ROLE OF MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO
ROLE OF MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO IN HEALTH
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION RULING
The House met at 1000.
Prayers.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (NIAGARA ESCARPMENT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT (ESCARPEMENT DU NIAGARA)
Mr Duignan moved second reading of Bill 62, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement à l'égard de l'escarpement du Niagara.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.
Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): It's a great pleasure to rise today to seek support for my private member's bill, which is an act to amend the Environmental Protection Act. I believe successful passage of this bill will help to continue to ensure the preservation of the Niagara Escarpment. As you know, the escarpment is one of our most unique natural resources. We can continue to protect the escarpment, I believe, by prohibiting all further waste management systems and waste disposal sites in the area set out in the Niagara Escarpment plan. Let me point out that this plan is limited to the escarpment itself and does not include the surrounding areas.
As members know, the escarpment is renowned for its inspiring scenery, lush farm land, flourishing wildlife and abundant recreational opportunities. It provides unique access to a natural environment found nowhere else in the world and which lies so close to Canada's most densely populated area. The pressures to clear, pave and develop this area are immense.
If I look at what's happening in my own area of Halton Hills, for example, 80% of all the aggregates mined in Ontario come from the Halton Hills area and we have many large quarries. Right now, there's an application by RSI in Halton Hills to use one of those quarries as a private landfill site. I believe this application in Halton Hills will set a precedent if this company is allowed to fill the Acton quarry with garbage. If that happens, many applications for landfill sites will be introduced in other parts of the escarpment. This threat does not just affect my riding but residents of many ridings along the Niagara Escarpment. I believe not enough can be said in defence of the goal of protecting this escarpment from any further damage caused by landfills.
There are many key facts that distinguish the escarpment from any other areas in Ontario. First and foremost, as already mentioned, the Niagara Escarpment is a unique and natural beauty deserving protection.
As members know, the Niagara Escarpment stretches some 725 kilometres from Queenston near Niagara Falls to Tobermory at the top of the Bruce Peninsula. It was formed some 450 million years ago, along the shore of a shallow tropical sea that covered vast areas of Ontario and Michigan.
The Niagara Escarpment and lands in its vicinity, some 183,000 hectares in eight counties and regions and 37 local municipalities, are regulated by the Niagara Escarpment plan. Adopted by Ontario in 1985, it is Canada's first large-scale environmental land use plan. It took 16 years to have the plan enacted, and during those lengthy deliberations some 530,000 hectares were negotiated away from the original plan. The plan that we now have ensures that the escarpment will be maintained substantially as a continuous natural environment. It strikes a balance between conservation, protection and environmentally compatible development.
Within five years of the plan's approval, the Niagara Escarpment was recognized by the United Nations agency UNESCO as a world biosphere reserve, one of only six such areas in Canada. The designation confers local and international recognition and confirms that Ontario's Niagara Escarpment is endowed with natural characteristics of global significance.
When I was elected, I pledged to the citizens of Halton North that I would endeavour, as my predecessors have done, to continue to protect Halton Hills' and Ontario's most important natural assets, and with members' help here today I want to expand this protection for this world-recognized area of natural beauty and significance for all the people of Ontario.
I would also like to stress that the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act was supported by all parties, and its purpose is "to provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and lands in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment, and to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment." My purpose in bringing forth this important amendment is to strengthen this resolve.
In the case of Halton Hills, a protracted and expensive landfill search was conducted. Ultimately the Acton quarry, which was one of the sites for the landfill, was rejected as the region's landfill because of the risk to drinking water. The hydrogeologist hired by the company proposing the landfill site, RSI, admitted in August 1988 that leachate from the quarry would get into Halton Hills' drinking water. As all of Halton Hills' water comes from an underground aquifer, we cannot risk any leachate getting into our water supply. If that happens, who is going to pay the hundreds of millions of dollars for piping a water supply into Halton Hills, Milton etc?
Not only must we consider the imminent danger to the water supply and the costly after-effects in terms of health care and endeavours to purify the water. The escarpment currently enjoys an international reputation as a scenic, long-distance hiking trail -- that's the Bruce Trail -- which is visited by over 300,000 people each year and which is a tourism resource for all of Ontario. Strangely enough, this number exceeds the visitation of most provincial parks. There is no doubt that these numbers would dwindle if applications such as RSI's were allowed to carry garbage to the various landfill sites. The appeal of hiking alongside garbage-laden trucks on roadways or quarries, with the ensuing mass of seagulls, would not entice local or indeed international visitors.
There are over 123 parks within the Niagara Escarpment -- in my area alone we have Crawford Lake, Halton Hills and Rattlesnake Point -- which provide protection to ecological and historic areas, opportunities for outdoor education and recreation, public access to the escarpment and, of course, the world-renowned Bruce Trail. It also has the greatest concentration of cold-water streams in southern Ontario, which at this time are supporting healthy populations of trout. Indeed in some cases the salmon have returned.
There are some 400 historical and architectural sites and 250 archaeological sites, 25 of which are first nations burial sites. One of them is located in my riding in the Crawford Lake area. Also, researchers have recently discovered 1,000-year-old cedar trees growing in the crevices of the escarpment cliffs near Milton and on the Bruce Peninsula.
The escarpment is home for and provides vital habitat for over 300 species of birds, 53 species of mammals, 90 species of fish and 36 species of reptiles. It is also home to 23 endangered, threatened and rare species of wildlife, such as the West Virginia butterfly, the red-shouldered hawk, the spotted turtle, the eastern bluebird and the massasauga rattlesnake.
The lands of the Niagara Escarpment have been internationally noted for the unusual richness of plant species, including 37 species of wild orchids and the greatest concentration of ferns in Canada.
1010
It is also important to note that the southern escarpment formation shelters tracts of rich farm land from adverse weather conditions. I'm talking about the area between Niagara Falls and St Catharines, which produces a thriving tender fruit industry as well as a world-renowned wine industry.
Over the years the escarpment has enriched and nourished not just the people of southern Ontario but people from around the world. We cannot and must not compromise one of the most significantly important natural assets of this province.
For the last 25 years this common goal has been supported by all governments and all parties in Ontario. I am today appealing to all members again to further protect the Niagara Escarpment by supporting the provision to prohibit further waste management systems and waste disposal sites in the Niagara Escarpment plan area. Do this for your children and grandchildren so they too can have a place they truly can call unique: the Niagara Escarpment.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'm pleased to take part in this debate from the member for Halton North. I think that all members of this Legislature and many, many people outside this Legislature recognize the importance of the Niagara Escarpment and the richness of that area.
But when I hear the member speak in the terms that he does today -- one just seethes. I recognize that there are probably individuals in the community who very much support his position. I'm wondering if the member has told them that he stood in support of his government's Bill 143. And what did that bill do? That bill took away the rights of individuals to participate in an environmental assessment hearing. It took away their rights to participate in matters that were important to them. It took away their rights to say what was important, what is important, and the positions they want.
Where was the member when his government brought forward Bill 143, which took away those rights from my constituents, when his Premier stated in the last election that there would not be any expansion of an existing landfill site, that there would not be any new landfill site without a full environmental assessment hearing? Where was that member when those rights were taken away from my constituents when the Britannia landfill site was extended by your government without giving my constituents and the people in the region of Peel the opportunity to voice their concerns?
That member stood in favour of taking away their rights. That member stood in favour of Bill 143 on second reading and on third reading, and the member has the audacity to come here today and say: "Well, we don't want to take away the rights of everybody. There are other people who should have those rights."
He speaks about the importance of the Niagara Escarpment. Many of the areas we know of. He talks about the leachate problem, he talks about leaking, he talks about the uniqueness of the area, he talks about the wildlife, all of which we recognize as aspects of importance. But his party's bill, Bill 143, takes away the rights of individuals to bring forward those concerns in an environmental assessment hearing.
Where was that member when this matter was debated? That member stood in favour of taking away the rights of all Ontarians that he seeks to try to bring forward for his constituents. I find it hypocritical in the extreme.
He speaks about the importance of not having a landfill site on the Niagara Escarpment. Where was that member when his Minister of the Environment said that the policy of his government is that there shall not be any transportation of garbage outside of the --
The Deputy Speaker: Order for a minute. I would ask you to tone down and choose your words a little more carefully, just a little more carefully.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, but I think that you will recognize -- and I can't imagine what words were improperly used -- as many members will recognize, this is a government which took away the rights of individuals to voice their concerns in matters of the environment in terms of the air that they breathe, the water that they drink, the places where landfill sites are situate. It is an area where this party, the official opposition, and I believe the third party stood opposed to the government because of the direction that the government was taking.
You stripped away the rights of individuals to voice their concerns, and when these issues are today being addressed, does the now Minister of Environment stand in his place and give to the people of the province a guarantee that their rights will be heard through an environmental assessment hearing? Does the minister stand in his place, as he could have yesterday, and do that? The answer, Mr Speaker, is no.
This is an issue which has hurt the people in the region of Peel. It is an issue which has disturbed the people throughout the province. It is an issue where the government has operated in a way which strips the rights of individuals to speak on matters which are crucially important to them, to their future and to the future of their children. Mr Speaker, that is something, with the greatest respect, I will always stand for, in terms of people having the right to voice their concerns, and I will always be as excited as I am today when a government like that strips the rights of people in this province to be heard on matters of importance to them, to the air they breathe, to the water they drink, to the landfill sites where they're situate, to the future for their children.
I would like to know from the member how and why he then supported Bill 143, which in fact guaranteed that people would no longer have rights to voice those concerns.
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'm not going to go into the same kind of speech that the member who has just spoken has gone into about anger about other issues. I wanted to talk particularly about Bill 62 and the community of Halton Hills, because I had the pleasure of meeting Russell Miller, the mayor of Halton Hills, yesterday, really at the instigation of the member for Halton North who is introducing this bill, and I appreciated the opportunity to talk first hand with the local people in the area about this issue which is of great concern to them.
I think that everyone has these kinds of issues in their ridings, in their townships, in their municipalities etc. And I'm not certain that this bill addresses this particular problem in the correct way because I think that what we have in front of us is a planning problem, not only in the Niagara Escarpment area, which is a very special area of our province, but we have a planning problem across the province of Ontario.
In the past 15 years it has become increasingly difficult for a land owner to locate a waste disposal site on his or her land. And as a result of that, the problem is that the value of a registered or a legal dump in the province of Ontario has become extremely high and therefore it is in the interests of land owners to go through a very long, a very expensive process in order to have their land site approved under our environmental laws, under our zoning and planning laws so that they can do this.
1020
We have never really faced this kind of planning dilemma in the province of Ontario before. Usually, when high value is added through a zoning or a land use change, those kinds of areas were located in the downtown core of large metropolitan areas. For instance, in downtown Toronto, if somebody wanted to up their zoning or increase the value of their land by increasing the zoning or the permissible uses of that particular land use, we had a sophisticated developer against a sophisticated and well-heeled municipality. Now, because of the change in terms of the value of a dump site, we have sophisticated developers still in the game, but we don't have well-heeled municipalities to fend off an assault by that developer or subsequent developers on the same piece of land.
In talking to Russell Miller, he tells me that his small township of 35,000 people has spent about three quarters of a million dollars in the past, I don't know, 8 or 10 years in turning back previous owners of this piece of land to convert this to a waste disposal site. Now, $750,000 to the city of Metropolitan Toronto, or Toronto, is not a lot of money to put out to deal with a zoning matter in a significant part of their municipality, but I'll tell you, for Halton Hills that's a big amount of money.
I think Russell Miller, the mayor, has put forward a very, very compelling argument to me, not only for Halton Hills but for every other township in this province. I feel that the huge increase in value to a piece of land, often a worthless piece of land, by the change of use to a waste disposal site should in fact put this kind of zoning or land use change into a different category, and I'm not certain that this particular act is fair to those other municipalities.
I must also say that because of the kind of process we go through here in private members' hour, we are not giving the other 43 municipalities along the escarpment the ability to come in front of this Legislature and say, "We agree with this," "We disagree with this," "We disagree with parts of it," or "We don't disagree with parts of it," but that's not a fault of the proponent of this bill; that's a fault of the process that we're going through. Nor does it give the opportunity for people along the escarpment or -- particularly along the escarpment, because it affects them not only in Halton Hills but it affects them in Tobermory; it affects them in the other end. We're not giving land owners the opportunity to make their feelings heard on this, and therefore I would hope that the member would send it out for public hearings so that people will have an opportunity to make those submissions.
What I would like to see, perhaps not by this proponent but by this government or a future government, is a provision placed in our planning laws which would say that after a land owner has made a submission to change the use to a waste disposal site and he or she has lost, or the company has lost, the fight in one instance and the municipality has been dragged through that process, then an order is put against that particular property for a period of time, I don't know whether 10 years, 20 years, 30 years or 50 years. That owner and subsequent owners of that land would be put on notice that they could not apply for a waste disposal site on that piece of land for a period of time unless they receive some kind of special permission to bring it, because Halton Hills has not only been put through the expense of fending off the assault of this particular owner; it has already fended off previous assaults by previous owners for this kind of land use change, and it is unfair to small municipalities, which are characteristically the townships that have to fend off these kinds of assaults, to put them through future expenses like this.
There also is an equity argument here in terms of Halton Hills. Halton Hills and its municipal councils have said to the rest of the province of Ontario, "We will allow you to take out aggregate from our municipality; we will bear the inconvenience," the problem with huge numbers of trucks going in and out of their community, hauling aggregate from their community down here to the city of Toronto.
I think if there is some kind of equity in terms of how much one particular municipality gives to the rest of the province of Ontario -- and I think there is a very, very valid argument that because 80% of the aggregate to build this city of Toronto in which we are debating this bill has come from the Niagara Escarpment, from trucks that are going through their municipality and in some ways leaving perhaps a blight on the municipality, or that would be viewed that way -- do we really have, or should we as a province be saying, "Well, you've got to take the trucks from the municipality of Toronto taking the garbage back into that municipality"? Everybody, I guess, is responsible in some way for his brother and has to make a contribution to the overall province, but I would say that Halton Hills probably has made its contribution.
I'm going to vote for this bill because, notwithstanding that I'm not certain of the method with which the member is trying to reach the end, I agree with the end result of what the member is trying to do with Bill 62.
Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): It's a pleasure to rise in the House today and speak on Bill 62, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment. The focus of this bill, authored by my colleague and my friend the member for Halton North, is to totally disallow landfill sites within the jurisdiction of the Niagara Escarpment Commission plan.
The province of Ontario is blessed to have 725 kilometres of this geographical feature. This escarpment has received international recognition by being designated as one of UNESCO's world biosphere reserves. The escarpment is a dominant feature in my riding of Wentworth North, and having lived near the escarpment my entire life, I am very appreciative of the escarpment as a scenic and recreational feature.
However, the importance of keeping landfills out of the Niagara Escarpment goes far beyond scenic, social or recreational issues. The primary issue is one of health and preventing pollution. The fact is that groundwater moves through the fractured dolomite of the Niagara Escarpment hundreds of times faster than groundwater moves through other kinds of rock. In fact, the traditional methods of predicting groundwater velocities are inadequate for this kind of rock. In fractured dolomite, only tracer tests give a realistic idea of velocity, and well testing of hydraulic conductivity alone is inadequate.
We would be well advised in this province to learn from the experience in the United States, which, I might add, has exactly the same kind of rock. As I said, Ontario has 725 kilometres of the escarpment, but the escarpment continues beyond the border, and in fact it goes into the Michigan basin and down into Wisconsin.
I'd like to bring to the members' attention a 1992 report to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. It's entitled Hydrogeology and Groundwater Monitoring of Fractured Dolomite in the Upper Door Priority Watershed, from Door county, Wisconsin. Based on well testing of hydraulic conductivity, which is the standard method that's commonly used here in Ontario, it was predicted that the groundwater should move at a rate of 0.039 metres per day. The hydraulic conductivities and predicted velocities found in Wisconsin are within the exact same range as those found here in Ontario in the Niagara Escarpment. Obviously, this movement is slow enough that it would be easy to contain the flow of leachate from a landfill site.
1030
However, when actual tracer tests were done in Wisconsin, it was found that the groundwater actually moved 19 metres per day; for those of you who are not metric, that's 55 feet in one day. That's 490 times faster than the predicted velocities, and as far as I'm concerned, that's certainly cause for alarm. Very little of this type of tracer testing has been done in Ontario, but the evidence shows that we can expect similar velocities here. It's foolish to think that technology could adequately contain contaminants flowing out of a landfill site into surrounding rock at that rate of 19 metres per day.
The fractured dolomite of the Niagara Escarpment allows groundwater to move through the cracks very quickly and is certainly not an appropriate kind of rock in which to try to contain contaminants from leaking out of a landfill site. We all should be striving for sustainable development here in this province. Putting a landfill site in a leaky basin is not sustainable and will only cause problems with water contamination for the future. Again, our neighbours in the United States have already learned the difficulty, in costly ways, about the hazards of pollution in fractured dolomite, and ironically, the legislation in the United States regarding land use involving this kind of rock is much more advanced than ours.
This topic hits home with me and the approximately 70,000 people of the riding of Wentworth North. We have a dump site that's been there for years, located on the brow of the Dundas Valley. Only about 50% of the leachate is being collected, and God knows where the rest is going.
To make matters worse, there is a proposed 200-acre megadump just across the road from an existing dump -- 200 acres of fractured dolomite sitting there waiting to become a landfill site. If this proposal is approved, one company will stand to make millions and millions of dollars at the expense of thousands of people in Wentworth North. If this proposal is approved, it will change Wentworth North for all time. And Wentworth North is not alone, because there are other locations in the Niagara Escarpment facing similar proposals. They too, if dump sites are allowed, will change those areas for all time.
I'd like to commend the member for Halton North for having the courage to bring forth this bill. I'd like to urge all members of the Legislature to support Bill 62, because this bill is essential to the protection of our health and our environment, for all people who live within the jurisdiction of the Niagara Escarpment.
Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise as well to speak on Bill 62. Let me say at the outset that I think we share with the honourable member the desire to protect the escarpment, that that is something of great value to all of us, not only in this province but in this country. I think it would be most useful for this bill to go forward, to go to committee and to allow for a much broader discussion in terms of whether the particulars that you've set out in terms of how this would work could be explored.
The honourable member for Carleton has raised for me, often very useful in these debates, some approaches around how we handle, from a planning point of view, a number of these questions. Clearly, there are a variety of municipalities and other interests that would want to look at it, but I think the principle of protecting the Niagara Escarpment is one that people support.
I say that at the outset because I must then say to the honourable member that he needs to appreciate in particular that for those of us who are from the region of Peel, the region of York or the region of Durham, we stand here today knowing that at noon there will be a major demonstration of groups coming down from our areas that are tremendously concerned about the whole process that was unleashed under Bill 143 and the fact that an enormous dump site is going to be selected, one for each of those areas.
In the government throne speech it was stated on page 12 in the Lieutenant Governor's address the other day:
"Improving the environment is key to Ontario. In this session, my government will seek approval of the environmental bill of rights. This bill will ensure that people and communities have the right to a cleaner and safer environment through a more open and accountable decision-making process."
It is here where we part company with the whole process that has been unleashed in terms of York, Durham and Peel. Many of the arguments made, both by the member for Halton North and the member for Wentworth North in support of their bill and in support of their proposal, the arguments around health and safety and the movement of water and leachate, all of those are arguments which we have in terms of the proposals in our own areas, and simply because those areas do not have the protection afforded to the escarpment does not make them any less real to the people who live there.
I am a member from the region of York and I want to address my concerns specifically to that area, because it is our area that has, in Bill 143, unilaterally been told, "You will take all of the garbage from Metropolitan Toronto and you will only be able to take it in terms of a gigantic dump."
The member for Wentworth North was talking about a megadump of some 200 acres and expressed a concern about that, and I quite appreciate that. Understand that the Keele Valley dump is larger than that and the one that is proposed for York region would be even larger: some 80 SkyDomes, 13 storeys high. This is what is being proposed in our area, and all that we've been asking is that the Environmental Assessment Act and the ability to look at all of the different options be examined and that the government not simply say, "You can only look at waste disposal through a dump, a megadump."
The concern expressed by the member for Halton North around the whole issue of dumps and the whole issue of what kind of protection we afford different areas is the same one that we feel. We simply say to him, if he is asking the government to protect his area for a series of reasons, we are asking that the process be fair everywhere in this province; and that when looking at what is going to happen in York or Peel or Durham, not only should the dump that is being proposed in our area be placed on the table but also rail haul to the north, also energy from waste, that all of these are very legitimate options that need to be considered.
When we look at Bill 62, which is asking for certain protections under the Environmental Protection Act, those can be seen. They are clear, they are understandable, but they fly in the face of some of the underlying principles that are in Bill 143, and they certainly fly in the face of the so-called proposed environmental bill of rights. Because what, I ask, does Bill 143 do to ensure that the people and communities of York and Peel and Durham are going to be protected when in Bill 143 the Minister of the Environment has the power, and has exercised that power, to exclude a series of options other than dumps?
1040
If we go back over the past year in discussing all of these questions around dumps, whether in terms of Bill 62 or Bill 143, we have statements and questions, we have had special debates that have dealt with the specifics of this bill and what it proposes to do in a way quite different from what the member for Halton North is talking about doing in his own area. We have to focus very clearly that despite the special characteristics of the Niagara Escarpment, special characteristics that I think everyone here respects and wants to ensure are protected, there are other areas of the province that have equally valid and real concerns in terms of what they want protected.
In the town of Maple today there is the second-largest dump in all of North America. It is proposed that not far from that dump, as one moves up the highway towards the community of King City, a second, even larger megadump is going to be put in place; this in an area of the province where one can argue very strongly that that area has taken its share, that there is equity. The member for Carleton has talked about equity in terms of Halton Hills and Toronto and I think makes a very valid point. What about the social equity in terms of the people in Maple and King City in looking at the existence of one major dump and then another one that is proposed to be placed right next door?
It is this which leads us and which has led my colleague the member for Mississauga North to talk about the hypocrisy between the words that are in the throne speech and what has actually happened in Bill 143. That is why it is difficult to debate purely and simply the principles around the bill you propose, Bill 62, principles with which I have no argument but where I say, if one can do that, then how is it that you as a member of this same government and others of your caucus can in fact support Bill 143, which has placed upon the people in Peel and Durham and York a system, a process, that is neither democratic nor fair? It is arbitrary, it is unilateral and it continues to cause tremendous stress and tremendous concern to the people who live in those areas.
It is for this reason that today, the day before Earth Day, the day on which we are to protect our environment, people from all over those regions are coming to Queen's Park to protest what this government has not done in protecting the environment in York and Peel and Durham.
So I say to the honourable member that we share with him the desire to protect the Niagara Escarpment. We simply say again that what is fair in the protection of the escarpment and what is fair in terms of dumps should also be applied to our areas. If this goes to committee, that will then provide us perhaps with an opportunity to make the changes that are necessary.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I am pleased to participate in this debate dealing with Bill 62 as introduced by the member for Halton North.
The member for Halton North's riding adjoins my riding of Dufferin-Peel and specifically the town of Caledon, and many of the problems that occur in his riding occur in mine. We have issues of aggregates, we have the issues he's raising today. So I do rise in support of the philosophy of his bill, although obviously, as has been raised to date, there are a number of issues that might be resolvable in a committee or at some later time. But certainly, I will be voting in favour of this bill and do support the philosophy of his bill.
Certainly when one looks at what the philosophy of the Niagara Escarpment is -- and I will refer to some of the sections from the plan telling what the Niagara Escarpment is doing, as has been stated very ably by the member for Halton North -- you look at why you set these areas up. Were these areas designed to place dumps? The answer is that I don't think they were, although there may be certain areas within the plan that maybe shouldn't be within the plan and that perhaps should be taken out. There may be areas in the plan that are suitable for dump sites.
So again, philosophically, if you're going to have a plan, if you're going to designate an area to protect our natural resources, then I quite support the member for Halton North's bill.
Certainly, the Niagara Escarpment has been quoted -- and I'm going to make a similar statement to the member for Halton North which comes from some of the pages from the plan -- "The Niagara Escarpment includes a variety of topographic features and land uses extending 725 km from Queenston on the Niagara River to the islands off Tobermory on the Bruce Peninsula, and a particular combination of geological and ecological features along the Niagara results in a landscape unequalled in Canada. It is also a source of some of southern Ontario's prime rivers and streams and one of the province's principal outdoor recreation areas."
Having said that, I also encourage the member for Halton North and others in this House who are supporting it, and I hope the bill carries; I hope it could be refined, but I hope it carries. But you also look at other areas that are comparable: the province's agricultural policy, the food land policy that designates certain areas to be preserved for agricultural use, the Sewell report which talked about preserving certain lands for agricultural use; in other words, designating certain areas, planning, constructive planning. That's what the Niagara Escarpment's all about. We're concerned about our natural resources. We're concerned about the beauty of this wonderful area that has been described by the member for Halton North. We're also concerned about the agricultural land, about preserving our food lands.
In my riding, I have the Niagara Escarpment. It goes through my riding and I wholly support what he's saying, but I go one step further and I hope he would look at the dictatorial part of Bill 143 which could apply to the subject you're dealing with, and it's a very dictatorial bill. You supported that bill. That bill says you can do almost anything.
In my riding, in Dufferin-Peel and Caledon, there are two sites which consist of two or three farms that are going to be gone if this site is chosen, prime agricultural land, to say nothing about the problems of the water underneath and to say nothing of the destruction of the community. You put a dump in certain areas, you destroy the area, you destroy the Niagara Escarpment Commission, or the plan that's set aside by the Niagara Escarpment. He's quite right that you're going to destroy this area that you've built up that you've been trying to preserve for over 10 years -- I think it's 10 years, 10 or 11 years -- and you're going to destroy these farms, you're going to destroy these communities. The planning of this government is contradictory with the whole philosophy of Bill 143, whether you're talking about, as I say, the Sewell report, or whether you're talking about the food land policy.
The food land policy, for example, of the provincial government -- a statement taken from the policy statement of food land preservation, "Where prime agricultural land has been identified, the use of this land, for productive agricultural purposes be given priority in evaluating alternative land use."
Some priority. In my riding, the Interim Waste Authority, which was created by this government, is going to destroy farm land. There's a whole booklet on food land preservation that talks about the need to preserve our farm land, aside from Mr Sewell's report. Mr Sewell says the same thing.
So I congratulate the member for bringing this bill forward. Obviously, both our ridings are similar, we have aggregate problems and you don't fill up areas, pot holes in the ground that have been removed for aggregates, with garbage, because generally you're that much closer to the water table.
In fact, some of these aggregate concerns I'm sure that he talks about -- and I don't know very much about his particular concern, but certainly they go down very close to the water table and in some cases, in my riding, below the water table. If we're going to have a policy of filling up aggregate sites with garbage, that's a terrible destructive concern that we're going to have to the water of this province.
So I support his bill, but I ask that he take another look at your policies on the environment, particularly Bill 143 and the effects that it's having on this province, especially the greater Toronto area.
1050
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It's my pleasure to rise here in the House this morning to support my colleague's bill, Bill 62, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment.
I can't think of a better day for the introduction of this bill or to be talking about it, because today is Earth Day. I think we should all really come to think about the planet that we live on. I know that if there are people listening or watching this program this morning who are apparently going to go out later to go shopping in their cars, they should think about Earth Day and about our planet and do their bit and leave the car in the garage or in the driveway and walk, which I did today to come here.
It's a shame that the member for Mississauga North entered into this debate this morning in such a ballistic manner, ripping apart this bill, ripping apart the government. I know, Mr Speaker, as far as hypocrites go -- I'm not going to mention that word, because I know how you feel about language in the House, and I agree with you. But Bill 143, I can support in my riding. Bill 143 says in effect, which is really the main issue here, "You folks in Durham look after your garbage." We do not want the garbage from Toronto in Durham, we do not want garbage from anywhere else in Durham, but we're perfectly able to look after the garbage that we produce ourselves.
I am also surprised that the member for Markham is not here this morning to take up this debate, because he's such an advocate. Perhaps he's away up in the country organizing this show of force that's supposed to take place outside the Legislature at 1:30 today.
I think too that we have to realize here, and the member for Halton North has rightly pointed it out, that we're not talking about a site, a quarry, with the normal clay base or anything like that. This site is fractured dolomite and that speaks oodles for what this bill is trying to do, because that will allow the leachates to rampage through that site and on to the water.
Mr David Winninger (London South): And 500 times faster.
Mr Mills: And 500 times faster, as my colleague says.
