Journal des débats 1994-mai-11 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I am pleased to rise today to salute the work of an integral group of health care professionals dedicated to delivering high-quality service in our hospitals, clinics and communities.

National nursing week began on Monday and I was proud to be able to help launch the celebration in my riding by participating in the opening ceremonies at the Cornwall General Hospital.

Canada is fortunate to be the home of more than 275,000 nurses, with more than 50,000 participating here in Ontario. We are most keenly aware of those who provide patient care in our hospitals, long-term care facilities and clinics. We should be reminded, however, that the nurses are active in public health promotion, counselling, education, home care programs and industry.

The focus of this year's campaign is "Nurses Make the Difference," and it is particularly appropriate in 1994. At a time when patients are demanding more of their health care system, governments are forced to provide less in terms of support. Ontario nurses do make the difference, and will make the difference in years to come.

Nurses in my region, in Ontario and throughout Canada deserve our thanks and congratulations for their fine work as we mark national nursing week.

MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS AND CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise to inform members that tomorrow, May 12, is the second annual myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome international public awareness day.

May 12 is the birthdate of Florence Nightingale, who was believed to be the first known sufferer of ME. International public awareness for ME and chronic fatigue syndrome is important because action is needed and very little is known about this painful and debilitating disease.

It is estimated that 10,000 individuals suffer from ME in Ontario. Of these, approximately 7,500 are women. Seventy-seven per cent of ME sufferers were stricken with the disease between 1986 and 1992. Over 50% of those stricken with the disease are teachers, students and health care workers.

On Monday, the provincial government announced funding for an environmental health clinic. While this announcement is a positive first step, it came a full eight months after the minister promised to establish this clinic. As well, those who suffer from ME remain frustrated by the government's refusal to take this disease seriously. There are still far too many people in this province who are being misdiagnosed and who do not have access to appropriate care. The government's recent announcement will not address these needs.

On behalf of the ME Association of Ontario and the ME Association of Halton and Hamilton-Wentworth, my colleagues and I urge the government to act immediately to convene the promised provincial advisory committee on non-specific disorders and to initiate an epidemiological surveillance to evaluate the extent of the ME crisis in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

Mr Jim Wilson: It's time the government made health care a priority in this province.

VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I rise today to add my voice to the thousands of other voices that have spoken out against violent crime, particularly the growing number of murders and violent deaths in the province of Ontario.

The taking of a human life, for whatever reason, is a deplorable and reprehensible act that affects our whole society. It disturbs me, however, that some cases get a great deal of attention from the media, the public and politicians, while others are virtually ignored. I believe that the taking of a human life is a terrible act, regardless of where it occurs. The victim of a slaying in a back alley is no less worthy of public grief and attention than one who is killed in our own neighbourhoods.

With this in mind, I am requesting that the Solicitor General or his or her designate read out in the Legislature, when such deaths occur and it is appropriate, the names of murder victims in the province of Ontario.

I am today writing to the Solicitor General asking that the names of victims of murder or manslaughter in the province of Ontario be read in this House so that all the members of this Parliament are reminded in our daily work about this tragic loss of life and that we reflect on this as we make laws for the province of Ontario.

It is my hope that by actively keeping the names of the victims in mind we will strive to work in the course of our daily proceedings on the root causes of crimes which lead to such tragic deaths.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): There is an important rally taking place at Queen's Park today. In fact, many of the members of that rally are with us this afternoon. Once again, we have people who are vulnerable bringing their needs, indeed their rights, to the attention of this Legislature.

They are reminding us of this NDP government's broken promise of social assistance reform, of this government's promise on child care reform, also broken, and the NDP's broken promise on a commitment to educational funding. They are reminding us again of the real need for action in this province on poverty.

They bring to this Legislature a strong statement of their anger with the broken promises of this NDP government to youth, to families, and especially to families with children.

Lyn McLeod knows that, "It is not the role of government to direct and control people's lives, but rather it is the role of government to create an environment in which people can solve problems for themselves," to provide an environment in which people in need are respected and are given real choices that restore their self-reliance and their independence.

The time is now to make children a priority. The time is now to give real opportunities to those on social assistance to be full, participating members of the communities of Ontario.

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I am pleased to wear this sweatshirt in the House today for the promotion of the greatest event in Renfrew county. Renfrew county is hosting the 1994 International Plowing Match, which will take place in Pembroke township from September 20 to 24.

Having had the pleasure of working with the organization committee, I can gladly say that the people of Renfrew county are more than ready to welcome over 100,000 visitors to Canada's largest outdoors show of farming and rural living.

Approximately 1,000 volunteers are working hard to make this event happen. I want to offer special congratulations to Chairman Fred Blackstein, Warden Alvin Stone, Reeve Jack Wilson, Jack Campbell and all 52 chairpersons on the International Plowing Match committee.

The plowing match will feature 650 exhibits from all over the world, covering a wide variety of subjects, ranging from zoology to antiques. The event will feature a tented city spanning an area equivalent to 24 city blocks.

Our theme is "A Celebration of Rural Living." Our slogan is "Catch the Match." With that, I invite all members of this House and all people across Ontario to join us and see what Renfrew county has to offer.

1340

ANTI-TOBACCO ADVERTISING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I am pleased today to congratulate the people in the Ministry of Health and Vickers and Benson Advertising Ltd, a wholly Canadian, Ontario-based ad agency that we've hired to carry out the Ontario tobacco strategy, for winning five awards, including the best ad in Canada, at the Canadian Television Commercials Festival last week.

The three smoking commercials, Dreams, Quick-Time -- known as Joanne because of its music track -- and Swimmer swept the government category, taking gold, silver and a certificate of merit. The three spots also took a Bronze Bessie, the third best overall in the country.

It was Dreams that showed a Porsche burning up, which illustrates the lifetime costs of smoking, that won the Gold Bessie for the best English-language commercial in Canada.

This is quite a feat, but I'm not surprised, because I have talked to many schools and students right across the province about this campaign, and everywhere I go they tell me about the effect that these ads have had on them.

It's very clear with this kind of anecdotal feedback that Ontario has created a campaign that is working and is reaching its primary target: pre-teens. It's working because of the hard work and commitment of the people within the ministry.

But we cannot do all this work in isolation. Part of the overall tobacco strategy includes community programs and the legislation. We have Bill 119, the Tobacco Control Act, already brought forward for third reading. It's important that we get this passed as quickly as we possibly can to keep more young people from becoming addicted to tobacco.

POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a book in my hand called Strange Bedfellows. This book details how television and the presidential candidates changed American politics in 1992.

You might wonder what a book called Strange Bedfellows, about American politics, has to do with the Ontario Legislature. The reason I raise this is because Ontarians were rightfully shocked earlier this week when they learned about the Americanization of the Progressive Conservative Party. You will remember that it was Mike Harris, the leader of that party, who hired Americans to direct his so-called Common Sense Revolution, now known as the American Revolution.

If Americans are going to be running Mr Harris's campaign, I think we deserve to know a little bit more about the people behind it. One of the Americans hired by Mr Harris is none other than Mike Murphy. Mike Murphy is renowned through the States as the master of the negative ad.

It says in the book: "Murphy was advocating that Bush adopt a far right-wing stance, built on divisive wedge issues to make his opponents seem unacceptable and dangerous. Both for his right-wing fanaticism and its cynicism about Bush, Murphy's critique was rejected out of hand. Murphy was all but banished from Bush's campaign."

This is who Mr Harris describes as the best and the brightest. He's too right-wing for Mr Bush but not for Mr Harris.

The other day I gave him this flag. Today I'd like to give him a bumper sticker that says "Proudly Canadian." If only he were.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Health. Liberal and NDP members choose to deny that user fees exist in health care services. I would suggest they are misguided if they are not aware that many health services are not covered by OHIP and require user fees, labelled by the Liberals and NDP as "copayments" or "consumer fees".

Audrey Leach of Orillia wrote to me about a motor vehicle accident last March near Lindsay. Audrey and her three friends shared the same ambulance and each was charged a $45 fee.

The Liberals and the NDP believe our health care system is universal; it is not. There are many services not covered by OHIP. For example, anyone using an ambulance must pay for it. In an emergency, the copayment or consumer fee or user fee is $45. In a non-emergency situation, you'll be charged more than $200, plus mileage and expenses.

Some user fees, like the daily charges for nursing home occupants, are based on income. Others are straight fees paid by everyone, regardless of their financial situation. There is a growing list of services that are simply no longer available as the provincial government attempts to control costs.

It's time for politicians and vested interests to stop kidding the people about the existence of a free, universal and equitable health care system. It does not exist in Ontario.

Once we implement the recommendations of the Common Sense Revolution, we can start an effort based on the real situation to improve the system to make it fair, affordable and efficient, one that provides for everyone's needs.

SCIENCE NORTH

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Last Friday, while in my riding, I had the pleasure, on behalf of the Minister of Environment and Energy, of presenting a cheque to Science North in the amount of $100,000.

The reason I was very pleased to do that was because Science North, as everyone knows, has a mandate to provide science opportunities all across northern Ontario. That is a very difficult mandate for them, given the distances and the size of the different municipalities there.

The $100,000 is being used for the toolbox program, which is toolbox kits sent out with specific science kinds of programs that go to different schools, one- and two-room schools, that teachers can use to do it.

The other part of the program is the energy in a shoebox. Over 75 children in grades 4 to 8 provided kits in a shoebox that showed some kind of energy program. The competition was very tough. It was really exciting to see.

The other thing is that the staff and Jim Marchbank at Science North made sure that there were students there. It was a real pleasure to notice that most of the children who were there and had entered in the competition were young women in this province. That is always a good sign to see, that science and maths are being entered by the young women.

I congratulate Science North for the work that it's doing.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and it's to do with jobs in the budget. I think the most disappointing number in the budget for us, Premier, was the number on page 51 around employment. I'm sure you're aware of it, but we actually see, in 1994, fewer jobs being created in the province than we saw in 1993. In your budget, those are the numbers: fewer jobs being created in 1994 than 1993.

We've already seen in the first four months, Premier, as I'm sure you're aware, that the rest of Canada has seen a real job boom. I believe the numbers are about 157,000 jobs created in the rest of Canada in the first four months of 1994; in Ontario it is around 5,000. We now will see literally thousands of young people graduating from our colleges and our universities and looking for jobs.

My question is this: What is happening in Ontario, where we now see that we are going to see fewer jobs created in 1994 than we saw in 1993? We're seeing in the rest of Canada a job boom and we're seeing in Ontario a job bust.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm delighted that the member would ask that question on a day on which this province has announced the largest single civil engineering contract in the history of Canada.

It would take a cynical, tired, fuzzed-out Liberal to come up with the premise that on a day on which the Minister of Economic Development and Trade is announcing, in cooperation with the federal government, the inauguration of the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program and a granting of jobs in Peel, and on which this government announces that we are not going to be waiting until 2015, which is the timetable that was set up by the Liberals for the completion of Highway 407 -- we are going to have that highway completed by 1998 and we're going to be creating 20,000 jobs in the next four and a half years -- it would take the most tired and cynical of Liberals to come up with the view that somehow there's bad news in the budget.

1350

There's good news in the budget. It's a positive approach; it's a constructive approach. That's why, ironically, we had the strong support of the federal Minister of Finance for the approach that we've taken. We've got good cooperation on job creation, and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt should be ashamed of himself for taking such a dim and negative view. Dr Negative, Dr Negative, Dr Negative.

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

Hon Mr Rae: It didn't work in the 1980s and it's not going to work in the 1990s. That's the kind of negative Liberalism that people in this province want nothing to do with, nothing at all.

Mr Phillips: The Premier is being, frankly, silly. I am quoting your own budget numbers, if you choose to look at them. You told the people of this province that there will be fewer jobs created in 1994 than 1993. That's not me saying it, Premier, that's you. That must be you, Dr Negative. It must be you reporting that there are going to be fewer jobs, not me.

You want to talk about cynical? Because now you've got me slightly angry. If you want to know about a cynical move, do you know what's happened in this budget? You have taken all of the federal infrastructure money, all the money the federal government's reporting, and you have now reported it as your own spending. You have told the people of this province --

Hon Mr Rae: That is false.

Mr Phillips: It's not true, he's saying. It is true. The document that the government itself put out says, "We are spending $3.8 billion on our capital plan." That includes $253 million of the federal money, and if it doesn't, then stand up and tell me why you've got it in your budget, included in that number.

Hon Mr Rae: The member is completely and totally wrong.

Mr Phillips: I will appreciate a clarification, then, of the budget, when you say I'm completely and totally wrong. In the budget, as revenue, the province took $253 million of the federal money, put it into their pocket, and then on the very next page took it out and spent it and declared it was their spending. I don't think I'm wrong; I think you might be wrong.

I would appreciate it if you, by the end of question period, could explain how you've taken $253 million of the federal government's money, put it in your pocket, and then once again reported it as your own expenditures. I believe in your $3.8-billion number that you put out to the public, you've included all of the federal infrastructure money, spending.

If I am wrong, I will say I'm wrong. I would like to have a clarification of how you could have in your budget $253 million of federal revenue. How do you explain that?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member -- and if I'd had notice of some of the technical nature of this question, I would have been able to respond to it -- very directly that he is flat wrong with respect to what he's saying.

Our own infrastructure spending is up and we are of course including our own contributions to the federal-provincial-municipal program. Of course we're doing that, since that's provincial dollars. But the suggestion that somehow there's something else included in the capital dollars is false, completely false, and is quite erroneous. I hope the member will withdraw it.

I would say further to the honourable member that I find it astonishing, I really do, that on a day when we are announcing the largest single civil engineering contract in the history of Canada, the opposition wouldn't at least have the human decency to recognize that today just happens to be a very good news day for those construction workers who have been waiting for this kind of news for a long time.

I look forward to talking with the construction workers in the member's riding and saying that it's the kind of do-nothing, dour, negative, do-nothing Liberalism that's done nothing for this province, and that it's a positive, constructive approach by the New Democratic Party that's putting tens of thousands of construction workers in this province back to work. I'm proud of it, very proud of it.

NON-UTILITY GENERATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy, responsible as he is for Ontario Hydro. I was quite intrigued by your answers to my question and to questions put on a similar subject by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday afternoon, so I'd like now to return to that subject.

It is very clear from your answer and from the Suncor press release of a few days ago that Ontario Hydro has entered into an arrangement with Suncor, an arrangement which your government has in fact approved by order in council. That arrangement between Ontario Hydro and Suncor involves the following: The utility, that is, Ontario Hydro, has clearly paid a substantial amount of money to Suncor so that Suncor will not proceed with the construction of its own electrical generating capacity.

My question to the minister is, how much money did Ontario Hydro pay to Suncor and for what did Ontario Hydro pay Suncor?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): My friend the member for Renfrew North is incorrect in his preamble in saying that Ontario Hydro has paid Suncor not to construct generating capacity. In fact he may know that Suncor already has generating capacity.

Ontario Hydro is taking a flexible, businesslike approach in serving its customers in managing its surplus. Frankly, this arrangement with Suncor, as well as the arrangement with the joint venture of Nova, Polysar and Dow, allows Hydro to ensure that its surplus does not increase and ensures that the ratepayers will not see significant increases.

Mr Conway: Minister, I have Hydro documents and I have a Suncor document, both of which make plain that what Hydro did and what your government endorsed was that Hydro paid an as-yet-undisclosed amount of money, but believed to be in the millions of dollars. Hydro paid that kind of an amount of money to Suncor so that Suncor would not now proceed to build additional electrical generating capacity. It is very clear from both of these documents.

My question is, how much did Hydro pay, for what specifically did Hydro pay, and is it now the policy of the Rae-Wildman government that Hydro is going to pay, and pay substantial amounts of money, to keep people like Suncor and anybody else who might opt out of the Hydro grid, that you're going to buy them back into the grid or at least buy them to stay in the grid?

Hon Mr Wildman: In regard to other industries, as I indicated yesterday, Ontario Hydro is prepared to consider with other industries proposals they might make to ensure that they can remain competitive and that they will be able to be flexible in their approaches to the generation of electricity and to ensure that both Ontario Hydro and the industries involved are businesslike and efficient.

The industries that have proposals can make proposals to Ontario Hydro and Ontario Hydro will entertain them on a case-by-case basis, determined on the basis of what is good for the ratepayers of Ontario Hydro, good for jobs in this province, good for the economy of this province and good for the taxpayers of this province.

Mr Conway: I think it's a very interesting answer, however tentative and fragile was the minister in giving it both today and yesterday.

This is an enormously important policy question for the province as a whole, because what the minister is confirming is that for the first time in my memory, Ontario Hydro, with the blessing of the provincial government, has paid -- and has paid, I believe, millions of dollars -- for a major power user not to opt out of the Hydro grid. That is a dramatic policy development.

1400

Is the minister saying that that policy, which has clearly applied to Suncor for whatever good reason, is in fact going to be available to power users large and small throughout the rest of the province?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member has indicated that this is a new policy development. I think it's important to recognize that Ontario Hydro had not imposed a moratorium or a change in policy with regard to load displacement activity. Ontario Hydro never had such a policy, so this is not a change. The fact is that Suncor is going to be able to continue to operate in the Sarnia area and make a contribution to the economy of that part of the province.

The other part of this development, which the member doesn't want to hear about, is the agreement with the joint venture. In that case, the power of the joint venture is costing less than four cents per kilowatt-hour.

If the member knows of other industries, large and small, in the province that wish to make such proposals to Ontario Hydro, Ontario Hydro will entertain them and discuss them on a case-by-case basis and make a decision based on the economics and what is good for the ratepayers and the taxpayers of the province.

If the member thinks that I'm fragile and tentative, I'm trying to be as forthright and straight with him as possible.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Housing. I'd like to tell the minister that if she thinks the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority scandal is going to go away just because she and the Premier were absent yesterday, she's wrong.

We keep learning more and more about the mess at MTHA. Recently leaked internal reports show financial mismanagement and possible irregularities going all the way back to 1987 and, of course, the Peterson Liberal government. Now we know that documented irregularities go even further back in time.

We must also ask the previous chair of the board, John Sewell, to testify. Nor can we ignore previous ministers of Housing. Former minister Chaviva Ho_ek, now Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's director of policy and research, has to tell us what has happened. So do former Liberal ministers John Sweeney and the Liberal member for Scarborough North, who is still in this House. The Minister of Education and Training, David Cooke, who was the NDP's first Housing minister, must also give his story.

Minister, will your government ensure that the public accounts committee of this House has an opportunity to hear testimony from all the former ministers and chairs I have named today?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): It's interesting that when the member for Mississauga South asks a question, she gives a view of political history which is somewhat limited.

MTHA, of course, was invented under Conservative governments in this province, and MTHA, I'll remind her, has always been an institution which has had difficulties. It's a very large public housing authority. It has 32,000 units, it has 1,200 employees and it has had problems in the past going back over a long period of time. Would she like us to call Claude Bennett too?

Mrs Marland: Maybe you'd like to tell us how many toilets they have while you're giving us all of that babble-trap that has nothing to do with the question that's asked in this House about scandal, embezzlement, fraud and all the other problems that are now out in the public.

As a matter of fact, our view is very definite. If you want to know what our view is on government housing --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs Marland: -- read this revolutionary Common Sense Revolution.

