Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

REUVEN BULKA

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): The constitutional difficulties before our country have galvanized many so-called ordinary Canadians into action in defence of a united Canada. One such person who has risen to the occasion is Rabbi Reuven Bulka, a resident of my riding and spiritual leader for the Congregation Machzikei Hadas in Ottawa.

Rabbi Bulka is the founder and leader of the Clergy for a United Canada campaign. During the past month, Rabbi Bulka has mailed over 30,000 unity packages to clergy of all denominations across Canada. Funding for this effort has been raised through private donations. In his packages, Rabbi Bulka urges our Canadian clergy to speak to their congregations and to pray for Canada and its political leaders as we grapple with the constitutional issues before us.

In addition, concerned clergy are asked to sign a statement affirming their resolve to keep our country whole. To date over 3,000 clergy from across Canada, representing many religions, have responded to Rabbi Bulka's call to spiritual arms.

By taking up the challenge before our country in his own unique way, Rabbi Bulka has harnessed the tremendous energies and goodwill of our Canadian clergy and their congregations. Through his leadership he has pulled together the collective spiritual resources of diverse religious groups and focused these in prayer for the benefit of Canada's future. This is surely a most worthy example of Canada and Canadians at our best.

Mr Speaker, I am sure that you and the other members of this House will join me in congratulating Rabbi Bulka for his magnificent efforts on behalf of a united Canada.

ANIMAL WELFARE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I would like to thank the Solicitor General for his and his ministry's assistance in resolving the conflict between two groups in my riding. Both these groups wanted to be responsible for animal care in Grey and Bruce, one as a branch of the Ontario Humane Society and the other as an affiliate.

There was a long and constant battle, with the one group trying to convince the community that it was the only logical choice. But they had more in mind than animal welfare; they were going to give animals rights.

Fortunately the Solicitor General's assistant deputy minister, Dominic Alfieri, had several meetings with the parties, and in large part because of his skill and efforts the Grey-Bruce Humane Society Inc is now an affiliate of the Ontario Humane Society. I am most grateful for the intervention of both the minister and his ADM.

The tireless effort of the president of the new affiliate, George Bothwell, should not go unnoticed. Because of his commitment and hard work, every municipality in Grey and Bruce supported his group. The rest of the executive and members should also be commended for their dedication.

The welfare of animals in Grey and Bruce will be looked after again now that this issue is finally settled, and the $70,000 legacy will be used in the manner its donor originally intended.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Last Saturday I had the pleasure of attending a rally in Kitchener sponsored by residents and would-be residents of non-profit co-op housing in Waterloo region and Wellington county. The 30 housing co-ops in this area contain about 1,700 units. The rally wasn't about the people who live in co-ops so much as it was about the 2,500 people on the waiting list in this area.

Marcel Lefebvre, president of the Co-operative Housing Foundation of Canada, told the group of about 200 that the Mulroney government betrayed Canada's cooperative housing program in the February budget with its announced cutbacks.

Penny Bethke, president of the Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario, indicated that she was concerned that the NDP government not lose its commitment to non-profit and co-op housing because of the reduction in federal government support.

At the rally, speaker after speaker came forward to the microphones and expressed their support and concerns about the future of co-op housing. I was asked for and gave my support to remain committed to co-op housing, and was also asked to pass their message to the Treasurer, which states:

"Dear Mr Laughren:

"As someone living in a housing co-op, I urge you to remember the thousands of other families who still need affordable housing. Please include a commitment to 10,000 new units of co-op and other non-profit housing in your budget.

"Co-ops like mine provide secure homes in strong, healthy communities. Building new co-op housing will create thousands of badly needed jobs and attract millions of dollars of private investment.

"Please stand by your government's statement that access to safe, secure and affordable housing is a basic human right. Thousands of families are counting on you for decent homes and good jobs. Don't let us down on budget day."

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Last week I had the privilege of attending the Prospectors and Developers Association conference held here in Toronto. During my visit, which happened to follow those of the Premier and the ministers of Mines, Environment and Natural Resources, I heard much despair and actual concern over what was happening to the mining industry in Ontario.

A number of people involved in the industry told me that in the speeches they had heard there was nothing mentioned about how the industry was going to be helped back to recovery, back to the days when "it would be a pillar of the Ontario economy," a phrase often used, but never really with any sense of commitment, by the former Minister of Mines.

To the west of us, Manitoba has gone ahead with new legislation and incentives aimed at boosting exploration in that province through programs for junior mining companies that make available grants totalling some $10 million. As well, a tax holiday will be offered to companies operating in Manitoba after January 1, 1993. Mining firms will not be required to pay mining taxes until their earnings from mine operations exceed capital invested. In some cases, mining firms will be able to deduct 150% of money spent on exploration from their taxable income.

To the east of us, we continue to be surpassed by Quebec, which offers rich tax incentives in support of the mining industry.

The mining industry in Ontario is one which is in dire straits. The industry needs the backing of every minister in this government, not only the Minister of Mines. This government should take a look at what is happening in Manitoba and Quebec and come up with a plan of action for Ontario. Our prospectors, developers and mining companies and the folks in the north who rely on exploration, development and production deserve no less.

1340

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): This afternoon, the members of the Special Hearts group from Kitchener-Waterloo and from as far away as Parry Sound are sitting in the gallery. They are also demonstrating outside this Legislature to ask the Minister of Health to provide them with the health care services their children need to survive. The Special Hearts group is a support group for parents of children who suffer from heart and respiratory problems. I want to indicate my very strong support for this group.

This group of parents is extremely concerned that its children cannot access programs such as the Ontario assistive devices program and the Waterloo region health unit infant development program because of inadequate funding or unreasonable eligibility criteria.

The children who suffer from heart conditions depend on these programs to help keep them out of the hospital and even to keep them alive. These children are encountering increasing difficulty in obtaining the services and equipment such as heart monitors and oxygen tanks that they require to remain in their homes. This has forced them to spend more time in the hospital and places an even greater strain on our health care system.

I want to join the members of the Special Hearts group in urging the Minister of Health to take the steps necessary to ensure their children have access to the health care they need to survive. At this time I would like to present to the Minister of Health a card signed by hundreds and hundreds of people which says, "Wishing our health care system a speedy recovery."

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): In Michigan state, residents are erecting crosses to mark the number of homeless people who froze and starved to death in the park this winter. This miniature cemetery mourns the victims of Michigan's decision to cancel general welfare benefits for able-bodied adults.

With the stroke of a pen, Michigan has condemned as freeloaders unemployed workers who were unable to find a job or retraining, single mothers whose children are now grown and people who are too ill to work but not ill enough to be classified as disabled. The list goes on.

This is happening in the United States, the richest country in the world. In Ontario, the richest province in Canada, we see a conglomerate of big business and public relations firms campaigning against labour reforms. This campaign is fuelled by fearmongering, rhetoric and of course money.

We've all seen the billboards that say labour reforms will cost thousands of jobs. We know these figures are wrong. We also know that labour reforms are merely a focal point for a bigger agenda to reject this government's mandate. Our mandate is to fight this recession and build a fairer Ontario for everyone.

We try to change the labour laws to reinforce people's right to join a union so that striking workers don't have to watch people crossing the line to take their jobs, and what do we hear? That unions are going to send business to the United States.

The state of Michigan, with its truncated welfare system and its crosses, is but a four-hour drive from here. But the state of mind that allows men, women and children to go jobless and hungry and to die in the parks is just down the road on the billboard, and across this floor.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): It gives me great pleasure to announce to members of the Legislature that Ignat Kaneff will receive the Gordon S. Shipp memorial award as the citizen of the year.

Many members are aware that Iggy Kaneff has built, and continues to be a driving force in, a successful company located within the region of Peel. But Iggy is not receiving this award for the success of his company. He is deservedly receiving it for his commitment to the community.

Over the years, he has contributed not only resources but himself and his skills to a myriad of agencies which are so very necessary to the community. Erinoak Serving Young People With Physical Disabilities, Community Living Mississauga, Erindale College, the University of Toronto, the Mississauga Hospital, the Credit Valley Hospital, the Mississauga Arts Council and the Mississauga Symphonic Association are some of the agencies that have been the recipients of the determination and effort of Iggy Kaneff.

All members of this Legislature are aware of the importance of volunteers in each of their communities. Volunteers are those men and women who freely give of their time to making their community more responsive to the needs of those who live within.

This is what Iggy Kaneff has done for the people of Mississauga. I congratulate him for providing so much to so many.

In addition, I also wish to congratulate John Lamb and Wilfred Buckel, who will also be honoured as local heroes for their volunteer efforts.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): The drug Ticlid, which has been developed by the Mississauga firm Syntex Inc, is a major advancement in stroke prevention therapy. Ticlid has been found to be 47% more effective in its first year than the only other proven therapy, ASA.

Ticlid was approved for sale in Canada one year ago. However, for budgetary reasons, Ticlid is still not available for those who depend on the Ontario drug benefit plan.

Approximately 5,000 Ontarians suffer a stroke each year. Stroke has a devastating personal impact on the patient and his or her family. Its economic cost is also enormous. For these reasons, the former Premier's Council on Health Strategy set a goal of reducing the risk of stroke by 45% by the year 2000. But despite the findings of the Premier's health council and the requests of the Canadian Stroke Recovery Association, this socialist government refuses to make Ticlid available to seniors and social assistance recipients who rely on the Ontario drug benefit plan.

Surely the government must realize the false economy of not providing patients with a drug that costs $2.14 per day when acute care in a hospital costs in excess of $500 per day. I call on the Minister of Health and the minister responsible for seniors' issues and disability issues to stop their government's discrimination against those who depend on the Ontario drug benefit plan. This is another example of one health care system for the rich and one for the poor.

ALGOMA STEEL CORP

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): The riding of Sault Ste Marie faced several economic challenges this past year, the most significant one being the very real possibility of the closure of the Algoma Steel plant. However, today our future is brighter and the constituents of Sault Ste Marie are elated. Algoma Steel's major stakeholders have an agreement in principle on the major terms of a restructuring plan. Yesterday the creditors and shareholders overwhelmingly approved the plan. This is a major step in the restructuring of Algoma Steel.

I would like to personally thank all the major stakeholders, the Premier and the NDP government for their persistent efforts in resolving the Sault's predicament. The commitment of all the key players has been both inspirational and much appreciated. Most important, the citizens of Sault Ste Marie must be recognized for their patience, support and their fight to keep the community vital.

