Journal des débats 1994-mai-17 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Last Friday the Liberal MP for Leeds-Grenville, Jim Jordan, received written confirmation from the Honourable Art Eggleton that the federal government will contribute one third of the cost for the completion of Highway 416. This is great news indeed for all of eastern Ontario, and I thank Jim Jordan for his untiring efforts in this regard. The ball is now squarely in Bob Rae's court.

On November 20, 1990, the then Transportation minister, Ed Philip, assured me personally in this House that Highway 416 would be completed on time as planned by the Peterson government. The NDP's promise was broken without any advance warning a short year later. Now is the time to put this commitment back on track.

With the federal contribution, the Ontario government will save at least $60 million. Hence, there's absolutely no reason why we should have eastern Ontario taxpayers pay tolls on top of the federal moneys, as suggested by the current Minister of Transportation.

The NDP can't have its cake and eat it too. The federal government has made a strong commitment towards eastern Ontario. Let Bob Rae and his cabinet members do the same. Eastern Ontario deserves no less.

HARRIS LODGE 216

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in this House to acknowledge and congratulate the Freemasons of Harris Lodge 216 in Orangeville on their 125th anniversary. The Orangeville Masons were formed on May 26, 1869, and it is the oldest fraternal organization still in existence in Orangeville today. The Harris Lodge in Orangeville has a membership of 175 men who believe in brotherly love, charity and truth.

The aim and objective of the Harris Lodge has always been to promote goodwill, charity and benevolence among its members. There are approximately 250,000 Masons in Canada, 80,000 in Ontario.

The history of Masonry traces its roots to the early 13th century in England when stonemasons required freedom to travel from city to city. From its humble beginnings, Masonry has spread worldwide. There are Masons in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Holland, Germany, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Men from all walks of life and religions have been members. Kings and prime ministers, factory workers and labourers have all been Freemasons.

The Harris Lodge 216 has been active in our community by raising several thousands of dollars which have been distributed to the various charitable organizations within the town of Orangeville. Their participation in various community activities includes the annual Christmas parade and sports tournaments. While much of the charitable work of the Masons has been anonymous, their fund-raising efforts have benefited burn units and orthopaedic hospitals. They have also participated in the county of Dufferin drug awareness program.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I rise today to once again call on the government to reform the property tax system, to make it fairer and more affordable by basing it on ability to pay.

Of all the taxes, it is the property tax that is raised and continues to be raised by my constituents as being the most difficult to pay. If you're unemployed, on fixed income, a senior on a basic pension or a young couple on a moderate income struggling to pay for a home and raise a family, this tax becomes a tremendous burden.

The NDP has long maintained that the education portion of property taxes be removed and relocated to a more progressive form of taxation. Successive reports commissioned by several governments have all said the same thing, primarily that our property taxes are extremely unfair.

On November 19, 1992, I introduced a resolution, which passed in this House, that asked that priority be given to reforming the property tax system by removing the education portion of property taxes and shifting the burden for education to a more progressive form of taxation. This view was again supported, more recently, by the Fair Tax Commission's report, a report which was commissioned by this government and which recommends that the education portion of property taxes be eliminated.

I call on this government to make property tax reform a priority.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Yesterday the Solicitor General announced with great fanfare a three-month gun amnesty for Ontario citizens to voluntarily turn in their guns with no questions asked.

Although we welcome this announcement, it does little to prevent violent crime and the Solicitor General even says he would be happy if only one gun per police station were turned in. This standard is not acceptable. It indicates that his government is still not prepared to deal with substantive initiatives. It indicates that his government is not interested in improved enforcement and prosecution of violent criminals.

The Attorney General appears quite content with the current Young Offenders Act. All her public statements show that she's soft on toughening up the act. What does her government say to the innocent victims of a gun-happy Etobicoke 17-year-old whose identity is protected under the act? She also refuses to take strong action on plea bargaining and sentencing in gun-related offences in Ontario courts.

As well, the Rae government can immediately refer Bill 151, An Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition, to committee of the whole House for quick passage, but as with all enforcement issues, this government continues to waffle.

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): For over three years our party has called on the NDP government to spearhead a school-based nutrition program in Ontario. To date, nothing has been done.

Yesterday the Common Sense Revolution travelled to the Holy Angels School in Sault Ste Marie. Mike Harris met with volunteers with the May Court Club, who run a junior snack program at the school. The dedicated volunteers of May Court also provide an emergency snack box program in eight other Sault Ste Marie schools.

Mr Harris met with students in a grade 1 and 2 class who were enjoying juice and trail mix. He was very encouraged to hear one young boy tell his teacher, "I'm full."

1340

Studies have shown that children who go to school hungry tend to do poorly in class, are more disruptive and suffer more health problems. With leadership from the Premier and with private sector and volunteer support, a breakfast or nutrition program can be implemented at little or no cost.

We have been urging the government to act on this initiative and have included it in our Common Sense Revolution plan.

On behalf of Mike Harris and our caucus, I want to thank the May Court Club of Sault Ste Marie and the students and teachers of Holy Angels school for sharing their success story with us.

