Journal des débats 1993-mai-31 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): As you may know, a number of municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton area have proclaimed June 21 as National Laughter Day, la Journée nationale du rire.

The beneficial effects of laughter are self-evident. From cancer patients to Canadians struggling to cope with life, laughter alleviates pain and dissipates fear, bringing people together and helping them renew their energy.

The founders of humour rooms recently opened in the Ottawa Cancer Lodges have personally witnessed the healing power of laughter and are now asking the government of Ontario and this House to extend the curative benefits of laughter to all Ontarians by declaring June 21 National Laughter Day, la Journée nationale du rire.

Le rire soulage bien des maux, et quand je vois ce que le gouvernement impose à la population de l'Ontario, je me dis que la Journée nationale du rire arrive à point nommé.

As you know, June 21 is the longest day of the year. Let's build on that unique feature and invite Canadians of all backgrounds to enjoy on that day the sunshine and warmth generated by laughter.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have some very urgent messages for the Premier and the Minister of Finance. These messages are from people of all walks of life from my riding of Mississauga South and from around the province. Here is what the people of Ontario want to tell this NDP government about the budget.

(1) "Please give Bob Rae a message for me: Resign."

(2) "Has Bob Rae ever worked a day in his life? Has he ever met a payroll or does he know what a balance sheet looks like? Tell him from me: It's simple. You just don't spend more money than you have."

(3) "I'm a 40-year member of the NDP and I've worked on every election, but no more, I can tell you."

(4) "My husband just lost his job. I'm the only one working to support our two kids. Why doesn't Bob Rae get real?"

(5) "I'm working at three part-time jobs, I'm trying to pay off my student loans, and the NDP just don't understand that I have no money to pay off their debt too."

(6) "My wife and I are seniors and we are scared about what changes are coming."

That's the end of the quotations, and these are just a few examples of what I've heard from hundreds of angry people.

Premier Rae, please show that you're listening by responding to these messages. Please don't force another $2 billion worth of tax increases on people who are barely getting by. Please don't kill our economic recovery. We need jobs, not taxes.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Today is World No-Tobacco Day, a day when the World Health Organization calls on everyone to do their part to reduce smoking. This year, the WHO is asking health care providers in particular to set an example. The theme is "Health Services: Our Window to a Tobacco-Free World."

Last week, the WHO released a report that showed the worldwide death toll in smoking has tripled since the 1960s. It now stands at about three million people per year and it's rising. The death count in Ontario alone is 13,000.

The statistics and health effects around smoking have become better known than they were in the 1960s, but the World Health Organization says smoking risks are in fact greater than we have thought. The organization reports that at least a third, and probably half, of all smokers will die from their habit.

We must reach our young people before they start, and definitely before they become addicted. Every adult who cuts down or stops smoking today or decides to quit permanently sets a good example for our youth. They must see that smoking is not a ticket to adulthood.

I hope that all the members here will join me today in the World No-Tobacco Day as a movement towards a tobacco-free world.

JOB CREATION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): One year ago, the NDP unveiled its Jobs Ontario Training fund with much fanfare, and while on one hand the NDP has bragged that Jobs Ontario Training has created some 9,000 low-skilled jobs, at the same time the NDP has also killed over 50,000 jobs through the tax increases in its recent budget.

Just what sorts of jobs has the government created through Jobs Ontario? Mike Farnan, the parliamentary assistant to the minister responsible for Jobs Ontario Training, said in the Legislature, "It requires employers to make a commitment to hire for the long term." This boast about Jobs Ontario providing long-term jobs has been repeated by the Premier, the Attorney General and various and sundry NDP members.

But this government has created these primarily low-skilled jobs not for the long term, but for one year only. Despite their statements to the contrary, the NDP's Jobs Ontario Training contract contains no commitment that the jobs last longer than one year. That's right: only one year.

So what's going to happen to those people hired through Jobs Ontario when after only one year they discover that there's no obligation for their employer to continue their jobs? What hope is there for these people the NDP has deluded into believing that they are now off social assistance for good?

Instead of claiming they are providing long-term and highly skilled technical jobs, why doesn't this government come clean and admit that instead of providing a long-term solution, they have only stuck their finger in the dike?

1340

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I direct this statement to the Premier. On Saturday, May 29, I accompanied the Team Harris budget tour into my riding of Lanark-Renfrew. This tour was conducted throughout Ontario, giving people the opportunity to respond directly to the Premier by ballot as to whether they approved or disapproved of his budget.

In our tour through the Country Fair Mall at Smiths Falls and the Mews Mall in Perth, people told us to take a clear message to this government about the budget. Simply stated, their message is this: There are too many tax increases, and jobs will be lost. They told me that they cannot afford new taxes on insurance and auto parts, not to mention the drastic increase in the personal income tax rate.

Small businessmen are telling us that they will have to cut their payrolls because of new measures such as taxes on group benefits, taxes on compensation-protection plans and the reduction of tax deductions.

Those who are employed in the tourism industry say that their business will be impaired by the elimination of the sales tax rebate for tourists. Foresters are infuriated with the increases in the timber licences and in stumpage fees.

It is of little surprise that the people I spoke to are opposed to this budget, because the budget attacked every important sector of the economy in Lanark-Renfrew: personal income tax, small business, tourism and forestry.

CANADIAN FORCES OVERSEAS

Mr David Winninger (London South): Last week, when I was visiting with constituents in my riding of London South, I became aware of the pride that my constituents George and Laverne Henderson take in the accomplishments of their son-in-law, Warrant Officer J.W. Parsons, who is married to their daughter Kim.

Mr Parsons served with the Canadian Armed Forces for six months in Sarajevo under General Lewis Mackenzie. Mr Parsons was decorated for his service in Yugoslavia.

Mr Parsons, his wife, Kim, and 10-year-old daughter Desiree will be returning June 11 from Baden, Germany, where the family has resided since 1990.

While in Yugoslavia, Mr Parsons was adopted as a hero by the Kensington Nursing Home in London. The kind residents of Kensington Nursing Home sent Mr Parsons care packages on a regular basis, including Kool-Aid to add to the water that had to be boiled in Sarajevo.

My constituents have started a Blue Ribbon campaign in London to honour all of our peacekeepers in Sarajevo.

I share in the pride expressed by George and Laverne Henderson and I am confident that other constituents in my riding and the people of Ontario are grateful for the enormous contribution Warrant Officer Parsons and his colleagues have made as peacekeepers in Yugoslavia. May their influence be as strong as their efforts.

MING PAO NEWSPAPERS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Today's economy is characterized by phenomenal bankruptcies, business closures and escalating unemployment. Against this background, I would like to applaud Ming Pao Newspapers (Canada) Ltd for having the courage to establish itself in what appears to be impossible economic times.

Ming Pao is based in Hong Kong and is one of the most influential Chinese dailies in the Asia-Pacific region, with a readership of approximately one million.

Ming Pao newspapers have been sold in Metro for the past two years. However, on Thursday, May 28, 1993, they began printing the Canadian edition at their new plant in Scarborough North. They could have selected no better place. To date, over $5 million has been invested and over 70 new jobs created. Circulation is presently 15,000. The company aims to increase readership to 20,000 over the next six months.

My sincere congratulations to Mr Kelly Chang, chairman, and Mr Richard Yao, chief executive officer, and all the able-bodied employees there. Congrats.

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): When the Team Harris bus rolled into London and Chatham last week, the residents spoke loudly and clearly: No new taxes; cut government waste; huge deficits and debts are not acceptable; and Ontario needs a prosperity plan to create jobs and renew the economy.

Ontario residents have never been more concerned about keeping their jobs and retraining for new jobs. Our young people are truly worried about getting jobs. We need their infusion of energy, optimism, integrity, commitment and new ideas.

In our schools, teachers, parents and students are angry that we are experiencing chaos in our social contract negotiations and that the blame is being foisted on local school boards. School boards have been searching for fair solutions to assist the province in finding wage concessions of $520 million from elementary and secondary school teachers.

Teachers are accusing boards of contract stripping and of blatant attempts to turn back collective bargaining by 20 years. The unions are boycotting social contract meetings -- little progress is being made in the social contract negotiations and the final-solution deadline is Friday at 6 pm.

This government has pitted school boards and teachers against each other. The government is demanding a $520-million cut in this fiscal year. The only way to achieve this goal is by legislating a rollback in salaries, thus avoiding finance and labour relations chaos in our schools.

What this province needs is leadership and good management, and it is clearly missing with this government.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION / ÉDUCATION EN FRANÇAIS

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I would like to welcome a group of dedicated people from my constituency who are gathered in the west public gallery watching the proceedings. They have come today to Queen's Park to share with us the benefits of their collaborative effort in creating a Centre scolaire-communautaire.

I became aware of this project two and a half years ago and last fall I met personally with the Minister of Education to discuss how the proposal had progressed and express my full support for it.

Je voudrais aussi souligner combien je trouve important de favoriser les partenariats école-communauté. Dans le cas présent, la communauté francophone de Kingston et les sections de langue française ont fait un énorme travail de collaboration depuis quatre ans.

Together, these three groups from the separate and public school boards and the community have achieved a unique partnership for the construction of the first French-language high school between Cornwall and Oshawa. Such a joint venture will provide the necessary public facilities in the most economical way. It will also create a significant number of jobs and bring lasting economic benefits to the whole community.

In closing, I would like to reiterate my commitment to promoting the full participation of all in Canadian life, and I sincerely believe that a Centre scolaire-communautaire in Kingston will help greatly in achieving this goal. As Judge Dickson said in March 1990, "Language is more than a mere means of communication; it is part and parcel of the identity and culture of the people speaking it."

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): A 1984 Solicitor General's report, co-authored by the Honourable Howard Hampton, points out that casinos attract increased crime which becomes a threat to both those living in the area and to gambling visitors. It is no coincidence that among US cities, Atlantic City ranks first in crime and Las Vegas third.

The problems with casinos go beyond mere street crime. Organized crime is drawn like a magnet to casinos, which present an opportunity to launder money gained from illicit activities, like the drug trade, without leaving any paper trail. Inspector Barry Hill, director of the Criminal Intelligence Service of Ontario, points out that organized crime has sought to infiltrate every aspect of the casino business, from garbage removal to building maintenance.

The government claims that a casino will bring no more crime than an amusement park, but, to my knowledge, Canada's Wonderland and Disney World have never had the widespread involvement with organized crime that has been documented with casinos in North America.

By putting a casino in Windsor, the government is hoping to reverse the trend of cross-border shopping. In fact, it is sending out an invitation for cross-border crime.

Peel Regional Police Chief Robert Lunney, concerned about Ontario's new organized crime elements, has also said that any casino should be completely government- run with no private partners in order to keep strict control. But the government, with dollar signs in its eyes, is courting a private partner that knows the business, in a business where links with organized crime are widespread and well documented.

To the people of Ontario, and particularly to the people of Windsor, I ask you if a legacy of increased crime opportunities for organized crime is what you wish to leave your children.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming the 13th group of pages to serve in the Third Session of the 35th Parliament: Mathieu Balez, Nickel Belt; Christine Bolan, Nipissing; Kimberley Borden, London North; Darryl Boynton, Dufferin-Peel; Ronald Calixto, Brampton North; Amy Danchuk, Timiskaming; Rebecca Hartley, Oakville South; Bryan Heal, Oakwood; Amanda Hickey, Huron; Lara Housez, St Catharines; Melissa Kinsinger, Norfolk; Tanya Kotowycz, High Park-Swansea; Joshua Lam Jr, Fort York; Timothy Martin, Etobicoke-Lakeshore; Alexis McDonald, London Centre; Mark Morassut, Etobicoke-Humber; Wendy Nicholson, Guelph; Jennifer Powroz, Nepean; Gregory Svorden, Hamilton Centre; Fraser Telford, York South; Lucas Thacker, Bruce; Michelle Turner, Ottawa South; Ted Wasserman, Willowdale; and Jeff Wright, Oxford.

Please welcome these pages to our assembly.

1350

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would also like to take this opportunity to invite all members to welcome to our chamber, and indeed to our country, a special visitor who is seated at the table, Mr Mark Swinson, who is a deputy clerk from the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of New South Wales, Australia. Welcome him to Ontario, Canada.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): A clean environment and green, efficient industry are needed to put Ontarians back to work. This government believes that every individual has a valuable contribution to make in creating a sustainable economy in Ontario. Further, we believe that people must be given the power to make a difference for the environment.

As part of the government's 10-point plan to put Ontarians back to work, today I'm introducing the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights for first reading. This legislation will give Ontarians unprecedented rights to become advocates for the environment. The bill has been written for the public, in the public and by the public. The critics said the bill couldn't satisfy --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member from Oriole, please come to order.

Hon Mr Wildman: The critics said the bill couldn't satisfy the environmentalists and the business community. Some said stronger environmental rights would hinder business; others said that business input would dilute the bill, but they were all wrong.

The bill is a victory for all Ontarians. It will open up the environmental decision-making to greater public scrutiny; it will give greater certainty to business by creating a consistent and predictable process for obtaining environmental approvals; it will give to the public information it needs to get involved; and above all, it will protect the environment to a greater degree than ever before.

While some refining has taken place since the bill was first released for public comment in July 1992, it has remained true to its original principles. The new bill acknowledges the public's right to a healthy environment, provides the public with more opportunities to participate in environmental decision-making at an early stage, increases government accountability and responsibility for the environment, gives the public enhanced access to the courts and gives greater protection for employees who blow the whistle on polluting employers.

There are many people who deserve credit for making today possible. First, I'd like to recognize my predecessor, Ruth Grier, for her tireless and visionary work to get the bill off the ground.

I'd also like to thank the members of the minister's Task Force on the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights who have joined us today. I'd like to introduce them. They are in the gallery: first, Michael Cochrane, co-chair of the task force and now in private practice; George Howse of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association; Rick Lindgren of the Canadian Environmental Law Association; John Macnamara of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce; Paul Muldoon from Pollution Probe; Andrew Roman, a lawyer specializing in administrative and environmental law; and Sally Marin of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Also, absent today is Bob Anderson of the Business Council on National Issues. All the members deserve our thanks for their expertise and hard work.

Much work remains, of course. In addition to tabling the bill, we intend to move quickly on its implementation. Today, I am releasing the first draft regulation under the bill. It contains a proposed schedule that affected provincial ministries must follow to meet the requirements of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Environmental Bill of Rights is a landmark piece of legislation in Ontario, in Canada and in North America. It meets the needs of the public, industry, environmental groups and government. It is based on a consensus of business representatives and environmental representatives. The consensus is an important building block in the creation of a sustainable economy in Ontario and it will set a new and higher standard for environmental protection, both for now and for years to come in Ontario.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): The minister makes a statement today about the Environmental Bill of Rights. In the next while, we'll be taking a detailed look at the bill and its implications, but at the outset it's clear that there are a number of initial questions and concerns which we have. If time permits, I hope to dwell briefly on four of those areas.

Firstly, it's curious that this statement is made this week, for a couple of reasons. Friday marks the deadline the government has instituted for its social contract talks. The government has said that by Friday municipalities must reduce, no matter what the impact will be on ratepayers; hospitals must reduce; school boards must reduce; the civil service must reduce. Today the government says that it will be creating a new bureaucracy, a bureaucracy which is headed by someone called the environment commissioner. At a time when everyone is being told to reduce, the government expands.

But let's take a look at what the environment commissioner can do. Does this person have the power to institute actions on his or her own behalf? The answer is no. Does this person have the power to demand a review? The answer is no. Does this person have the power to take action on behalf of the people of this province? The answer is no.

This commissioner, no matter how well intentioned, has no such power. The office merely forwards letters and requests to the appropriate minister. It doesn't bring people closer to the government; it in fact creates a buffer between government and the people.

Secondly, this week is significant for another matter. Again on Friday, we will mark the first anniversary date for the release of the long-term sites. Thousands of people have voiced their concerns over the process mandated by the government. People have been devastated by the unilateral action taken by this government. People have felt the expansion of landfill sites in their area, mandated and dictated by this government without allowing any public participation.

People have brought forward their objections to the government's Bill 143, which gives the government sweeping unilateral powers: the power of expropriation, the power of inspection without consent of the property owner. Does this bill, does the announcement of the minister today, help those people? The answer is no. The bill does not give those people a voice. In fact, it ensures that people shut out of the process are now locked out of the process.

Thirdly, and briefly, the Environmental Bill of Rights does not, on our reading, give to any individual rights dealing with how their interests have been affected by the government. It creates no new offences and it gives no right to sue for damages.

Fourthly, the Environmental Bill of Rights does not create a single statement for environmental protection that must be followed by each ministry. In fact, there are only 14 ministries that must design or devise their own statement of values for environmental protection, and these statements do not have to be the same. They can be crafted and carved according to each of their wishes. There are valid questions as to what happens when there is a conflict between those values and what happens when those ministries which are not part of the 14 ministries run afoul of some of the applications of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The statement today does not forward a streamlined process, something which has been called for by many for many years. It in fact ensures possibly a greater confusion. Now each ministry can operate according to its own rules and according to its own values.

In conclusion, I think that when people speak to an Environmental Bill of Rights, they give off a perception, an expectation, that there will be certain rights given to the individuals, to the people of this province; that as a result of this announcement people will have something today that they didn't have yesterday. But this does not fall within the statement by the ministry. There is no increased enforcement power; there are no new legal remedies; there are no new enforcement procedures; there is nothing today that isn't there tomorrow.

In the weeks and months ahead, we will be bringing our questions and concerns forward. Our first priority is the protection of the environment and the involvement of the public, and we will be working to make sure that principle is embraced in that statement.

1400

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make a few brief comments to the Minister of Environment and Energy's introduction of the bill of rights. It's a document, of course, that has been long awaited. There have been many introductions of different bills and statements in this place for some time. The former Minister of the Environment, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, made an introduction some time ago.

I will say it is rather strange that this particular bill, which is certainly going to create a considerable amount of bureaucracy, is being introduced at this time.

Hon Mr Wildman: Fifteen people.

Mr Tilson: You say very few, but we all know exactly that when you are going to have 14 ministries preparing some sort of review for this -- I think it's called statement of environmental values -- there is going to be a considerable amount of bureaucracy that is going to be required. At a time when the social contract is being negotiated and there are suggestions of a need for cutback in people who work in this place, here we are bringing a whole raft of new bureaucrats into this place.

Hon Mr Wildman: No, wrong.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'll tell you, page 9 of the document that was handed out this morning at your press conference does talk about a request for reviews. It is going to introduce a considerable amount of need for bureaucrats and legal people to implement this whole process. I don't know who's going to advise people in this whole matter.

The question of course is, can the ministry handle all these things now? The enforcement branch of the Ministry of Environment is having a great deal of difficulty at this point in investigating violations.

Hon Mr Wildman: No. It's a lot of work, but they thrive on it.