You can expect a turnaround from the Sault as we go on to rebuild our community and restructure our steel company. The enthusiasm and hard work of everyone concerned will not go unnoticed. We in Sault Ste Marie have much to celebrate as we embrace our future. Expect a lot from us.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FAMILY VIOLENCE IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services and minister responsible for women's issues): I am speaking today as the minister responsible for women's issues and also speaking on behalf of the minister responsible for native affairs. I am announcing a partnership between aboriginal and first nations organizations and the Ontario government to address family violence.

Violence happens in all types of homes in this province, cutting across all racial, religious and economic lines. It is estimated that family violence happens in about three out of five aboriginal homes in Ontario. That grim reality is not without a context. Aboriginal people link violence within their communities to the negative effect of European culture on their values, traditions and social structures, so it's critical that aboriginal people have the decision-making power to find culturally appropriate solutions, long-term strategies that are practical because they have been developed by the people directly affected. Solutions imposed from the outside are solutions only in name, not in effect.

This government understands the need for joint action on an issue that's too serious to ignore. That's why 11 Ontario ministries are contributing a total of about $670,000 over two fiscal years to aboriginal and first nations groups. These funds will cover all phases of the project, from native-led consultations with their communities to the joint creation of an anti-violence strategy.

The steering committee is made up of representatives of the 11 ministries and eight aboriginal organizations, and together they will coordinate community consultation province-wide. The consultations in turn will be held on- and off-reserve by our aboriginal partners.

1350

Today we have in the government gallery representatives of that steering committee from eight aboriginal communities led by Sylvia Maracle, the cochair of the steering committee, who is with the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres, and her colleagues representing the Union of Ontario Indians, the Chiefs of Ontario, the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation, the Ontario Native Women's Association, the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, the Ontario Métis and Aboriginal Association and Grand Council Treaty 3. Welcome.

In order to develop a holistic response to family violence, the aboriginal partners will directly involve women, men, families and groups. They will clarify the needs of family members, evaluate existing programs and services, set priorities and identify areas of action. The partners will also seek links with any federal initiatives involving, for example, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the medical services branch of Health and Welfare Canada.

The intended result is a comprehensive, culturally sensitive strategy against aboriginal family violence with recommended short- and long-term action plans. It is an investment that will save both money and human lives, ensuring that Ontario's resources go to treatment, prevention and education programs that work.

This partnership is a concrete example of the government-to-government basis on which Ontario now deals with aboriginal people. Last year this government signed a statement of political relationship with the first nations of Ontario; today we are again putting that relationship into action.

Above all, this government is combining its commitment to forge more sensitive, more productive partnerships with its commitment to prevent the tragedy of family violence. The project I have announced will give aboriginal people the opportunity to provide solutions that government by itself has never been able to offer.

RESPONSES

FAMILY VIOLENCE IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I want to say that certainly our party is very pleased to see that the government recognizes family violence and the problem of family violence within the aboriginal community. We know that in all cases of family violence, women and children are really the ones who suffer. We hope and we pray this is not just a token recognition and that the dollars will be there. I am worried about only $670,000 over two years for all parts of this program. I hope this is just a beginning and that if there needs to be more money, it will be there for this very important initiative.

We also hope that you are keeping in mind the unique cultural differences here and that the aboriginal community is definitely a part of the whole plan, the whole strategy and that it is a key player in all discussions and in the formulation of this initiative. I hope too this will be something that is ongoing and will be expanded, but I do want to say thank you for what you have done so far.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): As the critic for women's issues for our party, I would like to add my words to those of the member for Northumberland. We are very pleased to see that the minister has taken one more initiative in the area of family violence. Members of this House have debated the issue of family violence, and we are very much aware of how pervasive it is in our society and that an educational program must be set forward. It is very important that members of our aboriginal community are part of this process and that they themselves will be the key instruments in ensuring that family violence is addressed within their community and among their members.

I very much hope that, because our province is so broad and our various native members are situated throughout a very vast province, this government will not fail to reassess this program and ensure that sufficient dollars are there so that after the two-year period they are not left in abeyance with a program they can no longer implement.

In this time of fiscal constraint we recognize that $670,000 is significant and may be all the government can afford, but we do wish the community well and we know that the aboriginal community will take this money and use it to good effect. We congratulate the minister and the members of the aboriginal council who are here and wish them well.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): It's with a great deal of pleasure that I join in congratulating the minister for announcing today that there will be a strategy put in place to deal with aboriginal family violence.

In taking a look at the background to this problem, I see here it was recognized in a 1990 report that, "Family violence is a serious self-perpetuating problem plaguing native life in northern Ontario, a recent study of 24 Indian communities has found." It was estimated at that time that as many as half the households experience some family violence and it was defined as including physical, emotional or sexual abuse. That study also recognized that native people were not being provided with the appropriate financial resources and they had to compete with others.

I am very pleased today to see, Minister, that you have put in place the resources and you have recognized this is a serious issue for the native community. I am particularly pleased that this long-term strategy is going to be developed by the people who are directly affected; I think that's absolutely necessary. We cannot impose solutions from the outside. We have to work with the people who are affected and know the impact of what's going on, and I'm really very pleased to see that.

I would hope this is only a first step, because family violence is an issue not only for the native community; it is an issue for all people in this province. Unfortunately we have seen the situation increase during the recession as we see jobs lost and financial problems increased. We have seen stress in families, and as a result we have seen an increase in family violence. I hope in time we will have not only a strategy for the aboriginal community but also a strategy for all families in this province.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before continuing I would invite all members to welcome to our assembly this afternoon a former member of the House seated in the members' gallery west, Mr Howard Sheppard from Northumberland. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. According to the throne speech, as we suggested yesterday, the government seems to place a very high priority on training programs that serve the purpose of getting people back to work.

Yesterday we raised the question of the cut to a program in Brantford, an economic development program that was doing just exactly that. Since then we have learned about similar program cuts: one in the community of Thunder Bay and one in the community of North Bay. We asked the Premier yesterday if he could explain cuts to programs that were doing exactly what the throne speech says the government wants to do.

We would ask the Minister of Community and Social Services today if she can tell this House why she is undermining the efforts of communities that are successfully providing economic, employment and training programs which the Premier wasn't able to account for yesterday.

1400

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services and minister responsible for women's issues): The particular programs that are in question were pilot projects that were to end on March 31, 1992. We have extended the funding for two months, until the end of May 1992, because it is our expectation that the strategies the Premier has talked about and that were mentioned in the throne speech will be capable of taking up these programs.

We had to notify the organizations legally that our ministry would not be providing the funding past May 31, 1992. That is a legal requirement for us under our contracts with them: We have to give them a 60-day notice, so that was done. My assistant deputy minister responsible for social assistance and employment opportunities has been meeting with those groups. We have made every effort we can to assure them that the ministries that are more appropriately funding the longer-term job initiatives will be in touch with them, and we will be continuing to work on that. Our problem is a legal one around notification.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the minister's explanation. I would like to raise some confusion it creates for me though, having listened to the minister's response, admittedly on short notice, when we raised the issue in the House yesterday. The response we heard her give to media questions was that the rationale for the cuts was that the programs were going to be administered and funded by a central source. It is still difficult for us to understand why programs have to be cut, to be discontinued, in order for a ministry reorganization to take place.

If that is what is happening, I would ask the minister to tell us whether all training programs offered by all other ministries are going to be put on hold while this reorganization goes ahead. If not, why would these particular programs be cut when they have such a very high success rate? Again, clearly these are programs that are meeting the priority goals the government itself has set out. We find it difficult to understand why their future would be in jeopardy and we ask whether it is directly related to the centralization of programs and what broader effect it has.

Hon Mrs Boyd: It certainly is. Part of the announcement in the throne speech indicated that we would be making a very concerted effort in the area of training and job provision. In order to do that, because programs are scattered throughout a number of different ministries, we certainly are looking at centralizing and streamlining the provision of those courses, streamlining the application for grants under those kinds of programs, because communities have found confusing the number of different programs that are offered.

In this case, this particular program was a three-year initiative. It was to end on March 31, 1992. In order to continue it, we had to give notification to the groups that we would continue the funding for a period of time, but obviously our ministry, if it is not going to continue to fund it, needed to give notification that we would not be funding beyond May 31, 1992.

Mrs McLeod: That is a very difficult message for the people who have been involved in those programs to accept and understand. I raise a broader issue, which we'll undoubtedly come back to in future sessions, when the minister talks about the centralization of programs. That seems to defy the importance of community-based programs, which are really the only way you're going to be able to deliver programs that meet the needs of people in those particular communities.

I come back to the minister's explanation about continuing funding over the short term and there being no other alternative. Again, it is somewhat in opposition to what we have understood, which is the message given to the people in these programs that there would be absolutely no short-term solution to the cuts. We learned yesterday afternoon from the deputy minister of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board that the movement to set up that centralized body would not in any way affect existing programs. Once again, the words just don't seem to match the music.

The people who are enrolled in the programs, the communities that work very hard to develop them and the people who are administering them all want to know if the only short-term solution is for people to go back on social assistance until funding from the central ministry or another ministry is in place.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I would like to make two comments. When I talked about centralization, I talked about centralization of administration. Of course the programs will continue to be community-based. That is why they have been so successful. That is not in question.

The second issue is that as we offer these programs, we need to do it in a way that is most cost-effective. One of the issues for us is ensuring that the way in which the programs are offered is directed and targeted to those most in need. I don't know and cannot comment on any information you may have learned from the deputy minister. My understanding was that indeed this wasn't an item of negotiation between us and the OTAB program. The messages that people participating in the program have got they certainly have not got from us. They may have got them from those who are distressed in the community and those running the programs. I can understand that.

This is a very difficult transitional period and there will probably be other organizations that will experience similar uncertainty until the budget is released and until the full program is understood.

Mrs McLeod: It is still difficult for me to understand what program could more help people in need than one which takes people on social assistance, allows them to set up a business and, in turn, hire other people who are on social assistance.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is for the Solicitor General. The Premier has recently indicated that he is willing to listen to the wishes of the public on the issue of Sunday shopping. The Premier seems to be aware of the kind of message that all of us have been hearing in ridings right across the province, that there is indeed growing support for shopping on Sundays. Would the Solicitor General clarify what he and his ministry are doing to implement the Premier's apparent desire to respond to the public will on this issue?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): As the House will know, recently the government passed legislation and amendments with regard to this specific matter, and I would like to indicate that in fact those processes that were delineated are working, and working quite well.

I believe what the Premier was trying to indicate, and what I indicated in comments yesterday, was that notwithstanding these progressive changes, there continues to be concern among members of the public, those who continue to favour Sunday shopping and those in certain commercial enterprises who also continue to express concern. As a government that has always been known as willing to listen to and hear the concerns of those in the public, we have not shunned these views; we have encouraged them to come forward and we are in fact listening to them.