It is obvious that this minister refuses to take seriously the evidence that there is widespread mismanagement and possible criminal wrongdoing at MTHA. This minister says --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Could the honourable member take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: The minister says the incidents at MTHA are isolated, yet more than 10 audit reports document problems virtually in every aspect of the management of MTHA. There are more audits which the board will see for the first time at its next meeting. The minister keeps insisting that there is nothing out of the ordinary in the audit reports. Since when are embezzlement, fraud, kickbacks, rigged bids and overbilling ordinary occurrences?

The minister says these sorts of reprehensible incidents occur in all large organizations. Does she really think most large organizations end up being investigated by Project 80 --

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

Mrs Marland: -- the police anti-corruption squad, and having their employees charged with embezzlement? Do you even know what Project 80 is about?

My question to the minister is this: Will you make a statement to this House finally telling us exactly what you know about MTHA and when you learned of these occurrences, or will you continue covering up the activities that range from financial mismanagement to alleged criminal wrongdoing?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I never said that these were isolated incidents and I never said that there were not problems at MTHA. I have said consistently in questions that have been raised in this Legislature over the last few days -- there's a sudden rush of interest in affairs of MTHA, which is good, which is fine. I like to see the member for Mississauga South start to pay attention to the needs of Ontario housing communities in this province. It's a good sign.

If there is embezzlement at a bank, we don't say shut down the Royal Bank, and if she wants to paralyse the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, let her say so. There is nothing hidden. The reports which she refers to, the audit reports, were brought before meetings of the finance committee and the board of MTHA. There is no reason why they should not be made public. They are being reviewed at the Ministry of Housing to make sure that we abide by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and they will be released.

Mrs Marland: Now I finally know why we're in such bad trouble in this province. If you do not know the difference between the government and the Royal Bank and public funds and private corporations, that's why we're in trouble.

I do not use the word "coverup" lightly any more than I'd use the word "scandal" lightly. The minister says there is nothing being hidden, there is nothing secretive about this. All the quotes that I am using are in Hansard, and if the minister wants to review what she said, maybe she'd learn something.

I would simply say to this minister, really, the MTHA board chair says the board has been kept in the dark about the audits and investigations. The chair of the board's tender review committee says staff at MTHA have withheld information from the board. The board of the Ontario Housing Corp, which oversees MTHA and all regional housing authorities, just today got a briefing, an emergency conference on the telephone, for the first time, and it was told about the things that have been happening in MTHA over the last seven years.

Finally, the minister, who knows about the problems after repeated briefings with the vice-chair of the board, has still not come in this House and told us what is happening.

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

Mrs Marland: Minister, with that kind of track record, we believe that you are irresponsible and you should resign.

Hon Ms Gigantes: There is an awful lot of sound and fury in all those statements, but when I have said, as I have just said, that all the reports can and will be released, I hope the member will take yes for an answer. When she alludes to the fact that this government does not understand the difference, or perhaps that I personally do not understand the difference, between private and public, I'm really quite surprised. Is this not the party which is proposing to take that public asset called MTHA and the Ontario Housing Corp and sell it to the private sector?

1410

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs Marland: The sound and fury is nothing to what this government will hear from the taxpayers around this province in the next election. This minister tells us that these reports will be released.

The Speaker: To whom is your second question directed?

Mrs Marland: To the Minister of Housing. I simply say to this minister that she can stand in this House and keep promising that these reports are going to be released. Well, everything the public knows today is by leaked documents. She is a minister of the crown. She has a responsibility to tell the public what is going on in publicly funded housing in this province.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My next question concerns the Flying Toad housing co-op proposal for the Toronto Islands, so you better turn to that page, Madam Minister.

Thanks to the NDP Bill 61, the site of the Flying Toad co-op doesn't have to go through the municipal planning process, even though it's parkland and a floodplain. Ordinarily, there would be public hearings, because the land would have to be rezoned and the Toronto official plan would have to be amended.

Nor does the Flying Toad co-op have to go through the normal process used by non-profit housing groups to get Ontario government funding. It has leap-frogged, or should I say leap-toaded, to the front of the line.

Minister, is it fair to the sponsors of other non-profit and cooperative housing projects to exempt the Flying Toad co-op on the Toronto Islands from the normal planning and funding requirements?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): As this question refers to planning matters, I will refer it to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Just as her colleague yesterday made a number of factual errors when he asked this question in the House, so too this member has. Yesterday the member said it was on floodplain. It is not on floodplain.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The whole island's on a floodplain.

Hon Mr Philip: It's not on floodplain at all.

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

Mr Stockwell: Holy smokes, the whole island's a floodplain.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat, please. Would the member for Etobicoke West please come to order.

Hon Mr Philip: The member yesterday, like the member who has just asked the question, said it was contrary to the city of Toronto's official plan. In fact, it is completely compatible with the city of Toronto's official plan. It is in the new official plan that was passed by the city of Toronto.

With regard to the second question she asked, indeed the co-op will be evaluated on the criteria of the current Ontario non-profit housing program of the Ministry of Housing. There's nothing out of line on that. Discussions between the co-op and the ministry have been on an ongoing basis for three years now.

Mrs Marland: I would suggest to this minister that the next time he flies into the Toronto Island Airport in his executive jet, he takes a look at the altimeter in the aircraft. The Toronto Island Airport is about 18 feet above sea level.

It's wrong. We believe it's wrong to take limited waterfront parkland away from the residents of Metro Toronto. We believe it's foolish to build on a floodplain, and it's extremely expensive. Remedial steps will have to be taken to avoid flooded homes.

You'd think the province would have learned its lessons by now. In the Minister of Housing's backyard -- who backed out of this question very nicely, I might say -- just west of Ottawa on swamp land along the Carp River, a housing co-op needed $500,000 in structural changes because it too was built on a site that floods.

There also has been no soil testing on the Toronto Islands site. I shouldn't have to remind any of the ministers across the floor that contaminated soil was the main reason the Minister of Housing walked away from Ataratiri, after spending $350 million of taxpayers' money, nor should I have to remind the minister that soil contamination is one of the main reasons her government just wrote off $29 million in loan guarantees in March.

Why have you not learned from the mistakes of your government? Why are you giving the Flying Toad co-op carte blanche to build on a floodplain that is parkland and to bypass all normal procedures for obtaining approvals?

Hon Mr Philip: With regard to her introductory comment, I do not have an executive jet, but I can tell you that her fishing boat has one heck of leak in it as she goes towards the Toronto Islands.

This is not floodplain. It's not designated floodplain. It never has been. It wasn't under her government, it wasn't under the previous Liberal government, and it isn't under our government. Housing is designated on that site under the official plan. I suggest she read the legislation.

Mrs Marland: We find it passing strange that the lawyer for the Toronto Island Residential Community Trust Corp, Bruce Lewis, has also worked for Houselink, which is the subject of an investigation by the public accounts committee after it misspent millions of taxpayers' dollars. It's also interesting to us that Lewis's wife is the chief of staff for the Minister of Health.

It is also passing strange that the chair of the Toronto Island Residents Association, Grahame Beakhust, was executive assistant to the former Solicitor General, now minister without portfolio, who was assigned to Municipal Affairs.

In other words, NDP officials or people with direct links to the NDP are involved with social housing organizations that in one case engaged in questionable practices and in another is the object of government favouritism.

Minister, will you let us get to the bottom of this by opening up the whole process of funding and allocation of non-profit and cooperative housing units to an inquiry by the public accounts committee? If you're not afraid to do it and of what the results would tell us, just say: "Yes. I have nothing to hide. The public accounts committee can look at it."

Hon Mr Philip: I guess the honourable member, who is also the critic for the Ministry of Housing, doesn't understand that the public accounts committee is presently reviewing the housing policy and the non-profit housing policy of this government, and it has every right to do so.

With regard to her smear against Mr Lewis, Mr Lewis is one of the leading experts on land trusts in the province. He has been for the last 20 years.

Mrs Marland: A quarter of a million dollars in fees, when he said it would be $18,000.

Hon Mr Philip: The member's eyes are popping again and she doesn't want to hear the answer.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga South, please come to order.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Lewis was not appointed by us, he was appointed and hired by the residents. We had nothing to do with that appointment.

Mrs Marland: All NDP hacks over there.

Hon Mr Philip: The member likes to rattle on and rattle on. She doesn't like to hear the truth.

I can tell you, Mr Speaker, Larry Grossman tried to save the island community; he failed. We got on with the job and we've done it.

The Speaker: New question, the honourable member for Renfrew North.

Mrs Marland: You saved the island for your friends and all your staff.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga South, please come to order. The member for Renfrew North has the floor.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Renfrew North, who's been waiting patiently, may now place his question.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I appreciate that, because I wouldn't want the governor to think he's in Parliament.

1420

ROBIN SEARS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Premier, and it's about China. Premier, I see from your itinerary that you will shortly be winging your way to Beijing, Shanghai and Nanjing, to do good works, I'm sure, and we wish you well in that endeavour.

I am informed, Premier, that your former chief of staff, a certain Robin Sears, who I gather has finally been terminated by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, has now been hired by an Ontario government agency, namely TVO, for the specific purpose of assisting with the Premier's visit to China upcoming in the next few days.

Can the Premier or anyone in his government confirm that Mr Robin Sears has in fact been hired by a government agency, which I believe is TVO? If that is the case, can he indicate what the terms and conditions of Mr Sears's new contract involve?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I can only say to the honourable member that Mr Sears's contract with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade was concluded some time ago. As far as I am aware, he's not involved at this time in any particular plans with respect to my travels and my work. If he has been asked by any other agency to do any other work with respect to events in the Far East, I would be glad to look into it on behalf of the honourable member.

Mr Conway: I would appreciate that. I understand the Premier can't know everything, but it's my information, as of earlier today, that Mr Robin Sears, former chief of staff to the now Premier of Ontario, Mr Bob Rae, has been hired by TVO, a crown agency of Her Majesty's provincial government, and Mr Sears's specific task and assignment is to assist with the Premier's visit to China. I would appreciate an answer to my question at an early time, because I checked, and I'm told that TVO has a very capable international affairs office headed by Mr Bill Roberts, known to many of us as a very fine fellow, so there is built-in capacity at that crown agency to assist with this very kind of operation.

My question has been put, and my concern is that it appears that the Rae government wants to give the public service of Ontario a social contract but is determined to give and to offer Mr Robin Sears an endless contract. I think the public of Ontario would like to know the latest details of any late-breaking contract.

Hon Mr Rae: The only comment I would make is that it's worthwhile recalling that Mr Sears was first offered an appointment and in fact given a public appointment as the deputy agent general in Japan, residing in Tokyo, by the government of which the honourable member was a member. He must have been in the cabinet when that order in council was passed. He was in the cabinet when an order in council was passed for an appointment for Mr Sears, for which he was presumably there.

I would say to the honourable member that Mr Sears is in the Far East; we know that. He's no longer working directly for the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. If there are other agencies, either in the public sector or the private sector, that have hired Mr Sears for whatever purposes, I'm not aware of all those contracts. But with respect to the particular question you've asked, I will certainly look into it and get back on it for the honourable member.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Conway: If anybody wants to ask me about the original contract, I'd be very happy to give some answers.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party has the floor.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, in 1982, during the height of a recession, with unemployment between 10% and 11%, welfare spending in Ontario was $900 million. Welfare spending, all in, by the province of Ontario was $900 million. Today, Premier, welfare spending has soared to $6.8 billion.

Let's look at these past 12 years. Ontario's population in the past 12 years has increased by 28%, inflation rose by less than 60%, yet welfare costs to the taxpayer have increased by 631% through a succession of three different governments of three different parties. Can you explain why this has happened?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Well, it would take some time to go over the past history as I recall it. I recall a very strong public reaction to the fact that Ontario, in the period he has described, had probably among the lowest rates in Canada. There was deep concern, which led to the creation of a royal commission under then Judge George Thomson, which report was endorsed by well-known radicals like Conrad Black and others who agreed that there had to be changes with respect to the system. Those changes were introduced by the Liberal government of the day.

And it's true that during the period between 1983 or 1984, when the recovery out of the earlier recession started, and in 1990, costs went up rather than going down. They went up because the rate structure was increased to the point where Ontario now has the most generous welfare and social assistance support rates in the country.

I think most observers would agree that since 1990, the reason for the increase has been the fact that we've been through the most difficult recession the province has gone through in recent memory. In marked contrast to the recession in 1980, 1981, 1982, where you had temporary layoffs which were then followed by recall in a great many plants, in the 1989-92 recession you had a large number of plants which were closed for all time. We've lost a lot of jobs. We're now beginning to reclaim them and we're beginning to see them come down.

But I think most observers would feel it's a combination of the fact that through the 1980s rates were increased and through the 1990s we've been through a very significant recession which would by and large explain the fact that we now have a social assistance budget of somewhere over $6 billion.

Mr Harris: I think the Premier would agree as well that welfare costs rose by 631% at a time when unemployment levels were just about the same as they are now. You've given some of the reasons: Some of it was more temporary, and there was more hope and more future in the province. But the numbers of people on welfare went up dramatically during the middle 1980s, when we were booming, which really doesn't explain how that happened when more and more jobs were being created here in Ontario. There were increased eligibility, increased benefit levels, as the Premier's mentioned, but certainly, as we are finding out, increased fraud as well.

We tabled a plan last week, as you know, to restore hope and to restore opportunity and to create over 725,000 new jobs.

As well, this plan significantly reforms the welfare system. Cracking down on fraud, offering recipients training, education, work experience, bringing taxpayer benefit levels back into line with other provinces, will reduce welfare dependency. As well, this plan protects our most vulnerable -- the seniors, disabled -- and targets more resources to children.

Premier, you're moving a resolution today, which I treat very seriously and which is why I particularly wanted to be here today. The resolution says in part, "Ontario is committed to a major reform of our social security system." I'd like to ask you very directly: Is the resolution this afternoon simply political grandstanding, pointing fingers against the federal Liberals, or will you be announcing the major reforms, that have still not been implemented, of SARC and of Thomson and of poverty advocates and that are contained in our Common Sense Revolution? Will you move towards implementing those recommendations --

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

Mr Harris: -- in our social security system?

Hon Mr Rae: I welcome Rip Van Reagan back to the House. I say to the leader of the third party with great respect, if he's trying to get on the bandwagon of those people who are concerned about the poverty level in this province and he's saying to them that the answer is a $2-billion cut in the standard of living of people who do not have work in this province, which is exactly what you're suggesting, then I say there really is no honour in the Conservative Party with respect to what it is doing or suggesting or saying.

1430

Yes, we support a thoroughgoing reform. That's what Jobs Ontario Training is all about. We've now got welfare levels down. The first time in modern, recent history that we have seen a decline in the number of people who are dependent on welfare was last month with the kind of work that we're doing in terms of Jobs Ontario Training.

Yes, we are taking steps to deal with the question of fraud. Where there is fraud and where there is clear evidence of that, it will and must be prosecuted and put to an end because that's how we retain the integrity of the system.

But do not cheapen the notion of this kind of reform which we are undertaking by assuming that it's similar to the kind of policies which are under way in many of the states in the United States. If that's the approach that you want to take, where, for example, in Michigan, all --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- the employables are taken off any form of social assistance altogether, I tell you, you can take your revolution and stick it in your ear, because it's going to result in a decline in the standard of living for the people of this province and a decline in decency for the people of this province, and that's exactly what you're suggesting.

SHELTER FOR WOMEN

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): My question's directed to the Minister of Housing. I'd like to talk to the Minister of Housing about the Emily Murphy Centre second-stage residences which are in my riding and provide transitional housing and programs for battered women.

Families come to second-stage housing to be protected from abusive male partners. The families are staying an average of nine months, which, as you know, exceeds the six-month criteria for temporary or institutional accommodation, which is exempt from the Landlord and Tenant Act. So they are naturally concerned that their clients will now be able to stay indefinitely. I'm asking the minister, is this true?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): It's a very good question and it's the question, in fact, which led us to put forward an amendment to Bill 120, which members will be aware of, and that is an amendment which says that there shall be an extra ground for eviction in the case of a program such as the one she is describing in her community, where the program lasts for less than two years. The nature of that extra ground for eviction is that once the program is complete, then the resident family may be asked to move, thus freeing up spaces for other people who will need the program.

Mrs Haslam: The other concern that this centre has is that when Bill 120 is enacted, it fears that it will no longer be able to control who can come into and who can live in the building. You can see the reason for this concern: They feel that under the Landlord and Tenant Act, the onus will be on the tenant to get rid of unwanted trespassers. This would be too difficult in many situations because the tenant may feel too intimidated or threatened by her abusive partner to ask him to leave the centre. Is there a control over who can come into the premises and who can live in this type of accommodation?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Indeed there is a control over who can live in the accommodation and that is governed by the nature of the program and the agreement by the woman, in this case, that she is going to be the tenant. In the case of an unwanted intruder, and this has been a problem which the programs are designed to address, an intruder who has threatened violence or is threatening intimidation or is in any way disturbing the reasonable enjoyment by other tenants of the program is one that the operator can have removed. We are going to work very hard, particularly with groups which are providing this kind of second-stage housing, to make sure the operators understand how they can continue their programs, with whatever assistance they may need in terms of help from us to make sure their programs are fixed and can operate in the future. There's no intention to change those programs.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Minister, the northern health travel grant program is in chaos. It's in chaos because you've changed the rules and you don't have the information to manage it. In fact, I would say it's close to collapse.

According to the new rules, to qualify for a grant northerners are referred to the closest, most appropriate physician. OHIP has a list of northern physicians available, but your data bank of northern doctors is sorely out of date. Hundreds of claims a week are being denied and then appealed because your records are inaccurate. Your records show doctors in the north who now practise in the south, have retired or practise in another specialty.

Minister, when will the doctors' referral list be made accurate so that claims can be processed smoothly and without all these needless appeals?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Just as soon as the ministry can bring it up to date, as I have requested it to do.

Mr Ramsay: Minister, I don't know why you would proceed then with rule changes with inaccurate information. I have the Thunder Bay list here: 80 doctors listed here and there are 33 mistakes on this list. It's tying up the whole system, and you said to go ahead with the changes.

In my riding Dr Dakin, an orthopaedic surgeon, left in January to now practise in Lindsay. He's still on the list and therefore all of the orthopaedic visits with other specialists are being denied all over the northeast. You're causing this turmoil with this list.

I would plead with you to get on with this list so we could stop these appeals and stop the hardship of people waiting for these claims.

Hon Mrs Grier: I very much agree with the member that it has been difficult. The changes in the northern health travel grant have meant not only people who have left and who have not informed the ministry or the ministry is not aware of, but also subspecialties, because an orthopaedic surgeon may want to refer for a subspecialty in that, and we're aware of that.

But I say to the honourable member, to remind him yet again, that doctors are free agents who move as they wish to do and who are not employees, though they are public servants, of the Ministry of Health. Therefore, if they do not choose to tell the program that they have in fact moved their practice or changed their mode of practice, it takes a while to catch up with that information.

As I indicated to him, we will do our best, and I certainly consider this a priority for the ministry.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the minister responsible for culture. Minister, there is a fund called the Ontario theatre development fund, and as I understand it, from every ticket sold at the Elgin-Winter Garden theatre, 50 cents is paid into the Ontario theatre development fund. My understanding, Minister, is that there is now approximately $500,000 in that fund.