Mr Tilson: You say no. That isn't what they say. They're having a lot of trouble investigating violations, and now you're going to give them even more work to do. It's going to create a great deal of difficulty.

You did boast about the consultation in this process, and there appears to have been some sort of consultation throughout. I understand that there were only 200 interest groups that responded to your paper that was put out, which is rather low, disappointingly low.

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'll tell you, for a population of this province that's a rather low number that have commented. I understand that those comments won't be released until after second reading of the bill.

It is too bad that a similar consensus wasn't put forward as what you did with Bill 40, because Bill 40 did not have nearly the consensus -- the disastrous effects of Bill 40. There is no mention of the Ministry of Education participating within the 14 ministries that are going to be submitting the statement of environmental values. In the first year these ministries must give a statement of environment value. That, sir, is going to create a great deal of bureaucracy and time, at a time when you're trying to cut back throughout this whole process.

The environmental commissioner is an interesting development. That's going to be yet a new watchdog for the province of Ontario, notwithstanding that we have the Ombudsman, although there's been some criticism of the Ombudsman in this place, particularly by members of the government. Yet, now we're going to have a new watchdog who will have no say whatsoever over such august groups as Ontario Hydro and with respect to the Interim Waste Authority, which has been criticized over and over, particularly in the three regions, as an absolutely dictatorial arm of your government. Yet the environmental commissioner will have no say with respect to those groups.

As I understand it, the environmental commissioner will be responding directly to this House. In other words, once a year there will be a report made to this House. I would submit, Mr Minister, that it should more appropriately be made to your ministry where we can monitor from time to time exactly what the environmental commissioner is doing.

There is one other criticism that I would like to refer to, looking at this group of advisers. As I understand it, there was no representation from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in the whole process of advising from the agricultural community, and there is some concern, Mr Minister, which I trust you will confirm at some other time, that the bill of rights will not override the Farm Practices Protection Act, which the people in the agricultural community are most concerned about.

The electronic registry which is being suggested, now that is an interesting concept. I raise the question as to what sort of access the public will have to that electronic registry. As I understand, when information is to be fed to the various computers, it will only be there for 30 days and then it's zapped. It's just gone, and that is a major defect. You're going to have to have people sitting in these registry offices continually or they will have no idea what's going on. So I would suggest that you have a second look at that whole computerization that you're looking at.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is to the Premier. May I suggest to you that it is absolutely bizarre to hear Ontario's Minister of Finance talking today about the hollow victory, when you fight the deficit at the expense of jobs. It is bizarre, because that's exactly what you've done with the budget that you presented more than a week ago.

Premier, your budget is taking absolutely the wrong direction. The new tax increases in that budget will kill the fragile economic recovery that all of us are hoping to see take place here, and I ask when you will understand what your government has done time and time again, to damage business and to destroy jobs. In the week before this House broke, we asked the Minister of Finance what impact the new tax measures would have on the economy and most specifically on jobs, and we received no answer at that time. So I ask, will you please explain what kind of economic growth and job creation you expect to achieve with your $2-billion tax grab?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Let me say to the honourable leader of the Liberal Party that I look forward to seeing her correspondence with the leader of the Liberal Party in the province of Quebec, I look forward to seeing her correspondence with the leader of the Liberal Party in New Brunswick, which are leading Liberal governments next to ours -- the economy of Quebec very closely allied and tied to ours -- where her party is in government. Their tax increases obviously required, in their view and by virtue of the size of the overall public sector problems they are facing, the approaches they've taken to the economy, in many ways even tougher than ours.

But I would say to the honourable member that where we differ from the government of Quebec, for example, is that we're investing $4 billion in new investment, in public sector investment in this province, which is more than any other government and, secondly, it's far more than is the case in other jurisdictions. So I would say to the honourable member that when she talks about the approach we're taking, perhaps she would put it in some perspective. Our capital budgets are larger than before. They're intended to deal with a problem. They're intended to provide a long-term view in terms of investment in the province.

The message that I'm getting loud and clear from people who are investing in the economy is that they appreciate the signal we've sent with respect to the deficit. They think it's a sound signal. They think it's a wise signal.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: And they also believe that it's time to start bringing down interest rates, which is the message that we think we're sending to the Bank of Canada and that other governments are sending to the Bank of Canada. I believe this is the soundest approach for us to take with respect to jobs. This is the best approach to jobs.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: If you ignore the deficit, you kill jobs. If you ignore the need for sound public investment, you don't do enough for jobs.

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: We're doing something for jobs, and I would say to her, just have a look at what other governments are having to do across the country.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, if you deal with the deficit by raising taxes, you kill jobs. If you try and deal with the deficit without dealing with the need to get people back to work, you are not going to solve your deficit problem. We keep saying, "Understand how the two things work together," and please don't keep telling us about the $4 billion in investment. You've told us about that now for three successive budgets and it doesn't give a whole lot of hope to the 575,000 people who are still out of work in this province.

I actually expected you to tell us a little bit about the Treasurer's concern with the federal government's fiscal policies and the Bank of Canada's interest rates. We are prepared to acknowledge that is a part of the problem, but we also want to urge you to understand that you have to do your part, that it's not enough for you and the Finance minister to lecture others and that it's not enough for you to talk about Quebec and about Newfoundland. You've got to understand how your policies, time and time again, are putting more and more people out of work.

1410

Premier, how can you possibly lecture others about the need for job creation when your budget's $2-billion tax grab is quite simply going to put 50,000 more Ontarians out of work?

Hon Mr Rae: Well, it's really quite interesting. I listened to the honourable member. First of all, I find it really kind of remarkable that the leader of the Liberal Party in this province would completely ignore what her sister party in the province right next door is having to do. She would just disregard that as if that's not of any import, of any relevance.

Have you even picked up the phone to talk to Premier Bourassa and said to him, "Why are you raising taxes in this current economic climate?" Have you picked up the phone and talked to Premier McKenna and said, "Why are you doing this?" I suspect that the answer the honourable member would get is that any mature, sensible policy -- why is President Clinton doing it in the United States? Why is he carrying out this measure as well? Has he gone off his rocker as well? Is everyone else out of step except the Liberal Party of Ontario, which is saying one thing in opposition and doing another thing when it's in government?

I think it's time that the leader of the Liberal Party recognized the fact that there is a serious problem in the economy. It has to be dealt with in a serious way. It is going to be conducive to jobs. We are going to produce a better recovery. A recovery that ignores the deficit simply isn't going to be as long-lasting as a recovery which deals with the deficit and which deals with problems which her government did nothing to deal with for the five years it was in office.

Mrs McLeod: It's tempting for me not to pursue the question when the Premier, who once was an opposition leader, talks about people saying one thing in opposition and something else when they're the government. It really is difficult to keep a focus on what is in fact a very serious question, and the reason this is a serious question is because it is a serious issue for the people of this province.

The government conveniently brought in its budget just before a week that's known as constituency week, and I will say quite honestly, Premier, that no, I didn't call the Premier of Quebec and no, I didn't call the Premier of Newfoundland. I talked to people in communities in Ontario. I talked to municipal leaders, I talked to people who are providing health care, I talked to small business people, I talked to people in the tourism industry and I talked to people in the high-tech industries, and all of them agreed that the budget you presented, with its $2 billion in tax increases, is going to destroy more jobs.

Premier, it is time to stop paying lipservice on Monday morning to the importance of job creation and economic recovery when your budget's damage has already been done. If jobs are your priority, I ask you why you brought in a budget with $2 billion in new tax increases. When will you learn that new taxes are not going to solve this deficit problem in this province; they're going to make it worse? When will you listen? When will you listen to what the people of this province are telling you, "Scrap your new taxes"?

Hon Mr Rae: This from a government which raised taxes consistently throughout its time in office. I find it a little hard to take.

We've all spent time in our constituencies and we can all compare the messages that we've received. I would say to the honourable member that the sense I have from the people of this province is that they recognize there are difficult, real decisions that have to be made. They recognize that these decisions have been to some extent put off. They've been put off in this province; they've been put off by other governments in other places.

We are a government that has decided to tackle these problems in a fairminded way and in an effective way, in a way that asks that yes, there are going to be higher taxes for those who are in a position to pay them, and at the same time says that's going to allow us as a government, first of all, to keep our operating costs firmly under control, which we're already doing through the other measures that we're taking, and second of all, that will allow us to invest more in the future: a billion dollars in training, a program you want to eliminate, and $4 billion in terms of capital works and investment in the future, which we think is going to make a difference.

I would say to the honourable member that she can dismiss the experience of other governments all she wants, but it really does defy analysis to somehow think that the Liberal Party in opposition in Ontario has got an answer that no other government across the country has somehow been able to take up as its call to action recently. Every government in this country is recognizing the need to face the future in a balanced way, in an effective way and in a way that deals with current problems, and the Liberal Party in Ontario seems to be immune to that outbreak of common sense which is taking place across the country.

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I say to the Premier, in addressing my second question to him, that the simple reality is that his government is continuing simply to react in a panic fashion to a financial crisis which his government solely has created. I would suggest to the Premier that the budget has made any real progress in that other area of complete chaos and confusion, the social contract talks, that much more difficult.

The deadline for the completion of the social contract talks is literally days away. Last week, we saw two unions and an employer group walk away from the table, CUPE is now threatening to boycott the remainder of the talks, Fred Upshaw of OPSEU is warning civil servants to be prepared for a general strike to save jobs, and last week your Finance minister admitted to the Hamilton Spectator, and I quote, "If on June 4 things fall apart and everybody walks off in a huff, then we're going to have to do some scrambling."

Premier, all you have been doing from the beginning is scrambling. You obviously have no idea what to do. You have no plan. You are still lurching from crisis to crisis. I ask, how are you going to deal with the pandemonium that is being created by your disastrous social contract talks?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I can tell the honourable member that we know full well that we presented the one million people who work in the public sector and their representatives with some difficult choices, and we understand full well that what we have asked people to do really doesn't have a lot of precedent to it in terms of this province or indeed other jurisdictions.

We happen to think that it's fairer to people to say: "Look, we do feel, and as a government have reached the decision, that we do need to take $2 billion out of the size of the public sector payroll. We would like very much to discuss with you the ways in which that can be done."

I'm not surprised, and I don't think anybody should be surprised, that there'd be a lot of resistance (a) to the idea of $2 billion coming out, and secondly, that there'd be a lot of resistance, to say, "Well no, we don't want to have to participate in this." But our view as a government is, and my view remains, that it's always fairer to ask people to participate and to have some kind of a say in these decisions than it is to simply impose a solution. I think it's a fairer way. I think it's a better way.

The honourable member can say that she now agrees with her good friend Sid Ryan and her good friend Fred Upshaw and all the others who are long-time supporters of hers, or she can say that she supports the employers, the odd one who says, "We don't want to participate in these discussions." That's up to her.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: All I can tell her is that I think the way we're proceeding is fairer, and as for what will happen on Friday, we will have to see, but obviously the government is prepared for whatever happens.

1420

Mrs McLeod: Premier, there is absolutely no one who has been affected by this whole series of last-minute crisis responses on the part of your government who feels that any of this is leading towards something that we might call fair.

In that same interview with the Hamilton Spectator last week, your Finance minister said that if the social contract talks fall apart, his preference would be to simply cut more from schools and hospitals and municipalities and colleges and universities. You will be aware that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has already condemned your government for placing most of the burden for your deficit reduction on municipalities and school boards and hospitals and colleges and universities.

If we've calculated correctly, and we believe we have, for every dollar your government contributes to deficit reduction, it is asking municipalities and hospitals and school boards and taxpayers to contribute $8. I ask, Premier, is this what you call sharing the pain? Have you any idea how health and education and firefighting and policing across this province will be affected by the sheer accumulation of the pain that you are sharing?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say --

Interjection: Here comes the answer from Ross McClellan.

Hon Mr Rae: No, it's not from Ross McClellan. I would say, with the greatest of respect to the honourable member, that there is a need in the province, I think, and a growing recognition in the province, of the need for a sense of reality about what we're all facing here. Yes, we are asking our transfer partners, to whom we transfer tens of billions of dollars, to whom the vast majority of the provincial budget is transferred, to participate with us in this process.

I say to the honourable member that it's inconceivable that you could have a successful deficit-cutting strategy that did not deal with the transfer partners of the government. There is no serious strategy -- again, look at Quebec, look at New Brunswick, look at anywhere else around the country. If you don't have a strategy that deals with that, you just aren't going to face up to the problem.

I heard the honourable member on the radio the other day saying that the Liberals had a solution. They would deal with it by cutting back on administration, which we have done far more than they have ever done, and she said, "But we would do it all without affecting anybody and without causing any discomfort or any pain." That's how the Liberals would deal with it.

Well, as long as that's the cloud-cuckoo-land the Liberal Party of Ontario lives in, I wish them well. Unfortunately, it's not the serious world of fiscal reality that those of us who are in government have to deal with, and in her heart of hearts the Leader of the Opposition knows that full well, which is why it's so difficult to take her questions seriously today.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, I think there is a sense of reality in communities across this province. The people I've spent the last week talking to understand that there is a serious financial problem in this province, a problem which you have allowed to get beyond all bounds that any of us could ever have imagined seeing. People realize, as we do, that there have to be steps taken to deal with the financial problem.

But in addition to that sense of reality, I can tell you that there is a sense of anxiety, a sense of anger, of helplessness, of hopelessness, because people simply have no idea what you're going to do next. Your social contract talks are causing a degree of confusion because this whole process has been flawed from the very beginning, and you are throwing this whole province into total chaos. There have been eight wasted weeks, and Premier, I would tell you that all we have seen for those eight weeks is a level of confusion and confrontation such as we have never seen in this province before.

I ask you, Premier, what are your alternatives, your plan, your alternatives if the social contract talks break down on June 4? What responsibility will you take, as Premier of this province, to ensure that yes, your budget requirements can be met, but that they can be met without throwing thousands more people out of work and without slashing vital services to the people of this province to a point where the pain is simply not tolerable?

Hon Mr Rae: It's precisely because we don't want to slash services that we believe in the social contract talks as an alternative to that. It's precisely because we want people to have some kind of say in their future that we are launching the social contract talks.

I would say to the honourable member that I've listened carefully to what I think would be a realistic alternative to the size and dimensions of the problems we face in the province, and I listened carefully to the leader of the Liberal Party, and I really just don't think that what is being put forward by the Liberal Party comes even close to being a serious alternative to what this government is trying to do -- not even close.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is as well to the Premier. Premier, in the gallery today is a Miss Cindy Timleck. She has written a letter to your Treasurer, a copy to me, which I thought you might have had earlier, and I apologize if they didn't pick it up earlier. I sent it over to the Premier at the start of question period.

Miss Timleck is in the gallery. I would ask her to stand up and say hello.

She is typical of Ontarians that we met, our caucus colleagues and myself, as we travelled this province. She wrote in her letter how your budget affects her, and quite simply, Premier, Miss Timleck says that your latest tax grab, on top of years of federal and provincial and municipal tax increases -- I think the timing of it, the cumulative effect, when I chatted with her, as well is a significant part of it -- your tax hike, on top of that has taken a toll on her. She can no longer afford to live and spend as she has because too much of her hard- earned income will be going into your, the government's, pocket instead of hers.

Premier, I've shared her letter with you. What do you have to say today to Miss Timleck?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I've just had a chance today, just now, to have a look at Miss Timleck's letter and I really am not entirely familiar with all of her circumstances, so all I can say to her, through you, Mr Speaker, and through the leader of the third party, is that we are trying to deal with a difficult financial situation in as fair a way as we possibly can.

As a family person, I can say that I don't think it's wise for us to pass on to the next generation an enormous, colossal deficit, and I know that the leader of the third party doesn't think so either. So perhaps it's wiser for us to start tackling that problem now, as the economy's in some recovery, than to put that off for another day.

We're asking public servants to give up a great deal in terms of the overall situation. We don't think we're asking them to give up too much, but we're asking them to give up something in terms of the long term. We're asking taxpayers to contribute and we're cutting back substantially on government expenditures to deal with a problem which has taken a while to accumulate, but which we now feel is serious enough for us to tackle together.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I would look forward to the opportunity of talking to Miss Timleck about what we're doing and what the alternatives are, but I think when we look at the alternatives, people will recognize, and I hope that she does as well, that Ontario is still a pretty good place to live, it's a good place to raise your family and it's a good place to look to the future. That's the view that I have as a parent and as somebody who looks to the future. There's nowhere else that I can think a better place to raise one's family and to look to the future.

Mr Harris: I thought that "Give us a place to stand and a place to grow" was going to be sung in the background and hummed as the Premier spoke about "Preserve and conserve it."

Premier, Miss Timleck's disposable income, I think she wants you to know -- I was very struck when I received a copy of her letter to the Treasurer, which is why my staff called her and asked if she'd be willing to share her letter with more than just the Treasurer and myself -- I think she wants you to know that this extra tax grab doesn't just hurt her; it hurts the local car dealership. She'll not be buying the new car that she was looking at. It hurts the small business people who own restaurants in her neighbourhood because she will think twice about spending money to eat out. It hurts the local small contractors who've been struggling to stay in business because she has made a decision now to put off doing repairs and improvements to her home.

It hurts any investment opportunity that she and millions of Ontarians like her, if they did manage to save five cents, may have made in this province, because instead of the private sector getting that money or it being invested, it's going to Bob Rae. It's going to government.

I would ask you this, Premier: Can you explain to me and to Miss Timleck how your tax hikes and the money going to government is possibly -- given the abysmal record over 10 years of Conservative and Liberal and NDP governments at taxing money and saying we're going to create jobs, how can you possibly think that you now have a magic formula that you can create more jobs than Miss Timleck can herself, and millions of Ontarians, spending that money in the marketplace? Can you explain that?

Hon Mr Rae: When I was leader of the third party I'd often talk about examples and people, and I'd appreciate very much, and I'm sure people will appreciate, an opportunity to discuss with Miss Timleck again in terms of the situation. I certainly would appreciate that opportunity as well. But I would say to you, sir, and I'd say to her, that we can't ignore the deficit issue. We can't ignore the fact that we have a provincial debt. We can't ignore the need to protect services. We can't ignore the need to provide good education, to provide the best possible health care that we can, all of which services have to be paid for.

1430

We have found, I think as every other economy has found, that if she was living in Quebec she'd be facing the same situation. If she was living in New Brunswick she'd be facing the same situation. In fact, in both those places she'd be paying more. She'd be paying more in taxes. She chose to live in Ontario, which I think -- I don't know, I haven't asked her, but I still think it's the best place to be; I really do. I think that when you compare our services and you compare our tax levels with anywhere else in the world, I'd rather have the balance that we have here to having a balance that's found in other places.

I say to the honourable member, I don't pretend to have a magic solution. What we do have is an approach which we think is fair and, above all, is realistic given the very tough times which we're all facing.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Harris: The Premier is right that I share his view that the deficit must be dealt with. So does Miss Timleck. So do the people we met when we travelled this province. They want the deficit to be dealt with.

