Journal des débats 1993-avril-19 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Today is Yom Hashoah, the 50th anniversary of the uprising of the Warsaw ghetto. On this day, as people around the world gather to remember the people of the Warsaw ghetto, we in Ontario also remember those brave souls who rose to fight the Nazi threat.

Fifty years ago the Nazis moved into the Warsaw ghetto to try and cart the remaining 60,000 Jews off to death camps. On this day, many of the people in the ghetto began a heroic fight that lasted for over a month. These Jews accomplished the impossible, holding off an army which was larger, stronger and more resourceful for over a month.

The people of the Warsaw ghetto began a fight that carried over to other ghettos and towns the Nazis were trying to occupy. People began to stand up and fight the Nazis. Many people believed it would be better to fight to the death rather than die without a fight.

The Holocaust is an event that we must never forget. Through events such as the rally that took place here at Queen's Park yesterday and rallies worldwide, the memories of all those who fought against the Nazis are remembered. We also remember all of those people who were unable to fight and were herded like cattle and exterminated in the death camps.

The Holocaust is a black spot on the history of the 20th century but one which we cannot forget. We must always remember and ensure that it never happens again. On this 50th anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising we remember the people who fought the Nazi menace. We also remember all of those, over six million people, who lost their lives. It is our duty to ensure that all those who perished did not die in vain. We must make sure that an event such as the Holocaust never happens again.

ORILLIA PERCH FESTIVAL

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Everybody is catching spring fever in the city of Orillia. For many anglers, spring is a time of great anticipation for the upcoming fishing season because it's time for the 12th annual Orillia Perch Festival, from April 24 to May 15. It's time to get the line wet again, get the kids out in the fresh air, win a few dollars or prizes and catch lots of the finest-tasting pan fish in all of Ontario.

Now in its 12th year, the annual perch festival, sponsored by the Orillia and District Chamber of Commerce, has grown to become the largest registered derby of its type in North America. Perch fishing is easy for any age of angler, so the tournament has both adult and child registration.

Just fish to win one of over 60 tagged perch worth $500 each plus five bonus perch worth a total of $7,500 and there's even a perch that could win you a trip for four to Walt Disney World in Florida for a whole week.

There's over $100,000 in cash and prizes to be won, including a motor boat and trailer, and we have other packages, as well as fishing equipment and tackle, camping gear, bikes, clothing and much more.

For more information, call the perch line, 705-326-4424 on weekends, or 705-327-FISH. Come and perch in Orillia; it's a great event for the whole family.

JOHN WINTERMEYER

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): This past Saturday evening in my riding, over 600 individuals gathered to honour and pay tribute to a former member of this place, one John Wintermeyer. Mr Wintermeyer was honoured for his lifetime of service to the residents of my community as well as this province.

John Joseph Wintermeyer was born in Kitchener and educated at the University of Notre Dame and Dalhousie Law School. In 1952 he was elected to Kitchener city council, and then three years later John was first elected to this assembly.

In 1958 he was selected as leader of the Liberal Party, and in the election of 1959 he faced the Frost government. Although he did not succeed in becoming Premier, he did double the number of seats in the Liberal caucus to 22. In the election of 1963, the Big Blue Machine rolled across this province, and at the end of the day even Wintermeyer lost his seat.

Today, however, John takes much satisfaction that many of the ideas he promoted 30 years ago, such as universal medicare, improvements to general welfare assistance and full funding of separate schools, eventually became government policy.

Once out of politics, John has remained extremely active not only in his province but in his community as well. He has served as chair of the Metro Roman Catholic high schools and the Canadian Olympic Association, and he's assisted numerous community organizations, including the Working Centre and St John soup kitchen.

John has been described as a courageous individual and one who has received much satisfaction in serving others. Let me tell you, Speaker, that John Joseph Wintermeyer is a gentleman in every sense of the word.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Michael A. Brown: (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have an urgent situation in my riding which demands the immediate attention of the Minister of Health.

Last month, St Joseph's General Hospital, the local hospital in Elliot Lake, received word from the Minister of Health's office that its registered nursing assistant school will have to close at the end of May. That's this May. There was no warning of this ill-timed decision.

I say it was ill-timed because the 1993-94 class of students has already been interviewed and accepted for the program. It is too late for these students to be accepted in any other program. It is too late for the hospital to research other training prospects. I remind the minister, many of these students are already casualties of mine closures who have upgraded themselves and were looking forward to launching new careers in the health field.

Some of the RNA schools earmarked for closure have a full year to prepare. Why is the Elliot Lake program targeted for early windup? Where is the fairness in this decision? I've appealed this decision in a letter to the Minister of Health dated March 31. To date I have received absolutely no reply. So I want to urge her to respond now in the only reasonable and just manner that she can: by granting the Elliot Lake RNA program a one-year reprieve.

COMMEMORATIVE MEDALS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'm pleased to rise in the Legislature today to honour 24 people within my riding of Dufferin-Peel. Twenty-four hardworking individuals within my riding will be receiving the commemorative medal for the 125th anniversary of the Confederation of Canada.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, Hal Jackman, will be attending a reception this evening to present medals to the following individuals: Robert Burnside, Don Currie, Jean deGruchy, Glenn Grice, Glenys Houghson, George Ledson, Dr James Orbinski, Mary Phelan, Grace Cronin, Bliss Daley, Joan Donnelly, Delores Hannon, Pat Kalapaca, Linda Lockyer, Bill Parke, Jerry Proctor, Alex Raeburn, Anne Richardson, Nancy Stewart, Wayne Townsend, George Reid, Carole Seglins, Dr Walter Tovell and Betty Ward.

The 125th medal was struck by the federal government to commemorate Canada's 125th anniversary. There are always many worthy individuals who volunteer their time within their community and commit much of their lives to the benefit of others. It gives me great pleasure to host a reception this evening at the Hockley Valley Resort and Conference Centre and to introduce the Lieutenant Governor to some of the special people in Dufferin-Peel.

1340

ONTARIO CLEAN WATER AGENCY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Hamilton-Wentworth needs jobs. It also needs a psychological lift. The area's traditional job provider, the manufacturing sector, has declined dramatically, leaving the area's unemployment rate above the national and provincial average.

To help create economic rejuvenation in Hamilton-Wentworth, I and many other residents of the region urge the Ministry of Environment and Energy to locate the new Ontario Clean Water Agency in Hamilton-Wentworth.

There are compelling reasons why Hamilton-Wentworth would be a logical location for the OCWA. First, it dovetails with the region's initiative called Vision 2020, Creating a Sustainable Region, an initiative which sets out principles and guidelines for sustainable economical development.

Second, there are existing agencies, institutions and private businesses in the area which are already involved in research on water and aquatic sciences and can work with the new agency. There are the Wastewater Technology Centre, the Canada Centre for Inland Waters, the National Water Research Institute, the Inland Waters Directorate, the Canadian Wildlife Service, the National Laboratory for Environmental Testing, Bayfield Institute, McMaster University and Mohawk College, all able to provide resources the new agency could rely on.

I believe the request to have the OCWA located in Hamilton-Wentworth is a reasonable and modest request from a community that has been hammered by the recession and is in dire need of a boost.

NIAGARA PENINSULA CHILDREN'S CENTRE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm rising to indicate my genuine concern and that of a large number of people in the Niagara region that the Niagara Peninsula Children's Centre has experienced a significant delay in obtaining the necessary approval from the Ministry of Health to continue its plans for redevelopment.

The Ministry of Health made a commitment in April 1990 to provide funding for the project. We understand the disappointment of the board and of the fund-raising committee when they were advised at the beginning of this year that there would be a possible further delay in that funding.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services has indicated that funds are available at this time, up to $600,000, for that portion of the redevelopment for which the ministry is responsible and that these funds may not be available after two years.

The fund-raising committee has launched a major campaign which has received the overwhelming support of the community at large, and many of the pledges have been made in the knowledge that ministry approval would be forthcoming in the near future.

The centre looks after the requirements of more than 1,000 children with physical and communicative disabilities from a building which is designed for perhaps 400 to 500 children.

I'm urging the Minister of Health to give immediate final approval to the board of directors of the Niagara Peninsula Children's Centre to proceed with its redevelopment project. By doing so, you will be addressing the genuine needs of several hundred children in the Niagara region and assisting the construction industry in a part of the province that has long experienced an extremely high rate of unemployment.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I would like to bring to the attention of the new Minister of Community and Social Services the desperate need in Wellington and the surrounding area for the services provided through the special services at home program.

As members of this House are aware, the special services at home program provides a contract worker to assist families with developmentally disabled children. This service is essential because it allows parents to keep their children at home and helps them to cope with their children's disabilities. The program makes a huge contribution towards a child's development, and the frustration and sense of helplessness that families are feeling when their allocation of hours is reduced substantially is very real.

Theresa and Earl Campbell of Moorefield have written about their daughter Tannis, who has Down syndrome: "Why are these services being denied to young handicapped children who have a permanent disability? Our daughter has a permanent handicap -- Down syndrome. It doesn't go away. However, her abilities can be enhanced through early and necessary intervention."

Another family has written the Premier on this issue:

"Surely, you must realize what a disastrous plan you are creating by placing budget cuts on our handicapped children. This action will force many families to abandon their children to the care of the province -- a far more costly situation for Ontario, and a disaster for the children."

As of the beginning of April, the Campbells have had their hours of service reduced from four to two per week. Many other families in Wellington have suffered a similar fate while others remain on waiting lists.

In the throne speech, this government stated that it has "an abiding concern to provide for the vulnerable among us, including our children." If the government continues to turn its back on disabled children and their families, it demonstrates its heartlessness, and in light of the throne speech statement, its hypocrisy.

This is the fourth time I've raised this issue in the Legislature. I do not --

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

MEDIA REPORTING

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I rise today before the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pose a question: Why are politicians held in such low esteem and with such disdain by the people of the province of Ontario?

It seems all politicians at all levels of government are broadly painted with the same brush, regardless of their political stripe. Certainly, during these difficult economic times, when there is a strong public demand for more jobs, less taxes and improved services from the respective governments, it is easy to understand why the public might want to blame their elected officials. Surely, all of the people's woes must be the fault of someone, and it appears collectively to be the fault of the "politicians."

How has this viewpoint come to be so widely accepted? Singularly, nearly all politicians I know are hardworking, credible, honest individuals. Indeed, all of the members of this august body known as the Legislative Assembly, in my opinion, could be characterized as such. However, when viewed collectively, we are not seen with such reverence.

I might suggest that the media have, at the very least, something to do with this. It is this member's opinion that reporters do not always accurately report the facts when covering political events. When they report their stories, they are often just that -- stories -- because of the way they have been editorialized. Headlines often state someone's opinion rather than fact in order to sensationalize the story. This occurs in all aspects of the media and it's most unfortunate, in my opinion.

The politicians are doing their best to improve the public's view both of themselves and of the political process. The media have helped to cause this problem and the media can help to resolve it, in my opinion.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR ESSEX SOUTH

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): Mr Speaker, I rise today to tender my resignation as the member for Essex South, effective April 30, 1993, and I do so with mixed emotions. I'm very pleased to have accepted a challenging position in the private sector which will allow me to live full-time with my family in Amherstburg, but I regret deeply that I will no longer represent the people of Essex South. I would not have been able to serve as their member in this House for the past 18 years without their generous support and understanding.

More important, I would not have been able to carry out my duties without the love and support of my wife, Jo-Anne, and my children, Michelyn and Bianca, who are here in the Legislature sitting under the Speaker's gallery today.

I want to thank them and tell them that I look forward to spending a lot more time at home. Hopefully, all members of the Legislature will be blessed with the many good things that I've been able to have in my life: a wonderful family, healthy children. That's something that only God can bestow upon us.

I also want to thank the many local officials and the community groups I've had the pleasure of dealing with throughout the years. I'm very proud of what we've accomplished together to make our corner of Ontario a fine place to live, work and raise a family in. There's now a modern four-lane highway to link with Anderdon, Malden and Amherstburg. Much work had to be done to help the people of Harrow to recover from the devastating flood of 1989 that everyone recalls.

The downtown areas of Amherstburg and Leamington have been revitalized with beautiful waterfront parks to take advantage of the natural waterfronts in both communities. The same was done in Colchester South.

Our farmers, particularly in Mersea township and Gosfield South, have had to combat drought and we've tried to help; working with the greenhouse and fishing industry to save jobs has always been a priority of mine for my 18 years that I've tried to serve them. New infrastructure for Kingsville and Essex so that they can remain viable communities. Across the riding, we had to fight to protect our public and separate schools from amalgamation. As the member for Essex South, I am proud to have played a role in so many community issues.

1350

During my tenure in the Legislature, I've had the pleasure of serving under four Liberal leaders, all people of great talent and ability. Bob Nixon was one of the greatest legislators ever to serve in this House. Stuart Smith brought a sharp intellect and a passion for politics. David Peterson gave Ontario five years of unprecedented growth and opportunity. I also want to thank David Peterson for giving me the honour of serving in cabinet as the minister responsible for disabled persons and as the Minister of Revenue.

I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration for my colleagues whom I served with in cabinet and in the Liberal caucus. It has been my great pleasure to serve under our new leader, the member for Fort William. She has brought a new approach, I believe, to politics, and in my opinion, if I may be allowed one partisan moment, I believe that Lyn McLeod will become the first woman Premier in the history of Ontario.

After 18 years, not only have I had the opportunity to get to know each and every member sitting in the House today, and all the members who sat previously, but each member has a history, and each member has something special about him. I've made some very special friends in the Liberal caucus: Joe Cordiano, Alvin Curling, Hugh O'Neil, Steven Mahoney, people whom I consider very close friends.

Where else but in politics could you meet a guy like Jim Bradley, who can come up with lines like, "The government needs a third hand to pat itself on the back"? Only in the Legislature could we find a person with that type of wit. Where else could we find the oratorical skills of a Sean Conway? Where else could we find the business acumen of a person like Monte Kwinter? Where else could we find the warmth of a person like Yvonne O'Neill? I could say something personal about each and every member of my caucus, and I could say something for each and every member of the House.

I particularly am proud to have served with a person like the honourable Treasurer, a man of substance, a person who was a gentleman at all times. The fact that we see eye to eye has nothing to do with my opinions about the Treasurer.

I got to know Ernie Eves really well when I served as the official opposition House leader. I thought I was tough, I thought I was a difficult negotiator, but I think Ernie Eves is probably the best I've seen, and I can see why he sits at the right hand of his leader.

Mr Speaker, I want to take this last moment to say that it was an honour and a thrill to have been elected for the first time back on September 18, 1975, with you. I know that you've had a very colourful career and I know that you are presently serving with distinction as Speaker. It's been my pleasure to have got to know you not only as a colleague and as a Speaker but as a friend.

I want to wish each and every one of my colleagues here in the Legislature, the people who work in this building who serve us, and all who come into contact with politics, God's blessing. Thank you very much.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): With the permission of the House, may I take advantage of this unique, non-partisan moment in order to recognize the contribution of the member for Essex South.

It seems to me that it's truly remarkable that at the age of 41, the member for Essex South is one of the longest-serving members of this House. It's remarkable that at a time of great volatility in politics, the constituents of Essex South have so consistently recognized the effectiveness of the representation that Remo Mancini has provided.

It's remarkable that Remo Mancini was just 23 years old when he was first elected to the Legislature in 1975, and it's even more remarkable that he was already a seasoned political veteran, having served as an elected official as reeve of Anderdon township and as deputy reeve of Essex county.

There's one phrase that has been used consistently throughout all those years to describe Remo Mancini: He has always been a very determined individual. Some might add a little bit of embellishment to that, particularly if they happened to have been on the other side of the issue from Remo. "Pit bull" is a term that I have heard used from time to time, and a picture of Remo with a megaphone comes very readily to mind, although I can assure you that neither in committee nor in this House did Remo Mancini ever need any kind of amplification.

Remo has always been a very determined fighter for his constituents and for the issues that he cared about so passionately. He worked tirelessly and effectively in his cabinet portfolios, as minister responsible for disabled persons and then as Minister of Revenue.

I speak for all Liberal members when I say that we will miss Remo's contributions in our caucus and in this House, but I also speak on behalf of our members in wishing Remo well in his new career. After 18 years in the Legislature, and an entire career devoted to public service, a new and exciting opportunity has forced a decision that I know Remo found difficult to make.

He has earned the respect and the appreciation of his constituents over these past 18 years and they will, I know, be pleased that he is going to be able to stay in their community. He will continue to make important contributions to his community, and he will certainly have more time to spend with his family.

On behalf of all of us in the Liberal caucus, I want to express appreciation to Remo Mancini for his 18 years of service as the MPP for Essex South, and we want to offer him our very best wishes for great success in his new career and for much personal happiness.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On behalf of my caucus, I would like to say a few words about Mr Mancini and his contribution to this Legislature. It's somewhat coincidental that there are few members who have been here longer than I, and perhaps the only two that I can recall right now are the Treasurer and Mr Mancini. Just coincidentally, they are the only two members in the Legislature who are shorter than myself as well. It says something about the stature of men in this place and how long they can stay around this place. You might want to include -- never mind, Mr Speaker.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I used to be six feet tall.

Mr Sterling: For the record, the Treasurer wants to indicate that he was six feet when he was first elected to the Legislature. Times are tough.

I think Mr Mancini's record in the former Liberal cabinet bodes well for his new job as president of this new Fantasy Land. I believe that Remo would only wish that we continue our partisan positions, as he has always held a partisan position in this Legislature. No one was ever surprised, when they were in committee or in this Legislature, by the stance Remo Mancini would take in this Legislature. One of the things perhaps people do not understand in politics, as we hear from time to time people talk about free votes in this Legislature and all of those kinds of good individual stands -- I think Remo Mancini perhaps, outside of his constituency, which he stood up for I think admirably during the time he was here, was a loyal party supporter and could be counted on by his party in this place and in committees, and he did a very good job for them there.

1400

I want to say that some of my colleagues who had experience with him during his period as a minister of the crown found that from time to time he would go against his civil servants and let the political will prevail. We in this party appreciated that as a cabinet minister, a politician, he would stand up for what he thought was right in spite of what the bureaucrats around him might have told him, and his decisions sometimes prevailed in those circumstances. The member for Leeds-Grenville was relating a story to me briefly about that before I stood up.

I always found that, when I was on a committee with Mr Mancini, before 1981 and during the last previous Parliament, he always participated; that, as his leader has said, he's a good fighter, and political parties appreciate good fighters to send into committees for committee work, because fighting is necessary in those particular committees.

I would like to wish him well and wish his family well. For a period of time, as you may know, Mr Mancini was ill in this Legislature. I can remember that period, when the many members of this Legislature prayed for his full recovery because of his tremendous participation in this Legislature and how much he gave to it. We were so happy to see his health return; we were happy to see him serve as a minister; we are happy to see him now go on to another stage of his life. I'm sure he will be equal to the challenge. Our best to you, Remo, and our best to your family, who I know have been extremely supportive of you through all of your tremendous career here at Queen's Park.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I'm tempted, as Remo's going to work with an amusement park facility down our way, to say something about him now really taking his constituents for a ride, but I wouldn't dare say anything about that.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): How much did you pay for that one?

Hon Mr Cooke: It's the speechwriters in the Ministry of Education.

Mr Sorbara: Well, that's one civil servant who can go.

Hon Mr Cooke: When I read the article and was contacted by our local paper that Remo was going, my first reaction was, "Oh, great, another by-election." They've been a lot of fun so far.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Are you running out of deposit money?

Hon Mr Cooke: They'll probably take it out of my riding.