My understanding goes a little further, because I understand that you are now going to unilaterally, at your own behest, withdraw $100,000 of those trust moneys to invest them into a play called Nothing Sacred by the playwright George Walker. It's a play that's several years old. He is a playwright who is not new to theatre. The spirit of this fund indicates that this is for new theatre development and for new playwrights.

Minister, is it true that you are about to pay $100,000 out of that trust fund, contrary to the spirit of the theatre development trust fund?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): We're certainly doing nothing contrary to the spirit of the development trust fund. In fact, we've just been going through, as you might know, a cultural industry sectoral strategy and we made sure to check the prospects of the use of that fund with the folks from the industry who have been on the cultural industry sectoral strategy, all of whom confirm our sense that this is a very good investment for developing in Canadian theatre.

1440

Mr Harnick: I understand from the Toronto Theatre Alliance, a major cultural group in live theatre in the province of Ontario, that there is absolutely no consultation going on; there is no vetting process of this application. Further, they tell me, Minister, that you are no longer even accepting applications for moneys being released from this fund until you see how your pet project is going to work. They tell me that the spirit of this trust fund is that it is at arm's length from the minister, that it is operated by the Ontario Heritage Foundation, and that any moneys released will be released after vetting with the whole of the theatre community, particularly commercial theatre. They tell me that it is not to be used by the minister for payments to projects that are special to her heart, and I understand that's why you're releasing this money and that there has been no vetting process.

I would like the minister now to commit herself to not paying this money, to say so publicly, and to leave it to those people who were engaged to make these decisions to in fact make the decision as to where this $500,000 is to be allocated. Will you do that, Minister?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: Through the cultural industry sectoral strategy, I expect to receive recommendations as to the future use of the theatre development fund. However, with regard to this one opportunity, which it seems to us is a tremendous investment opportunity, all of the appropriate people --

Mr Harnick: Opportunity? It's an old dog of a play.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'm scooping a hundred grand.

Mr Harnick: I'm scooping a hundred grand to do whatever I want with it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, if the member would like an answer, then I'll answer.

All of the appropriate people have been checked with, including the Ontario Heritage Foundation, as well as the cultural industry sectoral strategy --

Mr Harnick: Well, that's you, the Ontario Heritage Foundation.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale, please come to order.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, he obviously isn't interested.

The Speaker: Had the minister completed her answer?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: As long as the member wants to listen to the answer, I'm interested in completing it.

All of the appropriate people have been checked with, from the heritage fund, from the cultural industry sectoral strategy etc, and it seems to us this is a good --

Mr Harnick: Those are all of the people in the ministry. What about the theatre people?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Willowdale, please come to order.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, I give up.

The Speaker: The member asked a very serious question. Perhaps he would allow the minister to complete her answer -- and very quickly, please, if there is more to add.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: It's a pilot investment that seems to us a very wise investment on behalf of the people of Ontario. There is no money at risk. It is very sound and it does promise to help to develop the theatre community in this province.

Mr Harnick: It's a fraudulent investment and it's contrary to the act.

The Speaker: Order.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is to the Minister of Health and it's in regard to some concerns that I've heard from constituents who are residents of long-term care facilities. I have heard, Minister, as I'm sure many in this House have, from residents of homes for the aged that they're worried about the ministry's leave-of-absence policy.

I understand that the current policy under Bill 101 allows residents to be absent from the facility for 14 days per year. Unfortunately, Minister, many of my constituents have told me that 14 days is just not enough time for them when they wish to vacation with friends and spend some time on a holiday.

I understand that your ministry can't afford to have accommodations open for residents who are indefinitely away, but I wonder what kind of steps you've taken in terms of meeting the needs of these seniors who must be or wish to be away for longer than 14 days.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I thank the member for raising this issue because I know it is one that many of my colleagues have raised with me, and that under Bill 101 the 14 days' leave from nursing homes or homes for the aged was seen by many residents to be insufficient.

I'm glad to be able to tell the member that what we have done under Bill 101 is both resolve the inconsistency that used to exist between nursing homes and homes for the aged to ensure that all residents receive the same number of leave days, but also that we have increased the number of vacation days per year from 14 to 21. In addition, the number of medical leave days has been extended from 14 to 21. Both of these are in response to concerns that have been raised by residents and this new regulation will allow residents much greater flexibility, both in their vacation planning and in their medical treatment.

Mrs Mathyssen: I'm glad to hear that, and I'm also glad to hear that the leave is extended to 21 days for medical purposes. But what happens, then, to residents who have to be in hospital, for example, for more than 21 days?

Hon Mrs Grier: If in fact it is medically required that the resident be in hospital for longer than 21 days, that will be accommodated. I should also say to the member that we have written to all the residents of homes for the aged and nursing homes in order to inform them of this change in policy.

I should also say that with the new placement coordination services which as of July 1 will be in place everywhere in this province as part of our expansion of long-term care, there will be an enormous improvement over the current system. So a resident who perhaps is seeking a place or has lost their place because they've been away for longer than the 21 days on vacation will now have a placement coordination service in their community that will ensure that they have the kind of accommodation they need as quickly as they can.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question too is to the Minister of Health. During my post-budget meetings around the riding of Kenora a good number of questions were raised regarding your government's budget document. Of particular interest to the residents of the Red Lake area was the Minister of Finance's statement on page 12, "Ontario's health care system is meeting the challenges, providing excellent care to all Ontarians on an equal basis."

There are still no emergency services in Red Lake. This document says "excellent care to all Ontarians on an equal basis." I say, hogwash.

Minister, I ask you, do you agree that all Ontarians are receiving health care on an equal basis? If so, maybe you can explain to the folks in places like Red Lake, Barry's Bay, Dryden, Kenora and other rural communities exactly what you and the NDP mean by "on an equal basis." I have both the mayor of Dryden and the mayor of Kenora in the gallery, waiting for that answer.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm well aware of the presence in the gallery of the mayor of Dryden and the mayor of Kenora and look forward to meeting with them later, as do my other cabinet colleagues, in order to address a number of issues in the north, of which the improvement of medical care and health care has been a very real priority for this government and in which direction great strides have been taken.

Let me say to the member that the provision of emergency services is a very difficult one and one that will only be solved by cooperative work between the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Hospital Association and this ministry. It is not within the power of this ministry to order a physician to practise in this province somewhere that the physician does not want to practise.

It is the responsibility of this ministry to make sure the infrastructure is there and to make sure the funding is there. We do not tell the doctors where to go, much though I might like to do so on many occasions.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to, under I think it's standing order 34(a), indicate my dissatisfaction with an earlier answer from the Premier and indicate also, I might say, that I've had detailed discussions with ministry officials that indicate that the information I conveyed to the House is correct and that the information the Premier conveyed to the House is incorrect. If the only recourse I have to get at the truth of the matter is through what's called standing order 34(a), I do want to indicate my dissatisfaction with the answer of the Premier and indicate I'm filing that.

The Speaker: I trust that the honourable member will file the necessary document with the table.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a number of petitions from constituents in my riding which I would like to read into the record.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 supports the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 103,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and

"Whereas this is equivalent to 30% of all the students in the area; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is expected to provide the same programs and services to its public school counterpart and must do so by receiving $1,822 less for each elementary student and $2,542 less per secondary school student, based on 1993 estimates;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now to ensure that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded fully and equally."

I have affixed my signature.

1450

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, strenuously object to the Ministry of the Solicitor General's decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas we believe that the Solicitor General should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or have hunted for years; and

"Whereas we believe that we should not have to take the time or pay the costs 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 the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Amend 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."

This is signed by many constituents and I have added my signature to the petition.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, worded as the one which was just read into the record and which concludes:

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

"Amend 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."

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): "To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has representation on JACPAT (Joint Administrative Committee on Planning and Transportation for the National Capital Region); and

"Whereas JACPAT has received a consultants' report recommending a new bridge across the Ottawa River at Kettle Island, which would link up to Highway 417, a provincial highway; and

"Whereas the city and regional councils of Ottawa, representing the wishes of citizens in the Ottawa region, have passed motions rejecting any new bridge within the city of Ottawa because such a bridge and its access roads would provide no benefits to Ottawa but would instead destroy existing neighbourhoods;

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

"To reject the designation of a new bridge corridor at Kettle Island or at any other location within the city of Ottawa core."

I will affix my signature to the petition.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the previous provincial Liberal government of David Peterson announced its intention in its budget of 1989 of requiring all school boards to provide junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the provincial NDP government is continuing the Liberal policy of requiring school boards in Ontario to phase in junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the government is downloading expensive programs like junior kindergarten on to local boards, while not providing boards with the funding required to undertake these programs; and

"Whereas the Wellington County Board of Education estimates that the operating costs of junior kindergarten will be at least $4.5 million per year; and

"Whereas mandatory junior kindergarten programs will force boards to cut other important programs or raise taxes; and

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high;

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

"We demand that the government of Ontario cancel its policy of forcing junior kindergarten on to local school boards."

It's signed by quite a number of my constituents and it's part of our commonsense agenda.

TAXATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a petition that's been signed by approximately 200 people, primarily in the west end of Toronto. The petition reads as follows:

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

"We insist that the provincial government take immediate steps to implement the recommendations of the Fair Tax Commission. Specifically, we wish to see the removal of the education portion from residential property taxes and the replacement of market value assessment with a unit assessment system."

I affix my signature to that.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I keep getting petitions on the 20-bed jail from the area of Fort York. Of course, it's very near Parkdale. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the NDP government is hell-bent on establishing a 20-bed forensic facility for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; and

"Whereas the nearby community is already home to the highest number of ex-psychiatric patients and social service organizations in hundreds of licensed and unlicensed rooming-houses, group homes and crisis care facilities in all of Canada; and

"Whereas there are other neighbourhoods where the criminally insane could be assessed and treated; and

"Whereas no one was consulted -- not the local residents and business community; not leaders of community organizations; not education and child care providers and not even the NDP member of provincial Parliament for Fort York;

"We, the undersigned residents and business owners of our community, urge the NDP government of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to accommodate the criminally insane in an expanded Queen Street Mental Health Centre until a public consultation process is completed."

I affix my signature under this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

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

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

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken 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 costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

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

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

That's got 57 signatures on it from Orillia, Severn Bridge, Brechin, Oro, Phelpston, Minesing and Hawkestone, and I have affixed my name to it.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Once again I have a petition from Middlesex constituents who utilize emergency services at Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury. Approximately 16,000 people in the Four Counties area rely upon the services of the Newbury hospital and they petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"To call upon the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association to resolve the issue of emergency medical coverage in rural emergency departments and to ensure that all rural residents have the adequate emergency care to which they are entitled."

I have signed my name to this petition.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that was provided by Otto and Elaine Roman on behalf of people in Niagara Falls. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the issue of legalized gambling is a sensitive and controversial issue; and

"Whereas this government has said it will not put a casino anywhere there is not overwhelming support, according to a written statement by NDP MPP Margaret Harrington of Niagara Falls, presented at the September 2, 1993, public hearings of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs regarding Bill 8; and

"Whereas we believe that the city council of Niagara Falls, Ontario, has not received a mandate to introduce casino gambling from the people of Niagara Falls at the last municipal election;

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

"We, the undersigned, who are opposed to casino gambling, request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not allow the city of Niagara Falls to become a candidate for a gambling casino unless there is broad-based public support for such a facility, which we are requesting to be determined through a referendum vote by the citizens of Niagara Falls."

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 544 signatures addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the recent announcement by the NDP government to choose three superdumps within the greater Toronto area has disturbed and upset local residents; and

"Whereas these superdumps might have been prevented if Bill 143 had allowed the Interim Waste Authority to look at all alternatives during the site selection process; and

"Whereas we would like to ensure the province of Ontario is making the best decision based on all the facts regarding incineration and long rail-haul and garbage management;

"We demand the NDP government of Ontario repeal Bill 143, disband the IWA and place a moratorium on the process of finding a landfill to serve all of the greater Toronto area until all alternatives can be properly studied and debated."

I support this petition and I'm signing it.

1500

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): On behalf of the parents, teachers and students at St Theresa school in my riding, I'd like to present the following petition:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education and, in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $2,188 less on each of its elementary school students and $2,764 less on its secondary school students than our public school counterpart;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully, but with equity and equality."

I affix my signature of support.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "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 Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters 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;

"I/We, the undersigned, petition 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've affixed my signature to this.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I too have a similar petition, in addition to the hundreds that I've introduced before.

"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 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 have affixed my signature thereto.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products:

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains a provision that the government of Ontario reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing or markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and the other provinces rather than act on its own to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain packaging strategy the most efficient method of protecting the Canadian public;

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

"That the government of Ontario continue to work with and pressure the government of Canada to introduce and enforce legislation calling for plain packaging of tobacco products at the national level."

That's signed by approximately 70 people in my area, and I attach my signature to this petition.

EMBALLAGE DES PRODUITS DE TABAC

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai ici une pétition signée par 33 employés du bureau de l'édifice Harden à Hawkesbury, et qui est indiquée de cette façon-ci :

«Nous, les soussignés, désirons adresser une pétition à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario comme suit :

«Que le gouvernement de l'Ontario continue d'influencer et de travailler avec le gouvernement du Canada dans le but d'introduire et de mettre en vigueur une législation favorisant l'emballage sobre des produits de tabac à l'échelle nationale.»

J'ai les 33 signatures, et bien sûr j'y ai apposé ma propre signature et j'appuie pleinement cette pétition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills, without amendment:

Bill Pr100, An Act respecting Ontario Southland Railway Inc.

Bill Pr105, An Act respecting the Township of Tay.

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr109, An Act respecting the County of Dufferin.

Bill Pr114, An Act respecting Hamilton Community Foundation.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WORDZ PROCESSING CORPORATION LTD. ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr90, An Act to revive Wordz Processing Corporation Ltd.

INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED TALMUDIC STUDY ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr92, An Act to revive Institute for Advanced Talmudic Study.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just before I call the first order, I believe the three parties have reached an agreement that we will split the time on the debate this afternoon, that the vote will occur at 6 o'clock and that the bell will be limited to 10 minutes.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is that agreed? Agreed.

SOCIAL AND LABOUR MARKET REFORM / RÉFORME SOCIALE ET DU MARCHÉ DU TRAVAIL

Mr Rae moved government notice of motion number 27:

This House resolves as follows:

That Ontario is committed to a major reform of our social security system.

But this House believes that unilateral changes to Canada's network of social programs, most of which are matters either of exclusive provincial jurisdiction or are under shared federal-provincial jurisdiction, are not compatible with cooperative federalism.

Further, this House accepts, on behalf of the people of Ontario, the responsibility under the equalization program, as set out in section 36(2) of the Constitution Act of Canada, to share our wealth with other Canadians. But we insist upon the right of Ontarians to a fair share of federal expenditure, which residents of Ontario do not now receive.

Therefore this House insists that the process of reform for Canada's social and labour market programs must be based on the following five principles:

(1) Ontario supports the need for change and improvement in our social programs and in the fiscal and practical arrangements between the two levels of government. This reform should focus upon work, training, and the needs of children.

(2) There must be no fiscal offloading from the federal government to the provinces.

(3) There must be no discriminatory treatment against Canadians living in Ontario, and the existing discrimination must stop.

(4) Any reform must reinforce, and not undermine, Canada's record as a compassionate society.

(5) Any reform must be the product of genuine federal-provincial negotiations, and joint decision-making, and not the result of unilateral federal action.

1510

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I appreciate the chance to be in the House today and to to share with members the reasons for our moving the resolution at this time. As members of the House will know, this question is very much upon us not simply as a result of decisions that have been taken by the federal government, but for a variety of reasons that I think are becoming increasingly clear to the citizens of Canada and to the people of Ontario.

The first reason is that it is a fact that over the last number of years, it has become obvious to everyone that there are a number of programs that are operating both at the federal level and at the provincial level which involve very substantial expenditures of money, which involve huge investments by both the people of Ontario and the people of Canada, and that those programs need to be reviewed and need to be brought together in order to allow us to make sure the programs are more effective and are run more effectively and run more efficiently, to make sure that there is greater cooperation between the federal government and the provincial governments, and I would argue as well between the provincial governments and the municipalities, and in order to make sure that in fact we regain our focus on the critical reason for the existence of these programs.

We spend tens of billions on support for seniors. We spend tens of billions on support for our health care programs. We spend tens of billions on unemployment insurance. We spend tens of billions on social assistance programs across the country, and indeed in all of the provinces. We spend tens of billions on education and training, and I think the people of Canada are entitled to know that their governments are collectively engaged in a process of serious, steady, focused review to ensure that the programs in fact meet the needs of the 1990s and meet the needs of the 21st century.

Looking at the elements of the resolution, which I believe it should be possible for all members of the House to support, because I think they reflect the common sense of the province, if I may be allowed to borrow that expression, in Ontario, first of all, we are committed, I think we must be committed to a major reform of our social security system.

To those who would say that the answer to our current problems is simply to maintain all funding of all the programs at all the current levels and in fact increase that funding, and that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the social safety net that more money won't simply solve, I don't think that view can withstand a serious analysis, for two reasons.

First of all, we only have to look around us, look at the experience of the countries of Europe, look around us in terms of the experiences of countries around the world. We are in a sense, all of us together, having to recognize that there are elements in the current programs which do not do the job that needs to be done, and I'll come back to this point in a moment.

That, it seems to me, is important for us to stress. If there's not enough emphasis on work, if there's not enough emphasis on children and on the future generation, if there's not enough emphasis on making sure that we're providing people with the skills and with the abilities that are required in order to be able to work in this century and into the next century, and if that's true of the programs that we have, and I believe it is true of these programs, then they need to be reformed and changed.

The second reality is that those who would argue that there's a fundamental need for a huge growth or for a huge expansion of social spending I think have got to come to terms with the overall fiscal and financial situation in the country, and indeed in our own province.

I'm going to try today to speak in as consensual a way as I possibly can because I happen to believe that if you look at this resolution in terms of what it says, as I say, I do believe that it can reflect the common feelings and views of all the members of the House.

I don't think that it's in Ontario's interests, collectively, in the interests of this Legislative Assembly, for us to give carte blanche to the federal level of government to do whatever it wants with a set of programs which in fact are paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario and in fact have a major impact in terms of the people of this province.

So the second part of the resolution says, "...unilateral changes to Canada's network of social programs...are not compatible with cooperative federalism." I don't see how anyone could object to that phrase.

I know the member for York-Mackenzie is going to be speaking in this debate. He's someone for whom I have a great deal of respect, and if I may even be permitted to say, a great deal of affection as well. I know he will be speaking in this debate and I don't know what he's going to be saying, but I'm sure he's going to be very constructive in the comments he makes.

He and I both know the philosophy of cooperative federalism was in fact the philosophy which produced the Pearsonian agenda, which was adopted by the country in the 1960s. We have to recognize that it was a process of give and take and a lot of goodwill established between federal and provincial governments between 1962 and 1968, 1970, which in fact allowed for the creation of the Canada assistance plan, allowed for the establishment of the medicare program, allowed for the introduction of the Canada pension plan, allowed for the introduction of programs federally and provincially, allowed for the federal funding of apprenticeship programs in Ontario, allowed for the expansion of our system of community colleges in the 1960s, allowed for the expansion of the university system in the province of Ontario.

