Journal des débats 1993-avril-20 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Yesterday in the Legislature, Dave Cooke, the Minister of Education and Training, admitted that the government is, first, backing down from his commitment to expend the $33 million left from last fall's promised transition fund, and secondly, he also refused to make the commitment that any of the $99-million restructuring fund also announced last fall would ever get to the boards.

When I asked the minister directly about when boards can expect to receive these moneys that were allocated, his response was that, at this point, "Those dollars are being reviewed and a final decision hasn't been made."

Just last month, the minister distributed to school boards a list of grants they were to receive, yet now this month we hear the minister revoking yet another funding announcement. Some partnership.

This is a critical time for school boards. Many of them are in a financial crisis. Once again, the rug has been pulled out from under them with the minister's disturbing unannouncement yesterday.

School boards are not asking for any new dollars; they are simply asking this minister to keep his commitment and provide stability to them by distributing the dollars that have already been committed.

It is completely unfair to expect local property taxpayers to once again pick up the tab for this minister's offloading on to local school boards. We are calling upon the minister to end the uncertainty and to act quickly to provide the funding that has already been promised to school boards across the province.

JOHN LUNAU

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): When the town of Markham woke up on Sunday morning of April 18, it was a poorer town with the loss of its town historian, storyteller, founder of the Markham Museum, a loyal and generous native son, John Lunau, who died at 63 years of age of a heart attack.

All of us who are a part of the town of Markham owe him a great debt of gratitude. First, his personal life in fighting the battle with diabetes didn't stop him from always wanting to contribute and to make it a better place. He was a courageous man. His love of his mother, Aileen, his heritage, his love for Canada, its traditions, our Queen, was an example to all of us. His roots were deep.

His commitment to the history of the community inspired all of us. Would we today have the Mount Joy school serving as a museum? I doubt it, had it not been for John.

He was in the process of developing a 200th-anniversary story of the town for our celebrations in June. He was known as a great sports supporter. He managed the Markham Aces baseball team to a championship in 1952. In 1987, he received the Achievement and Civic Recognition Award for outstanding contribution to our community.

To his mother, Aileen, to the whole community, to all who knew him and to those who didn't, we have lost just a tremendous friend and a great person. May God's peace rest with all who knew him, in his memory.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I rise again in the House to raise that issue of casino gambling and the ill-fated and ill-conceived attempt by the government of Ontario to bring forth a means of expanding gambling in the province of Ontario.

You know, I've written three papers which I have disseminated among all the members of this House and throughout the province of Ontario, and I have not received -- as usual -- any response to these things I have written. For instance, the last one, which is called Casino Gambling: A Regressive Tax on the Poor, is a paper that was basically written because what the government has tried to argue is that poor people are not impacted by lotteries and by gambling. This is not only a falsehood; it is a damnable falsehood. We see it in terms of the numbers of people who go to gambling casinos, go to bingos, use the lottery system as a means to help themselves to find a better tomorrow.

What I would like to say is that these are the kinds of things that are being offered by a government that no doubt is facing difficult times. But to face difficult times is one thing; to initiate a policy which is going to be regressive, which is going to be hurtful, which is going to cause poverty, which is going to cause more addiction in society, does not make any sense. I would ask the government to come to its senses and stop this policy and begin to move in a more positive way to help maintain the issue of social justice in our communities.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Mr Speaker, my statement today is directed through you to the Minister of Transportation.

The Minister of Transportation will be aware of recent articles dealing with the safety of Highway 403 between Highways 401 and 5. As the MPP for Mississauga North, I am very familiar with this highway, which runs through my area of responsibility. Recent articles provided alarming reports on the number of accidents which have taken place on that stretch of road. This highway has been the subject of three inquests over the last 18 months. It has been reported that despite accounting for only 10% of all the annual accidents on the seven highways patrolled by Port Credit OPP, this stretch of highway has accounted for 34% of the 75 fatalities over the past five years.

I believe it is imperative for the Minister of Transportation and his ministry to review the highway design and the immediate installation of a guard-rail through the centre of the existing grassy median. I believe that further guard-rail additions should be installed according to previous investigations.

Again, as the MPP for Mississauga North, I would ask the Minister of Transportation to give this matter his immediate personal attention so that safer road conditions will exist on a stretch of highway which is increasingly utilized.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise today to express my continued dissatisfaction with the way in which the NDP is handling the issue of restructuring in Simcoe county. It is becoming painfully clear that the government is searching for scapegoats for its own failure to move forward on legislation that would facilitate the restructuring of Simcoe county.

The government is using the opposition of myself and the member for Simcoe East as an excuse not to introduce the County of Simcoe Act. Yesterday the Minister of Municipal Affairs said the government would proceed with restructuring as long as there was a consensus in place. There has not been any consensus since day one of the process, when the previous Liberal government toldyou Simcoe county to restructure or else.

This message was brought home powerfully to the government in the last municipal election. In a referendum vote, several municipalities voted overwhelmingly against forced restructuring. Much to my disappointment, the government defeated my private member's bill that prevented forced amalgamation, even though the Premier and the NDP member from Simcoe Centre campaigned in the last election against forced restructuring.

But even more surprising than the government's flip-flop on this issue is its attempt to silence my right to represent my constituents. By tying my opposition to restructuring to their legislative timetable, this majority government is attempting to prevent me from doing what I was elected to do, and that's represent my constituents. Instead of making me their scapegoat for dragging their feet, the government should start dealing in honesty and tell the county of Simcoe what its plans are for the county's restructuring legislation.

1340

EARTH WEEK PROJECTS

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Mr Speaker, as you know, this is Earth Week. This week is about celebrating the life-sustaining richness of the earth, but it's also about recognizing the fragility and vulnerability of our world and our responsibility to care for it.

There is a risk during a recession that our awareness of the environment will be overshadowed by other concerns. A few years ago, the environment often took precedence over other considerations when people made decisions about buying products and services, and businesses responded by providing products and services that were more environmentally responsible than the existing products.

Fortunately, Earth Week can be used as the occasion to focus attention on the environment. In my constituency of Kingston and The Islands, there are a number of events planned for Earth Week, as I'm sure there are in many ridings throughout the province. For example, the Kingston Area Recycling Corp is holding two composting workshops this week. The Earth Day Ontario organization and the Kingston Global Community Centre are planning events, activities and displays with information about composting and being environmentally responsible both at home and at work, and trees will be planted in local parks.

The thing is that environmental issues can't be deferred, and a lot of the damage that's being done can't be reversed. We have to act now. There are simple things we can all do to save energy, water and trees. We can take reusable bags when we go shopping. We can turn off lights when we leave a room. We can walk or cycle instead of taking the car. We can stop buying products made with toxic chemicals. We can start composting at home and at work. We can reuse single-sided paper.

I urge everyone to get involved in Earth Week activities taking place in their communities and to do something this week to help the environment.

LEGAL ACTION

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I read with interest the statements by the Attorney General that she would be seeking a province-wide injunction with reference to people expressing their views in terms of the question of pro-life. I recognize that there is an allegation that these people are causing the subjects of this injunction a great difficulty. However, I find it passing strange that the New Democratic Party, which supports unionism and has fought for the right to picket, freedom of speech, the opportunity to express one's view, would take such a draconian position against parties at the behest of one side.

I would suggest that in the tradition of the New Democratic Party, perhaps it should stay out of the entire event and not support either side and allow the people to express their views, hopefully in a peaceful fashion, which has been the case to this point.

I find it really strange that a New Democratic Party would support bringing an injunction against people who are simply doing what unionists do on a regular basis in picketing against companies and in fact causing disturbances with companies, perhaps interfering with their business. In fact, they don't bring injunctions there, nor would I think the Attorney General would do so. She has done it on behalf of a select group. It is a very dangerous process, and I suspect that the courts will reject her application.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who claims that restructuring of north Simcoe county was a locally driven initiative. However, you have imposed section 33, which allows for the potential review of the boundaries of the cities of Barrie and Orillia. This is directly against the wishes of the county of Simcoe and clearly shows that restructuring is not a locally driven initiative.

This has been a flawed and undemocratic process from day one. The people of Orillia township were never asked if they wanted to be part of Oro township or the city of Orillia. Your government has disenfranchised the residents of these and many other municipalities in Simcoe county.

Minister, yesterday you said you would move with legislation if and when all parties concerned reach a consensus. Minister, that's a copout. Your job as minister is to bring forward the appropriate legislation and then assist in reaching that consensus.

My job, as my party's critic for Municipal Affairs (rural) is to reflect the opinions and views of the affected constituents and provide constructive criticism of that legislation. The member for Simcoe West and I would suggest that you fulfil your obligations as minister rather than looking for someone to blame for your government's flawed and undemocratic agenda.

EARTH WEEK PROJECTS

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): As all members are aware, this week is Earth Week. Earth Week includes the promotion and encouragement of all communities to become involved in cleaning up our ravines and our rivers and all of our green spaces. This includes planting trees, recycling and fighting against pollution.

In my own riding, we have some special activities which are happening through the borough of East York. We will be having special cleanup days on April 24, May 1 and May 8. For more information on where these spring cleanups are taking place, you can contact Christine Chandler at 778-2036.

I would like to encourage all levels of government to participate in this Earth Week and in the promotion of awareness of Earth Week. Finally, I would like to issue a challenge to all opposition members to participate in this week by reducing our amounts of junk mail.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Premier. Premier, you have indicated in recent weeks, on a number of occasions, that the financial situation of the province is deteriorating significantly, and you yourself have raised the prospect that we could face a $17-billion in-year deficit in fiscal 1993-94 if significant cost containment measures are not undertaken.

Premier, you yourself have also invested a great deal in what you have chosen to call a "social contract," which you and your government are endeavouring to negotiate not just with your partners in the direct Ontario public service but within the broader Ontario public service as well. I was interested yesterday, Premier, to hear your chief negotiator in these social contract talks say rather directly to a couple of journalists that he wasn't exactly sure and could not personally define what the "social contract" meant.

My question, Premier, is, given the extremely serious financial situation in which your government now finds itself, and given the importance which you yourself have attached to this exercise which you have described as a "social contract," would you tell the House, your partners in these talks and the province beyond what you intend and what you, Bob Rae, Premier, mean to intend by the term "social contract"?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Perhaps the simplest way to introduce the member to the concept is to say that it's the one way that this government can see of saving jobs and essential services in a time of really tremendous economic restraint. That's the basic framework which we are presenting to all of our partners in the broader public sector.

I think it was Mr Little, the reporter for the Globe and Mail, yesterday who in his article on the subject of the debt in Ontario made the comment that the legacy of the three-year government of which the honourable member was such an active member was to create a public sector which could only be sustained if the economy was running flat out. Well, I think we all understand that this has not happened to the economy in the last three years. Therefore, there have to be significant adjustments made in the public sector.

We made decisions that we would essentially try to carry the problem ourselves, as a government, at the peak of the recession, and we made that decision. It is now clear that as the recovery comes on there is a real need for us to make a significant adjustment this year and that this adjustment has to be made in cooperation with all our partners. The existing contractual relationships between employees and employers we don't think are sufficiently broad, take enough things into account, in order to allow us, with our partners, in cooperation with our partners, to make this adjustment.

1350

Mr Conway: Mr Premier, we are apparently about a month away from the Finance minister's 1993 budget. Anyone who knows anything about competent government would know that at this late point in that cycle, the executive council, certainly the Premier and the Finance minister, would clearly have worked out their fiscal framework in which the budget will sit, assuming that we are going to get a provincial budget within three, four or five week's time. Assuming that is a reasonable point, I ask the Premier this question.

Yesterday, some of his partners in this critical dialogue around the new social contract essentially said: "We are not prepared to talk about a broad, ethereal framework. We want, Mr Premier, to know much more of the particulars of what your contract intends, and we don't intend to discuss in generalities."

Given that time is passing --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the honourable member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Conway: I noticed you were prepared to give the Premier a very considerable latitude, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Would the honourable member take his seat, please. I would like equal opportunity for both sides, and the member will know from watching the clock that to date that's what happened, but I'm asking both sides to be brief in their questions and their responses.

Mr Conway: I was watching the clock; that's why I made my comment.

I want to say to the Premier, will you tell us today, and your partners, not just in the Ontario public service but in the hospital and school board and community college and municipal sectors, what specific intentions you have and what specific directions you have given to Mr Decter, who has admitted as recently as yesterday that he doesn't know exactly what the social contract intends?

Hon Mr Rae: I think perhaps some of Mr Decter's sense of irony was lost on the member, but I don't think it was lost on the reporters. Let me just say directly to the honourable member, this information will be shared with the people at the negotiating table and with the general public very, very soon indeed, and I would say to the honourable member that his account of the perfect knowledge that former ministers of finance and former first ministers had prior to a budget doesn't exactly jibe with every piece of anecdotal and other information I've heard over the last 15 years.

Mr Conway: What we know is that it is the Rae government which has been in charge of the finances of this province for two and a half years. It is the Rae-Laughren team which has brought the province and the public service of this province to the brink of this precipice. Let there be no confusion.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: It was not that long ago that the Ontario Labour Relations Board said the following, and I quote, "Surface bargaining is a term which describes going through the motions or preserving of the surface indications of bargaining without the intent of concluding an agreement."

Will the Premier, as leader of this NDP socialist government, give his partners in the direct and broader Ontario public service a commitment that he is not engaged in surface bargaining and that in fact his negotiator and his government will meet their partners in good faith as they go forward in these discussions?

Hon Mr Rae: My answer to his question is quite simply yes. My answer to his lengthy preamble is that if he is standing in this place and saying that, as a member of a government which in a time of unprecedented economic good times still managed to raise the deficit by over 33%, he is pointing the finger at one particular political party as being solely responsible for the situation in which we now find ourselves as a province, I would say to the honourable member that I don't think that kind of comment has any credibility with anybody whatsoever.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: A second question, Mr Speaker: I'll tell you, I'll be saying to the public servants and the citizens of Ontario, "You judge your condition in 1993 under Bob Rae and you compare it with the Liberal administration of 1985 to 1990 and you decide."

The Speaker: Could the member place his second question, please.

Mr Conway: I'll ask the nurses and the teachers and the public servants if they think --

The Speaker: Could the member place his second question.

Mr Conway: -- life in Bob Rae's Ontario is better or worse than in David Peterson's Ontario, and they will agree with the electors of Don Mills and St George-St David that Bob Rae --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. Was the member placing his second question?

Mr Conway: My second question is to the junior minister of Health. To the minister, yesterday the press reported that the Premier intends that we should all share in the sacrifice and the burden which the social contract will impose upon Ontarians. My question is to the junior minister of Health, and that is the member for Perth.

The Speaker: The member raises something which I've given some thought to, but it's unclear as to whether or not a member without portfolio can answer a question with or without the agreement of the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the members to come to order. I'll entertain a point of order once I'm finished. I would direct to the member for Renfrew North --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member raises a serious point, one which I would appreciate an opportunity to reflect on and come back to the House with a ruling. In the interim, I will say that it is appropriate to ask questions only of ministers of the crown. You may wish to -- point of order?

ROLE OF MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Mr Speaker, I find it very strange. I don't want to challenge the authority of the Chair, but there is recent and constant history in this House, certainly in the administration of the Liberal government, where we had ministers without portfolio who regularly were asked and answered questions. There's nothing unusual about it at all. We had several and on a regular basis they were asked questions. No one raised any objection to it. It was a matter of course. I'm sure if you check with the table officers, you will find that is quite in order.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I'd like to comment on the point of order raised by the member opposite. Ministers without portfolio should not be answering questions in this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: Mr Speaker, that's not only a precedent in this House, but it's also a precedent that is supported by precedents at Westminster.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order. A serious point of order was raised. It's incumbent upon the members to listen respectfully to those who are seeking to advise the Chair. I would ask members to have some basic respect for those who are attempting to assist the Speaker. I would ask, since this is a procedural matter, that if the members could be brief in their comments, I am quite prepared to add some time to the clock to continue. But I would ask for the members' cooperation and respect for one another in this chamber.

1400

Hon Mr Charlton: On December 12, 1991, the Speaker ruled on a point of order raised by the member for Carleton on November 27, 1991. That ruling disallowed any questions to the member for Niagara South, both by virtue of a role as Minister without Portfolio and by virtue of a role as chief government whip.

That ruling is very much in keeping with Erskine May, which states that questions to ministers must relate to matters for which those ministers are officially responsible and, further to that, it is not in order to question a minister for something for which another minister is more directly responsible.

Ministers without portfolio have been specifically assigned responsibilities for which they have sole carriage, such as the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues, have been asked questions in this House. However, the current ministers without portfolio do not have responsibilities assigned specifically to them. While many of the ministers without portfolio are associated with a ministry, there is clearly in all cases a different minister who is actually responsible for the ministry in question and who can be asked a question on that ministry by any member.

The Speaker should, in keeping with earlier rulings in this House and in the British House of Commons, rule any questions to ministers without portfolio out of order.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I think if the Speaker will check -- and we're quite prepared to give him time to do that -- he will find that there have been numerous examples, both with respect to the previous government and the government before it, where ministers without portfolio in this very Legislature routinely were asked and answered questions.

With respect to the comment just made by the government House leader, the Premier has said -- and I'm sure we can get you the press releases and the newspaper clippings -- that these ministers indeed do have real responsibility and real duties, that they're not just sham, that they do have real responsibilities that each and every one of them is responsible for.

The member for Renfrew North is simply directing a question to a Minister without Portfolio who is quite properly referred to as a junior minister, because the Premier has designated her thus, to answer a question within her jurisdiction that the Premier has given to her.

I would also point out to you, Mr Speaker, that the Minister of Education and Training was just quoted, either yesterday or the day before, in the media as saying he indeed needed two ministers to run his huge, new supereducation ministry and five parliamentary assistants, and he went on to say that they each have duties that he has delineated to them for which they are each responsible.

I think, Mr Speaker, if you will check the record, the point that the government House leader makes about the member for Niagara South is quite appropriate. I would point out to you that the difference in that case was that the member for Niagara South had no ministerial responsibilities whatsoever besides being the whip of the government party, and you quite properly, I would submit to you, ruled that particular question out of order because she had no delineated responsibilities. But these ministers, as the Premier's own words say, definitely do, and they should be able to answer questions for matters which they are responsible for.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On the same point, Mr Speaker: I find the statement by the House leader of the government very strange. If it is indeed true that the ministers without portfolio do not have any responsibilities specifically assigned to them, then surely why are they being paid a special salary and why are they given ministerial privileges such as a car, salary and extra staff?

In short, and I want to make this very brief, you're speaking to a person who was a Minister without Portfolio for multiculturalism and for disabled persons. Therefore I routinely answered many times question after question from these people across the seats, including the present Premier.

Consequently, we would request -- nay, demand -- that ministers without portfolio come here and answer questions that are assigned to them, specific or not specific. That's their responsibility and duty to this House.

The Speaker: I appreciate the contributions from the different members who have spoken, particularly the House leader from the third party, the House leader from the government and others who have spoken. It is a matter which requires some deliberation. I'm very pleased to do so. I will try to get back to you as quickly as possible.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask the members in the interim to ask questions only of ministers of the crown and I will endeavour to come back to the House as quickly as possible.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am standing on a point of order because I attended the swearing-in of the current cabinet. I sat there and witnessed the oath that was taken by every one of the members that are now known as ministers or associate ministers. I would like to place that on the record. If there was any differentiation between those cabinet members at that time, it was not addressed at their swearing-in ceremony.

