Journal des débats 1993-mai-05 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Bob Secord spent 38 years in public service aiding athletes in their development and success. For 10 of those years, Bob served as an assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. While minister, I had the opportunity to work with Bob and to witness the great work he did.

Last week, Bob died of a heart attack. Ironically, he was addressing a sports volunteers' dinner at the time.

Bob was known to athletes throughout the country, as he travelled to Commonwealth and Olympic Games to show his support and offer his assistance. He was the founding chairman of the Interprovincial Sport and Recreation Council and a member of the Canadian Olympic Association.

For many years, Bob was the driving force behind the ministry's annual sports awards dinner, in which provincial and national champions are brought together by the government to acknowledge their hard work, determination and success.

For these athletes, hard work is not enough. They must have the support of their community, both financial and moral, to continue in the daily grind of the pursuit of excellence. Bob Secord was one of those supporters. He was known by hundreds of athletes around this province for the key role he played in aiding their efforts.

On behalf of my party and I know all parties here in the Legislature, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Bob Secord, a man who devoted his life and his heart to Ontario's athletes.

GO RAIL EXPANSION

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): GO Transit has completed the environmental study for its proposed GO rail expansion program, Richmond Hill corridor. The intent is to build a second track and increase the existing service from eight trains per day up to 34 trains per day.

The final day of public review of the class environmental assessment document was April 28. Requests of the Minister of the Environment requiring this project to undergo an individual environmental assessment had to be received by that date.

My constituents have presented a petition to the Environment minister, written dozens of letters and have been in constant contact with my office in an attempt to make their concerns heard. To date, no one has received any indication from the government that their complaints have been received. This includes my letter of March 28 requesting an individual environmental assessment on behalf of my constituents.

The original environmental assessment did not properly consult the community on the proposed changes. Hundreds of individuals who live in the neighbourhood were not informed of the original process. In addition, there are concerns that the scope of the original process was too narrow and did not take into consideration the impact of the expansion on the community.

My constituents and I expect to see positive action taken by the government in order to guarantee that my community is properly consulted and their concerns resolved through an individual environmental assessment. Please, Minister, we would like you to answer your mail.

CANCER TREATMENT CENTRE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I rise today to speak in support of the Citizens for a Cancer Centre, a group of concerned citizens who wish to draw to the attention of the public the urgent need for an additional cancer treatment centre in eastern Ontario.

Cancer patients requiring radiation treatment must travel long distances to radiation centres in Toronto or east to Kingston. Not only is the distance tiring under normal circumstances, but with the stresses of undergoing debilitating treatments for serious illnesses, the trip can present a real threat to the wellbeing of patients. The cost to the patients and their families is devastating.

Recently, it came to light that patients requiring radiation treatment for breast cancer in Toronto face a three- to four-month wait. At this time in a patient's life, when they're particularly vulnerable, this extended wait can be intolerable.

A constituent of mine recently had to travel to Thunder Bay for a two-and-one-half-minute daily treatments for a period of five weeks. The cost of hotels and meals was $5,000. That $5,000 could have been spent to offer services to her in her community.

Services in cancer detection, investigation and treatment are currently offered at the Oshawa General Hospital, and that hospital currently serves a population of some 600,000 people in the area stretching from Metro Toronto to Trenton and north to Haliburton. However, all treatments involving radiation therapy either must be sent to other centres, overloading their facilities, or involve intolerable waiting.

Regardless of the location, either the Oshawa General Hospital or elsewhere, the numbers in terms of patients and interests of the community demand the serious and immediate consideration of the Ministry of Health.

COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I would like to inform the members of the House of a recreation project in my community which is anxiously awaiting the announcement of capital grant funding from the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

The Long Sault Centennial Arena in Cornwall township serves the recreation needs of residents in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and the eastern counties. However, if provincial funding is not committed to constructing the new facilities in the very near future, all organized recreation programs may have to be cancelled come September. The Ministry of Labour is firm in its decision and threat to shut down the existing arena if the repairs are not made.

The Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation will know that the township has all its funding in place. However, its application is on hold pending notification that the funds will be available for the 1993 capital grant program.

Two weeks ago, I brought the matter up with the Minister of Finance, but I still have no concrete information to give the concerned citizens in the area. I ask that the Minister of Finance very quickly consider allocating either Jobs Ontario or economic development money to the eastern regional tourism office so that this top priority project can go ahead.

DOUG WOODHOUSE

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I rise in the House today to pay special tribute to a constituent, Doug Woodhouse. Doug is a grade 12 student at Parry Sound High School who's been selected to receive the 1993 Roberta Bondar Science and Technology Student Award. This is an annual award granted by the province in recognition of outstanding effort and achievement in the area of science and technology. Unfortunately, my legislative duties prevented me from attending the awards ceremony, which is being held as I speak.

Doug is an exemplary student who's very highly regarded by staff and students at Parry Sound High School. He possesses an outstanding academic record, with a particular affinity for maths and sciences.

Doug's commitment to education does not end there, however. He's the chief organizer and chairperson of the Drug and Alcohol Awareness Committee in Parry Sound. As such, he visits with elementary schools in our community in order to warn younger students about the perils of drug and alcohol abuse. It was Doug who also organized and conducted a computer workshop for teachers of Parry Sound High School when new computer technology was introduced to the school.

Good players make good coaches, and I would be remiss if I did not commend Dr and Mrs Woodhouse for their encouragement and support both of Doug and his sister, Nathalie.

I am certain that we can all appreciate the hard work and dedication involved on Doug's behalf to be a recipient of this prestigious award. On behalf of the people of Parry Sound riding, I am delighted to have the opportunity to congratulate Doug on this outstanding accomplishment.

1340

TREE-PLANTING CEREMONIES

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): In 1977, the Rockton Lions Club conducted a tree-planting ceremony at the Beverly Community Centre in recognition of the service rendered to the community by two of the club's deceased members, Hugh R. Hunter and John W. Howell. Other residents heard of the memorial tree planting initiatives and wanted to join in. Approximately 50 trees were planted that year.

The idea of a memorial tree planting ceremony caught on and has been repeated over the years. Other Lions Club members have been recognized, most of whom I have known for many years: Frank Dowling, Blake Dyment, Garnet Pearl and long-time fishing friend Cliff Morden.

Recently more members were recognized: Keith Canham, David Emberson, Harry Fielding, Lyle Hunter, Ross McLean, Ray Patterson and Don Sumner.

At the same time, five more memorial trees were planted in memory of other area residents. They are Eldon Basset, Fanny Cooper, Harry Elkin, Murray McKnight and Cyril Woods.

Over the years a beautiful grove has emerged, a quiet testimonial to Lions Club members and area residents who have all served their community well.

HEALTH SERVICES IN OTTAWA-CARLETON

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): The Ottawa-Carleton Liberal caucus wishes to draw to the attention of the House, and especially the Minister of Health, a serious problem with paramedic services delivered in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

According to Dr Justin Maloney, an emergency physician at the Ottawa General Hospital, the Ottawa-Carleton region has one of the lowest survival rates in North America for resuscitation when a patient's heart stops.

Apparently, this problems exists in Ottawa-Carleton because paramedics are only required to have one advanced skill, whereas paramedics in other jurisdictions have additional skills for coping with such life-threatening emergencies.

In medical emergencies, gaps in training and a response delay of mere minutes can mean the difference between life and death. Ottawa-Carleton urgently needs improved paramedical service.

I beg this government to honour its original commitment as quickly as possible. The Minister of Health must upgrade the skill levels of paramedics in Ottawa to bring them up to par with paramedics in other, safer cities like Toronto and Hamilton.

It is believed that 30 to 40 people die unnecessarily each year in the Ottawa-Carleton area. Surely the government must understand that these people need not perish in a modern society that possesses the skills and equipment to save their lives.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Finance, who claims to be saving taxpayers' money by cutting waste and jobs. I would suggest that you don't have to look too far to find a great deal of waste in the form of a bloated civil service.

The former Liberal government converted many members of the press gallery into executive assistants or high-priced public relations agents and increased their average salary from $42,000 to $62,000.

That same government imposed 32 tax hikes on the people of Ontario over five years and increased the debt to $10 billion. Minister, your NDP government increased the salaries of executive assistants from $62,000, my understanding is, to $84,000, and created positions for four parliamentary assistants per minister where there was once only one.

Your government has increased civil service salaries 5.7% and created baby ministers who do not respond to questions and cannot attend cabinet meetings but cost the taxpayers approximately $400,000 each. And it is my understanding that your government has kept two deputy ministers on the payroll who are not actually doing any work.

Minister, while you claim you will trim 11,000 jobs from the bloated civil service, the Attorney General's department is converting 1,100 freelance or fee-for-service court reporters, court interpreters, clerks, bailiffs and small claims court employees into unionized, salaried civil servants.

Minister, your government told the people of Ontario it would spend its way out of the recession and create jobs. Now you're axing jobs and hitting us with higher taxes. Your misguided policies or programs are putting Ontario taxpayers and jobs on the endangered species list.

LENA JAMES

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): As Mother's Day approaches, I would like to pay tribute to the late Lena James, mother of Sarnia-Lambton MP Ken James.

Mrs James lived her entire life in Lambton county, and with her husband of over 40 years worked in the family Holstein business producing the highest quality of Friesian Holstein cows. The Jameses earned many provincial and Canadian awards for their Holsteins.

Mrs James was a member of the Blackwell United Church for over 50 years and the Blackwell Women's Institute for over 30 years. Many will remember Mrs James for her readings in period costume and the plays she performed in throughout Lambton county. In recent years Mrs James was active in the North Sarnia Retirement Club, the Clearwater Seniors and the YW-YMCA, and she never, ever lost her enthusiasm for travelling with her son Ken when he was performing his constituency duties.

Surviving Mrs James are her two sons, Ken and Bruce, six grandchildren and one great-granddaughter. I extend my sympathy to the entire family as Lena James will be missed by all who knew her.

USE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES IN HOUSE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before beginning oral questions --

Interjection: Petitions.

The Speaker: It's not time for petitions.

It has been drawn to my attention that yesterday a cellular telephone rang in this chamber during the debate. The disturbance caused by the telephone in this instance and previously by such devices as pagers and portable computers does not afford a member who has the floor with the courtesy and respect that is deserved.

I want to take this opportunity to remind all members that the use of any electronic devices not sanctioned for use in this chamber is not permitted and ask that all members refrain from bringing such devices into the chamber.

It is time for oral questions and the member for Oriole.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Chair of Management Board, in the absence of the Premier and the Treasurer. Yesterday Ontario's public sector unions flatly rejected your social contract proposals to cut $2 billion out of the public payroll. They unanimously rejected wage freezes and rollbacks and have demanded that your government raise taxes instead to trim the deficit. By their own admission, Ontario's public sector unions are, and I quote, "on a major collision course" with your government. How much longer are you going to wait before you will admit that these negotiations are just not working?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): In respect to the member's question in terms of when we're going to admit failure, the member obviously doesn't understand the negotiating process very well at all. Negotiation, and specifically the negotiation of this social contract, the Premier, the Minister of Finance and others have said clearly from the beginning is going to be a difficult process. It is not a normal process.

Having said that, we have said clearly from the outset that from our perspective, being able to sit down with the partners and attempt to deal in as fair a way as we can with the questions of protecting jobs and protecting services in this province is important to us and we're prepared to stick with that process to attempt to see that our fiscal circumstances are dealt with in a way that's quite different from what has been done in any other province in this country.

Mrs Caplan: I say to the Chairman of Management Board and to this government, you brought this mess on yourselves. You have done nothing but mismanage the province's affairs since taking office. Now, just days before the provincial budget, the chaos and the confusion that you've created by your mishandling of this issue has put you into unnecessary confrontation with the province's unions.

Yesterday your chief negotiator, Michael Decter, clearly indicated that time is running out. He will be making recommendations for a deadline for negotiations. You've waited until very late in the day to get the negotiating process under way. Time is running out. I ask the Chairman of Management Board, how do you intend to proceed if the unions refuse to participate?

Hon Mr Charlton: I repeat, the Liberal administrations in other provinces, Conservative administrations in other provinces, have taken the legislative route as their first choice and first option. The member opposite refers to some appearance of confrontation. I can assure the member that if we had done as Liberal and Conservative administrations in other provinces have done and proceeded with legislation in the first instance, that confrontation would have been there.

1350

Our commitment is to attempt and to continue to attempt to deal in as sensitive and open a way with the partners, both employers and employees, in the public sector and broader public sector as we can. We will continue to attempt to sit at the table with those partners and discuss the issues around the protection of jobs and the protection of services in this province because we see that as a very fundamental part of what this government believes this province should look like.

Mrs Caplan: Minister, your government created this mess in the first place with its generous wage agreement with its own employees in the fall of 1990. Now you've intruded in the collective bargaining process in a way which is unheard of in this province in an attempt to claw back some of that money.

We've been telling you all along that we are very concerned about this process. Now you are headed to unnecessary showdown with the 900,000 public sector workers and their unions, and, Minister, they don't even work for you. They work for the schools, the hospitals, the municipalities and social service agencies right across this province.

We believe a better approach would have been to negotiate in good faith with your own employees, the 90,000 OPS workers, and to use that agreement as a model to be followed for the broader public sector employers in the hospitals, the municipalities and the school boards.

Minister, you've missed an opportunity but it isn't too late. Won't you admit that you can't run everything out of your Premier's office, and isn't it a better solution to urgently negotiate an agreement with your own employees which could be used as a model for the broader public sector?

Hon Mr Charlton: Again I must conclude from the preamble and the member's question that she doesn't understand the process of collective bargaining. As I've said twice now in this House, and as the Premier has said, and as the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Finance have said repeatedly, there are a number of sensitivities around the protection of jobs and protection of services that have to be addressed in this social contract negotiation. There is only one place that those sensitivities can be appropriately addressed and that's at the negotiating table with those partners, and we are determined to ensure that that process goes forward.

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, when my leader asked me if I would take on the role of being the Labour critic, I did some research into a number of the --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): That's it?

Mr Mahoney: Just fix the roads.

I did some research into a number of the issues that you've been dealing with and have been questioned on. The Workers' Compensation Board, Minister -- and the question was raised in the House to the Premier, at which time he threw numbers around to try to confuse the whole issue -- is currently building a new building worth some $200 million. They've entered into a development partnership agreement with Cadillac Fairview and the Toronto Dominion Bank in which they will build this new edifice and then lease back 75% of the space, representing in excess of 500,000 square feet.

Minister, as Minister of Labour, could you tell me and the people whom you consider to be your partners sitting at this social contract table how you can on one hand talk to them about sacrificing, about taking pay cuts, about doing everything that needs to be done, and on the other hand sit there and approve of this new edifice that the Workers' Compensation Board is moving into?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think it should be pointed out, and I'm sure the member across the way realizes it, that the lease on the current headquarters of the WCB is up in 1995, and there were discussions back as early as 1987 as to what might be the replacement or the new location or new headquarters for the board.

There were also, as I'm sure the member is well aware of, an awful lot of complaints about the number of people jammed into that building, the problems with the elevators, the problem that there was no access for handicapped or injured people to speak of and that the process put in place some six years ago by previous governments was well under way when this government took office, and we have, since that time, proceeded with recommendations coming from the board.

Mr Mahoney: The minister is correct when he says there were discussions that were ongoing, no question about that, but there was not a deal done, sir, there was not a contract signed, there were not financing agreements entered into by the WCB and there sure as heck was not a lease signed.

How do you justify one of your government agencies signing a 20-year lease at a cost of $264 million over the terms of that lease, at a cost of $13,240 million per year, at a cost of $1.1 million per month? How in God's name, sir, can you stand there and defend that decision when you have to sit there -- and let me tell you they won't be worried about their working conditions, because under what you're doing, they won't even have jobs.

My question to you, Minister -- as the Minister of Labour, you partake in the social contract negotiations and you sit by and idly do nothing about the WCB entering into development agreements, entering into long-term financial commitments -- how do you justify that to your so-called partners?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: One of the very first briefings I had as a new Minister of Labour was with Mr Wilson and Mr Elgie, who outlined the process they'd gone through and outlined the benefits of the deal they were suggesting to us. I haven't yet been shown where the deal they've entered into is a bad deal.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): At $20 a square foot? The marketplace is $1 a square foot.

Mr Mahoney: Excuse me, I'll ask the question. You can come in later.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Mississauga West has the floor.

Mr Mahoney: To the Minister of Labour, you wouldn't understand the difference. When you've got millions of square feet of office space sitting empty in the Toronto downtown core, you might not understand that it's a bad deal to commit for 20 years to $25.22 a square foot when in fact you could without a problem -- I could introduce you to several real estate agents who'd love the commission at $5 a square foot to set up the WCB in very convenient facilities.

As a matter of fact, there are people who own buildings in the city of Toronto who would be delighted to have the WCB as a tenant and give you five years rent free, Minister, and you don't understand, sir, why you couldn't get a better deal or how this can be justified. The fact of the matter is that your credibility is just totally destroyed on this issue. On the one hand you are preaching a policy of restraint and on the other hand you are allowing the WCB to move into this --

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

Mr Mahoney: They're going to take 22 floors of a beautiful glass edifice for workers' compensation. Why don't you do your job and fight for the workers instead of building empires for the Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Whether it was the best deal in the world or not at this point in time I can't tell you. I can tell you that the arrangements they have there are a heck of a lot better deal than we got into with SkyDome, for example, from previous governments. I want to also tell you that the WCB is investing its money in this, through a separate entity, as an investment. That is good business as well and the member should know that.

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): One of my questions is for the Treasurer, who I understand may be here, so I will go on with the second question that I have to the Minister of Education. Minister, last fall my caucus released New Directions, Volume Two, a comprehensive plan for improving education and training in the province. I know you're aware of it because you were carrying it with you every day --

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): It was taken out of my briefing book.

1400

Mr Harris: They took it out of your briefing book yesterday, I understand. You must have it memorized by now, Minister.

We discovered, through actually a year of research, of interviews, of consulting across the province, that many of our students are not prepared for employment opportunities. Twenty-seven per cent of high school students drop out. Of those who graduate, 25% are functionally illiterate or lack the basic math skills required for additional education or for their future jobs and entering the workplace.

Minister, given that background and that information, which is now pretty common knowledge, I think we've got a problem, and you've acknowledged that. That is why I was shocked this morning to read in the Toronto Sun that teachers at Humberside Collegiate are being urged to pass failing grade 9 students.

