn believed in the legislative process, and in particular had a strong commitment to seeing more women participating in political life. She had planned to run for political office one day.

Carolyn worked hard in organizing and developing an alumni organization of interns. She volunteered for the publication Canadian Legislatures, and wrote a well-received article on conflict-of-interest legislation. Carolyn received a degree in Canadian studies from Trent University and had a strong belief in the value of Canadian cultural institutions. At the University of Ottawa she wrote her master's thesis on the CBC.

As part of her work as a consultant at Coopers and Lybrand she wrote the project that resulted in Cinémathèque Ontario. Cinémathèque, which expanded the Ontario Film Institute, is a film library and screening venue offering films, seminars and lectures.

On behalf of myself and my other colleagues I would like to send our deepest sympathy to Carolyn's family and friends and to her husband, Doug Hamilton. Carolyn's commitment to excellence in herself and others will not be forgotten.

I would like to close by paraphrasing a 19th-century historian: She does not die who bequeaths some influence to the land she knows.

Mrs Cunningham: It is with sadness and regret that I stand on behalf of my caucus this afternoon to express our deepest sympathy and condolences to the family of Carolyn Thomson. Carolyn, as has already been suggested and reported, was a former legislative intern in 1986-87, and she died last week after a valiant struggle with cancer. She was a special intern who approached her job with joy and enthusiasm and she will be remembered for a very long time as a person who gave 100% of everything she did.

Colleagues who worked with her remember her as someone who had a great joy for life and a genuine interest in others. When she began her successful career with Coopers and Lybrand, she at that time discovered that she was very ill, but like everything else in her life she approached her illness with a positive attitude.

She had an immense capacity to understand and like people and an inner strength to carry on even when faced with the obstacles of her illness. She had a future with great potential and had a sense of the goals she wanted to achieve. Our loss is that Carolyn will not have the opportunity to attain these goals, and although she was with the Progressive Conservative caucus for a very short period of time, she left with us her professional and, more important, her personal mark.

For those of us who knew her she will not be forgotten, and to her husband, Doug Hamilton, her family and friends, we would like to extend to them our deepest sympathy and our condolences for their great personal loss.

Mr Nixon: Carolyn Thomson chose during her internship here in 1986-87 to work with the government House leader's office. I was the government House leader at that time, and from all of our remembrances and reports she was an excellent worker and totally interested in and committed to the democratic system. She was full of life and good humour and was a leading exponent of the usefulness of the internship and the involvement of people, particularly young people, in learning about the system and contributing to it.

When you think of her life, short as it was, she made a tremendous contribution both here and throughout the community, and it always leads to the question about this particular illness and its terrible ramifications. Those matters really cannot stand too much thought as we think of the people who are committing their lives to helping those people stricken with the illness and helping them through it, and so often the fact that the results are tragic, as in this case.

Her life certainly was a good one. I have already said that her example to the people she worked with was outstanding. The thoughts of what her family and her husband are bearing now give us all great pause, and I join with the other members who have spoken in extending our condolences. Our thoughts are certainly with them.

The Speaker: The kind and thoughtful remarks by the members who have spoken this afternoon will be forwarded to Carolyn's family and her husband and with your best wishes to the interns with whom she worked. They, as you must know, were very close to her and they feel this loss quite deeply as well.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to announce that the interim enforcement policy we have been developing regarding aboriginal rights to hunt and fish is now in effect.

As I previously told the Legislature, the intent in developing the new interim enforcement policy is to clarify current government practice regarding aboriginal rights to hunt and fish for food for personal and community use.

The interim policy applies to status Indian people who are fishing or hunting for food in an area that is covered by their treaty. In addition, the policy applies to status Indians who are hunting and fishing in an area where they have traditionally harvested. Where such areas are different from existing treaty areas or are not set out in treaties, the boundaries of such traditional areas will be clarified through negotiation.

We needed to develop an interim enforcement policy in order to reflect the guarantee of aboriginal rights in section 35 of the Constitution and to respond to recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada that help to define those rights.

One of the most significant Supreme Court rulings, the Sparrow decision of May 1990, says that aboriginal rights to fish for food for personal and community use take first priority after conservation and resource management concerns have been satisfied. Through the interim policy, the logic of the Sparrow decision is being applied to hunting wildlife for personal and community use, as well as to fishing for such use.

The Sparrow decision also says that the relationship between governments and aboriginal people should not be adversarial. To promote this non-adversarial climate the government of Ontario is prepared to negotiate agreements with aboriginal people regarding their aboriginal rights to hunt and fish for food.

The interim enforcement policy sets out the ground rules for negotiating arrangements with aboriginal people.

The new policy is consistent with the government's commitment to negotiate self-government arrangements with aboriginal people and its commitment to develop co-management agreements on natural resources.

The new policy is interim because it is meant to be in place until it is replaced by negotiated agreements with aboriginal people, after consultation with first nations and interested third parties. The interim policy will minimize the number of instances where native people might be charged under acts such as the Game and Fish Act, the Fisheries Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Under the interim enforcement policy, status Indian people harvesting wildlife and fish for personal consumption or for social and ceremonial purposes will not be subject to enforcement procedures except under certain circumstances. These circumstances include: hunting in an unsafe manner; where wildlife and fish are taken for commercial purposes, except where specific recognized rights exist; where wildlife and fish are taken in a manner which puts conservation objectives at risk; and where hunting and fishing occur on privately owned or occupied land, unless there is permission from the land owner.

The following activities may be considered as examples of activities that could put conservation objectives at risk: destruction or harmful alteration of fish and wildlife habitat; in certain circumstances, fishing in sanctuaries or waters that are closed at all times of the year, or hunting in waterfowl sanctuaries; taking of rare, threatened or endangered species; or taking of wildlife while they are nursing their young.

Again, I want to emphasize that these are examples of what may be considered exceptions to the general rule that allows aboriginal people to hunt and fish for food.

The interim policy also provides for status Indian people to barter game and fish in exchange for other game and fish within or among their communities. The interim policy also provides a framework for working with Metis and non-status Indian communities where harvesting wildlife and fish is integral to the lifestyle of that community. The provisions of the Game and Fish Act, the Fisheries Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act will continue to apply to Metis and non-status Indian communities until agreements have been entered into with these communities.

In addition, agreements will have to be in place before aboriginal people may hunt or fish in provincial parks, unless they already have such rights.

This policy will apply to the unique circumstances which exist with respect to the harvest of game and fish by the Algonquins of Golden Lake in Algonquin Provincial Park. The Algonquins of Golden Lake have filed a substantial claim to a large part of the Ottawa Valley, including Algonquin Park. They have never been compensated for extinguishing their rights in the area they claim. Those unique circumstances must be recognized, and they have been, through our commitment to negotiate the land claim beginning 15 June.

1400

This commitment includes an agreement to negotiate an interim arrangement with the Algonquins of Golden Lake regarding the aboriginal right to hunt and fish for food in the area they claim. The interim agreement will include sub agreements on deer and moose hunting and fishing that will specify seasons and areas for hunting and fishing, levels of harvest and measures to protect park values, ensure enforcement and conservation and protect public safety.

We are currently negotiating with the Algonquins and consulting with other interested groups on proposals for the interim agreement. Through these negotiations and discussions, we will ensure that we have arrangements that conserve resources and protect public safety.

The interim enforcement policy indicates that in order for aboriginal people to hunt and fish in a provincial park, there must be a governing agreement. We have agreement with the Algonquins of Golden Lake on principles for hunting deer and moose within the context of this policy. We are working with the Algonquins of Golden Lake to finalize a fishing agreement and have been making some progress. Although there remain some outstanding issues in relation to fishing negotiations, we believe that we will enter into an agreement soon. Until there is agreement on principles in relation to fishing, fishing activities by the Algonquins of Golden Lake will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Across the province, where there are allegations that a native person has violated the principles of conservation or public safety, those allegations will continue to be reviewed through the normal screening process in the Ministry of Natural Resources. Under this process, the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, in consultation with senior officials, reviews recommendations on charges against native persons and decides whether or not charges should be laid.

Before a decision is made to proceed with charges, the Ministry of Natural Resources will consult the chief or designate of the affected first nation to discuss concerns about harvesting of fish and wildlife. The appropriate aboriginal treaty and political organization will also be notified. The Attorney General may intervene in the screening process.

Where there are allegations that status Indian people are improperly fishing or hunting for commercial purposes, the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources must give his written approval before planned enforcement procedures are undertaken, such as inspecting commercial establishments, search warrants and special investigations. When reviewing recommendations to lay charges regarding commercial fishing, the deputy minister will also take into consideration whether or not there exists a right to harvest wildlife and fish for commercial purposes.

In developing the interim policy, we have consulted with aboriginal people and other interested groups in the province. While the native leadership and other groups do not necessarily accept the principles underlying the new policy, there has been constructive dialogue and a shared recognition that new rules are necessary. Many of the revisions suggested during the consultation are now part of the interim policy. We are open to further suggestions on revisions in the future.

I would like to recognize the assistance of the Indian Commission of Ontario and the commissioner, Harry Laforme, in developing the interim policy.

I am also announcing today that new consultation committees on these matters are being set up immediately. One will be a conservation committee with representatives from the province, including the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, and from aboriginal and treaty organizations. They will meet quarterly to discuss decisions by the Ministry of Natural Resources deputy to proceed with charges against native persons.

Regional conservation committees in the Ministry of Natural Resources administrative regions will also be set up. Representatives will be drawn from MNR and from area aboriginal treaty and political organizations. These committees will discuss activities that might put conservation objectives at risk; the necessity of existing and future fish sanctuaries; the rare, threatened and endangered species of the region, and the areas in the region that require special protection.

I want to emphasize again that a new approach is needed to deal with the issues surrounding enforcement and the aboriginal right to hunt and fish for food for personal and community use. This new interim enforcement policy provides a mechanism that will help us meet our commitment to find ways to allow native people to exercise their aboriginal rights. Meegwetch.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Hon Mrs Boyd: During National Access Awareness Week, I wish to inform members of an important new direction in the education of pupils with special needs.

National Access Awareness Week highlights the importance of removing barriers from the paths of people who have disabilities. Not all these barriers are physical. They are none the less real and they represent real obstacles to full participation in society.

My ministry will therefore begin a widespread consultation on the best way to further the integration of exceptional pupils into local community classrooms and schools. I will also, in the near future, be introducing legislation to amend various special education provisions of the Education Act and related statutes.

This government strongly believes that exceptional pupils who could benefit from integration into local community classrooms and schools should have that opportunity. More exceptional pupils should be able to participate fully in the life of their local, community school. Our goal can be clearly defined: Wherever possible -- where it meets the pupil's needs and where it is the parents' choice -- integration should be the preferred option.

The special education amendments will also focus on the issue of access. They will address several inequities that currently exist in the availability of special education programs and services.

With respect to integration, I recognize that we cannot move in this new direction without building consensus. In this consultation, it will be important for my ministry to hear from the education community and from organizations and individuals representing people with disabilities, their families and their community.

My ministry will also be making particular efforts to reach out to communities whose voices may not have been heard in the past. These include aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and francophones. How far and how fast we should proceed is one issue that this consultation will address. However, I expect the first measures to ensure that the integration option is available throughout Ontario will be in place for the beginning of the school year in September 1992.

There are two other issues of particular importance to be addressed through this consultation. First, the role of parents in reaching decisions about special education for their children needs to be strengthened. We need to look at ways to ensure that parents are fully informed of all possible choices and are involved in special education decisions as full partners. Second, we must discuss the costs of integration, what will be required in the way of human and financial resources and how these resources should be provided.

I want to reassure parents that we remain committed to encouraging boards to provide a full range of special education placements. We recognize that an integrated setting will not be appropriate for every child. The needs of all pupils will be met and placements that have the mutual support of parents and educators will be respected. In this regard, the government believes that there should be more consistency in the options available from one school board to another. I also want to affirm that the provincial schools will continue to be an option for special education.

Details about the consultation process will soon be made available to all interested groups and individuals.

During National Access Awareness Week we can surely say that there is no more important right of access than the right of access to learning. A greater commitment to the integration of our exceptional pupils is, in the end, a greater commitment to an open and more integrated society.

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, we are awaiting a report that is supposed to be attached to the statement made by the Attorney General. I am just wondering if we can revert to that later on in the proceedings so that both opposition parties will have a chance to see the report as well.

The Speaker: This requires unanimous consent.

Agreed to.

The Speaker: Are there other ministerial statements? We can begin the responses and then we will revert to the Attorney General's statement and provide sufficient time for the responses to that particular statement. So responses to the first two: Is there a response?

1410

RESPONSES

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Beer: I rise in response to the Minister of Education's statement with regard to the integration of exceptional pupils into regular classrooms. At first reading, there is much in here that we can support. Indeed we share with the government the view that those with special needs should be integrated within our local and community schools.

But I do feel the minister has missed an opportunity to state somewhat more forcefully and clearly that which was expressed in the multi-year plan this government had put forward with respect to those children with special needs, regarding their ultimate full integration into the community. It seems to me that if there was one thing in particular the former government was able to focus on, it was this question of the integration of those with special needs into our community.

Of course, that takes consultation, discussion and the building of consensus, but I believe, as the minister knows, there has already been, with respect to the area of education, a great deal of discussion through her own Advisory Council on Special Education. Indeed many of the groups and organizations active in this field that have been consulting with the minister and with those of us in the opposition have been expressing their concern that this issue is not moving forward as quickly as it might.

While we recognize, as has been said, that there are many needs and interests that have to be met, clearly when we sort that aside, the focus is on the children. Almost without exception, I think the various studies and reports we have seen on various programs that take place in other countries and other provinces demonstrate that the greater the integration of the child, with whatever kind of special needs, into the regular classroom, this leads to the best education and the best future for that child and likewise has a tremendous impact on that child's fellow classmates. What we want to be particularly clear and forceful about is that the objective and the goal be that at the end of the day we will build a consensus that in fact will see that this kind of arrangement results.

We know that with all these kinds of programs there will be difficulty about finances. There will be difficulty at times about perhaps parents or others in the educational establishment who feel that, no, what is best is somehow to isolate these children and keep them away from their peers. But I believe that here we have a leadership role in government in working with the various groups and with the various interests to say that we must keep clearly in mind that where we are going is to that full integration.

I welcome this statement in terms of its general direction. I believe it could have been stronger in terms of that ultimate goal. I look forward to discussing with the minister the proposals she will be bringing before this House in the near future, and I am looking forward as well to working with the various groups to ensure that here in Ontario we do end up with an integrated system.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Scott: It would be difficult, if not impossible, to object to a statement from the Minister of Natural Resources which builds on the policy of the previous government and which is expressed in terms of such great generality as this one. A couple of points, however, should be noticed.

The policy of interim agreements and the conservation preservation model that underlies it goes well beyond the decision in the Sparrow case. The minister will not be able in the future, when he is out on the hustings, to say that the devil made him do it. He has to explain, and I know he will want to explain clearly, that the policy he has enunciated has now very little to do with the Sparrow case, but is essentially the policy of this government. That is point one. I am sure his legal officers, some of whom are in the gallery, will confirm that for him.

The second thing he will want to be very careful about is to recognize that the conservation standards are extremely narrow. For example, a moose is not an endangered species and would not be protected under the conservation standards that are set out in this statement, even if its population is at risk.

The third thing the minister will want to be careful of is that there are a lot of user groups out there who are very concerned, and have legitimate concerns, about the policy of the government. Some method, no doubt in connection with the fishing negotiations, will have to be devised to accommodate them and, frankly, merely hiring the writer for the anglers' magazine is not going to do the trick in 1991.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mrs Cunningham: I rise to respond to the statement by the Minister of Education with regard to the integration of exceptional pupils into regular classrooms. Of course, we have all been most interested in having an opportunity to review the legislation that was passed in 1980 and fully implemented by 1985, the old, as we refer to it, Bill 82. We know there are times right now when we can take a look at how it has been, in fact, successfully or not successfully implemented.

I would say to the minister today that a precedent was set by her government on 9 April 1991, where we think that she in fact put forth a policy change or a change in direction with regard to the responsibility of parents. In the past, the individual placement review committees, of course, did have the participation of parents there, and parents with the opportunity with their local boards did not always get what they thought was right for their young people. I would say that one of the reasons would be the funding, and the minister knows that.

I would add, then, that we certainly do know enough, in speaking to local boards and with parent groups, about where their difficulties have been. I would urge the minister very quickly, in fact, to put forth the legislation or the amendments to the legislation that we have right now so we can take a look at what exactly she wants to do and then be much more beneficial in our criticism and in our suggestions for improvement to that legislation.

I commend her for wanting to consult, but I would guess that the communities that work with our disabled youngsters already have good ideas as to what they want. I would suggest that the government has good ideas as to what it would fund and how it could fund it, and I will remind the government of its promise during the last campaign where it said it would indeed provide 100% provincial funding for appropriate specialist staff. The government may change its mind on this, but I think we are ready for the legislation, I think we are ready for amendments, and we are ready to respond with a very direct response.

Mr Wildman: You mean you want to pass legislation in this legislature?

Mrs Cunningham: I speak actually very positively because I think the minister knows what she wants in spite of what the Minister of Natural Resources suggests, and she will come forth with legislation that we can live with because she has that kind of experience, as do we in this party.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Harnick: The Sparrow decision has been interpreted by this government to mean that aboriginal rights to fish for food for personal and community use take first priority after, and I stress the word after, conservation and resource management concerns have been satisfied.

