Journal des débats 1993-avril-21 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Charles Beer (York North): For some time now, we have heard from the Minister of Education and Training and the Premier that they would like to introduce testing this fall. The question which neither the minister nor the Premier has been able to answer is, what kind of testing?

This is an issue of tremendous importance to students, parents and teachers. The throne speech has raised more questions on testing than the minister has been able to answer.

What will the format of the tests be like? Will it be province-wide standardized or will it be a series of tests taken in groups? Will the tests be locally designed and administered or will they be done centrally? Why are the proposed French and English tests to be on different subject matter? What exactly will the tests evaluate? Will it be the schools, the students, the teachers, the curriculum or all of the above?

Teachers have specific concerns as well. Should their students be specifically prepared or not? Where will the final results from the tests end up? Will they be included in report cards or in final grades?

If these questions are not enough, the most fundamental question students, teachers and parents still need to know is, when does this minister plan to come up with a final common curriculum?

The quality, the excellence, of our system of education must be of paramount importance to us all. Is the throne speech announcement merely a short-term ploy to appease public opinion, or is it the beginning of a concerted effort to change dramatically, and for the good, our education system? We need answers now.

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It was a pleasure this morning for me to attend a function in my riding along with other colleagues from all three parties in the Legislature, and in particular the Health critic for our caucus, Jim Wilson, when today Astra Pharma Inc opened a $40-million, state-of-the-art manufacturing and laboratory facility in Mississauga.

According to Astra's president and CEO, Gerry McDole, the new facility has created 100 high-tech jobs for Canadians. Astra has announced a new investment of $150 million for research also, to investigate disease, discover treatments and develop new medicines. This is one of the most significant private research investments in Canada.

Astra believes the first phase of its research investment will create more than 50 jobs for medical research scientists in Canada. Initially, the major research areas will be pain relief, new analgesics and anti-inflammatory processes. This research could have implications for crippling diseases such as arthritis.

In the longer term, Astra plans to pursue research into many medical areas and therapies, both on its own and in cooperation with several Canadian universities and other institutions. For instance, last year I announced in the Legislature a joint venture between Astra and McMaster University to investigate the role of inflammation in asthma and inflammatory bowel disease.

Astra's new investments have helped make the company Canada's fastest-growing research-based pharmaceutical firm. I would like to congratulate Astra on its investment in science and technology and, most of all, in Canadian talent.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I rise to congratulate Ontario's wineries on their magnificent showing at the international wine competition held recently in Verona, Italy. Ontario wines took home seven awards -- four golds, two silvers and a bronze -- with only Italian wines garnering more awards than Ontario. French wines came third.

As the member representing the heart of Ontario's wine country, I must point out that of the seven award winners, six came from the Niagara region. Our showing at this renowned international competition is further tribute to the success of Ontario's wineries. Whether it be the glossy front-page spread on Ontario wines in the US-based Wine Spectator, considered the bible of the wine industry, or the serving of Inniskillin wines at the recent gala dinner for Mikhail Gorbachev, it's clear that our international reputation for excellence continues to grow.

I'd like to list those wineries and congratulate them personally: Inniskillin 1991 Pinot Noir Reserve; Inniskillin 1991 Ice Wine; Konzelmann Estate's 1991 Pinot Blanc and Konzelmann 1991 Ice Wine; Stoney Ridge's 1990 Vintage Chardonnay Eastman Vineyard and -- I'm sorry, this is one of those that didn't make it from the Niagara Peninsula, but I know that it's a good wine because they won an award, and that's Magnotta Winery's 1990 Limited Edition Cabernet Sauvignon, and 1991 Vinoteca Ice Wine.

I urge all members of this House to take some time this summer to explore the wine regions of our province. The Wine Council of Ontario's slogan may say that they are ready when you are, but perhaps it's more appropriate to ask, are you ready for them?

TENDERING PROCESS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise today to address an issue to the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet. A concerned citizen has contacted my office with regard to the tendering process for government contracts in the former Ministry of Government Services. He has outlined a number of serious concerns in a letter, which I have already given to the Chair of Management Board.

I'm raising this issue in the House in order to emphasize its importance. This is an important issue. The integrity of the tendering process has been questioned, and I have asked the honourable minister to investigate this issue immediately.

Due to the seriousness of this complaint, I hope that the investigation will be conducted quickly and thoroughly, using all available resources. It's my hope that the constituent will be interviewed and called -- my hope would be as quickly as possible -- because he has additional information which I know the minister and his staff will find essential to ensuring a full investigation.

My request to the minister is specific: I believe this is serious enough that the investigation should be completed within two weeks, and I would request that the minister let me know the results of his investigation, as well as ensuring that the constituent not only is involved in the investigation but is made aware of the result.

1340

ORGAN DONORS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to congratulate the Mutual Group for launching a program, By Mutual Consent, to promote organ donor awareness among Canadians and address the increasing need for vital organs for transplant.

At the official launch of the By Mutual Consent program last Thursday, Mr Robert Astley, president and CEO of the Mutual Group, said that the program is designed to help people understand the need for organ donation and to encourage them to sign an organ donor card and discuss their wishes with family members.

Although 14,425 organ transplants had been performed by the end of 1991, with an overall survival rate of 90%, there are still 2,289 patients across Canada awaiting transplants.

While a majority of people support organ donation, many organs unfortunately are lost because people are unaware of the critical need for organs, or they do not take the time to sign a card and discuss their wishes with their family.

It is important that donors make their wishes known to their family, because while a signed organ donor card is considered to be a legal document, hospitals will not retrieve an organ over the objection of the family.

Along with our PC Health critic, Mr Jim Wilson, I would like to take this opportunity to urge the government to make Ontarians aware of the steps that must be taken to ensure that their wishes to have their organs donated for transplants are indeed fulfilled.

FABULOUS FITNESS

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Today I stand to honour another small business that has opened in my riding, in the worst recession, I might add, since the 1930s. Recently, a health club by the name of Fabulous Fitness has opened up at Steeles and Fenmar. It's fantastic to know that this organization has hired 35 people within the community. For me that's fantastic; it's fabulous.

The activities include aerobics, track, sauna, steam room and whirlpool, providing, of course, the health store, masseuse and day care. It also includes a co-op for students who are currently taking phys ed education studies. For me, that's fabulous.

Mr Speaker, 1,600 members belong to this wonderful and fabulous organization, and of course I can't tell you enough and praise these people enough for holding charity events four times a week.

I'd like to welcome, in the east gallery, Frank Cirillo, Libretta Cirillo, and of course say hello to their son Enzo, and I hope that you all give them a warm round of applause. Thank you for coming.

I would also like to challenge any of the members who are here today and listening, of course, to a squash match at Fabulous Fitness.

NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Mr Speaker, you will notice that some class has been added to both members' galleries today. Of course, I am referring to the delegation which has given us the pleasure of its company here in Toronto. I refer to the delegates from the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association who have travelled from that great part of the province to be with us here today.

NOMA is made up of mayors, reeves, councillors and aldermen from the cities, towns and communities of an area covering the Kenora, Rainy River and Thunder Bay districts. These are the front-line politicians who have entered public life to serve the citizens of the province at the local level.

They have travelled to Toronto to meet with us at the provincial level to discuss areas of concern, areas where the province has a significant role in developing policies that affect northern Ontario residents. This group will be meeting with the caucuses as well as the cabinet to discuss some of these very specific issues. It is my true hope that all parties will take the time to listen and to offer real solutions to their concerns.

Might I ask the members to join me in welcoming these folks to the Legislature today.

LIBRARY GRANTS

Mr Dave Johnson (Don Mills): I feel it imperative to draw to your attention a situation occurring in our municipalities concerning our local libraries.

Libraries are much more than book depositories; they now serve as community resource centres disseminating information to an ever-growing population. To continue to provide this valuable service, they need adequate funding. Equally important, they need to know when to expect that funding.

In my own riding of Don Mills, the East York Public Library has been trying, for the past four months, to get an answer to the question of when it may expect a response from the ministry. In fairness, they have received a response, a non-response, as no one seems to be able to give any indication as to the timing of the announcement.

Mr Speaker, as you are aware, I have a background in municipal government, and municipal governments and their boards, such as the library board, live and die by their budgets. They carefully create them, they stick to them as the year passes and they do not run deficits. I am just now becoming aware of the meaning of the word "deficit."

My point is that municipalities and the library boards must be made aware of the available provincial grants in order to set their own budgets. Timing really is everything, yet this year the announcements are being made later and later. My own board received last year its grant on July 21.

Our public libraries do perform a vital service to our communities, and I feel it is our responsibility to support them rather than to discourage them.

HEATH'S DEPARTMENT STORE

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): People often think of Timothy Eaton and Robert Simpson as the early entrepreneurs who created the department store heritage in this country. I would like to add another name to that legacy.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Heath's Department Store, a family-owned business in my riding of Oxford, celebrating its 150th anniversary of serving its friends and neighbours.

The Heath business history begins in 1843, with the opening of a single store in Delhi by James Whiteside. His son-in-law, Eugene D. Heath, took over the business in 1895 and became sole owner after Mr Whiteside died in 1910. Mr Heath's son, Harold, joined the family firm in 1929.

The business flourished and in 1945 expanded to Tillsonburg, taking over the J.H. Rush and Co department store that been a retail outlet since 1873. It eventually expanded into a four-floor department store.

Another store was added in 1948, when Heath's continued its Oxford expansion with a new outlet in Woodstock. That store's move to Dundas Street in Woodstock in 1971 doubled its retail space.

It was during Canada's centennial in 1967 that a fourth generation of the family entered the business when Eugene Heath joined the company.

While joining Mr Heath at a recent ribbon-cutting to celebrate this special event, he stressed that there are three main philosophies behind Heath's business success: customer service, satisfaction guaranteed and staff buyers.

Let me once again congratulate Heath's Department Store on its anniversary. I believe they have earned a place in Canadian retailing history.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WASTE REDUCTION

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): In the speech from the throne last week, the government outlined its 10-point plan to put Ontario back to work. We talked about our plan to invest in jobs and people, to sustain essential services such as health care and education and to control the provincial deficit. We talked about the need for debt control, not for its own sake but so that we can continue to invest in jobs and services, so that we can continue to do the things that will make Ontario a better place to live and work.

One of the points in our plan to put Ontario back to work is sustaining the environment. Protecting and preserving the environment has always been a part of our agenda, from working with businesses, labour and environment groups to develop the environmental bill of rights to encouraging green agricultural practices or creating North America's largest urban park in Scarborough's Rouge Valley.

1350

As my colleagues in the Legislature are aware, this is Earth Week and I can think of no more appropriate time to announce an important environmental milestone for Ontario. I am pleased to tell the Legislature that we have reached the first goal of the waste reduction action plan. In 1992 Ontarians sent 25% less waste per capita to landfills than they did in 1987. We achieved this milestone through the efforts of hundreds of municipalities, thousands of businesses, schools, hospitals, community and environmental organizations and millions of Ontario households. These groups and individuals have shown how much can be accomplished through strong partnerships.

Ontario has come a long way since it had the dubious distinction of being among the world's leading garbage producers. In 1987 about one tonne of non-hazardous solid waste per person was generated in Ontario. In October 1990 the Minister of the Environment, my colleague Ruth Grier, announced two ambitious goals: to reduce the amount of waste going to disposal in Ontario by at least 25% in 1992 and by at least 50% by the year 2000. These targets are based on the 1987 disposal rate.

To meet the 25% and 50% reduction rates, the waste reduction action plan was introduced in February 1991. It made the 3Rs -- reduction, reuse and recycling -- the cornerstone of our strategy. The strategy is working. Data collected by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, in cooperation with municipalities and the private sector, confirm that we have reached the 25% target. We believe that this is a great achievement. It shows that the waste reduction message has hit home with the people of Ontario and that they are willing to make the changes in their daily lives to protect the environment.

Many individuals and groups deserve credit. First and foremost, there are the more than three million Ontario households actively recycling with the blue box. The success of the blue box is the best indicator that people across Ontario are committed to diverting waste from landfills into productive use. This commitment also is reflected in the fact that nearly one million households are composting kitchen and yard wastes.

Municipal governments also share the credit because they helped build and are helping to maintain the infrastructures which enable the blue box and home composting programs to work.

In the private sector, many businesses voluntarily have established programs to reduce the amount of waste they generate. In fact a number of Ontario companies have already met, and in some cases exceeded, the 50% target. The newspaper industry deserves special mention because it recycles half of the newsprint it uses.

Within the provincial government, successful 3R programs have been set up within a number of ministries and agencies. For example, the head office building of my ministry has reduced waste by 77% in the past three months.

This province has made great progress in achieving the 25% reduction target, but an even greater challenge remains: the next 25%. To meet this challenge, I will soon release 3R regulations to expand participation in reduction, reuse and recycling activities across Ontario. These expanded 3R activities will spur green industries in the province and make us more efficient in our use of resources.

We need the continued strong effort of municipalities to reach the 50% goal. They need to be able to plan, develop and operate new 3R facilities. Later today, my colleague Mr Philip, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, will table amendments to the Municipal Act which will give municipalities these and other additional waste management powers.

Again I'd like to congratulate all who have participated and ask them to join us in the challenge of meeting the next 25%.

MUNICIPAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): As my colleague has just noted, sustaining the environment is one of the keys to our plan to put Ontario back to work. Our government is committed to encouraging the emergence and growth of the green industries and to environmental responsibility.

Today I'm pleased to introduce a bill that will give municipalities increased powers to develop and operate effective 3R programs. As you know, Ontario is a world leader in reduction, reuse and recycling efforts. You heard from my colleague the Minister of Environment and Energy, who a moment ago today told you about Ontario's laudable achievements in waste reduction during the past year.

The 25% reduction in the amount of waste going to landfill sites is an admirable effort, but we must ensure that we continue these efforts over the coming years in order to reach a 50% waste reduction target by the year 2000. That is why I am introducing our bill today. This bill gives municipalities the enhanced powers they need and want to develop and operate effective and comprehensive waste management programs.

Our extensive consultations during the last year with municipalities, with private waste management firms, with environmental groups and with ordinary citizens told us that we are on the right track. Our bill clearly defines which level of government is responsible for waste management programs while also giving municipalities the flexibility they need to meet local needs.

Our bill is both timely and necessary. Indeed, Mr Joe Mavrinac, the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, stated, "We support the province's legislation, which represents a close fit with the recommendations AMO has made in the past for clear municipal legislative authority for waste management activities."

I thank all of those who have had input to this. I particularly thank the representatives of AMO who have been so helpful in this matter. We are confident that this legislation will help municipalities carry on with the 3R work that they are doing and provide them with greater powers for future years.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'm responding to the statement of the part-time Minister of Environment. The minister stands in his place today and reveals earth-shattering news: Less waste is generated during a recession. He says today what everyone in this province already recognizes, and while we support waste reduction initiatives, let us be clear: The part-time minister has not announced anything new today. He says that targets have been reached, the measurements of those targets which were eroded by the NDP government.

So why this announcement today? Could this non-announcement by the part-time Minister of Environment have anything to do with a rally that's planned to take place in front of the Legislature tomorrow? I hope the viewing public recognizes that tomorrow many hundreds of people will be coming to this Legislature concerned about the air they breathe, the water they drink and the place where landfill sites are situated. They'll be here tomorrow expressing their frustration at the policies of the NDP government and the way in which it carries out these policies. They are frustrated that their right of representation in matters of an environmental nature has been stripped away by this government.

I can tell you that in my riding we have the Britannia landfill site, and it's not that long ago that the now Premier made a statement that there would be no extension of a landfill site without an environmental hearing. Well, the people in my riding, the people in the region of Peel and in York and throughout the province know that this government and their policies have taken away their rights to be heard in matters that are so important to them.

The part-time Minister of Environment, if he were truly concerned about waste reduction, wouldn't be wasting the time of the public making statements like this today but rather would be there tomorrow meeting the concerns of people who have very real concerns about the policies of the government and the way it is carrying them out.

MUNICIPAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I take pleasure in responding to the statement of the Minister of Municipal Affairs on this matter and indeed take the opportunity to congratulate the municipalities of Ontario for attaining a 25% reduction. Great work. Many have exceeded that guideline, of course, and will continue to do so.

Speaking to the responsibilities of municipalities, certainly they should have more responsibilities, and let's get on with it, but we have to remember the other side of the coin, and that's the cost factor. It is noted that the blue box funding will end next year unless more money is allocated. Municipalities want to continue the programs of reduction and recycling etc, but we have to be aware of what the local taxpayer can afford, because it's real estate taxation.

1400

This government must remember that downloading new costs to municipalities does not solve its problems; it only creates new tax burdens for local municipalities and taxpayers.

In this respect, what was missing from the statement is a response to municipalities concerning the costs of these programs and indeed the matter of downloaded costs on sewer and water charges. It's a very great concern what's happening, because the Ministry of Environment has seen fit to charge Ontario municipalities an extra $8 million for laboratory costs in the operation of various water and sewer facilities.

This has been going on while the disentanglement process between the municipalities of Ontario and the province is being negotiated. If the matter of responsibilities and costs between the municipalities and the province is so important -- it is of great importance and will be discussed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and indeed municipal members on Friday -- then the province must look at the cost of downloading services to municipalities.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Charles Beer (York North): In response to both these announcements, but in particular to the Minister of Environment, let the record show that today when he should have stood up and announced that the travesty we're going through in the region of York and in Durham and in Peel should end and that this whole matter of waste disposal should go through an Environmental Assessment Act process where all the options are going to be looked at, today when the minister should have risen in his place and said that, he chose to duck the issue. Tomorrow, people will be here for Earth Day and they will be here to send a message to this minister, to the former minister and to the government that they have not acted properly in this matter.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Durham West.

MUNICIPAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Dave Johnson (Don Mills): I recognize that this is the greatest challenge facing the municipalities in the province of Ontario and that's the issue of waste disposal. I do give credit to the municipalities for the leadership and the targets they have met in identifying and tackling this issue. I would be mindful in my comments, though, that the problem is not purely responsibility. The problem involves funding, and this is what has not been addressed in the announcement today.

The recycling programs across this province are very expensive programs. The municipalities are eager to get on with the job. The municipalities are getting on with the job, but the problem they're facing is not simply responsibility; the problem is funding, and they are not being given the resources.