Now I don't know what to say. Well, I do have some kind words to say about Remo, and they weren't produced by the Ministry of Education. Many of the members wouldn't know of Remo's reputation back in our area as well as those of us who come from Windsor-Essex. It is really true to say that Remo has over the years developed an incredible reputation down our way of working with individuals, but even more than doing the constituency work on individuals, it's the community networks working with the municipal government and with the school boards down that way that I think have earned him a reputation and, quite frankly, is the reason he got re-elected in the last election at a time that was difficult for his party. He survived that time when southwestern Ontario went a completely different way, and it's a personal tribute to the member for Essex South that he was re-elected because of his hard work back home.

I also know that many people down our way and elsewhere in the disabled community very much appreciated the leadership that he showed when he was in cabinet in the office for the disabled and I think was responsible for bringing many of those issues to government at the provincial level.

But there's one particular time when Remo and I got together that I think is important to repeat, because I think Remo would probably have the reputation in this place as being one of the more partisan members of the Legislature, as would I, I hope. But just before the 1985 election call, after the Catholic school funding had been announced by the then provincial government, there was a very major meeting down in Essex county and Remo and I were invited to represent the provincial Legislature, not something that either of us looked forward to, since the people we were going to see were very much opposed. Considering the fact that an election call was only days away, I must say that the working relationship we developed to explain the government's position, the opposition's position, and no political rhetoric at all, was very important and I think a tribute to the approach Remo can take and will take on very difficult issues in our communities when it's the best thing for the community to proceed and deal with it in a non-partisan way.

Again, very respected in the county, very respected in the city, I know that Remo has for quite some time wanted to spend more time in Essex county with his family. This is completely understandable, and I know that Jo-Anne and his kids are going to very much appreciate the fact that he's going to be able to spend more time with them.

So I personally and on behalf of the government caucus wish you well, congratulate you on your 18-year record of service to the people of our area and the province, and good luck.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): In accepting the resignation from the honourable member for Essex South, may I say to him that he has served with distinction on both sides of this chamber for some 18 years. He has made friends. I will always value his friendship.

I think, perhaps more importantly, through the friends that he's made in all parties, he has demonstrated that he is a friend of Parliament, and that's a living legacy for the member for Essex South. My very best wishes for your future. Thank you for serving this House with distinction.

It is time for oral questions and the Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will direct my first question to the Treasurer. Today the government began negotiating the so-called social contract. At least we think it was the beginning; we're a little unsure, with recent news reports. But on the very day that negotiations were scheduled to begin, or have begun, we are no closer to understanding what the social contract is and exactly what it is meant to achieve than we were two weeks ago. The press report suggests that even the Premier himself says that the social contract can't be defined until it is negotiated.

I would ask the Treasurer this: Taxpayers, public sector employees, want to know what you intend to accomplish through the social contract. Can you tell us, how much money do you expect to save? What jobs are on the chopping block? Do you have any idea of what you are trying to do?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Perhaps I could answer the last part of the question first. Yes, we do have a pretty good idea of what we want to accomplish through the social contract negotiations. I hope the leader of the official opposition has been following the way this whole issue has unfolded, because what we said from the beginning -- if you would allow me, Mr Speaker, to go back a bit -- when we brought down our budget last spring, we said we had three priorities. One was to preserve the essential services of the province, the other was to do something on job creation, the best we could, and the other was to keep the deficit in check.

What we are saying now, to her and to everybody else in this province, is that there are three components to making those things happen. One is that we're able to continue to provide investment and encourage investment in this province, the other is that we have an obligation to raise revenues, and the third is that we must contain the expenditures of this province.

By putting those three components together in what I hope will be an equitable way, a way which will allow us to achieve our targets while at the same time being as fair as possible to the employees of this government and to all of the taxpayers all across this province, I hope that will be the result of the social contract, the negotiations we'll be entering into almost as we speak.

1410

Mrs McLeod: The Treasurer attempts to put as fine a face on this as he possibly can, but the reality is that this month the Premier emerged from your caucus retreat and discovered he had a financial crisis. Since then, this government has done absolutely nothing except create utter chaos and confusion.

Let me remind you of what has evolved in the last couple of weeks, Treasurer. There was first talk about 18,000 layoffs, the next day there was talk about wage rollbacks, the day after that there was some mention about the suspension of collective bargaining and then there was discussion about sitting down to negotiate something called a social contract, which nobody including the Premier can even define.

The fact is, if you wanted to get cooperation from unions, you should have sat down with them a year ago, when you could have discussed some plans and acted on some of the ideas. You didn't need to wait until the crisis hit.

Treasurer, you've got to bring in a budget one month from now. You know what the bottom lines for your budget have to be. I ask you, is it not true that you're prepared to back up your budget decisions with legislation and that you have already hired legal counsel to begin drafting that legislation? Is it not true that this entire social contract negotiating process is a sham?

Hon Mr Laughren: I very much hope that in the dark recesses of the mind of the leader of the official opposition there isn't lying there perhaps a somewhat repressed hope that we will fail in this venture, because we are determined to make it work.

For the first time I think in the history of this country, we are prepared to sit down with the people who deliver very important services all across this country -- employees all across this province and employees and employers in the broader public sector as well. I suspect the official opposition or the third party would simply have come in with some kind of sledgehammer and said, "This is the way we're going to do it." That's not the way this government operates.

What we are saying is that we are going to do the best we can to sit down with those people whom we consider to be our partners and see if we can work out the right combination of expenditure reductions and compensation in the public sector to see if we can arrive at a final product called the budget, at which point we will share it with everybody in the province.

Mrs McLeod: In the deep, dark recesses of my mind, I actually once had a little glimmer of hope that you would have figured out you had a problem in time to do something about it.

I would suggest that those very people whose cooperation you are now seeking to help you solve your problem are as confused about the process you've embarked upon as we are. You are well aware that the unions are threatening this province with an across-the-province strike if job cuts and wage rollbacks are part of the social contract. Now we have Michael Decter, who is your chief negotiator, apparently prepared to offer the unions greater control over government policies and government programs in return for their cooperation in cutting a deal. This only adds to our confusion about what in fact is going on.

I would ask you very specifically, as an example, is it now the government's intention to allow the Ontario Public Service Employees Union to stop decisions about government relocations to communities like St Catharines, Peterborough and Brantford? Is it your intention to hand over the decision-making powers to unions? Is this government so desperate for short-term, quick-fix solutions that you're actually prepared to hand over your long-term accountability?

Hon Mr Laughren: Nothing could be further from the truth, absolutely nothing. That is really silly talk coming from the leader of the official opposition.

I can tell you that what we are trying to do is sit down with the people who deliver the services in this province, both employees and employers, who know a great deal about the best way to deliver services and how to do it more efficiently than is being done now. We think we're the first government in the history of this province that has ever had the sensitivity to sit down with employees and say: "Is there a better way to make the whole system work? Because we want you, the employees of this government, to be a part of the solution to the problem in which we find ourselves."

I can tell you that from what I hear the leader of the official opposition saying, her idea of industrial relations is in some kind of time warp and, as far as her ideas of alternatives to the dilemma in which we find ourselves are concerned, I find that they are -- are you ready for this? -- completely bereft of substance.

Mrs McLeod: The time warp is the suggestion from the Treasurer that you could undertake the most extensive intervention in the collective bargaining progress we have ever contemplated and do it in a month, in time for his budget.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will direct my second question, although on the same subject, in this case to the Chairman of Management Board. In a statement on the social contract, the Premier talked about the need for sacrifice and for restraint, but it seems to us that the Premier's vision about sacrifice and restraint begins everywhere except at home.

The Premier has talked about restructuring government. All we've seen are eight more MPPs on ministry payrolls. Meanwhile, the NDP has also increased its political staff since it took office by over 14%. Far from showing restraint, executive assistants to ministers, as an example, are now paid up to $84,000, 17% more than they could have been paid when the NDP took office.

I simply ask the minister, is this your idea of getting your own house in order?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet): The process that's gone on since the election of 1990, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out on a number of occasions, is a process that has involved discussions with the whole of the civil service in this province. There have been negotiations in 1990, 1991 and 1992 with the public sector. We have done the same with our own employees and, as we move into the kinds of discussions we're moving into with the public sector, we'll do the same with our own.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: It is a little bit difficult to know how to frame a supplementary when the minister has responded to something entirely different from the question I asked, which was a question about political staff, entirely within the government's direct control, not a subject for negotiation with the union.

It seems to me that a reorganization in which you end up with more people and more costs is not exactly the model that this government would want to go into negotiations on the social contract with. The Ministry of Education and Training alone now supports six NDP MPPs. There is one superminister, one junior minister and four parliamentary assistants. The Premier's office numbers have increased by 54%, representing some additional 20 staff people.

Again I ask the minister, what message does this give to the people --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: -- with whom you are now trying to negotiate cost restraints and rollbacks?

Hon Mr Charlton: I simply repeat my answer to the Leader of the Opposition's first question, that we'll deal, as we deal with the public service in this province, with our own employees with the same expectations.

Mrs McLeod: It seems to me that this government's credibility is in real question as it now sits down to talk with people about cost savings and spending cuts. If you're serious about cost cutting, it is important to consider all spending, both the big things and the little things. So let me ask the minister the most simple and most basic of questions.

It seems to me that it would have been so easy not to spend more taxpayers' dollars on meeting rooms when existing government facilities are available at virtually no additional cost to the taxpayers. We know that over 100 people attended the secret cabinet meetings this weekend, where no decisions were to be made, and that this cost the taxpayer something between $7,000 and $18,000. Now, Minister, I acknowledge that is not a big sum of money in relation to a $17-billion deficit, but that kind of expense certainly flies in the face of everything this government keeps saying about cost restraints and trying to control expenditures.

I simply ask you, if your government wanted to cut spending, why didn't you start by holding the meeting in the Macdonald Block next door, where there were rooms available at virtually no cost?

1420

Hon Mr Charlton: There are no facilities where there are no costs. We held the cabinet meeting over the weekend in a facility that we happen to own.

The member likes to ask about cost-cutting. In the political staff to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred, there have been cuts. We went through cuts just two short months ago, cuts that reduced staff and saved dollars to the tune of $250,000 in terms of salaries and wages.

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

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Treasurer, Minister of Finance -- I'm not sure of his new title. I know there are so many.

Treasurer, you've been making the claim that in a no-change scenario, if you don't take any action, you'll have a $17-billion deficit. However, Treasurer, that figure is arrived at only if you spend next year 9.1% more than you did in this current year.

Surely with inflation running 1.5% to 2%, you don't intend to increase spending by that amount. For example, your own numbers indicate health care spending will go up 4.9%, compared to less than 1% last year. I'm sure that number serves Mr Decter well in the discussions he's about to undertake and puts him in a rather embarrassing position. Spending on education last year fell 3%, but you say this year it's going to go up 9.2% according to your projections.

How can you justify these massive increases in expenditures at the same time as you're calling for cutbacks?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): We can't; that's exactly the point. I'm glad to have the leader of the third party reinforce it. We cannot have those kinds of increases in expenditures for 1993-94. We understand that. That's one reason we spent the weekend at the government-owned facility just this past weekend dealing with the whole question of expenditures and expenditure reductions.

Mr Harris: Well, why would you print those numbers?

Hon Mr Laughren: What we're trying to tell you is that that's the direction we were headed unless we take these actions. That's exactly where we were going to be. There's nothing mysterious about it.

Mr Harris: What Minister of Education said they wanted 9% more?

Hon Mr Laughren: If you'd let me answer the question, if you think that we would have anything to gain by jacking up our numbers on expenditures, I don't know what you think it would be. I don't know wherein you think the gain would lie, because that would inflame you, for example, if we were to announce that we had expenditure increases of 9% next year, and we're saying that's completely unacceptable. That's one point.

Second point: We say that the deficit level is unsustainable at those levels and we are determined to get those deficit levels down --

The Speaker: Will the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- so that we can put that money into job creation and the protection of services in this province.

Mr Harris: You still didn't tell me whether it was the Minister of Education who said he wanted 9% more. Was it the Minister of Health or Michael Decter who said he wanted 4.5% more? Where did the numbers come from? That was the simple question.

Now, will the Minister of Finance agree with me that if total expenditures for the province of Ontario were not cut but flat-lined -- if you didn't cut, but you flat-lined the total expenditures from last year -- the budget deficit would be $12.6 billion, not $17 billion? Those are your figures, not mine, if you just flat-line the expenditures instead of going up 9.1.

So if you work downwards from there, from your figures, flat-lining -- the Conference Board of Canada projects provincial tax revenue increases of 7%. I know you disagree with them, but, you know, given your record over the last three years -- and I know how tough it is to forecast -- I think the Conference Board of Canada has a little more credibility than you do, Mr Treasurer, if you check the numbers. Given that if you have an increase of 7% and you flat-line expenditures, without actually cutting, just flat-lining, you are starting your negotiations from a deficit position of $9.2 billion.

Can you explain to me why you're running around this province telling the unions, telling financial institutions, that your no-change scenario is $17 billion, when in fact, if you would flat-line your expenses, take the conference board figures, the deficit's $9.2 billion? Can you explain that?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm not sure I can the way the leader of the third party has put his question, but I'm also not sure whether he's saying relax, there's not a problem out there, which is very strange coming from the leader of the third party.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): He wants to spend more. You have to be prudent, Mike. You can't go on, spend, spend, spend, Mike.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: We believe we cannot sustain --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Laughren: We believe we cannot sustain the growth in expenditures that in many cases has been built into the system. It really has become a structural deficit, keeping in mind that year after year after year programs were layered one on top of the other and nothing was lopped off the bottom. That was done by governments going right back to the Tories and the Liberals.

What we are saying is enough is enough, the time has come to get our house in order because we think that our priorities should be the creation of new jobs in this province and the protection of essential services. There's nothing mysterious about that. We think that for the long-run health of this province, this is the kind of action that we simply must take.

Mr Harris: I agree $9.2 billion is unacceptable. It was just two years ago 5,000 people stood on the front lawn and said your $10-billion deficit was unacceptable, that it needed to be cut. Now $10 billion seems to be your target. I agree, there's built-in spending in the programs that the Liberals irresponsibly brought into this province through their five-year tenure. We agree with all that.

But, Treasurer, if your target is only $9 billion, and I suggest to you it should be lower than that if you want to actually cut, can you explain to me, given the Conference Board of Canada projections, given you don't have to cut a nickel, just flat-line, why you're talking about tax hikes to get below $10 billion? Can you explain that?

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the official opposition has been around here long enough to know --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: Long enough, period, yes -- to know that flat-lining isn't as simple as he puts it. What do you do with entitlement programs? What do you do with increases in enrolments in our post-secondary institutions? What do you do with the increases on the public debt, because even a small deficit adds to the total debt and increases the interest on the public debt that we have to pay. You cannot get away with a simplistic analysis that says that if you just flat-line all programs you don't have to take any cuts. That is simply ludicrous.

Mr Harris: I'll tell the Treasurer this: I wouldn't put up with a Minister of Education who says, "I want to spend 9% more money next year," and I wouldn't print it. I wouldn't even print it to embarrass him.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Chairman of Management Board. I have a copy of an interest arbitration award made on June 29, 1992. It concerns a dispute between Sudbury Youth Services and OPSEU. On page 6 of the award, the chair of the arbitration board specifically points to the "involvement of various government ministers in ending the strike."

Minister, can you tell me why the Treasurer, why the Minister of Northern Development, why the MPP for Sudbury and why the former Chairman of Management Board were interfering in a process of dispute resolution between the management and the employees of the Sudbury Youth Services?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet): No, I can't.

Mr Harris: As the Chairman of Management Board and given the very strong condemnation written right into the judgement by the panel, I am astounded that that hasn't been brought to your attention. I'm astounded it hasn't been brought to your attention, but let me bring it to your attention.

The arbitrator states that the government -- this is in quotes -- "effectively abandoned its role as a neutral third party, usurped the prerogatives and the bargaining rights of management, utterly compromised the next set of negotiations; the government destroyed management's credibility."

1430

Minister, given these comments, would you not agree that the Treasurer, the Minister of Northern Development and the former Chair of Management Board acted improperly in a labour dispute?

Hon Mr Charlton: Based on the information that was passed to me this afternoon, I can't conclude that but I'm certainly prepared to look into the matter.

Mr Harris: I appreciate your looking into the matter. Interest arbitration, you know, is an alternative to collective bargaining that was chosen by management and by employees.

Certainly, the Treasurer and the former Chair of Management Board knew better than to interfere. The ministers had to know that they were violating, if not the act, potentially the conflict of interest act and certainly the spirit of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

In summary, the arbitrator in this matter concluded, "The government was an officious meddler and as such must bear the consequences of its actions."

Minister, I would ask you, as the Chair of Management Board, and in the absence of the Premier, who doesn't set any standards anyway: How many more times will you as Chairman of Management Board allow members of your government to intervene in places where they have no business intervening and before -- "before," because the Premier will not set any standards for that -- we have even more negotiations under your government's control and your ministry's control compromised in the province of Ontario? Can you tell me that?

Hon Mr Charlton: I have given my assurance to the member that I'll look into the matter and I'm not going to comment any further until I have.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, the purpose of the question is to try to get a better idea of the goals you have and your government has for the budget and the negotiation process that's ongoing right now.

Our understanding is fairly clearly that your target is now a deficit of between $8 billion and $10 billion, and that's a combined what you would call operating and capital deficit -- between $8 billion and $10 billion.

We understand that the compensation package for the public sector and broader public sector is about $43 billion, from your documents. We further understand, from media reports, that it is your intention to reduce that by the range of $2 billion to $3 billion. That, I understand from published reports, is the target.

Can you confirm for the House today that that is the goal the government has set for itself as it opens this round of collective bargaining?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I think the member for Scarborough-Agincourt would not want me to engage in collective bargaining in the Legislative Assembly in case somebody's watching, and I wouldn't want to confirm or deny that. All I can say to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is that we do see the necessity of sitting down with the employees and employers out there in the public sector and seeing what kind of solution can be arrived at in order that we are able to achieve the goals that the member refers to, which are accurate.

Mr Phillips: The reason I raise it is that I think that unless you clarify that -- and we've had the Premier apparently indicating it's $2 billion to $3 billion -- the problem is that we have -- and all of us have been through this in talking to individuals on the weekend -- extreme rumours. We have people thinking there's going to be a 20% reduction in the public service; we have others who believe they're going to have a 15% wage rollback; there's also talk about a six, six and six program.

The problem is that with those kinds of rumours it makes it very difficult for both sides to enter this process if you don't put some walls around your goals and objectives. And if you want to leave it to rumour rather than allowing the parties to deal as well as they can with fact, and you've laid out your targets for your budget -- you know what kinds of revenues you're going to get. You know what revenues are coming in. You have a window. You know the numbers. I would say to you, Treasurer or Minister of Finance, and I'd say to the Premier that you can make this process proceed far better if the two sides have some idea of what your goals and your objectives are, rather than allowing rumours to run rampant.

I wonder if you would undertake to commit to the people of Ontario and the members of the House that you will outline today -- ideally today; if not, very shortly -- what the goals are that the government has set for itself as it heads into this important collective bargaining process.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, Mr Speaker, I don't think the member would want us to sit down with people to engage in a collective bargaining process, maybe not collective bargaining in the way many of us have seen it in the past, and go in and say, "This is it; our way or the highway, and nothing is negotiable." I mean, it is a negotiating process that we're engaged in and to foreclose that aspect of it really wouldn't make any sense at all.