We encourage the Premier and his ministers to visit schools where nutritional breakfast programs are already in place so that they too will realize the importance of ensuring that no child in Ontario has difficulty learning because he or she is hungry.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I would like to take this opportunity to direct the attention of this House once again to the problem of access to capital for small business.

We are all aware that small business plays a critical role in employment growth, yet we see increasing evidence of the neglect of small business by our federally chartered banks. Canada's superintendent of financial institutions reports that banks were making fewer small business loans last year than in 1989. In fact, our banks are closing viable businesses.

Let me cite just one example. Several months ago, my riding's small business group intervened on behalf of Argord Industries, a company forced into receivership by a Canadian bank. Argord had work orders in excess of half a million dollars and 45 employees. Our group succeeded in delaying matters while Argord's owners sought new investors. CBC TV's Venture program reported this case in a national broadcast.

Where is Argord today? The company is doing very well indeed. They have not laid off workers and added to our social assistance rolls. Instead, without bank assistance, Argord has been thriving and hiring additional workers.

I would like to thank the members of the Fort York Small Business Working Group for their work with Argord and their ongoing efforts to protect Ontario's jobs. I would also like to thank the Premier, Minister Laughren and Minister Lankin for listening and for taking important steps in the recent budget to open the door wider to small business.

I will be rising in the House once again to raise this issue, because there is much more that needs to be done.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): During the 1990 election debate Progressive Conservative leader Mike Harris called himself the only honest politician in Canada. Mr Speaker, you will understand me when I say that the so-called Common Sense Revolution is showing Mike Harris's true colours, and I do not mean red, white and blue.

This morning Mike Harris and the American Revolution stopped by the studios of CITY-TV here in Toronto. When asked point-blank whether or not he made a mistake in hiring Americans to direct his campaign, what did Mike Harris say? Did he tell the truth and admit that hiring Americans was the political mistake of his life? Did he come clean with the Ontario public and say that his $600,000 campaign is a complete disaster? Did he say he would never again hire Americans and take jobs away from qualified Canadians? No.

Mike Harris's only response was that he should have checked their passports. Checked their passports? Ontarians will remember that originally Mike Harris said there was only one American involved in his campaign. Later he admitted there were two. Now he's saying he didn't know they were American and he should have checked their passports.

Give me a break. If we can't trust Mike Harris with something simple like the number of Americans working on his campaign or whether or not he knew they were American, how is anyone ever going to believe him when he says he'll cut taxes by 30%? It appears that Ontario's own Honest Abe, Mike Harris, is anything but, according to the newspapers and the people of Ontario.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY PLAN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I am pleased to stand up and endorse once again our Common Sense Revolution document, immediately following the member for Mississauga West, who has indicated a great deal of chagrin about this policy, and we see some interesting pictures across the floor.

But it's interesting and I think we should observe that this plan has come under some degree of scrutiny and observation by some of the other caucuses in this Legislature, yet they refuse to discuss the merits or in any way debate the issues that are outlined in this policy.

In the time I have left, I'd like to talk about how our Common Sense Revolution will help culture in Ontario. As the Culture critic for our party, I have given a great deal of study to this commonsense document.

Interjection.

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

Mr Arnott: One of our recommendations is that we should explore the sale perhaps of TVOntario, which is of course an excellent feature of our provincial cultural scene. We look at the operating budget of TVOntario and we wonder if that money could not be better spent directly on programming that would be generated out of the private sector and through private sector involvement.

We question the NDP government's cultural priority which at the present time appears to be its effort to move the head office of Culture to Niagara Falls. I had a meeting with many cultural representatives. They're looking forward to meeting with the Premier to discuss that particular issue.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I was sitting in front of this member during his statement. There was so much noise in this House that I cannot tell you what he was talking about.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Mississauga South indeed has a good point. It would be most helpful, particularly when members have only 90 seconds within which to make a statement, if they would be afforded the courtesy of being able to make that statement without interruption.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Like the member for Wellington, I too want to talk about garbage.

Recently a constituent of mine in Oxford was honoured for his waste reduction efforts. Stu Shouldice of Woodstock spends about a half-hour each week sorting through his household garbage. About 95% is either recycled, composted or returned to the manufacturer. Yard and vegetable wastes are diverted into two composters in the backyard. Meat scraps are buried to deter wildlife or pets, while plastics, papers and metals are sorted into groups.

Most of these recyclables are taken to the Oxford 3Rs resource depot, a community recycling centre which Mr Shouldice helped established. This depot is in addition to the city's blue box and green box recycling programs.

He sends some materials that are difficult to recycle back to the manufacturer with a note stating that his house is a garbage-free zone. In the end, there are a few small bags of unrecyclables which he reluctantly puts out at the curb every few months for disposal at the landfill site.

It was because of his diligent efforts that this avid recycler was nominated for an award from the Recycling Council of Ontario and inducted into the council's Waste Reduction Hall of Fame.