They are not being given the resources to tackle the blue box program. In Metropolitan Toronto, for example, there is a very excellent system of collecting through the blue box program, but it cannot be extended to apartments because there is a shortfall in funding.

This government has not provided adequate funding to the municipalities to carry out the responsibilities to date, and unless this announcement is accompanied by additional funding, then it will not be successful.

The second point I would make is that it's very interesting that just a couple of years ago the municipalities, such as Metropolitan Toronto, were making excellent progress in terms of finding a landfill site under their jurisdiction, under their authority, and that authority was wrestled from the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and taken back by the provincial government. Metropolitan Toronto, through the process, had spent about $15 million of taxpayers' money in identifying a solution to the problem. The Interim Waste Authority has taken that over, spent more money than that and has not found a solution -- a waste of taxpayers' money.

It's interesting in that case that this provincial government went exactly in the reverse direction, took the authority away from the municipalities, took it unto itself and has not been successful in finding a solution -- indeed has caused confrontation across southern Ontario, and we've yet to see the end of that confrontation.

The third point I would make is that in terms of waste reduction, again using Metropolitan Toronto as an example, the waste has been reduced from three million tonnes per year to about one million tonnes per year going into the Metro landfill sites because of the recession and because a lot of the garbage is being shipped south to the United States, unfortunately. Metropolitan Toronto has approached this government with the possibility of closing off the borders to the transfer of waste to the south and has been rebuffed in all of its efforts to achieve the closing off of the border.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): A couple of comments on this announcement: Firstly, it's astounding that this announcement comes forward today when a mini-budget can be announced on Friday, the only day this House doesn't sit, and that's not considered significant enough to come to this House. That's very disappointing.

Secondly, this minister needs a check on reality. The reality of the situation is, there's a recession. That's what has reduced the amount of garbage in the system today: the recession.

The blue box program is fundamentally broken. You've got the mayor of North York who's saying: "This program doesn't work, it's too costly, we're not participating." You've got the Metropolitan government saying to the local municipalities, "We're going to start charging you to run the waste disposal system or the blue box program."

So the Metropolitan government is saying it's too costly, the local municipalities are saying too it's too costly, and they've come to the province and said it's not working. They're taking credit for diversion because it's a recession, and Metro's shipping maybe as much as 600,000 to 1 million tonnes of garbage to the United States, and you're taking bows for this. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Finally, it's not going to solve the problem by giving more powers. What these people need is a program that's implementable and money to run the blue box. If you don't fix this, this blue box program will be kaput in two years.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before -- on a point of order.

WILL FERGUSON

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm rising on a point of privilege. People in this Legislature know that I have been working on an issue for a long time and the issue is Grandview, and yesterday I feel that my whole position on this issue was misinterpreted, and I can't say wilfully or unwilfully, by the Premier of this province.

Mr Rae, in his answer to me, said, "I want to say to the honourable member that she says the matter is now closed." I wouldn't have been asking the question if I thought the matter was closed. I used those words and I used them with quotation marks and said so in my remarks yesterday as what the Premier has said on this issue. I am not complete on this issue, the people of Ontario are not, and certainly the victims are not.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the honourable member for Ottawa-Rideau, I certainly understand and appreciate why she's concerned. The member will know that the only person who can correct the record is the person who made the statement.

I fully realize and appreciate what the member is referring to and it may be that when the Premier has returned and he has seen Hansard, that may allow him an opportunity to correct the record. It will certainly be drawn to his attention.

ROLE OF MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before starting oral questions, some members may recall that a procedural concern was raised in the House yesterday and I undertook to consider it and to report back as quickly as possible and it was my anticipation that I would report back today.

I did receive, and for which I am most grateful, a lengthy written submission this morning from the Liberal caucus and it was, if I could say so candidly, a very thoughtful and helpful document.

This matter has turned out to be a touch more complex than it appeared at first blush, and so I do not have a ruling for you today. I will make every effort, and it's my expectation that I will have a ruling for you tomorrow.

I apologize for not being able to bring it to the House today, but as I say, it's turned out to be a little more complicated than I had anticipated. I will make every effort to have it here tomorrow.

Yes? A point of order?

1410

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On that very issue, if I might, on a point of order: This morning I attended, along with others, the opening of a facility in Mississauga, the Astra Pharma Inc facility, and the associate Minister of Health was in attendance along with the Premier and with the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

At that time, the associate Minister of Health was introduced to the people as a member of the Premier's cabinet and took the introduction, and that's fine. We in fact accept that because, as you know, yesterday the member for Renfrew North rose to ask a question of that particular minister.

Aside from a number of issues that clearly point out in the rules and in documentation and in past decisions that a Minister without Portfolio with certain responsibilities is indeed a minister within the cabinet, within the executive council, and has certain responsibilities, aside from that, the public perception --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): And your point of order is? Spit it out, Steve.

Mr Mahoney: If the Treasurer would stop interrupting me, he might hear a point of order.

The public perception in introducing this minister and other ministers without portfolio as members of the Bob Rae cabinet would clearly add to our perception that they indeed are responsible for certain areas.

Just to summarize briefly, Mr Speaker, in our point of order, it is our respectful submission that any question put to a Minister without Portfolio to whom a specific responsibility for a ministry has been designated -- and that designation would indeed be by the Premier -- that a question posed by the opposition to someone in that responsibility does indeed warrant a response.

Standing order 33(h) addresses the fact that parliamentary assistants may indeed answer questions for their ministers. Now, they have to be designated by their minister to do that -- in other words, have the permission, the agreement -- and this standing order does not address ministers without portfolio. However, standing order 33(a) states, and I read for you, sir, that, "Questions on matters of urgent public importance may be addressed to the ministers of the crown," and according to the Executive Council Act, section 1, and I quote from that, "The executive council shall be composed of such persons as the Lieutenant Governor from time to time appoints" -- and this is important -- "and all executive councillors so appointed are ministers of the crown."

So if you put that back to standing order 33(a), where it clearly states that questions on matters of urgent public importance may be addressed to ministers of the crown, it seems to me your decision is clear.

The Executive Council Act continues on to deal with the salaries of ministers of the crown, including subsection 3(3), which states, "The annual salary of every minister without portfolio is" and it goes on to outline that.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It's going to be 10% less than that.

Mr Mahoney: It's about to be less, I understand, the minister for Etobicoke central points out.

With the inclusion of ministers without portfolio in this particular section, being subsection 3(3), the Executive Council Act is clearly stating that ministers without portfolio are indeed ministers of the crown, as we contend.

It's necessary also to point out that ministers without portfolio in the current government, by admission of the Premier, are indeed assigned specific responsibilities, as in the case of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Health. That statement has been made by the Premier and clearly is the direction this government is going. It's the Premier's own admission that by reducing the cabinet down to 25 and increasing the ministers up to 27, he's somehow magically reducing the size of the elected body of the particular government. So he assigns them specific responsibilities.

The question posed on April 19, 1993, was to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Health, and according to the dictionary -- I'll go through some of this a little quicker, if I might, because I think this is very important. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "responsible" as "liable to be called to account...; (of a ruler or government) not autocratic; morally accountable for...actions; capable of rational conduct." That may be the hook that lets them off, by the way.

The Speaker: I don't like to cut the member off in full flight. I take it that the member is reading from the document which he sent to my office. I don't want to impinge on the member's rights. If he feels compelled to read into the record that which he sent to my office, then of course I'll allow him to do so. I'm sure that he's aware of how precious our time is, and I would ask him to be succinct.

Mr Mahoney: I am using several documents here. I'm using Hansard, wherein yesterday -- and you've given us your reason -- you explained that you would attempt to come to it today. The reason that I rise and use these other documents is that every day, as you well know, opposition parties meet in their respective caucus rooms to discuss question period strategy or what we're about to ask the government on that particular day. Because we don't have a decision on this, sir, we're limited in our ability to perform our duties as members of the opposition.

I think it's critically important that all documentation be a matter of public record, and we have given you a detailed document for you to study, as bedtime reading I'm sure you're going to enjoy. But I think members opposite, I think the media, I think the people at home would like to know that indeed there is a point of order of some significance to members of the opposition.

The dictionary assigns the word "responsible," as I said before, as "liable to be called to account; not autocratic; morally accountable for actions; capable of rational conduct; of good credit, position or repute; respectable; evidently trustworthy." As I said, those are all perhaps definitions that this government could use to avoid answering questions, because I think they could put an argument that they are none of those. However, in fairness, they are the government of the day, and this refers to the government.

The member for Renfrew North was attempting to ask the member for Perth a question regarding the Ministry of Health, a ministry to which the Premier has told this House and the people of Ontario that that member has now some form of responsibility.

In the 21st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, the following is stated on page 285, and I quote, "Questions addressed to ministers should relate to the public affairs" -- this is very, very important, Mr Speaker. "Questions addressed to ministers,"and we all acknowledge that the member for Perth is a minister, "should relate to the public affairs with which they are official connected," and we all, including the Premier, acknowledge that she is officially connected with the Ministry of Health, "to proceedings pending in Parliament" -- clearly, my honourable colleague's question pertained to proceedings pending in Parliament -- "or to matters of administration for which they are responsible," and you could also interpret that my honourable colleague from Renfrew North was asking about questions for which this minister is responsible.

In your own ruling, sir, on December 12, Speaker Warner states, and I quote, "that if the minister in question is a minister without portfolio, has no responsibility for a particular program, and is not officially acting for a minister who has a portfolio or program of responsibility, no question can be put to him or her." This is very key. "If the minister without portfolio does have a program responsibility," as the Premier has told us this person does, "then he or she can be questioned on a matter touching on that responsibility." That is not Erskine May, sir, that is Speaker Warner in this Legislature in Hansard.

You went on, sir, to say in the Hansard of December 12, and I quote, "that question period should not be used as a vehicle to question a government member about the duties of an office that is not of a ministerial or governmental nature." This ruling was made when questions were posed by opposition members to the chief government whip. I remember it well. The Speaker concluded that the chief government whip performed duties of a party nature and did not perform duties of a ministerial or governmental nature.

It is our submission that the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Health indeed does perform duties both of a ministerial nature -- I saw her today doing that at an opening in Mississauga -- and of a governmental nature, wherein I'm sure she works with the staff and showed up with the limo and the supporting staff at the particular function today. That strikes me as being of a governmental nature and a ministerial nature, those being duties to formulate government policy within the Ministry of Health.

1420

Mr Speaker, those are just some of the submissions I would like to make. The reason I want to read them into the record and to suggest to you that it is critically important that we get a decision as quickly as possible from you, sir, even to the point where I think this House would be prepared to stand down today and allow you to consider the matter, is that it clearly affects our ability, and therefore each and every member of the opposition, to perform our duty as members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. Our duty is to hold this government accountable. The only way we can do that, sir, when you look at the fact that they're apparently announcing to bring out a budget in a press release on Friday instead of in the Legislature where we're sitting, the only opportunity that we, as members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, have to hold these people accountable is in question period. If you are restricting our ability, sir, then you are hampering our ability to --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. The member may not have been in the House earlier when I made an announcement. I appreciate the member's interest in this procedural matter. I had hoped to have had something ready for today. I think the member would not want the Speaker to come in with a decision which was hastily drafted and was perhaps flawed. In order to do the work properly, I require some additional time.

The member has read the document which was sent to my office this morning. As I stated, it's a document which is helpful. It was put together very thoughtfully and it assists me. In fact, I think the member can appreciate that this is not a simple matter, and I will do everything possible to have a decision here tomorrow so that everyone is clear as to the practice and procedure.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker, I would like to reiterate a few of the points made by the honourable member for Mississauga West.

This indeed does place both opposition parties in a very difficult position. As I'm sure everybody is aware, the opposition caucuses have question period meetings every morning to define their questions of the day. We now find out, at least argued by the government House leader yesterday, that six out of 27 cabinet ministers indeed aren't really cabinet ministers and can't be asked questions. Yet we talked at some length yesterday about the fact that they are indeed cabinet ministers, as defined by the Executive Council Act. In fact, we even read the Premier's own press release wherein he appointed these people and referred to them as ministers of the crown and went on to define their particular duties and responsibilities.

For my part, I fail to see why they therefore cannot be questioned in this place. To me it seems to be quite simple. The Premier has named them as cabinet ministers. They've been sworn in as cabinet ministers. As the member for Mississauga West quite correctly points out, this very morning the member for Perth appeared and was introduced as a cabinet minister, a member of the executive council in the province of Ontario. She has indeed specific responsibilities, as the Premier himself defined in his own press release when he appointed her as a cabinet minister.

Now, if she doesn't feel that she -- or if any other one of those six junior ministers, or ministers without portfolio, are being referred to, and if any of them do not feel capable or qualified to answer a question, like any other of their cabinet colleagues they may simply refer the matter to another minister. So I fail to see why we're going through this debate in the first place. If they're not capable of answering a question relating to the responsibilities and duties that the Premier himself has said they have, then they, like any other minister, can simply refer the question.

I tried to point out to you yesterday, sir, that in Ottawa they do indeed have a similar system of junior ministers, except that they call them secretaries of state, and indeed they work with other senior ministers. A few examples are the Secretary of State for Transport, who works with the Minister of Transport, the Secretary of State for Agriculture, who works with the senior Minister of Agriculture, and the Secretary of State for Finance, who works with the senior Minister of Finance. They have paralleled the same system here, except that they choose to call them, as opposed to secretaries of state, ministers without portfolio with the following defined responsibilities.

Another thing that concerns me here today is that not only are we now being told that we cannot ask those six ministers any questions; the premier minister himself, the Premier of the province, is not here. I can recall all too well yesterday when my colleague, my friend the member for Renfrew North, was trying to ask the then senior Minister of Health a question, the Premier took it upon himself to answer the question. Perhaps the suggestion that was made by one of the members opposite here yesterday indeed is the way it should be. Perhaps the only minister in this government who should be empowered to ever answer a question is the Premier.

But that presents us with another difficulty in that the Legislature, first of all, came back approximately one month or at least three weeks later than it was supposed to. We thought that after four months' time this government would have its act together and that the ministers of the crown, especially the Premier, would be here every day for question period. This is the fifth day we've had question period since we've been back, and the Premier's been here exactly two times in those five days to answer questions. The opposition benches are now told that the Premier won't be arriving today until 2:45.

The very least I would suggest, Mr Speaker, is that you stand down question period until you either decide that six out of 27 cabinet ministers can answer questions or that at least the Premier of the province, who chooses not to be in his place for question period after having a four-month vacation, show up and answer some questions.

The Speaker: To the honourable member for Parry Sound, he did indeed present a useful and thoughtful presentation yesterday. He has added some points of interest today.

I must say to him that as much as I would like to have a ruling for today, it is not possible. I believe that the complexities of the issue will become clear when the ruling is delivered.

The honourable member, as I know him, can never be accused of lacking imagination when it comes to Parliament, and I suspect that he will find a way to direct the questions on the subjects in which he's interested to an appropriate person on the other side of the chamber.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have another point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Yes.

Mr Eves: On a separate point of order altogether, I was rather astounded today, when ministerial statements were read, that there was not one by the Treasurer of the province, or whatever he calls himself, the grand Poo-bah of finance in the province of Ontario. I cannot recall another time in the history of the province of Ontario when a mini-budget has been introduced by a government and not introduced in the Legislature of Ontario. I can recall just last November 1992 when the very same Treasurer of this province introduced not a mini-budget but indeed an economic statement, and he did it, quite properly, in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

I can recall in the early 1980s -- I believe it was 1981 -- when the economy of the province happened to encounter a recession, and the Treasurer of the day, Mr Miller, introduced his mini-budget in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I think the honourable member for Parry Sound knows my views on this subject. I hold a very strong view that matters of substance dealing with Parliament should be announced in Parliament. I think that's a very sound principle.

The member will also know that for better or worse there is nothing in our standing orders or procedures which compels ministers to make statements in the House, including budgets, and indeed there is nothing out of order about announcing a budget outside of the House, and if memory serves, that in fact has occurred in this province.

But I would reiterate that all matters of substance of a parliamentary nature should be made here. I have no control over making that happen. I can only ask that people do that.

Mr Eves: As a gesture of goodwill, Mr Speaker, I would like to suggest that we get unanimous consent to allow the Treasurer of the province to introduce his mini-budget in this House this Friday afternoon, where it should be introduced.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I heard at least one negative voice. It is time for oral questions.

1430

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My questions today will be addressed to the government and will concern the Premier's social contract. The first question to the Premier -- and what a difference a day makes. Yesterday, the cabinet and Michael Decter couldn't describe, define or put flesh on the Premier's social contract and today details begin to flood forth. Happily, the social contract talks are leaking like a sieve.

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

Mr Conway: My first question to the Premier is this: Can the Premier --

Hon Mr Laughren: The Star saw Elvis too.

[Laughter]

Mr Conway: Well, they laugh opposite, but it is their fiscal mismanagement that has led us to this chaos.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Conway: Will the Premier confirm that key elements of his social contract include a cut of between 7,000 and 8,000 Ontario government jobs, almost all of which are in the managerial category and almost none of which are in the bargaining unit represented by OPSEU, and can he further confirm that his social contract will mean that in this fiscal year, 1993-94, his social contract will cause a clawback of between 3% and 5% of provincial government grants to hospitals, school boards, children's aid societies, municipalities and all other partners in the province?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I can't confirm either of those things. I'm not surprised the member would engage in all kinds of speculation. That's his wont, I think is the word I'd use.

I would say to the honourable member that, as I said yesterday -- and he may not have asked me these questions before, but when anybody asks me a question in a scrum, and I get asked questions in scrums all the time, I've answered very clearly, put out as clearly as could be stated, and so has the Treasurer. We did it in the initial press conference that he and I held, in which we said very clearly that there will be the following elements to what the government is facing:

There will be a social contract negotiated with our own employees. There will be a vigorous exercise in expenditure reduction. There will be a continuation of our commitments to investments in infrastructure and investments in jobs and in partnerships with the private sector. There will also be revenue increases in the next budget. Those four points have been very consistent. We've stated them consistently. We've stated them as clearly as we can.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Is that like tax revenue increases? Tax increases: Why don't you say it?

Hon Mr Rae: In answer to the question from Mississauga, there will be tax increases in the next budget. That's no secret, no secret at all. We've said that for some time. The Minister of Finance has been saying it for quite some time. Those elements are all there.

