Journal des débats 1994-mars-29 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I would like to take a moment to clear the air on an issue raised by the member for Chatham-Kent last Thursday in the House. The member accused both the provincial and federal Liberal caucuses of failing to support the ethanol fuel industry. The member for Chatham-Kent went on the local media saying the Ontario Liberals had turned their backs on ethanol production in southwestern Ontario.

I would simply like to draw the member's attention to the following, and I'm sorry he's not in the House today: my party's call for support of ethanol fuel production, and meetings arranged with the federal government as early as December 1991; the January 20, 1994, commitment signed by our leader Lyn McLeod for the maintenance of current provincial tax exemptions for at least 10 years, which I might add was prior to his own government statement; the March 22, 1994, letter from my leader Lyn McLeod to the Prime Minister calling on Ottawa to do the same at the federal level.

The people of Chatham-Kent and all across Ontario should know that the provincial Liberal caucus is 100% behind the ethanol industry and the jobs it creates.

Finally, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs himself recognized the Liberal Party's commitment to ethanol on December 8, 1992, when he said, "The critic from the official opposition has been on his feet many times asking me about ethanol."

Maybe the member from Chatham-Kent could speak to his own minister and get his facts straight before he makes such ridiculous accusations.

MEN AND WELLNESS CONFERENCE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is about a rather unique event I attended recently at the Rama first nations. "Are You Man Enough" was the theme of the Men and Wellness Conference, which saw men of the nine-member first nations come together to nurture and develop a healthy social and physical environment in the community.

I want to thank Chief Norm Stinson and Chief Jeff Monague for their kind invitation to attend the conference, and I'd like to congratulate 19-year-old Ernie Jamieson for his fine presentation, and others who spoke so well.

Conference organizers invited a panel of speakers, held workshop sessions and conducted talking circles over a two-day period. In keeping with the conference theme, I challenged delegates to ask themselves the following questions: Are you man enough to say no to drugs and alcohol? Are you man enough to say no to spousal abuse? Are you man enough to say no to violence? Are you man enough to build a strong foundation for the future of your families?

I believe the "Are You Man Enough" Men and Wellness Conference will have a ripple effect across the Rama first nations and Christian Island and across the country. Wellness must occur first within the individual before the family and then ultimately the community becomes well. I hope the renewed strength found in the rediscovery of the aboriginal culture at the Men and Wellness Conference will lead to a healthier lifestyle across this province.

ACTS OF KINDNESS

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to highlight a program which promotes social skills at White Oaks Public School in my riding of London South. This initiative is called AOK, standing for Acts Of Kindness. Through show-and-teach sessions featuring skits, rap songs and certificates acknowledging appropriate behaviour, the message of zero tolerance for verbal, emotional or physical violence is reaching students.

Teachers and school staff award AOK certificates, which entitle students to ballots in recognition of good social skills. Every two weeks, the teacher draws names of students from the ballot box to receive prizes, like fluorescent shoelaces or pencils that say, "Caught doing good."

Nearby, the White Oaks Mall merchants endorse this program with a parallel campaign. Security guards, cleaning staff and retailers all award certificates that enable students to enter further gift certificate draws.

The resource teacher-counsellor at White Oaks, Valerie Quant, is campaign coordinator and notes that the pupils are proud of their certificates and enjoy the recognition, and teachers are encouraged to look for positive acts. Vice-principal Bill Tucker feels a change in attitude in turn creates a change in behaviour, and students observe that things are better around the school now.

I laud the White Oaks Public School's AOK program in providing to all students a reminder to be safer and kinder and to provide a positive alternative to unacceptable behaviour such as hitting, threats, name-calling and blaming. Thank you to the members of White Oaks Mall as well.

CONSEIL SCOLAIRE DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE D'OTTAWA-CARLETON

M. Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie) : Cela fait deux ans et demi que le conseil scolaire public francophone d'Ottawa-Carleton est en tutelle. Le projet de loi 143 contient un certain nombre de solutions aux problèmes des conseils scolaires francophones d'Ottawa-Carleton, mais ne fait aucune référence à la tutelle du conseil public.

Monsieur le ministre, quand allez-vous agir ? Vous savez, comme moi, que deux ans et demi de tutelle n'ont pas réglé les vrais problèmes. La dette du conseil public continue d'augmenter et, ce qui est bien pire encore, les parents n'ont aucun contrôle sur une institution qui est d'une importance stratégique pour eux. Comment le gouvernement néo-démocrate peut-il continuer à priver les parents de tout un conseil scolaire du droit de dire un mot sur ce qui se passe dans leurs écoles ?

Je demande au ministre de s'intéresser au sort du conseil public francophone d'Ottawa-Carleton. Peut-il, aujourd'hui même, nous dire qu'il va mettre fin à la tutelle dans les plus brefs délais ? Les élections s'en viennent au mois de novembre de cette année et il est d'une importance capitale que les parents puissent élire des conseillers scolaires qui vont vraiment les représenter et qui vont être en mesure, avec la collaboration du ministère de l'Éducation, de trouver de vraies solutions aux difficultés que connaît leur conseil scolaire.

1340

FORT HENRY SUNSET CEREMONIAL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): If I have a conflict of interest on this subject, it has to do with the fact that I am a former guardsman of the Old Fort Henry Guard and commandant of the guard going back to the early 1960s.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The 1960s?

Mr Cousens: The 1960s.

Today, I stand to try to protect and defend a tourist attraction for all the province of Ontario, which is in jeopardy of losing one of the major attractions to Kingston and eastern Ontario with this government's thinking. A historical tradition is being threatened, and I would like to call upon the government to rethink what it can do to keep this long-standing tourist attraction alive and attractive to tourists in Ontario.

The sunset ceremonial for the Old Fort Henry Guard is going to be cancelled this year. The sunset ceremonial, with its combined battle re-enactment, its music program, is unique and unmatched worldwide. To cut this program makes little sense. After all, this ceremony is a key tourist attraction and it is always featured in Ontario's advertising in Kingston and Ontario.

The Kingston Area Economic Development Commission estimates that the show contributes up to 20% of the local occupancy of hotels in the area. Losing this show will mean a decrease to tourism.

I say, as one MPP who has had an attraction there and loves the place, please may you look as a government on how you can keep this place alive for the future.

NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today to tell the members of the Legislature of an exciting first that is taking place in my region.

March 9 marked the kickoff of the first ever Neighbourhood Watch program for the deaf in Canada. This is a new and exciting first. The Neighbourhood Watch program that currently exists in the region of Waterloo relies on the telephone. The new program will be for regional Tty users.

The hearing world is being accommodated by an automated dialling system to send messages. A Tty was donated by Dahlberg Science of Kitchener to the Kitchener Neighbourhood Watch office, and this Tty and five volunteers will form a networking system to send crime messages to all regional Tty users.

Networking is only an interim answer and hopefully future technology will provide for greater accessibility. Networking will be a feasible method at first as the original starting membership will be in the 150 to 200 range.

As the 1,500- to 2,000-member potential is met, it is the hope of the Neighbourhood Watch organization to have a computer system in place that will accommodate the members. The deaf and hard-of-hearing communities will enjoy the additional communications as another link is removed from this barrier.

I would like to commend Paul Barber and members of the Kitchener Neighbourhood Watch, Kathy Barber of the Canadian Hearing Society, Lauralee Brosseau and our five deaf volunteers.

Neighbourhood Watch is a program that benefits any community, but one that is designed to service the needs of all members of our community is a definite plus to any community and will definitely strengthen our fight against crime in Waterloo region.

I'd like to congratulate everyone involved for taking on this responsibility, seeing a community need and taking action towards solving this need.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): My statement is directed to the Minister of Housing and to the Solicitor General and it is on the issue of Bill 120. As you know, Bill 120 is the government's legislation to legalize basement apartments, and much has been said about this issue. Municipalities have made their concerns known, community groups have made their positions clear, but the paramount concern must always be safety.

Tragedies have occurred in the city of Mississauga and indeed throughout the province.

The Minister of Housing continues to push this legislation forward without any real response for the safety of those living in basement apartments. She spoke only yesterday of regulations, but in reality these regulations do not require smoke detectors and they do not deal with the issue of residential sprinkler systems.

It is irresponsible for the minister to ram this legislation through this Legislature without addressing these concerns of safety. I implore the Minister of Housing, I implore the Solicitor General to stop this legislation until safety precautions are not only in place, but also with the approval and consent of the firefighter services of this province.

These tragedies must stop. Incidents like those in Mississauga cannot be allowed to continue. Everyone's responsibility must be with the safety of the people of this province.

CREDIT VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It gives me great pleasure to join in the Credit Valley Conservation Authority's celebration of 40 years of conservation.

The Credit Valley Conservation Authority, CVCA, began with the efforts of the Lions Clubs of the Credit Valley, Georgetown, Brampton and Orangeville. To mark its 40th year, the authority is exploring new directions in conservation with an emphasis on returning to its grass roots.

The CVCA is much more than an agency that is responsible for flood and erosion control. Many residents of the Credit River's watershed enjoy the authority's outstanding parks. The CVCA also implements conservation programs, studies the watershed, educates the community and provides technical advice to area municipalities on planning and environmental issues. It is appropriate then that the CVCA is shifting its focus from being an authoritative organization to becoming a conservation advocacy group.

Like all conservation authorities, the CVCA faces financial challenges from scarcer tax dollars and provincial funding cuts. The CVCA has accepted this challenge by seeking new funding sources and building stronger partnerships with the private sector.

I wish the Credit Valley Conservation Authority and all the volunteer members the very best in this anniversary year. May you enjoy another 40 years of conservation success, and thank you for all you have done to preserve this beautiful world.

MIDWIFERY

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I'm proud to state that this government took the initiative to recognize and legalize the profession of midwifery in Ontario, but I am less than proud of the manner in which this program is being implemented.

Practising Ontario midwives were given a one-time opportunity to apply to assess their qualifications. Successful candidates could then register with the College of Midwives and receive a licence to practice. Unfortunately, this program was poorly managed. Many well-qualified midwives with independent practice were denied entrance while others with less experience were admitted.

Three universities have now begun offering degree programs in midwifery. There is no provision for experienced midwives to obtain advanced standing at this time. This is not efficient use of scarce resources.

We must be concerned that all licensed midwives be properly qualified, but we must also ensure that all qualified midwives be given the opportunity to obtain a licence. This has not happened. The losers are not only those midwives whose livelihoods have been snatched from them, but also the public, yet midwives could save the government money in health care costs.

I urge the Minister of Health to intervene in this matter and correct a great wrong. What began as an enlightened and commendable program should not be allowed to become a fiasco. The member for Chatham-Kent, who is sitting beside me here today, agrees.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, you recently announced that you would be spending $180,000 to study the Jobs Ontario Training program, a program which we have been saying for many months is just not working.

We understand that the purpose of your study is to find out how employers and Jobs Ontario clients feel about the program, and we suggest you don't need a $180,000 consultant to tell you that the program isn't working. The people in the businesses of this province will tell you for free, and yes indeed, we have been trying to tell you that for months.

This government has touted the Jobs Ontario Training program as being the cornerstone of its job creation program. In fact, it is the only part of the Jobs Ontario program that is designed by this government. Why has it taken you two years and $346 million before you decided to find out whether the program is working?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, I would say to the member that this program, the Jobs Ontario Training program, is part of this government's efforts to get Ontario back to work. There's Jobs Ontario Homes, there's Jobs Ontario Capital, there's Jobs Ontario Youth, there's Jobs Ontario Community Action, there's our base capital program. For you to describe one particular program and say it's the cornerstone, the only program, of this government to create jobs shows how badly informed you are as Leader of the Opposition. That is just silly.

1350

The fact of the matter is that, as of today, there are 41,435 jobs that have been created under the Jobs Ontario Training program. The fact of the matter is that we've saved $150 million on social assistance costs. That's a fact as well.

Yes, we have spent, and I think it's appropriately so, $180,000 to have an external review looking at the numbers, to talk to the employers, to talk to the employees so that we can make what is a very good program even better. That builds into the kind of accountability that government should be used to. You should have practised a little accountability like that. Maybe you would have done better.

Mrs McLeod: I point out to the minister, as we all know, that all of the other parts of the Jobs Ontario program are renamed capital spending, worthwhile projects but not new. The only part of the program in Jobs Ontario that's new is Jobs Ontario Training and, by any standards of accountability, this program is not working.

Minister, I'll give you one more example of the ways in which Jobs Ontario Training isn't working. In February 1993 you gave a grant of $650,000 to a company called Select Meat in Guelph. There was no financial check done on the company as part of the grant review; let's talk about accountability. Seven months later, Select Meat went bankrupt. It left 32 people unemployed and it took $200,000 of Jobs Ontario money with it.

In at least two other examples you've handed out $28,000 in Jobs Ontario Training grants to do feasibility studies for jobs creation, and the only job involved there was the hiring of more consultants.

It is no wonder that you have been completely unable to meet your own targets under this program, and that's another measure of failed accountability. You promised to create jobs for 100,000 people when you announced this program. You've only placed 29,000 people in jobs. There's still just a year left to go in the program. Is this not enough evidence for you that this program is not working?

Hon Mr Cooke: The fact is that in this program we have 26,535 employers registered, and then the Leader of the Opposition gets up and names one particular employer where there was a difficulty and condemns the entire program. That is the kind of analysis that is really, really amateurish. That doesn't show at all that the program is not working. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for St George-St David is out of order.

Hon Mr Cooke: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should have come to the jobs fair in her own home town that we had a couple of weeks ago, where over 300 people turned up, most of whom were employers, most of whom got on their feet and said that this was one of the best programs, no red tape and easy to access, that they've ever experienced.

Mrs McLeod: I suspect it is exactly those people who will give glowing reports of the report that the government's $180,000 consultant study will search out.

I would say to the minister that I have talked to some of the 29,000 people who have been involved with the program who've found a placement and who are indeed happy to at least have some short-term work, but I don't believe that if we're talking about accountability for the program you set up in the first place, you can pretend that you're creating the long-term, permanent jobs that you wanted this program to create, and I don't think you should pretend that this is giving real, long-term, relevant training to the people who are being placed in very short-term jobs.

At best, this is a short-term wage subsidy program, and that's not what you set out to provide with Jobs Ontario Training. The bottom line is that you are two thirds of the way through a $1-billion program and you haven't yet reached one third of your own target.

As of March 4, according to the report from your ministry -- and there may be some updated figures in the last couple of weeks that we've not been able to get that would make a slight difference -- 83,000 people have been enrolled in the program but only 29,000 have jobs. That means that there were 54,000 people left on an indefinite waiting list.

You did create 39,000 jobs with the subsidy program but you only filled 29,000 of these. So with 54,000 people waiting on a waiting list, you have 10,000 empty jobs. I wonder how you can have 10,000 unfilled jobs when you've got 54,000 people on a waiting list. It seems to me that this program might be renamed too and we'd call it Jobs Ontario Waiting. The only thing --

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

Mrs McLeod: The only thing this program has in common with the unemployed people of this province is that they're not working.

Minister, I ask you, is the $180,000 study going to deal with this kind of administrative chaos in this program where the consultant recommended changes to the program so we could begin to at least meet some of those target goals, or has your study been set up only so that you will hear what you want to hear as part of an ongoing public relations exercise?

Hon Mr Cooke: I guess what the member doesn't understand -- and I still would encourage her to come over for a briefing to the ministry so she could understand the program better, or to the jobs fairs that are existing across the province. The fact of the matter is that, of course, a job that is offered and is worked out with the private sector in this program isn't going to be filled the same day that it's offered. There's pre-employment training that is offered and then the people are placed.

What I don't understand with the member opposite is that maybe what she's advocating is the kind of program that they have in Liberal provinces like Frank McKenna's province where this type of training program to get people off social assistance and into the workplace is costing over $60,000 per person. This program is costing about one tenth of that to get people off social assistance, to get them the training and to get them into the workplace.

Maybe the Leader of the Opposition would feel a little more comfortable with the program if she would go to a place like Bombardier in her own community, like I did a couple of weeks ago, talk to people who have been through the program, talk to management there, talk to the CAW there. They don't have any kind of the criticism that you have for the program because they see --

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

Hon Mr Cooke: -- it working day in and day out.

Mrs McLeod: The program does nothing to get people off social assistance into long-term, permanent jobs.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also to the Minister of Education and Training on another issue.

I think you would agree that the math test results that we saw reported from the Scarborough Board of Education today would concern us all. I think you would also agree that those kinds of results, while they will obviously differ from situation to situation, make it very clear how important it is that we do have clear standards and that there are in place tests to measure how well students are meeting those standards.

I would like to suggest to you today that testing and measuring how well students are doing has to begin with a very clear expectation of what we expect our teachers to teach and what kind of skills we believe our students have to learn.

I would ask you today whether you will commit to putting in place very clear expectations across this province of what is to be taught at least in the basic areas of math, literacy and technology, and will you require that our schools then test all students on the basis of these expectations? Will you take these basic steps to ensure that our students are learning what they have to learn?

1400

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I guess what I would ask the Leader of the Opposition is, where has the Liberal Party been for the last period of time? This government has engaged in more assessment of our education system than has ever occurred in the history of this province.

The Leader of the Opposition knows that, because I saw a press clipping in her home town newspaper where she was talking about the education system. The article talked about the Liberal vision of education, of accountability and so forth, and then it finished off by saying, "Of course the NDP government is doing all of that," and we are: the national testing, the provincial testing, the standards for math and language that have been released, The Common Curriculum.

This system is moving to become more accountable than has ever been the case, and I really appreciate the support that the Leader of the Opposition is announcing today for the policies of this government in education.

Mrs McLeod: I have always been more than willing to recognize those rare occasions in which the government takes some steps in the right direction. The providing of benchmark tests, which was an initiative begun under a Liberal government, is a continuation of a step in the right direction and one which I fully support.

But I would go on to say to this government that the issue I wanted the minister to address was whether or not they're prepared to put in place core curriculum in basic areas of study. I believe this government is doing a disservice to people across this province in putting in place something which they have called a common curriculum and trying to convince people that it is a core curriculum. The Common Curriculum that this government is endorsing has nothing to do with clear expectation and basic standards.

Boards of education have had to rewrite the core curriculum because it was vague and confusing. Parents couldn't make sense of what it was children were supposed to learn. Teachers can't make sense of what it is they're supposed to teach. There are outcomes about values, and those are not statements about standards that have to be met. Let me give you one example.

The guidelines in the core curriculum say things like, "Students should be able to value literature that employs inclusive, bias-free language," but it doesn't say what that means. We are calling for the government to talk about core curriculum and standards; we call for it very clearly in the commitment that I make.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the leader place a question, please.

Mrs McLeod: That's what I am asking this government again: Will you put in place a core provincial program with clear standards so that students can be tested on those standards?

Hon Mr Cooke: What we have done is that when The Common Curriculum was released -- and I must say that if the member doesn't agree with The Common Curriculum, then I wish to heck when they were in government they had done something about it. What is the legacy that the Liberal Party has left Ontario on education? The answer is, nothing. They did nothing on public education from 1985 to 1990 with the exception of following through on the commitment that we all made to extend funding. That's the only thing that you did.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): What are you doing, David?

Hon Mr Cooke: When The Common Curriculum was released, we indicated very clearly that it was a working document and that we would consult with parents, educators, students, people in the business community and people in labour in order to rewrite that document so that it was a more specific document. The member knows that this document will be rereleased this December, as we announced quite a time ago. If the member has any suggestions of how that should happen, I'm certainly willing to listen.