Stu Shouldice sets a high standard that all of us should endeavour to follow, which is to remember more than just the 3Rs but the fourth R, which of course is rethinking.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber, and seated in the members' gallery west, a former minister of the crown from the province of New Brunswick, Mr Bob Jackson. Welcome.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Again I have to rise and advise you about the number of absentees from today's events. They all know that we're supposed to start question period at this time of day; they're just not showing up. So we're left with very little opportunity again.

I understand that the Premier is now away on an extended trip. The Minister of Finance is not in his place again.

I know I've raised this issue with you before, but it is frustrating our attempts to do our public business. I don't understand how you could ask for question period to begin until at least the complement of people who have been advised are actually in their seats.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the frustration which the member expresses. He can anticipate the reply, since he has brought this matter to my attention on other occasions. There is nothing in the rules which will assist me in trying to accomplish what he would wish to have accomplished. All I can do is to offer my understanding.

The member for Mississauga South on a point of order.

1350

VISITORS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, I know the House would like to welcome Mr Lou Younge and Mrs Iris Younge, who are here visiting all the way from Australia. They are sitting in the private members' gallery with their niece Mrs Pat Leavers. It is a very special visit for them, their first time to Canada.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member does not have a point of order. However, the guests she introduced are most welcome from another Commonwealth country. I hope you enjoy your stay.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Housing. Minister, yet another non-profit housing allocation has come under question. The latest story we've seen involves the recent allocation for the expansion of the Main-Gerrard co-op in the Beaches area of Toronto. It may in fact be only coincidental that this particular co-op houses the party headquarters for the Ontario New Democratic Party, but be that as it may, clearly that coincidence leads to questions about the basis on which the decision for the allocation was made. I would simply ask you today, on what basis was the allocation for expansion made to the Main-Gerrard co-op unit?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The allocation for the expansion of the Main-Gerrard co-op was done in 1991 under the very poetically named P-10,000 non-profit program that was initiated by this ministry at that time. It would probably be of interest to the Leader of the Opposition to understand that the co-op is a federal co-op and that the lease arrangements with the New Democratic Party, to my personal knowledge, extend back as far as 1981. The allocation was based on the same kinds of program allocation requirements that were in effect for all the allocations under the P-10,000 program.

Mrs McLeod: We learned this morning, and I'll ask the minister if this is accurate information, that the co-op applied for funding for the expansion under a federal-provincial program in 1991 but that application was rejected; that it was a year later, in 1992, that the application was made again and was accepted, this time by a provincial program. Is that correct, and if so, can you tell us why the project was rejected by the federal-provincial program and then a year later accepted by a provincial program?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Leader of the Opposition is correct. The initial request for the allocation had been in 1991 under the federal-provincial program, and I'm not certain of the reasons at that point. The federal-provincial program is one which requires a very quick commitment because of the nature of the program. The next opportunity was under the P-10,000 program, which was initiated by this government in 1991. The allocation was given in 1992, as were 10,000 other units of allocation.

Mrs McLeod: Then if I understand that correctly, although you had responded to my first question by saying this was a federal project and therefore a federal landlord for the New Democratic Party headquarters, when the application for expansion was made to the federal-provincial program, it was rejected. It was subsequently approved by a program which is a provincial program. So the fact that it is a federal project is less than relevant in terms of understanding the issue of the expansion.

We're also aware, and I think you would agree, that you are looking at a waiting list for non-profit housing projects. We know, for example, that Cityhome has a number of projects that are ready to go and it can't get its funding approved.

We also understand that this particular project, the Main-Gerrard project, has at least three major zoning issues that will have to be addressed: that the project does not meet density requirements, does not meet height requirements and does not meet parking requirements for current zoning. We also learned that the plan calls for the expansion to be built on an industrial site. We're all well aware that in the past the costs for cleanup required on old industrial sites has been prohibitive and it has contributed to many housing projects being cancelled.

Considering the number of problems that seem to be associated with the Main-Gerrard project and the fact that there are other projects waiting to go, why would this project have been not only considered but approved in spite of all the problems and ahead of other projects?

Hon Ms Gigantes: It was in no way ahead of other projects when it was selected for an allocation. The problems associated with that proposal are the ones indicated by the Leader of the Opposition.

I referred to the existing co-op as a federal co-op because it is a federal co-op. And it is with that federal co-op and only with that federal co-op, and nothing to do with the provincial housing program, that the New Democratic Party rents space and has for at least 14 years, to my knowledge.

The problems she has indicated are part of the reason the commitment has not been made on this proposal. Like many hundreds of other units in other proposals that were initially allocated development moneys under the P-10,000 program in 1991-92, it has not proceeded to a final commitment and therefore final approval hasn't been given by the Ministry of Housing. It will, along with the others, be reconsidered within the next few weeks in terms of whether it will go ahead at all.

PURCHASE OF LAND

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, who I understand today is acting Deputy Premier and who I understand is prepared to answer questions about Ontario Hydro in the unfortunate absence of the Minister of Environment and Energy as well as of the Premier.