We know from the notes that we have from POWER, Protect Our Water and Environmental Resources, that they're concerned about the blasting in this quarry over the last 20 years. Rightly they say, "Who but a fool would assume that cracks don't exist?" I go back to Kirkland Lake. The other party seemed to think that the crisis for our garbage in Ontario could be solved in Kirkland Lake. It's Toronto's problem. You know very well over there that the site in Kirkland Lake sits atop the greatest amount of water in Ontario, almost equal to Lake Ontario.
I can tell you that there's absolutely no way that we can tell if that is a safe place to put garbage. I use the analogy of the space program and the Challenger. Everybody thought nothing could go wrong with the Challenger or the space program, but a 10-cent rubber O ring sabotaged the plan and it took the lives of many of the astronauts. So nothing is absolutely perfect or foolproof. That's why I say we should really look at Kirkland Lake and come to understand all the water underneath that site.
All landfills will leak, says the United States's William Ruckelshaus while in his new position as CEO for Browning-Ferris Industries. He admitted this at a public hearing in Sacramento, California. "As drinking water becomes more scarce and precious," he says, "we cannot afford to risk the irretrievable loss of water." That's why this bill is before us today. We want to save the water that flows through Halton North.
I agree, too, that waste disposal should remain a public responsibility. The public needs the huge revenues from disposal to pay for waste reduction programs. The revenue from the proposed site in my colleague's riding will begin at $150 million a year and escalate upward from there. When we get to the hearings, another thing that bothers me is that private companies can deduct hearing costs as expenses before tax dollars, and citizens must pay for the hearing costs out of after tax dollars with no deductions.
That brings me to my own riding. We have a commercial dump that is in this countdown for the dump for Durham. It's in Newtonville, KK2, and I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that it bothers me there that a commercial company is doing things to try to make sure that dump goes ahead in conjunction with moneys that the ordinary folk in Newtonville haven't got, and I think that's a shame.
If this landfill site in Halton goes forward, it will set a precedent for the Niagara Escarpment which is already riddled with quarries. I know that we all know how we treasure the Niagara Escarpment. It's a development of a park system, so most of us have walked the 740-kilometre Bruce Trail. It contains a corridor of natural habitat and wilderness and it's protected for future generations.
So on Earth Day I urge all members to support my colleague's bill. It's needed and we need to protect that particular area to ensure that the Niagara Escarpment continues to serve the people of Ontario as a natural beauty. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Halton North, you have two minutes.
Mr Duignan: I appreciate and I thank the members for Carleton and Dufferin-Peel for the kind comments on my private member's bill. If I was 20 years younger, I know how I would reply to the member for Mississauga North, but however, he hasn't the courtesy to be in his place to hear my reply, so I don't intend to waste my two minutes in replying to some of his silly comments.
However, I have a petition signed by 12,500 people in my riding, I have petitions signed by over 2,000 people from right across Ontario who support Bill 62, on this special day, Earth Day.
I also want, at this point, with a minute left, to pay tribute to my constituents in Halton North, indeed in Halton region, who over the course of 16 or 15 years took care of the garbage. That's why they're excluded under Bill 143, because they saw that there was no point in shuffling their garbage off to Kirkland Lake or anywhere else. They took it upon themselves and established a regional landfill site in the Halton Region. It took them 15 years and some $150 million to establish that, and that's what needs to be done.
We're also the leader in the 3R program. We recycle some 24% of our garbage going into the landfill site. That speaks volumes for the people of the Halton region. And I pay tribute to Mayor Russ Miller who has led the fight against RSI and various other proposals in putting garbage on the escarpment, and indeed to POWER and FOAD and a number of the other organizations in our riding that have taken up the fight and will continue, and we will make sure that no landfill site will take place in the Acton quarry or indeed anywhere along the escarpment.
Again, I wish to pay tribute to my colleagues who made thoughtful comments on my bill and I look forward to seeing this bill in committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for ballot item 1 has expired.
1100
ONTARIO FILM REVIEW
Ms Poole moved resolution number 3:
That, in the opinion of this House, since in an increasingly violent society we as legislators have publicly condemned violence against women and children; and
Since slasher films brutally and graphically depicting the torture, mutilation and death of young women are now being distributed throughout Ontario in neighbourhood video stores; and
Since slasher films can be sold and rented with no indication of their content or classification; and
Since the government of Ontario does not have a policy, nor enforcement mechanisms, in place to effectively deal with slasher films;
Therefore the government of Ontario should immediately complete its review of the mandate, jurisdiction, enforcement mechanisms and classification system of the Ontario Film Review Board, including the following recommendations:
That the Theatres Act, which currently requires that all films sold or rented in Ontario be reviewed and classified by the Ontario Film Review Board, be exercised to its fullest;
That inspectors be hired to monitor videos which are sold or rented in Ontario to ensure all films have been reviewed, classified and approved by the Ontario Film Review Board, with particular concern for the wellbeing of our children;
That substantial and appropriate penalties be imposed on unlicensed distributors, and on retailers who carry videos not reviewed, classified and approved by the Ontario Film Review Board;
That stickers showing classification by the Ontario Film Review Board be attached to all videos for sale or rent in Ontario, both on the videos and on their covers, together with a requirement that an explanation of these classifications be displayed to the public wherever these videos are rented or sold;
That the rating system be strengthened and the guidelines set out in the Theatres Act be strictly adhered to by the Ontario Film Review Board, to ensure that films which blatantly celebrate violence are considered unacceptable in accordance with community standards.
Upon completion of this review, the government of Ontario should enact policy initiatives and, if necessary, introduce legislation to ensure the protection of women and society against the proliferation of slasher films in this province.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Ms Poole, I just want to remind you that you have 10 minutes for your presentation.
Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Today we're going to talk about slasher films, films which brutally and graphically depict the torture, mutilation and death of young women. It isn't a very pleasant topic, but we have to talk about the horrendous impact of this genre. We have to commit ourselves to dealing with the problem and we have to act to protect women and children in this province.
On numerous occasions, we as legislators have spoken out about and condemned violence against women and children, but if we fail to act on this, the most abhorrent of examples of violence, then all our words will be nothing more than lipservice and all our words will be meaningless.
The issue of slasher films came to public attention through the efforts of two women, Pat Herdman and Valerie Smith, who were appalled to find slasher films in neighbourhood video stores, readily available to children. They found that slasher films just fell through the cracks.
First, slasher films are not considered obscene under the Criminal Code because sex is not portrayed together with the violence.
Second, slasher films don't fall under Canada's hate laws because hate laws don't apply to gender.
They also found that videos produced prior to the mid-1980s are exempt from the requirements in Ontario that all films be reviewed, classified and approved by the Ontario Film Review Board.
They found that movies that have been shown previously on the air waves, for instance, television, are also exempt from having to be approved by the Ontario Film Review Board.
They found that enforcement was a real problem, with distributors bypassing the OFRB and getting away with it. By the way, the OFRB, for your information, is the Ontario Film Review Board.
Finally, they had serious concerns as to whether the OFRB was exercising fully its mandate to review and edit inappropriate material.
So these two women decided to do something about it. They went on a modern-day crusade to ensure that this material would not be available to our children. They founded the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters. They appealed to Premier Rae, himself the father of three young daughters, to act. They tried to get the media involved but ironically found, with a few exceptions, that the media didn't want to be involved because they saw this as the thin edge of the wedge of censorship.
They appealed to the Ontario Human Rights Commission to have slasher films considered as hate material against women and got nowhere. Then they invited community leaders, including politicians and people from the media, to a screening of Reel Hatred, a collection of clips taken from readily available movies which celebrate the gruesome slaughter of young women.
Mr Speaker, I apologize in advance for some of these graphic descriptions, but I don't think, unless people understand what we are talking about, they can deal with this issue.
That night we watched in horror scenes from movies such as Bloodfest, where one woman had her tongue torn out, another had her eye gouged out and was dismembered. I only made it halfway through the film Snuff, where a woman had her fingers snipped off with metal cutters, her hand cut off with a jigsaw and her intestines ripped out. I had to leave the room because I was sick to my stomach.
One of the people who spoke at the end of the showing of Reel Hatred was Debbie Mahaffy, the mother of young Leslie Mahaffy, a 14-year-old young girl whose brutal, tragic death two years ago sent the community of Burlington into shock waves. Debbie Mahaffy gave this eloquent and moving plea:
"Can we afford to ignore this destructive trash? Please take action against this hatred. There's little comfort once the violence and murder have taken someone you love."
Today those three very courageous women who are fighting to stop the proliferation of this horrible violence are with us in the members' west gallery -- Pat Herdman, Valerie Smith and Debbie Mahaffy. I would like to thank them on behalf of the people of Ontario for their tireless efforts to bring this issue to the public's attention and to make our communities a safer place. Thank you for coming today.
Catherine Thompson of the Kitchener-Waterloo Record was one of the journalists who attended Reel Hatred and did speak out. This is what she wrote:
"As a journalist, the idea of banning anything goes against the grain, but these pictures offer nothing redeeming or artistic and much that is deeply disturbing. They're made for one reason only, to make money, and they offer one simple message: Killing and mutilating women is not only okay, it's actually kind of neat. Come and watch.
"Ontario is not protected. It's a place where young women like Kristen French, Leslie Mahaffy and Lynda Shaw really do die horrible deaths at the hands of real people. In such a world, how can it be acceptable to celebrate such brutality?"
I too am not generally a big fan of censorship, but surely these films go far beyond the limits of even the most tolerant of societies. This sickening filth must be stopped. How can we purport to be a compassionate, a caring, a sensitive society if we tolerate this kind of message? How can we possibly claim that we are addressing the issue of violence against women and children if we allow this perversion to continue?
I felt that I had to do something to try and help, so I prepared excerpts from Reel Hatred and brought the case before my Liberal caucus. The reaction from my colleagues in the Liberal caucus was clear and unequivocal: This is sickening and disgusting and something has to be done.
I met and talked with people from the Ontario Film Review Board, from Project P of the OPP's anti-racket porn squad and the entertainment standards branch. In mid-February, I wrote to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who I believe genuinely shares my concern. I offered suggestions to deal with the problem and asked to meet with the minister to pursue the matter. In fact we are going to be meeting next week. I did my last cable show on slasher movies to help bring the matter to the public attention.
1110
But, Mr Speaker, it's not enough, and that's why I brought the resolution to the House today. I am hoping that in an all-too-rare, non-partisan spirit of cooperation, all members of this Legislature will give their support. Strong support from both sides of the House will send a clear message to the government and to the public that we in Ontario are not prepared to condone and accept such violence.
A person who is exposed to violent sexual material will be more predisposed to tolerate violence and more inclined to act out his violence.
As a parent of two teenagers under the age of 18, I am all too well aware that video stores routinely rent out restricted movies to those who are under age. I would say to you, remember, in Ontario "Restricted" is the most restrictive classification we have and includes adult films. It includes these slasher films. We do not have an X-rated system in Ontario, and our children are having this material available to them at the local video store.
As the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters has said:
"Surely we should not allow our children to be encultured into blandly accepting violence as entertainment. We must work for reasonable and responsible solutions. Averting our eyes, pretending the celebration of violence doesn't hurt us, will not solve the problem. We have a right to be offended and a right to take action."
I believe that this government is in a position to act and should act quickly.
The Ontario Law Reform Commission released its report on the powers of the Ontario Film Review Board in November. While I agree with many of the recommendations, there is one in particular that gives me great concern and I shall discuss that a little later.
The fact of the matter is the government has now had the commission's report for the past six months. The government has a working document containing very specific recommendations, some of which, such as the sticker system, are included in my resolution.
I would beseech the minister and the Premier to urge, support, prod -- whatever it takes -- the federal government to act quickly to amend Canada's obscenity and hate laws. Let's ask, what are the priorities of this government? Is it going to be removing sexism from beer commercials or doing something about slashers? The women and children of this province are depending on you and they're depending on us.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): As I rise to speak to this motion this morning, I think it's very important for each and every one of us in this Legislature today to recognize that this subject would not be before us if it had not been brought to our direct attention by Valerie Smith from Brampton and Patricia Herdman from Guelph in their establishment of the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters. They have been working tirelessly to try to get a remedy to something that, in my opinion, doesn't even bear a sticker system. As far as I'm concerned, this material should be prohibited in our province and our country.
I happened to hold a personal safety forum last night in my riding, not necessarily directed at women and children, but people. We had standing room only at that forum. We all in Ontario today recognize that violence is increasing. We all know that, in particular, violence against women is the major concern.
In virtually all slasher films, men perpetrate the violence and women are the victims. While the films may incite hatred against women, federal hate laws define "hatred" on the basis of creed or racial background, not on the basis of sex. Therefore, they do not apply to slasher films.
Last February, when the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters arranged the showing of some typical excerpts from these films in a collection they called Reel Hatred, I attended this screening along with approximately 50 interested women and men. Everybody who attended was very disappointed and, I would say, surprised that not a single member of the NDP government caucus in this province would find time to attend that screening.
The House of Commons communication and culture committee is considering an appropriate amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada with an aim to making the Criminal Code apply to slasher films. Upon the urging of the Prime Minister, who received a petition last year signed by 1.3 million Canadians calling for restrictions on TV violence, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission spearheaded a debate on TV violence. As a result, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has submitted to the CRTC a set of amendments to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' voluntary code to control TV violence. However, there has been no action on the part of the Ontario NDP government, which does control the dissemination of videos through the regulatory powers of the Ontario Film Review Board under the Theatres Act.
Mr Speaker, do you realize that some of the grisly videos excerpted in the Reel Hatred collection are rated AA-14, meaning that children under 14 can watch them in the company of an adult? In studies conducted by Sandra Campbell of Viva Associates in Toronto, children as young as five have reported extensive viewing of the slasher movies. There are also slasher videos available that have not yet been reviewed by the OFRB, yet there appears to be no action by the Ontario NDP government, through the Ontario Provincial Police, to remove these illegal films from the shelves.
A response from the then Attorney General, Howard Hampton, to Valerie Smith of the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters referred Ms Smith to Project P, even though slasher films do not constitute pornography and therefore do not fall within the jurisdiction of Project P. Mr Speaker, wouldn't you have thought that the Attorney General for Ontario, Howard Hampton, might have known that on such a serious subject?
I would like to place on the record the following sections of the Theatres Act, which do give the Ontario Film Review Board the authority for refusing to approve slasher films, because I'm not interested in any category that allows slasher films in this province.
Under section 14(2):
"(a) A graphic or prolonged scene of violence, torture, crime, cruelty, horror or human degradation;
"(b) The depiction of the physical abuse or humiliation of human beings for purposes of sexual gratification or as pleasing to the victim;
"(f) A scene depicting indignities to the human body in an explicit manner."
Without doubt, refusal by the Ontario Film Review Board to approve slasher films would be subject to appeals under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, given the Supreme Court Decision last year with respect to the need to put the rights of society ahead of the rights of the individual when it comes to the viewing of pornography, I am sure that restrictions on the distribution of slasher films would also hold up to judicial scrutiny.
I am also very disturbed by the Ontario Film Review Board's statement, in response to the human rights complaint, that its first service is a direct service to exhibitors in relation to films submitted for classification and approvals, while its second service -- get this, Mr Speaker; its second service -- is an indirect service to the public in the form of information pieces. This is ridiculous. The Ontario Film Review Board's primary responsibility should be to the Ontario public. If the Ontario Film Review Board's mandate is to serve exhibitors, does it not follow that the Ontario Film Review Board could be pressured by the industry to rate films AA-14 rather than R, since films make much more money when they have a less restrictive rating? Obviously there needs to be a review of the Ontario Film Review Board's mandate, and I ask today, in this House, will this NDP government undertake such a review? The Ontario Film Review Board, as it is currently operating, in my opinion is an absolute farce.
1120
I attended a public forum in Mississauga which was organized by the Mississauga Committee on Obscenity, chaired by Councillor Maja Prentice. At that meeting, the current chair, newly appointed, Dorothy Christian, of the OFRB admitted in response to my questions that the Ontario Film Review Board had reviewed 1,847 pieces of material in 10 months, and in order to do it, guess what they do? They fast-forward and turn the sound down. So if we think the answer is really dependent on this board in its present form of operation, then I plead to this government to recognize that to fast-forward films that are being reviewed for content with the sound turned down is an absolute, total lack of responsibility and effectiveness.
In my opinion and in the opinion of our caucus, we feel that there is a direct correlation between the increase in violence against women in this province and the tragedies we are hearing in an increasing number of incidents, and we plead with this Ontario NDP government once and for all to make a revision that will be effective in controlling the distribution and availability of this material in this province immediately and to review the mandate and operation of the Ontario Film Review Board.
Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): The resolution introduced by the member for Eglinton suggests that the government does not have a policy or the enforcement mechanisms in place to effectively deal with slasher films. While we agree in principle with several items in that resolution, the government has indeed initiated action which parallels the member's concerns.
I know the member for Eglinton is calling for an immediate review of the Ontario Film Review Board. A comprehensive review of the powers of the Ontario Film Review Board was published in November of last year and was prepared by the Ontario Law Reform Commission, and the member's resolution seems to speak directly to some of those recommendations in the law reform commission's report.
The member also suggested that the government is not dealing specifically with the issue of slasher films. However, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations staff is currently working towards the adoption of a number of recommendations which will specially address the issue of slasher films. The film review board and ministry staff are meeting with counterparts in other provinces and federal representatives to discuss the issues of mutual concern, including classification systems and how to respond to the communities' concerns, especially about slashers.
The minister has made it widely known that she favours the adoption of a specific information piece to address the issue of violence against women and has suggested to the film review board that it consider ways of letting viewers know when films contain scenes of violence against women. The OFRB is reviewing its use of information pieces, including the minister's suggestion to include an information piece regarding violence against women.
The Theatres Act regulations are currently being reviewed in accordance with the law reform commission's findings in an effort to further restrict children's access to disturbing and/or violent videos.
Many of the films in the slasher genre actually pre-date provincial government authority over video releases. The Theatres Act did not encompass home video rentals or the retail video distribution network until the staged proclamation of the Theatres Amendment Act in 1985 and indeed in 1988. Videos which were in distribution prior to that time are not subject to review by the film review board. Films that have been available on television in Ontario are exempt as well. This includes so-called slasher films viewed on late-night TV.
I believe the minister has taken a very active advocacy role by urging the federal government to address the materials, like slasher films, which glorify human mutilation. A lot of the problem lies in the federal Criminal Code. Until the federal government gets off its rear end and does something, we can do nothing about it in this province. Without a federal law to guide them, provincial police forces have no authority to seize or prosecute materials which celebrate torture. I know our current minister is currently urging the federal government, and I would urge all members of all parties to do the same, to change the federal statutes, to enable provincial authorities to better control films such as slasher videos.
I know that, for example, the member also talked about an elaborate sticker program. The previous government embarked on an elaborate sticker program and abandoned it -- why? -- before it could actually be implemented. I want to know why. Our ministry is currently examining a modified sticker program to specially address pornographic and/or violent materials. I know that the previous government has disbanded the investigative team dedicated to theatres and video stores because the cost of monitoring video stores outweighs the social benefit that the service provides.
Towards the end of the previous government's mandate the investigation staff assigned to the theatre section were eliminated. Staff in the entertainment standards branch, with responsibilities to other sections, were assigned to cover the work rising out of the theatre section. Disbanding the theatres inspection system was, I trust, by way of the exercise we're going through, a very difficult decision. I guess the questions of resource allocation always are.
At this point, I know many of our members would like to speak to this particular subject, so I yield the floor.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): First of all, it's a pleasure to join in this debate. I congratulate the member for Eglinton for bringing forward --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr Callahan: It is certainly an issue that is very important. I find it interesting that we stand in this House and actually have people trying to defend government inaction of whatever political stripe. I think that's totally unbelievable. It's kind of like saying, "I surrender. We recognize that these films" --
Mrs Marland: If you don't respond to this resolution this morning, you will regret it for the rest of your time in office.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. There is one speaker who has the right to speak. Let's make sure that he has that right. The member for Brampton South.
Mr Callahan: I wonder if I could have a few minutes added to the clock, Mr Speaker.
I want to say I find it absolutely incredible that what's happening is that this would not have the support of everybody of this House. It's kind of like the government of the day, the New Democratic Party government, is saying: "I surrender. We can't do anything about it and there is in fact no ability of a remedy."
That couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, what has been said by the member for Halton North is totally incorrect. The province is the only one that has the power at the moment to deal with this very pressing issue, and I refer you to the regulation which simply says that the board -- and I'm paraphrasing it -- may refuse to approve a film for exhibition or distribution in Ontario where the film contains a graphic or a prolonged scene of violence, torture, crime, cruelty, horror or human degradation.
It doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer or a rocket scientist to recognize that this in fact clearly gives to that board the power to do what is not even available to the federal government. I do agree with the member for Halton North that the answer to this entire process is that subsection 163(8) of the Criminal Code of Canada should be reviewed, just as they did with pornographic literature in the Badgley report, because what that section says is, "For the purposes of this act, any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex in any one or more of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to be obscene." For some reason, the federal government -- and I'm not going to concentrate on it today because it's not relevant to this, but it is relevant parenthetically -- puts the emphasis on sex. Unless you have sex and violence, it's not obscene.
Now, I suggest to you that the provincial government is the only available government to the citizens of this province to deal with this very important issue. If you don't deal with it, what in fact you will do by leaving these predators out there who produce this smut, what you're going to do is you're going to leave it out there and eventually people will become desensitized to the fact that women are brutally mutilated and so on. The net effect of that is that because a defence against a charge of obscenity becomes defensible as the acceptability of society becomes greater, in fact you'll find that if you stay asleep at the switch, eventually you won't even be able to prosecute somebody should the federal government change the sex and assault section of the obscenity rules; you won't even be able to prosecute successfully that type of film. It will be a free market for these predators to continue to do this.
1130
Don't kid yourself: These people are smart people. They're in a multimillion-dollar, sick industry, but they're actually producing films where they know just where they can get around the corner. They know just where they can get around the corner. They skirt the federal legislation by perhaps not including sex but maybe just an incitement that that's what's on the horizon along with the assault.
I think it's time that we recognized the fact as politicians, both provincially and federally, that this type of conduct is unacceptable in our society. We did it with children. We perpetrate and we continue the myth that women are simply objects to be used at the will and whim of men. We wonder why there are so many abductions in this city and throughout this country of young ladies, that they're no longer safe to walk the streets. I mean, if you constantly shoot at kids, particularly through a medium that is important to them and one which influences them significantly -- television or videos -- if you constantly shoot at them the question that these women are being mutilated and it doesn't matter, it's not of importance, you may very well desensitize them to the point where it doesn't become a concern for them any more.
I think it's been established during the tragedy of world wars and other conflicts that a soldier or a person in combat, on having to shoot the first person, has great problems. After he's shot the first person, it becomes a little easier to shoot the next person, there's less pang. As human beings, we do in fact find things to be objectionable, but the more we do them, the more we become desensitized. I suggest that's exactly what will happen to the young people in our community.
Adults have chosen in their society -- and I certainly don't subscribe to it. Unfortunately, I think we've destroyed our society by some of the laissez-faire attitudes we've taken about a whole host of things. I mean, I can remember Toronto in the days when you could walk the street at night without being held up, mugged, raped or whatever. I guess I'm in the minority in that regard. It seems as though the approach to it today is a much broader aspect, and you can do almost anything on television or in the movies, even if it interferes with families and so on. But in any event, that's not what I'm addressing here.
I'm addressing the question, what value is there really in these films? To sit there and watch a human being and be able to go, "Ho-hum. Well, it's a woman, so it doesn't matter" -- what value is there to us? I say to you that the provincial government, which now has the only authority, because of the rewording that's required in the obscenity section of the Criminal Code, has the only power to stop this crap, this smut, this intrusion into the lives of our children, the rearranging, brainwashing of our kids, so they can make a buck, it's time we stopped it.
It's time we said the government of the day, the New Democratic Party government, is going to enforce it. Now, I figure the reason you're not enforcing it is because you're not prepared to put your money where your mouth is. You're not prepared to put inspectors out on the road, with the budgets that are required, to inspect these stores.
If that's the case, that is a real tragedy. That tells me that your government, which espouses all these attitudes that it's in favour of protecting women and against spousal assault and all the rest of it, is really just a blank, blind statement. You don't mean it at all, because unless you enforce the regulations, unless you enforce the regulatory powers that you have, you in fact are just simply denying to the women and the young ladies of this province the opportunity to gain in terms of being meaningful human beings instead of simply going back to the caveman routine where they would be dragged by the hair into the cave.
We're trying to teach our young people, we're trying to take guns away from them, not give them guns for Christmas, and yet we're allowing these predators -- and I call them predators -- who are doing nothing more than making a buck at this by demonstrating and denigrating women, to sell these products, to rent these products and to virtually brainwash our children.
So what can we expect in the future? What we can expect in the next generation will be many more young people who become adults who will grow up with this mentality that women are second-class citizens. This government is doing nothing by its inactivity with reference to exercising a power it has -- and the only jurisdiction that has that power. They're doing absolutely nothing to help our next generation.
I read in my community of Brampton, and it's simply an allegation, that a number of young girls are reporting that they were taken into homes and sexually assaulted. We read about that every day. We read about young women who are not able to walk home safely without being abducted. Do you think that's happening because we're becoming a more advanced society, or is it happening because governments of the day haven't got the guts to put their money where their mouth is to exercise legitimate authority they have and are prepared to allow those predators out there to bypass, to cut corners?
In fact, I'm told, in reading some of the material my colleague provided speaking on this matter, that certain of these videos receive an AA-14, I think it is, a rating which is acceptable for children. You've got to do it; I'm suggesting you've got to do it. But if they're going to do it, they should do it right. First of all, they should exercise their powers and reject the ones that fail to meet the criteria. But at the same time, why put labels on something, labelling like on Bambi or Pinocchio, and it's actually the brutality and the assault on women?
So wake up over there, New Democratic Party. You're prepared to support all sorts of things, bring in injunctions and so on when it's in your interests, but when the chips are down and you're required to support the question of supporting women, you just sit on your laurels and you'd prefer to spend your money on other things rather than spending it where it should be spent.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): At the outset, let me say that I'd like to commend the member for Eglinton for bringing forward this resolution so quickly to the House for the purposes of today's debate. I'd also like to commend my colleague the member for Mississauga South, who has been doing considerable work in this area. For those members opposite, I'm afraid I'm looking at the government side and there is not a single member over there who has been in this chamber more than two years. For that reason, they would not be aware of the rather lengthy discussions and debates which have gone on in this House about the subject of women's rights, pornography, the degrading aspects of pornography. They've not been privy to that discussion and maybe that is why some of it is reflected in their comments in this debate.
But it's been no secret that there has been a devolution for us as a society and for the subject generally of pornography and how it's being handled in this province. It's no secret that the previous government moved us from an Ontario censor board to a film review board. There's no secret that we moved from simulated sex acts to actual sex acts and that this definition is being broadened and more acceptable in this province. That is the nature of the evolution.
This motion tends to bring a dramatic halt to that and to suggest that we review and reflect and maybe turn back and examine properly what should be changed about explicit films that are degrading to women generally. The resolution speaks specifically to slasher films, but it is only one of a series of very sick items which are being allowed to move freely and affect society. Child pornography has been mentioned, bestiality; there is a whole series of very, very degrading situations which tend to always be focused on women. Slasher films are just one more example of that.
1140
I recall that on February 27, 1989, I raised in this House, after I too had a visit to the Ontario Film Review Board to witness a very, very disturbing series of clips, or outtakes, they're called -- it is probably the most disturbing day I've ever spent as a legislator and it deeply moved me with respect to how sick things really are on the street when people have access to it. When I asked the then minister if there was, in his mind, a link between violence against women and pornography, he said he wasn't sure. Obviously we've come a long way since 1989 in terms of the understanding of at least the government member responsible for women's issues and responsible for Consumer and Commercial Relations.
Again, on March 25, 1991, I raised this issue in the House about the proliferation of triple-X videos when the police had informed me that they had in their custody specific videos which, in their view, were pornographic. I raised it in the House, as I said. I asked the NDP Attorney General what he was prepared to do. He said it wasn't his responsibility. In fact, the police told me that the Attorney General's office had informed the police in Halton that if they proceeded with charges, the Attorney General's office would not support for them to proceed to take it to court.
That was the level of support we were getting from the Attorney General's office in this province two years ago, and the Consumer and Commercial Relations minister, Ms Churley, in response to my question that day said, "The member will see some action in the very short future on this." That was over two years ago and yet the member for Halton North has the audacity to stand in his seat and suggest that they're working on it.
The fact is, as Robert Payne, the past chairman of the film review board said, this is a political problem. Politicians have to come together and resolve to do something about this. The solutions lie in changing the law and the definitions of pornography. The solutions come in supporting our police in the laying of charges, because police will not lay charges just to have an Attorney General say, "We're not going to proceed to put that person behind bars or to charge them with proliferating pornography in this province." The judges are ready to make those definitions of pornography, but they have to get the signals from this body, this Legislature, that in fact that will occur.