I am unable to tell the leader anything beyond that, other than that these expressions of concern continue and we continue to listen to them.

Mrs McLeod: The minister may just have given us a whole new definition of progressive change.

I think communities across the province and their representatives in this House would need the minister and his government to be just a little more specific about what kind of changes the Premier might have been referring to when he spoke about his willingness to consider and listen.

Yesterday the Minister of Municipal Affairs apparently stated, on a Windsor-area radio program, that the government is considering changes to the act because of widespread local support for Sunday shopping. I understand that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is under pressure from the city of Windsor. We are all aware that Windsor would very much like to be able to open its doors legally on Sundays to deal with the problem of cross-border shopping.

I am sure the minister is aware that in Windsor, a city which was once open for shopping on Sunday, an appeal of the city's local Sunday shopping bylaw is pending before the Ontario Municipal Board. The stores have to remain closed on Sundays in the meantime. The NDP may not feel that Sunday shopping is an issue related to cross-border shopping, but in Windsor stores are now opening in defiance of the legislation as they try to fight the cross-border shopping crisis.

I ask the Solicitor General to comment on whether the remarks by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, as reported to us, mean that the government is considering amending the legislation, and if in fact the government is preparing to amend the legislation, will it do so in time for Windsor to avoid a costly, time-consuming delay as it faces the appeal at the Ontario Municipal Board?

Hon Mr Pilkey: If and when there is anything specific to announce or share, we will be pleased to do that with you. In the meantime, the government simply listens to those who wish to express concern and interest.

Mrs McLeod: Again I come back to the speech from the throne and the fact that the government said it wanted to streamline the regulatory backlog. But the only specific initiative we saw for streamlining the regulatory backlog was to add resources to the Ontario Municipal Board, presumably to deal with the layer of red tape it is going to have to face in allowing Sunday shopping appeals. If the government is serious about reducing red tape at the Ontario Municipal Board, why does the minister not simply remove the OMB appeal and a vague tourism definition and simply allow communities such as Windsor to make their own decisions about opening on Sunday?

Hon Mr Pilkey: To my knowledge, the amendments that were passed after public input are working quite well. There has not, quite frankly, been a large number of appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board and, as I believe I read in one of the Toronto media yesterday, there was a quote from the clerk of Metropolitan Toronto, or an associate of the clerk, to the effect that really they have not been besieged at all, which was the claim of the opposition. There was also a claim that there would be some draconian, difficult process mired in all kinds of difficulties. To date, none of that has occurred.

1410

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister and other ministers in the cabinet have been speaking over the last number of months about how she intends to reduce her deficit in this province by implementing gambling casinos and video lottery machines. Madam Minister, my question to you is whether you intend to introduce legislation, knowing that this would mean the loss of as many as 55,000 jobs in the horse racing industry, an industry that currently generates some $85 million each year for the coffers of the provincial government. What, if any, feasibility studies has your ministry conducted to ensure that this will not happen? Who specifically have you met with to deal with this issue?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): It's no secret that the government has been talking for some time about non-tax revenues, including various forms of gaming. I just want to make it clear that no decision has been made at this point. In fact, one of the reasons no decision has been made is that I have constantly brought to the table the importance of the horse racing industry and breeding industry in Ontario and continue to do that. My colleagues are well aware of the importance of that industry, and we are in fact looking very closely at the interrelations between horse racing and other forms of gambling.

Mr Tilson: It is amazing what has happened to the principles of your party when you used to call this type of taxation on the poor unbelievably wrong.

I would say, Madam Minister, that you appear not to have been prepared to meet with the industry to deal with the concerns about loss of jobs and loss of revenue by various industries in the province. I have taken the time to do something I think you should have done, and that is to meet with a number of representatives from the the horse racing industry. They can tell you what this legislation might do, and I recommend you speak to them. It has destroyed the entire horse racing industry in many areas of the United States; it has caused job losses in Manitoba. Most of the 50,000 jobs that would be affected in Ontario as a result of your moves would be in rural Ontario, areas that are already being hurt by economic conditions within the agricultural industry. Has the minister considered the job loss that this initiative would cause in the horse racing industry and other related industries in this province?

Hon Ms Churley: The member is quite presumptuous in assuming that I haven't met with the various facets of the horse racing and breeding industries. I have on many occasions and will continue to do so. We have had discussions around this issue on a few occasions and have exchanged letters, so in fact we have been meeting.

I am well aware and the government is well aware of the concerns that have been expressed by the industry and, as I said earlier, we are looking at all times, when we talk about these times of options, at ways we can continue to work with the horse racing people should we move in this direction, so that we can work in a cooperative way and make sure those jobs will not be lost and that the industry remains viable in Ontario.

Mr Tilson: I don't know who you've been meeting with, but you haven't been meeting with the people I have been meeting with, because they say you haven't consulted with them one iota. I suspect you're looking for a new financial grab and that's all you care about.

In today's Toronto Star, we are told that in your caucus, and you were named specifically, there is a groundswell of support for legal casinos. Madam Minister, in the past, as I have said, you have been quoted on a number of occasions stating that gambling casinos must be considered as part of Ontario's financial plan. Do you and your government truly intend to finance your spending by games of chance?

Hon Ms Churley: One shouldn't believe quite everything one reads in the newspaper absolutely exactly. We have said and will continue to say that we are in very difficult economic times and we have been looking at all kinds of non-tax revenues to help us in this province to pay for our health care system and our social services. We will continue to look at all those kinds of options and make choices based on the information we are gathering, including the concerns around the horse racing industry.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Minister, because of your government's unwillingness to provide leadership you have placed school boards between a rock and a hard place. They can (1) cut programs at the expense of our children, (2) cut positions at the expense of teachers, (3) introduce double-digit property taxes at the expense of taxpayers, (4) close schools early at the expense of everyone in this province and (5) reopen, with the help of teachers, salary contracts.

My question is this: Which of these options, Minister, do you recommend our school boards follow?

Hon Tony Silipo (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and Minister of Education): It is actually number 6 -- and I am not being facetious about this -- which is that school boards and their employee groups should be working together much more than they have been. I have been very clear in saying to teachers' groups that they need to moderate their wage expectations. I have been equally clear in saying to school boards that they need to go into discussions with teachers' groups and with support staff unions with a sense of collaboration that can address some non-monetary issues as well. It seems to me that we are beginning to see some instances of that working despite the fact that by and large there is still a lot of entrenchment on both sides.

Mrs Cunningham: The minister knows that the vast majority of school boards reached wage settlements of between 5% and 7% last fall and that these settlements make up approximately 80% of education costs. Minister, as a person who supports the collective bargaining process, you know, given the response to my first question, that to talk about people being creative you are telling school boards and teachers to reopen their contracts. You, Minister, abandoned the collective bargaining process when you gave school boards 1%, 2% and 2%. This minister is blaming school boards when in fact, and I will repeat it, he gave up the collective bargaining process in school boards across this province.

Right now you are talking about being creative. You know they have to open their collective agreements given what you said. You said today that you know of instances where this is happening: (1) what are you going to do about it, and (2) tell the teachers who are here today what school boards have opened their collective agreement.

Hon Mr Silipo: The member should not put words in my mouth. I did not say there were instances where boards have reopened contracts. There are examples where this collaborative approach is beginning to come together. I think I indicated yesterday that we are in the process of having discussions with representatives of both the school boards and the teachers' federation, together in the same room, with respect to the use of the transition funds we still need to allocate. I am feeling quite confident about those discussions we have had, and we will be outlining over the next little while some more details of that which I think will be of help in this situation.

Clearly, outside of the labour relations area, there are also other things school boards can do. I have requested school boards to set up joint committees to look at how they can address the duplication of services. We will be getting as directive as we need to be in terms of setting out our expectations for that kind of collaboration to happen.

1420

We realize there are problems with the funding in an overall way. We have done what we can for this year. What we are saying to school boards and to teachers' federations and other employee groups is that we are prepared to work with them to get over the problems we will encounter and deal with this year, and we also are committing ourselves to a serious revamping of the education financing system because we know that needs to happen to allow us to address these problems in the longer term.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): This collaborative process has led to 27,000 young people in the Ottawa-Carleton area being on the street. Mr Minister, my party is not willing to sit back and wait. We are not only going to ask you to legislate the teachers back to work, but I am going to introduce two bills this afternoon, one dealing with the Carleton Board of Education and the other dealing with the Ottawa Board of Education, putting the teachers back to work at 1% this year and 2% and 2% over the next two years, exactly what the Treasurer has transferred to those boards.

In order to protect programs for students and jobs for teachers, you, Mr Minister, must provide this kind of leadership by implementing wage guidelines consistent with the provincial transfers. Mr Minister, will you support this legislation that will send striking Ottawa-Carleton secondary school teachers and, more important, 27,000 students back to school so that many of them can qualify for university next fall?

Hon Mr Silipo: It will not surprise the member if he hears me say that no, I will not be supporting that legislation. I think it is important that we continue to say very clearly that we support the collective bargaining process. Also, having said that, I continue to say very clearly that the situation can be resolved locally. I indicated yesterday by way of example the agreement we have managed to reach in our own direct responsibility as employer with the provincial school teachers, a two-year deal also covering the same kind of period of time being discussed in the negotiations in Ottawa. There are solutions that are there and there are solutions that can be reached and should be reached locally.

FUEL CONSERVATION TAX

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In the absence of the Premier, to whom I wished to direct this question, I have a question for the Treasurer regarding his government's tax on auto workers in Ontario. The Treasurer will recall, as you will, Mr Speaker, my questions and speeches on many occasions in the fall session wherein I dealt with the issue of the vulnerability of General Motors plants in Oshawa, and specifically the foundry and the engine plant in St Catharines where 3,000 people will be losing their jobs. The auto industry, as you know, is facing unprecedented competition offshore and, in addition to that, we are in the midst of a very deep recession.

I ask the Treasurer once again, will he do something that will unite both management and labour in this instance: Will he withdraw the tax on auto workers, as I call it -- he will call it the gas guzzler tax -- which discourages people from purchasing cars, will he reject the NDP tax commission report which advocated the expansion of this tax and will he support workers in this province who rely on the automotive industry?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): It is a red-letter day in this province when the former Minister of the Environment stands up and requests that an environmental tax be withdrawn. I know the member for St Catharines to be a fairminded member of this assembly and I know he would not blame the problems in St Catharines with the GM plant on the gas guzzler tax, an existing tax that was agreed to by the workers, by the companies and by the environmentalists. It was a major effort on the part of all three groups a year ago to reach a consensus on what I thought were creative changes to the proposals we had already made. So for the member for St Catharines to imply or even say directly that the problems in the St Catharines plant are caused by the gas guzzler tax is, I think, not appropriate.