The Speaker: I appreciate the member's contribution. Table, would you add 10 minutes to the time.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I think there's an important distinction to be made between the previous ruling of the Chair and this particular case. I think it's very, very important that members of the Legislative Assembly that are not part of the executive council have the parliamentary opportunity to question ministers with regard to their activities.

This Premier has decided to reconfigure his cabinet in such a manner where he has, shall we call them, senior and junior ministers. That is the choice of the Premier, and I don't challenge his ability or his right to do that. I think every Premier should have that right. But the balancing part of this equation, in my humble opinion, is that if a minister is sitting as part of the executive council and in fact has some responsibility to the people of Ontario as a cabinet minister, surely members of the Legislature have the right to question that minister with regard to his or her responsibilities. Surely that's a very, very basic part of our parliamentary system.

For instance, if the Premier of Ontario said, "I will be the only principal minister in all of the government and everybody else shall be junior ministers," we would not be permitted to ask anyone other than the Premier questions. If you wanted to take it to that extreme, then by that exaggeration I think you show the principle that a Premier can cover his exposure with regard to a number of issues by limiting the number of senior cabinet ministers.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, I do not believe that your ruling before stands in good stead in terms of parliamentary procedure, parliamentary tradition, with regard to the reforms which this Premier has taken unilaterally to reconfigurate his cabinet. Thank you very much.

The Speaker: I appreciate the member's thoughtful contribution. He makes some good points which I naturally will consider.

1410

Hon Mr Charlton: On a couple of the points that have been raised in addition since I made my first comments, Mr Speaker, it should be noted that I said in my first response that ministers without portfolio who have specific assignments where no one else is responsible have traditionally in this House answered questions. On the other hand, the minister in each of the ministries, the primary Minister of Health or in any other ministry, is the minister responsible to answer questions in this House.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): The rules say nothing about primary ministers. Read the rules. You are the House leader; read the rules. That is not in the rules.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Hon Mr Charlton: Mr Speaker, parliamentary assistants also get assigned specific work tasks in ministries but they don't answer questions in this House. There is one minister responsible, as the accountable minister, to answer questions in this House.

The Speaker: I thank the member and, before recognizing the member for Renfrew North, would you reset the clock to 49 minutes and 4 seconds. I recognize the member for Renfrew North. Based on what he asked before, he may wish to ask a new question or redirect his question, and he may wish to start over.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I will ask the question and, quite frankly, the government can decide whomsoever it wishes to answer the question, because my concern is today not a parliamentary one, it's a financial one. We all know that times are tough and that, as the Premier says, we all have to do our share and, to quote the Premier from yesterday's meeting, that the government will lead the way and will do its part.

My question then to the Minister of Health─

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Whoever it is.

Mr Conway: -- to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore: What is it, given these tough times and this walloping deficit that the government has and the need to have unprecedented social contract negotiations with your partners in the public service to talk about freezes and rollbacks and program cuts -- against the backdrop of all of that, Minister, can you tell the hard-pressed taxpaying public of Ontario what it is that the junior minister of Health, the member for Perth, does to earn her $75,000 salary and to have six political assistants and to have a budget of over $400,000, with a car and driver to boot? What is it that the member for Perth and the junior minister of Health does for the beleaguered taxpayer that she, the Minister of Health, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, does not or cannot do, or her two parliamentary assistants do not do in the normal course of events?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, the Premier will respond to that question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, what can I do? What can I do? What can I do?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, they complain when I'm not here; they complain when I'm here. It seems to be a common refrain.

I don't want to say anything, Mr Speaker, with respect to the questions which are now before you, and any decision which you make, sir, will be entirely accepted by the government. But I do want to say to the honourable member that he may not agree with the approach that we've taken; however, it does have many parallels in other governments. We decided to reduce the size of the cabinet and at the same --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, the number of ministries has been significantly reduced. There was at one time in the administration of my predecessor, of the people who are laughing, opposite, so hard, when there were well over 44 deputy ministers. There are now 30, 31 deputy ministers in the government. We are carrying out and we will be carrying out in the course of this preparation for the budget a very, very significant reduction in the size of government in this province, which will include all levels of the government.

So I want to say to the honourable member, the purpose of having larger ministries, of having ministers which in other governments are called ministers of state or associate ministers or ministers delegate, which they are in France or in Germany or in England or in any other place you want to look at, the determination was to have a cabinet which would be smaller, that is to say 20, but a ministry which would be made up of the ministers who are there.

The ministers without portfolio who are working within ministries are working in association with the minister. They are taking --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): That's one of the PA's jobs.

Hon Mr Rae: The member opposite shouts and says, "That's a parliamentary assistant's job." It is in part, but it is a position that carries with it, obviously, more experience and in which it is possible for that minister without portfolio to carry on a significant job for the government.

I can tell you, Mr Speaker, there are many people with whom I've discussed this matter who think that the kind of reorganization which we are carrying out in fact takes us to a better and wiser point than we were before.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Conway: My supplementary is that on February 3, 1993, Premier Bob Rae reorganized his cabinet and he reduced the cabinet by increasing the number of ministers from 25 to 27. The New Democrats reduced the cabinet by increasing the number of ministers from 25 to 27.

I understand the political science of this, but I come back to the overwhelming concern of taxpayers in Ontario today and the overwhelming concern of your partners at the famous social contract talks, and that is the financial situation in which we find ourselves.

My question to the Premier, my supplementary, is this. Having regard to the fact that each of the new junior ministers is going to cause the expenditure of an additional $400,000 minimum, because they must have a staff, and their salaries -- the junior minister of Health is getting a salary, all told, of over $75,000.

We know that those junior ministers can't answer questions in the House, and we know they can't go to cabinet meetings, so the question for the taxpayers, who are being asked to restrain as never before, is: All things considered, what benefits, what particular benefits in these times of restraint, do these junior ministers bring that a minister and a parliamentary assistant could not bring?

Hon Mr Rae: In all the facts and figures which the member opposite has recited, he has neglected the one basic fact which I put before him, and that is that the cost of this ministry, including ministers without portfolio, is less than the government of which he was a member. That's the fact which I put before him, in terms of the overall size of ministerial salaries.

And so I would say to the honourable member, when you look at what we're trying to do, you've got several combined departments. You've got a Ministry of Health with a budget of over $16 billion.

You have literally dozens and dozens of delegations that are seeking to meet the minister and seeking to see the minister.

You have many, many requirements in terms of meeting with the public and meeting with delegations and being involved in the administration of the department.

It's our view, as it has been the view of the government of the United Kingdom, as it has been the view of many, many other governments in western democracies, that it's a wiser course to have a smaller cabinet but a ministry overall which is capable of dealing with the task of public administration and a ministry, as I would repeat, whose ministerial salaries total less than those which were part of the previous Liberal administration.

Mr Conway: History will show that the Rae government will be the most expensive government this province has ever had to endure, by any measure, by any calculation.

I want to say to the Premier, as a final supplementary, that we have today, in these extraordinarily critical times, times which by his own admission confront this province with unprecedented fiscal pressures and challenges, a Minister of Health and her full panoply, we've got a junior minister and we've got two parliamentary assistants looking at that department alone, and I could use others. That I submit at the political level is more expensive in terms of the politicians than any Ministry of Health has been at the political level in the history of Ontario traditionally, and I think if you look at the record, the record will show a Minister of Health and one, maybe two parliamentary assistants, although I can't remember a situation where there were two parliamentary assistants at Health. Today, in these tough times, as you get ready to freeze, to cut and to roll back, you've got the most successful Jobs Ontario program for your own cabinet and your own caucus.

1420

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

Mr Conway: You've got them all at the trough. They're all earning additional salaries, and to what end? A Minister of Health, a junior minister of Health and two parliamentary assistants. That, for example, is costing the hard-pressed taxpayers --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Conway: -- hundreds of thousands of additional dollars. What do you say to your social contract partners when they look at the bloated political arm which you now represent, as you look to cut programs, freeze and roll back salaries?

Hon Mr Rae: When you ask me through all the rhetoric and many of the statements and allegations which have been made --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Bombast.

Hon Mr Rae: -- and the kind of bombastic exchange which I suppose the member's now specializing in, I would say to the honourable member that what I say to all those who are participating with us in the social partnership is that we are all of us going to be affected by this adjustment. There isn't a part of government that won't be affected by this adjustment and it will affect all of us, if I may say so, as it already has, because I come back to the point which the member has so carefully ignored. The fact of the matter is the cost of this ministry is less than the cost of the previous ministry.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question as well for the Premier, to follow up on the cost and the size of this government and the bureaucracy, the hundreds of thousands of dollars in support staff for 27 ministers of the crown. I don't know whether the total figure is less than the biggest bureaucracy we ever had in the history of government in the western world that the Liberals had or not, but I do know this, Premier, that when you downsized your cabinet from 25 to 27 you said in your press release that you were giving assignments for ministers without portfolio, something for them to do to justify the staff they were going to hire, the hundreds of thousands of dollars in perks that will come over and above being a backbench member.

I would like to ask you this, Premier. We've heard that the Speaker doesn't know, we've heard that your House leader doesn't think that the assignments are substantial enough that they should be answering questions. You've referred to other jurisdictions such as France and England where there are junior ministers. In fact, there are junior ministers in Ottawa where they routinely answer questions.

Hon Mr Rae: Because they're in the cabinet.

Hon Mr Laughren: That's right.

Mr Harris: Oh, they're in the cabinet. Your cabinet ministers aren't in the cabinet?

I would like to ask you this, Premier. When you set up these assignments, when you gave them the extra money as junior cabinet ministers, did you think that the assignments would be such that they should be accountable to the public for what it is they're doing through question period in the Legislature? Was it your intention that they should answer for what they're doing in the Legislature and answer questions?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, this matter is now before you, sir, to determine, so I just want to say that whatever determination the Speaker makes is up to him. But I would say very directly to you and to others that whatever ruling you make, Mr Speaker, this government is accountable, the cabinet is accountable collectively and we are accountable and ministers of the crown who have responsibility for particular portfolios are responsible for those portfolios and for that spending and for those decisions within this House. That tradition of accountability is very clearly one which we all subscribe to and certainly I subscribe to.

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary, yesterday, Premier, your Minister of Education and whatever else he's responsible for said this: "It is impossible for me, quite frankly, to stay on top of every issue before the ministry." That's why he needed the member for Port Arthur or Fort William or wherever she's from --

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Port Arthur.

Mr Harris: -- to assist the junior minister.

Hon Mr Rae: They will like that up in Thunder Bay.

Mr Harris: Well, I think they're both about as effective. But anyway, that's why he said he needed the junior minister: "It is impossible for me, quite frankly, to stay on top of every issue before the ministry."

Given that, and given that the responsibility's there and he's counting on her to deal with issues that he can't stay on top of, can you explain to me why we and the public, through us, shouldn't be entitled to ask questions of the junior minister from Port Arthur?

Hon Mr Rae: I don't think it's a really big deal one way or the other. We'll let the Speaker make a ruling, but I would say directly to him that when the minister is in the House and has an overall responsibility for that ministry, when he's been attending all the cabinet meetings with respect to that activity, it would seem to me that would be the person to whom you would want to address the question, unless you had some other kind of point that you wanted to make.

Mr Harris: Premier, what I want to do is ask you -- we've heard what your House leader thinks. They shouldn't be exposed to the public, they shouldn't be exposed to the opposition to answer questions. We've heard that. We've heard him beg and plead with the Speaker: "Please protect these junior rascals. They're not capable of answering questions." We've heard him say it's the Premier's intention to shelter them from having to answer questions about the responsibilities they've been given.

I want to know what you think. I want to know, did you give them responsibilities that justify their cabinet position, their salary, their staff -- therefore, we should be able to ask them questions -- or did you not? If you did not, will you fire them today? If you did, will you signify that you think they should be able to answer questions?

Hon Mr Rae: The quick answer to the member's question -- the latter part of his question, obviously -- is no. But I just want to say to him, their responsibilities are, it seems to me, ones that are parallel to those in a great many other places in which the decision has been made to go to a smaller cabinet and one in which the ministry would extend beyond the cabinet, and that's exactly what we've done here. Those are precisely the steps that we've taken. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that it's a tradition which I think is wise.

He talks about the size of the cabinet. I can remember --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: His colleague from Mississauga says she sat in at the swearing in. I can remember sitting in at the swearing in here in 1985 when the member for North Bay was first made a minister of the crown, and there were 34 members of Frank Miller's cabinet -- 34 members.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: Okay, 33. Thirty-two? Okay, we'll determine it. There was a whole bunch. There were more than you could shake a stick at.

Mr Harris: And every one of them answered questions in the House, every one of them.

Hon Mr Rae: Oh no, no. No, he's wrong. They didn't answer questions in the House because they didn't call the House back; he called an election. We all know what happened that day.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Parry Sound.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): A point of order.

The Speaker: A point of order?

Mr Eves: Maybe the Premier would like to check history. I was here answering questions. You have a poor memory.

The Speaker: The member for Parkdale, what is out of order?

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): What's out of order --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I can't hear you. Would you just wait.

Mr Ruprecht: I think that this is such a fundamental issue to the workings of this House and democracy that you should adjourn this House until you make a ruling on this issue.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. I recognize the member for Parry Sound with the second question.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Then the member for Mississauga South.

1430

CARLTON MASTERS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Premier. Last week, the Attorney General said that it was on October 5, 1992, that the government received the report of the investigation which concluded that Carlton Masters had sexually harassed seven women in his employ. But according to Mr Masters in November: "The Premier said I had his full confidence. In fact, he hugged me."

At some point, the Premier considered making Mr Masters his senior economic adviser. Later, Mr Masters was offered a less senior job on the condition of only a simple apology. Premier, why did you offer Mr Masters another job when you knew that an independent inquiry had found that he had sexually harassed seven women?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To be fair to the honourable member, she will know full well that I answered that question when she put the very same question to me on Thursday last week. My answer would be exactly the same, and that was quite simply to give, in all the circumstances surrounding the case, an opportunity for rehabilitation, based on the simple principle that Mr Masters apologize and recognize that --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I think I've answered the question, Mr Speaker.

Mrs Marland: The minister responsible for women's issues last week said in this House that what the government tried to do was to reach a settlement that was going to (1) protect the complainants and (2) be fair to the accused person in the case.

In light of the comments made by Mr Masters, Premier, I suggest to you that perhaps you have not succeeded in either of those conditions of your government in dealing with this very difficult issue. Would you like to tell this House what you have done to protect the complainants and what you have done to be fair to the accused person in this case, who says he has not been treated fairly by your government?

Hon Mr Rae: This is not an easy situation and I wouldn't for a moment assert that it is. I would simply say to the honourable member that we responded immediately to any suggestions of a complaint through the secretary of cabinet at the time, that an independent process was established, that it was nothing to do with anything said by any member of this government that had to do with any comments about complainants being made public, that we tried throughout to protect the identity of the complainants and that we attempted to find a settlement and a solution which would be fair to everyone concerned. That's exactly what we endeavoured to do.

The member opposite may not agree with the decisions that the government took, may not agree with the fact that an offer was made to Mr Masters and that the offer was rejected for the reasons which are very clear to everyone. That difference is there. I stand by my judgement that these are issues that have to be handled with a great deal of sensitivity, and it's not always easy to succeed in a perfect outcome because of all the controversy and publicity surrounding this matter. I regret that personally, but I think it's something that we simply have to weather.

Mrs Marland: It's very difficult for us to understand how offering this particular employee another job deals with the sensitivities of the complainants. The complainants are wondering, if perhaps the case were reversed, whether this government would be paying $75,000 of their legal bills.

I ask you, Premier, now that we have police in this province investigating civil servants who have been charged with sexual harassment, if you're happy with the message that your government is sending out on this subject. Because if you don't deal with this particular example in a little more equitable way than you have dealt with it up to now, which is simply run and hide, we're going to have a situation in this province where complainants and accused of sexual harassment will not know where to go, what to do or what position your government will take if they happen to be in its employment. What is your position in the future cases, other than people who are friends and appointments of yours?

Hon Mr Rae: I just would say to the honourable member, if she would look at the facts in terms of how this issue was dealt with, as soon as there was the suggestion of a problem, there was established an independent investigation. There was established right away an independent investigation. Mr Masters was suspended from his responsibilities, taken out of the particular place in question.

I would then say to the honourable member that the independent investigation took place and that, as a result of that investigation, there was an offer of other employment at a lesser rate of pay, without being a deputy minister, on condition that there be a clear recognition by him of the fact that there clearly was a problem. That was the condition that Mr Masters could not accept, and as a result of that he left the employ of the government.

I think the message from the government is very clear. We're prepared to take steps to act right away, to act as sensitively and as fairly to all concerned as we possibly can and also to accept the fact that whatever you do, you're going to get criticized. That's one of the things that I certainly accept in this matter.

BLOOD TESTING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question today is to the real Minister of Health who, like her predecessor and her predecessor before that and her predecessor before that, needs no junior minister to stand in on her behalf.

Minister, on Thursday last I asked you what your intentions were with respect to those individuals who had contracted the HIV virus as a result of delays in the blood screening program in the early 1980s. The minister's response to that question was, "Later on today, I will be talking with my colleagues in other parts of the country."

I'm asking the minister if she will tell the House today the results of those discussions and what decisions she has reached regarding Ontario's position as a result of those conversations.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm unable to give the member a definitive answer today. No conclusion has been reached on those discussions.

Mrs Sullivan: Well, the minister responded in a very different way on Thursday afternoon because, subsequent to my questions to her in the House, I understand that the minister, in a scrum, warned people across Ontario that if they had had blood transfusions or had received blood products before 1985, they should be checked for the HIV virus. The minister did not limit her warning to the period of time between 1980 and 1985, which experts see as the threshold period for concern, and she made the warning in an informal, off-the-cuff way in a scrum.

In fact, the careful, considered approach to this entire issue has been left to the hospitals and others. This government has let Nova Scotia take the lead in providing compensation at the provincial level to those who received tainted blood before 1985, when appropriate screening was not done.

When, I ask the minister, will this government take its responsibility? When will this minister sit down at the table and negotiate a settlement so that HIV-T people can get on with their lives and live in peace?

Hon Mrs Grier: There are two issues that the member is addressing, and I think it's really important that we be clear about both of them. One is that anybody who suspects that he or she may in fact have received blood that could be tainted has a responsibility to talk to his or her family physician to receive counselling and to have a test. That has been the position of this ministry for many years. It has been a position that has been put forward by community groups where we have funded education. That goes without question.

The other issue the member is raising is the question of compensation for haemophiliacs who may have received blood that was tainted. That is an issue that has been discussed by ministers of health across the country, where an agreement had been reached that the federal government would compensate these people where court cases are pending and where all the provincial ministers of health are still discussing what their response should be now that one province has agreed to move on compensation. It is under discussion, and as I said in response to the first question, I am not yet in a position to give the member an answer.

1440

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, yesterday I asked the Chairman of Management Board to explain why the Treasurer, the Minister of Northern Development, the former Chairman of Management Board and the member for Sudbury had intervened in a labour dispute between OPSEU and Sudbury Youth Services, a private, non-profit agency in Sudbury. I had no answer. The Chair of Management Board wasn't aware of that.