It is my position, and I hope the minister's, that he understands that those final agreements have to be agreements that involve conservationists, that involve resource management people, that involve tourist operators and tourists. There is nothing in this statement to dispel the negative perception that tourist operators have and that tourists, in fact, have of the way these interim negotiations have been handled by the minister to date.

Certainly his policy statements constantly refer to the Sparrow decision. It is incumbent upon him, now that we know how he interprets this, to pursue that course and pursue the course making agreements with all of the parties, not making agreements just with aboriginal people and then trying to convince other affected parties what the policy should be. Certainly if all the cards are on the table before final agreements are made, everybody can live much more happily.

1420

Mr J. Wilson: I would like to make a short comment in response to the statement today by the Minister of Natural Resources. Just to reiterate the words of my colleague the member for Willowdale, he did not take the occasion today to dispel the concerns of recreationists and tourist outfitters in the Algonquin Park area. I am getting calls into my office where people are asking whether they should take their families to Algonquin Park this summer. He should have taken the initiative today to dispel those fears.

I am extremely disappointed in this vague announcement in which he did nothing. I hope he is consulting with his colleague the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, but there is no evidence. He does not even mention the word in this statement today. We are extremely disappointed. I will be meeting very shortly with outfitters in the area and I do not think there is anything in here that will make them feel better about the agreements he is reaching behind closed doors.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Hon Mr Hampton: On 22 April 1991 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Toronto was asked to investigate the allegedly wrongful contact with the judiciary by or on behalf of the Solicitor General for Ontario. The investigation has now been completed. It is my intention at this time to provide the members of the Legislature with an accounting of the findings of the independent investigation.

The RCMP has concluded that there is no evidence to support criminal prosecution. Senior legal officers in the Ministry of the Attorney General have reviewed the investigation report delivered by the RCMP and have concurred with this conclusion. With the benefit of the investigation and the advice offered by senior ministry officials, it is my opinion that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by anyone working for or connected to the Solicitor General or by the Solicitor General himself or anyone else involved in the circumstances of the case.

The investigation undertaken by the RCMP was both thorough and comprehensive. It embraced all factual aspects of the allegations of criminal misconduct. The objective of the investigation was to determine whether any evidence existed to support criminal charges against any member of the constituency staff of the Solicitor General or the Solicitor General himself. The investigation included an interview with the Solicitor General himself, who also consented in writing to unfettered access to all files in his office. The files were reviewed and three instances of constituents seeking help where they had improperly been found guilty of a parking violation came to the attention of the investigators.

The subsequent investigation included interviewing each of the three citizens, each of the three constituency office staff who helped them, the members of the court staff who were approached by the constituency staff for direction as to how the constituency staff should assist the constituents, and the justices of the peace who ultimately received the correspondence. No evidence of criminal intention on the part of any individual was found in the investigation.

The RCMP has advised the Ministry of the Attorney General that the report is the property of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A letter from the acting officer in charge of criminal operations to the acting assistant deputy Attorney General, criminal law --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Response time will be later.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- states that the report was provided to the ministry for the purpose of legal review and analysis only and is not to be made known to any other agency or person.

However, given the nature of the investigation, I understand that there are a number of legitimate questions which the members of the Legislature may have regarding the type and extent of the investigation. In the interests of maintaining the public's faith in the administration of justice, I am releasing to this Legislature a report prepared by the director of criminal prosecutions in the Ministry of the Attorney General. This report outlines the initial processing of the information by the Ministry of the Attorney General and the request made to the RCMP, the purpose of the RCMP investigation and the steps taken to obtain information, a summary of evidence obtained by the RCMP and the legal opinion and conclusions of the director of criminal prosecutions provided to both the RCMP and myself.

This concludes my report to the Legislature on the investigation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David may be utilizing some of his response time.

Members will recall that we had earlier had responses, and although we had utilized the apportioned five minutes I would be pleased to allow a two-minute response time to each of the two caucuses, hence the Leader of the Opposition.

RESPONSES

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Nixon: I have to say that the Attorney General's defence of this situation is the weakest I have heard in the House in my experience. There has never been from our side or from the community, there has never been from the editorialists who have called for the resignation of the Solicitor General, an indication of criminal wrongdoing, but simply the breaking of the guidelines set down by the Premier himself. Surely this is the item that must focus our attention. The head of the government has taken unto himself to establish guidelines for the conduct of his ministers and those guidelines were clearly broken.

Mr Speaker, you will clearly recall that the matter became a matter of urgent importance in the Legislature. The Attorney General himself said that in order to escape being pilloried in the House he put the matter in the hands of the RCMP.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David, I think would want to consider his normally measured tones in response.

Mr Scott: I did not call anybody a liar, Mr Speaker. I said that language should not be used.

The Speaker: The language which was used was not the language which is normally used in this House.

Mr Scott: I withdraw the word.

The Speaker: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would continue.

Mr Nixon: Mr Speaker, the response time is totally inadequate but there will be other opportunities, no doubt, to deal with the matter. I am certainly not going to worry about whether the Attorney General said that he called in the RCMP to escape being pilloried in the House. As a matter of fact, he said "pillared in the House," and everybody noticed that particular statement. That is clearly what was said.

The point is this: To say that the report is not the property of this government is absurd and is unacceptable in this House. Because the time to respond is totally inadequate, we will pursue it in the next order of business.

Mr Harnick: It is quite clear that what the government has done is it has taken this incident and pretended it was a criminal matter. It has hidden behind a criminal investigation to avoid admitting ministerial responsibility.

What responsibility does the minister have for staff? That is not answered in any of these investigations.

What instructions did the minister give his staff regarding conflict of interest, regarding instructions about dealing with the judiciary?

Page 8 clearly says -- I am talking about the addendum -- "He had informally spoken to some of his staff to inform them that they ought not to contact any police agency or the judiciary." Well, that is not what he said here. He said: "Clearly, we have to have an arm's-length distance." Well, that is not the finding that is in this addendum.

We also know, if we look at paragraph 25, that staff member 2 is a receptionist in the constituency office. She did not have any written guidelines or directions in relation to corresponding with the judiciary. Well, that is not what the minister told this House and he has abrogated ministerial responsibility.

Furthermore, how come the Attorney General was not told about this for 10 days? What about the Deputy Attorney General? Where was she through all of this? Why was she not communicating with the Attorney General? Why was there no investigation by the Attorney General to get the letter? Why did they wait 12 days before anybody did anything? Why was the Premier's office notified before the Attorney General? Furthermore, why did the press have to leak this information so that we would know about it? Why did the government not come clean and why did the government not declare what was going on?

This criminal investigation is a lot of garbage and nothing more. They are hiding behind it. The minister should resign.

1430

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Nixon: I am sure the Attorney General is aware of our total dissatisfaction with his statement. In a superficial perusal of his report on the report, which was late in coming to the Legislature, like his statement, which he held in his hand until a few moments before he stood to read it, we see that the Deputy Attorney General drafted a letter describing to the Attorney General her involvement in the investigation. That letter was reviewed by the acting assistant deputy Attorney General, criminal law, and the director of criminal prosecutions. That letter, of course, is not appended.

There is an indication that three constituents of the Solicitor General were involved. There is an indication that only one justice of the peace was interviewed when two were specifically referred to. How can the Attorney General indicate that he will not table the report so that we can see what those three constituents were saying and what happened to them and what happened to the second justice of the peace who was referred to in these debates?

Can the minister not see that his response is totally unsatisfactory and that this minister cannot, on the basis of that statement, bring this matter to any suitable conclusion?

Hon Mr Hampton: Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asks many questions in one, so I hope you will allow me the liberty of answering them.

First, I am confident that the RCMP conducted a full and comprehensive investigation, so in the sense that the Leader of the Opposition seems to imply in his question that this may not be the case, I simply reject any implication of that by him.

Second, the Leader of the Opposition indicates that he feels the actual police report itself should be made public. The Leader of the Opposition knows this, because he has been in this House when this has been debated before --

Mr Scott: Ken Keyes's report was made public.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David, just --

Mr Scott: It was.

The Speaker: No.

Hon Mr Hampton: The fact of the matter is this: Police reports often involve interviews with many people; they involve secondhand information, third hand information; they involve interviews with a great number of people who may not be directly involved with this matter. All of those individuals have privacy interests. That is the first part. It is accepted procedure that ordinarily police reports are not made public and are not released.

The member for St George-St David refers to a report involving the former Solicitor General, Ken Keyes. I want to merely point out to the opposition leader and to the member for St George-St David that the report involved only one person. One person was the subject of the report and that one person agreed the report should be made public. That is the only situation where a report has been made public.

In this case the RCMP said to me very clearly in the letter that this report is the property of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In the interest of democracy, I have provided a summary of the investigation and a summary of the information that was obtained, but it would be improper to release that report here and now, due to the privacy interests.

Mr Nixon: On page 945 of Hansard, for 24 April 1991, the Attorney General said as follows, "If I, as Attorney General, did not order an investigation into that, I am sure if I came into the House I would be pilloried for not having ordered an investigation." Evidently the editors know a little more grammar than the AG.

The point really is not the Attorney General's knowledge of the English language, which is obviously very good, but the fact that he ordered the investigation after the pressure came on, that his Deputy Attorney General, he said, knew five days before it became public. Then he told us she knew 10 days before the matter became public. Then it came into the Legislature, and to the Premier's office, after the press leaked it around. Questions were asked here. Then the RCMP got into the act. Surely the whole purpose of involving the RCMP was to remove the political pressure from the Attorney General and his colleagues to avoid being pilloried -- whatever that is -- and now that the report comes to the Attorney General he says he does not own it and therefore it cannot be tabled.

Is that not an appropriate scenario of what went on here in this Legislature one month ago?

Hon Mr Hampton: To answer the last reference first, no, it is not an accurate representation of what has gone on. I will repeat from the summary, first of all paragraph 3, that on Friday 12 April, yes, the Deputy Attorney General did receive a telephone call from a judge. The judge was very specific that he had received third hand information that a letter allegedly had gone to a justice of the peace. He could not provide the letter and he did not know the contents of the letter. He was directed to find the letter and to forward it to the Deputy Attorney General.

Mr Scott: -- to get this kind of garbage and the Premier knows it's right to release this. Have this man's resignation.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David, while this is an important and somewhat contentious issue, I do not know how we can conduct public business with more than one person speaking at a time.

Hon Mr Hampton: That is the first part. I believe the summary from the director of criminal prosecutions accurately reflects the RCMP report. I believe that the RCMP has the factual context of this whole matter correct in some detail. The Leader of the Opposition can prefer his version of the facts; I accept the RCMP's version of the facts.

Second, I think the Leader of the Opposition knows that the RCMP, having conducted a full and comprehensive examination of this, having interviewed several citizens, having interviewed court officials, having interviewed justices of the peace, understands full well the privacy interest that those individuals may have. They intend to respect those privacy interests. For myself, I have no opposition to the release of the report by the police, but they have made it very specifically known to me that they regard the report as their property. If the member wants to ask them to release it, I invite him to do so.

Mr Nixon: The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the crown in this jurisdiction. Surely he should never have referred the matter to the RCMP if he felt that its jurisdiction was superior to his own. At the time, there was a clear indication from myself and my colleagues that the matter should be reviewed by an independent investigator who would be established under the Public Inquiries Act. We may still have to do that. I would ask the Attorney General specifically, since he cannot handle a question with three parts, will he table the letter from the Deputy Attorney General?

Hon Mr Hampton: I believe the involvement of the Deputy Attorney General in this matter is accurately reflected in the summary that has been provided.

1440

Mr Nixon: On the same subject, the Attorney General is talking in circles and of course it is difficult for us to follow him around that particular circle. The Deputy Attorney General is the chief professional adviser and the senior law officer of the crown in that respect. She was aware of this matter for 10 days, and while the Attorney General may think it is just my strangely warped mind, there was ample opportunity for his staff to contact the Premier's office, the offending minister and his staff, the judge who was involved in this and to undertake an investigation before it became public.

We notice from the report the Attorney General has given us that the RCMP has not interviewed any of those particular people who would know about that in the Attorney General's office. Then he says that the RCMP report is reviewed by his own law officers, including the very people I have been referring to. Can he not understand why people, even subjective as I happen to be in this particular case, would be dissatisfied with his defence and that we would really require those people to come and give an explanation of themselves, either to a committee of this House or through the Attorney General through the tabling of their information?

Hon Mr Hampton: To correct the Leader of the Opposition again, what the Deputy Attorney General received --

Mr Scott: Just release her letter.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- on 12 April was merely an allegation, an allegation that the judge in question indicated --

Mr Scott: Let her speak for herself. Let's see the letter.

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

Mr Scott: Sorry, Mr Speaker.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- he had no information on, no factual basis for. That is the first correction I want to make.

Second, I want to point out that if the Leader of the Opposition believes, for example, that the assistant deputy minister of the criminal law division and the director of criminal prosecutions do not adequately reflect in this summary the information provided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I cannot do much to help him there. I can only say that those two officials have been public servants --

Mr Scott: Do what the public expects of you.

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat. It would certainly help to expedite our business if the member for St George-St David could wait for his turn to ask a question. Minister, do you have a few more brief remarks to wrap up your comments?

Hon Mr Hampton: I can say to the Leader of the Opposition that they are public servants who have been engaged in the public service of Ontario for a good number of years. They have proven that they are dedicated public servants. They were dedicated public servants when the Liberals were the government, they were dedicated public servants when the Conservative Party was the government and I can see no basis upon which the member would impeach their integrity.

Mr Nixon: We are interested in the integrity of the Attorney General and, in this instance, the Solicitor General as well. The guidelines are clear. They were broken. There were absolutely no allegations of criminal activity and this particular report deals only with criminal activity.

Interjection.

Mr Nixon: The judge of everyone's conduct, who is interjecting from the Premier's chair in this regard, is simply assisting in the coverup of this extremely important matter. Now the Attorney General has turned my request for tabling the letter from his deputy into some sort of personal attack by me on her. I know nothing about the person other than that she is fully competent. For that reason, I would like to have her letter tabled so that we would know her view of this situation, since she was the first official in government to know of the matter.

Would the Attorney General not agree that this matter, as it pertains to this House, is not a criminal matter, it is a matter that deals specifically with the Solicitor General breaking the clearly stated guidelines established by the head of his own government? Unless the facts associated with that are clearly known, it is impossible for him to continue in his duties and carry them out fairly and equitably. Surely the Attorney General realizes that by retaining this report and refusing to table the additional information that I have asked for, he has simply added to the vulnerability of the Solicitor General.

Hon Mr Hampton: I want to read back to the Leader of the Opposition some remarks of the then Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, when he was asked to release a police report. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to listen rather carefully, because he said this, "If the Attorney General decided there is insufficient evidence in the report to lay a charge, should this situation be any different?" He says: "In my respectful submission, it should not, because then he would be releasing to the public, unexpurgated, what might be hearsay, inadmissible evidence that would damage the reputations of citizens, perhaps including, in this case, the individual himself."

Mr Scott: When there was going to be a trial, you donkey. Come on, give me a break.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The remark has been withdrawn. Before we continue, however, I realize that this is a contentious issue and that feelings are likely to run high. The member for St George-St David would assist if he would just relax a bit.

Hon Mr Hampton: I will continue. He says: "There is one other reason why in this case the report should not be revealed, and that is, in dealing with the individual, you want to protect civil rights. To release the report in those circumstances might severely prejudice the individual's right to make his case" --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- "in another forum."

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for Oriole come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, come to order, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: We are still waiting for the member for Oriole to come to order.

Have you completed your remarks? Can we wrap it up?

Hon Mr Hampton: If I might conclude, on the day that factual material was presented on this incident, an investigation was requested by an independent police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That police force has completed a full and comprehensive investigation. I have now placed before the Legislature a report which accurately reflects in some detail the full course of events. If that is not enough for the opposition, that is far more than they would receive in most other circumstances, in most other forums in the Anglo-Canadian world.

1450

Mr Harris: I would like to return to a subject that was interrupted by the introduction of the budget of the Premier, and that is the matter of the Solicitor General's conduct.

This matter has been investigated for potential criminal charges, I suppose. Nobody has suggested that there was any potential of criminal wrongdoing in this whole matter. However, the concern was whether the minister's actions were appropriate vis-à-vis the integrity of the arm's length of the justice system and vis-à-vis the Premier's own guidelines.

When questioned on this matter on 29 April, the Solicitor General said this:

"As I explained on innumerable occasions last week, both in writing and orally, I have communicated very clearly that there had to be an arm's-length difference between my office and the judiciary. I have re-emphasized that, it has been in writing, it has been oral."

In the report that we have been given today from the Attorney General's office, page 10, number 25, it says:

"Staff member 2" -- this is the experienced one -- "who attempted to assist constituent 2 wrote a letter to a justice of the peace. Staff member 2 is a receptionist in the constituency office. She did not have any written guidelines or directions in relation to corresponding with the judiciary."

In view of the fact that the report, the vetted report that we have been given by the Attorney General, points out very clearly a statement in absolute contradiction and opposite to what the Solicitor General told us in this House, would the Premier not agree that the Solicitor General has violated his guidelines and would he not agree that he has violated the guidelines of telling this House the whole truth?