Mr Bradley: What we are hoping for from the provincial government is that instead of being a negative factor in the decision-making process, it could be a positive factor. I recognize as well that the Treasurer is under considerable pressure for revenue, to be fair to him, as I always try to be to the Treasurer of this province.

But I submit to him in the form of a question, as the Speaker would request: Would you support a plan that will benefit both the environment and the economy of the auto industry by withdrawing the tax on auto workers that you have imposed and expanded; by rejecting the commission report by the NDP-dominated commission that you have appointed and, third, would you consider removing the provincial sales tax from vehicles sold in this province, even for a temporary period, so that the consequences would be that old vehicles which pollute and are fuel-inefficient would be replaced by new vehicles which are much more fuel-efficient and have much better emission controls on them, and at the same time spur the automotive industry and the resource extraction industry in Sudbury and the steel industry and the plastic industry all over the province?

Hon Mr Laughren: Could I acknowledge, first off, that the member for St Catharines is fair to me in my role as Treasurer. As a matter of fact, from all accounts I have heard, he is much fairer to me than he was to my predecessor.

I think the member opposite should understand or appreciate, however, that simply removing a tax, even on automobiles, does not necessarily mean it would revive the North American auto industry. We have a lot of imports in this country as well. Simply changing a tax does not necessarily accomplish what I think the member opposite would like to see accomplished.

Finally, I would say the gas guzzler tax was never meant to be a revenue grab.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: It was not. It is meant to be a fuel conservation tax. There never was an intention, and never will be, as far as I am concerned, that environmental taxes will be a revenue grab. That is not the case at all. So I hope the member opposite, despite the temptations in difficult times, will not succumb to the argument that we should abandon environmental causes in this province simply because times are tough.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Many municipal politicians are concerned that Toronto Councillor Betty Disero has been removed from council. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs, you will be aware that this has occurred as a result of provincial legislation within your portfolio. I would ask you, Minister, do you agree with the effect of the judge's decision in this matter?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and government House leader): The leader of the third party would understand that as Councillor Disero has indicated she will be appealing the case, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to express my opinion.

What I can tell you is that after every municipal election there is a review carried out by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs with the Municipal Elections Act and the Election Finances Act. That review will be carried out and all aspects of both pieces of legislation will be reviewed, and any changes we might suggest, we'll introduce into the House.

1430

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): Fluffy the cat's here.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for St George-St David.

Mr Harris: It is my understanding that Ms Disero received advice from the provincial Commission on Election Finances and that Ms Disero made every effort to abide by the law. What I want to know and what I believe Ontarians want to know, certainly the people whom Ms Disero used to represent want to know, is that, given that it was a provincial body, given that the legislation is legislation you're responsible for, are you going to leave Betty Disero by herself, twisting in the wind?

Hon Mr Cooke: I suggest that if I answered that question and gave an opinion on the case the next question I'd be getting from the leader of the third party is: "You're interfering with the judicial process. Resign." That's what would happen.

Mr Harris: It's your fault. It's the provincial government's fault if she's out $25,000.

Hon Mr Cooke: If there's a problem with the legislation --

Mr Harris: She did everything that the provincial authority told her to do.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: We don't even know what the final outcome will be in the legal system. The case is under appeal. I suggest we let the process work.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In my riding of Lincoln and in the north part of Niagara, for that matter, the issue of land use and preservation of farm land is on every farmer's mind. You have announced you are setting up a committee to look at options of particular interest to the Niagara area. Would the minister tell the House who is going to be selected for this committee and when this committee is expected to begin meeting?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I appreciate the member's concern about agricultural land use in the Niagara area and his concern about the tender fruit area. Indeed the committee he is referring to is a subcommittee which is part of a major consultation into looking at agricultural land use and the preservation of farm land in Ontario. The subcommittee's primary task is to look into the issue of conservation easements, which is a very popular instrument in the Niagara area to save farm land.

As to the question of membership on that subcommittee, there will be representation from the local federations of agriculture, from the tender fruit growers' marketing board, from the Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society, from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and the Ministry of Culture and Communications. Finally, the first meeting of that subcommittee will be tomorrow.

Mr Hansen: Once the committee finalizes its report, how soon can the farmers up in Niagara expect action to deal with this land use issue?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I expect that report from that committee to be in by the summertime for action this fall.

BUDGET SECURITY

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): As you may be aware, the Treasurer and his staff are now in the process of preparing this year's budget. It has come to our attention that in order to maintain budget security the NDP has brought up I think 30 OPP officers from as far away as Kenora. We've also been made aware that these officers are being accommodated in the Sutton Place Hotel, at a total cost to the treasury of over $189,000. These OPP officers have driven to Toronto from small communities all over Ontario. For instance, Aurora has been ordered to send three officers even though police activity there is up by 50% and the detachment is 10 officers below acceptable levels.

Given the acute policing shortage in many Ontario communities and the government's current fiscal crisis, can the Solicitor General explain why he feels it necessary to bring these officers from all over Ontario and house them at taxpayers' expense in the Sutton Place Hotel?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Mr Speaker, the question seems to emanate with respect to primarily a treasury function. I'd defer to the Treasurer.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I would like to thank my colleague for the referral.

The member opposite is correct in that there is the traditional security around the treasury building because of the impending budget, the date for which has not yet been determined, I hasten to add.

Just to make sure the record is clear, before the OPP were housed in the Sutton Place Hotel there was a lot of shopping around done to see which would be the least expensive and the most appropriate place. The Sutton Place was selected not because some members opposite live there; on the contrary, because it was the best deal. As a matter of fact, the cost for the police, who stay two to a room at the hotel, was something like $37 per person per night, which is a very competitive rate in this province. As well, it is very close to their place of work. I want to assure the member that nothing is unusual about the security arrangements and nothing is unusual about the cost.

Mr Curling: I am extremely disappointed that the Solicitor General didn't see fit to address the question and that he passed it on to the Treasurer. I see the Solicitor General has a lack of concern about this very important issue.

It is our understanding, as you explained, Mr Treasurer, that 30 officers are being put up over 30 days, and we don't know the day of the budget. But the expenses at one of the most expensive hotels, as we know, and the calculation that is given of the cost of this adventure, which you feel is not a great adventure, the accommodation, the living expense -- you only addressed the living expense -- the travel and overtime, come to over $189,000. That is $189,000 of taxpayers' money. These are the numbers that have been shown to me, and I don't even want to believe them.

Can the Treasurer tell me, since the Solicitor General refused -- as you know, it's the worst economic time we're having now -- when we have a policing crisis in many of Ontario's small communities, and most important, when the Treasurer himself has been bragging about an open budget process, why in the world has he approved this type of extravagance?

Hon Mr Laughren: I really believe the member is being unfair. Surely the price of accommodation at $37 and change per night is not unfair in downtown Toronto. No fairminded member would say that it is. Second, surely to goodness the member for Scarborough North understands that there has to be security around the budget. There is no jurisdiction anywhere that doesn't put in place security measures prior to a budget. His government did it when it was in office and we're doing it. Finally, if there were a serious budget leak, the member opposite would be the first one calling for my resignation, and I know that deep down he wouldn't want that to happen.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): In the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources responsible for native affairs, my question is directed to the Treasurer and Deputy Premier.

Spring has arrived, and so have spawning fish in our streams and rivers. Pregnant deer and moose are roaming the countryside. This is the time of year that supports the future of our natural resources and also a time when the government is allowing native Ontarians to harvest these species while they are reproducing for the future.

The Deputy Premier may have become aware of press reports about abuse of these fragile resources by people spearing and netting spawning fish in designated sanctuaries. I have copies of them here. There are also reports that the situation is so severe that people are talking about committing violence as a direct result of the clear unfairness of this government's policy.

What is the government going to do to prevent this ongoing abuse of natural resources that belong to all the people of Ontario?

1440

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I wonder, Mr Speaker, if you would allow me to refer that question to the Attorney General.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): The member asks a serious question, but I would want him to check very carefully and to separate surely what is rumour and what is innuendo from facts. I want to point out to the member, first of all, that the guidelines being followed now by the Ministry of Natural Resources are guidelines which specifically point out that conservation is the primary goal and conservation will be observed and public safety will be observed. I also want to point out to the member opposite that the policy which is being followed now by the Ministry of Natural Resources does not differ substantially from the leniency policy that was followed by the Ministry of Natural Resources for many years.

Mr Arnott: I am not surprised the Treasurer did not want to answer the question. Our party's critic for Natural Resources, the member for Simcoe East, is on his way this afternoon to Sudbury to listen to concerns of sportsmen on this issue -- with respect, the Treasurer's own constituents.

My supplementary to the Attorney General is this: Will he today commit the government to amendments to the interim enforcement policy for natives to recognize the legitimate public concerns that persist with respect to conservation, commercialization and safety and will he bring the negotiations out from behind closed doors, end the secrecy and bring this issue out into the open?

Hon Mr Hampton: Once again, I am sorry to have to point out that the member's question contains some assertions which are frankly not true. The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Natural Resources has attended meetings of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters; that he has met with OFAH local groups; that he has discussed at length with them the policy of the Ministry of Natural Resources, and that he has also discussed with them decisions which have emanated from the Supreme Court of Canada, namely, the Sparrow decision, which sets out the law which not only Ontario is to follow but all jurisdictions across Canada are to follow.

Frankly, members opposite would really contribute to the observance of the law and to a positive debate if they would in fact keep in mind that much of the law and much of the policy we are dealing with here has emanated from the Supreme Court of Canada and we are doing our best, along with other provincial governments and federal governments, to follow that law.

HOUSING LEGISLATION

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): I have a question to the Minister of Financial Institutions. A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Ontario has raised some questions as to how the Landlord and Tenant Act applies to housing co-ops. This has caused concern in my co-op community. Can the minister tell me how he is responding to this situation?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions and acting Minister of Energy): It is an important question that anybody who happens to be resident in a housing cooperative should be concerned about as a result of the court ruling.

The member will be aware that in December we introduced amendments to the Co-operative Corporations Act. A number of those amendments deal specifically with what are normally considered landlord-tenant issues under other legislation and we have introduced amendments to this act that we believe will deal with the kind of situation that is set out in the court decision. In any event, there are also some who don't feel our amendments go far enough. We will have to make that part of the consideration around that legislation.

Having said that, we hope the legislation can proceed fairly quickly this spring during this present session.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On Monday of this week the NDP throne speech was watched all over Ontario on the parliamentary channel. On Tuesday several newspapers, including the Toronto Star, reprinted the throne speech in its entirety.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Who is your question to?