But Premier, they also want to see the private sector and the marketplace flourishing. One of the scary things we found out in the ballots that are coming back and in the letters and the people we talked to is that the only growth that many Ontarians believe is going to come as a result of your budget is a growth in the underground economy, and that, Premier, will not generate revenues for Floyd Laughren.

The only way -- we have pointed out to you, businesses have pointed out to you, and I think even your union social contract partners have pointed out to you -- to generate more in tax revenue is to have more taxpayers. If you want more in sales tax, I think you're going to have to have more sales. You're going to have to have more consumer spending. If you want more in income taxes, you're going to have to have more people earning more money. Your budget is thwarting that. It is penalizing, once again, the marketplace and the private sector from being able to do that.

I would ask you this, Premier, given that I've not seen any evidence that government spending creates more jobs than private sector spending. I've analysed all 10 provinces and the federal government -- Conservative, Liberal, NDP governments. It just doesn't work. I think you would acknowledge that after your deficit of a couple years ago. I would ask you this: that if we and your partners and those Ontarians can come up with $2 billion of spending that can be cut, of waste, of programs that they can prioritize, will you agree to cut your tax hike of $2 billion and proceed that way instead of by the tax hike way?

Hon Mr Rae: I've been able to get a hold of -- I think he sent it over to me -- the Team Harris New Directions for Ontario report to the Minister of Finance, which is a result of the tour that the member was on. I followed it with a great deal of interest throughout the week. I noticed with interest -- and I don't know whether the leader is going to take the supplementary or whether someone else is -- that his proposals are eliminating health card fraud, which would save $675 million.

I don't know anybody who --

Mr Harris: That is according to the auditor.

Hon Mr Rae: No, it's not the auditor. I don't know anybody who comes up with that number. Stopping welfare mismanagement and fraud, $620 million: Again, I don't know the source of that number. And then the combination of getting out of housing and getting out of child care -- no more government affordable housing programs and no more government child care programs. All of those New Democrats out there who say they don't know the difference between a Tory and a New Democrat: I do. I do, and that's the difference.

The Tories say they don't want to have an affordable housing program in the province of Ontario and the Tories say they don't want to have any public child care programs. I do. I want to have public affordable housing programs. I want to have public child care programs because that's the kind of province that I want to live in.

Mr Harris: I guess it was your own government OHIP personnel who said $671 million.

However, Mr Premier -- by way of a new question, Mr Speaker, again to the Premier. The Premier may think that the partisan record for the campaign trail of whether our plans, our government housing plans to help people directly, which will help many more people afford housing than your plan will -- you can argue your plans better than ours. You can argue that our plan to give money directly to those who need day care, which we say will help many more single parents, you can argue that yours is better -- the record shows they're not -- but don't sit and stand in this place and lecture about who plans to help single mothers, who plans to put more affordable housing available for people than the proposals that we've given you, because I'll stand our record against yours any day.

Miss Timleck's plight is typical of many Ontarians. This is what they've told us as we've travelled this province, what they're phoning in, what they're writing all over. I had sent over a report from the past week to the Premier, which he has already referenced. In Agincourt we heard from a Peter Lintern, "What we need is a government that reduces expenditure and industry that increases revenues, not vice versa, as now." Premier, this is what we heard in over 25 communities that we visited.

I say to you again, if we and your partners and the unions, which say just stopping the year-end spending will save you $2 billion --

The Speaker: Will the leader place a question, please.

Mr Harris: If we can give you $2 billion in spending cuts, will you agree to scrap the $2 billion in tax hikes and deal with the spending cuts instead?

Hon Mr Rae: I've listed the ones that are apparently in part of the report, and I've only skimmed the report, but I think I've got the thrust of it. I would say to the member, the key of it -- sort of the key bottom line, of course, is the ballot, and I want members to hear the neutral language of the ballot which is being put forward as a serious non-partisan exercise in the public interest by the Tory party of Canada. Here's the choice which the non-political, non-partisan, objective rhetoric of the Conservative Party has produced:

"Vote on the Budget.

"After eight years of tax increases in Ontario," which, by the way, includes a substantial period -- nothing happened before 1985. There were no tax increases before 1985. I didn't know that. Now I know that. I hadn't known that. I didn't realize that Frank Miller hadn't raised taxes. I didn't realize that Larry Grossman didn't raise taxes. I didn't realize that those folks didn't raise taxes.

The choice is this: There are two ways you can vote, and I apologize to my Liberal Party colleagues in the House. For some reason they have been omitted from the ballot. I don't know why that is. They may want to complain --

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

Hon Mr Rae: I don't know whether they're being lumped in with us or whether they're being lumped in with them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: "I agree with: Mike Harris that Ontario needs a 1993 provincial budget with no tax increases" -- it's a miracle -- cuts in government waste "and a prosperity plan to create jobs and renew the economy."

The Speaker: Will the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: Or, "I agree with: Bob Rae that Ontario needs a 1993 provincial budget with $2 billion in tax hikes and a $10 billion deficit."

Well, I want equal time on the ballot to put a case on behalf of the people of the province that puts things in a little less squirrelly a manner than they've been put forward by the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Premier, if you have another ballot question to ask people, we'd be happy to go to the people right now with a real ballot.

Premier, the real question is this: We have told taxpayers -- I mean, unlike the Liberals, who say, "Spend more, don't cut and don't hike taxes," we've said there are no easy choices. We've said there are no easy choices. It will be tough. There is some spending to be cut. And our choice is saying, "We're going to have to cut spending if we're not going to hike taxes because we want to deal with the deficit."

So, Premier, the real question is this: If Ontarians, from whatever source, even from the opposition benches, including the union members, the social contract talks, can come up with $2 billion in spending cuts -- I think your tax hikes, you said, are over a three-year period. That's how much you plan to hike taxes for the next three years. You want to end your three-year program $2 billion less in spending. If we can come up with another $2 billion in spending cuts, will you agree to repeal the tax hikes? Hit the deficit targets with $2 billion less in spending: That's the question. Will you agree to that?

1440

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I never believe in answering hypothetical questions. All I would say to the honourable member is this: Obviously any practical suggestions from him or from others will be taken extremely seriously. If he's now alleging that there's $675 million in health card fraud, if he thinks that's the amount that's out there --

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Ask your staff to verify it.

Hon Mr Rae: No, he says these are our numbers. These are the numbers which the member has put forward. These are in the Tory party document which he's putting forward. If he expects that to be taken seriously, if he thinks that's the serious number and the serious proposal that's being put forward, I would say to him, of course we will look at any serious proposals. But I look at the proposals that are out there and I question them.

We're not going to cancel the housing programs of the government and we're not going to cancel the child care programs of the government. Those are things we are not going to do. We're not going to do them because we believe strongly that they make sense for Ontarians, that they will provide good services for Ontarians, decent shelter for Ontarians, and that these are programs that are in the public interest. I don't intend to see those programs savaged and slashed and burned by Tory cuts.

Mr Harris: I ask the Premier, if he doesn't like where we would like to cut out $2 billion in spending, I'm asking if he'll accept it from the social contract partners, from the unions which have offered you $2 billion in cuts, from many others. You don't have to take them just from me.

But, Premier, let me, by way of final supplementary on this question, ask you this: You've talked about how you've cut back. If you have a copy of your budget with you -- perhaps you've got it memorized if you don't, pages 92-93 -- when we add your operating spending and your capital spending, it comes to $55.948 billion. Last year it was $53.789 billion. That's $2 billion more spending than last year.

Now, the only cuts we see in here are $2 billion cut from the public sector employees of this province. They're going to pony up $2 billion. Taxpayers are going to pony up $2 billion; we know that's in here. But we see increases in your spending.

Premier, do you think it's fair -- you and the Treasurer kept saying it's fair -- that taxpayers are going to come to the table with $2 billion? Do you think it's fair that the unionized and the non-unionized civil servants, the men and women, the almost a million of this province, the brothers and sisters whom I seem to be the only one fighting for, have to pony up $2 billion --

The Speaker: Order. Would the leader place his question, please.

Mr Harris: Do you think that's fair, that $4 billion, when your spending is up $2 billion itself? Do you think that's fair?

Hon Mr Rae: I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that the same person who's now saying that he's opposed to what we're doing at the social contract table, the same person who's saying that, the same person who's standing up now saying he's opposed to this, was the same person who just a couple -- I was asking my colleagues, I said, "Wasn't that the guy" -- maybe it was a long-lost twin brother; I don't know. But I thought it was the same fellow who stood up and said, "Bang, bang, bang." That's what he was going to do to the public sector of the province: "Bang, bang, bang."

I would say to the honourable member, we think the approach we're taking is fair. No government since the Second World War has done more to control program spending than this government. That is a fact. No government has done more. No government of which you were ever a member, no government which you ever supported, no government which you ever voted for, no government which you ever campaigned for --

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- has done more than the New Democratic Party government this year to control program spending in the province of Ontario. That is the truth.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs Caplan: I had an opportunity to speak with my constituents, travelling the province over the last week. People are angry.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My constituents and taxpayers in this province are angry. They're cynical as a result of a disastrous budget that's asking them to pay $2 billion more. But what they're particularly angry and frustrated about is the waste of government expenditure, and over the last week I don't think there was an example that better said how you're wasting money than this insert in the newspapers that went out -- self-serving, partisan, political advertising.

The taxpayers of this province want you to stand in your place and tell them how you can waste their money. How can you ask taxpayers to pay $2 billion more in taxes and then waste their tax dollars on this kind of partisan, political advertising?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would say to the honourable member that at a cost of under 10 cents a copy, we have distributed it and it is a concise, factual, easy-to-read summary of the budget and has information in it which is very direct about the tax increases, information that's very direct about what the government is doing, about what the increases have been, where the cuts are coming -- a very straightforward proposal at a cost of just under $300,000.

I think it's a fair and useful expenditure of public funds to allow the public to see that kind of information and to make that kind of information available.

I might say, when I hear a member of the Liberal Party talking about government advertising, I have a slightly hard time.

Mrs Caplan: This document was produced at taxpayers' expense by the government of Ontario. It is blatantly partisan; it is blatant political advertising. It has done more to make taxpayers angry, frustrated and upset.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent, please come to order.

Mrs Caplan: They are fearful about their jobs. They know the aspect of your tax increases that's going to hurt the economic recovery. They know that this budget is taking money directly out of their pockets and they say you that you must stop this self-serving, partisan advertising and the kind of wastefulness which is making them angrier and angrier every day.

Premier, I ask you, will you stand in your place today and tell the public of Ontario, and promise my constituents in the riding of Oriole, that they will not see any more of this and that you will apologize for this blatant, partisan piece of advertising and apologize to them?

Hon Mr Rae: I think a factual, accessible piece of information about the budget makes perfectly good sense.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: It makes perfectly good sense for governments to do this. It's the sort of thing that every municipal government does. It's the sort of thing that every board of education does. The public has a right to know. It's no more a partisan document than the budget speech or the thick budget document which is provided to the banks and to everybody else as a matter of course.

We don't think the budget is something that should only go to the banks and the big corporations, to the lawyers and the chartered accountants, paid for by the taxpayers. We think taxpayers are entitled to see where their money is going and how their money's being raised. We think all the taxpayers are entitled to that, not just the banks and the friends of the Liberal Party and not just the big accountancy firms. That's what we think.

1450

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. Recently, a three-year-old child was turned away from the emergency department of a hospital in my riding because his mother could not find the little boy's health card right away. This unfortunate incident occurred in spite of the fact that Jonathon Bastien was born in that hospital and has been there on at least three occasions for treatment.

Today's Toronto Star says: "But when his mother, Tammy, rushed him to the emergency ward May 13, she said she was told to show officials the card immediately or pay about $80. She didn't have the cash.

"She took her son home and gave him painkillers."

It notes that the nearest hospital is about 60 kilometres away, in Barrie.

Minister, because of your government's mismanagement of the health card crisis, thousands of OHIP billings have been rejected by your ministry and doctors and hospitals have become so paranoid over this point that it's beginning to affect the way they deliver health care services in this province. What steps have you taken to ensure that residents of Ontario won't be turned away at the emergency room door like three-year-old Jonathon Bastien was?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm disappointed in the conclusion that the member draws in his question from what I'm sure he agrees with me is an absolutely shocking event in Collingwood hospital. Nobody in this province can be denied emergency help because they haven't brought their health card with them. I understand the hospital has admitted that it made a mistake. It's certainly a mistake that I hope will never happen again.

Mr Jim Wilson: Surely somebody could have treated little Jonathon while they were looking for his valid health card number.

Just to take a look at how you've not responded to the health card crisis, your deputy minister told me earlier this year, during committee hearings, that a toll-free telephone line would be set up by mid-March to ensure that doctors and hospitals could verify OHIP card numbers. It's now the end of May and no such telephone line exists.

Thousands of non-residents are abusing our health care system. Your own unions, in their social contract documents, estimate that there's some $700 million in health card abuse going on in this province at this time, and you've done nothing to correct this problem.

Now we have an American-style "cash up front or no service" health care system in Ontario. Would you agree with me and with the Bastien family in Collingwood --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Sarnia.

Mr Jim Wilson: -- that medicare has sure deteriorated since the time when the Ontario PC Party guaranteed universal access to quality health care in this province?

Hon Mrs Grier: The maintenance of accessibility of health care, of the quality of health care and of the affordability of health care are the primary principles that this government is engaged in ensuring are maintained for the sake of the people of Ontario. For the member to draw the conclusion that because a very dangerous and tragic mistake was made by a hospital, a mistake that I deplore and that I'm sure he deplores -- all of the partners within our health care system are moving towards denial of health care is absolutely an extravagant exaggeration.

He, I'm sure, recalls the exchange that I had in this House with the leader of the third party, who I think himself admitted that the extent of the fraud in health cards was about $20 million -- too much, but certainly not the kinds of numbers the member is throwing around. It is the responsibility of all of us, physicians, hospitals and consumers, to make sure that health cards are up to date. That does not mean that anyone ought to be denied emergency care in the absence of a health card.

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): My question is for the Attorney General. Madam Minister, my office has been inundated with calls from constituents who are involved with the family support plan. It appears there are several problems with this system, especially when it concerns the length of time between when support is deducted from the paycheque and when it is finally processed at the family support plan office and forwarded to the recipient. The time delay leaves the payer in arrears, and once in arrears the payer is subject to a 50% wage deduction and seizure of any federal government funds to which he or she may be entitled.

As you can appreciate, Mr Speaker -- and I know the minister can as well -- many of these payers who are making the payments on a regular basis, in good faith, are extremely frustrated and angry that they find themselves in this position. The payer faces serious financial difficulties as a result of this bureaucratic delay and women and children are left without the support they often so desperately need.

Madam Minister, what is being done to speed up the processing of these support deduction orders?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I agree with the member that the goal of a 48-hour turnaround on these payments is very important for people, and it's very important for us to try to keep to it. She is right: We are not able to meet that goal in some of our busier offices some of the time, particularly at the peak times of the month, the 1st and the 15th, when it will sometimes take three to four days. We have extra difficulties when the source of the funds is not an employer but may be the federal government, in terms of income tax returns and so on, because that's also a jurisdictional issue.

What we are going to do is first of all initiate an electronic funds transfer, which will electronically allow employers to transfer the funds and allow us to transfer those funds to the recipient. That should speed up that process. In order to do that, we have to upgrade our computer system. We're in the process of doing that and perfecting the design to try to improve the service.

Ms Haeck: I appreciate the comments the minister has made. I do want to bring to her attention that a significant number of my constituents in St Catharines are employed by General Motors, and many of these GM workers are involved with the family support plan and have found themselves facing two-week delays in remitting time, of their payments, from the GM head office in Oshawa to the family support plan due to an unwieldy payroll deduction process. GM workers have enough to worry about in my community without having the burden of this seemingly inefficient system hanging over their heads.

With so many family support plan payers employed by General Motors -- and I'm sure that many other large corporations in Ontario are in a similar situation -- will your ministry consider improvements to the remitting process to provide for a direct link between the family support plan office and the corporation so that important support payments are not simply subject to the inevitable delays of the mailing system?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Certainly, that is something we are in fact involved in. There is an employer representative group that's working with us to try to improve those processes. That obviously is going to be very important with large employers; it won't help us with smaller employers. But we think, particularly given the growth in technological ability to do that kind of work and to do it in quick batches that really lower the amount of time it takes, we can do that.

I should say we're getting good support from employers. Employers are taking this very seriously, and we're finding that our working relationship with employers is improving all the time.

1500

HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. I listened very carefully to her response to the member for Simcoe West, when she was discussing the quality and affordability of the health care system. Over the past few weeks we've seen a major assault on our medicare system. The decisions this government has made are all the worse because they are unplanned. There's no analysis of the effects of their erratic pronouncements on people who need health and medical care services.

Today, I learned that the social contract talks in the health care sector have been disbanded because the chairman of that division indicated that the talks are in disarray. Furthermore, today the leadership of the Ontario Medical Association has filed a complaint with the referee, charging the government with bargaining in bad faith.

We've raised in the House in recent days some of the more visibly stupid decisions that the government has made, such as locking out Ontario's new doctors from practice. But in this year's budget, buried at the back on page 89 -- I refer you to that page -- where it wouldn't be seen, enters a new scenario of cruelty, because this government intends, first of all, to chop $46 million out of our psychiatric hospitals' budgets, but it also intends to charge psychiatric patients for being in psychiatric hospitals. The government will bill people because they are sick and they need treatment. They're launching a frontal attack on 3,000 of the most vulnerable people in Ontario through this decision.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And your question?

Mrs Sullivan: My question to the Minister of Health is, how dare you treat these vulnerable people in this way?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): First of all, I reject categorically the member's categorization of the actions that we are taking both to reform the health care system as well as to maintain its affordability. Surely, somebody who was part of that government understands that the kind of annual increases in expenditure for our health care system cannot be sustained and that the work of this government in trying to reduce the level of increase, while at the same time reforming the system to maintain its accessibility and its quality, is what we have to do if we are in fact to protect medicare.

With respect to the element in the budget that the member mentions, it is a matter for discussion with respect to our long-term care program that there are many elderly people in psychiatric hospitals who perhaps might well be better cared for in long-term care institutions such as nursing homes or homes for the aged, and who because there is no accommodation fee in psychogeriatric wards as there is in homes for the aged -- we're talking about the $37 a day that is the room-and-board part of the long-term care costs -- may well be remaining in institutions, of which there are only 10 in the province, far away from their own community, far away from their own family, and who perhaps would be better cared for either in those communities or in institutions in those communities.

Mrs Sullivan: There are 12,000 psychiatric patients who are treated on an outpatient basis in Ontario. There are 3,000 psychiatric patients who are treated in psychiatric hospitals, because that is where they need the care. They need the secure facility. They need the psychiatrists and the efficient psychiatric staff on board in that hospital available to them.