Mr Murphy: They are all deputies.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David is out of order.

Hon Mr Cooke: You might even come over and offer some advice.

Mrs McLeod: What I want the minister to address is how his government will respond to what is very clearly the key concern of parents and students and in fact of educators across the province, not add to the confusion with some new direction called a common curriculum, but get back to the commitment which is needed today, and that is a commitment to very clear expectations in those core areas and clear standards that we can test students by.

I have said, although I identified the Benchmarks program as a continuation of what the former government was doing, that it is a step in the right direction. But the problem is that the Benchmarks testing program, the kind of testing that was done in the Scarborough board, is done on a random basis; it's not done across the province, with the exception perhaps of grade 9. We don't yet have a testing program that tells parents exactly how their children are doing and whether their children in that school in that system are meeting the standards that the province and the government have set.

Minister, I don't believe that we have to reinvent the wheel again. There is a clear concern. There are boards that are already responding to it, and you surely know the example of the North York board, the fact that it put in place basic core standards and benchmarks for testing for all its students in math and in literacy. The North York board is doing it, other boards are doing it --

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

Mrs McLeod: -- we know it can be done and we don't have to wait for the Royal Commission on Learning. Can you learn from this example? Can you understand that we can have clear, measurable standards, and will you not get on with it?

Hon Mr Cooke: If the Liberal Party is advocating that we have a clear set of expected outcomes and standards, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Murphy: Something the people can understand, David.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David, come to order.

Hon Mr Cooke: That's why the Common Curriculum document is being rewritten. That's why we put out -- and they're not called benchmarks, they're called standards, because they were redone because we weren't satisfied that the Benchmarks program was adequate or specific enough, so we changed that.

I would just ask the Leader of the Opposition to take a look at her own education document. If you want to be specific, if you want to offer policy advice, then don't write a document that basically says the Liberal Party's in favour of a good education system. Get specific, put your life on the line and have a policy.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, on Sunday the Premier of the province woke up to the reality that Ontario cannot tolerate a Hydro strike. The Premier issued an ultimatum to Ontario Hydro and to its workers, saying that if the two sides didn't settle, he would do it for them.

Minister, your Premier knew he could not allow a strike at Ontario Hydro to occur, because he knew electricity is an essential service to Ontarians. Will you, Minister, and your cabinet and your caucus, instead of yippety-yapping and yelling all the time, today give force to the Premier's words and actions by acknowledging in legislation that electricity in Ontario in 1994 is indeed an essential service?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The events of yesterday and the previous weeks are evidence that not only did the Premier not wake up to something on Sunday but he had been very much involved in assisting the parties and the Ministry of Labour officials, who are very much involved in assisting the parties, to reach a collective agreement through voluntary discussion and negotiation. It is amazing that we would have a suggestion of that sort after we've just seen yesterday how well collective bargaining can work in this province.

Mr Harris: The reason a settlement was reached by Hydro was because the Premier of the province forced them into it. Both sides acknowledge that. Mr Murphy, on behalf of the union, and Mr Strong, on behalf of Ontario Hydro, made it quite clear and acknowledged that the Premier forced them into it.

Why did this happen? Because the Premier knew, despite his long-held views on collective bargaining, that we had to avoid a strike at all costs. At all costs, we had to avoid that. Perhaps over the next two years we'll find out just what that cost was. However, that's another issue for another day.

The reason the Premier had to avoid a strike at all costs is because he knows electricity is essential to the province of Ontario.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Downsview.

Mr Harris: We know that. Hospitals know that. Industries know that. It seems that in officially stating it and coming forward with the position, only you and the Liberals refuse to acknowledge that. Only you and the Liberals seem to be in the dark as to whether electricity is an essential service or not.

1410

I'm asking you today, as the minister responsible for ensuring a safe and a secure supply of electricity for Ontario, why do you, along with the Liberals, refuse to declare hydro an essential service?

Hon Mr Wildman: After the performance of the Leader of the Opposition and her colleagues yesterday, I resent being put in the same box as the Liberals. I would very much say to the leader of the third party: Let's be serious here. Collective bargaining worked in this province. The strength of collective bargaining was shown. Nobody put a gun to anybody's head. The Premier showed leadership and he's been congratulated by both Ontario Hydro and the Power Workers' Union representatives for having done that. The two of them worked very hard to negotiate a collective agreement and show that collective bargaining is strong and works in this province.

Mr Harris: I think the head of the union and the head of Hydro acknowledge that the Premier forced them into a settlement. I think that's very clear. Businesses, hospitals, mines, factories, municipalities, workers and those concerned about safety in our streets should never have had to worry about the loss of an essential service such as electricity in the very first place. You know that. Ontario cannot function without electricity. Those who live near nuclear plants should not have had to worry about the safety of the nuclear plants if they were required to meet those commitments.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Huron.

Mr Harris: We now know that they were required or the commitments could not have been met.

Pure and simple, it's this: If what makes our industries work, if what keeps our hospitals running, if what keeps our families safe, warm and working is not an essential service, what, according to your definition and the Liberal definition, is an essential service?

Hon Mr Wildman: The leader of the third party should be very, very congratulatory to the two parties for how hard they worked to ensure that collective bargaining would be successful. Both the Power Workers' Union and the management of Ontario Hydro recognize the importance of that operation to the economy of this province, to the factories, to the residents of this province, to the hospitals and to the schools, and that is why they made a commitment to do everything possible to ensure that a collective bargaining process would be successful. We did it. We should be celebrating, not second-guessing.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: You would be well advised to deal with the situation for the next time so we don't go through the same kind of fearmongering and the same kind of concerns.

The Speaker: Would the leader of the third party please place his second question.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Over a year ago, my caucus presented a nine-point plan to improve accountability in the welfare system and to reduce costs by cracking down on abuse. Yesterday, over a year later, you announced your plan. Minister, it is far too little and it is much too late. Your answer to the problem, the only solution I saw, seems to me to be typical of NDP and Liberal philosophy: Create a bigger bureaucracy. That was the only answer we saw.

Yet although we pointed out example after example and recommendation after recommendation, and you have other jurisdictions which have moved on these fronts, you did not give the existing review officers any additional tools or any clear direction on how they can prevent abuse in the first place. Why not?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): It's hard to answer a question that asks, "Why not?" when in fact the answer is, "We have."

Mr Harris: Well, if that's your answer --

Hon Mr Silipo: I haven't finished. I think the announcement that I made yesterday outlined very clearly, and I can assure the member that the instructions that are going out to our staff and the instructions that are going out to municipalities and the discussions that we will be having with them will make it absolutely clear, that we are very clear on the need to do the systematic investigations and review that I outlined yesterday, to do that in a way that focuses initially, during the first six months, on those cases that we believe have the most potential for abuse and to ensure as a result that we are indeed protecting the system for those who need it.

Mr Harris: I think you know as well as we do that unless we reduce the overall envelope of welfare costs in the province, we're not going to be in a position, we're not going to be able to afford to help those who truly need help and in some cases much more help than we're giving them today.

During the biggest boom years of the province, under the changes brought in by the Liberals, welfare costs went up, if you can believe that. You know that and I know that. The Ontario government, over the last 10 years, has increased welfare eligibility to the point that the system has gone from costing $1 billion to over $6 billion a year in a 10-year period.

For example, in that 10-year period 16- and 17-year-olds have been simply saying, "I don't want to live at home any more," and they are eligible for welfare. As well, there are some 32,000 students in Ontario today collecting welfare because they say they want to. Why didn't you address this situation in yesterday's announcement?

Hon Mr Silipo: I need to correct the member when he says that 16- and 17-year-olds can simply decide that they don't want to live at home and therefore become eligible for social assistance. That is not what the provisions are. In order for 16- and 17-year-olds to be able to be eligible for social assistance, they have to demonstrate, and the worker has to be satisfied, that there is an issue of abuse that's there. I think we would want to ensure --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): That is not true.

Hon Mr Silipo: I think there is an answer to the question, if I'm allowed to give it, and that is that what we have to do in that particular area is strike the kind of balance I hope we would all support, which is that we have to be able to continue to provide support in those instances where there is abuse or other legitimate reasons for the young person leaving home but to also make it clear that we will not support young people simply leaving home, and becoming automatically eligible for social assistance. I can tell the member that we are looking at how we can strike that balance in a better way, but I think it's important that we set the rules straight and that we describe the rules as they exist in the most straightforward fashion.

The leader of the third party also talked about the increasing costs of welfare. We all acknowledge, as he has acknowledged, the fact that even during the boom years costs have continued to go up. That is why we have ventured on some significant reforms and some significant changes that will assist individuals in moving off social assistance. We believe that we can still bring about some of those changes. I'd be happy to outline over the next number of weeks what we can do.

We obviously, as a result of what the federal government has been doing to us, have not been able to carry forward with all of those changes in terms of the child income program which we believed were going to be a fundamental improvement in the quality of life for all people of low incomes, but we are intent on proceeding with a number of the training and support initiatives that will help --

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

Hon Mr Silipo: -- people to move off social assistance, to move off the dependency of social assistance. That, together with the initiatives that I outlined yesterday, will give us both a more effective and a more humane social assistance system in the province.

Mr Harris: It is not good enough simply to say the federal Liberals have abandoned the poor in Ontario, the helpless, the needy. It's true, but it's not enough just to lay the blame there, because in spite of the despicable actions of the federal Liberals in Ottawa, there is much, Minister, that you can do. There is much that you can do even in spite of the complete abandonment of Ontario by the federal Liberals in Ottawa.

For example, you are still directly depositing welfare cheques into bank accounts, you have not reinstated home visits, you did not adopt the Quebec review system we brought to your attention and you admitted yesterday that you have absolutely no handle on the extent of the problem. You think it's more than 3% but you have no handle on it.

1420

Since you are not willing to get to the bottom of the situation, will you -- and you acknowledge you don't know the magnitude of the problem -- immediately ask the Provincial Auditor to step in and conduct an audit of our entire welfare system, which now is costing over $6 billion a year?

Hon Mr Silipo: Mr Speaker, on one point at least, I stand corrected. The member is right in that I shouldn't have put the blame completely on the federal Liberals; I should have also pointed out the great disservice that the previous Conservative government has also done to the province of Ontario.

I think that what we have to do in this issue is -- we can choose to debate from here till doomsday what the level of fraud and abuse in the system is, and I'm not sure that would get us any further ahead in dealing with the real problems we have, both in terms of abuse and in terms of some of the other issues outside of the question of abuse.

I also don't think that putting a worker in everyone's home is necessarily the way to address the issues that we've got. I know that the workers in our system have the ability to use home visits where they think that's an appropriate mechanism. I think what we have to do is continue the process that we have been undertaking for some time, to which we've added some significant steps in the announcement that I made yesterday, which will give us, I think once and for all, the kind of control over the system that we need, not just in the system that we are directly responsible for running as a province but also the other half of the systems that the municipalities are responsible for. That's what we are intending to do.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Environment. Mr Minister, you will be aware of a discussion and information that was released today, Radio Noon, CBC, which indicated that last night at a public advisory meeting, which I believe was held in Elmira, a report was made public for the first time. This report contained, I believe, some very disturbing news about the presence of a particular chemical in the groundwater which has a potential of leakage into the Grand River. My question is: What information can you share with this House today on this matter?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I must say that I wasn't privy to the radio program to which the member refers so I'm not quite sure what matter he's referring to with regard to the report in Elmira, but I will take his question under advisement and report back to the House.

Mr Offer: I was hoping that the Minister of Environment would be aware of this type of information which would be so crucial to the community and the surrounding area, and I take note that he will respond and report back to the Legislature.

I would also like the minister, in his response back to the Legislature, to comment on the fact that this report was made known to the Ministry of Environment as long ago as February and not made public until last night. This is of crucial importance as to why a report of this nature and magnitude, which has this impact in terms of the environment, would not have been made public immediately by you and your ministry upon it being brought to your attention.

Hon Mr Wildman: If the member's information is accurate, then I am very concerned. Obviously, as I indicated, I'm not aware of the content of the radio report or the report that is reported to have been released in Elmira or how long it might have been held within the ministry, that the ministry had knowledge of it. So I will get all of that information and report back to the member. If his information is accurate, I do take it as very serious.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION OFFICE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister, Sheila Copps, announced that a prestigious environmental office will be awarded to Montreal.

In making her announcement she blamed your Premier's opposition to NAFTA for the decision not to award the office to Toronto. The residents of Ontario, and particularly Toronto, want to know what you're going to do to reverse this discrimination against Ontario.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): I think the Premier has been quoted on several occasions as to his reaction to that explanation. The explanation --

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): You can't suck and blow at the same time, Floyd.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, a Liberal across the floor has suggested we can't suck and blow at the same time. The last time I checked, I thought the federal Liberals had opposed NAFTA as well. That's what I was always led to believe.

What I want to have explained to me is how an Ontario-based minister, namely, the Deputy Prime Minister, from Hamilton yet, who also was interested in achieving this centre, would stand in her place and say that Montreal is the best location for the centre. This is a federal Liberal. I'd also ask, where in the world were the 98 federal Liberals elected from the province of Ontario when this decision was being made?

In the interest of brevity, I will sit down and look forward to the supplementary from the member.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'm sure the Deputy Premier will save the best until last.

Ms Copps clearly said that she tried to secure a letter of intent from the Premier of the province of Ontario with respect to the implementation of the NAFTA side agreements, not to embarrass Canada. The Premier wouldn't play ball. He would not give that letter of intent. He wouldn't make that commitment. That's simply why she said that Montreal was chosen, because of the lack of commitment by the Premier of Ontario. My question to the Deputy Premier: Are the Liberals wrong?

Hon Mr Laughren: I wanted to make it clear. We have checked to find out if anybody in Ottawa had requested any kind of letter or indication of support from us. We cannot find a single request that came from the federal government for us to support their bid for that centre.

Perhaps a community leader from elsewhere in the province said it better than I could say it. The mayor of Windsor, Mike Hurst, is quoted in today's Windsor Star as saying the following: "Laying the blame for the city of Windsor or the city of Hamilton not getting this particular commission at the feet of the Premier is dirty politics and political crap of the worst possible kind."

I believe it's becoming clearer and clearer and clearer to the people of this province that having elected 98 Liberals federally from this province hasn't meant that this province is well represented at the cabinet table in Ottawa. That is becoming increasingly clear.

1430

GAMBLING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I'd really like to pose a question to the Prime Minister of Canada on why he's neglecting my community, but I will pose my question to the second-best, which is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who I know will not turn her back on my constituents.

A recent Toronto Star story reported that the government had a plan for an additional 300 teletheatres in Ontario. This report has caused great concern to me and the horse racing industry in my riding.

Minister, why are you introducing this plan when you know that members of the industry are concerned about the impact of the teletheatre on live racing?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Although I'm surprised I come second-best with you -- I'm sure I'm number one -- I'm really glad the member asked that question. Contrary to a statement in the Star that I was announcing a new government gaming plan, I was not announcing a new government gaming plan. We announced in the 1992 budget that we would be proceeding with teletheatres and Pro Line lotteries. We are now simply implementing what we announced then.

Specific to your question, there is no fixed number of teletheatres. The ultimate number will reflect the marketplace and the needs of the horse racing industry, and we will be continuing to discuss with them how much further we will go with teletheatres in Ontario.

Mr Hope: In your answer to the question, you say you will guarantee. I need a guaranteed commitment from you, Madam Minister, that you will consult with the horse racing industry before any decisions are further implemented in this province.

Hon Ms Churley: We always consult with the horse racing industry before we proceed on any of these issues that affect it. In fact, my staff and I are working closely with the industry at this time. We've created a whole-sector strategy round table to discuss all kinds of issues that are relevant to the horse racing industry these days, and the role of teletheatres will continue to be discussed with all the sectors in the industry before we take it any further. Right now there are only 75 applications before us, up to 75, and about 60 of them are open, so we will continue that discussion with the industry.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Interjection: Just hold up the number of the answer.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Well, I have a question that I don't think any of the numbers will fit. They may try.

My question's a very serious one. I was going to ask the Minister of Education, but I think I'll ask the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Educators across the province -- and they to a certain extent have to monitor this situation -- are expressing increasing concern about the number of students who are now receiving welfare benefits but are not attending school consistently.

It was my understanding and the understanding, I think, of municipalities across the province that are trying to address this that the students had to be consistently attending school to receive those benefits. Could the minister explain how it is that so many students across this province appear not to be attending school regularly but are still receiving those benefits?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the member raising this question. I know it is a very serious issue, and it is certainly one, as I've talked to people throughout the province, from people on social assistance with respect to their own children, and to teachers and others, that I know is a very legitimate concern.

It is my view, and I want to be very clear, that if we are providing assistance to 16- and 17-year-olds, because I think those are largely the people we are talking about, that there is and there should be a reasonable expectation on our part that they be in school, and if they're not in school, there has to be a very good reason they're not.

I've heard the concerns. I am not sure why the confusion is out there, because my understanding is that the expectations and the rules we have are reasonably clear.

In light of the concerns that have been expressed, I can tell the member opposite that we have been looking at this and we will be issuing clarification, if that's what's needed, to the system, both the provincial system and the municipal system, because I know a lot of the concerns have been expressed particularly through the municipalities.

This is an issue we do need to get at and do need to resolve as quickly as possible.

Mr Bradley: Members of the House on all sides will know there are a number of students out there who come from genuinely very difficult circumstances at home, terrible situations at home, and this is whom the program was supposed to apply to.

But increasingly we are getting reports that a significant number of people in the age bracket the minister is talking about are using the threat of being able to get welfare to lever their parents in terms of discipline and order within the household.

Could the minister explain to the House how the government is going to deal with the problem of having the students using that against their parents as a possibility of leaving home and having a way of living if the parents don't comply with the requests? Could he tell us how that's going to addressed? We are getting a report that that is being thwarted centrally. Whether it's by the Social Assistance Review Board or your ministry, centrally, municipalities are having a hard time having their concerns backed up.

Hon Mr Silipo: I don't think I can outline for the member in detail today all the steps we are taking to try to address this, but I do want to say to him that we are, because this is a very important issue.

This question of both the perception and the way in which the rules are being used or understood is something we have to get at. In terms of the rules as they are laid out, they seem to be reasonably clear that some form of abuse or some concern about abuse has to be established, and it's not a question of the worker simply taking the young person's word for that. There has to be a process, and there is a process that is supposed to be followed so that the worker and/or his or her supervisors can satisfy themselves that there is some element of that which has been established. That is usually done by the worker talking to the parents, the worker talking to other people where that's necessary, and verifying that.

It's obviously clear to me, in light of the concerns that have been expressed by municipalities and others, that we need to be clear about what those steps are that have to be followed. That's something, as I've said to the member, we are looking at doing, because this is an issue that has to be addressed.

FIRE SAFETY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Yesterday in this House, the Minister of Housing, in answer to my grave questions about the tragedies in Mississauga, referred all of us to the draft regulation changes to the fire code. What this minister did not tell this House, however, is that those draft regulations were finalized last May.

This minister has to answer to this House. Since last May, we have had four deaths in basement apartments in Mississauga. Since last May, we have had three deaths in basement apartments in Scarborough. These regulations do not need legislation; they do not need to wait for the passage of Bill 120. The proposed regulation changes could have saved seven lives, including two babies.