Minister, I would ask you this: Do you not realize that this is exactly the kind of attitude that parents, that employers, that taxpayers and the public are saying they're fed up with in education? There are no standards. If there are, you don't stick to them, you can't measure them, and even if somebody does set one, you ignore it and you pass them anyway. Minister, how can this possibly be happening in any school in the province of Ontario, given the concerns that are being expressed, even by yourself? How can this be allowed to happen?

Hon Mr Cooke: I read the same article in the newspaper this morning. I have asked the ministry to help me understand exactly what the decision at the school was and to get some information. I've learned over the years not to always believe exactly what you read, but in general I certainly agree with some of the concerns that the member has expressed.

I also think it's important to put it in some perspective. The education system is not a complete failure in the province of Ontario. There are a lot of committed teachers, there are a lot of committed school boards and excellence in the education system, but there is a lot of work that needs to be done as well. To just trash the entire education system and say that the whole thing is a failure, I think, does a disservice to 142,000 teachers in this province but also to a lot of committed parents who work in the system as well.

What we need to do instead is look at some positive measures. We need to look at testing the system, as I've indicated this government supports, so that we can have a rational discussion about how successful the education system is, where the weaknesses are, and then take the appropriate action with curriculum and teaching methods to make the system even better than it is today.

Mr Harris: Minister, you've got this royal commission; it's going to take a year and a half to report; it can't look at a whole bunch of things that we think are important to look at. But right now, right in front of you, let me quote from the memo that was given to Humberside Collegiate teachers, because you say you can't always believe what you read in the papers. Let's use a direct quote, and I assume the paper got that right.

It said, "Such students will find it difficult to complete the 30 credits for their diploma." This memo adds, "It would be helpful if we could give as many as possible a boost over the 50% to have them go on with a grade 9 credit." In other words, we want those students and their parents to say, "Here, they have the grade 9 credit," even though they do not have the knowledge or the ability or they have not passed the grade 9 credit. Will you put an immediate stop to this in every school in our province today so we can start to get back on track in this province?

Hon Mr Cooke: It doesn't seem to matter what the leader of the third party is talking about, whether it's education, whether it's the deficit; whatever the issue is, there's always a simple answer. Everything is black and white. That's not how the world operates. That's not how the education system operates.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Look who's talking.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): How dare you say that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: What I want to do is take a look at the strengths and the weaknesses of the system. I'm prepared, and have already announced, more accountability measures being introduced to the education system under this government than ever were contemplated by any Tory education minister. If we've got a problem in the education system, I would just point out that it was shepherded by a Tory government for 42 years.

Mr Harris: Minister, the education system is not a complete disaster, but there are problems. You know there are problems, I know there are problems. You can go back, if you want, 100 years and talk about the problems then, but I'm telling you what's happening today and I'm asking you to put a stop to it.

Recently, Minister, at a policy conference in southwestern Ontario, the following resolution was voted on: "That a rigorous provincial core curriculum of basic academic subjects be there in high school, that testing student progress against recognized international standards of excellence be there, and that issuing diplomas only to those students whose work meets or exceeds standards...."

That carried by 94% -- that was a party policy conference; we invited all of London and southwestern Ontario, including some people from Windsor, Mr Minister -- and I suggest to you that 94% is pretty reflective of the public of this province. They know what's wrong, they've been telling you what's wrong, and yet here we have another "Direction to the Teachers."

The Speaker: The question, please.

Mr Harris: "Unless failure is essential," he said, "30 to 40 grade 9 students who fail this year will be promoted to grade 10 with their more successful classmates."

Minister, will you put a stop to this today? It is quite simple, this part of it, given my concern because I've got two young boys --

The Speaker: Would the leader complete his question, please.

Mr Harris: -- going into the system. Parents are concerned; employers are concerned. Do you agree with this, and if you do not, will you stop it today?

Hon Mr Cooke: Well, Mr Speaker, I'm certainly glad the leader of the third party said that there were just a few Tories from Windsor who were at the southwestern Ontario conference, because you could take all of the active ones and put them in a mini-van and that would be it.

I've told the leader of the third party --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Cooke: I'm glad that it was a Chrysler mini-van built in Windsor.

All I want to say to the leader of the third party is that I agree with some of the concerns that he has expressed, and other people in our province. We announced some accountability measures and province-wide testing of grade 9 students, and we're determined to look at the strengths and the weaknesses of the system and take appropriate action to correct it. But we're not going to do that by trashing the entire education system. We need to work with parents and teachers and trustees and the general public, to work together to find solutions.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, I'm told the Treasurer will be here at 2:30, so I can ask somebody who has some authority on these social contracts. I'll stand it down, if I can, until that time.

The Speaker: The member for York North.

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education and it has to do with school boards.

Minister, does your government support the following recommendation made in the 1985 report of the Commission on the Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education in Ontario, known as the Macdonald commission report: "That there be in Windsor/Essex, London/Middlesex, Hamilton/Wentworth and Ottawa/Carleton one board of education and one Roman Catholic separate school board to serve each respective area"?

Further, Minister, have you appointed Ontario's former agent general to Britain and former Education minister, Tom Wells, to bring about these amalgamations, starting with Windsor-Essex?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): The answer to the first question is that the government hasn't taken a formal position, and the answer to the second question is no.

Mr Beer: Yesterday you announced the royal commission on education, and it was clear in announcing that commission that there were several major areas that were not being covered. One was the financing of the system; the other was to do with amalgamation of school boards.

1410

You have already spoken in different places in the province that you are going to create task forces or a special commission to look at that. Can you tell us today, Minister, whether it is still your intention to deal with a variety of school boards where you wish to bring about amalgamation, what process you're going to put in place, what time frame you have in mind, because there is out there, especially in the Ottawa-Carleton, Windsor-Essex areas, the belief that you are going to begin that process on Monday in a speech to the Windsor Rotary Club. It would seem to me, Minister, if you're going to be moving on this, that the place where you must speak first is here in this Legislature, as I asked you to do on the funding of the system.

So my question, Minister, is: Are you going to be moving to bring about these amalgamations in some form or other? What is the time frame, what is the process and will you make a commitment that if you are going to move in that way, you will speak here first?

Hon Mr Cooke: What I would say to the member is that I've indicated several times across the province that I think we need to take a look at the number of school boards that we have in the province, we need to take a look at how much money is being spent in the classroom versus how much money is being spent in administration and in school boards and that we need to put more money into the classrooms instead of in structures across the province.

I think we need to work with individual communities to get at the facts of how much money can be saved by having fewer school boards in some areas of the province. Final decisions haven't been made as to what the process will be, but I think it's important that the communities be involved in determining their own destiny.

GAMBLING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, in the most recent issue of your ministry's casino update, a ministry official says that the Windsor police department will be compensated for the costs associated with increased crime as a result of the Windsor casino being in operation. Could you tell us what the projected increase in the rate of crime will be and how much it's going to cost?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I think it's fair to say that when you establish any large facility in any location which draws crowds of people, there are concerns around increased crime.

One of the concerns that was first raised by the law enforcement community of Windsor, in Ontario in general and in the community itself, of course, was that they wanted to be assured that some of the proceeds from the casino revenue would go to help pay for further police enforcement.

We don't have any projection at this point of the total amount that will be. However, we are working quite closely with the law enforcement agencies and we'll work something out with them over time.

Mr Eves: To the minister: Surely the minister knows that in January the Windsor Police Services Board completed its analysis of the impact the casino would have on criminal activity in the Windsor area as a result of the casino being there.

How come you haven't tabled that report in the House? Why haven't you made it public? Are you aware of the fact that when Atlantic City legalized casinos, the increase in the crime rate was 171% over the first four years that they were in operation? It's happened everywhere that there's been casino gambling in the world. Why do you want to inflict this on the people of Windsor and why won't you table the report?

Hon Ms Churley: I think it's probably not reasonable to compare Atlantic City with Windsor. The whole process in Atlantic City was to set up row after row of casinos and create a bit of a casino village there. The whole idea was to get people in there and keep them in there. That is not the concept for the one casino in Windsor. There's no comparison whatsoever.

What law enforcers told us is that one of the mistakes that was made in places like Atlantic City and others is that they didn't consult with the law enforcement community up front and work together to make sure that a very strong regulatory enforcement regime was in place up front. That is what we have done very carefully here in Ontario.

WATER SUPPLY

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Before I ask the question I would like to compliment the previous Minister of the Environment for a commitment in my community in trying to get water to them.

Minister, recently the community-led attempt to pump fresh water from the northern part of Kent county was turned down at the last moment by one of the partners. This area of my riding has serious problems now in the insecure supply of drinking water. The affected municipalities, including the town of Dresden, Canning township and Chatham township, have passed resolutions requesting assistance from your ministry to fund a feasibility study for an alternative source of drinking water. Is your ministry willing to react quickly to this request like the previous minister reacted quickly?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I know that the previous minister was committed to a proper water supply for the area, and I appreciate the member's interest in this matter. I am aware that the town of Wallaceburg, despite the substantial financial commitment that the province was prepared to make, has rejected the project and that this has meant termination of the particular project.

My ministry has received representations from the member and from Chatham township, the town of Dresden, Sombra township and Camden township asking us to fund a feasibility study for consideration of alternative ways to provide a secure water supply, and we're prepared to undertake a study to determine how we can do this while alternative water sources would be available to the municipalities wishing to participate, and I'm ready to proceed to cabinet with the proposal for our new project.

Mr Hope: We started off this project at $22 million under the Liberal government, and it escalated in price because the Liberals sat back. My biggest concern is, can the minister please explain to us further steps that we in the municipality can take to ensure that the water supply gets to these affected municipalities quickly.

Hon Mr Wildman: Frankly, I think the municipalities have made their position very clear. We're meeting this week with the engineering consultants for this water supply project. We understand that the consultants can proceed immediately with the feasibility study that will then have to go through the class environmental assessment process. But we're willing to work expeditiously with the participating municipalities to ensure that a proposed water supply project can be brought forward for cabinet's consideration.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Minister of Health, if I can get her attention here for a moment. Madam Minister, when Bill 101, the long-term care bill, was introduced in November 1992, there was a provision to allow for direct funding to disabled persons. It was also announced that a pilot project would be implemented to this end. Almost six months later we have heard nothing about the pilot project promised. Madam Minister, tell me, when will the pilot project begin, where will it take place and how much will be allocated to this project?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me assure the member that certainly the pilot project is a very real priority for us. It was included, as I'm sure he knows, not only in Bill 101 but in the framework for long-term care that I released last month. Just last Monday, Bill 101 received final approval in this Legislature, and I hope now to be able to move forward and provide the detailed information that he's seeking.

Mr Curling: The disabled community has been pleading with the government to allow them to take their own aides to assist in such personal tasks as bathing and dressing. These people, as you know, have waited long enough, and they deserve that right. What do I say, Madam Minister, to the disabled community today about the further delay? I know you said tomorrow as the earliest for bringing it forward; it may be possibly months. When it comes forward, then I will be convinced. It may be perhaps years until this government finally allows disabled persons the dignity and respect they deserve.

I'd like to ask, while I'm on my feet, Madam Minister, the seniors community is wondering whether or not it will receive the same services as the disabled people.

Hon Mrs Grier: I can't respond to the final portion of the member's question until the pilot project to which he referred has been completed and we have the results of that. But in response to his question as to what he says to the disabled community about delay in this pilot project, let me say to him that I hope he will say to the disabled community that after 10 years of talking about long-term care, we now have a government that in the face of very real fiscal constraint is making decisions that allow us to retain our priorities, and that long-term care and the disabled community is indeed one of those priorities.

1420

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): The Minister of Labour knows that many employers remain concerned that the Workers' Compensation Board does not have the legal authority to extend WCB coverage to training participants, training that's going to cost the government at least $1.5 million -- a cost, I might add, which is ridiculously low, because other people anticipate it's going to cost the government $8 million to $12 million. However, for some time this government has indicated that it's not willing to release the legal opinion which the board is using to justify the expansion of the WCB's mandate.

Minister, would you explain why the WCB is refusing to release the legal opinion which provides the justification for its policy of providing workers' compensation coverage for training participants? Will you also tell us why you have personally not taken steps to persuade the board to release this document, a document which it originally indicated it would release to the public?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): What we decided was that we had a major retraining program going in the province of Ontario. We were running into problems in terms of who would pay the costs for some of the trainees, and we made the decision that the government would take that initiative and pay it itself, rather than charging back the various levels of employers.

Mrs Witmer: It's fine to say that the government's going to pay the cost, but I think we have to realize that it's the taxpayers in this province who are going to pay the cost, and we'd certainly like to know what the decision was based on.

However, continuing with the secrecy at the WCB: I understand that you are preparing to release a comprehensive paper on occupational diseases. As I'm sure you can appreciate, the prospect of the Workers' Compensation Board significantly expanding the scope of its coverage at this time, in this province, is of great concern to employers. Will you tell us when you intend to release the paper on occupational diseases? Can you also tell us what plans are there to allow for complete and full public consultation and discussion on this paper?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: We are in the process currently of taking a look at the study on industrial disease, and as soon as we have absorbed that study, we will be making it available to the public.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, three years ago the government approved construction of a new $5.6-million facility for the Rotary Children's Centre, a centre which provides care for 1,200 children with disabilities, children from the Waterloo region and the Wellington county area. The government promised more than $4 million towards the cost. I can tell you, Minister, a land swap was arranged and more than $900,000 has been pledged by our community towards the cost.

But now the project is at a standstill, and the future care of these children is at stake. It is not a good investment to do major renovations in the old facility to improve problems of fire safety and maintenance. But if the new facility keeps being stalled, the children may be at risk.

The Rotary Centre wants the ministry to take action. The children need a safe and secure environment. My question to the minister is, when will the funding for this vital project be approved?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm well aware of the interest and the support that the member for Cambridge has shown in the Rotary Centre, both in his discussions with the ministry, with my predecessor and with myself.

But I have to say to him that I can't give him a date today. What I can say to him is that the review of capital facilities that was undertaken by my predecessor is, I think, almost completed, and that knowing of both the support of the member and the widespread support and contribution of the Cambridge community, I will endeavour to get that answer to him as quickly as I can.

Mr Farnan: Minister, I must appeal to you on behalf of these children, these 1,200 children with disabilities, children in my community and surrounding areas who need a very important service.

I know the minister is extraordinarily busy and her portfolio covers a huge range of issues. I appreciate the minister's sensitivity and I appreciate the minister's knowledge of the issue. But, Minister, I have to remind you that this community not only has given financial commitment, but it has waited for over a year for a review to take place so that the project can move forward.

Minister, I appeal to you, please don't let this review take too long. Please give us an answer and please address the needs of these 1,200 children.

Hon Mrs Grier: I sympathize most sincerely with the sense of urgency that I know the member and these families and the people of the community have. Let me say to him that the reason it has taken a long time to undertake this review is not because of other issues, but merely because of the complexity of reviewing the capital funding for not just this project but a number of similar projects and, at the same time, reviewing the implications for operating funding over the long term, because it is only prudent to evaluate the effects of both the capital and the operating and the requirements that we will have so that we can give assurance and security when the final decisions are made.

Let me say again that I will undertake to get those answers to him just as quickly as I can.

DAIRY INSPECTION

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Again, it's an issue that affects every resident of the province of Ontario.

The minister noted that there was duplication in his ministry's system of dairy inspectors. The Minister of Agriculture and Food announced last week that he would be terminating the jobs of several inspectors. In fact, the minister said that the number of inspectors would be reduced from 35 to 23. However, I've heard very strong suggestions that the actual reduction may be more like 35 to 10. Specifically, it has been identified that there will be five inspectors in western Ontario, one plant inspector and three field workers in eastern Ontario and one inspector on double duty in northern Ontario.

Mr Minister, what is the true and final number of layoffs and where will each of the remaining inspectors be located?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I appreciate the member for Cornwall's interest in food safety, particularly in the safety and high quality of milk that we have in this province.

I don't have the actual details of the location of every inspector and where they're going to be in the province at my fingertips. If the member for Cornwall would like to know exactly where the inspectors are going to be across the province, I'd be very pleased to provide him with that material in writing. I don't have it with me here today.

Mr Cleary: My supplementary: The minister assured Ontarians that milk quality will not be affected by his cutbacks and the slack may be picked up in other ways. Specifically, the minister said, "There are other inspectors who are accountable to the milk marketing board and others." I find this a very vague assurance and very discomforting.

The people of Ontario have every right to know exactly who the known inspectors are and what their expertise is. I also ask, can anyone, other than a government employee, legally implement Milk Act regulations?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I again want to reassure the member that there's no diminished capacity here for inspection in terms of quality and safety. The member needs to be reassured that there will not be as many inspections at the farm as have been conducted in the past. There will be the same numbers of inspections and testing at the plant. On-farm visits will be conducted as necessary to ensure that the safety and high standards are maintained.

We all know that milk is a product that has high quality and is tested regularly to ensure that, and those high standards will be maintained.

1430

REPORT ON VICTIMS OF ABUSE

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. Attorney General, why are you spending taxpayers' money to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court into the release of the Grandview report?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): As I have said in this House before, the only reason we are appealing that is that we are concerned it may interfere with the successful investigation and prosecution of charges which have been laid and are pending in the Grandview case.

Mr Harnick: Attorney General, do you believe that the judges who made the decision, the judges of the Divisional Court, did not take those considerations into account when they made their decision?

Hon Mrs Boyd: At the Divisional Court level, the arguments from the criminal side were not allowed to be made, and one of the reasons for the decision to ask for leave to appeal was so that those arguments could be made before an appellate court judge.

NON-UTILITY GENERATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Energy. Mr Minister, you would know that last December there was a decision by Ontario Hydro in regard to the whole question of non-utility generation. Hydro, at the time, as you would know, had put on hold the future development of some 16 plants that were on the boards in regard to going ahead and providing power to Ontario Hydro, some of that for good reason.

There are a number of NUGs that are left in limbo, quite frankly, a number of NUGs, such as Northland Power up in Iroquois Falls, and in other communities, which have spent a lot of money in order to design, to get these plants ready in order to go into operation initially for about 1995. We also know that represents jobs for people around Ontario. It represents an importance to an industry that we're developing, not to say what it means to the local municipality with regard to a tax base and jobs.

The question I have to the minister is, we know that there is a decision shortly coming from the Ontario Hydro board, that the board itself will be coming to the province of Ontario and saying what the recommendation will be in regard to dealing with the whole question of non-utility generation. I would ask you if you can indicate to this House and to the members of my riding what we should expect to hear from Ontario Hydro fairly shortly.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): As I understand it, the Ontario Hydro board is considering this. There will be a recommendation at their May meeting, I understand, at which time they will deal with the question of the 16 non-utility generation proposals that have been put on hold.