I represent a community which has, along with the families, suffered the loss of young women: Leslie Mahaffy, Nina de Villiers. I ask the members of this House, at least in their memory, to understand the impact of violence on women and to do something positively today and support this resolution.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): In the few minutes allotted to me, I'd like, first of all, to express solidarity on this issue with the member for Eglinton. This is a serious issue for all of us and we are all on side, I believe, in condemning the widespread availability of slasher films.
I do not believe in censorship in a general way. Any book, film or work of art that's produced in good faith has a place in our society. We cannot and should not condemn everything that offends somebody. Shakespeare, D. H. Lawrence, Salman Rushdie and our own Margaret Laurence have all had their brushes with prejudice. Intellectual freedom and freedom of expression must be upheld.
We become tolerant partly by being exposed to a conflicting range of prejudices, past and present, but what we are looking at here are not works of art but deliberate exploitation for profit of some of man's very lowest instincts. There are also very obvious problems with the production of such films, since the violence can be real even to the point of murder. These extreme movies should, I believe, be illegal. However, the will of the government to deal with the problem is not in question, and action is being taken.
Members of the Ontario Film Review Board do understand the importance of this issue and are taking their classification duties seriously. I believe, however, that they should be able to eliminate rather than classify the extreme material we're discussing.
Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, their power is limited because many offensive videos are outside the provincial government's jurisdiction altogether. Videos distributed before the staged passage of the Theatres Amendment Act in 1985 and 1988 are not subject to review by the film review board. Neither are films which have been available on television in Ontario, and this does include slasher movies seen on late-night TV.
This situation is not acceptable and the minister is urging the federal government to take action. A federal law is needed so that provincial police can seize or prosecute materials which celebrate torture. There was an investigative team dedicated to theatres and video stores, but it was disbanded by the Liberals when in power because it was not considered cost-effective. There are indeed 4,000 video retail outlets in the province. It would seem more fiscally effective to expand and strengthen the jurisdiction of the review board rather than re-establish an inspection system.
I'm convinced that violence on our screens is a danger to the continued civilized functioning of our society. I commend the member for her resolution and I am going to support it because of the gravity of the situation, although I am satisfied that the ministry is pursuing solutions to this problem with the urgency it deserves.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I thank the member for Eglinton for bringing this resolution forward to effectively deal with slasher films. What is a slasher film? She has explained it is the most extreme, I would say, end of a whole spectrum of violence against women which results, I believe, from a marginalization of the role of women, an inequality in fact that we know is there in society, an objectification of women even seen in beauty pageants.
Women are seen as secondary roles in many types of our society. You just think of an office setting, even our constituency offices, where all of our staff are equal. If there is a man and there's a woman, then people naturally go to the man as being in charge. I've even seen men have difficulty dealing with women cabinet ministers. Because this type of thing can happen, the extreme of violence against women, such as these slasher films, can happen.
We must deal with it. I know the minister is very concerned about violence against women and I personally, as well as my caucus, will carry this concern forward to the minister. We must not let this particular category -- because it's been hidden for so long, most of society just doesn't want to know about this, doesn't want to deal with it -- fall through the cracks. I agree that we must have regulations in place as soon as possible. The board that we're dealing with here must ensure that it fully understands the importance of this issue and the consequences and the roots of this issue.
We also must have federal changes to statutes to enable our provincial authorities to better control the proliferation of these slasher videos.
I thank the member for the urgency with which she has brought this forward. We must make people aware, whether it's the board members, whether it's the federal government, whether it's women's groups. Let's get together and raise this issue. It cannot and should not be hidden. Let's face up to the reality of our society, that this can actually happen in this day and age, the objectification of women, the inequality of women.
Also, I ask everyone to make sure that women are seen in all roles, even in the preschool level, when dealing with little boys and girls, that they are in fact seen as equal and, as men and women, that we treat each other equally in the home, in the office, in the factory and even around the cabinet table.
1150
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I'm pleased to be able to join in this debate on the private member's resolution. I want to say that I think you've heard a lot of the discussion of the elements of this complex issue. I think the mover of this resolution would agree that her own government had problems with addressing the issues here. In her own resolution she mentions the stickers and inspectors to deal with the problem. In fact, their government abandoned those efforts as being unrealistic and not dealing with the issue in a way that they thought would happen, so it is definitely a complex issue.
The other thing about it is the immediate review that she's calling for in her resolution. There already has been a review by the Ontario Law Reform Commission and that is now being looked at by the film board as well as the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.
As far as the member requesting that the government enact policy initiatives and introduce legislation is concerned, we can say that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is working on this issue and action will be taken when its work is complete. As I say, the issue here is very complex, and other jurisdictions are working on it and it must be done in a comprehensive way that will get to the heart of this issue.
Certainly, as has been mentioned here, the minister has expressed her concern about videos and scenes depicting violence against women, and the Ontario Film Review Board is looking at how such scenes can be identified and let viewers know when films contain such scenes. This has to be done. I think we all agree with this. But I think we have to recognize that these slasher films are in fact a symptom of an underlying problem that my colleague the member for Niagara Falls mentioned -- and certainly others have pointed to this as well -- that it is the devaluing of women in our society that allows for this kind of depiction to go ahead.
That's why I think there are not only these very specific things that can be done that the Ontario Film Review Board is looking at, but also more general attempts to improve the status of women in our society. I think of pay equity, for instance, and employment equity, two initiatives that we will be pursuing that have to make sure that women have the position in our society that will prevent this.
After all, many people point to violence on TV in other ways, for instance, in sporting events, hockey, for instance, the violence that occurs there, and say, "What does this mean for our society as far as the values in our society encouraging cooperative and humane values are concerned?"
Think of other films, too. Where do we draw the line, for instance, on films like The Terminator?
There are all kinds of elements in society. For those of us who live with females -- and I have a wife and two daughters. I'm well aware of the issue of violence against women. This thing is deeply rooted in our society.
What I'm suggesting is that slasher films are a symptom of this underlying problem that we have to get to the root of. It isn't just a question of putting stickers or inspecting video stores, which because of the widespread distribution network is very difficult in any case. What we have to do is get to the underlying nature of our society that allows women to be devalued, and as I say, I have a very direct relationship with this and I intend to pursue with all my effort initiatives like pay equity and employment equity.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Eglinton, you have two minutes.
Interjections.
Ms Poole: I think I have some time left from the Liberal speakers.
The Deputy Speaker: How much time is there left? Four minutes, plus two minutes; you'll have six minutes.
Ms Poole: Thank you. I'd like to begin by thanking the members today for participating in the debate, the members for Brampton South, Mississauga South, Burlington South -- there's a lot of action in the south today, you can tell -- Peterborough, Kingston and The Islands and Niagara Falls. I very much appreciated your comments and your measures of support.
I'd like to specifically address a few of the issues that the member for Halton North raised. I deliberately tried to keep this a non-partisan issue because in my belief partisanship shouldn't enter into it, and unfortunately I think a few members did get a little excited there.
I'd like to tell you that it's a very complex issue, and quite frankly all three governments have had their paw prints on what's happened with censorship, what's happened with pornography, what's happened with the board in this particular province. It was in fact developed under the Conservative government and the amendment to the Theatres Act came about in 1984, then it was proclaimed over a three-year period, which happened during the Liberal tenure, and now it's the NDP's turn to try to deal with this very, very difficult issue. So rather than finger-point, I think what's important to understand is that this is an issue of importance not only to women and children, but to society.
We are an increasingly violent society, and when you see what's on the television, when you see what's on the video machines -- and those two outlets are of extreme importance to me because they're the ones that are of paramount importance to our young people. Unfortunately, a lot of young people don't read as much as they used to, but they are absolutely glued to the television set and to the video machines. I think it's very important that we protect them in what they're seeing out there.
The member for Mississauga South mentioned the fact that the OFRB, the Ontario Film Review Board, does a fast forward with no sound. Quite frankly, when this first came up, I was really concerned as well because this, to me, sounded terrible. But I would like to invite members to call the Ontario Film Review Board and go up for a visit. I spent several hours there and it was actually quite enlightening.
They have extremely sophisticated, sensitive equipment, and their fast forward isn't like the fast forward you and I are used to on a video machine. You can see all too clearly. Believe me, my face was very red when I sat through 20 minutes of a pornographic film which I would consider to be pretty close to hard-core porn, and I could very clearly see what they were doing on the screen even in fast forward because it wasn't as fast or as indecipherable as on our VCRs.
Secondly, the point they made to me about the sound is that in these sex movies, a lot of the time there isn't a whole lot of sound other than maybe some grunts and groans and things like that. But they can tell when there is, for instance, dialogue. They can stop the machine, can indicate on their sheets exactly at which stage it was, can go back and review, and at that stage they do turn on the sound and they do review it.
So while I share the concern of the member for Mississauga South, I invite all members to go up because I think it really does help you understand the issue and some of the problems around it.
I don't think at any time I implied that this government was not doing anything, which Mr Duignan, I think, the member for Halton North, seemed to feel. In fact, I specifically said that the minister was very concerned about it. I brought up the report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission and the fact that the wording in my motion was that the government of Ontario should immediately complete its review. The review is well under way. We've had the report for six months, and I just don't think we can delay. It is of paramount importance that the federal government act as well to change the obscenity laws, and I'd also like it to strengthen the child porn laws at the same time. I think we all agree that child pornography is something that is evil and that we do not want to see.
One last issue I'd like to address is the issue of censorship and freedom of speech.
The Butler decision, which was a decision of the Supreme Court in 1992, was a unanimous decision which stated that the right to freedom of expression must be balanced with a woman's right to live without fear and without the threat of violence. In this regard, it states that sex with violence was "almost always obscene," and that sex with children was always obscene.
Canada has hate laws, libel laws, patent laws and obscenity laws which state that people just simply can't say whatever they want whenever they want, particularly if it might affect somebody's personal safety, financial investment or personal integrity. I think it's very important that the province of Ontario urge the federal government to move as quickly as possible. I believe the federal government has given indications recently that it is prepared to move. I think it's paramount that they move before we go into the next election and it gets lost in study for another year or two.
I would like to conclude by reading a passage from a letter by Debbie Mahaffy, the mother of Leslie Mahaffy who was brutally murdered. She writes:
"How can you not realize that the real victims, their families and loved ones in Ontario pay the ultimate price of the free expression to make profits from the pain and deaths these violent, hateful, obscene films bring with them? Slasher films do not advocate, illustrate nor do they demonstrate any positive social values. The preciousness of life is clearly irrelevant, and torture and murder is portrayed as entertainment and excitement. Will these videos help our children's social, emotional and moral development? I think not."
Mr Speaker, I ask for the support of all members of this House on this important resolution.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (NIAGARA ESCARPMENT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 1, standing in the name of Mr Duignan. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.
Mr Duignan has moved second reading of Bill 62, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.
Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I move the bill be referred to the committee on resources development.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development? Agreed.
ONTARIO FILM REVIEW
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 2, standing in the name of Ms Poole. Are there any members opposed to this vote?
All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Poole has moved private member's notice of motion number 3. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.
Ayes
Abel, Bisson, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carter, Cooper, Cousens, Daigeler, Drainville, Duignan, Eddy, Fawcett, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hope, Huget, Jackson, Kormos, Kwinter, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marland, Martin, Miclash, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Perruzza, Poole, Rizzo, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Villeneuve, Waters, Wessenger, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.
The ayes are 42; the nays are 0. I declare the motion carried.
All matters relating to private members' business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.
The House recessed at 1211.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The House resumed at 1330.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
EARTH DAY
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): It's a pleasure for me to rise today and commemorate Earth Day on behalf of the Liberal caucus.
As members will know, the first Earth Day celebration took place on April 22, 1970. In the 23 years that have passed since then, significant progress has been made in creating a greater awareness of the fragility of our natural environment.
This awareness has been fostered throughout all sectors of society: business, the education system, throughout our communities and within larger government structures. It is important to recognize this today and to continue to build upon it as we move into the 21st century.
The focus of Earth Day 1993 is on personal action. Today, as tree-planting ceremonies, educational displays and local cleanup projects take place, it is important to remember that our individual actions can and do have significant impacts on our environment.
While it is important to examine our current personal activities, the Earth Summit held last June in Rio de Janeiro reminded us that the issue of environmental protection is truly global in nature.
While it must be mentioned that every day should in fact be Earth Day, today affords us time to acknowledge and congratulate those thousands of individuals, communities and organizations in this province and throughout all countries who work very hard to preserve and improve the quality of our natural environment.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Earth Day is a time for each of us to take action to ensure that we protect the environment for future generations. As native friends are inclined to say: "We do not inherit this earth from our parents. We borrow it from our children."
Simple actions such as conserving energy in our homes, reducing the garbage we create and planting a tree for future generations will help us protect this world for future generations. Many schools and organizations within Ontario highlight Earth Week activities by planting trees in their neighbourhoods. Trees and shrubs help reduce air pollution, moderate the greenhouse effect by absorbing carbon dioxide and enhance our property values.
The NDP government and the Ministry of the Environment have made many promises and commitments to make sure our environment does not continue in its downward slide. The Minister of the Environment has stood in this House yesterday and made a statement about how Ontarians had reduced their waste by 25%.
Considering that this is Earth Day, would it not be appropriate to have finally introduced the environmental bill of rights? We have seen drafts of this much-talked-about bill since the NDP came to power two and a half years ago. Is it not time to stop promising it and finally introduce the bill so that we can debate it in this House?
The unfortunate side of Earth Day celebrations is that they also highlight the many things that this government hasn't done to protect our environment. This very day I attended a rally on the steps of the Legislature to focus on the complete shambles the NDP has made of the site selection process by the Interim Waste Authority and the stress and concern forced on individuals involved.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): Today is Earth Day, a time when people all around the world are taking a special interest in the environment. It's a time for all of us to reflect and ask ourselves if we're doing our share to protect our natural resources, a day to remind ourselves to think globally and act locally.
In Windsor, students of Concord School are great examples of young people who are putting their beliefs into practice. This past Saturday, they kicked off Earth Week by continuing their cleanup of Little River, which drains into the Detroit River. These same students are participating today in cleanup work at the Peach Island woodlot. Another event, Earth Day '93, will be held at the Ganatachio Trail. It will be featuring wild flower planting, guided bird-watching tours and various environmental exhibits.
I extend my invitation to all to attend on Sunday afternoon. I know there are countless other events going on across Ontario. I invite everyone here to join me in honouring the considerable effort that has gone into today's public events. I'm sure that many of my colleagues in the Legislature are involved in the celebrations in their ridings, and I encourage everyone to be environmentally aware not only during Earth Week but throughout all of the year.
FOREST MANAGEMENT
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Today is Earth Day, and today is an appropriate day to bring to the attention of members of this House and the people of Ontario the deplorable record of the NDP government regarding forest renewal. Since 1990, planned regeneration of cutover forest areas in the province has fallen dramatically. Forest-tending activities, for example, have declined by 50% from the days when Lyn McLeod was the Minister of Natural Resources.
The result of this mismanagement of our forest resource has been a loss of nearly 1,500 student and seasonal jobs in 1992-93. Moreover, the integrity of the forest ecosystem has been threatened by this government's cavalier attitude towards forest regeneration.
The Minister of Natural Resources announced earlier this year that the province's approach to forest management was changing. Indeed, he mentioned that there would be even further cuts to forest regeneration. It is difficult to see how this change in focus will improve either the environment or the economy of northern Ontario.
On this day it is so sad to note that the NDP government is compiling not only the largest economic deficit in the history of this province but the largest environmental deficit as well. Furthermore, it is shameful to see that the NDP's forest renewal strategy includes mulching as many as 11 million tree seedlings this year. It is ironic, on this day when hundreds of people will be planting trees across the province, that the government will destroy millions more.
WILDLIFE PROTECTION
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Staff at the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre in the Midland-Penetanguishene area recently spent a weekend searching for dead and dying trumpeter swans that were poisoned by shotgun shell lead. It has been confirmed that three of the birds, which are great indicators of wetland health, had swallowed fatal doses of lead. The pellets lie in the marsh mud for years after hunters shoot at ducks and geese.
Trumpeter swans, which once were common to the Great Lakes region, were hunted to the edge of extinction in the last century. The recent poisonings, which affected at least half of the birds that have been flying free in the marsh, are a major setback to a publicly acclaimed program to reintroduce the spectacular birds to southern Ontario.
Lead poisoning scrambles the birds' nervous system, and eventually they are unable to fly or walk. An estimated 3,600 tons of lead pellets were fired over and into the wetlands of North America during the late 1980s. The United States implemented a nationwide ban on the use of lead shot last year. Minister, I would urge you to protect our wildlife and the waterfowl from lead poisoning by implementing a province-wide ban on lead shot and promoting the use of tungsten or steel shot.
WOMAN OF THE YEAR AWARD
Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Every year the Women's Incentive Centre in Windsor, with director Janet Greene-Potomski and staff, call together a dinner and awards ceremony. The ceremony this year marked the 11th annual Woman of the Year Award, and this past weekend the dinner was held at Vanier Hall, University of Windsor, and 300 people attended.
A committee is struck and its aim is to find women who are helping to change society and improve life for others. This year three superb candidates were found, and the celebration focused on the vitality and the love given by three incredible women. Representation of several groups in the Windsor area elected these women. Qualities had to be work in advocacy, areas of support and education. The selection was nothing short of excellent.
Marianne Angus has been a long-standing member of the Third World Resource Centre board of directors. Marianne has contributed to the United Way and been president of the Hospice of Windsor.
Secondly, Kay Kavanaugh spent her entire life in improving the wellbeing of others. Kay has been the past president of the CUPE council in Windsor, has given time to Crime Stoppers, the United Way, Hiatus House and the Sandwich Community Health Centre. She has won the Canada 125 medal recently. Kay Kavanaugh, a widow, mother and grandmother, epitomizes the changing role of women in a changing society.
Finally, Elaine Woluschuk has devoted a life to family, community and education. A recipient of the Canada Volunteer Award, Elaine is committed to women's issues and of course the advancement of women's causes.
These are Windsor's women of the year: Elaine Woluschuk, Marianne Angus and Kay Kavanaugh. Women's Incentive Centre, Janet Greene-Potomski and staff have worked hard to put this dinner together and should be congratulated.
1340
ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
Mr Charles Beer (York North): Earth Day is a time when we celebrate our lives on this planet and resolve to better protect it.
Sadly, in the regions of York, Durham and Peel, there is little reason to rejoice. Today hundreds of residents from these areas came to manifest their opposition to Bill 143, the NDP megadump legislation, and the whole autocratic process that this bill has spawned. We have wasted millions and millions of dollars on a process that will end up doing the government's bidding, not listening to the residents of the province.
How, people continue to ask, does a government that sees itself on the cutting edge of environmental reform proceed with a plan to use 19th-century outhouse technology as the solution to the problem of waste? Their policy, their bill, their actions defy comprehension.
Bill 143, the Interim Waste Authority and two NDP ministers of Environment have led us to a point where their only response to the waste problems of the greater Toronto area is simply to establish more dumps and, in the case of York region, a megadump the size of 80 SkyDomes.
Many people had hoped that with a change of minister, the government would change direction and allow a true environmental assessment of all the options. How sad we all are that this has not happened.
As long as Bill 143 remains intact and on the books, we cannot fully celebrate Earth Day. NDP policy makes a mockery of its proposed environmental bill of rights and of Earth Day. Bill 143 must be withdrawn, and it must be withdrawn now.
VOLUNTEERS
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On this occasion of National Volunteer Week, I am honoured to pay tribute to the millions of Canadians whose volunteer efforts are vital to our communities.
All of us benefit from the work of volunteers, whether they are Brownie leaders and hockey coaches, the unpaid members of community boards or the kind people from Meals on Wheels who help us when we are sick. But how many of us know that more than five million Canadians do volunteer work regularly? If we paid our volunteers, voluntarism would be Canada's biggest industry.
In these hard times, many organizations simply could not exist without volunteers. In return, volunteers benefit from superb opportunities for community service, personal growth and social enjoyment.
According to Suzanne Christie, executive director of the Volunteer Centre of Peel, more and more volunteers are young adults, unemployed persons and seniors. Volunteer work can provide skills and experience to land that first paid job or return to the workforce. Seniors find that volunteer work keeps them active, uses their valuable experience and prevents loneliness.
May I urge everyone who is not a volunteer to experience the satisfaction that comes from voluntary service. Many communities have volunteer centres that will help you match your skills and interests with an organization that needs your help.
Most importantly, today we express our heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to Ontario's volunteers. Like this year's 170 new volunteers at the Hospice of Peel, you are exemplary role models for us all.
JUDY REBICK
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Earlier this week we learned that after serving two terms, Judy Rebick will be stepping down as president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous contribution that Judy has made in the advancement of women's issues throughout Canada.
During her three years as head of NAC, Judy has fought tirelessly for the rights of women. She has condemned violence against women and children, has lobbied for a national child care program and for pay equity legislation and has defended women's right to reproductive choice. More recently, she has worked to make Canada a safe haven for immigrant women fearing persecution in their homelands because of their gender.
Judy's efforts to make NAC a more inclusive and diverse organization have paid off as women who have traditionally been excluded from the decision-making process -- namely, visible minority, immigrant and aboriginal women -- have become an important voice within NAC. The news that the organization's next president will be, for the first time in NAC's history, a woman of colour attests to Judy's inclusive vision of the future of the women's movement within Canada.
NAC's incoming president is Sunera Thobani. Now living in Vancouver, Ms Thobani, a single mother, immigrated to Canada from Tanzania and comes from a family originally from India.
I want to congratulate Ms Thobani on her new post and I want to wish her well as she continues the fight on behalf of Canadian women.
In closing, I would like to express my admiration for the commitment and courage with which Judy Rebick brought the concerns of Canadian women to public attention. While we did not always see eye to eye, it was always clear to me that Judy's convictions were sincere and that she fought for what she believed was of ultimate benefit to the women of Canada. I wish her all the best in her future endeavours and know that her work on behalf of women will not end with her leaving the NAC.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Mr Charles Beer (York North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My point of order is that this morning members' offices are being called from all over the province by teachers, trustees and parents, saying that it is now the policy of this government that it is going to change the pupil-teacher ratio for kindergarten, grade 1 and grade 2. I don't understand why the Minister of Education and Training has not risen in his place today with a statement. There is great concern in the province --
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat, please. The member will know that he does not have a point of order, but perhaps I will not be surprised to see him rise in his place during question period.
ROLE OF MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Tuesday last, the honourable member for Renfrew North, Mr Conway, was in the process of placing the second leadoff question for the day when I interrupted him. The reason I did so was that I was preoccupied by the fact that the Minister without Portfolio to whom he was attempting to place the question is of a definition that has never existed before in Ontario and I wanted to assure myself that putting questions to them respected the letter and intent of our rules and practice.
After my interruption, the same honourable member, as well as the members for Parry Sound, Mr Eves; Carleton, Mr Sterling; York Centre, Mr Sorbara; Parkdale, Mr Ruprecht; Etobicoke West, Mr Stockwell; the honourable government House leader, Mr Charlton; as well as the member for Mississauga West, Mr Mahoney, took part in the arguments on this point of order, for which I thank them.
The main reason for my intervention can be found at page 120 of Beauchesne's 6th edition in Speaker Jerome's 1975 ruling to the House of Commons, Canada, on the subject of question period, where he enumerates a certain number of principles that have always guided the Speaker in the context of question period:
"A brief question seeking information about an important matter of some urgency which falls within the administrative responsibility of the government or of the specific minister to whom it is addressed, is in order."
The important word here is "responsibility," and I will come back to that later.
As I have said, the situation before us is a new one in Ontario. We have never had in this Legislature, as members of the executive, ministers who have been styled ministers without portfolio in brackets, who do not sit at the cabinet table. These members have been sworn in as ministers but do not participate in the cabinet process. I think that point was made very clear the other day by the honourable member for York Centre, Mr Sorbara. We have had ministers without portfolio before in Ontario but, to my knowledge, all of them have had a seat in cabinet, have had a specific designation of responsibility, a specific budget in the estimates and specific public servant staff to help them in meeting their responsibilities.
The six members presently described as ministers without portfolio, to my knowledge, have a general designation but do not have the other important attributes of their colleagues who sit at the cabinet table. So, as far as question period in the House is concerned, to come back to the matter at hand, the Ontario practice to date has been very clear and can be described in the following sentence: Ministers without portfolio may answer questions if they have a program responsibility with all of what that responsibility implies in this case. In the past it was perfectly normal to address questions to these ministers because everyone knew exactly what responsibilities they had within the executive and so the House and the Speaker could know what the parameters of those responsibilities were.
1350
During the presentations made to me in the House, members referred to the status of ministers of state in Ottawa and junior ministers at Westminster and made the point to me and to the House that in those two parliaments those ministers without portfolio did in fact answer questions. The members in this case were absolutely correct, but the situation both in Ottawa and at Westminster is very different.
In Ottawa, the ministers of state referred to all sit at the cabinet table. Secondly, in Ottawa the referral system during question period does not function at all the way it does here. For example, the Minister of Transport could very easily choose to informally indicate to the Minister of State (Transport) to answer a specific question and, conversely, the Minister of Transport could choose to answer, if he or she desired, a question which had been addressed specifically to the Minister of State (Transport) without there being any need for an official referral as we have here.
At Westminster, the whole oral question situation takes place in a completely different context than it does here, and for that reason it is very difficult to take guidance from them. Members will know that all questions at Westminster have to be submitted in writing a good time before the appointed day for an oral answer to be given in the House. In that case, the senior minister will decide who answers questions on the appointed day because a further difference at Westminster is that ministries have designated days in the House on which they are to answer questions that have been chosen for presentation on that day.
In the Australian House of Representatives, "junior ministers" may not answer questions. This is indicated in the Australian House of Representatives Practice, at page 514, as follows:
"It is considered that ministers alone are responsible and answerable to Parliament for the actions of their department. The standing orders do not provide for assistant ministers and parliamentary secretaries or under secretaries to be questioned on matters of government administration."
The rationale for this restriction on junior or assistant ministers in Australia is set out clearly in the report of the House of Representatives standing orders committee of March 20, 1972. It states:
"In considering the functioning of assistant ministers in the House the committee saw no objection to assistant ministers presenting papers and moving motions for their printing or for the House to take note of the papers. However, concern was expressed that no action should be taken which would tend to lessen the responsibility in the House of a minister for the administration of his department or which would affect his or her answerability or enable him to evade his responsibility by having an assistant minister act for him."
Finally, to get back to our situation here at the Ontario Legislature and faced with questions addressed for the first time to ministers without portfolio, having a general ministerial designation put in brackets, who do not sit at the cabinet table and who do not have specific program responsibilities, I have to decide whether questions to these members conform to the spirit of our rules and practice. Our standing order 33(a) refers to ministers of the crown and was written at a time when all ministers of the crown sat at the cabinet table and therefore were also cabinet ministers. These six members are ministers of the crown.
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): You are going to add the words "minister of the crown at the cabinet table"?
The Speaker: I ask the member for Willowdale to come to order.
On the other hand, our practice by necessity has up till now applied only to ministers of the crown who were at the same time cabinet ministers because they were one and the same.
In conclusion, therefore, because this is a new situation, because the Speaker does not give legal or constitutional advice and even though there remain doubts in my mind as to the appropriateness of putting questions to these ministers, I will allow the questions to be put for two reasons.
First, because our standing orders provide that these ministers might wish to refer the questions to the senior ministers and also that they are under no obligation, under our standing orders, to reply to any question. The second reason is that the procedure of putting and answering questions in our House has no legal consequence, but I would like the House to consider that there might be other situations that apply to these new ministers which are not so easily resolved and might prove problematic. While not having made an extensive list, two such situations come to mind. First, should a Minister without Portfolio who does not sit at the cabinet table and who therefore does not participate in cabinet solidarity, present and be made responsible for a government public bill? Second, should such a minister be made responsible for defending estimates before the estimates committee while not taking part in the responsibilities of administration in a precise ministerial environment? Both of these are rhetorical questions at this point, but I'm sure members on both sides of the House will want to reflect upon them.
WILL FERGUSON
Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): Mr Speaker, I think I brought to your attention yesterday a point of privilege that I have regarding the Hansard that came out yesterday regarding Tuesday's question period.
Mr Speaker, I brought to your attention that the Premier said in his reply to me, "I want to say to the honourable member that she says the matter is now closed." I said at that time and I say again, I would not have been posing the question on Grandview if I thought the matter was closed. What I was doing, Mr Speaker, and through you to the Premier, was I was quoting his words that the matter is closed. They were not my words, and the Premier attributed his words to me. I think my privilege has been broken.