This minister does not know if she's cutting expenses or if she's reforming the system, and she has not made a prioritization of one or the other. She is charging psychiatric patients who need care because they reside in a psychiatric institution. There is no other way of looking at this issue.

But the cruelty continues, because also buried in the final pages of the budget is another continuing attack, this time on our senior citizens. This ministry and this minister are now going to charge seniors for drugs which they receive under the Ontario drug benefit plan. They are going to cut $195 million from that program. This minister will know that user fees deter only the weakest from accessing health care. There is no analysis of any health benefits from instituting such a move. The minister knows she will only add suffering, inconvenience and stress to seniors by placing an additional burden on them.

My question to the minister is, how can you possibly justify such a move and on what basis did you make this decision?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me respond to the preamble of the member's question and then to the substance of the issue that she moved on to, because I want her to know that reform of mental health in this province is a priority for this government and is something about which we will be moving in the very near future.

Mrs Sullivan: You have cut the budget on mental health.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Halton Centre.

Hon Mrs Grier: I know that one of my predecessors received a report from Mr Graham that talked about a reform of mental health --

Mrs Sullivan: You haven't implemented one government --

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- services right across, from both the community-based --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, member for Halton Centre.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- to the institutional, a reform that has been long overdue.

With respect to the Ontario drug benefit plan, which was the second issue the member raised, let me point out to her that this too is an open-ended program, the cost of which has been increasing at double-digit rates over the past decade, if not for two decades. It is undoubtedly a fact --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Halton-Centre, come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- that as we reform that program, we have to look at all of the components, to the manufacturers, to the pharmacists and to the consumers.

EYE EXAMINATIONS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My colleague the member from Markham, Mr Cousens, was going to ask a question, but he can't because the Premier's not here, Ms Lankin's not here, the Treasurer's not here, so I'll ask a question to the Minister of Health once again.

As part of the expenditure control plan, the government has decided to deinsure routine eye exams performed by ophthalmologists and general practitioners. The result will be that optometrists will have a virtual monopoly on prescribing and dispensing eyeware and consumers will lose their ability to compare both costs and available products.

Minister, given that eye tests performed by optometrists cost the government more than the same tests performed by physicians and ophthalmologists, how do you expect to save $2.1 million with this myopic expenditure control plan measure?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): There are a number of measures on our expenditure control program that we believe can in fact save us significant amounts of dollars without detracting one whit from the quality of care, and the examination of whether more than one annual routine eye examination per year is required is one of those measures.

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILLS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to deal with a motion today regarding notice on a number of private bills that are currently before the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday.

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

Hon Mr Charlton: I move that standing order 87 respecting notice of committee hearings be suspended for consideration of Bills Pr4, Pr13, Pr19, Pr77, Pr85 and Pr88 by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday 2 June 1993.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the members of the Legislative Assembly re Bill 38, an amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act to permit wide-open Sunday shopping and eliminate Sunday as a legal holiday.

"We, the undersigned, hereby request you to vote against the passing of Bill 38. We believe that this bill defies God's laws, violates the principle of religious freedom, reduces the quality of life, removes all legal protection to workers regarding when they must work and will reduce rather than improve the prosperity of our province.

"The observance of Sunday as a non-working day was not invented by man, but dates from God's creation and is an absolute necessity for the wellbeing of all people both physically and spiritually.

"We beg you to defeat the passing of Bill 38."

It's signed by 210 petitioners.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three separate occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I support this petition as well.

1510

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I petition the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario, and especially the area east of Toronto, have an increasing incidence of cancer; and

"Whereas the population of this area is increasing faster than all other areas in Ontario; and

"Whereas these citizens should be able to receive cancer treatment, including radiation therapy, within a reasonable distance from their homes; and

"Whereas the Oshawa General Hospital has plans to add radiation therapy to the cancer services it provides; and

"Whereas the Oshawa General Hospital has investigated the implications and submitted a report to implement such a program; and

"Whereas a large number of hospitals in the area have agreed to support the Oshawa General Hospital's proposal to expand cancer services, including a radiation therapy centre,

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

"To give immediate direction to the Ministry of Health, the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Oshawa General Hospital to establish a cancer centre, including radiation treatment, and to set aside the necessary resources to provide treatment for cancer patients in the eastern section of the greater Toronto area and beyond to the north and east."

I am going to put my signature to this petition, and my signature will make 15,333 signatures.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Halton Centre. Point of order? The member for Parkdale.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I would like to raise a point of order because the member did not tell us what's in those boxes. What I want to know is, are those boxes full of petitions? Is there something live in there or are we under some kind of a problematic situation with those boxes here?

The Speaker: I assumed they were petitions. Can the honourable member help us? Are there live things in there?

Mr Mills: Just petitions, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I see. They are petitions.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"Whereas the provincial government, in its expenditure control plan, without consultation, has proposed to reduce the ability of new family practitioners, paediatricians and psychiatrists to receive full payment from the Ontario health insurance plan for services provided;

"Whereas the reduction of payments to these physicians will result in a lack of their ability to practise medicine;

"Whereas these same reductions in payments will limit the choice the citizens of Ontario have in selecting a physician of their choice;

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

"The Ontario government must reconsider this arbitrary and restrictive decision and look at alternatives in consultation with the Ontario Medical Association and the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario."

I agree heartily with this petition and I have signed my name to it.

GAMBLING

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"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 has in the past vociferously 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."

I've signed my name on this petition, and it's also signed by several hundred people from the Anglican church in the parishes of Stayner and Wasaga Beach. It was forwarded to me, and I thank the Reverend A. Chaffee for sending that to me.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I add this to the thousands of signatures brought forward against this heinous bill, Bill 8, that's come to this Legislature on casino gambling:

"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 has in the past vociferously 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."

It is my great pleasure to affix my signature to this petition and hope that the government comes to its senses and stops this heinous bill.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition signed by 172 people from the riding of Oxford, primarily the Woodstock area, but I see some names from pretty well all over the riding. I believe it's from some members of the Oxford presbyterial and it says:

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of a neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

DRUG BENEFITS

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition signed by members of the Buchanan Social Club in north Toronto.

"We are a senior citizens' club of 30 members who meet regularly at Fairlawn Heights United Church in Toronto. Since many of us require prescription drugs and most of the members are on moderate incomes with living costs increasing, we feel that the proposed plan of user fees could result in hardship for many.

"Therefore, we strongly protest the removal of this important part of health care. In anticipation of your help on behalf of senior citizens, we thank you."

Mr Speaker, I sincerely agree with this petition and affix my signature to it.

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a petition which contains a number of "whereas" clauses dealing with post-polio phenomenon, which is relatively new in our history.

This is from the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association, which has been formed to help survivors of polio. This petition outlines the fact that it is not a well-known disease, the post-polio phenomenon, and that there are about 5,000 polio survivors in Ontario.

It says after the "whereas" clauses:

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

I've affixed my signature to that petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here, like many others that were sent, on the casino issue, and it's been sent to me by Sutton Knox United Church and Virginia United Church. It has been mentioned at the church service on Sunday and it was signed by a number of people. They don't want the casinos to go forward, and I signed the petition.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition signed by citizens of this province and it states:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of a neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there's a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald)," and they quote where it came from, and "(the Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

1520

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries;" -- and you quite know about that, Mr Speaker -- "and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction" -- it's very important -- "of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

They all signed here, and I would put my signature to this, and I'm sure that the table will accept it.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a petition, Mr Speaker:

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

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

"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."

I have affixed my signature, Mr Speaker.

GAMBLING

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): This petition concerns casino gambling.

"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 has in the past vociferously 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."

This is signed by such people as the Mutches from Cowling Crescent in Ajax and Mr Wilson from Markham Street, and I will affix my signature.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a petition signed by 300 or more firefighters, their families and friends, from my riding and ridings across the province opposing the use of firefighter pension funds by the Ontario investment fund. The petition is addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the many people who are firefighters who pay in, and I hereby file it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWNSHIP OF ALDBOROUGH AND THE VILLAGE OF RODNEY ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr87, An Act respecting the Township of Aldborough and the Village of Rodney.

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS, 1993 / CHARTE DES DROITS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX DE 1993

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

Bill 26, An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario / Loi concernant les droits environnementaux en Ontario.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The bill has included a detailed purpose. I won't go through it all because it is quite lengthy. I'll just say that I'm pleased to introduce the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights for first reading. This bill reflects the consensus forged among public environmental groups, industry and government. It will make environmental decision-making in Ontario more open and accountable than ever before.

This government believes that every individual has a valuable contribution to make in creating a sustainable economy in Ontario. Further, we believe that people must be given the power to make a difference to the environment. The Ontario bill of rights fills this need while setting new and higher standards of environmental protection now and for years to come.

CHUA DI-DA (AMIDATEMPLE) OF TORONTO ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr11, An Act to revive Chua Di-Da (Amidatemple) of Toronto.

AGA MING PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr17, An Act to revive Aga Ming Property Owners Association.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr69, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

KOREAN CANADIAN CULTURAL ASSOCIATION ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the Korean Canadian Cultural Association.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

1993 ONTARIO BUDGET

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I will wrap up my remarks on the budget today, and I'm pleased to have this opportunity on behalf of our caucus to comment on it. I'd like to make it clear that our leader, the member for Nipissing, Mr Mike Harris, will, in the tradition of our party, have the wrap-up speech on the budget, which will take place when the House breaks off for its Christmas recess in December and be one of the last major presentations on the fiscal and monetary policy of this government.

So in leading off in my remarks, I was able to touch on a number of issues the other day. We've had constituency week, and an opportunity, as a caucus, to meet with thousands of people from across Ontario as we took our small mini-van to many different communities, asking people to comment on the budget.

We had a yellow form for people to comment on the budget. The numbers are still being counted. A lot of people thought we were NDP when they saw the colour of the form. I think the next time we do it we'll use a different colour -- maybe white. That'll be closer to the gods.

1530

None the less, the feedback we've had from the many, many people we've been talking to is that they're tired of the eight years of tax increases. They're tired of politicians lying to them. They feel that when politicians come into office they start off with a set of goals and ambitions and beautiful stories and they draw pictures that they're going to make things better. That was the sense people had of Mr Rae and his group when they were elected on September 6, 1990. What they've felt from this budget is just something more serious than they could ever have expected, something that is going to hurt their lifestyle and their families and their business and that in fact impedes Ontario's opportunities for future advancement and development.

There are a number of points I wanted to make and I will be able to complete them now. I just really want to say, as I begin the process, that since the budget was released I haven't had any change of heart. In fact, having talked to as many people as we have, it strengthens the resolve and the purpose of our caucus and certainly our leader to continue to fight this government on what it's trying to do.

Instead of looking for ways of saving money and cutting back on expenditures, instead of making the tough decisions and instead of really trying to face up to ways in which we can see in the long term a balanced budget and a balanced fiscal program, this government has seen fit to levy one of the heaviest taxes in the history of the province -- the heaviest tax. Over a year it would amount to some $2 billion in increases. There is no government that has achieved this kind of record, and we're seeing it happen here now.

What we're really seeing is a government that came into office that somehow presented a dream of what it was going to do. It was a plan for people. What's happening now is that there is just a cleavage, a breaking through where you're seeing people fall through the cracks, because in a society where we want to have a balanced view of not only the social needs for people but also to build prosperity and a strong market economy, we have a government that has somehow severed itself from the market forces and is in isolation, developing policies that have nothing but bad news for every one of us.

There is a real problem when you have a government that comes in with those sets of shared values, those shared objectives that are going to be part and parcel of what it is going to be and do, a sense in which this government is going to build the instruments so that we can build in better checks and balances so that we continue to have the social blanket but we also continue to have a strong market economy.

I would like to say that we're into a structural problem where the government really has to be reviewed. We have just too much government in Canada, and I have to believe that with all the levels -- federal, provincial, regional, municipal, and then school boards elected and then public utilities elected -- we should face up to the cost of all this government and somehow put together a strategic way in which all levels of government remove duplication so that we get rid of the waste that's going on between the different levels as they overlap responsibilities. We have enough government for 130 million people, let alone the 30 million that are here. The lack of cooperation, the lack of synergy between the different levels is part of the concern that I see, where the local governments are screaming with anguish and pain at the breach of trust that has taken place between themselves and this government.

It's too bad there isn't any way in which we in opposition can force a recall of the New Democratic government in Ontario. People say: "Do something. You're down there, do something." I just have to make it very clear that in opposition we are able to try to make our point in the Legislature -- we will in the standing committee on finance and economics when the Treasurer comes, we will in every way we can -- but within the Legislature, the New Democratic government, which had 38% of the vote in 1990, has well over 50% of the votes, so it will always win the major decisions in the government.

Unless there's some kind of breaking away within the New Democratic caucus -- we would need about seven New Democrats who are prepared to separate themselves from Bob Rae and his budget. We could defeat the government if seven or eight New Democrats decided to be away when that budget vote is taken or if they decided to change their vote and vote with the opposition.

I can say we beseech thinking members of the New Democrats to reconsider what they're doing and how they are going to be voting on this budget. Their decision could change the history of Ontario so that we come back and have an opportunity for the public to choose who it is they want to govern.

There is no method of recall within this House. Unless the government loses a vote, Mr Rae and his government have the right and power and privilege to continue to govern this province. It's a one-party government, and since it's not minority, the decisions are made by an inner circle that surrounds Mr Rae and his cabinet and that therefore propels its caucus to support its agendas. If there were some way in which we could change the constitution for the province of Ontario, if you call it a constitution, or let there at least be a way so that we can recall a government, I would support that, so that even if in the future the Conservatives are in power and the public has a change of heart during office, there would be a way of removing them.

It is a fundamental plank where we as politicians have lost the trust of the people of Ontario, and there isn't any politician who can have a sense that he or she is always being credible. We have failed the people of Ontario. We get elected on a set of promises and hopes and aspirations, as I just described, and then when in office this very same government reverses its positions. I think any time that a government reverses its major priorities or reverses a promise and does anything like that, there should be the right of recall. There should be a way in which you go back either through a recall or a referendum to give the public that opportunity to speak up and say something about them.

I'm concerned as well on something else. I was reading a number of editorials across the province, and people are tarring every politician with the same brush and are saying: "Well, what's the difference between the Liberals or the Conservatives or any one of you? You're all the same."

There is an element of truth in that, because even in British Columbia you saw a socialist government have to legislate teachers back to work, and it was an all- party approval in order for it to happen, not unlike what's happened in this House in the past when the New Democrats in opposition were able to oppose everything. Now they're in government they're having to see the reality that in governing there are certain things they can't do as easily as they thought they could do when they were sitting in opposition and throwing stones.

But as I look at the differences between my party and the Liberals and the New Democrats, I really have to say that Mr Harris, our leader, has never been afraid to stand up and speak out on the hard decisions that have to be made, the hard decisions that would support expenditure cutbacks.

The fact of the matter is that in our party we know there is no such thing as an economic tooth fairy that is going to come and give us some real support from a hidden place that isn't there. The economics are real. We've looked at the books. We know that Mr Laughren doesn't add too well and he's never been able to predict that well, but there are very real decisions that could be made by the government that would reduce expenditures of government.

You know, it has to do not only with reducing expenditures but increasing efficiencies. There isn't a business today in the private sector that hasn't gone through massive change within the last number of years, especially those that are not doing as well. They've had to find ways of increasing their effectiveness and being able to raise a profit and yet do it with less resources. It's not just through computerization, it's not just through better people; it's through new systems and new strategies and revising their plans. It's a way of looking at their accounting in a way that doesn't require as much paperwork as it did before. They're flying sometimes more by the seat of their pants than they were before. But business across our province, every person I talk to, is going through that process of fine-tuning its organizations.

Can we not do the same thing within the government of Ontario? It has not been part of the platform of the Liberal Party that there be that kind of significant change and improvement. They have not set out goals and objectives in that direction, and certainly this government has not.

1540

My second point which is a differentiator between ourselves and the other two parties in this House is the willingness to commit significant resources to develop a policy on taxation and financial planning for the province, and I commend again our caucus for the work we have done in putting together a New Directions document on finance. If anyone wants a copy of it within the House, I'll send them one. If anyone else wants to phone in for it, the number to obtain it is 1-800-665-MIKE.

If anyone wants to call the Conservative caucus's information line to receive documents of our policy, which we have in writing, in advance of the election -- and the basis of this is what we stand for and we believe; we've put a stake in the ground and said, "This is what we believe and want to do as a government in the province of Ontario" -- if anyone wants to receive a copy of that, call 1-800-665-MIKE.

We have committed these resources in a significant way in order to establish a foundation for future planning. We want to get people's feedback on it. We want feedback from every level within our society: the workers, the people who aren't working, the executives, the management, people at every level, union members, parents, young people. Let everybody react to what it is we're saying so that we can continue to develop a consensus for action for the province of Ontario.

The other thing that's a differentiator, and I see that as something where as a caucus -- certainly Mike Harris, our leader for three years, has been consistent in fighting for no taxes, reduced expenditures and increased deficiencies in the province of Ontario. I commend him for it. I support him in that. I supported him in that when the Liberals were in office, and as now we see the whole situation deteriorating even further, I know that his position of leadership is the position that I couldn't support more strongly.

Next I want to talk about consistency. We have been talking about good management of the government, of fiscal responsibility for a long, long time. I think we've suffered some very tough lessons. I'll tell you, ladies and gentlemen of the House who are having the pleasure of taking this in, we learned some tough lessons. Having lost the government in 1985 and having been one of the members who was here then and was in Frank Miller's cabinet for a short time, I happen to know why we lost the trust of the people of Ontario. Because after 40 years of doing the right things, in the latter years we confused those right things with some other signals, and the people of Ontario were not pleased with what they saw happening.

We've gone back to our roots. We've gone back to understand who it is we are and what it is we stand for. From the very beginning, when this government came out with its labour legislation, Bill 40, we stood up and opposed it and have made the commitment that when elected to government, we will repeal Bill 40, the labour legislation brought in by this government. We have been consistent on that and we've been consistent on other positions as well.

We know that the Bill 143 legislation of this government is flawed, the way in which it's trying to deal with the disposal of waste within these communities. We have tabled our agenda and we are clear and consistent on it. The fact is, I can just say that has not been the case with the Liberal Party nor with the New Democrats. The New Democrats, I should say, are consistent, because they're on the other side of the position I'm describing.

I think the fourth point that would separate the Conservatives from the Liberals and from the New Democrats is nine words. Nine words will separate me from every New Democrat and most Liberals, but certainly the majority of Liberals have not accepted the importance of these nine words. That is, as a Conservative and as someone within our caucus, we believe in the marketplace; the others don't. The marketplace has forces at work that cause checks and balances, that make for a better economy, better operations. It means that everyone can win, especially if you're able to balance off the needs of the marketplace with the social responsibility that we must have as politicians. We're able to balance out the economic reality as well as the social responsibilities.