Obviously, the Ontario Hydro board will make this decision. It is their decision; it is not a government decision. The decision will be made on the basis, I suspect, of taking into account the context of the surplus of electric generation and the various economic and environmental as well as agreement obligations that Ontario Hydro believes it has in regard to the 16 proposals that will be dealt with in that meeting.

NATURAL GAS

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, this relates to what I believe and I think people who are aware of the situation will see as an imminent crisis for the gas consumers in the province of Ontario. This is an issue that is going to affect consumers directly in their homes and indirectly as business impact in terms of costing of natural gas flowing through to them.

The deregulation of natural gas pricing in 1986 and the subsequent competitive market that developed has saved people in Ontario literally millions upon millions of dollars. Recent events indicate that there have been changes in the supply-demand equation so that prices are moving up, and that's going to happen very soon. When these increases filter through the local utilities, Madam Minister, and the regulatory system, the people of Ontario and the industries of this province are going to face substantial price increases.

My question to the minister is this: Have you or your government undertaken any studies and evaluated the impact that this dramatic increase in gas prices will have on the consumers of this province? Minister, if you've done any kind of study or an impact study, I want to know how it's going to impact -- you talked in your throne speech about an economic recovery. What impact is this price increase going to have on economic recovery and what's the impact going to be on the consumer? The average women and men in this province --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member complete his question, please.

Mr McClelland: -- are going to be hard hit. What's the impact on them, Minister?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I think that question would quite rightly go to the Minister of Environment and Energy.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The question is, of course, important in terms of the economic recovery. I think Ontario is in a very advantageous position in that we have a number of options in terms of fuel, the fuel storage in southwestern Ontario, the assistance that can be due in terms of alternative fuels, and I'm sure that the member is as concerned as I am with price. If he wants to give me some particular details, I'll follow it up.

Mr McClelland: Minister, let me refer you back to the original question. I'm surprised in a sense that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations didn't address this, because this is going to impact consumers very dramatically.

But to the Minister of Energy, sir, let me say this: You know the volume of gas that's consumed in Ontario is absolutely huge and that the implications will be felt immediately when price increases filter through the regulatory system.

The government is aware and, Mr Minister, you will be aware that in 1988 the Ontario Energy Board, in response to a reference from the Lieutenant Governor in Council, from cabinet, considered natural gas supply to meet the needs of Ontario and issued a report entitled Gas Supply. In that report, the board recommended that either by reference or by its own motion periodic reviews be undertaken and be conducted.

Minister, there's a dramatic price increase that's going to be in the minimum of $750 million in this calendar year, impacting men and women in this province -- $750 million. We want to know, are you aware of it? If you are, what are you going to table, what are you going to show us? Have you referred it to the board for a reference? If not, why not, and when will you do it? Let's get on with it so the people of Ontario are prepared and we can respond and there can be some direction from this government to protect consumers and business in this province.

Hon Mr Wildman: The member should be aware that, certainly, long-term supply is not a problem in this province, and the recent price hikes have now stabilized, but they've had the effect of increased drilling and well service activity and this is going to ensure that we have more alternative fuels in this province, not less.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wildman: I beg your pardon?

Interjections: What's the cost?

Hon Mr Wildman: The cost is we're going to pay more, but it's also going to mean more alternatives for people. We'd be happy to deal with the issue in terms of the overall effects on the economy, but it means that there are alternative fuels that Ontario consumers and businesses can take advantage of.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I understand the Treasurer will be here shortly. Perhaps I can start with the Chairman of Management Board, and if the Treasurer has up-to-date information and he arrives, we could deal with the appropriate referral at that time. Or if there is anybody else the Chairman of Management Board feels has more up-to-date information, that's fine too.

Yesterday in this House, the Premier said in response to a question about whether taxes would be on the table for social contract talks: "No, they will not. We will not be talking tax hikes. That is not what the social contract talks are for."

Yesterday, as well, Sid Ryan, president of CUPE Ontario, said: "We're on a collision course, there's no question about it. If Rae won't talk taxes he can take a hike, because we don't want to talk about the rest of the collective agreement stuff."

I would ask the Chairman of Management Board if, in his opinion or the opinion of the Treasurer or his government, he sees any room, anything left to negotiate when Sid Ryan says, "If they don't want to talk taxes, we won't talk anything else," and Bob Rae says,"There is no question that we're not going to talk about taxes."

As the Treasurer comes in, I might also then -- while he gets briefed on the first part of the question -- ask the Treasurer this: Given that Mr Decter said he would report to you today, Mr Treasurer, on whether he sees any hope for this faltering process, have you heard today, has Mr Ryan changed his mind, has the Premier changed his mind? If not, is the legislation ready to proceed?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Mr Speaker, the Treasurer has arrived and I'll refer the question to him.

1440

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

The Speaker: You got lucky.

Interjections.

[Applause]

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Where were they when I needed them?

I do apologize for being late; I regret that, because my intention was to be here for the full question period today.

I think the question was, what is left to negotiate at the social contract table?

Mr Harris: Ryan says no to Rae, and now the Premier says no way on taxes.

Hon Mr Laughren: There's a lot of room in between there. Let's not be cataclysmic about these things.

As a government, we've said from the beginning that there were three approaches to this problem: One was expenditure reductions, and those are decisions that have already been made; a second set of proposals was a social contract table with our partners out there in the public sector; and the third is a revenue package, which will become known in the budget.

From the very beginning we have said that while we're willing to listen to ideas from whatever quarter, the tax package that will be brought down in the budget is not negotiable at the social contract table or anywhere else. That is a decision of government, to determine its particular tax regime at any given point in time. Nothing has changed in that regard.

I do appreciate, I might say, suggestions that I hear coming from time to time from people at the social contract table, because as a government that's more open than any government in the history of this province, we are more willing to listen to those suggestions.

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary, the Globe and Mail reported today that Gene Lewis of the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation said, "Union leaders prefer legislation forcing wage concessions to accepting cuts through negotiations." They prefer legislation. The union bosses know how to play this game. This is the way they play. We understand that. We wish they didn't; we wish they'd come into the 21st century, but they have not. They know they have to hang tough to be seen by their membership to be fighting to the bitter end.

Meanwhile, they also know, as Clyde Wells can tell you, as the public will tell you, as the membership is telling you, that the cost and the size of the civil service have to come down. They are saying, many of them, that they'd prefer legislation. Do you have the legislation ready, Mr Treasurer? When can we expect to see it?

Hon Mr Laughren: I guess that is a fundamental difference between the leader of the third party and us.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): There aren't many left.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll try and ignore that interjection from the former Finance critic of the Tory party.

That was a serious question, which I need to remind members of from time to time. The fact remains that because one person out there says, "We don't want to negotiate" -- if that's what he or she said, indeed -- "we want legislation," that doesn't mean that's the way to go. We feel very strongly that the way to resolve the compensation problem in the public sector is to do it through negotiations.

For the leader of the third party to stand up and refer to union bosses -- who, I might remind you, are elected by their membership; they're not appointed. I would just say to the leader of the third party, for heaven's sakes, let's give the negotiating process a chance to work. That's the difference between you and us: You wouldn't even give it a chance.

Mr Harris: Yesterday, Mr Decter said he welcomes the union's proposals, but warned a deadline for negotiations may be set soon. Yesterday, Mr Decter said as well it's not an unlimited process. These are the things that I've been trying to tell you, but you won't tell us what the deadline is. Yesterday, Mr Decter said, "I think there may be greater clarity in the next few days."

I'm asking you today, is there greater clarity in what the deadline is, and whether you're ready to legislate, given Mr Ryan's statements yesterday that he's going to take this government down, that, "I don't think he would bring in legislation." He doesn't think you're tough enough. I translate that into he can insist on whatever he wants because you're not tough enough on the other side of the issue. You won't put the balancing power in there. He'll strike, he'll be tough, because you don't have enough guts to legislate.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Harris: When is the deadline? Are you prepared to legislate so that we can have meaningful negotiations?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think with that approach, there would never be meaningful negotiations between two parties at a table. Never.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: Somebody throw them some raw meat over there.

We said right from the beginning, I could say to the leader of the third party, that Mr Decter was going to report back to me, as the Minister of Finance, today, and Mr Decter, I assume, is going to do that. He has not done so yet. He is going to report back to me on the extent to which there has been progress in negotiations.

Mr Harris: He says there is a deadline. A deadline or what?

Hon Mr Laughren: I would caution the leader of the third party from simply assuming that whatever's in the press is what's going on at the social contract table. That's not always the case.

Mr Harris: Mr Decter says there's going to be a deadline. The Premier yesterday said: "There is a deadline. I'm just not going to tell you when it is."

Mr Treasurer, my question to you is this: What's the deadline for? The deadline for another round of negotiations? A deadline to say, "We'll try again?" A deadline that Mr Ryan could bring you to your knees? A deadline for what? If the deadline isn't for legislation, what, can you tell me, is this deadline for?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think everyone understands that there must be progress at the contract table so that we can proceed with the tabling of a budget in this Legislature during the month of May. We've said that right from the beginning. So obviously --

Mr Harris: Or else what?

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the third party wants me to engage in some kind of hypothetical doomsday scenario in which negotiations don't work, and I'm not going to get drawn into that, because it would be a very bad signal to send to the negotiating table.

PETITIONS

ST LAWRENCE PARKS COMMISSION FUNDING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition here signed by over 2,000 residents of eastern Ontario.

It is addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the economy in eastern Ontario is desperately dependent upon the operation of tourist attractions such as Upper Canada Village and other programs operated by the St Lawrence Parks Commission, and

"Whereas recent news media reports indicate that the management of the St Lawrence Parks Commission is considering eliminating certain programs, service and staff positions,

"Therefore, be it resolved that the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation take steps to fully fund the operation of the St Lawrence Parks Commission for the budget year 1993-94 to ensure that there will be no cutbacks in programs, services and staff."

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition that says:

"To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insured benefits to Ontario drivers;

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers,

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

It has 23 signatures and I have affixed my name to it.

HYDRO PROJECT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here from the people of Iroquois Falls, who are petitioning the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in order for Ontario Hydro to support their proposed project of cogeneration in the community of Iroquois Falls.

I affix my name to those signatures.

1450

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

I have attached my name to this petition and I would like to indicate that in addition to riding associations, business and labour groups, the petitioners here --

[Interruption]

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Security. Stop the clock. A short recess.

Apologies to the member for Bruce. Restart the clock.

Mr Elston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was just about to note that in support of the Bruce A units, we have signatures on this petition from Ajax, Whitby, Mississauga, Janetville, Oshawa, Pickering and other places.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I again bring a number of petitions into the House, this time from the good people of Harrow, Ontario and from Windsor, Ontario, and they all say no to casinos.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

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

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

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

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

Mr Speaker, I am very pleased indeed to affix my signature to this petition.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition today from several residents of the north Simcoe area expressing their concerns with native hunting and fishing in the

Williams Treaty.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition here that is signed by I think it's 13 people from the Ajax-Whitby-Scarborough area in support of the Bruce A rehabilitation and I've affixed my name.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers;

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in lower benefits for most injured people and higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers;

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

That's signed by Pat Shipticki from Clare Avenue, Jo Ann Doan from Fitch Street, M. Vincelette from Wallace Avenue and a whole lot of other good folks from the Welland area, and I of course have signed it, sir. Thank you kindly, Speaker.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A."

I have affixed my name to this petition along with the support that is shown by labour groups, chambers of commerce, councils, school boards and of course the Bruce Provincial Liberal Association, along with the associations of other parties whose names are to be mentioned later.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition that's addressed to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and it talks about the hard economic times, the high unemployment rate and the tax increases in the province of Ontario. It says that the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefit programs to the drivers of Ontario and they are asking that Bill 164 be withdrawn.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition that says as follows:

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

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A."

As you know, Mr Speaker, I have attached my signature to this particular petition and add to that the support of riding associations, labour groups, business associations, councils and school boards in the area, and as part of a petition that has well over 15,000 names attached to it.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition of protest:

"We, the undersigned, are protesting the provincial government's planned cuts in budgets of an expected $1 billion to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. In particular, we are concerned with the anticipated cuts to the community-based support for the people who have developmental disabilities.

"Already in 1992 agencies that support people with developmental disabilities have been hit with the combined cuts of at least $12 million to $14 million, and since 1987 community-based services have been in a considerable period of growth often with insufficient allocated resources. Institutions, on the other hand, have had a 24% distinct decrease in the number of people they house while the staff resources have only decreased by 7%.

"The names below are representative of the families and friends and the neighbours of those that may be impacted by service cuts to a person with a developmental disability."

I sign this petition.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): As you know, there is a petition in support of the continued operation of the Bruce A nuclear power station and there are over 15,000 signatures attached hereto. I will read just in part this portion of the petition:

That in part speaks to the issues addressed in the petition. I have signed my name on the petition as well.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment, and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers;

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers,

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

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

It's signed by about 85 of my constituents.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Over 15,000 people have signed this petition and this is another instalment. I will just read a portion of this support for the continued operation of Bruce A:

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity."

There are 26 names on this petition. I have attached my name to this petition. The people here are from Ajax, Whitby, Newcastle, Uxbridge and other places.

1500

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a petition to members of the provincial Parliament. It reads:

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

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families. The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

That's signed by Margaret Kaptyn, Ed G. Meyer, John Abraham and a whole lot of other folks from Welland and area who know what family values and what Christian traditions and a common pause day are all about. I, of course, have affixed my signature.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

I have affixed my name to the petition, along with more than 15,000 others.

ABORTION

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have the recommendations of the Task Group of Abortion Service Providers, and the group that signed the petition writes:

"We, the undersigned, protest these policies of the NDP government because (1), these policies are anti-family; (2), these policies will use our tax dollars to kill unborn babies; and furthermore, (3), these policies will cause essential hospital services to be slashed across the province of Ontario."

There are 38 signatures on this petition.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province.

"In addition to the undersigned, the petition is endorsed by the following municipal, business and labour groups:

"Councils: Bruce township, Huron township, Kincardine, Kincardine township, Owen Sound city, Port Elgin, Ripley, Saugeen, Tiverton;

"Chambers of commerce: Kincardine, Port Elgin and Southampton;

"Business associations: Kincardine BIA, Port Elgin Downtown BIA, Bruce County Realtors Association;

"Labour groups, including: CUPE 1000, the Society; Grey/Bruce District Labour Council; Ontario Nurses' Association, Kincardine and Southampton chapters; Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Association, District 44; Service Employees' International Union, Kincardine and Southampton; Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 527; Electricians Local 1788; Sheet Metal Workers Local 473; Ironworkers Local 736; Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 1120; Hotel and Restaurant Workers Local 75; Bricklayers Local 12; Allied Trades Council, representing Carpenters Local 2222; Cement Masons Local 598; Labourers Local 1059; Insulators Local 95; Millwrights Local 1592; Operating Engineers Local 793; Painters Local 1590; Teamsters Local 230;

"Riding associations: Bruce Provincial Liberal, Bruce Provincial Progressive Conservative and the Bruce NDP;

"Bruce County School Board and Grey/Bruce Community Industrial Training Advisory Committee."

Attached hereto are, of course, 26 signatures from about the province. I have attached my signature as well.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr1, An Act to revive 506548 Ontario Limited

Bill Pr2, An Act to revive the Women's Counselling Referral Centre

Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Veterinary Technicians

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

Bill Pr36, An Act to revive Canindo Development Limited

Bill Pr84, An Act to revive Maranatha Christian Reformed Church of Woodbridge.

Your committee recommends that the fees, and the actual cost of printing, be remitted on the following bills:

Bill Pr2, An Act to revive the Women's Counselling Referral Centre

Bill Pr84, An Act to revive Maranatha Christian Reformed Church of Woodbridge.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO CASINO CORPORATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DE L'ONTARIO

On motion by Ms Churley, the following bill was introduced for first reading:

Bill 8, An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos / Loi prévoyant la réglementation des casinos par la création de la Société des casinos de l'Ontario et traitant de certaines autres questions relatives aux casinos.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? No?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those against will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1507 until 1512.

The Speaker: Would all members please take their seats. It's not time for petitions. Would all members please take their seats.

Ms Churley has moved first reading of a bill entitled An Act to provide for the control of casinos through the establishment of the Ontario Casino Corporation and to provide for certain other matters related to casinos.

Those who are in favour of Ms Churley's motion should please rise one by one.

AYES

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Hampton, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard,

Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: All those opposed to Ms Churley's motion should please rise one by one.

NAYS

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Cordiano, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Drainville, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McLean, McLeod, Morin, Murphy, O'Neil (Quinte), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West),

Witmer.

The Speaker: The ayes are 62 and the nays 43. I declare the motion carried. Minister?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Today I'm introducing for first reading the Ontario Casino Corporation Act. Since last year's budget announcement concerning casinos, many municipalities across Ontario expressed great interest in being part of this initiative. Members will recall that last October I announced that Windsor had been chosen as the site for a casino.

The Speaker: You will know that with first reading there should be simply a short statement of the purpose of the bill.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): What is the purpose, Marilyn?

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): She doesn't know.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Marilyn, what's the purpose of this bill?

Hon Ms Churley: I'm making a statement telling you what the purpose of the bill is. I announced that Windsor --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order.

Mr Harnick: It's a tax on the poor; Bob Rae would call it a tax on the poor.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): This bill will never pass.

The Speaker: I'm attempting to bring the House to order.

A point of order, the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, it's very clear that the minister would wish to make a statement. I would ask for unanimous consent for her to make her statement and have a brief reply from the critics. I think that would probably be the best way to do this.

The Speaker: Such a request is certainly in order. Is there unanimous consent for a statement to be made by the minister?

Interjections: No.

The Speaker: I would ask, first, that the House come to order, allow me the opportunity to hear the minister and that she would make a short statement of the purpose of the bill.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just like to suggest that it's always been my understanding that on first reading of a bill, a minister is to just shortly and concisely enunciate the purpose of the legislation, not to give a ministerial statement. If she wanted --

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): A little less heckling and she might be able to.

Mr Eves: She didn't give a ministerial statement today. I was quite surprised that she didn't, but this is not the time to do it. Would somebody explain that to her over there, please.