I wonder, Premier, if you could tell me today why members of your cabinet would interfere in a labour dispute in a way that, as the arbitrator says, "utterly compromised the next set of negotiations" and "usurped the prerogatives and the bargaining rights of management." Can you explain that, Premier?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll defer that to the Chairman of Management Board.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet): The leader of the third party raised this question yesterday, and I gave him an undertaking that I would take a look at the matter. I've reviewed the arbitration decision that the member referred to yesterday in his question. It says very much what he reported yesterday. I should point out, though, that this arbitration board report was a result of a submission by the union in an arbitration hearing and based on that exclusively. Obviously, I've also had discussions with my colleagues. We had a situation where there was a strike in the fall of 1990, a strike that had been going on for some nine weeks, where ministers acted to find funds to see that a settlement occurred. We don't concur that there was meddling in the collective bargaining process.

Mr Harris: Ministers of the crown, without talking to the employer who was being struck, decided selectively to find some money and to intervene without talking to management. We all know, Mr Minister, the real reason. The real reason the government ministers stuck their noses into a labour dispute where they had no business sticking their noses was because the Premier was to attend the opening of the new Northern Development building in Sudbury as well as a dinner honouring his Treasurer, and OPSEU threatened to picket both events if the strike wasn't settled. So, based upon that embarrassment, to see this Premier for the first time on the other side of a picket line, your cabinet ministers intervened inappropriately.

Let me ask the minister this, and through you to the Premier, should you wish to refer it: Have the ministers apologized for compromising Sudbury Youth Services, have they apologized for intervening where they shouldn't have, and what procedures are in place now so this will never happen again?

Hon Mr Charlton: Let me deal with two aspects of this issue. The first one is that the leader of the third party has been on his feet in this House on innumerable occasions demanding government intervention in precisely situations like this. So it is just a little bit farfetched to hear him now saying what he's saying.

Hon Mr Charlton: Secondly, I'll point out yet again that the comments in the arbitration report are comments made as a result of a presentation by the union to an arbitration hearing long after the fact, I might point out, that had nothing to do with the discussions that went on at the time of a nine-week strike.

TOURISM

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. Niagara Falls is gearing up for our spring and summer tourist season. In fact, Mr Speaker, I would like to invite you and everyone to the beautiful Blossom Festival Parade on May 8 in Niagara Falls.

I will be meeting next week with Team Niagara Tourism -- that is an enthusiastic new team we have in Niagara -- to plan for this coming tourist season to enhance new ways to serve our tourists. We want to be part of the new reservation system. My question to the minister is, what progress has been made with the new Ontario tourist reservation system?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I'd like to thank the member for her question, as well as to thank the member for the tremendous efforts she's been making to promote tourism in her riding and in fact in the Niagara region as a whole.

This government has committed $2.5 million of our Jobs Ontario capital to develop the central reservation and information system through the development of its informational infrastructure base. This means that tourists in fact will now be able to phone, or will soon be able to phone, 1-800-Ontario to be able to both get information, including about accommodations, as well as to make reservations then and there at the same time. That means that on behalf of the tourism operators, the deal will be able to be closed at the same time that the tourist is seeking information.

We are now about to launch the pilot for the full system in eastern Ontario effective the end of this month, but already that $2.5 million that this government has invested in the development of the infrastructure system is now benefiting tourism operators in the Niagara area as well as around the province. It's allowing our information centre to answer 62% more calls and it's also providing the Niagara travel information centres with the computerized database they require to provide tourists with more information.

Ms Harrington: Niagara Falls and Niagara region, because we have the four bridges from the United States, is a key entranceway to Ontario for all US tourists. Because of this, we want to upgrade our services and treat our tourists with the utmost in service. What other new initiatives are coming this year for Niagara?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, $360,000 is now being invested by this government to upgrade the Niagara Falls travel information centre by allowing it to improve its highway signage, by allowing it to provide display cases for local industry to display its products, also by allowing access by tourists to a user-friendly computer system to obtain individually tailored travel information, and finally, this is creating an additional 10 jobs in the Niagara area in June 1993 to do this work.

WILL FERGUSON

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Premier. On February 13, 1992, the member for Kitchener resigned his cabinet portfolio. On March 8, 1993, he resigned as parliamentary assistant. We have learned that the member for Kitchener, on four separate occasions, refused the opportunity to be interviewed by the OPP as part of the Piper investigation. May I remind you, Mr Premier, that only a week earlier that same member for Kitchener was complaining to the press that the police had not yet spoken to him about the Grandview investigation.

Does the Premier condone members of his caucus refusing to cooperate with the police? Will the Premier please tell this House what reason the member for Kitchener has given to him for his refusal to cooperate with the police investigation in which he was obviously a principal source of information?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm reluctant to engage in too active a commentary on all this, because as you well know the Grandview matter is still under investigation, except to say that an individual person is entitled to be interviewed or not to be interviewed by the police. I certainly have no other comments or views to express on that.

1450

Mrs O'Neill: That's a very difficult standard for the province of Ontario to admire in a Premier. In his March 8 letter of resignation to the Premier, the member for Kitchener says, "I apologize for any grief my action may have caused you, the Premier or the government." On March 29, 1993, the member for Kitchener, to quote you again, Mr Premier, made a very brief statement apologizing to the caucus. That's all. "The matter's now closed." You said, Mr Premier, "The matter's now closed."

The other people in this province, the residents of Ontario and the victims of abuse, do not think the matter's closed.

On April 14, in response to a question from my leader, the Premier said that the member for Kitchener had, and I again quote the Premier, "apologized to me, and I think to the people in question." I've been able to confirm what the member for Kitchener has already admitted to the press, and did that very afternoon, that one of those people in question was not Judi Harris, a victim of abuse, I remind you.

I ask the Premier, how can he possibly justify his caucus colleague's deplorable omission of an apology to a victim of abuse, and the many other victims of abuse who now hesitate to come forward, in any shape or form, with their complaints? When, Mr Premier, will you instruct the member for Kitchener to apologize to the real victim, to the real victims of abuse in Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say to the honourable member that she says the matter is now closed. I would say to her that as far as the very basic legal issues that are involved -- and I think, Mr Speaker, there are rules in the House that deal with these questions -- there is a civil action that's taking place, about which I will not comment and it would be inappropriate for me to comment, and there's a criminal investigation under way that's been ongoing for some time. I think the member knows that full well, and any other comment by me would be inappropriate and I suspect if I were to say anything she'd turn around and criticize it in the end.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I will ask the Treasurer the following question: I and many people were very disappointed when the Minister of Agriculture and Food was appointed as the chairman of a committee, a very crass political committee, doing an investigation on NAFTA, of all things. Some $300,000 was spent on this very crass political committee.

Mr Treasurer, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food suffered a 10% reduction in its budget last year. Do you not feel that if indeed you had to spend some money which you don't have, it would have been better to spend it within the Ministry of Agriculture and Food instead of on a crass political committee?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I appreciate the question from the member for S-D-G and East Grenville. I would urge him, though, to not mix up the apples and the oranges here. The minister of agriculture is doing, I think, an admirable job, given the constraints this government faces, and I know the member opposite appreciates both the problems that the government has in terms of its fiscal situation and the problems of the agricultural community. He has been most outspoken, and I think appropriately so, on the concerns of the agricultural community.

However, I would expect that he would defend the North American free trade agreement. That is the Tory way in this land, just as it was with the US-Canada free trade agreement, but I don't think he should clutter up the debate by implying that money that's spent on trying to defend Ontario citizens from what we think is potentially a very bad agreement -- with the priorities of the minister of agriculture and this government's commitment to agriculture in this province.

Mr Villeneuve: The government and the Minister of Agriculture and Food have agreed that they would not change their stand on opposition to NAFTA regardless of the presentations that were made to the committee, after spending $300,000.

Mr Treasurer, the facts are that in 1992 the agricultural exports to the United States increased by $500 million -- these are Ag and Food statistics -- in 1991 they increased by $140 million over the previous year, in 1990 they increased by almost $500 million over the previous year, and yet our exports to the rest of the world have gone down. Do you not think there's a message there, Mr Treasurer? Do you not think there's a message there when our exports to the US go up in the last three years, and to the rest of the world they go down? Do you not think this money was absolutely thrown away and spent on a crass political committee which has nowhere to go?

Hon Mr Laughren: No. I would remind the member that while he talks about the increased exports, he conveniently forgets the fact that during the recession this province lost about 300,000 manufacturing jobs, and if you think there's no relationship between the US-Canada free trade agreement and the loss of jobs, then you're not plugged in to what most Ontario citizens believe. You cannot run and hide from the fact that federal Tory policies on a high dollar, high interest rates and free trade were major components in the fact that we're in the kind of recession we're in right now.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Earlier this year there were three young Guelph students aged 16 and 17 who were killed when their car went off the road. They're not the only young people in Ontario to be killed because of inexperience behind the wheel of an automobile, and many people, including myself, believe that perhaps a system of graduated licensing may save some young lives.

I'm wondering if the minister and the ministry are moving towards the implementation of graduated licensing, and if so, when? Can you give us some time lines as to when the implementation of this graduated licensing will be brought into effect? As everyone knows, the number of people we can save through graduated licensing with novice drivers is so much better for this province.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): All members will share in the sorrow each and every time that an Ontarian loses her or his life on our highways; a thousand people, a thousand less Ontarians each year.

There are 6.8 million licensees in the province of Ontario. New and young people between 16 and 25 make up 15% of the 6.8 million licensees, and yet they're involved in fully 30% of the fatalities.

We're looking at very serious proposals to revise the current system, proposals that may well include a zero level of alcohol, tougher multistage, the accompaniment by an adult for three or four years. We have to respect the balance between mobility and safety, and we do hope indeed to have an announcement soon.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. First of all, I'd like to review some of the facts and I must say that these are not encouraging facts when it comes to the mining industry in Ontario.

Revenues are down some $2.2 billion since 1989, from $7.3 billion to $5.1 billion, and that's something the Treasurer will certainly be interested in. Investment in the industry is not happening in Ontario but is flowing to other provinces and other countries where investors are feeling so much more welcome. As well, the government-mandated costs are skyrocketing to a point that the industry is finding it tougher and tougher to do business in Ontario. These, along with other barriers to the industry such as the uncertainty of land access, Bill 40, the uncertainty over environmental legislation and regulations, are just making mining in Ontario extremely unattractive.

Madam Minister, I must ask you what you are doing for the mining industry in this province to ensure that its contribution will be recognized by the Treasurer in his upcoming budget?

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The member will know that in September of last year the ministry released an incentives paper that we asked our stakeholders in the mining community to come forward with, with respect to public hearings around what would be the best kinds of incentives that we could offer the industry.

We have come to a consensus with respect to which types of incentives we think are the most important. We have put that forward to the Treasurer and we are reviewing that very matter with the Treasurer now.

Over and above that, with respect to the question the member has raised, he will know that at the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada I announced very clearly that the Ministry of the Environment is moving to change the regulation with respect to Bill 220. That will ensure that liability is not assigned in the way it was under the Liberal bill, and we expect that regulation to be drafted and passed in the next number of weeks.

1500

He will know that we had a major advertising campaign in southern Ontario for six weeks last year to raise public awareness about the importance of mining in this province. It was very successful. We have asked our partners in the mining industry to come back with ideas about how to run a second sort of campaign in the province.

He will know, for example, that we have just finished developing our educational kits, which will go into the primary and secondary schools in the fall, so that we can ensure that our children recognize the importance of mining and are interested in important public policy.

He will also know that at the PDAC, this government committed itself to participate in the Whitehorse charter initiative, and we will be holding public policy forums around those major initiatives --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before you reveal the entire government policy, we have run out of time. The time for oral questions has expired.

ROLE OF MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Just very briefly, there was a bit of a hurly-burly earlier in question period around your --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I know. It's a peculiar business, this. God, did I hear that from the minister who dumps, speaking of hurly-burly.

My question is, when do you intend to rule on the matter of the junior ministers, their role in the scheme of things, and whether or not you might be able to ask the government House leader? Because he was more helpful I think than he could imagine. He seemed to have prepared text from which he was reading and I just wondered whether you might ask the government House leader if it were possible to get a copy of what appeared almost to be a government statement in respect of this matter which is now before you.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): May I say to the honourable member that I realize this is an important matter, of importance to both the opposition and to the government. I will endeavour to reach a decision as quickly as possible, and if at all possible, it will be tomorrow. I do appreciate the contributions made by the members. Indeed, in addition to anything which you've said, if you wish to give me anything in print, I'm more than delighted to read it. But I will do my utmost to review the matter and be back tomorrow so that everyone's clear as to what we can or cannot do.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point, before you enter into your deliberations, I would like to make a few small points with respect to this issue.

Firstly, I'm referring to the Hansard of December 12, 1991, which the government House leader referred to, wherein you ruled -- I think quite properly so, re-reading your ruling -- that the member for Niagara South was not to answer a question relating to her duties that related to her party, seeing as how she had no specific responsibilities as a Minister without Portfolio.

You quoted at length -- I don't think there's any need for me to do the same again -- from both Beauchesne and Erskine May on this particular topic. If you re-read your ruling and the quotes you read therefrom, I think you will rapidly come to the conclusion that indeed these ministers are different than a Minister without Portfolio who has no specific ministerial responsibilities and who is merely the party whip, ie, a partisan political party duty, and I think you quite correctly ruled on that matter.

I would also refer you to the Executive Council Act of the province of Ontario. We heard the Premier in question period today saying that these cabinet ministers are not cabinet ministers. That is what he said. They're cabinet ministers but they're not cabinet ministers. They can't come to cabinet. Well, Mr Speaker, they are by very definition members of the executive council, and how we define cabinet ministers here, I suppose the Premier could say a banana is not a banana, but just because the Premier said it doesn't make it so. We also heard the Premier say that his deficit would be $9.9 billion and it ended up being $17 billion or in excess of $12 billion. So we know that doesn't make it so.

I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that it says right here in the Executive Council Act of Ontario that these junior ministers are indeed members of the executive council of Ontario, and therefore, whether the Premier likes it or not, are indeed cabinet ministers, just like junior ministers of state in Ottawa are indeed cabinet ministers.

The Premier himself alluded in an earlier question today, I forget whether it was to the member for Renfrew North or the leader of my party -- he said that other jurisdictions such as France, England etc -- I noticed he forgot to mention Ottawa, but indeed the federal government in this country does have junior ministers, the same way he has created junior ministers; indeed they're called ministers of state in Ottawa. They are responsible for certain specific duties, as indeed his are, as outlined in his own words in his own press release, which I shall get to in a moment.

I would also like to point out to you that these ministers of state in Ottawa are junior to other senior ministers, the same as they are here. We have, pointing this out, the Premier himself on February 3, 1993, where he says in his very own press release:

"Premier Rae also announced the following assignments for the ministers without portfolio: Richard Allen in Economic Development and Trade" -- the Premier has said that Richard Allen, a junior minister, has responsibilities, in his own words, for Economic Development and Trade -- "Shirley Coppen in Culture, Tourism and Recreation; Karen Haslam in Health" -- which was the very point made very well by the member for Renfrew North -- "Allan Pilkey in Municipal Affairs; Shelley Wark-Martyn in Education and Training, and newcomer Brad Ward in Finance."

Now those people, Mr Speaker, their responsibilities have been defined and iterated by none less than the Premier himself. They are members of the executive council, as defined in legislation, and now we have the Premier saying, "Oh no, they are cabinet ministers, but they're not cabinet ministers."

They are indeed cabinet ministers. They are paid a salary as defined by the Executive Council Act, they're by definition members of the executive council and therefore, whether the Premier likes it or not, they are indeed cabinet ministers in the province of Ontario. If he wants to fire them, then he should do that. If he wants to call them parliamentary assistants, he should do that. But I can tell you as sure as I'm standing here, they are indeed cabinet ministers in the province. They are paid as cabinet ministers without portfolio, as defined by the Executive Council Act of Ontario, and they indeed are paid by the taxpayers of Ontario as such and have budgets as such and they have responsibilities as he has outlined as such.

As the Minister of Education and Training has so eloquently stated -- I don't have his news clippings with me -- but he has eloquently stated that his junior minister indeed has specific responsibilities for a part, I believe he said, of the ministry. In fact he went so far as to say that his five parliamentary assistants are each responsible for a part of the ministry because he couldn't possibly keep on top of this huge new superministry that the Premier has created to give to him.

So I would ask you to take all of those, including the precedents in Ottawa, and your very own ruling of December 12, 1991, into account before you respond to our points of order.

The Speaker: The member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: Thank you very much. I don't intend to go on, but I would like to say a few things.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Listen, I know, I know. There's a part of me that says, "Who the hell cares any more really," and that part of me is getting bigger all the time, but I'm paid to be here and I'm going to be dutiful. My interest today was financial. This is a parliamentary question and it should be, I think, looked at.

Let me be very candid. I think the member for Parry Sound raises some good points. I remember the day when I think we probably tried to ask Shirley -- the member for Niagara South -- a question. If I were Speaker, I would not allow a member of the Legislature to ask a whip a question, because the whip, as the member for Parry Sound rightly observes, has no departmental responsibilities. We've tried that over the years. It hasn't been done too often.

I know the Minister of Housing was here with me in the days when Bud Gregory, for example, was in the cabinet; Bob Eaton. I remember the day David Peterson got up and asked -- and you do too, Mr Speaker; it was a very unvarnished question -- "What do you do to earn your additional salary?" He was Minister without Portfolio and chief government whip.

There is a fairly well established practice that I think is understandable in this place, that if a Premier chooses to include the chief government whip in the broader cabinet as Minister without Portfolio, I have no problem -- quite frankly, I think it's one of the rottenest jobs in creation and the person, whoever -- Fred's got it now and he'll go straight to heaven for doing it. I think there's no problem in that person being Minister without Portfolio, and maybe even more, and I think your ruling was correct in disqualifying probably one of my colleagues from asking a question. If I had been in your position I would have done that exact same thing.

1510

As I said earlier today, I understand the political science of the reorganization. I understand it entirely and I personally believe, very strongly believe that cabinets have gotten too big in this province. I was in two: one was bigger and one was smaller. The smaller one was small of necessity. I'd better not say the next part of this. Well, we had 48 members -- hard to make a 33-member cabinet when you've got 48 members, because you don't have very many left to do the important work outside of the executive council.

I personally believe that cabinets should be reduced and I'll be perfectly honest: I think there's an element of this reorganization that I like. If I had my way, cabinets should be down to about 16.

The Minister of Housing and I came in here when the famous Darcy McKeough was Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. He was the power and the glory of the Davis government in a way that Bob Macaulay was the minister of all talents in the Robarts-Frost era.

I think McKeough had one parliamentary assistant, maybe two, and it was a very considerable sign of your upward mobility if you were parliamentary assistant to the TEIGA minister. I well remember Keith Norton who, many of you will know, was -- when we were first elected, the Minister of Housing and I, Norton was not in the cabinet but he was on his way. He was the parliamentary assistant and he routinely, as I remember, spoke for the minister and quite often in the House answered as parliamentary assistant for the Treasurer.

My point is that as you contemplate your decision, I think we have got to seriously consider this new category, because it's true we've had ministers without portfolio before. One of the most powerful people ever to sit in this assembly, one of the most enormously powerful people in the history of Ontario politics, Adam Beck, was never, as I recall, anything more than Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario and he had more power than most of the premiers with whom he served.

But we now have a new category of junior minister. Some of my less charitable colleagues refer to them as baby ministers. I wouldn't say that, but the concept of junior minister is well established in Great Britain. The member for Parry Sound pointed out that in Ottawa they have developed a junior minister who is essentially the Minister of State for whatever. I think McDermid from Brampton is one who comes to my mind.