I would ask this minister to stand in this House and tell us, when your government believed so passionately in basement apartments that you have already amended the building code, why have you not made the changes that you know are necessary to protect people in existing apartments by addressing the regulations in the fire code?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The work that has been done around the fire code regulations that apply to apartments in houses is work that comes together with the passage of that bill in this way -- and I hope the member will finally start to understand the connection, as it's very important: You can't make things safe if they're not legal. As long as basement apartments operate in a black market, we can write rules till they'd smother you and it's not going to change the situation for people, both owners and occupants, who are afraid to admit to the world that there's an apartment in the house because the zoning makes it illegal.

If she could just get that notion through her head and move Bill 120 on, then we could get the kind of progress she's looking for.

1440

Mrs Marland: I will try not to be as personal attacking as the minister, but I will say one thing in this House. If there's one thing I do understand it is that we all bear some responsibility for the fact that seven people have died when possibly fire code regulations could have been implemented last year.

When basement apartments are regulated, the fire chief in Mississauga has said that without a registry, without a right of entry, without a warrant, we still won't be able to know where they are, as the minister has said. However, they exist.

The fact is that yesterday in this House this minister said I attributed things to Chief Hare that he did not say in committee. Mr Speaker, I have to read for you what Chief Hare did say in committee. He said:

"It has been our experience that a justice of the peace will not grant a search warrant without substantial evidence. In 1993, we in fact attempted to obtain a warrant to do an inspection on a residential premises. We had an affidavit from a private individual who had raised concerns, who had been in the property and identified concerns, and the justice of the peace did not give us authority to enter the property to do the inspection."

Those are the words. Why were you trying to tell this House yesterday that Chief Hare did not raise those concerns, which have been reinforced by the recommendations of the coroner's inquest into these deaths, yet everything is on record in Hansard? I would appreciate it if you would read it.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I can assure the member that I have indeed read Chief Hare's statements to the committee with great care. She cares to draw conclusions which I don't draw from those words, which I have read very carefully. What he suggested was that in 1993, without the changes associated with Bill 120, which the member for Mississauga South is attempting to stall, delay and impede, without those changes he did have difficulty getting a search warrant.

He also told the inquest into the tragic death of the two people in the McNutt family, and I'm sure the member is aware of this, that he had never requested an inspection of an apartment in a house -- a basement apartment, as I think he described it -- and been refused. I have to take the chief's own words in his testimony to the inquest.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I have a point of privilege: The Minister of Housing said that I am impeding the passage of Bill 120. I am not.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): There is clearly a difference of opinion between the two members, which I understand, but no privilege has been lost.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I would appreciate it if you would listen to my point of privilege. The minister just made a statement about my actions. She is impugning my actions as a member of the committee that is debating Bill 120, and I would ask that minister to withdraw that comment.

The Speaker: The member will know she does not have a point of privilege. However, another member of the House has said something to which the member takes exception. The member for Ottawa Centre has an opportunity to withdraw her remark.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. It has to do with the announcement that his ministry will begin a comprehensive investigation to eliminate welfare fraud and other errors in the social assistance system.

I think we all understand the need to control social assistance costs, which have increased dramatically in recent years. Minister, how will you ensure that any investigation carried out by the ministry into current case files is done with fullest respect for the privacy and human rights of the social assistance recipients, who would, after all, rather not be on social assistance at all?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the question from the member. We have tried, in the process we've established, which I announced yesterday, to ensure that we strike the appropriate balance between getting at those people in the system who are indeed abusing the system and being absolutely clear in our approach that the vast majority of people who are receiving social assistance benefits are receiving them because they are entitled to receive them.

I can tell the member that in the instructions that are going out to our staff, in the work we are going to do with the municipalities in terms of how they are going to implement similar initiatives, we are going to continue to be absolutely clear about those two points having to be kept uppermost in people's minds.

In the way we've set out the process, focusing first, in terms of the time lines, on those situations where we believe there is the greatest potential for abuse and not assuming that everyone who's on social assistance shows a potential for abuse, I think we've shown the respect necessary and appropriate for the vast majority of people who are legitimately receiving social assistance benefits.

Mr Gary Wilson: This afternoon we've heard that it isn't because of fraud that the welfare costs are so high, but that policies of federal governments as well as things like free trade have forced up the welfare rolls here in Ontario.

What I would like to know, Minister, is that while you are tightening up the system so that only those who are truly entitled receive benefits, what measures will you take to help people get off welfare and into the workforce?

Hon Mr Silipo: The member will know that of the steps we outlined last summer in Turning Point, we had to indicate last week that we would not be able to proceed with at least one major part of that, the Ontario child income program, because of the lack of appropriate funding from the federal government.

There are, however, other parts of that reform that we are quite intent on proceeding with. We outlined and we are working hard on a number of initiatives that will assist people to move off the dependency of social assistance through training and other kinds of support, through looking at a number of things we can inject into the system, and through just simple things like providing more publicity for some of the basic rules that exist now in the system under the STEP program, through which people are able to earn some dollars and still retain some of their benefits.

It's a combination of those things that we will continue to do.

PAYMENTS TO TEACHERS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a serious question to the Minister of Citizenship on what seems to be a deliberate attempt to punish certain ESL programs.

Two weeks ago, Madam Minister, you received this letter from the TESL association, and I am sending you another copy. This association is the teachers of English-as-a-second-language program. It states that your ministry's cheques are continuously six weeks late, causing the organizers to consider shutting down this important program. For what reason are you punishing this ESL program, and can you promise us today that you will now make these payments on time so our children will continue to receive English-language training?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship): I appreciate the question from the member opposite and tell you that I have not personally seen this letter. It just arrived here at this moment in front of me, so I will take this under consideration and read the letter carefully.

But I want to make one comment before I sit down. I say to the member opposite that what we have done within our ministry is help the programs that are teaching ESL. Mr Bradley is probably going to show a number at this particular time, but if you take a look at the average amount of dollars that is spent per immigrant by the federal government in the various provinces across Canada, you would find that most provinces get $1,500. The average payment per immigrant in Quebec is $1,900. Ontario receives $780 per immigrant.

1450

We are doing our best to make sure that we provide the best quality service. We have not cut our funding; in fact, we have been trying to pick up the lapse that the federal government has not given to us. That is why we are entering into an agreement with the federal government to make sure, not just that we are getting our fair share, although that's important, but that people who choose to live in Ontario are treated equally and fairly as all people are treated across Canada and that they are not penalized because they have chosen to come to this great province.

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have a petition regarding Bill 45 and Bill 55. The petition asks that we earnestly request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from passing both bills. I've signed the petition.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): One of the signatures on this petition is from Utopia. We have people from Barrie and Orillia and Markham and Unionville.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy and his private member's bill 45; and

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority but with no PC support in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently within the legislative committee on the administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and future bills which would grant same-sex couples the right to marry and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to this petition with some 350 signatures.

VIOLENCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have an additional 26 petitions that have sent to me from the towns of Whitney, Barry's Bay, Petawawa, Chalk River and Eganville which I would like to read out.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas serial killer trading cards are being imported into and distributed throughout Ontario and the rest of Canada;

"Whereas these trading cards feature the crimes of serial killers, mass murderers and gangsters;

"Whereas we abhor crimes of violence against persons and believe that serial killer trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate but rather contribute to the tolerance and desensitization of violence; and

"Whereas we as a society agree that the protection of our children is paramount,

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

"That the Ontario government enact legislation to ensure that the sale of these serial killer trading cards is restricted to people over the age of 18 years and that substantial and appropriate penalties be imposed on retailers who sell serial killer trading cards to minors."

There are 257 names on these petitions. Added to the ones yesterday, that is now 577 signatures.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas several patients from the Collingwood area are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in the Collingwood area;

"Whereas the government continues to insist that they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in Alliston and Collingwood,

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of Collingwood."

PAY EQUITY

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'd like to present a petition on behalf of my colleague from Cambridge:

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

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

"That the government of Ontario Ministry of Labour down payment funding for pay equity re-examine the application for pay equity advance payment 1992-93 in connection with the Cambridge Association for the Mentally Handicapped, and that the commission examine the relationship between other similar organizations that have been granted the initial payment to determine whether the application of rules applied to one are equally applied to the other.

TAXATION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has consistently mismanaged its finances and failed to support the economy of the province;

"Whereas the government's new tax agenda has hurt many businesses across the province and killed tens of thousands of jobs;

"Whereas the NDP government has lost over $2 billion in revenue after imposing over $3 billion in new taxes;

"Whereas the government is raising non-tax revenues through raising fees on everything it can think of including toll roads, photo-radar, snowmobile fees, ferry fees, health services fees, children's services fees, without consultation and without studying the impact of these new fees on local communities;

"Whereas the government is camouflaging its deficit crisis by phantom sales of government buildings;

"Whereas the government is hiding its spending by setting up crown corporations to take on new debt;

"Whereas the government, even after all these questionable measures, has still been unable to control its $10-billion deficit and is planning to introduce even more taxes which will only lead to further job loss across the province, reduce business confidence and prolong the recession; and

"Whereas the government continues to waste money through tens of thousands of dollars in unjustified expenses on meals and hotels by senior political and ministerial staff;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the government to take action to halt any new tax increases, cut its own wasteful spending, take real action to support business and job creation and get the province of Ontario working again."

I add my name to this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition regarding the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination.

This petition was signed by 98 members of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters from my riding of Lanark-Renfrew and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time to pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms we have no desire to own or use,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I affix my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition. It's addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Bill 55," which I believe is the bill of the Conservative member from Markham, Mr Cousens, "would make it illegal, with fines up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, still undefined. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Mr Cousens's bill, which is Bill 55, is also an attack on freedom of those religions which do not condone homosexuality, ie, Jewish, Muslim, Hindus, Baha'i, Christian etc.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way should be equated with hatred.

"We have moved away from a position where some homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas, but demand that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classrooms, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for differing opinions.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Mr Cousens's Bill 55."

It's signed by a number of constituents, and I affix my signature thereto.

1500

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas several patients from the town of New Tecumseth are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments in Orillia or Toronto;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in New Tecumseth, and one patient is forced to pay for her own nurse;

"Whereas the government continues to insist that they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in New Tecumseth and Collingwood;

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of New Tecumseth."

I've signed this petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'd like to present another petition on behalf of my colleague the member for Cambridge pertaining to the issue of provincial funding and quality for the Catholic school system. It's signed by 251 of his constituents.

ONTARIO STOCK YARDS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a petition here signed by 23 farmers from Timiskaming district:

"Dear Mr Ramsay:

"We, the undersigned, feel strongly that all the revenue from the lease of property of the former Ontario Stock Yards should go into the livestock development trust fund. We urge you to speak to the government officials about this matter."

I have affixed my signature to this.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have two petitions here from Henry Freitag in Penetanguishene, Ontario.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

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

"Whereas individuals must be treated by government in a manner consistent with the Ontario and international human rights codes;"

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

"To replace the Minister, Ms Evelyn Gigantes, with a person more inclined in the democratic duty, in serving the people of a democracy, to provide fair and reasonable information and reply in a positive manner to positive questions."

HIGHWAY SIGNS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I won't read the preamble to the other one. It just says:

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

"To incorporate to the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario all limitations on parking/no parking, stopping/no stopping, standing/no standing. This would ensure that a visitor coming to Ontario and all drivers from Ontario would be guided and informed by one law and one law only, and hoping that this law be prescribed in a fair and understandable language, in the language of the people who use the roads."

That's signed by Henry Freitag of Penetanguishene.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide the needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and the loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord;

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible with third reading of Bill 21."

A lot of my constituents, especially in the community of Sutton-by-the-Lake, have affixed their signature to this and, in full support, I do the same.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition here that was forwarded to me by Christ Our King Lutheran Church in Mississauga and it reads as follows:

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

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

"Bill 55 will make it illegal, with fines up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, which is still undefined. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of religion, against historical Christianity, which does not condone homosexuality.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way should be equated with hatred.

"We have moved away from a position where some homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas, but are demanding that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternate lifestyles to youngsters in the classroom, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for different opinions."

It's signed by 85 residents of Mississauga, and I will attach my signature to it.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to Ontario Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I am affixing my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF KITCHENER ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr95, An Act respecting the City of Kitchener.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr Laughren moved government notice of motion number 23:

That the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing April 1, 1994, and ending July 31, 1994. Such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The motion of interim supply which I have just moved means that spending authority other than for payments authorized by a specific statute is granted by the Legislature to the government by the process of supply, as governed by the House standing orders and parliamentary tradition.

Prior to the passing of the Supply Act, government spending proceeds under a motion of interim supply. Government spending is currently authorized to March 31, 1994, by the Supply Act, which received royal assent in December 1993. To ensure that spending authority continues after March 31, a motion of interim supply needs to be approved by the Legislature. Without a motion, delays in payments will start April 1, affecting suppliers of goods and services, utility companies, rent payments, doctors, private medical laboratories and transfer payment agencies.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Any questions or comments? Any further debate?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I am pleased to begin the debate on interim supply. For those who may be watching the debate, what we're dealing with, as the Minister of Finance said, is providing the government with the authority to pay its bills over the next few months.

I want to talk about some of the things that are impacting on our ability to pay our bills.

1510

Hon Mr Laughren: Be nice.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Finance said to be nice, and I will. I wanted to start by talking about what, for me at least, and I think for the people of Ontario, is quite clearly the major issue facing the province, and that is the whole issue of jobs.

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, I'd just like to interrupt you for a few minutes. I just want to read this statement here.

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Burlington South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Community and Social Services concerning social assistance, and this matter will be debated today at 6 o'clock.

Mr Phillips: I started by saying that I wanted to talk about what, for me at least, is the number one issue on people's minds; it is on my mind. I spent much of January, February and March travelling around the province talking to people about this issue and hearing about it in a whole variety of communities. I honestly don't think it's overstating the case to say that, in my opinion, the job situation is a state of emergency. I think it's difficult oftentimes to convince perhaps ourselves here of that. I happen to think the people out there believe it.

The challenge you always run into in a thing like this is, if you're in government, you have of course in many respects a vested interest in saying: "Listen, things are getting better. They're going to improve. The opposition is merely exaggerating the size of the problem." Similarly, I think that when you're in opposition, as I am, people many times just assume you're exaggerating the problem for political reasons.

Therefore, the problem I think we face with the job situation is that if we don't collectively all agree on the size of the problem, in my opinion we won't get on with the solution. As I said, I think governments at every level in every part of the country have a vested interest, when you're in power, of saying, "Listen, things are going to get substantially better," and when you're in opposition it's difficult to convince people.

For the Minister of Finance's information, I went back through the last three budgets just to look at the prediction of the unemployment rate for 1994, because while each budget has said things are going to get substantially better, the fact is that they're not.

I went back to the 1991 budget and I looked at what the estimate was for the unemployment rate in Ontario in 1994, the year we're just now moving into. It assumed then that the unemployment rate would be well below 8%; it would be around 7.5% or 7.8%. That was the 1991 budget estimating the unemployment rate for 1994.

The 1992 budget, what did it do? It said things were going to be better in 1994, but instead of a 7.5% unemployment rate, the 1994 unemployment rate was going to be 8.3%. Last year's budget said the unemployment rate in Ontario for 1994 would be around 9%. Now the Minister of Finance's documents indicate that the unemployment rate in Ontario in 1994 will be well over 10%.

My point is this: The people of Ontario have been anticipating that the situation is going to improve; the government had been hoping it would. In my opinion, it is not improving nearly well enough nor, as I might say, nearly as well as the government had been predicting. I really think this is a situation that cries out for -- I call it a state of emergency, and I don't think I'm being overly alarmist there.

When the January unemployment numbers came out, I was shocked, actually. They were so bad that I, in some letters I sent out, said: "They're so bad I don't believe them. I think they are a one-month blip. When we have the February numbers, they will be substantially improved." I was at a public meeting with the Minister of Finance. He had the same concerns, I think, about the January unemployment and employment numbers. The February numbers came out and, in my opinion, they were close to as bad as the January numbers.

The numbers are something like this: For us to begin to make a dent in our unemployment situation in Ontario, we need to see around 75,000 to 80,000 jobs a year created in this province. That essentially just holds our unemployment rate, because that's the number of people who enter the workforce. After two months in the province -- and I accept they're two of 12 months and we're early into the year -- rather than seeing substantial growth year over year, we in Ontario have seen 10,000 fewer jobs. It's extremely serious.

I'm hopeful that the March numbers that come out, and they will be out in a week and a half, will show a dramatic turnaround, but so far the numbers are extremely discouraging. We've lost 10,000 jobs year over year when we should have seen growth at least of 60,000 jobs. We have a shortfall of 70,000 jobs. I might add that in all of the rest of the country we saw job growth in January and February, year over year, of 143,000 jobs. Ontario, for some reason or other, is struggling badly. We actually lost jobs in January and February over the same period a year ago while the rest of the country saw substantial growth.

In behind the numbers -- and I'm not sure how to make the case properly here, because when we talk about millions of jobs and hundreds of thousands of jobs, I'm afraid we lose the personal side of it, but these are the numbers we need to work with and I urge us to really get in behind these numbers. I watched the Premier closely. He obviously knows it's a problem. He's spending an awful lot of his time going around the province talking about jobs. But the numbers aren't coming, for a variety of reasons which I'll talk about later.

But if you look behind some of these numbers, where are the big problems in jobs? We all know the construction sector has really suffered badly. By the way, I had fully expected the construction sector to be picking up by now, yet in January and February we had the two worst months in years and years and years for our construction workers. These are the January and February 1994 numbers, the last two months. There were 210,000 people working in construction in Ontario. The same period the previous year there were 243,000 people in construction.

I'm praying it was the cold weather. I'm praying that this isn't indicative of the construction activity out there. But it was a disaster, and it was a disaster because I go back in the construction numbers. In 1989 there were 327,000 people working in construction; in 1990, 324,000. Then we start down: 277,000 in 1991; 254,000 in 1992; 255,000, about the same, in 1993; and then the first two months of what can only be described as a disaster. As I say, I'm hopeful that we will see in March, in another week and a half, that the numbers were dramatically influenced by cold weather and that we will begin to see the pickup.

But those numbers are very discouraging because it comes in an area where the Premier has been talking about capital expenditures and spending the money and the capital, although I must say that the provincial capital spending has actually gone down in each of the last two years, in spite of all the rhetoric. The explanation we get is, "We're buying better," but the amount of money they're spending on capital has actually gone down.

1520

The manufacturing sector has also been extremely hard hit; we've lost almost 20% of our manufacturing jobs. I think we all know that's in many respects the engine that drives Ontario. In fact, without the auto sector, I might say, I think we would be in a disastrous situation. Our auto sector has been extremely buoyant. We've been fortunate, and I think with a lot of hard work by our auto companies and the CAW, we've got a very solid auto sector in Ontario. We've got some of the best plants --

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): And the provincial government.

Mr Phillips: -- and the provincial government, the member says. Yes, I think provincial governments overall, for all three parties, have recognized that our auto sector is the engine that drives the Ontario economy, and thank goodness for that. Thank goodness that the US economy is going very well, that many of the vehicles we manufacture in Canada are selling exceptionally well in the US. I think it's fair to say that Chrysler, Ford and General Motors all have winners in terms of the production that they have in their plants.

But having said all of that, with our manufacturing sector in the auto sector doing well, the rest of our manufacturing sector has lost a dramatic number of jobs. I might say that even as the economy in the US picks up and our exports pick up, and we're benefiting enormously right now from essentially a 73-cent dollar, it doesn't look like, even with that pickup, in the manufacturing sector we are going to see a significant growth in jobs. We're going to see a growth in output, but it will not be in jobs.