It really was a remarkable era, the era between 1960 and 1970. It produced some remarkable cooperation between levels of government, which isn't to say that there weren't differences of opinion, but it is to say that there was a strong philosophy in place which said that yes, there has to be some agreement, there has to be some understanding with respect to the cooperation that's going to be required.

The federal government can't run education. The federal government can't suddenly interfere in a number of areas that have long been areas of responsibility that are clearly constitutionally defined. At the same time we have to find the imagination to go beyond some of these boundaries and look hard at what needs to be done and what can be done.

Further, the resolution says Ontario accepts our obligations under equalization. Equalization is fundamental to the fabric of the Constitution, it's fundamental to the fabric of the country and we accept it. But it's important for us to stress as Ontarians that we should not be asked to take on that sense of responsibility, which we do, without in return receiving a fair share of federal expenditure.

This issue has come to the fore, and I don't mind saying that yes, it is something about which I personally feel quite strongly, that when the federal government decided in its wisdom that it would cut back unilaterally, particularly in the area of social assistance, it had a major and devastating effect on the people of this province.

I know that whenever a Premier says this, you're always accused of simply trying to pass on blame. But I want to remind the honourable member, he was the minister at the time when that decision was taken to cap the transfers. I think if he was being completely candid with members of the House, he would say that he had no idea, and indeed I don't think the federal government had any idea, the consequence of the recession would be such a dramatic increase in the cost of social assistance in Ontario. I dare say that if we had known then what we know now, there would have been a much stronger collective sense of genuine outrage on the part of Ontarians that we were being affected in this way.

We tried to take the federal government to court. That was not successful. We had the support at one level, the Court of Appeal in the province of British Columbia, but we were not successful in the Supreme Court of Canada. So we are faced with the grim reality that under the current arrangements, the federal government apparently has the ability to unilaterally change what were cofunded programs and to turn them into programs in which our costs continue to rise, the burden on us in terms of borrowing and in terms of taxes continues to rise, but we do not have the support and the sustenance of the federal government which we believe we deserve and we think the citizens of this province deserve.

I don't say this in any mean-spirited way. I say it as a fact of life with respect to the restructuring which has been under way in the country for some time, the complete change in our economy which has been taking place over the last 10 or 15 years and in fact the need for that kind of rethink to take place, but not directly at our expense.

1520

I would say to the honourable member and I would say to members of the House, if the federal government persists on this path, I think it is a grim political reality that the political will in this province to continue to support equalization will diminish. I don't say that as a threat, I don't say it because I would personally support it, but I say it as a fundamental fact of life about people.

If you continue to hammer away and not provide them with a sense of fairness and with a sense of support, then I would suggest you are going to see emerge in this province a sense of: "Why should we be transferring all this money elsewhere? Why should we be seeing the transfer payments go up at a time of economic difficulty in different provinces when we in fact don't see a similar respect and a similar understanding of our situation here?"

Therefore, as we hear different plans being put forward -- it's only natural, I think, in the early days of a government that there's considerable debate and considerable division of opinion obviously within the federal cabinet as to what needs to be done. That's only natural. We've obviously all participated in some of these discussions and we recognize that these subjects are not easy -- I do want to emphasize that it is extremely important now for this province to speak clearly and to have a good debate and a good discussion about the kind of social assistance reforms we could support. I think we should be discussing in the House what our next stages are in terms of consultation and discussion within the House about the process that may well be undertaken by the federal government.

I should say it's still unclear to me as to whether what the federal government in fact is about to propose is a major change of federal and provincial programs or whether what it is about to propose is more modest, simply a change in some federal programs, to which obviously we could not object in the sense of its right to make these changes, but if they negatively impact the province of Ontario in comparison with other parts of the country, then I think we do have a case.

I've often quoted the three questions from Rabbi Hillel in this House and other debates and I've often used the three questions as a basis for what I want to say. I think the questions are quite apropos even as I speak. I'm sure members will have heard these three questions from me before, so they'll forgive me for repeating myself.

The first question from Rabbi Hillel is, "If I am not for myself, then who is for me?" I know there have been those in this House and elsewhere who've been critical of this government and critical of me because I have undertaken to speak on behalf of the province's regional and the province's collective interests. I would say with great respect to the members of the House, the day when the Premier of Ontario has to apologize for speaking on behalf of the people of this province will be a very sad day indeed.

This province has an interest. We are nearly 11 million people at the heart of the Canadian federation. It is not reasonable or fair for others to expect that we will bite our tongue, never have anything to say on behalf of our own interests, let every other region and every other part of the country be vociferous and articulate and very clear in terms of its interests, but that Ontario's position will always be, "No, no, no, we mustn't say anything to upset anyone; we must simply carry on as if everything was hunky-dory." Everything is not hunky-dory, and I think it is critical for us to remember that first question of Rabbi Hillel.

Who else will speak for the province of Ontario if not the government and indeed the Legislative Assembly by means of this resolution? There is nothing wrong with the Legislative Assembly of this province taking a position, taking a view, expressing itself, letting the world know that we don't think the current arrangements are working very well and we believe they should be changed, and yes, we think some of these arrangements are working at the expense of the people of Ontario and we want those arrangements to be changed. I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, I see everything good in our saying that.

Rabbi Hillel's second question also poses an interesting question for all of us, and that is, "If I am only for myself, then what am I?" It will never be good enough for Ontario or for the Premier or whoever else is representing Ontario to go into a negotiation and say: "I'm in this for myself. I don't care about anyone else." Canada was not built on that premise. The country came together in 1867 because people decided they would overlook or overcome or absorb their regional interest and try to include it in some broader concern, and that is what I think we are striving to do in this negotiation.

We support the need for change and improvement in our social programs and in the fiscal and practical arrangements of the two levels of government, and we believe the reform should focus upon work, training and the needs of children.

I'm very conscious of the fact that today there are people who have come to this province, to the provincial Legislature, to say, "This government should be doing more in terms of issues of child poverty." I was asked outside how I felt about it, and I said: "Of course we could be doing more. By definition, we could be doing more."

The question is, we can only do more if we have a combined resolve of both levels of government that we will in fact do it together. It is not financially or fiscally possible for the government of Ontario to commit itself to a broad set of reforms which, frankly -- the bill will come due, and when the bill comes due, I want to make sure we've got somebody there with us at the table willing to be a partner and not some absconding debtor who says: "Well, that was your idea. You pay for it."

That has got to be a fundamental principle. There must be no fiscal offloading from the federal government to the provinces. There must be no discriminatory treatment against Canadians living in Ontario, and the existing discrimination must stop. Any reform must reinforce and not undermine our record as a compassionate society and it must be the product of genuine negotiations and joint decision-making.

Face aux critiques qui viennent des rangs du Parti libéral, je veux dire tout à fait franchement à la province que oui, nous sommes engagés dans un processus de négociations et de changements. J'offre toujours clairement aux gens un sens que nous avons besoin de changer les programmes, de réformer les programmes, d'améliorer les programmes, mais nous devons le faire avec un sens de justice, avec un sens de compassion et avec un sens de nos obligations envers nos concitoyens canadiens à travers le pays.

Oui, c'est vrai que, comme chef de notre gouvernement et comme premier ministre de notre province, je parle naturellement pour les intérêts de l'Ontario ; c'est pourquoi je suis ici. S'il y avait quelqu'un d'autre, du Parti libéral ou du Parti réformiste, venant ici pour expliquer leur position, naturellement il serait inévitable que de telles gens aient l'obligation de parler pour les intérêts de notre province.

Ce n'est rien de personnel ; ça vient avec la job. C'est l'important. Mais lorsque nous défendons les intérêts de l'Ontario, comme M. Johnson défend les intérêts de la province de Québec, nous avons aussi une obligation de savoir et de reconnaître dans notre travail que lorsque nous partageons un intérêt en commun et lorsque la réforme sociale est une réforme que nous partageons ensemble -- on est toujours Canadiens et nous partageons cette citoyenneté canadienne -- nous avons une obligation de travailler ensemble et de penser à la situation dans les autres provinces et dans les autres régions du pays, et c'est ce que nous faisons.

The third question from Rabbi Hillel, and it's a question that I can say not only on this issue but on other issues I've been forced to ask myself very directly, was, "If not now, when?" I think there's a sense in the country that this is in fact the moment when things need to be done and can be done, and we are committed to doing them.

Ontario wants to be a constructive, positive, effective partner in this process of federal-provincial reform. We want very much to have a process that will work and to have a result that will succeed. We look for ways and signals and signs from the federal government that will give us the assurance that in fact we can work on these programs together; that there is an understanding of our common fiscal and financial dilemmas; that there is a common understanding of a desire to improve training, return to work, and the needs of kids; and that this is an agenda which all of us can accept as we seek as well to continue to support the social assistance programs, the health care programs, all the programs that are in place across the province and across Canada.

1530

It's going to be a major challenge. I would say to honourable members, it's going to take time. It will not be accomplished in a week, it will not be accomplished in a few months, it will not even be accomplished in a year. Whatever may happen in elections, I can tell members that these issues will be before this House, and collectively we will have to find ways to come to terms with the changes which are going to be upon us.

To conclude, it is not enough for us to simply say that we have to preserve the past, or that we have to leave frozen for all time the changes that were made by the Pearsonian generation of the 1960s. In fact, we have to reinvent many of these programs. We have to improve them, we have to rework them, and we have to share a common commitment to doing that together.

I believe the resolution we have put forward should provide a consensual basis upon which we can move, recognizing that there will be partisan differences from time to time but that by and large we should be striving to speak with one voice as Ontarians as we seek to affirm the need for reform, the rights of this province in that process, the rights of all provinces in that process, and the need for us to work constructively together as members of the Legislature and as Canadians in this process of reform.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I wish to thank the Premier for initiating debate. Further debate?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand that there are important engagements, but as this resolution is indeed particularly important, I would expect that the Premier could listen to at least the lead-off speakers of each of the parties. Okay, he has now indicated he will come back. I appreciate that.

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order. The member for York-MacKenzie.

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to rise. I should indicate that one of the problems for many members is the way this debate was brought forward, in terms of the notice that was given for people to plan and be able to be here. On something as important as this -- and, I would add, a motion we will be supporting -- it is important that we have that fair notice.

Let me begin by saying that we have added, to the lexicon of constitutional experts in Canada, Rabbi Hillel. I didn't realize he had also written on these issues. Some people may have wondered if the answer to his third question, "If not now, when?" referred to elections as opposed to other issues, but we'll let that one pass.

Let me just begin by saying to the Premier and to all members opposite that as representatives of the province in this Legislature, of course we have a duty and a responsibility to represent the interests of this province. That is something which, whether we are talking about former premiers Robarts, Davis, Peterson, or indeed the present Premier, is always front and centre. We are elected to Queen's Park; we are elected to represent those interests.

But what we also need to recognize, particularly here in Ontario, is our sense of commitment to the country of which we are a part and of which we are so proud, and that is Canada. There is nothing that conflicts between those two loyalties. We can do both, and we can do them both at the same time.

What has been of real concern over the course of the last number of weeks and months is that, while not today in his remarks but in other places, the Premier has tried, in our view, to create an issue that doesn't exist. If you look at what the federal government has been saying in terms of sitting down and negotiating change, not only in terms of social security but in terms of health and education, what you see is a government that wants to do just that. They want to sit down and look at the systems we have, that we all recognize are no longer meeting the needs we have in this country. That has been the significant change that's occurred over the course of the last four or five years, that all of those programs and our ways of approaching entitlements, our way of approaching the funding of our education system, of our social security system, of our health care system, have changed.

What we all have to recognize equally in this House and in Ottawa is that the citizens of Ontario, as indeed the citizens throughout the country, are sick and tired of what they see as federal-provincial bickering which forgets that at the end of the day we're talking about the same taxpayer. It is the same person who is paying taxes to Ottawa, to Queen's Park, who is funding the various programs that as a society we say are important and that we want to maintain.

When the Premier reads out in his motion the principles behind it, the kinds of things we want to see maintained in our broad social security system, most Ontarians, most Canadians, would agree with that. The question is, how do we go about doing it? What are the things we need to put in place? Clearly, one of them, and one of the things Canadians are saying, is, stop the bickering and sit down and work collectively together.

Il est très important qu'on souligne pour le premier ministre aujourd'hui l'importance pour l'Ontario pas simplement de dire que nous devons protéger nos propres intérêts provinciaux, mais aussi, et surtout en ce temps, avec ce qui se passe maintenant au Québec, avec les élections qui s'en viennent, qu'ici en Ontario nous allons aussi parler au nom du Canada, parce que les Ontariens et parce que la province ont toujours défendu les droits de nos citoyens comme Canadiens, forts et entiers.

Donc, il y a un besoin un peu comme dans la période des années 60, et le premier ministre a parlé des années 60, quand M. Robarts, le premier ministre du Parti progressiste-conservateur, et M. Pearson, le premier ministre libéral du Canada, ont travaillé ensemble, des fois avec des arguments, des querelles, bien sûr. Mais à part ça, ces deux leaders-là se sont dits : «Écoutez, on a une crise nationale. Il y a l'avenir du pays qui est en question. Donc, il est très important que nous travaillions ensemble.»

Je pense que pour nous en Ontario, avec le premier ministre d'aujourd'hui, il est important que lui et M. Chrétien, le premier ministre du Canada, travaillent ensemble en recréant, si on veut, l'esprit de cette période des années 60 parce que c'est tellement important pour notre pays. Si c'est quelque chose qui est important pour notre pays, donc c'est très important pour la province de l'Ontario.

When we look at the motion and see that what it specifically speaks to is the kind of work and cooperation that needs to go on in order to restructure our broad social policies in health and education and in social security, one has to say, if I may paraphrase Rabbi Hillel, what are we doing? What is this government doing in terms of those policies, in terms of this discussion the federal government has launched, where it has said to all the provinces, "Come, let us sit down, let us reason together, let us reconstruct all of those programs that have grown up since the Second World War and which we have developed, particularly through the 1960s and 1970s?"

What continually we find difficult to understand and what those of us who met with the various groups this morning that were here talking about children, talking about poverty, talking about trying to renew a commitment to fight poverty find difficult to understand, is, where are the plans and programs from this government that can be put on the table to discuss with the federal government? I see my good friend and colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services is here, and surely one of the questions -- there has been a request to sit and discuss and come up with plans, so where are they? This government has been in office for almost four years, the federal government for six months. Surely, those plans are there, or ought to be there, to be brought to the table so we can begin that very specific discussion.

1540

If the minister and the Premier were to look at what the federal government is saying, many of the words are very similar throughout the country. No matter which province you're in, people are saying, how do we make our social safety net, our educational system, our health care system better when we know we have limited dollars? We have to make them more efficient and more effective. We've got to be able to really target to make sure that those most in need are going to get the help they require. After four years, I'm surprised that this government has not been able to be quicker off the mark in presenting to the federal government and indeed to their colleagues in the other provinces the kind of outline, the framework and the specifics they want to propose to do that.

On Monday we sat in the House and the Premier presented the report of the Premier's Council that dealt with children and youth. A number of us were struck at that time by -- I can only call it the tenor and the tone of the Premier's presentation. We all know the difficulty any government has today, and indeed any government will after the next election, in trying to find the dollars required for children and youth, the dollars required for our health and social systems, so we have to talk about how we reapportion or reallocate those funds.

But in working with the people who are on the front lines, we have got to give them a sense of hope, to ensure that at the very least they know that their objectives are our objectives and that we are going to work closely with them and be as active as we can in doing that. I think that is what has been missing. As we have noted, there was nothing in the budget that spoke directly about children and youth, there was nothing in the budget that held out hope around these fundamental questions.

But one place where I believe there is and can be a sense of hope is that what is being said in Ottawa, and what I believe most of us here are saying in terms of what we want to do with our health, social and education systems, is that out of that we can find the dollars, not to do everything we want to do, but to do the most important things.

One of the things the people who were here this morning to talk to us about social assistance reform and about child care reform had to say was: "Look, we don't want the moon tomorrow morning; we know that's not possible. But we do know there are some specific changes and reforms that can be worked out and that can be delivered. We believe if this provincial government will reallocate its priorities, there are more dollars there for those most in need. Together with the federal government and the funds it has said are available for those needs, we can actually make an impact in this calendar year."

The question that goes out to this government and to the Premier is not, do we agree with the motion he puts before us? Of course we do. The question is, how are we going to go about it, and when will this government be presenting, not only to the federal government, its ideas and its plans and its programs, but as the Premier has said, when do we start that debate in this House? When do we start to look at how we're going to restructure our programs, and when do we begin to discuss what the real needs are that are out there, and how are we going to help?

We've heard from people at arm's length, whether it's the Premier's Council, whether it's the various agencies and organizations out there on the front lines, defining clearly over the last number of years -- and I include in that documents that came to us when we were the government.

Nobody stands here in this House and says, "Everything we did on behalf of children and youth, on behalf of the education system, the health system, the social welfare system, was perfect and brought about all those changes." But there has been over a long period of time a basis of agreement among the three parties on some specific changes and directions. We can build on that, if this government is prepared to, quite frankly, get up off their seats and take some leadership and not -- I find it incredible that one has to say this -- a government that seems to be afraid to speak on these very issues of social reform, issues which when we were government we heard a great deal from them about, because in their view we weren't doing enough.

But I would ask anybody to go back and look at what John Sweeney accomplished, look at the Thomson report and SARC and a variety of things in terms of imaginative, innovative, visionary documents that pointed to a direction for this province and where, again I say, many people in this province and in this Legislature on all sides of the House agree in terms of where we want to go.

I put to the Premier and I put to this government that the issue is not whether the federal government is going to work or not work with the province of Ontario or with the provinces. It has said clearly it is going to do that. What this government then has to do is to go forward with its plans and proposals.

If they want our support for those plans and proposals, bring them to this House. What is it you're going to do for children? What is it you're going to do for youth? How are you going to reform the health care system? What are those changes in education that you want that are going to entail federal-provincial cooperation? Let's bring them here, and send them out to a committee, if that's required. We need to get going with that debate, we need to start making those fundamental changes so all Canadians can see that the money being spent in those fields is being spent wisely, effectively, efficiently, that there is a clear role for the federal government, a clear role for the provincial government, and clear roles for our other partners in providing those services. In doing that, the Premier will have our support.

But if he sees this solely as a political exercise, where his advisers are saying to him, "You've got to start to shake things up; attack the federal Liberals so you'll affect the percentage in the polls the provincial Liberals now have and move your numbers up," if he's going to play that kind of cheap partisan trick, that's no good. This issue is far too important, and it isn't going to matter a darn to the people who need the social and health and educational services, a year from now, two years from now, three years from now, what the political gamesmanship was in May 1994. What is going to be important is simply that we did the right things when they needed to be done, that when the federal government said, "We want to sit down and work with you, we want to make these changes, we want to expedite the process and do it as quickly and as effectively as we can," we as a Legislature stood and said, "We're going to join you in that exercise and we're going to bring about those changes."