I would make a commitment to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, though, that we will be sharing more information with the assembly, with the public at large and with the people at the social contract table with the kind of decisions that we have to make and that they can help us make; at least, I assume that they will help us make those decisions.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to ask the Minister of Labour to confirm that it currently takes one year to 18 months for claims filed with the wage protection program to be processed and paid.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): To the best of my knowledge, that is an extensive time frame. I think at the moment, it's between five and six months to finalize a claim.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, you should check your facts with your officials, because when I called them last week I was told that it was not at all unusual for claimants to wait 12 to 18 months for their claims to be validated and paid. Indeed, a group of 88 workers at Waterloo Industries in Waterloo filed a claim 14 months ago. When my office called to check on the status of that particular claim, we were told that despite the fact that the claim had been filed in February 1992, nobody -- if you can believe this -- has yet been assigned to investigate and validate the claim.

Minister, this is another example of your government's mismanagement. This wage protection program is a cruel joke that's being perpetrated by your government on the workers of this province. It fails to promote economic renewal, and yet in a news release that you issued October 16, 1991, you said: "This program is a key initiative to promote economic renewal in Ontario. It is important that employees who have worked and earned these wages receive their money in a timely way."

Minister, in order to avoid economic hardship for workers and their families, why have you personally not taken steps to become aware of what's going on to ensure that these claims are processed more quickly?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member across the way should know that we've paid out more than $83 million already to workers who --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): You didn't even support the bill.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It's their own money, what they're entitled to. We have covered more than 39,000 workers. We started with a delay period that was close to a year and worked that down to about five and a half months. That does not mean there may not be individual cases that will go longer than that, but we are simply paying out money to an extent and to the number of workers who are not getting it anywhere else in North America, and it's not within the time frames that the member is raising.

The Speaker: The Minister of Housing with the response to a question asked earlier.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I would like to correct the record of last Thursday's question period, in which I was responding to a question from the member for Durham East on the subject of land-lease communities.

I indicated at that time that the Rental Housing Protection Act applied to those communities. It does not. But I would like to underline what I said in that response, which is that we are anxious to help people who live in land-lease communities in mobile homes --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You can't even get your plant questions right. Holy smokes.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- to take full advantage of protections that are provided them under the Landlord and Tenant Act and the rent control act.

1440

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, you will have heard the Treasurer's response earlier with regard to a question asked by my leader on the social contract negotiations that are going on. He said that his goal was "to preserve services, to create jobs and to fight the deficit."

Minister, from what we hear, the social contract plan is already in a shambles. In fact, the latest information I have is that the negotiations have been postponed; we're not sure until when. The civil service, of course, is threatening job action across the province. Minister, it seems to me that you're going to be left with one choice: You're going to have to bring in legislation to override the existing collective bargaining agreements between the public sector unions and your government.

You, sir, are the minister, entrusted with ensuring harmonious relationships. In fact, from your own government publication it says, "The Ministry of Labour's mission is to advance safe, fair and harmonious workplace practices, which are essential to the social and economic wellbeing of the people of Ontario." That's your ministry description of your role. Legislation to override existing public sector agreements would violate that collective bargaining process, which you above all members in the government are dedicated to supporting. Would you, the Minister of Labour, support legislation that abrogates the existing public sector collective agreements and flies in the face of collective bargaining in this province?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want to say that we're sitting down in an effort, as we call it, at a social contract with the workers in the province of Ontario because we have simply recognized that the current expenditures of the province of Ontario cannot continue at the same rate they have. We have decided that rather than just deciding we're going to do a wage freeze or a rollback or something unilateral, it makes a lot more sense to sit down, put the situation in the province of Ontario on the table, put some of the options we've thought of and say to our colleagues across the table: "Have you got other ideas? Can you give us some better answers? Will you sit down and discuss the kind of problems we have in the province of Ontario?" We think that is the essence of collective bargaining in this province, which we are prepared to do, and it's not any prejudged route that we've gone.

Mr Mahoney: There are many labour leaders in this province who I think would be somewhat shocked to hear particularly this minister, a former active member and organizer for the United Steelworkers, standing up in this place and in essence saying that he will be prepared indeed -- that's what I heard -- to take away their rights to collective bargaining. Further to that, what he's saying is that the new way for the NDP to bargain in good faith is to do it through the media with threats of rollbacks and layoffs.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Chatham-Kent, come to order.

Mr Mahoney: Instead of sitting down with these people in a reasonable way, through economic terrorism they're challenging all the unions to get involved in the political fight of their lives, forcing them to threaten province-wide cuts.

The Speaker: Would the member place a question.

Mr Mahoney: Can Bob Mackenzie really be the Minister of Labour that is supporting these tactics? It's astounding to me. Minister, is this why you became the Minister of Labour in this government, to take away workers' rights? Do you feel that this is a fair use of government power against the public service unions? Will you answer that question directly?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to say that the fight I've had all my life is to see that workers and their organizations do have a say in the decisions that are made. Many of the decisions that have been made in the past in this province have not given them any credit or recognized that they may have a contribution to make to our future. When we're faced with the kind of problems we're facing, we want to involve the workers of the province of Ontario; that's exactly what we're trying to do.

ACADEMIC STREAMING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Mr Minister, with the new destreaming initiative that your government is implementing, all students will be in one class, regardless of their ability. We know that all students should be challenged on a regular basis. With destreaming, neither our gifted students nor our learning disabled students can receive the individual stimulation that is needed for them to develop their true potential, which is a principle, Mr Minister, that you worked very hard for during those long and hard debates around special education legislation in this province. Your party knows it as well as ours does.

If schools are no longer able to offer advanced, general or basic level classes designed to meet the particular needs of our students, how will our special students be challenged on a regular basis?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I appreciate the question, and I think it's important for the member and all members of the House to take a look at some of the evidence and the discussion that took place in the select committee of the Legislature on education that looked at the question of streaming and destreaming and came to the conclusion that grade 9, and in fact grade 10, should be destreamed.

I don't think it's appropriate or a fair description of what the government is doing to say it is anything terribly radical. We already destream at the elementary level. All we're suggesting is that grade 9 be destreamed so that kids are not streamed off and opportunities and alternatives closed off to them at the end of grade 8.

Much work has gone into this, not only by our government but by previous governments. We know that the current streamed system in the province does not serve working-class kids and kids of immigrant families and other disadvantaged families very well at all; in fact it serves them very poorly. This government is absolutely committed to equity in education, and equity will be served with a destreamed system at the grade 9 level.

Mrs Cunningham: The minister is absolutely wrong when he says all elementary classes are destreamed. That's not in fact the case. There are many streamed classes in our elementary schools, especially to meet the needs of our special education students, and many of our ongoing English-as-a-second-language classes will have to be destreamed at the secondary level in order to meet the needs.

But we have a specific example for you, Mr Minister, that we hope you'll listen carefully to. Chippewa Secondary School in North Bay currently offers a grade 9 University of Waterloo mathematics contest class. These special contest classes are being implemented around the province and the universities look very closely at how the schools do in these contest classes in order to encourage women and men to enter into engineering, science and mathematics studies at the university level.

In 30 contests held over the last six years, the school has received 21 firsts and has been the top finisher among North Bay secondary schools some 24 times. Students cover the same material as their peers but at a much quicker pace. These students significantly benefit from this type of challenge, and it's the kind of focus the universities are putting on mathematics classes as pre-engineering requirements.

Since we are striving for excellence and the principal of this school was told by an assistant deputy minister --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place her question, please.

Mrs Cunningham: -- that this class will no longer be offered under destreaming, my question is this: How can we justify, given our objectives, the deputy minister's comments around this class? Why will this particular class and classes like it not be allowed? At the same time, I have to tell you that I am a member of one of the subcommittees of the Premier's Council which is recommending those kinds of classes, and I'm asking for a clarification here.

Hon Mr Cooke: I'll have to take a look at the specific class the member is referring to, but I can say that one thing I do not support as Minister of Education would be an approach that only a certain number of classes and a certain number of students get the best education in the province. If there's a problem with the regular classrooms in this province, if we need to improve those classes, then it's our position that we should be doing that for all the students of the province, not just a few. That's our goal, to make the entire system excellent, not just part of the system excellent.

1450

PAY EQUITY

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues, and if I may, I'd like to take a moment to congratulate the minister on the position she has accepted and give her my best wishes.

Statistics Canada, as you know, released a report on April 15, 1993, which states that the number of women in the highest-paying occupations has increased by 53% in the five-year period between 1985 and 1990. While this is fine for those women who have made these significant gains, most women still remain in traditional occupations which are low-paid. My question, Madam Minister, is, what is the government of Ontario doing for the women who account for 72% of all people in the 10 poorest-paid occupations?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I'm pleased that the member has raised the question, because as a government we certainly recognize that although women have made significant inroads into the highest-paid occupations, we still earn on average 61% of what men earn in the same occupations. That's why our pay equity bill is so important to us. All women should be earning the amount of money that adequately compensates them for the true value of their work. Our legislation will add over 400,000 women to the legislation that now covers pay equity.

In addition, we've developed some creative projects to introduce young women into non-traditional trades. One of the examples would be the women's access to apprenticeship program. The Jobs Ontario Training fund is also another program that is geared to help women in the lowest-paid sectors access long-term and better-paying jobs. It helps them to break their dependency on social assistance by providing child care subsidies in addition to the training subsidy that's provided by the private sector job.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: Of course, then, employment equity is the other issue to encourage women to fully participate in the labour force.

TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, as you know, there are several major problem areas that are facing your ministry. We've already heard from our colleague the member for London North around the mismanagement of the whole destreaming issue. I now want to raise the question of funding.

Minister, it's now over six months since the government announced that there were going to be some $53 million provided for transition projects, and a very elaborate system was set out. Much was made by the government of those funds. The minister must recognize that any commitment of dollars to school boards is precious because of the very difficult financial situation they find themselves in.

It is my understanding that as of today, of those $53 million that were promised, that were committed by your government, only $20 million have actually gone out to school boards. Minister, can you tell us, will the remaining $33 million actually get to school boards, and when will you be announcing that those moneys are going to flow?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I believe it's a little higher than $20 million that went out before the end of the last fiscal year, and the balance of the money was carried over to the new fiscal year. But as with all expenditures of the government, that expenditure and those dollars are being reviewed and a final decision hasn't been made.

Mr Beer: The minister's answer leads me then into the second part of the question. If, as is clear from what the minister has just said, it is quite possible that a commitment which the government made last year to school boards is in fact not going to be met, let me then ask the minister about the strange 2% figure, the $99 million which this government stated last fall was going to flow to school boards. Remember again that this is a government that said, "When we make a commitment on funding, we are going to honour it." That 2% turned out to be a $99-million fund which, if the boards were good girls and boys, might just flow and might not.

In the month of March, you sent out a series of memoranda to school board chairs and then directors of education which indicated that the $99 million would flow in July 1993. Minister, the question is, can you state to this House today that in fact every cent of those $99 million, of that sum, will actually flow to school boards, or have you already said that this money is now off the table and no such funding will be provided to the school boards, whether in July or in any other month of this year?

Hon Mr Cooke: I can tell the member that there are a lot of difficult decisions that are facing this cabinet and the Minister of Education and Training. Priorities are going to have to be set. Yes, he's correct that a letter went out in March indicating that the $99 million in transitional funding would go out in July. But I cannot make an absolute commitment, in view of the falling revenues and the difficulties the government finds itself in, that this money will still go out. No decisions are final at this point.

INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY SPENDING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. Your ministry gave the Interim Waste Authority $25 million last year to set up, operate and find three dump sites to serve the greater Toronto area. That money, as I understand, has been spent in the first year of operation. Mr Minister, I would like you to clarify to this House exactly how much the Interim Waste Authority is going to spend for the entire process of establishing three dumps in the greater Toronto area.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I'll let the Minister of the Environment respond to the member.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): What's the answer?

Mr Tilson: Do I understand the minister's saying it's not his ministry? I'm shocked. I think he's dead wrong. If he looks at his portfolio, he is responsible for the greater Toronto area. The Interim Waste Authority money came from your ministry. I'm shocked that you don't know what's going on over there. You have no idea what's going on. I must confess, you're giving this Interim Waste Authority a blank cheque to write unbelievable amounts of money and you have no idea that it's coming from your ministry.

I'm going to ask the minister again the question whether he has any idea whether he's responsible for the funding of the Interim Waste Authority. Talk it over with your colleague; you're responsible.

Hon Mr Philip: The honourable member should know that it's an arm's-length authority. I do not have an up-to-date figure on that at the moment. I said that I would get the information for him. The member obviously didn't listen to the answer to his first question or he wouldn't have asked the second question in the way in which he did.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is for the Treasurer. In a recent edition of the St George Lance, the member for Brant-Haldimand, in his Queen's Park report, made some very interesting comments. In his report he wrote, "In addition to the rising unemployment figures in the province of Ontario, the deficit is running out of control." He also put in his Queen's Park report, "Since the NDP took power in 1990, the province has gone from a modest surplus of $100,000 to an astonishing deficit of over $13 billion." He also put in his report, "By the end of Bob Rae's term of office, he and his government will have more than doubled the total debt of the province to well over $80 billion." He concluded, "Lack of fiscal responsibility will surely encourage or discourage our recovery."

My question to the Treasurer is, are these comments valid or is the member for Brant-Haldimand merely on a flight of fantasy?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Did the member for Brant-Haldimand really say that? The member for Brant-Haldimand is not far off when he talks about the increasing size of the total debt. That is a very major problem, and it's one reason we're going through what we're going through now. So I don't have any problem with that.

However, I would urge all members of the Liberal caucus to be very careful in their criticism in order that they don't embarrass themselves, because I would remind you that in the 1980s, when we had record growth in the economy in this province, at the same time we had record tax increases brought in by the Liberal government. Despite those two factors, that government increased the public debt by 33% in five short years.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Baloney.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): You didn't even budget for it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the Minister of Transportation.

1500

NIAGARA PENINSULA CHILDREN'S CENTRE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This question is for the Minister of Health. Everyone in the House knows that the Minister of Health has been allocated a certain amount of money within the budget that has been provided last year by the Treasurer, and that she will have a certain amount this year.

From within that allocation that she will be given by the Treasurer for the purposes of expenditures in the province, would the minister assure the people of the Niagara Peninsula, specifically those who have children who receive services at the Niagara Peninsula Children's Centre, that she will be giving the final approval for construction to commence on the redevelopment project, which will at long last give an opportunity for those children to be adequately cared for by the very dedicated staff which is in place at this time?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm sure the member for St Catharines, given his long interest in this subject, will know that the planning for the project about which he is concerned has been going on for much longer than the last couple of years. I know I heard his statement this afternoon in members' statements. I have undertaken to ask my ministry for an up-to-date status report on the project. Other members in the Niagara Peninsula have already indicated to me their interest in seeing this proceed, and while I cannot give the member a definite yes or no at this point, I can assure him of my interest and that I will follow up on the subject.

Mr Bradley: The original approval to move forward with this project was in April 1990, and we are now in April 1993, some three years later. The centre looks after the requirements of more than 1,000 children with physical and communicative disabilities from a building which is designed for perhaps 400 to 500 children.

In light of the fact that the fund-raising committee has been raising funds sometimes based on the fact that the project will be moving forward expeditiously, and in light of the fact that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has indicated that it has $600,000 for part of this project but that that may disappear after a two-year period of time, would the minister not agree with me that since they've gone through all the steps, since they have sent communications to the ministry, as I have in March of this year and previous to that, it would be advisable to move forward immediately with this project to provide those essential services for disadvantaged children in the Niagara region?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am well aware of the very good work that this centre does and of the importance to it of having a decision on its future. I'm also aware of the amount of volunteer effort that goes into this centre and the amount of fund-raising that the community has undertaken, and I commend them highly for that support and for that work. But the member will also realize that we have to begin to plan and to manage our health and social services systems in a way that the minister in his government suggested needed to be done and that our government has in fact begun to do.

All of the children's centres are under review. I understand that review is almost completed, and I can undertake to him that I will have him an answer just as soon as I possibly can.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I hope he's more briefed on municipal affairs than he is on the IWA.

Last weekend, I had the chance to attend many functions in the riding, and the conversation very strongly talked about this county restructuring.

There's a resolution coming before county council next week asking them not to proceed with county restructuring. If the resolution carries to stop county restructuring, I would like to know what your reaction would be, and if the resolution fails, do you plan on bringing in legislation this session to proceed with county restructuring?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I can tell the member -- indeed I've offered him and other members in Simcoe a briefing on restructuring in Simcoe -- that my staff and the local government representatives have been working very hard at bringing about some understanding of what can be done in terms of restructuring. Tiny township and Midland have concluded some differences they had concerning the issue of compensation, and that was a major breakthrough as we move towards a restructuring.

I've told all the parties concerned that I am prepared to move with legislation provided that they can reach a consensus on what has to be done in that area. My staff continue to work with them, and the moment we are able to develop the kind of consensus that will allow us to introduce legislation, we'll be happy to proceed.

As I said, my staff are in the process of contacting all the MPPs who are interested in this issue to come to a meeting, and we'll give them an update on exactly how our deliberations are going on this important issue.

Mr McLean: Thank you, Minister, for the invitation, and yes, I'll be there. But many of the reeves -- I wanted the issue raised as soon as possible so they would have some input in that resolution they're going to deal with next week. A lot of them, I know, have sent a letter indicating that they want to know what your position is, and we want to find out whether you're going to proceed or whether you're not.

County council sent a resolution to your previous minister with regard to section 33 within that proposed legislation. It's very concerning to them to have that removed. Your previous minister said he would not remove it. The question I have is, in order to proceed with that legislation and to try and get some cooperation from this side, would you remove section 33 from that?

Hon Mr Philip: I've told all municipalities that I will review the status of all the outstanding issues, including those in Simcoe, and I intend to review all of the issues.

Again, my staff are working with all of the parties to try and bring about a consensus on all of the issues. Hopefully, with the help of the honourable member and other MPPs as well as some understanding and cooperation of all of the elected representatives in the area, we will arrive at some kind of consensus and can move with legislation that'll be satisfactory. Without that consensus, then I don't think we will be proceeding.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): My question is to the Treasurer. Over the past year, I've heard members of both opposition parties rise in this House and put forward questions to ministers of this government that demand additional spending. One would get the impression that the opposition parties in this House are intent on a policy of "Spend, spend, spend."

Now, Treasurer, we are trying to take a responsible direction of fiscal restraint. Is it possible, Treasurer, that you could provide, let's say, the approximate cost of the spending proposals that have emanated from the opposition benches over the last 12 months?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): We could, but we're not prepared to invest in a computer that will take numbers up that high. I would say, however, that what the member for Cambridge refers to is absolutely true.

You know, last week, I must confess, I was on my sickbed and I was watching television. I was watching the opposition members demand more and more spending. They haven't stopped. They're still demanding more and more spending, and they never say, "Why don't you end this program if you're going to introduce a new one?" No, no, they just keep saying, "Spend more and more and more." Those days are over, despite the fact that the opposition would like them to continue.

PETITIONS

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by 1,495 residents of Cornwall and Stormont county. It's addressed to the honourable Minister of Community and Social Services and the Legislative Assembly.

"We, the undersigned, call on the government of Ontario to reverse its decision to cut funding to community services for people who have developmental disabilities.

"The effect of such cuts will result in unacceptable hardship to vulnerable people and their families. In Cornwall and Stormont county, hundreds of citizens depend on their services and rely on the government to ensure their continuation through the commitment of an annualized budget that reflects the realities of escalating costs of living."

I also have signed this petition.