If the honourable member says, "Well does that mean this, does that mean that?" I can say to him that the social contract is being negotiated with the representatives of the 900,000 people who work in the broader public sector. The government is still working on the expenditure reduction plan and we're still working on the budget. So any further comment on that would simply be pure and simple guesswork, speculation or allegation by the member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: Since the Premier and his Treasurer will not come clean with this House, since they will not talk to all of their partners -- oh, they'll talk to Sid Ryan and Fred Upshaw, but they're not talking very much to the managerial group in their own public service; they're not talking to small business; they're not talking to a lot of other people in this province. They are truly a very, very selective group of negotiators.

My supplementary to the Premier is, since very specific issues are now on the table, being advanced by Messrs Decter, Kaufman and others, since other people in this province are now being given specifics, I ask him to give the Legislature and all the people of Ontario that this Legislature represents some of the specifics that are now very much on the table.

Will the Premier further confirm that in fiscal 1993-94, this fiscal year, his social contract will claw back $500 million from the education sector and $600 million from the health sector, including in the health sector a $200-million clawback of physicians' payments and a significant increase in user fees for those seniors who participate in the Ontario drug benefit plan?

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the honourable member that I think the Minister of Finance has already said that whatever information is provided on Friday will be shared with the general public. There will be briefings for members opposite, there will be briefings for whoever wants them, and as much information as we're providing to any of our partners will be provided to others.

I just want to say to the honourable member that the statement he made as a matter of allegation, that there were discussions going on with some that were not going on with others, is, as are many of the statements that he makes in the House, a complete and utter fiction. The negotiating teams have been discussing these issues with a broad range of people. There has been as much as can be. We're being as open as we can be. As I say, when the government has determined its overall position with respect to one aspect of the challenge we face, not the entire picture but certainly one aspect of the expenditure reductions, that information will be fully shared.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My supplementary is to the Premier. Just two months ago, it was, I think, February 12 of this year, your government announced that it was going ahead with its planned job relocations to the following communities: Brantford, Guelph, Haileybury, Niagara Falls, Orillia, Peterborough, St Catharines, Windsor, Chatham and Elliot Lake. Today, the Chair of Management Board admitted that this program could be on the chopping block as part of your social contract. This means 5,000 jobs are at stake in 10 hard-pressed communities.

Will you, Mr Premier, confirm, once and for all, are you going to proceed with this program or are you going to renege on your promise to the communities of Brantford, Guelph, Haileybury, Niagara Falls, Orillia, Peterborough, St Catharines, Windsor, Chatham and Elliot Lake in your desperation to extract concessions from public service unions in Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I think the member is engaging in speculation that is really not positive or helpful. The government, in the course of our expenditure review, and I think it would be unfair to put it in any other context, one of the first decisions the cabinet made was that all aspects of expenditure -- all aspects of expenditure -- had to be legitimately considered. That is precisely what we are doing. But I wouldn't want the member to read into that anything other than the simple fact that all aspects of expenditure are being considered.

1440

TAX INCREASES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a second question on the social contract, to the Treasurer. Though I note that Bob Rae, author of the Agenda for People, has the nerve to come and talk about fiction elsewhere, I repeat, two and a half years into this mandate we are in a calamitous, chaotic fiscal situation, brought to you, in large measure, by Bob Rae and others who can't read a balance sheet, who don't understand what recessions mean to revenue lines and continue to spend in a way that has now brought all of us, from hospitals to the public service, to this situation.

A second question to the Treasurer: The Premier has just reiterated the view of the Rae government that what Ontario needs in the spring of 1993 is significant tax increases levied on Ontario citizens. The Treasurer has himself indicated and press reports today suggest that a very significant part of the social contract brought to you by Bob Rae is going to involve billions of dollars worth of revenue enhancements.

Let me say on behalf of my friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that we understand that you expect to achieve hundreds of millions in revenues by a fire sale of the public's assets, but it is equally clear that you're planning to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in additional taxes.

Will the Treasurer confirm that intention, and will he indicate further how raising taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars upon this very fragile economic recovery which we've got at the present time is going to help the number one concern of all members in this Legislature and all citizens of Ontario, namely, economic growth and employment growth?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I'll try to give a measured response to that question, because coming from a senior member of a government that raised taxes substantially when there were boom times in the 1980s and miscalculated on its projections of revenues and deficits as well, sometimes by over a billion dollars a year, I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that this government is dealing with the problem.

We do have a serious problem. We do, as the Premier said, see that in order to resolve the problem, we need to address the expenditures of this province and we need to address the shortfall in revenues. But I can tell the member opposite that unlike his party, we're not going to run and hide when we see a problem. We're going to deal with it.

Mr Conway: A supplementary to my friend the Treasurer: The sad and pathetic and painful reality in this province for the last two and a half years is that my friend the member for Nickel Belt has for some reason been running and hiding from a clear and consistent fiscal situation that everyone else in the province has been pointing to. Of course other parties have their accountability to give, but no party in this province has ever had to face its public service now with the kind of draconian measures that you are going to be offering everyone from orderlies in hospitals to the clerks working for the public service. No other government has ever had to talk about an in-year deficit of $17 billion.

My supplementary to my friend the Treasurer: It's just a few days ago that the Treasurer told the Canadian Business Life journal that he was very concerned, and I won't quote him, but I could. The Treasurer said just a few days ago that he was very, very worried that any kind of tax increases would stall or snuff out the very fragile economic recovery. He said that just a few days ago, and I accept him at his word because he was right when he made those comments.

Given that, I think, quite proper analysis and given our collective concern about economic growth and job creation, how in heaven's creation can he imagine that raising taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars on Ontario workers and business people is going to do anything but freeze and snuff out this economic recovery and kill job creation?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'd love to hear you if you were still --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Mississauga West, please come to order.

Mr Mahoney: I apologize.

The Speaker: Accepted.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Renfrew North is correct on a couple of accounts: one, when he says that we have to be very careful in selecting the ways in which we raise revenues in this coming fiscal year. We will be very careful and we'll try and strike the appropriate balance. He's also correct when he says that no other government has addressed the problem of compensation in the public sector and government spending the way we have; no other government has negotiated with its employees the way we have.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It's never happened before and pray God it will never happen again.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre, please come to order. Would the minister complete his response, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, I'll try and be as non-partisan as possible in addressing this very serious problem, but I can tell you that it really is inappropriate for members of the opposition to imply that the fiscal problem that we're dealing with was created in the last two years.

To be fair, the other two governments, the Liberal and Conservative governments, in this province layered program after program on top of program after program and never did anything about existing programs that were already there.

It is time that some government, and it happens to be this one, addresses the problem of expenditures of this government, and that includes the compensation in the public sector. We are prepared to do it in as fair a way as possible and to negotiate it with our employees. We very much want to make that happen.

Mr Conway: A final supplementary to the Treasurer: I think it is clear that job creation is the primary concern of all honourable members. I think that is a shared objective obviously. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association estimates that one job is killed for every $40,000 of tax revenue that's taken out of the economy. I repeat, the CMA estimates that one job is killed for every $40,000 worth of tax revenue pulled out of the economy. If that kind of benchmark is to be credited and if you are serious about increasing taxes at this time by hundreds of millions of dollars in a recession, then clearly you are bound and determined to kill thousands of jobs.

My question to the Treasurer is, can he indicate, since he and the Premier have made plain their intention to significantly raise taxes, what impact studies have they done at treasury or elsewhere in the government about those kinds of tax increases at this time upon the employment base in this recession-ridden economy, where everyone is concerned, rightly, about keeping their job and ensuring that other people in their family and their circle get a job?

Hon Mr Laughren: When we brought down the budget about a year ago we indicated that we had three priorities. One of those priorities was investment, training and job creation in this province. We haven't altered from that view. But I can tell the member for Renfrew North that paying billions of dollars to service the public debt also kills jobs in this province, and we're determined to get that under control. Finally, I say to the member opposite, if we applied his formula to all the tax increases that the Liberals brought in when they were in office, there would have been nobody working at the end of their reign in office.

Mr Conway: By your works you will be judged, and I'll ask people if they're better off today than they were four years ago in Don Mills and in St George and in Essex and in Burlington.

The Speaker: Order. Leader of the third party.

1450

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Treasurer. While we have the same information on job cuts, on the program cuts that have been expressed by the Liberal Party, I want to be very clear and I want to indicate to the government we're concerned about not consulting with all the partners, we're concerned about how you're proceeding 24 hours a day, we're concerned with policy on the fly.

But I want to be very clear, through you, Mr Treasurer, to the Premier and the government, that we are supportive of the amount of cuts and we don't think you've gone far enough yet. I want that on the record, that unlike the Liberals, we do believe you have a spending problem and you must significantly reduce the size of government and the amount of spending. I want that clearly understood.

However, Treasurer, one issue has been brought up by the Liberals and that concerns quite reliable information that we have that in your mini-budget you plan to table on Friday -- or whatever you call it, the documentation -- in addition to some of the spending cuts that you indicate direction, as a sop to your union partners you've also had to come up with a pretty full budget before they're going to talk meaningfully to you and, the real cruncher, that you plan $2 billion minimum of revenue enhancers, which I call tax hikes.

Can you confirm, Treasurer, that on Friday you will be indicating, either by way of mini-budget or by tabling of a document or as part of the negotiations, that you plan next year to extract $2 billion more from taxpayers through taxes or fees?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm a little disappointed that the extensive research department that the leader of the third party has hasn't gone beyond reading the Toronto tabloids.

I would simply say to the leader of the third party that we are not bringing in a mini-budget on Friday. What we're going to do is table very publicly a set of expenditure reduction proposals, and we intend to share that with the public at large. The leaders of the two opposition parties have been invited to a briefing at the same time so that there is no abuse of the privileges of members. They will get the information at the same time as anyone else.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Why don't you do it here?

Hon Mr Laughren: As far as the question, "Why not do it in here?" it simply isn't ready, and we'll have the entire package ready by that time.

I would just reiterate to the leader of the third party that I hope he's able to attend that briefing on Friday.

Mr Harris: Aside from the fact that I'm disappointed that it's the union leaders who are setting the timetable and the schedule of announcements in this province, aside from that, you could easily have done it on Monday if it's not ready, or we would agree to have a full sitting of the Legislature on Friday. But no, you wouldn't give us consent for that. So now we have the union leaders telling us the schedule of when announcements will be made and when your mini-budget will be announced.

My question, though, is very simply this: Can you confirm that on Friday you plan to indicate $2 billion of new revenue enhancements as part of the plan as the Treasurer of the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm surprised to hear the leader of the third party refer to Dennis Timbrell as a union leader, but nevertheless, if that's how you wish to describe him, that's fine.

Hon Mr Rae: That's the nicest thing he has to say about him.

Mr Harris: I don't know why it would surprise you for me to say that.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm going to tell Dennis Timbrell you said that.

First of all, it's not a case of anybody setting the agenda for us. We have been through an exercise in which we've tried to come to a conclusion, shared with all cabinet members, to come up with a set of proposals that will reduce expenditures in the province. I think that, unlike governments in the past, we want to be as open as we possibly can with everybody in the province, and we intend to share that information. We will be judged according to how fairly we're seen to be distributing those expenditure reductions all across the province.

I'll repeat my invitation to the leader of the third party. I very much hope that you can attend on Friday morning.

Mr Harris: We are going to find out on Friday that the Treasurer plans to take $2 billion more out of consumers' pockets, out of taxpayers' pockets, out of the private sector, out of the economy. I say to you, Mr Speaker, that is the most ludicrous thing this government has done to date, and that's saying a lot, because you've done a lot of ludicrous things in the first two and a half years of your mandate. To get $2 billion of revenue enhancements will be the biggest tax grab in the history of the whole province, bigger in one year even than David Peterson, and that is saying a lot because he was a master taxer.

Treasurer, I ask you this, since this is what you are going to table on Friday -- if it isn't, you can tell me what the actual figure is -- you must then know how you're going to get the money, because to get that amount of money, you'll have to double gas tax to 31 cents a litre, or you could raise income tax by 7.5 percentage points or you could hike sales tax to over 10%. Any one of those measures will stifle jobs, will slow and reverse recovery in this province and very likely throw us back into recession.

I would ask you this, Treasurer, since you're putting a number on the table on Friday, can you tell us what taxes, what fees you plan to hike to generate $2 billion worth of revenue?

Hon Mr Laughren: The examples that the leader of the third party uses should not be considered a budget leak. On Friday it is not our intention to table a package of tax moves or revenue moves. I would say, however, that it is true that we do intend to have a revenue package in the budget to increase revenues. Because we intend to raise taxes and engage in some asset sales does not mean it's a fire sale. There are some assets that we think should be sold. We were not the people who made the arrangements for the SkyDome. It was the Conservatives and the Liberals who ended up with a package on SkyDome that we're trying to get out of. It's as simple as that, and we intend to do that.

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

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My second question is for the Minister of Health who was here, and I see her papers there. Maybe I could go to the associate Minister of Health. Treasurer, if you could confirm that she's coming, fine. If not, I'll stand down the question if that's acceptable to everybody.

The Speaker: Do you wish to stand down the question?

Mr Harris: If the Minister of Health is not here.

The Speaker: We'll move to the official opposition for a question. The member for Ottawa-Rideau.

REPORT ON VICTIMS OF ABUSE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Attorney General and the minister responsible for women's issues. When asked a question on December 7, 1992, Madam Minister, regarding the release of the 1976 report on sexual abuse at Grandview School for Girls, you said, and I quote, "It is a question that the Attorney General has areas of responsibility that he alone can exercise."

Madam Minister, you are now the Attorney General. Will you tell the House today if you are going to accept the decision on your requested judicial review reached yesterday at Osgoode Hall regarding the release of the very heavily edited report as first recommended by the freedom of information and protection of privacy commissioner on September 22, 1992, a full six months ago?

I ask you the same question my leader asked you on that very day six months ago. I ask you to determine what possible justification you and your government can give to these women, especially now after yesterday's decision, for withholding this information from this province, this Legislature and these victims.

1500

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): The decision was rendered yesterday but the oral reasons will not be given until next week, and until we see the oral reasons we will not be making a decision on whether to appeal that. I would remind the member that the only reason that I and the previous minister have taken the position that was taken on this report was in the interests of preserving the prosecution case. It will be reviewed when we have the reasons that were delivered yesterday.

Mrs O'Neill: Madam Minister, there are many people in this province who have not agreed from the very beginning with that position, but you have stated it.

We have known from the beginning that this report, especially in its edited version, would not jeopardize the investigation. We've had that from the victims; we've had it from the privacy commissioner. The release would indeed, as we know, add to the credibility of the victims, who have long suffered and have requested from day one, over and over again, that it be released.

It's clearly a responsibility through both of your portfolios to support women in their efforts to bring forth their evidence of violence suffered over 20 years ago in a government institution. Will you stand before this House today, Madam Minister, as Attorney General and as minister responsible for women's issues, and accept the responsibility that you know you have and is by your very statement? Will you begin to show the victims of Grandview that you really are going to take action on their behalf? Promises are just not good enough; just not good enough from this so-called open NDP government.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I would say to the member that we have done many things to assist these victims, not least of which is to insist that this investigation go forward with integrity. That is the most important thing that we can do for these people. If this investigation is jeopardized in any way, they may not have their day in court, and that is our biggest concern.

So I would say to the member, yes, I can stand here and say very clearly that I have advocated and will continue to advocate on behalf of those people who have made complaints about Grandview, and that every action that we have taken as a government has been directed at maintaining the integrity of the investigation with the hope that we indeed will be able to bring responsibility where it belongs.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Premier. Premier, we have in this province today a very uncertain situation around the subject of sexual harassment. We believe the reason for that is the chaos that's been caused by your personal mismanagement of the Masters case.

We have right now going on in this province an investigation by the police into a civilian employee's case -- and I'm going to send the particulars over to you. In this case, this civilian has been accused of sexual harassment, not sexual assault, so one would understand very simply that if it isn't sexual assault it's not a criminal charge and therefore should not be investigated by the police.

I have the permission of the accused to give any information, publicly and in this House, about his case. I ask you, Premier, because it was your handling of the Masters case that has set the precedent that is sending out all these uncertain signals around this province to where we can have cases of false accusations, to where we can have cases of serious legitimate complaints and nobody is going to know what to do about them.

Premier, do you think police investigations are appropriate in cases of sexual harassment where there are no accusations of criminal behaviour?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): First of all, I can't comment on this because you've just sent it over to me and it would be, I think, really quite injudicious of me to wade in, only having just seen the letter as you've sent it over to me. I could refer it to the Solicitor General but I'm not sure he'd be in a position to comment either. So all I can say is I'll take her question under advisement and ask the Solicitor General to respond to her tomorrow.

Mrs Marland: As well as this accused being placed in the position of a police investigation although he's a civilian employee -- and he's a civilian employee, by the way, in the OPP -- in his case, he, as the accused, has had no right to even know the names of witnesses who were interviewed, nor does he have the right to test their evidence in cross-examination.

Obviously, the danger here is that a complainant could make a false allegation without needing corroborating evidence or independent witnesses. The accused would have more rights if he were accused of a criminal wrongdoing.

We have seen through our examination of the Masters case and this example that I give you today that the Ontario government's process of handling sexual harassment complaints serves neither the complainant nor the accused in a fair manner, and I think we have heard from Mr Masters in his own personal defence on that aspect.

Premier, I ask you, will you investigate not only this case that I have raised today but the whole policy and the process, particularly the process, for investigating and settling allegations of sexual harassment in the civil service, so that any man or woman in any employment in this province is protected and has the protection that he or she needs?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the member makes some excellent points in terms of the latter part of -- without wanting to comment at all on the particular instance, because I can't. I think her concern about process and the issues that she's raised are quite legitimate issues. I don't take them lightly at all. I can assure her that these are issues that are being reviewed by the government, by Management Board and by others, precisely because of the kinds of concerns that she's raising.

I would say to her in addition, however, without wanting to comment on anything, that I would be very concerned if the names of complainants, for example, were released in any information that's being provided today by the honourable member to me or to others. I would hope very much that the complainants' names are not released and in fact are not part of the public record which she is establishing today, because if that were to be done, then that causes concerns from a particular perspective as well.

I can say to the honourable member: These are not easy issues. I think we all have to recognize that in every workforce and every workplace and every part of our society we're wrestling with these questions as to how they can be judged effectively. I can just say to the honourable member that I've listened very carefully to her question. As I said before, I think with respect to the particular instance that she's raised, I'd prefer that the Solicitor General answer her tomorrow in an answer to a previously asked question.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Since the Minister of Health is obviously not going to be here to answer questions and we can't ask the associate or junior or whatever Minister of Health, I will ask the Premier a question concerning health cards in the province of Ontario.