If that is the spirit within which this motion is given today, we support that fully. We urge the Premier, his cabinet and his government to work closely with the federal government, we urge them to bring their proposals before this House so we will have an opportunity to debate them, and we urge all of us to do that quickly so the people of this province and indeed of this country can be assured that we're going to have the best social services, health services and educational services and that they will be delivered in a way that is fair, not only to Ontarians but to every Canadian in this country.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I know there are a number of members who would like to get on the record today with some thoughts on this resolution, so I will be brief, but I did feel the issue is an important one. I'm not convinced this resolution is the appropriate way of expressing one's concern about the issue of welfare and of poverty and of the dramatic need for reform of a system all across Canada, but that here in Ontario is probably a system more in need of reform than any I have seen; whether this kind of debate is the right forum.

Obviously, we are all supportive, as political parties, as leaders, as politicians, the 130 of us -- I hope someday to be 99 of us -- who are here representing Ontarians, of the principle of Ontario receiving its fair share, a fair share from Confederation in those areas of national programs, fair based upon what we are able to achieve and do for ourselves. As you know, for many years Ontario was very fortunate to be in a generous position, to be able to say, "We can assist the national government," or, "We can assist other provinces because we believe very strongly in this country, and we have done well in Ontario from Canada's Confederation, and we want to contribute our fair share."

1550

But I do have concerns about the need to be having this debate. Is it really that we're not receiving our fair share or is it that the social system in Ontario has been so mismanaged and that these tax-and-spend policies over the past 10 years have really destroyed so much of what Ontario had going for it? We were once, you know, the economic engine that was a magnet for investment in Ontario. We benefited so much from those investments that were creating those good-paying jobs. We were envied here in Ontario, and we are not today. Of course, when we prospered we could afford to be generous with other provinces.

Instead, the government now of Ontario is reduced to whining and squabbling with other levels of government. This wasn't the way it was for 190 years in Confederation in Ontario, and it wasn't the way it was in the 42 years previous to this last decade, what we call "the lost decade."

As the member for Oakville South said when the Premier stated his intentions in this resolution, in Ontario we have always been the leaders in Confederation, and we've now become the whiners in Confederation.

So we can continue to complain that other levels of government are not pulling their weight. We can blame local levels of government or we can blame the federal government, or we can turn our energies towards making Ontario more competitive, towards making sure that we have the best social program in Ontario: a job.

When I hear other provinces coming to the federal government, which is $40 billion in deficit, and whining that we need more money, particularly Ontario, this province whose taxpayers pay the bulk of the federal taxes, are on the hook for the bulk of the federal deficit, we must get our own affairs in order. We must, when we get our own affairs in order, be able to say to the federal government, "We'd like you to get your affairs in order, and we will help." We ought to be in the position of leading the way, as Ontario did for all those years.

So I wonder about the motive. I wonder, is this just to lay blame on the Liberals, who happen to be in government in Ottawa? It concerns me, particularly this Premier and this party and this government, a government that when it comes to the social safety net, when it comes to those in need, has done so little to make the kinds of reforms that we need in Ontario to give people jobs, to give them hope.

We have perpetuated the system of the Ontario Liberals, begun to condemn people to a lifetime of welfare, condemn them to a lifetime of no hope or opportunity; generations, and children, particularly children in need. If ever there has been a disgrace, it has been this Ontario and how we have gone backwards in the last 10 years in assisting those most vulnerable in our society: children, children in need and those most vulnerable. It is an absolute disgrace.

All we have heard from the government is whining that we need more money from a bankrupt federal government. I believe that it is time for us to stop whining. It is time for us to fix that which is broken right here in our own province. It's time for us to take back our own destiny again, get our own affairs in order again.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Interjections are out of order.

Mr Harris: It is necessary for government, it's still necessary for the party, even at 6% in popularity, to govern and do what is best for Ontarians. It is necessary for them to set priorities.

Premier Rae can spend his time and energy fighting against the feds, fighting against another level of government, pointing fingers, blaming others, or Premier Rae and this Legislature can spend their time and energy fighting for hope, for opportunity, for jobs for Ontarians by taking a hard look at the total mismanagement of the economy of Ontario over the last 10 years.

You see, there is only one taxpayer, and that taxpayer is fed up with the old style of politics. They're fed up with the finger-pointing and blaming someone else. They are demanding major reform of a broken system. I am proud that my party put forward a commonsense plan to bring jobs and prosperity and hope and opportunity back to Ontario. Included in that plan were reforms to the disastrous, failed welfare system in the province of Ontario.

We suggest that the Premier and this Legislature should turn their energies to fix that which is broken here in the province of Ontario. I tell you this: If the Premier spent as much time working towards making Ontario great again as he spends at pointing fingers and running down other levels of government, then Ontario would be great again and we would not be having this debate today. In fact we would be helping those most vulnerable, those children, those on welfare, get jobs, the skills they need to get jobs, and we would have Ontario in a position where we could lead Canada again, where we could be leading Canada out of a recession, where we could be helping the federal government in dealing with the deficit that it has to deal with.

That's the kind of Ontario that I grew up in. That's the kind of Ontario that I want for all Ontarians, that I want for my children. That's the kind of Ontario that I believe we can have and that is why I'm so doggone mad that all we're doing in this Legislature is pointing fingers, blaming others, instead of starting to put commonsense solutions to work to restore the hope and the dreams and the aspirations of all Ontarians, particularly those who are most vulnerable in our society. So I regret that this resolution today is pointing fingers at others instead of getting to solving our own problems.

We have put forward commonsense solutions that have been supported by Ontarians and, indeed, they're crying out for, including poverty advocates, those on welfare, those who are losing hope.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: If some in the other parties, some on the government benches, disagree with our plan, surely they understand theirs has been a total failure. Why aren't we working towards solutions instead of blaming others?

So it actually is a disgrace when the Premier of the province of Ontario spends his time whining, pointing fingers, blaming others. That is not the legacy, that is not the history, of this province that I grew up in and that will not be the legacy and the history of this province when we bring common sense back to it.

I would invite the government to work with us now, not to wait for a year from now. Work with us now on fixing what's broken in this province, because we will help you with that if you want to do that.

1600

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): It is a pleasure to stand up today and to add a few comments to the resolution and to the debate that has been going on this afternoon.

I just wanted to make a few comments on some of the issues that have already been raised and it's very important to identify. This resolution is not about pointing fingers; this resolution is about identifying concerns that Ontarians have. It's identifying the problems that Ontarians share all across this great province. It's about identifying what we have to do to put Ontario back on the map and to make sure that Ontarians are cared for, listened to and have their equal rights and their fair share. I think it's very important to add some comments that will really talk about --

Interjection.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Not whining; we're not whining. We understand the problems the federal government has; we understand the problems all governments face in these very tough economic times. It's not just in Canada; it's across the world.

I would like to share with you some of the concerns we have in our Ministry of Citizenship when it comes to immigration. The resolution the Premier introduced today sets out five principles to govern the process of reform of our social and labour market programs. This resolution, of course, is of very profound importance to our ministry, as well as to the many people and the communities we serve and the communities that serve the people of Ontario.

The resolution states that unilateral changes by Ottawa to Canada's social programs are not compatible with cooperative federalism. It goes on to state that this House insists "upon the right of Ontarians to a fair share of federal expenditure, which residents of Ontario do not now receive." I'm going to talk about the immigration issue because I think this is of profound importance to this debate, and why we have concerns about Ontario receiving its fair share.

We have tried, under our previous government, prior to the federal government being elected in October, to negotiate a federal agreement with the previous Conservative government, but to no avail. There were many reasons for that. We had some hope when the Liberals took office in Ottawa that perhaps we could sit down and start to discuss a fair share and a provincial-federal agreement on immigration for the province of Ontario. We are now presently leading a team which represents six provincial ministries in the process of negotiating a bilateral immigration agreement with the federal government.

Although Ottawa and the federal government does have paramountcy over immigration in Canada, it still is very much a provincial issue. Immigration is a provincial issue in that we do provide services. Our community-based agencies provide services to refugees and immigrants who come to this province. Although we in Ontario provide very good services and we are very proud of that, we are also very interested in what happens to the other provinces across Canada.

Because we do share jurisdiction over immigration, it is essential that Ontario and the federal government work together on the delivery of immigration services. That's not whining; that's a reality. It's very important that we work together, that we share resources, that we share a discussion over the type of services that should be delivered in Ontario. We know and we appreciate that certain immigration services can be delivered in a more appropriate fashion. We know it is possible to serve the needs of immigrants better at the same time that all levels of government manage their fiscal resources more efficiently. We know that Ottawa must work in full cooperation with the provincial government to introduce lasting and meaningful improvements to our delivery of services for immigrants and refugees.

The bilateral immigration agreement that we have begun to negotiate with Ottawa exemplifies how our government is taking formal steps to ensure that our voice helps to shape improvements to our service delivery system. It's a cooperative spirit; it's a spirit in trying to find a better way of doing things in our tight fiscal restraints that we face today.

One of the points made in our resolution was that at the same time Ontario accepts its statutory responsibility to share its wealth with other Canadians, it also insists upon the right of Ontarians to a fair share of federal expenditures. Fairness is a key issue in these discussions. Unfortunately, there is no doubt in our minds that Ontario does not have fair access to federal funds in such matters as immigration services. The immigrant-serving community organizations in this province, which are doing an extremely superb job with many wonderful volunteers who do a magnificent job to deliver our services, are not receiving their fair share of federal support for newcomers.

I want to point out an example and I don't want people to think that this is whining. It's not to put this on the table to complain; it's just to put on the table an example of what happens today in Ontario. In 1993-94, Ottawa will spend $760 a year for every immigrant who comes to Ontario. This is in comparison to an average of $1,500 for those who settle elsewhere in Canada. Surprisingly enough, we will spend $2,250 for those who decide to settle in Quebec.

Now, people who come to Canada do not understand where the differences are in federal spending. They come to choose to live in a province that will most benefit them and their families. They come to choose to live in a province that is the best province probably in the entire world to live in, and they do not understand the differences of funding between the federal government's spending for other provinces and Ontario.

If you take a look at the people who do choose to come to Ontario, about 59% of all immigrants choose to live in Ontario when they come to Canada. But we only receive -- and again this is an example of the injustice -- 39% of the federal funding for settlement and language training. This is not whining; this is not complaining. This is stating facts about why we are concerned about the fair share that Ontario does not receive at the present time.

Another example, I think, of why we need to sit down and talk with the federal government, to cooperate and try to reach a bilateral federal immigration agreement is an example that we shared just a few weeks ago. This example was the fact that here we were, sitting down -- it was a Friday afternoon and we were about to enter into very serious negotiations with the federal government on Tuesday, where our delegation of officials was going to Ottawa to sit down and decide the process and how we would come to that agreement. That Friday afternoon the federal government, without consulting with Ontario, without discussing with us what impact the decision they were about to make would have on Ontario, decided to cancel a program to immigrants who come to this country, a federal program that has been in place since 1948. This program was for certain legal immigrants who decided to come to Ontario and who would be staying in Ontario.

This decision affected and will affect thousands of new Ontarians, probably 10,000 in the next year. The result I think that's very shocking to all of us is that as we were entering into this negotiation, while we were trying to make these decisions about how we were going to come about having an agreement, we found out about this unilateral decision and the fact that it was going to cost probably $16.5 million to Ontario in added costs that we will have to pick up because of the lack of funding from the federal government.

It's precisely to avoid this kind and this type of unilateral action that is so hurtful to the people of Ontario that we are determined to pursue a bilateral immigration agreement. It's so essential as we discuss this resolution today that we discuss these particular things that have happened in the past so we can understand why we are so concerned and why the resolution is so important today.

We need an agreement so that we can work cooperatively to establish a coordinated and properly funded approach to the settlement and integration of immigrants to Ontario.

Canada has a long-standing international image and a reputation as a country with strong humanitarian values. We take pride in our record of reaching out to people around the world. Indeed, with the exception of the people of the first nations, Canada is truly a nation of immigrants, of people who have come from every corner of the world.

1610

It's because of this that we must sit down to come up with a fair approach to how we deliver services, that we discuss this in a way with the federal government so that Ontario is treated fairly and the people who decide to choose to live in this province are treated with respect and with dignity as they would be treated if they were to go to another province in this country.

I thank you for this opportunity to discuss the resolution, to give you a few concrete examples why it's so important to discuss this resolution today and why we're pleased to be part of this discussion.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I appreciate the chance to speak on the motion and to say obviously our party is keen and interested and will ensure that we do everything we possibly can to make certain Ontario gets its fair share from the federal government. I think you'll find broad support for the motion that's before us, certainly from our caucus.

It's almost not the issue that this motion will pass. The issue is just what is the motive behind it and how is Premier Rae planning to proceed. I would say that it isn't the policy behind it, but the politics of it. I will just share with the House our concern about where the Premier may be heading with this and hope we're wrong, but just share with you why we are concerned.

I think the first thing that really got me concerned was when the federal budget came out. I think people in Ontario should recognize that the Ontario government got in the federal budget exactly what it had been planning on getting, exactly what it had been told it was going to get, exactly what were built into all of the financial numbers.

We had before us, at what we call a finance and economics committee, the ministry officials that do all the forecasting on revenue from the federal government -- by the way, all of the numbers that Premier Rae had when he made all the commitments to people around the province -- and what we got from the federal government in the budget was exactly what Premier Rae had been expecting: no surprises, dollar for dollar almost, exactly what had been expected by Premier Rae.

But what was the response from Premier Rae on it? He said, "Ontario has been kneecapped."

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Kneecapped?

Mr Phillips: "Kneecapped" was the language he used, and I found that extreme. I suddenly begin to have some questions about where the Premier is heading in terms of relationship with the federal government.

When you get from the federal government exactly what you had been expecting, when you had been told -- I gather from reading the media you'd been told privately what you were going to get -- and then to use the expression, "We were kneecapped," I think it is the first strong signal I saw that the Premier may decide for political reasons that it's great politically to get into a fight with the federal government even when they do what you want them to do and what you'd expected from them.

The second reason I express concern about the politics of this is that well over a month ago, weeks before the Premier came to the House to express his interest in proceeding with this, our caucus sent the government a letter and said, "Listen, one of the big issues in the months ahead of us is going to be our funding relationship with the federal government."

I don't think there's much doubt that over probably the last decade there have been substantial changes in the funding from the federal government. Ontario's share of the federal funding has decreased. There have been, to use the jargon we use around here, some caps on some of the funding. They have cut Ontario's funding.

We were anxious, we are anxious, to have a detailed debate about that, to get at the background of it and we said: "Listen, we are committed to ensuring we get a fair share from the federal government. We're committed to spending whatever time and effort we need to as a Legislature to look at it. We have a committee that specifically can do that."

We sent that letter well over a month ago, weeks before this resolution was even hinted at by the Premier. We haven't heard back from the government on that. We sent it in good faith to do exactly what the Premier wants us to do, and that is for the Legislature to share in ensuring that Ontario gets its fair share.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): You've got that opportunity today.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Education says we have that opportunity today. No, we don't. The opportunity we need is to go over in detail the money we get from the federal government. The opportunity we need is to spend the time and the effort to look at the arguments and the merits, to have all of the details before us, and we can then, as a legislative body, deal with it.

The third alarm bell actually went off for me in the Legislature today when, for whatever his motives are, I don't know, but it is clear --

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): You can't question his motives.

Mr Phillips: The member says I can't question the motives. I don't know why the Premier would essentially not be forthcoming with the people of Ontario. There is what's called a federal-provincial infrastructure program, Madam Speaker, that you know about. It is one where it appears there's a good level of cooperation between the federal government and the provincial government. It's one where we are getting on with some good projects, one that I think most people support. It's a good idea. It is helping jobs. But what did the provincial government do, if you can believe this?

They took the federal infrastructure money, the $253 million that the federal government is spending on the infrastructure program, took it into their pocket and then reported it as provincial spending on infrastructure. I think that's obscene. I think the people of Ontario will say: "What in the world is going on? Why is Bob Rae claiming 100% of the spending from the federal government infrastructure? Why is the provincial government taking credit for that infrastructure spending and saying, 'We are spending this money, the province is spending this money,' when it is the federal government spending the money?"

Hon Mr Cooke: It's clearly identified.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Education says it's clearly identified. The Premier said, "I was wrong," and the Premier was wrong. The Premier was dead wrong. You are playing political games. I think people in Ontario will be shocked when they find out that the federal infrastructure program, the money that the federal government is spending, is being claimed as provincial spending.

When my friends in the construction trades talked to me about this, they said: "You must be wrong, Gerry. You can't be right on this." When Bob Rae, by the way, spends our taxpayers' dollars to send this out --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: This appears to be a very important resolution brought forward by the Premier. We should have a quorum here.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Would the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

Acting Clerk Assistant (Mr Doug Arnott): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member for Scarborough-Agincourt to resume.

Mr Phillips: I go back to the point I was making when we asked to ensure that there were enough government members here for a quorum, and that is back to the political game the government's playing.

My friends in the construction trade say to me, when the provincial government says it is investing $3.8 billion to build Ontario's infrastructure, $300 million more than last year, "That can't include the federal government money, can it?" It does. It includes the federal government money in there.

1620

The reason I raise this is that the very day when the Premier proposes this motion designed to get at the federal government, the very day he does that, in the one area where the federal government and the provincial government seem to be working closely together, the Premier categorically denies he did something he did. He clearly in his own document, paid for by the taxpayers, has claimed the federal infrastructure money as his own money.

It is, at the very least, misleading the public and, at the most, the Premier today, I might say, did make me angry, because he said I was wrong when he knew -- I think he knew -- he was absolutely wrong.

So there are three examples where, as we debate this motion around the relationship between the federal government and the provincial government, the alarm bells start to go off about the politics behind this.

I understand and appreciate -- I guess I appreciate -- that perhaps the Premier knows something about polls, and perhaps it may be good politics to attack the federal government, and perhaps, as he looks down the road, that's a good idea for him.

What I think people in the province are looking for is what my colleague said, and that is a level of cooperation between levels of government, a working together, "partnerships," to use the term we used to hear from Bob Rae.

As I said before, we will be supporting the motion. We proposed weeks and weeks and weeks ago a proposal to get at this, but we've heard nothing from the government.

The area that worries me about the Premier is that I'm not sure what his view is of Canada. I used to think I knew he had a view of it. I used to think he had a strong view of it. But I have had enough experience now with the Premier changing his mind on matters of principle that I don't know where he stands on Canada any longer.

I went through the speech from the throne where Sunday shopping was a matter of principle with the NDP, the common pause day, and they changed their mind on that. Public auto was a matter of principle with the Premier, and he changed his mind on that. Gambling is a very interesting issue, because -- my colleague from St Catharines has raised this often -- where does the Premier stand on gambling?

Hon Mr Cooke: Where did Lyn Mcleod stand last Friday when she was in Windsor?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Phillips: I can recall him talking often --

Hon Mr Cooke: Quite different than what she said here.

Mr Phillips: Well, we're obviously touching a nerve end. I can recall the Premier talking often on gambling being a tax on the poor.

Hon Mr Cooke: So did Lyn about three months ago when she opposed it. Now she's in favour of it.

The Acting Speaker: Interjections are out of order.