Therefore we would come along -- unlike the Liberals who came along and ballooned the size of government, ballooned the expenditures of the government, ballooned the debt of the government -- and say, "Hey, you've got to control your costs, you've got to control the number of people you've got on here, you've got to control your expectations."

There isn't any doubt that we have to come together and tackle the problem together. There has to be a new coalition of public support to somehow work things out in harmony. We are now seeing Bob Rae and his government in opposition to the unions and other groups in the social contract that has totally broken down the relationships they had in the past, partly because they've surprised everyone with what they're trying to do and partly by the way in which they're going about it.

What has happened is that the government hit the panic button. They hit the panic button, bang, and off they went. Everything that went prior to that panic button time has been shoved aside. All the statements, all the promises, all the goodwill has been shoved aside in order to proceed with what has happened with this panic button.

Whether or not it was a visit from the International Monetary Fund, whether or not it was the bond rating agencies, which are sitting there watching what is happening in Ontario, aware that if Ontario so much as burps in the next period of time, so much as doesn't fulfil any of the expectations that are laid upon us, if the social contract doesn't work, if we're not able to see the forecasts come in --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: You'll have a chance for the floor, Howard.

If the government doesn't achieve its anticipated goals, regardless of how it doesn't, there is going to be more than a ripple effect; it's going to be a very serious impact on Ontario's economy from the outside. In fact, the tragedy is that we're owned so much by outside investors. We no longer control our destiny, because so much of every dollar we ever take in goes into paying interest on the accumulated debt.

No, I think we've learned that we're not going to grow our way out of the problems that we have today. We're going to have to earn our way out. We're going to have to have a strategy that says: "Here is our long-term plan. Here is how we are going to work together. Here is our vision for the future of Ontario. Here is what we want to achieve in Ontario for the long term."

Let us all understand that Ontario could well be one of the most competitive, prosperous jurisdictions in the world. I haven't heard that ever from a New Democrat as they continue to undermine what Ontario is all about. Instead, we are becoming the most heavily taxed jurisdiction in the world. And this budget, this fiscal policy, this social contract, this whole program that's been brought forward by Bob Rae and his government is setting us back instead of giving us an image and a future. It is closing that future down. Instead of a Depression that just dropped in the 1930s, we're slipping and slipping and slipping, and what we really need to do is hit the bottom as fast as we can. Maybe we're there. I somehow don't know whether we're there or not.

Now, I don't want to be a foreboder of bad news, but let us begin to come out of that. Let's begin to climb back so that there is an opportunity for people to find jobs and find work. But Mr Rae himself probably gives us as good an insight as any. He had an interview not all that long ago which was in the Ottawa Sunday Sun on May 9, "It's the Time to Bite the Bullet."

The question is, you keep saying that we all have to solve this problem, but the unions don't seem to be on side at all. How can you bring them to the table? Mr Rae goes on and says: "Persistence, patience, persuasion. Just keep at it. When people look at the alternatives, I think that sitting down and talking about solutions becomes much more compelling."

Here's what I want you to listen to carefully. He says, "We've been in a state of denial in which I participated for a very long time." That's the first sign of a confession that I've seen from Mr Rae, who helped push the Liberal government in their accord in 1985, and who in his own budget two years ago, where he thought he could spend his way out of the recession, denied the truth and the fact and the reality that Ontario has to work together with everybody else in order to succeed. Yet here he is finally admitting that he participated in that denial for a very long period of time.

Now we reap the benefit of his denial. Now we, as the citizens of Ontario, hear the Premier at last face up to the fact that he has not faced up to the truth, that he hasn't faced up to the reality, and now we begin to reap the harvest of that. Let us at least come back to square one and find a way in which all parties can share in the solution to Ontario's economic prosperity for the future. Let us find ways where I, as a member of the opposition, can support the government on its initiatives, and I am prepared to.

When I first heard the social contract being suggested, when I first heard the expenditure control plan, I said, "This is one step forward." Yet I said, "If there are going to be tax increases, it will be two steps back." My concern is that the moment this government realizes that the taxpayer is going to have to be paying out more, when we're already paying out more than any other jurisdiction in North America or the world, then it has made a fundamental flaw in its thinking.

We have to find a way to move to a balanced budget, to move to expectations where the public accepts what the politicians are doing, and that we're reacting to them, rather than special interest groups, that the interests of all the people of all the province be served by all people in government. That's not happening now. We are betraying the trust they've given to us.

1550

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): This completes lead speakers in the debate. Further debate, the honourable member for Oxford.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It's a pleasure for me to lead off the debate for the government side on the budget.

Having had a week to be in my riding and hear from people, I certainly understand that not everyone is happy with all aspects of the budget. But certainly the common message I got from people was that they're supportive of the direction. They're supportive of a direction of a balanced approach, which is really what this budget and this document about the direction and the economic plan of this province is all about.

They're pleased that we're dealing with the fiscal issues, but they're also pleased that we're not ignoring people, that we're not ignoring realities out there and that we have a plan here for investing in jobs, in people and in maintaining our services.

Of course, the balanced approach has been a three-point approach. It has come through expenditure controls, the expenditure control plan, which was announced on April 23 as a way to get a handle on some of the expenditures of the government. The other approach, of course, is the $2 billion from the social contract, and the third approach, revenues. Of course, we all understand that we're not going to try to kid anyone. Taxes are never a popular item. Most people don't like paying taxes; they don't like paying increased taxes. But what I think really distinguishes what we've done here on the revenue side is that we took an approach to make a more progressive and fairer tax system.

We did that by ensuring that the largest portion of the tax increases was through the income tax system which, as we know, is the more progressive system. We also did that by ensuring that the largest portion would come from high-income earners through the implementation of surtaxes on the high-income earners. So it works out that in the next year that top 10% -- I'm saying in the 1994 tax year -- will be contributing 25% of the increased revenue from the personal income tax and that makes it fairer.

Of course, we also responded to concerns about unfair taxes. That was certainly demonstrated by the Finance minister removing the tire tax, that wonderful invention of the previous government that was designed to -- well, allegedly designed to deal with the issues of recycling tires. We know there were problems in collecting it, that it was an annoyance for many small business people and certainly, Mr Speaker, you know that many farmers complained about that tax as well. I know many people in my riding are very happy that the government was able to remove that tax.

Many people are saying, "Well, you haven't done anything to deal with employment" -- or some of the critics of this budget are saying this. This budget commits the government to investing almost $4 billion in capital works to create jobs and renew infrastructure.

My community is benefiting from that. The good people in the village of Tavistock in the northern end of my riding -- their school has needed an addition for many, many years. It came to the point where the growth has gone to about 450 students at that school. They only had two washrooms and they had, I think, about 11 portables. Through Jobs Ontario Capital, they are going to get an addition to that school so we can meet the needs of that community and the people in that community. I know those people are very grateful for the Jobs Ontario Capital plan.

The children's aid society, which has a legislated mandate to provide services, has been in cramped quarters, hasn't been able to provide the space in the way it has. Some of its workers have had to share offices, and of course the issue of confidentiality related to their work has been a problem. They have received funding through Jobs Ontario Capital.

The Woodstock Museum has received funding through Jobs Ontario Capital, which is also going to put people to work, but will allow it to expand its services and also, I believe, is going to help the local economy. The Woodstock Museum and Museum Square are a focal point for the downtown in the city of Woodstock. Right now, because it's not accessible for the disabled, it can't really accept many bus tours through some of these renovations. It will allow its numbers to increase and attract more bus tours into the city, and that's going to help the local economy.

Another important aspect of supporting jobs and investment in this budget is through the community economic development initiative. I'm really looking forward to the Jobs Ontario Community Action and I can tell this House that many local officials have commented, both to me and publicly in the media, that they are looking forward to this initiative and feel it's long overdue.

The Jobs Ontario Community Action plan clearly recognizes the fact that local communities need to come together to make decisions about their future, about planning their economy. This will allow them to do that in many different ways. It will allow them to set priorities about where government funding should be going, because we know people in local communities can set those priorities more effectively.

It also allows for the provision of investing $100 million in permanent private sector job creation in communities in other areas and will allow communities to really take a greater control over the decision-making and the future of economic development. Communities have been calling for that for a long time.

In terms of dealing with the financial issues, some people have said that this government has become infatuated with the debt and the deficit. I don't believe that is true. We need to deal with those issues. We need to deal with the debt and the deficit and make sure that our financial house is in order in order that we can continue to maintain our investments in jobs, through Jobs Ontario Capital, Jobs Ontario Training etc.

We need to ensure that we have our financial house in order so that we can preserve those essential public services -- our health care system, our education system -- those things that people have come together on as Ontarians and said, "This is what it is that makes us different from our neighbours to the south."

Yes, we do pay a little higher in taxes -- no one disagrees with that -- but in paying those higher taxes we have a much better quality of life in this province and we have much better communities, I think, in many ways than some of our neighbouring communities or neighbouring jurisdictions, particularly those to the south.

Of course, another important component in this day and age, with technological change, with globalization and with new technologies developing, is a commitment to education and training and retraining. This government, through this budget, has committed $1.2 billion to training and skills development. That figure is investing almost twice as much as was invested in training just as little as four years ago. We're also continuing our investment in the Jobs Ontario Training program so up to another 40,000 unemployed workers can receive the benefits of that program. I'm sure some of my colleagues will go into more detail.

I just want to say that we've heard the Leader of the Opposition be quite critical of this Jobs Ontario Training. It was interesting that a couple of weeks ago the Tillsonburg Independent News, a local community newspaper, interviewed the local people who are administering the program. They took exception to those criticisms. Quite frankly, they said that the type of criticisms the Leader of the Opposition was making -- that people were only getting low-paying jobs, minimum wage jobs, off the Jobs Ontario Training program -- simply wasn't the case, that they were able to place people in well-paying jobs that would allow them to develop skills and have marketable skills later on.

In fact, the editorial in the paper even went to the point of saying that, in effect, the opposition was really off base in its criticism of Jobs Ontario Training and maybe what it really should do is admit the fact that this government does have good ideas and that the Jobs Ontario Training program is an excellent idea of encouraging and helping to create a positive training climate in this province, because we know that's going to be important moving into the future.

1600

We've also heard criticisms that this budget is going to kill jobs. I want to dispute that fact. This budget is about creating jobs, supporting jobs and supporting a healthy economy.

It is quite clear that we need to ensure that we have our financial house in order. We have done that through a very, very balanced approach, as I mentioned earlier, in terms of the expenditure control plan, the savings achieved from the social contract and probably -- as I say, not the most popular way of doing it -- also through revenue increases.

We've certainly heard the comments from the member from Markham and in question period today from the leader of the third party, who wants to continue to indicate to the people that we can get our financial house in order without any tax increases, that somehow there's a magic way of doing that, and without having any impact on services in our communities.

I want to say I had two town hall meetings in my riding during constituency week. We had a good discussion with people, some who were unhappy about tax increases, some who were also unhappy about some of the cuts we already made and some who felt we should have made even more dramatic cuts. As we held more discussions, people began to understand what those impacts are on local communities.

I think overall, while people may not be happy with what is having to be done, I'm certainly getting a message from more and more people that they believe this is the government that is finally dealing with the fiscal issues. They have a belief that while it may be still a difficult period of time because unemployment is going to remain high, in the long run, because of the decisions we're making in terms of ensuring our fiscal house continues to stay in order -- a strong commitment to creating jobs through capital, the innovative approach, recognizing that communities need to develop their own priorities and that they are the best at deciding their own priorities for economic development, and our significant investment in training -- Ontario is going to be regaining its prosperity, jobs will be coming back and Ontario will continue to be a very, very good place for people to live, a very good place for people to invest their money, a place where people can earn a good wage, work at good-paying jobs, feel good about their communities, where businesses will prosper because they'll be able to hire skilled workers and they will be able to make a profit at their business.

So I want to say I believe that while difficult decisions had to be made -- this budget has some very tough decisions -- I think overall the Finance minister, with this plan, has developed a good, balanced approach for dealing with these very difficult, and I want to say almost unprecedented, economic times due to the significant revenue declines that have occurred in the last three years, which is something the Liberal government didn't have to face. Even the Conservative government in the 1982-83 recession has not had to face what this government has had to do.

We've made the difficult decisions, we are continuing our investment in jobs, in people and in services, and in the long run the province is going to be a better place for everyone and for future generations.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I find the speech from the member for Oxford rather confusing. He talks about $4 billion being put into the infrastructure of this province through budget 1993, and he goes so far as to give the suggestion of washrooms, I think it was, in a school as one of the initiatives of this government in budget 1993. I'm sorry; those of us who have served in this Legislature and even an ordinary Ontarian walking on the streets would realize this is part of regular government spending, to keep up the infrastructure of this province, which they have invested in in their hard-earned money over the last decades. To talk about this as a new initiative is at best misplaced, if not something else.

Then we go on to talk about the surtax and how wonderful this is and how we're getting more and more people involved in the surtax structure. Anybody who knows anything about people who have some money to invest -- and we're getting down to some pretty small amounts when we're talking about people who are making $51,000, but even if people have $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 to invest, that's no sin, you know. That's no sin to have a bit of money to invest in the province of Ontario. But I'm telling you, now they're going to think of better places to invest, and money is mobile, folks. Investment is mobile.

And again we hear the Jobs Ontario program blown beyond all proportions of expectation and possibility.

I think the member for Oxford had better continue to listen, because I think he's going to learn lots in the next few weeks.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Very briefly in response to both my colleague from Oxford and the Liberal member who just responded to that debate, I'd like to point out that over the past several days I've had an opportunity to talk to some civil servants here who work for the provincial government, and I can tell my colleague, my Liberal friend, that there's a real rationalization of expenditures that's finally beginning to take root in the civil service, Mr Speaker. As you will know, when you check the budget numbers and the estimates for ministries, substantial amounts of moneys were eliminated from ministry budgets without touching programs. Why? Because we just simply asked civil servants to be a little more accountable with money.

You hear of the horror stories when there was a lot of money around this place in the heyday of the Liberals, when there were hundreds of thousands of dollars left in budgets and millions of dollars left in ministry budgets where year-end came along, and what did you do? Well, you had a whole bunch of people going out on a shopping rampage. It didn't matter. They just spent it here; they spent it there; they spent it everywhere.

If you buy people a pen and they pick up a brand-new pen and just use it several times, use maybe that much of the ink in the pen, then what happens? Because you've got a lot of money, you chuck that pen out and you go get a new one.

When you have to rationalize some of these things and people are asked to be more frugal with what they have, then you will realize enormous savings in the systems. So I would caution my Liberal friends that when they stand up in this place and talk about how frugal and how crafty they were, they'd better look at it once again.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I have a hard time understanding why a Liberal would stand up opposed to any tax increase that any government, perhaps, would implement when the Liberals, if she doesn't remember, increased taxes 33 times in the short five years that they were the government. She doesn't seem to realize or remember that this criticism that she's giving us perhaps is three years too late.

Remember the days of the Liberals. Remember the days of the 33 tax increases that you implemented in a short five years. Remember the fact that you pretty much doubled government expenditure while you were there, in five years, and you have the nerve to stand up in this place and criticize an individual who did not condone a tax increase. He isn't saying in his speech --

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind the honourable member we're at questions and comments on the member for Oxford's participation.

Mr Mammoliti: Yes, Mr Speaker, I realize that. I was just about to say that the member for Oxford doesn't necessarily think that tax increases are okay. What he is saying is that if you're going to implement tax increases, do it in a fair way. He's saying that the government has done that. Remember the Liberals; remember those 33 tax increases and remember how fair those tax increases were. That's what the member for Oxford is saying.

1610

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant on questions and comments for the member for Oxford. Seeing none, the member for Oxford has two minutes in response.

Mr Sutherland: I want to thank those who participated, the member for Ottawa-Rideau, my colleagues from Downsview and from Yorkview.

The member for Ottawa-Rideau must not have heard my comments regarding the Jobs Ontario Capital project I was talking about at the Tavistock school. Yes, we have regular capital money that goes through for education, for building schools, but the Tavistock school project comes out of a separate amount. So rather than how the $300 million is allocated with kind of a three-year advance process, this money was allocated this year and the actual project is occurring this year.

It's not just simply adding new washrooms. What I was trying to say is that the school has grown; the school's population has grown; the physical facilities hadn't, and as a result there were only two washrooms serving 450 students in an elementary school. Clearly, that was unacceptable. I was showing how this is building our infrastructure, supporting a community, responding to a community need and creating jobs at the same time.

The member for Ottawa-Rideau also talked about the surtax and said that earning extra money is not a sin. Of course it's not. We encourage people to earn as much money as possible. We think that's a good thing. But in terms of taxation, as my colleague from Yorkview said, people aren't going to be happy about paying more taxes, granted, but I think they'll find it more acceptable if they have more faith in that we're developing a fairer tax system. That was the point I was making there, that through the increases in the surtax on the top 10% of income earners in this province, in terms of them paying a larger share, we are moving to a fair tax system.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for his participation in both debate and responses. Further debate? The honourable member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mrs O'Neill: I rise today as the official opposition critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services and for seniors' issues and as the member for Ottawa-Rideau. I do so with deep disappointment in this government and its continued mismanagement of Ontario's economy.

Last week we all saw this document flashed on TV and in the newspapers and many of the headlines and many of the commentators stated, "a disappointing document," "a difficult piece." Each of them introduced the budget discussions in that manner; I'm not the only person who has the concerns that I'm going to relay this afternoon.

I remind this chamber that the budget is the government's main policy document, as any budget is. It is more than significant that budget 1993 has already created discouragement, confusion, panic and hopelessness among Ontarians. This government's main policy document, and I repeat, main policy document, paralyses Ontario in summer 1993. Budget 1993 purports to protect Ontario's most vulnerable citizens, but the 20 new taxes and the 26 non-tax revenues will affect the most vulnerable perhaps, and likely more than anyone else in this province. Seniors, youth, the disabled and the less fortunate always have less disposable income than most of us and they will certainly have less disposable income in 1993 than they had in 1992.

To quote from page 61 of this year's budget: "The continuing uncertainty over the economy, and concerns over job security in 1992-93, resulted in consumers spending proportionately less on durable goods...and more on necessities such as food." That, sadly, is the situation that is going to worsen. Consumers, especially those who have limited incomes, will have fewer and fewer choices as a direct result of budget '93.

Budget '93, like budgets '91 and '92, is a document devoid of any real commitment or any real solutions to the problems in this province of those most in need: those most in need of government support in difficult economic times, whether they be our young people, the unemployed, the disabled, seniors and many others who have been ignored, and some of them indeed marginalized by this very government that purports to help them.