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Ms Churley: The purpose of the act which I introduced today is to establish the Ontario Casino Corporation Act, which will establish a crown agency known as the Ontario Casino Corp. The corporation will conduct and manage the games in the casino; to establish a gaming commission, which will set policy and ensure the integrity and honesty of gaming and safeguard the public interest. The act will amend the Gaming Services Act to ensure that all persons supplying goods in connection to the casino are registered. I urge all members to support this bill.

1520

OPPOSITION DAY

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Harris moved opposition day motion number 1:

Recognizing that the Ontario economy is experiencing significant structural change and acknowledging that the future wellbeing of all Ontarians, the maintenance of vital public services and the improvement of our standard of living depend on the ability of the province to attract new job-creating investment and on the capacity of Ontario firms and workers to compete in the global economy and to exploit new opportunities and markets; and realizing that huge deficits and high taxes limit the capacity of the province to compete for investment and jobs and to finance priority services, this House calls on the government:

-- To ensure that its 1993 budget does not increase the tax burden on investors, consumers and businesses.

-- To signal its determination to control public sector costs by setting a deadline for negotiations on the "social contract" and to issue a clear statement that it will introduce legislation to achieve its cost-reduction targets in the event that the negotiations break down.

-- To give a commitment that any tradeoffs in the social contract will not limit the flexibility of the government or of public sector managers to pursue the structural reforms in the delivery of public services necessary to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

-- To introduce legislation to direct arbitrators in labour disputes in the Ontario public service and the broader public sector to consider the employer's ability to pay in light of current provincial fiscal policy in making their decisions.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak to this motion. I also know that a number of my colleagues, in the time allocated to our party today, wish to get their viewpoints on the record, so I will not dwell at great length. The motion is pretty self-explanatory and pretty concise, pretty straightforward. Since I had an opportunity last night, through the miracle of Rogers cable television, to express my viewpoints to all of those -- at no cost if they had cable TV; others paid $500, for which I am very appreciative -- and all of you had the opportunity, in a non-partisan way, to come and hear my remarks last night, I will not go on at great length today.

However, I do want to put a few things on the record. The resolution deals with what's happening around the world today and how that impacts on Ontario. It deals with my grave concern that the Premier has part of the agenda right: He understands that the size and cost of government, over a 10-year period, has become out of whack with the taxpayers' ability to sustain it; that we need in fact to restructure how we operate in this province.

If you look back over the last 10-year period, you will find that particularly during the last 8 years -- but certainly let me be the first to acknowledge that the former Progressive Conservative government also contributed to this move towards government taxing more, spending more, having more involvement in our lives, essentially, cumulatively over this period of time, in fast-forward over the last eight years, saying to consumers, saying to families, saying to businesses, saying to Ontarians, "We can spend the money better or fairer than you can." So government costs have mushroomed and exploded; the size of government has mushroomed and exploded. We've kind of gone to the private sector being squeezed out and the public sector growing.

What has happened today is that the taxation required to sustain that makes us uncompetitive. The regulatory framework that we have in place is so old-fashioned that the new jobs, the new opportunities, we're having difficulty being an attractive place for them to come invest and do business.

So while we're supportive of a move to correct this imbalance -- we are supportive of that, we're supportive of a move to be able to downsize the costs and role and size of government in Ontarians' lives -- we are completely opposed to doing it unilaterally without a prosperity agenda or the prosperity plan to upsize the private sector. We do not want to see one civil servant lose their job, not one, unless at the same time there is a private sector opportunity for them.

So that's what's missing from these social contract talks. That's what's missing from the agenda today. While we've tried to hold the Premier's hand and steer him along the correct path to follow -- with some success, I think you would acknowledge -- in recognizing the deficit matters, in recognizing that the size of government has to come down, we have not yet been able to convince the government -- and I hope that this resolution will do it today and be approved unanimously by the Legislature -- that the prosperity side, the upsizing of the private sector is, if not more important, just as important and must take place at the same time.

The specifics of the resolution:

The arbitrators: At the same time as these social contract talks are going on -- the Premier says the goal is to cut $2 billion out of the total public sector wage bill -- arbitrators are giving increases two, three, four, five times the rate of inflation. This just can't continue. The last time it was necessary -- at that time because of runaway inflation in the 20% range; I think many will recall settlements in this range -- we had wage and price controls, the 6 and 5 program. The only way they were effective was that as well as government setting the example, arbitrators had to take into consideration the government's ability to pay, and the government had said, "We can pay 6 and 5 or we're down the tubes." Today the Premier is saying, "We can pay not the same amount but $2 billion less or we're in great difficulty." That direction must be given to arbitrators as well.

We're most concerned that the tradeoffs that the public sector is asking for may be worse than the short-term remedy. We're concerned that the government may jump for a one- or two-year quick-hit solution. That solution, of perhaps a wage rollback in exchange for maintaining the exact same size of the civil service, will prevent some of the restructuring that must take place. That's what we would like to see in the social contract talks. We're concerned that's not taking place, and we want to articulate that today and get the support of the Legislature for that today.

We want to have a level playing field. I mean, look, Sid Ryan says: "We'll stomp on you. We'll bury you. We'll illegally strike" or "legally strike." That's on the one side. Every time that is said, the government is countering with: "Oh well, okay. We'll still talk some more. Oh well, we won't legislate. We won't make a commitment to legislate." Sid Ryan says: "They'll never legislate. We can do whatever we want." The Premier and the Treasurer respond with -- well, I don't know. You see, this is not good enough.

For meaningful negotiations to take place, you need this level playing field.

1530

It's why we opposed, so strenuously, Bill 40. It tipped the balance: In order to bring management and labour together, they gave labour so much power that management would have to come in on its hands and knees to negotiate, which is why management, if it had a choice -- and it does now in the new global economy; it has many choices -- is saying, "We'd just as soon do business somewhere else." They're doing that and we're losing jobs. So we think this is important.

The tax burden: In 1990, when the Liberals left office, we were the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America. There is no question about that. Quebec slipped ahead of us, although I think we're back ahead of Quebec now on the tax freedom day by one day, but there is still this year to take into consideration. Neither one of us, quite frankly, is competitive in this global marketplace on our tax levels, so we must deal with this on the government size and on the expenditure side. We are stating that today. We're firmly on the record on that and we're asking the government to recognize it.

I have a few comments on what is happening. We have a government opposed to free trade, but free trade is happening with or without us. Whether Ontario is opposed or not, it's happening. Whether Canada wants it or not, it's happening. That's the reality. The new jobs, the information jobs, the technology jobs, the satellite technology, the computer technology: It knows no borders. It's happening with or without us.

Because of some of the infrastructure investments that were made in Singapore, it is now cheaper, more expedient, to send information to Toronto, to Calgary, in the way that Calgary wants to get it, for many companies to send it to Singapore and back to Calgary. This is astounding, because we've fallen behind in our infrastructure and we've fallen behind in our regulatory framework.

Let me give you a couple of examples that we really must seize, because the opportunities are limitless. They're limitless. If this government were regulating over the last 100 years, I said last night -- or if the Liberals, for that matter, because they frittered away all that opportunity in 1985 to 1990 -- we'd still be subsidizing buggy whips. We'd still be trying to bail them out and hanging on to those old jobs instead of moving to the new jobs and the new technologies.

This is what happened. This is why this province prospered for so many years. Government recognized that. They didn't take all the wealth from the jobs of today and say, "We'll redistribute it all." They left some of that in the hands of the private sector to invest for the future jobs. They took some of that money to invest in new infrastructures for the next generation of jobs. They took some of it to relook at our education system for the jobs of the next 10 years, not the jobs of the last 10 years.

We didn't have this kind of planning for the last decade, and particularly the last eight years, and we're trying to tell you that we must catch up quickly, that we must have this kind of planning.

We must understand what's happening. There are new markets emerging: Mexico, 80 million people; South America; we look at what's happening in Argentina with a balanced budget today; Chile. They're moving to the marketplace and shortly they will have as many consumers as there are today in all of North America. Eastern Europe: many more consumers than we've had in North America, who have given us all the wealth and prosperity that we had up to this point in time. We look at Malaysia. We look at the hundreds of millions of people, the billions of people; China, when it wakes up.

There are so many opportunities for us if we'll wake up and understand that we can't bail out the old de Havilland jobs, that we can't bail out these jobs of the past. Technology is passing that by. We can invest in the future jobs, in the next generation of aircraft, in the way to manufacture those aircraft with fewer jobs.

We are seeing many job losses, and this is causing great fear and great concern, but we're seeing new investments by automobile companies but no new jobs. They're going to manufacture better automobiles, more of them, more efficiently, with fewer jobs. We need to get the new jobs that will allow them to do that. Inco now, the Treasurer will agree, I think is producing about three times the amount of nickel with a third of the employees of just maybe 15 or 20 years ago.

The new jobs, the ones we're losing -- we've got to get the new ones. We need investment for that. We need the entrepreneurs to want to be in Ontario for that, and this new global economy knows no borders. You used to be able to manufacture for Ontario and make a buck, so you could put up borders and do that. You can't do that any longer.

I think of the regulatory changes. Here we have a cable company that's invested in fibre optics, we have a telephone company that's invested in fibre optics. We regulate one and say, "Well, you can only do the telephone part." We go to the other and say, "You can only do the TV part." If we had those kinds of regulations -- some of this is federal, but when are we going to take the leadership here? If we had this kind of regulation when CN and CP were building railways across this country, if we said to CN, "Oh, you can only carry passengers," and to CP, "You can only carry freight," they never would have been built.

The regulation is for the old jobs, the old ways. We've got to get our regulatory process into touch with the new jobs, and this resolution recognizes that. This resolution is asking the government -- unlike the Liberals from 1985 to 1990, when they frittered the money, when they tried to redistribute it all, when they tried to hang on to the old ways -- it's asking this government to understand that there could be tremendous wealth, tremendous opportunity for Ontarians, if they will understand what's happening and get ready for it.

I said last night that we had, and I believe we still do have within our public service -- that's almost a million people in the province of the best, the brightest, the most capable of any public service I've ever seen in the world. But we don't have good management. We don't have good management at the top. They're demoralized. They're discouraged. They don't know whether they're going to have a job tomorrow. They don't know whether the job's going to change. They're not sure for what purpose they're going to work.

By way of this resolution, we're calling on the government, don't throw anybody out of work. Don't throw any civil servant out of work unless you're prepared to understand that we need private sector jobs and opportunities for them at the same time.

This resolution addresses the turnaround management that's needed in this province. This resolution talks about how we can prosper, part of the prosperity agenda, the part that the NDP have completely missed, as the Liberals before them completely missed.

When we look at how we prospered in this province, when we look at how this Ontario always led the country when there was a recession, and there were some and there were mistakes made, it was Ontario that led this country. We were yours to discover. We offered to help. We led this country out of any recession we were in.

Now we're dragging the country down. We're dragging this country down. We're dragging ourselves down. We're saying to my children and to your children and to the children of Ontarians, "Even though we had all the hope and opportunity and prosperity and all the advantages, better than almost any other jurisdiction, if not every one in the world, we're going to stiff you with this deficit, with the highest taxation levels and with a government that's trying to hang on to the past."

I ask members to read the resolution carefully, I ask them to listen to the comments made today by the members of my caucus, who have spent three years developing a prosperity agenda and policies to put this province back on track, and I ask them to lift it from us. I ask them to take it and adopt it. I ask them to get us started in the right direction, because that will make our job a lot easier when we form the government two years from now.

1540

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I listened quite carefully to the leader of the third party, and I want to tell you that I get quite nervous when a person who's formerly been responsible for negotiating early tee-off times comes in here and tells us how we're supposed to make this a more prosperous place to live.

I think that even the characterization of this resolution as being an agenda for prosperity comes close to being ridiculous. I want to address some of the comments that the leader of the third party made, and there are a number of my own colleagues who would like to make a contribution this afternoon.

The leader of the third party talks about prosperity and social justice and all those kinds of things that stick in his throat as they come out. I looked in today's Toronto Star, and there's a headline, "Harris Would Balance Budget In 3 Years." He of course would do that without tax increases, so there's no explanation about how that would come about. How would you get rid of that deficit?

My view, without having any explanation through this resolution, is that what Mike Harris and his Tory party friends are talking about is cut, cut, cut: cut the civil service, cut the jobs, cut spending. Tell us which children's aid society you want to close down. Tell us which hospital you want to close down. Don't tell us that you're going to balance the budget in three years. That's all warm and fuzzy, but then you leave out the details on this.

The leader of the third party mentions arbitrators. I find this passing strange, actually, that a question arose in the House not long ago about some interference and here we have the leader of the third party talking about arbitrators and the ability to pay and instructions thereof. I think that --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Union Man.

Mr Owens: Yes, Mr Union Man, that's right, the member for Etobicoke West.

Interjections.

Mr Owens: Yes, I'm very proud of my background as president of CUPE Local 2001, Toronto General Hospital -- 1,100 members.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order.

Mr Owens: Absolutely; extremely proud of the work I did with those individuals.

Mr Stockwell: How are you going to vote and legislate them back to work, Mr Union Brother?

Mr Owens: This is a very interesting commentary from the member for Etobicoke West who, as I said earlier, didn't quite get as upset when we introduced curbsiders, which was actually an assistance to his particular line of work in his private life out there.

The leader of the third party has missed the total message around what this government's agenda is about, and just to remind the member for Nipissing and some of the other folks who are over there who have some uncontrolled necessity to talk while other people are speaking, we'll just go through this.

In terms of the reason that we're undergoing this process, it's in fact not what the leader of the third party alludes to in his newspaper article, in his much-touted appearance via teleprompter on Roger's Cable last night. It's that we are interested in not only the retention of jobs but the creation of good, long-term, paying jobs.

I also had the pleasure to chair a task force on cooperatives across the province. Mr Speaker, you're aware of this, as we've had a number of conversations around a dairy co-op in your area. This task force is looking at, again, the retention of capital and jobs in the community and giving people a sense of pride and worth. This again is all part of the larger government agenda.

Jobs: not the cutting of jobs, not the cutting of the deficit, not promising that we're going to eliminate the deficit, but that we're going to create jobs, and we're doing so through the Jobs Ontario program and other capital project announcements that we've had.

Services: Again, what does this article say about the cutting of services? It says, "We will balance the budget in three years." What's the subtext here? The subtext is that services will be cut, slashed, burned, eliminated, wiped off the face of the earth. But we in the province here will have a balanced budget, according to the Tory agenda, in three years.

Deficit: There's a big difference between the Mulroney Conservatives and their look-alike compatriots that occupy space here in the Legislature. Mulroney and company across the hall talk about the deficit, just the deficit. "Let's eliminate the deficit."

I think that anybody who has listened to the Premier, has listened to the Treasurer, has listened to colleagues around the House, understand that in terms of the deficit there is a difficulty. There's a difficulty as a result of the interest payments that this province, as a result of federal -- and let's get this down to where it's at: It's the federal government that regulates the interest rates through the Bank of Canada. So you've had an artificial crisis created by the Mulroney Conservatives and again these look-alike compatriots who sit across from us in the House.

We now have a crisis that we are needing to deal with. We're not talking about paying off the deficit; we're talking about getting the public debt interest payments under control so that in fact our public debt interest payments will not equal our gross domestic product.

In terms of the approach we're taking, we have a very cogent and recognizable plan, and we characterize that plan as a stool. The first part of that stool is the expenditure management and that's doing a line-by-line --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Scarborough Centre has the floor. Other members will have their turn. Interjections are out of order.

Mr Owens: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In terms of the expenditure management plan, we've taken a line-by-line examination of the amount, where and how money is being spent and looked to find ways that we can reduce the government spending.

In terms of the leadership that we have taken on this, I think it's not only second to none, it's leadership at its best, taking a look at how we can maintain the services that this province has at the level we're providing without moving the province into a fiscal crisis.

The second part of the process will be looking at taxes. My colleagues will have more to say on taxes at a later date.

The third leg of the stool is obviously -- and this has been referenced by those arbiters of social justice in the third party -- called the social contract.

This is a process where we are asking the stakeholders, the employers and the employees in the public service and the broader public service, to sit down with us so that we can share a problem with them and come to a mutually agreeable solution with a view to again maintaining the level of essential services we so badly need in this province and the kinds of services that have been provided by public sector workers which the member for Etobicoke West referenced earlier. As a former hospital worker, I'm acutely aware of the kind of services that are provided to the patients across the system.

The leader of the third party, while referencing Sid Ryan and making all kinds of other allusions to the fact that he perhaps knows something about negotiations other than, as I say, early tee-off times, talked about Bill 40 tipping the balance in favour of workers. I think that's a very interesting characterization, because one of the foundations of free enterprise and capitalism is the freedom of choice.

My question to the leader of the third party and to members opposite is: Why does the issue of choice as to whether or not one wants to belong to a union end, "Ask the workers"? We have employers coming forward saying: "My workers don't need a union. I'm a fair and equitable employer." Well, it was our view that the employees should actually have that say, and what a concept, workplace democracy. I think if you look at countries like West Germany that in the past have been world leaders in terms of production with an 88% unionized workforce, they have demonstrated that unionization, productivity and workplace democracy have a place in this society.

1550

The leader of the third party referenced free trade and how it's an illusion and global markets are with us to stay. Well, I want to tell you something. Not only did I not see the leader of the third party on TV last night, not only did I not see him using a teleprompter last night, but I also didn't see him on the front lawn of the General Motors plant in Scarborough where 3,000 hardworking men and women are in the process of losing their jobs.

Mr Stockwell: Were you there?

Mr Owens: The member for Etobicoke West asks if I was there. Yes, I can assure him, through Mr Speaker, that I was there on the front lawn with the workers.

Mr Stockwell: Why are they losing their jobs? So we can legislate them back to work?

Mr Owens: It's very interesting. The member for Etobicoke West asks yet again, "Why did these workers lose their jobs?" Just in case they've missed the message, it's called free trade. What a concept, free trade. So what did we do? We closed down a productive and profitable plant in Scarborough, Ontario, and we moved it to Flint, Michigan. What a coincidence. Free trade. Political decisions made to close the plant in Flint, Michigan. There was an embarrassment. "We can't have American workers lose their jobs, so what we'll do, we will close the GM van plant in Scarborough." Three thousand hardworking men and women will go down the tubes as a result of this.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): That's despicable.

Mr Owens: The member in front of me says it's despicable. Well, it is despicable.

Let's talk about free trade and its non-effect on the province of Ontario. It's the fault of the NDP government, the third party would want you to believe. Well, I want to tell you something. Since free trade has come into being, this province has lost 200,000 jobs, and in my riding of Scarborough Centre there's been a big hit and workers, men and women, 30, 40, 50 years old, have been thrown out on to the trash heap because their employers have decided that they are going to move south.