Mr Phillips: What we now find is, the biggest source of revenue growth in the province is gambling. I understand communities love it. The casino in Windsor will be a big success. I have no doubt about that. As a matter of fact, I think there's no doubt that the Legislature will be under enormous pressure almost instantly from probably eight or nine or 10 communities around the province that see those numbers of people at the casino.

My point isn't whether that's right or wrong; it is that the Premier, Bob Rae, used to have strong principles on this, but clearly his principles can be blown with the tide of the times. He used to be the same on collective bargaining. That was a fundamental principle with the Premier.

The reason I raise all these things is that we're dealing here with the future of the country in some respects. Now, this motion isn't dealing with the future of the country, but over the next few months, and certainly over the next few years, once again the country is going to go through a very challenging period of time.

The Quebec election is coming up. If the election were held today, I gather the PQ would win the election. If that happens, we're looking at a referendum some time in the future. We're into a very delicate period of time. In Canada, we always seem to be in a delicate period of time, but it's not unfair to say that this period over the next few months, certainly the next few years, is really a crucial time for the province and the country.

The reason I say all of this is that I used to have a view of the Premier's view of Canada, but I'm not sure what his view is any longer. Furthermore, I'm not sure but that public opinion polls can't drive him one way or the other. As I say, we support the motion. The problem we have is trying to get a sense of what the politics are behind all of this.

In terms of the reform of social assistance, which is the detail of the motion, I don't think there's any doubt by virtually every member here in the Legislature that we need to look at some fairly fundamental reform of social assistance. It's our view that we are trying to have a 1990s economy with what we would describe as 1960s apparatus. That includes, by the way, the need for some fundamental reform of government. But in terms of the social assistance program, as we all know, even in good times the case load of social assistance has gone up.

One of the other things I was concerned with in the budget is that, as I pointed out today, the government is predicting that fewer jobs are going to be created in Ontario in 1994 than in 1993. The Premier said I was Dr Gloom or something like that, whereas all I was saying was, "Premier, why are you predicting in your budget fewer jobs in 1994 than in 1993?" What that means, inevitably, because more people are going to enter the labour force than jobs will be created in 1994, is that there's going to be once again a record number of people out of work in this province at the end of 1994. That's not me or my numbers, that's the government's own numbers.

The second thing the budget says is that the case load on social assistance is going to go up. I had thought the case load on social assistance was dropping this year. I thought that was the plan, I thought the government had expected that, but the budget calls for the case load on social assistance to grow in this year. Again it's not me saying that; that's what the government says. So I have no doubt that we need some fairly fundamental reform of our social assistance program.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Gerry, be a little more optimistic. Come on, smile a little.

Mr Phillips: The member says, "Be a little complimentary."

Mr Perruzza: Be more optimistic.

Mr Phillips: I am optimistic about the future of Ontario. I am pessimistic about your ability to bring us out. There's no question in my mind that the future of this province is extremely bright. The problem is, who's managing it?

We also support some fairly fundamental reform of social assistance. As my colleague said, the way we will go about it is through dialogue and cooperation and partnerships between the various levels of government. If, on the first big, cooperative program between the province and the federal government, the way this government has chosen is a sign of the future, that you've chosen to say, "Our infrastructure spending is this," but you've included all the federal numbers, I think we're getting off on the wrong foot. As I say, we are very much supportive of a substantive debate on social assistance.

I will begin to close my remarks by saying that you will see support from us on this. We are concerned primarily about how the Premier plans to deal with this issue. We now have seen, as I said before, three examples where, in our opinion, he is looking more for a fight for the sake of a fight: the "kneecapping" comment on the federal budget when he got exactly what he had been expecting from the federal government; the fact that the Premier has failed to respond to our request to deal with this, that we haven't had the courtesy even of a response yet; and the fact that the budget would have, in my opinion, the nerve to report the federal infrastructure program as provincial spending, which is totally misleading and is getting off on the wrong foot.

For all of those reasons, we'll support the motion, but we are very, very apprehensive about what the motive is behind the motion and we'll be watching carefully as the weeks and months unfold.

1630

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I wanted to speak on this motion because it brings forth a number of problems we have had in terms of provincial-federal relations.

One of the first points I wanted to talk about was in terms of the fact that this Premier, as my leader Mr Harris has pointed out, and this government have spent a great deal of their time pointing fingers at the federal government: the previous federal Conservative government, and now the present Liberal government.

It's important that when you look at item 1 of the resolution, it says: "Ontario supports the need for change and improvement in our social programs and in the fiscal and practical arrangements between the two levels of government. This reform should focus upon work, training and the needs of children."

The problem with some of our provincial-federal financing arrangements stems from the fact that the federal government, in its wisdom -- or lack of wisdom -- some time ago said, "We will pay for 50% of the social programs." When that rule was made up, there were no limits on how far a provincial government could extend the benefits, the level of benefits and the eligibility rules about who could benefit. During the 1985 to 1990 period, the former Liberal provincial government both expanded the eligibility requirements and expanded or increased the levels of assistance in a number of programs.

On February 17, 1994, on Fourth Reading, a TVO program, Robert Nixon, the former Treasurer and Deputy Premier of this province, said, and this is this year:

"About five years ago we did this [massive review of social assistance programs], we put a huge infusion, unbelievable new infusion of money under the acronym of SARC, I can't remember what it stands for...the Social Assistance Review Committee, that was strongly supported by the NDP and by Ian Scott and the Liberals of Rosedale.... So we took this big bundle of money and dumped it into the welfare program that was all distributed in the most modern and effective way. No one seems to remember that, other than of course now we expect the federal government to say, 'Okay, that is what you are doing in Ontario, so you now have to pay a larger proportion.' My sense is that our programs here are much more generous than they are in the rest of Canada."

That's what Robert Nixon, the former Deputy Premier of this province and former Treasurer, said. In other words, he is now admitting that through their, if you want to call it that, huge generosity to citizens of Ontario, he was being unreasonable or we are now being unreasonable in saying to the federal government, "You must pay 50%, regardless of how wide and far we extend the benefits."

I want to also draw a comparison here. Under our financing of education across this province, we say to various school boards, "We will support the level of funding to your school board to a certain cap," I believe around $4,200 per student. We say to the Carleton Board of Education and the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board, which I represent: "We will support funding to $4,200. If you want to enhance your programs, if you want to have more teachers, if you want to have a more diverse program, if you want to have extra curriculum development teachers etc, you have to go to your own local taxpayer and get that money." We say that as a province down to the various school boards.

If that's how we treat a government over which we have total control -- in other words, we say, "There is the spending limit, but if you go above that, 100% of the money must come from your own taxpaying sources" -- why then do we have the right to go to the federal government and say, "It doesn't matter how much we spend on this program, you're still responsible for 50% of whatever we spent."

We cannot afford to do that. We can't afford to go to the government at the federal level, which is running a deficit of $42 billion annually and over half a trillion dollars accumulated over about a 20-year period, and say, "We can decide we're going to spend an extra $300 million in a social assistance or social security program and you're expected to come up with $150 million."

What we need is for the federal government and the provincial governments to sit down and establish a national base and say: "This national base for welfare is x amount of dollars. If you, the province of Ontario, if you, the province of Quebec, if you, the province of Newfoundland, go above that, you're on your own."

Why should the federal government be responsible for a decision which is made at the provincial level? That is our responsibility here. If we want to have our welfare payments or a social security system 30% higher than the national average, it's the job of the Ontario government to go to the people of Ontario and say, "We will tax for that 30%." We can't say, "We want control of those programs," and not be responsible for the extra expenditure.

I'm also somewhat amused by the fact that this government and previous governments continue to ask the federal government to get involved in more and more programs. The fact is that every time the federal government gets involved in a program, Ontario loses, we lose. The reason we lose is that we have about 37% of the population but we pay about 43.3%, I believe is the accurate figure, of the federal tax bills.

About a year and a half ago, we had the Minister of Transportation, Mr Pouliot, encouraging the federal government to get involved in a national highway building program. I believe what happened was that there was a program thrown out on the table whereby Ontario received something like 15% of the money, and there was a great hue and cry from the government benches that this wasn't enough.

On the one hand, you go to the federal government and say, "We want you to go out and sponsor this program," and on the other hand, when we get less than 43%, the government throws up its hands and says, "We aren't getting our fair share."

We all know about the infrastructure program which the federal Liberal government came up with. It's not dealing with equalization payments; it's dealing with building of roads, bridges etc. No politician speaks against the infrastructure program because governments are spending money; they're handing out cheques in all of our communities. But I wrote to the Honourable Art Eggleton back in February of this year and I said to Mr Eggleton, "We're not getting our fair share in this program."

1640

The contribution of the federal government over the two-year period is $2 billion and we in Ontario are going to receive somewhere around $720 million of the $2 billion. You say that's a pretty big chunk; that's about 36% of the total money. The problem with us accepting that $722 million as a fair share is the fact that Ontario taxpayers are going to have to pay back $866 million. So there's a net loss to the Ontario taxpayer of $144 million. We would have been better off here in Ontario to say to the federal government: "Look, forget about the infrastructure program. We'll do our own. We'll do an $866-million infrastructure program. Don't give us your money. Don't give any money out to anybody else. We'll go it alone."

That was a net loss. As a matter of fact, the infrastructure program was a bad deal for Ontario taxpayers. We'll lose $144 million. We, as Ontario taxpayers, are going to have to pay that back to the federal government with interest. So I can understand why the other provinces are very, very supportive of the infrastructure program, because they're getting more out of the program than they're going to have to pay back.

So we've got this conundrum that we continue as provincial governments to encourage the federal government to get involved in more and more programs. We lose. We lose every time the federal government comes up and spends more money.

I also wanted to talk about the resolution. It says, "There must be no fiscal offloading from the federal government to the provinces." That's nice for Bob Rae and the New Democratic Party to say, but I would have liked to have seen part of that resolution say, "And we will not offload to municipalities or school boards," because we have seen a lot of that in the last four years. You can't have it both ways. You can't say, "We don't want the federal government to offload down on to us, yet we continue to have the right to offload down on to municipal governments and to school boards."

So I would say that the government would have a great deal more credibility if it had said in section 2 of the resolution, "We will not offload down to municipalities and to school boards."

The last point that I would like to talk about, under section 4, "Any reform must reinforce, and not undermine, Canada's record as a compassionate society." That's nice; that's motherhood and apple pie, I suppose. What I would have liked to have seen is some kind of fiscal responsibility be put with the statement. I think there's enough money already being spent in the system and I certainly believe that our taxes, both at the federal and provincial level, are high enough. Therefore, I would have liked to have seen this particular resolution have some constraints about it in terms of requiring that the compassionate society clause be done in the context of a responsible fiscal policy and that it not result in or require any increase in federal or provincial taxes or provincial or federal debt levels.

We cannot continue to expand our social security net and incur more debt. We just cannot do it, as much as we would like to be a more compassionate society. I don't think anybody would argue that we would love to help more and more people out with more and more money, but we're broke, or we're getting close to being broke. When our federal debt is half a trillion dollars and our provincial debt is climbing precariously close to $100 billion, we are indeed in deep trouble here in the province of Ontario.

I don't think that we are getting a fair deal here in Ontario from our federal government, but on the other hand, if we are to solve this problem over the long term, we must take our responsibility at the provincial level. We cannot say to the federal government, "Yes, we want the right to have all the programs, make all of the decisions about how much should be spent," and, on the other hand, "We require you to guarantee payment to us for those programs."

While we're receiving 28% of our costs with regard to our social welfare programs from the federal government under CAP, we have been the author of some of our own problems. Twenty-eight per cent reflects the fact that our social welfare programs are 30% above the national average. Therefore, in terms of what our federal government has set, or what our provincial neighbours have set as an average of what kind of help we can give to the citizens of Canada, we have chosen to go above that. Why should other people in Canada be responsible for paying for what our provincial governments have in the past and in the present chosen to seek as the levels of payment?

1650

I would like at this point, in closing, to move that the motion be amended by adding the following paragraph to clause 5:

"In the absence of federal leadership, the government of Ontario must devote its policies and priorities to restoring and maintaining Ontario's strong economic role in Confederation.

"To facilitate this, the government of Ontario should immediately implement the welfare reform component of the Common Sense Revolution document which includes: increasing the performance requirements of recipients through training, education and work programs; reviewing eligibility; eliminating fraud, abuse and poor management; and bringing Ontario's benefits closer to the national average."

The Acting Speaker: Mr Sterling, it's just one amendment you have here? Okay, thank you. Would you like to continue?

Mr Sterling: No, Madam Speaker, I will allow other members of my party to respond in the rotation.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I welcome the opportunity to add a few thoughts to this debate because I think that we've seen an interesting array of comments so far, starting with some general support for the amendment now proposed to the resolution by the third party. I want to come back and speak specifically about that amendment and outline why certainly I, and I believe people on this side of the House, will not support that amendment.

I want to go back to the resolution that was put before us earlier today by the Premier and to start by talking about what is important about this resolution: What does it do, why is it here?

We believe that it's important to allow this Legislature the opportunity to debate an important issue like this and to be able to say as a Legislature where we stand in terms of some basic principles that have to be followed as we get more seriously into discussions with other provinces, with the federal government, in the whole area of reforming our social security system.

We have said outside of this Legislature, in this Legislature -- the Premier has said this, I've said it, other ministers and other members of this government have said it and the resolution says it -- that we support very strongly the need for change and the need for improvement in social programs.

We believe very fundamentally that the focus of that reform has to be helping to reconnect people to work through job creation and through training opportunities and has to be also to address the needs of children, because we know that many children are among the people who live in poverty in this province and throughout Canada.

It is important that as we proceed in this discussion, we go into it in the kind of cooperative spirit that we have tried and we will continue to try, as a province, to put forward.

I know other members have spoken about what the motivation is behind this resolution: Is it to try to get into a fight with the federal government? Well, quite frankly, if what we wanted to do was to get into a fight with the federal government, we could have taken other positions. We could have simply said, "Federal government, until you deal with the issue of 'fair share' for Ontario, we won't come to the table and talk about any of these things."

But we haven't taken that position. We have said we believe very fundamentally that the issue of how not the provincial government but how Ontarians are treated is one of the fundamental issues that has to be addressed. We certainly have said this to the previous Conservative government in Ottawa and we have said it and will continue to say it to the present Liberal government in Ottawa.

We would rather have seen the federal government moving on that issue now, rather than saying, as it has said, "Yes, we think you may have some legitimacy in your complaints, Ontario, but we can't deal with that issue until we go through this whole reform process." So what we've said is, "Fine, then we will continue to put that issue in front of you and we will continue to participate in the process, because" --

Mr Stockwell: I've heard this before, four years ago.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Mr Silipo: -- "we believe that this issue has to be addressed." But in addition to dealing with that very important issue, the process of discussing the content of those reforms has to be done in a way that takes very much into account the work that we as a province have done, the work indeed that other provinces have done, work which I think has already been acknowledged very clearly by the federal government in saying that it acknowledges that we and other provinces were much further ahead than it was in its own thinking about this. Indeed, the process has to be one of genuine federal-provincial discussions, decision-making and negotiations, and not one of the federal government simply saying: "Here's what we're going to do. Take it or leave it."

The reality, and I come back to some of the points that the member for Carleton was saying, of the way in which this country operates is that under the Constitution of Canada there are very clearly some areas in which the federal government is responsible and there are other areas in which very clearly the provinces are responsible. I think it behooves all of us, as politicians and parliamentarians at whatever level we are, to not forget that we have, as a provincial government, certain powers and certain responsibilities. I want to come back to that point as well.

What have we done? We have put forward very clearly, not just in these recent discussions that have begun with the new federal government in Ottawa but certainly going back to last summer, when we outlined, through Turning Point, the vision that we have for the changes that have to come about, to our social assistance system in particular.

We have said and we continue to believe very strongly that what we need to be doing is to fundamentally change the social assistance system in this province to do, essentially, two very important things: to help to reconnect people back into the workforce through a variety of supports and a variety of training programs and other initiatives and other supports; and to provide support for children through what we had envisioned doing, the Ontario child income program.

We aren't going to be able to proceed as we had wanted to with the Ontario child income program because of the lack of federal participation; because of their unwillingness to participate in that financially; because, as they have indicated to us very clearly in their recent federal budget, we can expect across the country next year a cut of $1.5 billion in the whole social security system funding. That is likely to affect us. Therefore, what they have said is that they're not interested in participating at this point in rectifying some of the injustices of the lack of funding under OSIP or through OSIP.

They have indicated that they have some interest in participating with us in Job Link, and we await with great interest the response in the form of a cheque. I note that today is May 11. We sent a proposal to them on April 11, as it turns out. We are still waiting to hear what the response will be in terms of what real dollars will flow to us. But we take the word that I've heard from Minister Axworthy and others that they are interested in participating with us, and we await, as I say, with great interest to see the extent to which they will participate with us financially.

But we have not waited until the federal government has come through for us to take action. We know that already through the kinds of initiatives we have undertaken that we are continuing to provide support and assistance to people to be able to re-enter the workforce as well as continuing to provide support for children in a variety of ways.

We have, as has been noted in this Legislature many a time, the Jobs Ontario Training program, which has created to date 46,000 jobs and which is geared mainly to people on social assistance and people who have exhausted their unemployment insurance eligibility. That is saving the people of Ontario about $190 million in social assistance costs that have been saved through that program and through the creation of those real jobs.

We also have on STEP, the supports to employment program, about 100,000 people who are on social assistance who are earning some dollars through part-time and in some cases full-time jobs and therefore who are also through that process saving taxpayers and saving all of us additional dollars that would otherwise have to be spent to support them on social assistance. We need to do more in those areas to better market that program, to do more to support people through Jobs Ontario Training.

Job Link is one of the vehicles, and I'll be happy to outline a few weeks from now, I hope, some of the details of that initiative and how it will also further assist people on social assistance to be able to make the exit from the dependency of social assistance to greater independence and to be able to take care of themselves and their families.

But the way we need to do that is through those kinds of supportive steps and not through the kinds of things that we hear from the third party and its Common Sense Revolution. It's interesting to hear the words that have come through today in the amendment that has just been placed, because while they have cleaned up the language a little bit, they talk in the amendment about bringing Ontario's benefits closer to the national average.

They don't point out that what that means are cuts: severe cuts in the rates, in the benefit levels that are being provided today to social assistance recipients, in the neighbourhood of 16% to 22%. You know, Madam Speaker, who will be the hardest hit by those cuts. It will in fact be sole-support parents, the people that they say they want to support the most.

I think it's a little bit odd that we hear on the one hand the support that the third party wants to provide to people in need, and on the other hand them being prepared to make these significant cuts to the poorest people in our society. That is not the approach that we believe needs to happen. That is not to say that we do not believe there isn't anything that needs to be done or that indeed we simply need to wait until the federal government comes forward and says, "Here is the solution." If we were going to wait for it, we could be waiting a long, long time.

1700

What we have done is said we need to continue to support initiatives that will help people to re-enter the workforce. We need to continue to support initiatives like child care to which, I might say, we have continued to add, year after year, more and more spaces in the system, more and more dollars. We will add in this fiscal year $60 million to child care funding in this province over last year.

We will continue to do our job, but we will also continue to say that the process of discussion with the federal government, with other provinces, has to be very much a joint process. We await with great interest the next steps in the process. We await with great interest any semblance of opposition from the federal government, because so far we haven't had much of one.