1510

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is a petition signed by residents from Unionville and the town of Markham.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas on October 24, 1991, the NDP government introduced Bill 143, the Waste Management Act, and tried to force the Legislature to pass the bill before Christmas 1991 without public consultation or notification to affected municipalities and residents and without naming the candidate landfill sites; and

"Whereas the NDP were forced into five weeks of public hearings and listened to over 200 presenters, all recommending amendments to Bill 143; and

"Whereas the NDP refused to listen or to pass any opposition amendments to Bill 143 which would protect and secure individual and municipal rights to full environmental assessment hearings on waste alternatives such as rail haul; and

"Whereas the NDP used their majority to pass Bill 143 on April 23, 1992, with the full support and endorsement from Jim Wiseman, MPP, Durham West, Larry O'Connor, MPP, Durham-York, Gordon Mills, MPP, Durham East; and

"Whereas the NDP named 57 candidate landfill sites on June 4, 1992; and

"Whereas Ruth Grier and the Premier refuse to meet with groups opposing the dumps and refuse to consider the alternatives like rail haul, contrary to Mrs Grier's support of rail haul in January 1991; and

"Whereas Mrs Grier refused to meet with the residents and mayor of Kirkland Lake to review the Adams mine proposal and proceeded to ban rail haul without considering the impact on the northern economy; and

"Whereas the NDP government created the Interim Waste Authority to find a solution to GTA waste and operate independently from the Ministry of the Environment, but at the same time the IWA must adhere to Mrs Grier's ideology and her ban of waste alternatives such as rail haul and incineration; and

"Whereas the IWA and the NDP government refuse to conduct an environmental assessment on the alternatives and remain firm on subjecting communities in the regions of York, Durham and Peel to a process that ignores their fundamental rights to a review of alternatives and employs a system of criteria ranking that defies logic and leads to the selection of dump sites on environmentally sensitive areas, prime agricultural land and sites located near urban areas;

"We, the undersigned, want Bill 143 revoked and replaced with a bill that would allow a full environmental assessment on all waste management options."

So submitted and signed by myself.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Of these petitions I have today, again on the casino issue, none of them are from Dunsford or Bobcaygeon, but many people from Tottenham and Palgrave and Peterborough. They say:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I'm glad to affix my signature to it and to join this with the many thousands of signatures that have already come in on this sorry policy.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by about 60 residents of my community and more to follow. It's addressed to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Municipal Affairs have released Draft Legislation for Apartments in Houses, Granny Flats to permit accessory dwelling units "as of right" in all residential areas and to permit granny flats;

"We, the undersigned, object to the Draft Legislation for Apartments in Houses, Granny Flats for the following reasons and petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"(1) That the province examine the implications that the proposed legislation may have on the rights of property owners, landlords and tenants with respect to their expectations of zoning authority and the neighbourhoods in which they live;

"(2) That the province not entertain this proposed legislation removing the right of local government to regulate development without adequate public notification and opportunity to review and comment on the draft legislation;

"(3) That the local municipality be granted the authority to regulate, license (or register) accessory apartments;

"(4) That the province, in consultation with local and regional authorities, examine methods of compensating the municipality for increased costs of servicing new residential growth (accessory apartments);

"(5) That right of entry for bylaw enforcement officers to inspect accessory apartments during reasonable hours be incorporated into the legislation;

"(6) That representatives from the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be requested to conduct a public meeting in Brampton to discuss the draft legislation with the community; and

"(7) That the city of Brampton supports granny flats as a form of housing intensification subject to the ensurance that the units will be removed at the end of their intended use."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, reading:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows," and it's specifically addressed to Mr Alok Mukherjee, Acting Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission, 400 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario:

"It has come to our attention that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is making a proposal to ban any landlord's right to ask whether prospective tenants have sufficient income to pay their rent and service any other obligations which they may have. This has aroused serious concern on our part with regard to the financial stability of future prospective tenants who possibly cannot afford to pay rent in this building which we, the resident tenants, call home." This is 1000 Huron Street, London, Ontario.

"Also, we feel that it is unfair to ban the right of a prudent business person to ask the most basic questions of a prospective tenant. After all, it is the prospective tenant's wish to enter into a written, 12-month tenancy agreement, promising to make lawful rental payments on a monthly basis for the period of a minimum of one year. How can a person make that promise when in all sincerity they know that they cannot keep their promise? And how can the Human Rights Commission encourage financially insecure individuals to make such a promise? That in itself is very unfair.

"So, as concerned tenants of 1000 Huron Street, London, Ontario, we are sending this petition to request that you refrain from putting this totally unreasonable proposal into the legislation."

I have signed my name to this petition, which is also signed by some 800 families at 1000 Huron Street in London, Ontario.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition about a topic of considerable interest in my riding of Scarborough East, and it's signed by 200 people who put a great deal of work into it just over this last weekend. It's about the Guild property. It reads:

"Whereas the Guild is an important historical, cultural and environmental asset for Scarborough and the province and

"The current state of upkeep is causing widespread concern about the maintenance of its unique heritage,

"We, the undersigned, call on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in cooperation with the government of Metropolitan Toronto to immediately take steps to ensure that the preservation of the Guild envisioned in provincial legislation is maintained."

I'm pleased to sign my signature on this as well.

LIQUOR STORES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition and it's signed by 346 residents of the community of Ear Falls and sponsored by the Ear Falls Promotional Association. It reads:

"Whereas the businesses are dependent on tourism during the summer tourist season;

"Whereas economic times have adversely affected all businesses in Ear Falls;

"Whereas the LCBO liquor store is the only business closed on Mondays,

"We, the undersigned, request that the LCBO liquor store be open on Mondays during the tourist season of mid-May to the end of October."

I have signed my name to that as well.

1520

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I have signed it and it is signed by a number of residents in southeastern Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas post-polio is a new phenomenon to attack survivors of polio; and

"Whereas the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association has been formed to help survivors of polio; and

"Whereas most family practitioners do not have the specialized knowledge to treat post-polio symptoms effectively; and

"Whereas we the members and friends of the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association wish to emphasize to the Ontario government the need to fund a post-polio clinic in Ottawa; and

"Whereas a formal request was presented by the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council in May 1988 and received top priority at that time; and

"Whereas the rehab centre of Ottawa-Carleton has presented a proposal to the Ministry of Health for funds to establish such a post-polio clinic; and

"Whereas there are at least 1,000 known polio survivors in the catchment area of the rehab centre who need the immediate services of a clinic; and

"Whereas there are at least 5,000 survivors in Ontario; and

"Whereas there is only one formally constituted post-polio clinic, which is in Toronto and which has a lengthy waiting list; and

"Whereas the cost and difficulties of several trips to the Toronto clinic and staying overnight each time are often insurmountable for disabled persons; and

"Whereas polio survivors who had no paralysis from the initial attack of polio are not immune from developing post-polio symptoms of varying severity; and

"Whereas research indicates that 80% of polio survivors may develop post-polio symptoms anywhere from 7 to 71 years after the initial attack; and

"Whereas post-polio symptoms are not related to the aging process; and finally

"Whereas because of immigration, the post-polio population will not diminish,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a post-polio clinic in the rehab centre of Ottawa-Carleton for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients and to disseminate information so that the estimated 1,000 known polio survivors in the centre's catchment area can receive adequate treatment and that the medical profession be educated regarding the post-polio syndrome."

I endorse and have signed this petition.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I am presenting a petition signed by 96 members of the Niagara Action for Animals. Their final statement reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to declare an immediate moratorium on the sale and use of municipal pound animals for the purposes of research, and further, that the Minister of Agriculture and Food be directed to prepare amendments to the Animals for Research Act to permanently prohibit the sale and use of pound animals for research."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Michael A. Brown: (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition signed by a number of residents of my riding:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of legal holiday in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of legal holiday and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I will sign this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE / DÉBAT SUR LE DISCOURS DU TRÔNE

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

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, just before the leader of the third party starts his comments, I believe we've reached an agreement that when he has finished his remarks we will move into the rotation on the throne speech and that today and on each day the throne speech debate continues, the time between the finish of his speech today and tomorrow the calling of the orders of the day, we will split that time in three equal packages. That also means the dropping of the rule on time of the half-hour speeches and also that there will be no questions and comments so that we can hear from as many of the members as possible.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is that agreed? Agreed. I'll recognize the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity. The only problem with that deal of the House leaders -- that's assuming I finish today and that I don't carry on tomorrow, Wednesday or Thursday. I assure those who are now getting up and ready to leave that in fact it will not be the case. I do not plan to speak, certainly, at that length on the throne speech.

What I'd like to do is perhaps a little different. I really don't plan to refer too much to the specific throne speech because I think the whole thing is a waste of time and effort anyway. I think the government has missed the point.

They would have been far better off had the throne speech been one page that simply said: "We're very sorry, people of Ontario, for the mistakes of the past two years. We thought we could spend our way out of a recession. We took that tack. We thought it was the right one. We now recognize that everybody else in the province virtually and in the rest of the country was right and we were wrong and we're sorry. You can't spend your way out of this recession, particularly now, and we plan to change course."

You could then in a second paragraph have said: "We are a little bit embarrassed as we've read all the comments that our leader and our now Premier had to say about integrity in government; about calling David Peterson a liar at the start of the last campaign; about all the comments that we made. Truly, we found out in opposition it was a lot easier to sniff out every wrongdoing that we possibly could. In government, we apologize. We've not been able to live up to the standards we set for ourselves and we're very sorry.

"Thirdly, given our abysmal track record in the last couple of years, we would like to signify, by way of this throne speech, to the Legislature and the people of Ontario that we do plan to take a different tack, that we do plan to listen a little more, that we do plan to consult, that some of the suggestions from other members -- there is a better way to proceed. We're taking those seriously and we will do our very best in the year or two years remaining to us."

Had that been the throne speech, that would've been a throne speech of integrity. That would've been a throne speech that accurately, I believe, portrayed the first two years of the mandate. I think every individual member of this caucus, in the NDP, the cabinet and the party would honestly look in the mirror and say, "That reflects our first couple of years." I think it would've reflected an honest intention to do better, do the best that you possibly can, never mind these lofty expectations that, "We're the most caring, compassionate, honest people in the whole world and nobody else but us could possibly meet these standards."

I think that would've met with some credibility. It would've met with some credibility with me, and I think it would've met with some credibility with the people of the province of Ontario. It might have brought some goodwill among the significant partners into what has to be accomplished in the next year or two if we're going to get this province back on track.

I wanted to put on the record what I think the throne speech should have said. It did not say that and I regret that. I think what it did say was some platitudes that really bear no resemblance either to the track record of what the government has done and accomplished, which has been a backward step for this province, and as such I was very disappointed.

Many will recall that I had praised the Premier for some of his statements over the last couple of months leading up to the throne speech in recognizing deficits matter. It's a serious problem. We can't carry on with this spending track. All the things that throne speech after throne speech from various governments, including Progressive Conservative governments way back -- I mean, I don't apologize; I think a lot of those programs were appropriate 20 years ago and 10 years ago, but times have changed -- and particularly the spending of the five years of the Liberals that built into the system those programs, those promises that have been made in elections and in throne speeches and in budgets which could not be sustained. The Premier seemed to indicate some of that, and I applauded him for that.

1530

He talked about a social contract, and it was time to sit down with the public sector unions and employees and say, "Hey, Harris was right, 2% was just about right for our first year," not the 12%, 13%. "We're not going to say that, because we still believe in this whole political notion you never admit you were wrong." But that's the facts of the matter.

So I supported that, but now, just today, we've heard coming out of the first initial meeting that the Premier and the government have already guaranteed job security for the life of the social contract to the unions. This is on the table already. So what we're going to have, I fear, is we're going to have some short-term gain for a year or two, with a long-term even bigger problem.

The social contract talks look, the way they're starting out, like the government still doesn't have the message. It still does not understand. The fundamental problem with the size of government and the bureaucracy and what government says it can do for people -- ie, socialism, government knows better than the private sector, civil servants and politicians can set priorities better than the marketplace, can spend your money better than individuals and families or businesses can -- they haven't grasped that that does not work. It never worked anywhere in the world it was tried, it never worked in any city, any town, any country anywhere, and it is a disaster here in the province of Ontario, and in fact it is government that is in the way of recovery here in this province. It is government that is in the way of Ontario benefiting from the hundreds of thousands if not millions of new job opportunities that are happening all around the globe. As Third World countries are emerging, as they're getting more money, as they're turning to the marketplace and raising their lifestyle, as they are becoming -- I mean, hundreds of millions of new consumers are out there and happening every day, and Ontario's being left behind.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: I was devastated, actually, when the throne speech came out, not as devastated as the lack of understanding and smarty-aleck remarks from the members of the NDP caucus when the truth comes back to them, but I was certainly devastated that the Premier and the cabinet did not seem to grasp the fundamental change that's happening in North America, that's happening around the world and how ill prepared we are to deal with it.

I also, before I just get to a few of the directions we should move in and then leave the rest of the time for other speakers, want to comment about the comments from the leader of the Liberal Party. I mean, the leader of the Liberal Party now says that we shouldn't be hiking taxes. That's a little bit like Donald Trump saying, "Don't open a casino in Ontario." If you look over the five years of the massive tax increases the Liberals brought in to this province and the programs that were unsustainable, quite frankly, that was a worse disgrace than even the bungling you've had, because you are incompetent and we expect you to bungle. You do not appear to believe in the marketplace. We expected that some of the Liberals would have. So perhaps their failure is even greater than yours, in that they might have known they shouldn't have been doing what they did but they did it anyway, for short-term political gain, for political expediency. In your case, the NDP, and in Bob Rae's case, I think it is more incompetence and a lack of understanding of how the marketplace works and what you should do. If I'm wrong and you are smarter than I think, then shame on you too for being as bad as the Liberals, but I think I've correctly portrayed it fairly accurately.

As well, the leader of the Liberal Party says, "This government needs to show leadership. It needs to lead with a sound economic strategy," they say, "but in order to lead, it needs integrity. I am not surprised that this throne speech has nothing to say about integrity, because this government no longer has anything to say about integrity."

That's very true, but I'll tell you, it was the Liberal Party that started the slippery slope down to cabinet minister resignations, to violation of conflict-of-interest guidelines, to making them meaningless. You guys simply fulfilled the process that there are absolutely no standards left and that in fact we don't expect to hold our people accountable. The Liberals violated them time and time and time again. At least after several investigations and after being hounded for 80 or 90 days in a row, they would finally accept it and somebody would resign. You guys just carry on and say it's okay to lie and slander. Those are the new standards à la NDP. I really am surprised, though, that the Liberals talk about that.

I was looking at the Globe and Mail today -- while I'm talking about the Liberals, then I'll move on to what this government should do. It talks in the business section about, "Rae Government Confronted by Hard Truth." There's an interesting little chart in today's Globe and Mail, in the Report on Business, that you might want to look at. It talks about welfare economics; it talks about the jobless rate in Ontario from 1980 through to 1992. That's half of this jobless chart. The second half is Ontario's social spending. This is welfare spending.

Welfare spending in 1981-82, when we were in the middle of a recession, when in fact unemployment and the jobless rate was just about the same as it is now, was about $2.5 billion or $3 billion. Today, welfare spending is about $13 billion. The province was in difficulty then; unemployment was about the same. Welfare spending has gone from about $3 billion to $13 billion in 10 years.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Where did you get those numbers?

Mr Harris: This is your chart from a government source -- sorry, the Statistics Canada Financial Management System. It's in the business section of the Globe. There is another section to the newspaper, you know. There's the sports, the news and the comics and then there's the business section that tells you the business facts. This is from the Statistics Canada Financial Management System. This is the total amount spent on what we call welfare spending. So there's $10 billion more being spent.

Inflation over that period of time has not even doubled. It's gone up about 60%. So what has happened in that period of time? This chart is very interesting, because it says in 1983 welfare spending goes up to almost $4 billion, and then the Liberals took over. The recovery was coming because a foundation had been laid in the late 1970s and the early 1980s because our education system had adapted, because we kept our spending under control, because we had a tax and a regulatory climate that said that when we come out of the recession, Ontario will be yours to discover once again. Plants will want to come here; manufacturers will want to be here; investors will want to be in the province of Ontario, and they did and they came. And welfare spending went up.

In 1986, welfare spending hit $5 billion; in 1987, welfare spending hit $6.5 billion; in 1988, welfare spending hit almost $8 billion. These were the boom years. The money was rolling in. Ontario was booming. They were good times. Why was welfare spending doubling over the good times? Welfare spending should have been going down. People should have been going off welfare and getting jobs and working. Why? Because there was a restructuring taking place and the Ontario Liberals didn't notice it.

This Agenda for People, this accord that was signed was all for wealth redistribution. Everybody wants a bigger piece of the pie. The money's coming in; "We want it." "We want it." "No, we want it. We'll distribute it here," without a cent being invested back into the infrastructure and the education system and the skills required for the new jobs that are coming, for the information age.

The number of manufacturing jobs is declining dramatically. They are all over the world. Inco now produces three times the nickel with a third of the employees. There will be fewer auto workers producing more cars. The number of jobs in direct manufacturing are going down as technology advances, as computerization comes into place, as we get more efficient, as we start having to compete internationally and globally. But there is a massive increase in the number of information jobs or service jobs or idea jobs or thinking jobs, of high-technical jobs and we did not adapt; we did not invest five cents for these new jobs. Those countries and jurisdictions that did are just now beginning to boom. They're beginning to boom. They're now yours to discover, and Ontario is lagging behind.

1540

So it was the 1985 Liberal-NDP accord, saying: "Let's see what we can promise; let's distribute. There's some more money coming in. Where did it come from? We don't know; we don't understand. The money's rolling in. Well, let's spend it. Let's give it away. Let's redistribute it. That's what we got elected for, to redistribute money."

Now the engine that creates the money, the marketplace, the economy of the private sector, has been taxed, when the Liberals left office, to the highest in North America. So anybody who was concerned about if you made a nickel and you could keep it and reinvest it and put it back into planning the next job said, "Well, Ontario's not a good place; the government thinks it can spend it better than we can; it wants to tax it all," the regulatory framework and all the wealth redistribution schemes, and then we elected a government that said, "We're not finished yet; we've got to redistribute even more."

So you're trying to redistribute a smaller and smaller pie, and the criminalness of this, the tragedy of this, is that, thanks to the changing global economy, thanks to the GATT discussions, thanks to the free trade discussions, there are unlimited opportunities for jobs here in Ontario, and there are unlimited opportunities for prosperity, but not as long as government taxes at the level that you are, regulates at the level that you are, indicates that its goal is to try to get that last five cents away and tries to dream up another tax. This discussion on a wealth tax, this discussion on corporation taxes, the signal that sends out is that if somehow or other, through all this recession and this restructuring, you manage to make five cents or save five cents, just rest assured that we're sitting here dreaming up ways of how to get that last nickel out of you too.

What you don't seem to understand is that if there's any money left or any ability to borrow any money left in the private sector, it is in the hands of those people who, if they invest it in Ontario, will create the jobs and the economic activity and the future prosperity. If you take it away from them and government tries to spend it, you'll be making the same mistakes the Liberals did, and it will be disaster.

If you threaten to take it away from the people that have it, if you threaten you're going to bring in even higher taxes, they will then invest it in provinces like New Brunswick, where Frank McKenna has shown at least he understands the marketplace. You might disagree with him on a number of things, but he has that understanding. He's trying to move his taxes to a regulatory climate where he could compete. Alberta, British Columbia for a while; they're not near as bad as Ontario, but they're not moving in the right direction -- we've got a Premier there who seems to have missed the boat -- or other countries, the United States. This is in fact what's happening.

We prospered when the government of the day took a reasonable amount out of the economy and took that money and reinvested it into new infrastructure, into new education and into new training that allowed you to earn money the next five years or the next 10 years or the next 20 years. We didn't do that from 1985 to 1993. We haven't done that, and that's why we're going to pay a price over the next five or 10 years, because we're behind other provinces and other jurisdictions. We took it all and we tried to redistribute it.

When you look at the new jobs, there are some astounding figures that if you really stop and think about it explain what's happening as we lose manufacturing jobs. Last year, the increase in manufacturing, by the way, in Ontario went up 7%. Did you know that? But there were fewer jobs. It's called the jobless recovery because we've got more machines and more technology improving the efficiency of our manufacturers.