Minister, you will be aware that for the past week we have been raising concerns about the kinds of deals that Ontario Hydro has been making. We have raised particularly our concerns with the multimillion-dollar deal that Hydro has made with Suncor. Yesterday we learned about another deal in the making, and this one none of us would have known about if it hadn't been for the member for Etobicoke West's Costa Rican connections; we're grateful for those. We are genuinely concerned about how we can find out what other deals the chairman of Ontario Hydro, Maurice Strong, might be making. What does this particular deal, a deal to buy rain forests in Costa Rica, have to do with supplying electricity at reasonable price to the people of Ontario?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I hope the member opposite will bear with me. This is not my portfolio area, but I received a briefing this morning in order to try and answer the questions in the House. I just want to say that the minister is absent, as he indicated yesterday he would be, because he is in Quebec City for federal-provincial meetings with aboriginal leaders in his responsibility as the minister responsible for aboriginal issues. It's unfortunate, but in his absence I will try to assist the member in an understanding of this issue.

You have said several times "the deal." I want to assure you right up front, and hope you will change your language, that there is no deal.

Apparently, as the member for Etobicoke West indicated -- I'm surprised he reads Costa Rica Today, but it's great. We only found this out yesterday ourselves; we knew nothing about it either. There have been discussions, I'm told low-level discussions, about the possibility of purchase of land that would have rain forest. No deal has been arrived at.

I think the question should be, why did discussions even take place, and would we support any sort of deal? The reason for this, I am told, is that the task force on sustainable development did recommend that Hydro, along with other polluters, take responsibility for these kinds of greenhouse offset programs by purchasing and protecting the kinds of rain forests that reduce CO₂ emissions from generators, that Hydro as a generator should do that.

Let me say that having heard all of those answers, while there may be some nugget of environmental reason behind it, I find it astounding that we would be considering, particularly in these times, to spend ratepayers' moneys in that way. This is an issue that should be taken up with the head of Ontario Hydro, which will be done as soon as the minister is able to meet with him directly. As one minister of the crown, my advice to the Premier and the minister would be to say that we wouldn't support this kind of expenditure.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the minister's answer. I can assure her, as a former Minister of Energy who was minister at the time when Ontario Hydro made the decision to plant trees in Ontario to counter global warming, that I'm aware of the theory behind it. But that's not what we're talking about today. We're talking about Ontario Hydro making deals to buy rain forest in Costa Rica. And I did use the term "deal-making." The deal with Suncor that we've been concerned about in the past is a deal that was made. This deal is in the negotiating stage, and I find it hard to believe it's a low-level negotiation if the chairman of Ontario Hydro is involved in discussing the deal.

1400

The problem is that it's not only the minister and your government that weren't aware of this. Nobody knows what the chairman of Ontario Hydro is doing, nobody knows the kinds of deals he is negotiating, whether with Suncor or with purchasing rain forest in Costa Rica, and nobody knows how this fits with any sense of direction at Ontario Hydro. The members of the board of Ontario Hydro did not know that their chairman was out negotiating offshore land deals. Clearly, this is a case of Maurice Strong, the chairman of Ontario Hydro, pursuing his own agenda. Can you explain why the chairman and president of Ontario Hydro is out pursuing his own agenda without any discussion with his board and with no clear policy and no clear plan to guide his deal-making?

Hon Ms Lankin: I thought that if I said directly to the member and assured her that there was no deal and asked her to correct her language, perhaps she would; it didn't work. Actually, I'm not surprised.

There is no deal on this. What I have been advised is that the discussions have been at a low level and that Maurice Strong has not been involved in these discussions and that negotiations aren't under way. I say that only as I have been advised, and I'm sorry I can't bring more clarity to that. Direct questions to Maurice Strong and Ontario Hydro, or Maurice Strong's direct statement on that, will be required to either satisfy the member or to bring surety to what I have been advised.

With respect to the member's comments that she was Minister of Energy and that she certainly knows of the theory with respect to sustainable development and the greenhouse gas offsets, and why would we be looking at doing this in Costa Rica, those are very good questions. The answer comes back from people within Ontario Hydro that investment in that kind of quality of rain forest is 20 times more effective than planting a pine tree here in Ontario. My answer would be, plant 20 pine trees here in Ontario, because it's good for the environment here.

I think there isn't a difference in our approach on this, and I've indicated I would undertake to make the minister and the Premier aware of my comments and thoughts on this, but I'm sure they are ones that are shared by the minister as well.

Mrs McLeod: By the way, don't plant pine trees; plant the broad-leaved ones. Those are the ones that actually deal with global warming.

I may have misunderstood yesterday, but I accepted the information presented to the House by the member for Etobicoke West, who indicated that a spokesman for Ontario Hydro had confirmed the fact that indeed there was a deal being discussed to purchase the rain forest and that the chairman of the board was very directly involved in it. I think it is quite clear -- we all know -- that the chairman of the board has been reshaping Ontario Hydro. The issue today seems to be whether he is reshaping it as the Maurice Strong foundation, and that gives us a great deal of concern.