That has been part of the problem, I think, that we've had so far in this process. We have said, "Here are some clear thoughts, directions, that we would like to move in." What we need is the federal government to acknowledge that those directions are ones they either agree with or don't agree with, or for them to put forward their own positions about what changes they want to bring about.

We're not against the idea, in fact we welcome the idea, of sitting down and continuing to talk about what kind of streamlining could happen in the variety of programs that we are responsible for and that the federal government is responsible for. But again, in order for that to happen, we need to see some clearer positions than we've seen so far from the federal government.

We await with interest those kinds of positions because it is that process that will allow us to be able to sit around the table with other ministers from other provinces and indeed to engage people in this province and throughout the rest of Canada in those significant discussions about the future of programs.

Although clearly I have focused my comments on the area of social assistance, there are many other areas that are affected by these discussions, and those are equally as important to be addressed in this kind of cooperative fashion. There are many more things I could say and would want to say, but I appreciate the opportunity to add a few thoughts in this process and in this debate.

The bottom line for us is we want the process to go on. We want the discussion around the reform of the social security system in this country to take place; we think it's an important discussion that has to take place, but we believe that in doing that, we have to be clearly focused on what we want to see happen and what we want to see that process address. That has to be to help people to reconnect back to the workforce, to address the needs of children, to ensure that as we go through that process, it is not used as an exercise to offload costs on to the provincial taxpayers, and that all Canadians be treated equally, no matter where they live in Canada.

That is not in contradiction to what we also believe, which is that there has to be a way for us to continue, again as the preamble to the resolution says, to support the equalization program which is set out in the Constitution of this country, because that we also support.

We think that is a separate issue from the support for social programs, in this case, social assistance programs, child care programs and other services that need to continue to be supported on an equal footing throughout the country from the federal government.

That is something we believe needs to happen and that is why we continue to stress very strongly that the process has to be a genuine process of discussion, debate and negotiations between the federal government and the various provincial and territorial governments.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this particular debate today, although I think it's an unnecessary debate in this House and largely a political exercise. Certainly, if anybody looks at this resolution, it's quite obvious that people are going to support the resolution; there's no question about that. There's nothing new in that at all. The Premier has stated this position on many occasions.

What this debate is about is politics. It's not a rallying cry for members of the Legislature, it's just another opportunity for Bob Rae to bash somebody else other than himself, other than his own government. Members have seen me hold up numbers in this House from time to time, rather than stating who he is bashing on a particular day, but we've heard the Premier. One day it's the federal government's fault, the next day it's the previous government's fault, or it's the Conservative government's fault, or it's the previous Conservative government in Ottawa's fault, or it's big business or it's the banks or it's somebody else, but it's never the provincial government. And nobody's buying it. Unfortunately, nobody's buying it. If you talk to people out there, they're not buying it.

The opportunity is there for the Premier to play a very constructive role. Instead, he and the ministers use every excuse they can to bash another level of government.

I used to sit on a municipal council, and I can recall that municipal councils often used to engage -- and still do to a certain extent, but less today -- in bashing the provincial government, which was the next level up for them. What I find when you talk to people today is that they no longer buy that. The local levels of government have been really squeezed by this government, have really had the screws tightened against them by this government, not because it wants to be mean but because it says it doesn't have any money, and even when they complain bitterly, you find the population doesn't rally to their side as quickly. The population is saying: "We understand there are new circumstances out there, that the provincial government doesn't have much money. We may not like the way they're managing things, but we understand that we can't have everything we would like to have. We're still going to ask for certain things, but we may not have those delivered."

The government, if it wanted to find a case of one level of government doing in another level of government -- offloading, downloading -- should simply look at its relationship with boards of education. I well recall that this government was going to have 60% of the cost of education paid for by the provincial government. That number keeps sliding down each year. I understand why it's doing that, but that's a good example.

Yet the Premier doesn't mention that very often. When you're dealing with municipalities and cutting back their grants, or with colleges and universities, which are looking for more money to carry out their responsibilities, the province says, "We're sorry, but you're out of luck." That somehow is all right, but it is not all right for the federal government to do that to a province.

I would like to mention something I find rather interesting. The Premier is engaging in something else I thought he never would. I expect certain people in our society will, I expect certain political people will, but it's what's called Quebec-bashing. It's very popular. If I want to get some popular response in my riding, I can take a run at Quebec and talk about what Quebec has that Ontario doesn't have or that some other province doesn't have. That's good, streetwise politics. I know there are people who play that game, but I never expected Premier Rae to be one of those people.

I stood en masse with the Liberal caucus when we were in government and gave a resounding round of applause to opposition leader Bob Rae when he made an extremely eloquent and impassioned speech in this House, which was very conciliatory, which was very constructive, which was very helpful, when we were dealing with matters of national concern. He always rose to the occasion, and I made sure I was in the House to hear those speeches. So it's sad for me now to see him reduced to whining and complaining about the federal government and bashing Quebec whenever he can.

You see, he never mentions British Columbia or Alberta, which are in the same circumstance as Ontario, or he never mentions Saskatchewan or Manitoba or the maritime provinces; it's always Quebec, because it sounds better politically when you can bash Quebec. It has for some period of time.

I'm not saying it isn't smart politics. I'm not saying that. If he wants to be written down in our history books as a smart politician, by gosh, that's smart politics. But it's not the kind of leadership I had hoped for from Premier Rae, who I respected as a member of this House over the years for playing a constructive role.

I suspect Premier Rae will now pick a fight with Jacques Parizeau. If he were elected, he would certainly want to pick a fight with Jacques Parizeau. That would be great. That would be a diversion of attention from things going on in Ontario. Or Lucien Bouchard: There's a good person to pick a fight with.

What it is is a diversion of attention from problems over which he has direct control, and that is what this is all about. The resolution is all about politics, and that is what I'm addressing this afternoon.

What people in our country, in my view, are looking for is for governments to work together. They're tired of one level of government bashing another level of government. I seldom agree with Ralph Klein and many of his policies, but one statement he made -- I think he was in Ontario at the time -- was a suggestion that the Premier of Ontario not spend all of his time fighting with the federal government but address his own problems. More and more, that's what people are looking for us to do, not simply to look for somebody else to bash.

I find it most unfortunate that Premier Rae has decided to embark upon that course of action. I can't imagine a Stephen Lewis, I can't imagine a Donald C. MacDonald, I can't imagine many of the leaders of the New Democratic Party over the years who have denounced that kind of politics enjoying seeing the Premier of the province of Ontario engaging in it. The Premier seems to think he can insult another level of government, can berate another level of government, can blame another level of government incessantly, and then somehow receive from that level of government some favourable consideration.

I will support this resolution, as I think all members do, because all of us, in a parochial sense, are elected to represent people in our province. That's why I think you'll see universal support in this House for that particular resolution.

Ontario has always played a very positive role at the national table. Indeed, when Premier Peterson was dealing with intergovernmental affairs, he invited then-opposition leader Bob Rae to participate, and it was a positive piece of participation at that time. As I've said, go into the Hansard, go into the records of the speeches in this House and read some of those speeches. They read extremely well. You can tell it's a man of integrity and eloquence speaking in those speeches.

That's why it's more out of sadness than anger that I observe Premier Rae now, because he's in very difficult economic and political circumstances, engaging in bashing another level of government. I suspect if it were an NDP government in Ottawa, we wouldn't have this happening. There would be some disputes, but we wouldn't see the degree of fed-bashing we see today, and that is most unfortunate.

I suspect, as I look around the House, that all of us will be supporting this resolution. But let's make no mistake about it: This is all about politics, this is all about finding an enemy outside, and not about the substance of this particular resolution. The Premier has already stated these things, and opposition parties have said that in a general sense they agree with that thrust, and certainly I would make the same case to any federal politician I would encounter as well.

I had an opportunity to watch Sunday Edition last Sunday, with Mike Duffy interviewing Bob Rae.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): It was a love-in.

Mr Bradley: I thought it was Murray Weppler interviewing Bob Rae. I like Mike Duffy. He's one of my favourite commentators. He's really good most of the time, but I watched as he played what we call lob ball, slow-pitch. It was almost as though the questions were faxed from Queen's Park to Ottawa and were thrown out just that way. I couldn't believe it because, as I say, Mike Duffy is such a good commentator. The Premier obviously has been able to get his message to at least one person in this country, but I suspect it didn't play with anybody else.

The member for Mississauga West is going to provide some incisive and eloquent remarks, in his usual subtle manner, in just a few minutes, so I'm going to yield the floor to him shortly. But we will be supporting this, and we will know that all we're dealing with is a political exercise this afternoon, of little consequence and little meaning.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): There's no question that when we look at this resolution -- in fact, we don't need to look at this resolution to know we have a problem with our social security system. I must say, when I read this resolution, we have reached a new low in fed-bashing.

I see the minister responsible for dealing with our social security system is in the House today. We've been waiting for some time for him to come forward with reforms. It appears that, as of today, the best he can do -- or through his Premier, at least -- is to come forward with this type of resolution, which simply puts the blame at the feet of the federal government.

I've written down some of the comments the Premier made in his opening comments in introducing this resolution, and on many of them, there's no question. He says, "There's an obligation of the Premier of Ontario to speak for the people of Ontario." There's no question it is, and he does have an obligation to try and work out arrangements with not only the federal government but the municipal governments on all the many problems we have in this country, but simply to attack the federal government in this way is not an appropriate way to solve many of our problems.

He then says -- and this is the Premier -- he's looking for signs from the federal government to improve the system. Well, again, I think it's incumbent upon this minister who is now in the House to bring forward his plans.

We clearly have a problem. All three parties acknowledge that we have a problem. Yet the best we seem to be able to do is to attack the federal government for not providing the funding that this government, the NDP government, feels it should be provided.

There's one issue that has been brought up over and over, and that's principle 2 of the five principles the Premier's put forward in his resolution. That says that, "There must be no fiscal offloading from the federal government to the provinces."

I can't believe the gall in this type of resolution when you criticize the federal government for not providing the funding that you think is due to you for the very generous social system that we already have.

You look at the initiatives that have come forward in this province and the cutbacks that have been made to the various partners, whether they be municipalities, school boards, hospitals. I think it's important that we look at some of those. I know some of these matters aren't on the subject of social assistance, the social security system, but it is an example, some of the examples this government has made with respect to offloading, dealing with principle 2 in the resolution, with respect to the municipalities.

The blue box program this fall will be mandatory for all municipalities over 5,000. The government simply has set aside the municipal recycling support program for 1993-94, which was about $45 million, and the province really has no idea what it's going to cost. As of this fall, municipalities will be stuck with the bill, notwithstanding the 10-cent tax on beer cans, which is approximately $50 million each year, and the environmental levy, which is approximately $35 million each year: a total of $85 million which is going into the consolidated revenue fund, and now, of course, this government has the gall to say the municipalities will be responsible for the blue box program completely; and that, of course, after the OMMRI organization is cutting the topping-off grants it's been making. Clearly, the recycling issue is in a problem with respect to the municipalities. They're going to be expected to carry the ball.

The issue of employment equity, which has been a big part of this government's plan in the last couple of years, has also been foisted on the municipalities. It's costing millions of dollars to the municipalities around this province to implement the employment equity program. Yet that was done without consultation with the municipalities. It was simply the big hand of the NDP slapping on the municipalities and saying, "You're going to have to put forward this program." While the city of Toronto was threatening to close pools, skating rinks and recreation centres to save $1.7 million, it maintained an employment equity office which cost more than $1 million.

So that's what you're forcing, and you're saying, "Do this or else." Those are the very words that the Premier said in his opening remarks with respect to this resolution in criticizing the federal government: "Do this or else." But that's the very thing you're doing to the municipalities and the school boards of this province.

1720

Last summer Haileybury council voted to cut four full-time firefighters because of provincial government cutbacks and the decision not to relocate 200 Ministry of Natural Resources jobs. In Sarnia one of five firehalls had to be closed repeatedly in rotation to save money after the city council was forced to cut overtime. Why? Because of the offloading by the provincial government on to the municipalities around this province.

Metro Toronto lost 94 police officers last summer, and it didn't have the money to fill 300 vacant staff positions. The NDP government has ordered the police to rearm themselves with new firearms after a safety ruling by the labour board, but it hasn't offered the municipalities the money to pay for these new weapons. Again, you're setting standards and expecting the municipalities to foot the bill.

Junior kindergarten, of course, is a favourite topic that's been raised around this province with respect to education, and you're mandating it. You're saying, "Do it or else, or we're going to cut back on other grants to the municipalities." That threat has actually been levied by the Ministry of Education. It's been rammed down the throats of municipalities without regard to the ability of the school boards to pay for these new programs, all of which is going to have an effect on the property taxpayer of this province.

NDP eligibility enhancements, which have contributed to rising welfare case loads and have contributed to greater expenditures to municipalities for the general welfare assistance program: In 1993-94 municipalities in Ontario were responsible for 16% of general welfare expenditures. Again, I emphasize the gall of this Premier in saying there must be no fiscal offloading from the federal government to the provinces when you're doing more than we would ever dream of with respect to the partners.

The issue of court security in this province: In my own riding of Dufferin-Peel, the town of Orangeville, because the court system is in the town of Orangeville, is responsible for court security, even though the courts serve a wider area beyond the legal boundaries of the town of Orangeville. Again, more offloading on to municipalities of a cost they simply can't afford.

That has to deal with the subject --

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): So you are going to cut them another 20%.

Mr Tilson: I'm simply telling you, you've got a lot of nerve coming forward and saying no offloading from the federal government to the provincial government when you're far worse than any government, whether provincial or federal, has ever been in this province.

I can tell you that when you're saying that the issue with respect to this subject is not really whether we're receiving our fair share. Is that the issue, or, as our leader has said, is it the whole mismanagement of our social assistance program?

We're waiting, Mr Minister, for you to come forward with your program. Don't come to this House and put it at the feet of the federal government, saying it's their fault. You know there are ways of dealing with it, yet you're simply doing nothing. Your solution is to blame the federal government, and that's totally unacceptable. It doesn't matter whether it's a Liberal government or a Progressive Conservative government. It makes no difference to you. You're simply saying you can't deal with it. You can't deal with the problem so all you're doing is simply blaming the federal government.

It gets to the other issue, of course, as far as spending is concerned. The member for Carleton read a quotation that was given by a former Liberal Treasurer of this province, and I must read it again because some members haven't heard it. It had to do with a recent interview on TVO program called Fourth Reading and it was made by the former Ontario Liberal Finance minister and Treasurer, Bob Nixon.

Mr Stockwell: A fine guy.

Mr Tilson: Yes, he was a fine guy, but the fact of the matter is this is what he said regarding reform and the social security system. This is what he said on February 17, 1994, on the program called Fourth Reading:

"About five years ago we did this [massive review of social assistance programs], we put a huge infusion, unbelievable new infusion, of money under the acronym of SARC, I can't remember what it stands for...Social Assistance Review Committee, that was strongly supported by the NDP and by Ian Scott and the Liberals of Rosedale.... So we took this big bundle of money and dumped it into the welfare program that was all distributed in the most modern and effective way. No one seems to remember that, other than of course now we expect the federal government to say, 'Okay, that is what you're doing in Ontario, so you now have to pay a larger proportion.' My sense is that our programs here are much more generous than they are in the rest of Canada."

That was said by the former Liberal Treasurer as recently as February of this year. I think his statement that the Liberals took this big bundle of money and dumped it into the social welfare program is not only indicative of their lax approach to expenditure policy, but they took a big bundle of money and dumped it into other things like the issue that's coming forward with the member for Mississauga West against the Minister of Housing on the whole subject of non-profit housing.

It was made without thinking and now the poor minister, who's here now, doesn't know what to do with this policy that was set up by a former government. I'm surprised he isn't attacking them. Of course, he's chosen to attack the federal Liberal government. I wait with keen interest for the reforms that are going to be put forward by the minister. They may or may not come. My guess is they won't come. My guess is he has no idea how to solve this problem.

I would recommend that members of the House look at the proposals that have been put forward by Mr Harris, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, all of which he has dealt with in his booklet on the topic of welfare reform. When the Progressive Conservative Party was last in government, there were more than half a million less people receiving welfare than there are today.

The proposals of our party in a booklet that Mr Harris has put out include the proposal that welfare benefits in Ontario be set "at 10% above the national average of all other provinces." For seniors and persons with disability, current benefit rates would not be affected. Recipients would be allowed "to earn back the difference between the current rate and the new, lower rate without penalty and without losing their eligibility."

Then the program goes into a number of other things which I'd recommend that you look at. My time does not allow me to deal with the whole issue of the Learning and Earning and Parenting program, the topic of homework assistance centres, child support crackdown and other such matters dealing with welfare reform, all of which I would hope the minister would look at if he is still looking at the proposal for welfare reform in this province.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm delighted to have an opportunity to speak in support of the motion put forward by the Premier. Let me say to the members opposite who have described this as fed-bashing or as whining, that nothing could be further from the truth.

This resolution -- and I appreciate the fact that having characterized it as "bashing," some members are at least going to support it -- is speaking up for the people of Ontario, speaking up, let me point out, at a time when Ontario is represented in the federal House by a majority of over 90 members of one party who are strangely silent when it comes to speaking up for the best interests of Ontario and, if not us, who at this point in time?

Ontario is firmly committed, as a member of the Canadian federation, to living up to its responsibilities in Ontario and always has been. Part of those responsibilities include providing equalization payments to Ottawa for distribution to less well-off provinces. That has always been a fact of our federation and certainly one that we support.

We also understand that the federal government has debt problems and has to take whatever steps it can to reduce its debt on behalf of all Canadians, just as we have done here on behalf of the people of Ontario. But we also firmly believe that federal-provincial cost-sharing programs are a partnership. They were created jointly by the federal government and by the provinces, and both levels of government should have a say in how those programs are delivered. In a true partnership one partner never takes unilateral action at the expense of the other.

Publicly funded health care is probably the most successful public policy ever introduced in Canada. As New Democrats, we all on this side take enormous pride in the fact that it would not have been introduced without the actions of the NDP government or CCF government in the province of Saskatchewan. But it was introduced and the federal government played a key leadership role in introducing it nationally.

1730

The Canada Health Act was passed on the assumption that there were two equal partners and that the costs would be shared equally between those partners. Recent actions by Ottawa have begun to call into question that assumption. That's why a debate of this nature today is so very important for the people of Ontario.

Federal health care dollars come to the provinces through the established programs financing fund, along with money to help pay for post-secondary education. Since 1982 the federal government has introduced six unilateral changes to the EPF funding. These changes have reduced federal transfers to the provinces for health care and education by billions of dollars. They have cost the province of Ontario alone about $18 billion, money we would have spent on post-secondary education or on health care. In this fiscal year alone Ontario's total losses in this area will be $2.9 billion.

These federal cutbacks have been carried out without any consultation with the province, a province that we thought was an equal partner in these programs. Certainly they've been carried out without the consent of any of the partners. I believe those changes have been carried out in a way that is tremendously unfair to the people of Ontario.