Interjection: It's unconscionable.

Mr Owens: Totally. It's absolutely unconscionable, but there's no recognition for this as a reality in the Conservative mindset. That's why, Mr Speaker, and you may be aware of this, your party's called the Progressive Conservative Party, as it's been characterized as the forward-backward party: take two steps forward and four backwards. That's the way it plays out across this country as a federal government, as a former provincial government and as a wannabe provincial government.

Just in terms of wrapping up, as I indicated, Mr Speaker, there are a number of people on my side of the House who would like to say something. Just a couple more things.

The issues with respect to technology that the member alluded to as being a Conservative commitment to technology, again we take a look at both the historical and the current context of Conservative parties.

First, as a historical context, we get rid of the Avro Arrow that would have put Canada in the forefront of aviation and aerospace research. But no, we can't do that. We have to send our brains, our talents, our engineering ability to the United States. De Havilland Aircraft -- the federal Tories are ready to sell it to multinational, transnational interests, lock, stock and barrel. That's the Conservative commitment to technology in this province.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I want to say on behalf of the government and my minister that we are clearly interested in investing in jobs and people and preserving the public services that we have developed over the years, like health care and education. In order to continue to do these things at the level of excellence that we have developed, we have to do better and look to managing our finances and managing the growth in the Ontario deficit.

I think we've presented a balanced package to the people of Ontario. I think we've presented a balanced package to the broader public sector and asked for their participation, and I'm optimistic, as well as my government, that we'll be able to come to a reasonable negotiated package.

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

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to participate in today's debate and, as I read over Mr Harris's opposition day amendment, what came to mind was a quote that I came upon recently. I believe the quote was by John Kenneth Galbraith, and it says, "Politics is not the art of the possible; it is the art of choosing between the unpalatable and the despicable." Often in this House, as we describe how issues are not black and white, it is this quote that I'm sure will come to my mind on a fairly regular basis.

The resolution that Mr Harris has put forward, when you read it, has a tone of reasonableness to it. He refers to the fact that Ontario is experiencing significant structural change, and that is true. He says that the ability of the province to attract new job-creating investment and the capacity of Ontario firms and workers to compete in a global economy will be compromised by huge deficits and high taxes, and I agree with that.

He goes on further to say that in order to be able to finance our priorities we must be fiscally responsible, and he then outlines some very specific suggestions, the sorts of things that the government should consider. What he calls upon the government to do in this amendment I'd like to comment on specifically because, while I agree with the tone, my approach and our approach in the Liberal caucus would be very different than the Conservative approach, and it certainly would be very different than the NDP approach. I'd like to use my time to just explore what those different approaches would be.

I believe that this is the wrong time for us to have any new taxes, and I hope the Treasurer will listen to what the Liberal caucus had to say in its report to the finance and economics committee and not increase taxes in this upcoming budget. New taxes would have a detrimental effect on economic recovery, which is sluggish and slow, and I predict that the Treasurer will heed those warnings and will not increase taxes as he looks to enhance his revenues.

I think he will do that by adding into the budget about $550 million in payments from the federal government from the fiscal stabilization fund. I think he will do that by at least $1 billion in asset sales. He may do it with other ways rather than a direct tax increase, and I hope that when he's talking about revenue enhancements he is not talking about new taxes, because frankly I believe that Ontario today, particularly the middle class and my constituents in the riding of Oriole, is feeling overtaxed and overburdened, and that has led to a feeling of fear and despair as people worry about losing their jobs and despair at the loss of opportunities and the tragic consequences of those businesses that are closing and jobs that are lost. So I do believe that there should be no new taxes in the Treasurer's upcoming budget.

I would like to talk about the second component, which is to signal its determination to control public sector costs regarding setting a time line for negotiations in their discussions on the social contract. Then Mr Harris suggests that the government introduce legislation to achieve its cost reduction targets. They're $2 billion over and above the expenditure control plan that the Treasurer tabled.

I would say my preference would be for a negotiated settlement and a collective bargaining approach. I believe that this government set out on a very dangerous course when it began to intrude in the collective bargaining process in this province in an unprecedented way, and my question in the House today reflected that. They are the direct employer of some 90,000 people in the Ontario public service. They are not the direct employer of the over 800,000 people who work in our colleges, our universities, our hospitals and our municipalities.

My concern is that they have not explored the opportunity to collectively negotiate and to bargain with their own employees and to set a model agreement that could then be used by the other employers in the broader public sector to do what is probably one of the most difficult things to do, and that is to take back that which has been given.

1600

I'll point out to you, Mr Speaker, that the reason this government is facing the need to take back and lower wage costs in the broader public sector is because of the agreement that they entered into with their own employees late in 1990 and early in 1991, and it's unfortunate that they were so misguided. It is unfortunate that they did that, but we all realize that they made a mistake, and the hardest thing to do, as I said, is to take it back.

It's my hope that legislation will not be necessary, but the fact that they started this negotiating process so late, that we are already now into the next fiscal year, puts enormous pressure on all of those people delivering important public services in the broader public sector. We know the reality is that there must be a deadline for discussions and negotiations, and it's only because of the incompetence of the government as it approached this negotiating process too late in last year's fiscal year, too late to realize the implications of what it was doing, that we're faced with this enormous problem today.

I would like to say that I understand what is happening in Ontario today, and I understand the need for government to look at everything it does to ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money. Whether you call it reinventing government, as David Osborne has, whether you call it process re-engineering, whether you call it restructuring, reform is essential. We have to find better ways of delivering the services that we deliver. We have to do it efficiently and cost-effectively so that the people of this province will know they're getting value for money, because if we're going to keep taxes down and maintain service delivery, we must eliminate those things which are wasteful and unnecessary. We must also ask those tough questions about what we should be doing and what we should not be doing as government.

The last point I'd like to make is that I believe that there is a need for reform in the arbitration process, but I don't believe that you need to legislate that. That's where my approach would be very different from Mr Harris's approach. I believe by government policy you can fetter an arbitration process to make sure that those arbitrators must consider the public interest and the ability to pay. There are problems in the arbitration process as it exists today. Part of those problems is because the arbitrators look at the decisions the government has made and the awards the government has given to its own employees, and so we have seen a number of arbitration awards which have resulted in very, very high awards at a time when the province simply could not afford it.

In this time of difficult decision-making, as I consider this opposition day amendment, as I hope that collective bargaining would be the preferred approach, as I say to those people in the broader public sector, I believe that the approach of the NDP government has been an intrusion in the collective bargaining process which is unprecedented and which will for ever change collective bargaining in this process, it's my hope that people will be able to come together to solve the very serious problems that we face.

But as I look at this opposition day amendment, the choice for me is between the unpalatable and the despicable. The "unpalatable" is many aspects of Mr Harris's opposition day motion, but "despicable" is the approach that the NDP has taken to solving the fiscal problems of this province, to managing the realities of this province, to the chaos and confusion and incompetence that we've seen from this government, and so I must support this opposition day amendment.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you for your participation. Further debate?

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'm pleased to speak to the motion that has been moved by my leader, which calls on this government "to ensure that its 1993 budget does not increase the tax burden on investors, consumers and businesses; to signal its determination to control public sector costs...; to give a commitment that any tradeoffs in the social contract will not limit the flexibility of the government or of public sector managers to pursue the structural reforms in the delivery of public services necessary to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness"; and finally "to introduce legislation to direct arbitrators in labour disputes in the Ontario public service and the broader public sector to consider the employer's ability to pay in light of current provincial fiscal policy in making their decisions."

As we all know in this province, our economy is experiencing a significant structural change. Our future wellbeing, the maintenance of our vital public services and the improvement of our standard of living depend on our ability to attract new job-creating investment and on the capacity of Ontario firms and workers to compete in the global economy and to exploit new opportunities and markets.

However, we must recognize that this capacity to compete for investment and new jobs and to finance priority services is severely limited by the huge deficit and the high taxes that we presently face in this province, deficits and taxes that could even be higher after the 1993 budget is released by the Treasurer.

Ontarians today already are saddled with $66.3 billion in debt, debt that has accumulated as our government kept spending on the services that the public was demanding. We know that during the 1980s Ontario revenues increased by about 10% per year. This was due in part to a strong economy. However, instead of squirrelling the money away for a rainy day, the Peterson Liberal government spent virtually every new dollar collected. By the late 1980s Ontario spent more on a per capita basis than any other province in Canada. Health care, social services and education were allowed to increase at rates in excess of inflation. Public sector wage settlements, which represent a very hefty portion of the budget, also kept ahead of the inflation rate.

Now it is time for this government to come to terms with the fact that the world has changed and that our economy is experiencing structural change. This government faces a difficult situation, a situation that I have indicated has been made more difficult by the fact that he did inherit the Peterson legacy. The Peterson legacy, as I've just mentioned, occurred --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would you check quorum, please?

The Acting Speaker: Could the table check if there is a quorum, please.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: Quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Quorum now is present. The honourable member for Waterloo North has the floor.

Mrs Witmer: As I just indicated, the problem in this province has been aggravated by the fact that the NDP inherited the Peterson legacy. As I mentioned, during five of the most prosperous years of the Ontario economy, from 1985 to 1990, Peterson continued to tax and spend instead of paying down the deficit. However, the option to tax is no longer available to any government. We can no longer raise taxes or allow the deficit to climb higher. We have reached, in this province, the breaking point. To insist at this time on a $2-billion tax grab, as the Premier has indicated that he plans to do in the 1993 budget, is to take two steps back from economic recovery and condemn tens of thousands of Ontarians to continuing unemployment and compound the deficit problems.

1610

It is absolutely imperative that this government, as it gropes its way out of its crippling provincial debt and towards a social contract with the public sector workers and a budget for 1993, resist the temptation to unload Queen's Park problems on the local property tax base by slashing grants for local services and attempting a clawback of municipal revenues. The local property tax base is not the place to fight the provincial deficit, because no matter who grabs the goods, it's the same taxpayers who pick up the tab.

The Premier should look in his own backyard for the cuts in order to ensure that the 1993 budget does not increase the tax burden on the people of this province. Rather, what it appears that he is doing is passing the chore of handing out the pink slips to the local public bodies, such as the regional and municipal councils and the school boards. Indeed, in my community, the region of Waterloo, these bodies have shown a lot more determination than Queen's Park in restraining the burden on the taxpayer. The region of Waterloo has balanced its budget for years because it has attempted to control its wage settlements and it has made program reductions.

This government must also give a commitment that any tradeoffs in the social contract will not limit the flexibility of the government or of public sector managers to pursue the structural reforms in the delivery of public services necessary to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

There needs to be a change in government thinking, a change that we're starting to see but we're not seeing enough of yet. We can no longer afford the style that government is used to. We can no longer send 15 people to a conference when two would do. We don't need any more handouts and promotions, such as buttons and posters and mugs, glossy media handouts that are printed by the hundreds. This government needs to create incentives to encourage all of its employees to come up with ways to be more efficient and to do more with less.

Some of the measures that this government could look at to improve cost efficiency and effectiveness include fraud control measures for Comsoc benefits and health card verification. We've heard of the tremendous abuse of the health card system which is costing us millions and millions and even perhaps billions of dollars.

This government could take a look at reducing the millions of dollars that it's presently spending on non-profit housing units at a time when we have a record number of vacancies within the private sector available. You are planning to increase annual spending in the non-profit housing sector from $625 million to $1 billion by the year 1995. Well, I would suggest, as our leader and our party has suggested, that it would be much more efficient that the private sector provide the housing and reduce the need then for the tax hikes in the upcoming budget by the amount that could be saved.

These are some of the measures that this government needs to be taking a look at in order to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness. They should also be taking a much more serious look at the cost-saving suggestions made by the Provincial Auditor each year. Unfortunately, the report of the auditor often gathers dust.

One of the suggestions that was made last fall and that I happened to see because a newspaper reporter did bring it to my attention in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, was in the area of police training. It indicated that at the present time recruits get hired and go to the Ontario Police College at Aylmer for 47 days of training, and this costs the taxpayers $44 million per year. Unlike a skilled tradesman, a chef, a teacher, a lawyer or a doctor, police recruits presently are not required to make an investment in their career. Most other people, when they seek out a career, pay the tuition and invest the time long before there is any job guarantee.

The auditor has suggested that prospective police candidates should take a course in basic policing at a college before being hired, and job training then, at a later time, could be more practical and specific. He also suggested that students should pay a modest tuition fee. This could save $8 million a year.

The auditor's report, I would suggest to the government, gives many other suggestions which need to be given serious consideration for government reform in the delivery of public services necessary to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

This government could have avoided the current crisis if it had listened to our leader and to those of us in the PC caucus and to other Ontarians. Shortly after you delivered your first budget, we, along with thousands of people in this province, made suggestions to you to balance your budget. We suggested that you could do this and still preserve jobs and provide incentives for businesses to invest. We urged you to create an economic climate that was conducive to job creation and investment, a climate which could help restore consumer confidence, which is badly lacking in this province at the present time. Instead, all we've seen are higher taxes, more government spending, more government red tape, more government regulations and bills such as Bill 40, which did everything possible to destroy job creation.

Although time is now running out for this government, I encourage you to support the motion that has been put forward by our leader today, a motion which reflects the pleas of the hardworking citizens in this province, a motion which is going to require restraint, discipline and adherence to a plan and, finally, a motion which can save future generations billions of dollars and help restore economic confidence in this province in order that we can create the new jobs and encourage new investment.

In conclusion, I urge this government to ensure that our children do not grow up carrying a debt and a burden that we have never had to face.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I listened carefully to the remarks of the leader of the third party. I noted that he began on the right path by acknowledging that the economy is undergoing structural changes and that the future of Ontario depends on our ability to attract new investment. Sadly, along the way, the leader of the third party took detours and wound up in several dead ends, as it were, because deficits and selective taxes do not necessarily impair our ability as a province to compete for investment and jobs.

A government may run a deficit, for example, as this government did in 1991-92, to create jobs through the improvement of our infrastructure: our schools, our hospitals, our roads, our communication systems, our water treatment plants. All of these initiatives make Ontario a better place to invest, just as access to quality health care and education make Ontario a better place to invest.

In fact, Ontario leads the rest of the country in the creation of new jobs, and in fact, much of this growth in new jobs is in southern Ontario, where my riding is located. Many of these jobs are, of course, export-driven, and I note with some satisfaction the decision of Dimona Aircraft to establish in London an aircraft building plant. I also notice with satisfaction that General Motors in London, diesel division, is able to continue to secure some fairly lucrative contracts to build locomotives for export to the US. Then of course there are the continuing military contracts. Not far away, in Windsor, Chrysler has resolved to invest a further $600 million in upgrading its Chrysler mini-van plant.

1620

So we do have positive signs of investment in Ontario. Those who suggest that Ontario is an expensive place to do business might be mindful of the comments of Mr Foxcroft as quoted in the Hamilton Spectator not long ago. Mr Foxcroft moved his operation to Tonawanda, New York, where he manufactures athletic mouth guards. Since the move, Mr Foxcroft notes that it's cheaper to produce in Canada even though real estate taxes and hydro are more. He found that real estate taxes and hydro may be cheaper south of the border but all other costs in American dollars are higher, and in Ontario you have a more reliable workforce, there's more of a team effort and all costs are in Canadian funds. So you have a competitive advantage here in Ontario.

Certainly, Ontario's strengths cannot be underestimated: the quality of life I spoke of earlier, the well-trained labour force, the proximity to markets, the quality infrastructure and access to good public services. But we are of course concerned with the rising provincial debt. As the vice-president of Canadian ratings at Moody's recently observed, current provincial deficits in Canada are already at the point where they are not sustainable any longer.

Saskatchewan and Newfoundland have taken dramatic steps in March to adopt lean new budgets. Saskatchewan, which has the highest per capita debt in Canada, announced higher corporate, sales and fuel taxes. Newfoundland has announced wage and benefit cuts to government employees of $70 million. British Columbia has increased its personal income surtax, its corporate tax and its retail sales tax. New Brunswick has taken action and so has Manitoba.

It would be remiss for this government, in addition to reducing spending and in addition to negotiating a social contract with our partners in the broader public service, not to consider selective tax increases, as the other provinces are doing as well.

It's no secret why some tough decisions are being made. We all know that this recession has resulted in a drop in revenues to the province. We all know that there is increased spending on social assistance and training during these tough times; in fact, our social assistance spending has virtually doubled to $9.5 billion. At the same time, we're struggling with reduced federal transfer payments that have taken $4.5 billion out of the economy for 1993-94.

So as we view our mounting debt, a high percentage of which goes to foreign lenders, we have to be very concerned about the effect on our domestic currency, our interest rates and our ability to continue offering the public in Ontario health care, education, training and social assistance.

We can avoid a high per capita debt such as Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Quebec and New Brunswick are currently labouring under, and we can avoid it by a combination of reduced spending, selective tax increases, social contract and at the same time finding new ways to compete in the global economy and create and protect jobs.

Certainly, President Clinton, south of the border, recognizes that the supply-side economics of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher have not been successful. In fact, they've been disastrous, because they have created high deficits, reduced public services and caused a lot of hardship, not only for individuals but also for communities.

We have taken measures to address the deficit already: We've allowed a one-time increase of 2% for our major transfer recipients; we've restructured the Ontario student assistance program; we've deferred the extension of pay equity to 1998; we've imposed salary freezes on cabinet, MPPs, senior public servants. We've also made strides in controlling our expenditure increases: In fact, excluding increases in spending on social assistance and our debt load, our spending has only increased by 1% in 1992-93. Certainly, the spending cuts have had a direct impact on the economy and must be balanced with selective tax increases.

We need selective tax increases to preserve essential services and to control the deficit. Taxes are an integral part of our overall fiscal strategy. They have to be. But our taxes have to be selective and they have to be fair. In the past our tax increases have been largely focused around the personal income tax system, based on ability to pay. You may recall that one of our first acts in government was to take more than 120,000 of the working poor off the income tax rolls and later to impose a higher surtax on those with ability to pay.

The Liberals raised taxes by $1.5 billion in 1988-89, at a time when provincial revenues were virtually unprecedented, and by $1.4 billion in 1989-90. Moreover, regressive taxes such as the provincial sales tax went up from 7% to 8%. So remember that.

During 1981, the Tories, during a time of weak economic growth, increased the personal income tax by four points at a clip.