This is a public utility that has a debt of some $34 billion. Ontario Hydro has just laid off thousands of workers as part of a restructuring it's been going through to get its rates under control. We've already seen that Mr Strong is prepared to enter into multimillion-dollar deals just to keep major power users buying its electricity, and now it would appear that the chairman of Ontario Hydro is out to save the world.

Should he not be at home saving Ontario Hydro? We're pleased to hear you agree that this is not an appropriate project, not within the mandate. Will you assure us that direction will be given to Mr Strong, as chairman of Ontario Hydro, to concentrate his resources and his energy and the resources of Ontario Hydro to solving Ontario Hydro's problems?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member started off her comments by saying she had accepted the statements yesterday of the member for Etobicoke West at face value. That's not a leap I'm prepared to take.

However, I understand that the spokesperson for Ontario Hydro will be here and available and can confirm or deny some of these things. I am told that the statement he is reported as making, that Mr Strong was directly involved in these negotiations, was incorrect information on his part. I can't do any more than tell you what I've been told on this, and I don't think we can clear it up until we speak to Mr Strong. I'm sorry I can't be of more help with respect to that.

I would say that it is passing strange for the party opposite to be critical of attempts to restructure Ontario Hydro, which certainly has a legacy that none of us in this province can be proud of. Having someone of the stature and the environmental reputation of Mr Strong come in, and the restructuring that has led to a commitment of keeping rates below the cost of inflation over the next decade, are all positive steps.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: I would say to the member that there is an opportunity for the public and for others to ask those very questions of Maurice Strong and Ontario Hydro, as they are about to appear before the Ontario Energy Board. It would be an appropriate place for those kinds of questions to be placed and answered.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. On Saturday night a Mississauga man went out for a walk and he was murdered. Two teenagers, young offenders, have been charged with the murder of Brian Baylen. Could you advise the House and the people of Ontario under what circumstances you feel it is appropriate to try a young offender, who is charged with murder, in a youth court?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): Obviously, it all depends, in these circumstances, on the particular case facts. As this is a case that is pending in front of the court, I obviously wouldn't be making any comment in this place on this particular case.

In general terms, what is required is for the crown to have reason to believe, first of all, that the young offender was clear in his or her understanding of the consequences of the act. The case facts would have to be taken into account, any previous circumstances involving the young offender would have to be taken into account, in terms of previous incidents or that sort of thing, and all that would be brought to the court for a judge to decide. It's not for me to decide.

Mr Harnick: What you are saying, in effect, is that in your view there are circumstances where it is appropriate to try someone for murder in a youth court, where the maximum sentence is five years for taking the life of another individual. I can't abide by that, assuming that the person is 14 years of age or over.

Quite frankly, I really don't know what you're saying, because the answer you just gave me is contrary to what you were telling us just the other day when you answered a question from the member for Bruce. At that time you said you believed that longer sentences "might be better accomplished through a presumption that people be tried in adult court, where a variety of sentencing might be available."

I don't understand where you're going with this, but surely you as the minister have to give direction to those who work for you, to those who prosecute these cases. Is it proper for someone 14 years of age and older who has committed murder to receive only a five-year sentence, or do you stand by what you told the member for Bruce and believe that those cases should automatically go to the adult court?

Hon Mrs Boyd: As I answered the first time, the circumstances of the particular incident and the particular circumstances of the accused are the important issues. The member is well aware that under the current law, we have a youth justice system that was set up 10 years ago in this country which took into account the fact that the issues that involve young people when they commit crimes need to be looked at within the context of their youth and their circumstances.

We are in discussions, and the federal government has made clear an intention to change some of the sentencing practices under that youth justice system. We in Ontario are saying that it may be that there are a number of ways to accomplish the same thing. One of those ways would be to change what is currently a difficult process to get a youth dealt with in adult court and instead have a rebuttable presumption that in certain very serious crimes they would be tried in adult court where a range of sentencing might be available.

1410

I don't see any contradiction in what I'm saying at all. At present, we're working under the law as it is now, and we are working with the federal government to look at possible changes of that law.

Mr Harnick: In response to that answer, I say to you: Why don't you do it? You have the jurisdiction to do it. You have the jurisdiction to say it is going to be the practice of your ministry that where a murder or a very serious violent offence occurs there will be a trial in adult court. That will be the position you will take in each and every prosecution.

I'll read to you what you said on May 12:

"The clear view that is held by Ontarians and Canadians in general is that the Young Offenders Act at the present time does not offer clear deterrence for these very serious crimes. We are very clear that we support in every way the necessity for the Young Offenders Act to achieve deterrence of these very serious crimes. We will work with our federal counterparts, whose responsibility it is to make a determination on the Young Offenders Act, to try and support the accomplishment of greater deterrence, through the use of longer sentences, through a transfer to adult court" --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please?

Mr Harnick: -- "whatever means is going to be most effective in achieving that kind of deterrence."