It seems to me that as you deliberate, we have to now deal with this new category of junior ministers with responsibilities, not without portfolio but a junior minister responsible for certain departments. Today I was struck by the fact that the government House leader was all set and had a statement. He read a statement, because I know the government was anticipating the question and I'm sure the Speaker and Clerk's office were as well, but I thought I heard the government House leader -- and I'm going to check against Hansard, because I thought I heard him read from his prepared text something that suggested that these were people without responsibilities.

I certainly have the impression from listening to the Premier and others -- and the member for Parry Sound rightfully pointed out and the February 3 press release speaks to these individuals, these junior ministers, with specific responsibilities.

It's not that Brad Ward, our friend from Brantford, was assigned as just a general Minister without Portfolio, because according to this he has responsibility for Finance, just like McDermid in Ottawa is the Minister of State, I think, for Finance and Privatization. I'm not going to re-read the list.

So while I accept entirely your ruling of some time ago about the inappropriateness of asking a genuine Minister without Portfolio, somebody who has clearly no responsibilities other than being chief government whip -- I think your ruling is entirely sensible and supportable, but I have to believe that the House has a right to question ministers who have assigned responsibilities in so far as at least the departmental arrangement of the government is concerned.

I may not like it if the member for Port Arthur says, "I appreciate the question. I thank the honourable member. That question should properly be answered by my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside," but I would be hard pressed to accept a ruling that with this new reorganization, with junior ministers assigned to specific departmental responsibilities, the House could not properly put a question to those ministers, leaving entirely open to the honourable ministers how they chose to respond to the question.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, if I might just for a moment on the same point of order, I would like to put a contrary view to you for your consideration. It seems this point has developed a life of its own during this sessional day, and the argument seems to revolve around whether or not these ministers who were appointed or these junior ministers or baby ministers who were appointed on February 3 by the Premier really are cabinet ministers. You've heard I think some very interesting but technical arguments from the member for Parry Sound to the effect that these members of this Legislature are indeed ministers.

I would like to argue to you, sir, for your consideration prior to your ruling, that whatever else they are, they are not ministers in the cabinet. They are not really members of the executive council, notwithstanding that they've been sworn in, notwithstanding that they receive very significant salaries and the same salary as a real cabinet minister, notwithstanding that they have staff which cost the taxpayers significantly and notwithstanding that they have access to cabinet minister-type vehicles with cabinet minister-type chauffeurs. In a very real sense, if you look at the facts of the matter, they're not cabinet ministers, and the reason why they are not cabinet ministers is because they are not allowed to attend cabinet meetings.

A cabinet minister's salary doesn't make you a cabinet minister. These seven people admittedly are getting a cabinet minister's salary. The fact that they're identified on our seat list here as honourable members is another indication of being a cabinet minister. But the reality of the matter is, cabinet ministers, what they really do is participate in cabinet meetings. They go to the meetings that have the power to determine virtually every aspect of public policy in the province of Ontario, and in that one important indication they're not cabinet ministers. They don't get to go to the table.

So the fact that they cost the taxpayer in total and in the aggregate several millions of dollars, with their staff and their chauffeurs, I don't think should be a strong enough argument to sway you to say that they should be treated as cabinet ministers in this Legislature. I and my colleagues, the member for Renfrew North and others, had the honour of participating and serving in a cabinet for a number of years. All of the peripheral stuff that we did, the titles that we had, the cars that were made available to us to transport us around, didn't make us cabinet ministers. What made us cabinet ministers was our right under the Executive Council Act to sit in council with the Premier and the chairman of cabinet and the Attorney General and the other ministers appointed in council making regulations under the rules applying to regulations and making firm decisions on matters of public policy.

Cabinet solidarity has a great tradition in this province. Cabinet secrecy has a great tradition in this province. To be able to count yourself among those members of this Parliament who sit in council and have the protection of cabinet secrecy and the discussions of cabinet and the protection of cabinet solidarity -- cabinet speaks as one voice is the way in which it's described -- determines who it is who is in cabinet.

1520

So I would say that, sure, they're getting the salary of a cabinet minister. Well, that costs the taxpayer quite a bit, and if you had asked me, I would have said that Bob Rae should have asked these seven simply to step aside, that in times of restraint he ought not to have created this middle level of cabinet management, these quasi-ministers. I would suggest to you that the best you could say about them is that they are quasi-ministers.

Certainly the fact that the one real indication of a cabinet minister is a member of this Legislature who can sit at the cabinet table. Given that the Premier has given them the salary and the cars and the staff but has prohibited them from sitting at the table would suggest to me that while they wear all the trappings of cabinet ministers, they are not cabinet ministers. I think they should be done away with, but certainly I would argue that you ought not to rule that they are real ministers in the province of Ontario.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just very briefly, the member for York North's dissertation was very interesting, but I think the record should show and the public of Ontario should know that the ministers without portfolio in this administration or any other administration do not get the same salary as a cabinet minister.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Point of order.

The Speaker: To the same point of order? The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, if you could do me the favour of also looking into the fact that when the member for Renfrew North put the question to the junior minister of Health, there was no immediate response from the government that they were not going to allow the junior minister to answer the question. What happened was that you, as Speaker, popped up and suggested that in fact the question was improperly put.

I guess the point that I would like to make to you, Mr Speaker, is, subsequently hearing from the Premier -- and his response was, "I don't care whether the junior ministers answer questions or don't answer questions" -- this may well have been resolved if you had allowed the debate and the question to simply flow forward. But since you came forward and suggested that it was improperly put, which I'm not sure why you did since no one appealed to your Chair to make a ruling, maybe you could investigate that and check Hansard to see whether or not it was in fact proper for you to come forward and suggest the question was out of order.

The Speaker: First, to the member for Etobicoke West, indeed it would have been irresponsible of the Speaker to have allowed the government to decide whether or not it wished to allow a certain person to answer a question. That's why the House has a Speaker.

I want to first thank the member for Parry Sound. As usual, a thoughtful presentation, well researched and extremely helpful.

To the member for Renfrew North, again, his drawing upon the history of this place will assist me greatly.

To the member for York Centre, he has in fact identified the centre of the difficulty. That's probably the place where I need to start with respect to my deliberations, and, as I mentioned before, I will do my utmost to have a decision ready for tomorrow so that the House will know as quickly as possible what the status of this is.

Mr Stockwell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I just ask you to clarify, then? What you are suggesting is it's now your decision whether or not junior ministers can or cannot answer questions.

I ask you: If the government is then prepared, regardless of your decision, to allow junior ministers to answer questions, would not this appeal or debate through you, the Chair, be in fact wasted, if the government is then prepared to say, "Yes, junior ministers are allowed to answer questions"? So in essence, what you responded to me is by saying it would be imprudent of you not to come forward and not to allow the government to decide who can and cannot answer questions. Mr Speaker, I would suggest to you categorically that with junior ministers it is absolutely and undeniably the decision of the Premier and cabinet and government as to whether or not ministers can or cannot answer questions, particularly junior ministers with all the rights and privileges of a cabinet minister.

So again I put my point to you, Mr Speaker. It seemed to me to be imprudent on your part to just come forward before any appeal was made to you by the government or opposition members to determine whether or not the ministers, being junior ministers, could or could not answer the questions. I also ask that if the Premier doesn't seem to care one way or the other, would it not be the decision of the Premier to determine whether or not the junior ministers that he appointed to his cabinet, who have all the privileges and perks of a cabinet minister, should therefore be allowed to answer questions? If the decision is yes, then is not your decision then moot?

The Speaker: I think perhaps, for the member for Etobicoke West, when the ruling comes forward he will better appreciate the difficulty that has been presented. We have been presented with a unique situation this afternoon, and it was my decision that until we could clarify who is allowed to ask questions and who isn't under a new situation in the House, it's best to simply not allow questions to particular people. As I told the member earlier, I will do my best to have a ruling for tomorrow.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or previous order of the House, the following changes be made to the order of precedence for private members' public business:

Ballot item 1, N. Duignan; ballot item 2, D. Poole; ballot item 3, D. Tilson; ballot item 4, G. Mills; ballot item 5, J. Cleary; ballot item 7, B. Huget; ballot item 8, R. Callahan; ballot item 11, H. Daigeler; ballot item 13, P. Wessenger; ballot item 14, B. Grandmaître; ballot item 17, T. Murphy; ballot item 20, G. Sorbara; ballot item 23, C. McClelland; ballot item 25, M. Morrow; ballot item 26, S. Mahoney; ballot item 29, F. Miclash; ballot item 32, J. Fawcett; ballot item 34, R. Marchese; ballot item 35, M. Kwinter; ballot item 38, B. Sullivan; ballot item 41, R. Eddy; ballot item 44, J. Poirier; ballot item 47, S. Offer; ballot item 49, G. Bisson; ballot item 50, T. Ruprecht; ballot item 53, R. Chiarelli; ballot item 56, G. Morin; ballot item 57, E. Witmer; ballot item 59, J. Sola; ballot item 62, L. McLeod; ballot item 64, G. Malkowski; ballot item 65, H. O'Neil, Quinte; ballot item 67, G. Phillips, Scarborough-Agincourt; ballot item 69, M. Brown; ballot item 71, D. McGuinty; ballot item 73, E. Caplan; ballot item 75, J. Henderson; ballot item 77, J. Bradley; ballot item 79, C. Beer; ballot item 81, A. Curling; ballot item 83, Y. O'Neill, Ottawa-Rideau; ballot item 85, D. Ramsay; ballot item 87, M. Elston; ballot item 89, S. Conway; ballot item 91, J. Cordiano.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Speaker, on the motion, it wasn't my understanding that we would go through the entire length of members and renumber them all. It was my understanding that caucuses, among themselves, would arrange to exchange places with other members, as we have done in the past. I have no objection to it being done this way, but I just would like to alert the government House leader that we may indeed have some further changes ourselves at a future date.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It is normal practice, if there are additional changes, that there may in fact then be another motion at another time. Provided there is unanimous consent, then of course those changes are made.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the membership of the standing committees for this session be as follows -- I believe I have to seek unanimous consent to move this motion without notice.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: I move that the membership of the standing committees for this session be as follows:

Standing committee on administration of justice: Ms Akande, Mr Chiarelli, Mr Curling, Mr Duignan, Mr Harnick, Ms Harrington, Mr Malkowski, Mr Marchese, Mr Mills, Mr Murphy, Mr Tilson and Mr Winninger.

Standing committee on estimates: Mr Abel, Mr Arnott, Mr Bisson, Mr Carr, Mr Elston, Ms Haeck, Mr Jackson, Mr Jamison, Mr Lessard, Mr Mahoney, Mr Ramsay and Mr Rizzo.

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs: Mrs Caplan, Mr Carr, Mr Cousens, Mr Ferguson, Mr Jamison, Mr Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Mr Kwinter, Mrs Mathyssen, Mr North, Mr Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Mr Sutherland and Mr Wiseman.

1530

Standing committee on general government: Mr Arnott, Mr Brown, Mr Dadamo, Mr Daigeler, Mr Fletcher, Mr Johnson (Don Mills), Mr Mammoliti, Mr Morrow, Mr Sola, Mr Sorbara, Mr Wessenger and Mr White.

Standing committee on government agencies: Mr Bradley, Ms Carter, Mr Cleary, Mr Frankford, Mr Grandmaître, Ms Harrington, Mr Mammoliti, Mr Marchese, Mrs Marland, Mr McLean, Mr Waters and Mrs Witmer.

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Mr Farnan, Mr Hansen, Mr Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Mrs MacKinnon, Mrs Mathyssen, Mr McClelland, Mr Morin, Mr Owens, Mr Sterling, Mrs Sullivan, Mr Villeneuve and Mr Wessenger.

Standing committee on the Ombudsman: Mr Abel, Ms Akande, Mr Drainville, Mr Henderson, Mr Martin, Mr Miclash, Mr Morrow, Mr Murdoch (Grey), Mr Ramsay, Mr Rizzo, Mr Stockwell and Mr Wilson (Kingston and The Islands).

Standing committee on public accounts: Mr Callahan, Mr Cordiano, Mr Duignan, Mr Farnan, Mr Frankford, Mr Hayes, Mrs Marland, Mr Murphy, Mr O'Connor, Mr Perruzza, Ms Poole and Mr Tilson.

Standing committee on regulations and private bills: Mr Eddy, Mr Fletcher, Ms Haeck, Mr Hansen, Mr Hayes, Mr Johnson (Don Mills), Mr Jordan, Mrs MacKinnon, Mr Mills, Mr Perruzza, Mr Ruprecht and Mr Sola.

Standing committee on resources development: Mr Conway, Mr Cooper, Mrs Fawcett, Mr Huget, Mr Jordan, Mr Klopp, Mr Kormos, Ms Murdock (Sudbury), Mr Offer, Mr Turnbull, Mr Waters and Mr Wood.

Standing committee on social development: Mr Beer, Ms Carter, Mrs Cunningham, Mr Eddy, Mr Hope, Mr Martin, Mr McGuinty, Mr O'Connor, Mrs O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Mr Owens, Mr Wilson (Kingston and The Islands) and Mr Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Speaker: Mr Charlton moves that the membership of the standing committees for this session be as follows: Standing committee on administration of justice -- dispense? Motion agreed to? Agreed.

COMMITTEE SCHEDULE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I think I also have to, Mr Speaker, seek unanimous consent to proceed without notice of this motion.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: This is a motion that sets the committee schedules.

That the following schedule for committee meetings be established for this session:

The standing on administration of justice may meet on Monday and Tuesday afternoons following routine proceedings; the standing committee on estimates may meet on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings; the standing committee on finance and economic affairs may meet on Thursday mornings and Thursday afternoons following routine proceedings; the standing committee on general government may meet on Thursday mornings and Thursday afternoons following routine proceedings; the standing committee on government agencies may meet on Wednesday mornings; the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly may meet on Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings; the standing committee on the Ombudsman may meet on Wednesday mornings; the standing committee on public accounts may meet on Thursday mornings; the standing committee on regulations and private bills may meet on Wednesday mornings; the standing committee on resources development may meet on Monday and Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings; the standing committee on social development may meet on Monday and Tuesday afternoons following routine proceedings; and that no standing or select committee may meet except in accordance with this schedule or as ordered by the House.

The Speaker: Mr Charlton moves that the following schedule for committee meetings be established for this session: The standing committee on administration -- dispense? Motion agreed to? Agreed.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The final motion, Mr Speaker, and I think I also need unanimous consent to move this motion without notice.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: I move that for the remainder of the third session any divisions required for private members' public business on Thursday mornings, under standing order 96(f), shall not be deferred and taken in succession but be taken individually, and the division bells shall be limited to five minutes each.

The Speaker: Mr Charlton moves that for the remainder of the third session any divisions -- dispense? Motion agreed to? Agreed.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd just like to say it would be helpful, when we're asked for unanimous consent, that if we're clear about what the motion is that's going to be made ahead of time, we can give that with a clear heart and conscience. It's very difficult to give carte blanche and not know precisely what is being recommended.

The Speaker: I sympathize with the member for Victoria-Haliburton. Indeed, our practice is a chicken-and-egg question. Unfortunately, to date we've never been able to resolve it, but I appreciate the dilemma that it places the member in.

PETITIONS

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition from the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a post-polio clinic in the Rehabilitation 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."

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My petition is signed by myself, and there are 129 names on it. It says:

"Whereas we, as citizens of the province of Ontario and residents in the county of Simcoe, object to the imposition of junior kindergarten by the year 1994;

"We would ask the Minister of Education to consider a moratorium of a duration of at least two years or until there is some obvious improvement in the economic climate of this country.

"Funding arrangements, as proposed in Bill 88, while of some value to taxpayers initially, will leave the ultimate responsibility for all future funding with the municipalities. Many of these municipalities are already hard pressed to collect taxes as levied to date.

"We understand the proposed program may be of value to some. However, the majority cannot, at this time, afford any further tax increases."

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): "To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas in 1990 the Ontario Ministry of Transportation demonstrated its good intentions by proposing a system of graduated licensing that would require newly licensed drivers to adhere to certain conditions and restrictions which would be removed as the driver gains driving experience,

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

"To make immediate action to revise the law, specifically the Highway Traffic Act, to include a graduated licensing program for novice drivers.

"As concerned parents and citizens of Ontario, we believe now is the time to take action to protect our young and novice drivers and, in effect, our very future."

I have over 1,300 signatures, and I affix my name.

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): I have here a petition of 31 names, mostly from my riding, and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. After a long series of whereases, it says:

I have affixed my signature, sir, and I submit a draft to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition here. It's from a Henry Freitag in Penetanguishene, Ontario, and you've asked me to read this petition. It says:

"Whereas the Minister of Housing, the Honourable Evelyn Gigantes's conduct is not in conformity with that of a free and democratic society;

"Whereas the conduct of the minister is generally found in countries under the rule of anarchy and dictatorship;

"Whereas she has not replied to my reasonable and valid letters from mid-1992;

"Whereas the letters were labelled number 24, 25, 26 and 27;

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

"Remove the minister forthwith from office and have her replaced by a minister with the understanding of democracy in Canada. Also, permit me to address the proper legislative committee where I, in a participatory manner, can show how I was treated and how people should be treated."

1540

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Again I add 200 names to the thousands of people who have protested casino gambling.

"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 very pleased to affix my signature hereunto.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have another petition. It's from Henry Freitag in Penetanguishene, Ontario. It says:

"Whereas the individuals of the province of Ontario must be treated within the principles of a free and democratic society;

"Whereas it is a must for a government to be open, to be accountable and to provide reasonable information when requested by the individual;

"Whereas the former Solicitor General has since July 1992 engaged in a manner which is not acceptable in a democratic society and has sidestepped my relevant questions;

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

"To order a minister to provide without delay a valid and clear reply to my letters. Should a minister not be able to do so, have a minister replaced with a more competent servant of the people. Also permit me to address the proper legislative committee where I, in a participatory manner, can show how the people are treated and how the people should be treated."

GAMBLING

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I'm presenting a petition signed by 86 members and adherents of the Knox Presbyterian Church of St Catharines. The church is just around the corner, actually, from where I live, and the members are requesting that a gambling establishment not be set up in the Niagara region. Their petition states as follows:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposal to establish and license a permanent gambling enterprise in the Niagara Peninsula. We believe in the need of keeping this area as a place where family and holiday time will be enriched with quality of life. Such gaming establishments will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and in the Niagara region in particular.

"I believe that licensed gambling will cause increased hardship on many families and will be an invitation for more criminal activity.

"By our signature here attached we ask you not to license gambling anywhere in the Niagara Peninsula."

I affix my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TERANET INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT TERANET

On motion by Mr Tilson, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 3, An Act to provide for Access to Information relating to the affairs of Teranet Land Information Services Inc / Loi prévoyant l'accès aux renseignements concernant les activités des Services d'information foncière Teranet Inc.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): This bill was introduced the last session. I'm simply reintroducing it a second time, so no comment this time.

CANINDO DEVELOPMENT LIMITED ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Marchese, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr36, An Act to revive Canindo Development Limited.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to 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.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Members will recall there was an agreement to divide the time equally three ways. We left off with the official opposition. I would now recognize the member for Waterloo North.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): It is unfortunate that for the most part, this throne speech was merely a regurgitation of old promises. It lacked any message of hope, economic renewal or action and it contained no ideas as to how to tackle our high unemployment, our high debt or our slow economy. Instead, what happened in this spring throne speech is that the same old proposals and the old promises were trotted out, proposals and promises such as pay equity, employment equity, an environmental bill of rights, Ontario investment fund and commodity loan guarantees, just to name a few.