I ask, what about the students who are graduating this year, some of them so discouraged they're not going to their own graduations? They are trying to get their foot in the door, just inside the door in a very, very closed and jeopardized job market where the unemployment rate for the 16- to 24-year-olds is 18%. What about the people attempting to get off social assistance through the supports to employment program with its increasingly limited criteria? And where are the new jobs to come from for STEP? Businesses small and large find no incentives in this budget, and indeed we can look forward to more layoffs.

Budget '93, like budgets '91 and '92, is a veneer, a smokescreen. It's a little thinner smokescreen, but it's a smokescreen, a thin coating to cover the fact that we cannot trust what we see at first glance. It is the role of opposition to look behind the veneer, underneath it, to discover whether or not the government is telling the people of Ontario the whole story with respect to our province's finances.

As my leader in her response to this budget on May 20 pointed out, this government now has presented three budgets to the people of Ontario, and not one of these budgets has had a deficit projection that was reached. Deficit targets are not met by this budget even though we have this unbearable $10-billion threshold which was started by this very fiscally mismanaged NDP government.

Last year's budget promised a deficit of $9.9 billion. Isn't that a cute figure? And at year's end, what was the reality? It was $12 billion, but somewhere in between we heard $17 billion. Where do these figures come from?

Budget '92 promised us $580 million in revenue from basic Ontario income tax increases beginning in this year, January 1993 -- half a billion dollars, a little more: $580 million. That figure, in this year's budget, has been almost doubled, if you can believe that, to $960 million -- I repeat, almost $1 billion in an income tax grab in a time of recession when the recovery is fragile.

Another projection: Tax reductions for low-income earners, tax reductions now for low-income workers, projected at $85 million for 1992, but they actually came in at $10 million. These are but three examples that come to mind. How does the Treasurer expect the people of this province to have any confidence in his ability to project or to wisely manage their tax dollars?

1620

On the very first page of last year's budget statement the Treasurer said: "We are taking immediate steps to create jobs, we are maintaining important public services, and we are controlling the deficit." That was last year. This, as we have seen, was nothing but empty eloquence, much of it even admitted by this government.

What we really had in 1992 and have again this year is a case of creative accounting, a dubious deficit at best, and one thing for sure, always for sure: higher taxes for the individuals of this province. But now we're also going to have higher taxes for the corporations. That's the beautiful promise for 1994.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: At this point, I think there are less than 12 people in this House and I think they should be here to listen to Mrs O'Neill.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have a quorum? A quorum is not present.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum now is present. The honourable member for Ottawa-Rideau may resume.

Mrs O'Neill: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I'll continue. We have, as I said, always the promise that comes true: higher taxes. And this time we've got another promise: higher taxes for corporations as well as individuals.

On the first page of this year's legislative address, the Minister of Finance laid out his priorities for the people of Ontario. One of those priorities was, and I quote from this document, "We are going to overhaul the social assistance system to provide more support to help get people back into the workforce." Of course I was very interested in that particular part of the budget, because it's something we've all been waiting for.

This year's budget contains promises and promises, because we now have words changed. We were "revamping" social assistance to help people get back to work last year and we are "overhauling" this year. I wish I could get a picture of those two things. "Overhaul, revamp," what do they mean? Because we have still got promises, promises, unfulfilled expectations. But later in the document we get into the fine print and we see the budget proposals. We find out a little more clearly what the fine-sounding rhetoric "overhaul" means.

What the Minister of Finance was really saying was that this year the NDP government will release a white paper on social assistance reform, and the reform is going to take place off in the distance of 1995. Read my lips -- can't believe it. We've been talking about this since 1990. This year it's on hold. The vulnerable people of this province are placed on a shelf, on hold: 1995. Our plan was in place in their upper right-hand drawer and it has not been used.

I stood in this House a few weeks ago to debate the resolution put forward by the member for Sarnia, which called for the provision of one comprehensive piece of legislation and one administrative framework administered by one level of government to replace the existing general welfare and family benefit delivery system. As you know, this resolution by an NDP backbencher would fulfil a long-standing promise of this government to finally act on a legislative reform of the social services structure.

I asked at that time, and I ask again now of this government, why did a government backbencher have to raise this issue as a private member's resolution -- he must be as frustrated as I am -- when the Minister of Community and Social Services should have introduced it as a government bill? And we're not even thinking of a government bill; we're thinking of a white paper.

But what is this government's response? The member for Sarnia knows and I know that we have enough paper on social assistance reform. We know how to do it; let's get it done. Another postponement to 1995 is a completely unnecessary step. I find it most disturbing that this Treasurer considers this to be a solution that will -- and I again quote from this year's budget document -- "transform a social assistance system that connects people to education, to training, to work and volunteer community activity."

No one argues with the goals, but the time lines, I can't believe them. We're going to wait for two years to connect people to education and training and work? I truly believe that now is the time for action, to use one of the titles of one of the best documents we have on social reform, not a white paper with promises for 1995.

I also suggest that budget 1993 is a difficult one for seniors of this province. The 1992 budget promised a $100-million increase to the seniors in the reform of long-term care. The 1993 budget tells us that the government plans to speed up the long-term care reform. Again, this sounds very promising.

The reality of long-term care reform in the province of Ontario, however, is a very different kettle of fish. Money which was to begin to flow in January 1993, way back in January 1993 -- most of us can hardly remember it -- has now been promised for perhaps August 1993. I ask, is this the new definition, of this NDP government, of "speed"? Nine months late we're talking about speed.

The government's proposal for long-term care reform, which was begun with the passage of Bill 101 earlier this session, was very short on details and still is. It has fuzzy time lines, January to August -- "speed" is a very fuzzy time line -- and very indefinite, to this moment, funding commitments. And indeed it's described by the minister herself as but one piece in a complex puzzle.

I, for one, am not convinced by the Treasurer on this item. Seniors continue to be hit hard by last year's budget because changes to the property tax rebate and changes to the Ontario drug benefits plan are now beginning to affect them. This government's proposals regarding auto insurance and warranties of almost every kind will increase premiums for all Ontarians, including seniors who, as we know, are often on fixed incomes.

Budget '93 will hurt everyone. It's the biggest tax grab Ontario taxpayers have seen since Frank Miller's budget of 1981. Fully 85% of Ontarians will pay higher taxes, and because the personal income tax provisions are retroactive -- we love this looking back in this government -- the tax increases will actually be doubled on July 1 for 1993. So each person will take minus 6% home on July 1, 1993, this on top of a tax increase that became effective on January 1 as a result of last year's budget. So now we have two tax increases taking effect on the same day. Isn't that wonderful? This is indeed the NDP double-dipping into the pockets of the people of Ontario, and the people of Ontario know what's happening.

1630

The surtax on Ontario's so-called "wealthiest citizen," a tax on a tax, kicks in at an even lower income than last year. As Ontario taxpayers continue to really struggle, this government continues to redefine the term "wealthy" to include more and more Ontarians. In fact, under certain circumstances -- it's very hard to believe but it's true -- the poverty line and the threshold for wealth in the province of Ontario, unlike any other jurisdiction in North America and likely beyond, is now $10,000, the difference between the poverty line and the threshold definition of "wealth." That is ludicrous. Where is the middle class? Is the middle class disappearing in Ontario, or is it just being hit harder and harder and harder? I think it's the latter.

If I may, as the member for Ottawa-Rideau, turn to another subject for a moment, I found it impossible, and I find it impossible at this moment, to accept the fact that the government once again has conspicuously ignored eastern Ontario in this budget. It's hard to believe that the commitment to the construction of Highway 416 is not among the capital priorities of the Ministry of Transportation in budget '93.

The construction of this important highway is of vital importance to the economy of Ottawa-Carleton and every member of that government must know that. This has been acknowledged over and over again by the constituents of Ottawa-Carleton and much of eastern Ontario, and business and industry have, for over a decade, made representations to each government.

This highway was begun by the previous government and now is on hold. It is sad to see the interchanges that are sitting in the middle of fields, literally, and there is no commitment to continue that highway in eastern Ontario in budget '93.

I urge the government to live up to the commitment made by the then Minister of Transportation, Mr Philip, and I quote from Hansard, November 21, 1990. Again, that's a long way in the past, but surely some promises must be kept by this government. "The highway," Mr Philip said in 1990, folks, "will be completed on time, on schedule," and all problems will be dealt with. Promises, promises, promises, unkept promises, but promises unkept that change lives, that make for hardships in peoples' lives.

Talking about hardships, buried on page 66 of this document is a list of 26 new -- listen to this term -- "non-tax revenue initiatives." Isn't that an interesting title? These non-tax revenues represent nothing but a hidden tax grab that goes deeper and deeper into my pocket, your pocket and everybody else's pocket, $5 million worth, and will impact on everything from motor vehicle licence fees, provincial fines and penalties, charitable event fees -- imagine, to hit a charitable event for an increase -- registrar general's service fees -- and that is the most wonderful service we have in Ontario, the registrar general; the backlog is unbelievable, but we're going to have an increased charge for death certificates and birth certificates and all things people need to do business in this province -- technical standards fees, and these are just a few of the 26 that are there.

This budget claims that the new non-tax revenue strategy -- listen to this -- is "intended to encourage new ways of doing business and to enhance customer service in the public sector." New ways of not doing business would be much more accurate. An increase in the prices of public service would be much more accurate. Sadly, I make those observations.

Many of these initiatives strike directly at the already belaboured Ontario taxpayer. Members of the tourism, development and aggregate and transportation industries, to name but a few, are being especially targeted, and many other industries are being asked to go into a holding pattern.

As my leader said in her remarks last week, "The math is simple, but I'm disappointed to say the numbers just don't add up." This budget does not encourage growth. It does not stimulate the economy or create jobs, as this government would have us believe. This budget and its accompanying social contract negotiations just paralyze this province. The Treasurer seems to be determined to stagnate, if not completely stop, the fragile economic recovery. Mr Laughren and Mr Rae are raising taxes, cutting vital services, alienating both the public and private sectors and the municipalities in particular. Certainly, Mr Rae has heard from those people very recently, and let's face it, those are elected officials, as are we.

This government, with its heavy-handed, ideological manipulation -- we could name several cases where that is happening -- is putting all Ontarians, especially those who are vulnerable, at a great risk. This budget, devoid of signs of hope, I'm sad to say, is a deplorable breach of trust on the part of this government.

In addition to the $2-billion tax grab -- $1 billion, as I've said before, almost completely from income tax -- this budget promises an additional $2-billion savings for Bob Rae and Floyd Laughren from the social contract. But you know, Mr Speaker, and I do, that the Treasurer is counting his contract before it's signed. It's becoming more and more evident every day, as the June 4 deadline rapidly approaches, that these negotiations are starting to collapse, to fall apart, and they're doing it right around the Premier's ears, if we listened to him in question period today. He's still denying the reality that's existing.

Almost daily we hear -- most of us hear directly -- from one group or another leaving the talks. They're not doing that because they want to do it; they are doing it because they've given up hope, because they realize their efforts are not progressing and they find the whole thing a very discouraging process. They're pulling out of the sectoral discussions in complete frustration at this government's unwillingness to look constructively at any solutions which are not its own, and the municipalities are the best messengers of that.

Solutions that are made in Queen's Park are not going to satisfy Ontarians across this province, but this government has turned a very large door and shut the door in the faces of people who are suggesting that there are other solutions beyond its own.

I'd like to close with a comment from the Urban Development Institute of Ontario president, Morley Kells, who states in a letter to his membership: "We find that we are out ahead of Premier Rae's ability to enunciate precisely what he is after and how he hopes to achieve this reordering of society: how we work, get paid and prioritize our lives." That is what Mr Rae is trying to tell us and that's what I was talking about when I was talking about the ideology of this government. They want to tell us how to work, how to get paid and how to prioritize our lives.

Mr Morley Kells goes on: "Whether it be a new crown corporation or a social contract, the details are sketchy and the facts are few." That's very common. "The Premier needs time to package and unveil his brave new world."

I really don't believe personally that time will do it for Mr Rae. Wisdom would, but that virtue has not been found in Ontario's NDP government. The government's inability to articulate right from the beginning its brave new world with any certainty, with any time lines or details, leaves Ontarians, after three NDP budgets, full of broken promises and unfulfilled expectations and indeed, unfortunately, unsure of their futures and insecure in their present; as I said before, paralysed, fearful and helpless.

Budget '93 is a panicked response to this government's continued inability to manage the economy, to create real, sustainable jobs and to bring Ontario out of the recession. What we really have, as we had in budget '92, is a case of creative accounting, a dubious deficit, higher taxes for all but a few Ontarians and a job creation strategy that continues to be unrealistically ambitious and ineffective.

As commentators stated last year, the budget contains no new insights, no indications that the NDP wants to understand the dynamics of the market economy. This NDP government, locked into its anti-capitalist creed, still sees the private sector as a source of tax revenue and investment, that's all, without any understanding of where the tax revenue and investment flows or comes from.

Sadly, the mistakes of 1992 have become entrenched in the mismanagement of budget '93. Ontario is the worse, I say with deep regret, for budget '93 NDP-style.

1640

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I certainly want to compliment the member for Ottawa- Rideau for her very fine speech. She certainly has brought to, I hope, the government's attention that there are many, many people out there who are so disappointed in what this budget had to offer.

I was particularly interested in her mention of what it is doing to senior citizens and many other vulnerable people out there. I must admit that just a few days ago I had a call from a 74-year-old senior in my riding who went to renew her driver's licence. She said: "Mrs Fawcett, I'm on a fixed income. I do not have any extra money at all." She got to the counter and of course had to pay the extra for, now, a six-year licence. She said: "What do I need a six-year licence for? I may not be here in another six years." I said, "I certainly hope you will, but you really do have a point." She said: "It's just not fair. I don't know how many other senior citizens or other people on fixed incomes realize that some of these things that are in this budget are really harmful. You don't realize them until you get to go to purchase something like that."

Calls from small and large business people in the riding too are very, very concerned. They are saying it's just a real shame that Ontario is closed for business. Just when there was some glimmer of hope that things might even be turning around, that there might be something starting, now we've got this biggest tax grab ever that is going to really put people behind the eight ball again, to say nothing of what the increased insurance policy cost is going to mean.

Mr Perruzza: I have to tell you, I get a knot in the pit of my stomach every time a Liberal stands up in this place and pontificates about competence and about honesty in projections and in budgets. To quote the member, she talked about how the role of the opposition is to look beneath, to cut through the veneer.

I have to tell you, they never read our document, because if they had, they would have figured out that there's truth in ours. But I can tell you that when you go back to theirs in 1990, go back to the spring of 1990, Nixon, the Liberal Treasurer of the time, who sat on this side of the House with all of those folks sitting right behind him, sat here and talked about a budget and talked about a surplus in Ontario of $39 million at the end of that fiscal year. That is, in the spring of 1991 we were supposed to have, honestly speaking, if you listen to the Liberals, $39 million in the kitty after having spent what we were going to spend. Well, the auditor tells us differently. The auditor that year put their numbers at a $3-billion deficit; over a $3-billion deficit. That's the auditor; that's not us.

Where was the honesty then? Where was the projection then? Where was the competence then? You know, it's fine for them to stand in their place on that side and pontificate and point the finger and lambaste, but when the truth be known and when you look at the numbers, they were wacko. Their numbers simply didn't make sense. They were wackyish.

Go back to the old documents, read the old documents, because you're not reading our budget correctly.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): As I was listening to the speech I was being given, the negativity of it, I started getting some flashbacks. Flashbacks, when I remember back when the Liberals were on this side of the House implementing some stuff and what they did; you know, good economic times. We've seen the provincial sales tax go up, from 7% to 8%. The revenues were there. The employment was there.

I listened to her comments reflecting about this budget does nothing. This budget has done more to provide for communities and to provide for retraining and retooling of the workforce. I remember when the Liberals were on this side of the House and we were going through the industrial revolution. We were going through a change through technology change in our workplaces. Where were the Liberals? Nowhere to be found during technology change.

When I listened to the comments about social assistance reform, I find it very amazing that when the amount of clients who were on social assistance was down, when the availability of making progressive change was there, very little was done, as a matter of fact, if anything was done, during that time frame to allow workers and people the opportunity to make the transformation from social assistance to a job, and a viable job in our community.

But I keep listening to the comments that are made today about our budget. Our budget, number one, provides for an infrastructure base, which the Liberals never did under good economic times. They talk about offloading. I remember all the offloading they did to the municipalities during good economic times, and today they act as heroes for them.

I'm looking at what this budget does for retraining and retooling our workforce. Look at what it did today. Look at what it did in good economic times: nothing. We knew they were there. We warned them before. They sit there, and I wonder if they ask themselves the serious question today: Why didn't they do something when good economic times were here, when the transformation would have been much easier than transformation would have been today?

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Ottawa-Rideau has two minutes in response.

Mrs O'Neill: The old song comes back again and they expect that it's going to haunt the Liberals. But if you want to go to real facts, the Hansard of the general government committee of April 1991 tells the story of what was going on in the summer of 1990. This is an impartial view of all three parties questioning treasury officials, and indeed, questioning members of the cabinet of our government. It certainly showed what the auditor had said: There were policy changes made, there were changes made in the economy. We were in the middle of an international war. Summer 1990 was very volatile.

Social assistance increased by almost 50% over that summer, as did personal bankruptcies. It was impossible to project; officials, financial in treasury and outside of treasury, have stated that, so to keep bringing this up shows how very empty their pot really is, and to talk to us about social assistance reform also is a distortion of the facts.

If they go back to budgets '89 and '90, we put $1 billion into social assistance reform in this province. We made our commitments and we began. We were pressured by that government to spend more and it has put everything on hold. That makes me pretty angry. Talk about us not being involved in new technology: We were the ones who started the Premier's Council, which has almost been inactive since this government took over. We also started the centres for excellence in the universities, which this government is now dismantling. Our successes, unfortunately, are being eroded by this government.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for Ottawa-Rideau for her participation and her response. I remind members that it is out of order to interject. You will have your turn if you want to participate.

1650

Mrs Marland: One of the frustrations that I experience now, since the Bob Rae socialist government has changed the rules for procedures in this House, is that we are limited to 30 minutes of debate. I can assure you that in 30 minutes I cannot convey to this House or the people watching and listening all the material that has been submitted to me by the people in this province, and in particular by the residents of Mississauga, the region of Peel.

One of the things that always happens when we stand in this Legislature and debate the budget, of course, is that everyone says we're being purely partisan. Naturally, an opposition member is going to stand in his or her place and criticize the budget and be perceived to be criticizing it because he or she is in opposition and it's a partisan motive. Well, I've decided to take a different tack. This is actually the eighth consecutive year that I have stood in this House to debate a provincial government budget and, rather than give my own viewpoint, I have decided to give some of the opinions and express some of the concerns that have been given to me directly, and some of them indirectly, through reports in our local newspapers and in press releases from the city of Mississauga and indeed from the region of Peel. I hope that when I have done that much, I will be able to get around to still having some time left to discuss the very important subject of non-profit housing programs versus direct shelter subsidies to people who need help with their rent, to pay for their accommodation.