Hon Mr Rae: The first thing I want to say to the House is that the first I had seen of either of these documents was this afternoon, along with everybody else, so I have had no more or less opportunity to discuss the contents of these documents with anyone, including the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.

I must say I find it bizarre when a member of the opposition says, as the member for Willowdale says today, "This criminal investigation is a lot of garbage."

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Willowdale, come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: I find it passing strange that a member of the opposition would say that about an investigation conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I just find that a very strange comment to make.

The director of criminal prosecutions --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: If the member for London North will allow me just to answer, the director of criminal prosecutions, in the report that, as I say, I have just received this afternoon along with everyone else -- and I am not surprised that it has not been quoted by either opposition leader, but I think it is worth quoting. It is talking about the interview between the Solicitor General and the police.

"The Solicitor General impressed the officers as being a man of high integrity who was making a concerted effort to serve the people of Ontario in his role as the Solicitor General. No evidence of benefit, directly or indirectly, from the writing of these letters was obtained during the course of the investigation. Accordingly, they concluded that as a matter of law reasonable and probable grounds did not exist to support a belief on their part that a crime had been committed by him."

With respect to the guidelines, I would simply say to the members of the House that I have already indicated very clearly that the letters that were sent should not have been sent. I have indicated that very clearly. It has also been made very clear that the Solicitor General neither authorized nor wrote nor had anything to do with the writing or signing of the those letters.

Mr Harris: In response to my question, where I quoted the report that was released today, the Premier said, "I am not surprised none of the opposition parties are quoting this report." I am quoting this report, even though it is vetted, even though it is not the report of the RCMP. This is the vetted report from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

On 25 April, the Solicitor General, in response to questions from myself, said: "There are specific conflict guidelines for constituency offices that were developed at the end of February and that were received in my office on 1 March. They are specific for that particular group. That is why the staff received them so promptly after they were issued."

That is what the Solicitor General told this House, that he was living up to his ministerial responsibility and informing his staff of the arm's-length requirement.

The report that I quoted from in the first question and I quote from right now says on page 8, "He had informally spoken to some of his staff." Then on page 10, in reference to the staff member who wrote the letter, it says: "She did not have any written guidelines or directions in relation to corresponding with the judiciary. Consequently, she contacted the staff of the courthouse in Toronto" and carried on from there and wrote the letter.

The Solicitor General stood in his place repeatedly, after repeated questions from me and others in this House, and said: "I informed my staff. I told them orally. I told them in writing. I told them they were not to contact the judiciary. Yes, yes, yes, I did all those things." Now this report from the Attorney General says none of this took place. Does the Premier not believe this report from his Attorney General, or does he not believe what his Solicitor General told this House? Which one is it?

Hon Mr Rae: I just would say to the leader of the third party that if he has a question with respect to the Solicitor General, directly with respect to what he has said, that is something which can be directed specifically to him.

I will simply say to the leader of the third party that I think it is important for us to recognize that the Solicitor General has stated in this House on many occasions, and this was entirely accepted as an explanation by the officers conducting the investigation, that he had no knowledge.

What is more, with respect to the propriety of what took place, I think if the member is going to be fair with respect to the individual members whom he has quoted, it is extremely important that he read the entire statement with respect to what was said. In this case:

"The assistance included instructions as to how constituent 2 should swear out an affidavit.... Staff member 2 followed the instructions and, consequently, the justice of the peace marked the court documentation as completed. In the circumstances of the case, the officers concluded that reasonable and probable grounds did not exist as a matter of law to support a belief in the commission of any crime by staff member 2."

To be fair to everyone concerned, I think it is important for us to know that it is difficult on the face of what is in front of me here to conclude as quickly or as immediately as the leader of the third party has done that there is some kind of a discrepancy with respect to the evidence.

Mr Harris: Let me say this to the Premier: The only arm's-length approach that we have seen has been an arm's-length approach to accepting ministerial responsibility. Clearly, that is the only arm's length, and that is not acceptable, as the Premier knows, of any minister of the crown, and should not be acceptable to him.

I would ask the Premier this: In light of the fact that we have a statement repeated, repeated, repeated time after time in this House from the Solicitor General that is exactly 180 degrees opposite to the statement given to us on page 10 by the Attorney General today, and in view of the fact that the Attorney General says the RCMP documents cannot be released and made public -- I do not understand why; there is no criminal investigation, but this is what the Attorney General said -- will the Premier agree to send this whole matter to the standing committee on administration of justice, where the RCMP report can be made available -- as were all the Astra/Re-Mor documents, even though there was a criminal investigation under way -- in confidence to all the committee members, the same way he insisted back in 1980, and where we can get to the bottom of whether the Solicitor General instructed his staff orally and in writing, as he told this House he did, or whether the Attorney General and the RCMP have come to the right conclusion that he did not in fact instruct any of his staff about dealing with the judiciary? Will he agree to send this matter to the justice committee, where we can get to the bottom of this?

1500

Hon Mr Rae: I am really troubled by the allegations that are being made today with respect to the independence of this investigation and with respect to the evidence that is being put forward. I think it is entirely unfair.

As soon as there was any evidence with respect to this matter, it was referred immediately for investigation. We have a statement by the director of criminal prosecutions that it is the belief of the officers that the Solicitor General is a man of high integrity, making a concerted effort to serve the people of Ontario in his role as Solicitor General.

It seems to me that some credence --

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

Mr Harris: The Premier is suggesting now this goes far beyond the initial breach of his guidelines two or three times. This goes as well to what the Solicitor General told this House in complete contradiction to what we now hear from the Attorney General. However, while the Premier is contemplating sending this matter to the justice committee, I have a second question for the Minister of Education.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Harris: We know that it will cost over $14 billion of taxpayers' money to educate our Ontario children this year through to the end of high school. Can the minister tell us how much of this $14 billion will be spent specifically in the classroom educating children and how much will be eaten up by the various levels of bureaucracy, ie, money spent that is not directly being spent educating our children in the classroom? Can the minister tell us that breakdown?

Hon Mrs Boyd: No, I certainly cannot in any detail at this particular point in time. I would say to the member, however, that it is not quite as simple as saying that things are spent in the classroom or not in the classroom and therefore they are not directed at education. It is certainly very necessary, as the member is well aware, that one needs an infrastructure within which to make changes and within which to deliver programs. If the member is interested in having more detailed information, I will certainly undertake to get him that in due course.

Mr Harris: I am very interested. I would have thought the minister would be interested. Fourteen billion dollars is a lot of money. There is a growing sense out in the community that more and more of those dollars are being wasted, frittered away on duplication, on bureaucracy, and less and less are getting to children in the classroom. I am shocked the minister does not know what is happening there and how many dollars there are.

When every other province understands and is prepared to enter into discussions with regard to nationalized testing, can the minister tell me why we here in Ontario are the only province with the only Minister of Education, the only Premier, the only cabinet that is not interested in the slightest bit in participating in finding out how well our students are doing for the $14 billion that we are spending on them?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Just in response to the first part of the member's statement, I would like to remind him that there are very detailed estimates that do outline what our resources are used for in education. When he suggested that I could tell him exactly the proportion that was used in the classroom, he understands exactly why that is not possible in terms of the division of responsibility between school boards and the provincial ministry. In fact we have very extensive auditing processes that are available to the member at any time that indicate how that money has been spent and how the school boards of the province and the ministry itself are accountable.

In the second instance, I think we have talked a great deal in this House about our reason as a government for retaining observer status in terms of the national standards testing. We do not believe that in fact it will give us the information that the member thinks we need and that our government thinks we need. We do think we need to be evaluating how we are doing in our schools with our curriculum, but the national testing that is being proposed will not do that. It will not take account of what our students are supposed to have learned or indeed what kind of student body we have.

It is particularly important for the member to understand that we want the same kind of evaluation that he wants. We just do not believe that is the way to get it. We have not opted out entirely; we are retaining observer status. If the other ministers of education are prepared to look responsibly at the kinds of questions Ontario is asking, we would be prepared to revisit the issue.

Mr Harris: The national testing questions have not even been drafted yet. I do not know why the minister says they do not meet her needs. She says she does not want to participate because of the questions, but the questions have not even been drafted yet. Surely the parents in Ontario are entitled -- as the parents all across the world are, let alone here in Canada -- to know whether their $14-billion expenditure is providing the kind of education that is keeping our students up to national and international standards.

The minister has stated that there are audits available to me. The minister will know that there is no provision for mandatory external audits of our school boards. She has no concrete assurance that our education dollars are being spent efficiently, aside from the standards issue. The 1990 Provincial Auditor's report indicated more efficient management of bus routing in York region alone could save the board $1 million a year. That is one out of 168 school boards for one service, just the transportation.

In order to ensure the accountability of our $14 billion of tax dollars, will the minister introduce mandatory external audits of our school boards this year so we can get an unbiased handle on whether we are getting value for our $14 billion?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member mentioned the York region audit, and that is exactly what happens. There is a rotating audit process of different boards that is done on a surprise basis and that gives the kinds of interesting statistics to us that he was able to quote. At the present time, to be quite frank, if we were to spend the kind of resources he is suggesting on an external audit of each and every board, the tax dollars in this province would soar to astronomical proportions.

We have am internal audit process. Every single board has an internal audit process that is published to the citizens, and we believe very firmly that there needs to be more control. We have talked in this House about the need to revise our financing of education so that there is more accountability. We are not in any way saying that is not necessary, but we are saying that it is a process that needs to take us into a whole new era of accountability in this province. That is what we have pledged to do and what we intend to do.

1510

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General will be aware that his executive assistant has confirmed that there was an exchange of telephone calls with his office, presumably with the minister's executive assistant, from CAW Local 1451 involved in the Budd strike at Kitchener and then a response from his office to the local police.

Can the Solicitor General, who must have looked into this matter by now, report to the House the circumstances as seen from his particular office?

Hon Mr Farnan: There was a communication made by the policing services division of my ministry with the Waterloo Regional Police. Under the current legislation it is the legislative responsibility of my ministry to provide to municipal chiefs of police information and advice respecting the management and operation of police forces, techniques in handling special problems and other information calculated to assist. We did provide information and we did not provide advice.

Mr Nixon: Whatever the perception of the Solicitor General, he would be aware that both the president of the company and the president of the union felt that, following their request to the Solicitor General's office, the police changed their activities and in fact brought about an entirely different outcome.

Is the minister aware that, because of the activities as they were perceived at the local community, violence persisted in the community, that even after his advice, so called, to the police had been undertaken, a car was burned, a rail line was broken and the power was interrupted because of the dislocation of a transformer to a large section of this city? Would the minister not agree that his advice in this instance had very destructive effects in the community?

Hon Mr Farnan: The chief of police of the Waterloo region has said there was no attempt to influence his police force. Second, good preventive policing demands that we take preventive action to stop, to make sure we do not have violence on the picket line.

Mr Scott: You guys haven't got the nerve.

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

Mr Harnick: You have no credibility to answer this question because what you say tomorrow will be different.

You can't remember from one day to the next what you said.

The Speaker: You appear to have company. The member for Willowdale. Enthusiasm is one thing and making it impossible for people to hear is another.

Could you briefly conclude your remarks.

Hon Mr Farnan: I am very proud of my ministry. I am proud of the role they play. I am very proud of the fact that they encourage preventive action and that they do not want violence on picket lines and that they do indeed encourage local police chiefs to bring together both parties so that we can have peace on picket lines.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Carr: My question is to the Solicitor General. I hardly know what incident to go after. I just hope we have the RCMP on a retainer with all the incidents in the Solicitor General's office. On 29 April, the Solicitor General said:

"As I explained on innumerable occasions...both in writing and orally, I have communicated very clearly that there had to be an arm's-length difference between my office and the judiciary. I have re-emphasized that, it has been in writing, it has been oral, and I am prepared to accept the investigation that the RCMP conducts."

This RCMP investigation has said contrary to that. My question is very, very clear. Why is there a very definite contradiction between these two statements?

Hon Mr Farnan: For four days in the House we had questions about this issue. I answered those questions. I stand by the answers I gave at that time. I was interviewed by the RCMP. I stand by the answers I gave the RCMP. When is the opposition going to attempt to drag itself out of the gutter and address the bread-and-butter issues of this province?

Mr Carr: It is very clear that this Solicitor General should not be talking about people in the gutter, because he has no credibility whatsoever. I will refer to the throne speech, which talks about integrity. It says:

"Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever they exist....It is our job to address that cynicism and to overcome it. When my government makes mistakes it will admit them."

Will the Solicitor General admit to this House that he made a mistake and resign and do the honourable thing today?

Hon Mr Farnan: Let me just point out, in terms of cynicism, that we have a substantive agenda in terms of housing, in terms of health, in terms of environment, in terms of education and community and social services. We have a substantive agenda. If there is cynicism, it is among the people of Ontario when they watch the antics of the opposition parties.

NATIVE ISSUES IN TEMAGAMI

Mr B. Ward: I have a question on a different subject. My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and minister responsible for native affairs. The last time I asked a question I got in trouble because I talked about the Conservatives' waste of taxpayers' money in the House, so I will not talk about that. I will just ask my question.

Last week I heard news stories of an announcement the minister made in Temagami. As I am sure this is a matter --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Mississauga North, stop. Order, please. This is a chamber without air-conditioning and there are occasions when the temperature rises. The member for Brantford with his question.

Mr B. Ward: At least this question is of interest to me and the members on this side of the House.

I would appreciate if the minister would elaborate on the council authority which was established through these announcements, as I said, that were made in Temagami.

Hon Mr Wildman: As the member has indicated, last Thursday I made a couple of important announcements in Temagami. One was the appointment of a new, comprehensive planning council to advise the Ministry of Natural Resources with regard to management decisions on the management of resources throughout the Temagami region.

This comprehensive planning council will strengthen local involvement. It involves representatives of many interests in the area, including labour and mining, which were previously not represented on the Temagami Advisory Council appointed by the previous government.

Along with the Teme-Augama Anishnawbe, we also announced the signing of an addendum to the memorandum of understanding signed by the previous government, setting up the Wendaban Stewardship Authority, with 50% representation from the first nation and from the provincial government. This will have a shared responsibility for the stewardship of the resources --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The Speaker determines the amount of time for questions and responses. While I appreciate the assistance of members, there are particular times when I really do not require that assistance. The member will conclude his remarks.

Hon Mr Wildman: Those of us on this side of the House who are from the north are used to the members on the other side not being interested in northern issues.

I will conclude by saying that the stewardship authority follows through with the commitment made by the previous government for shared management of four townships in the Temagami area.

Mr B. Ward: My supplementary focuses on the comprehensive planning council. If this is replacing the Temagami Advisory Council, what is the news on this announcement?

Hon Mr Wildman: It was significant news in that there were representatives of the logging industry, the tourist industry, labour and the environmentalists. As a matter of fact, there were representatives in that room who had participated in blockades of Red Squirrel Road by the environmentalists and of the cottage road by the loggers. They were all there with a very positive attitude to work together to resolve the issues in Temagami. We are going to do it because we believe the resources of the north are necessary, if they are to be managed properly, to ensure a future for the economy and the environment of northern Ontario.

1520

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Offer: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. On 8 March he appointed a committee of management and labour representatives to examine no less than 30 proposals for major labour law reform. He gave the committee one month, 30 days, for the examination and drafting of a final report. Both sides say this was an extremely short time to chart a future for labour law reform in the province.

My question to the minister is, will he share with this House his plans for future public consultations on these important matters before legislation is drafted and introduced?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: When we have a paper prepared suggesting amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, they will be introduced to members in this House and shared for consultation.

Mr Offer: I do not think that answer is sufficient because that does not meet the needs of management and labour in his own consultation document.

In the report management stated, "It is not possible, with the time frame given to the committee, to make its report to provide the necessary in-depth research and analysis of the implication of the many proposals." They were not able to comment on the crucial issues of sectoral bargaining and successor rights. In fact, many of the issues raised in the report require greater public understanding and need further discussion.

The United Steelworkers' representative, Brian Shell, stated to the Ottawa Citizen, "We are convinced we can only change the old, obsolete ways through discussion." In the interest of co-operation on all sides, will he commit to immediately putting his 30 wide-ranging proposals to the standing committee on resources development or to any legislative committee here, so that further public consultations can be held prior to the introduction of legislation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: To begin with, I do not know which 30 proposals the member is talking about because we have not as yet made proposals. We had suggestions come back to us from the management and labour sides of the initial group. We are looking at those proposals now and there are a number of suggestions made in the original report --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga North might like to hear a response to his question.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: There are any number of suggestions in the original documents that were presented to us by both management and labour that will take an additional study. Probably sectoral bargaining is one of them. When we have prepared a set of suggestions for OLRA reform, we will bring them forward in this House.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mrs Witmer: My question is also for the Minister of Labour, and I hope we get some answers.

Bruce McDougall, president of SPRINT, Senior Peoples' Resources in North Toronto, after 30 years with Shell Canada, has lent his financial expertise to this organization for seniors. It has an annual budget of $1.5 million and offers a complete range of senior services including Meals on Wheels, home help, transportation services and senior day programs.

Mr McDougall has already received two calls from board members who are concerned about their personal liability under Bill 70. If SPRINT has to obtain directors' and officers' insurance or, failing that, set up a contingency fund to cover the liability, the money will come out of the operating budget for the Meals on Wheels program. That is food out of the mouths of seniors.