Mrs Caplan: The Minister of Government Services. Despite this widespread coverage, the NDP decided to run one-third-of-a-page ads to further publicize the throne speech. These ads were placed in all major daily newspapers right across the province. This one, which was placed on Tuesday in the Toronto Star, cost $10,789. My question to the Minister of Government Services is, can he explain to the taxpayers of Ontario why, given the extensive coverage of the throne speech, he approved this major expenditure in the province at this time?

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister of Government Services): We made a commitment to the people of Ontario, shortly after taking office, that we would consult with them --

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): You're a bunch of goofs, every one of you.

Hon Mr Wilson: -- that we would communicate with them, and that we would do it in the most efficient --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for St George-St David's good humour is always appreciated, but perhaps he could find some other way of describing members who are on the other side of the House. Perhaps he could withdraw that term he used.

Mr Scott: Mr Speaker, I was appalled by the expenditure of these funds. My constituents in Regent Park simply don't understand why hundreds of thousands of dollars should --

The Speaker: No, no, all I asked is whether the member would withdraw the comment. Would the member take his seat, please.

Mr Scott: If the member was offended, I withdraw the remark.

The Speaker: Thank you. Would the member take his seat.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): He did not apologize.

Mr Scott: I don't apologize; I withdrew it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: For the information of all members who may not be aware of the practice in the chamber, when language is used that is deemed to be unparliamentary, the member is asked to withdraw. When the member has withdrawn, then we simply continue with the orderly business. I would ask now that the Minister of Government Services respond to the question.

Hon Mr Wilson: I will attempt to answer the lady from Oriole's question one more time. We did make a commitment to the people of Ontario to consult with them, to make government part of their daily life. The small towns and rural areas of Ontario do not have access, quite often, to large newspapers that have the ability to reprint the entire throne speech. Therefore, we took it upon ourselves to make the throne speech available to the people of Ontario. They can, by clipping the coupon, send it to the government of Ontario and they will receive a copy of the throne speech. We will continue to consult with the people of Ontario. We will communicate with them, and fascist bully-boy techniques will not stop us.

Mrs Caplan: The language from the minister is not only unbecoming; it is an offence to the taxpayers of this province. At a time when this government is cutting important and needed programs, he would stand there and justify the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars to publicize a throne speech.

Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what his Premier said about throne speeches when he was in opposition. The Premier said: "The throne speech is propaganda, an exercise in creative advertising. I think it is utterly irrelevant. It's got nothing to do with what governments do." That's what the Premier said throne speeches were all about when he was in opposition.

In light of the Treasurer's freeze on government advertising and all discretionary expenditures, which was announced a couple of months ago in light of the extreme fiscal pressures on the government, did the Minister of Government Services authorize this expenditure or was this authorized by the Premier's office?

Hon Mr Wilson: The reference of the lady from Oriole was to the statements made by the Premier in his time in opposition that of course referred to the throne speeches of that time. They were indeed propaganda items. The throne speech put out by this government is in fact a milestone, a progress report on the past, future and present of this government. We will continue to make it available to the people of Ontario for their perusal.

1450

The Speaker: New question, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: In the throne speech it was recognized that farmers have been very hard hit. I think you are aware of that.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The minister should respect the traditions of this House. She is not "the lady from Oriole"; she is the member for Oriole.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Eglinton indeed raises a valid point of order. It is appropriate in this chamber to refer to members by the names of their ridings or by their titles if they are indeed in the cabinet. No other references are normally accepted. I ask that all members respect that from here on. Minister.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): A point of order, sir.

The Speaker: We are dealing with one point of order at a time. The Minister of Government Services.

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister of Government Services): I do apologize, but may I say that the member for Oriole will always be a lady to me.

MINISTER'S COMMENT

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): A point of order, the member for York Centre.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member quickly place his point of order.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I will just wait, sir, for a moment.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, just a few moments ago in the House you invited the member for St George-St David to withdraw the comment "a bunch of goofs." I am advised by my colleague the member for Willowdale that in his first response the Minister of Government Services referred to some members of this House as "fascist bullies." I didn't hear that comment, sir, and I don't know if you did. If that is the case, it calls for an immediate withdrawal. I invite you either to invite the member to confirm that and ask him to withdraw it --

The Speaker: To the member for York Centre, I in fact did not hear the comment. Had I heard it, I would have asked that it be withdrawn.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask members to come to order. If indeed the minister made such a remark, he has an opportunity to so withdraw.

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister of Government Services): I believe the term I used was "fascist bully-boying," but if you do find that offensive, sir, I will withdraw it.

The Speaker: I appreciate the withdrawal.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If the members would please come to order, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, who has been patiently waiting, can now place his question.

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I will go back to the honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food. I want him to realize that agriculture is going through some very difficult times, as was recognized in the speech from the throne, yet agriculture's share of the budget has been reduced on an annual basis since this government, and indeed the previous government, took over.

The commodity loan program, as was mentioned in the speech from the throne, will be helpful, but it will not turn anything around. Things are still pretty rough out there. The public sector is being given some pretty good increases: de Havilland, with 3,000 workers, got hundreds of millions of dollars in support. Can 45,000 farm families working very hard for a living expect some help or at least expect that your ministry and your government will not shortchange them on the farm tax rebate?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I think there were a number of questions rolled into that question. I will try with the last part of the question, in terms of the farm tax rebate. I want to let the member know that we on this side of the House certainly consider the farm tax rebate to be a very important program. We recognize how important it is for farmers in terms of providing them 75% of their taxes back on the agricultural portion of their property, and this minister and this government intend to continue to support that program.

In terms of the overall budget, I would say to the member that sometimes it is the type of program you run, whether it is ad hoc, short-term or long-term, and that it is where you spend your money that you get the benefits. In terms of what we have available to us in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, we are looking at long-term programs that we feel will support agriculture and support farmers and give them more bang for their buck. It is not necessarily the size of the budget; it is what you do with it.

Mr Villeneuve: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate your tolerance to confirm that the minister has said that the farm tax rebate will indeed remain intact. I thank you for that.

I want the minister to know that I have argued hard for fuel ethanol, which is an area where farmers will be able to help themselves by creating new markets for their product. Is it indeed in your mandate and that of the Minister of the Environment to promote the production of ethanol here in Ontario so that we have new markets for grain and a cleaner environment? Your ministry will be in the lead on this, along with the Ministry of the Environment. I want to hear what your stand is.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I believe I am already on record as supporting the development of an ethanol industry in cooperation with agriculture and farmers. Since the federal government has finally seen the light and lifted the excise tax, it certainly is financially reasonable to proceed with ethanol.

We currently chair an interministerial committee that is looking into that industry in cooperation with the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of the Environment. I hope we can proceed with some pilot projects as soon as we evaluate those projects. There are a number that are now coming in from the corn producers and other groups across the province, particularly in eastern Ontario. As well, as the member I am sure is aware, a number of projects have been put on the drawing board. We need to evaluate them, but we would very much like to get on with -- if there is something in the ethanol industry.

1500

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): It's with a great deal of pleasure that I present a petition from the Special Hearts group, a support group helping families of children with heart disease. It reads:

"We are concerned with the direction our health care system is taking. Funding cuts to hospitals, combined with cuts to community health care programs, result in a system that is failing to meet the demands of an expanding group. Programs and services designed to help provide cost-effective health care in the home, such as the Ontario assistive devices program, home care services, the Ontario drug benefit plan and our public health units, are being critically underfunded. Changes to narrow the qualifying criteria for the Ontario assistive devices program mean that adults and children who rely on lifesaving monitoring equipment, respiratory equipment and other medical aids will lose funding assistance for this equipment. Without access to this equipment, these people will require more frequent hospitalization and in some cases are at risk of losing their lives.

"With funding cuts to hospitals restricting the care they can provide and cuts to community-based health care programs resulting in program and service cuts, we are left to wonder, 'Where will our health care come from?'

"In order to better understand how these many cutbacks affect those who most depend on our health care system, we are asking for an ongoing dialogue with officials from the Ministry of Health and the Ontario assistive devices program. This dialogue would take the form of meetings with the committee composed of health care providers and those who depend on ADP and community health care services. As the health care consumers who pay for this system, we demand access and input into the decision-making process. Lengthy surgical waiting lists, hospital bed closures and understaffing, equipment shortages, cuts to public health programs -- this is the reality of our health care system. We hope that by providing insight into the many repercussions of funding cuts to hospitals and community health services we can help steer our health care system in a more user-friendly direction."

I have here approximately 2,000 signatures and do affix my own.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition that reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

This petition is signed by several hundred constituents from my riding and, in fact, many other people from around the province, and I too have affixed my name to this petition.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"We, the youth of the Kenora area aged 15 to 24 years old who are unemployed and on temporary training programs and concerned that our employment needs are not being addressed in the provincial government's economic proposals, petition you to express these concerns to the Premier of Ontario.

"As your constituents, we do hope that you are concerned as well."

This is signed by approximately 100 youths from my riding, and I too have attached my signature.

DAY CARE

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario: I present the following petition on behalf of Generations Day Care Inc:

"Whereas Generations Day Care Inc, a non-profit, intergenerational day care, is seeking provincial funding to relocate in the new seniors' facility Twilight Haven, presently under construction, to continue to care for children between the ages of three months and five years."

I have signed my signature to this petition, which bears 242 names.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): The citizens of the riding of Victoria-Haliburton beg leave to petition the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and the members of the Legislative Assembly and Parliament assembled:

Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services has not been funding adequately the children's aid societies of Ontario, they ask that they reconsider this move and ask that they be supported so there will be no closures of institutions or any cutting of jobs in the Kawartha area district.

I have affixed my signature to this.

PROPOSED HIGHWAY

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have a petition here from the concerned citizens of west Whitby, representing the communities of West Lynn, Queen's Common, Queen's Chase, Otter Creek and Macedonian village, the latter being in the riding of my colleague the member for Durham East. They wish to protest the technically preferred route by the Ministry of Transportation that would go right by their communities. This route is planned to connect Highway 401 with the proposed Highway 407 and will pass within half a mile of the communities mentioned above. Carbon monoxide emissions and noise levels will have a severe impact on the quality of lives in these communities.

This petition contains 1,092 signatures.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CARLETON BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE RÈGLEMENT DU CONFLIT DE TRAVAIL ENTRE LE CONSEIL DE L'ÉDUCATION DE CARLETON ET SES ENSEIGNANTS

Mr Sterling moved first reading of Bill 3, An Act respecting the Carleton Board of Education and Teachers Dispute / Loi concernant le conflit de travail entre le Conseil de l'éducation de Carleton et ses enseignants.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): This is the bill I referred to in my question, which will call for legislation legislating back the teachers to the classroom and allowing 27,000 students to return in the Ottawa-Carleton area. It calls for wage guidelines of 1% for the year beginning September 1, 1991, 2% for the following year and 2% for the year following that.