There are so many new jobs. I was astounded. Let me give you three. More Canadians now work in the telecommunications and the communications industry than in all the pulp and paper and forest industries. That's in British Columbia as well. When you think of British Columbia, you think of the forest industry. It's not as significant as the telecommunications and communications industries are in British Columbia.

Think about this: There are more jobs, more workers in Quebec in health and in medical care than there are in all of these combined: construction, textiles, clothing, furniture, automobile, forestry and mining. Add them all up. Combined, there are more people in Quebec working in health and in medical care, in research and development of new drugs and new health care technologies.

Here's one: More Americans work in the movie industry than work in the entire automobile industry. There are more in the movie industry then there are in the entire automobile industry. The new jobs are changing. They're high-tech, they're high value added, they're good-paying jobs. Are they going to come to the highest-taxed province in all of North America? No, they are not. The new investment will not come here, particularly. They know. They want to see a signal, they want to see a sign that the government understands that, and that new jobs are global.

It doesn't matter now whether you make a movie in California or in Toronto or whether you make it in Europe. It doesn't matter. The new high-tech jobs: You look at some of the investments. I couldn't believe this. In Singapore they invested in some of the communications technology, where it's now cheaper, faster, better to send information from Toronto to Edmonton via Singapore. Why? Because in Singapore they made some of the strategic investments instead of frittering the money all away as the Liberals did.

I mean, what the Liberals did to my children, what they did to laid-off workers in this province is criminal. What your throne speech demonstrates to me is that you don't even understand all the mistakes they made and you do not understand the direction we have to go in, where the solutions lie. You have missed the boat and you don't seem to understand this.

That's why my caucus colleagues and I have done something very different than most opposition parties, certainly than any others have done in Ontario and in Canada. We've criticized, but we've said: "Look, these guys don't understand. We're going to have to tell them. We're going to have to lay out the policies. We've got blueprints that would give you the throne speech. We've got a direction that you need to move in. If you'd have taken it, this province would have been better off."

Not only are we here in our role as opposition to oppose when you move off in the wrong direction; we've taken our role one notch up, a step beyond. We've now said: "They don't even understand. We're going to have to show them a way to. We can't wait for a general election to get rid of them. We can't wait that long. It's too important for the unemployed, for those who are being doomed to a lifetime of welfare, and their children. It's too important for our children."

We have, I think in a very responsible way, said: "Do you want to know what to do, because you're moving in the -- here, do this." We offered you a 2% solution -- I mean, no opposition party does that -- two years ago. Opposition parties wait until you take away this, or you condemn this or you arbitrarily say, "Two per cent," and then they criticize you. The questions from the Liberals are all: "Tell us. You've got a bill ready, haven't you? You've got a bill to limit workers' rights, to limit bargaining."

Of course, you do. Every government has. I understand that. The Liberals understand that. If you don't have, you are using the threat of it and the clout of it because they all know you have got the power to do it. Of course, that's not the issue. Those are not the questions. They are the solutions.

1550

So we went on the record two and a half years ago and said, "Yes, we would limit the total cost of government to 2%." If you'd done that, you'd have saved $3.5 billion that year alone. I heard from some civil servants that year because they were reading all the propaganda, the misinformation that the government was giving them, and they said: "Mike, that's not fair. We don't like you. You say we should only get a 2% increase."

You know what they're saying to me now? You know, I've had to cut six inches off the bottom of my door for all the brown envelopes to get in underneath my office door. Now they're saying: "You were right. Two per cent would have looked a lot better than being fired, or uncertainty, or now rollback, or not knowing why we're going into work, and the incompetence that we've had."

I'm proud of my caucus colleagues. I'm proud of the fact that we have presented alternatives. We've given you solutions. We continue to do that. It's really not that complicated. You've got to get the deficit under control. We agree with that. Your Treasurer said that. Your Premier said that. But you can't increase taxes or you will drive away more investment and more jobs.

The way to get more money is to have more people working. If you want more tax dollars from income tax, you've got to have more people working, and to do that you've got to have the private sector investing and creating jobs. If you want more in sales tax, you must then have more sales. You can't get more sales by taking more money out of the economy. You've got to have more private sector people. It's really quite simple. If you want more money from corporations and businesses, you've got to have more businesses and more corporations making more money. You can't do that if you're going to hike their taxes even higher. You can't do that through your regulatory changes, this wealth redistribution you still want to engage in. You can't do it that way either.

We've said we'll sit down and work with you. We've asked you to empower all-party committees to make the fundamental changes in even how we operate as a Legislature, to take some of the partisanship out. We'll go on the record. We'll go with you in some of these very tough and difficult decisions that have to be made. We're offering to not sit back and you make it and then we'll criticize every little picayune part of it. We're saying we'll work with you, and yet you've even failed to acknowledge that the public is fed up with the political process. They're fed up with the partisanship. They're fed up, and you refuse to put into place structures to allow us to work together.

You don't even allow your backbenchers to work together. They don't know what's going on either. I know because I talked to a number of them. They say, "Well, we don't know what they're doing," and maybe it's because the Treasurer and the Premier don't know either. But I tell you that you've missed the boat, fundamentally, on how Parliament should operate and how the public expects it to operate in the future and how we can get it working better. You've missed the boat on bringing together the partners, both the taxpayers and those receiving services. You've missed the boat with the civil service, particularly the front-line workers. They are so frustrated and fed up with some of the decisions that are coming out. You didn't acknowledge that and recognize that and try and move in the right direction in this throne speech.

We won't support this throne speech. My caucus colleagues and I will be voting against it. We think it's a very, very sad, missed opportunity, a missed opportunity to fundamentally change the direction that the Ontario government's been moving in for the last eight years and put it on the right footing. We're distressed with that. We're discouraged. We're disappointed. Some of my colleagues weren't surprised. I was. I thought, I really thought inside here, when I heard some of the comments over the last couple of months, that a light had gone on and you'd recognized some of the things that had to change, but this throne speech fails to deliver on that expectation. If I was quick to applaud some of the directions, I apologize to Ontarians. I thought Bob Rae understood. He clearly does not.

I would like to move an amendment to the motion. This is an amendment to the amendment that was moved by the leader of the Liberal party, the member for Fort William, that it be amended by adding thereto the following:

"Failing to understand that government cannot create private sector jobs, only the private sector can; failing to create a tax and regulatory climate that will encourage the private sector to do so; failing to recognize that eight years of high-spending, high-taxing governments have only deepened the impact of the recession on Ontario; failing to act decisively in the area of education and training in order for us to provide the best possible foundation for our children and workers to prepare for the technical and restructured jobs of the future; failing to control expenditures and deficits in the province of Ontario."

I would so move, Mr Speaker, and indicate that we cannot support this throne speech.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Further debate, the member for Norfolk.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): I am pleased to stand on my feet here today and basically inform the House what my opinions are on the throne speech. I'm pleased also to lead off the government's point of view on the throne speech.

After listening to the leader of the third party, I believe his time would have been better spent defending the record of his federal counterparts and the devastating effects that have taken place here in Ontario by virtue of some of the initiatives -- I'll call them initiatives with my tongue in cheek -- of the federal government: high interest rates; the high dollar; the GST; free trade, which doesn't provide fair trade; downloading, where as a province that contributes so much to the wealth and the fabric of this country through taxes gathered by the federal government, we find ourselves in a position where the remuneration given by the federal government is down around 29 cents on what used to be a 50-cent dollar. The federal government still provides an economy similar to ours in Quebec 50 cents on the dollar.

It's tremendous when I think about the type of rhetoric that's gone on here today in this House. We realize that we're in much different times. I don't believe there's anyone in this House that doesn't realize that these times are different than the times any previous government has had to experience. There are tough decisions, and we know there are tough decisions, that automatically go along with tough times.

It must be much to the surprise of the leader of the third party that although investment levels are down, Statscan figures indicate that 55% of all the new investment taking place in Canada is taking place here in Ontario. That's some of the figures that the press or the opposition simply ignore in their rhetoric.

Investment is down worldwide. I see countries like Japan, for instance, investing heavily in their infrastructure because they feel that is the best way to address the recession they're in, a global recession that every industrialized country in this world is experiencing.

I wonder where the opposition rhetoric is really based and is really coming from.

1600

I can tell you that we have a plan to put Ontario back to work. The focus is a long-term strategy, a plan to invest in jobs and people. This plan consists of programs and policies that are already working here in Ontario. Over the last seven months, 110,000 jobs have been created in this province. These plans include new initiatives in economic development and in education.

The constant goal is to put Ontario back to work, to ensure a robust and sustained recovery, to facilitate the creation of secure and well-paying jobs. It is a plan that will bring about fundamental reforms not only in how we do business but in the delivery of government services. The goal is to reform the way we do business here in this province.

Investing in our infrastructure: I just mentioned a moment ago about Japan investing heavily in its infrastructure. This government has launched more than 1,700 infrastructure projects through the Jobs Ontario Capital fund, creating more than 9,000 jobs across Ontario.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): You keep telling us that.

Mr Jamison: Total capital spending by our government last year created about 75,000 jobs. In partnership with municipalities and the private sector -- to the surprise of the third party -- we will invest $6 billion over the next decade to build new highways and public transit, improve water quality in this province and conservation, and expand telecommunication networks; directly related to the quality of life, long-term, of the people who live in this province, not to cut and slash for any reason whatsoever, but to make government more streamlined. We have to do that in a fair way, fair to the people who work for us, fair to the residents of this great province.

We have to put an emphasis on education and training. Since last summer, the government has helped create more than 19,000 new job opportunities through our Jobs Ontario program. That training program is growing at the rate of 1,000 jobs per week. Jobs Ontario Training is getting thousands of people off welfare and into jobs. The new Ontario Training and Adjustment Board will complement that success even further.

Building partnerships and strengthening industry is important. This government will continue to develop partnerships with the private sector to help Ontario industries to grow and to compete while providing more and better jobs. This government's industrial policy is designed to promote new high-wage and environmentally sustainable jobs.

A strategy to expand and upgrade Ontario's telecommunications capacity is under way, and that strategy is again vital.

Supporting communities is important, and supporting small business. Small business provides 80%, at this present time, of all the new jobs being created in this province. We are acting in a manner to enhance and support our communities and small business. We are acting to bring economic renewal into the heart of our communities, particularly in rural and northern Ontario. The budget will contain details of our community economic development initiative.

This session, new community investment share and loan programs will also be established to give small and medium-sized business better access to money. One of the major complaints of the business community has been that the banks have disappeared during this recession. When the banks are most needed, they've disappeared, they've gone, they've refused to loan money, they've lessened credit lines. It's simply a case of them not helping, and we plan on helping.

A commodity loan program, a loan guarantee program, has been initiated by the government, using provincial guarantees to provide farmers with lower-cost working capital. Over the next year, this program will give farmers access to $100 million in funding.

I can tell you that when I listened to the rhetoric, knowing the havoc that has been placed here on the people of Ontario through the federal government in its initiatives on free trade, freer trade -- we have the steel industry now saying: "What did you negotiate? You didn't negotiate access. You didn't negotiate fair trade. What is it that was negotiated?" Our industrial heartland has been seriously affected by these initiatives.

I'd like to touch on reforming health care. I think it's obvious to people that we have contained the cost of welfare and contained the cost of health care. The initiatives must carry on from here. We must support families and communities in getting back to work and working in a direction that is fair but recognizes at the same time the severe difficulties that any government in this situation would be having.

The rhetoric indicates that someone from one of the two opposition parties could have avoided this recession. I can tell you that is simply not true.

So as I stand here, I would like to tell you that I think the speech from the throne does map out a direction, a direction for this government, a direction that will ensure that as we evolve from the recession, we're best positioned, certainly best positioned of all the provinces, in growth.

We are hearing figures that economists are putting forward. I'm not so sure I've learned to agree with economists, because in my experience in sitting on the finance and economics committee, I've had economists tell me that this recovery was just around the corner for a number of years. But now that we seem to be into a recovery, I believe that the initiatives we're taking, the direction we're taking, is one we can be proud of and that will put us in the position to encourage, as is happening right now, most of the new investment that takes place in Canada to occur here.

We had heard a tremendous amount about the effects of such things as the OLRA, and it simply hasn't panned out. It was total rhetoric. When you look at the figures again, you see that the vast majority of investment in Canada is taking place in Ontario, and those are the facts. If we'd only stick to the facts more often here, we'd be far better off for it.

Having said that, I would say that I'm proud of my Premier and I'm proud of the cabinet for taking the direction they are now headed in. I'll tell you, the difficult decisions that are ahead of us, we will not shirk that responsibility. When anyone reads the speech from the throne, it's very simple to discern that we have a plan that will work, work for this province and for the people of the province.

1610

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Brampton South.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): In the short time I have available, I'd like to concentrate on a couple of things. There's a lot of rhetoric thrown around this House. Throne speeches in fact, with all due respect to the Lieutenant Governor, perhaps are becoming an anachronism. They're going to go the way of the dinosaur, because they really don't say anything.

I'd like to speak on behalf of young people. There are young people in this province who have lost hope. They've lost hope because they've gone out, worked hard and gotten themselves educated, and they can't find a job. They're staying at home longer. Some people say that's because they like living at home. It's not because they like living at home, because now when the interest rates are at their lowest level in a long time they could perhaps be going out and buying homes and getting married. I suggest a part of this is that they don't feel there's a future. They don't feel that governments, particularly this government, have any concern whatsoever for their future. Their future means nothing.

When you look at the situation here with this government, it was almost like a feeding frenzy, sharks in the water. Over 30 months they've increased the deficit by two thirds. They cry in their campaign slogan, "Make the rich pay." In fact, the effect of their policies is that the rich are making money on them. They're clipping their bond premiums as a result of the deficit that's been driven up by this frenzy of spending by this government. In three years in office, they will have almost doubled the deficit.

And then they come into the House and won't even tell it as it is to the young people of this province. They won't tell them what the deficit is; they play games with it. They say it's going to be $17 billion, but they know it's lower than that. They try to play games with the unions, making it look like they're going to do something tough with the unions. Any government that gave a 14% increase to them and then comes before us at this time and says, "We're going to cut back or we're going to reduce or freeze the wages," I don't believe that government, frankly, and I don't think the young people of this province do either.

We owe it to the young people of this province to give them a future, to make them feel they can achieve whatever they wish in this province. We're not doing that.

How can the public possibly believe that a government or a party that is committed to public ownership of everything and feels it can do a better job than private enterprise -- how can one ever expect that the deficit will ever get under control or will ever be reduced? If you've got government doing everything and nobody out in private enterprise doing anything, that means everybody is going to work for government. I find this absolutely incredible.

Just look at private day care: They've literally eliminated private day care. They were going to buy it up. We haven't seen that carried out, but they were going to expropriate it, as it were. They were not going to leave jobs open for people who are early childhood care workers; they're all going to have to work for the government. Perhaps that might be a great idea, because it's a secure job, and judging from the way they increase their wages, that might be the only place that young people of this province will have any security.

We look at the things they bring in: the labour legislation, just the leaking of that from cabinet. They don't understand this, they don't understand what goes on, how the engine of the economy is driven. They don't realize that just by leaking that document, we probably found people who were about to invest in the province of Ontario saying, "No way, Jose." Those were jobs our young people could have had, those are the opportunities that have been missed.

And we continue to see that happen. We see it happening in our educational system. We see cutbacks to the school boards; in fact, young people with learning disabilities will not have the same opportunities they had before.

The problem with this government is that it's suddenly wakened up just like Rip Van Winkle and discovered that it has overspent. So what do they do? They don't come up with a reasoned plan for trying to reduce that deficit. What they do is go on a feeding frenzy like sharks: "In three days, we're going to settle the whole problem. We're going to solve the problem."

How do they solve it? They solve it on the backs of our young people. They solve it on the backs of our seniors. They cut drugs out of the formulary. They don't bother to find out what those drugs are for or whether more expensive drugs are going to have to be included, whether those drugs are needed by seniors. They don't bother to do that. They simply say to their ministry people, "We want you to cut 10% or 20% out of that," and it's done.

If that's not the worst type of smoke and mirrors, it's really understandable why the people of this province look with great askance at politicians. They see the scandals that go on, that have been revealed over the short course of this government. Those scandals I don't think bother them as much as the sort of not playing the cards open on the table but holding them close to your vest. I think young people are fed up with that.

The next thing we have is the Treasurer saying we're going to have increased taxes in the next budget. That has to send shock waves through the young people of this province. They may have been thinking about buying a house, even though it's a tenuous operation with jobs disappearing every day and not knowing whether or not, even if they get the mortgage and they buy the house, they're going to be able to afford the payments. But more taxes on the horizon, surely to heaven, that has to have an impact on them as well.

They have to say: "We were going to get married and buy the house," or whatever, "but we'll have to put it off now. We'll have to put it off until the year that this government is thrown out of office and we don't face these potentials of jeopardy in our jobs, not being able to pay the tax increases."

I find it incredible that these people who came to power saying they cared about the little guy, they cared about our young people, can in fact follow a course so foolish and without any planning whatsoever. It's almost as though the only people who are making any decisions in this whole place are down on the second floor. You've got the Premier and about four cabinet ministers and about six or seven unelected spin doctors who put their foot in the water, test the water, find out what's politically sexy and then they implement it. Nobody has any input into it.

We've got all those members over there, all you people who are collecting big salaries, not just as MPPs, but they're collecting extra salaries in terms of their parliamentary assistant emoluments, and how much are they doing? How much is being done in terms of looking after this province?

Interjections.

Mr Callahan: It's interesting that when you speak in this House and try to address that issue, it becomes a shouting match. You have to shout over members of the government who can't have the decency and courtesy to listen to a speech and perhaps take a few of the thoughts that are being presented to mind, if they had some guts and they were prepared to look at the question of reforming this whole place.

I find it interesting that the people of the province of Ontario have not been down here at Queen's Park to take our heads. The fact that they elect 130 members of this Legislature and the fact that they pay 130 members of this Legislature and the government and the power is shared by such a few, small number of people is very interesting.

I'll tell you, I think the people out there are like a good jury. They may not have their concerns about politicians based on fact because they may not understand why they don't like us but I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that if it was examined under a microscope, one would find that they have this feeling that they are not represented, that their views are not represented.

Just look at the casino situation. You've got one member back there from Peterborough who's got the guts at least to stand up and say no casinos. The rest of them are joined at the hip and they're prepared to vote for anything. I think that gives a sense of insecurity to young people. Instead of giving them jobs and instead of giving them opportunities to have a future, we're going to tell them to get a good right arm or a left arm so they can crank a slot machine. That's their future.

I often wonder if in the cabinet room they haven't already got a slot machine and perhaps it's geared every day to the present polls and the sexiness of the polls and the Premier and the Treasurer pull the slot machine once each day and say, "Aha, this is what we'll do to the people of Ontario today." It is absolutely irresponsible.

The throne speech, I would submit, says nothing. It's a rehash of everything they promised since 1990. There's very little new money involved. Basically, the number of initiatives that they refer to in it, it must have taken them about five minutes to write this throne speech. It was on the word processor and has been on the word processor since 1990 when they were elected and they just make a few minor changes here and a few minor corrections here and they present it. They have the audacity to have the Lieutenant Governor come in here and have to read that piece of diatribe.

1620

Finally -- because of the short time I have, and I'd like to share with my colleagues -- when we look at the number of government appointments that have been made and increased by this government, it is absolutely incredible. I would suggest that probably every New Democrat in the province has had a job made available to him. That's unacceptable. That would be unacceptable if it was a Liberal government or a Conservative government. We can no longer afford to create jobs for the friendly groups that support us.