Based on this information and the many, many concerns that are being raised daily about personal liability for officers and directors, will the minister commit himself today to bringing in an amendment to exempt these officers and directors of non-profit organizations from the provisions of Bill 70?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: As I think I indicated to the member in the question she asked yesterday, the issue is one that is not yet resolved. If we can get on with the debate on the bill, we may see what amendments are possible to that legislation. In the meantime, I would hope that the Labour critic for the Tory party is as interested in the tens of thousands of workers who earn money, that is not a handout to them, money they do not collect, and that is exactly what the legislation is there for.

Mrs Witmer: I am very concerned about the thousands of employees in this province who are lacking wages and are looking forward to receiving support. However, I would remind the minister that he has had an opportunity to do something about this legislation.

I would remind him that the discussion paper, Wage Protection Fund, dated December 1990, stated on page 19, "Improved wage recovery from directors and officers may have the following unintended effect." This is what it says and this was known to the minister. "There may be a disincentive to become a director or officer of a corporation. This would be especially severe in the case of non-profit corporations where the directors volunteer their time and energy as a contribution to the community. It may therefore be appropriate to exempt non-profit corporations."

Can the minister tell this House why he did not follow his own ministry's advice on the detrimental effect Bill 70 would have on non-profit corporations?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member will know that is one of the issues I raised in our statement on the legislation in the House that we were prepared to take a look at. I think it is important that we get on with the debate on this particular piece of legislation, and we have not made final decisions on that.

I am sure there would be criticism of us as well in the discussion papers if we did not put in the pros and cons, which we did in almost every section of the bill, what the strengths were and what the possible downsides were. That was for the purposes of making sure people understood the legislation.

The member should also know that even in non-profit organizations, under the Business Corporations Act there is a liability for wages and vacation pay even now.

BUDGET

Mr Sutherland: My question is to the Treasurer regarding the budget. Last week I had the pleasure of touring my riding and the riding of Perth with the member for Perth. We met with environmentalists and women's groups, and I want to pass on to the Treasurer that those people are very supportive of the budget and what is in there.

My question to the Treasurer has to do with some of the comments the Prime Minister has made on his tour in the Far East. Given the fact that many opposition members in this House have said that this budget will have a negative impact on investment, I wonder if the Treasurer would like to comment on what impact he feels the Prime Minister's comments will have on the province of Ontario.

Hon Mr Laughren: I very much appreciate a question of real substance concerning the budget. I hope this lays to rest once and for all any thought that because they are members of our caucus, they ask us easy questions. That is simply not the case.

I was very surprised to read about and hear the comments of the Prime Minister when he was in Tokyo. I always thought we used the world stage to promote ourselves, not to demean ourselves, so I was shocked and appalled, as some would say. I do think the world community will judge investment in this province, because of its inherent wealth and because of the insistence of this government that we will manage the economy in a prudent way.

I think the reaction of people across Canada has been quite illuminating, in that there seems to be a collective dismay that our Prime Minister would use the public stage to put down the province of Ontario, and if it is not the province, any other part of Canada.

1530

Mr Sutherland: Just before I ask my supplementary to the Treasurer, I want to comment on the fact that I had phone calls from residents who are now not going to be on the tax rolls any more who are very supportive of this budget.

Could the Treasurer tell us what impact this filibuster by the opposition is going to have on our being able to implement the budget and help those people who are really in need in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I know time is limited, so I will be brief. I think what is bothering a lot of us about the filibuster by the third party is not just the fact that it costs $1 million a week to run this place and they have drawn it to a halt. That in itself is deplorable. However, I think what is really bothering us is that there is a lot of good legislation that we would like to lay before the House and get on with and have a serious debate.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the member for York Mills restrain himself.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills, come to order. Hearing members shouting at each other across the floor of the chamber is not appreciated by the Chair, and I doubt very much that it is appreciated by those folks who watch us every day.

Hon Mr Laughren: I will conclude by simply saying that, as a government, we are very anxious to get on with a debate on the budget. The next speaker in the budget debate is the leader of the third party, the member for Nipissing. We are very anxious to hear what he has to say about the budget, because we are a government that not only cares; we are a government that listens as well.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier on I asked the Minister of Labour a question dealing with 30 proposals for major labour law reform. In his response he seemed not to admit that there were in fact these 30 major labour proposals. I have the terms of reference by his own Ministry of Labour, which contain not one, not two, not three proposals, but indeed 30 proposals for labour law reform. I ask, Mr Speaker, that you take that matter to the minister --

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please. The member will know it is not a point of order. It certainly is a point about which he has a great deal of interest, and probably the minister has been listening to his comments.

PETITIONS

TVONTARIO TRANSMITTER

Mr Villeneuve: This is a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature of the province of Ontario:

"We are pleased that a dual service transmitter providing coverage, a radius of 45 kilometres, has been recommended for Cornwall and area;

"However, we, the undersigned, feel that this project should be undertaken without undue delay, as thousands and thousands of taxpayers in the area cannot benefit from TVO and La Chaîne's excellent programming because they do not have access to TVO via cable."

This is signed by numerous residents of S-D-G and the riding of Cornwall.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Caplan: I received this petition today from a delegation from northern Ontario representing the towns of Kirkland Lake, Englehart and Larder Lake. I will read the petition, which is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment of Ontario has specifically stated that 'solid waste must be viewed as a resource'; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment of Ontario has stated that 'diversion from landfill will be mandatory for all communities in the province of Ontario';

"Whereas the north has shipped its raw resources south since 1902 for secondary manufacturing and the agreement with Metro Toronto will guarantee a recycling operation in the north capable of assisting all communities in the north by 'retaining our resources diverted from landfill by northern communities for processing in the north';

"Whereas the Northeastern Ontario Municipalities Action Group have passed the attached resolution of support of the Adams mine recycling and solid waste facility on 4 March 1991, including conditions that allow further development of the Ontario Northland Railway and access to recycling development for all northern communities;

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has indicated that she will not entertain examination of the Adams mine option based on her stated 'philosophical party policy,' and she has refused to consult with the elected officials of the communities, the economic development officials or community groups requesting a fair assessment;

"Whereas the northern caucus members of the NDP have similarly failed to discuss or review the overall benefits to the environment, to the economy and the long-term job opportunities that this project can bring to the north;

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

"Be it hereby resolved that the provincial government and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines support a full environmental assessment under all terms of the act regarding the feasibility of importing solid waste into the north on the conditions that recycling secondary industries and safe environmental conditions are guaranteed and proven as a result of the assessment;

"Furthermore, that the provincial government and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines examine the economic benefits and stability that may result to the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission as a result of this initiative and that it be an integral part of all planned development and that the provincial government and the Ministry of Northern Development request that the north be considered immediately as a potential option for the GTA's long-term waste management solution, providing all of the above are substantiated as a result of the environmental assessment."

This petition has been signed by the council of the town of Kirkland Lake and further passed at a meeting of the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities, which also affix its support to this resolution. I present it to the House.

TAXATION

Mr O'Connor: Today I am presenting two petitions. I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the Canadian Auto Workers Local 222 in Oshawa. It has been signed by members concerned about the gas guzzler tax. They would like this tax to be eliminated and I am pleased that the Treasurer has agreed to form a working group with the union, and the manufacturers as well, to study an alternative to the gas guzzler tax such as placing an environmental tax on all cars and giving rebates to those turning in old gas guzzlers. I have signed my name to this petition.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr O'Connor: The second petition is on stalling tactics --

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: You're not interested in the assessment. You don't want economic development.

The Speaker: Would you stop the clock, please. Two things: First of all, I would appreciate if the member for Oriole could restrain herself a bit so that I could hear the petition. Second, I draw to the members' attention --

Mrs Caplan: I apologize, Mr Speaker, but the Minister of Municipal Affairs did provoke --

The Speaker: Just remain seated. I draw to the attention of all members, and in particular the member for Oriole, rule 35(b): "A member may present a petition in the House during routine proceedings The member may make a brief statement summarizing the contents of the petition and indicating the number of signatures attached thereto." I guess the difficulty and one of the reasons why the standing order is there is that we have a limited amount of time each day for the presentation of petitions and that time has to accommodate all of the members who wish to present petitions.

1540

Mr O'Connor: This is in regard to the filibuster of sorts that we are hearing from across the floor.

"Mike Harris, listen up: Make your point and get on with it. We are tired of your stalling.

"To the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Conservative members of the Legislature have been using various tactics and delay to obstruct the business of this House;

"Whereas the grandstanding of the Conservatives is wasting the Legislature's time and taxpayers' money;

"Whereas the Conservatives are fighting for their political lives at the expense of the working people of Ontario;

"We call on the Legislature to get on with the business of the public, in particular the debate around the employee wage protection fund, Bill 70, to help laid-off workers -- wages, vacation pay, termination and severance owing to them. It is essential.

"This NDP government is committed to protecting the workers during this tough -- "

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under standing order 35(b), which I believe the Speaker just read very eloquently to the House as instruction to all members, I would point out on this point of order that the member is in fact not paying any attention to the direction of the Speaker and that when that happens it can provoke responses from members of the opposition that might be disruptive.

The Speaker: It would be appreciated, of course, if when petitions are presented all members will be alert to the provisions of the standing orders and present their petitions with only a brief summary of the petition and the number of signatures attached thereto. Would the member quickly conclude.

Mr O'Connor: "This NDP government is committed to protecting the workers during this tough economic time and the effects of the Tory government's free trade agreement. Other legislation designed to protect tenants and to ensure automatic collection of support payments for women and their children is also being held up because there is grandstanding going on."

This petition has been signed by people from all corners of the province, including people from Hamilton, London, Jackson's Point, Penetanguishene and Sudbury and I have affixed my signature thereto.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to present a petition to the House today on behalf of the good people of Simcoe West, and it reads:

"Whereas after reading the new welfare proposals that are currently circulating and apparently passing into legislation without debate, we must voice our objection to the easy access, continued dependence and expense to society these changes to the welfare system would entail. We are opposed to these changes and hope that you, as the representative for us in Parliament, will speak out against them and inform the office of Zanana Akande about this objection."

It is signed by 139 very concerned and good people in my riding of Simcoe West, and I am pleased to affix my name to it and present it to the House today.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mrs Mathyssen: Like my honourable colleague, I, too, have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 31 Middlesex constituents, and these constituents are also angry with the Conservative Party for its delaying tactics, its obstructionism and its waste of taxpayers' money, and they beg leave that we get on with the important business of governing the province of Ontario, as the voters of Ontario have mandated.

I have affixed my name to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1991

Mr Chiarelli moved first reading of Bill Pr63, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFLANT LA LOI SUR L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr Arnott moved first reading of Bill 111, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

M. Arnott propose la première lecture du projet de loi 111, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

BUILDING CODE ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LE CODE DU BÂTIMENT

Mr Cooke moved first reading of Bill 112, An Act to revise the Building Code Act.

M. Cooke propose la première lecture du projet de loi 112, Loi portant révision de la Loi sur le code du bâtiment.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mr Cooke: I will summarize the explanatory notes since they are quite long. This bill proposes a number of amendments to create a comprehensive set of standards for regulating existing buildings. This would be in addition to the Ontario Building Code's current mandate to regulate the construction of new buildings as well as the renovation and demolition of existing buildings.

There are numerous amendments to the Building Code Act being proposed in this bill. Most are part of our ongoing efforts to streamline the building regulatory system while supporting the industry's efforts to introduce more efficient, safe and innovative building techniques. These measures include allowing municipal officials to issue conditional building permits in special circumstances to speed up construction; permitting the use of innovative building materials and new construction techniques that have the same level of safety and performance as those currently approved by the building code; and finally, consolidating building regulations by incorporating the plumbing code directly into the building code.

To conclude, I am confident that the measures introduced today will support building safety, energy efficiency and water conservation and that they will promote innovation and help make our building industry more competitive.

1550

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION DAY: BUDGETARY POLICY

Mr Bradley moved opposition day motion 3:

That in the opinion of this House, the budgetary policy of the Bob Rae government fulfils the worst fears people have of the inability of the New Democratic Party to restrain and control government spending; results in the highest deficit in the province's history, at least $9.73 billion; increases taxes by at least $1 billion; and condemns the province to a generation of crushing debt and increased taxation. Therefore, this House calls upon the Premier and the Treasurer to introduce a new budget after appropriate consultation with the people of the province that provides a strategy for debt reduction, manages government spending, reduces the taxation burden for individuals and business, and creates a climate for economic recovery and growth.

An hon member: All in favour will please say "aye."

The Speaker: I think that comes later.

Mr Bradley: It is my pleasure to be able to participate in this debate today, which arises from the recent budget announced by the Treasurer of the province of Ontario in this House.

The first figure that strikes everyone, and rather in a pronounced way, is that of the unprecedented deficit that we are incurring in this province. The NDP deficit of $9.7 billion is the highest deficit in the province's history. This triples the previous record of $3.18 billion in 1982-83. A deficit that is near $10 billion means that $1,000 will be borrowed for every man, woman and child in the province of Ontario. The NDP is nearly doubling the provincial debt. The $10-billion deficit level increases the total provincial debt by 33% in one year to $51.7 billion in 1991. This translates to more than $5,000 for every man, woman and child in Ontario. Probably it is the child portion which is most significant, because they will be paying for this for many years to come.

The NDP is forecasting high deficits throughout its term of office. By 1994 the NDP expects to decrease the deficit only slightly, to just below $8 billion. These high deficits will nearly double Ontario's debt to $76.3 billion by the year 1994. More money out of every tax dollar will be required to pay down the debt, and this of course is a consequence that must be faced by the children who are in our society today.

Management Board has a specific responsibility, which is to look carefully at each of the proposed expenditures of the government of Ontario to determine whether those expenditures are essential in any given fiscal year. Each of the programs has to be scrutinized to determine whether in 1991 it is relevant to today's needs. We look to see if they are relevant, we look to see if they are necessary, and then we determine whether some programs can be eliminated or scaled down and whether others may proceed.

Now some progress, it is obvious, has not been made in this direction, because some of the programs may well be unnecessary as we move into the 1990s. Other programs which are planned, or projects which are planned, may be able to be phased in at a different rate than was anticipated originally, particularly taking into account the recession. It appears that insufficient time and effort went into this particular exercise. Certainly the new so-called Treasury Board will have a major job to do in looking carefully at those expenditures and determining the best place to spend in order to get us out of the recession and provide the necessities for the people of this province.

We also have new taxes in the midst of the deepest recession that we have had since the 1930s: $1 billion in tax increases in the NDP budget. Ontario taxpayers will pay that as a result of the budget which was brought down by the Treasurer. The NDP raised in that budget 11 different taxes worth $1 billion on a full-year basis, ranging from gasoline to so-called sin taxes to taxes on businesses. The budget contained one tax reduction, for Ontario's people living below the poverty line, in conjunction with a move of the previous government.

Fuel taxes will be increased by 30% in just eight months. Diesel taxes have gone up 1.7 cents a litre with an equal increase on 1 January 1992. There is a tax on so-called fuel-inefficient and luxury vehicles that has been doubled; it now ranges from $200 to $7,000 per vehicle and has been increased in terms of the number of vehicles it would affect. The critical sectors and regions of this province are hurt by the gas tax increase and by the so-called gas guzzler tax increase.

We saw truckers who were protesting in the province of Ontario because they believe they are not competitive. One of the reasons they are uncompetitive is because of the projected increases in the gas taxes in this province and in the diesel taxes in this province. Of course, even our trains that carry goods and people across the province of Ontario will feel that particular consequence.

The volume tax on alcohol has been increased, cigarette and tobacco taxes have been increased, and I think there is a projection that auto insurance rates may rise in the future as a result of the imposition of yet another tax.

The consequences are obvious with regard to certain problems we face. Those of us who represent communities which are relatively near the American border recognize that the loss-leaders in terms of items people will go to get are alcoholic beverages, cigarettes and certainly gasoline, and that people while they are over there making those purchases are also going to look at other products they may purchase and bring back.

We are talking about the routine habits people develop. Just when people seem to be thinking about not crossing the border, they look and see what the federal government has done and now the provincial government has done in terms of discouraging that kind of thought and perhaps shopping in a patriotic manner, because of course this budget has driven those taxes higher and has driven those costs higher.

One I particularly would like to look at, and it is in rather a parochial sense, is the tax on auto workers. That is a tax which affects those of us who represent people in communities like St Catharines and Oshawa and Windsor and Oakville, and so many communities across the province of Ontario where we have motor vehicles produced and assembled or parts for those vehicles assembled.

Most of the people in my neighbourhood, as I have mentioned in this House before, are in fact employees of auto manufacturing plants, whether it is General Motors or Hayes-Dana or TRW or some of the plants that supply those particular industries. They have expressed great concern because they recognize two significant factors with the introduction of this tax. The first factor is that we are in the deepest recession since the 1930s and it is ill advised to double a tax at that particular time; and they recognize, perhaps in the long term more importantly, that the automotive industry faces unprecedented competition from the United States, which it has dealt with for many years, from Mexico, and from other parts of the world. Many who are affected by this wonder why the government would select this particular tax at this particular time, both in terms of the recession and in terms of the competition, and recognize that there is going to be a detrimental effect.

For those who do not represent those communities which have automotive industries, we recognize the tremendous spinoff effect of the automotive industry for the steel industry, for the plastics industry, and for other parts which go into the making of vehicles and the servicing of those particular plants. We recognize how ill advised it was to introduce and extend this tax at this time.