We at least are seeking to reduce our provincial spending by several billion dollars in the face of the fiscal reality we're dealing with today. But we still remain favourable: We're fifth among provinces in terms of the provincial income tax; our corporate manufacturing tax is four points lower than in the United States, on average; and our health care costs are much lower -- $700 per individual here compared to $4,200 per employee in the US.

The federal Tories, since they were elected in 1984, have implemented 34 tax increases -- federal sales tax, goods and services tax, personal income tax surtax, increasing unemployment insurance premiums to employers -- and yet they still have a staggering debt and a very substantial deficit. So for the leader of the third party to say that he will wipe out this deficit in three years is the same kind of voodoo economics that Prime Minister Mulroney promised in 1984 and has failed to realize upon.

1630

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I appreciate the opportunity to join this debate today and address some of the economic and budget issues that face the Legislature, that face the government and that certainly face the province.

I've been interested in recent days to see the strategic hand of my friends in the Conservative Party. I listened with some interest this afternoon to the leader of the third party and the member for Waterloo North in their submissions. I have a feeling that the member for Etobicoke West will favour us with a lively comment this afternoon on this subject as well.

I just simply want to say to my colleagues in the House and to the audience which might be watching this on television that the public has a chance, I think, to assess us all against the records we've had in government. Now, we will all say, particularly those of us not in government, that in some respects we've changed our spots, and elect us and we'll behave differently. I do not want to engage in a debate about what went on here in the 1980s, but I could.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I guess not.

Mr Conway: No, I say I am proud of what we did in the Peterson government. I accept that it was not all perfection. I accept that we ruffled some feathers. I do admit that we raised taxes to pay for programs that some of my honourable friends feel were overblown and too generous, and that's entirely their right.

I don't remember the member for Nipissing resisting some of the spending that went on in his constituency. I remember the member for Nipissing crying out, on the one hand, that we were spending too much, and then, to quote him directly, "But I demand my share of the waste." I'm not into that kind of politics. Bob Nixon and David Peterson balanced the budget. We did it by raising taxes and we did it by accepting a very healthy measure of growth; I accept that.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I hear my friend from Brockville chortling. We did, in that respect, what Frost and what Robarts did for two decades. Listen: I am just simply saying that I understand how people would do it differently and we're all going to have to do it differently because we cannot, in these new days of the 1990s, imagine that we're back in the late 1980s or in the early 1960s; clearly we're not. We have reached the limits of growth, apparently.

I will say quite candidly that when I look back at the 1980s, there is no question that growth allowed us to do a whole series of things that my honourable friend the member for Nickel Belt cannot now do, but in that respect we're absolutely no different than the Davis, Frost and Robarts crowd who ran this province as "good managers" for some 32 years. They deserve a great deal of credit for a lot of what they did and they deserve healthy criticism for some mistakes that I think even my honourable friends in the third party now acknowledge they made.

Hon Mr Laughren: Forty-two years.

Mr Conway: Forty-two years; I accept the correction.

I'll cite one example. I have a great respect for the former Premier, Mr Davis. I was the one in this assembly who was charged with implementing his school policy announced in June 1984. Mr Davis and his then deputy minister, the deputy in the Premier's office, Dr E.E. Stewart, put forward a policy in June 1984 around extending funding to the separate school system in Ontario and, helpfully, they added a funding formula that they thought was required to give effect to that policy.

I will just say to my friend the member for Waterloo North that I would not want to embarrass her, but let me tell you that the arithmetic of Mr Davis and his friends in that government was inadequate, to say the least.

I often think, how is it possible, having all of the experience that Mr Davis and Mr Stewart had in the education area, that they could have offered a policy and suggested that it was going to cost -- I think it was -- $40 million or $50 million. All I know, as the responsible minister, is that what was suggested and what was actually required were miles apart.

We were, as a party, committed to it. Unlike my honourable friends who campaigned vigorously against my party in 1971, who said, "Never, never, never," we were consistent. You can argue that it was a wrong position, but I'm just simply making the point that for anyone in this assembly, but most importantly my friends in the Conservative Party, to now lecture the rest of us about our failings and our inadequacies -- and I admit mine; they are several -- I just don't think does the political process much good.

I agree with the Treasurer. My friends in the third party are advancing what is, in many ways, a Reaganite-Thatcherite policy these days. I said here a few months ago, I think to --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: The member for Oakville South is here saying that he is totally opposed to taxes. I understand that position; I understand it entirely. He may in fact be favoured with the responsibility to give effect to that policy. But I am simply saying that he and his colleagues in the third party have an obligation, like we in the Liberal Party have and like my friends in the government have, to be honest, and there is a fundamental dishonesty about a lot of the debate that's occurring today.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Give us your solutions.

Mr Conway: My solutions are not as simplistic and are not as heroic as my those of friends opposite.

Mr Carr: We're all listening. We've got time.

Mr Conway: Well, I tell you, I was in a government where we were prepared to tax for the programs that people said they wanted. Now I understand that there are a lot of people today who don't want taxes raised, and I'm one of them, but I understand the corollary, the consequence of that decision and it is significant program cuts in health, education and social services, and in the latter category I don't include just welfare payments but a lot of payments to seniors.

My friends in the third party talk about the way in which the Peterson Liberals spent. Well, I'm going to cite two of the entitlement programs that are driving the Treasurer mad these days, programs like the drug benefit program established in 1974, not by a New Democrat or by a Liberal government, a program that was fundamentally flawed in its initial design, and then I look at the teachers' pension deal of 1975, battles that I fought and lost, I admit, three years ago, but I notice that it's costing hundreds of millions of additional dollars annually. It's an extremely generous entitlement that is costing a great deal of money, and that was a program and an entitlement that was agreed to by William Davis on the eve of an election campaign in 1975.

I remember coming here in 1975 when my friend W. Darcy McKeough, MPP for Kent West and provincial Treasurer, put before this assembly in 1975 a $2-billion deficit on a $12-billion or $13-billion expenditure plan, and Darcy McKeough was a pillar of the Tory establishment. I look back on that now and say, "Can you imagine a $2-billion deficit on a $12-billion or $13-billion expenditure plan?"

Now, I simply say that that's the past; we have to look to the future. I am quite prepared to say to my constituents: "I hear you. You want your taxes moderated and you want the deficit dealt with and that leads inevitably to some very painful choices."

My friend the member for Oriole was right to point out -- I think she was quoting Galbraith who said that in politics the choices are not as we would like them. Anyone charged with the responsibility of government will tell you that. We have many people in the third party who have not had that experience here and they may very well have it and I would not wish them --

Mr Stockwell: Sure you would.

Mr Conway: No, I wouldn't, because I think I see what lies before us. I don't envy the task that my friend the Treasurer or the Minister of Finance has today. I have a very real criticism about the way in which this government has performed in the last number of months.

I look at the announcement of two weeks ago and I say to myself, there's no surprise in this. They have known for months that their revenue situation was serious. They have been told by their international bankers and by others that they simply cannot continue a situation -- because none of us can -- where 30% of all program spending is on borrowed money. That is simply not on for any of us.

I say to the House and I say to my constituents, I understand what you want done, but you must understand me, as your trustee; I am no magician. If we are going to reduce the deficit, and I think we must, if we are going to hold the line on taxes, and I think we must, then we have to look at programs. And 76% of all spending in the province of Ontario today is in four categories: health, education, social services and debt servicing. Let there be no one in this assembly under any illusions as to where you're going to have to cut if you're going to do what many of the taxpayers want.

I said to the Minister of Health the other day and I will repeat it now: The government of the day plans to take $200 million this year out of the drug benefit program and one twelfth of this fiscal year has now passed. Let there be no confusion, particularly to my friends in the third party who, I think, want to build perhaps more bridges to the seniors' community than the rest of us. Wait till the phones start ringing, and they are going to be ringing. They are going to ring right off the wall. Two hundred million bucks we're taking out of that program this year. I think I know how the government is going to do it, and it is not going to pass unnoticed.

I am quite prepared to say to my constituents that we have got to all share in this responsibility. This business where our politics is nothing but a potlatch of special interests has got to end. We have all got to get back to our communities and rediscover the notion of a broad citizenship where we have interests as a community beyond our interests as teachers, as labour leaders, as farmers, as pensioners, that there is a broad public interest that is going to require a common commitment on all sides, with fairness and equity to do some things that in the public interest have to be done. We are but days away from a real test of that.

1640

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): He's not a social democrat.

Mr Conway: I don't believe I'm a social democrat, though I respect tremendously much of the social democratic tradition.

The Treasurer opined parenthetically a few moments ago about Reagan. I said here a few months ago, go back and read the Stockman piece in the Atlantic Monthly from 1981 -- a transparent fraud being admitted to by the architect of that scheme -- and the right wing has nothing to beat its breast about when it comes to good fiscal management, if one looks to the United States.

Mr Carr: Look at the Congress.

Mr Conway: Well, he says, "Look at the Congress." I'm looking at the Reagan plan. Listen, I can quite frankly take a defeat at the polls. I am well beyond lying to my electorate just to win some opportunity at government, and I would say to everyone in this assembly that we had better bloody well get a little more real and a little more honest about what it is we are offering because you know the prize is that you might actually win the responsibility of government.

There's Bill Clinton down in Washington today now having to admit that his offering about a middle-class tax cut and --

Mr Stockwell: That was bunk from the word go.

Mr Conway: It was. Of course it was bunk the day he opened his mouth.

Mr Stockwell: So was minimum corporate tax.

Mr Conway: Well, I am listening to my friends in the third party with some of their offering, and I simply say to them they'd better come clean with what it is they intend for the people, because I will make this observation. I want to get, as I think all members do, the economy moving again.

But my expectation is that we are going to have more limited growth in the coming years than we've had at any time in the post-war period. So none of us is going to be able to play the growth game the way we all have for the last 35 or 40 years, and that is all of us.

I look at this resolution and what does it say? Well, it says that the third party doesn't want tax increases. I don't either. But I do say this, that if we want the kinds of services that we all want -- you know, I heard the member for Waterloo North. I remember her when she was coming to make submissions to me as Minister of Education, and I tell you that you can't have it both ways.

I say to my friends in this assembly that there is clearly a new imperative to which we're all going to have to respond. The government I think failed in its duty to move more quickly with the financial crisis that it's now facing. If four or five months ago -- I believe two years ago the spending ought to have been substantially moderated, not because I want to cut back and roll back, but we simply didn't have the dollars to pay the bills.

Now, two and a half years into the mandate and well into the third fiscal year, we are going to face some much tougher choices than would otherwise have been required had the government of this province moved at least a year and a half ago. I can understand how in the first year of a new government they might have not read the signals, but the signals have been there painfully and clearly for the last two years and they have not been responded to. I think the Rae government has failed in a very major responsibility to react to a worsening financial situation.

I am not a slash-and-burn type who says we should balance the budget tomorrow, though we could do it. We could do it. We could balance our budget tomorrow and have an enormous deficit on the human account that I think would be absolutely intolerable and very counterproductive. I don't believe we should be slashing social programs only to pile additional and scarce resources into policing, because that's not the kind of Ontario in which I want to live.

I am concerned, very concerned, as the member for Renfrew North, about the problems I am seeing in my communities of Pembroke and Cobden and Beachburg and Deep River and Barry's Bay about jobs, people out of work in record numbers, blue-collar and white-collar, young, middle-aged and older people, male and female, old Canadians, new Canadians. This economic recession has cut across all economic and sociological strata.

We have got to be concerned, as members in this Legislature, about the job situation that's out there. That's why I personally favour a very wide restraint-rollback program, so that we can reduce public expenditures while at the same time keeping as many people working as possible, because we gain nothing if we slash and burn and put thousands more people on to the welfare rolls, the unemployment rolls or some other kind of public assistance.

Yes, we have got to change the way we do business. As a Liberal, I believe that we have to be concerned not just about good fiscal management, but we have to be worried about the social agenda as well. Yes, we've got to create wealth, and we haven't been doing a very good job of that. We've got to understand that the rules have changed, and education and training are going to be very important to our social agenda, because some of the old ways of creating wealth in this province have not been working quite as they have in the past.

So I simply say in conclusion, because I'm sure I've taken more time than I ought to have taken, that as the member for Renfrew North, shame on the government for not reading the signs at an earlier point. But I say shame on the Tories for taking the view of: "Just blame everybody else. Forget the days when we were in office, running multibillion-dollar deficits, making investments in Suncor or announcing school policies that" --

Mr Stockwell: Who are these guys? I never met them before, for heaven's sake.

Mr Conway: I'm sure the member for Etobicoke West, Mr Stockwell, does not want to be connected to the Bill Davis, John Tory -- even Frank Miller, you know, ran a $3-billion deficit in this province on a $30-billion expenditure plan, and Frank Miller understood why he had to do that: because he had obligations beyond just being an accountant.

We've got to provide leadership, but we've also got to provide hope. I've just spent this week travelling in places like Sarnia and Leamington and Windsor and Kitchener and Chatham, and you know what? One of the concerns that I have on the basis of that trip is that there is a growing despair and hopelessness on the part of too many people.

There was a wonderful editorial in the Windsor Star the other day which said essentially this: yes, times are tough and we've got ourselves into a bit of a fix, but we surely must understand that we can beat this problem by relying on the essential talent and optimism and can-do quality of the Ontario population. It was Franklin Roosevelt who said, in a different time but in a somewhat similar circumstance, that the only fear we have to fear is fear itself. We cannot let this province and this debate spiral downwards into some kind of sense of hopeless despair out of which there is no tomorrow.

I do not want to join the purveyors of doom who take the view that all is lost, because while we've got some tough choices, we've got some very difficult issues with which to deal, as a Liberal, I am fundamentally optimistic and hopeful that we can change course, that we can find a way to create new wealth, that we can reconfigure our social safety net so that it is more efficient, more effective, more relevant to the demographic and social realities of the late 20th century and that we can provide a good environment for business, industry and labour to create the next generation of wealth.

Here endeth my observations. Thank you.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): For a moment, I thought I was listening to the member for Renfrew North as sort of an opposition member in the New Brunswick Legislature. I don't know what his problem was with the Liberal government of, for example, New Brunswick, that has done an admirable job cutting its deficit and reducing in a very planned way. But of course, my colleague the member for Renfrew North, noted Liberal that he is, is quick to chastise our friends in the government because of their contradictions.

I, along with all members of the House, certainly listened to another Liberal whose problem is they have no direction, they have no policies, they have no plans. They can hurl stones, they can hurl insults, they can talk about moments in their past -- and there were precious few of them, Mr Speaker -- but the truth of the matter is, if they had any understanding of how every province in this country reacted three years ago, when the evidence was overwhelming that the growth in government had to be stemmed -- Liberal governments came to that conclusion and have succeeded. We have a recent provincial election of a Liberal government to prove that. I don't know where the Liberals were thinking, why they're wandering in a wilderness without policies and responses.

I'm not here to chastise the government --

Mr Elston: Oh, yes you are.

1650

Mr Jackson: No, I'm not. I think that when you analyse the fact that there are some contradictions in the policies of this government, you can look at contradictions as a breach of faith from NDP ideology or you can look at these contradictions as a capacity to change. There's evidence in the Treasurer's budget that there is a capacity to change, that the Treasurer has changed some of his fundamental views. Now, I may not agree with all of those, but it's clear that an effort is being made.

We on our side of the House have put it on the record that we feel that the government should have reacted swiftly three years ago and put in a 0%, 1% or even as high as a 2% increase to the civil service in terms of their salaries, not the 8% to 10% that was ultimately granted. They didn't take our advice, but at least they're making an effort now to try and undo the problems that were in part created by those rich, enhanced payments.

When I look at the average civil servant who's been calling my office, they say, "We'd rather have had a 0% increase over the last two years, or a 1% increase, like many of our neighbours" -- like those of us in this Legislature. We've had a zero increase for a couple of years. We're not complaining.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That's three years.

Mr Jackson: It's three years. Thank you, my colleague Mr Bradley. But the truth of the matter is that that's the experience their neighbours are feeling and that is what they wish now had happened, not to now have the cut and slash of 10,000 jobs.

Our party, and we attempt to do this in this motion, wants to try and focus on what are some of the problems that might occur from a social contract if it's not done in a responsible fashion. We're very concerned, for example, that the government's ability to horse-trade in these negotiations does not set in place some things that have a long-term negative impact to the growth of our province.

I want to give you an example. There is a fear, for example, that there are several unions who have on their agenda the further elimination of private sector interests in this province. That free enterprise, in a whole related field, whether it's in social services or in education, should not be eliminated: That's our position. This government has a historical record. There's a contradiction. If you embrace this contradiction, we would be the first to stand up and applaud the NDP government, and there was some small evidence of it in the Treasurer's budget.

For three years our caucus has said: "Stop attacking private day care centres in this province. They are providing quality service at limited cost to the taxpayers. The risk capital is all advanced by those operators." And yet this government, in its recent Treasurer's announcement, said that they were backing off their $100-million commitment to expand non-profit day care facilities, because a third of the day care centres in this province are sitting half empty or almost fully empty.

So I wish to stand here and say to the Treasurer: "Spot on. I would have liked you to have made that decision three years ago, but you made that decision and I support that decision." There is room for the private sector to participate. They are very dedicated people, and that extension goes further.

We're about to lay off hundreds and hundreds of nurses in this province as a result of the government's actions as announced by the Treasurer. How wonderful it would be if we had a system in place where we could encourage those nurses to harness their abilities and to go out and participate with the development of private home care services, for example. Why are we not encouraging teachers who are going to be laid off to harness their potential, their abilities and their skills and to provide those services in day care centres, where the public can afford to pay for them, where there is need? There is example after example, but there will be about 10,000 people laid off very shortly in the process of this government's quick reaction finally, their wake-up call to how serious the deficit growth has been in the last three years.

We in our party implore them to look at those opportunities for those civil servants, because they will not find jobs unless they look in the private sector. They're not going to move to another province and find work. They're not going to move down the hall and get another public service job. The only place for them to go, to contribute to Ontario society, is to participate with the private sector, not to stay on unemployment insurance, and for God's sake not to get on to our welfare roles unnecessarily.

So our party speaks to that issue, and in this motion we ask the government to consider those options closely. Be careful about your tradeoffs, that we don't start to structurally impede the development and the growth of private sector services as partners in finding solutions to ensure prosperity in our province.

I applaud my leader and my caucus for their diligence in maintaining a clear sense of vision with what we can do in this province to help people maintain their employment, to participate in prosperity and, in so doing, contribute to the entire future of our province.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I'm pleased to speak on Mr Harris's motion. I found it interesting in the preamble that Mr Harris recognizes that, "The Ontario economy is experiencing significant structural change," and acknowledges that, "The future wellbeing of all Ontarians, the maintenance of vital public services and the improvement of our standard of living depend on the ability of the province to attract new job-creating investment."