If you look at all of the boards that have been set up, and the interference with doctors carrying out their functions because of these boards and these advocates and all the rest of the stuff, it's simply a pork barrel that's created by the government to create jobs for its friends.

I think the taxpayers of Ontario are fed up with that. I think the union people, when they're told that their wages have to be rolled back or frozen, should say the same thing. "Why should we do that? You've got buddies on boards and commissions where they're appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council." Sounds good, but I think the people of this province should understand that the Lieutenant Governor has nothing to do with it. It's the Premier appointing his buddies and other buddies. I suggest that's unacceptable.

In the final analysis, I submit to you that this government had better get to the point where it starts planning, where it reviews all its programs and makes certain that those programs are providing effective services to the people of this province. Don't create these extra jobs.

I found it interesting that the cabinet was reduced -- big headlines. The net result was the cabinet wasn't reduced at all. All they did was they moved it around -- smoke and mirrors again -- and the people of this province, particularly the young people of this province, are not prepared to accept this kind of circus where these things are done and made to look like they're being done and are not being done.

I think they should look in the mirror and review the fact that "integrity" is probably the watchword of the day and will be the future of all political parties in this province and in this country.

Mr Harnick: There's nothing that upsets persons more than saying to them, "Ï told you so." But I can tell all my friends sitting opposite that if they had listened to the message of the member for Nipissing, the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, and they had listened to what he said about big spending and big taxing and not following the lead of the Liberal Party of Ontario, who taught this government the intricacies of big spending and big taxing, then I wouldn't be able to stand here today and say I told you so, because they have fallen into the same trap and they're taking this province down the same slippery slope that the Liberals started us on.

The Liberals tried to spend their way to prosperity, and when the Liberals were voted out of office in September 1990, there was no prosperity. The cupboard was bare, and despite their best abilities to add and subtract and to look over the books of the government, they ended up with a $3.5-billion deficit.

Then the NDP took over and it cried, "The cupboard is bare, the cupboard is bare." So what did they do? They ran that same deficit up to $10 billion before you could blink, and the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus said to them, "Don't do it, don't do it, because the province cannot sustain the debt you're driving us into."

But they laughed. They thought that was funny, because they said: "You know, the Liberals spent their way to prosperity. They only had a $3.5-billion deficit and we're going to do the same thing.'' Even today, I don't think the NDP government understands that you can't spend your way to prosperity.

All you have done, all the government has done is put people in this province in the position of having to pay for Liberal and NDP mismanagement. That's exactly what they've done. When you ask the school teachers who teach our young people in our communities what they think about the social contract that's about to be rammed down their throats, when you ask the person who works for the public service and makes $40,000 about the social contract that's going to be rammed down his throat, you know what they're going to say? They're going to say, "We are now paying for the mismanagement of the Liberal and NDP governments since 1985." That's exactly what they're going to say, and the tragedy is that the government of the day still doesn't understand what it has done wrong.

It all started out with this nice, cosy accord where the NDP and the Liberals got together and they were going to do all kinds of great things for people. You know the net effect of what they did? They spent a lot of money and they have nothing to show for it. There's not anybody in this province, not even people in the Liberal caucus today, who will say what there is to show for those four or five years of NDP-Liberal accord and big spending and big taxing, because the Liberal caucus spends all of its time trying to distance itself from the record of that five years of mismanagement, that five years of being in bed together with the NDP.

And the NDP comes along and takes over, and they still don't understand the mistakes of their predecessor. They just carry on spending and taxing, spending and taxing, and it dismays me to no end when I see in the speech from the throne that they're going to raise taxes again. You know, 33 times Liberals raised taxes in this province; 22 times the NDP has raised taxes in this province. We're finally coming out of the recession, people are finally starting to become a little more confident, and what are the NDP going to do? They're going to raise taxes.

Not only are they going to raise taxes, they're talking about more corporate taxes. They're talking about a wealth tax. Tell me, does that make everybody in the province of Ontario comfortable, waiting to see how they're going to tax a wealth tax? I mean, after all, this is the government that said, "Boy, if you don't make more than $53,000, the tax cuts won't hurt you."

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Lawyers should pay taxes. Talk to members of the fraternity.

Mr Harnick: Let me tell the Minister of Transportation, lawyers do pay taxes and doctors do pay taxes, and they also consume goods and services in the province, and if you overtax them, they'll stop buying goods and services, and you know what'll happen? This recession will take us a lot longer to come out of.

At any rate, they're talking about a wealth tax. They're talking about more corporate taxes. How does that sit in a province where the Premier has said that the whole exercise is about creating jobs? How does raising taxes create jobs? For a government that is so intent on trying to create jobs, it's pretty difficult with the record that you have.

You've got Bill 44. How many jobs did Bill 44 create? Did Bill 44 create any jobs? I haven't seen the Minister of Labour come into the Legislature and say to us, "By the enactment of Bill 44 we've created thousands of new jobs." They have still not done an impact study to see how many jobs are in fact going to be lost.

What about higher hydro rates? How many jobs do you think higher hydro rates have created? Do you think higher hydro rates have created a single job?

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): -- Darlington.

Mr Harnick: What about pay equity? Pay equity's a very, very noble program, but in the middle of a recession do you institute pay equity? How many jobs will pay equity create? How many jobs, I ask the member from Durham. How many jobs is that going to create in a recession, when we're trying to get the economy going?

What about your brilliant policies to hike the minimum wage? I haven't heard much about that, but that was in that -- what was that document called? Oh, the Agenda for People, that's right. I remember the Agenda for People. They were going to raise the minimum wage even higher. How many jobs is that going to create, I ask you.

There's not too much that this government has done to inspire confidence in the creation of jobs, and now I read in this throne speech that you're going to raise taxes. I, for the life of me, can't believe that you haven't learned from what happened to the Liberals, that raising taxes and doing what they did is not the way to get the economy moving.

1630

I looked at the throne speech very carefully. I noticed that of all of the announcements there was a 10-point plan in the throne speech to get the economy going and create jobs, but you know, when I looked at it I saw that five of them were old plans that were already going that haven't created any jobs. And then there are five new programs to create jobs.

We're going to have another Commission on Learning that's going to report within a year. That'll make, I think, number five or number six in terms of learning commissions since 1986. Nothing new about that one except the timing may be bringing it back and recycling it, but I don't think that's going to create any jobs.

Province-wide testing of grade 9 students later this year: You know, I remember the member for London North begging the government two and three years ago to start testing so that we'd have some idea of whether the education system in the province of Ontario was effective. I saw two or three ministers of Education -- because we've recycled a few of those -- and they all said, "No, we don't need testing," but finally there's going to be some testing. I give the credit for that to the member for London North, not to the NDP government.

I see we're going to have $25 million for Jobs Ontario Youth to create 10,000 summer jobs. That's a new one. I mean, I think we've been doing that in the province of Ontario for probably 25 years. But I don't see that as a plan that's going to create any permanent jobs. It's a very noble thing to do, and it's the right thing to do, but I don't think it's going to create any permanent jobs as part of this 10-point program.

I see a community investment share and loan program. That is a good idea. I'm quite prepared, as members of my party are, to encourage worthwhile initiatives, and that is a worthwhile initiative.

Then I see another white paper on social assistance to be released this summer. We've had the SARC report sitting on the shelf for how many years now? How many years has that been sitting on the shelf? It continues to sit and we're going to have another white paper and probably another commission following that.

I don't see the throne speech, quite frankly, as offering the solutions that the Premier's promised. He says this is all about creating jobs, and what does he do? He raises our hydro rates, he brings in Bill 40, he's going to implement pay equity at a difficult time in terms of the economy, he's going to try and implement employment equity at a difficult time. At the same time, each of those things is going to cost us jobs, and I don't see anything in the speech from the throne that's going to create jobs. All I see is a negative effect of slowing down the recovery from the recession by raising taxes.

Big taxes and big spending are the order of this government; they were the order of the Liberal government. It just amazes me, it boggles my mind, that the government has not learned to dissociate itself from the programs and the direction of its Liberal predecessor. Big spending and big taxing and big debt have hurt the province of Ontario, and the very idea of another tax coming along to slow the recovery is absolutely the kind of thing that I would expect a Liberal government to embark on, and I see that the NDP is just going to follow suit.

The other aspect of this is that we've also had a spate of spending by this government. We've had a spate of spending. We've had $200 million in expenditures to drive the private sector out of child care, and we haven't created a single, solitary new child care/day care space. We've just spent $200 million and we've bought out the private sector.

We've spent $20 million this year on the Interim Waste Authority, and we learned today that the minister in charge of doling out the money didn't even know it was coming from his ministry; $20 million, and he didn't know it was coming out of his ministry. The minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, $20 million of expenditure, how can we ask him whether we got value for the money? He doesn't even know he spent the money.

As a grant to de Havilland: $95 million. I don't know if it created a single job. The cost of the Fair Tax Commission: $3 million. Since it has been created, all I see is it's a convenient way to avoid answering any questions about where the government's going in terms of developing a tax program. "Well, it's before the Fair Tax Commission," and ultimately we'll see what it says about it.

The Advocacy Commission and the advocacy system created by the recently passed advocacy and consent bills will, according to government estimates, cost $30 million to run. I can tell you that your stakeholders, as you're so fond of calling them, say that it's going to cost closer to $100 million to run that. We're coming out of a recession. Expenditures like this will not help us get out of the recession.

In 1991 we paid, by wage settlements negotiated with OPSEU, $250 million in increased salaries and wage packages for members of OPSEU; $250 million at a time when the economy was turning and everybody else was getting 2%, and we were giving out $250 million. That $250 million compounded over three years at the high interest rates that we had in 1991 and following through to today is probably $1 billion. Then we went ahead, to compound that, and we spent another $8 million so that senior managers could get an 11% raise in 1991.

The government spent $5 million to fund 64 destreaming pilot projects, according to the OSSTF, and another $2.8 million on in-service training to implement the policy. They don't even want the policy, but they're your stakeholder, and they say that you've now spent close to $10 million on the program.

You spent $4 million, in the middle of a recession, to put bilingual signs in the Golden Horseshoe region. You spent $4 million to revamp the Ontario Labour Relations Board to meet its mandate under Bill 40. The list goes on and on and on. You spent $20 million to update assessments for a policy that you didn't even carry though, that you pulled out of the Legislature before we rose in December. The list goes on and on and on, and it's not long till you get it up to a couple of billion dollars; just wasteful, wasteful spending.

My time is very short, Mr Speaker.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): So is your memory.

Mr Harnick: Well, my memory might be short too, but I'll tell you something: I remember long enough in the past, I tell the member across the way, that we said, "Don't spend your way to prosperity; don't run up the deficit; don't do it, because all you're going to do is hurt the very stakeholders that elected you," and that's what you're now doing.

It's important for opposition members to be constructive, to offer the government alternatives. I was heartened by the fact that just the other day the Premier recognized the contribution that our caucus is making in terms of offering solid alternatives. I also note that he also noted the lack of alternatives coming from our friends in the Liberal Party, because they don't have any policies.

In the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, my colleague from Oakville prepared recommendations in a dissenting report. He prepared recommendations that read like the blueprint for a new government that could take over and run this province, and I recommend to every person in this Legislature to read those recommendations, because they are sound policies and they present a future for the province if they're followed.

1640

Opening a casino might be a lot of fun for the people who are going to visit it, but it's not going to solve the economic problems unless we're going to have such a big casino that that's where the 9,000 jobs are going to be. That's going to be one big casino with 9,000 blackjack dealers, but I don't think that's the intention.

If that's the best this government can do to create jobs and bring back prosperity, that and raising our taxes, then I think, truly, this government doesn't understand where it's going. They're merely following the lead of their Liberal predecessors. They don't know where they're going and they don't know where they've come from. I tell you, I recommend to you to read this blueprint and to follow it, because it would be helpful to the people in the province of Ontario.

My time is limited, and I appreciate this opportunity to try and be constructive, to try and indicate that we as an opposition, our caucus, the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus, has alternatives, and we beseech the government to follow them.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I wish to thank the honourable member for Willowdale for his participation. Further debate?

Mr Mills: I'm going to have a few things to say about the speech from the throne, but first of all, I can't carry on if I don't address some of the comments made by the member for Willowdale.

I mean, how anybody in his right mind can get up in this Legislature and talk about taxes, when that party instituted a three-month tax increase on cigarettes, on tobacco, on gasoline, on diesel fuel, every three months, and you know, they did it in such an insidious manner that it didn't come before this Legislature; it wasn't debated in here; it was introduced very cunningly and the public was unwittingly twisted out of a tax increase every three months.

The member for York North is sitting there. He's the only Liberal member who's here this afternoon to listen to this. They had the courage that when they got into power, they did away with that ad valorem tax immediately on their election, and I give them credit for that. But those people didn't do it, and they have the audacity to stand here and talk about tax increases. You should be downright ashamed of yourself. It's awful.

Now we get to the speech from the throne. This is a challenge. It's a challenge for all of us, and perhaps the most important challenge is the control of the deficit. Yet we have to raise taxes to satisfy the public and the people of Ontario, who for ever want more and more and more.

Back in the 1930s when we had a recession, the people used to get on a train and traverse the country looking for jobs, on the trains, but that doesn't do in the 1990s. People today in Ontario expect the government to stand for them and to help them, and that's what this government's doing.

But we stood alone. We look at the federal government, how it's devastated this province of ours. Welfare has more than doubled, to $6.2 billion, a figure we've come to really worry about, by the federal offloading. Federal limits imposed on health, welfare and education transfers mean that this year in Ontario we will receive $4.5 billion less than we did last year. And then they talk about why don't we reduce the deficit.

The government in Ottawa has devastated this province of Ontario, and I can tell you that when the election is called in June it will be history and there's no doubt about that.

Tax revenues continue to lag and that's a very severe problem in this province. We've got corporations claiming losses for past years against current gains and they're not paying taxes now. That doesn't help.

Another big problem that's hurting every one of us here and hurting every one of our constituents is the underground economy. That's a situation that is hurting everybody. You couple the underground economy with the widespread cheating -- that's another thing that's hurting our economy, and a friend despises that word "cheating," but I can tell him, and I'm going to talk about this, today I have an article in the Toronto Star, "Smuggling Booze Is Big Business."

They're going to have to lay off a lot of workers with the LCBO, and that's a crime. The workers who work in our liquor stores are decent human beings like us. They contribute to the community, they run the hockey games, they're coaches, they go to work, they support their churches, they support charities, and here we are: Andy Brandt, one of your members who we appointed to the LCBO, says, "If we aren't able to raise as much, the liquor board has to reduce its workforce."

I say to you that everybody who is smuggling, when you go across to the United States and bring it back in, it's cheating. You're hurting liquor control board workers in your riding. Listen, you're hurting them all. It doesn't matter where you live; there are liquor control board store workers in your riding and you are hurting them and don't you forget it.

Illegal alcohol and the smugglers and the cheaters are hurting all of us. Every dollar they cheat us in taxes is costing you and me and our constituents $1 to make up that shortfall.

There's another big problem, and I want to talk about cigarettes. Now, this is really unbelievable. It's costing the taxpayers and you and me millions and millions of dollars in Ontario -- millions. But these people who do this think they're pretty smart, and I suspect that those very people, front and centre, condemn this New Democratic government for running the province. I suspect they're the ones. The ones who are cheating, the ones who are smuggling are the very people who have the audacity to stand and go around and attend these meetings and condemn this government. These are the ones.

I can talk at length about the cheating on gasoline and diesel fuel in this province. That's my specialty. I worked for the Ministry of Revenue. The tax that is avoided on gasoline and on diesel in this province is costing us millions. I suspect that the tax would pay a great, big chunk even towards our health care costs. But you know, these people who do it are a phoney bunch of entrepreneurs. They run all over the country in Jags. They've got numbered companies and they rip off the taxpayers of this province. Yet those very people are the ones who no doubt funded those great, big billboards on Bay Street that condemn the New Democratic Party for turning towards Bill 40 and making this province right for workers, the very people who turn around and cheat everybody in this province on their taxes.

What about all the people in this province who are so sanctimonious that they stand there and condemn this government? They say we can't run a peanut stand, that we don't know what we're doing. But they have gasoline in their backyards that they get, supposedly, to run off-road equipment. Now, I ask you, there's the tank, there are the cars, and what do you think happens? Well, you know what happens; I know what happens. These people use gasoline that they're not paying any taxes on to run all over the province, and these same people are the first in line to say: "This government shouldn't raise taxes. We don't want any tax increases. We've had enough." But they're not paying their fair share now, they're not playing the game, believe you me, Mr Speaker. You know that.

1650

And what about the receipt game, the big business, the entrepreneurs who've got the fancy seats in the SkyDome, who go around collecting receipts at the liquor store? "I want that, because I'm going to use it. I'll keep the bill for the restaurant; I'm going to use that. Let's go to the SkyDome and have a wonderful do, and we'll write that off." This is all agreed to in Ottawa. You can write off 80% of all the business expenses, and you and I, we go out, we take our friends for lunch, and we can't claim a penny. We can't claim a blinking thing, but all these people can do this. This is what's costing Ontario.

What about the phoney guy who -- this has happened to me. I wanted a bathroom put in. The guy comes to my house and he says, "Well, Mr Mills, we've got two ways of doing it." I say, "What are the ways?" He said: "Well, there's the cash way and there's the receipt way. What way do you want?" I said, "Do you know what I do for a living?" He said, "I don't care what you do for a living." I said, "Well, I want a receipt," because I believe we live in Ontario, we've got the benefits of health, we've got the benefits of education, we get all these benefits, and we all should stand up and pay our fair share.

I say to all those people that are looking in, you worry about tax increases and the deficit that we are facing. Examine yourself and say to yourself: "What have I done? Have I taken one of these no-receipt deals?"

Why do you think the Minister of Transportation had to bring in some sort of legislation to control car sales? Because everybody was selling the car with a phoney receipt. That's a fact. We were losing millions. That's why the minister who sits there this afternoon had to introduce that.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Now I can't afford a car.

Mr Mills: Now he can't afford a car, he says.

All of these things I've outlined are costing all of us in Ontario very dearly. The Conservatives think it's fun; they're laughing. It's not fun, it's serious, because every one of these people who are beating the system, be it gasoline, diesel, cigarettes, liquor, or whether it be the phoney receipt or no receipt for having something done in your house or your driveway or your garden, every dollar that those people do not pay, it costs you, me, even the member for Willowdale, who's not here. He speaks a good yarn but then he clears out.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): That's unfair, Gordon.

Mr Mills: Well, it's true. We stand here, we listen to you and you do not listen back.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Mills: All of these people, every dollar that these jackals and these misfits do away from us is a dollar that you and your constituents have to repay. That's why we're in the jackpot that we're in, because people have not got the uprightness or the fortitude to pay their way in this province. Those people who dodge taxes, I venture to say, are the very first ones to be shouting the blues about tax increases and about the New Democratic government.

In closing -- some of my friends want to talk; my time's limited -- before we blame the government, before we condemn the speech from the throne, before we keep on about how we don't know what we're doing, I appeal to everyone in Ontario to do some self-evaluation: "Do I cheat? Do I pay my fair taxes? Am I playing the game with my fellow Ontarians?" If you can honestly say, "I'm playing the game with my fellow Ontarians," I think that's very commendable. But strangely enough, so many people out there are not playing the game, and I find that very distressing in these times of need, when we need to sustain our health care, need to sustain education, which is the best investment we can make in our young people, when we can provide child care for young mothers who want to get back in the workforce, when we can provide opportunities for people who are on welfare to get back in the workforce. All of these wonderful programs have been hindered to a large, large extent by these types of people, the underground economy, the cheaters, the smugglers et al.

With that, Mr Speaker, I thank you for listening to me and I thank the members, and I will give the floor over to another member, another colleague.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for Durham East. Further debate?