OTTAWA BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE RÈGLEMENT DU CONFLIT DE TRAVAIL ENTRE LE CONSEIL DE L'ÉDUCATION D'OTTAWA ET SES ENSEIGNANTS

Mr Sterling moved first reading of Bill 4, An Act respecting the Ottawa Board of Education and Teachers Dispute / Loi concernant le conflit de travail entre le Conseil de l'éducation d'Ottawa et ses enseignants.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): This bill does as the other one did for the Carleton Board of Education. This deals with the Ottawa Board of Education and I believe some 800 to 1,000 teachers and some 12,000 young people who are presently not engaged in their education in the Ottawa-Carleton area. As I mentioned before, it orders the teachers back to work, allows the students to continue their education and resolves the dispute by implementing a 1% solution beginning September 1, 1991, 2% for the following year and 2% for the year thereafter.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE / DÉBAT SUR LE DISCOURS DU TRÔNE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate on the speech from the throne as the newly elected leader of the official opposition.

I am delighted to be back in the Legislature after my landslide victory at the Liberal leadership convention on February 8. Indeed, as I indicated on Monday, I feel very privileged to be able to serve as the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, to have been chosen as leader of my party after a leadership campaign which, from my rather biased perspective, was an opportunity to demonstrate the depth and breadth of the leadership within the Liberal caucus.

I do want to note for the historical record and for the accuracy of that record, of course, that a landslide is not normally defined as nine votes. But as I look across the floor of the House to a governing party that parlayed some 37% of the popular vote, if memory serves me correctly, to some 56% of the seats in the House, one realizes that it is not the margin of victory that makes a difference in this business. What does count, and I am sure the Premier would agree if he were here, is what you do with the mandate you are given.

It was 18 months ago that the Premier gave us his government's first throne speech, a throne speech in which he promised to take care of the issues facing this province. That throne speech said, "Ontario's realities -- the environment, the economy, our social services and the challenges facing Canada itself -- require leadership." That was true 18 months ago and it is even more true now.

What has changed is that this government has failed to provide that leadership, has failed to come to grips with Ontario's realities: the environment, our social services, the national issues and, above all, our economy.

The first throne speech was presented at a time when many people held high hopes for this government. It was a brand-new government, and I say in all candour that people looked to this government for significant change. For others who were perhaps a little less than enthusiastic about the prospects of a New Democratic government in Ontario, there was at least, I think, a willingness to suspend disbelief and a readiness to work with the government to manage the changes that lay ahead. But in the 18 months since the New Democratic Party came into power, solemn pledges have turned into abandoned projects, where hope existed it has turned into disillusionment, and the sense of promise has withered with the promises themselves.

On a vu que le premier ministre et son gouvernement sont toujours pleins de bonnes intentions, mais ils n'ont jamais réussi à transformer leurs paroles en action.

Let me give just one example of a failed promise of this government. It was not a campaign promise but a commitment that was made in that last speech from the throne. The throne speech pledged "the immediate allocation of $700 million for necessary maintenance and renovation of public sector facilities." The speech indicated that these projects were "ready to begin within the next several months" and would "create critically needed jobs now."

Time went by. The $700 million turned into something less than $400 million, if we just look at the reductions on the other side of the capital budget. There was no coordination of the spending, no long-term focus to the projects that were undertaken, and no long-term jobs were created. Few projects actually were ready and much of the money was scattered like pebbles on the sea. This was an example of a failed promise, a misguided and largely wasted effort from the start. But this commitment, later in significant measure abandoned, led the way towards another, equally misguided effort, but one with absolutely disastrous consequences.

If we move in our reflections from the last throne speech to the first budget this government presented, we will recall the Treasurer, the member for Nickel Belt, saying: "We had a choice between fighting the deficit and fighting the recession. We chose to fight the recession."

The Treasurer at that point was still locked into his government's determination to see the world as it wanted it to be rather than the world as it really was and still is. The Treasurer and the Premier refused to acknowledge that this was not just a short-term recession facing Ontario and that we could not spend our way out of it. We could not simply hold our breath and hope that the end of the recession would come and Ontario would look much the same as it had looked before.

We on this side of the House would certainly agree that the Treasurer and his government kept their promise not to fight the deficit in the budget the Treasurer presented. But the fight against the recession has also been tragically lost as we see our unemployment ranks swell by some 186,000 people since the fall of 1990.

Before six months had passed, the Treasurer decided that he had better take on another fight, a more realistic one this time: to control spending. But I suspect that the reason for the change in direction was not simply the rather belated recognition of the serious economic situation this province was facing; it was the Treasurer's need to hold to a promise he himself had made, the bottom-line definition of his own integrity and the integrity of his government, to hold that deficit figure to $9.7 billion.

Four budget corrections later, with more deferrals than actual reductions in expenditure, the Treasurer has now acknowledged that even that commitment cannot be met. But long before that, this government was already immobilized by the sheer size of the debt it had built and by the chaos that had been created by misdirection, mismanagement and sheer mistakes.

As we listen to the commitments in this year's throne speech, as we analyse what they may mean to this province over the next months, it is essential that we understand the context in which these commitments are made. Part of that context is the assessment of the last set of commitments and where they have led us. I do note, simply in passing, that this speech from the throne is much less categorical in defining bottom lines for the integrity of the government.

The promise of the last throne speech, for better or for worse, was best expressed in the words of the Premier when he said, "Politics is about what we owe each other." The performance of this government has belied that promise. Politics under this government has been about what people who supported the New Democratic Party over many years feel they are owed.

The words of that first throne speech were fine ones. The Premier's words are usually fine ones, and he has added depth to his government's capacity to provide fine words by bringing in the finest of spin doctors. But the music has turned sour; it simply does not match the words.

Part of our job as opposition is to make sure the people of this province know what this government is saying. But more important, it is part of our responsibility to make sure the people of this province know what the government's words mean. For example, when the government hits the high notes, talking about cooperation and partnership in dealing with economic concerns, it is up to us to make sure that people are aware of the real meaning of those words as used by this government and that too often that meaning is actually confrontation and conflict in the workplace.

The reality is that you can't build partnerships if you distrust a significant number of the partners. It is important, if we are to understand what this government intends, that we listen beyond the words to what is really being said and done. It is important that we indeed get past the rhetoric to the reality of what is happening.

1520

When the New Democrats developed their election platform for the 1990 campaign they made virtually no concessions to responsible politics. Instead, they put forward a document that cynically promised dozens of items that the now Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, surely knew could not be delivered if they were ever to form the government.

Upon assuming power the government found itself without anything close to an appropriate game plan for dealing with the very real problems facing this province. "But," went the logic, "people owe us a chance to learn on the job." As a result of this attitude, Ontarians have been forced to watch for 18 months as their government has moved from inexperience to a seemingly endless apprenticeship while it has attempted to figure out how public administration is supposed to work and how it might handle the critical issues Ontario faces today.

What to do until a real game plan is developed? "Well," comes the answer, "in the meantime we owe it to ourselves and to our supporters to be democratic socialists." In the absence of a meaningful game plan the NDP government has fallen back on a program of NDP ideology that I do not believe the people of this province support and that they do not believe is relevant.

What to do when some promises are just too dangerous, too expensive or too disruptive to carry out? I can only conclude that the assumption of this government is that people owe it a chance to figure out which policies it can risk going ahead with and which ones it must eventually step back from. The lack of a clear, meaningful game plan and the falling back on NDP ideology has been one of the hallmarks of this administration's first 18 months.

But to this failure of conception has been added a whole host of failures of execution which, taken collectively, has led many Ontarians to doubt the basic competence of their government. I want to give just three examples of this lack of facility that has plagued the government's first year and a half and shows no sign of improvement.

The first is the lack of realism that has been demonstrated in the Treasurer's handling of the Fair Tax Commission. The Treasurer asked the commission to look into establishing a minimum corporate income tax. The commission duly came back with its report and said the idea is likely unworkable, it may cost more than it will raise, no one can agree on it, it is impossible to even guess how it might work and, at the very least, it certainly needs more study. Yet last week the Treasurer told us he still thinks it is a good idea.

The second area for concern is the basic lack of ability to work effectively with an excellent professional civil service. This is perhaps most ludicrously demonstrated by the Attorney General's hiring of an external counsel because he is reportedly not speaking to his deputy. To these concerns we regrettably add, not perhaps a lack of respect for the basic standards of ministerial conduct, but more a complete lack of understanding of what the basic standards must be, standards as basic as not fixing parking tickets or not publicly slandering individuals, with or without evidence.

It is observable to those of us who are less partisan in perspective than I that 18 months after assuming office, members of this government still seem most comfortable with an opposition role. From the Premier on they are clearly happiest when they are on the attack and clearly least happy when they confront the responsibilities and the realities of government.

I believe the government has prepared for this speech from the throne with the recognition that this is a critical time for it and for this province. They perhaps would not acknowledge their failure to come to grips with the real problems facing the province or their inability to handle the basic functions of government. They do at last understand that the problems facing this province are indeed serious. But the greatest failing of this government is its refusal to understand the effects its policies have in undermining the very goals it wishes to achieve.

The government and the Premier talk of consultation and partnership but they have displayed a distressing persistence in seeing the world as divided into us and them, development versus protection, economic needs versus social needs, profit versus non-profit, business versus labour. These intellectual rigidities have thrown this government into a muddle of confused priorities. For example, the government does not seem able to understand the effects its environmental and social policies are having on investor confidence, on the ability to do business in this province and thus on the jobs that all of us agree must be created.

The rapid-fire succession of policy proposals, consultations, policy withdrawals, policy revisions and policy implementations has left people in both the public and the private sector literally gasping for breath.

The government has to understand it is creating a terrible amount of uncertainty with every half-considered initiative it pulls from the grab bag. When it comes to the impact of their action and reaction on business, government must understand that uncertainty makes business investment decisions a near impossibility. But even uncertainty may be better than moving decisively in the wrong direction.

This government must get its priorities straight. They have to set aside false dichotomies between economic and social policy or economic and environmental policy or the interests of employer and employee so that these false dichotomies do not direct their decision-making. Maybe then some balance can be found. Above all, the government really must understand that a solid, functioning economy is indeed the basis for achieving all our other goals.

Only when our economy is solid can we reduce unemployment, welfare costs and the growing need for food banks. Only when families have economic security will we really be able to deal with the roots of violence against women and children. Only when children are fed and housed and feel safe will we see significant decreases in our school dropout rates. Only when we have an economy that can absorb the costs will we make real progress in the transition to an environmentally responsible society.