Premier, I'm sure you'll be aware, as you flip to both the minister's briefing book on health cards and your own briefing book on health cards, that this is an issue that was raised by the auditor, it's an issue that was raised by the member for Simcoe --

Interjection: East.

Mr Harris: Was it Simcoe East? -- our critic for Health on numerous occasions. I'm sure the Premier will be aware as well that the deputy minister, Mr Decter, somebody whom I know the Premier has great confidence in, under intensive grilling before the legislative committee said in February that, "We have a $20-million problem that we're pursuing." He called it a $20-million problem.

I would like to know if the Premier has been made aware that Mr Decter had a report commissioned for him over a five-month period, that he has had this report in his hands now for some considerable period of time, certainly since April 1 at the least, which shows that health card fraud is at least eight times worse than he told the legislative committee and in fact is virtually out of control. Is the Premier aware of that? Has Mr Decter told him that? Has this come up at the cabinet table?

1510

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): If it's come up at the cabinet table, I suppose the rules of cabinet secrecy would prevent me from replying directly to the honourable member. But I can say to the honourable member that naturally I've had the kind of conversations with the minister that one would have about an issue like this, indicating that it's obviously a concern to everyone. It's a concern to patients, it's a concern to doctors. I might add, it's a profound concern to the government since, if there are examples of misuse of cards or of fraudulent use of cards, then obviously we have a major issue for OHIP itself. I can honestly say to the member that I'm not aware of any reports which may have been commissioned, but obviously we'll look into it and ask the Minister of Health to reply directly to the member.

Mr Harris: Mr Premier, CKLC, a CHUM affiliate in Kingston, has obtained a document prepared by the documents registry, programs branch, Ministry of Health. This is from OHIP in Kingston. The report is dated March of this year. It was prepared for deputy minister Michael Decter. He didn't tell the committee that the report was being prepared. We've had no statement from him that the information he gave the committee was totally inaccurate.

One of the aspects of this report shows, from the period November 1992 to March 1993, a five-month period, that of the number of fraudulent claims, over 60,000 of them were made by non-residents who gave US drivers' licences, that the total amount involved was $85 million, or on an annual basis, over $200 million, identified as out-of-the-province-of-Ontario claims. Has Mr Decter made the Premier and the minister and the cabinet aware of this information that he's had now since April 1?

Hon Mr Rae: I think I indicated already to the honourable member that I haven't seen that information and I can't answer whether the minister has or not. I can only say directly to the honourable member that I think that the Ministry of Health is to be commended for having commissioned such a study, for having attempted to get to the bottom of what is obviously an issue that's of concern to all of us. I'm quite confident that the minister and the ministry together will be responding effectively to this issue. No government could be happy about such a situation and I'm sure that there will be a very effective response from the minister.

Mr Harris: Do you think that Mr Decter should be commended for appearing before the committee on, I believe, February 23, making no reference to the study, saying, "We have a $20-million problem. No, you critics in the Conservative Party, no, it's not that big a deal. We're concerned, but it's a $20-million problem," when at the same time the study came out -- just one month later it would have been under way for a five-month period -- that said that $691 million in fraudulent claims were made by 600,000 people, over $200 million a year from out of province, many of them using US addresses? You commend this Mr Decter of yours for hiding that information from a legislative committee, for not coming forward and apologizing once he found out, all the things that our critic and the member from Simcoe East had been saying were true and more so? You're proud of that, Mr Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say to the honourable member, in my experience in this House if you want to call me a dud, an incompetent, a louse, anything you want to call me, that's fine. I'm here to answer and I'm here to take it and I'm here to respond, and you can do that, but to turn this into some kind of character assassination against a member of the public service of this province is quite inappropriate, quite unfair and quite out of line.

I haven't seen the report, I don't know all the contents of the report. Now that the member has brought it to my attention I will look into it and I will have to judge and make the assessment as to whether the member has characterized it fairly or inaccurately, but to turn what is a public policy issue which everybody in all parts of the House can agree is a problem, has to be dealt with, has to be dealt with effectively, into an attack on a member of the public service of this province is truly unworthy of the leader of the third party. He's better than that and I'm surprised he'd stoop to that in order to try to get a headline.

Mr Harris: I criticized you for praising a guy who's lying to the committee, lying to the Legislature and lying to the people of this province. That's what I complained about. It's your attitude that's under attack, Bob.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The leader of the third party, please come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy.

The Speaker: Does the member have a point of order?

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I have my point of privilege. When the Premier was present, I was trying to let question period progress, but now he has left before question period ended and I do not get my point of privilege answered.

The Speaker: I appreciate the member's concern. She will know also that we do attempt to deal with points of privilege outside of oral questions. With any luck, it will be dealt with at the earliest possible moment.

The member for Sault Ste Marie.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. I'd first like to congratulate him and his ministry on the announcement of today. However, I have some concern as to the impact this will have on northern Ontario.

You are aware that I recently chaired a consultation called SCAN North on the impact that the 3Rs will have on us who live in the north, both from a cost perspective but particularly from an industrial perspective. We traditionally do resource extraction, and this will impact in significant ways on our ability to make a living up there. I was wondering if you'd seen that report and what you intend to do in light of some of the recommendations that are in that.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I want to thank the member for Sault Ste Marie for his question and commend him for the work he did, along with others, on the SCAN North project, looking into recycling and waste management in northern Ontario.

I have read the report. My colleague the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and my ministry are reviewing its contents and have already started to implement some of the recommendations. We're currently reviewing a proposal from the town of Ignace to study waste options in northwestern Ontario. It's important to ensure that the development of green industries in the north will proceed, as well as waste management initiatives. So I hope to be making an announcement in regard to that very soon.

Mr Martin: I appreciate that. I know that any information that you will gather will go a long way towards our ability in the north to develop new industry to help pay for some of the initiatives you're bringing forth. However, I'm wondering what you're going to do in the northeast.

Hon Mr Wildman: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to answer this question during Earth Week. It's very appropriate. Based on the recommendations of the member's SCAN North project, I went to Kirkland Lake --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): This is just like the Politburo, for God's sake.

Hon Mr Wildman: Well, there are some people in the House who are concerned about northern issues.

I did go last week to Kirkland Lake, and I announced a pilot project, along with the mayor of Kirkland Lake, Joe Mavrinac, to look at a pilot project for the northeast. The study will identify ways of processing facilities and markets for the viable 3Rs initiatives in northeastern Ontario. The study will be completed within a year.

Kirkland Lake and my ministry are also working on a pilot project to be conducted this summer for the testing of rubberized asphalt in northern Ontario to see if we can identify new economic opportunities and the possibility of establishing jobs based on recycling, reuse and reduction of waste in northern Ontario.

1520

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): My question is for the minister responsible for tourism in the province of Ontario. Minister, the economic and social importance of the tourism industry to the Ontario economy, as you know, is immense. It is a fact that the tourism industry is Ontario's largest employer of women, youth, indigenous peoples and visible minorities, the province's fourth-largest export industry, the economic mainstay in areas of the province where economic alternatives are few or nonexistent, and also the largest industry in the service sector, which accounts for 72% of all new jobs in Ontario.

On January 20, 1993, the Tourism Ontario group submitted its proposal, entitled A Competitive and Sustainable Recovery Strategy for Ontario's Tourism and Hospitality Industry, to your Premier and the government for consideration. Minister, could you tell us, what is the delay in the implementation of the tourism sectoral strategy?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I am very happy that the member for Quinte is raising the issue of the problems facing the tourism industry in this House, and I was very happy that yesterday he and the member for Wellington were able to join my associate minister, Shirley Coppen, and I in meeting with Tourism Ontario, particularly in congratulating the new chair, Bruce Stanton, on assuming his new position within that organization and congratulating the former chair, Ted Zientara, on the years of wonderful work that he has provided there.

I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Quinte that the tourism industry in fact has probably been the industry that's been hardest hit in this province. As our fourth-largest industry and an industry that's growing globally, there's a lot that our government needs to do, and has been doing, in fact, to be helping it.

With regard to the overall direction of coming out of the hardship of the recession and positioning itself for the future, my government has made the development of a tourism sectoral strategy a major priority. I look forward very soon to being able to announce to the members the minister's advisory committee for it so that we can work on the tremendous research that we've already prepared as a basis for that committee to develop that sectoral strategy to better position this industry to become the global leader in tourism that it's possible of being.

Mr O'Neil: Of course, minister -- and I hope the Treasurer is listening to some of your comments and what's being said here -- the problem is that when you talk about the sectoral study, it's been around for some time now and nothing is happening. Of course, we have the summer season fast approaching, and the tourism industry is hoping to see positive signs of support and encouragement from your government. According to industry officials, the lingering recession and the inequitable fiscal environment have resulted in indefinite layoffs -- and I ask the Treasurer again to listen to this -- for more than 62,000 employees.

So I would ask you, Minister, with the Treasurer listening very carefully, how will the problems faced by the tourism industry in this province be addressed in your government's upcoming budget?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: This government certainly didn't cause this recession that's creating hardship to industries like the tourism industry, but we are doing a lot to help this industry to come out of the recession.

As the new minister, I've been sitting down looking at, just whom do I want to be on that minister's advisory committee? I've been making some changes, one of course to reflect the composition of the new ministry. I think there's a lot to be gained by the Premier's wise decision to put culture in with tourism, to their mutual benefit, and I'm making sure that the minister's advisory committee will include people from the cultural industry as well so that synergy can take effect in making it work.

This government has put $26 million in Jobs Ontario funding to help the tourism industry. We've been developing a new central registration and information system that will provide tremendous structural support. For the second year in a row now, we've organized the Prospect Ontario marketplace to bring buyers and sellers together. We've introduced a new consumer-led rating system, working with the industry on that, called Canada Select, and finally --

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

Hon Ms Swarbrick: -- not finally, but since I appreciate I'm running out of time, I want to say that we've developed in partnership with the industry the new Ontario Tourism Education Council. For the first time ever, we have a government in the province of Ontario that's effectively developed apprenticeship training for the staff who need it in our hospitality sectors.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: It's high-quality service, and I appreciate the tourism industry's hard work with us in developing that important council.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. The decision to provide WCB coverage to college and university students on work placement will be finalized on April 30. You have announced that your government will pay $1.5 million to cover the cost of this decision -- a ridiculously low figure, I might add, because the former Minister of Colleges and Universities estimated the cost at $8 million and the Ontario Hospital Association estimated it could cost $12 million. Unfortunately, this decision has also been made without the benefit of any cost impact analysis to determine the impact on the WCB's $11-billion unfunded liability.

Given the huge budgetary deficit the province is facing, could you explain why your government has decided to assume the cost of covering students under the WCB when they are currently covered under private insurance at no cost to the taxpayers?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think all of the trainees are not covered. I think the member across the way knows that. I think what we intended to do right from the beginning is to make sure that the training programs we're putting in place in the province of Ontario to deal with some of the problems we have in terms of unemployment are not at risk, and that's why we're making sure that they are covered in training programs for the WCB coverage.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, you didn't answer my question. I asked you to explain why this government, with its huge deficit, was going to assume more deficit. And furthermore, the students at the present time are covered under tuition fees.

Minister, according to the definition of "learner" and "student" under the Workers' Compensation Act, employers believe that you do not have the authority to cover these training participants. As a result, they're concerned that if they cancel their private insurance, they might be liable to future lawsuits.

Can your government guarantee individual employers that they do indeed have the protection of the act against legal action brought on by individual training participants? Can you guarantee that?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The responsibility at the moment is for the Workers' Compensation Board. We are undertaking the cost of the coverage, and I think that frees the employers.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

I have received many letters from my constituents in my community raising concerns about the government's intentions on social assistance reform. Media reports have noted that the ministry will be putting out a white paper later this spring.

Could the minister clarify for myself, my constituents and other members of the House what the purpose of the paper is and what work is being done to ensure that Ontario's fragmented and inequitable system of social assistance is in fact reformed?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I thank the member for York East for his question. As he has noted, there has been some speculation about the government's white paper on social assistance reform. Some have referred to it as a study paper or a consultation paper. I can say very clearly to the members of the House that it is neither of those things. It will be a position paper.

We clearly have consulted very broadly over the past two years and are now in a position, or will be in a position very shortly, to come back to the people of the province who are greatly concerned about our present system and to tell them what we've heard and, more importantly, what we as a government are going to do about it. So when we release the paper in early summer, we plan to set out in that paper our plans for action and the framework for an entirely restructured system of social assistance in the province.

Mr Malkowski: I appreciate the minister's clarification of the position paper. The minister will be aware of the concerns expressed in my community and no doubt in other parts of the province that in the difficult economic times -- government revenue has dropped and the province is facing a severe financial challenge -- the reforming of social assistance may not be possible. Could the minister clarify for the House what his ministry and the government will be doing in this regard?

Hon Mr Silipo: Certainly the financial situation that we are in does present some problems for us, as it indeed does for the whole government. However, in many ways this is also exactly the time for reform.

As we mentioned in the throne speech, the system isn't working. We need substantial reform, and in fact we need to get at the financial situation in order to, among other things, allow us to bring about some changes in the social assistance area.

Our present system, as we know, too often encourages people to stay on social assistance rather than assisting people to gain employment or to gain the skills they need to seek employment in today's economy. Current case loads are up 150% since 1989. We have over a million people in the province who are relying on social assistance and, clearly, experience shows that the economic recovery we experienced in the mid-1980s to late 1980s did not benefit social assistance recipients. We have to therefore be prepared for the next economic recovery by moving on the reform of social assistance now.

1530

ORGANOCHLORINES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Mr Minister, on February 2, your predecessor announced proposed regulations relating to the discharge of chlorine compounds in the production of pulp and paper. The announcement, and what has been said since, has confused not only the people in the pulp and paper industry but your own colleagues as well.

The announced regulation refers to reaching the goal of zero discharge by the year 2002. Since pulp mills have to submit plans to achieve zero discharge, it does not appear to be a voluntary provision. Yet the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the Minister of Transportation have both said it is only a guideline; achieving zero is not mandatory. The Minister of Natural Resources, on the other hand, says you need a plan by the year 2002, but don't have to reach the goal. You have said yourself that you will decide what companies will have to comply.

Minister, I ask you, what is the difference between a goal, a ban and a plan? Exactly what does your draft regulation require companies to do? Can we get one clear statement from you on your government's position. Lastly, Minister, how does this meet your government's commitment to develop partnerships, to help industries compete and to provide more and better jobs?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank my colleague for this important question and the opportunity to deal with some confusion that has arisen, and there really is no reason for it. Frankly, it is quite clear, the difference between a goal and a regulation. A regulation is a requirement that the industry must meet by a certain date, and the regulation is that the industry, by a certain date, must reach 1.5 kilograms per ton, and then by a later date, 1999, it must meet 0.8 kilograms per ton, by that date.

The ministry and the province are committed to a goal of reaching zero discharge of organochlorines from kraft mills by the year 2002, and that is indeed a goal. What is required, though, under the regulation is for the companies to file a plan on how to reach that; first, an interim plan, and then a final plan to be filed with the ministry by the end of 1998. I should point out to the member that two of the kraft mills in northern Ontario already can meet the 0.8, and all of them can already meet the 1.5. We don't believe this to be an onerous regulation at all, but one that will assist us in cleaning up the environment. I thank the member for the opportunity to clarify.

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition that was submitted to me by a Mr Dave Switzer in the village of Frankford in my riding and is signed by many other people, and I'd like to read it if I may.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario;

"Whereas there is a great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation 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 all the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I add my name to this petition.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I rise again in the House to add these signatures to the thousands that have already come forth against 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 am very pleased to affix my signature hereunto.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Please be informed that we are highly opposed to Bill 164. We feel that the passage of Bill 164 would increase auto claim costs and therefore premiums by 20%. It would also force drivers in low-risk groups to pay higher rates, subsidizing higher-risk drivers. As a result, over 80% of all drivers would pay more.

"We feel the government should stay out of the auto insurance business and deal with more important issues, such as the high unemployment rate."

It's signed by approximately 50 residents of Fergus and Fort Erie, Ontario.

WEST SCARBOROUGH NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMUNITY CENTRE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I've got a petition submitted to me by the West Scarborough Neighbourhood Community Centre asking for support. In the city of Scarborough, there are over 21,000 residents of Italian origin. Few ethnocultural groups exist for this community with the exception of the bridging project with West Scarborough Neighbourhood Community Centre.

Through this program over 500 people, largely seniors, enjoy many valuable social, educational, recreational, cultural and health programs and services. Moreover, the programs serve to bring the scattered communities throughout Scarborough together.

It is hoped that the government will respond to the plea of this community and that they would warrant the assistance of this government to make sure that this project comes into being.

GAMBLING

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I've a petition from about 30 residents of Scarborough East calling for the government to immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have two petitions. The first is on behalf of Mrs Iona Lynch and hundreds of people in the Matawatchan and Whitney portion of south Nipissing in my constituency, and these people are extremely concerned about not being able to retain, on a full-time basis, a medical practitioner under the underserviced area program and are petitioning the province of Ontario that this deficiency in health care provision be remedied forthwith.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And your second one?

WOLF POPULATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): The second petition I proudly present on behalf of Reeve Gilbert Welk, the reeve of Brudenell and Lyndoch township and hundreds of other citizens in Renfrew county who are extremely concerned about the dramatic growth in the wolf population. I'll just read a very short portion of this.

"Whereas the wolf population is increasing in rural areas of Renfrew county to the point where wolves are attacking domestic farm dogs, killing newborn calves, attacking sheep herds and wounding animals that farmers have to destroy;

"We petition the government that action be taken to remedy the situation, in part, by reinstating the wolf bounty."