Instead of taking action and dealing with a growing public dissatisfaction with our school system, the NDP has once more vacillated and it has set up yet another education commission. Many people across the province are saying that this is just an excuse not to make the decisions that should be made right now, at the present time. This committee, unfortunately, will not be making any report until at least the end of 1994.

We don't need another expensive education study. This is the fifth one since 1986. We had the Macdonald commission in 1986, we had the Radwanski report in 1987, we had the select committee on education, which provided four reports between 1988 to 1990, and we had the Premier's Council, people and skills in the new global economy, in 1990.

Indeed, I would suggest that the NDP government could have saved a tremendous amount of money if it had taken the time to read the Ontario Progressive-Conservative Party's forward-looking plan of action called New Directions. In fact, I would suggest they still do so. Our volume one deals with jobs and the economy, and volume two deals with education and training.

Our party believes that the suggestions contained in our education and training document would result in a well-educated and flexible workforce that is able to attract new investment and new jobs -- jobs that are so desperately needed for people in this province. Indeed, I would invite all the taxpayers in this province to get a copy of our New Directions policy discussion papers on jobs and the economy, and education and training. We would certainly look forward to their input on these papers.

Another reason that there's no need for another expensive study on education at this time is because if you listen to people on the street, if you take a look at the editorials, if you listen to people in their homes and at meetings, you know, and there is agreement that people care about excellence in education. There is a growing awareness of the importance of education as the indispensable key to unlocking the door to Canada's future prosperity. There is growing recognition that Canada is losing control of its economic future as it is menaced by a highly competitive global economy.

1550

Unfortunately, we have been slow to restructure our industry so that we can compete in a changing world that exploits high-tech knowledge. Thus, now, as we race towards the year 2000, education is targeted as the fundamental instrument to ensure a positive redirection towards a brighter tomorrow for all of us. As a result, the public is demanding a stronger results-oriented culture that aspires to excellence. We also need to make a commitment to universal life-long learning with close ties to the working world.

The message from the public is quite clear. They have indicated what it is that they want, and yet this commission on education, with its mandate only to study curriculums, to study the number of school boards and to study the amount of administration in the system does very, very little, if anything at all, to respond to the public demands that we act decisively and purposefully when a changing economic environment is demanding changes in education.

The mandate for the Commission on Learning is also disappointing because it suggests that we can cut costs by restructuring or merging school boards. Yes, we could realize some savings at the school board level, but the commission has totally overlooked the fact that the real source of overspending and unaccountability is the Ministry of Education itself.

If this commission on education is to truly play a valuable role in the examination of our educational system and its importance to our future economic wellbeing, its mandate must be expanded beyond what is there already, and broad and meaningful consultation must take place, not the type of consultation that this government has engaged in in the past couple of years when partners throughout the province make presentations but none of the ideas are incorporated into the final bill.

We need to ensure that adequate resources are available to provide universal literacy so that people will have the tools to flourish in the new economy. We need to re-examine the goals, to clarify the roles of the respective partners, parents, community, labour and business, and we really need to take a good look at how we organize and deliver education so that we are able to provide excellence in an affordable way in order that we can be accountable.

I'd like to now take a closer look at the public demand for accountability and quality control to determine if this throne speech does anything in the area of standardized testing to respond to that demand. As we all know, debate as been raging the last number of years over the use of standardized testing as a tool for helping to improve education and to provide a measure of accountability to our education system. Although few people in this province want to return to the departmental exams which ended in the 1960s, there are many people who are in agreement that properly designed tests can be a very useful additional diagnostic device.

Unfortunately, although the throne speech begrudgingly supports standardized testing, the proposed grade 9 standardized testing for reading and writing skills, in a two-week session on nutrition and food, doesn't answer the questions that the public and parents want answered.

What are the questions that the public and parents in this province want answers to? Number one, they want to know how well their children are learning the basic skills; secondly, they want to know how Ontario schools compare to others; thirdly, they want to know what problems their children are experiencing and how their children can be helped; and fourthly, they want to know what progress their children are making from year to year.

What we need is something more than what has been suggested here, something more than just a test on reading and writing skills in a two-week session on nutrition and food. In fact, many people are perplexed as to why a two-week session on nutrition and food has been selected and why we are starting testing at grade 9. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for this at all. There's no long-range plan. Again, it is a scatter-gun approach to responding to the needs and the demands of parents and the public.

What we need instead and what the government should have done is more regular standardized tests of basic skills that would measure a student's progress, as well as competency tests to ensure that our high school graduates are receiving the necessary literacy and mathematical skills. Unfortunately, this throne speech, with its emphasis on this grade 9 standardized test in the area of nutrition and food, is totally meaningless. It does not respond to the public demand for any accountability or any quality control.

Not only does this speech not address the need for education, but it doesn't respond to the need for welfare reform. This particular throne speech announced not action that is long overdue, but the release of yet another discussion paper on welfare this summer. We've had at least three studies in the past four years, but we've seen absolutely no plan of action to reduce the $6-billion expenditure on welfare this year or any plan to get welfare recipients back to work.

What we've seen in this throne speech is an indication that this NDP government remains committed to an agenda that will continue to hamper Ontario's economic recovery. This throne speech killed any hope that this government was going to change course and start moving in the right direction. Instead, we've seen a promise of higher taxes, bigger government and more red tape for the private sector. With all the recent talk by this government about the need to make government smaller, more efficient and more affordable, I had hoped we would be getting a different message in the throne speech.

My own community of Kitchener-Waterloo has been severely hurt by plant closings and economic difficulties, and I was hopeful that the provincial government would start taking action to help create a climate in which new jobs could be created. However, this throne speech misses the boat once again. Totally absent were any measures aimed at getting the government out of the way of economic recovery, such as reduced regulatory hurdles to trade and investment.

I'd like to take some time now to briefly focus on the situation in the Waterloo region. Our local economy, as many others, is struggling out of the recession. We are seeing some slow, some subtle shifts in attitudes and there is some renewed activity for some sectors of the economy.

Although our manufacturers are guardedly optimistic that we're bouncing back, there is little widespread hope of major relief this year for many of the almost 30,000 jobless in our community. Substitutes for the almost 6,000 jobs that were lost as more than 40 factories closed, such as Seagram's and Labatt's, these past three years have been difficult to find. Knowledge-based industries and lower-wage service jobs are providing some new employment opportunities and this at least gives the people in my community some small ray of hope.

1600

The Laurier Institute for Business and Economic Studies in Waterloo released its ninth report in late September of 1992 and it confirmed that business confidence is becoming somewhat more certain. We have been fortunate in Waterloo because we have a diverse workforce and that's a plus. We also have the benefit of several large insurance companies, two universities, a community college and several other large employers.

I'm pleased that there is some optimism finally in my community that our economy has embarked on a fragile recovery. However, I want to remind this NDP government that this fragile recovery came about in spite of the NDP and if this government makes good on its threat to increase spending and to once again hike taxes, I can assure you that you will kill any hope of an economic turnaround in my community or anywhere else in this province.

It is unfortunate that the speech failed to recognize that the way to deal with our fiscal problems and unemployment is to encourage private sector growth and development. We all know that is the only way to get our unemployed back to work and our economy on the move. What we need is not more government intervention but less regulation and taxation in order that companies will start investing and creating jobs in this province. This government has failed to position Ontario for economic and social prosperity in the future by not introducing policies, infrastructure and training and education systems that will attract tomorrow's industries and jobs to this province.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that this spring throne speech, which was looked forward to with so much optimism and hope by people in this province, has failed miserably in its attempt to address either today's problems or tomorrow's challenges. It was pointless.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm actually pleased to be following the member for Waterloo because I'm amazed at some of the points she made in talking about the throne speech.

In her last few sentences she talked about no vision in terms of developing the capacity for us to take advantage of the recovery, trying to build confidence in the business sector, working with the business sector. She talked about the government threatening to increase expenditures. I don't see how anyone can find that credible given what is a very, very public debate that we have entered into with respect to how in fact to bring expenditures down to preserve essential services for the future in order to bring our deficit into a situation which we feel would be healthier for the future of the province.

The throne speech very much focuses on the economy of this province, on the future and the steps we see necessary to prepare for that, so I'm pleased to follow the member and correct her on a number of points.

First of all, I'd like to review 10 parts of the package of the plan put forward by the Premier and put forward again in the throne speech to put Ontario back to work. Economic renewal, economic development, getting jobs for Ontarians; that's what it's all about.

We've talked about and taken action on investing in infrastructure and emphasizing education and training. It's another point the member opposite made. She said there's no plan for investment in education and training. Let's look at OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board; let's look at Jobs Ontario Training. She misses the point in the activity that has taken place.

Building partnerships and strengthening industry: I'll talk in a moment about some of the specific examples that will show the actions we've taken in that area.

Supporting communities and small business: The member talks about regulatory hurdles. We've got an active project clearing the path, working at trying to clear the regulatory hurdles for small businesses. A very positive initiative.

Expanding worker protection and participation: I'm sure she would disagree with that, but we think that a stable workforce that is involved in the decision-making in its workplaces and can participate fully actually helps build a stronger economy as well.

Reforming health care: I speak with some fondness for this particular project within the government of Ontario, and in fact Canada-wide, in terms of the nature of the reform that's going on, which really speaks to the essential task facing all Canadians, which is to preserve medicare and the best of medicare so that we don't end up in the situation that is deteriorating and taking us to a system like the United States. Canadians and Ontarians are proud of their health care system. Our efforts to reform it are in order to save what is best about it.

Sustaining the environment: Much of the investment in the physical infrastructure -- clean water, sewers -- will go towards improving our environment.

Strengthening social justice: There are all sorts of initiatives you can point to under this government. Whether it be better protection for sole-support parents in terms of collection of spousal benefits, spousal obligations, whether it be employment equity initiatives, pay equity initiatives, the aboriginal agenda, social justice is something that has been and remains very important to this government.

Supporting families and getting back to work: I think that the whole economic package of this government is directed very much towards family and jobs.

Of course, as I started off talking about, controlling government costs: Part of getting our economy moving again is ensuring that the government has its fiscal house in order. We've taken and are taking very direct steps to that goal.

If I wrap that all up, what is this plan all about? It's a plan to continue to invest in jobs and people and to maintain the essential services of this province, the face of this province of Ontario. The kinds of changes that we will have to undergo through the restructuring that's gone on in this economy and restructuring in industry, restructuring in government -- what we want to do is ensure that we preserve the best of Ontario and our society, that we are able to hand on to our children the kind of legacy that we inherited.

I want to take some time to talk about how the ministry that I'm involved in working with now, the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, is focusing on this challenge in terms of economic development, is focusing on trying to bring life to many of the points set out in the throne speech and in the Premier's 10-point package to get Ontario back to work.

I think I'd like to start first of all to talk about international trade and the global markets. We know that Ontario is a trading economy, not just to other parts of Canada -- primarily to the United States and to other parts of the world. It is absolutely essential that we continue to have an export market that is healthy and that we continue to try and develop that.

I noted today during question period that there were questions then: "Well, if you say you believe in trade, if you believe that we are an export economy" -- and the facts can't be disputed -- "why are you opposed to the North American free trade agreement? Surely that must mean you're anti-trade."

Because you don't like a deal, a specific deal, because you think it's bad for the province of Ontario, because you think it's bad for trade and our reliance on trade doesn't mean you're anti-trade. It means you're willing to look at something with a critical eye and make an assessment about whether it's good for the people of Ontario, whether it's good for the businesses of Ontario, the workers of Ontario, the economy of Ontario. We clearly believe that the North American free trade agreement is not good for the economy of Ontario and therefore the people of Ontario.

I think the point I want to make here is that the entire effort with respect to trade has to be looked at in terms of a global view. It has to be looked at in terms of a multilateral approach to trade. Our dependence on trade with the United States, as we have seen of late, is greatly endangered by the kinds of disputes that we've seen, trade harassment issues, actions that have been taken by companies in the United States. The steel industry is a very good example of that. We don't have secure access to open trading markets under the US-Canada free trade deal and we don't see that we're getting it under the North American free trade deal either.

Our challenge, our bigger challenge actually, is to work with our companies here in Ontario to help them become export-ready. One of the most important things we see when companies often go over and visit offices -- federal offices and other offices -- in the international scene is that they're not ready to enter the export market. They don't have the expertise and they don't have the skills ready and they're not prepared. We can do a tremendous amount here in Ontario to work with business, to work with companies that have export potential to prepare them for a successful entry into that market, and I think we need to focus much more of our attention on that.

1610

With respect to changing technologies, we don't do things the way we used to do things, the way our parents did things. Our world has changed. Therefore, the way in which business operates has changed as well. There are many firms that have the opportunity to become much more competitive if they can have some assistance with revolutionizing their own technology and systems inside their firms. There's much that we can do. The challenge is to make the best use of technology and the capabilities that it brings us. Change sometimes is difficult to embrace, but I think that we can work with businesses to ensure that they can become -- and maintain -- relevant in a new technological age.

There are certainly social and environmental concerns that we want to continue to focus on: the education and training of our workforce for jobs that are becoming available to ensure that our training programs are relevant to the workforce demands. That link between business and the job market and our education and training programs, it's essential that we continue to focus on that. I think one of the most obvious examples of that within government is the creation of OTAB, where business and labour market partners come together and will be planning for the future investment of those training resource dollars in this province.

Ontario is a high-wage jurisdiction. That's often held against us in some of the debates I hear and some of the newspaper articles I read. When we talk about increasing competition from other sources, sometimes they point to Ontario as a high-wage jurisdiction and say, "Therefore, you can't compete." I suggest that for all of us, the way in which to compete is not to accede on that point that that's a problem and that we should somehow lower the standard of living of our province and the people of our province in order to engage in competition.

This does not seem to me to be a disadvantage that we have a high standard of living. It seems to me something that we would want to protect. We want to work to continue to maintain and improve that standard of living, but we do have to recognize that standard of living was built on a traditional manufacturing base and that manufacturing base has been eroded. It is not the heart and soul of the Ontario economy in the way it once was.

It's still a very important part but we have to look at the way in which the free trade deal affects the manufacturing base of Ontario, the way in which for many years the consistent policy of the federal government with respect to high interest rates and the high dollar decimated that industry and made it much more difficult for them coming into this recession. It has forced the major restructuring that has taken place, and of course many, many manufacturing jobs have been lost. Unemployment is too high and that threatens our future.

The economic erosion that has taken place as a result of this in our province also threatens the government's ability to fund our social infrastructure. The social programs like education and like health care, the things that we hold dear, our ability to do that depends on the economic base within our province and it has eroded as a result of these policies -- I'll say it again -- like free trade, the high interest rate, the high dollar. Government's ability to sustain that social infrastructure is threatened.

That leads me into talking about, in very brief words, the situation the government sees itself in now with respect to its fiscal situation and the need to take bold, dramatic action now to turn around the projections of where we would be headed in the future. We're not taking actions to deal with this year's deficit or last year's deficit or even the deficits that have been in place since this government has been in place. In fact we will continue to defend that it was the right course of action to invest in the province and the people of the province during the worst of the recessionary times.

But as a good Keynesian, Mr Speaker, let me tell you that I know that as we enter into an economic recovery the opposite is true. As you come out of a recession, as you enter into better economic times, it is important that you start to pay off that debt. I use the word "debt" as opposed to deficit because we have had years and years of accumulated debt in this province and many other provinces, in fact at the national level, and we are talking about one taxpayer and about an accumulated debt load in this country that has reached a point in which it is an issue for us all to address seriously.

As the Treasurer has said on many occasions, it is not naming the problem that defines your politics or your approach to issues; it's what you do about it. There I think we stand in a position, of all of the provinces and the federal government, if you look at it, with the most creative and innovative and tough approach to trying to resolve this problem. We've identified the nature of the problem, we've identified a goal in terms of what we want to achieve and we've identified three parts to the solution.

Mr Speaker, our expenditure control program will be one of the most aggressive that you have seen, and that is on top of several years of having been very effective managers of expenditures. I point to health care as an example, where in fact we've taken what were double-digit increases year over year over year in the Ministry of Health down to 1% or below 1%. That's remarkable and that will continue to play out into the future years and that's a tremendous savings for the province against expected expenditures.

In addition to looking at controlling expenditures, we're sitting down in one of the most innovative, creative processes, engaging our partners in the broader public sector and in the direct Ontario public service in discussions around a social contract. The attempt is simply to try to preserve jobs and essential services and to try to engage people in the front line of delivering services out there in our communities for their ideas about how we can best do that and how we can repackage our expenditure levels within the government to best achieve that goal. It's a goal that they share. Public sector workers whom I know are as committed to the delivery of high-quality public services as any member of this Legislature. It's one of their foremost concerns as well.

Of course, the third part of this is that we will have to look at raising revenues. No one likes to talk about that. No one likes to have to stare that right in the face. We believe that if it's going to be accepted by Ontarians, it has to be a fair package and it has to be seen to be fair right across all of Ontario society. Everyone has to make a contribution to try to find the solution to this problem. That's the approach that we will be taking.

I want to just briefly ask someone to let me know how much time I have left here.

I would like to just briefly talk about an economic development approach, because I believe that this is critical for this province. We haven't had an approach to economic development. You could say we had a piecemeal approach: Whoever has cried the loudest has gotten some economic development assistance. We've looked at picking winners in the past, or we just, through the boom times, particularly when we talk about the 1980s -- as we came out of the last recession and the boom times, when revenues kept pouring into government, in fact they kept underestimating their revenues every year and they'd get cheques at the end of the year and they'd spend it like crazy and continue to add to the deficit and the debt problem during those times when they should have been putting away for the rainy day, which was the recession that we just went through.

However, having said that -- that's back to my Keynesian theories again -- we also just sat by and let the economy go. We let it just take off and do what it was going to do with no sense in terms of an approach to development. We don't believe that that's at all appropriate any more. We've seen economic erosion, plant closures -- not just layoffs, but closures, jobs that aren't coming back -- expenditure problems within government. And we're not just going to go in and cut and slash; we want to maintain the most essential services. We need to have an approach to economic development.

Our approach, through the industrial policy framework that we've set out, is not to go the old way of just picking winners and losers. Governments have never been able to do a good job at that; it doesn't matter what political stripe and at what level. What we're looking at is, how do we support winning activities? How do we support innovation in companies? How do we support export readiness? How do we look at companies that have been successful, take the best of what they do and go out in a very active way and work with other companies to replicate those winning activities to help them succeed too?

We believe that we can build an efficient, productive economy that is fundamentally strong enough to deal with any forces of change. That's the economy of the future. That's the economy of Ontario that we want to be working on: working with business to develop capabilities; contributing, from government, leadership, leading partnership; looking at strategic investment and working with the private sector to lever investment.

The throne speech sets out a number of things that are examples of this. I won't go through them, but I say to the member opposite and her comment that there are no initiatives, that there is nothing there that speaks to the economy of this province and speaks to encouraging investment, well, she's just wrong.

1620

I ask her to look at the discussion around the Ontario investment service. That's something that is supported by business. It's something that will provide a service where in fact people can come to one place, one stop, and get concrete, well-organized information about investment opportunities.

The Ontario investment fund and how it will be able to leverage venture capital, something that's very hard for businesses to get right now in the banks; it's very tough to get capital assistance right now: This is a way in which we're helping.