Minister, you can do it and you can do it now. Why won't you do it now?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We do, and in fact, if the member looks at the statistics, he will know there are cases that indeed in Ontario do come before the adult court. But at the present time, until we do the work that we need to do in looking at all the aspects of the Young Offenders Act, looking at how we will achieve the goal we clearly want of deterrence, we don't believe you take a blanket approach. You look at the facts of each case, you look at the circumstances of each case, and the person who is prosecuting that case, the agent of the Attorney General, makes a determination as to the appropriate action in that case.

I would also remind the member that it is only in the last couple of years that the sentencing for those cases has increased and that there is some scepticism and certainly no evidence at this point to show that longer sentences are necessarily more effective. Those are the kinds of issues we need to look at in these cases. Is there a difference between a 12-year-old, a 14-year-old, a 16-year-old? We need to be very careful that we don't fall into the trap of believing there is a simplistic solution that resolves all these issues, and we can do that without in any way backing off from our commitment to achieve better deterrence in these cases.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Representatives from the Canadian Snowbird Association said earlier today that your slashing of out-of-country hospital coverage represents a new $250-to-$400 user fee to seniors who travel out of Ontario for health reasons. This change is a clear violation of the portability clause of the Canada Health Act. The association also said that, despite repeated requests, officials from your ministry have been unable to document how you intend to save the $20 million which is the rationale for these unilateral changes.

Minister, given that you can't even document any savings you'll receive from this change, what is the reasoning behind your decision to break our country's health care law?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): First of all, let me say that, unlike the party of the member opposite, we do not support user fees. We do believe that anybody who leaves Ontario for any period of time needs health insurance and I know full well the snowbirds, who are here in the gallery today, always do that when they leave Ontario.

As we looked at ways to better manage our health care system and how we could maintain many programs that we offer in Ontario that are not covered in any way by the Canada Health Act -- and I'm referring to the Ontario drug benefit plan, which makes sure that seniors in this province are the only seniors in the country who don't have to pay a copayment for their drugs. The Canada Health Act is silent on that. We would not be violating the Canada Health Act if we in fact eliminated the Ontario drug benefit plan, something we have no intention of doing.

But in order to be able to maintain those programs, we needed to look for savings. We recognized that in many other provinces the amount paid for a hospital stay -- not the physicians, because we pay 100% of the physicians and will continue to do so -- was much less than we were paying here in Ontario. So we are asking seniors to take that little extra bit of insurance if they are going to leave the country in order to reduce the amount that we spend in recompense for private hospital accommodations south of the border.

Mr Runciman: The minister says her government opposes user fees, but in reality it's implementing them through the back door. The Mike Harris Conservative Party's opposition to user fees is not mere rhetoric. We're very much opposed to user fees and we make that clear in the Common Sense Revolution document, if the minister would like to take a look at it.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member for Durham East please come to order.

Mr Runciman: My supplementary: Minister, any savings you allege to receive from these changes will be offset by the promise made by the Canadian Snowbird Association to sue the government over its ability to levy personal income tax against those seniors who are about to lose their right to health care services. This loss of revenue will be combined with the court costs the government will incur to fight this lawsuit. There will also be the added cost to our health care system from those seniors who are forced to stay home and are hospitalized as a result of our harsh winter climate.

A working group of provincial deputy health ministers is bringing in recommendations on the out-of-country issue next month. Minister, in the interest of fairness, will you agree to delay the slashing of out-of-country hospitalization coverage until we fully review the findings of this critical working group?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm glad that the member is aware of the deputy ministers' task force, which was appointed last November precisely because of the inconsistent interpretation of the Canada Health Act across the country. As I have said on many occasions, if the findings of that task force are that Ontario is in violation of the Canada Health Act, then we will change our policy.

But let me say to the member, who says that the revolution that his party is promising will not put user fees or tax on seniors, that in that document it talks about "fair share" health care. It says, "'Fair share' will generate $400 million in revenues for the health care system" by taxing everyone earning $50,000 a levy of $100. Is that a user fee or is that a new tax?

Mr Runciman: That's a progressive levy based on fairness. We're quite up front about it. What the minister conveniently neglects to mention is that under our policy, people earning $50,000 or less will pay absolutely zero.

1420

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): You've got a revolution all right; it might not be the sort you want.

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

Mr Runciman: Anywhere from 18,000 to 35,000 seniors will be placed under a form of house arrest if you follow through with your out-of-country cuts. These changes bring in new user fees, they violate the Canada Health Act, they place thousands under house arrest, they will increase hospital costs and the demand for hospital beds here in Ontario and they will force precious taxpayer dollars to be spent fighting a lawsuit that should never see the light of a courtroom. You are profoundly affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of residents in this province without ever asking them how they feel about these changes. Minister, can you explain or even justify this arbitrary, unforgivable imposition of out-of-country user fees?

Hon Mrs Grier: I thank the member of the Progressive Reform Party for his explanation that in fact a levy is not a tax, is not a user fee. It sounds to me as though one is trying to have it both ways.

As I have explained to the member, as we have looked at how to contain a health care system that is one third of our provincial funding -- 32 cents on every tax dollar goes to maintain the health care system in this province and to keep it one of the best in the world and one of the most generous in the world -- looking at programs that are not covered by the Canada Health Act, such as long-term care reform and the Ontario drug benefit reform, we have of course looked to where we can make some savings.