I'm going to say at the outset that this New Democratic Party that is now the government always proclaimed when it was in opposition that it was the protector of the poor. They were the only party who cared about people on fixed incomes, the lower- and middle-income earners in this province. As they would stand and spout forth on many public platforms around this province, they were really the only party that cared about people. I think anyone who has a copy of the Agenda for People, on which this Bob Rae government campaigned in the summer of 1990, will know now that every single promise it campaigned on has been reversed, ignored or not acted upon.

This past week, when the Legislature wasn't sitting and we had what is known as constituency week, I spent three of the five days travelling this province with the Team Harris vehicle, which was travelling I think to almost 30 different locations all over Ontario to ask the public what its feelings were about this Bob Rae NDP budget. It was a very, very interesting experience, because when you're standing on a street corner -- we weren't going up and knocking on doors; we were simply greeting the public out on the streets, or in one case, at GO stations and in another case in some parking lots.

It's amazing, when you stand there and do that, how the reaction of people, first of all, is that they don't know what this pamphlet is that you're wanting to hand to them. Of course, people are a little apprehensive; they don't know who you are and whether you're going to ask them to answer a whole lot of questions or make some kind of commitment to some kind of organization. So it's actually quite different than when you're campaigning, because at least when you're campaigning, you're saying: "I'm Margaret Marland. I would appreciate your support in the election," and it's sort of two direct statements one after the other.

What we were doing was saying to the public: "Do you have anything you wish to express about the Ontario NDP government budget? Do you wish to make any comments on that budget?" People at first would hesitate to take the pamphlet that we offered, and then some would sort of shyly take it and walk away slowly. I want to tell you the number of times that people would walk away, start reading it, turn right around and come back and say: "Can you give me half a dozen of those? Is it okay if I copy this and circulate it around the plant where I work?" or the office where they worked or the store where they worked. "Can I give this to my family and my relatives and friends?"

When people started to read what it was that we were circulating, their immediate reaction was, once they knew what it was, "Yes, I do want to send a message to Premier Bob Rae." Earlier today in members' statements, which is already on record in Hansard, I quoted some of the statements that some of the people made to me about this Ontario budget. I won't repeat those statements now, but those were not partisan statements. They were not my words; they were words of the public in this province.

Continuing in that vein now, I want to use some other people's words who aren't affiliated with any political party and, in some cases, humorously enough, I would say least of all our Progressive Conservative Party.

I perhaps would like to read, first of all, just a couple of paragraphs from Brian Costello's column in the Hamilton Spectator of May 20, 1993. The headline in this column is, "Seniors, Middle Incomes Hit." Brian Costello is saying about the Ontario budget:

"In reality, it hits middle income and seniors more than anybody else. The Treasurer may say that it taxes the rich, but the rich will not pay it."

He goes on in another paragraph to say:

"The middle-income family is going to be destroyed by the myriad of other tax increases in the budget. The rich will have the wherewithal to protect themselves, the middle-income individuals won't be able to defend themselves and as a result will pay....

"Seniors who often live on a fixed income won't have budgeted for these increased expenditures. Their standard of living will be hurt worse than all."

This is a journalist who is looking at the Ontario budget objectively and trying to interpret what the impact will be on the people of this province. I commend Mr Costello for his frankness and his research and interpretation of the budget.

We always talk about the impact that provincial budgets have on our school boards, and certainly the two school boards in the region of Peel have been hurting for a very long time. I want to read into the record a quote from Tom Reilly, who is the director of education for the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

"I understand the government's rationale in terms of deficit reduction, yet there have been repeated blows to the same people. Clearly, there has been downloading on to the boards. I am concerned that the tax on insurance premiums will hit this board hard. The increase of personal taxation will hit a large number of employees at the same time as they are being asked to have their salaries rolled back."

The next quote is from Mike Roy, who is the treasurer-controller of the Peel Board of Education. The Peel Board of Education, incidentally, is the largest public school board in Canada. His quote is as follows:

"The major impact of this budget is the tax on group insurance benefits. It is estimated that for 1993 the costs will be between $600,000 and $900,000 and for 1994 $1.5 million. These are funds that have not been budgeted and consequently will become part of the local ratepayer's responsibility."

1700

I think that's the whole point, that when you don't fund, through transfer payments, the local school boards and the municipalities, they have nowhere else to go but into the taxpayer's pocket -- the taxpayer's pocket, which is already paying all the $2 billion worth of other tax increases, not the least of which, of course, is their personal income tax.

Another comment I want to read is from Joanne Nugent, who is with Community Living Mississauga. Before I read this comment, I want to remind the people in this Legislature today of the tremendous rally that was out here on the front lawn at Queen's Park last fall. You will remember that we had over 4,000 people who came here to say, "Please do not cut programs to people with special needs, both children and adults." Community Living Mississauga was very well represented at that particular rally demonstration.

Joanne Nugent:

"I am concerned about the ramifications of the budget and the taxing of insurance benefits. These taxes represent another amount of money that we don't have. Our budget is already stretched to the limit, we can't afford another $8,000 to $9,000 in taxes on insurance benefits. In the meantime, we're still waiting to hear about the results of the social contract talks.

"Last week we received a considerable sum of money for pay equity despite the fact that we hadn't requested it. While the money was nice, we don't see it as a priority and it doesn't make sense when the social contract may result in salary cuts or staff cuts. It's odd that one week we received a huge amount of money for pay equity and the next week we're involved in social contract talks. It is difficult for social service agencies to deal with this schizophrenic behaviour. Where is the overall planning? I feel that there is a ship going down the river with no one steering -- and it's heading towards Niagara Falls! We're experiencing a climate of uncertainty and fear -- just imagine what our families and recipients are feeling!"

Barbara Thornber is executive director of the Ontario Association for Community Living and I want to place her comments on the record following Community Living Mississauga:

"Our key concern is what assurance will the government give us that there won't be future surprises. If we manage to reach an agreement for a social contract, will the government agree to no new cuts in the upcoming budgets? We're concerned about what may come down in the budget of 1994. We feel we're being hit from so many different directions. There are many things in the expenditure control plan which will affect us, now we have the budget and a possible social contract.

"We already have to reduce our budget, now we have to absorb a tax on insurance premiums."

Of course, a name that needs no introduction in this House is the name of the mayor of the city of Mississauga, Mayor Hazel McCallion. She says:

"We have been hit with reducing the unconditional grants, we have been hit with the social contract and we have been hit with the budget. We have adopted our (municipal) budget for 1993 and we are five months into it. Three strikes and we're out. What effect will insurance premiums have, auto insurance for our buses, trucks and cars?"

A further quote of Mayor McCallion's is as follows:

"'No one can argue with deficit reduction,' said Mayor Hazel McCallion. 'But we are concerned that the province is trying to impose this on us after we've passed our 1993 budgets. We're also concerned that every municipality is going to be forced to use the same measures regardless of individual circumstances. This might work for some municipalities but doesn't work for Mississauga where we're already lean and mean. We can't reduce our staff levels further without lessening services to residents,' the mayor added."

I want to emphasize that all of these quotes are from people in the community who are speaking from the base of being responsible to the residents whom they serve. It has nothing to do with an opposition PC member standing in this House making partisan comments.

I also want to quote from the treasurer and commissioner of finance for the regional municipality of Peel, Louise Eason. Ms Eason says as follows:

"There are three main components of the provincial government's fiscal plan which will have an impact on the region of Peel. First, the expenditure control plan will result in an annual revenue loss of $4.2 million. Second, the social contract will have an impact of approximately $10 million. Third, the implications from broadening the sales tax are: a minimum of $600,000 a year and potentially several million dollars over the region's five-year capital plan as a result of the application of sales tax to aggregates" -- for example -- "stone, dirt etc."

That comment I just read was, as I said, from the treasurer and the commissioner of finance.

I also want to read a couple of quotes from the CAO, the chief administrative officer, of the region of Peel, Michael Garrett. Michael Garrett is quoted in a column by John Stewart, who is a staff reporter, in the Mississauga News on Thursday, May 20. I quote as follows:

"'The expenditure control program for the ministries is predominantly cuts to proposed programs, but the cuts to us are real, live programs,' Peel chief administrative officer Michael Garrett told politicians Thursday.

"In a hard-hitting message to politicians, Garrett -- who has been at the social contract negotiating table on behalf of Ontario's regional governments -- said municipalities should be outraged that the burden of the provincial deficit, built up over the last three years through the Ontario government's mismanagement, should be passed on to local property taxpayers.

"'The NDP has to cut to the chase and make fundamental changes in its major programs (health, education and social services) before municipalities will believe it is serious about cost reductions,' added the CAO."

Again, this is a staff person at the region of Peel. Mr Garrett really knows what's going on and he has no reason to make a partisan political statement. He's just concerned about how he's going to manage the region of Peel with the kind of funding and the kinds of cuts that this Bob Rae socialist government is forcing him into.

1710

Also speaking on behalf of the region of Peel, I have some quotes attributable to the regional chairman, Emil Kolb. These are quotes from a press release dated May 18 from the region of Peel. It says:

"It's time for the residents of Peel to tell Bob Rae that the property tax well is dry and he had better work with municipalities to find new alternatives to fighting the deficit, because our taxpayers aren't prepared to do all the sacrificing, says Peel Regional Chairman Emil Kolb.

"'It is time Peel taxpayers made their own statement that they are not prepared to see private and public sector jobs disappear and have to endure city and regional government service cuts and tax hikes while the province continuously refuses to reform costly universal programs,' Kolb said."

A further quote:

"'Premier Rae's plan to siphon billions from property taxpayers, instead of reforming health, education and social service programs, means municipalities are being used to fight a problem with no solution,' Kolb added.

"'Residents need to be aware that this is not just intergovernmental squabbling. Talented people from municipalities including Peel which have been balancing their books for years are ready to work together on a plan to tackle the deficit in a fair manner. Mr Rae just has to ask for help in drafting a plan that is fair to everyone.'"

A final paragraph from this news release reads as follows:

"During the last three years, Peel regional council worked diligently to control its expenditures despite unprecedented demand on social programs. Reacting responsibly to these pressures, council has held expenditures in virtually all regional programs to 1991 funding levels. This corporation has been forced to lay off employees and make critical decisions on key service levels in order to minimize the burden on property taxpayers.

"'It will be difficult, after so many tough decisions during the recession, to watch the province dig into the property tax base as it goes from years of wild spending to panicked restraint,' said Kolb."

Pretty powerful statements from the chairman of the region of Peel. He is very concerned.

Another area in the municipal level that is also of course really concerned about the impact of this budget and their ability to deliver a service is our two hospitals. I want to just read two or three quotes from the president of the Mississauga Hospital, Merritt Henderson.

"In the complicated world of transfer payments, Mississauga Hospital President Merritt Henderson says that the 2% for next year really translates to a 0.5% local increase....

"Hospitals are particularly vulnerable to cutbacks in transfers since they rely on provincial grants for about 85% of their revenues. 'The universities can raise tuition fees and the municipalities can raise property taxes, even though that is unpalatable, but we can't really do anything because user fees are not acceptable,' points out Henderson."

I'm reading from a column in the Mississauga News, dated December 6, 1992, written by John Stewart.

Another paragraph reads:

"Since the hospitals have done so well with restraint, 'from their perspective it makes sense to keep ratcheting us down a little more,' says Henderson. 'The problem is that we're getting close to the level of safety.'"

"There are increasing backups in the emergency ward and every day starts with an effort to find beds for those in emergency who didn't get one the night before. The hospital has already had layoffs and made most of the internal efficiencies possible.

"'Our objective is not to reduce services or lay off staff,' as a result of the grant constraints, adds Henderson, noting that hospital workers will likely be asked to look at trading off salary increases in order to keep jobs."

Our other Mississauga hospital, the Credit Valley Hospital, its president, Dean Sane, in the same article says:

"'There will be an impact on the entire hospital....

"'For the public it's going to mean increased waiting time, longer waiting lists and more frustration for everybody,' adds Sane. Just a few months ago, Credit Valley learned that its hopes of getting a 104-bed expansion were being put on hold by Ontario. That means that the increased city population will have to be serviced by the same number of beds for several more years."

That's the health care impact, just as an example.

I've had many, many letters from residents and constituents in my riding, but I just want to read one paragraph of this letter over the signature of John and Wendy Davies, who live on Bobolink Road.

"The time is long overdue for governments to be held accountable to the taxpayers for their actions. In this respect your government has failed miserably. To avoid a repercussion of a similar disaster occurring in the future, I suggest you impose maximum limits on expenditures, and like any responsible organization, you commit yourselves to managing your affairs within the limits of the budget."

This letter is addressed to the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Floyd Laughren.

Mr Speaker, I'm down to my last two and a half minutes, and as I said at the beginning of my comments this afternoon, I chose to use other people's critiques of this Ontario socialist government budget, and when you read what the public are saying, it's very hard to understand why this government isn't listening. I don't know why they can't hear the comments from other people in the government, the other people in the public sector.

Right now in this House I think there is actually only one government member in the House at this time who served in opposition. Everyone else in the House at this moment was elected in 1990, so they do not know what it was like when we were in opposition with these members, who were screaming and yelling at the top of their lungs about every single budget of the Liberal government and what was wrong with those budgets and why they were concerned about those decisions. A lot happens in this distance, and I suppose it may be about 12 feet, the distance between this side of the House and that side of the House. It seems that a lot happened to the New Democratic Party members when they walked this 12 feet across the floor of the House and took their seats on the government side, and the result is devastating for the people of this province.

Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to talk about the housing program. The non-profit housing program has to be one of the biggest scams that exists in Ontario today. It didn't start out that way. When non-profit housing was established in the early 1970s, it was an alternative to affordable housing, but unfortunately it is now being so mismanaged by this Housing minister that when the Provincial Auditor asked her deputy minister for figures about what the non-profit housing program was costing in this province, the answer the auditor got was, "I can tell you in November," eight months from the time of the original question.

1720

Mr Perruzza: I just want to go very briefly back to a comment that the member made during her speech. She talked about when the NDP was in opposition and how we profess to be the only party that essentially spoke for poor people, and then she went on to describe a litany of areas where we have failed etc.

Mr Speaker, I tell you, because I know you're a fairminded member in this Legislature, that the role of the opposition is to criticize and so on and they don't have to make decisions; that's the difference, they don't have to make decisions.

I want to quote back from Hansard what a Conservative colleague of the member from Mississauga said only a few days ago about poor people. Poor people is a very broad group. You have people on workers' compensation; by and large, they're poor. You have social assistance recipients. You have working poor. There are a lot of poor people, but I'm going to speak about just one little group that her Conservative friend spoke about only a few days ago, and here's what they would do when it comes to making a decision with respect to poor people. I quote, "Follow the lead of New Brunswick and Manitoba and reduce benefit levels and streamline administrative services."

That's what you would do. Take a group of poor people and make them poorer, reduce their benefits. That's what they would do and they're not alone because I have my Conservative friend -- my Liberal friend there from Mississauga who, and I quote, says, "Having talked to injured workers, they would support this resolution. I support the Conservative member: Reduce poor people's benefits." That's how you deal with poor people.

We don't have a monopoly on this issue, but if the facts be known, look at the record. They're seeing it all the time in this place and that's how they would deal with it, with poor people: Make them poorer.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to congratulate the member for Mississauga South for her thoughtful comments with respect to this devastating budget.

Two specific remarks I'd like to add to her thoughts: One is with respect to the latter comment that she raised on the issue of non-profit housing. I think what we're concerned with is that the process for solving the housing problem now has to do with the fact that there are waiting lists all over the place. To talk about the member who last spoke, there are poor people in this province, there are single mothers, there are seniors who aren't able to get into housing projects because of the long waiting lists.

That fact alone -- talking about the dollars-and-cents issue is one thing, but talking about the fact that your system is not working -- there are waiting lists that are unbelievable throughout this province. Your system isn't working. That's adding to the comments that have been made by the member for Mississauga South. The fact is that there's really going to be $1 billion per year spent in costs with respect to the whole subject of non-profit housing. You're going to have to have another look at it.

I know you've made promises from day one on this subject, but it's not working. Your deputy minister came to the public accounts committee and he doesn't know what's going on. He simply didn't have the facts to rebut the comments that were made by the Provincial Auditor making very serious allegations against the whole topic of non-profit housing.

I think the member for Mississauga South, on that one point alone -- because if you ask what, for example, our government would do, that is one thing we would do: We would reduce the waste. We stand for shelter allowances. We want to help the poor people in this province. There are all kinds of poor people who are not being properly housed in this province because of your policy. Your policy stinks. You need to have another look at it and the member from Mississauga is quite right and so is the Provincial Auditor quite right. The waste all over this place is just terrible and you should review that whole subject.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I'd like to comment about the member for Mississauga South in respect to her comments today related to the latest NDP budget. I simply want to say that in the past week we've had what is described as a constituency week. The House did not sit and members of the Legislature supposedly went back to their ridings to talk to their constituents, to deal with their constituents and their problems and get their feedback.

I'm not sure how many members did that. I know some members take advantage of that opportunity to perhaps go to sunnier climes and others to do a variety of things other than speak to their constituents.

I want to say the member for Mississauga South in her comments today is speaking from the heart in terms of the travels she made across this province. She was one of the most active members of the Conservative caucus who did not take time off, who did not go on vacation, who really took advantage of this opportunity to travel the province, give people an opportunity to have input and also to listen to their concerns about the finances of this province.

The member for Mississauga South travelled throughout her own area as well as many communities in eastern Ontario. I know that for a fact because I was able to join her briefly. So she's speaking from the heart today, she's speaking about real concerns of real people in this province and she doesn't merit the kind of comment that came from NDP members.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I also heard from many constituents in my riding and throughout my region, and I was struck when the member talked of the kind of input she had heard, because what I heard, what I heard from the people in Whitby and Oshawa, were very sensible responses.

They know that we are faced with very difficult choices, very difficult decisions in front of us. They know that there's an attempt to be fair, an attempt to deal by reducing deficits, by a three-pronged attack, an attack which involves cutting services -- some very difficult decisions, decisions that in my area are felt very acutely because of cutbacks in GO train services. People acknowledge that those cuts may be necessary, but they don't want to see them happen. Public sector workers in my area are very concerned about "How can we deal with this social contract?" and of course the revenue increases.

But what I hear time and again is not, "Oh, the taxes are terrible and you should have taken more out of this or more out of that." What I hear from people is that they're seeing the real issues that we're dealing with, not just one aspect of it alone, as if somehow the other prongs of this attack were not there. They see the problems of the deficit. They see those cuts, those very serious attempts to reduce the costs of government, to make it more effective.