Hon Bob Rae (Premier): If my friend from Ottawa feels that I've misinterpreted her remarks in any way --
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): She is not your friend.
Hon Mr Rae: The member for Oriole says I'm not her friend. I would hope that we haven't reached a level of partisanship in the world where one still can't refer to people on the other side as friends. I hope that day never comes.
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You need friends wherever you can find them.
Hon Mr Rae: That's true. I need friends wherever I can find them, on any side of the House.
I would say to the honourable member, if she feels that I've misinterpreted her, then of course, I apologize to her and make that very clear to everyone.
ORAL QUESTIONS
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, in your January 1992 fireside chat you will recall that you told the province's transfer partners that you were going to help them plan for restraints by giving them a three-year funding commitment. Throughout 1992, those hospitals and school boards and municipalities, colleges and universities started a three-year budget planning process based on what you told them. They trusted you.
Last November, you pulled the rug out from under their 10 months of budget planning by reneging on your promised funding. Yesterday, they found out that all previous commitments have been thrown out the window and that they are going to be cut even further.
Premier, some may call this bargaining in bad faith when you sit down tomorrow. I will just call it mismanagement and incompetence of the sort that we have come to expect from your government.
Premier, after all of the broken promises, after all the commitments you've made and then walked away from, how do you seriously expect the municipalities and school boards and colleges and universities to have any faith in the commitments made by you or any faith in the negotiations that you will have with them? Why would anyone believe that your government is not just going to keep changing the ground rules again and again and again?
Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'd say to the honourable member, it's not a matter of changing the ground rules; it's a matter of the fact that the underlying economic circumstances are difficult and are changing, and we all have to respond to that.
I would say to the honourable member that if she says on behalf of herself and her colleagues that she would be recommending to others not to participate in the social contract discussions, then I would be interested in hearing that statement of policy from the Liberal Party, if that's her recommendation. If it is her recommendation, it would be the first time that the Leader of the Opposition has taken a position clearly with respect to major matters of public policy.
So I would say to her that we are entering into the social contract discussions and all of our discussions with our contract partners in a spirit of genuine candour. We're sharing as much information as we can, as we have all the way through the piece.
I think it's fair to say that in January 1992 we were advised by a number of experts and others as to what people felt would happen to the economy, what the overall situation would be. That has proven not to be the case and so we've had to respond. I think for us not to respond in this way, as difficult as it is --
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response, please.
1400
Hon Mr Rae: I realize that life is not easy for our partners; it's not easy for us. It happens to be the way things are right now. I think the only way we can respond is by talking candidly and frankly with one another about our situation and the kinds of changes that we are all going to have to make in order to allow services to be maintained at a level that we all want and in order to allow as many jobs as possible to be protected and secured. That's the approach we're taking.
Mrs McLeod: I would remind the Premier, if he will cast his mind back to the initiatives that his government has proposed over the last two years, that we have attempted to respond to what we thought were leads and turned out to be complete lack of leadership as responsibly as we could.
When he gave the transfer agencies three years of funding commitments, we said, "Those are very tight dollars, but these are tight times." We understood that the dollars were going to be fairly minimal, but we congratulated this government. Can I believe it now when I think back on it? We congratulated this government for at least providing three years of planning time for the transfer agencies to carry out the kind of work they would need to do.
When the Premier went on television a year ago to say, "Whoops, sorry, we didn't understand our figures well enough; we seem to have a problem; now we ask you to do your part," we said, "It would have been better if you hadn't given them three years' funding, but at least now work with them to understand how the needs can be met in more cost-effective ways."
Premier, we are doing our best to respond to the complete lack of leadership that has been provided in the last two years. I can tell you that the groups you are meeting with tomorrow have no more reason to trust the kinds of initiatives you're putting forward than we have been given.
I would remind you that it was just on March 26 that the Minister of Education assured the school boards in writing that their promised funding was coming, belatedly, but that it was coming. That was less than four weeks ago, Premier. Now the school board budgets have been set, their tax rates have been set and they are told that the money isn't coming after all, that their transfers are going to be slashed again. That is what's happening with municipalities, with hospitals, with all of the agencies delivering services to people.
Premier, we do understand the need for restraint, and we have demonstrated that time and time again. What we can't understand and what the transfer agencies can't understand is the total chaos and pandemonium that you have created for them.
The Speaker: Would the leader place her supplementary, please.
Mrs McLeod: I ask you, why did you not understand a year ago the seriousness of the financial problems that this province was facing? Why didn't you understand them even four weeks ago? Why did you wait until now, when all the budgets have been set, to deal with the crisis?
Hon Mr Rae: It's always possible to look back and say, "Why didn't you do it then or then or then?" Frankly, that's a luxury which in government we don't have right now.
What I'm still not clear on when I listen to the Liberal Party is whether it accepts the fact that there needs to be considerable restraint, restraint of an order and a proportion which we've never experienced before in the province, certainly not since the Second World War, or whether she's in fact arguing for some other set of policies.
What we have tried to do as candidly as possible with all of the partners in the public sector is to say look, the way things have been done in the past and the structures that have been set up in the past clearly are not adequate to deal with the kind of situation in which we find ourselves, in which, if I may say so, we have found ourselves as a result of steps that have been taken by the federal government and the underlying problems in the overall economy.
If she's arguing that we should be passing on transfers at a level which are simply not sustainable or that we should be running a deficit which is simply not sustainable, if that's the position of the Liberal Party, then let her stand in her place and say it. But I watch her public statements, I listen to her questions, and as interested -- I've been an observer of politics for the last 14 years, and all I can say is that I don't know; I have no idea what the leader of the Liberal Party really thinks ought to be done. All I know is that whatever I do, she'll be there to criticize, because that's the traditional, old-style politics that the Liberal Party of Ontario specializes in. That's all they know how to do.
Mrs McLeod: The difficulty is that all of the people with whom the Premier is going to sit down tomorrow, and a great many other Ontarians, have no idea what the Premier of this province is planing to do.
I would tell the Premier that I am not talking about the past. I am talking about less than four weeks ago, less than four weeks ago when your government clearly had not plan, less than four weeks ago when your government was busy confirming that it would be honouring its funding commitments to the education sector.
It seems to us very clear, Premier, that you emerged from your caucus meeting in March and suddenly discovered that you had a financial crisis. Everybody else in the province, Premier, saw the writing on the wall two years ago. Where have you been?
I'll tell you where you've been. Instead of dealing with the situation, you have been spending your way out of the recession, you have been driving businesses out of this province, you've been creating places for junior ministers who have no responsibility, you've been inflating your own personal staff.
You had no plan as recently as four weeks ago, you had no idea what to do, so you concocted the idea of a social contract. People said to you, "What does it mean?" and now you have people working around the clock to come up with some kind of plan out of thin air.
Premier, you're going to table a mini-budget tomorrow, and I ask, why should the people of this province have any confidence in your ability to deal with this problem, given that you've only now figured out that you've got one? How can you justify two and a half years of complete mismanagement?
Hon Mr Rae: I reject the rhetoric out of hand. That's all it is. It's the old buffalo stuff.
What I find astounding is that as I talk to business leaders, as I talk to hospital managers, as I talk to people in the broader public sector, as I do all the time, what I am struck by is that they have abandoned the sense of the old-style posturing -- if they ever felt it was a good idea -- that seems to preoccupy the Liberal leader and her colleagues.
This old-style posturing, this old-style politics has nothing to do with the problem that we have today. We face a problem in this province. This government is facing up to the problem, and we know that our partners in the broader public sector are facing up to it as well, because we all have to. School boards, hospitals, government itself have all got to face up to the problem, rather than engaging in the arcane kind of politics and rhetoric that seems to preoccupy the leader of the Liberal Party.
The Speaker: New question.
INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Premier, let me then ask you a question which you can answer relatively easily. You have been talking about ways to cut government spending in order to get your deficit under control. Tomorrow you're going to sit down to negotiate a social contract in which you'll be asking people for innovative ideas to reduce your costs. You keep asking us for suggestions. So Premier, if I were to tell you about a group of people who have a very specific suggestion about scrapping a totally useless process that is a complete waste of time and money, would you be prepared to listen to them?
Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm only too pleased to hear any positive suggestions coming from the Leader of the Opposition.
Mrs McLeod: I can assure you that the suggestion I'm about to make not only reflects the views of the opposition but the views of a great many people who were standing outside the Legislature this morning, because of course I was referring to the suggestions that those people make about dealing with your Interim Waste Authority and its complete ineptitude.
Premier, I met with the people at the anti-dump rally this morning, the rally that your government boycotted, and while I talked to people I heard even more horror stories about the Interim Waste Authority. I want to just tell you one story that will tell you how bad this process is.
Premier, in March of this year, the IWA obtained a warrant from the court to enter the Jefferson farm property near Bolton to drill exploratory holes on a proposed dump site. Premier, the IWA has now spent millions of dollars preparing maps and geological surveys and aerial photographs to identify this site.
Unfortunately, when the IWA entered the Jefferson property to conduct its tests, it missed the site. The Interim Waste Authority, Premier, did drill three holes 60 feet away from the 350-acre proposed landfill site. Expensive maps, expensive geological surveys, custom aerial photos, and they missed the site.
1410
Premier, has your new Minister of Environment and Energy told you what the old Minister of the Environment refused to tell you, that the IWA process is a completely mismanaged, incompetent process, and will you not scrap it?
Hon Mr Rae: The short answer to the question is no. I would only say, in reference to the comments that are made by the honourable member, that I'm not going to say anything which could prejudice the outcome of a process which will eventually appear before an Environmental Assessment Board, which is more than one can say for any process invented by the Liberal Party with respect to the environment, and we believe firmly that that environmental process has to be allowed to take place.
[Interruption]
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Stop the clock, please.
Hon Mr Rae: I just wanted to make sure that wasn't my caucus.
The Speaker: No, we've identified that they're not caucus members. The leader with her supplementary.
Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I want to note for the record that is the first time that the Premier has responded to one of our questions about the government's waste management process, and I therefore will not apologize for tricking him into it.
Premier, let me tell you very clearly that your misguided Interim Waste Authority process has caused tremendous frustration and tremendous anxiety for residents throughout Durham and York and Peel regions. Let me tell you also, in case your minister has not made you aware of it, that that process is also responsible for eating up, to this point, some $30 million in taxpayers' money; $30 million for a process that takes aerial photographs of working farm land in winter and then declares that nothing is growing there; $30 million to hire consultants to conduct geological surveys and draw maps, only to drill holes off the target site; $30 million down the drain.
You keep asking for our alternatives, Premier. Let me make them absolutely clear: Scrap the Interim Waste Authority process; scrap Bill 143; restore a true environmental assessment process, with all the alternatives on the table, including energy from waste incineration, including shipment of waste to willing host communities.
The IWA process is a disaster. It is an expensive disaster. On the eve of your social contract talks, as you sit down to talk to people about saving money that is totally wasted, I ask you again, will you scrap the IWA?
Hon Mr Rae: If there are any other alternatives, there's nothing to prevent a proponent from putting it forward and an environmental assessment from being considered.
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Your process doesn't permit it.
The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.
Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member refers to the cost of the process. I think we all recognize the fact that we all have to learn from our experiences, and I would say to the honourable member that I can't comment on this particular process because I don't want to say anything that's going to prejudice the outcome of an Environmental Assessment Board hearing in this House.
But I would say to the honourable member that the Minister of Environment and I have certainly discussed -- we discussed it even yesterday with the representatives from northwestern Ontario who were here from the municipal association. We had a very positive, constructive, down-to-earth meeting, a very practical meeting. It was a very constructive session, in which we went over some of the concerns about the regulatory process, about what's happening with respect to health care and a number of very practical issues. A more marked contrast between the questions that have been put today and the rhetoric used by the Leader of the Opposition I can scarcely imagine.
TAX INCREASES
Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, an Environics poll was released today. The poll was commissioned to test the views of Ontarians about their own economic future, what they foresaw their opportunities to be in the province of Ontario. This poll reveals that 41% of Ontarians say they would seriously consider leaving this great province of Ontario if they could afford it. Obviously, the last eight years of high-taxing, high-spending Ontario governments have driven working men and women of this province to this decision. It is taking its toll on how they view this great province of ours.
Can you explain to me, Premier, why, in the face of this, you would consider a record $2 billion of tax hikes in your upcoming budget?
Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The National Citizens' Coalition is an organization that's well known. The fact that the leader of the third party has decided to become a spokesman for the coalition is an interesting evolution of politics which we all take note of.
I can't resist pointing out to the honourable member the headline from the Oshawa Times the other day that says, "Harris Backs Rae on Cuts to Deficit." I appreciated that vote of support from the leader of the third party and would simply say to the honourable member with respect to the question of taxation, without getting into any endorsement of the numbers, the kinds of figures that have been thrown around by the leader of the third party, that it's our view as a government -- I just note with interest that it also is the view of the President of the United States, it's the view of most of the other provincial premiers in terms of the actions they've taken, and it's a view of most of the state governors and state legislatures whose activities we've been monitoring very closely, obviously, over the last several months and years -- that a balanced approach is required, one which deals with the fact that the costs of government have to be reduced and have to be brought under control, one which deals with the fact that because it's literally an unprecedented situation, we have to engage in an extensive negotiation with all the people who are working in the public sector, as well as the employers in the public sector, and that tax increases must be an element in order to create a sense of balance and fairness and in order to deal with the longer-term problem, which is in fact the debt and the deficit.
I would say to the honourable member that I've been watching what he's been saying very clearly --
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response, please.
Hon Mr Rae: -- and I know that he shares the objective of getting the deficit down. We may differ as to how that should be done and what the balance should be. I think our proposals are, frankly, more realistic in terms of the actual numbers that we're facing than the proposal he's making, but he may disagree and that's what democracy's all about.
Mr Harris: I appreciate the Premier acknowledging that I have finally got him on my agenda. Now I'd like to tell you how to proceed, because quite frankly I've had a lot more time and experience on this agenda than you have and I think I've got some good advice for you.
Premier, since your government came to power, this is where you've spent some of our money: $200 million to drive the private sector out of day care; $4 million to revamp the Ontario Labour Relations Board under Bill 40; $20 million to update an assessment survey before you flip-flopped on market value assessment; $180 million for a new Workers' Compensation Board building.
Premier, the list goes on and on of wasteful, irresponsible spending, just by your government, let alone the government that preceded you. Today, I've released a sample, that in very quick order is just a sampling of what three people could come together with in about half an hour, of $2 billion in pure waste of spending by your government over this past year.
This simply confirms what I have been telling the former government and what I have been telling you for years: You do not have a revenue problem; you have a spending problem. Will you not admit that your $2-billion tax grab could be avoided -- it could be avoided completely -- if you could just get a handle on your appetite for spending.
1420
Hon Mr Rae: I don't want to necessarily personalize these things. I would say to the honourable member that the government's expenditure reduction plans, which have been in place through last year, have effected the lowest increase in health care costs, which is the biggest item on the provincial spending scene.
We've done, I think, a job this last year where we found that the estimates of 15 of the ministries in fact were less than the year before in terms of spending, so those reductions are in place, and this year we're going to be doing even more with respect to expenditure reduction. The expenditure reduction approach that we're taking is really quite systematic in terms of its overall approach, and indeed I would say, in comparison with any other government since the Second World War, is really pretty historic.
I would say in addition to the honourable member that if he says there's no revenue problem in the province, he should tell me, what other government faces lower revenues in 1992-93 than it did in 1990-91? What other government? Did the Davis government ever have lower revenues within two years before, or did the Peterson government or the Robarts government or the Leslie Frost government, any one of those governments, or the George Drew government? No. The short answer is no.
Interjection: Mitch.
Hon Mr Rae: The only one possibly would be Mitch back in about 1934-35, and we know what he did in terms of some of the dramatic steps he did to reduce expenditure.
I can tell you that we are looking hard at this issue. We're looking realistically at it. Nobody likes to have to talk directly, no one likes to go around saying, "We're going to have to raise your taxes." We're not buying any popularity with this measure. We understand that and we certainly understand that if you went out and took a poll and said, "Would you like the government to raise your taxes?" we know perfectly well that people would say, "No, not particularly." I'm not surprised at that.
What we have to look to is the long-term health of the economy and a balanced approach, making sure that we all look to making a contribution and that we all look to solving a problem. That's exactly the approach this government is taking, a balanced, responsible --
The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.
Hon Mr Rae: -- effective approach that we think is working for the long-term interests of the people of the province of Ontario.
Mr Harris: The Premier continues to refer to other jurisdictions that have taken a balanced approach. I appreciate that there are other jurisdictions that are not the highest taxed in all of North America, that didn't have eight years of record spending and record taxing, that actually have some tax capacity in the system.
However, because of five years of record tax hiking by the Liberals and then two years with billion-dollar tax hikes by you, we don't have that balanced option available to us. What we do have, though, because of the massive increases in spending, is tremendous capacity to cut our spending, and that is where I agree with you in the Oshawa Times; that is where I am trying to encourage you to move.
My list of wasteful spending by your government is only the tip of the iceberg. Let me give you some more: $300,000 for a government propaganda exercise on NAFTA; $1 million for the 1-800 NDP chat line; of course, the hundreds of millions in health care fraud that we talked about yesterday. The list we've released today is just the tip of the iceberg. The Provincial Auditor -- hundreds of millions of dollars more of waste.
You and your Treasurer claim you need $2 billion of tax hikes. He calls them revenue enhancers. Call them what you will. Premier, I've identified for you $2 billion in waste that you can cut out instead of the $2 billion in tax hikes and I would ask you today to give some little glimmer of hope to the 41% who want to leave their homeland, want to leave this province. Tell them that there will be no new taxes.
Interjection: George Bush.
Hon Mr Rae: I'm not George Bush and neither, I would suggest, is the leader of the third party, but I would just say to the honourable member that we're happy to listen to any suggestions he has. I hope he looks hard at the overall estimates process, and if there are practical suggestions that he's making, we'll be glad to look at them. I think all of us would be.
Obviously, if this government could find a way to deal responsibly with what we think is a very important problem for the overall future of the economy of the province without having to raise revenues, raise taxes -- I've used the word very directly -- then obviously any government would say, "Gee, if we can do that."
We've made the decision that the question of expenditures, the question of government spending, is going to be addressed very directly. I would just say directly to the leader of the third party, in all candour and honesty with the people of this province and with the people of Canada, that I would suggest -- and I notice that the Tory leadership campaign is going on as well -- that anybody who suggests that Ontario's situation or that Canada's situation can be resolved without our dealing with the question of revenues and taxes is not talking straight with the people of Ontario and the people of Canada, and I'm determined to talk straight with the people of Ontario and Canada and tell it like it is, even if it isn't always what people want to hear.
HEALTH CARDS
Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, yesterday, in your absence, I asked the Premier about a radio report that a secret document had been prepared by the ministry for Michael Decter, the deputy minister. That report, which I now have excerpts of, clearly projects that $691 million of fraudulent claims may be made annually under the Liberal system of health cards. Minister, this is more than 30 times the amount of money that your deputy, Michael Decter, estimated was being wasted by this system when he appeared before the committee in February.
I would ask you this: Why was this information kept secret from the Premier? Why was it kept secret from the committee, where Mr Decter had given information completely different than what this study came up with? Why was this information kept secret from the House?
Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Nothing was kept secret from the committee. The public accounts committee examined the issue of the number of health cards that existed in the province. Let me remind the member that there were 25 million OHIP numbers out there when his government left office. The member for Oriole introduced the health card, and we have been trying since then to begin to establish a system of verification that those people who have a health card are in fact eligible to use the health card.
As Mr Decter explained to the public accounts committee, under our government a verification and registration unit has been established, in May 1992, to do this very thing. Mr Decter submitted to the committee a list of almost 50 studies that this group was undertaking in order to find out where in fact there might be opportunities to use ineligible cards and how best we can move to stop precisely the expenditures that I know concern him, and certainly concern us and concern the providers and the users in the system, which is that we do not want anybody who is not eligible to take advantage of the OHIP system doing just that.
The titles of the studies were presented to the committee. The report to which the member is referring is in fact a compilation of those studies, and that is a report that was done within the ministry and from which as yet no conclusions have been drawn.
Mr Harris: This report was released by a radio station in Kingston and found 6,772 cases of duplicate cards that they call easy to find, yet you haven't found them; Michael Decter hasn't found them. There are 194,000 numbers you can't even account for. Among the many calls that my office received this morning were several talking about how easy it is to get a card, including one for a dog named Rocky.
The auditor told you clearly that the system was costing precious health care funds, and yet your Michael Decter, your deputy minister, when appearing before the committee, downplayed the problem, said we've got a $20-million problem, didn't tell the members of the committee that he had this ongoing study, when he got the study about a month ago didn't come and apologize to the committee and say: "My $20-million problem is now a $691-million problem. Sorry, I was out by $650-odd million."
When your government has known for nearly two years, when these issues were being raised, when the questions were being raised, why has this waste of tax dollars, at the expense of our health care system, at the expense of our taxpayers, been allowed to continue?
1430
Hon Mrs Grier: Let me make the point again that for the first time since the introduction of OHIP numbers in the 1970s there is now in fact a dedicated unit within the ministry attempting to discover how best we can provide verification of eligibility. Let me put what the member for Nipissing is saying in some kind of perspective.
Interjection.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Parry Sound.
Hon Mrs Grier: The member from Nipissing has thrown around and in his press release yesterday made a number of very extravagant statements about the misuse of OHIP numbers, and I want the House to clearly understand that the member yesterday said there might be 60,000 fraudulent claims submitted by non-residents using US drivers' licences. He took that from the report that was done within the ministry, and I want members to understand how that figure was arrived at.
For a period of time, checks were done in two hospitals, in hospitals in Windsor and in Kingston, two border cities. Everybody presenting at that hospital was asked for verification as to the fact that they were residents of Ontario; 752 patients were asked to verify that they lived in Ontario. Five of them produced US drivers' licences. The study then took that number and presumed that that ratio, 752 to 5, held all throughout the year, all across the province of Ontario. If that worst-case scenario was in fact the case, then there might well be 60,000 people with US drivers' licences who also have OHIP cards.
I think to draw from that the conclusion that was reached at the public accounts committee by the deputy minister, that in fact there are between 1% and 2% of the OHIP cards that are owned by people who are ineligible to use them, that is in fact the dimension of the problem we are now attempting to deal with.
Mr Harris: This was your ministry study that was put out. These were people in Ontario hospitals who volunteered. Volunteered -- they didn't have to produce anything. These are the ones who volunteered they were US citizens. How many more do you think were smart enough not to volunteer? How many do you think were smart enough not to volunteer? The study, and the people who did the study, think it's low. They think they're low at 60,000, and that's what they have said.
We discovered yesterday and it will be confirmed tomorrow that the Treasurer plans to cut approximately $600 million from hospitals and from health care services. Here we have, by the minister's own study, the one Michael Decter covered up and wouldn't release and wouldn't give the committee and talked absolute different numbers about, here we have more than $600 million in absolute, irresponsible waste.
I would ask you this: How do you, as the minister responsible for this deputy some of the time, and how does the Premier have confidence that Michael Decter tomorrow is going to go into your so-called contract negotiations with any credibility -- with any credibility -- when his ministry has frittered away by pure and simple mismanagement, and then covered it up, more than the $600 million you want to take away from the sick and the elderly?
Hon Mrs Grier: For the member to suggest that the deputy minister, in submitting to the public accounts committee an outline of all the studies that were under way, is to in fact cover up the fact that studies were being made is, I think, a gross exaggeration and leads me to believe that the member is more interested in undermining the credibility of Mr Decter than he is in protecting our medicare system.
CARLTON MASTERS
Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a question for the Premier regarding the Carlton Masters affair. We know the outcome of Mr Masters's trial, at least from the perspective of Mr Masters. He is, in his own words, without a job, without a reputation, without a future. He is, as he has said, a dead man. We also know what the Premier's public position is. He said he wanted to retain a top-notch downtown law firm so that he would be able to make an independent decision as judge, based on a completely independent inquiry.
The Premier knows, as a politician and a lawyer, that one of the hallmarks of our system of justice is that there shall be no political interference in the administration of justice, not even the appearance of political interference. Mr Speaker, I want to say to you that this has not been the case in Mr Masters's trial.
Ms Julie Davis is a senior political adviser to the Premier. She is, among other things, the vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. She was the chair of the New Democratic Party's election campaign and she is now the president of the New Democratic Party of Ontario. She does, in short, sit at the right hand of the throne of power in Ontario.
I ask the Premier whether he is aware that shortly after the allegations were made against Mr Masters, Ms Julie Davis, one of his senior advisers, began meeting with Mr Masters and continued to do so throughout the inquiry conducted by the law firm of Tory Tory DesLauriers and Binnington, and did so purportedly on the basis that she wanted to be a friend, a confidante and an adviser to Mr Masters.
I ask the Premier, when did he dispatch Ms Davis to run the political part of the inquiry and what discussions has he had with Ms Davis at any time after she began her advisory role to Mr Carlton Masters?
Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The suggestion contained in your question, that I dispatched anyone on my behalf to talk to Mr Masters in the course of this inquiry, is completely false. He asked that question, when did I dispatch? The answer is never. The answer to that part is never, just so that's very clear.
There were a number of people who talked to Carlton Masters, a number of people who were in contact with him by letter and by telephone, I imagine, during the course of the inquiry, not an unusual thing that friends of Mr Masters would talk to him. I was aware of a number of people who were talking to Mr Masters and I can tell the honourable member two things: first of all, that the process and the decision to select the law firm was made by the secretary to cabinet, at that time Mr Barnes, that this decision was made by him after consultations with the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology at that time and that I had absolutely no involvement with that decision; second of all, that I had absolutely no contact with Mr Masters of any kind whatsoever during the course of the compiling of the report -- none whatsoever.
Mr Sorbara: I didn't suggest in my question that the Premier ever had any contact with Mr Masters. What I suggested, what I am stating categorically is that his senior adviser, the top political adviser to the Premier of Ontario, at one and the same time put herself in a terrible conflict-of-interest position because she offered herself as an adviser to Mr Masters as well.
I say to the Premier that the Masters inquiry and the judgement that you made as judge were a judicial process just like any other trial in this province and a judicial process with serious consequences to the accused. I say to the Premier that Ms Davis placed herself in a dangerous and irreconcilable conflict of interest from her very first meeting with Mr Masters. I say as a lawyer that it was impossible for her to, at one and the same time, be an adviser to the accused, Mr Masters, and the judge, the Premier of Ontario.
I say that Ms Davis's actions compromised the very --
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member place a question, please.
Mr Sorbara: -- inquiry itself. I say that this news has poisoned the decision that you made and it has poisoned your authority to make that decision.
1440
The Speaker: Does the member have a question?
Mr Sorbara: I ask the Premier, I say to him that his only alternative now is to rescind the decision that he made and place the whole of the Masters affair into the hands of a truly independent body and assure this Parliament, assure Mr Masters and assure the people of Ontario that there will be no further attempts to mix NDP politics with the administration of justice in the province of Ontario.
Hon Mr Rae: Let me just say to the honourable member that his characterization of the whole process and his characterization of the issue and his characterization of anyone else's role is a completely made-up proposition on his part. I would just say to the honourable member --
Mr Sorbara: The man lost his job without due process. Is that what you're saying?
The Speaker: Order.
Hon Mr Rae: -- that I've listened carefully to what he has suggested and what others have suggested and obviously will continue to try to exercise --
Mr Sorbara: What conversation did you have with Julie Davis?
The Speaker: Order.
Hon Mr Rae: -- my judgement in as impartial and fairminded a way as I possibly can, accepting the fact that whatever I do, I know there's one group of people that will always criticize what I do, and those are the members opposite.
The Speaker: New question, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville. Is the member -- the leader of the third party.
LABOUR DISPUTE
Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Premier, earlier this week I asked you a question about the interference of some of your senior ministers in a labour dispute in Sudbury. You referred that question to the Chairman of Management Board, of which he had no knowledge and knew nothing about. The question, you'll recall, concerned the direct interference, for political purposes, by senior members of your cabinet in labour-management negotiations involving Sudbury Youth Services.
Today we learned that after the incident you, Premier, personally telephoned the board chairman in Sudbury and apologized for what your ministers had done. Premier, when you knew very well what had happened, when you had already apologized to the board chairman personally by telephone call, confirmed by the board chairman this morning, why did you refer the question to a minister who, just the day before, knew nothing about it, when you yourself knew what had happened, knew it was wrong and had already made a private apology to the board chairman for that?
Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I really think this is a matter for the Chairman of Management Board. I'm going to refer the question to him.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chairman of the Management Board): In relation to the specific question the leader of the third party has raised, I have no indication in all of the correspondence I've seen in relation to this issue that there was any such call, so I can't directly respond with respect to that part of the issue.