We're seeing that the growth has been in the service sector, and by the way, about a third of the jobs in Ontario are in the service sector. That's where, when I look at the numbers, the job growth, for 1989 to 1993, as I said, we lost 20% of our manufacturing jobs, 200,000 jobs there, we've lost 70,000 of our construction jobs, but it's been in the service sector where we've seen 150,000 in job growth. That's been the growth area.

Now, the challenge we face there of course, as we all know, is that half the service sector jobs are the public sector or the broader public sector jobs. Roughly a million jobs in Ontario are involved in schools, hospitals, universities, social services, all our community services, our municipalities, our police forces, our fire departments and what not. I think all of us here recognize and accept that it's unlikely that we are going to see job growth in that area. As a matter of fact, I think it's fair to say that we will see, at the very best, holding the line on jobs if not a decline in jobs there.

So when I look at what's going to be required to begin to tackle this problem that can only be described as an emergency, I don't see the job growth coming in the manufacturing sector, I'm hopeful some of it will come in the construction sector and it's going to have to be in some of the other areas in the service sector, apart from the public sector.

Also, when I looked at where the problem is geographically in the province, I think it's fair to say that every community is struggling with unemployment. Virtually all of our sectors -- many of us spent time in the Lindsay area, and the tourism industry there is working very hard and struggling. But the area where we lost the jobs, where do we think the big job loss occurred from 1989 to 1993, remembering that the rest of Canada has seen job growth and in Ontario we've lost 155,000 jobs? Where did that occur? Where would you think it occurred?

I'll tell you where it occurred. It occurred in the Metropolitan Toronto area: 170,000 jobs have disappeared from the Metropolitan Toronto area. When I say Metropolitan Toronto, I don't mean just the traditional definition of Metropolitan Toronto of Steeles and Etobicoke Creek but the greater Metropolitan Toronto area.

These numbers are important because they are a sign for us of a big problem that we face in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area. As I say, I look at all of Ontario. Over that period of time we've lost 156,000 jobs. In the Metropolitan Toronto area we've lost 170,000 jobs. The rest of Ontario has actually grown by 14,000 jobs, if we follow all of that. Ontario has lost 156,000 jobs, the Metropolitan Toronto area has lost 170,000 and therefore the rest of Ontario has grown by about 14,000.

I point that out because I think one of our challenges in the months and the years ahead is going to be, how do we re-energize the greater Metropolitan Toronto area? I'm hearing from the city of Toronto and the board of trade that there are these incredible battles going on between municipalities in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area competing for businesses, understandable competition, but perhaps in the long haul not productive and perhaps something where we are spending resources on people moving around for reasons that may not make good business sense, because I've heard of people who can save a considerable amount of money by simply moving their business from one municipality to another. We've got to tackle that, and particularly when I see the number I've talked about.

I happen to be from Metropolitan Toronto. As you travel around the province, someone once said the thing that keeps Canada together is that people aren't particularly fond of Ontario and the thing that keeps Ontario together is that people aren't particularly fond of Metropolitan Toronto. Metropolitan Toronto is struggling, and if we let the vibrant metropolitan area stagnate and if we let go unnoticed 170,000 fewer jobs, we are sowing the seeds of -- our own destruction is too strong a term, but we are sowing the seeds of some significant and dramatic problems.

Another thing I'd say is that I rather appreciated in last year's budget that the Minister of Finance actually had a chart in the budget -- I may not be able to find it right now -- that indicated the real unemployment level. In my opinion and the opinion of the ministry officials, there's a reported unemployment level, and in this particular case the budget said the reported unemployment level is around 10.5%.

It said, "Listen, there is another group of people who have simply dropped out." It's fairly easy to estimate the size of that because the labour market should have grown at a certain rate. It's been hardly growing at all. You know they're there, you know the people are there, in my opinion, you know they're there and they want to work, but they've simply become too discouraged and they've dropped out. The real unemployment rate is, without much doubt, running up around the 13% to 14% area.

The reason I'm spending the time on this issue is that I think if we don't collectively find the ways to solve this problem, we run the risk of spinning our wheels on all the rest of the stuff. I have no doubt in my mind that the reason for the dramatic growth in the social assistance case load is the result of people having difficulty finding jobs.

I've no doubt, by the way, that there are cheats and frauds and all those sorts of things on welfare, but the fundamental reason -- we see these people. I see these people every day in my office. I see people come to me who never thought they'd be out of work. It never even entered their minds. As a matter of fact, they have real difficulty dealing with it. I have to say to them, and I hope this won't get me in trouble with people out there who may have different views, "Listen, maybe you should be looking at social assistance." "No, no, I don't want welfare; I don't believe in it." "No, no, maybe you should be looking at social assistance," not that I want to be spending the taxpayers' money, but these people never thought they'd be in this position. As I say, it is a fundamental problem.

1530

It's always difficult to single a group out because then it sounds like other groups aren't that important, but I think particularly of the young people. We look at the statistics that come in here. If we're not careful, they just become statistics, but in behind them, if you look at -- when you're in opposition you have time to do these things, so I grab these statistics as they flow in and I analyse them, sometimes trying to score points against the government, hopefully periodically trying to be helpful, but there is no doubt that among our young people, we are making it very, very difficult for them.

Again, the number in February is now close to 20% unemployment among young people, and people who have looked at these statistics will tell you that they are actually substantially higher than that.

I think our challenge is that when you're in government, you're always assuming and hoping and promising that things are going to get better. My fear is that we're wrong on this, that this is not going to work through what I'll call incrementalism; it's not going to work through just tinkering at the edges.

I'm a supporter of the infrastructure plan, by the way. If you remember the debate in the Legislature here, our party supported something that was called Bill 17 which means something only to us in here, but to the people out there, it was a bill designed to help facilitate private sector-public sector partnerships, get on with building some subways and some roads and some things like that, and sewers. We supported it. We had some reservations about it, but we supported it because we felt that on balance it would help to get on with the infrastructure.

Frankly that's not going to be enough. It will be helpful. Psychologically it's good because if I see a crane and I see activity, that's good. That gets the rest of the business community and the rest of the job-creating community feeling good. Clearly the infrastructure program will create several thousand jobs -- extremely important -- but at the end of the day, it's not going to be enough.

As we begin this debate on what's called interim supply and looking at how we pay our bills, what I'm trying to urge all of us is to, if we can -- we can keep our partisan hats on because we'll never change, but I would suggest that we get in behind the numbers and recognize that this is more serious than we are all collectively acknowledging.

The solutions: I think we only solve the problem when we collectively agree on the magnitude of it, and I don't think we've got a consensus on that yet, but if we all were to agree on it, I happen to think we should be setting ourselves a target in this province to substantially lower our unemployment rate from what we have planned right now.

When I say "planned," I mean if you look at the projections that the government puts forward and the projections that most economists put forward, we're looking down to 1997 and the unemployment rate is still over 9%. If we follow the kind of history of these things, and our ability to deliver those numbers, you would say the likelihood of us hitting the 9% -- it's likely going to be higher, if I just use the history of what's happened in the province.

I don't think that's either acceptable, nor is it inevitable. I think there is a way, if we could all agree on it, to substantially lower that. It's going to require action on a whole bunch of fronts. I think we're going to have to set a different tone in the province. Again, we conducted what we call a jobs task force, a Liberal jobs task force, and there is the need to change the tone in the province. There is a sense of pessimism out there, and there's a sense in much of the business community that they are not prepared to invest.

I think the second thing we have to do is, we truly do have to find a way to let the economy breathe. There's no doubt in my mind and in most people's minds that our jobs are going to be created through small business, and I think most people in small business truly do feel they're being stifled now. I don't think there's much doubt, to use the jargon, but it's true, that we have to find a way to reinvent many of our programs.

Mr Sutherland: What are the specifics?

Mr Phillips: Well, the specifics, the member said: There's no doubt that we need to reform the social assistance, and that all I've heard to date from the government -- it promised it would have substantial reform -- is that it's hired 280 people to go out after welfare cheats. I understand where you're coming from. The public applauds it and I applaud going after people who are cheating, but that's not getting at the fundamental issue you promised. It wasn't my promise I made; it was your promise you made.

Mr Sutherland: People want to know where the Liberals stand on it.

Mr Phillips: The member across the aisle is saying, "People want to know where Liberals stand on it." What we've said to the government is, you promised to come forward with your social assistance reform. You didn't do it. For whatever reasons, you haven't done it, and if you're not embarrassed by that, that's fine.

The fourth area is, without doubt, the tools that our business community have need help. The banks: I mean, it's quite fashionable to bash the banks these days from almost every quarter, and I think it is fair to say that our banks have not been as helpful to the changing economy as they should have been. They're playing catch-up now; they're working hard to do that. But in the meantime, I've hardly talked to a small business person who has not had a tough experience with a bank. As I say, perhaps I can understand how they got there, but we have to find the tools, through the banks, the credit unions, the trust companies and other tools, that people have access to the necessary capital: operating capital and equity and debt and all those sorts of things.

I might also say that tools in the future will be kind of the hard infrastructure stuff -- the roads, the sewers -- and the soft infrastructure stuff, which we all talk about but we've got to make absolutely sure we're actually doing it, because I look at some of the jurisdictions that are now competing aggressively against us, and they brag about their hard infrastructure and their soft infrastructure.

The fifth area is, without doubt, I think we have an enormous resource in the people of Ontario and in the institutions that are there: our colleges, our universities, our elementary and our secondary schools and the resources we put behind them. But I think all of us would agree we haven't focused on that well. We've asked our institutions to try to be in many respects all things to all people. I don't think we've even begun to scratch the surface in helping to take advantage of the asset that is our diverse society.

I was at a banquet recently. There was quite a large group from the Chinese business community there. In that room was an individual representing a company that had just bought all the Stouffer resorts from around the world, and another individual who owned the casinos at -- I think it's called Macao, near Hong Kong; just enormously successful business people, and I just use those as two small examples.

1540

What I'm afraid of is we're letting time go by. I think that's an asset we've had, because we've believed and we've been able to attract significant business people literally from around the world to come and live in Ontario, but we haven't found a way, for the wellbeing of all Ontario, to harness that.

It's not enough just to simply say, "Listen, there is a problem." In my opinion, the problem on the job front is huge and we're not going to solve it. We're tinkering at the edges. As I said when I began my remarks, the problem is when you're in government it's always difficult, because you are hoping and planning for it to get better even when it's not. When you're in opposition, you give a speech like this and many people say, "Oh, it's just a partisan speech designed to score some political points."

That for me is the issue, that if we don't find a way to really get at it in a very, very significant way -- I don't know who the good models are for us to emulate. I happen to think probably Frank McKenna's done not a bad job in New Brunswick. There are things he could do better no doubt, but I think he's done many of the things that I think we're going to have to do here in Ontario.

The first issue I want to get on the table when we're debating interim supply and the challenges we have of meeting the bills in this province is that if we don't tackle this one, the rest is just far more difficult; not impossible, but far more difficult.

The second thing I want to talk a little bit about is the finances of the province. Because I may not have a chance at the end, I wanted to talk about one subaspect of the finances of the province that some of the members in the Legislature worked on during the session between when the House sat in December and when we came back in March, and that's the whole issue of the underground economy.

The committee completed its report on it and I thought it was a relatively good piece of work, recognizing that we are trying to deal with a huge problem with a limited amount of time and resources available.

The things I learned from that study on the underground economy are, firstly, there is no doubt that it is large and growing. I don't think there is any doubt that as we look at the revenues of the province, the revenues have been significantly impacted by it. My view is that the underground economy without much doubt is at least 8% of the economy, probably approaching 10%. If you accept those numbers, the province is losing probably $3 billion to $4 billion a year in revenue.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Largely due to the GST.

Mr Phillips: The member said, "Largely due to the GST." I don't think that's the case. The GST, there's no doubt, was a stimulus for another spurt in the growth of it.

I have reluctantly concluded that for many this is actually a tax revolt. I went on two open-line shows to talk about our report, and the first time I was totally unprepared for the calls. Maybe I shouldn't have been totally unprepared, but I went thinking the discussion would be around: "Listen, this is a problem. I understand why it's a problem. Can we begin to look at solutions for it?" To me, we all have a collective interest in solving this, because it's growing substantially and it's essentially unfair. It essentially allows people to make their own mind up about how much taxes and whether they want to pay them.

But anyway, the point I'm making is that when I got on the open-line show, without exception -- I think without exception; certainly I can't remember one -- virtually every call that came in said, "I'm participating in the underground economy, I'm happy about it and I'm going to keep doing it." The reason they used, by the way, was, "You politicians are misspending my tax dollars so I'm going to do whatever I can to teach you a lesson."

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Was one of those phone-ins NDP Noon? I think it was, wasn't it?

Mr Phillips: No. My point is this: We have an epidemic on our hands here. It is growing substantially, to the best of my determination, and the biggest loss we have in the revenue is in the income tax area. People think it's on booze and on tobacco -- it was on tobacco -- and on home renovation GST and PST, but the biggest loss is in the income tax area because people are simply not reporting their income. I wanted to mention that one.

As I say, the committee concluded its report. I don't think we've begun yet to find the solution on this. The problem we're going to run into is that the longer it goes without a collective solution on it, the more we run into incredible unfairness, because if you can select when you choose to pay your taxes and when you choose not to pay your taxes, I think we're into quite a dangerous environment. There are some recommendations for solutions. I think the ministry has 120 days in which to reply and I'm looking forward to the reply.

I wanted to talk more specifically around the state of the finances of the province, because this is the second big issue of the province and how we're going to have to begin to tackle the challenges of meeting the bills that we're going to have to pay once we pass this interim supply motion.

Again, I don't think there's any doubt that we've dug a very deep fiscal hole in the last three years. I don't think there's any doubt that if Premier Rae could turn the clock back to their first budget, the 1991 budget, he would do it differently now. I don't think there's any doubt but that if you could turn it back, you wouldn't be saying you're going to spend your way out of the recession. I don't think there's any doubt that would have been a restraint budget instead of the budget it was. But you can't turn the clock back, and now we've seen three consecutive years of deficits over $10 billion.

What that essentially means for people out there is that we're spending 25% more than we're raising, and as we all know in our personal lives, you can only do that for a very short period of time. We're running the debt up substantially. As I think most people in Ontario now realize, when the NDP came in the debt of the province was around $40 billion. When's March 31? In two more days, as of the day after tomorrow, the debt will have doubled. That's the end of the fiscal year. That's when the debt of the province will have reached $80 billion.

1550

We've seen, over a four-year period, the debt of the province doubling from $40 billion to $80 billion. The problem you start getting into with that is that the debt servicing costs begin to eat up an enormous portion of the budget. As you all know, it's now well over $7 billion, and we've been fortunate that we've been living with some comparatively low interest rates; that's been helpful. And I happen to think the province has done not a bad job of managing its borrowing. It's a heck of a lot of money to borrow, but I think it's done not a bad job of borrowing it; has managed the cost of borrowing this amount of money about as well as you can manage it.

None the less, when you double the debt, what it really means is that people out there, every family out there -- and this is one way to think about it, because this is reality -- each family in Ontario now owes about $13,000 more in debt in the province than when Premier Rae got elected. The fact is that the interest has to be paid on that. I think many people have just assumed, "Somehow or other, someone else will pay the interest."

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Does that include the debt you left us?

Mr Phillips: The member asks, "Does that include the debt you left?" It's interesting that the Provincial Auditor says there's been only one balanced budget in 25 years in the province, and that was the final year the Liberals were in power. Actually, I'll read it. This is from the Provincial Auditor. I think people in the province believe the Provincial Auditor; they are far more sceptical of politicians. What the Provincial Auditor said in his 1991 report is, "Ontario has had only one surplus in the last 20 years (year ended March 31, 1990.)" That's what the auditor said. When did Bob Rae take over? September 1990. Only one surplus in 20 years in the province; that's what the auditor said.

As I said, I think the mistake Bob Rae made was his first budget, the 1991 budget, when he said he would spend his way out of the recession. Spending went up 14% when inflation was running at 2%, and he's been playing catch-up literally ever since.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Did you guys call for restraint at that time?

Mr Phillips: The member asks, did we call for restraint? Actually, we did call for restraint. I remember Bob Rae would say, "The Liberals weren't forthcoming with us about the need for restraint." Just for the people who are viewing here, each year a Legislative committee looks at the budget. What did the NDP say when it was in opposition, leading up to the budget, when the Liberals were saying it was time for restraint? This is what Bob Rae said.

Hon Mr Wildman: The Liberals weren't saying that at that time. They were crowing about a so-called balanced budget.

The Deputy Speaker: There's a period of questions and comments after. Please.

Mr Phillips: No, no. Mr Wildman may have even signed this report. Here's what the NDP were saying when they were in opposition just before the election: "The Ontario government" -- that was the Ontario Liberal government -- "has reacted to predictions of an economic slowdown by dropping its Liberal pretence and is showing its true conservative nature. The Liberal government is now spreading the message that 1990 will be a year of fiscal, financial restraint." That's what we were saying, but Mr Wildman signed the report saying: "No, no, no. This isn't a time for fiscal restraint. This is a time to spend."

Hon Mr Wildman: That's when you were saying there was a balanced budget, and we believed you.

The Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Mr Phillips: Mr Wildman may not like to hear this, but we were saying, in your own words, Mr Wildman, "The Liberal government is now spreading the message that 1990 will be a year of financial restraint."

Hon Mr Wildman: And we thought there was a balanced budget.

Mr Phillips: Well, there you are, and now you want to shift ground. That's what we were saying, and you acknowledged it, so you can't have it both ways.

Hon Mr Wildman: The lesson is, never believe the Liberals when they say there is a balanced budget.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We have questions and comments after the debate. I would ask you, I would beg you, as a matter of fact, to take advantage of that, but please don't interrupt.

Mr Phillips: I've obviously touched a nerve. I think they're still bitter that they won. He's never forgiven us.

But, Mr Wildman, don't listen to me. Listen to what the Provincial Auditor says. He says, "Ontario has had only one surplus in the last 20 years (year ended March 31, 1990)." Then the auditor goes on to ask, why was there a $3-billion deficit? The auditor spelled it out exactly.

One thing was that for good reason, the government, the NDP, Bob Rae, decided to write a bunch of things off. How did we get to the $3-billion deficit? The auditor explains it perfectly. First, remember, everybody, there was only one surplus: the year ending March 31, 1990. You came in a few months later and took over the books. What happened? The auditor explains how we get to the $3-billion deficit. Maybe you should read it some time.

The auditor says it was quite understandable that when the budget was prepared, it was expected for the second year in a row that there would be a surplus. Here's what happened:

"The extent of the recession, which was obviously not foreseen at the time of the budget," dropped revenues by $1 billion. That's number one. Okay, you got that.

Number two, special payments were required primarily because of the social assistance case load increase. You understand that.

Third, and this is good politics, the NDP government decided to write off $924 million in special payments, $200 million to the teachers' pension. It wasn't due until the next year, but you've got to get the $3-billion deficit. You prepaid $200 million. Do you understand that? That was $200 million. Urban Transportation Development Corp, a $400-million loan, not due; you wrote it off. And then our favourite: the SkyDome, of course, which was completely written off, $321 million.

The reason I go through all of that is because I'm not sure all the NDP members appreciate it: a balanced budget, only one with a surplus in 20 years, the year ending March 31, 1990. You all came in a few months later, took it over. How did you get to the $3 billion? The auditor explains it in detail.