No one wants increases in taxes. No one wants to receive less income than they had previously. But they see that these are very important, very serious decisions, and I think it's denigrating to the people of Ontario to indicate that they are so simplistic in their vision as not to see that whole and balanced picture.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Mississauga South has two minutes in response.

Mrs Marland: I want to express my appreciation to the member for Leeds-Grenville for his generous comments. We did work together in eastern Ontario and we did hear what the people were saying to us. I feel very sorry for the member for Durham Centre because we also -- I wasn't personally, but we did have our members; certainly I think Mr Turnbull and Mr Johnson were in Oshawa, and they didn't hear what the member for Durham Centre is saying. If it wasn't so serious, it's almost pathetic to hear what he's saying today.

I just want to say this in closing because, again, of the time limitation. We can't tell the people that we're really looking after them to the maximum of our ability when we, in a non-profit housing program, subsidize those people on average -- and these are figures that we've been able to procure finally. On average, the subsidy is $854 in a non-profit housing program. Some of them are $2,000-a-month subsidy or $2,400-a-month subsidy, but on average we're talking about an $854-a-month subsidy.

The other aspect of this that is really interesting is that under a shelter subsidy, a direct subsidy to the person who is eligible for that help and needs that help -- the people we want to help -- the average is $354. So we're talking about a differential of $500 a month. We could look after two more families for the difference between the costs of non-profit programs, where the government builds and owns the buildings, versus where we give people a cheque and say: "You go and choose where you want to live. You don't have to live in a government housing program. You can live close to your work, close to your babysitter, close to your family." We want to give people the money so they have the options and they can choose.

1730

Mr Peter North (Elgin): It's certainly a pleasure for me to get up today and speak for a short time on the provincial budget.

This is a budget that, for me, was a chance to go out and talk to some people in the past week, and I found that, quite frankly, I've heard it all, from one end of the gamut to the other. There have been so many different opinions that have been voiced to me that it's hard to put across, I think, to the people who are in the Legislature today and to the people who are out there today, to formulate an opinion of what they perceive the budget to be completely.

We've tried, I think, through the information that was in the budget and through the incentives that we've worked on for over a year now, to put across to people that we're trying to get the house in order, so to speak. One thing that I do recall people saying to me now for over a year is: "You have got to get the house in order. You've got to make the changes. You've got to work on curbing the spending and you've got to do things that will get that deficit down."

On the flip side, those people have now said to me: "But don't do it to me. We appreciate the fact that you're headed in the right direction" -- and in a very public sort of way have said to me -- "but don't do it to me." In a private sort of way, they've said: "You've got to keep working at it. You've got to keep going. You've got to get this deficit down. You've got to take the steps that you've talked about and continue to work on this particular economic package you've been working on."

There are three main parts that the Treasurer or Minister of Finance tried to put forward. I think he was trying to set the record straight, so to speak, as to what it was we were trying to do. The first part was expenditure control, the second piece was the social contract, and the third piece was revenue generation. One is not, I think, in this particular situation, good without the other. I think the three together create the sense out there that this is something we're trying to balance, that we're trying to spread, across as broad a public as can possibly be, to create a sense of fairness, a sense of equity and a sense of balance.

That perception certainly has come across, to me, and that perception certainly has been opposed and voiced to me very clearly. We've tried to, I think, suggest to people that we are looking towards the future and that this isn't something that's just a shot against people or a shot in the arm for the economy. It is an approach that will take some time, I think, to analyse, will take some time, I think, to play out, so to speak, and will take some time, I think, to have people realize that there is value in trying to set an economic course that is based on now but also based on the future.

We've had an opportunity now to write three budgets, but I would suggest that no one whom I've seen -- I had a small business and was very fortunate to work in this province for a number of years -- no one, I think, can write a perfect budget that everyone will agree with. There are criticisms and support for each and every budget that's come out in this province, and I've criticized and supported my fair share of them. A lot of times, I have to say honestly, it depended a lot on how it affected me. I took a very closed view, let's say, of what the total package was and if there were some values in there that perhaps affected me but were more towards supporting of people who in that particular case were perhaps less fortunate than I was.

We've spent a lot of time discussing, defending, supporting, distributing information on something that we call Jobs Ontario. There are a lot of different pieces to Jobs Ontario. One of the centrepieces that we've tried to put forward that's been extremely criticized and highly criticized by members of the opposition, by the Leader of the Opposition, is the Jobs Ontario package. We've tried to give people and communities across the province an opportunity to be employed. We've tried to give people who are in the business sector an opportunity to advance the cause of training in this province through a partnership with the government, we feel, through a partnership with business.

Perhaps, as people have said in the criticisms that have come across the floor, the approach is not right or there isn't the balance that they would wish there was, but the fact of the matter is that we've tried to create an atmosphere that lends itself, through this particular program, to training in this province. We find it a real problem, we find it a real need and we think it's something that needs to be sufficiently addressed. That is something we're trying to do.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): It's not working.

Mr North: The member across the floor says it's not working. I can tell him that I had a discussion last week with people in my particular area, the beautiful riding of Elgin, the county of Elgin, which is such a tremendous home for me and my family, and they told me that in fact it is working. If we were talking about the tortoise and the hare, perhaps it's not the hare -- at this point it may well be the tortoise -- but I remember how that story goes and it seems to me that as the story ends, there was value in what the tortoise was doing.

In this particular case, it's paying off; it actually is. I cannot measure the jobs that we're getting in Elgin county in hundreds or thousands at this point, but I can measure the jobs that we're getting in Elgin county as good, substantial jobs.

I never said, when I talked to people about Jobs Ontario, that this was going to turn Elgin county's employment record around in days. What I did say was that there was a hope and a vision that we would be creating good, substantial jobs, well-paying jobs, that would lead to further employment in the future.

I think we've created that atmosphere and I think we've created those partnerships in Elgin county. I find that the jobs that are being created are being created by the private sector in partnership with the government and are good, substantial jobs.

The second thing I wanted to talk about was Jobs Ontario Capital, because I feel, coming from a construction background, that an investment in infrastructure is one of the most substantial investments you can make in your town, your village, your province or your country. An investment in infrastructure (a) creates tremendous employment, (b) creates lasting commitment and investment to a community and (c) I think opens doors and gateways for that community to all different sorts of economic stimulus.

Those types of things, certainly in Elgin county, are very readily accepted. As a matter of fact, they have been readily accepted in Elgin county in the past two and a half years and in the years previous to that. We've had tremendous growth in investment in infrastructure that is giving us all types of economic opportunities, whether it's through roads, hospitals, schools, everything that you can think of. I believe that in Elgin county's particular situation, we'll benefit from this greatly.

The third piece I wanted to talk about was the social contract, because I know this is a difficult situation. It's a difficult situation for people on all sides to deal with, and even for the people who stand as observers to the process.

The municipalities say that the timing is out, that they don't enjoy the process, that we should have done this a different way, that it should have happened sooner and that they've set their budgets and this isn't going to be a good process for them. Because they're going to have to face it, they're going to penalize the provincial government, they're going to put up the "Bob Rae tax," they're going to do this, they're going to do that, they're going to do the other thing.

In the end, if we can work ourselves into a situation where we can get an agreement with our partners and the government, I think we'll have laid some groundwork for a better relationship for the employees of this province and the broader public sector. I think if we can do that, it will certainly benefit everyone who's a part of this process.

The thing I find about this agreement is the fact that this is an experience where we have the government and the bargaining agents, the people who are under contract to the government in the broader public sector, sitting at a table deciding together, setting a plan together, an agenda together. I think if you can extend that decision-making process to the very people who need to be a part of the savings, the $2 billion we're trying to save, I think you will have a better process. I agree with what we're trying to do and I hope very strongly -- I'm very committed to the idea that I hope this works because I think it will be something that will benefit this province.

1740

The next thing that I wanted to speak of, and this is one that I know is dear to everyone's heart, is the revenue generation side. There's been tremendous discussion about revenue generation, and the basic simple fact, the quote that everyone uses, is taxes, and they're going up. Well, I don't think that's anything new in this province. It's happened before a number of times, and it's something that you have to decide if you're going to -- the question, I don't think, is, are the taxes going up, but are you getting value for your dollar and what are you getting for your taxes? That's the discussion that I think people need to have in a broader way, because the discussion now as it stands is just, "The taxes are going up, business will be leaving, and that's the end of this ball game." But I don't think so. I think there's much more to it than that.

I think that you have to decide for yourself. If you're in this province and you live in this province and you want to have the services that are available in this province that are not available in other jurisdictions, then someone has to pay for them, and in this particular situation, as a person who works and lives in this province, I have to pay for them. I've had to pay for them for a long time and I'll have to pay for them for a long time yet.

The fact of the matter is, I enjoy the services that we get, and I know that there are people out there who need those services much more than I do, and I want those services to be sustained, so I'm willing to pay, and that's the bottom line with taxes: Are you or are you not willing to pay for the services you get, value for the dollar you spend?

The last thing that I wanted to talk about was the approach that I've witnessed in the House to the budget and the approach that I've witnessed outside the House to the budget. There has been tremendous discussion -- today, as a matter of fact -- about the budget. There were some good speeches that I heard made by the leaders of the two opposition parties, who talked about the budget. There have been good speeches that have been made by members talking about the budget.

The fact of the matter is that through it all, and I've listened very closely, not one suggestion today have I heard on the budget. I have heard very clearly criticisms. I have heard very clearly criticisms that were addressed to me from other people. That's fine. You can look in the Hansard; you can see for yourself. It's been criticisms, but not suggestions. The Hansard will bear out what I'm saying.

The member from Ottawa-Rideau said this is a deplorable breach of trust. It's a budget. It's a budget, as there have been budgets in the past. It's not a deplorable breach of trust. It's a group of people who have put together a budget for an economy of the province of Ontario and have done what they feel is the best they can do in the situation that we're in.

We've got to look at how we do this in the future. We've got to look at the process, we've got to understand the process and we've got to try and make the process better.

We've got all kinds of people -- I could tell you about friends of mine, Gary Remeer, who lives very close to me and has a small business and says to me: "Get it under control. Get on with it. Get the process through and keep moving. Set a budget, set an agenda and keep moving." There's a gentleman who has a business. He doesn't see this as sort of an anti-capitalist creed. He doesn't say this is some sort of province that's closed for business. As a matter of fact, his business is better than it was before because he works very hard at it.

So I don't see it in the same way you do, and I understand the criticisms and that's how this House works. From what I've been told in Elgin county, the biggest waste of money is this House itself. I mean, people at home have said to me, "This is terrible that you should spend the money you do here."

Mrs Marland: Peter, I wasn't quoting this House; I was quoting people outside this House.

Mr North: Right, and I'm going to get to those very statements you made. I feel very strongly that I need to address that, and I do. The last thing I wanted to say is very much to that point that you made. You said that there were a number of people in Peel region who felt very terrible about the way this budget had come out and that it was going to do dramatic things to that part of the province. I say to the member who brought those points forward, how do they feel about the federal level? I mean, they must know that these dollars transfer down and they must know that these dollars have not transferred down. I don't know how they feel about $8 billion or $9 billion or $10 billion not coming to the province and therefore not coming down.

I mean, everyone says, "You've just shifted the blame," and all of that. Well, we haven't tried to do that. For two years we've tried to do it a different way. The fact of the matter is that obviously in the case of the chief administrative officers and the people she's mentioned, they don't seem to feel the same way about fiscal federal transfers as they do about provincial transfers. I guess they must not feel the federal fiscal transfers not coming down the same way they feel the provincial fiscal transfer not coming down.

I guess it must be the province's fault in their eyes, and they may very well think that, but I think that you should suggest to them that there's a way of looking at this from another point of view.

I think the last thing I'll say is that I support the direction we've taken. I hope we can solve the social contract issue, because I think that's a positive step for the province. I support the Jobs Ontario program and I support the work the Treasurer has done. I thank you for your time.

Mr Curling: I also want to make a comment on my colleague from Elgin. As I listen to him I believe that he really believes what he's saying. He said things are just booming up in his community, saying that Jobs Ontario has really been targeted and is really working in his area.

It seems to me then that Jobs Ontario is only targeted in your area, because in the other areas it's not working. I'm going to ask you to visit places, like the YMCA, which is trying to get Jobs Ontario going, and the Tropicana organization, which is trying to get Jobs Ontario going. It's not working. I would say to him, if you want to be realistic, start looking at it in a way that it will help the people it was targeted for.

Now, quickly, the other party talks about taxes. You keep criticizing the Liberals for raising taxes 33 times in the time that they were in power. They have raised it -- how much did you say? -- 20-odd times.

Mr Hope: He didn't mention that.

Mr Curling: You didn't mention it, but I want you to mention that. That's what I want to say to you in my comments, that he has left out those areas that they have. Look at two and a half years of raised taxes. They say that's good.

This time in our economy we don't need to raise taxes. The people have been taxed too much and the fact is that you have actually -- at an average income for a family of four with $50,000, they are now paying $330 to this government for more taxes.

Mr North: Seven dollars a week.

Mr Curling: He said $7 a week. You know what that means to a family that is poor, seven bucks a week? He says that's all it is. But the accumulative amount is $330. I could not forget that.

1750

Mr Tilson: I'd like to respond to one item with respect to the member from Elgin. He commented, and it seems to be a theme that's developing through all of the government members, that this budget is one of fairness. I must say that my observations in talking to people around this province are that it's most unfair.

I guess the question is, how much can we be taxed as a society? One of the items you must look at, we all must look at, is the subject of tax freedom day. That's the day, as you know, member from Elgin, that we stop handing over our paycheque to the tax man and get to keep our earnings. Last year in the province of Ontario, tax freedom day was June 25. With this budget, it has to be well into July. Can you imagine?

Mr Hope: Oh, come on.

Mr Tilson: Well, let's look at the facts. The facts are that it's going to be well into July before you're going to put any money into your pocket. In the United States, tax freedom day last year fell on May 2. In the highest-taxed state, which I believe was New York, I believe it fell on May 25. So the people of this province are saying quite the contrary, and you've said it in the past. "Enough's enough. How high can our taxes go? Are we going to pretty soon be donating all of our paycheque to the government?"

It's not a fair tax, all of these taxes that are being mentioned. We can't sustain any more tax if we're going to encourage investment from other countries, other provinces. This province is the highest-taxed province in North America, and it has to stop.

I would like the member for Elgin to comment on the subject of tax freedom day now being in July.

Mr Hope: I'd like to focus my comments on some of the comments my colleague from Elgin made when he made reference to rural Ontario. He made emphasis to Jobs Ontario, and I know alone I share this glory with my colleague from Essex-Kent, where we've created over 375 jobs since its inception in September 1992. So I guess we do things much better in rural Ontario than the large centres, because when my colleague from Elgin mentioned about some of the concerns we heard, it's how fiscally responsible rural Ontario municipalities have been versus the larger centres and larger school boards that have consistently gone out there and just spent all kinds of money, knowing that their friends here in Toronto were just dishing it out.

But we in rural Ontario have been able to make sure that we've been living fiscally responsibly within our means. I think that's very important, because if we talk about the infrastructures of rural Ontario -- I know my colleague led to it -- it is very important for some of us, for our arenas, which are centrepoints of a lot of our small communities, and this is important for us to help develop that infrastructure.

I know alone on my own, dealing with Dover and Bothwell, Dover and Bothwell needed water. For years they had to apply to other governments. No money. This money was coming to them to help them with their infrastructure, to provide their citizens with clean water.

I just had the pleasure the other day. The Minister of Transportation who was over there -- I wish he would listen to what I was going to say, because the Minister of Transportation just helped my community in Chatham township and in Dover township with some capital initiatives that are going to make that community more effective, and I compliment the Minister of Transportation for that effort, because it is helping.

So with my colleague from Elgin's comments, we understand what fiscal responsibility is in rural Ontario. I'm sure that's exactly what my colleague from Elgin is trying to express. I wish the Liberals and Tories who keep saying that Jobs Ontario doesn't work would ask the question why your leader and your deputy leader were in Chatham trying to find out how Jobs Ontario actually works in the province of Ontario.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): The member opposite spoke about fiscal responsibility, and I'd like to take this opportunity to ask him if he thinks that it's fiscally responsible to take a triple A credit rating and have it downgraded twice. Does he think it's fiscally responsible to take a balanced operating budget and turn that into a deficit in the first year alone of $3 billion, $10 billion the second year and now we have a structural deficit of $10 billion?

Does he think it's fiscally responsible to raise wages at the beginning of a recession and then try to take it back two and a half years later when you realize what the rest of the world has been telling you, which is, "You simply can't afford to do that"?

Does he think it's fiscally responsible and fair to say to people at a time when they are struggling to pay the mortgages on their houses, when they'd really like to buy a new car, which might help the province's economy get going, "We're going to take more taxes out of your pocket at the same time as you're worried about losing your job, at the same time as you're worried about how you're going to provide for your family"?

Is it fair for the Treasurer, two years in a row, to hit personal income tax, and further, does the member think it is fair to say: "We're going to take that tax retroactively. We're going to double the increase. We're going to say it is a 3% increase when in fact it is a 6% increase for the rest of this year"?

I would say to the member that it's important to stand in this House and talk about what fiscal responsibility is and what fairness is. I don't believe that fairness is attempting to achieve the lowest common denominator, and I don't think that fairness is telling people one thing and doing the opposite.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Elgin has two minutes in response.

Mr North: I appreciate that, Mr Speaker, because it is a pleasure to have an opportunity, especially after I got a lecture from the other side just now about what's fair and what's fiscally responsible and everything else.

As you recall, before I was in this place, I was in business for myself, and I lived through three years of Liberal --

Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister without Portfolio in Municipal Affairs): Terror.

Interjections.

Mr North: Problems. I can't use the word, Mr Speaker. I can't use the word.

But I'll tell you one thing: I lived through it. I lived through it because I had enough gumption to keep working despite the problems that I faced after tax after tax after tax on small business. You talk to me about fairness, you talk to me about equity, when I had nine people and it ends up I can only employ three people.

All of these good taxes that these people did bring in, whom did they benefit? They benefited no one, because they could not be sustained in the period that did not experience growth the way that we experienced it in the time that they were the government. They were not sustainable taxes. They were brought in at a time, they were put on business at a time, when they could not handle what was there. As soon as we dropped into a period when we did not sustain the growth that was there before, they were gone.

I'll tell you one thing, Mr Speaker; I will make one thing clear in this House today. The one thing that we didn't do is we didn't make a big promise about lowering a sales tax two weeks before the election and run away from a problem that was in this province. We're still here today, we're going to be here tomorrow, we're going to face this thing, and we are going to fix it. That's what we're here for, and that's what we're going to do.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough North on a point of --

Mr Curling: A point of order. Considering that it's just about three minutes before 6 o'clock and we are next to speak, I would ask that the House be adjourned.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

It now being very near 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, June 1, at 1:30.

The House adjourned at 1758.

31 mai 1993