The other part of the issue, though, that the Leader of the Opposition has been raising is the issue that the member raised again today about interference by local members. I just repeat that it is not uncommon for members of any government party to get involved in a local matter and to seek to find ways to resolve that local matter.
Mr Harris: The question, pure and simple, was, why did the Premier refer a question when he knew what it was all about, when he had made a phone call to the chairman to apologize? Why did he refer the question to a minister who knows nothing about it, ie, you.
By way of supplementary, Mr Minister -- and I would ask you if you might refer this back to the Premier, who has knowledge of this, and only he can explain why he made the phone call, why he apologized and why he didn't disclose that to the House. While you're at it, you might remind the Premier that the situation was that if this dispute hadn't been settled, the Premier himself was going to be picketed in Sudbury, that that's why your senior ministers corrupted the labour bargaining process, as reported by the arbitrator: to avoid an embarrassing photo op. The Premier apologized to the chairman of Sudbury Youth Services. Would you, by way of referral to the Premier, ask him to apologize to the House today for not disclosing what he knew on Tuesday when I asked him a question --
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader complete his question, please.
Mr Harris: -- and also apologize for this spirit of what I assumed is something that the Premier thinks is a cherished right, to fair bargaining?
Hon Mr Charlton: I repeat: I've been through the documents in relation to this case. I have no idea whether the Premier may or may not have apologized. The point at issue here is simply that I have reviewed this case in detail and have found nothing inappropriate.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Solicitor General has a reply to a question asked earlier.
Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I rise in order to respond to a question that was referred to me yesterday by the Premier. The question was asked by the member for Mississauga South.
As the member well knows, I cannot comment on any specific allegation. I can tell the House that any workplace discrimination and harassment allegation involving civilian employees in my ministry would be responded to with an internal investigation under the workplace discrimination harassment policy, not a criminal investigation by the police. Investigators involved have included OPP officers who conduct internal workplace harassment investigations in their capacity as ministry employees, but not in their capacity as police officers.
With respect to the letter the member passed to me yesterday, it has been forwarded to my deputy minister for appropriate action.
I would encourage any individual who has general concerns about procedures under the workplace discrimination harassment policy to contact the workplace discrimination and harassment prevention unit at Management Board secretariat. This government, my ministry and I remain committed to working towards a discrimination- and harassment-free workplace and environment for all our employees.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): While I listened very carefully to the Solicitor General's response, I don't think that this House has an adequate explanation about why the investigation of a civilian civil servant was made by someone who is a police officer. I don't see how a police officer can take his hat off and pretend to be someone else and be involved in this internal investigation.
I think that the rights of this individual have been violated because, under your own practice, you have just confirmed that that kind of investigation should not take place of a civilian. I ask you again, as I did yesterday -- I think it goes further to confirm the fact that every man and woman in this province is vulnerable. Until your government gets its head straight and its policies nailed down, every man and woman in this province is going to be at risk with sexual harassment and how it is handled in the workplace.
The Speaker: Could the member conclude her question, please.
Mrs Marland: So I ask you again: What is it that your government is going to do to ensure that people like Mr Carlton Masters and Catharine Arnston get a fair shake when something as serious as sexual harassment is involved?
1450
Hon Mr Christopherson: The member asked I can't count how many different questions. Let me answer the questions I think that relate to the initial issue that she raised with the Premier and that I believe I have already covered in my response to her.
The first is that she continues to refer to the correspondence that was sent over to the Premier and then to me yesterday afternoon. I again state that I cannot comment on any specific allegation, and I believe the member knows that that must be the case.
Secondly, as I have said, it has been the practice for OPP officers to conduct internal investigations that are not criminal investigations. That has been the policy; is the policy. We're looking at some changes as a result of the merger of the two ministries.
I would just close by saying that I expect that any action that needs to happen as a result of the correspondence the member raised here in the House yesterday will be followed up on.
EDUCATION POLICY
Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, earlier I wondered why you had not made a statement with respect to the whole question of the pupil-teacher ratio in the lower grades. We have had a number of phone calls, and I've had confirmed, as have many other members, from parents, from trustees, from teachers, indicating that you have issued a directive that says the pupil-teacher ratios in the lower grades -- junior kindergarten, senior kindergarten, grades 1 and 2 -- are going to be increased. Is that your policy? Have you issued such a declaration? Are you planning to do so?
Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Mr Speaker, I haven't issued such a declaration and he knows I haven't.
Mr Beer: I know no such thing. I would remind the minister that everyone has demonstrated, through studies such as the Ontario Child Health Study, Better Beginnings, Better Futures, a series of works, the importance of working with children in the educational field at an early time in their development. This is a serious issue, because it has been determined that if children in those grades can be taught in smaller groupings, they are going to have a better chance to achieve.
Minister, can you state to the House today that you have no intention of ordering the pupil-teacher ratio to be increased in the lower grades? Can you say that? Because there is tremendous concern out there in terms of whether you are going to fight your fight with respect to the education budget on the backs of the four- and five-year-olds and on the backs of the local ratepayers. Are you simply going to offload this, Minister, so someone else is paying, or are you going to hold to the policy and ensure that the young children of this province are properly and adequately instructed?
Hon Mr Cooke: I can absolutely assure the member and members of the House that this government and this Minister of Education will of course be fighting for fair treatment of students in a good education system.
ROLE OF MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO IN HEALTH
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the junior minister of Health. The question to the junior minister of Health is this --
Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): No such thing as a junior minister.
Mr Stockwell: Then I'm open to what the term is.
Hon Mr Wildman: Minister without portfolio.
Mr Stockwell: Minister without Portfolio responsible for Health, for junior health issues.
Considering that you receive $15,000 in additional pay, upwards of some $400,000 for your office budget, an expense account, a chauffeur and limousine, what exactly is it that you do to justify this extra expense, considering that you can't go to cabinet meetings and offer what I would hope are salient points of view on the Health ministry? How do you justify this to the unemployed, the civil servants, those people who are looking at job losses, rollback in wages? Basically, what exactly is your job description that allows you to have these kinds of perks and privileges and the need for you in this particular cabinet?
Hon Karen Haslam (Minister without Portfolio in Health): Mr Speaker, I report to the Minister of Health. I will defer this question to the Minister of Health.
Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I think as the Premier indicated yesterday in this debate, the ministers without portfolio have an important role to play in assisting ministers who are responsible for large departments, and I can assure the honourable member that that is the role the member for Perth plays with me.
Mr Stockwell: I asked the junior minister simply because I was asking for basically a job description, that job description being, what do you do to earn all these extra dollars, all these extra perks, all these extra moneys that go with a cabinet minister when you don't sit at the cabinet table?
Now the junior minister can't seem to answer that, and it's just basically asking you, what's your job description? The minister stands up and says, "The job description is that she will assist me." That doesn't seem to be a very comprehensive job description for somebody who's going to make an additional $15,000, expense account, $400,000 in office budget increase, etc, etc, etc.
My question is, what is the job description? If it's simply to assist you, what makes it so different from a parliamentary assistant, where we could save probably $500,000 of hard-earned tax dollars and maybe potentially not lay off quite as many union members?
Hon Mrs Grier: I have never presumed to ask any member of this House, and particularly the member raising the question, what he or she does to earn their particular honorarium as a member of this Legislature, but I can say to the member very clearly that the ministers without portfolio are members of cabinet, work with all of the members of cabinet, assist all of the members of cabinet in explaining and arriving at the decisions of policy that are determined by this government and make a very valuable contribution to the work of this government.
LONG-TERM CARE
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, seniors and other health consumers in the Peterborough area believe it is vital that consumers be strongly involved in the development of the long-term care framework unveiled two weeks ago.
There is concern that a system developed through district health councils will be heavily weighted in favour of medical models and fail to adequately represent consumer concerns. How will the long-term care framework avoid that scenario?
Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to clarify that particular question because I know it is one of great interest to both consumers and providers of long-term care all around the province, and the interest in this particular topic was exemplified by the breadth and depth of consultation and involvement in the determining of the framework that occurred over the last several months.
Let me reassure the member, and through her everyone else in the province, that in fact the district health councils, in planning for long-term care within their regions, will make sure that their long-term care committees have a balance between both the health services and the community and social services. I think that's very important and I would remind her that district health councils have a long history now of in fact working with all the providers in the system. I can assure her that the planning models that will be developed to actually implement long-term care will reflect the integration of health and social services that is so important in the delivery of this very important service.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.
MINISTERIAL RESPONSE
Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like a clarification because I am a little confused, and some of my caucus colleagues would say I'm confused all the time, but yesterday the honourable member for Mississauga South asked a question of the Premier, and I believe the Premier responded not only to the initial question but also in some detail and at some length to a supplementary question. Today the Solicitor General comes into the House and purports to respond to the same question that was answered, both the question and the supplementary, by the Premier yesterday.
I note at the end of the Premier's response to the initial question yesterday he said, "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."
At that point I would have thought that would have been the end of the question. However, you permitted the member for Mississauga South to ask a supplementary, the Premier went on and answered the supplementary at some length, and today we have the Solicitor General coming back and responding to a question previously asked. I don't understand.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Can the minister assist on this?
1500
Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I just want to add that I'm not sure why the point's being raised, except to say that I had a brief discussion with the member for Mississauga South before we left the chamber yesterday, and it was her understanding as well as mine that indeed this is what would happen. In fact, I gave a commitment to the honourable member that if I didn't or couldn't, for some reason, answer today, I would apprise her of that. So I'm not too sure why the House leader for the third party has a problem.
Mr Eves: I'm just trying to clarify the procedure, Mr Speaker. I'm quite aware of the procedure of standing a question down. I'm quite aware of the procedure where you take it under advisement and you answer the question the next day because you don't have an answer with you that day. But under those circumstances, normally -- correct me if I'm wrong -- you don't answer the question, then answer a supplementary and then bring it back the next day under advisement. I mean, if you don't know the answer, you say you don't know the answer and you take it under advisement.
The Speaker: To the member for Parry Sound: First, I'm sure he will appreciate that when the Chair is notified that a minister has a reply to a question asked earlier, the Chair is not aware of the contents nor the circumstances. By providing a response in the House, it does allow the original questioner an opportunity for a supplementary, which today was granted.
I understand full well the member's point, and indeed, to my recollection, normally things proceed in the way in which he has just described. However, he did read a portion of the response from Hansard, which was an undertaking, as I understood it, from the Premier to have one of his ministers reply more directly, if at all possible, and under those circumstances I would see nothing wrong in what the minister was doing.
I add again, I don't think we normally do things that way. But there was an undertaking, and by the minister responding in the House, it did allow a member of your caucus an opportunity to place another question on the issue and have the issue dealt with in the chamber rather than outside the chamber.
Mr Eves: I just want to clarify, Mr Speaker. Am I incorrect in understanding that what should have happened is that when the Premier responded extremely briefly to the initial question yesterday and said he was taking the member's question under advisement, that should have been the end of it and we should have been on to the next question instead of permitting a lengthy supp and a lengthy answer to the lengthy supp, and then having the minister come in and answer the question that wasn't answered yesterday but was answered yesterday etc, etc?
I mean, are we going to see this every time we ask a question? Is some minister of the crown going to come into the Legislative Assembly the next day and answer the question again because he didn't give an answer that he thought he liked or she liked the day before?
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): You don't want an answer.
Mr Eves: No, I want an answer. You answered the question yesterday. The Premier --
The Speaker: Could the member for Parry Sound please take his seat. Government House leader?
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): On the same point, Mr Speaker, I believe, sir, that you, on March 21, 1991, ruled in this House that it was acceptable for a minister to stand in rotation and even add additional information to a question previously answered.
The member for Parry Sound knows full well that when the government side chooses to add some additional information in that fashion, it does take up one of our rotations in the process. That's a choice that the government caucus makes in its choosing of how it will deal with question period.
The Speaker: Indeed, the point is made that when a minister stands to reply, that's one person out of the rotation for the government side, and a backbencher is deprived of an opportunity to place a question that day and the original questioner has another opportunity to place a question.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, just to confirm what the Solicitor General said, he did say in fact, when I spoke to him afterwards, that he would try to get back to me with the answer and investigate it for today.
I didn't know whether he was going to get back to me directly or through the person I asked the question to. In fairness to my own House leader, I did ask my question to the Premier, so I don't want the House to think I had a different understanding than did the Solicitor General.
PETITIONS
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION RULING
Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have three petitions that I would like to present today. They were forwarded to me by Mr David Switzer from the Frankford area in my riding. The first reads:
"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"Whereas the Ontario Human Rights Commission in its September 1 ruling extended full family and bereavement benefits to same-sex arrangements; and
"Whereas this is believed by us Christians to be detrimental to the family and society;
"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Honourable Howard Hampton, Attorney General of the province of Ontario, to appeal this ruling of the Human Rights Commission."
Mr Speaker, the second petition reads:
"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition --
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The members have become used to a practice of doing one at a time, unless there are very few petitioners.
ABORTION
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition signed by 69 people in the Coldwater-Orillia area that reads as follows:
"We, the undersigned, wish to express our disapproval of the New Democratic Party's decision to implement the 46 recommendations of the task group of abortion service providers to expand abortion services in Ontario."
I have signed my name to that, Mr Speaker.
LANDFILL
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition, and you know there was a presentation out on the front steps here from a lot of my constituents.
"Whereas the town of Georgina has traditionally been a mixture of agricultural, residential and vacation land; and
"Whereas these areas would be drastically affected by a megadump;
"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has identified the sites in the town that would consume large tracts of number 1 and 2 farm land, the areas identified by the Interim Waste Authority would disrupt the vibrant agricultural community and the farm families in these areas that continue to invest large sums of their money into the family farms. These communities would be destroyed by the Interim Waste Authority putting in a megadump;
"Whereas most of the people in Georgina depend on groundwater for their drinking water supply and the dump would threaten their clean water supply;
"Whereas Lake Simcoe is the ice fishing capital of the world; and
"Whereas Lake Simcoe provides a strong draw for tourists to fish year-round; and
"Whereas the effects of a megadump would destroy the local economies of the community" --
Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Then why didn't you vote against Bill 143? How can you be reading that and mean it?
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Markham.
Mr O'Connor: "Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:
"We oppose the Interim Waste Authority's proposal to take prime farm land and turn it into Metro-York's megadump.
"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew the efforts to seek alternatives, like waste reprocessing, to landfill and implement progressive reduction, reuse and recycling programs."
Mr Speaker, we had not only a lot of people from my riding, but even high school students from Sutton High, and I affix my name to this petition.
The Speaker: The member for Quinte.
PORNOGRAPHY
Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My apologies on that other.
This petition reads:
"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"Whereas pornography is exploitive of women, viewing them as mere objects or possessions to use as man sees fit; and
"Whereas police experience and academic research indicate that this mentality directly contributes to the escalating problem of rape and battered women; and
"Whereas pornography degrades and dehumanizes women in our society; and
"Whereas the 1991 federal Criminal Code, section 163, is clear and concise in its definition of obscenity;
"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Honourable Howard Hampton, Attorney General of Ontario, to insist that the Ontario Film Review Board live up to its mandate when reviewing films and implement the letter of the law."
1510
LANDFILL
Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas on October 24, 1991, the NDP government introduced Bill 143, the Waste Management Act, and tried to force the Legislature to pass the bill before Christmas 1991 without public consultation or notification to affect the municipalities and residents and without naming the candidate landfill sites; and
"Whereas the NDP were forced into five weeks of public hearings and listened to over 200 presenters, all recommending amendments to Bill 143; and
"Whereas the NDP refused to listen or pass any opposition amendments to Bill 143 which would protect and secure individual and municipal rights to full environmental assessment hearings on waste alternatives such as rail haul; and
"Whereas the NDP used their majority to pass Bill 143 on April 23, 1992, with the full support of" --
Interjection.
Mr Cousens: -- the one who's speaking out of place right now, none other than Mr Wiseman, MPP, Durham West, Larry O'Connor, who just made the last --
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member for Markham simply read the petition, please.
Mr Cousens: Thank you, Mr Speaker -- "Gordon, Mills, MPP, Durham East; and
"Whereas the NDP" -- standing for the New Democratic Party -- "named 57 candidate landfill sites on June, 4, 1992; and
"Whereas Ruth Grier and the Premier refused to meet with groups opposing the dumps and refused to consider the alternatives like rail haul, contrary to Mrs Grier's support of rail haul in January 1991; and
"Whereas Mrs Grier refused to meet with the residents and mayor of Kirkland Lake to review the Adams mine proposal and proceeded to ban rail haul without considering the impact on the northern economy; and
"Whereas the NDP government created the Interim Waste Authority to find a solution to the GTA waste and operate independently from the Ministry of the Environment, but at the same time the IWA must adhere to Mrs Grier's ideology and her ban of waste alternatives such as rail haul and incineration; and
"Whereas the IWA and the NDP government refuse to conduct an environmental assessment on the alternatives and remain firm on subjecting communities in the regions of York, Durham and Peel to a process that ignores their fundamental rights to a review of alternatives and employs a system of criteria ranking that defies logic and leads to the selection of dump sites on environmentally sensitive areas, prime agricultural land and sites located near urban areas;
"We, the undersigned, want Bill 143 revoked and replaced with a bill that would allow a full environmental assessment on all waste management options."
I have signed this, affixed my name to it, with the hope that this government will do something about Bill 143 and the dumps. On today, which is Earth Day, it's surprising they didn't even make an announcement in the House, but we submit this in full hope there'll be some action.
The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.
GAMBLING
Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'm glad to rise in the House today with the support of my mother, who's come here on the anti-gambling crusade, in the members' gallery.
"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 and every 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 of course was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;
"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."
I'm glad to affix my signature to it and to add this to the thousands of names that have come to this House before.
POLICE USE OF FORCE
Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): The third petition that I would like to present today is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and states:
"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"Whereas the role of the police is to uphold and enforce the laws duly established by elected representatives; and
"Whereas the police are empowered to protect society and maintain the peace; and
"Whereas the government has an obligation to provide adequate means for the police to fulfil their duty; and
"Whereas society has a responsibility to support police in this duty,
"Be it resolved that we reject the new use-of-force regulations and humbly pray and call upon this House to stay implementation of this legislation."
I add my name to this petition.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm presenting a petition to the Lieutenant Governor, to the Ontario government and to Premier Bob Rae from the people who oppose the celebration of violence against women. Their petition reads as follows:
"Please take action to stop the proliferation of hateful, violent and slasher movies."
It is signed by 44 people who attended the viewing of Reel Hatred at the National Film Board on February 9, 1993.
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): The member for Mississauga West.
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I wish I could say I was pleased to rise to address you and members of this Legislature on the throne speech, because I think it is an important document that should outline a blueprint, I guess, a future, a plan that any particular government has. You don't always have to agree with that particular plan, but it would be helpful if there was --
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): You didn't read it.
Mr Mahoney: I did read it. It didn't take long, actually. There was a précis. It was a pretty short order.
The member for Mississauga South seems to want to join the Liberal caucus.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Well, there's nobody sitting in your caucus. I just thought I'd keep you company.
Mr Mahoney: They'll be here, Margaret. You can just sit down and relax.
It would be nice, though, if we could take a document and analyse what the government's plan is. Unfortunately, what I've found and what I think people, particularly on this side of the House and in the community who I've talked to, have found is that it didn't give a blueprint. In fact, what it did -- thanks, Mr Whip, I see 15 minutes. Everything's fine, Mr Deputy Whip.
It didn't give a blueprint. Instead, what it did was it gave an analysis of what's occurred up to date in the Bob Rae government. It was like a report card being written by the student. Imagine. So they gave themselves all these A-pluses for programs that have been put in place, whether it was Jobs Ontario, whether it was training programs.
Here we have a government that, no question, has adopted a format for providing training for people through cooperation with community colleges, and what do we wind up with? We wind up with people going through training programs for jobs that don't exist. That's what today's Ontario, Bob Rae's Ontario, is all about. It's providing training for people for jobs that don't exist.
This ad, I think, says it all. This will be appearing on billboards around the province. It says, "How do you like socialism so far?" with, Margaret, a nice picture of our boy Premier sitting there with a great big smile on his face. That's their definition of 'socialism.' But I'm delighted actually to have a member of the Conservative caucus sitting beside me for this debate, because I wanted to talk to you about some of the things members opposite might enjoy that we've been hearing from some of the members of the Conservative caucus, most notably the leader, the self-styled Taxfighter.
The Tories suggest that we should somehow revert back to the magical days of Tory government. That's what they're suggesting: back to the days of Frank Miller, back to the days of Claude Bennett.
I can recall when I was a municipal politician, along with the member for Mississauga South, when we used to get missiles coming from Queen's Park telling us in the good old Bill Davis days how our transfer payments were going to be slashed. Tomorrow, Friday, the current Treasurer is going to be making an announcement at 10 o'clock somewhere in this place, we're not quite sure where, not in the Legislature but in the Legislative Building, probably in the press office. He will be conducting a press conference to announce, to the municipalities and the school boards and the so-called partners in delivering services to the beleaguered taxpayers of this province, cuts in transfer payments.
1520
I cannot believe, and I'm sure those folks -- whoever they may be because they won't show their heads -- who voted for the NDP must be sitting there and saying, "Maybe we already are back in the Tory days." They're having trouble understanding, I say to Mr Hope, how this Premier can become so right-wing and how the Treasurer, whose bent in life was to nationalize Inco, has all of a sudden turned into the Donald Trump of Ontario politics. Can you imagine?
So it is not a surprise to the members of the Liberal caucus that the Oshawa Times would print a headline today announcing that Mr Harris, the leader of the Conservatives, is in full agreement with Mr Rae, the Premier of the province, in the methods being proposed to solve the deficit.
One of the methods will be to slash and cut. I thought he was going to suggest today that part of the Tory policy used to be that you folks should buy your own oil company. That's what they did; they bought Suncor. In 1981, they paid $800 million for Suncor so that the Conservatives leading the province in the day could have their own oil company. They probably had a gas pump outside the door. They could just go out -- they thought that was smart. It was sold, may I remind my friends in the Tory caucus, Margaret, for $304 million.
Now, in fairness, there were earnings. It showed dividend earnings of $100 million over the period. So they only lost about $400 million. That is Tory economics. That's the kind of mentality that when Mr Taxfighter stands up and starts talking about his solutions and the Tory solutions to the deficit, he would have you do that.
Then, you know the greatest thing that the beautiful Pink Tories did? They bought this wonderful place up just north of Kenora called Minaki Lodge -- unbelievable -- in 1974, right in the heart of the Big Blue Machine, working at their best in 1974. My colleague the member for Mississauga South, I believe, was probably on the school board at that time, suffering through all the difficulties, suffering through all the cuts from the Davis government and his predecessors in those days. Was he Minister of Education? He probably was in those days.
Mrs Marland: No, he was leader.
Mr Mahoney: Here you go, he was leader. He had risen to leader.
They go out and they buy Minaki Lodge. They're going to turn that into a government retreat and a little home away from home for Leo Bernier and all the good old boys.
I really miss Tory Ontario, I'll tell you, the days of party hacks, the days of pork-barrelling like you've never seen before. It's all documented: 15 successive years of deficit financing under Conservative rule, and it's been taken up by this government with a vengeance.
So I have to laugh, I say, Mr Speaker, with respect, when I hear these people stand up and try to perpetrate a fraud that Tory times were good times, and we have seen in Ottawa exactly what Tory times are in recent years. Let's just set the record straight on that.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): You doubled the deficit in five years.
Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, it's nice when they get excited. Let me talk to you about what the former Conservatives did, and now the NDP, just to show how much alike you people are. I'm sure you can't believe it. I notice they're better dressed these days. I figure they all went out -- there won't be an early election, because they've all gone out and they've entered into two-year leases for new clothes, so we're not going to the polls until those leases are up.
Just to show you how similar this NDP government is to the days of the Pink Tories, let's talk about what's happened to capital education funding in this province. Let's talk about the fathers and mothers of underfunding. This party right here destroyed the infrastructure of capital funding in the province of Ontario in the years 1980 to 1985.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Speak to your colleagues in Mississauga.
Mr Mahoney: You cut capital funding, I say to the deputy leader of the Tory party, and you should be talking to your leader about how you should be ashamed of yourselves. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Under the Liberal administration, let me point out that we were the first government in the history of this province to call in the stakeholders in education and say to them: "We would like to give you a plan that you can work with. We maybe can't give you all the money you want" -- I don't know any government that can -- "but we're going to announce a three-year program for capital funding for education that's going to be a total of $900 million over three years."
For the first time, the people who are responsible for dealing with education matters in our community could actually sit down and say: "Okay, we didn't get all we wanted, but at least we know what we're going to get each year for the next three years. We can do our planning." It's the first time that ever happened, and it was a major commitment by our government to try to correct the damage that was done by the former Conservative government.
You know, I recognize that people's memory is short. I also recognize, when I hear the Taxfighter talk, that people's memory, particularly his, is convenient. I understand that. He wants to see things purely from his own perspective -- I guess that's his job -- but he should be a little more forthright, a little more honest in putting forth the total story, and that story is that that man supported tax increases year after year after year. That man's voting record shows that he voted in favour of Tory deficits year after year after year. It was the Liberal government that not only balanced the budget, but for the first time in the history of this province paid $430 million off the debt.
Mrs Marland: I've got to leave now; that's it.
Mr Mahoney: They can't stand it; they can't take it. I know the truth hurts when it comes to dealing with these facts, but we actually reduced the debt by $430 million. You tell me another government in the history of this province that's done that.
One of the real problems in relationship to the transfer payments going down, very briefly, is that they hit the little person in the community, the volunteers, the people in the youth organizations, the people who are out there working to make the community a better place for everybody involved. The fact is that when the Premier and the Treasurer talk in terms of reductions in transfer payments to their so-called partners, and I'm told that we have to brace ourselves for some $100 million in cuts in the municipal sector, $100 million, who does that hurt?
The Premier and the Treasurer would tell you that the impact of such a cut is going to simply mean that the municipalities have to do more with less, that the boards of education somehow have to do more with less. It's going to impact the size of the classroom at every grade level. It's going to impact the volunteers in the communities who currently are out there running T-ball programs, baseball programs, soccer programs, Scouting and Guiding programs, all of these people.
If you think in terms of the cash flow coming from the provincial government down to the municipal level to the school boards being a pipe, at the bottom of that pipe are all those volunteers and those kids, that's who's there, and those people are going to be terribly impacted because this government cannot manage its affairs.
You see, you've got to put a face to it so that these folks can understand it. The face is the kids that are playing in the community, the kids that are trying to stay out of trouble, the volunteers and the parents that are trying to keep the kids out of trouble.
I want to say that I'm very disappointed in the throne speech. It clearly is not a document that outlines any kind of a blueprint. It clearly is a document, as I said before, that simply tries to falsify a record, that simply tries to perpetrate a fraud upon the people of this province. It's being exacerbated by members of the third party trying quickly to climb into bed, as the axe will fall on the civil service.
1530
Let me tell you what people aren't thinking about. There's no question that there are ways to reduce the size of government and it's a requirement that this government and any government must undertake. But they should understand that we're not talking about some clerk giving out licences, sitting in the Whitney Block at Queen's Park. We're talking about ambulance drivers, we're talking about firefighters, we're talking about police, we're talking about teachers and teaching assistants, we're talking about people who work in the school system.
The impact of the axe-and-tax mentality of this government is going to be far-reaching and people in the community will recognize it the first time they need an ambulance and that service isn't there; the first time they see a reduction in what we have come to expect as a reasonable level of service at the municipal level and when they start having to pay user fees in the community for things that heretofore have been provided through tax revenue.
It's a disgrace. This government is not only morally bankrupt, it is financially bankrupt. They are incapable of dealing with the problems. The Treasurer has not outlined any kind of a program that would resolve the concerns of the community. I denounce this throne speech and this government as being incompetent and I demand that this Treasurer tomorrow --
Mr Sutherland: Get off the rhetoric.
Mr Mahoney: It's not rhetoric -- that this Treasurer sit down with this document he's got and find a way to work with the people at the grass roots in every part of this province.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): I thank the honourable member for Mississauga West for his involvement in the debate. Further debate.
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to enter the debate. Unlike the previous speaker, I'm not going to spend a lot of time looking back into the past and looking in the rear-view mirror for a lot of reasons, not the least of which -- when you start talking about 1974, my colleague the member for Wellington and myself were thinking and I said, "1974, I was in high school," and he reminded me that he was probably in kindergarten in 1974.
So I'm not going to spend a lot of time looking in the rear-view mirror or a lot of time jumping all over this government, although I did just want to very briefly mention the fact that when this government came in and the first throne speech came in, it was a document that had a bit of a vision. Even though I disagreed with what they were talking about, they were at least looking forward. They were outlining where they were going.