Mr Charles Beer (York North): It is a pleasure to rise and join in this debate. Before talking about some of the specific areas that appeared in the throne speech and talking about where it is that we need to go in this province, there have been some things, a number of things, said today which warrant response.

Some of you will remember that the former Treasurer, Mr Nixon, when he was here, used to look over. One of his comments he had about the Premier was that he said he was always operating under a halo and that one of the problems the New Democrats had was a disease he called haloism. But as I've been sitting in this House since the beginning of this session, and particularly as I've listened today to the leader of the third party and to the leader of the member for Willowdale, I have a sense that that halo is starting to shift, and that there is some incredible view the Progressive Conservative Party has that somehow everything it has ever done, every position on fiscal-financial matters, has been pure and pristine. Surely we all know that nothing could be further from the truth.

If we go back to the period from 1981 to 1985, it would be interesting to learn, among other things, that the percentage growth in spending was well over 11%, well above that of the period from 1986 to 1990 when the Liberals formed the government; that the average per cent of growth for the debt under the Conservatives from 1981 to 1985 was 11% and under the Liberal administration was 5.1%.

It was the Conservative government that -- dare one say it? -- gave us, the taxpayers of this province, Suncor, and how long did it take us to pay that off? If you were looking at the press only last week, you saw that that $400-million boondoggle was something that the taxpayers of this province were still having to finally resolve.

It was the Conservatives as government who brought us Darlington, and we're still dealing with that.

So let's be very clear. We can sit here and argue about actions taken by any government and it'll be interesting and we can have a very enjoyable afternoon, but let's remove the halos. Let's admit that we are today in very different circumstances, and that it is probably fair to say that every government in the 1980s, through to and including the government of the 1990s -- every one of us would say there were things we wish now we had not done, things that we ought not to have done. But it is today, 1993, it is April, and we must deal with the world we have.

We must not fool ourselves in thinking we are all perfect, and it is what we have done in the past and how we are going to proceed that will also be perfect. That is not going to get us anywhere, and it is time, frankly, for the Conservatives to put that away and to join in the real debate and not go on in a kind of negativism, nagging, raising issues that, in terms of what we're dealing with today, no longer matter. If they want to go back and look at their record, all one has to do is to say that for 15 straight years when they were the government, the deficit went up -- 15 straight years.

But that is the past. Our government is the past. We are dealing now with April 1993, and that's what we've got to go on and discuss.

1700

I want, in looking at the throne speech, to focus on three things: education, children's services and then, in a very specific way, the proposed environmental bill of rights and the issue of waste disposal.

As one goes around the province, and as the education and children services' critic I have doing that, talking with parents, with trustees, with students, with taxpayers, we all recognize that there is, right now, a real crisis in our educational system.

Unfortunately, it is the kind of crisis that the Minister of Education today furthers when he is not prepared to live up to the commitments that were openly made to school boards around the funding of the system. Because it is one thing to recognize that we are in difficult economic and financial times, but if all one is doing is offloading that debt to another level, then we have not solved anything. Again, it is something that all governments have done, but in this new period we have to recognize that it cannot be done again.

What the government tells us is that there is going to be a Commission on Learning. But we've got to make sure that just because there's going to be a Commission on Learning we don't stop dealing with real and immediate problems. One of the things that we've got to determine is, what is it that our schools are supposed to do? What is it that we want teachers to do? What are the expectations that all of us are placing on our educational system?

I would say that the expectations that we've been placing on that system over the last 10 years have changed dramatically, that when you walk into the classroom today you see young people with far more problems, whether they're behavioural or learning problems, a whole series of things that have happened simply because our society has changed so much during that period.

We've got to recognize it in saying, "What is it that we want the school system to do?" Because school boards, in effect, now are also boards of health; they're boards of social work, they're boards of recreation. What is the role of the school and what is the role of the teacher within it? If we don't answer that question, we're not going to solve the problem around the funding of the system.

We had the Fair Tax Commission, which has made its report with respect to property taxes. We don't know. I asked the minister here in the House, "Is funding going to be part of the royal commission's mandate?" It's a very critical question and one that we have to have a straight answer on, because we can't wait until the end of 1994 to get solutions to how we are more adequately going to fund our system of education.

It's interesting that every party in the last decade -- Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat -- has promised to shift the funding for our educational system to 60% on provincial taxes and 40% from the local share and every one -- Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat -- has not been able to live up to that commitment.

I suggest to you that the only way we're going to be able to really resolve this issue of how we can properly fund our educational system to meet the needs of the kids who are out there is to take the work that has already been done, bring together the boards, bring together those who are most directly involved in the funding of the system and say, "We must, prior to the next budget, bring about real and fundamental change to the funding of our school system." I think the minister is going to have to get on with that on a parallel basis, if it's not within the Commission on Learning, but we've got to move on that and we've go to move on it very, very quickly.

The other issue that parents in particular are asking is: "What about the quality of the system? How do we know that what our young people are learning is going to provide them with the education and the skills that they need for the jobs that await them?"

Again, we have looked, over the course of the last 10 years, at a whole series of proposals and propositions to make our schools the best that we can. I think we have to say that on balance we have a very good system of education, but in order for us to compete in this new world we've got to make it even better. In order to do that, we can't be saying that the blame lies only with the trustees or the blame lies only with teachers or only with parents. The only way we're going to get out of this situation is if we all work together.

Part of the blame we have to accept as citizens of this province is the demands that we have made on that system itself. But if we want to have meaningful programs in our schools, then as parents we have to be involved. One of the biggest problems facing the educational system today is the difficulty of getting parents to participate so that we have their full involvement.

In looking at the question of governance, I would suggest, whether it's the Commission on Learning that does this or whether we have to do that independently, we've got to make a much greater effort to put more control at the local level. I think it's time that we looked at school-based management of the school system.

I believe we're always going to need, between Queen's Park and the school, some form of local government accountability, but I think within that scheme we can ensure that the principal, the teachers and the parents in particular community school areas are going to be able to have a much greater impact on how that school functions and runs, and really try to meet the needs of the children, the young people who are within that school system.

As we look forward to this session, it is in really seeing if we can make progress on defining what it is we want schools to do, defining what we want teachers to do, making clearer how we are going to fund that system and responding to parental concern around standards, around ensuring that there is true and real accountability in the system. If we want to do that, we are all going to have to work together, not simply in this Legislature but with all the various groups that are outside of this place.

Within that, there is another area which, because of the recession, because of the economic difficulties, we have to focus on, difficult though it may be, and that is the whole field of children's services.

I think it is imperative that this government move the discussion outside of the interministerial committees and a whole variety of other jargon mechanisms that exist and bring it to a legislative committee or to some very clear focus area where we can sit down and recognize what is happening in terms of child welfare, in terms of children's mental health, in terms of a whole series of things that we're seeing at the secondary schools, where more and more young people are living outside the home, where we recognize that there is more abuse, whether physical or sexual. We've got to put that out in a public discussion to look at how we're going to organize the children's services system so it can be much more effective than it is today.

I don't care where you go in this province, if you sit down today and talk with child welfare workers, if you talk with those in children's mental health, they are frightened by what they are seeing, and when we talk of deficits, that is one that is there and that will continue to be there unless we really say, as legislators, government opposition: "We've got to deal with this. We've got to come to grips with it."

I think we were given a guide book in the report on Children First. I think the government made a great mistake in not making that a more public document and seeking response to it so that we could then really begin to address the question of children's services. What I'm saying is that it's not addressed in the throne speech. It is a critical need and it's something to which this government must respond, and must respond now.

Je veux aussi dire et souligner que, dans le domaine des services de langue française, dans le domaine de l'éducation en français on attend toujours des actions du gouvernement. J'ai deux choses à dire, et je suis content que le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones soit ici cet après-midi.

Premièrement, il est extrêmement important que le gouvernement prenne une décision sur le collège du Nord. On dit chez le gouvernement que c'est la faute du fédéral, et chez le fédéral que c'est la faute de la province. Mais, durant tout ce temps, ce sont les jeunes francophones dans le Grand Nord qui attendent leur collège. Je pense qu'il est très important de terminer ces discussions pour assurer l'éducation aux francophones au niveau postsecondaire.

Deuxièmement, il y a la tutelle qui existe à Ottawa où le conseil public francophone est sous tutelle. Peu importe les raisons il y a deux ans pour la création de cette tutelle, c'est très clair qu'aujourd'hui ça ne marche pas et que nous devons, ensemble, trouver une solution. Mais la tutelle, ce n'est pas la réponse qui va vraiment répondre aux besoins des jeunes francophones.

1710

Cette semaine, on a vu les jeunes en grève parce qu'ils veulent voir une solution. Alors, je suggère au Ministre que la chose à faire, c'est dire soit au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones soit au ministre de l'Éducation, c'est dire aux personnes, au conseil, aux parents : «Écoutez. Il faut s'asseoir pour régler cette question.»

There is not too much time left and there is one other issue which I want to address and where I feel in many ways this government has failed most miserably, and it is repeated in the throne speech. I find, coming from the area of the province that I do, when I see in the throne speech the reference made to an environmental bill of rights, it is difficult not to choke, because we have had visited upon us by this government, by their body that arose out of Bill 143, the Interim Waste Authority, the most ludicrous process imaginable, the end result of which is to say: "You lucky people in the region of York, you are going to have the largest dump in all of North America, and we are not going to allow any other options or alternatives to be examined, to be studied. You are going to have that dump."

I am here to say to the government, to say to the new minister responsible for this disaster, that it is not going to happen, that you are going to see on Thursday people here at this Legislature who will be demonstrating and arguing and making the logical case that the government's approach is not going to work and we mustn't have it and we can't have it.

The only thing that is open to the government is to use the Environmental Assessment Act and to use it properly, which means that all of the various options must be examined, whether it's rail haul in the north or whether it's looking at energy from waste.

I would say to the Minister of the Environment that he should go to Brampton and look at the facility that they have now had up and running for almost six months, the standards of which are extremely high, and that that particular incinerator has been doing an excellent job. These are options that should be examined -- not that any one of them is the only answer. It isn't.

We said at the time, in the debate on Bill 143, and I repeat today, that the last section that dealt with waste was useful and helpful, and let's move on it. But the first three sections that arbitrarily impose the system that is fundamentally anti-democratic should not stand, and we cannot and will not have a dump the size of 80 SkyDomes in the region of York, in particular when one thinks of the people of Vaughan and the people of Maple, who already have the second-largest dump in North America. And that one very cavalierly is going to say, "And you lucky people may have the largest one," that is no joking matter. It is bad public policy and it is bad environmental policy.

We know that we are in difficult times. What one wanted to see in the throne speech was a vision, and that vision is that, just as after the Second World War, in 1945, we had gone through the recession, we had gone through the war, and Canada and this province entered into a totally new period where we needed new policies and new directions, so right now we are in that same position. We cannot battle the deficit and the debt if all we do is slash and burn and then, when things get better, go back to our old ways.

What we are having to deal with today is in effect to say that whatever we created in terms of government and government institutions may have served us more or less well for the period after the war and through the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s and into the 1980s, but that won't work any more. So we have to fundamentally reinvent government to make it suit the needs of the people of this province. If we can do that, then we will make some progress in all of this discussion around deficits and debt. But we need that vision, a vision which has not been there in terms of what the government has laid out before us, because people have to see that there is a reason for going forward, that there is something at the end of this exercise that is in fact going to lead to a stronger Ontario and to a stronger Canada.

It is for this reason that our party has moved an amendment where we are saying that this throne speech is not acceptable and we will not be supporting it; we will not be voting for it.

In concluding, I say to the government that I believe the members on this side of the House, both parties in opposition, are prepared to work towards ensuring that we bring to heel the deficit and that we accept and work with them on policies that are needed to do that. We want to make our educational system better than it is. We want to ensure that our children are dealt with fairly and that they all have a chance at a reasonable life in this province and in this country. But we are only going to do that through leadership, leadership which so far has not been coming from this government.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate in rotation, the honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Perruzza: Are you going to be long?

Mr Stockwell: About 20 minutes.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is that all you have? Is that because of Bob Rae's rules?

Mr Stockwell: It is. We're allowed to speak for 20 minutes on the throne speech, and I will use all 20.

Mr Bradley: After four months this House hasn't sat?

Mr Stockwell: The Premier himself hasn't even been here two out of three days, which I find very offensive. Considering he's called us back, you'd think that he'd have the courtesy to be in this House when the question period arises, and to have him not here is certainly disturbing.

Firstly, I'd like to discuss the throne speech. I would like to cast people's minds back to the original budget that was adopted by this particular government. Back then, I think this government had a spin that it put on that specific document that we were going to fight the recession, not the deficit. I think we all remember that statement by the Treasurer at the time.

Mr Bradley: That was the Piper spin.

Mr Stockwell: That was the Piper spin, yes, and we all know what happened to that spin.

At that time I was rather flabbergasted that this government, during one of the worst recessions that we were entering, would even consider running a deficit of some $10 billion. Ultimately, they were wrong; it was nearly $11 billion in debt that they acquired in that first budget. I think even the most ardent supporters of this government outside these gracious halls that we work in and even some I think across the floor today will admit categorically that that budget was a huge and terrible mistake.

Mr Bradley: Confess over there.

Mr Stockwell: The confessions are coming daily, I will add. Even the Treasurer himself today talks about a deficit crisis. You hear the backbenchers talking about a deficit crisis. That deficit crisis began when a $10-billion or $11-billion deficit was institutionalized in that first budget that Mr Laughren, the Treasurer, brought down.

In effect, they compounded the dilemma that we were faced with at the time and continued it in the following years. Last year's budget was some $13 billion in debt and this year they're looking at $16 billion or $17 billion, according to their figures; I'm not sure it's quite that high, but a significant amount of money.

This government made one of the most fundamental errors in the history of its time here when it thought that it could in fact fight a world recession on its own. They did so by driving up the deficit and increasing taxes on the already overburdened and terribly despondent taxpayer. They've learned or they claim to have learned. But in the process they've done, I think, irreparable damage to two very important structures within this province. One, they institutionalized a $10-billion or $11-billion debt; you've institutionalized that. It's very easy to give something to the taxpayers. You learn that at municipal government. You can give them a stop sign but it's very difficult to take it back.

Ultimately, what's done when you increase spending and when you institutionalize a $10-billion deficit you've created expectations by fuelling them with borrowed money. The difficult part is what they're facing today because they're trying to claw back what they gave. They're finding it very difficult because the taxpayers who receive some of these services and the broader public sector which received 14% increases in the first year don't want to give it back because that's just human nature. They don't want to give back what you had given them two short years ago. So ultimately, this government, in a rare, rare showing, which I would consider to be rare in this province, decided to fight a world recession by spending $10 billion more than it had. That was just lunacy. It was fantasy to think that they could resolve this recessionary time by spending money on a provincial basis. Some, I think, have learned that they've made a very --

1720

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Tell them to phone Regina and ask Grant Devine.

Mr Stockwell: Even to this day, you have the group across the floor continuing to heckle when even the most ardent fan of this government would agree it made a blunder, a very serious blunder.

Mr Bradley: But they're heckling in more expensive suits these days.

Mr Stockwell: They're heckling in more expensive suits. Gone are the checked jackets and elbow patches, I will add, but that's exactly the mistake they made, so they institutionalized the $10-billion debt. Every year, year in and year out, they've institutionalized it. Now they're trying to claw their way back to the original $10 billion this year.

Mr Perruzza: What did Grant Devine do in Saskatchewan?

Mr Stockwell: I can't even pretend to defend Grant Devine. I don't know what he did. I don't think his government was the greatest government in the world, but I'm not here to defend Grant Devine. I got elected as a provincial MPP to discuss the issues that affect the taxpayers today --

Mr Perruzza: He made a mess.

Mr Stockwell: Believe it or not, even though the member for Downsview pipes up, I haven't had a single constituent complain to me about Grant Devine, but I've had a truckload complain to me about Bob Rae. So that's what I'm here talking about.

Having said that, they institutionalized a $10-billion deficit, ever-spiralling, and they've institutionalized double-digit unemployment. Those are the two legacies they are going to leave this province, a $10-billion deficit each year, year in and year out and double-digit unemployment. And to make it very difficult to buy into, they seem happy if the unemployment rolls roll down to 10%. Six years ago, ten years ago, 10% would have been a disaster, an utter failure as an unemployment rate, but now, under Bob Rae and this NDP government, 10% is considered an acceptable, reasonable rate of unemployment in this province. That's the first of their many dilemmas that they have faced as a government.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I hear from the Minister without Portfolio who can't sit at the cabinet table. Tell me and maybe I'll tell your colleagues.

I hear today that the Treasurer is talking about --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I'm getting the heckling from the member who told me he was going to abolish tuition fees, not raise them. Let's just get that straight before you keep heckling.

I hear from the Treasurer today that they're in for a fundamental restructuring in this province. I don't know when this fact hit him, but we've been in a fundamental restructuring for the past three years. Half a million job losses, plant closures, manufacturing jobs lost, deficit spiralling, taxes going unpaid, people leaving this province -- surely to goodness it hasn't taken this government this long to understand that we are in a fundamental restructuring in this province that will not be complete for at least a decade.

I simply don't blame this government for the recession. Of course it's not just their fault. Of course it isn't just your fault that the world goes into recessionary times. Of course it's not your fault that the provincial governments in other jurisdictions also fall under the same problems. What is your fault, what you didn't address in the throne speech, is how you reacted to this recession. You were slow, and when you finally came about to making decisions, they were the wrong decisions. They were wrongheaded.

Mr Perruzza: You should have used Brian's slash and burn.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has the floor. Other members will have the opportunity.

Mr Stockwell: They were wrongheaded. They were based in social doctrine that simply didn't work. Who is paying for this particular wrongheaded decision-making? The people of Ontario. Not us across this floor; we are the lucky people who are still employed during this recession. Those unemployed, those on welfare, those on unemployment insurance are the ones who are paying for the wrongheaded decisions.

So when I hear from the throne speech that this government has suddenly woken up and finally discovered this recession and finally accepted the fact that you can't spend your way to prosperity, I am somewhat cynical, because that was told to them on a number of occasions over a two- and three-year period.

It seems to me that what has happened is that nobody woke this government up other than the international monetary funds, the bond houses across this world that said to this government, "You are in such dire straits, you are so financially disorganized and mismanaged that you're going to have to shape up or we're not flogging your bonds." This government thinks our party is a tough party, a right-wing party and tough on spending. Mark my words: If they think we're tough, wait until they deal with the bond markets and bank managers when it comes to paying back what they borrowed. We're not tough compared to those people, because they don't want any debate. They just want their money.

Now, what can this government do? Having said that, they have created --

Mr Bradley: Resign.

Mr Stockwell: Besides resigning, which I don't think they'll do. They have created this dilemma. You have created it with some bad fiscal management, and I believe your Treasurer has a lot of responsibility in this. I fundamentally think that he had a lot of say in this budget, and he made some wrong decisions.

I debated those decisions with some of the members, and I know the Solicitor General today was part of a public debate we had on a local cable 10 show when we talked about the deficits and what the real deficit was, and he tried to convince us, as he was convinced by his cabinet at the time, that the real deficit was $9.9 billion.

Surely to goodness, after what that deficit came in at, you people must have the capacity to at least debate, to question whether or not the numbers and statistics your cabinet is giving you are accurate and reflective of the economic status this province is in today, because if you're not questioning it, then you're not thinking, and if you're not thinking, you're not serving your constituents.

The fundamental problem we are going through is a restructuring in this province like we've never seen before. I say I don't blame you for the recession. I don't, but the problems that have arisen are compounded by the decisions that they've made.