1540

POLICE USE OF FORCE

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have another petition which I would like to present. It has been sent to me by a Mr Keith Bottoms from the city of Trenton, along with many other signatures, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas it is the duty of a free people to constantly guard and, if necessary, defend their freedoms; and

"Whereas it is the duty of the police officers of Ontario to exercise primary responsibility for upholding and enforcing the laws which guarantee these freedoms; and

"Whereas the people, through their Legislature, must fully support and not encumber the said police officers in the lawful performance of this very important duty; and

"Whereas police work inherently involves life-threatening situations, many of which cannot be seen in advance; and

"Whereas the police officer must therefore be allowed sufficient discretion to defend himself from these situations, with full accountability after the fact; and

"Whereas the new use-of-force regulations may well cause a police officer to pause momentarily before taking appropriate defensive measures, to the detriment of his life;

"Therefore, be it resolved that in order to allow the police officers of Ontario to continue to perform their duties in the fine manner to which we have been accustomed, without undue restrictions on their right to defend themselves, we ask this House to reject and cancel the implementation of the proposed new use-of-force regulations."

I add my name to this petition.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, on a point of order around the petitions, if I might: Yesterday, I attended at a public meeting with the honourable Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Environment and Energy, as he now is called, and I received a petition of some 15,564 people in the province to present to the Legislature with respect to the issue of Bruce A and making sure that it continued in operation and that the people of the province had reasonably priced power.

Mr Speaker, my question to you is around the circulation of that petition to ensure that the petition itself will go to the broadest number of people. I presume that if I bring it here to this place, it is appropriate only to circulate it to the Minister of Environment and Energy and that this is all the duty the Legislative Assembly requires.

It seems to me, sir, that because of the interesting nature of the relationship between Hydro and the minister, my point of order really is to inquire whether or not the Legislative Assembly will forward it also to Ontario Hydro, because of its unique content and because of the attempt by the government of today to distance itself from the decision of the chairman, or at least the type of decision taken by the chairman.

I wonder if I can count on the Legislative Assembly to forward it not only to the minister, but also in its entirety to the chairman of Hydro so that he and the board members will be aware that 15,564 people in the province have signed a petition over a very short period of weeks asking that the Bruce A plant stay in operation, and in fact asking that the viability study, which was halted by the chairman of Hydro be completed so that we can have the full story on Bruce A and its operation.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): On the point of order.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On the point of order, yes, Minister?

Hon Mr Wildman: I'm sure that the member did not intend to give a speech but rather really wanted to express his concerns about how the petition might be forwarded. I would say to you, Mr Speaker, that it is my understanding as a member of this House for a number of years that a petition to the Legislature is also often addressed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. So that then is to the whole government, and in fact from the tradition of an ordinary citizen being able to petition the crown. I would say that therefore a petition going to the assembly is directed not just to the Minister of Environment and Energy but to the whole government, and frankly I'd be happy to turn over the petition to the chair of Ontario Hydro.

The Speaker: Indeed, the minister seems to have answered the inquiry by the honourable member for Bruce. I will say to the member for Bruce, first of all, that I appreciate the point he's brought to my attention. Indeed, the procedures are quite clear, and the minister's correct: The petitions are addressed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It is not up to the assembly to forward the petitions to crown agencies, of which Ontario Hydro is one. However, the minister has made an undertaking to in fact do as you had asked and that would seem to be a good resolution to the request.

Are there any other petitions?

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition signed by nearly 700 people in my area.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health is proposing to reduce the budget of the 10 provincial psychiatric hospitals by $45 million without first having developed community services for the seriously mentally ill; and

"Whereas we believe that this measure will have tragic results for those individuals who have major illnesses such as schizophrenia, which afflicts one out of 100 people at some time during their lives and places an enormous burden on them and their families if left untreated,

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

"We, the Kingston chapter of Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics, and others who support us wish to petition the Ontario Legislature not to cut back the funding to those people who need care and services in our psychiatric hospitals and in the community."

I affix my name to this petition.

RESPONSE TO PETITION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Again, concerning petitions, under standing order 36(h) -- and I will read it for you -- "Within eight sessional days of its presentation, the government shall file a response to a petition with the Clerk of the House and shall provide a copy of the response to the member who presented the petition."

Under this standing order, I would like to bring to your attention that while there may have been some materials being filed with the Clerk, there has not been, to my knowledge at least, on several occasions from members of our caucus, a receipt of that filing by the government.

It may be that they have omitted to send notice or the filing of the copy with the Clerk's table to the members. If that is so, sir, I would ask that a report be obtained from the Clerk as to the number of filings that he currently has in his possession and that we then will be able to seek the copies from the government as they are required to provide for us within the eight sessional days.

As you know, Mr Speaker, I probably wouldn't stand on this point of order this early in the session, except that we have come to discover that if we overlook any part of our standing orders at any time, it is taken as being a consent to a change of the standing orders. We know from past habits that the standing orders are being manipulated far too often for our liking and it is causing us considerable concern about our ability to provide dissent and provide some opposition to the matters that are being brought forward to be studied by the government party.

So, Mr Speaker, I would ask, if you could, to verify that all petitions in the last session were reported to the Clerk and that, if there were some omissions, we should pursue those, because the petitioners require a response and we, as their representatives, require that copy so that we can pursue our duties.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The honourable member for Bruce raises a concern and one which I would share with him. The standing order is there to ensure that the petitioner receives a response and that the government responds within eight days.

I think the member can appreciate that there is quite a volume of petitions that are filed during a session. We will, however, endeavour to track down the information which he seeks. This may take a little bit of time, but we'll do our best. Of course, at the same time, we would ask that, if at all possible, the minister to whom the petition is directed would respond as quickly as possible so that no one is inconvenienced.

Mr Elston: Sir, I should apologize. Of course the volume of petitions is extremely high. What I should do, I think, in fairness to the Clerk and the table, because there are a number of these, perhaps I should go to at least the members I know about and first identify them so that I can bring their names and the dates, roughly, to the Clerk.

If there is a problem, by the way, that the eight sessional days are passing without the filing and if there is a problem with many of these petitions not being properly responded to, I think that perhaps in a general sense we should do something about it. We should require absolute compliance with the petition standing orders. We can't put anything on the table that's not in good form, but if they get there and if they are in proper form, then we ought to be assured that there is a response.

1550

I sense that there are a number of non-replied-to petitions, and if that is the case, then I think we ought to pursue that here in this House to force compliance. By the way, I might ask, if that is the case, what can we do to force compliance with the standing orders?

The Speaker: It may be of some disappointment to the member to learn that there are no sanctions. There's a standing order. It asks that certain things be done. If the eight days, for example, are not complied with, there is no particular penalty for that.

I would certainly agree with the member's point that the standing orders should be adhered to, just as all standing orders should be. It would be helpful, of course, as he mentions, if he could give us specifics as to which petitions have not been responded to that were in acceptable form, and I would certainly urge all involved to provide answers as quickly as possible.

Mr Elston: One final point, one observation, Mr Speaker. I understand this. I know your patience is growing a little thin, but it looks like the only people against whom there is any ability to enforce the standing orders are in fact the minority. If in fact there is a clause in here that prevents us from speaking more than four days, because a motion comes on or whatever under the new rules, then a vote of the majority can force us to be silenced on certain matters.

However, if representatives of the majority in this Parliament decide that they will not comply with the standing orders, either by refusing to answer questions, as is sort of the spirit of the standing orders, or if they refuse to provide within eight sessional days an answer to the petition, there isn't apparently anything that this House can do. I don't understand how the standing orders are to be enforced always against the minority but hardly ever against the majority.

I ask you, sir, to consider your role. I don't want you to have to tell the Premier he's going to lose an extra 10% or 15% on top of the salary cut he's going to take, but there must be something if these standing orders are to have any real merit for the entire House and the operation of the entire House. I really do say to you, sir, that if a petition is to be responded to in eight days and it is not and there is no sanction, then there is nothing worthwhile in producing the petition for this Legislative Assembly.

There is all the tradition around the requirement of the crown to respond to subjects when they come by petition to ask for some relief. I don't know what we can do, sir, as the minority, always having the standing orders enforced against us by sheer weight of numbers when in fact the minority has no ability to require those people to play by the rules.

We understand this government never really has understood how to play by these rules, but to be quite honest, sir, it is partly a responsibility of the chamber to ensure that every member is treated equally and fairly. In fact the standing orders are enforced against all members if they transgress them.

We have a problem. The Liberals and the Conservatives feel the weight of these standing orders as amended by the majority party, but those people don't have to comply hardly at all.

The Speaker: Rather than prolong the discussion, I think the member will realize that if sanctions are to be placed in the standing orders, then it requires a change in the standing orders. There is a committee whose responsibility it is to take a look at the standing orders from time to time and that may very well be what it wants to do in this instance.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

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

Bill 4, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne l'éducation.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): This bill contains all provisions previously included in Bill 37 and all but one of the provisions contained in Bill 88. Amendments in this bill will continue to make provision for junior kindergarten mandatory for school boards by September 1994; however, the bill allows a phase-in period of three years according to conditions to be set out in a regulation.

Among the new measures introduced in the bill is one which will allow school boards, French-language sections of school boards and provincial schools to use American sign language and la langue des signes québécois as languages of instruction for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. It's the first jurisdiction in the world to do this.

The bill also amends the act to allow Ontario to pay towards the education cost of elementary and secondary students who have received prior approval from OHIP for out-of-country medical treatment, in line with the request from the opposition critics. These are some of the measures contained in this bill.

506548 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr1, An Act to revive 506548 Ontario Limited.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AMENDMENT ACT (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE DE DURHAM (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON)

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

Bill 6, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Durham Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la municipalité régionale de Durham.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): This bill changes the name of the town of Newcastle to the municipality of Clarington. Clarington is derived from Clarke and Darlington, the names of the two original municipalities that are now contained in the current municipality.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Introduction of bills. The Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): As someone who has plenty of my cards that he hands out from time to time, I thought he'd recognize me.

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

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

Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management / Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives aux municipalités en ce qui concerne la gestion des déchets.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): This bill amends various municipal statutes to expand the waste management powers available to municipalities.

JOHN G. TODD AGENCIES LIMITED ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr21, An Act to revive John G. Todd Agencies Limited.

1600

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): I recognize the honourable member for Eglinton.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to address a few remarks on the speech from the throne that has been put forward by this NDP government.

When I was preparing my remarks, I thought I'd go back to the first speech from the throne given by this government to see if there was any marked difference. When I read the first speech from the throne, I noticed that there was something in it that was noticeably absent from this speech from the throne, and that is any reference to the word "integrity."

Let me read you some of the words that were in the speech from the throne dated November 20, 1990:

"My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario. My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run and our relations with the people we serve....We will set clear standards of behaviour for the conduct of ministers, members of the Legislature and senior government officials....We will introduce legislation on conflict of interest at both provincial and municipal levels....We must create a greater sense of integrity in the work of government. We are under no illusions that this will be easy, since the public remains distrustful of governments and other large institutions. It is our job to address that cynicism and to overcome it. When my government makes mistakes, it will admit them."

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): We've already read it.

Ms Poole: Now Mr Mills across the way calls out, "We've already read it." That isn't the point, Mr Speaker. They may have read it, but they certainly didn't heed it.

So when it came to this speech from the throne, I was particularly interested to see if they made reference to the word "integrity," because they have badly fallen short. The people of this province will not only judge this government on its integrity; they will also judge it on competence, they will judge it on whether it has listened to the people, they will judge it on management. But I think, above all, people will be looking for integrity in their next government, because they have not found it in this one.

I would like to read to members from an article which was in the Ottawa Citizen recently. It was by Professor Rob Martin, who's a law professor at the University of Western Ontario. It's also interesting to note that Professor Martin was a candidate for the federal NDP. I'll just quote excerpts from it.

First of all, he goes on to ways that he thinks the NDP has betrayed its own party by what it has not delivered in government. Then he says:

"I think the Rae government has done more than simply betray its supporters....The Rae government has fundamentally corrupted our public life and done so in ways from which we may never recover.

"No government has so rigorously or so effectively politicized the province's public service. Ontario once had a public service we could be proud of. But today loyalty to Rae and his party and its ideology is more important than competence. People of questionable ability have been recruited and promoted. Morale is said to be low.

"But the greatest sin of the Rae government has been its arrogance. The failures have not been because of inexperience or incompetence, although there's been plenty of both. The real culprit has been arrogance," because "Rae and his government simply do not believe the rules or traditions of our political system apply to them.

"And in manifesting this arrogance, Rae and his ministers have done enormous damage to the legitimacy of our institutions. The survival of democratic institutions is not automatic. We have no special historical guarantee as Canadians that we will always enjoy democratic government.

"Democratic government demands politicians respect the institutions temporarily placed in their care. It demands politicians who realize these institutions are more important than they and their egos. But Robert K. Rae through his political career has been guided solely by his ego.

"The jig is up. This government has lost its legitimacy. It's lost its authority to govern. That was the point at which Rae should have resigned. But he stays on without ideas, without policies and without direction."

I find that particularly interesting because it comes from a person who was very committed to the NDP and to the ideals of an NDP government and profound disillusionment because he feels that this government has not met what it had said in its promises, that it has not shown competence, it has not shown that integrity.

There was another article which caught my eye which was by Geoffrey Stevens, and I think he's a very respected columnist with the Toronto Star. He talks about the impact on this government of the lack of integrity. He says that Bob Rae misread his mandate, and I'll quote:

"Because he misread his mandate, Rae misjudged Ontarians' tolerance for the escapades, sexual or other, of some of his members.

"Ontario voters are a conservative lot. They were offended by the cabinet clown who had the hots for a barmaid and allegedly dangled the prospect of a government job to lure the lass into bed; by the tacky attempt to leak the criminal record of a woman who had precipitated the resignation of another Rae minister; by the spectacle of Rae steadfastly defending a third minister who took a lie detector test to prove that she had fibbed when she purported to disclose confidential information about a doctor. And so on and so on."

No matter what this government thinks, integrity is very important to the history and the traditions of not only this Parliament but of this province and the expectations of people in this province. And yet we have a minister whose office attempted to fix parking tickets. We have another minister who took a lie detector test to prove that she had lied, and still remained in cabinet. We have yet another minister who was linked to the sexual abuse inquiry at Grandview and then had the audacity to joke about it afterwards. We have another minister who was found to have gouged her tenants. We have a minister, in fact, the prime minister of this province, the Premier, Bob Rae, whose executive assistant wrote a letter to the chair of the Ontario Municipal Board encouraging expedited hearings and expressing support for a development in the Premier's own riding. Then we have the affair, what's called the North affair, where the minister resigned as tourism minister after police began investigating a woman's report that she was offered a job in his ministry in exchange for sexual favours.

And two very recent things that have dominated I think not only the media but also the minds of people in this province are the integrity or lack of integrity shown by the Piper affair and the Masters affair. In both these instances the government of Ontario has shown that it was more interested in hiding the facts and in covering up its own record than it was in protecting the interests of people of this province and in particular protecting the interests of women in this province.

If we want confidence in our government we have to demand integrity. We have to demand that this government change its ways. We have to say that they should not be politicizing the Ontario civil service. We have to say that they have to be showing confidence and competence in what they are to do. We have to be able to say that the deputy ministers and the civil servants have confidence in this government, and we cannot say that. By September 1992, 20 deputy ministers had been demoted, fired or in fact driven away. One of the particularly sad facts about that is that many of the female deputy ministers recruited by the previous Liberal government have left. They have left because they could not tolerate working for a government in which they have no confidence and which they feel has no integrity.

As we look at this speech from the throne and we find that there's no mention of integrity, we know why: because this government does not have any. We cannot expect miracles. Over the next two years of their mandate, we cannot expect what they do not have to give, but I can tell the members of the NDP this thing: If they do not lead by example, if they do not take responsibility for their mistakes, then the people of Ontario will have an answer for them in the next election, and it is utter rejection.

1610

Mr Dave Johnson (Don Mills): I rise in response to the throne speech. This is my first opportunity to speak.

[Applause]

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): That's the last applause you're getting from over here.

Mr Dave Johnson: Okay, but I appreciate that. I haven't got the same experience, obviously, as the honourable members in the House, so I hope you'll bear with me in my comments. But I do have the experience of having gone through a recent by-election and I do have experience municipally, and perhaps that experience, along with the results of that particular election, will assist me in making my comments today.

I thank the people of Don Mills for having elected me. It was quite an honour and a privilege to run in the election and to be elected.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Did the NDP run a candidate in that by-election?

Mr Dave Johnson: There was a deposit that was lost, in response to a question that's coming up on my right.

I must say that there were a number of concerns that were raised by the people of Don Mills through that by-election. This comes as no surprise, I'm sure, to the members of this House, that there's a great deal of concern out there in the general community, many different concerns on many different topics, one of them, for example, being the field of education.

There is a great deal of concern regarding the cost of education, regarding the quality of education. I'm very pleased to see in the throne speech that there's some recognition of the fact that education should be an issue to focus on over the next period of time, but I must say that I'm disappointed that the focus seems to be very limited, a little bit of too little, too late.

The throne speech recommends the setting up of a Commission on Learning, which I think could well be a process that consumes a lot of time, consumes a lot of energy. You can ask the people today when you go to the doors, and the people have valid suggestions. I think there's a sum of knowledge in this House that can deal with the issues on education without prolonging the matter through a Commission on Learning.

I talked to the parents. The parents are concerned about the quality of education for their children. They're aware of the fact that children come through the education system and graduate and some of them have the ability neither to read and write nor to do basic mathematics.

Now, I talked to one person at one door during this campaign who expressed to me concern. She was and is in the personnel section of a large company here in Metropolitan Toronto. Her function is to interview the young people who are coming to her company to assess their abilities and to see if there's a position within her company. She expressed shock and dismay to me at what she was seeing: young people coming to her seeking a position in an age of technology, in an age where skills are required to suit them for the challenge of the future, and yet these people, in many cases, did not have the ability to read, did not have the ability to write and did not have basic mathematics skills.

During the election campaign I received a letter -- and perhaps this letter expresses it as well -- from a constituent. The writer says:

"Ontario is the greatest province in Canada. It achieved that plateau by hard work, high morals and an excellent educational system. I was shocked recently to hear from a teacher that he had chosen to teach his grade 6 students to learn to write;" -- grade 6 students to learn to write -- "that it was not a requirement. Computers can never replace the basic 3Rs."

That's the sort of problem we face today and that's the problem I was hoping would be addressed with a little more vision, with a little more imagination, through the throne speech.

The aspect of testing in grade 9, in some fuzzy way at an odd time in the year, on a selected topic and not a mainstream topic, without testing mathematical skills, for example, I think is again a very timid step. I think it could well be a great deal of cost with very little benefit for the parents or the educational system within the province of Ontario. So I'm very disappointed with regard to the throne speech's approach to education.