I know it's hard. I know you'd love to blame the Liberals for leaving you things, that it's not your fault. Don't take my word for it. Read the Provincial Auditor's report.

So I go back to the challenges with the finances, the fact that we now have seen three credit downgrades. When you took over, the province had a solid AAA credit rating, no doubt about that. A year later, it's downgraded to AA+; a year later, it's downgraded to AA; a year later, it's downgraded to AA-.

The province can sustain a AA-. If we lose one more credit rating, we have a problem. I will do everything I can to make sure that -- whatever I can do, but I will be as supportive of the government as I can. My feeling is that we will not see a downgrade. If we see a downgrade into single A, we have a major problem on our hands, because we can borrow money reasonably at a AA rating, but if you move into the single A, we have a significant problem, so we all have a huge interest in ensuring that not happen, and when the budget comes out in a few weeks, I'm hopeful it won't.

1600

But my feeling on the budget is that, without much doubt, the government is going to put together a budget that will show a deficit in the $7.5-billion to $8.5-billion range. I don't think there's much doubt about that. We're going through the ritualistic dance of, "It's going to be real bad. It's going to be this, it's going to be that," but I don't think there's much doubt that we'll show a deficit in the $7.5-billion to $8.5-billion range.

The problem we're going to run into is that, in my opinion, there are several very questionable accounting techniques being used to get to that number. If there is a problem with the rating agencies, it will be here, as people get in behind the numbers.

I will just go through a few of the things that worry me. I've reached the stage where, in my opinion, the reported budget number is important, but it doesn't come close to telling an accurate picture of a year-to-year comparison. I want to run through a variety of things I see in this year's budget and next year's budget that I think undermine the credibility of the province and, as people see through them, run the risk of putting at risk our credit rating, primarily because if people begin to have doubts about how much they can trust the books, they begin to have doubts about whether they want to loan money. I'll just go through a few of these things, because they're important and because I think they will eventually see the light.

On March 25, the government sold $425 million worth of GO trains -- I think the deal closed then; I've seen no public announcement, but I'm sure it is -- and it has showed that as revenue. They said: "We've sold $425 million of GO trains. We got $425 million of revenue." That is not what happened. They didn't sell the GO trains. They just refinanced them. Essentially, they took a loan out against the GO trains. They got someone to loan them $425 million, and the government said, "We will repay you over a period of time through lease costs and then we will buy back those trains."

Here's the problem: If you show $425 million worth of revenue but it's really a loan, we are absolutely fooling ourselves. It would be like, on a personal basis, going to the bank and having them ask, "How much money do you make a year?" and you say, "Well, I make this amount, plus, by the way, I've just taken out another loan on my car, so I'm counting that as revenue." That's not revenue. That is simply a loan. That's $425 million this year.

You see all these government buildings, the Frost building and all these government buildings. What's going to happen to them?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I bet you they'll sell them.

Mr Phillips: That's right. They're not selling them, but they will pretend they're selling them. They're essentially simply taking out a loan against them, and they're going to do the same thing with a bunch of computers around here. The problem we get into is that that's not revenue, that is simply a loan, and showing it as revenue is transparent.

On the expenditure side, this one is huge. The province spends $600 million every year on school, hospital, college and university capital, and it's historically been in the form of a grant. Now the government is saying to school boards and municipalities and hospitals and colleges and universities: "We will still provide you that money, the $600 million a year, don't worry about that, but we don't want to show it on our books. You go borrow the money, and you tell whomever you borrow the money from not to worry, because we will commit to repay 100% of the principal and interest on that."

Now, in the budget book they call it loan-based financing. When I first saw the term "loan-based financing," I thought: "This is great. The province is going to get the money back. They're just loaning it." Well, it is exactly the opposite. What the government officials told me is that in five years there will be $3 billion worth of debt on someone else's books and in 10 years there will be $5.5 billion worth of debt on those books, 100% owed by the province but not shown as debt; hidden somewhere.

My belief is that this year, the year that's ending in roughly two days, they will show roughly $800 million this year and next year I understand they will do well over $1.4 billion the same way.

The third big thing they've done is on the pension thing. I think members recall that at the end of December we passed some legislation here which was amazing legislation in some respects, because as the members know, in the teachers' pension fund there is an unfunded liability right now of roughly $8 billion. The teachers don't need to worry about this because 100% of this is the responsibility of the province, the taxpayers of Ontario. But what the government did was say, "We are going to take a three-and-a-half-year holiday from making any payments against that $8-billion unfunded liability."

By the way, furthermore, the government passed legislation exempting itself from what's called the Pension Benefits Act so it could take $140 million out of the teachers' pension. If you hadn't passed the legislation, it would have been illegal, because you cannot take money out of a pension fund with an unfunded liability. You all remember the famed Conrad Black situation where he tried to take money out of a pension fund that had a surplus. In this case, we took $140 million out of a pension that has an $8-billion unfunded liability.

When I explored this, one of the reasons was that essentially we could borrow money from that at 8% and it's costing 8.25% to borrow money, as they say, on the street, so we're borrowing money more cheaply. But we're not showing that anywhere as a debt or a liability. It is essentially, in my opinion, borrowing roughly $500 million a year from the unfunded liability and letting it run up.

The reason I raise that one is that I think one of the things all of us are going to want to watch over the next few months is, just what are we doing with our pension funds? I don't know the details of the Hydro deal, but from what I've read in the paper, part of the settlement there may be looking at some reduced contribution to the pension fund. I raised the question in the Legislature here last week about whether the government had any intention to fund its 1994-95 budget plan through reduced contribution to the pension fund, and the answer I got back was quite guarded, I thought, quite craftily worded to avoid answering my question.

As I said, I don't want to alarm the teachers, because the public has 100% responsibility for funding it, so they shouldn't be worried. My worry is that we are going to go three and a half years with no payment into it and then suddenly we have an annual payment that kicks in of $600 million or $700 million a year. By the way, this unfunded liability goes to almost $14 billion before it starts to tail off. This is really big money.

I'm going through these things because I don't think we should be surprised if, when the budget comes out and it has a deficit of $8.1 billion or $8.2 billion, the financial community says: "Whoa, wait a minute. Let's look at the real number." In my opinion, there's going to be probably another $500 million worth of government buildings that will be "sold" -- not sold at all; they will just take out a mortgage on them and lease back. And I gather there may be some computers and planes, hundreds of millions of dollars of them.

1610

I also raise this question: You know how we've all now moved to five-year drivers' licences; it used to be a three-year driver's licence and we now have a five-year driver's licence. If this were a business -- and all the business people out there will know this -- and you sold someone a five-year something or other, you couldn't show all five years of revenue in one year. You'd have to say, "Well, I earned part of the revenue in one year," one year, one year, one year. The government is going to do it differently. They'll take all the revenue in in the year they collect it. So, surprise, surprise, we've now moved to five-year drivers' licences. In 1993, 1994 and 1995 all the revenue will come in and then there will be no revenue in 1996 or 1997.

I'm also signalling that the government is moving to set up -- it has already set them up -- a large number of crown corporations, or the jargon around here is schedule 4 agencies. There will be roughly 3,500 people moved from the government payroll off into these agencies. It's a neat move because then it looks like, boy, we're really managing things well. We've got 3,500 fewer people. They're just moved on to a different book; in my opinion, allowing all sorts of difficulties in comparing what is the government really doing year to year and how much progress are we really making year to year.

That, by the way, is the reason I'm raising these things. I understand what the government is trying to do. It's trying to say: "Boy, we're making great progress against reducing the deficit. Look at all the things we've done." But in my opinion, if the public aren't being given the facts and the public don't know what the real state of the finances is, they are unable to deal with the implications of it.

As a matter of fact, what did the Provincial Auditor say about the way the government reports its books? I don't know whether many of the government members have looked at this or not, but for the first time in the history of the province, when the Provincial Auditor commented on the books that closed a year ago, the Provincial Auditor refused to give an unqualified opinion. In other words, he said, "I'm not giving this a clean bill of health."

He also went on to say, "The public are not now being provided the financial information required to help them understand and assess the financial position and results of the government." In other words, he signalled clearly to us that the way the government is reporting its finances doesn't give the public the financial information required to help them understand and assess the financial position and results of the government.

I've been pushing for the government to report its books in a different way. I might say the third party has been doing the same thing. I thought we had the agreement of the government to do that. I thought the budget for 1994-95 would be prepared in the way the auditor wanted it.

I got a carefully worded response back that fooled me because it said, "Yes, we will prepare the public accounts in the way the Provincial Auditor wants them." Because I'm not sure I understand all the jargon, I said: "This is great. The budget will be prepared for 1994-95 the way the auditor wants it." The answer back was, "The public accounts will be prepared in accordance with the way that the auditor wants them."

I finally found out that what that means is, the public accounts will be reported when? September 30, 1995. So, surprise, surprise, the books will be prepared the way the auditor wants them, but they won't be done until September 30, 1995. We all know what will have happened by that time.

I'm spending the time on this because, in my opinion, there is no doubt what's going on behind the scenes, and that is, "How can we get our books" -- I call it "juggled," and I hope I'm not being too extreme there -- "juggled so we can report a deficit as low as possible?"

I've outlined those areas. What we're talking about there is roughly $3 billion: $1 billion worth of revenue and roughly $2 billion worth of expenditures. If we don't identify those and understand those and recognize that they are the real expenditures -- if the books had been kept in the same way year to year to year, they would have had to have been in the books -- we're fooling ourselves.

What that means is that I think it has several implications. One is, as I say, that the financial community will see through these and we'll have the worst of all worlds. They will include them in any of their calculations but they will have lost confidence in the full disclosure of the Ontario finances.

There's where we run the risk of a downgrading. I hope it won't happen. I personally think that the ministry officials are working closely with the rating agencies. I suspect the government will understand what will be required to ensure we don't lose our rating, but if we do, I think it will be as a result of these sorts of things.

On the question of why we are struggling the way we're struggling, there's no doubt the revenue has been hard hit. I talked earlier about the underground economy and the belief the committee had that we could be looking at $3 billion to $4 billion worth of revenue in the province lost to the underground economy. By the way, that hasn't all occurred overnight. I think there's always been an underground economy, there's no doubt about that, but one of the people earlier indicated that the GST stimulated it further, there's no doubt about that, and we have looked at substantial revenue losses.

The second thing I think that's hurt the revenue is that maybe what many people have worried about has actually happened, and that is that we've hit the wall. Just for everyone's information, in 1990-91, the tax revenue in the province was $33.5 billion. Taxes went up each of the last three years by roughly $1 billion. Normally, one would have expected tax revenue to have grown by $3 billion. What actually has happened in the year that's just ending two days from now is that tax revenue has actually dropped by $2.5 billion.

That's very dramatic, that tax revenue in 1990-91 was $33.5 billion, taxes went up by $3 billion, you would have expected tax revenue to be $36 billion to $37 billion. Tax revenue, according to the government's figures, in 1993-94 will be $31.2 billion. In other words, tax revenue was supposed to go up like that. Tax revenue actually has dropped, for a variety of reasons. The tax revenue engine, as I've said before, is in the ditch and the wheels are spinning.

What has the government turned to? It's turned to all sorts of things, as I've talked about before: selling GO trains and then leasing them back -- it's no sale at all; it's just remortgaging the GO trains; selling the Frost Building and then leasing it back. I have a note here saying that the government plans to sell $500 million worth of jails and courthouses and lease them back. It's strange that it would sell jails and then lease them back. That's what the plans are. Plus, of course, the government is turning over every stone looking for revenue.

1620

I was amazed when we were at committee, when we were talking about photo-radar and what a revenue generator that is. I couldn't believe it, actually. We were told there by the senior ministry officials that each photo-radar machine in the province will generate, if you can believe this, $15 million a year in revenue. As the Chair of the committee said, better than slot machines -- $15 million a machine.

I have no doubt that as the government looks, as I say, to turn over every stone for sources of revenue, we're going to see some of the most ingenious plans to generate more and more revenue. There's no doubt in my mind that gambling is seen as a big cash cow, with casinos all over Ontario now. We have the casino opening in Windsor, and I think it will do very well. I think the cars will be lined up for a long way coming across the border.

I don't have any doubt that there'll be an incredible pressure from all sorts of communities. I also don't have much doubt that throughout North America we're going to see a proliferation, as they say, of casinos, and then the real challenge will be who survives 10 years from now. But in the meantime, we're going to see an incredible proliferation of them.

By the way, on that one, I wish the government had accepted our amendment to make certain that the public, in the end, isn't on the hook for the debt of those casinos. They're going to cost $250 million to build, I gather. We proposed an amendment that would have said: "Listen, if the private sector wants to get involved in these things, great. Build them, great. If they can make money at them, great. But you're held accountable for the debt."

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: Someone has said, "Sure, like SkyDome." That's exactly my point. I think the public is delighted to have a facility like SkyDome. They believe it's a great facility -- it's brought tourism to Ontario, it's been a great economic boom -- but they're not happy, in the end, about having to pick up the debt on that. That's why we proposed that amendment on the casinos, and I wish that it had passed.

In any event, my point is this: I think the government has heard the message that Ontario is taxed out. I think the figures confirm that, when we've actually seen tax revenue over a four-year period drop by $2 billion. There are a few extenuating circumstances, but the direction is clear. But what this government is going to do is turn to every other possible source of revenue -- from casinos, to fees, to selling off government buildings, as I said before, and then leasing them right back, selling the jails and leasing them back, all sorts of things -- to artificially, in my opinion, inflate the revenue.

The reason I've gone through these is that there is no doubt that we are in a deep fiscal hole. There's no doubt, as the budget comes up, that the government will present a budget in two or three weeks that will report a deficit significantly lower than the 1993-94 deficit. For anybody who follows this stuff, we run on a fiscal year basis which ends the end of March. We're just about within two days of finishing our fiscal year, and the government will present its budget for the next fiscal, the year that starts on April 1, 1994. There's no doubt that the government will present a budget with a deficit probably $1.5 billion lower than the deficit for the year that's just ended.

My point is that we all have a responsibility to get in behind the numbers and to determine: Are we making progress against our deficit or not? My concern is that, as I look at the numbers, it's questionable.

This allows me to return to my opening theme, and that is that we can deal with our finances. I think there are solutions to our fiscal challenges. One of them, quite clearly, is to get the economy going. There are limitations in the end to being able to save your way out of this. I think we also have to see some good economic growth.

The problem we're running into right now is, this is what a lot of people out there say: "Well, I don't feel any recovery." The reason people don't feel any recovery is that even at the end of 1994, the Ontario economy will be just back to where it was in 1989 in terms of output, or to use the jargon that people use, "gross domestic product." But the output of Ontario at the end of 1994 will have just crawled its way back up to where it was in 1989. That's why people aren't feeling the recovery, and that's why we're struggling with jobs and our finances. We have to get the economy rolling.

The key to that, in my opinion, is finding ways that we see jobs created. Key to that are the things I talked about earlier: setting the tone, finding ways that we allow our businesses to breathe again, finding ways that we truly do, as they say, reinvent the tools, the government tools. We're trying to operate a 1990s economy with a 1960s style of government apparatus. We truly do have to find ways that we provide the tools for our business community to operate and to improve the human skills of the people of the province, help it improve the human skills.

I'm pleased to participate in the debate on supply. The challenge we have on supply, of course, is that the bills will be paid. The Legislature will pass supply, but in behind the challenges on supply is a real fiscal problem we have on our hands, and for me the biggest problem is that we are simply not seeing jobs created in this province nearly quickly enough.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to congratulate the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. He always gives us an enlightened speech on this topic. We've heard it before and I think that --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Yes, we've heard it before, many times.

Mr Tilson: We have heard it before, and I would encourage him to say it over and over. One of the issues he has raised which we should take to heart is the issue of credit rating. I'm not quite as optimistic as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is. I believe that we do have serious problems. I don't think the foreign investor or the investor in this province is going to take with credence many of the things that this government is doing. The Treasurer has used the George Bush speech of, "No new taxes, read my lips," and that may or may not be the case. We've certainly seen in the last budget how more and more fees than we've ever seen have been put forward.

Clearly, the fudging of the books is an issue that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has summarized in great detail He's certainly dead on on the deceiving that's been going on by this government with respect to where the financial position of this province really is. There's no question we're really in deep trouble, and the issue of the fudging of the books is a prime example. It's as if the Treasurer is going to stand up with the next budget, which presumably is next month some time, and say that this province is really on the road to recovery. We know, and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt knows, that's simply not the case. The foreign investor simply won't believe all the tricks this Treasurer is using.

I congratulate the member for Scarborough-Agincourt and I look forward to hearing more of this type of debate as we proceed through this motion.

Mr Sutherland: I listened to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt and I must say that he has these comments down pat very well. They're the common concerns that he raises. He's very good at raising the problems. Where he's not very good, and where the Liberal Party seems to be lacking, is in identifying solutions. They want to talk about: "We need the new tools. We need to let business grow."

I watched the leader of the official opposition on Focus Ontario on Saturday. She was asked very direct questions about specific concerns. She complained about our tuition increases. All she could say was "a moderate tuition increase." She talked about reinventing government. They talk in these nice frameworks, these nice little words. Where's the substance?

The people of Ontario know that we're in very difficult times. They know that it takes strong leadership, that it takes tough decisions to get us out of this, and they know that some of the things that this government has had to do are very difficult. They want to find out where the other parties stand. They want to hear some real, substantive policy ideas and suggestions. Once again, we have not heard any from the Liberal Party.

Let's talk about some new tools that this government has come forward with. Let's look at our agricultural investment strategy. Let's look at rural GICs. Let's look at personal loan-mortgage guarantees. Let's look at what we've done on community development with loan share and community development corporations -- they're some of the new tools -- and labour-sponsored venture capital, worker ownership. No one of them is going to solve the problem, but they are specific new tools that this government, and I repeat this government, has come forward that no other government has come forward with in the past, supporting communities to allow us to get our economy going. The people of Ontario want to know where the Liberal Party stands on issues.

1630

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): What I find most interesting is that after I guess about an hour and 15 minutes of debate by our Finance critic, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, all we can hear from the government back bench are attempts at criticizing him. It's like this is the Treasurer-in-waiting.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): No way.

Mr Mahoney: That's what I hear and that's what we hear every day. It's beginning to feel a lot like government. It's really quite a fascinating thing.

I want to congratulate the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. He's probably somewhat modest, but he puts out a document called Treasury Watch, which is an analysis of the province's financial position. I guess on a monthly basis, the analysis is done. I have it on some good authority that one of the people who reads Treasury Watch with careful consideration is the current Minister of Finance for the province of Ontario. In fact, in responding to questions by our critic, the Minister of Finance has often made reference to the fact that the critic seems to have a handle on the finances of the province and a clear understanding of them, unlike many of the members opposite.

What the members opposite fail to understand is that you have driven business confidence right out of this province. You have taxed more than anyone in history -- to the point, as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has pointed out, that the underground economy is becoming the predominant economy in this province. People are doing whatever they can to avoid the taxman. The taxman cometh and people simply go underground in trying to avoid it. You have killed business initiative in this province and you've killed revenue.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We have time for one more question or comment.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I just want to comment briefly on the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's remarks that he made in the House this afternoon with regard to the finances of the province, with regard to the bill that's before us, the resolution to pay the employees of the province from the end of March.

I've been in this House some time, and it is only in the last two or three years that we have never had the opportunity to have a real debate on any budgetary policies or any budget that this administration has brought forward.