The sector strategy, the $150-million sector partnership fund: one of the first examples of technology, telecommunication strategy, very well received within that sector, developed by the sector, government working in partnership with the sector.

You will see that replicated in sector after sector, and I've had the opportunity to review some of the work plans coming forward from the sectors. It's very exciting.

Expanding trade and investment: I spoke about that earlier in terms of this being an export-led recovery. One of the things that makes it tenuous is that we don't have the consumer confidence coming along yet, but our desire to work with business around expert readiness programs is very real and the opportunities are very great.

Supporting communities, community economic development, working together.

In conclusion, let me say we can only renew the economy if we have the goodwill and the partnership of everyone in Ontario. Our throne speech speaks to that. Our approach with respect to the fiscal situation speaks to that. Our initiatives in the business sector with labour and government partnerships being brought together, sector strategies, speak to that. Everyone playing a role. We can get Ontario back to work if everyone contributes to the effort.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on the speech from the throne. I plan to focus my comments really in two areas, and they are around the fiscal message in the speech from the throne and around the whole issue of jobs.

I would say, though, just as an overview that I couldn't help but be struck by the difference in tone from the first speech from the throne by this government, which was in November 1990, which was, I thought, an optimistic document, a document that had a sense of hope and a sense of enthusiasm and a sense of excitement about the government and about the province. I think even the government members, if they were objective looking at the speech from the throne that was read on April 13, 1993, would acknowledge that it's the speech of a tired government, of a government that in many respects is worn out already.

When we, to use the jargon we have here, prorogued in December, I thought we would see from the government a speech from the throne with some vision, some optimism, some sense of hope. I understand how tough the economy is, and we all understand the difficulty, but we had a speech that in my opinion offered no vision, no sense of enthusiasm, no sense of optimism. It's a government that's worn out.

With all due respect to the government members, I would particularly ask the backbenchers to read it and then read that document that you heard back in 1990, which offered that sense of hope and optimism. We see a government, unfortunately, that I think has lost its way or doesn't know where to go. That's sad, because if there is ever a time when the people in this province are looking for some sense of hope and optimism, it's now, and I think they expected the government to have a plan and a vision and a sense of direction.

The two areas that I want to focus on are the finances and jobs, and I'll start on the finances, because there is no question that the finances are serious in this province -- make no mistake about that -- and that all of us have a responsibility and an obligation to deal effectively with them and that they're in difficulty for a variety of reasons.

One cannot blame this government for the recession. I happen to think there's much that the government did that has prolonged it, made it substantially worse, but I think it would be unfair to say there would have been no recession if another government had been in power. That's simply not credible.

There is no doubt that the government has faced challenges on revenue -- I don't dispute that at all -- but I think any objective observer would look back on the first budget of this government as a fundamental mistake. I was sad that the Minister of Economic Development and Trade didn't at least acknowledge that, could they turn back the clock two years, they would have brought out a different budget. It was a fundamental mistake. That ran up a deficit of $11 billion.

I think that there was not one single individual in this province or in this country, apart from the New Democratic members, who didn't say: "This is a mistake. We're in a recession. This is the time for some restraint." There wasn't a single individual apart from the government members, yet you went ahead and ran up a budget that had a deficit of what all observers believed would be $11 billion, and it came out at that.

I don't accept that it was inevitable. I go back to the Provincial Auditor's report, because I think even some of the government members may not be aware that leading up to your election deficits were being reduced every single year. This is what the Provincial Auditor said; it's not me. For those who are viewing this, the Provincial Auditor is an independent individual whom the public pays for to give an objective, non-biased view of the finances.

The Provincial Auditor said about the finances of the province, "Ontario has had only one surplus in the last 20 years and that was the year that ended March 31, 1990." That was several months before you got elected, but every year the deficits had been coming down and there was a surplus. I'm not sure the ministry even knew that. You said earlier that there had been consecutive deficits. That's not true. That is not the case. There was a surplus in the year ending March 31, 1990.

I'll also address an issue that's been raised several times here in the Legislature and that often the Premier uses. He said, "You predicted another surplus the next year and it came in at a $3-billion deficit." That is true. There was a surplus the year ending March 31, 1990. That was the final budget that the Liberal government had its full control on. The then Treasurer said there would be another surplus, in about the same range. What happened to that? Because the Premier keeps throwing back at us, "You left a $3-billion deficit."

The Provincial Auditor once again explained it very carefully and he said it was reasonable -- I'm not quoting him exactly, but the essence of it -- to expect that when that budget was presented there would be a surplus. He explains how it went from a surplus to a $3-billion deficit. The Provincial Auditor said: "The extent of the recession was obviously not foreseen at the time of the budget and total revenues dropped by about $1 billion." So why the $3-billion deficit? The Provincial Auditor explains: Revenues dropped by a little more than $1 billion. He goes on to say, "Social assistance costs obviously went up as well." That was the majority of the expenditure increase.

Then he goes on to say, "There were also other special payments that weren't provided for in the budget." These were decisions that Premier Rae made to spend another $924 million. Understandable, but included in that was $200 million for the teachers' pension. It wasn't due in the year that it was spent; it was due the next year. The government moved it up. They wrote off SkyDome and they wrote off a UTDC loan of $400 million. None of those was in the budget. None of those was due that fiscal year. They were all payments that had to be made, but they weren't due that fiscal year.

The reason I'm going through all of this is because oftentimes the Premier, when we're here, will say, "You left us with a big problem." It's not the case. There was a surplus in the year ending March 31, 1990. The Provincial Auditor has explained there was a deficit perhaps of $2 billion. I'm not saying the government didn't come in at a time when there were difficulties, but the big mistake -- any objective observer would agree with this, I think. I think even the Treasurer, or the Minister of Finance, in an unguarded moment would acknowledge now it was a mistake to bring in that first NDP budget running a deficit of $10 billion.

The problem is that you're now trying to undo that. I guess for political reasons you can't acknowledge that it was a mistake. That's unfortunately the way politics works in this province.

1630

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Can't you tell us about your last budget and how inaccurate it was?

Mr Phillips: Well, I just went through that, and the Minister of Education wasn't listening. I just went through that whole explanation, and he wasn't listening. So he chooses the mindless sort of bickering.

Hon Mr Cooke: I don't agree with your analysis.

Mr Phillips: He doesn't agree with the analysis, but it isn't my analysis; it's the Provincial Auditor's analysis. So don't agree with me, read the Provincial Auditor. Why am I going through all of this? The reason I'm going through it is that if we don't understand why we got into this situation -- and many of you spent the summer of 1991 travelling the province, when we had an all-party legislative committee reviewing the budget. Those of us in the opposition told the people and discussed with the people who came before us, "This is a mistake, this budget." Now the government is trying to redress it.

I want to talk a little bit about the number in the speech from the throne on the deficit. The Premier's anticipating a $17-billion deficit. I've said many times that if the people of Ontario understand the situation, they are prepared to deal with it. I believe the first budget the NDP presented was a mistake.

Last year's budget, the second budget, also was a mistake. The mistake in that one was that the government didn't come clean with the real fiscal situation. The day the budget was presented, we said that this budget was going to have a deficit not of $9.9 billion but of $12 billion, and we spelled out where it would come from. We said, "You'll get a fraction of the fiscal stabilization money." For anyone who is watching this, the government said, "We will get $1.2 billion from the federal government." We said, "You'll get a fraction of that," which they did. They got a fraction of that. We said, "You're not going to get $1.2 billion worth of asset sales," and they didn't.

We said, "It is a mistake to delay the teachers' pension money." Again, for those watching out there, this government owed the teachers' pension, in the fiscal year that just ended several weeks ago, $1 billion. This government chose to only pay $500 million and to delay payment on it. That has had two impacts. One is what I said earlier, that the government understated the deficit last year. If the public had been made aware of what we believed to be the case and what turned out to be the case -- that is, that you were looking at a deficit last year, a real deficit, of $12 billion -- I think the public would have demanded action and the government would have taken action. But you now have delayed for two years tackling this fiscal problem.

I might also say for those watching that we are paying a $50,000-a-day interest penalty because we are paying 11.25% interest on that deferred payment. So every single day, as the government is trying to find money, I will say to the taxpayers out there, we are paying a penalty, every single day, seven days a week, of $50,000. I might add that it is my understanding that the government isn't going to repay that this fiscal year or next fiscal year or the fiscal year after that. You've delayed it for ever, but we're still going to pay that penalty.

So that is how we arrived at the situation today. Now we hear of a $17-billion deficit. Again, I stress that the numbers are serious. But just as we believe that last year, had the government come clean with people and said, "Listen, we're looking at a deficit of $12 billion; we've got to do something about it," now, in our opinion, the Premier is overstating the situation. I'll tell you where, and I don't think there's much dispute about this. I'll tell you where he's overstating it.

One is that the Minister of Finance has already indicated that they are going to sell a lot of assets: GO trains, $325 million worth of GO trains. We heard about the Suncor sale; that money's coming in. We understand the government is going to sell several buildings. There is $1 billion worth of assets that aren't reported in sales.

The government last year went through the whole year saying it was going to get the fiscal stabilization money: "We're owed that money. We're going to put it in our revenue." Now they've taken it out completely, and there's $550 million there.

The third area is in interest payments. It makes no sense, if you look at Premier Rae's figures. They are assuming that interest payments on the debt are going to go up 42%, 43%. It makes no sense. Any analyst who looks at it says, "These are phoney numbers." They're overstated by at least $1 billion.

The other thing I'll say is that last year there was something called a seniors tax grant program. It was an expenditure program of $570 million. This year it's over as a revenue program, and that's one reason why the revenues are down.

The point I'm making is that the problem is serious, but if we're not straightforward and honest with the people of the province, they lose confidence in their governments. I don't understand, personally, why the Premier has chosen to exaggerate the problem. In my opinion, the people we're dealing with, the 950,000 public servants and broader public servants, are extremely sophisticated. They understand this material. They are prepared to deal with the measures that are required, and the facts are tough enough without getting into an argument by exaggerating the numbers.

As I say, Mr Speaker, that's the reason I feel so strongly about coming as clean as we can with the people of Ontario about the current situation.

If you will permit me, I also wanted to get on the record some additional information, because I think oftentimes the Conservatives' memory fades on them slightly. I don't know whether the leader of the third party has had a chance to go back over the numbers or not. The reason I raise these is because I think we all have to acknowledge that the finances are serious and that we got to this point over a long period of time. But I want to just go through the five-year comparisons, the last five years of the Conservatives and the five years of the Liberals, only to get on the record the trend that was happening.

When we came in, we understood the need to reduce deficits. That's why, if you look at the numbers, from the time we came in to the time we were defeated, every single year the deficit reduced. Now, I understand we were there in relatively good times, Mr Speaker, and that's why we did end up with a surplus, but the average deficit of the Conservatives and the average deficit of the Liberals -- I just want to get this on the record. The Conservatives' was $2.7 billion in their last five years; ours, the Liberals, $1.9 billion; the NDP's is $11.5 billion, as I think you know.

The point is that every single year, reduced. I know the Conservatives often feel they managed the money well. Their annual spending increases: substantially higher than the Liberal record. As to the increase in the debt levels, what happened? Eleven per cent average debt going up by the Conservatives, 5% by the Liberals.

The reason I go through all of that is because I think that memories fade a little bit over time, and I wanted to get that on the record.

The other thing I would say is that sometimes Premier Rae says, "Well, you didn't anticipate the problem." Let me just say we did. The proof of it probably is in the New Democratic Party's -- this is Bob Rae's comment on the budget, the final budget leading up to the budget, before we were defeated. What did Bob Rae and the NDP say then? These are their comments as we were preparing the budget:

"The Ontario government has reacted to predictions of an economic slowdown by dropping its Liberal pretence, and it's showing its true Conservative nature. The Liberal government is now spreading the message that 1990 will be a year of fiscal restraint. The Liberal minority on the finance committee agrees with this philosophy and has recommended a course of restraint. The New Democratic Party challenges this defence of the status quo."

1640

My point there is simply this, that as we headed up to the election we understood the need for restraint, we understood, as Liberals, that there was a recession, and this is proof that the New Democratic Party understood where we stood on that, understood why, in that budget, we were talking about restraint, and what did the new democrats say? "The Liberal government is now spreading the message that 1990 will be a year of financial restraint. The New Democratic Party challenges this."

So, Mr Speaker, you can, I think, appreciate on the fiscal side of things why it is important that we understand how we got here. I'll go back to what I said earlier. I don't blame the government for all of it. There's no doubt you came into power as a recession was going on; no doubt about that. There's no doubt that revenues don't grow in those tough times. But there's also no doubt that the first budget was an enormous mistake, and yet I've yet to hear -- in fact, the Premier, the Finance minister and Minister Lankin all say they're happy with that budget that took the deficit up to $10 billion. Now what we're going to have to do is face the consequences of some tough times to redress that.

I'm pleased to join the debate, to talk a bit about the finances. The second part of the throne speech, that my colleagues will be talking about, will be jobs. Solving the financial problem is extremely important and tough. I think time will tell that the more challenging one for all of us will be to solve the jobs issue as we look ahead over the next three to four years. I think the unemployment rate right now is about 13% in Ontario. It is nominally at 10.3%, but I think all of us would acknowledge it's closer to 13%. Youth unemployment is nominally around 20%; I think we all would say it's closer at least to 25%.

The government figures suggest that in order to get the unemployment rate down to 8% in four years, we have to create net incremental jobs of about 550,000 jobs. That is going to be the challenge, and in my opinion the speech from the throne doesn't begin to tackle that. So we are looking forward to a continuation of the speech from the throne as we try and point out where we think the speech from the throne is deficient.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): I thank the honourable member for his participation in the debate. Further debate, the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): It's a pleasure to participate in the throne speech debate. I think one of the issues that specifically the people in the opposition have looked at, the observations of the people of this province, is the confidence in this government, the confidence in the operation of this government, the confidence in the policy of this government.

There's been a great deal of fear. Partly, of course, to be fair to the government, there's the issue of the recession. They can't be blamed for it all; there are other causes for that and I'm sure they'll be pleased to point at the federal government and perhaps the American government and any other government they may wish. But the fact of the matter is that there have been a lot of policies that have come out of this government that have given the public of this province, the taxpayers of this province, a great deal of concern, whether it be the tax laws, whether it be the labour laws, the fear in operation in this province.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine made some comments about confidence. It is interesting -- I don't know how many statistics -- the fact that the government did mention a few companies in its throne speech. The fact of the matter is, there aren't a great deal of new companies, new businesses, new operations moving into this province. There are more leaving, there are more going bankrupt, there are more jobs being lost, there are more companies moving to the United States.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Because you can't get any money because of the central bank.

Mr Tilson: That's note quite true. I think the problem is the lack of confidence. When you want to invest in this province, you look at the laws of this province.

Mr Wiseman: Something you guys didn't do anything about.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Tilson: Can we get some order over here. One looks at the tax structure of this province. One looks at the labour law of this province. Why would you operate a business in this province? That's the fear that the people of Ontario have in investing in this province, in continuing to stay in this province.

I think the throne speech was disappointing in that fact. It's been said by certainly members of the opposition and members of the media that the speech is really a rehash of the government's policies and programs that it had suggested before. There were five new announcements; there's no question about that. There were five new announcements, and many members on this side of the House are commenting on those and I'll reiterate some of them: the Commission on Learning that will report within a year, and of course that's notwithstanding the fact that this will be the fifth education inquiry since 1986. There was the Macdonald commission in 1986, the Radwanski report in 1987, the select committee on education, which consisted of four reports from 1988 to 1990, the Premier's Council, people and skills in the new global economy, in 1990. So we've been reported to death as far as education is concerned.

There's the province-wide testing of grade 9 students which it has been suggested will be made later this year, and of course that's a flip-flop from the various ministers of Education that we've had in this government.

There is the $25 million for Jobs Ontario Youth to create some 10,000 summer jobs, and I hope it does because the students in this province are crying for jobs. I don't know how they're going to get through university and how they're going to continue to be educated without more summer jobs. There's the community investment share and loan program, which again has been commented on on this side of the House. There's been a white paper on social assistance to be released this summer.

So those essentially seem to be the five new announcements. Everything else is old stuff.

Now, the gist of the few brief comments that I'm going to be making consists of several areas that I'm most disappointed that the government didn't refer to. There's no mention of housing. There is no mention of GTA garbage. A third issue, of course, that I wish to briefly comment on is the new social contract that's being talked about or the wage freeze or cutback in the civil service. We don't really know what "social contract" means -- maybe we'll know at the end of this week, but the issue of the cutbacks in the civil service that the Premier and Treasurer have been speaking about.

First of all, I'd like to comment on the subject of the GTA garbage. The former Minister of the Environment and minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, Mrs Grier, who's currently the Minister of Health, came forward with a policy that the only topic we're going to look at, as far as the disposing of our waste, is landfill sites--landfill sites. We're not going to consider incineration; we're not going to consider the long rail haul; we're not going to consider improving our recycling programs and there's a lot to be done in recycling programs.

Mr Wiseman: That's nonsense and you know it.

Mr Tilson: No, it's not nonsense. There's a lot that needs to be done. There's a lot of investment that needs to be done in recycling.

Mr Wiseman: Got a whole book.

Mr Tilson: There are no markets, for a starter. The markets for recycling are very inadequate in this province. We have a long way to go as far as recycling, and if you're satisfied with your recycling programs, you've got a lot to learn as far as the environment of this province is concerned.

Mr Wiseman: You've got a lot to learn.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Tilson: I will say that with respect to the subject of the GTA, I asked a very simply question yesterday in this House and the question, of course, was to the minister of --

Mr Wiseman: You didn't know what you were talking about then.

1650

Mr Tilson: The question -- would you get this member in order over here? I asked a simple question. The simple question was, to the minister responsible of the greater Toronto area, that you have spent $25 million last year. How much money is anticipated to be spent over the next period of time, the mandate of the Interim Waste Authority, to create three superdumps in the greater Toronto area? Do you know what his answer was? Referring to Hansard, "I'll let the Minister of the Environment respond to the member." He didn't even know that the money that went to the --

Mr Wiseman: It's not his responsibility.

Mr Tilson: Well, it's not. If you look at the estimates from last year --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Durham West has continually interjected over the last few minutes. I would ask him to please give the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel an opportunity to put his point of view. Then, at an appropriate time, I'm sure the member will be able to take the floor and answer some of those comments.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, if you look at the estimates from the greater Toronto area of last year, that's the only item that was there in the estimates. I was simply astounded, as were all members of this House, that the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area didn't even know that the money for last year came from his responsibility, came from his ministry. I don't know what is daily routine over there. This is very serious stuff. He simply says, "Oh, it's the Minister of the Environment." Well, it's not the Minister of the Environment that deals with this subject within the greater Toronto area, an area that involves agriculture, an area that involves residences.

I will say that the subject of putting garbage in the ground is a very serious problem to all three regions. It's a subject of our water. The previous Minister of the Environment of course was concerned with the subject of incineration. I think we're all concerned with all of the ways of disposing of our waste. No solution is perfect. The fact of the matter is she has restricted the removal of waste in this province to one situation, that is, the landfill site. That's where all of the money, which the minister for the greater Toronto area doesn't even know is coming from his ministry, is going.