But at least the throne speech did mention education. One topic that wasn't mentioned in the throne speech was crime and safety within our communities. Again through the by-election process, I've come to understand that people are very concerned, across not only my riding but across this province, about the incidence of crime in their communities. People who live in apartment buildings, people who live in houses, are uniformly expressing this concern that we need to address crime, that we need to make our communities safer places to live. There's no mention in the throne speech about this concern that many people are expressing.

I think the throne speech should have mentioned this concern. It could have mentioned, for example, that in Metropolitan Toronto drug and alcohol abuse pertains to about 40% of the crime within our community. We really need to address this kind of problem, but it was silent on that issue. It could have mentioned that education could have been an important component of a crime package.

Obviously, full employment will be of assistance.

It could have mentioned the tough job that our police, our Ontario Provincial Police, our Metropolitan Toronto police, have to deal with in their communities. It could have acknowledged that they do an excellent job under very trying conditions and that we need to, as a provincial government, work with the police forces and develop programs to assist the police forces in dealing with the crimes within our community. But it was silent in that regard and I think, frankly, that that's a serious omission.

Notwithstanding those concerns, having gone through the by-election process, the prime concern that I have heard through my municipal days concerns the economy and the financial status of the province of Ontario. When I first arrived in this House about a week ago, I became aware that the deficit of the province of Ontario, which had been $30 billion in 1985, a deficit that had accumulated since the inception of the province of Ontario, up to $30 billion in 1985, now is estimated to be about $68 billion. So in the course of about seven or eight years, the deficit has climbed from about $30 billion to about $68 billion, and the projections that we now hear from the government are that it's possible that within three years' time, the deficit will climb to $120 billion, a tremendous mortgage on the future of our province, on the future of our children and our grandchildren.

Why did this happen? Why are we in such a difficult position? Some people have said that the problem is spending and some have said that the problem is revenue, so I checked those numbers. The spending in 1985, through the province of Ontario, was about $28.8 billion. That grew, year after year, till the most recent year, in which the spending was $53.9 billion. That is an increase, each and every year since 1985, of about 12% a year. Spending has increased by about 12% a year each and every year since 1985. The rate of inflation, I might add, during that period of time was 4.3% each and every year, so that the rate of spending was almost triple the rate of inflation.

I have been associated with no other level of government, either regional or local, that has had expenditure increases of that magnitude; indeed, we've experienced considerably less. But then, we've had to tackle the issue of government spending.

1620

I can say that at the local level in East York we identified the problem of spending, we looked at ways and means to make the government operations more efficient, and we reduced our spending. The spending in East York, the municipality I represented until very recently, will actually be less in 1993 than it was in 1991. We did that by making our operations more efficient, by reducing staff through attrition, by reducing equipment and by any number of ways. I might add that we did this in concert with the private sector as well -- this is sometimes called contracting out -- where we found that the private sector could be more efficient than we were. So our expenditures have gone down.

In Metropolitan Toronto, another level of government I've been associated with, we're in the second year of a program of flat-lining the services -- the second year. We didn't start this year; we didn't wait till 1993 to start. We saw this problem coming over a year ago, indeed about two years ago, and we started the budget process then to attack the spending.

I looked at the revenue side as well, and what I found was that in 1985 the revenue for the province of Ontario was $26.2 billion, and that has climbed to a present $41.8 billion. That represents almost 9% a year in terms of revenue growth. I've heard that it's been said that we have a revenue problem, that we don't have an expenditure problem -- which I certainly disagree with -- but that we have a revenue problem. There may be some who think that 8.5% to 9% revenue growth a year for the last seven or eight years is insufficient for a government to operate, but I certainly would not be the one to convey that message. That is a significant growth in revenue and one that should have, through that period of time, served to provide the programs needed by the people of the province of Ontario without huge spending increases.

The message, again through the by-election, was that we need initiatives to cut spending. I'm pleased to see that the throne speech addresses that. I'm far from convinced that the government is serious in accomplishing that, but at least I'm pleased to see that it has identified that.

We don't need new taxes. What I've heard clearly through the by-election process is that people and businesses cannot tolerate more taxes. We need to create jobs. And how do we do that? Again through the by-election process, there's a great deal of concern about unemployment, and what I've heard is that, for example, the commercial concentration tax is a tax within southern Ontario that is sucking $120 million each and every year out of the economy of southern Ontario. This is a severe disincentive to job creation, it's a severe disincentive to investment within southern Ontario. That tax should be repealed. If we repeal that tax, that will assist in job creation.

I must say that Bill 40, the labour bill, is a severe disincentive to business creation and to investment. I have been involved in meetings with the mayors of the GTA, and almost unanimously the mayors have indicated that Bill 40 is a concern of the businesses within their community. As a matter of fact, the mayor of the city of Mississauga related to me a story. She had been in Europe, and one of the first questions she was asked in Europe by potential investors was what was going on with Bill 40. There was concern by potential investors in Europe with regard to this particular bill.

In East York, we created an economic development task force. We sat down with the business community and said, "We have a problem: We have a problem in our municipality, and of course we have a problem in the province of Ontario." We sat down with the business leaders and the community leaders and said: "What can we do to promote business growth? What sort of measures can we take to promote business growth to create jobs, to create investment and to create assessment for the municipality?"

We investigated different areas such as planning, we investigated infrastructure, but what we kept coming back to, time after time, was the cost of doing business within Metropolitan Toronto, within the province of Ontario. We are losing businesses because they cannot be competitive. They are going south into the United States.

Taxes: We cannot impose more taxes on the business community; again the commercial concentration tax. Finally, an issue that kept coming up over and over again was the cost of school education on the property tax. Businesses and individuals are carrying a serious load, a load that is too much of a burden on their property taxes. This is a tax that the business community cannot afford if it's going to be competitive, particularly here in Metropolitan Toronto, where 100% of the cost of education is being paid by the property taxpayer and the province of Ontario subsidizes education not at all. There is no provincial support here in Metropolitan Toronto.

In just a few closing remarks, I could say that I was also disappointed that there was no mention made in the throne speech of the complete picture in terms of waste disposal. Yes, there was mention made of recycling, reuse and reduction of waste, but one of the major issues that is faced by many municipalities is the one with which we started off this meeting today, in terms of finding landfill sites and the environmental process and looking at all the options.

We want to reduce as much garbage as we can, we want to reuse as much of the material as we can, and we want to recycle certainly as much as we can, but there will still be waste left over and that waste must be addressed. The system that's put in place today to address that waste is not a good one. I was hoping that the throne speech would offer some initiatives in this regard in terms of working with the municipalities in terms of the environmental process that so many municipalities find so cumbersome, so costly and time-consuming, and that we might look at alternatives such as the Kirkland Lake alternative for waste disposal, and that we might look at incineration as part of that package, as they do in Europe in so many cases, with high-technology incinerators, and as they do in Japan. We should look at those alternatives. But you see none of those initiatives in the throne speech, and I'm disappointed by that.

I must say that that's my general feeling about the throne speech. Although I have no previous throne speeches to compare it with, I was disappointed and a little bit puzzled by the throne speech.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I'm pleased to rise today to speak to the throne speech, and I'm proud of the fact that this government is continuing its commitment to the people of Ontario by emphasizing the need to get people back to work.

Last week, we heard our government's plan to help Ontario come out of this recession as strongly as possible. Our plan consists of 10 points, 10 points that are all geared to revitalizing and securing Ontario as a leader in this country. The goal is to return Ontario to a prosperity that is based on responsible fiscal management, investments in jobs, partnerships between government, business and labour, principles of fairness and human dignity, respect for the environment and an abiding concern to provide for the vulnerable among us, including our children.

1630

To achieve those overall objectives, our government is investing in our communities. Quite simply, we must create jobs. Last year alone, the Jobs Ontario Capital fund created about 75,000 jobs. I know there is criticism from the opposition parties in this House that we are simply recycling an old program. Quite frankly, it works, and we will recycle it and we will continue to ensure that it does work.

The government, municipalities and the private sector will invest some $6 billion over the next 10 years. That investment in our highways, public transit, water quality and telecommunications will help maintain Ontario as a good place to live, work and invest in.

Our government is also emphasizing education and training. We must ensure quality education and training. That investment in education and training is an investment in our future and our youth. I look forward to a comprehensive study on our elementary and secondary education and to the forthcoming reading and writing skills testing for grade 9 students. Quite simply, I believe we must continue to strive for the best levels of education possible so that today's children are ready to take the reins of the future strongly and confidently.

Jobs Ontario Youth will again this summer provide opportunities to our youth. The additional $25 million allocated for this program will create 10,000 summer jobs, and thousands of people have already benefited from the Jobs Ontario Training funds in this province. A growing awareness of the benefits of this program will ensure that thousands more will benefit.

The Ontario Training and Adjustment Board will complement the success of the training funds. OTAB is yet another example of how partnerships work. While I'm on the subject, I urge the opposition parties in this House to stop holding that bill up in committee. This is not a time for filibuster; this is a time for action.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: That last statement by the member does not fully convey the truth of the existence of that bill's --

Interjection.

Mr Elston: He was casting aspersions on the motives of the members of the opposition and that is not allowed.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish you to ask him to withdraw his allegation that we were doing something we are not doing in that committee. We have the right to examine the bill. He was saying something that was not true. He was casting aspersions on the motives of our members in that committee and I ask that he withdraw the allegation, because we have been allowed only a very brief time to do the questioning on that bill. Mr Speaker, you cannot allow those types of assertions to go on and cause this House to break out in a very disagreeable state of affairs.

The Deputy Speaker: I do not consider this a point of order.

Mr Elston: Why?

The Deputy Speaker: I do not consider this a point of order.

Mr Huget: Our government is also working to build partnerships and strengthen industry and it's clear that we must work together in this province. There is much truth to the saying that there is strength in numbers. The Ontario innovation and productivity service and the Ontario investment centre will make it easier for companies to take advantage of new technology and easier for potential investors to invest in Ontario. The Ontario investment fund, government and private sector in partnership, will give Ontario companies access to long-term capital and investment.

Our government is supporting communities and small business. We must simply recognize and support the grass roots of Ontario. Our farms and small and medium-sized businesses have been an extremely important element of Ontario society.

By establishing community investment share and loan programs, we will allow small and medium business more access to money. This initiative, along with providing farmers access to $100 million over the next year through the commodity loan guarantee program, shows this government's support for the backbone of Ontario.

The government is expanding worker protection and participation. We must protect our workers. More worker partnership agreements will be sought in order to help save communities and recognize the crucial role of employees.

Pay equity will be extended to an additional 400,000 women, showing this government's commitment to working women in this province.

The government is also reforming health care. We must protect our health care system. This government is committed to the ongoing reform of our system to ensure its integrity, efficiency and affordability. The long-awaited, long-term care reform will provide a better way of dealing with the many areas of care needed by our elderly and disabled members in our society.

Our government is sustaining the environment. We must ensure the health of our environment. Our commitment to the environment has been strong and we will continue to meet the challenge of sustaining our environment.

The environmental bill of rights is going through revisions before being introduced into this House. This bill will give Ontario residents unprecedented rights and powers to ensure that government upholds its environmental laws, policies and regulations. It will also provide more protection for employees who report environmental wrongdoing in their organizations and make the decision-making process on environmental matters open to public scrutiny.

We have shown our leadership in North America. Ontario was the first jurisdiction to place a ban on new municipal solid waste incinerators. We responded to the serious human health and environmental concerns associated with incineration by enacting this ban.

I am pleased to note the Minister of Environment and Energy's comments today on waste reduction. I am proud that we have achieved a 25% reduction in the amount of waste going to municipal landfills, and I'm very optimistic that the second target, 50% reduction by the year 2000, will also be achieved.

I recently made an announcement in Sarnia that granted $255,000 for our local blue box program. After expansion of our reduce, reuse and recycle programs, Ontario will be a leader in this area in Canada. Recycling is working, but there is more work to be done.

The Ontario Clean Water Agency was announced on February 9 of this year. The agency will make provincial investments and assist municipalities in planning and developing water and sewage services in a way that protects human health and the environment, encourages the conservation of water and efficient use of resources, and supports provincial land use and human settlement policies.

We are actively working towards a healthier environment in many other ways as well. The pollution prevention office will encourage all stakeholders to make pollution prevention the primary means of achieving their environmental priorities. We have made much progress in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of approvals and the environmental assessment process.

It's interesting to note that the environmental industry is a significant force in the Ontario economy, and the Ministry of Environment and Energy is committed to promoting it. The green industry in this province is expected to grow at a rate of 14% a year for the next five years.

Our government is strengthening social justice in this province. We must continue to fight to end racism. Proceeding on with the work of Stephen Lewis's report on race relations, the Cabinet Round Table on Anti-Racism and passage of the Employment Equity Act will bring about positive change, change in attitudes and practices that has been much slower than the changing face of our society. We must strive for the equality of all individuals in Ontario.

Our government is supporting families and helping them get back to work. We must change our social assistance programs. There is a great need to overhaul our present system, how it is administered and what the objectives of the program are. Support is needed to help people break free of social assistance and become self-sustaining. We will continue our process of reform.

1640

Our government is also controlling government costsand it's clear we must start right there. This government is faced with a very serious situation. We must control costs, reduce the deficit and maintain services and investment in jobs. We will obtain our goal by balancing government spending cuts, fair revenue increases and negotiating a social contract with our partners in the public sector.

We have an agenda, one that bears hope: hope that all persons may be treated equally, hope that we all have the basic education and training that we need and hope that we can all obtain meaningful work. I sincerely hope our agenda, our plan, will be supported by business, workers and government in a spirit of working together for the benefit of all Ontarians.

These are definitely plans laid today for a brighter tomorrow. I and my colleagues on this side of the House are anxious to get on with the job, the job of rebuilding our economy and at the same time continuing our work to build a fair society.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise today to participate in the debate on the throne speech, a speech, I feel compelled to say, that is more notable for its deficits than its assets.

As critic for Community and Social Services and for seniors' affairs, I looked and listened for an indication that the less fortunate, those in need and seniors who have lived out their lives in Ontario could find a small beacon of hope.

As the speech itself states, the social assistance system is not working in Ontario. It has been referred to as an administratively inefficient nightmare. With rising incidents of family breakdown, more families are headed by single parents. With deinstitutionalization, there's been a significant increase in the number of disabled and family care givers who find it necessary to access the system.

With changes to the federal unemployment insurance legislation, more of the unemployed, that is more UI recipients, enter welfare rolls sooner. With these and many other situations, we have a social assistance system in crisis. This government's answer is a white paper to be released some time in early summer, we heard today. Unbelievable.

What we really need is some action on the recommendations of the reports which have already been completed and accepted in this province: Transitions, Back on Track, Time For Action. We do not need more study -- we definitely do not need more study -- we do not need more costly paper gathering dust up on a minister's shelf. We need to get on with the real work of reform following the blueprints and frameworks which already exist -- I repeat, already exist.

Decades of study and input from both recipients and professionals are already available.

What passes for action, as defined by this government, is its one touted initiative, the Jobs Ontario Training fund, a program where job training masquerades as job creation, a program with very disappointing results to date.

The supports to employment program, STEP, once a very effective social policy tool begun by the previous Liberal government and embraced by all sides of this House, is becoming more and more restrictive in its entry criteria, thereby discouraging the very people it was intended to help.

Nearly three years into their mandate, the Back on Track social assistance reforms can best be described as derailed, yet the best this government can offer -- white paper. Where is the real social assistance reform? I humbly suggest nowhere in sight.

The throne speech has even less to say about seniors. Ontario seniors continue to have feelings of uncertainty and instability and express them to most of us on a daily basis. They are trying to interpret the policy decisions of this NDP government. They are discouraged by the perception that the government is trying to solve its economic problems at their expense and the expense of others in this province who are in need.

Bill 164, this government's answer to auto insurance, will hit seniors hard. During the public hearing process on this piece of legislation the people of Ontario made it very clear that they believe Bill 164 will make auto insurance more expensive, especially for seniors, an expensive burden with no improved coverage. No improved coverage, but more expensive.

We hope and trust, again on behalf of the seniors of this province, that the long-term care reforms will proceed despite, to this date, lack of detailed funding plans, fuzzy time lines and continued reannouncements of reannouncements. We still are anxious for the studies of the chronic care role study which were due in January. We are anxious for the promised announcements of the details of the task force to provide compensation to family care givers, to the frail elderly or disabled persons.

I urge this government to get on with it. I urge them to finally bring to this House in a concrete form a long-term care proposal with real time lines, with real financial commitments and with real initiatives.

I regret that I have to turn again to the tragedy of Grandview, an apex of violence against women. At the very highest levels of this government to the very doors of the Premier's office, this administration has proven itself devoid of action, indeed of integrity, in dealing with this important issue, this issue of violence against women.

The contemptible behaviour of members of this government, both elected and appointed, is dismissed out of hand by the Premier and the cabinet, who hide behind police investigations and refuse to come clean day after day and again today within this Legislature or to the people of Ontario. By not confronting the hard decisions forced upon him by the scandals of his staff and a member of his caucus, the Premier is seen as condoning behaviour which in his very own words is "frankly appalling and quite unacceptable." The Premier's own words.

To me and to the people of Ontario, this is perhaps the saddest disappointment of all, the lack of integrity in this government, its persistent and consistent lack of support for the survivors of Grandview.

Access to training opportunities, financial aid for legal costs and compensation, these things have been promised again and again by minister and by minister over on the government side, but promises are not good enough for these victims. We grow tired of the hollow words from the Premier, the Attorney General and the Minister of Community and Social Services in view of the mishandling, foot-dragging, perhaps even coverup of the tragedy of Grandview.

It is in this environment of mistrust that we receive this speech from the throne, a speech which contains no leadership for job creation or economic growth to attract much-needed investment in Ontario. It contains indeed no fulfilment even of past promises for those in need or for seniors whose patience is wearing very, very thin.

This throne speech contributes to an environment of hopelessness and despair in which many people of this province are worried about both their immediate future and more seriously their long-range future. This throne speech represents a complete failure to restore either public confidence or the public's faith in the efficient and competent operations of their political institutions. This throne speech provides no inspiration and no new beginnings. Ontario in the 1990s needs boldness, needs leadership, and I regret to say that we find neither in this government blueprint for the future.