I think it's long overdue that when the next budget is brought before this Legislature the members of this Legislature should have the opportunity to deal with that budget. The member has indicated many facts and figures with regard to the budgetary policies of this government, and when I look at some of the budgetary policies of the government, and I read An Agenda for People, it says, "Instead our platform for this election represents a new beginning for Ontario, an agenda for people that begins the work of making our tax system fair, restoring our environment, protecting people and their jobs, alleviating poverty, making homes more affordable and building a stronger northern Ontario."

I haven't seen any of that take place since this administration has been in power. They said they want to make our tax system fairer. You ask anyone out there if the taxing system of this administration is fair; they will tell you it's not, because everything they do they have to put their hand in their pocket. When you look at the amount of tax increases that have been brought in, and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt had indicated very strongly with regard to the credit rating of the province, how we're having trouble with that, when we look at the budgetary policies and we look at the next budget that's coming, we hope we will have the opportunity to have five to eight days' debate in this Legislature on that very budget.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has two minutes to reply.

Mr Phillips: I always get a bit of a kick out of the member for Oxford, because he will say, "Well, show us your solutions; give us your recommendations," so then when we do them -- I remember the underground economy. We had a great debate on the underground economy, and as soon as the opposition came forward with recommendations, both the Liberal Party and the Conservatives, unanimously the NDP voted against them.

Mr Sutherland: That's not true.

Mr Phillips: I remember going around the province on the first NDP budget. We had lots of suggestions for the budget. What happened on that? It was an orchestrated activity designed just simply to do window dressing.

I can remember here in the Legislature having many suggestions on youth unemployment. Actually, I think in the end, reluctantly, the NDP finally accepted some of those recommendations.

I strongly urged you, I begged you to not do what you did with playing games with the books on the pensions. What happened? The Provincial Auditor caught you, and you were warned about this by us, warned about it. The Provincial Auditor said, "I am not going to give an unqualified opinion on the books, because you're playing games with the books."

I can go through recommendation after recommendation for them. What they don't want to hear is that you didn't listen to those recommendations.

For my colleague from Dufferin-Peel, I hope you're wrong on the credit rating, because if we do get downgraded to A, we'll have a very serious problem of raising funds.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I enjoy the opportunity to debate interim supply because it's one of the few opportunities in the Legislature that you can get an opportunity, unencumbered, with little in the way of rules and regulations and strict adherence to the issues at hand or the legislation before you, to deal with the issues that affect the people in the province of Ontario specifically.

I would like to discuss the finances from I suppose day one, when this government took over, to today. From the day that the socialists got elected in this province, the difficulty that I think they've had is in picking a plan and sticking to that plan. I understand that there would be some concern over there, but let's review how many plans this government's had with respect to the fiscal and financial concerns in the province of Ontario.

Mr Sutherland: We adapt. We don't stay in the 1760s like the Conservatives.

Mr Stockwell: I will say this -- I see the member for Oxford. I recall sitting in this Legislature the day their Treasurer, Mr Floyd Laughren, brought in their first budget. I believe it was April of 1991. They brought in their first budget and there were some puffed-out chests and there was a lot of tub-thumping about the fact that this government had decided, in its wisdom, that in April 1991 this government was going to be completely different from any other government in the provinces in this country and, again, the federal government. They were choosing at that time to fight the recession instead of fighting the deficit.

There were a lot of Tory debates, and again "Hear, hear" was from that side of the House a common cry as the Treasurer read into the record the government's need to fight the recession and not the deficit. At that time, the deficit the year before stood in the $3.2-billion range. They brought in their 1991 budget and immediately called that the deficit would be $9.9 billion.

I remember that day very well, because I was the critic for our party. I recall going across the street to the lockup, reading that budget and thinking to myself that no government could have made such a gross misjudgement with respect to the economy, the finances and the recession. I vividly recall thinking, "This budget is completely and thoroughly out of control," that to call for a $10-billion deficit in the times we were just entering, a very serious recessionary spiral, was only going to cause this government severe handicap and headache in years to come.

1640

Subsequent to the date the Treasurer announced that budget, I stood in the House on a few occasions -- I was rather animated, I admit -- and said to the Treasurer: "Are you sure that this is what you think is going to work? Are you sure you want to institutionalize a $10-billion deficit? Are you certain that this is the road you want to go down at this time to, hopefully, prop up that sagging recession?"

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): You had more self-control than you have now.

Mr Stockwell: It could be said. Maybe I didn't have a lot of self-control, because I was so vehemently opposed to the approach this Treasurer had adopted, along with his cabinet, the Premier and caucus, to fight this recession: taking a $3.2-billion deficit to $10 billion.

Ultimately, the $10-billion deficit was the first in a series of miscalculations for which the Treasurer became famed as Spot-on Floyd. He became famous for miscalculating the deficit, and the first year was the very beginning of that typical, historic miscalculation. He said the deficit would be $9.9 billion and it came in significantly higher. I think it came in around $12 billion.

I recall that. Why I refer at this time back to that date is because the plan of this government at that time was to fight the recession, not the deficit. Why I comment on that with respect to the interim supply is because the mistake was made. The government didn't realize it had made a mistake until it was much too late. I think even they, maybe in their quieter moments, in sober thought, will admit today, some of them, that maybe the deficit at that level, for that amount of money, may have been an error in judgement, because a couple of short years later, they simply got off that track or that game plan they'd established for themselves and decided to move off in a completely different and new direction.

That was the day they decided about their three-legged stool. We all remember the three-legged-stool explanation that Mr Laughren came up with. The member for Beaches-Woodbine also often referred to the three-legged stool. I often thought they were missing the legs, that it was just "stool."

It seemed to me they had gone off on a completely different track. That track was that they now had realized their mistake in that first budget. They realized they'd institutionalized a double-digit deficit yearly, and they discovered, lo and behold, much to their chagrin, that there were people out there who thought this was a huge mistake, not the least of whom were the lending institutions, not the least of whom were the bond-rating agencies. They thought this was such a huge mistake, that the bureaucracy had a never-satisfied appetite for money, that they decided to take track two.

Track two was to somehow rein in this deficit and rein in the spending. Now we're on plan two, and this is where they probably start off with a reasonably good idea. Granted, they made that huge mistake in the beginning and it's not really sure they can fix it with their new plan, but in my mind and I believe in the minds of most of my caucus, at least it was something they were doing that I believed was helpful and healthy to recover in this province of Ontario.

They institutionalized the $2-billion social contract. I didn't agree with the $2 billion in new taxes, I didn't think that was a proper route to go, but at least they said, "We're going to capture $2 billion of that money we gave away a year or two ago and bring it back in," rein in the salaries, rein in the expenditures, rein in the revenue and try to bring in a deficit that was a little more realistic.

The difficulty they had is that they didn't even handle that right.

Hon Mr Wildman: Chris, you've driven away all your colleagues.

Mr Stockwell: No, they're all listening.

They didn't even do that right, because we know --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I will say to the member for Middlesex that I heard that comment. I think it's thoroughly unparliamentary and you should probably retract it.

That was the mistake they made. The $2-billion recovery would have been successful had they simply done what I stood in this House and asked them to do. Rather than try to negotiate days off and rather than try to negotiate time off and try to negotiate 5% away, they should have simply said, right across the board, a 5% reduction, no time off. We know full well that a lot of this money they claim to have saved is simply deferred.

We know police officers are going to have to get their money because they deferred the time they would have been off. You can't allow a police car in Metropolitan Toronto to go out at night without two officers; that's the rule. When one of them goes off duty, it simply has to be filled by another law enforcement officer.

So we know that $2 billion isn't truly $2 billion. Maybe that cost has been passed off to somebody else, maybe that cost is truly not a saving, but it never captured the $2 billion. That's where they went into game plan two.

Now we've discovered, just a few short weeks ago, that the government has decided to go to game plan three. Game plan three is a cross between game plan two and game plan one. What they're doing in this game plan is that they're going to let the deficit run, but they're not going to brag about it. That's the difference.

You see, in game plan one, when they let the deficit run, they stood and said, "We're fighting the recession, not the deficit," beat their chests, pounded the drums. "Aren't we wonderful socialists?"

Game plan two was: "Okay, maybe we're not wonderful socialists. We've got to rein in the cost of government. We're going to try to get $2 billion back. This is how we're going to do it."

Game plan three -- and I'm sure cabinet had a long discussion about this and I'm certain there was some angst. I watch Fourth Reading, and apparently the Minister of Energy was a prime mover and shaker with respect to ensuring that the social service cuts would not happen, that the welfare cuts wouldn't happen, and that game plan three would be, "We'll let the deficit run up by another $2 billion, but we won't brag about it."

By not bragging about it, they think they can still maintain this vote they've got with respect to fiscal responsibility, that 3%, and they would also maintain that left-wing, social conscience vote of 3%. Putting it together, they would come up with their 6%. That is now game plan three. As you can see, game plan one and two pretty much evaporated any support they had, so they're solidifying that 6% base they've worked themselves towards.

What is the lesson you learn when reviewing the last few budgets by a chameleon-like Treasurer? And I truly mean that: a chameleon-like Treasurer. You can't pin him down. One minute you think he's Frank Miller and the next minute you think he's Ed Broadbent. You can't seem to nail him down in terms of what he is, because every budget's different. One budget's a spending budget: "Deficit be damned, full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes." The next budget he's clawing $2 billion back in social contracts. And you don't have to be a genius to know what this budget coming up is going to be. It's going to mean that the deficit will be up proportionately by some $2 billion. The deficit's going to ring in at around $10 billion, $11 billion, $12 billion. So much for the social contract.

You're also going to understand, because they've changed tracks again, that they may fool some of the people some of the time, but they're not going to fool the bond rating agencies -- and that's all of the people all of the time. I'm willing to bet today with any member across the floor, knowing that you've got a $2-billion shortfall, knowing you didn't make those cuts with transfer payments, knowing you didn't make those cuts in social service recipients, that you are going to have to then flog that back on to the deficit. By flogging that back on to the deficit, the bond rating agencies are going to see that you abandoned your restraint, "Hold it down as best we can" approach, and they're going to downgrade you.

As sure as we're sitting here today, when my friend the Treasurer stands before this Legislature and announces his fourth budget, I believe, and announces the plan of leaving the deficit at $10 billion or $11 billion or $12 billion, you are going to get downgraded. You may well be downgraded to the A category.

1650

Mrs Haslam: You've got to look after people.

Mr Stockwell: I hear from the member across the floor. That's fair comment. You have to look after people. What I've been driving at for the past 15 minutes or so is, pick a plan and stick with it, because you've got to run your game plan from middle to end to see if it works. If it was, "Damn the deficit, full speed ahead," so be it. If it was a restraint-conscious, "Hold it in, rein in the costs," so be it. But don't make it a hybrid of one and the other and think you're going to solve anything at all. That's the first point I wanted to make.

I also wanted to make it because one of the comments I recall vividly as the treasury critic for my party when he introduced the first budget was that I was getting far too exercised about this budget. In fact, paper bags were mentioned and, "Calm down," and so on. Yes, I was very animated in my opposition. In the end, the proof is in the pudding.

If there's one single event that this government has done that has shaped its demise and shaped its low ranking in public opinion polls, has shaped and formed this government, it was that very first budget. Why? By institutionalizing double-digit deficits, you lost the capacity to manage. By losing the capacity to manage, all you were left with was to figure out a process and a method to get that money back.

I will say this, and there is never any politician anywhere in this country, probably this world, that won't tell you this is true: It's so much easier to give it than it is to take it away. You can deal with that on stop signs or stop lights or community centres or $10-billion deficits. Once you give them, it's very tough to get them back. That's the first point.

Let me talk about the bond-rating agencies. There is some thought across the floor that there seems to be some kind of right-wing, conservative game plan out there to embarrass this government. Nothing could be further from the truth with respect to the bond-rating agencies. The bond-rating agencies are true bean counters. They are truly bean counters from the word "Go." They don't care who's in power. They don't care what political stripe they are. They don't care what you believe personally with respect to social programs, deficits etc. All they care about is what you are doing with your finances and what you are planning to do in the future.

The bond-rating agencies are going to review your budget once again and they're going to come to the same conclusions they've come to in the past number of years. Your bond-rating agencies are going to say to you, "You are going to be downgraded." Why are they going to say that to you? They're going to say it for a series of reasons, not the least of which will be: "You are playing with the books. You're fudging the numbers." Your smoke-and-mirrors budgeting comes home to roost every time you get downgraded.

I honestly don't understand why this government and its caucus, particularly its backbench members, can't seem to understand that. I don't understand why when you talk about selling your rolling stock to an offshore investor and then making a deal to lease it back over a long-term process and then taking that money and applying it into your operating budget of that year, you don't see that people who are in an investment community see that as trickery.

Mr Sutherland: No, they don't. They know what it's all about.

Mr Stockwell: They know what it's all about, and that's why you keep getting downgraded. That's why. I know the member for Oxford doesn't understand it. He's a bright fellow, a bright guy, and I understand why he doesn't understand it. He doesn't want to understand it. That's the problem.

When you have an asset on your books that you own outright of rolling stock of GO trains, there is no debt against it. You've purchased it up front with money, you sell that to an offshore investor and then take a long-term lease back. Any bond-rating agency, any accountant, is going to classify that as an encumbrance, a debt. You owe that money. The day before you didn't and today you do. They're going to calculate that into how much money you must pay out over the next number of years to stay afloat. That gets applied to your debts.

Hon Mr Wildman: You have to take into account the revenue.

Mr Sutherland: We know that, they know that.

Mr Stockwell: It's not a difficult argument. I hear from the Minister of Energy you have to take into account the revenue. You see, he doesn't understand. You took into account the revenue when you owned them outright. You take into account the same revenue once you've sold them. There's no difference. You're not changing the amount of money you're creating in revenue.

If you were, I would say, "Mr Minister, you're right." If you were going to get more revenue from selling them offshore and leasing them back, I'd say, "Mr Minister, you're right." But the bottom line is, the minister isn't right because whether you own them wholly or you lease them back from an offshore investor, you get the same amount of revenue. That's the point.

Now what else did they do that these bond-rating agencies concern themselves with? They concern themselves with a couple of other things. One of the things that they really concern themselves with is the same thing the auditor concerned himself with. What is that? I know the member from Durham knows. I know the member for Oxford knows, because I know he's a bright guy and I know he knows that when you defer $3 billion worth of payments in a pension plan, these bond-rating agencies, accountants and so on see that as a cumulated debt. They see that as off-book debt.

Mr Sutherland: It's all taken into account.

Mr Stockwell: The member said it's all taken into account. May I say this, Madam Speaker? I will give the member my one hour and 10 minutes left to go and pick up a budget book that the Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, issued last year. I challenge that member for Oxford to pick up the budget book and show to me in that budget book exactly where he took that $3 billion into account, because when it calls for the deficit figure for the coming year, the $3 billion in pension money is not taken into account.

You know what else isn't taken into account, I say to my friend for Oxford, the learned member from Oxford, what else isn't taken into account? The money that you're shipping off to these crown corporations, these crown agencies. My friend, that's not taken into account, and I will cite the page: 96. If you go to page 96 of the budget and you go down to the deficit, you get a deficit figure. In very small writing underneath, they refer to those numbers and they're not taken into consideration when you look at the cumulated deficit.

I say to my friend from Oxford, if you want to prove me wrong, go get yourself a budget, turn to page 96 and you prove me wrong, because I'm not wrong and the member for Oxford knows I'm not wrong. He won't go and get the book, he won't look it up and he won't present it to me because it's not that I'm any genius; the bond-rating agencies figured it out as well, the accountants figured it out. The Treasurer --

Mr Sutherland: We tell them what we're doing.

Mr Stockwell: The auditor figured it out. The member across the floor caterwauls that we told them about it. If in fact you told them about it, why did you not show your deficit as an aggregate, a cumulate total of your deficits outstanding, including the crown agencies? Why did you not show that? Why they didn't show it was because they wanted to be able to say they kept the deficit under $10 billion, as if that's some kind of magic figure.

Also, it might be somewhat embarrassing to see the deficit go up and ring in at what it truly should ring in at, considering the fact that they had their three-legged stool, and you know what I think about their three-legged stool. So there's the problem and there's the rub.

Mr White: Brilliant analysis. So what are you going to do?

Mr Stockwell: The member from Durham -- you know what? I must have come a long way since I first came into this place because I would offer up these kinds of analyses and I'd be pooh-poohed, they'd be considered right-wing, dinosaur logic. At least today it's a brilliant analysis and he says, "Now what are you going to do?" What am I going to do?

Mr White: Go ahead.

Mr Stockwell: I want to be able to at least say this. One of these --

Mr White: Which hospitals are you going to close?

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to be able to say this. I would like to say that considering the predicament you're in today, I wouldn't be in that predicament. I know that's easy to say, but considering the fact --

Mr White: So what would you do? Go for it, Chris, tell us what you'd do.

Mr Stockwell: I just ask for a moment's breath. Considering the fact that I stood in my place when you announced this budget and absolutely went ballistic, saying it was the wrong approach and the wrong thing to do -- don't be giving out 6% settlements to the unions, don't be giving 14% increases to the senior civil servants, don't be doing this kind of stuff, and you did it anyway -- I will say with some certainty that I wouldn't be in the situation you're in today because I never would have adopted that original budget.

1700

Having said that, it's not over. Clearly, we're still a province. Clearly, we still have problems. Clearly, we can still, hopefully, resolve the problem. But the difficulty is that now, by solving the problem, it's becoming more painful. Every day you avoid this problem it becomes more painful.

It's much like the person who's afraid to go to the doctor. They're afraid to go to the doctor and as long as they don't go, that thing festers and gets worse and then finally they end up going to the doctor and they've got to lop their arm off; whereas, before, they simply could have stitched up the wound.

That's the difficulty we're in with this government today. Now they want to go the doctor and they're just one big, huge, pussy boil and they're mad at me, being the doctor, for saying, "Now we've got to lop off your leg." That's the dilemma we're faced with.

That's the dilemma, because now what is it going to take? It's going to take some radical surgery to bring this budget, this institutionalized double-digit deficit, this cost overrun probably second to none, back into a reasonable amount, back into a reasonable budget and back into reasonable taxes.

The member from Durham asked what I would do. Well, you know, it's going to take hours upon hours, years upon years to rectify this huge mistake.

As I've dealt with the budget and I've dealt with the bond-rating agencies, what I'd like to talk about is the staffing concerns with the corporations they've announced.

They seem never to be satisfied. They seem never to be satisfied with simply reporting out the facts of the finances. They always seem to be trying to trick the taxpayer, trick us and trick everyone who comes along. They do it, and they've tried in this last go-round about a year ago with these crown agencies.

The trick was to try and get some debt off books and get some staff off books so that when they go back to the electorate they can say: "Boy, did we ever keep a lid on this mess. The debt's down because we don't show it as an accrued amount." Now they're going to say, and this is really offensive, "We've also decreased the staffing complement within the province of Ontario."

The question then is going to be, "How did you go about decreasing the staffing complement in the province of Ontario?" One of the key factors in reviewing that figure will be the number of employees they've taken from the ministry payroll and shipped off to these crown agencies. They won't show up as staff on the provincial payroll but we, as taxpayers, will still be paying them as crown agencies.