It is said by the Treasurer that it was done for environmental reasons or energy efficiency reasons. We recognize that there is another way of doing it. In the midst of a boom economy, Ontarians may have been prepared to accept that, may have been prepared to say, "Well, we don't like taxes, but we are prepared to pay them at this time." However, in these present circumstances, if there were a real and genuine interest in achieving two things -- that is, energy efficiency and better emissions from vehicles -- the better way would be to introduce incentives for our automotive industry in order that people in our province and in other jurisdictions, but particularly in our province, would have the capability of purchasing new vehicles. If we removed virtually all the old vehicles from the roads of the province of Ontario, the air quality would improve immensely.

We recognize as well, those of us who had cars 15 years ago, that they got about 15 miles to the gallon in some cases and that today we can expect double that in terms of energy efficiency. So it is a bogus argument to advance this as an environmental consideration. In fact it is a tax grab, and I would certainly implore the Treasurer of this province to listen to two groups that have come together. Not often do you have labour and management on the same side on some issues. It happens from time to time.

In this particular case, both representatives of labour -- in my own community it has been the bargaining unit of local 199 of the Canadian Auto Workers, and in other communities it has been the same -- and the representatives of the auto making companies and the auto parts making companies have in fact suggested that we could have an alternative to this. They are not suggesting that the goals of energy efficiency are not enviable. They are not suggesting for one moment that we do not want better emission standards. But we can achieve that by the method I have described.

We have a budget in the province of Ontario that has done two major things. It has first of all increased the deficit and debt of this province to unprecedented levels, which will have tremendous consequences for the children who are growing up in our society today and will make us uncompetitive and undesirable to invest in. Looking at that investment, we are seeing people now making a conscious decision to leave the province of Ontario and go to other jurisdictions which they find more favourable for investment purposes.

Second, and in the long term perhaps of even greater consequence, we have people who say they simply will not invest in the province of Ontario as long as we have this budget in place and they are also looking, with some trepidation, at the rhetoric they are hearing from this government in terms of anti-business measures which they see coming forth.

1600

I wish we lived in a perfect society. I wish we could implement all kinds of legislation which in theory and in principle a lot of us think is good stuff. Unfortunately, we live in a highly competitive world and a society which is not the postwar Canada we had before. As a result, as this resolution calls for, we need a new look at the budget; good, honest, straightforward consultation with the people of this province, a wide cross-section of them; the development of a new budget and its implementation which even Don Cherry will like, because I noted on one of the hockey broadcasts that Mr Cherry said he was not in favour of this particular budget, that he thought it had some dire consequences. If Don Cherry says that, it surely must be so.

Mr Stockwell: The philosopher Santayana once noted that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. I will try to make a relationship between this budget by the provincial government and the federal government's previous budgets under Liberal governments.

In 1980, the federal government was spending approximately $1.20 for every $1 of revenue it received. The deficit that year was $9.2 billion and the total debt represented about 29% of the gross domestic product. During the following recession, the government increased the deficit from $14 billion to $28 billion. It doubled, much like this government's. This spending trend continued to the point where upon the changeover in power in 1984 the deficit had reached a record $38 billion. At this point in time --

Hon Mr Wildman: Under the Tories?

Mr Stockwell: No, that was in 1984.

At this point in time, for every revenue dollar the government received, it spent $1.33. The most startling feature of this statistic is that by this time the recession had been over for more than two years. The federal debt, which was around $80 billion in 1980, had blossomed to $199 billion by 1984. The $1.33 monster was alive and its appetite proved to be insatiable.

By 1991, after adding debt-financed annual deficits in excess of $30 billion per year, the federal debt has now reached $400 billion. Interest costs alone represent 35 cents for every revenue dollar. It is strange; back in 1980 interest was only 19 cents of every dollar. That seemed very reasonable at the time. The current level of debt represents 60% of the gross domestic product and the magic of compounding interest continues to mesmerize.

In 1984, the debt per capita was $7,987 for every man, woman and child. In 1991, it was $15,610 for every man, woman and child.

The problem that exposes itself here is that once a government commits to spending it becomes virtually impossible to cut back on newly established spending limits. This is not just a Canadian phenomenon. In 1984, the US federal government increased its level of spending to $1.28 for every dollar of revenue, up from $1.14 in 1980. The 1991-92 US budget shows a level of spending of $1.29 for every dollar of revenue, an actual increase.

Remember that this is after two terms of Ronald Reagan, the man who consistently ran his platform on reducing the size of government. Per capita debt has increased during the same period from $5,738 in 1984 to a projected $10,870 per person. Only in Canada, you say, Mr Speaker? Hardly.

There is an argument that increased government spending -- and I ask members to listen carefully -- in early years will result in higher incomes in the future and these funds will be used to pay off initial deficits without any increase in general taxation. We hear that argument. The Treasurer has expounded it. Even some press reports have suggested it.

It is believed that this theory was first discovered buried under three acres of swamp land in Florida, and the land title was traced back to the Premier.

In 1984, Canadian government revenues represented 16% of GDP. The 1991-92 revenues represented 17.8% of the GDP. The difference constitutes an increase in the level of taxation. Kept at 16% the revenue to government would have risen proportionately with the general rise in national income. The increase to 17.8%, therefore, is very substantial.

Let's look at it in terms of actual dollars. The 1991-92 budget forecasts a GDP of $678 billion for the nation. At the 1984 rate of taxation, government revenues would be $108 billion -- simply take the $678 billion and multiply by the 16% tax rate. However, revenues for the 1991-92 budget are projected to be $121 billion, an increase of some $13 billion in additional taxes over those in place in 1984. This represents just one year. The same principles hold true for every preceding year. The cumulative total of additional taxation is absolutely staggering.

In the US, the level of government revenue as a percentage of GNP went from 18.1% in 1984 to a projected 19.4% in 1991-92. The bottom line to this kind of budgeting is that increased national income does not pay for deficit spending; increased taxation levels do.

After increasing taxes, imposing the GST, cutting VIA Rail and the CBC, selling off crown corporations, the federal government still finds itself with an annual deficit of $30 billion. Throw in the fact that between 1982 and 1988 the country experienced the longest period of income growth on record. Who would want to recreate this dilemma? The provincial NDP government and its $10-billion deficit.

Mr Wildman: In other words you are attacking us for emulating the Tories.

Mr Stockwell: Exactly, the federal Tories. With one budget it has joined the league of the heavy-duty debtors. Here are some indicators -- a 13.4% increase in provincial spending this year was all it took. The deficit per capita for Ontario is the highest of all provinces in the country and within roughly 10% of the federal deficit on a per-capita basis.

The point clearly being made is that we were charted down this path many years ago at the federal level. We were charted down this path in the late 1970s and early 1980s when the Liberal government was in power. Having said that, the assumption was that by increasing the deficit you increase national wealth, which will in fact pay off the increased cost to service your debt. I humbly suggest it does not work. You simply begin to double your debt. The NDP has entered into this kind of malaise of financial thought process. There is no process involved. It is simply spending today without any thought for the future. In fact, for a government that constantly blames the federal government for all its economic woes, the NDP is going out of its way to emulate its enemies in Ottawa. It is acting just like them.

In 1991-92, the feds will spend $1.25 for every revenue dollar they take in; the NDP will spend $1.23. Is imitation the highest form of flattery? The NDP claims that the increased level of spending is needed to get the economy going and that the outflows at this time will be repaid through the increase in general income in the future. Hold on, this is starting to sound very familiar. As Yogi Berra would say, "It's déjà vu all over again."

The NDP has picked up a trick or two from the feds after boasting the deficit will be reduced to $7.8 billion in 1994-95, less than a $2-billion reduction over three years. Big deal. It is going to reduce the deficit by some $2 billion over three years that it set up at $10 billion in the initial year. Upon closer inspection, one discovers it is not a reduction in spending, but an increase in taxes that the NDP plan to employ to keep the deficit from getting out of control. After incorporating $1 billion in new tax increases this year, the socialists have increased the level of taxation to 15.2% of the provincial GDP.

1610

After incorporating $1 billion in new tax increases this year, the socialists have increased the level of taxation to 15.2% of the provincial GDP. In 1984, the level of provincial revenue was 14.1% and by 1994-95, the socialists plan to raise revenues up to 16.1% of the gross domestic product. In other words, just as the federal government has done, the NDP plans to increase revenues faster than the real growth in the GDP and inflation combined -- very dangerous.

This means only one thing -- new taxes. In fact, new taxes over the four-year period are estimated, using the government's own projections, to be over $8 billion. Let's get this straight, $8 billion in increased taxes reduces the deficit by $2 billion. Is something not making sense? No, it is not.

Based on this ratio, if the government wanted to reduce the deficit of $7.8 billion completely over the following four years without changing its spending trends, it would need to introduce $32 billion of new taxes over that period -- $32 billion. This is starting to sound very scary.

The province is spending money it simply does not have, nor does it have any hope of recouping this money in the future.

The concept flies in the face of current budgetary strategies of the federal and provincial governments. Quebec recently announced a salary freeze for its 400,000 employees. Newfoundland recently brought down a budget aimed at reducing its projected $200-million deficit to $53.8 million. The budget freezes public service wages, medical funds and grants to school boards. Over 2,000 public servants are to be laid off and 500 vacant jobs will not be filled. No one said it was simple, but it is reality.

Nova Scotia has proposed a two-year wage freeze on public servants and limits on social spending increases to 2% annually. British Columbia balanced its 1991-92 budget and this year Alberta came up with a $33-million surplus.

Ontario increased the wages to the public service by 6%, the highest rate, higher than the rate of inflation, and ended up with the highest deficit in its history.

Even if one looks at France, led by a socialist government, the NDP still appears to be in left field. Due to a sharp downturn in the French economy, much like Ontario's, the 1991-92 budget contains spending cuts of some C$2.4 billion. In fact, President Mitterand has continually restated his government's fiscal responsibility to provide a level of confidence among business groups which includes controlling government spending -- a darned good socialist controlling government spending.

The philosophy of the NDP provincial government, while totally off the economic mark, is not without precedent. This type of Keynesian government spending in an effort to jump-start the economy harks back to Roosevelt's New Deal in 1930s America. As the Depression progressed in the US -- and all over the world, for that matter -- governments looked for methods of spurring economic growth. The Roosevelt government subscribed to the purchasing power thesis as the best method of getting the nation back on its feet. This theory, simply put, maintained that an inequitable distribution of purchasing power lay behind the Depression. The key to recovery was to increase mass purchasing power. Government projects, higher wages, higher social spending and redistribution of corporate profits would redistribute the income and augment purchasing power.

Armed with this theory, from 1933 to 1936, the US government continued to pump money into the economy. The erosion of the tax base forced the government to borrow these funds. During this period, economic activity did pick up and the country appeared to be finally out of an economic downturn. By 1937, the government had run out of money.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Members should listen. If they are going to heckle they should listen to the rest.

It cut back its spending. The country soon went into a recession that lasted until 1939.

Mr Huget: What did the Conservative government in 1930 do in this country?

Mr Stockwell: I am going to answer that. The growth had been artificial. This was proven by the fact that as soon as the government stopped spending, the economy came to a halt. What is even more noteworthy, and I will note this for the member, is that in 1929 the Depression was worldwide. In 1937, the recession was strictly domestic, created solely by the government.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: You may not want to hear it, but those are the facts.

In retrospect, we can see the New Deal was unsuccessful because it failed to create the required confidence of the business community. Because of uncertainties with regard to the future state of government programs, the prospect of higher taxes and regulations which reduced the hope of profit, a general lack of confidence was created among the business community, thus keeping money out of the private sector. In the end, this retarded genuine recovery. The recession would last until the events of the Second World War allowed the conversion of the US economy into a war economy. What war is the NDP hoping for?

We do not have to go back to the 1930s to learn from history. The feds in both Canada and the United States are fighting their own wars on government deficits and they are losing. Increasing government spending is somewhat like beginning a heroin addiction -- pretty soon there is no such thing as moderation.

While the NDP claims it is the victim of high interest rates and high Canadian dollars, consider the following. As deficits are incurred, money must be borrowed to finance them. The money is generally raised in capital markets in the form of government securities. As governments raise more and more debt, they overcrowd the bond market. The resulting oversupply of debt instruments pushes prices down, and that results in higher interest rates. No one will argue that.

Now consider the fact that a large percentage of our government debt is purchased by foreign sources, which could just as easily invest their money in the United States or Europe.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Mr Stockwell: In order to continually attract the capital, Canada must offer interest rates that are high enough to compete with other nations. As external debt increases, our levels of interest rates also increase -- common knowledge. Not just prime rates, but perhaps more important, 20- or 30-year interest rates.

The problem is that in this regard we do not have a choice. There is not enough domestic money available to finance this debt -- there is not enough. In 1991, foreign debt costs reached 4% of the GDP, up from 2% in 1975. This is in the area of $27 billion.

As we increase the level of government debt, we further reduce our ability to independently control interest rates, despite the NDP's claim that the federal government controls the interest rates alone. Increasing the amount of debt, as the NDP is now doing, will only serve to keep interest rates higher than they should be. Through the excessive debt-financed spending, the socialists have only contributed to the problem they complain about most.

Of the major industrialized countries, Japan has the least reliance on foreign debt. Is it any coincidence that in Japan they also have one of the world's lowest interest rates?

The value of the Canadian dollar also comes into the fold of this process. As foreigners buy our debt, they do so in Canadian dollars. Therefore, as the country continues to require foreign inflows of cash to finance its deficits, the purchases of Canadian dollars increases. This pushes up the price of the Canadian dollar. Again, by incurring high levels of debt-financed deficits, the NDP is exacerbating the other issue it complains about most.

Besides, the key to prosperity for any country is long-term productivity.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Maybe the member should leave, since he probably does not understand most of it anyway.

Those who think that prosperity can be achieved by lowering our dollar must also place countries like Brazil -- and this is the suggestion that came from the other party -- at the pinnacle of economic achievement since it devalues its currency almost hourly. Quick fixes such as devaluation only temporarily mask inequalities and inefficiencies, which in the end only come back to force a readjustment in the currency.

As long as Canada -- and Ontario -- continues to be a heavy debtor, it will never be able to control its own destiny. Just as we are seeing in the debacle of junk bond financing, in the end it is the creditors, not the shareholders, that end up calling the tune. Financing your debt is a very expensive model. You end up paying for it now, and your children, in turn, end up paying for it.

This is potentially the worst possible scenario the people in this province could have seen. It is the worst possible budget, with an ill-conceived, half-baked economic program.

1620

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: They shout out things that I do not think they truly understand. They are wound up in caucus and they are told to spew these lines. They are not certain of the lines, they are not certain of the knowledge and they are not certain of the logic.

The government is on a very painful road, painful for the people of the province of Ontario and painful for those who operate within this province. It is taking a very disastrous effect today and in future years.

Any of those members who would choose to stand up and defend this budget on a public platform, I will be happy to debate -- on a public platform, in a public place, with the public having full access to question the government's initiatives. Any defence of a tripling of the deficit and a doubling of the debt is laughable.

We have lost our credit rating, we are losing our manufacturing, we are losing our shoppers across the border. We are not creating wealth. This NDP government is merely adding fuel to the fire. But in the end I do not really blame them, because it is difficult to blame someone who does not understand.

Mr Christopherson: We are very pleased that finally we get a chance, after four weeks, to actually debate the budget and talk about the measures that are contained in the budget and talk about the why of the budget. When the previous speaker talks about not knowing what one is talking about, instead of keeping his nose buried in economic history books, he ought to just emerge outside and go talk to some of the people in this province who are hurting, who are looking to this government to help them get through this recession, which, by the way, was created by his cousins in Ottawa.

This budget deals with the people's issues. It talks about health care, it talks about education. We deal with housing, we deal with pay equity, we deal with the issue of family violence, with sexual assaults. Those are the issues facing the people of this province. On 6 September people said they needed these issues to be addressed.

Interjections.

Mr Christopherson: The heckling I am hearing just substantiates this budget all the more and why we took the actions we did. Members opposite cannot continue to bury their heads in the sand when we look at the kind of social problems that are around us in this province. This government has an obligation to meet those needs head on, and I feel very comfortable in defending this budget because I believe it does deal with those issues head on. It does not use a Tory copout to tell people: "We can't deal with anything that's going on. We have a recession. Therefore, we're going to turn our backs on you and you're going to have to suffer through the very best you can." That is unacceptable to New Democrats; it is unacceptable to this government.

Let's spend a second talking about the deficit, since that seems to be the only thing the opposition parties are interested in talking about -- not people, not people's needs, not how we are going to address those needs, but the deficit. Fine. Let's talk about the deficit.

As was noted, the federal deficit right now takes 34 cents of every revenue dollar. This budget takes 12 cents of every revenue dollar, which, by the way, is no more than Liberals and Tories were paying at times during their leadership and their time at watch. If the opposition members would take the time to read the budget and take a look at what is expressed there --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Mr Christopherson: -- they would find that the deficit will fall from 3.4% of gross domestic product to 2.2%. Those kinds of fiscally responsible figures show that this government knows exactly what it is doing, and we stand behind the measures we have taken in this budget. I would again emphasize the fact that we are not prepared to turn our backs on the people. We are going to move on the areas that are important.