I found it interesting and I'm gratified that the leader of the third party has finally come to recognize the problems that this government has determined it will face and address through leadership and cooperation with the public and private sectors, indeed with all those hard-working Ontarians who put us into office in September of 1990 to redress the economic problems of the current recession. Those Ontarians knew that no matter what the provincial Liberals or federal Tories or indeed what the tax fighter was saying, Ontario did not have a balanced budget as the Liberals were wont to say, that federal monetary and trade policies were and are not working and that there was no quick fix in provincial Tory proposals to slash spending and thereby undermine the public service and condemn the most vulnerable in Ontario to economic deprivation, condemn because the provincial Tories are incapable of innovative problem-solving.

I'd like to look at the leader of the third party's preamble in bits and pieces and tell you what it says to me.

Firstly, Ontario's economy is indeed experiencing significant structural change. Part of this is due to the impact of globalization and trade liberalization, but it is also due to the impact of federal high dollar, high interest, high unemployment and free trade policies of the last few years.

Free trade has accelerated those structural changes. A pre-free-trade-agreement study by the Ontario Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology showed that 74 Ontario industries employing 400,000 people would suffer under the federal Tories' free trade agreement, and suffer we did. Ontario has suffered the lion's share of the more than 511,000 jobs lost in Canada since 1989, and it's Ontario that's been deindustrialized by those not-so-distant Tory cousins of the leader of the third party who now in his motion acknowledges we are indeed experiencing structural change.

Those job losses will not come back at the end of this recession as they have in the past, because despite the 1989 federal government claims that the FTA would open US markets to Canadian manufacturers, the reality is that 9,407 Canadian companies declared bankruptcy in the first 10 months of 1990, up 25% from the same period of 1989. Some declared bankruptcy because they had not been able to maintain their debt load given the high interest rates. Exporters had been forced out of the US market because of the high dollar. Others were not able to compete with imports from the US, while still others who supplied imports to US subsidiaries and big Canadian companies were adversely affected by the relocation of these companies to the US.

The Canada-US free trade agreement has led to a withdrawal of US manufacturing branch plants along with related research and development facilities in Canada, and 75% of those branch plant closures happened in Ontario to Ontarians.

Yes, Mr Harris is correct to say that there are structural changes and Ontario has suffered, and it is not at all reassuring to know that federal government policy in regard to high interest rates, the dollar and trade made the effects of those changes all the worse for this nation and for this province.

1700

The opposition insists that other jurisdictions have also gone through recessions. Yes, they have, but global recession alone does not explain to Ontarians why the recession began earlier for us, has lasted much longer and why the Americans, who experienced the same global situation, lost only one job for every four lost here in Ontario.

The leader of the third party also states that our future depends on the maintenance of vital public services, our ability to attract investment and to create jobs. How very astute. It's interesting that all that sounds so very, very familiar. It's precisely what the Premier, the Treasurer, the cabinet and the caucus of this government have been saying and working towards for the past two and a half years, and I might add, working towards strengthening the public and private sectors while the federal Tories were dismantling programs like unemployment insurance because the Americans don't like it; were introducing the GST because it was part of the Canada-US free trade agreement; and introducing Bill C-91, that federal drug patent legislation, that will add nearly $100 million to the cost of health care for Ontario taxpayers.

I'd like to address the importance of maintaining those vital public services that Mr Harris is so concerned about, because we on this side of the House regard that as profoundly important. It is public sector workers who help us when we are most vulnerable: as children, in illness, as seniors. The public sector is also in many respects the engine of our progress and development as a society, and it is because of our commitment to public services and the jobs of the dedicated and talented people who deliver them that infuses and inspires the government's desire for a social contract.

Ontario must have decent, affordable, well-administered government services. This is the essence of the unwritten social contract among Ontarians. It represents the values we hold in common, values of mutual responsibility and respect, as the basis for citizenship and of a drive to ensure a strong economic base to allow every citizen to fulfil her or his potential. Quality public education, affordable health care, social and environmental support systems, public sector research and innovation programs, and modern infrastructure such as roads and sewers are all crucial factors in creating a context to support the Ontario economy and the quality of life of its citizens. It is this public sector we must protect as we manage a critical economic situation. It is a unique blend of community involvement and the professionalism of its public servants.

It is this government's firm conviction that the partners to the public sector social contract negotiations -- the employees and the employer groups -- have the depth of experience and the commitment to define more effective ways of working together to deliver more effective services, today and in the future. However, one of the realities we face as a government is that costs are increasing and revenues are weak, and with the drastic cuts in federal transfer payments, about $4.5 billion, the financial wolf is at the door. Ever-increasing borrowing on ever-increasing debt means, through the miracle of compound interest, decreasing services and increasing taxes, and as a result -- there is absolutely no question about this -- the longer we shrink from facing the threat to our public sector the more dangerous it will become.

To meet this challenge, the government is putting in place a three-part plan to deal with the debt. The first is expenditure control; the second, tax and other revenue measures; and the third, a social contract with the public sector.

The government's expenditure program amounts to about $4 billion this year. This $4-billion cut takes out as much spending as is possible without affecting large numbers of jobs. The vast majority, about 11,000, or a little over 1% of the workforce, can be absorbed through the normal process of attrition supplemented by improved provisions for voluntary exit.

In the next level of spending cuts, a further $2 billion, it will be impossible to avoid the much more severe possibility of job loss and curtailment of services unless concerted action is taken. That's why this government has initiated a social contract. With goodwill, cooperation and mutual understanding, these negotiations can result in a social contract where public sector employees agree to certain payroll measures in return for not just increased job security, but for a greater participation in the design, delivery and restructuring of government services.

The government sees these negotiations as an important step towards restructuring the way government works. The scope of these talks is not driven solely by numbers, but by a real commitment to finding more cost-effective, more responsive ways of delivering high-quality services and keeping them affordable.

We have to change the way we do the business of the public sector. This can only be accomplished, in this government's view, by changing the manner in which we work with each other, both in this immediate challenge and into the future.

What does changing the system involve? Bringing the public sector employers, employees and their representatives into a more widely drawn circle of power, specifically greater openness and accountability of public sector administration; the establishment of effective and responsive mechanisms for restructuring work and reskilling the public sector workforce; a new partnership around capital investment decisions and reform of the collective bargaining framework.

By putting these issues on the table, the government is indicating its intention to ensure that the public sector continues, Mr Harris, to be a vital and dynamic instrument for meeting the accelerating challenges of social and economic change.

We are providing leadership. We refuse to shrink away from the challenges we found when we came into government. We have developed strategies to create jobs, invest in people through education and training, to preserve important public services like health care and education and protect the public sector by managing our finances. It's indeed a balanced approach. I know my colleagues, those who preceded me on the government benches, have already provided explanations regarding those programs and that those who follow will continue to expand on this theme. I am looking forward to hearing from them, and I thank you for this opportunity to participate in the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): I thank the honourable member for her participation in the debate. Further debate?

Mr Bradley: I wish to address the issue that's before us today, because it's certainly one of the compelling issues facing us in government and opposition: that of the economy and what to do about the economy in Ontario.

I think first of all what people are discovering is that one of the major issues out there, as far as the business community is concerned and anybody who has any money to invest -- and that is certainly fewer people today than, say, five years ago -- is the management of the provincial economy and the management of the province. What appears to be the case now is that people do not have confidence in the ability of Premier Rae, his cabinet and members of the government to adequately manage a difficult economic time, so the Premier has embarked upon rather drastic measures that one would never have anticipated would have come from an NDP government. What we have to do in this province, in terms of the private sector, is ensure that people have a good reason to invest in Ontario, to create the kind of climate that's necessary to have people retain what investment they have here and to choose Ontario over other jurisdictions at a time when the competition is extremely tough for the investment dollar.

I, in the Niagara region, and those others who represent the Niagara region, have seen very difficult economic circumstances facing our workers, people who have been employed for years in industries and businesses which traditionally have brought a lot of money to our area, have been good in terms of the style of life that they have brought to the people who have worked in those industries. We're seeing that disappear as the investment leaves Ontario and heads to other jurisdictions.

1710

That is why I have asked, for instance, that the Premier meet with the top officials of General Motors in Detroit -- I've asked this for the last two years -- to endeavour to convince them that Ontario is a place to retain investment and to expand its opportunities. Instead, we have seen jobs disappear from the Niagara Peninsula with the closing of the foundry in St Catharines, and with the announcement that the axle plant would be lost in terms of a sale.

What is ironic is that as a result of the mismanagement of the province and the economy, this government is now in the position of demanding -- and I hate to use the word in front of so many New Democrats, particularly those in the trade union movement -- demanding concessions from the employees of the government and those in the greater public sector.

I can recall during the election campaign that many of the leaders of the unions which represent those people were encouraging them to vote for the New Democratic Party and against the other parties in the province. I stated at that time that I thought that those in the economy generally, whether in the private sector or the public sector, would benefit from a government which knew how to manage the economy and knew how to attract investment, that they would be better off in fact, that perhaps, philosophically, the leadership would disagree with a Liberal government or perhaps even a Conservative government, but that they would be better off because the economy would be better and we could all share in the benefits.

I mentioned yesterday my concern about the Ministry of the Environment. As a result of the cuts that have been ordered by the Premier and by the Treasurer in all ministries -- the Ministry of the Environment, I hoped, would be expanding its activities and making itself even more efficient in terms of dealing with polluters, and would have the resources to do so; unfortunately, it does not.

One of the things I noted yesterday -- and let me tell you, four years ago every newspaper in the province would have had a glaring headline; the first story on the local news would have featured this, whether the television media or the radio media -- was the dismantling, in my view, of the Ministry of the Environment investigation and enforcement branch, or at the very least, the watering down. Today, there isn't a reporter who touches it, and the reason is that the economy seems to be the focus.

Again, I said to environmentalists and others concerned about the economy that the NDP may have a platform which sounds pro-environment, but their ability to deliver would be severely constrained by their lack of ability to manage the economy in this province.

I would like to zero in a bit on the Premier and the Treasurer in terms of the exercise they're engaged in today. I firmly believe that the Premier pulled the $17-billion figure out of a hat. At no time was the deficit of this province going to be $17 billion, but it certainly suited the purposes of the Premier to set it that high, to then engage in an exercise that he's engaging in today.

I don't think there's any doubt that it was creeping up above $12 billion, perhaps $13 billion, but this $17-billion figure is a fictitious figure. It's a figure that is an absolutely worst-case scenario, and it's a setup, so that when they reduce the deficit to $8 billion or $9 billion, as I suspect might happen, then they will accept the credit of those who would say, "Well, they've cut the budget by $8 billion, or $9 billion. Isn't this a wonderful exercise on the part of the Premier and his ministers." I am saying that the Premier has taken a worst-case scenario and is predicating his plans on that worst-case scenario.

Second, we have the Premier and the Treasurer suggesting -- particularly the Treasurer, in this case -- that there are going to be a lot of taxes in the next budget. They suggest $2 billion in new taxes. It floats out there. The Treasurer uses the word "revenues" because they have this governmentspeak that they use on the other side of the House.

My suggestion to this House is that we'll see nothing in the neighbourhood of $2 billion in tax increases, but there will be some, and then they will explain to the population, and to those who always accept whatever the government says, that they have done a wonderful job by holding taxes down, when in fact at this time in our economy, in the midst of a recession, we should not be introducing any new taxes at this particular time.

It seems to me that if the Treasurer and his colleagues had listened to those of us in the opposition in their first year of office, they wouldn't have a problem that is as difficult as it is today. I recall standing in this very place as the then treasury critic of the Liberal Party in the official opposition, suggesting that they must go through, ministry by ministry, to examine all programs to determine whether they should be proceeding with them, which could be eliminated at that time, which could be delayed in terms of the implementation.

Instead, what happened was the Management Board chair and the Treasurer simply opened the vault and all the ministers went in with both hands to take money out of that vault, and as a result, they got themselves into a huge financial hole that the public service employees will have to pay for today.

It's unfortunate, and I think you would agree with me, Mr Speaker, sitting in the chair now, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, that in fact the government is so desperate for revenues today that it has lowered itself to casino gambling as its source of revenues. I am told by New Democrats who used to sit in the caucus that the person -- and I'm talking years ago -- who was most opposed to casino gambling was none other than Robert K. Rae, QC, as Rob Martin, the NDP candidate in the riding around London, the University of Western Ontario person, has to say, and he called for him to resign.

But there we are with the only solution being casino gambling, and that's most unfortunate because I would have expected that of all the parties in the House, the party of Bill Temple, the NDP, the party of M.J. Coldwell and H.W. Herridge and Harold Winch, all of the icons of the past in terms of this kind of legislation, would have rejected casino gambling. But in desperation they're out there to extract the money from the poor and to invite into the province as a result, indirectly, the kind of crime that is associated with it.

Let me look at the ramifications, if I may briefly, of what the government is doing, because I think when people call for restraint, when people call for drastic cuts in expenditures, they have to know what it means. We all like to --

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: No. Those engaging in this kind of discussion somehow talk about restraint as though it won't have ramifications. I'm going to tell you, our health care system is going to show the great problems that will arise from this very soon as a result of the mismanagement and now this panic program where the Treasurer has a fire sale, where he's selling off assets that may be of value to the government and where they're cutting and slashing almost indiscriminately.

We're going to see schools crowded. We're going to see hospitals closing beds, as we are. We're going to see the most vulnerable people in our society being affected by the mismanagement of the economy that this government has engaged in.

At some time when I get an opportunity to speak further in another debate, I would like to explore what is happening, and every minister knows what is happening there, but I simply want to finish with a couple of quotes from people whom I've respected for a long time.

One is Michael Davison, a former colleague of mine in the Legislative Assembly, the NDP member for Hamilton Centre, and he says, "Five generations of my family have fought the good fight in this community over seven decades: three of us even stood for electoral office a total of 14 times." Then he goes on to say:

"I lay the blame for all this at the door of Bob Rae because he chose the option of an imperial premiership. He counts for everything. The decisions are made in his office, not in cabinet, caucus or the provincial council of the NDP. MPPs can't comment on anything more significant than the weather without it being approved by the Premier's office.

"For the good of the people of the province and the party, this has to stop and that means Bob Rae has to go as party leader and Premier."

I didn't say this, because I have not called for the resignation of the Premier, not at this point in time. This is an NDPer who says this.

Of course, Rob Martin, a former federal NDP candidate and professor of law at the University of Western Ontario said:

"The Rae government has betrayed its party and its party's principles and the people who have supported that party. He and his government have abandoned all pretence of acting on behalf of ordinary men and women."

He goes on to say, in conclusion, because the member for Halton Centre is waiting:

"My fear is that Rae and the arrogant crowd around him may be entering a Götterdämmerung phase. They may become increasingly aware that they have not the slightest chance of re-election and simply adopt a scorched-earth policy, determined to bring the temple down around all our ears."

1720

So I think I have --

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): You're choking on it.

Mr Bradley: Well, I'm choking on the fact that the government has mismanaged the economy so badly. But I would like to simply say that if you had only listened to us two years ago, you wouldn't be in this problem, and now you are reaping the results of your mismanagement of the economy.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I'm pleased to participate in this debate and particularly in following the points made by the member for St Catharines, with whom I couldn't agree more. I think that as we look around the province and hear discussions about the approach of this government with respect to economic issues, what we are hearing from people is a complete misunderstanding or non-understanding of why all of a sudden the economic scenario was presented showing Ontario in an economic crisis. I think that my colleague has indicated that there is a clear reason that people are faced with that conclusion, and that is that this government took them there.

When a Premier muses about the potential of a $17-billion deficit if nothing else is done, and when the Treasurer approaches economic management with surprise plans for public service cuts and completely out of the blue places them on the table with no consultation with the partners involved, then it's very clear that the lack of confidence and the confusion is going to add very much to the public's unease about the management of this government.

The government brought forward two years ago a budget plan that it was clear -- and the advice from this side of the House was that it was the wrong budget at that time.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): They had a choice.

Mrs Sullivan: They had a choice and they chose to go with a plan that would not work. This year, in the fiscal year just past, the government introduced a budget that built in no methods to introduce and to increase confidence in the managerial skills of the government. In fact, as a result of the failure of that budget, it had to bring changes in on two and more occasions. Indeed, the most recent change of course is the plan that was slapped on the table with respect to service cuts and the out-of-the-blue paper with respect to the social contract.

The $17-billion supposed, proposed budget deficit and the need for cutbacks could not have come as a surprise to the government if the government had been doing its job. Those figures don't come from nowhere. The Treasurer must have known what was occurring to the revenue base and where the spending lines were out of control, and the Treasurer should have been on the ball and the Premier on the ball to get the internal house in order in the province rather than to simply turn the problem over to the municipal taxpayer and the board of education taxpayer, which is precisely what's happening, or to put hundreds and indeed thousands of people out of work.

One of the speakers, the member for Middlesex, talked about, I think in a speech prepared in some ministry or other, probably Treasury, that we have to change the way the public sector does business. I'd like to give the example of the kinds of changes that were introduced in Quebec and how they approached in a meaningful way the components of realignment of expenditure and public administration as they looked at the same implications that we are facing here: the industrial restructuring, the technical and technological change and indeed the lower revenues at the provincial level. They developed a plan, they introduced consultation as that plan was being put together and they made a plan public as part of a budgetary process and they had feedback and a buy-in to that plan.

Their first objective was to simplify governmental organization and structures to improve their efficiency. Many issues were included in that and many approaches, and I'll just give you some: first, to re-examine the government organization, to reduce the number of ministries and agencies and eliminate duplication. What we saw here was an increase in the number of ministers the government appointed.

Their second step was to simplify access to government services by creating one-stop counters where possible.

The third step was to privatize activities, agencies and crown corporations when operations can be carried out more economically by the private sector. In that same area they are moving to reassess all advisory bodies and councils in order to look forward to their abolition or merger with other agencies in the same sector.

Those are the exact kind of steps that should have been taken here. That's just one area Quebec looked at. They also looked at and will be implementing a public sector management method that promotes management accountability and quality of public servants. In this area Quebec will be making a serious attempt and indeed has a plan to increase the responsibility and accountability of managers to set multi-year budget targets for ministries, to establish a new approach to gradually have the public sector compete with or complement the private sector to determine the most cost-effective ways to deliver government services.