They think this is okay. They think this kind of bookkeeping is acceptable. They think it's okay -- and this is what really aggravates me -- because they get away with it. That is terrible. That's like saying it's okay to rob a bank as long as you don't get caught; it's okay to create some white-collar crime, or do that kind of stuff, as long as you don't get caught. So it's okay if we move these staff off to crown agencies, decrease our complement having not decreased the payroll and say, oh, yeah, they've decreased staff because they haven't been caught.

You know what, Madam Speaker? The sad truth of the situation is, they won't get caught. They won't get caught. You know why they won't get caught? Because the average taxpayer in this province won't take the time to review the books to understand why they didn't get caught. That's truly offensive to me, which brings me to another point.

Look, let's be frank. This is not the first government that plays a little smoke and mirrors with the budget. This is not the first government to fool around with the numbers; I admit that. We did our fair share, I admit it. The Liberals were crafty characters as well. I will admit that the Liberals were crafty characters. What I will say, though, is, reading the budgets of the last 10 or so years, I don't think anyone's been as crafty as these people.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I wish to inform the members of the Legislature that the member for Burlington South wishes to withdraw his motion on standing order 34(a) for this evening and, further, that the Minister of Community and Social Services has been so advised.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that this request for withdrawal, this action be -- is it agreed?

Mr Perruzza: No.

The Acting Speaker: We have no unanimous consent.

Mr Arnott: The member may wish to give agreement to this suggestion, Madam Speaker. The minister has indicated he will not be here either.

Mr Stockwell: Go ahead, take your foot out of your mouth, Tony.

The Acting Speaker: I will ask once more if there is unanimous consent that there not be the question and answer at 6 o'clock with regard to the Community and Social Services ministry. Is it agreed? Agreed. Thank you very much.

Now we will return to the debate. The member, I believe, has the floor.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I believe my friend from Etobicoke has a lot of good things to say. It would be nice if there was a quorum here to hear him.

The Acting Speaker: Could the Clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Now we will be able to resume the debate, and the member for Etobicoke West has the floor.

Mr Stockwell: I was talking about the fact that they aren't going to get caught with respect to the -- that brought me to this argument, and I was discussing the trickery. I've referred to a lot of the stuff they've done as jiggery-pokery, but what I have gathered from this kind of budgeting and financing is that there is a dramatic need, a huge desire, firstly on the part of the taxpayers; there is an incredible desire from me, and I think maybe from this side of the House, that if there's anything that any government could do, it would be to standardize the accounting practices of their government and any future governments.

I ask you that and I would like to put that forward because there's a human edge involved here. The human edge is that when it comes time to make a difficult decision, human nature dictates -- and I think it's done so at the federal level with the old Conservative Party and has done so with the new Liberal Party. It has happened with this government. It probably happened with the previous Liberal government provincially, and maybe will with us. But when it comes time to make a difficult decision to inform the electorate or kind of make things up, governments seem to go about making things up.

As it snowballs, what ends up happening at the end of the day is the financial picture doesn't change. You're still in that very difficult position. The dollars you've spent still have to be accounted for. You end up with a big, huge amount of money owed at the end of the year, and the government then has to kind of come clean.

I would ask --

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Members of the government to leave, right?

Mr Stockwell: No. I would ask any government that goes in next time, be it the government in power or the Liberals or the Conservatives, that one undertaking be given to the taxpayers in this province: that never again will a government be able to manipulate the figures, manipulate the finances and manipulate the books in this province; that all reporting functions will be standardized on accepted accounting principles; that never again can deficit figures be played with for political purposes and to in fact fool the taxpayers of this province. I don't say that specifically about this government; I think it's happening federally and provincially down the years. But it has become so bad that we have governments that are $5 billion, $6 billion and $7 billion out on year-end financial statements.

1710

Mr Perruzza: Hey, Chris, strap yourself into that seat, will you. You're going to be there a long time.

Mr Stockwell: He got his shoe out of his mouth.

I say that if this could be adopted by an all-party committee, by all the representatives in this Legislature, it would be one of the truly important things that we could do, as a group, for the taxpayers in this province. This is non-partisan, this is not parochial, this is not partisan politics. What it is is a piece of legislation that will allow the taxpayers to understand finally and once and for all, no matter what government is in there, that proper accounting principles are practised and the numbers that come out during the budget and at the end of the year are factual. That would go a long way to buying a lot of credibility within the province with its taxpayers and its elected officials.

I don't suppose it's going to happen within the life of this government. I think it's something that you're going to have to campaign on. I would encourage all the leaders of every party to campaign on that, because I think the people in this province would be willing to buy in to that. I think they'd be excited about seeing finally, once and for all, uniform statistics and uniform numbers and uniform accounting practices that can be measured government to government, year to year, politician to politician.

Why would that be good? Because when you go out there as a socialist -- and I, to some degree, have a harder time with the left-wingers than the right-wingers, probably being from the right side. But the left-wingers go out there and say, "We can have programs X, Y and Z," and they don't pay for them, but they provide them. To some degree, the Conservatives have done it as well in the past. What happens is that you end up providing programs X, Y and Z and you haven't paid for them. By not paying for it, it becomes a painless program. People then become accustomed to this program because they haven't paid for it. So in the end it's like giving something away free. You can give anything away free. Garage sales are the perfect example of that. It's garbage in a lot of instances, but if you say it's free, people take it away.

So now you've got programs that are maybe worthy, not so worthy and terrible, and they're all out there for people to access and use, and use whether they're effective or not, and fundamentally they're all free.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Free.

Mr Stockwell: Free; because we don't pay for them. You know what it comes down to? Welfare. Welfare is fundamentally free, no cost to the taxpayer. Why is that? Because the cost of welfare in this province is around $7 billion; your deficit is significantly more than $7 billion.

Mr Perruzza: Is this a new Conservative dogma? "Everything is free."

Mr Stockwell: Fundamentally, we're not taxing for it, nobody is paying for it, so it's in fact free. So as long as you leave this impression in people's minds that these programs don't cost anything, they always want them. If you tell them, "Okay, here are the programs; let's pay for them," rather than being free, then I think people would have a different attitude. I think people would have a different point of view. I think people may say, "Well, that program may be good, but frankly I'm not prepared to pay for it."

Mr Perruzza: Hey, Chris, do you notice nobody sits behind you when you speak?

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West has the floor.

Mr Stockwell: No, I had not noticed that, Tony. Now you've mentioned it, I'm going to look into that.

The Acting Speaker: Please proceed, the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I have no idea why the member for Downsview is not in cabinet, I honestly don't. He would be a worthy addition. He must know the printing industry, because apparently he got a lot of letterhead printed before he got here. He's got expert advice in carpentry. He knows how to remove feet from mouths. He'd be a perfect guy to have in cabinet.

Mr Perruzza: Are you advocating for me, Chris?

Mr Bradley: Is there not a pothole to be fixed?

Mr Stockwell: Sure, there must be a pothole, a stop sign to be held up, a poop and scoop to be scooped. The member for Downsview surely should be able to do those things.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West, please proceed.

Mr Stockwell: I don't want to insult them, but I wish they'd separate, because it's difficult to tell them apart when they're so close together.

Mr Perruzza: I also have a high school diploma to show you, Chris. Do you want to see it?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, I do.

Mr Perruzza: Well, I've got one.

Mr Stockwell: Congratulations. We will announce that the member for Downsview has a high school diploma.

The Acting Speaker: Would you please direct your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: I think there should be an investigation into that high school.

I now want to move on to that free program, and that's what it really comes down to: free. When we talk about free, we talk about no cost. The problem is that the taxpayers don't think there's a cost, but there is a huge cost at the end of the day to us, and the cost is always increased, because by not paying it off, you've got the interest payments on top.

It would be very helpful, at least to us in the Conservative caucus, if we could standardize accounting practices and at least admit that when we spend money, if we're not going to pay for it, we'll tell the people at the end of the day how much money we spent that we didn't collect. That would at least be one small, small step, for me personally, in enlightening the taxpayers in the province of Ontario.

Mr Perruzza: What else is free, Chris?

Mr Stockwell: What else is free? It could apply to anything. Every taxpayer can apply it to whatever they want. If it's welfare, welfare's free. If it's health care, health care's free. If it's education, education's free. You can take the $8 billion or $10 billion or $12 billion or $13 billion you don't collect and apply it to any program you want.

Now, if you said to those same taxpayers, "Pay for all that stuff," I think you'd have a revolt. People would say, "Forget it." What is the PIT now, 56% or 57%? You'd have to bump it up to the 75% to 80% range, probably more, and then people would say, "This is crazy, that 80 cents of every buck I earn will go to the provincial government to pay for the programs we've instituted that we haven't paid for in the past?" You'd have a very vigorous and healthy debate on the merits of government spending inside of one week. The reason we don't, the reason it doesn't create a vigorous and healthy debate, is because we don't pay for them. People think they're free, and that's the problem.

I'll tell you something else, about OHIP and the employer health tax. I was a firm believer and a staunch supporter of the premiums you paid when you had the OHIP card. I believed in that, and I understand why you don't believe in it. But I didn't believe in it only because it raised money. You know why I also believed in it? It became a check in the check and balance system. Maybe your company paid your OHIP premiums or maybe you paid them personally, but when that payment was made -- and it was always a small payment, $30, $34 a month for a family, I believe, always a fairly small payment -- that was a check in the system that allowed the province to say, "Okay, who's that cheque from?" and it ticked off who was covered.

Mr Arnott: Why did they change it?

Mr Stockwell: The Liberals changed it. You'll have to get some kind of analogy why the Liberals changed it. But when they changed it, what happened was that you lost that check, because then companies were simply sending it in based on payroll. It wasn't based on people, wasn't based on the people who worked there and on who was covered and that when they got all these cheques in they could put into the system that Joe Blow paid, that Tom, Frank --

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): No.

Mr Stockwell: Don't say no. I know, because I paid my premiums, and when I paid the premiums, I was told I owed $32 to get my OHIP or my health care.

The reason the system has fallen apart is not because it was ideological; it's because the system broke. The balance was removed and a payroll tax was levied without specific remuneration or specific accounts applied.

Mr Arnott: And it was the Liberals who did it.

Mr Stockwell: Well, it was the Liberals who did it. For all the good intentions you had, Madam Minister, I'll say this: You could have had 30 million health cards out there when the Conservatives were running the OHIP system, but it didn't matter, because the only active cards were the ones where the premiums were paid. If you didn't pay your premium and you went to see the doctor, bells and whistles went off. You know what else? If you tried to rip off our system with a card that wasn't being paid for, the bells and whistles went off and you got caught.

1720

Now this government produces cards -- and I'm not blaming it specifically; it was brought in by the Liberals -- for dogs, for dead people, for cats. They just send them out. Then, when the lawbreakers get hold of these things and use them at the doctor's office, there are no bells and whistles going off because there's no premium applied.

Mr White: What about Visa and MasterCard?

Mr Stockwell: What about Visa? Visa is the same thing. The thing about Visa is, they stop letting you use your Visa when you don't pay for it. I think even the member from Durham knows that.

Mr Fletcher: You can run up $3,000.

Mr Stockwell: That may be true, but at least they stop you. In the health system you can run up a bill for $200,000 and still use it. That's the difficulty.

That seems to be a very simple approach, but what stopped that approach was an overanxious government, to buy public support, thought that $30 a month that a family was paying for OHIP would buy it some support. In the end, it didn't buy them any support; they still lost.

Mr Fletcher: No, Chris, you are wrong.

Mr Stockwell: The member says I'm wrong. I'll listen briefly to why I'm wrong.

Mr Fletcher: It didn't go on your name.

The Acting Speaker: No. The member for Etobicoke West has the floor. Other members can contribute later.

Mr Stockwell: The member says that it didn't go by your name. As far as I know, and I stand to be corrected, when the company agreed to meet the OHIP premium payment, it did so --

Mr Fletcher: They sent in an amount depending on whether it was a family, single or whatever.

Mr Stockwell: Right. He said it was based on family, single or whatever. What it came down to is that if you were an employee and you had a family, you qualified for the family OHIP premium and your company would remit based on the family OHIP premium. I don't know what the member is talking about. I'll ask him to clarify after. As far as I know, that's how it worked.

I got off track there, but that seems to be a perfect example of one change that took place that simply erupted the health care system in this province, all for the sake of $30 a month per family and less for a single, all for the sake of removing that cost from them, in a lot of instances already borne by the company they worked for.

You see, that was the mistake, because the check that was put in place by a previous administration was removed but the program stayed and therefore you didn't have any checks, you didn't have any balances and it became ripe for being ripped of. I'll tell you something. Any time you've got a program that's an easy mark to be ripped off, there are people out there who will rip it off.

Unemployment: I want to review quickly, on the unemployment end, Jobs Ontario. I heard a lot of discussion today with respect to Jobs Ontario in the Liberal Party and Jobs Ontario with respect to the New Democrats. Let me just say that Jobs Ontario, when it was announced, was a $2-billion program initiated by the socialist government in the province of Ontario.

Mr Perruzza: Oh, those nasty folks.

Mr Stockwell: No, not nasty folks; somewhat incompetent at times, but definitely not nasty. That $2 billion was supposed to produce 100,000 jobs. That's not my number. That's not the number that was cooked up by our caucus or cooked up by the official opposition. That was the number you held out --

Mr White: What number does your caucus cook up?

Mr Stockwell: I'm trying to get to the point, but let me just clarify this. That was the number your government held out: 100,000 jobs for a $2-billion investment.

Mr Perruzza: You know the numbers you guys cooked up. Remember Helle Hulgaard? You advised her to quit her job and go on welfare. Those are the numbers you guys cooked up. Go ask her now if she is better off.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Downsview, come to order.

Mr Stockwell: We are now a long way down the road from when this was originally implemented and originally planned. We're so far down the road that in fact there should be at least 100,000 jobs. The minister said today that the money has been spent and has created exactly 30,000 jobs. In fact, there's some dispute about the last 10,000 jobs, about whether they're filled or waiting to be filled. I will give them the benefit of the doubt. They created, say, 30,000 jobs for a $2-billion investment.

It seems to me that if we use their analogies, their totals, their statistics, this can only be classified as a dismal failure. I'm not saying that because I don't agree with the program -- I don't; I think it doesn't work for a whole bunch of reasons -- but this is the government that said it would produce 100,000 jobs for $2 billion, and with the $2 billion they produced 30,000 jobs.

Mr White: How many jobs did the federal government cost in this province? How many jobs were lost because of free trade? Was your federal government successful because it killed a quarter of a million jobs, Chris?

Mr Stockwell: They sit here caterwauling at me, and I'm not sure why. I didn't pick this number; you did. I didn't tell them it would produce 100,000 jobs; you picked it.

Mr Perruzza: You're exaggerating the numbers on both sides, and you know it.

Mr Stockwell: Well, the member says I'm exaggerating the numbers. I would ask the member for Downsview, Anthony Perruzza --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat. The member for Etobicoke West has this time in order to express his opinions. He will do that, and you have a chance to respond after. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Perruzza: But don't let him speak out of both sides of his mouth, Madam Speaker.

Mr Stockwell: To be fair, if these are exaggerated numbers, I ask the member for Downsview, go get the right numbers. You go now and get the numbers, or go get the announcement that was made by your government and get the numbers. The numbers were clear.

Mr Perruzza: Don't you know them?

Mr Stockwell: That's the number, 100,000 jobs. If you dispute that number, go get the statement in the House made by your minister and correct me. He won't go and get it, because that was the number, and the dollar value was $2 billion. If you dispute me, then go out, get the documentation and I will be more than happy to say I was wrong by showing it to me. But you're not going to get out of your seat. You're too busy caterwauling because you're wrong.

The sooner you admit that you're wrong when it comes to the Jobs Ontario figures the better off this province will be, because they'll admit that this was a fiasco. Not everything they've done is a fiasco, I admit that, but Jobs Ontario --

Mr Perruzza: Why don't you sit down right now and I will stand up and dispute those numbers. Sit down and give me the floor.

Mr Stockwell: Go get the numbers.

Mr Perruzza: Sit down and give me the floor and I'll do that.

Mr Arnott: Madam Chair, will you call him to order.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: See what I mean? Sit down and give him the floor. I can't give him the floor, because the process is the way it is. I asked the member to go out and get the numbers. He still sits there. I asked the member to show to the people of this province that in fact they didn't say 100,000 jobs. I asked that he prove that they didn't say $2 billion. I asked that he go out and get the number of jobs they've created: 30,000 jobs.

Mr Perruzza: You sit down and give me the floor.

Mr Stockwell: Madam Speaker, I think that either you get this guy under control or you ask him to go get the numbers. Short of that, he's just blathering away over there with no documentation, no evidence, no proof.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member for Etobicoke West to continue with your remarks through the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: Will do. I would ask the Minister of Energy. Maybe he's got access to certain documents from cabinet that he can give the member for Downsview that show Jobs Ontario was supposed to produce 100,000 jobs. Jobs Ontario has produced 30,000 jobs. It was supposed to be 100,000 right now, and we spent $2 billion producing those 30,000 jobs.

If that is challenged, I accept the challenge. If any one of those statistics or numbers can be proven wrong, I accept it; prove it wrong.

But you know what, they won't, because they're factual. It's numbers that they said they could do. It's 100,000 jobs that they said they'd create. It's $2 billion that they said they'd spend. So if they accept the fact that you had 100,000 jobs, you created 30,000 and you spent $2 billion, even the staunchest supporter of your party is going to say that is a dismal failure.

Mr Mammoliti: Are you going to go on to something else or are you going to repeat yourself?

Mr Stockwell: I say to the member for Yorkview, as long as I get challenged that these are in fact not true, I will be upset and I will continue on, because I want this government member, rather than caterwauling, to go out and prove me wrong. The member for Downsview does a lot of yelling. He doesn't do much reading, he doesn't do much investigation, he just simply caterwauls.

The Acting Speaker: To the member, I think we have --

Mr Stockwell: If it's wrong, I say to the member for Downsview, then go out and check it. Prove me wrong.

The Acting Speaker: To the member --

Mr Stockwell: Because you don't do any reading, because you don't do any examination, don't blame me, don't blame this caucus --

The Acting Speaker: Order. To the member for Etobicoke West, you have made your point to the members across the way. I would ask you if you would continue with your further remarks. We have made that point already.

Mr Stockwell: Well, I have, but clearly it hasn't worked.

Mr Perruzza: Some of us read beyond the Toronto Sun headlines, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: I would ask the member to go read. I would ask the member to investigate, because he sits there heckling and saying these are incorrect figures. I would ask him, I beg him, I'm saying to you, if they're wrong, prove it. But you don't read, you don't investigate, you don't do your research; don't blame me.

1730

Madam Speaker, I'll move on to another topic. It may well upset the members from Yorkview and Downsview across the floor.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: My point is simply this, that if the member checks the facts he will well know that all of our Jobs Ontario initiatives have created or maintained close to 300,000 jobs. He would know that. In fact, that has even made the Toronto Sun headline. He should read the Toronto Sun.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member take his seat. That is some information that I know you are passing to the member across the way, but it is not a point of order.

Mr Stockwell: Madam Speaker, "created or maintained," that's not what they said when they announced the program. They said they would create 100,000 jobs. The minister today said they've created 30,000 jobs, and it's a clear challenge. If he decides not to take up the challenge, I understand it, but standing up on a point of order, playing with words about "created or maintained" is not going to cut it.

I say to you and I say to the government that by creating 30,000 when you said you'd create 100,000 and then spending the $2 billion is a catastrophic failure, and having this member across the floor start rewording it is not a service to the people, it's not a service to this Legislature. It's only a service to his small mind if he believes that he thinks by saying "creating or maintaining" 300,000 jobs he's serving anybody.