Let's look at another factor: $8.2 billion of the $9.7 billion would have been there regardless of which party was here if we wanted to just maintain the services we currently provide. The largest chunk of that comes because of increased social service costs, which are the result of the made-in-Canada Tory recession. It is a result of the federal cutbacks, where we have had successive federal governments that have decided to offload on to the provinces, consistently capping the money that is transferred to provinces for social assistance.

When we came into office, we said that one of our priorities was our funding transfer partners at the municipal level. The Treasurer announced transfer payments in an amount averaging about 8%. That goes a long way to meeting the commitment we made to renew the partnership with those transfer partners.

Let's take a look at what happened in the last few years of the previous government when we look at school taxes, municipal board -- and my honourable colleague across the way knows, because his background is similar to mine. In fact, one of the things that brought me into the election last year was what was happening to municipalities consistently.

We made a commitment there and we have gone a long way to meeting that commitment. But it is going to cost money, and just passing the buck down to municipalities and just passing the buck down to local school boards is not meeting that commitment. It may look good when the Treasurer stands up and makes a speech about their budget, but the level of government that is closest to the people, where the real quality of life is determined, is hurting and it is hurting badly.

I feel good that we stood beside those partners and we did everything we could in this budget. That is only the beginning. We are going to continue to work with those municipal partners and those other transfer partners to ensure that they get a fair shake. If that means we have to stand up and take some heat because of the kind of budget we have to bring down, so be it. If those kinds of taxes have to be raised, then they ought to be raised through the provincial governments, through the federal governments as much as possible, where you have more progressive, more fair levers of taxation. You do not have that luxury at the local level. I hope to see that we will continue to maintain that as a cornerstone of our economic planning for the future.

A couple of weeks ago I and my colleagues from Hamilton-Wentworth had a chance to meet with a number of community groups. It was about the third or fourth session we have had. We call it the Hamilton Agenda and we invite groups to come in and talk to us about the issues that are important to them. A lot of it is funding, but a lot of it has to do with the policies they would like to see us initiate or change or, in some cases, maintain.

When you are sitting there talking to the Alzheimer Society, your local Alzheimer group, the Victorian Order of Nurses, the Canadian Red Cross Society, when those groups come in and you do not have all the fanfare of this place and you are back in your community and you are dealing across the table, listening to your fellow citizens in your community -- and in many cases these organizations are being maintained through a lot of volunteer work. Those organizations are on such tight budgets that it is all they can do to meet the growing demands and needs that are placed on them. Those are the kinds of organizations and the kinds of services we committed ourselves to when we ran in the last election. We said to ourselves, in spite of the Tory made-in-Canada recession, we would do everything we could to have a made-in-Ontario solution. I believe this budget goes a long, long way towards achieving that.

The honourable member for Etobicoke West asked for people from this party, the government party, to stand up and defend this budget. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, I had to beat off our own caucus members in terms of a speakers' list because they want to stand up and talk to this budget and talk to the commitments that we meet inside this budget. To give them a chance, I will shorten my usually lengthy words and offer them a chance to express their concerns, But I stand here very proud of the fact that we are fighting the recession and that we are not turning our backs on the people of Ontario at a time when they need us the most.

1630

Mr Sola: To respond to this budget properly, I must work backwards, just like the NDP. On page 20 of the report, the Treasurer expounds on the principles upon which this budget is based, and he repeats the theme on page 14, "This government is convinced that the only way we will achieve effective fiscal management is...with the participation of the people who use services and the people who provide them."

What is left out in these statements? Why, those who pay the shot -- the taxpayers. According to the Treasurer's own words, this budget is based on everyone's concerns except those who should count the most -- the taxpayers.

Let's look at the deficit. What we have is not a $10-billion deficit, astronomical by itself, but one of $35 billion if the Treasurer's four-year projections are on target. If not, I shudder at the thought.

To put this into perspective, according to a Toronto Star report, the Ontario deficit is almost double that of the other nine provinces combined -- $10 billion compared to $5.5 billion. Put another way, the Ontario deficit is almost equal to the size of the entire Alberta budget. The Ontario deficit is equal to the combined budgets of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The Ontario deficit is almost equivalent to the total budgets of the maritime provinces: Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

According to a Globe and Mail report, the budget is based on this maxim from Karl Marx, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Let's analyse this. The abilities of the Ontario economy, according to the NDP, are $43 billion, or the total revenue of the province. The needs of the Ontario public, according to the NDP, equal $53 billion, or the total expenditure of the province. Therefore, the total needs outweigh total abilities by $10 billion, or 20% of the budget. Something is wrong with this equation. It is totally out of whack. It will double the provincial debt in four years and bury the futures of our children in a mountain of debt.

What are the role models for this budget? East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia and the USSR. What do they have in common? Well, perpetual huge deficit financing, bankrupt economies, and socialist or communist governments that destroyed these countries. Is that what lies in store for Ontario? It cannot happen here? Let's look at the case of East Germany and Czechoslovakia.

They were the hub of the European industrial economy, the envy of the world, before the communist takeover. They were productive, efficient and booming, just like the Ontario economy before the NDP. If socialism could destroy their initiative, their drive, their energy, their work ethic, it can destroy anybody's, including ours.

Most disappointing is the Premier's attitude. Having been with him in Lithuania monitoring its first democratic elections, I am appalled that he has not learned the lesson of adhering to this outdated dogma. If he carries on in this manner, he should have brought back a few bricks from the dismantled Berlin Wall. He may need to rebuild it to prevent people, jobs and industry from fleeing south for good. This has occurred in the countries the NDP is emulating.

The rosy projections on economic growth by Pink Floyd are nothing but a red herring. His prediction of an average growth in the economy of 3.7% for four years running is based on this ominous fact: permanent jobs are disappearing and are being replaced by temporary jobs. Compare this to the Liberal record over the last five years: an average predicted rate of growth of 3.2% and an average achieved rate of growth of 4%. Does he really believe that our economy can outperform with temporary jobs the unparalleled growth based on permanent jobs during the Liberal years?

The Treasurer has been called the Lone Ranger by Gord Wilson, head of the Ontario Federation of Labour. Perhaps he has changed his mind, like Bob White of the CAW. Perhaps he would agree to a slight change in name, to Lone Arranger, because he will have to arrange at least $35 billion in the next five years.

In conclusion, I would like to quote a Toronto Sun editorial: "The NDP has simply found a new way of spending our money without finding any new way of generating wealth. Get used to it, folks. That's what the NDP is all about."

Now, I will conclude with this sentence: Let's give Floyd and the sea of red ink the pink slip.

Mrs Cunningham: It is with interest that I rise in the House this afternoon and speak to the Liberal opposition motion on the budget.

A little over three years ago, I let my name stand in a candidacy in London North in a by-election. One of the reasons I ran at that point in time was that I thought elected representatives did not in fact represent, well and with responsibility and with a feeling that they really wanted to make a difference, the public that they served. In doing so, I was very much concerned about the future of our country, of our province, and the ability of young people in Ontario and in Canada to have an opportunity to participate in the economy and the workforce of this terrific country that we live in.

I was concerned at that point in time because I learned, rather by accident, that in fact we had a deficit and that we had a debt. Even in the position of educated people and people who are interested in what is going on -- I am certain some of the New Democratic Party members this afternoon will admit that they have learned so much after having been elected to this Legislative Assembly, but I learned as a school board trustee and as a parent that we were moving in the wrong direction in Ontario with regard to managing our financial situation, and so it is with a little bit of confusion that I look at this budget.

Perhaps the Liberal members in the House today have learned their lesson after the last election, because I thought they themselves in fact had not been particularly responsible. I can remember making a number of speeches over the three years that I was here before this last election, talking about our future prosperity and our ability to successfully manage and exploit the opportunities of the next decade in Ontario. I mentioned many times that this depended on a constructive and positive partnership between the public and the private sector of our province. Regrettably, in the last three years I mentioned many, many times that I did not feel the partnership existed, because the Liberal government did not appear to appreciate the difference between constructive participation and destructive interference in its dealing with the private sector, not only in the way it managed our finances but in a lot of the legislation that was brought forth.

I talked about taxation and I talked about budget, and I talked about the fact that since 1985 that particular Liberal administration imposed no fewer than 32 tax and levy increases on Ontario consumers and businesses, and that every major tax had been increased at least once and new taxes had been created. Consequently, I have to say that the tax revenues collected by the province since 1985 had increased by over 100%.

I could go on, but only to say, as all members of this Legislative Assembly know, that if indeed we are going to collect these kinds of dollars, if indeed we are going to put our province in a deficit position, and if indeed we are going to put our future taxpayers and our young people in a position where we expect them to pay up for debts totalling billions of dollars, then I think that at the same time we have to be extremely responsible in the way we manage in this House and throughout tile government offices of this province.

1640

I am not one bit convinced that any of us, no matter what government, have got the political courage to do just that, and that is manage. There is tremendous waste in government. I certainly, and colleagues of mine from all three parties over the last few years, have mentioned them, have pointed them out in our other lives -- in our business lives, in our lives as parents, as taxpayers, in my particular responsibilities as a school board trustee and, more recently, in my role as critic for Community and Social Services, Skills Development, Education and Colleges and Universities.

I do not think I have a right to be here without providing solutions to problems. That has always been my intent and my effort. Today I am absolutely appalled and tremendously disappointed at this particular government and the budget it has just brought before our House. In representing the taxpayers, I will also say that I am tremendously disappointed on their behalf, because they advise us, as we move about our constituencies, both in our critic portfolios and as individual representatives, that they have lost confidence in anybody's ability to govern. They have certainly lost confidence in this government.

This government has not been here for a very long period of time. I am most disappointed to stand here today with new colleagues of mine and to say to it that I absolutely abhor the way in which they accept the criticism we present to them in our role as opposition members. They sit there and think it is a joke. It is not a joke.

I will say one more thing. The member for Hamilton Centre stood up and one of his first statements was what he was going to do about health care and what he was going to do about education and how this budget addressed both of those issues. I believe I am right when I say that. That was one of the opening statements. I am the critic of Education. Education was not even mentioned in the budget. I think it is imperative that as we go about this province doing our work, we tell the truth and we get on with describing to the public our challenges, whether we be in government or whether we be in opposition.

I will say that the headline in the Toronto Star the day after the budget was introduced said, "Education, Heath Care Big Losers in Budget." They go on to say that the "first budget fell short of campaign promises but delivered aid to abused women, workers, aboriginal people and low income families." That is great, but they did say that, "Education and health care are among the big losers, while promises of more spending for housing and social assistance have been scaled down."

When we go about our business in political campaigns, we make certain promises. I am very much aware of the promises the government made for education. It is true. The fact of the matter is that the government promised 60% funding by this province for local school boards. They did not begin to meet that promise, nor do they have it in their long-term plan. That is what I am talking about. If they are going to go about making promises, then they should stand up and say, "We can't meet them this year, but perhaps down the road" -- let them do anything, but if they make the promises, they should keep them.

I would like to read three letters today. I have a lot of letters from constituents from my riding. I ask all of them, as I receive them, to send these letters on to the government, because I think it is important that government members see what the public is saying. All of us had a week where we were expected to take a bit of a break. I spent all of my time in my constituency and in the constituency of southwest Ontario.

Mr Nixon: You went to Grand Bend, did you?

Mrs Cunningham: I did not get to Grand Bend, but I had wanted to get to Grand Bend. It was not one of those things that was on my agenda.

I was well received, because I think the public of Ontario has so little hope.

I will say that one of the first letters that struck me was from Mr Slemko, who lives at Whiteacres Drive in London. He wrote to the Premier:

"I am writing to you at this time to express my concerns about the future of Canada and particularly the province of Ontario. I am a chartered accountant and an entrepreneurial businessman. I have been involved in small and medium-sized businesses both as an adviser and as an owner for the past 15 years. I have never before written or felt the need to write directly to the Premier as I have always had a strong hope of confidence in the province of Ontario."

In spite of my criticism of the former government, I never thought for one minute that we would be facing what we are facing now. That was a piece of cake compared to what we have got now.

"As I see what has happened and what is going to happen to this province after only six months of your government, I felt I had to write and express my views."

He talks about the legislation, and I could go on to Bill 17 and Bill 70 and all the other pieces of legislation that deter business investment in our province and cause us to lose jobs and confidence. He ends by saying:

"I would like to see Ontario continue to prosper and grow, but I am concerned. I do not see any indication that you or your government have an understanding of the issues that face this province in the next 10 years....

"You have introduced a budget which, although socially attractive, is fiscally irresponsible in today's economic environment. Other provinces are cutting back and trying to maintain some semblance of financial responsibility."

Rod Helm from Fiddlers Green is also one of my constituents. I invite the government to read its letters of support for the budget, even one. I would love to hear a letter of support for the budget from the government members today.

"Dear Ms Cunningham:

"As a young working person I awaited the first NDP government budget with a great deal of trepidation. Unfortunately, my worst fears were realized when I heard of the astronomical deficit projected by Floyd Laughren.

"As my member of Parliament, I urge you to object to this fiscal lunacy in the strongest possible manner. I will be paying for this deferred taxation all of my working life, and do not relish the thought. The fundamental problems facing this province have been ignored. Instead, the government has decided to proceed with a spending frenzy unmatched in Canadian history.

"Please do your utmost to persuade the government that common sense must prevail. We cannot afford the level of government services we now have, let alone any attempt to 'enhance' them. You have my strongest possible support in your efforts to raise objections to the present government's new disaster plan" -- NDP, new disaster plan.

Here is another one, from Charlene Foster. This is obviously a mom. She says:

"I would like to express my concern over your budget. I am not well to do. In fact, I recently discovered those on mother's allowance are better off financially than I.

"Our wage increases over the last three years have been below the cost of living." She goes on to say, and I think these are the key words, "My children are angry and critical of the mess we 'adults' are making."

Mr Bisson: Why don't you go live on mother's allowance and find out if that's true.

Mrs Cunningham: Madam Speaker, I am absolutely fed up with the comments coming from across the floor. Every once in a while the member for Cochrane South assumes that members on this side of the House have not lived on mother's allowance, do not know what is going on in the world, have never done anything to contribute to our communities. We come well informed and it is in our heart to make things better, so he should not talk to me about living on mother's allowance.

I worked with women on mother's allowance for 10 years of my life and I know how difficult it is. I will tell him what is wrong with mother's allowance. Does he know what is wrong? They do not need more money. They need the people whom he and I hire to do the work to do just that, do the work, support them, work through jobs, get them work to do, provide them support with their babies, give them child care when they need it.

Has the government looked at the waiting list for child care right now? What are they doing with the money they collect? Have they looked at the schools that they need for kids? Are they building new schools? I can hardly wait to see that one.

No, the member should not talk to me about waiting lists for hospitals. We are closing beds in London. With all this money, we are closing beds in London right now. Can members believe it? Do they know where those people are going? South of the border. Not just the patients are going, but the doctors whom we have trained to work here.

I have spoken long enough. I will end up with this letter:

"I am writing because I share your dislike for the recent Ontario budget. I'm 14 years old and I feel that the NDP government is putting a mortgage on my future just to get us out of a recession that will be over soon anyway. I don't agree that throwing money around will save us. I know a little about economics so you can't fool me."

This kid is 14. Are members listening?

"I'm sad that it had to come to stalling government business just to get them to listen." Well, it worked. "The NDP pride themselves as being a people's party. Well, the people of tomorrow are speaking. We don't want to be left with an enormous debt to pay off. It's your son, Bob Rae's daughters and all the other children and young people that will have to pay this debt off.

"The NDP say that they want the best environment for their children to grow up in and pass on to their children. Does this include economic environment? Yes, we have to help those in need, no one can argue with that. There are better ways than this. Please try to get them to listen. It's our future that hangs in the balance."

This is from a young girl, Sarah Fadge.

1650

Mr Mills: I am at a little disadvantage. When you are on a committee and you have to pop in here, you do not know what the other people have said. I am at risk of repeating, but I am going to cut my remarks very short.

I would like to talk about the deficit first of all. I do not think there is anyone in this House who is more careful with a dollar than I am. I have got suits in my closet that I came to Canada with in the hope that I would get smaller, that they would fit me one day. That is how careful I am. Now to get on to a serious subject, I do not like the deficit at all, but nevertheless I have examined it and I have thought of all the things that this budget does to so many people, and I really have come to say to myself that we really did not have too many alternatives in this.

Last week I had a clinic set up with my constituents in Port Perry for Thursday night and I had to go down suddenly to the member from London's riding to speak to the Monarchist League of Canada. Those folks there were very upset about the budget. I listened to them politely and then I had to reschedule my constituent clinic to Saturday night. I did this from 4 o'clock until 9 o'clock and we arranged for all the people to come in again.

One gentleman came in, and he was just absolutely fuming with contempt for the budget. He said, "You know, the first thing that you folks should do is that you should cut" --

Interjection.

Mr Mills: Pay attention.

"You should cut the pay of the civil servants by 25%." I said to this fellow, "Were you drinking before you came here?" He said, "No." I could not believe what I was hearing.

Later on in the evening, another fellow came in and stap me if he did not say the same thing. He said: "You know, you can cure the deficit. You can cut the civil servants' pay." I said, "How much?" and he said, "Twenty per cent." I said, "Why are we doing this?" He said: "Well, they've got regular employment. They get three meals a day. They've got good jobs. They're all secure. They get pensions; they get indexed pensions." I said, "Just a minute. This is civil servants. I was a civil servant, and I look back to" --

Mrs Cunningham: You're a civil servant now.