There are other areas. The Quebec government intends to improve the cost of products and services on a continuing basis, to stabilize the overall remuneration and improve the flexibility of work organization modes. This is an area that this government could well have been interested in. Some of the areas which Quebec is involved in here include a plan which is to reduce management personnel by 20% over three years and other staff levels by 12% over three years, except in the networks, which must develop staff level reduction plans by September 30, 1993. In all of this human resources area there was an opportunity for a planning time and a consistency in the approach that was more than simply introducing a chaotic and unintegrated, disintegrated system.

I heard the member for Middlesex and several other speakers today -- and I'm having to speak quickly because I'm running out of time -- pay tribute to the public sector and indicate that the government of the day considers the public sector to be highly professional and so on. Well, in fact I'm very concerned about that, because I don't believe this government has the confidence in the public sector that allows it to reach that conclusion. They've given evidence that they don't trust senior civil servants in many areas and, further, they've inserted their own partisan people in the highest positions in the civil service that creates a politicization that is difficult.

But I want to turn to a quote I've discovered made by Michael Decter, the Deputy Minister of Health, who is being seconded to the so-called social contract discussions. One of the issues that Decter spoke to, in the situation as it had occurred when he was involved in government in Manitoba, was the issue in fact of the easy target of the public service.

He indicated that the easiest target of all for the government to go after on any occasion, if there is a deficit-reduction plan or alteration in approach to spending or budgetary planning -- the easiest approach, the most simple approach, is that of the public service. It's very easy to feed on ill will that can be added to by government action and by government members' statements about the inactivity, or whatever other criticism wants to be made, to make the public service an easy target for change.

This entire approach of this government is one of mismanagement. The government speaks of partnerships when what it clearly wants is silent partners. It speaks of job creation when jobs continue to disappear. There is no one in this province who has the confidence that this government has the ability to manage the economy and to do the job that's necessary today.

1730

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

Hon Mr Laughren: I've enjoyed the debate this afternoon; a lot of good suggestions and comments, and a few mean ones, but I take those in the spirit in which they're given and, in some cases, from the source. But I do give the leader of the third party credit for putting this motion before the House and allowing us to have a more fulsome debate on this issue, because question period can hardly do this issue service.

The issue I'm talking about of course is the attempt by this government to finally, as a government, address a problem which other governments have failed to do. We do face a very significant challenge in this province; namely, a deficit of almost $17 billion.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Did you get that figure right this time, Floyd?

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, it's almost $17 billion. That's correct. A deficit of that size in the future will unquestionably threaten our ability to protect services and create jobs and attract investment in this province. We simply must deal with it.

I believe that all members have indicated an awareness that we must deal with that problem. There's no question that we have to deal with the deficit. Where we part company, from time to time, with people across the floor is on how we would deal with that. The Conservative Party has a very clear position that it would concentrate on expenditures: leave taxes alone and slash expenditures. I worry about that. Not only would the Conservatives reduce expenditures; they would eliminate the deficit completely in three years. I'm waiting to hear which programs they're going to eliminate and slash, which hospitals are going to close, which roads they're not going to build, what investments they're not going to make in this province, because I want to tell you, people out there in the province are sick and tired of hearing phoney promises on "No tax increases." They don't believe you any more than we believe you. It's a simple fact.

Interjection: Look at George Bush.

Hon Mr Laughren: So let us not kid each other. Let's not kid the troops. George Bush tried it and it didn't work. Ronald Reagan reduced taxes and it didn't work. Now we've got the Conservatives in Ontario pretending that we can have a wonderful Ontario by slashing programs willy-nilly all across the province, threatening jobs and services in community after community, and they won't raise any taxes at all. Then, however, the leader of the third party goes on to say, and he said it in his speech this afternoon, that under a Conservative regime no public servant would lose his job unless there was a private sector job opportunity for him. At the same time, however, he would restructure the public sector.

I don't know what the leader of the third party was smoking this afternoon, because I want to tell you, that's not even remotely possible. With unemployment running at almost 10%, the leader of the third party is telling us that he's going to reduce the size of the public sector and guarantee everybody who no longer has a job in the public sector a job in the private sector. I don't know how in the world the leader of the third party expects to have any credibility whatsoever. Every time you try to suck and blow at the same time, you lose a little more credibility, and you have little enough to start with. Keep that in mind.

No one takes any satisfaction in going through this exercise of reducing expenditures and raising taxes, but we are determined to do that. It is simply not possible to sustain the level of services that we have out there now and the level of compensation in the public sector into even the near future. We simply must address the problem, and we think we are doing it in the fairest way possible. We are doing it in an open, consultative, fair-minded way, fairer than any other government in Canada has ever done, certainly fairer than any government in this province has ever done, because we know what the solution would be from the Liberal Party and from the Conservative Party. It would be "Bang, bang, bang," to quote the leader of the third party. Bang, bang, bang, the legislation's in, no negotiations whatsoever.

At least give us credit for setting up a social contract table where we try very hard to fashion agreement with the people out there who work so hard for this province. Simply bashing people in the public sector accomplishes nothing. It accomplishes nothing.

I know you don't believe in the free collective bargaining process. Why would you at least not give it a try? Why not try to work it out in a fair and open process?

We believe very strongly that the key to getting through this whole question of dealing with the deficit and expenditures is to have a balanced approach. That's why we said we are going to reduce expenditures by $4 billion this year, we are going to set up a social contract in which we negotiate compensation in the public sector and we're going to increase taxes as well.

Now, I know there are people who don't believe we should increase any taxes. I guess if you believe the deficit should be reduced, if you believe that, then you're saying, "Take all of the problem out on the hides of the people who work for this province or the people who deliver the services that they deliver." That's what you're really saying: "Take it all out on the hides of the people who get services from this province or the people who deliver the services." That's exactly what you're saying, and we're saying, "No, no, that's not a fair and balanced approach," because there are people out there in this province who can afford to pay more in taxes. They'll never admit that, of course.

We believe that what we're going to bring in is a fair and balanced approach to resolving this problem. I don't expect the opposition parties to like it. It's a tough thing to do in opposition, to make decisions that offer up alternatives. I can remember the leader of the Liberal Party in this province standing on her feet when she became leader, with enormous support from all her caucus colleagues, and saying, "I am going to be a leader with a difference; I'm going to propose alternatives." That was some time ago -- a year and a half ago, was it? A year and a half ago? We are waiting for a single alternative. She has offered up none; none whatsoever. One day the Liberals are on their feet saying, "Spend more money." The next day they're on their feet saying, "Your deficit's too high." The next day they're on their feet saying, "Don't cut these expenditures." The next day they're on their feet saying, "No more tax increases." What an incredible hodgepodge of policy the Liberals represent in this province. It is truly beyond belief.

[Applause]

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm glad to see the leader of the third party back in the House and applauding. I don't think he's applauding me, but at least applauding the idea that the Liberals are out to lunch when it comes to putting forth any alternatives.

But I would say to the leader of the third party, before he gets too hard on the Liberals, that we anticipate him coming forward with his alternatives on the programs he will slash all across this province, the programs he will slash in order to eliminate the deficit in three years. I want to tell the leader of the third party, people in this province are sick and tired of people just standing up and mouthing these inanities and not explaining how they're going to achieve what they say.

Mr Harris: That's what you were going to do. I'm saying, no, no, slow this down a little bit.

Mr Owens: No deficit in three years is looney tunes.

Mr Harris: Well, you're going from $17 billion to $10 billion in one year. I'm better than you.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, the deficit this year is $12 billion, it's not $17 billion, in 1992-93.

Mr Harris: You told us it's going to be $17 billion, that you were starting at 17. Oh, you're only going from 12 to 10.

1740

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, the leader of the third party obviously has no idea of what he's talking about or he'd know that the deficit, the year we just ended, is about $12 billion. I thought he would know that by now.

What we are saying is that we are going to reduce expenditures from what they would be in 1993-94 by $4 billion on program expenditures; we are going to find $2 billion at the social contract table; and we're going to raise revenues through taxation and other measures. I want to make it perfectly clear to everyone in this Legislature that that's what is not negotiable on the social contract table, because I've heard other people imply that this is the case. The tax package is not negotiable at the social contract table. That must be clearly understood, and we believe that our partners out there understand that very well.

Mr Speaker, I know that time is running short and I want to leave the leader of the third party time to wind up on his own motion.

What we're saying is that the expenditure control package is broadly spread all across the province. We took a year. We didn't take a weekend or a month; we took a year to arrive at that final package of expenditure reductions of $4 billion, and we agonized over every single one of those expenditure reductions. We think they're fair and broadly based all across the province.

The social contract table was set up for the sole purpose of protecting jobs and services all across this province. That's the purpose of the social contract table, and we hope very much that it will work, because we think there would be enormous benefits both for the public sector employees and for the people who receive the services they deliver.

It should go without saying, but it doesn't -- it seems that it needs to be reinforced -- that this government did not create this problem. Fairminded people understand that we inherited a structural deficit of enormous size. We inherited a deficit. But I can tell you, we are the first government that is determined to deal with this problem and to do so in a fair and evenhanded way.

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

Mr Stockwell: I think it's important to, first off, deal with the issue that the Treasurer spoke about with respect to integrity.

I think that this House, this party, this province, are sick of listening to lectures from this government about integrity, and political integrity. You've long since lost your virginity on integrity, Mr Treasurer; it's long since gone. I will just make note of a couple of items.

Before I deal with the social contract, let's talk about the government integrity. Let's talk about An Agenda for People. I'm sorry that this keeps cropping up, but this is an example of this government's integrity. It hasn't got any. It's got no integrity from page 1 through to page 11 of this particular document.

On page 11, this government, which knew it was in a recession when it wrote this piece of trash, outlined exactly what its revenues and deficit would be. Do you know, in September 1990, when you admitted we were in a recession within this very document, you said your revenues would be $44.5 billion. You know what? They're nearly quite around $44.5 billion. You know what you said your expenditures would be? You said $44.5 billion. This government said it would have a balanced budget. Don't lecture any one ever again on political integrity and honesty with the public, because if anyone hasn't got any, it's this government.

To move on, this particular Treasurer or Finance minister, whatever they're calling him these days -- it's tough to get a fix on exactly what political party and where on the political spectrum you people fall. You came in telling us you were social democrats. Today, the Finance minister speaks like a fiscal conservative. So you must fall someplace in the middle, which makes you Liberal, and they got kicked out three years ago.

The orders of the day speak very directly from our motion about the social contract. Let's talk about this social contract. First and foremost, before we get into this, if we had been in government in 1990, we would not be in this mess. We wouldn't be in this mess because we never would have brought in such a profound mistake as your 1991 budget. Make that very clear. We would never have run an $11-billion deficit; we would never have increased salaries by 13%; we would never have increased the public payroll at the rate you increased it. We as a government would not be in this pickle. You're in it because of shortsighted fiscal mismanagement, led, I might add, by the ex-mover and shaker of the Waffle party within the NDP, our favourite Treasurer, who now looks more like Frank Miller than Mr Waffle.

This particular order of the day talks about the social contract, this social contract that you claim to be making with your partners. Let me be very clear: The people you call your partners are calling you a lot of things today, but "partner" is not one of them. They're calling you these things because you're breaking very trusted promises and vows that you took when you went into government, when you wedded these particular associations, and that you're finding so difficult to bring forward today. The social contract is a problem because the government was elected by the people it's cutting today.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): If you don't have anything to say, you just say it over and over again, louder and louder, and hope people think you've got something to say.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Wiseman's heckling; he continues to heckle. I love to hear you heckle, because it reminds me of the four dumps that are being put in your riding. Keep talking. The only thing you'll know about is the bottom of that dump, because that's where your career's going to be in two and a half years.

This particular social contract is dealing with issues that should have been dealt with at least two, three, four, maybe five years ago. The difficulty that this government finds itself in was self-made. It was made by bad fiscal management. It was made by bad decision-making, and it was made because you discovered that all the rhetoric, the highest, most pompous and arrogant rhetoric that you offered on this side of the House, wasn't worth a tinker's damn when you got the levers of power.

What we offer is a clear and unobstructed alternative. When we talk about reductions, we give concrete examples. I know there are people who don't agree with them. I know there are some members, such as the Minister of Housing, who would be quite dismayed when she reads them. I understand that. But they are concrete, legitimate action plans outlined by this caucus. We have put it out for public consumption: We have heard deputations; we understand their concerns. It's there for you to read.

If you choose not to read it, that's simply not our problem. If you're going to make the suggestion to the public service that all this party cares about is cutting back public employees and cutting off welfare recipients, it's both irresponsible and politically corrupt. It's unfair and not worthy of a government in this province.

The partners of this government are in trouble because of this government. Municipalities are faced with half a billion dollars in cuts. Why? Because you mismanaged. To add insult to injury, Mr Speaker, they also had to put supplementary tax bills out to the people because you couldn't even tell them before they set their tax rates. Now they've got to go back to the people and explain that the hard work that they put in, the diligence and the effort that they put in to bring in zero increases is all for naught, because you're paying the piper on the backs of the municipalities, something you condemned the Liberals for and that you're now becoming professionals at. Unacceptable, unbelievable that you should do that to municipalities.

1750

The municipalities are going to have to do this and the municipalities are going to have to raise the revenue, from where? I recall that when you, as an opposition party, spoke of municipal taxes, each and every one of you spoke of municipal taxes and you explained how regressive they were, that they were patently unfair because they were not based on the ability to pay. Who's paying for your fiscal mismanagement? Who's shouldering the blame? The same municipal taxpayer you claimed was being unfairly harassed by previous governments because it's not based on ability to pay and is regressive.

Municipalities can ill afford it. Passing on your debt crisis to them is not dealing with the issue. It's irresponsible government from an irresponsible cabinet. It's unacceptable and they're announcing their concern publicly.

The mayor of North York, included in his tax release -- and I'm certain some of the members will know -- we'll call it the Bob Rae tax hike, his supplemental increase, and he should because you're the people who are foisting these problems on the municipalities.

What really ticks you off is that you complained for the three years that I've been here about the federal government cutting your transfer payments. What are you doing? Exactly the same thing. You're not shouldering responsibility. You're passing the buck and you're passing it on to those who can least afford it.

Now we get to the social contract. Now we're going to find out what Bob Mackenzie's going to do when he's going to have to vote in favour of legislating the brothers and sisters back to work. We're going to have to find out what Randy Hope's going to do, when he can still see the blisters from the picket signs that he carries, crossing a picket line of people who are opposed to this government's wage restraint and rollback, which you had, as part of your constitution, etched in stone. It must have been sandstone because this has disappeared.

We talk about the Premier drawing a line, a line in the water, a line that doesn't exist. The unions are trapping you. They're trapping you in the most basic trick of all. They're unloading their big cards, their big cannons. They're saying to you: "We're going to strike. We're not coming to the table. We won't listen." The only alternative that you have in negotiations with people who won't even come to the table is to tell them, "We're going to legislate you back to work." That is your trump card. You have no choice. That's the only choice you have. If the Treasurer thinks that this --

Mr Mammoliti: You're the alternative.

Mr Stockwell: We are the alternative. We are the alternative and the last poll I saw, sir, in Don Mills, we were the clear alternative. The last poll I saw, the Liberals were even, the NDP had lost one, and we were up one. Those are the kinds of polls that tell this government how well it is respected and who's in front.

My goodness, they can't get their deposit money back and they want to start heckling; 8% makes a lot of noise these days, doesn't it?

Mr Bradley: What about Michael Davison?

Mr Stockwell: I wanted to get through the social contract before I talk about him. I will.

Your last option and your only option: Unions don't come to tables when you want to roll back their wages. Unions don't come to tables when you want to cut the payroll. When you want to cut the number of employees, they don't come to tables. If they're going to threaten not to come, you're going to have to legislate. You're going to have to tell them you're preparing to legislate, then they come to the table and then you begin to negotiate.

The proof is in the pudding. We'll see. We'll see in a few weeks. We'll see who was right. We'll see who was right about the dump sites. We'll see who was right about the deficit in the first year. We'll see who's right about your debt as you accumulate it. It seems to me that you have all the answers before the fact and after the fact; you couldn't be any more wrong than you were. It's incredible how wrong this government is. It's incredible how wrong you are on fiscal issues, on personal issues, and how you sell out, and I don't have to go too far.

Today, you sold out on casino gambling. The next step is that you'll take direct deposits for the chips from welfare cheques. That's how low this government has sunk.

It's not just the two opposition parties that are saying this about the government. It's not just us. The public out there are saying it and your own party is saying it. Your own party is talking about you in the same terms. They're talking about you having no credibility. They're talking about you having no integrity. They're talking about you that you're selling out. They're talking about you behind me now. They're talking about you in the newspapers. Mr Michael Davison, a former member --

Mr Mammoliti: You're the alternative. You.

Mr Stockwell: We are. We are the alternative. The member for Downsview has seen the light, Mr Speaker. Get another desk up here.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Yorkview, Downsview, I'm sorry. Get one for Downsview too, what the heck. Incoming dippers, load 'em up.

Mr Davison says:

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): That's a lie.

Mr Stockwell: If it's a lie, you're calling one of your card-carrying members a liar, so not only are you fighting with us, you're fighting with your own membership.

"Mr Robert K. Rae...Government's Arrogance Has Fundamentally Corrupted Our Public Life." This was written by Mr Rob Martin. He says, "No government has so rigorously and so effectively politicized the province's public service." Mr Martin goes on to say: "The only thing left to do with this government is ask them to resign, demand they step down. They've ruined their own ethics, they've ruined the government's fiscal policies, they've ruined jobs and lives and careers of people in this province with fiscal mismanagement and in most cases socialist pap."

If this particular order of the day, if this specific opposition day were put out for full public debate, if it were put out for a full public vote, the vast majority of Ontarians would support this. They've lost any trust in you. They've lost any hope in you. They're asking you to change. They're asking you to redirect your thoughts. They're asking you to read the government party policies that come out of this caucus. They're asking you to at least become a little more like us.

I'm saying the public out there has had it. They're fed up. There's no level of integrity, and the fiscal mismanagement is unmatched by any government in the history of this province.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Harris has moved opposition day motion number 1. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Call in the members: five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1759 to 1804.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Harris has moved opposition day motion number 1. All those in favour of the motion, please rise one by one.

Ayes

Arnott, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Marland, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, O'Neil (Quinte), Poole, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one by one.

NAYS

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel;

Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes being 33 and the nays being 64, I declare the motion lost.

It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning, Thursday, May 6, at 10 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1808.

5 mai 1993