C'est absolument nécessaire que notre province permette à chaque Ontarien et Ontarienne d'entrevoir son avenir avec confiance parce que nous disposons d'une économie vigoureuse et nous avons des emplois.

This government would argue, and even seem to acknowledge in its throne speech, although without much conviction, that it does understand all this, that it is, after all, only common sense. They would talk again of their interest in consultation, but the music simply does not fit the words.

I have heard the Premier and others in the government speak of the business agenda as if it were just the demands of yet another special interest group. We see consultation processes in which business is told that there is no room for compromise because of a previous commitment to the labour movement. That is not consultation at all.

Not much listening is going on at hearings that serve mainly as forums for preset opinions to run the gauntlet of public opposition and emerge unchanged at the end. The government speaks of consultation but it seems to continue to listen almost exclusively to those who already share its views.

I want to read a letter from an organization that is a key player in a vital area of public policy, yet it does not seem to be on the inside track of the Premier's decision-making machine. It's a letter to the Premier from the Council of Ontario Universities. It reads:

1530

"On several occasions, the universities have asked for your time so that they may help you to find solutions to the problems that we as taxpayers and citizens of the province all share. Each and every time, you have turned us down.... You talk about partnerships that must exist.... Partnerships cannot be effective without communication and cooperation. Neither of these latter qualities have we found in your government. We come to offer you assistance in economic renewal and we're told you have no time for us. You cannot waltz your way around the knowledge industry in this province, and simultaneously pontificate about wanting to build on the province's strengths."

This is a key part of our province's economic and social infrastructure that is simply trying to get a meeting. Is it any wonder there's frustration out there?

I'd be the first to agree, after some 21 years in politics, that consultation in the public arena is not easy, and no one should be under any illusions that at the end of a process of consultation you're likely to get much consensus. But consultation is still critical to understanding different perspectives and differing needs and the consultations that are carried out must be meaningful ones. People will no longer settle for government making up its mind about what it wants to do and then asking people if it's okay and then refusing to change its mind if it isn't. It makes much more sense to do the consulting before the decisions are made.

On this note, I'd like to turn from the context in which this speech from the throne is presented to the speech itself and to the directions it sets out.

We expected to hear again the beautiful music of yet another of the Premier's promises: the promise of an economic plan that will restore confidence and ensure a brighter future for Ontario and its people. There's no question that a plan is needed and that people need some renewed confidence and some sense of optimism. As we've experienced plant closure after plant closure, people have kept saying to this government, "What are you going to do about it?" When the Premier went on television two months ago to acknowledge somewhat belatedly that we did have a serious economic problem, people said: "We know that. We've known that for 18 months. What are you going to do about it?"

The Premier has said how difficult it is to hear the voices of ordinary Ontarians while sitting in the Premier's chair. I'm aware of his deep sense of the importance of staying in touch with people. It's a concern that I share, which is why I want to take just a few minutes of time to share with this House what I've seen and heard as I've had the opportunity of travelling throughout this province over the past year.

I want to share this because as I listened to the speech from the throne, I found myself wondering how well this government's direction responds to the realities of the lives of people in this province. Surely our understanding of those realities should be what informs everything we do in this place. Let me take those few moments to share some of what I've seen and heard over the past year so the members of this House will understand why I have the concerns I have about the direction the government has presented in its speech from the throne message.

A month ago I stood with 40,000 farmers on Parliament Hill in Ottawa as they expressed their concern about the direction that, in this case, the federal government was taking, and their frustration that no government seemed to understand the critical nature of the threats posed to our agricultural industry. But for many months before that, in many small farming communities I met with farm families who didn't even raise the question because they had become so convinced that governments didn't seem to understand or care.

I've met with people in the health care fields struggling to adapt to the suddenness of the changes confronting them and truly afraid they will not be able to deliver the essential health care services people in this province need.

I've talked with seniors and with seniors' advocates who participated with enthusiasm in the consultation about new directions in long-term care and who are now convinced that nothing will come from that consultation.

I've talked to high school students -- high school students who are working feverishly to be successful as they apply, along with thousands of others, for the reduced number of spaces in our post-secondary system. I've talked to university students -- university students who are nearing the completion of their programs and who know they will leave their graduation ceremonies this spring and walk right into unemployment lineups.

I've met with single mothers -- single mothers who had finally found themselves a job, gotten off welfare and are now right back in the same trap. I've talked to men and women who have gone back to school to retrain in the hopes of getting that new start and who are now hunting for the jobs that just aren't there.

I've even listened to welfare workers who tell me that they call in the OPP to investigate allegations of abuse because they are simply overwhelmed with the demands for basic relief.

I've walked through the streets of Niagara Falls, of Windsor, of Kirkland Lake, and I've seen the for-lease signs in the front windows and the big posters for the bankruptcy sales. I've talked to people in business, people who say their head company is looking for investment in this country but they just aren't sure that it's safe to invest in Ontario. And I've talked to too many others who've been doing business here for a very long time but who have found it impossible to continue and who have just quietly closed their doors -- not a headline, just people who have left.

I talked to one businessman who is a fervent Canadian who anguished about his decision to move his business south, who did everything he could to keep it functioning in Ontario, at least some part of it functioning in Ontario, but who found that the sheer accumulation of taxes and regulations and the unpredictability of what might happen tomorrow simply gave him no alternative.

All these people, and so many others, are looking to this government to take the steps that will make their future better than the present. I believe that most people in Ontario are asking, as they read and hear of the government's not-new-at-all plans, "Is this going to do anything at all for me?" It saddens me to say that for most Ontarians the answer is simply no. Tragically, for the more than one-half million Ontarians who cannot find a job, the Premier's plan is not going to bring much relief in the short term or even the long term.

This government's economic plan is aimed at a small élite of the industrial workers of this province. Apart from measures to improve access to the workplace by ending systemic discrimination, the benefits of this strategy, if they are realized at all, will be enjoyed only by unionized workers in mature industries, and the workers in those industries might well question whether this plan does anything for them.

What does this plan do to stimulate the investment the government says is needed? For investment to take place, there must be a renewal of confidence that it makes sense to do business in the province. There is nothing here to renew that sense of confidence. There is simply a fine statement that a strong economy depends on a flourishing business sector. True, it does. But having said that, the government marches steadfastly ahead with the very initiatives that have done so much to erode business confidence in this province. They say they have already listened, that business should stop being so negative, that we should all just cheer up.

1540

The throne speech does talk about streamlining regulatory systems, and that could indeed be welcome news, since so much time and cost and frustration goes into the process of simply getting approvals, but we have yet to hear what the Sewell commission will propose on land use or how the environmental assessment process will be simplified and expedited. We have certainly not seen much simplification or expeditiousness in this government's management of environmental problems to date.

It is ironic, as I suggested earlier this afternoon, that the one specific recommendation for streamlining regulations is to add resources to the Ontario Municipal Board to deal with its backlog. Is this not the same Ontario Municipal Board to which individuals can appeal decisions of municipalities to open their stores on Sundays? We have suggested in the past that this ridiculous component of an unenforceable piece of legislation would certainly jam the already overloaded Ontario Municipal Board, and it seems the government agrees.

Let me raise again the matter of words and reality. When I see the reference to the Forest Industry Action Group and the innovative solutions this group is to develop, as a northerner, as a former Minister of Natural Resources, as somebody who knows the importance of the forest industry to my part of the province, I believe this is a needed initiative to look at the problems of a besieged sector of our economy. But how can there be solutions when the most significant investment decisions facing one segment of this industry involve the upgrading of technology to meet new environmental regulations and the province won't make its regulatory requirements clear, even when the federal government has already established its guidelines and is requiring compliance?

No wonder the investor gives up. What is the future of this industry anyway as the government cuts back its investment to the long-term health and regeneration of our forests?

We could go on to ask what the throne speech does for mining investment or tourism or the retail sector hit with both cross-border shopping and the recession. What does it do to encourage those 40,000 farmers and so many other people in agriculture to hope that they can make a living, at least a reasonable living, if they keep their farms in production?

The first problem with the Premier's economic plan is that it won't do anything to maintain or create long-term jobs now, when positive measures are urgently needed. The second problem is that it reaches out to only one segment of the economy, one segment of the people. The third problem, perhaps by far the most grave and the most telling, with the NDP economic plan is that it just simply won't work.

Let's take just a moment to examine some of the planks of the structure. At its foundation we have the reforms to the Labour Relations Act. This government has published mountains of paper, some with its partners in the Ontario Federation of Labour, using our tax dollars, trying to convince us that these reforms will improve cooperation between unions and management. Instead, it has become abundantly clear that this legislative project has jeopardized business-labour relations in this province and is threatening to make polarization a permanent part of the Ontario workplace.

It is clear that these reforms, coming at this time, will have a negative impact on investment in this province and could well cost us jobs at a time when we can least afford to lose them. Let me assure the Premier that business is not bluffing when it says that it will leave this province.

Let's look at the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. This initiative is admirable in itself, but it's fatally flawed by the shoehorning of the Premier's political agenda on to the board structure. We are very worried that the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board will be constituted in a manner that is so inhospitable to the business partners that the program uptake will be severely impaired. We are worried about the financing of this program. The Ontario Federation of Labour is on the record calling for the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board to be financed through an employer training levy. Surely this is not the time to lay on business another payroll tax that will discourage job creation.

Let's look at the Ontario training strategy, as we have done in question periods over the last two days. This is a program that is supposed to reach out to those who are in serious need of help: social assistance recipients. Indeed, we understand that the program is supposed to pay for itself by the saving that will arise from taking people off welfare, but it appears that the program likely will only pay for the training costs of people who have already found a job, or will at best create short-term solutions. The real need is for long-term job creation with training to match the real job opportunities that are there.

Let's look at the capital formation measures of the industrial policy. The tax expenditures that are embodied in the Ontario investment and worker ownership plan seem, on the surface, to be a good idea. As the Premier indicated in his response yesterday, the concepts of this plan have in fact been used to be able to ensure that some jobs at least are retained in industries that have been clearly failing.

The experience, at least to date, suggests that too often workers are only going to be encouraged to invest in companies that are already failing, or that the investment will come as an after-the-fact bailout. We might well ask how much effort will focus on worker investment and cooperative restructuring before the company fails, when the situation is less desperate and can be much more carefully thought through.

Let's examine the Ontario investment fund, which again sounds like a great idea until you start listening closely. The government has responded to the understandable concerns of the public sector pension holders by insisting that the fund will be voluntary. What the Premier doesn't seem to be telling us is that if the fund is voluntary, nobody is likely to volunteer to invest in it. Why? Because it sounds like a way of giving new business access to capital, but it is actually a way of giving government access to capital. The business community is worried about a program where all the spending decisions are made by politicians, civil servants and union leaders, and the pension holders certainly don't appear to be very pleased with it either.