The federal government makes these changes and has the responsibility for sharing the costs of health care, but Ottawa does not deliver health care; we do. When Ottawa cuts $1 billion from our health care budget, it does not have to deal with the consequences of those cuts to hospitals, to health care centres, to communities throughout the province; we do. When Ottawa extends patent protection to the patent drug manufacturers at a cost to this province of over $1 billion over 10 years, it doesn't have to deal with the consequences of that; we do here in Ontario.

The people of Ontario feel both resentment and anger after a decade of mistreatment at the hands of the federal government. We've been forced to respond to those federal cuts.

That means operating the programs with less money here in Ontario and with less money in Ontario than is available in other provinces to run the same programs. What we've had to do is try to make do with less and to do better with less.

Let me point out that Ontario and our government have rejected the approach that some other provinces have taken, especially the province of Alberta, which has taken a slash-and-burn approach to cutting back on services. Perhaps that's the kind of revolution that members of the third party are suggesting should take place here in Ontario. We categorically reject that approach.

In 1990 our government recognized the need to make changes in the way in which we deliver health care, not simply from the point of view of containing costs but in order to deliver better-quality programs and to deliver programs in a way that promoted good health and the prevention of disease, as well as improved quality in the provision of services that treat disease. We have done that.

During the 1990s health care costs in this province rose 10% a year. The people of this province know we can't continue to do that. The people of this province know the $17 billion we spend on health care is sufficient to provide good health care services, but we have to spend it better, we have to spend it more wisely.

Only by doing that can we afford to increase programs, as our government has done, in the areas where improvement is needed: in the expansion of cancer care, for which I announced a $15-million increase last year; in the expansion of dialysis treatment, which members of this House have had a great deal of interest in; in the expansion of long-term care.

Let me remind the members of this House that our government is committed to broadly expanding funding for both institutions and community-based services to serve the needs of the elderly and the people with disabilities, a $600-million expansion over a period of six years, and much of that money has already been put into the system.

We're only doing that because we are working with other elements of the health care system to improve the way in which they deliver services. We're taking advantage of the improvements that have been made in hospitals by decreasing the length of stay and by providing services more efficiently, to reinvest the savings they make in the other needs that the people of this province have identified.

We have made enormous progress in changing the health care system and in expanding and improving the way in which we deliver programs in the past three years. We are committed to continuing to do that, whether it is by avoiding fraud and managing the system better -- and I announced the introduction of a new health care card just last month -- or whether it's in expanding our ability to review the way in which the providers expend service, use OHIP, and putting in place ways of monitoring that better. We understand the need to do that. We understand the need to manage the system better so we can afford to maintain it in the future.

Our universally accessible, affordable health care system is something that defines us as Ontarians, something we are committed to maintaining for the people of this province, not getting into the kind of two-tier system my friends on the right would suggest when they talk about user fees, when they talk about allowing the private sector to deliver health care services. That is not what this government is ever prepared to see happen.

We believe that in order to protect our health care services we must have from the federal government an equitable transfer of the funds that the people of Ontario have a right to expect. We object to getting only 29 cents in social assistance dollars while others get 50 cents. We object to getting only 27% of federal training money when we have 38% of the national workforce. We will not forget the discrepancies in federal funding for new Canadians. Only when those discrepancies are addressed will Ontario be able to deliver the kinds of services the people of this province deserve, need and want.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member's time has expired. The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this resolution. I find somewhat interesting the lack of drama that surrounds what should be considered a very significant debate. The fact that the Premier spoke and left and is apparently in his office, not concerned about --

Hon Mrs Grier: He's out in the municipalities to explain the problems we have.

Mr Mahoney: Well, it's this Premier who has come out and said all kinds of things are wrong. It's a resolution of the first minister in this place, yet there doesn't appear to be any level of urgency. It's really rather interesting. It leads me to arrive at the conclusion that other of my colleagues have made in this place --

Mr White: Where is your leader? Why is she the only leader not in the House?

Mr Mahoney: Just settle down. You had an opportunity to speak. If you thought this was so important, why didn't you go to your whip and tell him you wanted to talk in support of the Premier's resolution?

Others have suggested that this is nothing more than cheap politics. I would suggest it is classic cheap politics. It's a government that is obviously in disarray, having recently just announced a budget that, to quote my colleague -- the member for St George-St David gave a description of the recent budget that was very good. He said, "In this budget there is nothing for everyone." I thought that was rather appropriate. We have a budget that's been put out here that, as he said, has nothing for everyone in the province, and so the government's trying to deflect criticism away, trying to say to the people of Ontario, "Let's talk about everything that's wrong with the federal government."

Then, just to prove that this is nothing more than cheap politics, we have the third party introducing an amendment saying, "In the absence of federal leadership...." Isn't that amazing? Six months into the mandate of a new majority government, we have the people who brought you the GST, the people who believe in going south of the border to do their shopping, standing up and saying there is a lack of leadership at the federal level, and putting in an amendment, something to do with their American revolution document on workfare. I don't know what it's all about.

At a time in this place when we should be understanding what the government's agenda is, when my House leader and I attend weekly meetings and are told every single Thursday morning that we will receive a list of the government's agenda, will get a list of the items to be debated and the agenda in this place, what do we do? We take an entire afternoon to talk about a resolution where the Premier can go on kicking the province of Quebec and the federal government.

1740

Why don't we deal with the business we can actually do something about? To the Minister of Education: Why don't you bring in a bill so we can debate it in this place? To the Minister of Labour: Why don't you introduce your amendments to the Workers' Compensation Board so we can put them on the table and debate them? That's what the people want to talk about. They don't want to talk about some political, ineffectual, unimportant, insignificant resolution, so insignificant --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Simcoe West, you're not in your seat. The member for Etobicoke West, you're not in your seat. Order, please.

Mr Mahoney: I don't know who's in their seat, but in any event, it makes it rather obvious to me that all this is just an attempt to waste a legislative day in this place when we could be getting on with some other reforms and the changes that need to be dealt with in the province of Ontario.

I don't know where all this stuff comes from. No fiscal offloading: they want to have cooperation between the federal government and the province. What motherhood and apple pie is this? Of course you do. Why didn't you say that to your transfer partners when you brought in the social contract?

Hon Mr Cooke: We did.

Mr Mahoney: You did not. Why didn't you listen to the municipalities that came forward and said: "We've got alternatives. Why don't you listen to our alternatives and let us find the money within our own budget, and we'll find the savings for you?" You rejected their proposals and unilaterally foisted upon your transfer agencies your view of how the world should unfold, and you have the unmitigated gall to stand up and demand --

I heard somebody over there say, "This isn't political; we just want to talk." If all you want to do is talk, I'll give you the Prime Minister's phone number in case you don't have it. You can simply call Ottawa and say: "We want to talk. We've got some concerns. We'd like to discuss them." No, you've got to come up with some political resolution that will do absolutely nothing for the people in the province of Ontario, who are withering under the weight of carrying this government in your ineptitude and your financial penalties that you continue to foist upon them. You stand up and say there are no tax increases at the same time as we're debating taxes that will increase taxes to corporations by $100 million, that will increase fees around the province by $45 million.

It's delightful to see the Minister of Transportation, with his $66-million revenue increase in photo-radar. The Minister of Health, who spoke, should talk to you, because she wants to figure out how to inexpensively put photographs on the health cards. I have an idea: Use photo-radar. It's cheap. You might only get the back of the head as they go flying by, but you can identify it and put their licence number on it and save a lot of money. Use photo-radar. There's an ingenious idea for you to save money.

Let's talk about the realities. The realities are that this is a political resolution, and the Tories' amendment is nonsense and is a political resolution just like their American Revolution, which is all nonsense. And you're not putting forward anything, any kind of common sense that would say we want to find a way to do things better in this province, and there are all kinds of opportunities to do that.

Bob Rae is saying, in essence, "Do what I say, not what I do." That's what I hear. He looks in the mirror and says: "This can't be my problem. This must be somebody else's problem. I'm Captain Ontario." I even saw him with his leather jacket with "Ontario" on the back. It looks wonderful. "I'm Captain Ontario. Here I am. I'm going to save the taxpayers of the province of Ontario from these horrible people in Ottawa and from the impact of these separatists in Quebec. I, Bob Rae, am Captain Ontario." If he thinks anybody is going to be fooled by that kind of nonsense, he'd better look in the mirror again.

The reality in looking in the mirror is that he could recognize that Ontario had its only balanced budget in 25 years in the year ending March 31, 1990, six months before Bob Rae became the Premier of this province. Since then, the four Bob Rae-Captain Ontario-Floydian budgets have spent approximately 25% more money than has been raised and the provincial debt has more than doubled to over $90 billion.

Why doesn't he put a resolution to somehow figure out a way to deal with how we're going to pay the $90 billion, maybe even $100 billion, in debts that will be the legacy of this particular government?

They think that the people out there are stupid, you know that? This Premier and this party think that the people of the province of Ontario are stupid. Let me tell you, they're not. They know that you guys are "in the same boat now," to quote Mr Rae's song, and you're sinking in a sea of red ink. You are out of control financially and you're simply trying to pretend that some brand-new government with six months in office is somehow the problem here. The third party, with nine years in office, is trying to suggest that all of a sudden there is a lack of leadership at the federal level.

You would find it hard to believe, after my critical speech, that I find myself forced to vote for this terrible resolution, because it's nothing but motherhood and cheap politics.

Mr Stockwell: Let's just read the resolution. At the end it comes down to the "therefore, be it resolved" sections. Number 2, "There must be no fiscal offloading from the federal government to the provinces." This is somewhat motherhood.

"There must be no discriminatory treatment against Canadians living in Ontario, and the existing discrimination must stop.

"Any reform must reinforce, and not undermine, Canada's record as a compassionate society."

That does hit the tickeroo, Mr Speaker.

"Any reform must be the product of genuine federal-provincial negotiations, and joint decision-making, and not the result of unilateral federal action."

It is motherhood; there's no doubt about it. It reminds one of those days when you were sitting on council and there wasn't really a full agenda and someone would bring in a notice of motion. Those notices of motion used to say, "Isn't the provincial government terrible? We're not getting our fair share of the revenue. Let's pass a motion unanimously and send it to every other municipality in the province and have them endorse it and then send it on to the province," like anybody read it.

So it's similar to that, much the same, I guess, as we've become in this Legislature sort of the largest special-interest group. We're the largest special-interest group here today and our special-interest group's resolution today is: "Here's what we're going to whine to the federal government about: You don't give us enough money. Go out and borrow more and send it to us or else tax the people of Ontario more because disproportionately more comes from Ontario, then collect it and send it to us and go further in debt."

This doesn't make any sense, to tell levels of government: "You're not borrowing enough and you're not far enough in debt. Go out and borrow more and send it to us and let us spend it and allow us to run up our $10-billion deficit higher."

I suppose what it comes down to is they left out a few of the phrases here. After number 5 they should have said, "And be it resolved that the federal government ensure the Toronto Maple Leafs win the Stanley Cup," and "That all crime must stop," and number 8, "There must be sufficient sun and rain in this growing season to satisfy all farmers." That's about as realistic as it comes down to as to whether or not these are going to be adopted.

We've seen the Premier in the last few, short years -- I guess he was referred to as being in his Captain Canada mode when he was in opposition, in protecting Canada and fighting for the rights of all Canadians and the constitutional debates and his front-and-centre approach and his attitude during those times. He basically put on his Captain Canada cape.

Now, because he's getting close to an election and he's very low in the polls, he's decided to become Captain Ontario. There's little political mileage right now in being Captain Canada and if he ever hopes to resurrect this government, he's got to put on a Captain Ontario cape. The way his political career seems to be heading, maybe after the election we can assume he'll put on his block captain cape and he'll become block captain for the Neighbourhood Watch program on his street, because that's about as opportunistic as he's going to get with respect to this particular program.

1750

I think it's almost shameful that we in this province have been reduced to debating resolutions put forward by the Premier that speak to nothing more than the federal government and asking, begging, whining about the transfer payments. The transfer payment situation has always been this way. It will always be this way. I don't care who they elect, whether it's a Liberal government or an NDP government federally; the transfer payments are always going to be disproportionately allotted around the country.

I ask the members opposite, what difference does the federal government take in allotting the transfer payments to provinces than what you do with transfer payments to municipalities? I ask you, do you believe that you give equal treatment to all municipalities when transferring moneys from the province to municipalities? I ask, does anyone over there really believe that when you transfer money to municipalities everybody gets the same amount? Everybody gets proportionately the same amount? Everybody is treated exactly the same? I ask you, is that how you treat municipalities? Well, of course it isn't. Of course you don't.

When it comes to education, go see your Minister of Education and ask him how much money your provincial government transfers to Metropolitan Toronto and the Ottawa-Carleton region when it comes to education transfer payments. Nothing. You don't transfer them any money.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister without Portfolio in Economic Development and Trade): Don't be ridiculous. It's because the commercial assessment is so dramatic. You are using a totally different tax base. It's stupid.

Mr Stockwell: Well, there's the point. The point is made very clearly here. The argument by the minister for -- I'm not certain what his minister-without-portfolio role is. But the argument is saying, of course the assessment base is so large in those areas. Well, the argument the federal government uses is, the province of Ontario has also a significant amount of wealth; they also have a significant amount of taxing powers; they also generate a lot more money than, say, Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island. So the argument is put forward to you exactly the same as the argument that you give municipalities: There are wealthier sections within this country than others.

When we transfer money municipally from the provincial level, we do so depending on the amount of assessment they can generate and the tax burden on the local municipal taxpayer, and I believe the federal government probably thinks in the same vein.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): We're not talking about equalization payments.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, I understand. When they come forward on this debate they suggest, as I see in the numbers, that when you talk about Quebec, they receive more money. When you talk about the east cost, they receive more money. And I ask the members of this government, why is it they don't treat every municipality exactly the same if they believe in the equitable system of transfer payments? Because some regions are wealthier than others.

Now, what is the point we're making here? The point is that in the past four or five years, this region, the province of Ontario, has lost significant amounts of revenue due to what I consider to be a serious recession -- I don't blame the government for that -- and some manhandling of the financial programs in this province by the present government.

Further to that, you have to accept one premise from the federal government: Your welfare payments and social service payments are significantly higher than other regions in this country. It's a fair comment: They are higher. So the federal government says, "If you want to bring your payments in line with the rest of the country, then your disproportionate amount of shortfall significantly reduces."

They do not have an open chequebook any more. They can't afford to have an open chequebook, for the same reason that you don't have an open chequebook: They're broke. To simply demand through a resolution from the province's Premier to the Prime Minister saying, "We demand more money regardless of your economic situation," is as irresponsible as special-interest groups coming to you and saying, "You must give us more money because we need it."

You've consistently in the past three or four years turned down a number of special-interest groups, a number of municipalities coming to you looking for money, because you don't have any. If anybody in this province should understand the situation the federal government is in, when it was a Tory government or when it's a Liberal government, it should be you people, because you've had to say no to so many people when it came to funding requests, you should understand when a senior level of government says, "We don't have the money."

Hon Ms Gigantes: We say no equally.

Mr Stockwell: You don't say no equally, I say to the Minister of Housing. You say no completely disproportionately, arbitrarily in some cases, and I understand that that's always been the way.

I look to the Minister of Community and Social Services, who when he was chair of the school board would oftentimes speak about the unfair expense Metropolitan taxpayers would make towards education because we didn't get any provincial funding from the provincial government. Those words were fair comment. I remember you saying those kinds of things.

Now, when you get to this level of government, you don't speak about that any more. All you speak about now is the unfairness of the federal government's transfer payments to the provinces, for heaven's sake. What is consistent about that, I say to the minister. Where's the fairness in all that? Where's the equity?

I remember full well when that minister of social services would say, "All we want is a meeting to straighten out the fairness and the inequities in the system that penalize the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto, because they're paying unfairly for the costs of education that they aren't paying in other regions in this province."

Here I sit today. All he did was change the name. He just replaced Ontario ripping off the taxpayers and inserted the federal government ripping off the taxpayers. What's fair about it? Nothing.

For me to stand before this Legislature and start demanding from senior levels of government, "Spend more money," would be thoroughly and completely inconsistent with what I've been preaching for the past 10 or 12 years. I don't think any level of government should be increasing their expenditures, period, case closed, whether it's a municipal government, whether it's in education, whether it's a provincial government or, God forbid, whether it's a federal government, because, Mr Speaker, I'll tell you this: There are very few governments probably in this North American market that are in worse shape than us, but there is one that I know of, and that's the federal government. Financially, they're in worse shape when it comes to their debt and their deficit than even this province is in.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I don't even begin to want to debate whether or not it's a province or a federal government that should be talking about whose fault it was. All I know is, we are fundamentally broke, and to sit here and waste an entire day telling a federal government that runs deficits in the $38-billion and $40-billion range, "Borrow more money and give it to us. Give it to us, the province, so we don't have to increase our deficit from $10 billion or $11 billion," is absolutely absurd. It's fiscal madness -- absolute fiscal madness.

Hon Mr Allen: Nobody is saying that. It's your imagination.

Mr Stockwell: Nobody's saying that. Let me say, where is the federal government going to get its money? A fisherman on the east coast is less important than our citizens? A farmer in western Ontario is any less important than our citizens? An out-of-work environmentalist in the logging industry in BC is any more important than the citizens of Ontario? Please, folks, give me a break. Get this Premier to think straight, for heaven's sake. If you think you've got fiscal problems, take a look at the federal issue.

Let me say this about the 98 Liberals who are now at Parliament Hill --

Mr Bradley: It's 97.

Mr Stockwell: Jag Bhaduria isn't there.

Let me just say this: What the 97 Liberals are going through today is what the 72 NDP went through in 1990. They've got a red book that isn't worth the paper it's printed on and they've got a lot of promises that they can't fulfil. Their political role will go much the same, I predict, as this government's role will go -- went -- and that's because no longer will the people accept resolutions like this. No longer will the people accept this request to spend, spend, spend. No longer will the people accept provincial and federal and provincial and municipal arguments about who gets the right to spend taxpayers' money.

I know, if there's one person in this Legislature who understands that, it's the minister of social services, because now I know you have been on all sides of this argument. You have been on all sides of this fight. Remember when 60% funding for municipal education in Metropolitan Toronto was your cause célèbre? Remember the day when you used to stand up and make those comments? Now I see you saying that's no longer your debate. You've just moved your target from the provincial government to the federal government, and it's appalling.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Sterling has moved that the motion be amended. Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the motion lost.

We will now deal with Mr Rae's resolution, government notice of motion number 27. Shall the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 10-minute bell, as previously agreed with the House leaders.

The division bells rang from 1802 to 1812.

The Deputy Speaker: We will now vote on Mr Rae's motion. All those in favour?

Ayes

Abel, Allen, Arnott, Beer, Bisson, Boyd, Bradley, Brown, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Cleary, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Crozier, Cunningham, Dadamo, Daigeler, Duignan, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grandmaître, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Don Mills), Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Kwinter, Laughren, Lessard;

Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Mahoney, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), Murphy, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Perruzza, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Pilkey, Poirier, Poole, Pouliot, Rae, Ramsay, Rizzo, Ruprecht, Silipo, Sterling, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Simcoe West), Winninger, Wiseman, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise.

Nays

Stockwell, Tilson.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 90; the nays are 2. I declare the motion carried.

It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1816.

11 mai 1994