You go around this province, as I have done during this last session we were off, and you talk to people about the dilemmas they're faced with, and the people say that people have to understand that government can't provide all the things that it provided for them in the past.

We speak about education. I heard the last Liberal speaker talking about education. Education must be dealt with, but it can't be dealt with by another royal commission. Do you realize that in 1993, as compared to 1960 -- that was just 30 years ago -- we spent 300% more per student, inflation built in, just in real dollars, than we did in 1960? And they're graduating them at a rate that 37% of those students who are graduating are considered functionally illiterate.

I accept the fact that the education system may have gone downhill in the last 30 years, and I blame government, because governments allowed it to go downhill. But what really bothers me is that we're spending 300% more in real terms to produce illiterates, and that's why we're uncompetitive.

We don't need another royal commission. We need nationwide testing. We don't need to be talking to teachers about their pension fund and how much more money they're going to need to teach. We need to talk about rolling back the cost of education. We can't afford the system that's in place today. We can't afford the system that's in place today with respect to health care. We can't afford 900,000 employees in the broader public sector. We can't afford it.

Do you want to know a very scary number? This government collects $43 billion in revenue. Do you know what the payroll for the broader public sector is? About $43 billion. Do you know what you meet with respect to the revenue you generate? You meet your payroll, and that's all. You don't pay for a pencil, a program; you pay for nothing other than payroll.

So to suggest to the people of this province -- and this is what I will say as a member of the Conservative caucus -- that the fundamental restructuring that's going to take place in the next 10 years isn't going to be painful is misleading. It will be painful. To suggest that the services we've enjoyed can be left in place is absolutely wrong, to suggest that restructuring can take place in the private sector and not in government is absolutely wrongheaded and dead wrong, and to suggest that government can continue to spend at the level it's been spending is absolutely ludicrous. We can't.

I don't blame this government specifically. Some of these programs were put in place by previous Liberal governments and Conservative governments. But we as legislators, collectively we, have done a bad job in the last five to seven years of managing this provincial economy and managing the province in general.

1730

From Confederation to 1985, $30 billion in debt is what we acquired. You've seen the projections from this Treasurer that if we don't make some serious changes, it's going to be well over $100 billion in 10 short years. That is scary.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You're starting to get it.

Mr Stockwell: You're starting to get it. But we continue to raise the hackles of the members across the floor, and we continue to raise the hackles of the supporters of the members from across the floor, by speaking plain English and explaining simple finances.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister without Portfolio in Economic Development and Trade): The debt-to-ratio situation of the GDP in 1981-82 was exactly the same as it is today.

Mr Stockwell: Excuse me?

The Acting Speaker: Order. Please overlook the interjection. Interjections are out of order.

Mr Stockwell: I'll deal with the GDP. Collectively, in this country, we have $650 billion in debt. Our GDP as a country is 100% of gross domestic product. The suggestion is that the GDP as a percentage is the same as it was in 1981 or 1982. This is just fantasyland economics. Why it is fantasyland economics is because it matters not what percentage your GDP and debt is, it doesn't matter, because what it comes down to, I tell the ex-Minister of Colleges and Universities -- I'm not sure what you are now. What I say to you is this: The difficulty with debt is you can acquire as much as you can service. That's the most comfortable part. We've long since passed, as a province, the ability to acquire and service our debt.

What would I tell this government if I were in its shoes? What offers would I make today? What advice would I give you? My advice is to be upfront with the public and be frank and brutally honest.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Let me finish. The question is, have they been frank and brutally honest? I will say to you, Mr Speaker, and I say to the members across the floor, you have been nothing but mischievous and deceitful in your previous budgets. I look across at the member from Agincourt and I know first hand that we could have told you what your debt was the day you announced your budget. You wouldn't admit it. That isn't being honest. Your debt was always $13 billion or $14 billion, always, from day one on, but you wouldn't admit it.

If you go forward and take the people into your confidence by treating them honestly and telling them, "We are $13 billion or $14 billion in debt, and we want your help and advice," and go to the bureaucrats in this province -- and I don't think you're wrong in asking for rollbacks and cuts. I think you were wrong to give them 14% in the first year. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't be in that mess, because I would never have given them 14% in the first year. But I think that's a good move, I think it's a fair move, and when that legislation comes through because they're not going to accept it, I will support this government.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): You wouldn't have asked for their advice; you wouldn't have negotiated. That's the difference.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Yorkview is not in his seat, and interjections are not in order.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I will direct my response to the member for Yorkview. I tried to explain to the member for Yorkview that I wouldn't need to go back to them: I wouldn't have given them that kind of increase in the first year. Having said that, you gave it to them. If you bring forward recommendations to this House calling for rollbacks in wages from the broader public sector, I personally will commit to you that I will support them, because I think you're going to have to do it. I will support the program cuts that you're looking for. I will support most of the programs you've been talking about, because as I said the other day at the throne speech, I came back looking for a good fight with a socialist, and I couldn't find one. The conversion is incredible.

Finally, and I only have one minute to wrap up --

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): Thank goodness.

Mr Stockwell: I was going to chortle and offer a salient comment, but I considered the source.

Finally, this restructuring is not going to end once you leave power, and I know you're going to leave power. In two years, you won't be there. Whoever moves in is going to have a very difficult time.

Mr Mammoliti: Do you want to read my palm?

Mr Stockwell: I don't need to read your palm; I read the two by-election results.

What I would suggest to this government in closing is that as long as you're upfront and truthful, the people will buy into your plans. But for three years, using your integrity level as a benchmark -- I look to the Ferguson affair, to the Masters affair, to the Shelley Martel affair -- you'd better change directions pretty quickly, because in my opinion you're reaching a level of fringe party status because of your inability to deal with the integrity issue in your cabinet and caucus and your inability to handle the fiscal problems in this province.

So if you're truthful and honest with the people, you may find opposition will come forward and in fact support some of the programs you're calling for today.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate?

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): It's a pleasure to participate in the debate on the throne speech.

Our government has introduced in the throne speech a 10-point plan to put Ontario back to work. We will use creative and innovative methods to ensure economic and social justice in the province of Ontario. I believe the role of the government is to ensure that the most vulnerable in society are protected. We made a commitment in 1990 to increase social services and bring about true social justice in the province of Ontario. However, because of the recession and the debt we inherited from previous governments, we have had to accept at this time to maintain and preserve these services until the economic recovery is such that we can expand these services.

In order to maintain our social services, one of our mandates from the citizens of Ontario has been to review the programs, boards and agencies in the public service, looking for inefficiency, duplication and redundancy. The government of Ontario believes that the best way to restructure effectively is by doing it in a planned, well-thought-out and fair way, that is, through a negotiated social contract, not through sweeping cuts, as has been done in other provinces.

To do this requires careful review, working in partnership to make these changes, giving service deliverers adequate time to make changes, encouraging restructuring and preserving essential services and minimizing job loss while reducing costs. The public has asked for this in the past, but previous administrations have refused to deal with this issue. Our government is not afraid to find a workable solution that will be both fair and equitable to the public service and still maintain social justice.

The Ontario investment fund was an opportunity for the broader public service to voluntarily buy into its own future, encouraging growth and revitalization in Ontario, but it chose not to participate. Now, in partnership with the private sector, we will provide companies with an opportunity for long-term investment, an investment in not only their future but the future of all Ontarians.

Pride, dignity and respect: These are three simple words that carry a great deal of meaning to all the citizens of Ontario. Through our 10-point plan, we recognized this need, and through legislation we are helping those in society who have for too long been deprived of these rights.

Our government is providing justice in the workplace. We are recognizing and aiding those agencies in the broader public sector that are known to be predominantly female and of low wage. The pay equity down payment announced earlier this spring is simply justice for working women and a commitment to pay women for the value of the work that they perform. Our plan includes extending pay equity to an additional 400,000 working women in the province of Ontario.

Employment equity strengthens social justice. Employment equity draws upon the talents of all Ontarians, not just a select few. Again, employment equity provides justice in the workplace for members of visible minorities, people with disabilities, women and aboriginal people, and ensures that they are treated fairly by their employers.

This government leads by example. As one of the province's largest employers, we realize that achieving employment equity is a process of long organizational change. This government remains committed to that goal.

The passage of Bill 40 is another example of our commitment to social justice in the workplace. Our workforce has changed significantly over the years. Bill 40 recognizes and respects these changes. Our economy has shifted away from the industrial sector and is more concentrated in the service sector, and the number of part-time workers has more than doubled. Bill 40 provides workers in Ontario their right to fairness, respect and dignity in the workplace, encouraging partnerships and cooperation, building on teamwork and enhancing the workplace.

The Ontario Training and Adjustment Board is an exciting piece of legislation, encouraging partnerships between businesses, labour, educators, training providers and community-based groups who, together, recognize the training needs in Ontario. The local training boards will be able to custom-fit training requirements to their local areas. Both employers and employees benefit from training to upgrade skills, making our workforce more competitive in a global market. We have made job creation and training a top priority.

1740

The announced Jobs Ontario Capital fund will fund improvements to the infrastructure of our province. In partnerships with municipalities and the private sector, we will be investing in our highways, transit systems, improving water quality, conservation and expanding our telecommunication networks. Investment in the infrastructure of our province makes our province more attractive to investors.

Jobs Ontario Training will continue to train our workforce, to train our youth and to upgrade skills. Jobs Ontario Homes has provided affordable housing while creating jobs in the construction industry, which has gone through tough times because of the extended recession we are in. The Jobs Ontario Training fund is an example of the New Democrat government carefully investing Ontario's limited resources to create jobs and maintain essential services.

We have set up a cabinet committee on the North American free trade deal. We are going out and listening to what people have to say. Our government strongly feels that NAFTA is a bad deal for Ontario. We've been hearing this across the province. Our economic renewal is beginning. Let us remain in control of our destiny and say no to NAFTA.

We have brought to the political process a consultation process that encourages participation by all. To ensure economic and social justice for all, we must continue with our partnerships to deal with issues and opportunities, because we are all in this together. Our 10-point plan to put Ontario back to work is based on those principles. Our programs and policies are based on economic and social justice, based on partnerships and responsibility.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate.

Mr Bradley: I begin my response to the speech from the throne with the lament that of course there is so little time to discuss the many issues which confront our province and specifically the constituency which I represent. Part of the reason for that is because of the new rules that Premier Rae has implemented in this House, has imposed upon the Ontario Legislature, which will not permit members of this Legislature to analyse and debate legislation and policy in the manner to which we have been accustomed in years gone by when this House represented democracy and an opportunity for individual members to air those views.

The fact is, in addition to that, this Legislative Assembly has not been in session since December 10, 1992, and simply came back for the speech from the throne on April 13. Subsequent to that, we have had three question periods. The Premier is one for three in showing up for those question periods, where matters of great public importance are being discussed.

That's most unfortunate, because I well recall in years gone by the reverence that the now Premier of this province, in his capacity as leader of the official opposition and leader of the New Democratic Party, had for democratic principles and for the traditions of this House. Those have disappeared with the new rules, which now entrench in the Office of the Premier and unelected people in this province new powers which rob not only members of the opposition but elected government members of their opportunity to influence policy in a manner which would be productive for all of us, because I think there are members on all sides of the House who have some good ideas and some good suggestions for some of the problems that confront our province.

I would like to raise some local issues, because that's about all that this will allow us the opportunity to do, and some of those local issues are important to all of us who represent the Niagara Peninsula.

First of all, I urge the government, and I didn't see any specific reference in the speech from the throne in this regard, to look very carefully, to analyse and to promote the automotive and automotive parts industry in Ontario.

Our own community has been devastated by two announcements particularly that have been made by General Motors. One was that they intended to close the foundry in St Catharines, a modern, efficient foundry with a well-trained and well-known and accepted workforce in St Catharines, and in addition to that part of the engine plant, but also the rear axle plant was the latest announcement to be made.

I am hopeful that the Premier will at long last accept the suggestion which I have made to him for several months, and that is that he go to the city of Detroit, that he talk with the top officials of General Motors to put the case for the province of Ontario and investments by General Motors in my community of St Catharines and other parts of this province, because I think the weight of the Premier's office, regardless of who occupies that office, is considerable and can have an influence on the future investment policies of major corporations and on changing decisions which have been made in the past in other circumstances.

I hope that the province of Ontario will make that effort, will see the automotive industry as being an extremely important one. It is estimated that one in three jobs, directly or indirectly, is at least influenced by the automotive and automotive parts industry, so all members of this House have I think an interest, as far as their constituents are concerned, in a strong automotive industry.

I also want to say that within the allocation which has been made -- and I'm not one who stands in the House and says that the government has a lot of new money it can infuse into the economy; it does not have that money. We've had a discussion of why that is the case. I don't want to discuss that part, because I think, in fairness, I want to say within the allocation which has been provided to the various ministries, I would like to point out the priorities we have in the Niagara region. Then the ministers and the government may make their judgements on where their priorities would lie.

Members from the Niagara region attended at the regional council a meeting where it was pointed out that in very recent years next to no money has been coming into the Niagara Peninsula for sewer and water services. All of us who represent various parts of the region want to see an investment of provincial funds from that allocation. That means perhaps others will not have that opportunity; their members certainly can make that case. But I would like to see this government investing again in the cleanup of water in our province. I think that can be done by the regular grant program that is available through the Ministry of the Environment.

This government likes to refer to it as "Jobs Ontario." That's just a term which is used. It means nothing to me and nothing to the people of my constituency. All it is is the regular grant program and the regular programs with less money being doled out by the provincial government. So I consider that to be somewhat of a ruse.

But put that aside. Members who sat in at that meeting will be happy to see the government decide to invest money in cleaning up the waterways, as has been happening in the past. Sewage treatment plants have to be upgraded and expanded, and water treatment plants where necessary for the purposes of providing pure water for people. Again I recognize that there isn't an unlimited amount of money over there, and I don't want to be unfair enough to suggest that somehow the government can simply create those funds out of midair; it cannot do so.

I raise the issue of the Niagara Peninsula Children's Centre, which is near and dear to those of us who had a chance to tour that centre and see the fine work which is being done by that staff. There is a fund-raising committee out there, and to show you how much support there is, it's been extremely successful in raising the private sector or the non-government sector funding for that -- the volunteer sector funding.

They're now awaiting the final approval of the Ministry of Health so that they can be involved in and move along with the redevelopment of that particular building, which now serves about 1,000 young people in a building which should accommodate 400 to 500 people at best. That's why I raise the issue in the House today. I know other members from the peninsula have no doubt raised it with the minister in various ways that they have available to them.

Another issue I am concerned about is the fact that we have CAT scans taking place in the United States, when in fact we have some capacity in the Niagara Peninsula. If only we had the appropriate funding and staffing within the machines that exist in the Niagara Peninsula. I'm now pleased to say that we have two machines in the Niagara Peninsula. If we were to utilize those machines with the appropriate funding, we would find that people wouldn't have to head to the other side of the border to get their health care. If there were no such capacity, one could understand the government perhaps opting on an interim basis for that kind of endeavour, but in this case that is available in the province of Ontario.

I want to say as well that the family and children's services staff are working in quarters that are extremely cramped and not conducive to providing the best possible service to people, particularly in the Welland office, but certainly the St Catharines office is in the same position.

Is my time up soon?

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member's time is up.

1750

Mr Bradley: I see. I didn't know I was allocated that time, but I would like to thank the Speaker for being very tolerant and say to my constituents that Bob Rae has limited the amount of time that I have to speak today.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member. Further debate? The honourable member for Essex-Kent.

Mr Hayes: I'm very pleased to get up and speak for a few moments on the throne speech. I find it rather interesting, when you get members from the opposition get up and complain about not having enough time to speak, they spend more time complaining than they actually do to speak on the issue.

This throne speech is a plan to put Ontario back to work. The plan consists of programs and policies that are already working for Ontario, such as health care reform and Jobs Ontario. It also includes new initiatives in economic development and education. It is a plan that will bring about fundamental reforms in the delivery of government services to the public and in the cost of those services. The goal is to return Ontario to a prosperity that is based on responsible fiscal management; investment in jobs; partnerships between government, business and labour; a principle of fairness and human dignity; respect for the environment; and an abiding concern to provide for the vulnerable among us and especially the children in this province.

An investment in infrastructure: This government has launched more than 1,700 infrastructure projects throughout the Jobs Ontario Capital fund, creating more than 9,000 jobs across Ontario. Total capital spending by the government last year created about 75,000 jobs.

In partnerships with the municipalities and the private sector, we will invest $6 billion over the next decade to build new highways and public transit, improve our water quality and conservation and expand telecommunication networks. These are the concerns, I know, that everyone in the House has. We talk about our water quality and especially the environment.

The restructuring of Ontario Hydro will ensure that electricity rates support economic renewal by making our industries more competitive and will provide the residents of Ontario with a secure and affordable source of energy.

Since last summer, the government has helped create more than 19,000 new job opportunities through our Jobs Ontario Training programs, and the number of jobs available is growing at a rate of 1,000 per week. Jobs Ontario Training is getting thousands of people off welfare and into jobs. Also, not only does it benefit employees but it also is a benefit to the employers in this province.

The new Ontario Training and Adjustment Board will add to this success. It reflects our commitment to work with labour, business, educators and the broader community to provide training that offers real opportunities in the real world.

This government will continue to develop partnerships with the private sector to help Ontario industries grow and compete while providing more and better jobs. To meet the challenges of the new economy, Ontario companies need access to long-term capital. In partnership with the private sector, we will establish the Ontario investment fund to give companies a new source of long-term investment. I think this is one of the problems where governments have traditionally failed. We've always had so many ad hoc programs, programs that take care of this year, and we really have not for many years planned for the future in long-term planning to build the economy and to put people back to work in Ontario.

We are acting to bring economic renewal into the heart of our communities, particularly in rural and northern Ontario. The budget will contain, of course, the details on our community economic development. I'm sure members from all sides will be quite excited when they see our new economic development program.

This session the new community investment share and loan program will also be established to give small and medium-sized businesses better access to money. This will assist people who want to invest in their local communities through business creation and expansion. As well, $100 million has been raised for venture capital investment in small and medium-sized Ontario companies through labour-sponsored investment funds.

To strengthen the economic renewal, Ontario farmers are being provided with cost-effective financing and programs to stabilize farm income. Of course, the one example I know that members themselves and also the farmers in this province which was actually a farmer-driven program was the commodity loan guarantee program, which was initiated by this government, using a provincial guarantee to provide farmers with lower-cost working capital. Over the next year, this program will give farmers access to $100 million.

Of course, there's another program the Minister of Agriculture and Food will announce shortly, and that's the private mortgage program. That particular program will allow people in our rural communities to invest in farms to help new farmers and to help others who may be in financial need to get an affordable and a decent rate for their mortgage.

On health care, this government will continue to implement reforms in the health care system to control health care costs while improving the quality of service that is the envy of countries throughout the world. Hospitals are now providing more outpatient care, occupancy rates are decreasing, hospital stays are shorter, more surgery is done as day surgery and the total number of patients treated is up. Over the previous decade, the provincial spending on health care grew, on average, about 11% a year. Now that growth is almost down to 1%, and during this recession this government will implement a historic shift in the way we care for people, by introducing an innovative system of long-term care for the elderly and the disabled.

I think one of the most important things here is that we have involved the community in all of the projects that we are looking at and all the innovations, all the ideas by this government. We talked to labour, we talked to the community, we talked to the municipal people, we talked to corporations. Everybody has input before we make decisions on their future. I think this is something that says for this government that it is a very open government and Bob Rae is right forward with the people in this province. That's one of the things I get compliments on Bob Rae. The people say he's a very honest person, and that's the one thing they've been looking for in politicians.

The Acting Speaker: The time for all three political parties having now elapsed for today, this House will stand adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1758.

19 avril 1993