I close by sharing an editorial cartoon from the Windsor Star of March 3, 1993. The headline reads, "Ontario Government Caucus Meets at Five-Star Resort," and the caucus is depicted at a very extravagant toga party. Mr Premier stands in the centre like Nero, asking, "Has anybody got a fiddle?" Mr Speaker, we all remember Rome in the fifth century.

1650

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Just for clarification, I believe the Liberal cabinet met at Langdon Hall at twice the price and twice the cost of the facilities that this government met in.

Mrs O'Neill: I ask, as I close, where is the leadership? It's certainly not in the cartoon I've depicted. Where is the hopefulness? Where is the plan for action that Ontario needs as we begin a new session in this 35th Parliament? Sadly, I and many Ontarians, we sought and we sought and we did not find.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): On behalf of my constituents of Lanark-Renfrew, I welcome this opportunity to respond to the throne speech.

Mr Elston: On behalf of your constituents, can I thank you in advance?

Mr Jordan: Yes, you can, because I think the ones in Bruce are also thanking me daily with letters regarding your problems there, so maybe we should have a meeting after this presentation.

Mr Elston: Okay.

Mr Jordan: You realize the Bruce generating station -- I was going to mention it in my talk, but --

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please resume your speech.

Mr Jordan: The first question I must ask to the members of the government is, how do they go to their constituency offices each week?

Mr Elston: They don't.

Mr Jordan: They don't? I don't blame you for not going, because if you're hearing what I hear when I go to my constituency office -- I think you should go and listen to them and bring their suggestions and policies back to your leaders here, because the only thing that's really going to save you is listening to the people. They have some very good ideas, and it does not include higher taxes and more spending.

The people of Ontario expect a throne speech to set out new ideas and new directions for the session, a plan for this third session of the 35th Parliament. We didn't get any plan. We didn't get any direction. Really, it makes us wonder why the government decided to take the time to present a throne speech at all, because it would seem that they are yet trying to prepare a plan, and they will not have a plan prepared until they get an agreement with the union leaders. That came out very clearly today. They can't even present their mini-budget here in the House until they take it down Friday afternoon and have it approved by the union leaders. That's the situation we're in. They're telling me that in the constituency office, and it's being confirmed here in this Legislature.

Really, the Premier at times, and his cabinet, remind me of a farm operation in my riding. It was operated and managed for 42 years by the farmer and his son worked along beside him for about 20 of those years. During all that time he criticized his father on how he operated the farm. He should have done this different, he should have bought more equipment, he should have spent more money on this. But the farmer was successful in his business and he passed on and left not only the farm and the operations but over $200,000 to the son to continue the operation. You can tell me, without me going into detail, exactly what happened. When the son actually had the responsibility and the job to do, he started right away by spending the money: new silo, $100,000, new manure dispenser, another $100,000. What happened? He was bankrupt, and now the farm of course has to be sold.

This is really what's happening here, because, really, you people, when you were on this side of the House, you knew everything that should be done. Now here you are, given the job to manage the province, direct the province, and look at the mess we're in. We're bankrupt. You're going to sell your assets, the same as the young farmer had to do. He's lucky if he has a house left to live in, and so you will be with the province of Ontario if you don't stop spending.

We've heard the same message from this government that we've been hearing for over two years. It's all packaged up this time in the pomp and circumstance of a formal speech from the throne. I know it will be difficult for the NDP to face its constituents, but face them you'd better. It will be difficult because the NDP has demeaned and devalued the high standard and value that Ontario citizens have assigned to the speech from the throne.

The people of Ontario expected a commitment to economic recovery, not a continuation of high-taxing, high-spending NDP socialism. They wanted a new commitment to jobs, not the old commitment to employment equity and pay equity. We were prepared to hear new solutions that would take us out of the deficit crisis, not the old rhetoric that got us into it.

This government inherited the spend-crazy ideology of the Liberals when it took power. They laughed when we warned them that the deficit had to be controlled and that today's deficits are, really and truly, tomorrow's taxes, and now they tell us they have a projected deficit of $18 billion.

Since day one, our leader and our party have advocated the urgent need for limited spending and deficit control. Instead of taking heed of our advice, they tried foolishly to spend their way into prosperity. They threw money at job creation strategies that put 1.2 million people on welfare. That was really the result of all that money that was spent on job creation, and you wonder why you're in such a financial position today.

They threw more money at education, yet standards and quality are lower than ever.

They gave 92,000 civil servants between 13% and 16% increases in 1991, and in 1993 they say they are going to try to get some of it back through what is known as a social contract. I don't know why they are hanging this fancy name on this social contract, because we are elected here to lead --

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): A point of order, Mr Speaker: I really do take offence to the comments that the member over there said when he used the example of the farmer who was doing well and then the son took over the farm. In fact what he was really alluding to, he was saying that young farmer was a poor manager, and that's some of the philosophy that has been used by these people for years. I think the member should apologize to the farmers in this province for calling them bad managers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): I'm sorry, the honourable member does not have a point of order.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Kick him out.

Mr Hayes: Go sit in your seat, Stockwell.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: That wasn't even close to a point of order. I would ask that you would put back on the clock an extra minute and a half for the member.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Bruce. The honourable member for Lanark-Renfrew.

Mr Stockwell: Put the time back on the clock; they could do that all day.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Jordan: This NDP spending spree has increased the debt by 58% since they have taken office. The government's debt, which now stands at $68 billion, amounts to -- listen to this now -- a $6,600 financial burden on every man, woman and child in the province.

While the government is trying to maintain that it is merely a victim of circumstances, it remains very clear that it was the primary cause of this predicament.

1700

Mr Elston: It's not that often you hear people claiming to be victims after being elected to government, do you?

Mr Jordan: Thank you. The NDP have taken a bad situation, namely the recession, and made it worse by raising taxes, running deficits and by increasing the burden of the debt.

The number one issue on the minds of my constituents in Lanark-Renfrew is taxes. More specifically, my constituents speak to me about the devastating effects of overtaxation, the effects on their personal lives, on their businesses, on their community, and the overall relation between high taxes and low employment. It is indeed very unfortunate that this government is unwilling to see that relationship between high taxes and low economic activity.

Despite all the warnings from the public and by my leader in the Progressive Conservative Party, the NDP is going to hit Ontario with more tax increases. They're going to hit Ontario with more tax increases. That means they're taking the money out of our pockets and putting it in here, and as soon as you do that, you lose a third of it right off the bat in just government administration costs. They're out building houses, they're buying out day care centres, they're using our money in all these areas where it would be much better to allow the private sector to use its money there and have the economy back on track. We'll never get it on track by taking the money away from the private sector and channelling it through the government.

They're threatening to raise all types of taxes: wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, pollution and corporate taxes. As it stands now, individuals, families and businessmen are taxed to the hilt. Most people realize that what we need right now are tax reductions to relieve the burden and to serve as a stimulus to get our economy booming again. The Premier and his government had the opportunity to make that choice, a choice that would have offered new hope for families and investors. Instead, this government has chosen to try and create a false sense of helplessness in order to raise taxes. While most people in Ontario would not have trouble with the notion that this government is indeed helpless, the government has engaged itself in a massive media spin campaign designed to manipulate public opinion.

Over the course of the past two months, the NDP government has been transformed into advocates of debt crisis hysteria. Now that we have heard the throne speech, I understand why the government has gone through this charade of recognizing the fiscal crisis: so that it could create the ultimate excuse to raise taxes and continue on its high-spending way. In order to accomplish this spin, the NDP employed common bargaining techniques to try and fool the public. By projecting an $18-billion deficit, they can make their $12-billion deficit seem acceptable, along with their tax increases.

The simple message from the people of Lanark-Renfrew is, "We're just not buying it." The people of Lanark-Renfrew are tired of the political games that come at their expense. Thank you very much.

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

Mr Farnan: Mr Speaker, first I would like to take the opportunity on behalf of the government benches to congratulate the member for Don Mills on his maiden speech. It is very clear from his participation to date that his experience at the municipal level and his commitment to his constituents mean they will be well served during his tenure at Queen's Park.

The throne speech is an occasion of the continuity of our parliamentary traditions. For a few minutes we are lifted beyond partisanship as we listen to the Lieutenant Governor talk about the aspirations of our government in times ahead. Listening to the throne speech this week, I felt acutely conscious of continuity at another level as well; that is, a continuity of ideas and of commitment from our government to the people we serve.

In the throne speech we made one thing clear: Our government is committed to putting Ontario back to work. Critics have complained that there weren't a bunch of brand-new programs introduced in the throne speech. That's simply because work has always been at the centre of our government's agenda.

We have always believed that we have an obligation to work with and for all persons in the province as individuals and as communities, at work and out of work. We have had a chance to show exceptional leadership for workers, and for us that has meant supporting democracy in the workplace, not just in this Legislature.

What do I mean? The first example that comes to mind is an early partnership that has had time to show extremely positive results. The worker partnership with the Spruce Falls mills at Kapuskasking has been brought back from bankruptcy by an innovative plan combining the resources of workers, the company and the government. This year Spruce Falls showed a profit. In Sault Ste Marie, worker ownership is helping Algoma Steel to success.

What are the key elements of these early partnerships? Let me go through them. Everyone knew what was at stake. Jobs and the survival of the company were threatened by a bad financial situation. An opportunity for investment in the future -- their own, their children's and their community's -- encouraged cooperation. Everyone was willing to change the way they did business to streamline and improve service to the public. Perhaps most important, there was a commitment to the sharing of risks in a climate of trust.

This government embarks on a huge undertaking. We have to build a new culture of partnership based on shared contributions of all our stakeholders. Business, labour and government must work constructively in cooperative partnerships. We cannot face the 1990s and the future with old models of alienation and confrontation. This government has clearly enunciated a dedication and a commitment to leadership that says, "Let's work together."

Indeed, we are prepared to ensure that everybody knows what's at stake. The books are open. It is a very, very frank accounting of our situation. Certainly it is serious, but we are not in any way attempting to run away from it. On the contrary, we are saying, "Yes, we have a serious situation and we invite you to partnership." Yes to the business community: "Come and sit down with us." Yes to the labour leaders: "Come and sit down with us." Yes to the private sector. Indeed, to all of the stakeholders we are saying: "Come join us in facing this crisis. Come join us in formulating solutions. Come join us in meeting the challenge. Let us go forward together as a province in a strong partnership."

It is extraordinary that this is indeed the cutting edge. It is extraordinary that during 43 years of Tory government, it is extraordinary that as late as the late 1980s under a Liberal administration, such a vision was never there, and yet a new government, still relatively young, two and a half years into its mandate, has a vision, a vision that says to the people of Ontario that the old ways will not work. The old system of hiding debts will not work. The old system of government playing games with business and labour and people working in their separate and divided camps will not work.

What we're saying to the people of Ontario and what we're saying to all of the stakeholders is that indeed there is a different way, there is a better way, there is a way in which we can use the strengths and talents and abilities of all our partners.

1710

We, as government, are saying quite simply that we don't have all the answers. We certainly have the commitment, we certainly have the desire and we believe fundamentally that reasonable people in business and reasonable people in labour share the commitment to working in a new manner, a new direction: a direction of cooperative partnership.

We say to our opposition parties, "Don't take the customary stance of the opposition ritual," because, again, there has to be a new way of doing business. We have the opportunity for the leadership in both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party to say, "You know, something different is happening here."

Indeed, I almost heard the leader of the third party today suggest that yes, the government is on the right track. Now obviously he is entitled to say a little bit more here or a little less there and to make constructive suggestions, but indeed the leader of the third party recognized that yes, there is a crisis, and recognized that yes, this government, the first government in the history of Ontario, has the determination and the will and the commitment to face that crisis.

The leader of the third party perhaps said we're not doing enough, but you see, you can't simply go in and bulldoze your way through things and say, "You're not doing enough; we're going to do more," because he loses the essential element of what we're trying to do, and the essential element of what we're trying to do is to say to people, "Let's work in partnership."

So it is indeed important for us to recognize as a Legislature that something very significant, something very novel, something very exciting, something very creative, is happening in the province of Ontario. The Premier of Ontario and the cabinet of Ontario are issuing the people of this province a challenge that says, "We will lead, we will make tough decisions, but we want you to work with us in partnership in making these decisions." To what purpose? So that we can protect the kinds of services that this province has established, because without this strong leadership, without this commitment, many of the services we hold so dear are vulnerable.

There is so much we can learn from the example set by the staff and management at Algoma and Spruce Falls, but it is important to keep in mind that situations differ. Those were cases where a viable option existed to preserve jobs and where the workers had limited alternatives. In all too many cases, those alternatives simply do not exist.

One of the things I think we can be proud of as a government is supporting workers to ensure that there is a proper adjustment package available in cases where layoffs have been inevitable. In these recessionary times, the price tag on this package is by no means small, but there is no doubt in my mind that this, again, is an indication of the sensitivity of this government.

Let us be clear. The worker protection package was available to previous administrations. Indeed, we called from the previous Liberal adminstration for this, but we had to wait. The workers of Ontario had to wait until the New Democratic Party was elected so that we could put in the kinds of protective measures that will protect workers their rights, their benefits, their vacation package, whatever, in the case of a layoff.

It makes no sense to snatch these programs away from workers when they need them most. In an economy that is accurately described as the worst since the Depression of the 1930s, the 24% increase in our government's investment in training and adjustment is not only fair, it's smart. We've kept our commitment on training.

Nor have we cut social assistance or made it more difficult to qualify for assistance just because times are hard. We have resisted pressure to cut the supports that those who are economically vulnerable need to rely on. In the throne speech, we made a commitment to reform the system, but our goal is going to be to improve assistance recipients' chances of getting back to work. Mere cutbacks will not improve the system, nor will they make it work more efficiently.

In the development of Jobs Ontario, our employment program for people on social assistance and whose UIC has run out, we have tried to keep a commitment to training at the forefront of our minds. There are two themes in the program: one, we work to meet employers' expressed needs; and two, we are spending government job-creating dollars wisely by making sure employees gain and use new skills that increase their value on the labour market and put them in a better position to win jobs for the future. We have expanded Jobs Ontario Youth to help young people get a start at employment to improve their chances at the start of their careers.

I'm going to cut my remarks short in the possibility of individuals coming forward.

Our commitment to putting Ontario back to work has been at the forefront of our agenda since day one. It has been behind our investment in infrastructure and our attempts to control cost. Just as we saw at Kapuskasing and in the Sault, it is a commitment to keep working and to workplace democracy that is motivating us to move forward with the unprecedented social contract negotiations now under way. In these negotiations I think you will see the same principles at work.

I want to end on a note that I think is an invitation: It's an invitation to the opposition parties to get off their doom and gloom, to get off their negativity, to think positively for a change. We cannot build partnerships based on negativity. We cannot build partnerships based on doom and gloom.

We have a vision. We have a vision of cooperation. We have a vision of partnership. We have the leadership that's determined to provide strong leadership as we face tough challenges. I know that honest, hardworking people out there, small business people out there, large business presidents out there, at this stage are commending the resolve, the determination, the commitment of this government to do the things and do the job that previous administrations shied away from.

We've set the course. We invite the opposition parties to join us. They may not join us, but we will still go to the people and we'll get the job done.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I was listening intently to the speeches today and especially to this past speech by the member for Cambridge. He said, "We have a vision," and he mentioned it over and over. I kept on looking in the throne speech, and my goodness, I just couldn't find it. I just don't know where it is.

I noted in his speech that he was talking about his being but two and a half years in his government, but two and a half years into its mandate. I wish the member would be a little bit more positive. I wish the member would not be so doom and gloom. I wish he would remind everybody that they are not just two and a half years into their mandate, but they are probably two and a half years from their mandate ending. I think that is a much more positive message to send out to the people of this province.

I want to get right into the throne speech. Without any question, I'm critical of the throne speech and I want, in the time permitted, to reflect some of the thoughts that I've heard from my constituents, and indeed some of the things I've been reading about. I know we have a task force to review Ontario's technology fund and a whole variety of individuals who are very committed to looking at the type of province that we want in the future.

1720

When I reflect on some of those things that I've read about and the comments and the concerns that I've heard from my constituents, I can only be disappointed with this throne speech. Let me just read a few parts of it. It says on the first page: "This speech from the throne is not about business as usual. We are living in times of great change." I guess my first comment is that this throne speech is about business as usual. There is nothing in this throne speech to reflect times of great change.

It goes on to say, "300,000 jobs were lost in Ontario over the past three years," and that's absolutely correct. It's unfortunate that it doesn't go on to indicate that many of the people who did lose their jobs have lost jobs for the very first time in their lives and that there has been a tremendous impact on those who have lost their jobs and what the government's view is as to how it's going to deal with those people and others who are worried that the job they have today may not be there tomorrow.

So I am critical of this throne speech because of the fact that it is very much business as usual with no new ideas, no direction for the future. There are so many people out of work; the last thing that we needed was a speech of this type. I believe that this speech was sort of written through a rear-view mirror; it tells people what the government might have done in the past. But everybody wants to know what you are going to do in the future. We are concerned with the direction the government has taken in the past in a variety of areas. We want to know about what areas, what road, what path you're going to take in the future, what vision you have for the building of this province.

So, for me, the first concern that I have in a very direct way is that, far from the words within the speech from the throne, the actions of the government are without direction, without any new ideas and in fact tell us where we have been; many of the people in this province, if not all, are most concerned about where we are going.

My constituents are asking me some very difficult questions about what it is we want this province to be and to stand for and what it is that we want this province to do. They know they are facing difficult choices and they want to see an acknowledgment by a government in a speech from the throne that there are difficult decisions that too have to be made by government.

We recognize that this is not just a recession but a time of real structural change and there is an increasing pressure on our social programs in light of the fiscal situation of the province. How are we going to meet those two concerns? Do they have to be at odds with one another? Do the social programs and the provision of social programs have to be at odds with necessarily the fiscal situation of the province?

My constituents are saying, "Why doesn't the government look at what areas, what direction, what ideas can be created in order to meet both those concerns, social programs and meeting the economic realities of the day?" This speech from the throne is totally silent in those two areas, and those are some of the areas that my constituents are talking to me about. They want and do hold very dear the provision of social services while at the same time recognizing that the debt and the deficit are matters that have to be taken into account.

But the government is totally devoid of any ideas as to how best those issues can be addressed and is negligent by not even acknowledging that these types of issues and challenges and pressures are in fact in existence. People are saying, "What direction does government want to take?" The throne speech is silent.