We recognize that everybody travelling as part of the snowbirds association is already paying insurance, because they know, as we know, that a hospital bed in the United States is not the $400 we were paying before; probably it's $2,000. Yes, we are suggesting that for those people who already have insurance to pay the difference between $400 and $1,000, or $500 or $2,000, to now pay some extra insurance, from $100 to whatever the actual cost of the hospital bed is, it is a fair way of --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- attempting to protect the open-ended programs that we believe are critical to maintaining a health care system that meets basic health care needs as well as catastrophic needs in this province and meets the needs of everyone in this province.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me remind the member, in one more sentence, that this year alone we've expanded $15 million for cancer care in this province, we have expanded immunization for children to protect them from hepatitis B and we have expanded long-term care.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre, come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: We can only do that by managing the system more efficiently.

POLITICAL STAFF

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Chairman of Management Board and it concerns the question of ethics in the government. The first part of my question about ethical standards in his government is this: The metropolitan press today reports that a former chief of staff to a minister, in this case the former chief of staff to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, within days of his leaving that political post received a very lucrative government contract in the amount of some $85,000 a year.

I'm just interested to know if the Chairman of Management Board is aware of that situation, and what does he think of a situation where a political chief of staff leaves a minister's office and within a very few days glides into a very substantial government contract?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I am aware, as the member across the way is, from the media of the case, but I'm not familiar with the background. I will refer the question to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I'm perfectly comfortable with this issue from the perspective of ethics, of competence and of financial integrity of this government. The hiring of John Klassen for this job was one of the best hirings that you could make. If you have any question about that, go and talk to the people whose advice I also took before I made the appointment, which includes the regional chair of the municipality of Niagara and the mayors in that area as well.

If you have any question about how that area felt about who would be the most competent person for that job, ask them, because they were delighted before the appointment and they remain to this day delighted with the wisdom of the appointment that we made for the facilitator of the Niagara Gateway project.

Mr Conway: My supplementary then is to the responsible minister. I don't know Mr Klassen. I have to pay attention, obviously, to what the minister says, but what does this look like? I just ask everybody in the House to think about what this looks like, particularly at a time when we're imposing a social contract and other understandable restrictions on our own public service.

We have here a political chief of staff who leaves his previous role and, however competent, glides immediately into a very substantial, government-supported contract. Quite apart from the fact that Mr Klassen may be a fine fellow and wonderfully well supported by everyone down in the peninsula --

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Because they're going to get a grant.

Mr Conway: -- because of course they're going to get this big grant in which he's going to play an important role, and he has just come from the minister's office, does not this case make the argument for a cooling-off period for senior political staff, and would not the minister who has answered the previous question agree to make that recommendation to her colleagues in council?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I was interested in the most qualified person for the job and I got a person who is most qualified because he not only knows the Niagara Peninsula area tremendously well from past experience; he comes from a history, not only in the Ontario public sector, of experience that was very valuable for this position; also experience from the private sector that was tremendously valuable for this position; tremendous knowledge of the subject area involved, namely, tourism and its significance in that area; and tremendous facilitation and negotiation skills. He was absolutely the right person for this job.

In addition, if one looks at the salary areas, and I think the public is quite interested in knowing just how much people are paid for jobs, and we look at the fact that Mr Klassen was hired to do this job as by far the most competent person around, he's paid $48 per hour for this job. If you go to any private sector organization and ask them what their consulting fees would be for a project manager for this position, you'd find that their fees would be anywhere from $100 per hour up to $2,000 per day. We got the most qualified person for that job.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Unfortunately, my question is not about the Common Sense Revolution --

Interjections.

Mr Arnott: -- I regret to say to my Liberal friends. It follows up on the member for Renfrew North's question.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Arnott: I would like to ask the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, if she was indeed sincerely interested in getting the best person for the job, as she says, how many résumés did she receive; was the competition open; were there advertisements published in the newspaper to get the best person for the job?

1430

Hon Ms Swarbrick: Part of the process that I followed in proceeding with the Niagara Gateway project was to go down and meet with all of the appropriate parties in the area of the Niagara Peninsula. I met with the regional chair, I met with all of the mayors, and the fact was that nobody could come close to John Klassen for the competence, the skills, the abilities that we needed for that job. In fact --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat. Minister.

Mr Conway: Is he Canadian?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: He is Canadian, 100% Canadian.

I think what the people of this province want is competence in government. They want the right person to do the job and they want it done in the most cost-effective manner possible. That's exactly what we're doing and that's exactly the feedback I get to this day from the regional municipality of Niagara.

Mr Arnott: The minister has indicated by her response that there was absolutely no open competition for this extremely lucrative job; it was available only to an NDP member. I'm glad he's a Canadian, but unfortunately the taxpayers have not been well served in this instance.