Mr Mills: I mean I was a professional civil servant, and I served as a civil servant under the Bill Davis government. As a civil servant, and as a member of OPSEU, Local 340, we were subjected to the pay freeze of the Tories when the Davis government was in power, and I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that we were very angry about that, because the Tories decided that they would carry their 1981 deficit on the backs of the defenceless civil servants. At the time, I was earning about $300 a week and we had a job to make ends meet. We did not get a rise because Bill Davis, in his wisdom, decided that he would fight the recession on the backs of the civil servants. When the Liberal government got elected, we thought things were going to get better, but they did not get any better. We still had to fight every inch of our way for our pay increases.

So I stand here today to speak on one issue, for the civil servants. I am very grateful to the government and to the Treasurer that looked after all the civil servants who are my friends, who live in my constituency, that this government decided it would not fight the recession on the backs of civil servants and it would not fight the recession on the backs of the people who can ill afford it.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I rise with considerable disappointment in this government. A first budget is an important symbolic event for a new government. It provides a clean slate upon which to write fiscal policies which conform to promises which were made nearly nine months ago to the people of Ontario who elected this government.

The most pressing aspect of budget 1991 which is on the minds of Ontarians is the disastrous and counterproductive deficit of $10 billion that this budget presents. In fact, 11.6 cents of every tax dollar paid by every Ontarian will go towards servicing this massive debt.

I want to remind this House again today that this is the largest deficit in Ontario's history. This is not a very proud beginning. Many in this province say it is indeed irresponsible and regressive.

To be sure, an increase in the deficit was expected, and in fact, creatively planned, could have met the need to provide present relief to those most severely hurt by this present recession. But the mammoth size of this deficit, an increase of over 300%, coupled with this government's projections of four further years of the same, are but delayed and deferred tax collection, mortgaging of our future, and will be eliminated by substantial -- and only by substantial -- built-in taxation increases in the future for ourselves and for our children.

I predict that Ontario cannot hope for a balanced budget for the remainder of this century. I make this statement with deep regret, but with confidence, despite the recent overoptimistic predictions of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Treasurer.

This budget has decimated Ontario's triple A credit rating. This has traditionally given Ontario the enviable advantage of borrowing money at the lowest possible interest rates of any provincial government in Canada. Regretfully, we learned last week that both the Canadian and international rating companies have downgraded Ontario's credit rating.

Mr Bisson: What do you mean --

Mrs Y. O'Neill: The member for Cochrane South is certainly very difficult to speak over.

We learned last week that both Canadian and international rating companies have downgraded Ontario's credit rating and now our credit rating in this province trails both Alberta and British Columbia. We now face the reality of higher interest rates on our provincial deficit, according to such reliable observers of our economy as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. Members of the Dominion Bond Rating Service have stated: "Evidence suggests that Ontario's future revenue base has eroded. The province's economy has weakened permanently." This is a frightening forecast for Ontario as we work our way, or should I say not work our way, into the 21st century.

This permanent weakening especially affects Ontario's manufacturing and service sectors, and this budget does little to strengthen either. We need only look at the most recent bankruptcy figures to see the trend which is already developing. In March of this year, 24 Ontario manufacturers went bankrupt. In fact, in the same month Ontario registered 78% more bankruptcies than in March 1990. In the trucking industry alone there were 655 bankruptcies last year, an increase of 74% over the previous year. No wonder we have highway blockades.

1700

This first NDP budget is destroying trust in Ontario's economy within both the Canadian and international economic communities, economic communities upon which this province depends for investment. As we all know, these investments have been the traditional important foundations for job creation in Ontario.

Instead of coming up with solutions to the grave economic problems which face Ontario today, the Bob Rae and Floyd Laughren solution is to point fingers. Day after day we are told to blame high interest rates or the GST or to blame free trade. In fact, blame is apportioned much more generously in this budget than incentives to either individuals or corporations.

We were promised a plan, yet the tables in budget 1991 are now described as models, and models which are often based on very little data, examination of programs or impact studies. Ontario business leaders are using words like "disastrous," "fiscally irresponsible," "hocus-pocus," "dangerous," and "an incredible leap of faith" to describe this government's first budget.

I close by quoting the editorial cartoon which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on 1 May 1991, showing Dr Bob Rae treating a hospital patient named Ontario and saying: "The bad news is my treatment is risky, intrusive, expensive and will give you only mild, temporary relief. The good news is your kids will pick up the tab."

Mr Turnbull: The greatest problem I have with this budget is the question of projected tripling of our debt in just four years. To put this in perspective, when the Conservatives lost office in 1985, there was approximately $26 billion in debt that had been amassed since Confederation. In the next five years, during the best five years this province has experienced in the last 50, the Liberals added another $10 billion. Now we are told that this debt of approximately $36 billion is in just four years going to be doubled to $70 billion.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: This is something which is very easy for people across the floor to heckle about and think that this is some sort of joke. No doubt they find the comments that were made last week in New York to the Treasurer something to laugh about. But I can tell members the people of Ontario are not laughing and the people of the economic community of the world are not laughing. It is a very serious problem. We know that when we look at the competitiveness of Canada --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): The member for Downsview will not join in debate unless he is recognized. Please refrain from heckling.

Mr Turnbull: I would trust that you will add to the clock the time that the member for Downsview has just taken.

The whole question of our competitiveness in Ontario is brought into question. I would like to quote from a report by the Bank of Nova Scotia on the Ontario budget. It says:

"Ontario's reliance on excise tax increases as a source of revenue is very similar to actions taken by Ottawa and other provinces. These measures frustrate the Bank of Canada's ability to lower inflation and its willingness to reduce domestic interest rates. At the same time, Ontario's fiscal strategy contrasts sharply with deficit containment measures imposed in other jurisdictions. This may add to borrowing costs by tempering international investor enthusiasm for Ontario debt."

I quote further:

"These initiatives will not offset the pervasive loss in competitiveness stemming from unfavourable exchange rate, interest rate, wage and tax trends. The decision to rely heavily on deficit finance eventually will add to competitiveness problems by siphoning resources needed to finance productivity improvements into debt service. Ontario households now owe the equivalent of $10,000 in provincial debt and a further $41,000 because of chronic federal overspending. The cost of servicing this huge and growing liability will act as a drag on the economy through much of the 1990s."

Given the fact that this government is supposed to be the government that represents unions and workers, I would suggest that it is attacking its very base by driving jobs out of this province. I sat last week with a group of five people and we discussed how alarming it was how many people we knew had been discussing seriously leaving Canada.

Mr Perruzza: Did you support free trade?

Mr Turnbull: The member who is heckling me at the moment asked if I supported free trade, and absolutely, I did. In fact, we cannot get away from the reality that unless we have free trade and unless we have a competitive environment, we will have a decreasing standard of living and the social goals that the socialist government espouses cannot be met unless we have the funds to be able to pay for them.

There is this myth that there is this glob of evil business people out there who somehow are not paying their fair share of taxes. The reality is that Ontario is already the most heavily taxed administration in North America. The Liberals gave us that gift. They took us from having a 10% advantage over Quebec just six years ago to now being the most heavily taxed administration in all of North America, which bodes well for the future.

We absolutely are asking companies to leave Ontario and they are doing it. They are voting with their feet. If the socialist government thinks it can achieve its goal by piling on debt, it is wrong. I would say this to all parties, be they Conservative, Liberal or Socialist. We must get on the tracks fiscally and look at the examples of the well-managed economies of the world: Look at Germany and look at Japan and look at the example they set in terms of living within their means.

Essentially that goes to the heart of it. If we as a society -- I am not talking about 23% of the eligible voters who happened to vote for the socialists in the last election, which miraculously gave them a majority, but I am saying if a majority of people in Ontario say, "Yes, socially this is what we want to do," fine, whatever the program is if it is democratically arrived at, but let us be prepared to fund it out of current taxes. Do not build up debt and ask our children, be they socialist children or Conservative children or Liberal children, to pay for the excesses that we have today. We must live within our means.

1710

Mr Ferguson: It sounds like the member for York Mills wants us to vote on every issue that comes before this House and vote on every program that we might implement. I would like to suggest that in fact he will probably be running for the Reform Party in 1994-95 and be liking it very much.

I always felt that perhaps one of the best occupations in this country would be that of an editorial writer for a newspaper, because editorial commentators are nameless, faceless individuals who have their column appear in a newspaper and they are never wrong. Their comments are supposedly food for thought, but the key in that position is that they are never, ever wrong.

I think there is a parallel between the editorial writers of these newspapers across the country and members of the opposition, because the opposition members are never wrong. Depending on what the government of the day decides to do, the opposition members take an opposite stance, of course. They do nothing wrong. They make suggestions and changes daily.

I have found it very tiring listening in this House to questions from members opposite who have pounded this government on a daily basis, suggesting that we have not done enough to assist those in a recession who need help the most and that we have not done enough to assist those who have found themselves out of work as a result of the free trade agreement or high interest rate policy or any number of external influences that happen and that take place which create that cause and effect in Ontario, and then the very next day they stand up and criticize the government for spending money. Essentially, they say there are a number of ills and woes here in the province and that they want us to solve all the problems of the day, "But for goodness' sake don't spend any money."

Any fairminded individual looking at this budget would say there are probably some things in it that he or she likes or likes a lot, some things that the person does not like as much but could live with and some things that he or she disagrees with entirely. I think a fairminded individual would take that approach. A fairminded individual would recognize that no matter what happens, there is a cause and effect relationship, that the government's plan to stop the haemorrhaging that has been created at the national level requires some dollars to be injected into the economic life of Ontario.

I think our response in this budget has been very clear, and while we are concerned about the deficit, it is not our only concern. While we think the deficit is an issue, we recognize it is not the only issue. While we are going to focus our attention on the deficit over the long term, it is not the only focus this government has to take.

I think we will recognize that the statement made by Al Libfeld, the president of the Ontario Home Builders' Association who, most will recognize, is not exactly a card-carrying member of the New Democratic Party, was that he felt the budget was going to help. That is an impartial view.

We want to provide the economic stimulus to maintain and create 70,000 jobs. We have to look at what a $1-billion debt means, because I think most of us have a little bit of difficulty relating to $1 billion, let alone $9.7 billion.

In 1984-85, when the Conservative Party was the government of the day, 12.4 cents out of every revenue dollar went to pay the debt. In l985-86, the first year of the former Treasurer's budget from the Liberal Party, 11.6 cents out of every revenue dollar went to pay the debt. With this proposed deficit that is going to assist those in Ontario who need help the most, 12.3 cents out of every revenue dollar will go to service the debt. In fact, we are doing marginally better in 1991-92 than we did in 1984-85 when the Conservatives, who have been the loudest critics of this deficit, had the reins of power and when they had control of the piggy bank.

This budget is going to prepare the people of Ontario for recovery. It encompasses within it sustainable prosperity as its central goal and fairness as its guiding principle.

Mr Curling: I want to thank my colleague the member for St Catharines for giving me the opportunity to speak on this opposition day motion.

I think it is giving the government of the day an opportunity to rewrite the budget. They should just listen for two minutes or so. Some wisdom may come out of a little bit of what I say and maybe what my colleagues have said for them to redraft that awful, vicious, terrible budget that was presented here.

I bring to this House my personal experience. I am quite sure my personal experience is not very different from that of millions of people in this province, that when times are tough, if we have no money or things are tight, what we do in any family is to cut the fat. We look around and see if there is any excessive spending within the family and we cut back a bit. In any family we look around and tighten the belt, because we realize we do not have the type of money to go around. After we have done that and if we are still finding that funds are short, we make sure that those who need help are looked after. But we know it is not only today we must invest in by making sure that those are fed; we look forward to getting them out to work later on and we send people out to work and to train them for tomorrow.

What has this government's budget done? I can tell members that my party here is not scared at all about a deficit, because we understand that the times in this recession are very difficult. The entire world is suffering in many respects in the recession. But we would have invested in people, one of our most important resources. Did members know there was not one mention of training in this budget? I am speaking of people, giving them the resources so they can produce later on. I think they should be totally ashamed of the fact that they have avoided looking at our most important resources.

In this short time I just want to highlight some things quickly. Do members know that in any type of recession like this and in other countries, some of the people who suffer most are those who are last to be hired and first to be fired? These people are losing their jobs daily -- women, visible minorities, those who have actually been discriminated against all along and they need that kind of protection.

The bankruptcy rates are at the highest level ever. What has this government done since it has been in power with this whopping deficit that it brought forward, money in its hands? First they have to use that deficit to pay a higher bank rate without understanding at all -- they said they do not care about a triple A rating. Did they listen to many of the people in or outside of this country? People like the New York businessmen who invest here told the Treasurer that they are burying their heads like ostriches in the sand and not listening at all. They told them they had better take another look because they are the ones who invest here.

The honourable member for Cochrane South, I think -- I hope his records and facts are right -- said that the president of the Ontario Home Builders' Association applauded the budget. The construction industry is in a terrible state today. There are no more buildings going up. People are out of work. I will challenge him to send over to me anything showing where this president of the home builders' association stated how happy he is with that budget.

We saw the demonstration. It is a very short time since this government came to power. The demonstrations out there are all linked to economic issues, meaning that they want money in their pockets, they want to be trained.

The young people at this critical time in May and June who will be looking for jobs in order to pay for their school fees may not go back to school at all because they do not know how they will be paying their school fees. I challenge this government to look at this opposition motion that my colleague has brought forward, to do something and help those people who have been victimized the most by this terrible recession.

1720

Ms S. Murdock: It is true that this budget is going to leave us with a $9.7-billion deficit, but I cannot say often enough that if our government did not spend one penny, one red cent more than it is already spending and has already spent, our deficit would still be $8.2 billion. What it boils down to is that this supposedly wasteful and irresponsible government is actually only increasing our spending by $1.5 billion.

And why is that $1.5 billion being spent? I think most of it is because, for many of our citizens, we found out an awful lot in Transitions. The Transitions report in 1988 very clearly states that one of the key provisions for social assistance changes in this province is that of getting people back to work. This report, that did not have any of the concerns of a recession, made the recommendation that the need for greater employment among our citizenry is there at any time.

But in a recession the need is even greater, and our budget addresses those needs. It will spend some of the $1.5 billion on retraining. With the large number of closures in this province predominantly due, I might add, to free trade, the GST and the high dollar, more and more workers need to learn new and different skills.

More money, too, is being used for small business initiatives and for research and development, something that is sorely needed here. Small and medium manufacturing firms this year will receive $57 million in the form of loans or guarantee of loans. We recognize that the backbone of this province is small business in terms of employment and they too are receiving benefit from our budget.

It is the social system that has to be addressed in this budget. There are more budgets to come, and that is another thing everybody in this House has to realize. This is our first budget. In the social system structure alone, we are adding $215 million to an already overburdened structure because during this recession it is needed.

What are we going to do to those workers who are unemployed and have to accept welfare? There is no place else for them to go without some added moneys from this government. Social assistance costs have risen almost $2.5 billion in the last two years. These figures are not just figures, they represent people who need food, clothing and shelter, and our budget addresses those needs.

We have not forgotten the low-income earners, either. Too often they are considered the working poor and they too need our help in their taxes: supplements for dependent children, elimination of taxes for certain levels earning under $22,500. Why should someone earning $84,000 or more a year not pay an increased surtax?

We have assisted our transfer partners as well. I was listening to the member for London North who was saying that we have not even touched education. That is not true, because they are transfer partners with us. In our budget we have addressed the transfer partners -- our municipal partners, school board partners, colleges and universities partners and hospital partners. More money has been allocated to assist this year while costs for them have increased significantly. This budget has not forgotten their added burden.

It has to be pointed out that this is only our first budget. Much as we wish, we are unable to make this world, or at the very least this province, a better place to live in overnight. It may have been easier to have instituted much of our philosophy had we walked into a surplus position as we were led to believe, but the reality is that not only did we not have a surplus, we were slapped with a recession as well.

Our Treasurer, full of integrity and a firm belief in the need to increase spending in recessionary times, has done so with restraint. There is no need to work a new budget at this time, as suggested by the member for St Catharines. If we did, God forbid, operate on the basis of the federal plan and cut back on everything, like freezing salaries, what would happen to those burgeoning rolls of the unemployed who cannot find work at this time? What would happen to their families?

The member for St Catharines, in his opposition day, wants some evidence of managing government spending. For the first time Ontario will be able to look at a financial statement and see what actually has been spent in operating costs as compared to capital costs. The people of Ontario are entitled to a breakdown, and now they will get one.

In our all of eight months on this job, we have provided this time a budget for the people of this province. It certainly will assist the housing market, small businesses, manufacturing firms, education and social structures. You can look at all of those as structures within our system, but each of those structures represent people, and this budget has been presented to assist them.

We were elected because we are different than our opposition people over there, and now, because they do not like our approach, they and their friends -- being corporations and the media -- are bemoaning our method. There will be no new budget until we are ready to give one.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate, the member for Essex-Kent.

Mr Hayes: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will be very brief.

Mr Stockwell: That is a woman, Pat.

Mr Hayes: Madam Speaker. I thank the member very much. That is the most intelligent thing he has said since he has been in the House.