The program called for 100,000 new jobs. They've created 30,000 new jobs and they spent the $2 billion. I still ask the member opposite to go out, get the figures, get the numbers and prove them wrong, because he can't.

I have one real concern with respect to the federal Liberal government, and I think the government opposite has spent a significant amount of time blaming federal governments for the mess that it's in. In some instances they are legitimate complaints. In some instances they have not received some cooperation from federal governments that they've in fact served with during their past three and a half years.

But it seems to me that almost every time you try and ask this government a question on an issue there's somebody to blame. Whether it's the federal Liberal Party or the federal Conservative Party or the opposition or whatever, the business community or the bond-rating agencies, there's always someone to blame.

I want to make this point specifically. This government seems intent on complaining about a federal government that has frozen its transfer payments over the past number of years. They're also intent on suggesting that they, as a particular cog within this country we call Canada, do not receive their fair share of moneys from the federal government. They're very intent on explaining to the people of this province that they think they're being ripped off for some billions of dollars because of their geographical location, because of their history and because of their success in previous years.

I will say to that, that's the way this country works. I will also say to that, that's the way this country has always worked. I say to this government, every time it complains about the short shrift it gets from the federal governments, it does exactly the same thing with municipal governments. You treat them exactly the same way.

This is what I don't understand. They seem to think that they're being hard put upon and hard pressed and singled out when it comes to transfer payments, but I look across the floor and I say to them, how much money does this government give to the education and school boards in Metropolitan Toronto?

I see the member from Durham who's heckling. How much money do you give to the Metropolitan Toronto school boards?

Mr White: How much money did you give?

Mr Stockwell: The member doesn't even know the answer. The member doesn't even know the answer to the question.

Mr White: Not one penny less than you gave.

Mr Stockwell: That's exactly right. The same analogy can be applied. He's missed the analogy. The analogy is, how come it's okay for this government to treat Metropolitan Toronto differently than it treats the rest of the province? How come it's okay for them to give no money to Metropolitan Toronto for education yet give 70% and 80% to other sections within this province? How come that is okay? Why is that okay for them to do it to the Metropolitan Toronto school boards but it isn't okay for the federal government to use the same philosophy when allotting funds to the provinces? More money goes to the weaker provinces and less money goes to the stronger provinces. That's always been the way this country's worked. That's always been the way this province has worked.

I can also make another example: health boards. In Metropolitan Toronto their health boards get significantly less money than other regions in this province. How can you complain about a federal government treating you exactly the same way that you treat regions within your own province? It's hypocritical. On the one hand you cry because you don't get the same as the other provinces, and on the other hand you dole out money differently, depending on what region of the province you live in.

I've never understood that. I've never understood how a government complains when it's getting the money, and does exactly the same thing when it's giving the money and calls it fair and equitable. If that isn't a double standard, what is a double standard? If that isn't a double standard, to complain about the way the federal government allots its money based on regional areas, and then do exactly the same thing to the municipalities -- it's exactly the same thing.

I don't want to hear the complaining about the federal government and transfer payments, because we at Metropolitan Toronto have said to you for years, "You don't give us any money; that's not fair," and they still say it today and you tell them --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: What do they tell them? "Because you're wealthy, because you have a huge pool of money, because you've got a lot of assessment, we aren't going to give you the same amount of money that Wawa gets for education because of those reasons."

What is the federal government saying? "Because you're wealthier, because you're more successful, because you have more revenue, you're not going to get the same amount of money that Newfoundland gets when it comes to transfer payments." The same principles apply to us at the municipal level that the federal government applies to them provincially, yet they caterwaul and complain every single time their moneys are frozen.

I'll tell you something else. The same transfer payment municipalities are the same people who have had their transfer payments not just frozen but in fact reduced over the past number of years; the same people. So as they complain about being frozen at the federal level, they've in fact reduced transfer payments to municipalities, hospitals and school boards around this province.

It seems to ring rather hollow.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): How would you increase them?

Mr Stockwell: "How would you increase them?" Why is that not the question you asked the federal government? When the federal government freezes your transfer payments, why don't you say, "Well, how could they possibly increase them?" See, it's a complete and utter double standard; it's absolute hypocrisy.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): No, they could move it around from another province.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Huron says they can move it around. I say to him, when you dole out your transfer money and your education money, why don't you move that education money around then? Why don't you give Metropolitan Toronto a dime one year, at least, rather than nothing? There's no answer, because it's a double standard; it's indefensible.

Mr Klopp: It should all go to rural Ontario.

Mr Stockwell: There's a member saying it should all go to rural Ontario, and the eastern provinces and the western provinces say that all the federal money should go to their areas. So this is a double-edged sword. The problem with this double-edged sword is that it cuts both ways. When they want to bellyache about the transfer payments at the federal level, let them clean up their own house; let them get their own house in order.

I know the members for Yorkview and Downsview know this very well. Let them get their own house in order. When they transfer money to their municipalities, which is no money to education, which is significantly less in health-related costs to the municipalities --

Mr Mammoliti: Why is that?

Mr Stockwell: Why is that? Well, I don't know. You should take that up with your cabinet because you can't seem to complain -- you see, the difference is that when this party was in government, we got less money from the federal government; constantly we got less money from the federal government.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Oh, please.

Mr Stockwell: We did. We were a "have" province. Far more money was transferred out of this province and spread around this country than was taken in, in the way of transfer payments from the federal government. We didn't complain.

1740

Hon Mr Hampton: Are you the apologist for Brian Mulroney?

Mr Stockwell: Well, I think probably we were far better, more prudent fiscal managers than this government; probably we didn't have $10-billion deficits; probably we didn't have welfare costs skyrocketing and unemployment rates in the double digits.

Yes, that's got a lot to do with it, but the fact is, that's got a lot to do with it because of the management of this province.

Furthermore, when we got less than the other provinces, we were proud to be in this country and we accepted the fact that the wealthier areas of this country, the wealthier regions, were going to have to go about supporting those not-so-wealthy regions. We in Metropolitan Toronto understand that we are a wealthy region in this province and some of the money that we pay is going to have to go to support other, not-so-wealthy, regions of this province.

I say to the Minister of Natural Resources, who's talking over there, I understand that a lot of money comes out of Metro to go service his region. I understand that. I accept that.

I say to the Minister of Environment and Energy, I say to those people across the floor, when you go about --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Will the members come to order so I can hear the member who is speaking.

Mr Stockwell: When you go about --

Hon Mr Hampton: Take a geography lesson.

Mr Stockwell: Why?

Hon Mr Wildman: The wealth of this city is built on the resources of northern Ontario.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Would members come to order. We would like to be able to hear the member who is speaking and has the floor. Will you continue, please.

Mr Stockwell: I understand when you have wealthier regions within an area, that money flows out and goes to other regions. I accept that fact. Municipalities such as Metropolitan Toronto that are extremely wealthy, with large dollars in assessment, I say to the Minister of Environment and Energy, understand that when it comes to spending money on education, they're not going to get any money.

I say to the Minister of Environment and Energy, if that is the policy of your government, then don't complain when the federal government adopts the same policy. That's all I'm saying. Why I say that is because on the one hand they complain about the federal government's transfer payment policy and on the other hand you have exactly the same policy within the municipalities.

Hon Mr Wildman: We froze them.

Mr Stockwell: You reduced them by 2% and you know it.

Hon Mr Hampton: Don't complain about equalization; learn the difference between equalization and transfers.

Ms Murdock: A cap on CAP is not the same thing.

Mr Arnott: A cap on CAP is a 5% increase.

Mr Stockwell: Exactly. A cap on CAP is a 5% hike you got from the federal government. Yes, it is. Learn the difference. I've got to take a lecture from somebody who doesn't understand that a cap on CAP is a 5% increase. My God. Why am I listening? I don't know sometimes.

Crown corporations: What I would do? I wouldn't do anything. I understand that Metropolitan Toronto is not going to get the same kind of grants or transfer payments as other regions. I accept that. I've always accepted it. When elected, I accepted it. I knew that some of the other regions were not so financially well off and they counted on the provincial government to maintain budgets and levels of service. What I am saying is, if I were sitting in the provincial government, I would also not complain about the federal government, which is exactly the same problem. That's what I'd do.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Excuse me. I hear the Minister of Natural Resources say, "Take a course on public finance." Okay. I'll take a course on public finance.

The teachers' pension fund and OMERS, the next problem I want to deal with with respect to this government: We understand exactly what took place with respect to this government and the teachers' pension fund and the deferral of $3 billion. I think that was a rather disgraceful process they went through. It's smoke and mirrors, jiggery-pokery, when it comes down to the finances of this province.

The bond rating agencies' biggest concern is the teachers' pension fund and how you passed off a $3-billion transfer to those teachers' pensions.

What I'd like to say to you, Madam Minister, is they're now in the middle of negotiating the very same thing with the pension for the OPSEU pension plan. They're doing that, and in the way of negotiations, they're going to defer dollars that they are supposed to commit to the pension plan and not pay them. So what is it that they will end up doing? They will defer these dollars, and in future years when another government moves in and takes over, it will be left with the responsibility of coming up with the money that this government didn't put into those pension plans. They'll have to do that as well as handle a deficit in the double figures, as well as handle a tax system that's the highest in North America.

Of all the things they're doing, including licences -- let me give you an example of the licence trick they're using. It's just awful. Here they have a licence process that was put in place, where you get your licence renewed on a yearly basis, extended to a three-year basis. Now they've extended that process to five years. What does that mean to the average taxpayer? What it means is they generate all kinds of revenue in the year they sell it, because you pay for your licence on a yearly basis. So the standard licensing fee gets multiplied by five. They generate all that income because they multiplied it by five and used it in-year. When the next government goes in, even though it's not a huge amount of money, they're not going to be able to get that money that is rightfully theirs to spend or not to spend or to retire debt, because they've captured that money by extending licences an extra two years. That's unbelievable. That is just awful, that they figure this is the way to go about raising revenue to offset a deficit: by stealing future governments' money. I can't believe that.

There's another method, and I'll tell you this other method about raising revenue is going to cause them some concern in the public at large: this photo-radar business.

Mr Klopp: You don't like safety.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Huron says, "You don't like safety." If I felt for a moment that photo-radar was a safety-driven initiative, I would support it. Photo-radar is a cash grab. It's a cash grab because it doesn't penalize the motorist; it arrests a licence plate. That's what photo-radar does. It doesn't penalize the person driving, it doesn't mean demerit points: It fines a licence plate. That's it.

I heard from across the floor one day when we were talking about photo-radar: "We use these kinds of things everywhere. What about smoke and gift shops? What about local corner stores that have video cameras set up?" That's right. They use photo there to catch criminals. But they don't arrest the gun, for heaven's sake. They arrest the guy holding the gun.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Just for the benefit of the French-language translation service, the correct translation of "photo-radar" is "cash register" in English.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. That's very interesting. Would the member please continue.

Mr Stockwell: That's a good one. This is the point: The analogy they tried to use in the beginning was that they have these kinds of things set up in smoke shops because they want to catch criminals. I agree with that, but you don't catch the gun; you catch the criminal. When you get the speeder, you don't arrest or catch the licence plate; you catch the speeder.

You want to know what's worse about it? If you think this is a safety measure, you will buy bridges off these people. There's nobody out there who believes this is a safety measure. They see right through this: It's a revenue grab. They know that when this car goes by, they snap a picture of the licence plate. They have no idea who's driving. The person, who wasn't driving, who happens to own the car can't even go into court and say: "I wasn't even driving the car. I have the person who was driving it right beside me and they will testify to that fact." You can't even do that. All they want is their money. They don't care who was driving it. There are no demerit points. They just want their money.

Mr Mills: Tell me what the OPP is saying. You don't know what they're saying.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham East, come to order.

Mr Stockwell: They had a ministry official comment on the front page of their ministry newspaper that they've been directed to go and find cash revenue sources, and he himself admitted this was one of the ideas. They parcelled it up as a measure to prevent accidents, to prevent death and said it will do that and that they will have photo-radar implemented, that it's not for the money, it's for the safety.

You know something, folks? The people in this province, when this gets instituted across the province, are going to be really ticked off.

1750

Mr Klopp: Photo-radar is cutting accidents, the police say. It's right there.

Mr Stockwell: "Calgary Photo-radar is Cutting Accidents," I see here.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member wish to continue today?

Mr Stockwell: I wouldn't mind having the opportunity.

Mr Murdoch: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Maybe the member would like to continue. It would be nice if the government of the day would come in and listen. I don't think we have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have a quorum?

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West may resume.

Mr Stockwell: I have some interesting comments from a member of the public that I'd like to put on the record. "'The whole purpose is to collect money, because police aren't interested in who was actually driving the vehicle,' says Charles Pester...a company that helps drivers fight traffic tickets in court. 'If I lend my car and somebody else is driving it and speeds, I still get stuck with the bill. How does that deter me from speeding? Photo-radar operators catch a guy going 40 kilometres (25 miles) over the limit and all they do is take a picture, even though the person is still speeding and could kill somebody down the road.'

"Ontario critics have also accused photo-radar of being nothing but a provincial cash grab."

Let me read this into the record too. The Minister of Transportation denied he knew what the figures were for photo-radar. Apparently Floyd Laughren knows what they are. "The budget indicated $200 million a year would be generated under province-wide use of photo-radar," and that will be up to some $1 billion on a year-to-year basis.

That was really interesting, and I'm glad the member brought this to my attention. What they're saying in Calgary is that photo-radar is a cash grab; what they're saying in Toronto is that photo-radar is a cash grab. What your Treasurer said is completely contrary to what your Minister of Transportation said. He said he didn't have any idea how much money would be generated by photo-radar, but the Treasurer says $200 million.

If they're going to tell different stories, they've got to get them straight, if they're going to make them up as they go along. I was very happy that he brought this forward; it's a really interesting thing the member for Huron brings forward. I would ask that he go to the Minister of Transportation and say: "My gosh, Floyd is much more up on it than you are, because he knows the kind of revenue you're going to generate. You're the Minister of Transportation and you don't even know."

Mr Mammoliti: Stop wandering, Chris. You're better when you don't wander.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member for Yorkview come to order.

Mr Stockwell: Is he done? He should get some time from his caucus; he really should. It would be good of that caucus to allow the member for Yorkview some time. Considering the private member's bill brought forward by Mr Runciman from Leeds-Grenville talking about kicking people out their apartment when they're known drug dealers, that the member for Yorkview supported that, he deserved time to speak on that piece of legislation. I think he spoke and said he was in favour of that piece of legislation.

It was just shameful, terrible that when the time came for a vote -- he was sitting here not more than five minutes before the vote was taken, and then mysteriously he got locked out. Isn't that a shame? That's the kind of thing this government does. They obviously saw him, they obviously knew he was going to support the motion of the member for Leeds-Grenville, and they locked him out before the time had run out on the clock. That isn't real, fair politics, when they will go about muzzling the member for Yorkview by locking him out of the Legislature when he's going to vote for an opposition bill.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I'm sorry. I think I wandered there for a moment. I apologize.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Would the member like to continue.

Mr Stockwell: I would also like to talk further about the permits, fishing licences. The camping one really ticks me up. They look for revenue generators, and the fishing licences I find offensive, to pay to go fishing in your lake where your cottage is; your permits. But campgrounds have gone up two and three times. Now, who uses campgrounds? The people who use campgrounds generally, senior citizens and those people that can afford probably a less than expensive holiday for their family during the year.

Mr Bradley: When was the last time you went camping?

Mr Stockwell: I was in a campground twice last year, and I'm glad the question was asked. I enjoy camping and I go to the provincial campsites and I take advantage of them because they're efficient, clean and well run.

But let me say this. The people who are using those campgrounds are people who have less money than those of us who sit around this Legislature. They're just plain, average folks. They're trying to get a two-week vacation or a one-week vacation away with their family. You know something? That increase in the permit fees for the campgrounds hit them and it hit them hard. When you talk two, three and four times increase year over year on a campsite, the campsite now is well over $100, well over $100 some campsites.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Per month?

Mr Stockwell: No, that's weekends, well over $100 on weekends.

Mr Cooper: No.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, yes, very much so. It used to be you could get a campsite for the weekend for $20, $25, $30. Today, in some instances, the better sites are over $100 for the weekend and significantly more for the week. You know, these are people who just want to get their kids out of the city for a week and that's what these families call holidays.

I know it's not the killer, it's not the big money revenue grab and it's not going to make or break the province. But you know what? It's typical, it's symptomatic of this government's approach. You're so concerned to raise revenue that you go --

Mr Cooper: What are the private sector operators asking?

Mr Stockwell: The member says what do the private campground operators rent their -- but you know something? It's a different crowd that uses those private campgrounds. There's no doubt about it, it's a different crowd. It's those people who can afford --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: If they don't want to know the answer -- it's those people who can afford to pay the fees for the private campground operators. The reason you had such booming success and the reason I supported these campgrounds was because they were inexpensive. It was a chance for people to get their kids out of the city.

Forget your government programs, forget all these programs about getting kids off the street. This was one program that worked because you didn't have to get involved, because it got kids out of the city for one and two weeks on end and you don't have to hire a single person to get them there; you've just got to charge a reasonable fee for the campgrounds.

Mr Bradley: No facilitators?

Mr Stockwell: No facilitators, no animators, no Dippers anywhere involved in this process at all. But now when you increase that by two and three and four times, you cut a whole bunch of people out of this program, and you know, it's not a lot of money, it's just another revenue grab.

When they go up there to go camping, they might want to go fishing and, instead of just taking their kids out fishing, they got to buy a permit to go fishing. They got to buy a permit for them and, if they have two or three kids, they got to buy a permit for every one of those kids. This to me is typical of this government.

Interjection: No permits for kids.

Mr Stockwell: No permits for the kids is the suggestion. They must be a certain age. The ones I've been --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: The ones I've been fishing with, they had to buy a permit. I assume they're kids.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Madam Speaker, all I can say to you is, it's another -

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Well, I do. You see, that's what the member from Durham says, I don't think camping's an issue. No, in its own little sleeve of what we do in this place, it's not an issue. But you know something? A lot of people think it is an issue, those people that go camping.

People who are going to get nailed by photo-radar -- you know something, folks? They're going to think that's an issue. They're going to think it's an issue when they can get charged, convicted and billed without ever even thinking they got stopped. You can't plead your case. There are going to be a lot of people out there when that gets adopted.

There have been a lot of people who are ticked off because the taxes have gone up. There are a lot of people who are concerned about the deficit going up. All this gets folded in. There are a lot of people who are really ticked off with the fact you can spend $2 billion on Jobs Ontario, say you're going to create 100,000 jobs and only create 30,000. A lot of people think that's a big issue.

A lot of people think that the auditor's statement when he said he wouldn't give you an unrestricted endorsement of your books -- a lot of people think that's an issue.

Individually, maybe they're not issues that are earth-shattering. Collectively, I can't understand how you don't know that these are issues. You couldn't get any lower in the polls. People are saying, collectively --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Well, maybe you can, that's true. You can't get any lower. They got 6% in the last by-election. Yes, you can get less than 6%. You can. You can't get much lower in the by-elections, but it may well in fact happen.

Oh, I see I've got 6 of the clock ringing around. I will move adjournment of the House and look forward to the happy faces across the floor when I take up the challenge to educate this crew again.

The Acting Speaker: It is now 6 o'clock. This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1800.

29 mars 1994