It gives me great concern when I hear the lack of policy, the lack of projection in the throne speech, that there is nothing to do with the greater Toronto area garbage philosophy. Notwithstanding all of the information that has come from the three areas, the three ratepayer groups, the ratepayer groups involving the three regions and all the other information that has been suggested to the government, they haven't expanded their policy. They haven't opened up their minds and looked at other philosophies.

A great deal has happened since the former Minister of the Environment was a municipal councillor in Etobicoke, where she didn't like incineration. A great deal has happened to the subject of incineration. She won't even consider that. She won't even consider the long rail haul to northern Ontario, which has passed a referendum indicating that they want the waste to go to that area, an area which could die with no jobs.

I'd like to proceed with the subject of housing. That's another area which the throne speech is completely silent on. There's no mention of the subject of housing, and that's notwithstanding the fact that the Provincial Auditor spent a great deal of time talking about the waste in non-profit housing. I know this is a favourite subject of a lot of the members in the government, but the fact of the matter is the unbelievable waste that is being mentioned in the Provincial Auditor's report. The public accounts committee spent a considerable amount of time talking about that. In fact they have yet to finish their report on that subject.

I must say it's unusual that the throne speech hasn't returned to that subject and hasn't talked about whether there are other alternatives to non-profit housing. Are there not other alternatives, whether it be shelter allowances? That's the proposal that our party has put forward, but they won't even consider that. They won't consider anything else.

There's all kinds of articles. In the most recent edition of the Ontario Home Builder, an article is written by the consulting editor in that particular periodical which talked about the subject of non-profit housing. She says:

"I have yet to hear any talk about re-examining or revamping the enormously costly social housing program we are burdened with in this province. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The province is moving ahead with plans to spend $2 million to build 20,000 non-profit housing units. This is in addition to the $60 million a year the government spends on non-profit housing, an amount expected to escalate to $1 billion a year by 1995."

Faced with that, faced with the climbing deficit and the fact they're simply going to cut jobs in the civil service, that's their answer. They're going to cut jobs in the civil service and they're going to raise taxes. There are other areas that the government could be looking at, and one is the black hole policy that was created by actually the Liberal government and put forward by this government, the black hole of non-profit housing.

She continues in this editorial, saying:

"These ballooning costs could possibly be justified if the system worked, but it doesn't. Waiting lists for non-profit housing have swelled to 60,000 families, while thousands more don't even bother to apply because they know their chances of securing a unit are slim. Some non-profit housing corporations have sadly noted they are turning away needy families while units meant for market rent tenants sit empty.

"Clearly the current social housing policy is expensive and, to be generous, only marginally effective. Needy families are entitled to assistance with their housing requirements in a more time-efficient and productive fashion and taxpayers deserve a bigger bang for their buck. Unfortunately, the NDP government persists in treating its social housing policy as some sort of sacred cow not to be touched, let alone seriously examined, reviewed or, heaven forbid, changed."

Now, it's that: the overwhelming evidence that has come forward in the public accounts committee and in other committees where non-profit housing has been discussed. It's a loss. It's not working, all the needy families that are not being served, and that is silent in this subject.

That's two areas that I have referred to: the subject of the lack of policy in the greater Toronto area garbage and the subject of why are we continuing on with this black hole of non-profit housing, a policy that is doomed to failure and is going to cause us unbelievable problems in the future.

Mr Speaker, I will allow other members of this House to speak. I could certainly go on on the subject that was raised in this House today on the subject of how civil servants are going to be cut back and yet, when we look, everybody over there has got a job. Everybody's either a parliamentary assistant or they're chairman of a committee or they're perhaps a primary or a secondary minister, all making increased salaries, and for what? They can't even speak.

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

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I'm especially pleased to join the debate this afternoon, following on our side the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, who I thought so effectively summed up the 10-point position of the speech from the throne that will get Ontario back to work.

Certainly I know that at least on our side of the House we recognize that action has to be taken, and that's very directly what we are doing, to make sure the people of Ontario do get back to work and to build on the kind of initiatives we've already taken, in the area of health reform, for instance, and the Jobs Ontario programs, which have created many jobs across this province that are doing work that benefit not only the communities where these jobs are but the workers themselves in finding work that leads to self-esteem and ways of supporting themselves that I think we all applaud when we see it.

I'd like, though, to look at a couple of elements in the speech from the throne where it talks about how the speech from the throne is not about business as usual. We are living in times of great change.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Depends how you say "as usual."

Mr Gary Wilson: Well, I think it's reassuring that we're not dealing with business as usual. It's fair to say, though, that not all change is good. When we see the change that the federal government brought in a few years ago called the free trade agreement and what it's done to our economy, obviously that kind of change cannot be considered to be good. Certainly it has had a large part to play in the over 300,000 jobs that have been lost in the manufacturing sector, many of them in my riding, I'm sorry to say. Then to talk about business as usual, what else can you describe NAFTA as? Bizarre as it is to look at the kinds of things the free trade agreement brought in, the federal government seems intent on making things even worse.

I'm pleased to see that our government at least has initiated hearings that allow the people of Ontario to tell us what they think about the experience of the free trade agreement and what will happen under NAFTA. Certainly that was what happened in my riding, Kingston and The Islands, when the cabinet committee came there. They heard very directly from people like the labour council, which raised the question about who benefits from trade agreements like the free trade agreement and NAFTA.

It's certainly not the hundreds of people who have been unemployed in our riding because of the free trade agreement and the kind of disadvantages we can look forward to under NAFTA as well.

1700

I want to say too that there was a good cross-section of groups that came to present, some 15 in all, and only one of those 15 thought that NAFTA would be good. Many were from the community action groups, who saw that the kind of decent, well-paying jobs that support a good quality of life in our communities will be lost because of an agreement like NAFTA, and even the question of discussing it to look at these changes has been denied us by the federal government.

I want to quote from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, who wrote to Michael Wilson urging him to hold wider hearings on it: "After close to four years' experience under the free trade agreement, Canadians need the opportunity to express themselves on whether or not our country should participate in NAFTA. We therefore urge your government to ensure that there will be widespread parliamentary hearings conducted throughout the country." That was written in November, and obviously it had no effect.

I do want to, though, mention the kinds of changes. Obviously, people in our province want change to occur. The many people who have been left out of the prosperity -- and I'm thinking of women, racial minorities, for instance, people with disabilities who never participated in the prosperity that Ontario had in the past -- certainly want change, and I'm proud to say that our government is taking steps to see that they are included in the kind of economy we're trying to develop.

So I see the throne speech as setting out a very clear agenda about how we're going to change things for the better in this province and that we don't fear change. As I say, there are people now who desperately want change so that they can get well-paying jobs that we think that they deserve.

Coming from Kingston and The Islands, as I do, we certainly have been used to changes in the past. We use our own resources to reflect on these changes, part of them from the university, and I'm pleased to see that two professors from Queen's published a book recently called Kingston: Building on the Past. Looking over the past of our area, you see the great number of changes that have taken place and the way we have coped with them, building on our own resources to develop the kind of community we have today, which, as I say, can provide a very good standard of living, with the help of other levels of government.

I've already made the case that the federal level of government hasn't been helping us much through things like the free trade agreement, through the high interest rates, through the high dollar. Those are things that are denying us good employment.

What we're trying to do here -- and I'm pleased to see in the speech from the throne mention of community economic development and the kinds of investment that this will lead to in community-based activity, based on the projects that are developed in the community itself. There will be community investment and loan programs that will allow the money to be collected to fund medium- and small-business initiatives that will lead to the kind of well-paying jobs that we're looking for.

So I want to say that we have no fear of change. Many of us in this community want to see the change occur. Kingston has dealt with change in the past. We certainly have the resources in our strong public institutions, like Queen's, and in the other educational institutions, like Royal Military College and St Lawrence College.

We have a good industrial base that has declined dramatically over the years but still provides the base of experience and expertise. I'm thinking here of the Alcan research and development section, for instance, so that we as a community can come together to overcome the kinds of problems we face now.

I want to leave time for other people on this side to extol the virtues of this speech from the throne. I certainly am looking forward to working with the initiatives that it outlines.

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

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): If I have learned one thing about throne speeches in my eight years or so as a member of this assembly, it's to be modest in my expectations. Certainly, nothing in this throne speech would dissuade me from that view, that one must be modest in what one expects of the speech from the throne.

To be fair -- one wants to be fair -- the government is trying. There is very little socialist rhetoric in this throne speech. The Toronto Star editorialized that the pragmatic NDP is tackling reality with no bold promises and no uplifting messages. We can therefore, I suppose, commend this throne speech for what it does not contain.

The Rae government plans to cut billions in spending, which most Ontarians will applaud; sell off government property, which is probably a wise move; and, to ward off greater government debt, increase taxes, of which I will say more shortly.

The government's proposal to negotiate a social contract with about one million public sector workers really amounts to reneging on a commitment to its own employees. Sid Ryan, president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Ontario division, claims that the Rae government is trying to take money from public service pockets while handing cash to business. Ryan, not surprisingly, is unhappy.

Yet the throne speech has been and will continue to be criticized vigorously for containing few new ideas, for failing to move decisively on education and welfare reform and for raising taxes at a time when Ontario needs to stimulate investment and consumer confidence and attract business. As the member for Scarborough-Agincourt pointed out, the speech of a tired government.

If nothing else, a throne speech should be a healing document. It should stimulate confidence that the government knows what it is doing, has a blueprint to address the problems of the day and has a competent agenda. Especially in times of economic uncertainty, a throne speech should create confidence, should persuade people that it is safe to invest, safe to spend and safe to create new business. If we ask ourselves how well this throne speech does that, I think it would get at best a C.

The president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce dismissed the throne speech as devoid of content and substance, with nothing to instil confidence. The government, says the chamber, fails to understand that an economic recovery begins in the private sector and that tax increases are exactly the wrong medicine.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business thinks this throne speech missed the point and does too little to control government costs. It takes away the ability for firms to grow and prosper. The Ontario Public School Boards' Association considers the throne speech a limp and flaccid document. Even union leaders, who should be applauding, if anyone is to be applauding an NDP throne speech, are disappointed about the lack of attention to the political rights of workers, the limp approach to the concept of a social contract and the vague approach to the strengthening of society's infrastructure.

Vague promises to create a partnership between government and business sound like a socialist apology. Where is the plan that will attract investment, create jobs and promote economic growth? Where is the plan to rebuild cooperation between government and business? Where is the plan to create a positive investment climate? Why can't the government repeal some of the anti-business legislation that has cost Ontario dearly in jobs and in job creation? Why can't the government bring down the deficit by controlling wanton government spending without raising taxes? Must we really have yet another study on Ontario's education system? Must we have yet another study of welfare reform?

In essence, this throne speech pledges to increase taxes, repeats an old promise to create a partnership with business, which really means to try to soften the traditional antipathy between business professionals and socialists, reannounces a vague strategy for small business and continues a program to try to give workers a stronger voice in companies. Finally, it recycles the announcement of three new crown corporations to oversee capital investments. This throne speech has very little to say that would be reassuring to the unemployed and even less to say about how it will help people without jobs get back to work.

I want to say just a little bit about cuts in government spending because, although I applaud in principle the idea of governments becoming leaner and less costly, I am nervous about what will be targeted for cuts. Like many members, I have received letters and phone calls of distress about alleged cutbacks of up to $45 million in funding for mental health services in psychiatric hospitals. The Ontario chapter of Friends of Schizophrenics has mounted a campaign to oppose this alleged $45-million cutback in mental health services, and the government seems pusillanimous in its response. The former Minister of Health simply said that all ministries are looking for areas for expenditure reduction and internal funding reallocation, adding -- somewhat ominously, I think -- that meetings have been held with administrators of some psychiatric hospitals and unions, looking at targeted reductions and more efficient use of resources.

1710

I think that if there is one area where cutbacks may well be ill-advised, it is in the field of mental health services delivery. Especially in times of economic adversity, governments must be sensitive to the emotional, mental health needs of citizens. Especially in times of economic adversity, we need to strengthen culture and the arts as an important backbone of a sense of community and societal wellbeing. Especially in times of economic adversity, we need to ensure that our mental health services are well funded and well staffed by mental health professionals who have a good working morale and are fairly remunerated, and that we are able to maintain a network of services that will be sensitive, responsive and caring.

I would urge this government to be prudent in the financing of mental health care. Perhaps we can tolerate some postponing of highway and road construction. Perhaps government advertising can be curtailed. Perhaps our civil service can be leaner, with more work accomplished by a smaller and more productive workforce. Perhaps paperwork and bureaucracy can be reduced. Perhaps we can have fewer commissions and studies duplicating work that has already been performed. Certainly we must maintain community support for patients struggling to maintain themselves, often with great difficulty, in our society.

The throne speech should be a healing document. It should inspire optimism and confidence and give people reason to think that it is safe to be optimistic, safe to spend, safe to plan and safe to grow. I, for one, am not inspired by this document, and few are. I think there is more we could do and more we could say right now to speak to the economic and other concerns of Ontarians. Ontario needs investment, Ontario needs jobs, Ontario needs economic growth, Ontario needs energy and optimism. Where is the plan that will attract investment, create jobs and promote economic growth in Ontario?

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

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I was extremely disappointed with the throne speech. I suppose the government isn't surprised about that, but I thought I would set the record straight after all of the whining and snivelling that we hear this government doing.

First of all, they blame their problems on federal transfers being down. I have a table here. This table is right out of government documents, provincial government documents, and it shows here very clearly that every single year since you've been elected -- pay attention, folks, because this is important -- the federal government has increased its payments to you by significantly greater than the inflation rate.

Very interesting. The government decides to go off and spend a whole lot of money, and the federal government merely said: "Folks, we're not necessarily going along with it. We will increase our spending at a balanced rate, and in fact at a rate greater than inflation. However, we will not go along with the reckless spending of this government."

Then we've also heard this government talking about how bad free trade has been. It's very interesting: A 1992 study by Statistics Canada shows that Canadian exports to the United States are at record level. They have never ever been as high as they are now. Thank God, because the level of consumer confidence in this country is so bad that we are not having the economic activity within the country. Also, our exports to other countries are not as healthy as they were.

However, our exports to the nation that we concluded a free trade agreement with have in fact increased significantly. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association survey released in 1992 stated that more than half of those surveyed said they had not lost market share, while 39% said that their exports to the US had grown. Remember those figures and remember the source.

Turning to NAFTA, it's very clear that Mexico needs steel, financial services, transportation material, telecommunications, computer equipment and cereals, all goods which Canada produces and excels in. At the present moment, 80% of the exports from Mexico to Canada enter duty-free, where significant tariff barriers exist for Canadian goods going into Mexico. We will be able to eliminate those tariff barriers and be able to operate in a way that we can increase our exports significantly in those sectors where Mexico is very weak.

Yet notwithstanding this, and remembering the NDP's stated commitment to meaningful dialogue -- you remember that, Mr Speaker. I know you particularly remember that, about meaningful dialogue and listening to the people. They said they were going to have full consultation, and yet the committee, the partisan committee that the NDP has set up to study NAFTA and its implications, entirely staffed by NDP supporters, have said on the record from the very outset that while they're spending taxpayers' money to study this, they will in no way change their minds about whether NAFTA is good or bad for Ontario.

Then let's turn to the Premier himself. This is the ultimately most ridiculous example of a Premier trying to get trade. Premier Rae flew to Germany a few months ago and went to visit Audi to implore them to come to Canada, to come to Ontario, and to tell them what a good place Ontario would be to manufacture to sell to the whole of North America, because Audi is not coming just to manufacture for Canada. The Premier came to tell the president of Audi how good Ontario would be. He flew straight from Audi in Germany to Davos, Switzerland, and then proceeded to dump on the free trade agreement and how bad it was for the Ontario and Canadian economy.

You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth and retain too much credibility, and all of the business sector was unanimous in saying that this was the most ridiculous action by this Premier. If you want to get further validation of that, simply talk to the people who are on the Premier's Council as to what they thought of it, because they raked him over the coals and said they wouldn't continue to work on the council if he was going to do that clownish act.

Then let's just look at the fact that the government is saying that it has a terrible revenue problem. I'm telling you now, you don't have a revenue problem. We don't have a revenue problem at the federal, provincial or municipal level. What you have is an expenditure problem, because in point of fact, last year was the second-highest year in history in terms of provincial revenue.

I haven't dreamed up these numbers; I got them right out of your provincial government documents. I'll quote exactly what it was: 1991-92 was $40.753 billion. The only year in history that revenues were higher was in 1990-91, when it was $42.892 billion. In 1992-93, the government's reduced estimate of revenues is $41.8 billion, only fractionally less than the highest year in history, so it puts to bed all of the nonsense this government puts out and all of the propaganda it puts out that it is suffering. What is happening is that this government won't face up to the fundamental problems we have.

1720

On education, in the throne speech the government has said that it is forming a commission to report in one year on what is wrong with the Ontario education system. I can tell you that we already know what's wrong with it. We put out a document called New Directions, Volume 2, which has been widely praised across the province for being thoughtful and being a useful discussion document that should be acted upon. Indeed, we will be ready to govern after the next election, but you don't need to have another taxpayer-paid report, which is going to reiterate all of the things that the last three forums have told us.

I recently had a discussion, in my own riding of York Mills, on education. During this education forum more than 300 of my constituents turned out to express their concerns about the education system.

Turning to grade 9 testing, which the government now is reluctantly saying it's going to do, we've been telling you that for a long time. We don't mind your taking parts out of our report, but please wake up: Don't have another forum to study this. Get on with the recommendations.

What was not said in this throne speech was that despite the economic times, there's been no discussion of serious reform. We're having structural changes in our economy and this government isn't recognizing it. It's talking about it, but it isn't doing the things which need to be done.

It has ignored the elimination of the commercial concentration tax, that terrible tax-sucking tax which the Liberal government put on and which the government now, when it was in opposition, said it was opposed to. We have Bob Rae on record, uphill and downhill, as being opposed to the commercial concentration tax. He has done nothing in the two and a half years since they've been elected to get rid of it.

What we need, and there's no mention of it in the throne speech, is sunset review of all programs of government. We need to reduce the civil service, and the government's beginning to creep in the back door and hint at that. We need to get rid of the 9,000 civil servants the Liberals added in the five years they were in power. The Conservatives, in the last 10 years they were in power, every year reduced the civil service by attrition. There was no hack and slash. They simply reduced the civil service in an orderly and decent manner.

But the Liberals added 9,000. You have added more. I don't have the exact number, but we know you've added a lot of civil servants. You wouldn't be having to sack people now if you hadn't hired them in the first place, and you would not be having to cut back civil servants' salaries if you hadn't given them ridiculous increases in the first place.

We told you after the first budget that you were spending too much money. We suggested a 2% solution. If you had taken the 2% solution, as applied to the broader public service, it is estimated that you could have reduced the cost of the civil service by $3.5 billion relative to where you are today -- $3.5 billion per year. Do the arithmetic. You will find out I'm correct.

I don't blame the civil servants and the broader public service being rather miffed at you, at the fact that you're now talking about cutting their pay. People tend to live up to the level of their income, and when you come and take money away that they shouldn't have had in the first place, it isn't their fault; it is your fault. Look at yourself in the mirror and understand what the problem is.

There is no mention in the throne speech of any of the recommendations of the property tax panel from the Fair Tax Commission, which has recommended that alternatives to market value assessment be studied. There is no mention of that from your government, even though you spent millions in having this tax commission study it.