This throne speech is a document that is looking in the rear-view mirror. There's no talk about where they are heading. It is, quite frankly, a document that is -- and I use this word "pathetic" in terms of outlining where they are going.
But in this day and age, as I go across the province and speak to people, they're not interested in partisan politics where we worry about who is worse. What they want are solutions and they don't care about ideology or political stripes. They want solutions.
So I'm going to talk a little bit about some of the solutions and I'm going to refer to a document which I hope all members will get a chance to look at. It's the minority report that was put together by the finance and economics committee.
We spent four weeks talking to people about the crisis in this province, everything from child care to health care to education. Everything about where we should be going in this province was talked about during those four weeks.
Rather than talk about some of the problems, what I hope to do here today for some of the members -- because the throne speech didn't talk about solutions -- I want to give them some practical solutions of what they can do to fix the economy, lower taxes and get people back to work.
I would refer the people to this report. In it are the ideas from the Liberals and the Conservatives. I would ask the members opposite to take a look at the Liberal report too, in all fairness, and I will take a quick minute to say, "Don't expect too much from it."
I look at their recommendations and I say to the members there, with all due respect, you should be embarrassed by what you put forward. I'm not going to spend a lot of time looking at it, but here is the government that was in power for five years under the Liberals. They made us the highest-taxed province in Canada, the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America.
All they've done since they've got in here is blame this government for running up the deficit, and when you look to practical solutions, when they have an opportunity to do it through the legislative process with the pre-budget report, there is absolutely nothing in it.
I want to read what it says, and this was not done by my 12-year-old daughter, who could have done a better job. When you listen to it, you quite frankly would think it was.
"Restoring public confidence: The budget should contain proper signals and a plan to build public confidence." Isn't that startling. Hold the presses; get the Premier out here; they have an idea. Absolutely pathetic.
One of the other things they say is that they need to have a vision and a hope for the future. "We need to see a budget that offers a sense of realistic hope for the people of Ontario in this difficult fiscal climate." I don't think anybody would disagree with that. On the political spectrum you'd have communists right through to the fascists would agree with that.
"A strong sense of pessimism has set in in Ontario over the past two years." That's great; they really know what's going on. "This budget must begin to lift that by demonstrating it will create a climate for job growth and economic opportunity." Then they spend the rest of the presentation railing on the government over the finances and that the books are in bad shape. That's true. They are, but there are no solutions in here.
We have started with 15 point recommendations. I want to list a couple of things in the short period of time I've got. I want you to get a sense of where we're at. We agree with the Premier that we have a fiscal problem right now that is damaging the province of Ontario, we've got taxes that are out of control, but where we differ with the Premier is in something that was mentioned today. We do not have a taxation and a revenue problem; we have a spending problem.
In that we put a chart to show you exactly where we're at. If you look at the back of that on our chart, it shows the spending over the last five years. If you will look, you'll see that in 1984 we were spending in this province approximately $25 billion. This year it'll go to $55 billion, so in about 10 years we've gone up double. During that period of time, spending has gone double and triple the rate of inflation.
When I look at the situation right now, you can see very clearly why we're in the trouble we're in. As I go out across this province and talk to industries -- I want to give a couple of quick examples in the short period of time I've got -- the things that are destroying industry right now are things like the Workers' Compensation Board.
I want to give you a quick example of the abuses that are out there. As some of you know, I used to play hockey for a living. We had an oldtimers' game back down in Rochester a couple of months ago -- and yes, I'm an oldtimer now and aging faster in this industry, I must tell you. When we went back down there, I met one of the players who was a defenceman. I played with him. We had a great game. Mike Keenan coached us. We played the Hollywood All-Stars -- a lot of fun.
There was a chap there and I said, "You look like you're getting a little bit slower" -- a guy I played with; I won't mention his name. If I mention the area, people might know him, because he was fairly high-profile. He hurt his knee and he said: "I'm a little bit slower now. I had reconstruction on my knee. We probably spent, Lord knows, $3,000, $4,000." He said, "What I did was I limped into work and I pretended I got hurt on the job and I got paid WCB for eight months." Then he said, "Gary, what does an MPP do?" I said, "We spend about 60% of our day dealing with crooks like you."
We have an abuse of the system in WCB where we have, right now, an unfunded liability of about $12 billion, going up $100 million a month, and nobody is talking about it. We have a system right now in other areas that is driving businesses out. Ontario Hydro -- and I come from an automotive-producing jurisdiction. In 1984 we had the cheapest rates of power of all the auto-producing jurisdictions. Right now we're number 10. It has gone up 30% over the last three years, and that's what's driving business out of the province of Ontario.
So what we did is we put a plan together, and in the time that's left I'm not going to get a chance to get through them all. But I would suggest to these members to take a look at the recommendations that are out there. In them we talk about the tax structure, we talk about what we would do to reduce expenditures, we talk about getting back to the 1985 levels of the public sector.
You see, unlike the Liberals, we're prepared to stand up and say, "This is where we should be in terms of the number of employees in the province of Ontario." We talk about how we should have, like they've done in Manitoba, civil servants given additional days off without pay. The same thing happened in York, I believe, the other day.
1540
We talk about the welfare fraud and what we would do, point 7, all the way through. I say to the member for Middlesex, the recommendations are listing a five-point plan. In that I talk about things like the SARC report, linking the provision of social assistance to jobs, retraining, about the recovery rate.
We talk about introducing laws like they have in the province of Quebec, Bill 37. In the 5,000 cases they looked at in the province of Quebec, they have a 75% success rate in recovering welfare fraud.
We talk about the financial impact of home visits. You see, the people on the other side judge these programs by the amount of money being spent, but if the member for Middlesex had sat in there on those hearings --
We also heard from the 30% of the people out there on social assistance who, through no fault of their own, whether they're disabled to whatever, are unable to work. Those people came forward telling us they do not have the money to live on, and they do not have the money to live on because 70% of the people on social assistance are employable.
To the member for Middlesex and some of the other members, I got a call about three Fridays ago from a woman in Halton -- single mom, two kids -- who works at the Halton region giving out welfare cheques. She called me and she said: "Mr Carr, I just want to give you circumstances. I don't want my name used because I work at the Halton region, but I want you to understand I used to be on social assistance and I now work for the Halton region giving social assistance cheques." She said: "Mr Carr, I made more money when I was on welfare than I do right now giving out the cheques. You tell me why I shouldn't quit, spend more time with my two kids and go back to the welfare lines. I make less money now giving out the money on welfare than I did when I was on welfare."
To that woman I say that the system needs to be changed because the 30% of the people who, through no fault of their own, can't work don't have the money to live on. I say to the members opposite, if you really care about those people -- and unfortunately, to the member for Middlesex, I don't have the time -- look at this report, look at the recommendations that are listed. We have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven points on social assistance alone.
We talk about a moratorium on non-profit housing. As you know, we spent, over the last few years, $5 billion in non-profit housing. All the member needs to do is take a look at the Provincial Auditor's report on the abuse of that system, where the auditor has said we will now spend $1.2 billion on subsidies. I don't blame you for this because the non-profit housing, the Ataratiris, were spending $600 million. That was the Liberals' fault. But I say to the members opposite, take a look at the auditor's report and you tell me after reading it that you honestly, truly believe we should be in non-profit housing in the province of Ontario because the waste of money is an absolute disgrace.
The problem is that the waiting lists keep getting longer and longer. Peel Non-Profit came it and said: "We'd like 600 new units. We have a waiting list of 7,200. We would like from 600 to 800 new units." They said to us, "Even if we get that, a year from now the waiting list will be longer." Doesn't that tell you the system isn't working? There will never be enough money to build 7,200 in Peel alone.
In that we talk about a moratorium, we talk about the shelter subsidies, we talk about how we could get new buildings built, through allowing the private sector to do that, in point 8 of the recommendations. We talk about the fair expenditure commission. Everybody talks about taxes; we talk about how we would implement a fair expenditure commission.
I say to the members opposite that we have a 15-point plan that goes into detail about the regulations, talks about the labour legislation, talks about the WCB. We've got three or four points listed there. We talk about small business being exempted from some of the taxes and we close with a little bit of a rundown on what we would do with the finances.
My time is coming to a close -- it went very rapidly -- but I say to the members that there are some commonsense solutions in there. We don't expect you to agree with everything in there, but take a look at it, Mr Speaker, because quite frankly we are in a crisis here. We are attempting to be constructive. There are going to be some things in there you're going to agree with and you're going to disagree with, but hopefully at the end of the day we're going to be practical.
I say to the members opposite, look at some of the solutions. We're here to help. If we do that, I believe we're going to get rid of the problems that we've got. We're going to be there, not criticizing and saying, "Spend more, spend more;" we're going to be there to tell you in areas of expenditure control, like we've done in the four or five pages we've put together, some of the commonsense solutions that should be done. At the end of the day, if you will listen to us, I honestly, truly believe we're going to be in good shape.
I'm not going to look back and say you should have listened to us two years ago when we put the blueprint together for economic renewal and prosperity. That won't do any good. Those two years are lost. But if you learn anything, learn that there are some solutions in here. We want to be a part of the solutions, and I say to the members opposite, if you do listen to us, we're going to be able to turn this thing around. Don't listen to everything, but our party spent a lot of time putting this program together, discussing the critics' role in Housing and Management Board, and all our colleagues giving input, and I hope and trust that you will take a look at this report. It was tabled with the Clerk, so all members should have received it. It's a big report. You don't need to read the entire part of it, but look at some of the solutions, because if you implement some of them, we're going to be in much better shape.
I'll conclude by thanking the members for listening so intently. I wish I had an opportunity to go into some more detail, but if the members will take a look at it, I honestly, truly believe they will see some commonsense solutions that will help get this province moving again, so that I will be able to say to my three children that they've had the greatest opportunity to grow up in one of the greatest provinces and the greatest country in the world.
The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation in the debate. Further debate.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): As so many other members before me have already said, it is a privilege to be able to make a contribution to this debate on the throne speech. I personally see the initiatives mentioned therein not only as positive moves but in many cases providing the means for a riding like mine, which, let's be clear, suffers 14.4% unemployment. This throne speech offers a solution and offers the means at hand for my riding to work its way out of the recession.
Let's be blunt. For all of the comments of the previous members, be it from the Tory party or the Liberal Party, the reality is that the agendas that have been proposed by the opposition parties really will not work. Particularly the one I'd like to refer to is the kind of agenda that the Tory party for so long has in fact been espousing. It hasn't worked. I mean, take a look at it. Here we have a party in Ottawa that in fact is going to penalize the workers whom they have successfully forced on to unemployment by their free trade agreement. Three hundred thousand people in this province they have forced on to unemployment and yet they're going to penalize them by changing the unemployment insurance rules to such an extent that they have to go on welfare. They haven't done anything for job creation.
It's my speech, and obviously others will make reference to the fact that we have suffered. We have as a province suffered and it's been up to this government to come up with solutions that in fact see people going back to work.
I very pointedly ask the question, did any of the Tory initiatives really create jobs in my riding? I will say no, they have not. There are four Tory members in fact in our peninsula, and all we've seen is increased unemployment.
Our government time and again has brought forward plans to create jobs, whether in construction or in industry. In Niagara alone, the Ontario Development Corp has approved loans to industry in excess of $1.6 million for the year 1992-93.
I hear this mumbling from the opposition that Jobs Ontario, in particular Jobs Ontario Training, is not working. Well, why not tell the people in my riding, the 150 who have been taken off of welfare, that they should not be working? Why don't you tell them that they don't deserve the training program that upgrades their reading and writing skills? Why don't you tell them that they don't deserve child care?
The fact of the matter is that this program, Jobs Ontario Training, will create over its lifetime a trained workforce which will allow Ontario to attract investment from all around the world. But the opposition keeps saying that it's having no effect. There are thousands of people across this province who have faith in this program, over 1,800 in my area alone, who have decided to register with Jobs Ontario, who see this as their way to success. They know that it is their future to get education and training and to get a job.
1550
I see the opposition wants to do things the same old way. That means new and creative ideas, which Jobs Ontario is, just would never take place under their aegis. This government will continue to be innovative. The current economy challenges us to be different, to try to build bridges with our transfer partners. Hence the social contract.
I want to digress for just a second. This is a local newspaper, the Niagara Guardian. It's dated April 6, 1993. Page 4 has an article, "College Tourism Training 'Sets the Standard'." There's a $1.4-million training agreement that involves the Ontario Tourism Education Council, the Ministry of Education and Training and the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. "The agreement will provide 350 employees in the tourism sector with the opportunity to improve their skills and strengthen the industry as a whole."
Now, this is something important for an area that has as much tourism industry infrastructure as we do. This is vital. These kinds of sectoral agreements are exactly what this government is undertaking and has been undertaking since in fact it came to power. We have been extremely successful -- it doesn't matter if it's steel, plastics, tourism -- to make sure that there are jobs in the economy.
In my job as MPP I held a series of pre-budget consultations within my riding and I know that my colleagues on the government side have been doing the same. I want to ask the public out there to do a little self-examination. When were they asked in the past by the other two parties what their concerns were? When did these parties sit down with labour to truly consult and to regularly ask what labour's concerns were?
All you get, from the Tories in particular, is a lot of noise about special interest groups. When thousands of workers in this province belong to unions, they are no longer a special interest group. The issues that labour espouses are those of working people, organized or not. Unions have fought for the rights and benefits of working people since they were established. The folks out there know and they know we're not ignoring their concerns.
This government will educate and train. It will improve roads, bridges, hospitals in this province. It will not ignore the very real needs of workers for jobs, but it will make sure that they're safe jobs. Our environment, even in difficult times, will receive the attention that it needs to make sure that the lives of future generations will be better.
I speak with pride about this throne speech and I support it and our Premier.
The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for her participation in the debate. Further debate.
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise today in this House to participate in this important debate on the NDP government's third throne speech. As I rise on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole, it's with sadness and distress that I report to you, Mr Speaker, and to this House that many of the predictions and the concerns that I have expressed in this House over the past two and a half years were predictions and that, unfortunately, these predictions have come true.
What I said to this government in a speech in this House in April 1992, almost exactly one year ago, was how important it was for the government to be clear about its priorities, how the people of the province were going to be looking at where this government, this NDP government, spent the very precious resources that it has in its safekeeping, to determine whether its priorities were right.
I pointed out at that time -- and I know that it wasn't a happy conversation that we had -- to the members of the government caucus that their decision to raise wages of people who had jobs, secure jobs in the public service, secure jobs in the broader public sector, who received wage increases as a result of this government's policy, wage increases which cost this government 14% in its first budget, was going to come back to haunt the government and create fiscal problems in the province of Ontario.
I said to them, and I'm going to quote from my remarks during that debate: "We criticize you because we believe that your priorities are in the wrong direction. You have been supporting the haves. You are giving money in the form of higher wages to people who have jobs and you have been supporting and listening to, almost exclusively, union leadership, the union bosses, the people who have organized, and not their workers." I said at that time, and I reiterate now, I said to this government, "You are misguided."
We know that in the first budget presented by Bob Rae and the NDP, they increased spending at an unprecedented rate of 14%. What's interesting about that 14% number is that it is also identically the cost of those wage increases they gave to their own civil servants, and the effect of that increase rippled through the broader public sector and created the mess we find ourselves having to deal with today.
A throne speech is supposed to be a vision for the future, a throne speech is supposed to be an agenda, and this throne speech was neither. This throne speech did not give any confidence to the 1.5 million people unemployed in this province, to thousands of people who want to work. This throne speech gives them no hope, and that's so unfortunate, because it is a lost opportunity for the government.
At a time when what this province needs is committed political leadership, leadership that is able to offer bothvision and hope for the future, what this throne speech does is create a climate of despair and worry and fear.
I said this to the government last year in remarks in this Legislature. I said my constituents in the riding of Oriole are worried about jobs, they're worried about their own job, and over the past year, the number of people coming to my constituency office seeking aid and support of our social services has increased dramatically. My heart breaks when I sit and I listen to the stories of individual constituents in the riding of Oriole who say to me: "Elinor, help me find a job. I want to work. I don't want to be on social assistance. I don't want to be on unemployment insurance. I don't want to be on welfare."
When I read this throne speech and I listened so carefully I thought, what am I going to be able to say to my constituents is in this throne speech that will offer them hope? And there's nothing there, an agenda which today, two and a half years late, is going to have to take back that which was given is creating a climate of greater fear as more people in the public sector and broader public sector, many of whom live and work in the riding of Oriole, are now worried: Will they have a job? Will they have to go on unemployment insurance? Will they end up on social assistance and welfare?
1600
The throne speech says, and I quote, "Knowing what we know today, failing to act now would threaten the social and economic gains of not just a government but a generation." And that's why I'm so upset today, because that statement is absolutely correct. But that's what we told the government two and a half years ago would happen if it continued with its misguided policies, and what we've seen is those predictions come true as a result of the mismanagement not only of our economy but mismanagement as this government has set priorities, has flip-flopped on policies and has created chaos which is causing despair.
Yes, when this throne speech and this government say, "Knowing what we know today," I feel I have to say with sadness, "But we told you so." We warned you and we were not the only ones who were warning you. The business community was warning you. The economists were warning you, and yes, I know that their own senior civil service was warning you.
The senior civil service in the Ministry of Treasury and Economics two and a half years ago told you what would happen. They predicted what would happen and you didn't listen. You didn't listen to your own ministry officials because you didn't trust them, and the war with the civil service has cost this province dearly -- the politicization of that civil service that you have undertaken and begun in a way which is unheard of in the province of Ontario. The appointment of David Agnew, campaign manager to Bob Rae, the appointment of David Agnew, who was principal secretary in the Premier's office, the appointment of David Agnew as the number one civil servant of this province sent out a message to those hardworking professional and dedicated civil servants who have worked so hard in this province to provide governments of every stripe good advice. The message you gave to those people is, "We don't trust you, we don't like your advice and we are going to appoint people into the civil service because of their NDP affiliation" as their criterion for employment.
And I hear this every day, every single day, from people within the civil service of the province of Ontario who are distressed and in despair at the politicization, the interference with policy development in a non-partisan and professional civil service, and this province is not being well served with the destruction of that professional, non-partisan civil service.
This throne speech should have been about confidence and hope. This throne speech should have been about job creation and prosperity. The atmosphere of doom and gloom which pervades this speech from the throne is not only regrettable and untimely; it is the worst possible message.
We hear from the Premier one day that the province is on the verge of recovery, the economy is just beginning to show signs of recovery. I agree, the signs of recovery are there, and what you need for recovery is confidence. If you're going to encourage and support that recovery, you have to be positive and supportive and you have to instil confidence in those people who would invest and could invest, confidence that (1) you have a plan and you know what you're doing, and (2) that you have hope and optimism. That's what was needed in this throne speech and, sadly, that is missing.
What the people need when the province is on the verge of a recovery is leadership and a plan, not a rehash of old policies and programs that have failed. My colleagues have spoken eloquently in this House about the list and the litany of failed programs and mismanagement of this government. I'm not going to repeat that in the short time that I have.
This government's dire warnings in this throne speech are going to hinder the recovery. That's nail number one: the tone, the attitude, the fear and the warnings, warnings that are two and a half years late.
The other thing that's going to hinder recovery is the threat of massive taxation. I honestly don't believe there will be massive taxation in the budget. I can't believe this government would do that. I believe they have heard the message that if you take money out of the economy in the form of new taxes, you will kill jobs and you will kill off the recovery. You were told this in the pre-budget hearings. You were told it again and again and again.
This is not the time for new taxes. We told you that last year when you brought your budget in, and you didn't listen then. I hope that what you're doing now and saying -- that there will be new revenue sources -- is that it will not be new taxes and increased taxation, but that in fact this is just a little bit of the ritual dance to raise expectations, and then when you bring in your budget without big tax increases, people will say, "Ah." In fact, I believe that's what you're doing. I believe you are painting a picture that is so bleak and so black in this throne speech that when your budget comes in you'll be able to pat yourselves on the back and say how successful you were in the negotiations with the labour leadership of this province to develop a social contract so that you didn't have to raise taxes.
I believe you know how serious it would be, in a recovery which is already being called a jobless recovery, to further strike another nail that would take jobs out of the economy, and tax increases will do that. I say to the ministers who are here and to the people of this province that I believe the government knows tax increases at this time would be a disastrous fiscal policy.
What the province needs is a sound economic strategy, one that recognizes the crucial importance of job creation, the crucial importance of wealth creation. Not only should you be talking to the labour leadership of this province; you should also be talking to the small business community, who understand and know what you have to do to create jobs. They are the engine of wealth creation and job creation in this province.
My own belief is that Ontario can weather this storm. I am an optimist. If I were not an optimist, I could not survive in this environment and in this arena. I am optimistic about the future. I'm here because I believe that I can make a difference in influencing government policy as a member of the official opposition and encouraging them to change misguided policies, so that people will have faith and hope and so that faith and hope will bring prosperity because people will be working together to make Ontario a better place.
This throne speech is a reflection of how tired the government is --
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Inadequate.
Mrs Caplan: How inadequate. My colleague reinforces my point of view. How inadequate is this government.
One of the things that saddens me is that the people who come to my constituency office and phone me and want to talk about what's happening, it's almost as though they've given up on you, and the problem is that as they give up on you, they give up on all of us and it reflects badly on all of us.
1610
When the Premier refuses to answer questions in question period and be accountable for his own actions, it raises the level of cynicism in this province and it says to my constituents in the riding of Oriole that they do not have the kind of openness and accountability not only that they were promised from Bob Rae but that they expect from any government.
Numerous suggestions and alternatives have been provided by our leader, Lyn McLeod. I was a member and I am a member of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and I hope that the Treasurer will take heed of this important report. What we hope we will see in the budget is not a budget of despair and tax and axe but a budget that will give us hope, a vision, an agenda, a road map for job creation.
We realize that it must be a budget that controls government expenditure and is one of fiscal restraint. That's the reality of the result of the NDP policies of the last two and a half years. We understand that. It's unfortunate, but that's the reality today. You can't turn the clock back; you must deal with it. The budget's going to have to deal with it, and it will be painful for a lot of people, and the reason it will be painful for those people is that they believed the government, and the government gave them that which it couldn't afford to give. I believe it was a form of political payoff, and that's unfortunate too, because the whole province is paying for that.
I hope the budget will contain no new taxes but, more than anything else, I hope the budget will do what this throne speech did not. I hope the budget will begin to restore confidence and that the budget will present the real numbers and the real facts. I'm looking forward to tomorrow morning when we see the mini-budget, and I hope that this government is open and honest and straight in presenting the facts to this province so that people will understand better the state we are in, because until now, the creative accounting, the attempt to cover up, the smoke and mirrors, the sham that has been presented with one number one day and another number the next day in an attempt to make the government look better, has not only failed miserably but it has increased the level of cynicism and the concern about political integrity. I appeal to the Premier and I appeal to the Treasurer and to the NDP government: Please attempt to repair that damage.
As I wind up my remarks in this throne speech debate, I want to say that these are difficult times in the province of Ontario; these are difficult times in the riding of Oriole. My constituents are suffering. I attempt, as I stand here in this House, to let the public of Ontario know that I understand, that I care about my constituents, and that I feel that it's a privilege in this democratic chamber to be able to speak on their behalf.
I believe in democracy, and I believe that by working together in a spirit of hope and optimism we can create a better future for Ontario. I call upon the Premier to set aside his ideology. Bob Rae, when you're wrong, say you're wrong. I offer you my help and my assistance. The advice I've given you over the last two and a half years has been rejected out of hand, and on behalf of my constituents I want to say how disappointed I am with the throne speech of this NDP government.
The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for her participation in the debate. Further debate?
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I'm pleased to be able to offer a few words late this afternoon with respect to the government's throne speech on behalf of my constituents primarily and also on behalf of my caucus, and I would go even further to suggest on behalf of some the concerns that I've been trying to raise in the Legislature during the last two and a half years of this government's tenure with respect to social services in this province, the critic responsibility that I currently maintain.
The previous speaker indicated how terribly disappointed she was in the throne speech. Frankly, maybe it's as a parent that I take the view that you don't expect very much in the early life of a child and we shouldn't expect very much from the early life of a government, especially one that carries with it its limited access to the levers of responsibility in terms of maintaining the province and so on.
The previous speaker shouldn't be terribly surprised. As I recall, it was about eight and a half years ago when her party came second in the polls and the governing party came third, but between them they determined what the future agenda for Ontario would be. Substantive intrusions and substantive moves that would have major economic impact on this province were stamped into place by this Faust agreement that existed between the NDP and the Liberals in order to change the direction of Ontario.
Well, change the direction of Ontario they did, and I think the throne speech very much represents an 11th-hour wake-up call after that eight and a half years of the Liberal-socialism approaches that we've seen brought in in this province.
I might add that not all those interventions were wrong, not all of those interventions were inappropriate for this province. There were many that were needed and well appreciated by the citizens of this province. But quite frankly there were also an equal number of those intrusions which set in motion some very negative repercussions for business, for prosperity and for opportunity in our province, and certainly both political parties, while they were the government, deserve to share in part of the responsibility for what majorally the circumstances have brought us to in this day in present Ontario.
I didn't expect very much from a government that hasn't had experience governing but had a lot of experience in making demands on previous governments, of manoeuvring itself to impact those governments as a third party in Ontario. Now that they have the responsibilities of governing, they are realizing that many of the ideological positions they took two and a half years ago, the extensive baggage they carried over from their many years in the political wilderness, has caused them now to rethink some of those.
But a lot of damage has been done in two and a half years, and perhaps that's the reason why this throne speech, although it does attempt, and clearly the Premier does attempt, to set out some sort of plan, really doesn't have a lot of the specifics that these economic times would almost demand.
But rather than that, I think we in Parliament would appreciate having some further insights into exactly how that occurs. It's not encouraging for us to have to pick up the Toronto Star to find out what the government's thinking, nor does the government appreciate it when it has to pick up the Toronto Star to see what latest item has been released, without permission, which exposes what the government's currently thinking.
Frankly, I think neither serves us well, and the throne speech really does represent an opportunity for the government to speak with a little more clarity and a little more specificity when the public so desperately needs some degree of assurance that the government has a plan, a workable plan, and that they can somehow participate in that in a more meaningful way.
Unfortunately, the throne speech does make references to the potential for increased taxes. The Premier's post-throne-speech statements confirm that, and that the expenditure cuts are going to be rather drastic in terms of very key cornerstone services that have been enjoyed in this province. I don't want to say taken for granted. It has been one and the same that our citizens have viewed the quality of life in our province with the levels of services we've enjoyed. The public has not separated that concept. They are now starting to try and deal with the notion that our quality of life issues are being separated from us, and they're asking some pretty strong questions as to why that's occurring.
1620
Governments do change, the fundamental approaches do change, but now the citizens are realizing that in the midst of those changes of government, they are now starting to see a separateness from that quality of life that they have taken for granted or enjoyed or come to expect of our society. One of the reasons that occurs is because the priorities have changed for this government. Priorities that were enunciated while they were in opposition have not become the priorities they've enunciated once in government.
I notice the minister responsible for labour is here. I've listened to him speak in the House on many occasions, and he has been one of the leading speakers on labour matters throughout his career. Having both been raised in the city of Hamilton, we know that there is a very broad constituency there which very much depends on his contributions.
But that was not really the priority which the citizens of this province were asking for. We have very enlightened labour laws in this province. We have a workers' compensation system that's in financial difficulty, as my colleague the member for Oakville South said, but still it's responding in a way better than most jurisdictions in the entire world.
The point is that to help labour is to give them jobs. To help labour is to be a friend of a union, is to be able to have a prosperous working environment in which they can unionize and prosper. I think that sort of symbolizes for us much of the concern we have that the sort of balanced partnership we've developed in this province has somehow been tipped very slightly; not to take away from the minister's dedication to labour issues, but it has to be tempered in an economic sense in these very difficult times we live in.
The same should be said, of course, for this party's defence of universal programs. Anybody who has listened to the NDP, as I did all through university -- I didn't agree with them, but they had some very basic principles that they would hold to. Yet we're watching very quietly and very discreetly and perhaps unfairly the dismantling of many of these universal programs in our provinces.
Just looking at health care -- and I have to quote from the throne speech; it's always helpful when one's talking about the throne speech to quote from it -- when they talk about their sixth reform, reforming health care, the government says, "During this session, the government will implement a historic shift in the way we care for people." Now, that really is a frightening statement, partially because we're already starting to see some elements of how the government is going to shift the way it cares for people.
We know that there are probably 2,000 fewer hospital beds in this province from the day this government first assumed office. We know that there have been two separate interventions in reducing access to the Ontario drug benefit plan in the past and that the government is seriously considering looking at a plan that would disrupt the universality approach to the Ontario drug benefit plan for seniors.