Secondly, I want to bring forward this whole era of competition. I think it is a phrase that is used time and time again: We are in a new era of competition. What is the role of government in this era of competition, in this era of investment? What should government be doing? What should government not be doing in order to foment new investment, in order to create a positive climate for companies to invest in this province, for existing companies to expand in this province, for there really to be some real job creation, some real wealth creation?

I read through the throne speech many times and I've heard members speak on the throne speech, and again I do not hear anything in the throne speech that deals with the issue of investment, the role of government in investment, the role of government in enhancing the competitiveness of our companies.

Is government's role in the area of investment merely to provide dollars for investment? Or is there something else? Is there something else, as we are moving along this decade, that governments should be doing? Is the traditional way of investment provisions something that is going to be left in the past and should we be looking to something different and new in the future where firms in our province of Ontario will be the direct beneficiaries and not just from the old way of a government providing dollars, but for something different?

How does government view its role in terms of labour, management and investment? How does government see its ability to deal with those areas? What is said in the throne speech? The throne speech tells me a lot about yesterday; it doesn't tell me anything about tomorrow.

It doesn't tell me anything about how the government views its role in the area of labour and management and the provision of investment, and it doesn't say or chart out any new course as to maybe there is a different way in which government should be dealing with these areas. Maybe it isn't just to provide dollars. Maybe that is something which may have worked in the past and no longer will. Maybe there's something new that should be a charter, and this speech from the throne is absolutely silent.

So in the area of investment, the throne speech is totally silent. In the area of what direction the government should take, the area tells me where we were last year, and let me tell you, my constituents do not like where they were last year and do not want to be reminded of where they were last time.

What about the area of competition? Do governments compete? I've read materials which say, "Listen, when a government thinks that it's them that compete, it is on the totally wrong track." Governments do not compete. Firms and industries within jurisdictions compete. Why isn't there in the throne speech an acknowledgement that this is the essence and the principle of competition and that the role of government is not to compete with another jurisdiction, but rather the role of government is to enhance, to encourage firms within its own jurisdiction to be able to compete with firms in another jurisdiction?

Do I read from the throne speech and see some ideas about this? No, I do not. I see an awful lot about yesterday, but nothing about tomorrow. What areas should governments be involved in? Again, the throne speech is totally silent.

I speak to the issue, a following point, on the creation of wealth, the creation of prosperity. The government's throne speech speaks about things that happened yesterday. My constituents, and I trust many within the province, are looking to tomorrow. The government's throne speech does nothing to speak to the area of investment. It does nothing to speak to the issue of the intermingling of social programs with the fiscal realities of the day, and the throne speech says nothing about the creation of wealth.

When you read the throne speech it is as if the government views the economy as some sort of fiscal faucet to be turned off, that the expenditures in the government are X amount of dollars and the money coming in is less than that, and so all efforts by the government should be directed to reducing the amount of expenditures so that they will pare and compare with the amount of money that is coming in.

1730

Though I am not opposed to making government programs and departments and a whole variety of areas as efficient as possible, what about increasing the wealth that comes into the province? Why must there just be this mindset of reducing, reducing, reducing without also looking at increasing wealth, increasing investment, increasing job creation, increasing and enhancing competitiveness, increasing the ability of governments to enhance the competitiveness of their own industries that operate within this jurisdiction?

I find this throne speech, in the main, to be without any new ideas. I find this throne speech to be, in a word, very pessimistic. I think that reading this tells me a lot about a province mired in a recession without any hope of getting out.

I believe that a throne speech should be charting a new course, a new way in which we do business, a new way in which we enhance investment, a new way in which we help our industries compete with industries in other jurisdictions. I believe that we can have the best educated, most flexible workforce. I believe that we can enhance the competitiveness of our own industries. I believe that we can create wealth, thereby ensuring not only a more stable fiscal position but also ensuring the continued existence of our social programs. I believe we can make our system more efficient. But this throne speech lays out no plan, this throne speech lays out no new ideas, and this throne speech, without any question, has no vision.

When my constituents are looking to tomorrow, this government is looking at yesterday. This throne speech is of no benefit, no help, no hope to the people in my area. There is an opportunity where we could have charted a new course in which this province can deal with the economic and competitive realities of the 1990s. This throne speech is absolutely without any new idea. For that, I am extremely critical. I know that many people in my riding have come before me and said: "We are looking for a new way. We know that the rules of yesterday are very much yesterday and they may have been very appropriate to yesterday, but we have gone through an economic restructuring. We have a choice to make." Are we going to continue on with yesterday's rules and without question lag behind as other jurisdictions do adapt, or are we going to -- I know this is an oft-used phrase, but I can't help but use it now -- seize this opportunity?

It is an opportunity where people recognize that change is required, is necessary. It is an opportunity where we can send out a positive message as to how this province can be restructured to meet the competitive demands in the next century. But a throne speech of yesterday doesn't do that. A throne speech dealing with last week won't help next week. A throne speech that tells the 300,000 people who have lost their jobs in this province that they have lost their jobs in this province is no news to those people. A throne speech that talks about programs -- I can be critical of many of the programs -- that have been set up by the government does not tell the people what they should look forward to, what they should be part of. It does not give a hope to the people that the province has dealt in truth with the realities of the day.

Mr Mahoney: Tax increases.

Mr Offer: In the throne speech, as the member for Mississauga West reminds me, we have tax increases. I know that the member is going to be speaking and I imagine that he wanted to speak today or --

Mr Mahoney: No, I'll go tomorrow. I want to hear you today.

Mr Offer: Okay. He says that he'll wait until tomorrow.

We have a speech from the throne which doesn't give hope to people, doesn't send out a message as to how the province views, itself, an ability to create wealth or to create new jobs. We have a throne speech which talks about tax increases. Now that is going to be a great hope to those who have lost their jobs. That is going to be a great hope to those who are worried that the job they have today may not be there tomorrow.

This is a throne speech which is going to cause a great deal of disappointment to those who truly care about the future of this province, who truly care about whether this province will be the place where they and their children and their children's children will have an opportunity in terms of making certain that the education they receive is the absolute best, that there will be an adaptable, flexible workforce. This throne speech is silent on that measure.

You know what bothers me absolutely the most? When you go out of this place and when you meet with your constituents and when you meet with people from the boards of education, from the municipalities, from the private sector, from a whole raft of individuals, there is a willingness to make this new era of competition and investment work.

The problem all of those individuals have is that they don't have a government that recognizes that these are the areas that have to be addressed. They feel very much excluded from the process. They seem very much left out. Their ideas, their energy, their enthusiasm seems to be always on the outside and never on the in. A throne speech like this is absolute evidence that the dynamic, energetic ideas from people in the fields of education, be it primary, secondary, university or the colleges, that ideas from the private sector, that ideas from a whole raft of individuals have not been listened to. This is about as flat, as pessimistic a throne speech as one could hope to imagine and it is one which does no service to the people of the province of Ontario.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to be rising this afternoon, so privileged to be here representing the people of Wellington to contribute some brief, hopefully constructive, comments to this throne speech debate.

Much has already been said in defence of this third throne speech of the NDP government, and there are two specific points that I would like to raise from the outset where I think the government has recognized the benefit of entering into a policy that will be beneficial to the people of Ontario.

The first one is the province-wide testing of grade 9 students that's included in the throne speech. I believe that's going to be a beneficial improvement to our education system. It's something that our caucus has called for for over six or eight months since we've been putting forward that view as part of our New Directions policy discussion paper series.

Another positive initiative is the government's intention to develop community economic development initiatives. That is something our caucus has been calling for, for a number of years as well, and I raised that specific issue in the House in November 1991. I'm very pleased to see those specific ideas that our caucus has put forward recognized by the government as positive initiatives, and it looks like we're going to be seeing them as government policy.

But in the throne speech debate we have also heard many expressions of concern about the weaknesses in the speech and the flaws in the government's legislative plan. I intend to respond to the throne speech as positively as possible under the circumstances, those circumstances being that today a provincial government dogged by questions of competence and integrity is guided by a philosophy that stifles creativity, initiative and enterprise and rewards and encourages mediocrity. It is a philosophy that does not work and that people do not support. This is a government which has negligently retarded Ontario's economy as surely as if it were done wilfully. This is a government now putting in time, watching the clock, and I say to the government: "This is not good enough. Your shift is only half over."

1740

This throne speech was, to say the least, a substantial disappointment. The government has missed an important opportunity that it had to restore confidence in Ontario's future. In every recession that this economy has ever sustained over our history, the only way you get out of a recession is if there is a general restoration of confidence in our future: business confidence and consumer confidence. Business confidence must be restored. Business people have to believe that they can sell their good or service before they will hire any new employees. Consumers have to believe that their job is secure for the next few weeks or the next few months before they will undertake any major, substantial spending. Consumer confidence is essential, business confidence is essential, before the recession will end.

This throne speech could have been a signal to restore that confidence, but it was not. The throne speech could have been a first step, a positive plan of action. A throne speech by its very nature should articulate a vision, inspiring people to believe in themselves, inspiring people to pull together, inspiring people to believe that they can achieve more than they themselves believe are capable, so that they will do that. But this throne speech is devoid of any semblance of that kind of leadership which is necessary to achieve that particular end.

In only the very second paragraph of the throne speech -- this is the kind of leadership we're seeing -- the very second paragraph goes into a vicious shot at the federal government once again, the government blaming all its misfortunes on the federal government. I'll read the pertinent section: "High interest rates, an overvalued dollar and trade agreements that have not ensured access to markets." Interest rates are at historical lows right now; they're the lowest they've been in 30 years. An overvalued dollar? The dollar has lowered significantly in the last months and has stabilized at a rate at which manufacturers can compete. Trade agreements, they say, have not ensured access to markets. Well, our exports to the United States have never ever been higher. What they are saying in this throne speech is absolutely false, and it's about time they recognized it.

The kind of leadership we're seeing from this Premier has been absolutely abysmal. He started off the new year by stating that his number one priority would not be jobs, not the economy, not even the environment or social issues; it would be the defeat of the federal government. We're seeing, with that sort of leadership, a situation where there will be no cooperation between federal and provincial governments: cooperation that people want, cooperation that we need and cooperation that we're not going to get when the Premier starts off the new year by declaring war on the federal government, on another elected level of government.

Three weeks later, he travelled to Davos, Switzerland, to speak at the World Economic Forum, a very, very important opportunity for the Premier of Ontario to sell Ontario as a place to do business. What did he do? Instead of selling Ontario, he spoke negatively about Ontario, he spoke negatively about Ontario's economic prospects. He said that the free trade agreement did not provide access to American markets. We have no idea how many jobs we will have lost as a result of that statement. He was in a room with some of the most powerful economic, political and cultural leaders in the world and he stated a negative comment about this province and this country. That statement, I think history will show, will be one of the biggest mistakes this Premier made during the course of his mandate.

Every morning when I get out of bed, I ask myself, "What can I do today to help the people of Wellington and to help the people of Ontario?" I know that most, if not all, members in this Legislature do exactly the same. The very nature of this job means it's all-consuming; at all times you're thinking about what you should be doing. I believe Bob Rae once did that and I hope he still does, but I sometimes wonder. When you read this throne speech, the total package the government has presented here, you see that the government is devoid of ideas. I would take it one step further to say that the government appears to be clinically depressed. They don't know what to do to solve the problems.

What has Bob Rae learned from the defeat of the constitutional referendum that he fought so valiantly to save? There are a lot of lessons in that defeat for politicians and for anyone who wishes to engage in the art of politics. But I wonder, does the Premier have a firm grasp on the degree of scepticism and cynicism on the part of the citizens in this country, and does he recognize and see the desire for change that people have, the desire of people to see the government putting the interests of the people first and not the interests of the government or the governing party? We see no recognition of that basic fact, that basic, imperative change that is required in this throne speech.

Does he understand the desire in people's minds for the government to respect people, to be sensitive and reasonable and responsive to their views? Where in this throne speech is there any indication that Bob Rae understands any of this?

Where is there any indication in this throne speech that the government understands how jobs are created? Jobs are created simply if business people recognize that there's an opportunity to sell a good or service and that they require staff to do it. That is how jobs are created. Government cannot create jobs.

Mr Speaker, the clock is winding down and my time is up, but I thank you very much for your indulgence. I hope the government listens to some of the views put forward by the opposition, as it should have done in 1990 when it first was elected.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I am very pleased to be able to participate in the debate on the throne speech. I feel it's very important that all Ontarians listen to the important historical value and the facts that we have included in the throne speech.

These are the facts.

I'd like to talk about the historical perspective. The Ontario government, the previous Liberal government, had an economic plan. When they saw the deficit growing and growing, they decided at that time to call the election early. All the alarms went off and they called the election because of the deficit. They had an economic plan that wasn't working.

The federal government, the Tories, has certainly had an economic impact on us because of the GST, free trade, the high rate of interest and the transfer payments that were supposed to come to Ontario. These have all contributed to the terrible economic times that we find ourselves in.

Two years ago we were elected, and since that time we've taken the courage to borrow the money that we needed to invest in the people and jobs and training. We have taken a proactive approach. Over the last two years there have been 300,000 people laid off, and that's the fault of the previous Tory and Liberal governments. So let's be proactive and make sure that we develop those 110,000 jobs and make sure that takes off.

I'll tell you, we do have an economic plan to put Ontario back to work, we do have a plan, and this plan includes investment in jobs, investment in people and assistance to small businesses and the economy.

The provincial deficit: If you remember, we borrowed money to control that to make sure that all Ontarians are able to contribute fairly to their tax responsibilities.

We have a commitment to social justice which will also help our economy develop, and this is through the introduction of the employment equity legislation. This is a key factor in the global international economy. We'll be hiring various people who are very skilled, we'll be hiring women, visible minorities, people with disabilities and aboriginal people. They are all important contributors to the development of our economy. Also, social justice reform, social assistance reform, will be involved in training development.

We will maintain our green environment and we will introduce the environmental bill of rights. People will be involved in helping us make those decisions to clean up our water and our air, to create a healthy environment for all people.

1750

We will increase our reuse, recycle and reduce program. We will also be investing in the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, OTAB. This will include business people, employers, employees, everyone working together as partners to strengthen our economic development. Jobs Ontario, which we have already established, will be hiring thousands of people. We have already hired 100,000.

We will also be involved in early education from junior kindergarten on through elementary and high school levels. We will make sure that the accountability is there, that those people have access to a learning environment and lifelong learning, using a global perspective from childhood through adulthood.

We will be handling the provincial deficit. We will make sure that all people are paying their fair share of taxes and make sure that the government services are effective and efficient. The Liberals used to spend and spend and create -- they had 44 deputy ministers. We have reduced that number to 28, and that is just one example of reduction and reducing government waste and running more efficiently.

Social justice is important. We must invest in this. We must work at anti-racism, educating all communities, getting all people working together in cooperation. This is a very key point as the economy grows and we take our place within the global world.

I have a success story which relates to my own riding. We have the Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Office, which is a community-based organization that provides services to a variety of people and residents in the Thorncliffe area. TNO is the only organization which provides community-based, culturally sensitive information in multilingual and various other ethnic languages. They are a Jobs Ontario broker and over the last two months have already hired over 200 people. They have been placing those people in various positions.

The Pape Village business association has informed me that it has been successful in using Jobs Ontario funding to help finance economic development in that area. This is another success story, and I'm very proud of the Ontario government and our proactive stance, our creativity, our ability to become proactive and competitive in all aspects of the economy, getting all groups to work together, making sure all people have access, and we are all working towards the goal of economic renewal.

The proof is our history, and I challenge opposition members, who tend to talk at length, to work together to become effective and successful. That is the challenge I issue to all opposition members, all members of the House, and that is what our throne speech is all about.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I don't have much time, but in the time that's remaining I do have to touch on a couple of items. Of course, I want to pick at the 10-point plan that we've got, in terms of Jobs Ontario, and of course I want to talk a little bit about the social contract that has got everybody's attention, but before I get there, I've got to share my frustration in terms of the uphill battle that we've had as a government from September 1990.

We got elected in 1990 and we found ourselves in debt. It's like that little engine that could. We were trying to get elected; we got elected. We got elected on our ability. We got elected because people trusted us. We got elected. As soon as we got elected, we found ourselves in debt, a debt that we didn't expect. The Liberals went around during 1990 and preached and said that the province was in the black. We weren't. We were in debt and we found out too late.

So that little engine I was talking about --

Interjection.

Mr Mammoliti: The member across says, "I think I can, I think I can." Yes, that's what it feels like, because as soon as we got elected, big business decided to take this no-listen attitude, attack the Premier whenever it could, make sure it opposed anything that this government did, and we were still saying, "I think we can, I think we can."

The media is another threat to me in Metro. The good things we've done that have helped Yorkview have never been front page of the Sun, have never been front page of the Star. No matter what I do in my constituency office, no matter what we do in my Queen's Park office to attract attention, we've never been front page. The good news is not being reported out there, and frankly I'm sick of that. So the media have been a thorn on my side personally since I've been elected, and the member from Etobicoke laughs because it's easy for him to get media. All he has to do is scream and yell and throw temper tantrums and he gets it. But Yorkview doesn't get it.

The good news in the throne speech is of course one item: Jobs Ontario. Jobs Ontario, in my opinion, is a good thing. Jobs Ontario for Yorkview is positive. There are some flaws that I see and I don't try and hide those flaws. We've got to definitely improve on some of them, but for the most part the government has done something for this province, something that the federal government has refused to do, and that's to create jobs. That's creating jobs. Jobs Ontario is helping the youth. In February, 30% of the youth who are out of school are also out of jobs. Jobs Ontario will give them some hope this summer.

In terms of training, our commitment to training, training is very important. When you talk about social assistance, when you talk about people who have just finished their UI, have got nowhere to go, Jobs Ontario is going to help them. Jobs Ontario is very important to me and to this government.

The social contract is something that I'm very proud of because for the first time you've got a friendly government --

Mr Hayes: Open government.

Mr Mammoliti: -- and open government and for that reason we're willing to negotiate. There's a crisis in this province. We have a problem in this province and we want to negotiate with the people who run the province. Those are the workers.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member's time has elapsed.

Mr Stockwell: Point of order, Mr Speaker: I think that speech was so good I would like to move unanimous consent that we let him finish.

Mr Mammoliti: Mr Speaker, very quickly --

The Acting Speaker: It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, April 22, at 10 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1800.

21 avril 1993