This resolution causes me to think back to when I was running for municipal council. My Tory opponent's platform was that he would reduce taxes. This is what he was telling the people of Maidstone township. My response was, if you do not want bridges built or repaired, if you do not want roads built and maintained, sewers installed, water lines built and all services cut, then that would be no problem and taxes could be reduced.

If the Liberals and Tories had their way, people would be laid off, families on low incomes would have lower incomes, more small businesses would become unviable, schools and hospitals would be further underfunded, the environment would further erode and more family farms would be lost in this province.

The only thing the opposition wants to talk about is the deficit, but you do not hear them mention helping people most in need. This is a people budget. This budget is about helping farmers, the handicapped, the poor and the working poor, the women and minorities, the homeless, small and medium-sized businesses, and the people who are out of work.

I am proud to be a part of a government that has chosen to fight the made-in-Canada Mulroney recession. I am also pleased that this government has decided not to follow the lead of the federal Tories. They cut back on transfer payments to the provinces, but we have not cut back on payments to the municipalities because we do not feel that the burden should be added on to the municipalities because of the insensitivity of the Tories in Ottawa towards the people of this province.

Finally, the Liberals would like us to believe that the problem in Ontario happened on 6 September. The truth of the matter is that the previous Liberal government planted some very bad seeds in this province. Then they left the farm, and they have the reformers over here supporting them.

I cannot support this resolution because it is against the people who I represent in this province, the people who are in need.

1730

Hon Mr Laughren: I am pleased to take part in this debate. I am sorry that I was not here for the entire debate because I was not, quite frankly, aware that it was going to happen this quickly. I know that is my fault, not the fault of the opposition, and meetings were already set up. However, I am pleased to be here now.

There has been a great deal of talk about this budget, and I was somewhat surprised in some quarters to hear opposition to it, because there seems to be a misunderstanding about the budget and about the deficit that flowed from it. There is no question that a $9.7-billion deficit is an historically high deficit for the province. I do not feel comfortable with a $9.7-billion deficit. I do not know anybody who would be. But I can tell members that I have not had one minute's second thought since 29 April but that we did the right thing in fighting the recession this year.

I would remind members that in the last year this province lost 260,000 jobs. Our unemployment rate is running at 10%, and it is going to be high for the rest of this year all across the province. If we had done that which the third party would like us to do, and in particular which the federal Conservatives in Ottawa apparently would like us to do, we would have had to slash major programs, close hospitals, stop building schools, stop making repairs to our roads. There is no nonsense about that whatsoever.

This deficit is a recession-driven deficit, for totally new spending in this budget comes to about $1.5 billion. So what the opposition is complaining about, presumably, is the balance of that deficit, which totals around $7 billion to $8 billion. The rest of the deficit was to fight the recession, and I want to say that I am getting a little tired of having the Conservatives in this Legislature and the ones in Ottawa, the very people who created the recession and gave us this deficit, telling us that we are not doing the right thing.

There is no question but that high interest rates, free trade, deregulation and the value of the Canadian dollar had more to do with this recession than anything the previous government did or anything we have done in the eight months we have been in office. There is no question about that, so I find it very difficult when we in Ontario are trying to fight a made-in-Canada recession with a made-in-Ontario recovery to be criticized by the very party that got us where we are now. That is simply inappropriate and, quite frankly, it is intellectually and fiscally dishonest on the part of the Tories. That is what it is.

I have heard a lot of complaints about the deficit, but I have never heard anyone in opposition stand up and say where the $6.7-billion difference should have come from. What they say is, "You should have laid off thousands of civil servants." That is what they say, as though that is going to solve the problem. Apparently for the Tories, a 260,000-people-out-of-work increase is not enough. They want more. I do not know how. They have managed to pick out one group of workers in our society and say, "They're to blame," namely, the public service in this province. I am sorry; that is simply not where our heads are at. We do not think they are to blame and therefore we do not think they should pay the price of this recession that was created by someone else. We continue to believe that.

As though it were not enough that the recession caused this deficit, at the same time we had the federal government cutting back on transfers to the province; this year alone by $1.6 billion. How does anyone, how does any Conservative in this country point to Ontario, which is fighting the recession, and say, "You shouldn't be doing that," when they caused the recession themselves? Surely that is inappropriate on the part of the provincial Tories. I understand that the provincial Conservatives did not cause what the federal Tories have done, but I want to tell members that when I hear them defend everything that the federal Conservatives do, I have to wonder whether or not they are being particularly straight with us here in Ontario. I really wonder about that.

Of course, just in the last 24 hours or so, we had the spectacle -- I cannot think of a better term -- of the Prime Minister of this country going to Japan, on the world stage, and questioning that this is a good place to invest. Now, I ask members, is that behaviour for a Prime Minister who is supposed to be over there selling Canada as a good place to live and a good place to invest? That is hardly appropriate behaviour for the Prime Minister.

There was a report that just came out by the United Nations that ranked all the different countries in the world in terms of being a good place to live. Do members know where Canada ended up? Number two. I think that is not bad.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, quite frankly, number two. One reason they rank us number two is the quality of our health care system, the quality of our education system, the quality of other aspects of the social infrastructure out there that give us the quality of life that I think is not number two: I think it is number one, second to no one in the world.

This government made a decision in fighting the recession that it was not going to allow the social infrastructure to run down. Not only that, and I think this is an aspect of the budget that a lot of people have missed, we decided to maintain our capital spending, not just in this year but in the next three years in our medium-term fiscal forecast as well. I really believe that if we are heading for a time of a high value added economy -- which I think we simply must be -- in an era of sustainable prosperity, which means that prosperity is not on the backs of the environment or the backs of working people or the backs of women or the backs of minorities, but rather a sustainable prosperity that has equity and protection of the environment built into it, then we have simply got to continue to spend money in capital to make sure we maintain that infrastructure out there that is so important to us.

I came back just the other day from New York, where I was renewing acquaintance with some old friends. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that when they talk to us about our problems, it is with envy, because if you talk to people in New York City or New York state -- and I am not going to tell them how to do their job -- they have very serious problems in their society. They will tell you that a couple of reasons are that they did not maintain the capital expenditures during the last 20 or 30 years. They simply have not done that. Second, there are enormous gains in their social programs. What they kept saying to me was: "Tell us about your health care system. Please tell us more about your health care system."

Do members know why the private sector is so interested in our health care system? In the United States, for an employer to pay the health care costs of the employee costs about $3,000 per year per employee. In this province, it is $640. That is what I call competitiveness. That is being competitive.

1740

I should comment on the fact that Ontario has lost its triple A credit rating by all of the credit rating agencies. The final one reported today, Standard and Poor's, dropped us one notch. I was not surprised that we dropped a notch in the credit rating. I think when the credit rating agencies see a deficit go from $3 billion up to $9.7 billion, they are going to take a look at it and say that is a concern and they are going to drop us a notch.

Up until we lost our triple A, there was not a single province in this country that had a triple A credit rating, so it is not as though it is the end of the world. The last time Ontario lost its credit rating was in 1985, six years ago. Three years later the province got back its credit rating.

Mr Stockwell: You are not getting it back.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, I think that for those people who say we are not going to get it back -- by the way, it is the member for Etobicoke West of the third party who is echoing the views of his Prime Minister that we are in some kind of difficulty in this province. I want to tell him, I think it is time the Prime Minister and the member for Etobicoke West started showing the kind of confidence in this province that we have in this province.

I think we should put in perspective the $9.7-billion deficit, and if I could just conclude by reminding people that if we had done nothing in terms of new expenditures, we would still have had a deficit of $7 billion or $8 billion unless we did, as the third party would want us to do, slash major programs and lay off thousands of civil servants.

I think we should remind ourselves from time to time that this is a one-year recession, this is a one-year $9.7-billion deficit, and we are committed to attacking the deficit from this year on. In the budget is a three-year medium term forecast that shows that every year for the next three years revenues will exceed expenditures and we will get the budget down. By the end of three years the operating part of the deficit will only be $3 billion. Two years after that, the operating deficit will be zero. We are committed to reducing the deficit.

In conclusion, I want to express my appreciation to the member for St Catharines for putting the resolution on the order paper and allowing us to have the kind of debate that the third party does not want us to have in this assembly, and finally to thank all members of the Legislature who took part in the debate, but in particular those ones from my caucus.

Mrs McLeod: I rise to speak as the opposition critic for Community and Social Services and I will speak only briefly to a budget that provides a 13.4% increase in spending but buys very little that constitutes improvements in social programs.

I know the government will point out, quite rightly, that a substantial increase in social assistance payments is a significant part of this expenditure increase. The increase is directly related to the growth in case load that has resulted from rising unemployment, and we do acknowledge that this deficit is driven in part by the costs of maintaining social programs in a recession.

Thank goodness we have a social security system in place and that it does work to buffer people temporarily against the impact of recession and the reality of unemployment. But the stress must be on the fact that this is supposed to be temporary. Getting people back to work must be the highest priority of this government, just as preparing and supporting and encouraging individuals on welfare to return to work must be the highest priority of social assistance reform.

I continue to be concerned about the needs in all areas of social programs, because I know that the needs are real, and I must question the priorities that lie behind decisions that have produced such a huge increase in spending with so few of those critical needs addressed. But my greater concern with this budget is that it provides no basis for the economic recovery that would give us any hope of meeting those needs in the future. With no basis for economic recovery, the future promises only more unemployment, higher welfare costs, further reductions in revenue and more soaring deficits.

There is no point in being a naïve advocate for social policy. The basis for strong social programs must be our economic strength. Without that base, even our existing social programs will collapse, and that is one of the very real and very dangerous impacts this budget can have.

If the experience of the federal government has taught us anything, it is that we should not and must not finance today's programs by taking out a mortgage on the programs that we need tomorrow.

We have seen at the federal level how large deficits have forced devastating cutbacks in social program funding. With the deficit we have in this budget, and with little realistic expectation that it will not increase in the future, we will find that we are using more of our tax dollars in Ontario just to pay the interest on the debt, with fewer and fewer dollars available for needed social programs.

This budget is almost oblivious to the need for economic recovery and future growth. Seven hundred million dollars in an anti-recession fund scattered around in an effort to finance as many short-term capital projects as possible hardly qualifies as a plan for recovery.

The Treasurer's hope that it will shorten the recession is a delusion which he alone believes is a reality. Reality requires a longer-term focus. Growth requires both the encouraging of new business and industry and support for those businesses and industries that are facing the most serious, the most critical challenges to survival that this province has ever known.

The Treasurer's delusion that he has shortened the recession with this budget is a dangerous one, because the delusion prevents this government from emerging from its dream world to give us the leadership that is so urgently needed. In the absence of this kind of leadership, the frighteningly negative impact of this budget can only become a nightmare in the future. Increased revenue simply must not come from new taxes in a recession-battered, GST-hit period. Revenues from existing sources will only be further eroded as businesses and industries collapse and more people turn to the buffer of social assistance because there are no jobs for them.

Only through economic growth can we increase real revenues. As the economy improves, jobs are created, revenues grow while the numbers on social assistance decrease, and the cost of social programs in areas from welfare payments to child protection to health care goes down in relationship to the greater sense of optimism and wellbeing. That is the only way in which dollars can be found to sustain important programs and begin to address new needs.

In the absence of the realistic long-term planning that is needed, there can be no optimism. We can only expect a series of cumulative negative effects on the economy, on revenues, on programs, and on the people of this province. I support this resolution calling on the government to present a new budget, a better budget, that meets the immediate and long-term needs of all the people of this province.

Mr Conway: I am pleased to join the debate sponsored by my colleague the Treasury critic for the official opposition, and I do so encouraged by some comments made earlier this afternoon by the newly elected member for Oxford, who reported during question period that in recent days he and his colleague the member for Perth had had the opportunity to travel throughout those two wonderful southwestern Ontario counties to talk to people about the budget, and he cited a couple of groups that were feeling rather good about things.

So this afternoon I took it upon myself to go up to the library, because I thought the member for Oxford provided me with a good opportunity to sample opinion in those two wonderful counties, recently won by the New Democrats, to see what people were saying in Oxford and in Perth county.

I wanted to report in this debate this afternoon -- eight minutes left -- what the people of southwestern Ontario, and more especially what the people of Perth county and Oxford county are saying as reported in the county press. I know my friends the members opposite will be interested to know, for example, that on the day after the budget the Stratford Beacon-Herald reported, I think not surprisingly, that the local member, the Deputy Speaker of this chamber, newly elected, was reporting that the budget was a good budget because it concerned itself with people, while the same article of course quoted a leading business person from Perth county as saying, "The budget is irresponsible bordering on criminal." An editorial in the same paper on the same day said, "The NDP budget is reckless." A few days later, the Stratford Beacon-Herald carries the headline, "NDP Too Generous to Rich in Ontario." In the same edition, we are told the county council has paid $80 to send the warden of Perth county to an NDP fund-raiser.

1750

To be fair, the Beacon-Herald goes on a few days later to give some praise to my friends opposite for their tightening of the OHIP regulations, which it says was long overdue. But a few days later the same paper says that Ontario's reasons for bowing out of national school tests fall well short of a passing grade.

The front page of the Beacon-Herald just the other day quotes local politicians and business people in that wonderful Perth county city as reacting with "horror and astonishment" to the new NDP government's plans for the common pause day.

The budget, causing the loss of the credit rating, of course produces another editorial saying what my friend the member for Fort William has just concluded in saying, and that is that of course this budget is doing nothing to create a climate of investment, which we all know will be absolutely essential if we are going to have new wealth created so that there are new jobs and new opportunities for the young, middle-aged and older people all across the province.

I cannot read it all, but the district editor of the Beacon-Herald, in an article called "The County Line" -- I will send a copy across to my friend opposite, because what Jim Hagarty says about "the NDP's bought the farm" is too precious for me to even read. But I will send it across the way.

The Oxford county press is no better. It is a very interesting survey, and I only had 90 minutes to quickly canvass the editorial, for example, in the Listowel Banner, reprinted in the 15 May edition of the Milverton Sun, which talks about the big gamble. Let me quote from that learned journal in that part of southwestern Ontario. I think this editorial speaks for a lot of people in this province when it says:

"Most Ontario workers are unorganized people making less than $40,000 per year. That is certainly the case in Perth riding. The Laughren budget offers nothing for middle- and lower-income workers except more taxes on gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol. It offers little to municipalities such as Listowel in the way of development assistance. Instead, it has municipal governments worried about having to raise even more taxes to meet promised increases in social services and education.

"Given the Laughren example," it concludes, "municipal governments must wonder why in heck they are trying to cut costs and balance budgets. For that matter, maybe we should all go out and shop till we drop, spending money we haven't got. Only time will tell."

Finally, in the Ingersoll Times, again a very interesting article by a young fellow by the name of Mike Switzer, "On the Right Track," a devastating indictment, I thought, of the budget on other grounds. I am not simply going to take valuable time --

Mr Hope: You got it right -- on the right side.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: If my friend from Maidstone township thinks the editorial byline suggests a favour in the Rae-Laughren fiscal planning, I will make sure he gets a copy of this, because it is a perspective that is profoundly negative and very worrisome.

I simply want to thank my friend the member for Oxford for inviting me to take 90 minutes and to look at the Oxford and Perth county press, because quite frankly they reflect a lot, though not all, of the province. I accept what the member for Sudbury said a few moments ago when she said, and rightly so, "The people of Ontario must understand, and surely the opposition must understand, that the NDP is a breed apart." They are different, and I do not quarrel with that. I respect the right they have won to govern this province over the next four or five years in whatever way they choose. I will tell anyone that, but I think it is important we understand that certainly in budgetary and fiscal matters, they are a breed apart -- and I do not mean Merrill Lynch.

In other matters, they are not as different as they would like us to believe. I notice that after months of waiting, in my county we have the first new order-in-council appointment of the new NDP government.

Mr Bradley: Who was it?

Mr Conway: It is the NDP candidate. I do not criticize my friends opposite for doing what I fully expect they will do. They will do it with more rig our and more vigour and more regularity than Bill Davis or David Peterson or Les Frost ever imagined possible. These are the new masters of Tammany Hall, and we will all respect the professionalism with which they will go their way through Tammany Hall.

But in economic policy, this budget is of great concern to people across the province, not because New Democrats behaved as we would expect social democrats to behave in matters of the social safety nets -- I fully expected that -- but that there was no effort anywhere to control spending was a surprise to us all.

To read in the Daily Sentinel Review in Oxford of a few weeks ago members of the government party trying to take credit for the new Treasury Board as some kind of cost-saving initiative is breathtaking. To quote Stephen Lewis, it is "chutzpah on stilts."

We had 20 years ago the much-touted, much-talked-about committee on government productivity, which created the very thing the Laughren budget talked about in terms of what the new government wants in respect of its Treasury Board. That concept was called Management Board. I accept that if this government does not want the Management Board that the Davis-Miller-Peterson era developed, it is entirely this government's right to replace it with something else. But we have the typical socialist response, layer on top of layer. We are going to pay for the ongoing tension between the Laughren and the Lankin forces within this emerging government.

I just say in conclusion that wealth creation ought to be the primary concern of this assembly -- job creation, employment. This budget, well-intentioned as it may be in some respects, will not meet that priority objective.

1803

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

Ayes 27

Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Henderson, Jordan, McClelland, McGuinty, McLeod, Nixon, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell.

Nays 54

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Pouliot, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, G., Wiseman, Wood.

The House adjourned at 1807.