It's talking discreetly to several hospitals about providing health care services to Americans. How sad and how terrible it has become for this government, for all of us in this House for that matter, to stand in the House on a daily basis to bring forward the concerns of constituent after constituent whose access to medical interventions and to surgery, to significant operations, whose access to that is being diminished and in some instances arrested in this province. Yet we're going to be opening our doors and encouraging Americans to come in here and use our system. I don't care what anybody tries to say in this House, a hospital bed is a hospital bed, and every time that you put someone else in that hospital bed, it cannot help an Ontario resident. Frankly, for this government to even be considering this crazy idea is just beyond belief.
The best example that I can come up with in the most recent history of this government is its interventions with respect to long-term care. A lot of the public are not aware, but it was mentioned in the throne speech that, again I'll quote, "a historic shift" is on the way "in the way we care for people, by introducing an innovative system of long-term care for the elderly and disabled."
Well, I'll tell you what the intervention is and how innovative it is. This government, with Bill 100, is going to remove extended care benefits for Ontario seniors from the OHIP formulary. Instead of it being an insured service, as it was in this province under the previous government, as it was envisaged and constructed as the first plan of its type in Canada by the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, we have witnessed this government dismantling that as a basic right of access for a senior who is frail and elderly and needs that medical support. And so extended service, not to anyone's surprise, has been moved from an insured benefit in this province to a contract that exists between the state and an individual patient. This is going to occur without very much public debate on this very cornerstone point, and one that should be deeply distressing.
If that's the way health care has changed and that is what this government has enunciated in this throne speech, then I say to the public that is why it's not worthy of support.
In social assistance, I cannot believe that a political party that for 10 years in this province has said it had all the answers to help social assistance recipients, two and a half years into its mandate says, "We still have to rethink what we're doing."
I cannot imagine what the advocates for social assistance reform must be thinking of this government that stands and says in the throne speech that no amount of tinkering is going to help it, and yet this government has been getting away with tinkering with social assistance reform on and off for the last two and a half years.
If you examine access points to social assistance in this province, the largest single bulge, the largest single increase to social assistance in this province is attributed to the basic decision by your government, the decision by the socialists not to have a social welfare system that is accountable, by removing home visits, by removing the responsibility to examine case files, to have a sufficient number of inspection officers.
Yes, this system might appear to be somewhat demeaning, but the truth is that these are taxpayers' dollars. According to the auditor, recently it's been determined that the fraud and inappropriate spending within social assistance are as high as 10%. That's 10% of $6.5 billion, $650 million of abuse which this government isn't prepared to go and examine ways of correcting. They're not prepared to go and find where that money is being abused, and I'll give the members opposite a couple of examples.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Get your numbers straight.
Mr Jackson: I'm trying to be positive and that's why, in a subcommittee report, I presented about eight different things I believe this government should consider in terms of assisting us to make sure that our social assistance system responds to the real needs and not the needs of people who simply say they need it, walk in and start picking up a cheque.
The government's direct deposit program, the government's more open access for students on student welfare: I was told of a case in Peterborough where families, neighbours living next door to each other, the two high school students changed houses. They're living in their next-door neighbour's house and collecting welfare. It's a big joke.
Mr Perruzza: Report them.
Mr Jackson: To the member opposite who is concerned, I'll tell you what's going on in this province. I'll give you another example: people in Quebec who are crossing the border and collecting welfare twice. The Quebec government is so smart. First of all, they implemented a whole series of laws that empower their civil servants in order to catch people who are ripping off the system. So what did they do? As soon as they find a Quebec resident collecting in Quebec and in Ontario, they cancel his welfare in Quebec because they say, "Look, if Ontario's that stupid to pay them the money, then you collect it there; you're not collecting it twice." We can't even get the government of Ontario to sit down with the Quebec government and get its act together, because you socialists fundamentally disagree with a social welfare system that's built on accountability and need.
For you, it's a blank cheque, and the taxpayers of this province are fed up. When you start removing health care services for senior citizens, when you start removing drug plan benefits for seniors, when you start removing these fundamental quality-of-life issues, when you can only give out a 1% increase to welfare recipients because you've got no money to give them, the reason is that when there is a system that needs accountability, you won't look into it.
1630
Earlier today, my leader talked about this crazy health card and the abuse that's going on. Our Health critic will be speaking about it in a moment. The truth is, there's another $600 million of abuse. What do you think the public thinks of all this?
I wish I could go on a little further. I wanted to comment here about day care. This government's throne speech makes reference to day care again. You've attacked the private sector in day care, you've injected $100 million in to help buy out or force out the private sector, yet you're going to turn around and spend even more money creating subsidized day care spaces in this province when demand is at an all-time low. You're attacking the private sector that is providing those services.
You've got plans right now to talk about increasing junior kindergarten, you've got plans to bring day care into our schools for four-year-olds and now we read in an article in the newspaper that you're planning to increase the class size for kindergarten. If you didn't touch the system, in a day care centre in this province there would be eight children to one day care worker. You're going to go and mess around with a system that's been working well in this province, that needed increased access for children.
You're going to start to tamper with it at great expense, and where are you going to end up? You're going to have higher PTRs in kindergarten. Congratulations. If you know anything about how education works, you're damaging the opportunities for those children, especially if it's that child's first introduction to an institution or a school setting.
The attacks on day care, the misdirection of long-term care, these are concerns that this throne speech does not address in any way, shape or form. I wish the government had been a little more specific. I would hope that the government will consider some of the recommendations on social assistance reform that could be implemented by this government almost immediately to save taxpayers' money, to catch those cheats out there who are cheating the system, because every time you give something from the government to someone who doesn't need it, there's that much less to give to those who truly do need. The number of people who are in need out there is rather extensive, so when you have 8% to 10% of them out there abusing the system, they should be stopped.
The citizens expect of this government at least one thing. They expect that it will manage and shepherd the resources, what precious few we've got left coming in as revenue in this province, with responsibility; that you'll listen, whether the idea comes from this side of the House or it comes from the very recipients themselves who are trying to tell you that there is abuse going on. Please listen as a government and try and manage the money a little better than it has been managed in the last two years.
The fact is that's the only way we're going to get through this difficult economic time we live in, and that is if we can work with all the suggestions that are being recommended in this Parliament, to honestly listen to the people in the public sector and to the private sector who are offering constructive recommendations to this government. I would hope that on reflection, when the Treasurer rises tomorrow and again perhaps more fatefully in 40 or 50 days with his main budget, that those sentiments will reflect in his final document.
The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation in the debate. Further debate, the honourable member for Niagara Falls.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): This throne speech is about reality. It's about a government that is managing this province in the most difficult of times in a fair and a fiscally responsible way, a fairness which I believe is probably unique in history, insisting that when tough decisions have to be made we ask those people most affected to be part of creating that fair solution.
For instance, take hospitals. We don't just say to the hospital board, "You make the cuts." We are insisting that hospital boards listen to the front-line workers, who probably know the best, most commonsense way of saving money, being more efficient and at the same time providing a better service. The same thing could probably be said of school boards.
This throne speech is about preserving services and yet making some of those much-needed changes at the same time. This economy has suffered much job loss and this throne speech is also about that reality. It is about turning around. At this time, in the last six months, yes, things have turned around; 100,000 jobs and more have been created. Across Canada, Ontario no doubt has been the hardest hit. Companies, like government, are feeling this terrible pinch and this change. They have to be leaner, more efficient. We are looking at high technology, highly skilled workers, the way of the future.
What is happening across Niagara -- our region has been devastated -- is a slow transition process. Transition is always difficult. No longer are there those jobs that you can get with a grade 10 education that you are guaranteed for 40 years and you will retire from and maybe your offspring will take those jobs.
We have to be helping business. In fact, across Niagara what we are doing right now -- I was just speaking very recently with Chuck Chataway, who is our economic development officer in Niagara Falls, about a survey of 100 companies to find out what our strengths are in Niagara and what strategy we can take for the future to build on those strengths in order to create and attract that investment and to build industry.
Yesterday I met with a group called COSB, which is the Canadian Organization of Small Business. This was down at King and Bay, at the Commerce Court, on the 49th floor. What they were most concerned about is how do they manage this climate of economic problems without the help of the banks. They had actually called in four of the major banks in order to ask them: "How can you help us better as small business people? It's crucial at this time."
We, as a government, also have to be helping small business. In fact last year -- probably the only tax ever reduced -- the tax on small business was reduced from 10% to 9.5%. We have to somehow make sure that more capital is available to help small business. This government is also initiating a process called Clearing the Path so that people who want to start their own business have a much easier and clearer way of dealing with all the paperwork that is involved in it.
I could also tell you a couple of lines from the throne speech. One says, "$100 million has been raised for venture capital investments in small and medium-sized Ontario businesses." It also says, "The budget is going to contain details of our community economic development initiative." This is going to help small business.
Yes, people together must now implement in communities across Ontario a plan, a co-operation to encourage business and small business. We know that small business is where most jobs are these days, and that is what we are doing in Niagara.
I want to give you one other example. During this past year, we had the manufacturing recovery program, which has helped many industries. I'll give you the one example of the furniture industry where they are undergoing difficulties but there's a long-term viability and what they need is help at this particular time to turn a corner to get new marketing skills to reach out further and get new product development to enter a new age. This has worked very well. We are putting more money into this manufacturing recovery program.
Jobs Ontario Training is also working very well for small business. I encourage them to look into their nearest broker across Ontario. Jobs Ontario Capital is working in long-term investing across this province. Jobs Ontario Housing is working, and I'm sure if you look at any community across Ontario, you will see wonderful new communities of housing that people really need. Jobs Ontario Youth: We have put more money into that and that is going to be working to create jobs for our young people.
While we are dealing with this priority, which is the economy, we are also making those long-term changes that have been so needed for so long, and we will not forget those. The first thing that comes to mind is Hydro. Other governments have said, "No, we won't touch Hydro." They were a creature out of control. This is the first government that had the guts to say, "Yes, we have to change the very basis of how Hydro operates."
1640
This particularly affects my community of Niagara Falls, because we have had large power users ever since the turn of the century, the abrasives companies, because the power was originally very cheap in Niagara Falls. Now they have faced the crunch this past year. What we have said is, "For your long-term planning for industry all across this province, the rates are going to be stable -- that is, zero per cent increase above inflation -- for the rest of this decade."
Other long-term changes that had to be made, that we are making, that we are committed to, are the long-term care initiatives, so that people can stay in their homes instead of in expensive institutions.
Another one is changing social assistance, which the previous member had been speaking about. We all know that social assistance needs some very basic and fundamental change. We have to attack those disincentives to work. They are very real out there and they are ingrained in part of the whole system.
Secondly, we must make sure that our clients are not trapped in their lives in a holding pattern because of the way they are treated, whether it's by the system, by the workers or by society in general. That whole attitude has to change. It has to be an empowering system to get people who are in need back to work.
We're also continuing with our environmental bill of rights that we are committed to.
We are in fact also changing the Ontario Housing Corp so that tenants are involved in the management of their housing, that they are not treated in a patriarchal way, saying, "Yes, we have some units that you can occupy, but they are owned by the province of Ontario, so you'd best be careful because you're going to be living in Big Brother's housing units."
We must continue on this social justice agenda. We have to make fundamental changes in attitude -- equality of women. Whether it's in the home, whether it's in the office, whether it's on the factory floor, whether it's at the cabinet table, government must show leadership in changing those attitudes.
Also, employment equity's mentioned in the throne speech, a very important, fundamental change, significant yet difficult. It's a very difficult piece of legislation that we are committed to.
This throne speech is about responsible management of a fiscal situation. We will not have happen what happened in New Zealand 10 years ago. What happened there? The bankers called in the credit and said: "No more loans." It's amazing to see what can happen to a society in a very short period of time. The living standard went from third in the world to 22nd, and you can imagine what happened to their health care program. People were going to hospitals, worrying about what they would have to pay when they got out. What happened also to sewage treatment plants? In New Zealand now, you have to drink bottled water.
These systems deteriorate very quickly. We will not let that happen. This government is managing responsibly, and that's what this throne speech is all about.
The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for her participation in the debate. Further debate.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I regard this opportunity to respond to the throne speech, to state the feelings of my constituents and others in this province who are going through some tremendous hardship economically and personally.
In fact, when I listened to the throne speech, what it was all about, it seemed to me it was a checklist of the government activities to date, and what it has done is failed to inject hope and inspiration for the future. We know what throne speeches are all about. It is to give hope and to give aspirations to the people.
Many of my colleagues who have spoken before have expressed how difficult a time we are in with this recession and what pain it has brought to the people. The people in Scarborough North I'm sure are not in any way feeling it worse than any others, but they are feeling it just as tough.
One of the signs we have seen in Scarborough North to indicate that times are difficult and the recession is here and deep is the signs that show "For Lease" and "For Rent" as you drive along the roads and the avenues in Scarborough. People have come to my constituency office and have stated that they have no jobs, that they are at the food banks looking for food, and they need help in any way that the state can help them. As the funds dry up, the situation becomes worse.
We, as politicians and legislators, search for solutions to these things. What we should do is that within the throne speech the government must indicate to the people its plans and what it intends to do and how it intends to resolve those problems.
In one part of the throne speech it was stated emphatically that the ultimate goal of this government is to put people back to work to ensure a sustained recovery. They said also that central to this plan is reducing the deficit through reckless or careful, maybe, budget cuts and what seem to me more or less reckless budget cuts and increased taxation. This is the government that, as soon as it came in, Mr Speaker, you may recall, increased taxes on the middle class.
The part that really grabs me is when in the throne speech it states that, "This government is committed to returning Ontario to prosperity that is based on responsible fiscal management." It talks about investing in jobs. I thought they would have elaborated a bit more, but basically it was just in passing that they mentioned that.
Jobs Ontario is what they call it. I call it "Jokes Ontario," because if you go around and ask the people who are supposed to benefit from Jobs Ontario, like the businesses and the people who should get jobs, really the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy that is in this exceeds itself in the sense of getting jobs for people. What they have done is given a larger bureaucracy and no jobs are created.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Curling: Somehow, as you touch on Jobs Ontario, you can see how touchy the government side gets. I say to you, ask those people in your constituency how effective this is. I've had businesses come in and say: "I throw my hands in the air. I will not proceed with this Jobs Ontario because it is too complex, it is too confusing, it is too bureaucratic." Ask the YMCAs that are brokers to this cause how well they are doing and how effective the program is. I ask you, instead of being so defensive immediately, review this, because we are in crisis.
I don't have a long time in which to speak, but I want to focus on a couple of things in this throne speech, on some of our responsibilities, and one is youth employment. Before we get there, let me tell you, it is this government that has put these young people in this kind of crisis.
They promised -- and you recall very well, Mr Speaker, as you listened to them; the government, that is -- that they would make tuition free to all these young people aspiring to educate themselves. Before the words had stopped echoing in this hall they had proceeded immediately to eliminate the OSAP grant, which was a very important part of assisting young people back to school. They were saddled, of course, with carrying only loans, not the grant portion which they had depended on so much. As I stated earlier on, when they had increased the personal income tax of the middle class, some of those mothers and fathers and parents and guardians who are sending their kids to school have found now that they have to dig deeper in their pockets in order to give their children an education, and here comes elimination of the OSAP program.
1650
The first statement in the House was about young people and their summer jobs program. I know the minister would look up immediately and say, "Oh, no, it is some strategy." I looked very hard to see if he had a youth strategy program in there. We don't need summer programs for young people. It is alarming the kind of unemployment rate that we see with regard to young people. In some sectors, 23% of the young people are unemployed, no jobs. They don't need a summer job. They need to know that this government, which has shot all their hopes and aspirations from under them as to their future -- they see now that they are saddled with a summer program, and hoped they would have given them some youth strategy to give jobs to youth, an opportunity there.
It is sad that this government, which spoke so well when it was in opposition, has had three shots at a throne speech now, three times in order to get it right, and it is getting it worse and has now destroyed many of the hopes and aspirations of the young people who look forward so much to living a life, to getting married, to buying a home and to advancing their careers, and this is all gone.
What this government has done is to blame it on the federal government. They're in two and a half years, and the survey has shown that they have lost all the support they had in the past. Even the unions, as you know, have spoken terribly about this government, that they cannot believe and they do not see in any way that it has put forward a plan in which they can have hope.
Let me just quickly talk about some of the companies within my riding that has been suffering so much, because in the short time I have, I need to do this. Leviton Manufacturing manufactures electronic devices: consumer, residential and industrial wiring devices. Where are they today? They used to employ 300 people in my riding. Now they've gone to the United States, because they have no hope that this government is listening to them in any way.
Tai Cheong supermarket, a very large supermarket chain: They've got three supermarkets, two in Scarborough North, and now they have chosen to close down because they see no confidence in this government. They cannot hold on any more. I said to them, "Let us give them a chance in the first throne speech to get their act together." That did not happen. With the second they failed, and this third throne speech has really put me in a situation to have lost faith in this government. When we have lost young people, when we have lost businesses, I think we are almost losing our province.
But there's hope. If I can be partisan for a moment, there is hope, because within about two years you will be called to account for all the things you have done. You'll be called upon by the people to show your record. We know what it is all about: Your record is poor, a poor, failing grade. The beautiful thing about democracy is that they shall choose in the direction to get you out of power, because I still believe that the people of Ontario can bring this province back to where it was.
A $17-billion deficit, in the words of their own government, their own Treasurer, to say that's the way we're going to be heading: a $17-billion deficit. Tell me, how have they come to that situation in two and a half years, when they had almost a balanced budget, no deficit, and have moved that to $17 billion? Although we don't believe that $17 billion will be the deficit after they come through their little makeshift, Friday pre-budget wrangling that they're going to do tomorrow; that the fact is that maybe it is $15 billion. But drive the fear into the people, so they can come back and say: "What a wonderful job we have done. We didn't do a $17-billion deficit. What we have done now is to cut it down maybe to $11 billion or $13 billion."
With that logic, it is almost like giving the people $10 and saying, "Here is my gift," and then coming back and taking away $15 from them. The people are worse off for this socialist government, which thought it had all the answers to the economic disaster that it has found itself in today. All of it, of course, Mr Speaker, as I said, is not their own doing, but from the global recession that is around.
But at this time, in our country, what we need are competent administrators of the revenue and taxes that are collected around this province. You have seen, Mr Speaker, that they have done such a bad job of it, because they can't even add. They decided to reduce the ministers around the cabinet table, and there's a big debate about whether they sit at the cabinet table, whether they stay outside on Wednesdays, out there smoking, or whether they wait around, whether they are junior, whether they are senior, whether they are whatever, our ministers without portfolio. So what they do, they pay their buddies off in the back bench there so that they can keep things a bit quiet, because none of the members here are consistent in where they're going. And some of those who didn't get to be junior ministers, I presume there'll be another shuffle later on to pay off those noisy ones who did not get the extra little bit of money and the use of the cars when they can and the expense account.
But who is paying for this? The people in Scarborough North, the people all over this province, are paying for those incompetent people whom they are paying off to do a job, and then they can't define over there who does what, if there is a junior Minister of Health or a senior Minister of Health or who does what. It is a serious situation, because the people are watching that very carefully. While you're asking the people of Ontario to be fiscally responsible, to cut back, to be restrained in the things they do, because they also have far less disposable income, this government, when it has that disposable income, shares it among its friends. They swell the ministry itself with political appointments and therefore our money is wasted in every respect.
I appeal to you, while you're sharing all that, that you pay attention to our young people. Pay attention to the people to whom justice is not being done. I could go on at length, but I just wanted this last minute and a half here to talk about how the justice system that this government has instituted has failed, the backlog that is in Human Rights, the racism that is existing in Human Rights. And I'm not saying that as just a shot: Those are reports that indicate that within Human Rights it is poorly run.
The employment equity promised, promised so long, that now they are trading off with the unions and now they're going to trade off with businesses to find out what type of weak employment equity program will come forth. It's a shame. This same government that had articulated so well about how effective it would be if it had put forth the employment equity program -- it's taken two and a half years and still yet is not here.
1700
The throne speech is empty. It's a lot of rhetoric. It addresses none of the issues that the people want. The aspirations and hopes of Ontarians have not been met. I'm sure Ontarians are prepared to tighten their belts, but this government is not prepared to tighten its belt. They have decided to give it among their friends. I hope that the minister and the Premier are listening.
The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation in the debate. Further debate? The honourable member for Simcoe West.
[Applause]
Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. I appreciate the opportunity to speak for a few moments about the government's speech from the throne that was tabled in this House on April 13.
I must say at the outset that the government's speech from the throne was a huge disappointment to me and to my constituents. When one looked at the detail or lack of detail in the speech, we found that it was simply a rehash of previous NDP announcements, of previous things they did wrong in the past, and for some reason took great pride on April 13 in reannouncing their mistakes.
They've not really listened to what my party has been putting forward in terms of solutions. We have a spending problem in this province. I think Mr Harris, the leader of the Ontario PC Party, has many times pointed out on behalf of our caucus that the Treasurer, at this point in history, really doesn't have a revenue problem. Yes, we lose a plant every three days in Ontario and 500 more people are added to the unemployment roles. That is the record of this government. But when you look at the actual budgets, when you look at the actual figures, you find that this government has more money to spend than any other government had in the history of Ontario.
Past governments, prior to 1985, were able to maintain programs, to give people the priority programs that they wanted us to administer for them, that they wanted the state to administer for them, and we were able to do that with a lot less money.
By the Treasurer's own admission, with the spending that began in 1985 under the Liberal-NDP accord -- I'm surprised how many Ontarians ask me, almost on a daily basis: "How did we get into this mess? How in the world could a government now be projecting a $120-billion debt by 1996?" It took 118 years for all governments prior to 1985 to rack up a debt of just under $30 billion. We weren't very proud of a just-under-$30-billion debt in 1985, but none the less it was 118 years of history to get to that point. Certainly, in hindsight, we had tremendous government prior to 1985.
During the two years of the Liberal-NDP accord, we saw that the government of the day, the Liberal government under David Peterson, began to spend. The spending has just not quit. The Liberals entrenched a number of programs, a number of items that if not checked, simply increase the drain on the government's revenues each year, or the government's ability to spend.
The problem has been that there's been no common sense around here, and now after the Liberals' five years in office, where they doubled the province's debt to some $40 billion, this government is going to once again triple that debt that it inherited in 1990, over its short period in office because I don't think it'll get re-elected; the NDP tells us it's going to have a debt of $120 billion.
The only reason Bob Rae is even talking about spending restraint right now and telling us that he's worried about debts and deficits is because the Treasurer told us that this year, the year that just ended, his deficit will be $12.1 billion. That means, ladies and gentlemen, that the government is borrowing $1 billion a month from the international markets.
It's ironic that the NDP is now borrowing money from the same corporate welfare bums that it at one time blamed for all of the woes in our society. The only reason the Treasurer and Premier Bob are at all concerned -- because they're socialists and it's not really in their makeup to be concerned about other people's debts and deficits -- the only reason they're worried is that 70% of that billion dollars they borrow every month comes from foreigners. It comes from Japan, it comes from Germany and it comes from the United States, and the international moneylenders, those foreigners, told this government to start to get its act in order, that they weren't going to lend it any more money; either that, either Bob Rae starts to listen to the international moneylenders, or they will come in and at some point start to dictate our public policy agenda in this province. They will essentially own Ontario.
I think the people out there have to realize that Bob Rae didn't come in part to his senses out of some innate ability to understand capitalism and free markets. No, no, no. He came to his senses because international moneylenders said, "We aren't going to lend you any more money unless you show us some sign of restraint."
The government has spent on an average in the first year in office -- their payroll costs were up 14%. Last year, their cost of running the government was up 14%. That's seven times the rate of inflation in each of those years.
It was two years ago that Bob Rae told us that you could spend yourself rich and that we could spend ourselves out of this recession, that if only government were big enough, it could somehow solve all of our problems, that somehow government can be all things to all people and that somehow you can get something for nothing.
That is the tragic mentality that we've not seen change on the other side of this House and it's the tragic mentality that began in this province and was fuelled by the five years of Liberal rule. There's a lot of people who believe it. There's a lot of people who believe you can get something for nothing. Well, it isn't true, and the day of reckoning is here.
Bob Rae should have cut his spending, or frozen his spending and cut his taxes as my party suggested some two and a half years ago when he came to office, but no, he decided to spend at some seven times the rate of inflation, to the point where the province is officially bankrupt, and he told us that he had to do that so we wouldn't be in a recession.
The fact of the matter is that we shouldn't have been in a recession in the first place. The Premier's logic was that you could spend yourself rich. If spending yourself rich was the solution, we shouldn't have had a recession because the Liberals spent five years while they were in office trying to spend us rich. What happened? We hit the worst recession that we've ever seen in Ontario. There's no money in the bank as the Liberals told us they were putting money in the bank. Keynesian economic theory says that in the good times you've got to put some money away for the bad times. There's no money there at all. The bank is bust, and today we had the Premier running around talking about a social contract.
I'm not sure what a social contract actually is. When you give your employees -- first of all, increase the number of them and give them raises that bring your payroll costs up 14% in each of the last two years, and then you're now entering into a social contract saying, "Sorry, 18,000 or 20,000 of you have to be laid off and/or we want to roll back some of those wage increases." It just shows how out of touch the NDP has been over the last two years.
Many of my constituents and some 500 Ontario residents in each day in this province over the last two or two and half years have received a 100% pay cut. They've been laid off. They've been let go. They don't have a job, can't feed the family: the simple reality out there that this government fails to recognize.
During that period of the last two years, this government had the gall to give unprecedented -- I shouldn't say unprecedented; we did see it in the 1988-89 years of the Liberal government. But it gave huge wage increases and new hirings in the public service, and now through really a funny game called the social contract negotiations, the government might take 5% or 10% of those huge wage settlements back.
Well, it's quite a joke because these people, at the end of the day, have job protection in the civil service and they have more money today, even if they took a 5% or 10% rollback, than just about anyone in the private sector because most people in the private sector, and including MPPs -- we've had our wages frozen over the last two years and that will continue.
1710
We've talked about spending, we've talked about huge raises. I hope I've let you know a little bit that I don't have a great deal of faith in the social contract. I was a political assistant for a number of years, and my judgement is that these social contract negotiations are simply the posturing of the government to pretend it is taking a tough stance against the public service.
By the Treasurer's own admission, that tough stance is supposed to convince the rest of Ontarians that he needs to increase taxes in his next budget. He's admitted this week that the tax increases that he's looking for will amount to another $2 billion out of the pockets of the very few people who are still working and trying to run a business in Ontario.
It is absolutely sinful that this government, against all the advice it has ever received from anyone who knows anything about small business in this province, from anyone who knows anything about generating wealth and creating jobs, would go against all of that advice and once again raise taxes. We are the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America. We lose 500 jobs a day; a plant closes every three days; 1.3 million Ontarians are on welfare.
I want to talk about welfare for a minute, because I want to illustrate for you sort of the economic spiral and decline that we've been in, and that requires some commonsense solutions that we've been putting forward; but the decline we've been in over the past eight years that the Liberals and NDP have been office.
The fact of the matter is, you know there's a problem with your welfare programs when during the boom years in 1988 and 1989, when the government had tremendous prosperity, it was an easy time to run the province, it was as if things ran themselves, businesses were reporting record profits -- that passed quickly when Bob Nixon, the Treasurer of the day, clobbered those same businesses with things like the employer health tax and unprecedented taxes, an unprecedented commercial concentration tax, workers' compensation premiums which are the highest in the world.
Anyway, in 1988-89, I remember writing some speeches for some people in this province and I used to write the line that we could have full employment. I think we had only 4% unemployment at that time and all the social writers who fuelled the spending spree used to write that, if only the government did a couple of little minor things, we could have full employment. There were all kinds of stories in the media that full employment was the goal.
During those boom years, what happened to welfare? Welfare rose during the best years that will ever be seen in my lifetime and certainly in anyone's lifetime in this House -- 4% unemployment. Welfare went up another 200,000 people, because the social theorists over there and in the Liberal Party to my right -- although they certainly are not on the right; it just happens to be a coincidence today. Those social theorists, and I've never understood this, that somehow, through things like STEP, the supports to employment program, under welfare, if you gave more people more money, that would be an incentive to go back to work, to get into the workforce.
In 1988-89, at 4% unemployment, welfare grew by 200,000 people. It clearly tells you that during the best, most prosperous years that you'll ever see in this province in our lifetime, you've got a problem with welfare. The number one question, I tell you, is not only, "How do we get rid of the NDP in Ontario?" but I'm often asked in my riding, people ask me: "Well, Mr Wilson, why should I go to work on Monday? I should go on welfare." I think a lot of people who might have said that to me over the past couple of years are on welfare now.