There was no commitment in the throne speech to reducing interprovincial trade barriers. A perfect example of that is truck lengths. We're in an island in Ontario, surrounded by Quebec and all of the western provinces and all of the US interstates, in having a standard which is less in terms of the truck lengths. We need to do this for environmental reasons. We can save energy. We can pollute less. We can transport 10% more goods if you have a slightly longer truck length, which would be consistent with all of the other administrations I've spoken about, but there is no mention of that.

There is also no mention in the throne speech about trying to correct the total moral bankruptcy of this province. We have had scandals galore: Ferguson, Piper, Martel, Akande, Masters. How many times do you have to be told that you must have trust in government? If the people lose their trust in government, you have lost the moral right to govern. Indeed, in question period today we heard the screams for an election. I joined those screams for an election, because that's what we need, because you have no moral right to govern any longer. You are bankrupting this province, and you are bankrupting it in a way that not you and your contemporaries will pay for, but our children will pay for, and that is fundamentally unfair.

In the Charlottetown accord, there was an interesting item where there was an agreement to reduce interprovincial trade barriers. This government has done absolutely nothing whatsoever to follow through on that. The PCs came through with specific solutions which we offered to the government, and we've said: "No new taxes. Make sure we have an environment where we can create jobs." The way to do that would be by getting rid of Bill 40.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation in the debate. Further debate, the member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): It's my pleasure today to stand up, and before people get the chain-saws out and start digging the deeper holes, I think they better come to reality. When we talk about investment in the infrastructure, and let me iterate, they say, "What does the throne speech actually do for communities?" Well, the throne speech has actually done a number of good things, even for my own community.

In my own community, in the township of Dover and you look at Bothwell, which are small communities, incompetent previous governments never allowed them the opportunity to invest in water lines to supply their citizens with water. With the new program that we're doing, investing in the infrastructure, just putting the water system in place in those communities is going to allow major investment from private enterprise, which the opposition screams and hollers about.

Let's talk about education. In education, I have a business in my own riding, Union Gas, that spends millions of its own dollars, no help from the government, because it looked at the Liberals and said, "There's no help there," and looked at the Tories and said, "Forget it." What they did is they invested a whole bunch of money to make sure that they built their own structure to provide education. They support the government's change in education, because it's not meeting the needs of the business requirements that are out there, and we must change that.

We talk about partnership. There is partnership that's out there. Contrary to what we hear in this House, there are a number of partnerships with trade unions even in my own riding. Let's take the Libbey St Clair glassworkers in Wallaceburg. Faced with a receivership, they went to their workers and asked for a little bit of wage reduction. The workers agreed to it. They agreed to it to stabilize their employment. This is a trade union, that I hear the opposition scream and holler about that are no good and incompetent workers, moving to the fact that these workers took the time to understand the process of making sure that their jobs are viable.

Let's just talk of the Siemens workers. The Siemens workers in the city of Chatham just ratified an agreement, three years with 0% increases, to stabilize employment there and encourage more employment there. That's partnership.

Where are we coming at as a government? We're going to be there to try to assist in making sure that we're providing expertise in technology and looking at one-stop shopping to make sure that those businesses have the opportunity for money.

One of the things that the Liberals and Tories introduced, they introduced programs to start businesses up, but once they opened the door, they kicked them out; they forgot all about them. When businesses do usually get into problems, they're looking for assistance programs. Unfortunately, there are no assistance programs in there, and what we can see is improvement through the communities and the small businesses. We can see improvements there.

1730

I was very amazed when I heard the leader of the Liberal Party, Lyn McLeod, stand up and criticize Jobs Ontario. Jobs Ontario might not be working for everyone, but let me tell you about a good news item, and I guess that's just because of the way we are in Kent county. I always refer to it as God's country and I know my colleagues understand when I refer to it as God's country. It's that we make sure that we work cooperatively together.

I had the opportunity of releasing 200 balloons to celebrate 200 jobs. We're now up to 230 jobs and 150 different employers. "Oh, the program doesn't work," if you listen to the Liberal opposition. This is an in-training incentive for a lot of small businesses in my community to prosper from that the Liberals never discovered nor the Tories, but for some reason 150 employers do find it very important.

When we look at the jobs that are being created over this, there's a wide range of jobs. You look at the jobs that are being created anywhere from manufacturing to mould for bathrooms and toilets and sinks, and I told them maybe we ought to sell some toilets over there, but one of the things that we ought to look at is in tool and die. We look at investment clerks. We look at engineers. We look at installers. There's a number of jobs that are being created in the community through Jobs Ontario.

When I listen and talk about Bill 40 and its ramifications to the workers there, I said, "Come on into the real world, will you?" The real world is that once the federal government implemented the free trade agreement, it opened up the door for industrial change. Industrial change meant that they were leaving small-community Ontario which was a parts supplier. That's where we got it, because they needed Canadian content. So they came to the small rural communities and said, "We'll put a factory here and create the jobs." They now took that door and they opened it up nice and wide and they said, "Leave, will you, please," and that's exactly what the Tories did to us with the free trade agreement.

I find it very ironic that they talk about all the positives of the free trade agreement. When I had an opportunity to talk to some of my colleagues from the United Auto Workers who are still in my riding, one of the things they said was that the UAW in the United States is using Ontario as an example of what NAFTA will do to them. I find that very ironic when I hear all the positive statements about NAFTA.

But I must make sure that when we talk about the throne speech, the throne speech sets out a guideline of opportunity. I know in the communities I represent opportunity will prevail itself because when I look at and talk to people, they say: "Well, Randy, social assistance is not working. It's entrapping people." And I've said that for years. The Liberals say, "Well, why didn't you do anything?"

We're in the worst economic times situated in the province of Ontario. The Liberals had good economic times and they never did anything about social assistance to help people make the transformation from unemployment insurance and social assistance to full employment opportunity. They neglected them. We're making the change of getting them off social services into full employment.

But I think the thing that's very important is that I look at this throne speech and I know a number of my colleagues sit there and talk about what's it going to do? We're going to come out of this. We're going to make sure the prosperity that is in Kent county will live, will continue to keep growing on it, using the guidelines of the throne speech, the investment opportunities that will be there, the restructuring that will be there. I know my colleagues from the Tory party keep harping on all the time, and that's why I said we maybe need a toilet over there to keep some of the flush down.

But what we ought to do -- and I listen to what they say. They say, "How are you going to vote on this social contract?" Let me tell you what: I'm not going to have to vote. You know why? Because I believe that workers understand the restructuring that needs to go on to make sure that it's there.

If you talk to a lot of the workers, they will indicate to you, yes, the government has to be restructured; yes, there is a possibility for it. I believe that it can be done because some of us have experienced it in the early 1980s and we made it happen.

I know a number of my colleagues wish to speak on this issue, but listening to the opposition, they're going to sit there and criticize the whole program, but the agenda that's outlined, the investment in infrastructure --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Please be seated. I would ask the honourable members to please refrain from interjections. It's hardly just to take the time away from the honourable member for Chatham-Kent. I'd ask the honourable member to take the floor.

Mr Hope: When we talk about investment in infrastructure, which is something that's long overdue for a lot of rural communities, when you talk about the emphasis on education and training, long overdue -- I was fighting for this back in 1981 -- when we talk about the partnerships that have to be created, we're doing it, and I think this is setting out a guideline.

The support for communities and small businesses has to be a plus, because with the free trade agreement they've opened up the opportunity for all big business to walk out, and the ones that are going to be there are still small business, so we have to support those. But I believe, as we listen to the opposition talk about how great the Liberals did -- they did a great job. They increased taxes galore, they reduced their deficit and they offloaded on to municipal taxpayers like never before, implementing programs and putting it on there.

One of the key importants for us to do is to take a look at all the programs, straighten the system up, making sure that effective services are being provided for the citizens, at least in my riding and throughout Ontario, to make sure we can set out a guideline in here moving from this guideline to a positive structure, because restructuring is very important. Government has been the last one to restructure its services. Private business did it back in the early 1980s. We need to do it now.

I know, on behalf of my community, we welcome Jobs Ontario. We welcome the infrastructure investment and we're certainly going to welcome the training and technology that will be there in cooperation with the business community, because we will be survivors. We will fight and we will make sure we work with the government to bring prosperity back to our citizens, dropping the partisanship and working for the people, which we've been elected to do and which I've been elected to do: to represent their best interests.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank you for the short opportunity I've had to speak on this. I wish I had more time because I believe there is a positive statement here. The next statement, which is going to be even more positive, is to work with our communities to return prosperity and to stop the rhetoric that we hear from the opposition and move in that direction.

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

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): In the short period of time that I have, I want to make a few points with respect to what amounts to the government's third throne speech since it came to life in 1990. In fact this throne speech is rather interesting because, in effect, it is a confessional kind of throne speech that is an admission by this government that it has failed and that its policies were largely based on misconceptions about where the economy was going back in 1990.

This throne speech is an admission that, "We are going to take an about-face position now, put everything in reverse and retrench," because the government realized that its approach to fighting the recession was going to lead to bankruptcy for the entire state, the entire jurisdiction of the province of Ontario and that in fact you cannot fight a worldwide recession which has global implications.

The restructuring that's taking place is not just taking place in Ontario, it's taking place worldwide and, having gone in the opposite direction, now we find ourselves in this extreme crisis situation. There's at least an admission by this government, a capitulation if you will, that the policies it has been pursuing for the last several years have been wrong, a total failure.

However, someone has to pay the price for those mistakes. Who's going to pay the price? Of course, the average Ontario taxpayer. The first budget this government introduced was a colossal mistake. My colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, whose remarks I heard earlier, put it succinctly in his analysis.

The previous administration's efforts to reduce deficits in good times -- that was done, certainly. Prior to 1990, the last budget that was introduced, comments by the then Leader of the Opposition stating -- and I don't want to requote what was quoted earlier by my colleague, but I'll just paraphrase to say that in fact the Liberals were taking a fiscally conservative position, looking ahead at 1990, understanding that there was a recession looming and we were on the verge of a downturn.

That was responsible management and it was a recognition of the times ahead. We understood that we had to retrench. We understood that you have to make changes. But it took this government two abysmal budgets, three throne speeches, two and a half years of wild spending so that we now find ourselves in this extreme debt position. Make no mistake about it: We are in a crisis situation.

1740

Bob Rae then announces, "I have a great idea. I'm going to rework the social contract," as if a social contract did not exist up until now. "We're going to have a new social contract." Of course, no one really knows what that means. I have a feeling -- and this, in the old socialist rhetoric days, would have been viewed as none other than code language for retrenchment and for cutting and hacking away at jobs, whether it was the public sector or the private sector; it's no different. The fact of the matter is that jobs will be eliminated or severely curtailed and wages will be rolled back. All of these things will have an impact, and I would dare say, in the immediate future and in the life of this province's economy, it will have a negative impact, all this due to crisis management, failing to recognize in advance and take the appropriate steps in advance. We now fly by the seat of our pants.

That's what this government is doing. It is chaotic, it is disrupting, and it's going to lead to the dismantling of life as we knew it in this province for many thousands of people. Services will be drastically reduced, the standard of living will continue to decline, and now, of course, the government says it has no choice. Of course, the bankers on Wall Street and other international bankers will say that. I mean, you have no choice. You've reached the limit and there is a real threat that bonds cannot be floated on international markets.

So we have to recognize the abysmal management of this government and its failure to appreciate that deficit financing can only go so far. Yes, we have a recession. Yes, we all realize that some level of deficit was necessary to get us through this difficult period of time, but what that level was was arguable. In the previous budgets we pointed out that the government could not sustain this level of deficit financing and in fact it was understating what it was spending on the deficit and increasing deficits, and that ultimately it would have to reach a point of no return. I think many speakers on this side of the House had pointed that out to the Treasurer.

I go back to 1990 when the Treasurer announced his first budget. He said, "We're going to fight the recession, and we're going to do that so that we'll turn this thing around," not recognizing that the world faced a recession that was a little deeper and a little steeper and was a structural recession, and not recognizing that certain things had to be done in the economy to restructure, reorganize -- the very things that they're talking about doing in the public sector side now that have been undertaken on the private sector side over the last several years.

Out of step, out of touch with the realities of the day: that's the epitaph of this government. That's the legacy of this government, the lasting legacy, that you're out of touch, your timing is way off, and that what you're attempting to do now is nothing other than crisis management on the debt side, crisis management with respect to all those public sector workers who now face the very distinct possibility of wage rollbacks and severe cutbacks in job creation on the public sector side.

There's no doubt that we have to get our house in order on the public sector side, but that should have been done several years ago and it should have been done through attrition. It should have been done through rational management of the public sector side as it had been done on the private sector side for the last two years.

Of course, I would also like to point out where this government is going wrong in terms of other areas of expenditure, for example, with regard to non-profit housing and social assistance payments, two areas that are wildly out of control in terms of expenditures. The auditor in his report noted that by 1995 there will be 81,000 units completed of non-profit housing. The total provincial subsidy cost will be over $1.2 billion. That's operational subsidy cost for the non-profit sector of housing in this province.

Now I ask you, Mr Speaker, how can this be justifiable, this sort of expenditure? This was asked by the auditor of the ministry. How can it be justifiable in a marketplace which has rental stock that's available that can be purchased cheaper than it can to build? This is the response that the ministry gave to the Provincial Auditor on that question: "The government has decided to adopt the strategy of providing a buffer against another affordable rental housing shortage."

I've got to ask the people in this government. There is a rental unit surplus right now. There is housing out there that's available to be purchased for much cheaper than it costs to build the same unit of non-profit housing that this government has undertaken to build right across the province. There's no justifiable reason for spending this kind of money, this kind of expenditure that's gotten wildly out of control, as I say, in the face of the glut of rental housing that's available out there. This is the type of mismanagement that has been perpetuated by this government.

Social assistance payments are out of control. The auditor also noted that delinquent accounts -- people who had been paid social assistance payments that they were not entitled to have not been sought after to repay those accounts. There's about $50 million of those expenditures.

There are all kinds of examples where this government could be saving money on the expenditure side which are simply being overlooked by this government, yet they're going to hack away at the budget with respect to civil service jobs, and the kind of crisis management that we're seeing now is a result of not understanding how to manage properly, not understanding that you've got to get control, wrestle control out of those expenditures, which are getting largely out of control. Social assistance payments, as I pointed out, are out of control now in this province. The non-profit housing sector with respect to the subsidies by 1995-96, I repeat, will be approaching $1.2 billion; largely out of control.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation in the debate. Further debate, the honourable member for Port Arthur.

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister without Portfolio in Municipal Affairs): Mr Speaker, different governments have different responses to deficit control. As the Treasurer has said, it's not the fact that you recognize there is a deficit problem that shows your political stripe; it's how you respond to the problem that matters.

The dramatic cutting and freezing of programs and expenditures that is the knee-jerk response to debt of other governments has major drawbacks. Without government confidence, the economy becomes sluggish and stagnates, and in its wake comes the inevitable personal suffering, as those least able to resist the impact of the cuts fall victim to what parades itself as realism but is in fact a paralyzing form of panic.

It is therefore one thing to recognize there is a problem and quite another to develop a constructive, forward-looking strategy for dealing with that problem. This government's plan to bring the provincial debt under control is therefore not an isolated, shortsighted, knee-jerk reaction to a sudden crisis. It is part of a total, long-term economic package designed to generate growth and instil confidence in Ontario.

1750

The provincial debt was there when we came to office, Mr Speaker. Our response to it and to the recession in general was what distinguished us from other governments then and what distinguishes us from other governments now. We have set in motion a constructive, long-range strategy that recognizes that investing in the skills and creativity of the people of Ontario was and remains our best chance to get out of the recession and get Ontarians back to work.

In the workplace, especially in the broader public sector, we have encouraged partnerships and unprecedented collective approaches to decision-making; employees, management and government all working together. We have maintained our commitment to social justice by introducing and continuing to introduce initiatives to help those hardest hit by the recession, and we are working to ensure that all Ontarians have the opportunity to be part of the economic recovery that will bring us out of the recession, to be part of the solution and to share in the prosperity it will bring.

We have not wavered in this strategy whose guiding principles hold good after two-and-a-half years in office. They are reflected in our move to work in partnership with employees and employers to ensure public sector services are more efficient, more affordable and, therefore, more protected. They are at the heart of the reform of the training system under OTAB and of the new Commission on Learning. These will give all Ontarians the chance to help shape a system that is accountable and responsive to education and training needs well into the next century.

Our commitment to working with small businesses has resulted in over 20,000 new job opportunities created under Jobs Ontario Training. One thousand new jobs a week are currently being recorded for this program, a program which is not a conventional wage-subsidy program but has employers setting and paying wages in full. This means that every job created under Jobs Ontario Training has behind it a real financial commitment from the business involved. Businesses are working with us under this program because it makes solid business sense to do so.

We are contributing to the growth and competitiveness of Ontario industries through investments in individual companies and an industrial policy promoting sustainable high-wage jobs, and we have partnership funds to support and encourage sectoral agreements. We are facilitating worker ownership to save industries in communities like my own in Thunder Bay. Just last month, we backed a proposal for an employee buyout of Provincial Papers that could save hundreds of jobs in our community, and in the budget we shall be announcing details of our community economic development initiative which will further benefit the communities and people of northern Ontario.

The combination of fiscal responsibility, confidence in the potential of the people of Ontario and the courage to continue making strategic investments in those people and their communities is the hallmark of this government. It is what distinguishes us from the axe-wielders whose single, unimaginative response to fiscal problems is to chop, chop, chop.

There are difficult choices to be made, and we have made those difficult choices. They are positive, constructive choices based on partnerships which will ensure that today's solutions are also long-term solutions.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for her participation in the debate. The honourable member for Guelph.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a great pleasure for me to be able to stand and speak about the throne speech. As you know, the throne speech outlined the 10-point plan to get this province back on the road to recovery. One of those plans is to control government spending and government cost. How did we get here? That's the question we have to ask when we look at government spending: How did we get here? This government did not say, "Yes, let's go build the SkyDome." This government did not say, "Let's spend all our money in creating a big bureaucracy when it comes to WCB." This government did not say, "Darlington; let's start a Darlington, another megaproject." That's not what this government did, but it's this government that has to get it under control, and it's this government that is going to take the steps to get it under control. We can say, yes, it was the other parties that did it, but what we're trying to do here as a government and what the throne speech has said is that we're all in this together and we have to work together.

The specific steps that have been taken to control the costs of this government, as outlined in the throne speech, are driven by the principles of fairness and shared responsibility.

We have eliminated eight ministries of government, and we've continued our internal spending controls. MPPs have had their pays frozen, and for some that's a hardship. We're engaged in a historic act of negotiating a social contract with our 900,000 men and women who make up the public sector.

Let me quote from the throne speech: "As a society, we cannot move forward without bringing everyone along. We are in this together."

Business realizes that, the labour movement realizes that, and I think it's about time the other parties realize that, that together we can work things out, together we can march along and bring this province back to prosperity. We can no longer stand in the House and yell at each other and point fingers at each other. What we have to do is work together. As we create an atmosphere of working together, I invite the opposition parties to join with us with constructive ideas, instead of I-told-you-so ideas. That's what I hear from the other parties: "I told you so. I told you so." It's about time we started saying to each other, "Yes, we have some problems, and yes, we can work together as a Parliament."

The foundation of what we've built in Ontario is our respect for each other and our concern for each other. It's a plan for social and economic change built upon partnership and responsibility, a plan for reform and restructuring that will preserve what is best about Ontario while challenging all of us to make it a better place. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, April 21, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1757.

20 avril 1993