We in the opposition are eager to learn how the Premier plans to take control of these pension funds without coercion. Frankly, we suspect that it is impossible, which will leave the government with negligible funds for financing the investments that it knows are needed.

The throne speech says that the government has already launched an economic renewal plan, an investment strategy to build a stronger future. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who was speaking about this Ontario industrial strategy to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce at a luncheon last week, spoke of the fundamentals of a sound strategy that would include training, research, investment in technological infrastructure and developing domestic-based industries. All common sense, and definitely the right words about the right directions.

The minister did also suggest that while he would announce specific initiatives later, they would only be sketched out now, to be developed in future years as the fiscal outlook improves. Does the government not understand that the fiscal outlook will only improve if there is economic renewal now?

In the meantime, the initiatives the government is proceeding with present us with an economic policy that is a shambles. It is supposed to train people for jobs that don't exist and to make investments with money it doesn't have, and all of this is supposed to take place in a setting of serious labour-management discord which is being created by the proposed reforms of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

This government's industrial policy is not made for Ontario as we know Ontario, and it won't work in Ontario. Ontario needs to build on its strengths as it does anticipate and adapt to the changing realities of today and tomorrow. Change is inevitable. We are experiencing a fundamental restructuring of our traditional economic base, but we manage change by utilizing all of our resources -- human and physical.

This government is dismantling the past and is radically reshaping the future without taking its ideological blinders off. This is a future that will leave thousands of Ontarians on the sidelines. It is a dangerous gamble. Not only is the Premier gambling with Ontario's future, he's gone into debt to cover the bet. In this case, NDP politics are not about what we owe each other; they are about what Ontario owes the bank.

1550

We are all well aware of the precarious financial position in which this province finds itself. On January 21, the Premier gave us his commitment that he would bring the 1992 deficit down from $14.3 billion. Unfortunately, nothing he's indicated in this throne speech gives us any confidence that he and his Treasurer will be able to do so.

The game of moving target that has been the 1991 budgetary process will soon come to a conclusion with the disastrous financial performance of the 1991 fiscal year, finally locking in at what is still an indeterminate deficit position. The Premier and the Treasurer built their last budget more on a wish and a prayer than on any realistic financial projections. They hoped the recession would bottom out before the third quarter of 1991 and that their figures would look better than they actually do. The government gambled heavily and it lost.

They have now presented us with a second throne speech, a precursor of the second budget, which presents the government with equally unacceptable choices. It is not an enviable position, but I do hope this government will at least begin to accept responsibility for the tough choices that must be made and the consequences of its decisions. What we have seen to date is the Premier's desperate attempt to prepare Ontario for a disastrous budget by shifting the blame for the problems elsewhere.

I want to emphasize that I make absolutely no apologies for the federal Conservatives; that is the unhappy responsibility of my colleague the leader of the provincial Conservative Party. I wish him well in discharging that rather onerous duty.

Federal government policies, however disastrous, cannot be seen as a sufficient explanation of Ontario's economic difficulties. Simply laying blame is certainly not a sufficient response to Ontario's needs. While I do not excuse the federal actions, I do expect that the provincial government will make its own realistic plans based on a realistic assessment of transfers. I do expect that the discussions between the federal and the provincial governments can at least maintain some semblance of a reasonable discussion between relatively reasonable people. Instead, we have been presented with a spectacle that has produced a profound disenchantment among Ontarians. Memo wars and press leaks are no way to solve the serious problems that not only besiege our economies but threaten to break apart our country.

While the Premier fights with the federal government over who gets to tax us more, his government here in Ontario is slashing health services. Let me state clearly that I do not argue, as my friends in the NDP used to do, that every health dollar is sacrosanct or that saving money in health care is a threat to medicare. What is threatening is that the government's dreadful lack of foresight led it to give hospitals, for example, an 8% increase last year and then a 1% increase this year. Staff layoffs, bed closures, service reductions: What else can you expect when this kind of wrenching policy shift occurs?

Desperate situations led to desperate decisions. The difference between sound, orderly, well-planned reallocation of resources and wholesale abandonment of services is time to adjust and review, which the government has not given people who deliver health care in Ontario. Instead of rationalizations that will make the system more efficient, the government is giving us decimation which could well end up costing us all, Mr Treasurer, a great deal more in the long term.

Again, all we have seen from government is an almost unbelievable shifting of responsibility from the government to the service providers, as hospitals and school boards are told that they should somehow be able to manage the financial constraints with no reduction in services.

Now is not the time to go further into the concerns we in the opposition have with the government's fiscal policies. We have some weeks prior to the anticipated presentation of the budget in which to explore all these concerns in some detail, and I can assure the Treasurer it is our intention to do so, and then there will be ample opportunity for a full discussion when the 1992 budget is introduced.

I am looking forward to the further debate on this throne speech because I really do believe that taking part in legislative debate, and taking part in it seriously, is a way in which we take public policy seriously. I want the Premier to know that my colleagues and I are looking forward to a substantive discussion on the government's agenda over the next two weeks and indeed over the next two or more years.

But a good discussion involves different viewpoints. I am sure the Premier heard within his party different viewpoints on how to proceed as he and his advisers prepared this throne speech, so I hope that in this debate the members of the government will do justice to the fact that there are alternatives to the course the government has laid out. I don't want the debate on this throne speech or on other matters of policy to degenerate into a mere recitation of the NDP mantra, "There is no alternative." Of course there are alternatives, and as the government's mandate begins to wind down over the next few years, we in the Liberal Party will be developing and expressing our alternative policies with increasing comprehensiveness and forcefulness. The deputy House leader has today presented the Treasurer with at least one constructive option to which he might want to give due consideration as he develops his budget.

When I announced my candidacy for the leadership of our party, I spoke about the cynicism that people are feeling about politics and about the political process. I believe we must do what we can to overcome that cynicism and to restore confidence in the integrity of the political process. We know for our part, and I say this in all candour, that we must regain the trust of Ontarians and that we cannot do that simply by being opposition for opposition's sake.

Some members opposite have perhaps wondered whether my election as leader signals the start of a kinder, gentler opposition. If that suggests in any way that we might be less likely to hold this government accountable, the belief should be put quickly to rest. The times are simply too critical and the responsibilities too great for gentleness. We intend to be tough and demanding, but we will also be fair. We will argue the merits of the government's proposals, and we will look for balance and common sense along with a genuine openness to understand different perspectives. We will offer more than criticism, presenting our own alternatives and preserving our integrity in opposition by not calling on the government to do what we do not believe we would do if we had the opportunity to govern again.

If there is one lesson our friends opposite have taught us, it's that what may seem possible or simple to promise in opposition may be virtually impossible to deliver in government. When the member for York South said in 1990 that he would end the need for food banks within a year, he was making a promise that he could not keep, but I recall the member for York South also said, "People do not want politicians who make promises they cannot keep." I believe that was true then, and I believe it is even more true today.

1600

As concerned as I am about the directions this government has set out in its speech from the throne, I do not want to increase the cynicism that people feel about politicians and their promises by indulging in easy opposition politics. We want to be able to present alternatives. We want to begin to define these policies. To do that we have begun an extensive process of policy development.

My colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has been given an additional responsibility to go with his duties as treasury critic. He will also chair our caucus committee on economic policy. This committee will develop concrete proposals on building investor confidence in Ontario's economy and getting people back to work.

I have also appointed the member for Mississauga West as our critic for small business. He will be working with people in the independent business community to build policies that will respond to their serious concerns and give them the opportunity to start creating new jobs again.

I have created a new economic critic portfolio dealing with research, technology, training and skills development. This portfolio will be handled by the member for Timiskaming and his job will be to develop the ideas that link research to the development of business in new technology fields, a critical area of economic development that's given only passing mention in the throne speech.

My friend and colleague the opposition House leader will be chairing our caucus committee on rural development. He will bring his unmatched understanding of the rural economy and rural Ontario issues to bear on problems of that other Ontario that has no place in the NDP master plan.

My colleague the member for York Centre will chair the Liberal caucus committee on urban development with responsibility for the GTA and the transportation issues that are so critical to the appropriate development of Ontario's cities. Working with his group in consultation with experts across the entire spectrum of urban development, the member for York Centre will be developing the policies that will replace the NDP's command-and-control approach to urban development and harness the positive forces that can make our cities better places in which to live.

I will mention only one other aspect of our caucus organization, and that is that my colleague the member for York North will chair the Liberal caucus committee on the Constitution. He joins the Premier in Halifax today, at the invitation of the Premier to our caucus, to be able to participate in all the discussions on the constitutional proposals. We appreciate that invitation and will certainly participate. Our colleague, with the support of all of us, will examine in detail the work of this government in our current constitutional negotiations, developing our input and offering the constructive proposals I know the Premier welcomes at this critical time in our country's history.

I have laid out today the opposition's main concern with the government's policies, as embodied not only in the throne speech but in 18 months of government. Clearly we bring a different perspective and a different approach to making the choices that must be made, to setting the priorities that will guide the choices, to managing the critical issues of the day.

I believe politics are not about what we owe each other; they are about what we can do together. We in our party have a commitment to bringing people together and mobilizing them to meet challenges together. It is a philosophy that I commend to this government. It is one that my party and I will fight for, not just because we are here to offer opposition, but because we are deeply concerned about the future of this province.

Having expressed some of my views in these matters, which I consider to be of importance in the conduct of our business, having also expressed my dissatisfaction and disappointment with the leadership that has come from this government, it is my duty to move, seconded by the member for Renfrew North, this amendment to the motion.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Mrs McLeod moves that the motion be amended by adding the following thereto:

"That this House regrets that the speech from the throne simply confirms the government's inability to provide a clear strategy to reinvigorate Ontario's economy, stimulate economic investment, create permanent jobs, tackle welfare and unemployment lines, and condemns the government for:

"Failing to acknowledge and understand the recession's impact on the people of Ontario and instead sacrificing legitimate policy goals for an ideologically driven agenda; failing to rebuild partnerships with business by postponing changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act until meaningful consultation on the proposed changes has occurred; failing to provide real and effective cost containment strategies to control government spending; ignoring the need to address the government's crumbling standards of integrity, and failing to limit additional growth in the already unacceptable provincial deficit to ensure that the credit rating is not further eroded and investor confidence is not further undermined."

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I do not think anything else can be said today. I move the adjournment of the debate.

On motion by Mr Harris, the debate was adjourned.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I think something else can be said today. I move the adjournment of the House.

On motion by Mr Laughren, the House adjourned at 1607.