We have a problem. As welfare has gone from 400,000 to 600,000 in the good years, and now with the rules -- I argue a lot of it has to do with the rule changes the NDP brought in; there are no more welfare police, there's no accountability in the system whatsoever, direct deposit for cheques within three days, absolute nonsense -- we now have 1.3 million Ontarians on welfare and no jobs to go to, because in order to sustain that $6.2-billion welfare expenditure and all its other expenditures, the government is telling us it has to tax us more and more.
We could mention the over-$200 million used to drive private sector operators out of day care or the $50 million they want to put towards taking over private sector ambulance services in this province or some of the home care legislation that we'll see later this year that will drive the private sector out of the provision of home care or the $7.1 billion they've spent on non-profit housing, and that doesn't include the subsidies that you and I, as taxpayers, have to pay in each of the next three years; $1.2 billion, I believe is the commitment in each of the next 35 years to carry the mortgage for these people on these so-called non-profit or co-op housing buildings. It's sinful.
We would be better to not have the government at all in the housing business, to save the $7.1 billion in capital costs and to send these people a cheque for $1,200 a month, and they can go down the street to their local subdivision and buy their own house. At the end of 25 years, they'll own the darned thing, and we won't have incurred a $7.1 billion capital cost. We can't get this sort of thing through people's heads.
I won't even go into the fact that all the non-profits in my riding, these huge buildings that were put up, were untendered. I won't even go into that, I can tell you. I think that must be illegal in this province; it used to be at one time. But they're untendered. The Ministry of Housing phones you up and says, "Will this developer do?" And it's from Toronto. It really irks you when you have unemployed constituents. They're coming from far away to come up and build non-profit housing units in my riding.
One more last comment. On January 13 of this year, I wrote the Honourable Bud Wildman, Minister of Natural Resources, a letter. I was trying to head off another stupid expenditure by this government. This government decided that it needed new helicopters. It was one of these "Let's use up the capital budget of Ministry of Natural Resources quickly" because the deadline for the tender had to be March 31. By the way, it wasn't a tender; it was a letter of invitation to only two companies: Eurocopter, from offshore, or Bell Helicopter. Eurocopter wins the so-called tender -- only two competitors -- a $2million purchase for two helicopters.
I'm told by everyone in the firefighting business and everyone that helps repair helicopters and all kinds of people who do work for the government in this area, in the private sector, that the helicopters that the government was replacing were hardly ever used -- but to use up the capital budget.
So, as a very responsible MPP, or at least I hope I am, I write the minister. I talk to his assistants on the phone and I say: "Look, here's $2 million. You don't need it. You're buying these helicopters offshore. It's going to cost you a whole whack more money to train pilots and that because they're a foreign helicopter that we don't even have any trained pilots or mechanics for."
Two million dollars they could have saved. It would have been a simple thing, but no. I get no response from the minister. That's January 13. You have unprecedented staff levels around here. You've got 93,000 civil servants and you can't answer a letter that's several months old. I think that speaks volumes for the level of competence of this government.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Simcoe West for his contribution to the debate and recognize the member for Scarborough East.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I will only take a few minutes to give some of my other colleagues some time to speak. I start with a certain amazement that, listening to the opposition, it sounds as though Ontario is some uniquely bad province that has a debt unique in the western world. Surely we can look at governments all over which are in exactly the same situation, and all of them are realizing that they have to address the problems. We see the contenders for the federal Conservative leadership who are admitting something needs to be done. If I have it right, they are competing to say whether the debt will be eliminated within three years or five years, and that's about it.
The thing that strikes me from oppositions is that they have no ideas. What are they proposing? They look at little picky things that supposedly we have done. They look at defects. They get into ad hominem arguments, but then, at the end, where are we?
We are clearly not facing business as usual, and we are addressing and this throne speech addresses a comprehensive approach which I'm really surprised other governments elsewhere are not adopting, but surprisingly they don't seem to be.
1720
There is some hope. I see some jurisdictions which are along the same lines, and I would note the elections recently in Jamaica, which have returned the progressive party there, and in Australia, which I think should be looked at more closely, because I believe Australia is one example of a very sophisticated social contract bargaining situation which has stood that country in good stead in tough times and where we have seen the return of the Labour Party in the face of a reactionary free-market ideologue party which they may have realized was rather similar to the federal party we are suffering from and have suffered from for about the last 10 years.
I don't want to use up too much time, but we do have this three-part approach. We have the social contract at the same time as we have a reduction in programs and we have the necessity to raise more revenue, which we are going to be finding out about very shortly.
I just wanted to very briefly touch on a couple of areas in the speech which are very important to me and to my people in Scarborough East. I'm very pleased about the aspect of point 4, supporting communities and small business. The government is acting to bring economic renewal into the heart of our communities. The budget will contain details of the government's community economic development initiative.
All economies are local economies. I know the need for stimulating local rural economies, but in my riding of Scarborough East we have exactly the same, and I'm very pleased that we have initiatives like Jobs Ontario, which, contrary to what we hear across the floor, is doing something. There is a real need for training. We are in a time of rapid change in the structure of work, which is a large part of the overall difficulties we're in, but this is something that we are doing, something recognizing both the needs of employers and employees to get into the new economy, often very much the information economy.
I want briefly to touch on another thing which is very dear to me, which is reforming health care. The government will continue to reform the health care system and control costs. As you know, Mr Speaker, we have been doing that very successfully so far compared with what had gone before. Health costs only went up 1% compared with many times more in previous years, so that at least has flattened the graph, but we have immense possibilities for health care reform, for democratizing the system, for making a more satisfactory care system for patients and I believe for physicians.
I don't share the cynicism about social contracts. I know, as a professional, as a current or former provider, the ways in which we as physicians lacked many of the things that in other sectors are taken for granted: a career structure, a retirement plan. I don't know what's going to be in the social contract, but I think it's easy to see things like that which are necessities which will make a better system, which will allow us to distribute health care equitably across the province.
I'm sorry to see all the cynicism which comes across, but I suppose that this is the opposition doing its job.
I won't go any further. I'd like to give my colleagues some chance. But I believe this is something where we as a province are setting a lead for this country and for this continent and I'm very proud to be part of it.
Mr David Winninger (London South): I'm certainly pleased to rise in response to the speech from the throne, because my constituents in London South know only too well the importance of returning Ontarians to work and maintaining central services and controlling the deficit. Certainly, the study conducted by the C. D. Howe Institute indicated that Canada's debt crisis is even greater than most Canadians realize. Their conclusions were disturbing, particularly for those who had argued that the debts of the province are of little concern. Their discussion in fact culminated in a warning that Canadian governments were facing a foreign exchange crisis similar to that experienced by New Zealand, Sweden and Italy. All these countries were forced to make deep cuts to entitlement programs, such as old age security, to satisfy their foreign lenders.
Putting Ontarians back to work goes beyond deficit reduction. As the speech from the throne indicated, our "goal is to return Ontario to a prosperity based on responsible fiscal management; investment in jobs; partnership between government, business and labour; principles of fairness and human dignity; respect for the environment; and an abiding concern to provide" for the weakest among us, including our children.
The announcement yesterday by the Minister of Environment was certainly welcome news, that Ontario had met its target of 25% reduction of waste in 1992. In fact, legislation is being beefed up to allow municipalities to recycle more waste and to foster the growth of the green industry in Ontario.
Our Jobs Ontario Capital program has worked excellently to create those jobs needed in our economy, and the $6 billion to be spent over the next decade to build on our capital infrastructure will only serve to expand those objectives.
So job creation is certainly a major thrust of the throne speech, deficit reduction is a thrust of the throne speech, but at the same time we must seek fairness in society. Our decisions always have to be guided by concern for people, by the right of all residents of Ontario to seek conditions of fairness, respect and economic opportunity. Certainly, reform of the social assistance system will aid us in that endeavour because it will break down some of the barriers to integration of people into the workforce.
I'm going to leave time for my colleague to speak.
Mr Perruzza: It's indeed a pleasure to be able to participate in this throne speech debate. Mr Speaker, as you know and as every other member of this Legislature knows, a throne speech is essentially a mini-blueprint, a plan of action, a game plan that details how the government continues to govern for the immediate future. I have to tell you that in many cases, individual throne speeches are also the foundation, the building block of much more comprehensive plans for government action for the future.
You can't detail a game plan or a plan of action without reviewing the game films, without going back and taking a look at how the game's been played in the past. Only in that way can you assess to any great degree where you are at for the time being. I have to tell you that when we go back to the old game films, when we go back to the old plans -- and I'm not going to go as far back as the Conservatives; I may just touch on the Conservatives, but I am going to speak to the kind of government, to the kind of game plan that our friends the Liberals played in this place.
What did they do during the most productive and prosperous period in this province's history, between the years 1985 and 1990? I'll tell you what they did. They taxed and then they spent, they taxed and then they spent, they taxed and then they spent some more. They spent so much that as an outsider, simply a resident of Ontario, an elected representative at the municipal level, I can tell you that they appeared to be nothing short of drunken sailors, nothing short of drunken sailors. It was a party in this province. It was a party. It was a Liberal, five-year party.
1730
What did they do? They did a number of critical things that essentially changed the game plan, changed the rules for government. They squeezed their municipal partners, they squeezed the school boards, they squeezed all of the other transfer partners, whether it be hospitals, whether it be doctors, whether it be commissions, whether it be school boards, whether it be municipalities and they kept all the money for themselves. They kept all the money for themselves. It's not that they invested in the future of Ontario.
They didn't put the money into building roads, building new sewers and renewing the structure that sustains and maintains this province. No. They threw money everywhere. They layered program on top of program on top of program on top of program. They didn't go back and review the old programs. No, absolutely not. They didn't go back to the old Conservative programs to figure out whether or not they were working. No, that was too difficult for them to do. That's not what government was to them: The most prosperous time in Ontario's history, they had all the money they ever needed, and they just simply threw it across Ontario everywhere. It didn't matter who came asking.
But the sad thing about it all is that they didn't take care of the most marginalized, they didn't take care of the weakest. Absolutely not. They left them out in the cold, they left them out on the park benches, they left them out in the food bank lines. Absolutely; that's what they did. They turned their backs on the neediest in society. They had all of the money, but they abandoned those who needed it the most. They took care of all of their friends in every other place, but certainly not the people who needed it most.
What do we need to do in the next little while? I'm going to conclude my remarks, because I notice that the Premier came into the House and he's going to want to speak to this. But I have to tell you, our game plan now -- as a social democrat, I don't want to sit at a table and I never expected to sit at a table where we are going to be talking about sharing the pain. But what we have to do is we have to get the house in order. That's the game plan for the next decade, and that's our game plan.
When we have the house in order, I can tell you that we're going to be able to take care of all the people who were left in the lurch when they had a chance to take care of them, when they had a chance to do something.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Downsview for his contribution to the debate, as well as the member for London South and the member for Scarborough East. Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The time for the third party has expired. Premier.
Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate and would say to my colleagues that it is a pleasure to participate in this discussion. I feel very strongly that the approach that the government has taken and that is set out in the throne speech is an approach that's worthy of the support of the House and it's worthy of the support of the people of the province, and I want to take this opportunity in this place to express those thoughts as clearly and as emphatically as I can.
I want first of all to of course repeat my welcome to the two new members who participated in the debate, in the discussions in this House, for the first time in the last few days and say how much we all look forward to their participation in future discussions, and to say to my colleagues that I don't think there's any question that we live in times of challenge and times where difficult decisions must be made on behalf of all the citizens of the province.
There have been many harsh words spoken and many things said. I expect and anticipate that in the course of a throne speech debate, that will happen and that will be the case. I want to say to my colleagues in this House, particularly my friends in the opposition -- I look across the way and there are a lot of people I still consider to be my friends, indeed almost all, including my good friend the member for York Centre. I recall well our early meeting when he was first elected and his enthusiasm when he became a member of the government. I made that possible as leader of the third party. I haven't sensed a tremendous gratitude flowing backwards from that direction. There are a great many of my colleagues in the Liberal Party whose elevation to office a truly generous move by the New Democratic Party made possible in 1985.
Indeed, I see the member for Timiskaming is here. His arrival in this place owed something to the New Democratic Party, and I don't recall him ever having expressed even a sound bite of gratitude to all of us. The doors we knocked on together and the number of people we talked to, the meetings that I addressed on his behalf, and he never even sends me a Christmas card to express gratitude for the fact that I made that happen.
So I say to my colleagues and my friends in the Conservative Party, whom I'll have some things to say about as well, who frequently approach me on a personal basis for some act of kindness that governments can perform from time to time, I say to all of them that whatever harsh things may be said in the course of question period or things that may be said, I take those all with a grain of salt and certainly never take them personally, because I know that's not how they're intended.
Let me say to the people of the province, Mr Speaker, that what we are doing as a government is a course that is not an easy one, and I don't pretend at all that it is one that is intended to generate instantaneous popularity. I understand that; I think we all do. The reason the government is doing what we are setting out to do is not because it is necessarily the first thing that people want to hear, not because it is necessarily the first thing that people would prefer to happen in their desire or, in a sense, on their wish list for things to happen, but because we have reached the conclusion that it is the right thing to do and that these are steps that must be taken.
Mr Speaker, it's always possible to look back. Members opposite, the Leader of the Opposition today in many of her questions, her colleague the member for Renfrew North -- I must say as an aside, when the Leader of the Opposition was elected Leader of the Opposition, she told us that this was really going to be politics with a difference, that the Legislature was going to be just absolutely turned on its head in terms of the positive and constructive approach that would be taken.
She said we would be struck down with the fact that really politics would be revolutionary, that people would be included in a totally new way and that there would be constructive policy proposals presented and that there would be this fervour of ideas emerging from the Liberal caucus such as we've never seen before, and that of course, when the government did things right, she'd be the first person to come out there and say it was right, that it was time for an opposition with a difference.
1740
I ask those people in the province of Ontario who've watched this place and who've watched the opposition in performance, what do we find? The same old ritualistic questions, the same old bombast from the member for Renfrew, the same sort of arcane rhetoric which opposition leaders used to get away with in the old days but now have no place on the floor of the Legislature, none at all.
I've been listening carefully for one positive suggestion, for even one inch, one sense of what could be done, of what could be said, and even today she said, "Aha, I tricked you into answering a question." Well, it's the same old tactics, the same old Liberal malarkey. I go back with the Liberal Party a long way, both in Ottawa and here, and there is one thing that keeps the Liberal Party together, and that is the quest for power; nothing more, nothing less. That's the one thing that keeps them going, the one thing that sustains them, the one thing that keeps them strong.
If there's an issue to be dealt with one day, whatever the issue is, what's the demonstration out there? How do we know what the Liberal Party's going to ask on a given day? I simply listen quietly with my ear to the window, hearing which particular demonstration is going on on that particular day -- and there are a lot of demonstrations going on every particular day -- and I say, "Aha, we know certainly that will be one of the questions which Liberal research will have prepared for the leader of the Liberal opposition in her presentation of her case."
It was the fellow who was reporting for the Globe and Mail who wrote the article on the debt the other day, Mr Little, who made what I thought was a very wise comment. What he said was: "The nature of the structural problem facing this province with respect to its debt is that during the 1980s a structure of spending was established which could only be sustained if the economy was working flat out."
I say to the honourable member, and I say to the member for Scarborough, he knows that's the case, he knows it's true, and I think that people, respected observers across the country and across the province, know that we face not some mere shift in the business cycle; we face a structural problem which we have to deal with in a very major and dramatic way.
Interjections.
Hon Mr Rae: I don't expect any positive or constructive advice from the Liberal Party and I've never been disappointed in my expectation. What I would say to the members of the Liberals who are opposite who are shouting at me so dramatically --
Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It's the 80s Bob Rae, talking of the underfunding of the universities, the underfunding of the colleges, the underfunding of the health care system, the urgent need for pay equity. This was Bob Rae standing in this House.
The Speaker: Order.
Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that there are things that have to be done today --
Mr Sorbara: Everything in the province was underfunded.
The Speaker: Order, the member for York Centre.
Hon Mr Rae: -- that have to be done by virtue of what has happened to our economy and the --
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, the member for York Centre. Please come to order.
Hon Mr Rae: -- impact it is having on the people of the province.
Mr Sorbara: He is criticizing the 80s. He was the spokesman that everything was underfunded, that there was nothing that had enough money.
The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat, please. I ask the member for York Centre to please come to order. I ask the member to please come to order. If the member refuses to come to order he will be named.
Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I can handle this. I've dealt with louder and bigger hecklers than this in my time and I will again, so I'm not too troubled by the member for York Centre, although I must confess, I said nice things about him in the beginning and I'll continue to say nice things about him regardless of the things that he says about us, because I know, Mr Speaker, that whatever he says, he's saying only in fun.
So this group of people who literally cannot believe what happened -- they don't believe what happened in 1990. They honestly can't accept what took place. There they were in an act of supreme cynicism --
Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Quickly, what is your point of order?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Please take your seat.
Mr Callahan: I have a point of order.
The Speaker: I asked for it and you didn't say anything.
Mr Callahan: Somebody was talking to me.
The Speaker: What is out of order?
Mr Callahan: Why don't you control order in the House, Mr Speaker? I can't speak to you unless you control order in the House.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Callahan: Thank you very much.
The Speaker: What is the point of order?
Mr Callahan: The point of order, Mr Speaker, is that in this House we, each of us, every one of us, is to speak forthright and in terms of what's happened in the past being honestly done, and what's happening in the future. The Premier is talking about things that to me, as I recollect from 1985, were all the things that he did as Premier --
The Speaker: No. The member does not have a point of order. Would he please take his seat. Premier.
Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): Don't like that, eh?
Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I quite like it. They're coming unravelled on that side, and it's understandable. I can understand it. Here was the party which had been, like we were, out of office for many, many years as we looked at the 42 years of Conservative rule in this province. They were elevated to power by our decision that it was time for a change. They were elected in a very decisive victory in 1987, and they had the world at their feet. It was all there. I can remember --
Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Lots of money.
Hon Mr Rae: Lots of money. In fact, I'm glad my colleague from Etobicoke mentioned that. I can recall being in the Premier's office, not when it was my office but when it was being occupied by David Peterson, and him looking at me rather kind of dolefully and saying, "We've got so much money rolling in we really just don't know what to do with all of it." I must confess they managed to find something to do with all of it, with their 43 tax increases over the five years, increasing the deficit by over 35% at a time of unparalleled prosperity.
Squirrels are supposed to put their nuts away in the winter. Why squirrels are supposed --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Hon Mr Rae: -- to put their nuts away in the winter --
Mr Sorbara: It doesn't matter who you vote for, you get the same government.
The Speaker: The member for York Centre.
Hon Mr Rae: What we have in the Liberal opposition is we have squirrels on amphetamines, squirrels on speed.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, the member for Brampton South.
Hon Mr Rae: They were not capable of planning for the future. They failed to plan for the future. That's the failure.
Now, when I listen to the comments that have been made by my friend the Taxfighter --
Mr Sorbara: What is it, you just plug it in the chair and it spouts all this shit?
Hon Mr Rae: You can relax now. I'm moving on to the Conservatives, unless you want to turn it around.
I say to my friends in the Conservative Party that the approach the Conservative Party takes is to say that everything should be cut and no taxes should be raised. Let me say that what I find from the Conservative Party that is truly inconsistent is that the leader of the Conservative Party says, "We would not raise any taxes -- never," but then he proceeds to say to people, "But of course there should now be user fees on people who use hospitals; there should now be user fees on people who go to the doctor; there should now be" --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Hon Mr Rae: Well, that's what I read in the Oshawa Times. I read it today in the Oshawa Times, and I would say to members opposite, let's not be too cute with the people of the province. You're talking about raising revenues. We're talking about raising revenues. The difference between us and you is not whether revenues should be raised or not. That's not the difference. The difference between us and you is, how do we create a fairer system for raising revenues and how do we make sure that those who are in a better position to pay in fact are paying? And that is a very significant difference.
The plan which this government has put forward is a constructive plan. It's a plan which calls for expenditure reductions. It's a plan which calls for a social contract with our own employees and with the employees in the broader public sector, which social contract has the intention and purpose of sitting down and talking with our own employees and talking with employees in the broader public sector and talking with the employers in the broader public sector about what changes need to be made in order to ensure that we have a sustainable system for the future, in order to ensure that we have a system which is fair, in order to ensure that we have a system which is going to work for the future, and in order to ensure that we protect the services of the public of Ontario and that we ensure that as many jobs as possible are going to be protected and ensured for the future.
That is the purpose of the social contract. There's no great mystery about it. I will admit it is something which has not happened before. It is also something which has not been needed to do before at the level and at the dimension which we're having to do it now.
I think it's fair to say that the challenge which we face is one of ensuring above all -- and I think it's important for us to focus and maintain our focus on this -- our challenge is, as it has been from the beginning, and it remains the same: The first is to ensure that there are jobs for the people of Ontario and that the recovery that is now under way, as modest as it is, is sustained and allowed to continue and that we will ensure that in fact there is in place an investment plan for the public sector and for the private sector which will ensure the creation of new jobs and new opportunities for the people of the province. That's what must be done and that's what the focus is. That's the direction. That's why it's being done.
1750
I hear people say that what the NDP wants to do is cut jobs and cut services. Not true; in fact, quite the opposite. What we want to do is make the changes in the structure of the public sector, if you will, and begin to make some serious structural changes so that in fact jobs in the public sector and the private sector and certainly the services that are provided in the public sector can be maintained, because if we simply walk away or we simply say there's nothing to be done or simply say we're going to slash and cut and reduce every service and we're just going to do it in a mindless way, then I think we'll all be worse off, if we simply let the deficit rise at a time of recovery.
It's one thing to let it rise in a time of recession; it's another thing altogether to let it rise in a time of recovery. We will in fact be creating a climate in which jobs will be lost, in which it will be more difficult for people to invest, in which it will be harder to attract investment and in which the long-term future of the province and indeed the medium-term future of the province will be much poorer and much weaker than otherwise in terms of the decision that we're taking.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.
Hon Mr Rae: The second aspect of what we're proposing, Mr Speaker, and the second part of what we're proposing is that this government has to demonstrate yet another thing to the people of the province, as any government does, and that is, not that hard decisions can be avoided, because I don't believe hard decisions can be avoided at this time, but that hard decisions can also be fair decisions. That is the test of government today, and it seems to me that that's the choice.
We know that the Liberal opposition, which didn't make hard decisions and hard choices --
Interjection: They didn't have to.
Hon Mr Rae: Because they felt they didn't have to. We know that they're going to be constantly and eminently critical of this government for whatever it is we do, whatever decision we take, one way or the other, we know they'll be opposing it and we know they'll be going out and playing every single tune that's out there, demonstrating their capacity to sing along.
The Conservatives, who have now become a kind of rump for the National Citizens' Coalition, who have become a kind of reflection of that, we know where they'll be coming from because we know the interests that they'll be defending and the attitudes that will be taken.
But I want to say to members opposite, we believe that the approach that we're taking is a constructive one, we believe it's a fair one and we believe it's one which will in fact, if we stay this course, as we will stay this course, create more jobs and more justice than the alternatives which are presented to us.
I will say to my friends in the Conservative Party, at least I hear an alternative being presented to us by them. I say to my friends in the Liberal Party, I have no idea what alternative they're presenting, except for the fact that they're going to be campaigning in the next election on the simple slogan "Throw the rascals in." I think the people of Ontario are entitled to more --
Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): That's the wrong slogan. The slogan is going to be, "This is the election you've been waiting for."
Hon Mr Rae: The only question is whether the member for Wilson Heights will be there running in it, and I hope he is.
I want to say to honourable members, I look forward very much to this next few months, to the process which is under way. It is difficult; it is challenging. I'm not pretending for a moment that it is popular or that it is easy, but I would say to all the public and I would say to my friends in this House, if it was easy, it would have been done a long time ago, and I think we have a pretty good idea who would have done it.
The fact that it's difficult and needs to be done means in fact that the people of the province are entitled at this time to clearness of purpose, to a decisiveness and to a commitment on their behalf to the protection and creation of jobs and to the establishment of a more just social order to which I and my colleagues are firmly committed.
The Speaker: On Wednesday, April 14, 1993, Mr Marchese moved, seconded by Ms Murdock, that an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:
"To the Honourable Henry Newton Rowell Jackman, a member of the Order of Canada, Knight in the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, doctor of laws, bachelor of laws, bachelor of arts, honorary colonel of the Governor General's Horse Guards, honorary colonel of 429 (Tactical Transport) Squadron at Canadian Forces Base Trenton, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:
"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us."
On Thursday, April 15, 1993, Mrs McLeod moved that the address in reply to the speech from the throne be amended by adding the following thereto:
"That this House regrets that the speech from the throne only confirms the government's inability to provide a clear strategy to support the recovery of Ontario's economy, generate and encourage economic investment, create jobs and aid those who are unemployed and on social assistance to get back into the workforce, and condemns the government for:
"Failing to understand the deep and lingering impact of the recession on the people of this province;
"Refusing to recognize that government initiatives to encourage job creation have failed;
"Failing to take action that would restore investor confidence and build lasting partnerships with the private sector in order to aid in this province's economic renewal;
"Failing to see how increased taxation will hinder economic recovery;
"Failing to provide a carefully considered program to control the deficit; and
"Failing to provide leadership by recognizing that the continuing disintegration of the government's integrity is causing immeasurable harm and a loss of confidence in the government of Ontario."
On Monday, April 19, 1993, Mr Harris moved that the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne be amended by adding thereto the following:
"Failing to understand that government cannot create private sector jobs -- only the private sector can; and
"Failing to create a tax and regulatory climate that will encourage the private sector to do so; and
"Failing to recognize that eight years of high-spending, high-taxing governments have only deepened the impact of the recession on Ontario; and
"Failing to act decisively in the area of education and training in order for us to provide the best possible foundation for our children and workers to prepare for the technical and restructured jobs of the future; and
"Failing to control expenditures and deficits in the province of Ontario."
The first question to be decided is Mr Harris's amendment to the amendment to the motion.
All those in favour of Mr Harris's amendment to the amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
Call in the members; a five-minute bell. No, sorry; a 30-minute bell -- up to 30 minutes. The bell is, under the rules, up to 30 minutes. You know the standard procedure.
The division bells rang from 1758 to 1806.
The Speaker: All members please take their seats.
All those in favour of Mr Harris's amendment to the amendment will please rise one by one.
Ayes
Arnott, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Runciman, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.
The Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Harris's amendment to the amendment will please rise one by one.
Nays
Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Callahan, Caplan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Curling, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Eddy, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Klopp, Kormos, Kwinter, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Mahoney, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McLeod, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, O'Neil (Quinte), Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Pilkey, Poole, Rae, Ramsay, Rizzo, Silipo, Sola, Sorbara, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Ziemba.
1810
The Speaker: The ayes being 15 and the nays 78, I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
We will now vote on Mrs McLeod's amendment to the motion. Those in favour of Mrs McLeod's amendment will please rise one by one.
Ayes
Arnott, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Eddy, Eves, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, McLeod, O'Neil (Quinte), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Sola, Sorbara, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.
Nays
Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard;
Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Ziemba.
Clerk of the House: The ayes are 28, the nays 65.
The Speaker: The ayes being 28 and the nays 65, I declare the amendment to the motion lost.
We will now vote on the main motion. Same vote reversed? Is that agreed?
Interjections.
The Speaker: No? I heard one negative voice. Those in favour of the main motion, as placed by Mr Marchese, will please rise one by one.
Ayes
Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard;
Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Ziemba.
Nays
Arnott, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Eddy, Eves, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, McLeod, O'Neil (Quinte), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Sola, Sorbara, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.
Clerk of the House: The ayes are 65, the nays 28.
The Speaker: The ayes being 65 and the nays 28, I declare the motion carried.
It is therefore resolved that an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. I realize the time pressures. I consider this to be an important parliamentary procedure and I would ask the indulgence of the House to be able to complete it as it is set out in our book of procedures.
To the Honourable Henry Newton Rowell Jackman, a member of the Order of Canada, Knight in the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, doctor of laws, bachelor of laws, bachelor of arts, honorary colonel of the Governor General's Horse Guards, honorary colonel of 429 (Tactical Transport) Squadron at Canadian Forces Base Trenton, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The business statement: Pursuant to standing order 55, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.
On Monday, April 26, we will give third reading consideration to long-term care, Bill 101.
On Tuesday, April 27, and Wednesday, April 28, we will give second reading consideration to the education omnibus bill, Bill 4.
In the morning of Thursday, April 29, during the time reserved for private members' public business, we will consider Bill 3 standing in the name of Mr Tilson and Bill 6 standing in the name of Mr Mills.
On Thursday afternoon, we will give second reading consideration to Bill 7, the municipal waste management act.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 1:30 of the clock.
The House adjourned at 1818.