Can the minister indicate exactly what the taxpayers have received for this $86,000 contract to engage the services of Mr Klassen?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: They've got a plan proceeding well towards the development of one of the most priceless parts of this province, a drawing card that attracts 10 million to 12 million people per year in this province and that so far, to this date, has languished under past governments. Past governments, as people in the Niagara area tell me when I go down there, have done practically nothing -- nothing -- to develop the Niagara Falls gem in this province. This government, I'm told, is the first government ever to spend the time, to spend the money to develop this gem in Ontario's tourism basket.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Accessibility to the handicapped is essential for public transit. I know certainly in my riding we have been very, very pleased with the work that your ministry and your parliamentary assistant have done in offering Access Taxi.

Of course, the Whitby GO train station, which was built under the previous government, did not have access to the handicapped and there was a great deal of inconvenience and expense put forward by our ministry and our government in making it accessible. I understand it cost quite a great deal and it certainly was inconvenient for the many users of that system.

Minister, we are expanding the GO train system to Oshawa. Will that new GO train station in Oshawa be made accessible to the physically handicapped or will we have to relive the mistakes of the past?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Please allow me this opportunity to sincerely thank the member for his ongoing interest when it comes to accessibility for the physically challenged. He's mentioned the parliamentary assistant, who has been a catalyst, a soldier at his post. Of course, the new station -- and we see it as a way of doing business -- will be fully accessible.

Mr White: The people of Oshawa and Whitby appreciate your commitment to them and to accessibility in their community. The people of Ontario appreciate, of course, your foresight and financial prudence. However, many of the people who have spoken to me about this issue and many of the people who have written to me on a daily basis -- and I'm still getting many cards about the issue of Go Transit -- many of whom are disabled and seniors, have told me that trains are a much more accessible, much better form of transit for them. Will full train service improve access to the disabled and seniors in our area?

Hon Mr Pouliot: By September, a matter of four months, one car per train will be fully accessible. The stations at Pickering and Union Station, right downtown here, will also be fully accessible, and by 1995, between 10 and 12 stations will be accessible for the physically challenged.

We mean what we say. It's a commitment that we have, and we will honour the commitment.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE GOVERNANCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, I'm sure you are well aware that every college board across the province has expressed concern about the new direction that is being given by the Council of Regents to the appointment of college board members.

Traditionally, the boards of our community colleges have been very broadly representative of members of the community who have given freely of their time and their expertise in serving the colleges.

The Council of Regents is now recommending that this tradition be significantly changed. They have called for people to be appointed to college boards to represent not broad community interests, but very specific interests. This amounts essentially to a quota-based system for appointment to college boards. Minister, do you intend to accept the recommendation of the Council of Regents that we move towards a quota-based system for making appointments to college boards?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): The Leader of the Opposition is totally and completely incorrect. There is nothing --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Has the minister concluded his response?

Hon Mr Cooke: I haven't. First of all, there is no policy decision by the Council of Regents, and the member --

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): They never had a policy.

Hon Mr Cooke: You're right. The Council of Regents hasn't had a lot of policies, especially when your leader was the Minister of Colleges and Universities and there was no leadership provided at all.

The Council of Regents has taken specific recommendations that were made in the Lewis report and has put out a consultation document on the makeup of boards for colleges. The feedback from the boards, from students and teachers and from the public will inform the final recommendation of the Council of Regents, as I have said here before. But there's nothing in the draft document that suggests there should be quotas. There's nothing in the document that says there should be representation from constituencies, where board members would actually represent individual constituencies. The board's basic suggestion is that local boards should represent more adequately the community in which the colleges exist, and that's something that I thought the Leader of the Opposition had supported for many years.

Mrs McLeod: We are reflecting the concerns that are being expressed by boards of colleges across the province about the directions that are proposed by the Council of Regents, which not only include specific designations but which also are recommending identification "of other designated seats for providing source organizations and for determining target lists of particular skills and representatives to fill future vacancies."

We are concerned about any approach to appointments which is based on predetermined quotas. We are also extremely concerned about the way in which this particular approach would be implemented by this particular Council of Regents.

A number of weeks ago, Minister, I asked you about comments made by Jim Turk, who is a member of the Council of Regents, about appointments to college boards. You will remember that he said that women and visible minorities who are currently serving on college boards as representatives -- and there are a great many of them -- are remarkably like the white men they have replaced.

You rejected those remarks, Minister. You took the step of writing to the chair of the Council of Regents to state that Mr Turk's comments were not representative of your views, and yet Mr Turk has now been appointed chair of the committee that is making changes to the way appointments are made to college boards. This same individual, whose views on appointments would seem to be to put special interests and very biased views about who can represent these special interests ahead of qualifications and merit --

1440

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

Mrs McLeod: -- is now in charge of deciding who should serve on college boards.

Minister, given your own concern and your own indication that Mr Turk is not representative of your views on college board appointments, will you ensure that the Council of Regents removes Mr Turk from this particular position?

Hon Mr Cooke: While I don't agree with the comments made by Mr Turk, an appointment to the Council of Regents made by your government, I would also indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that I don't think it would be appropriate for everybody who disagrees with my point of view to be fired from boards that advise the government. That would be terribly unfair and would result in a completely and totally different set of questions coming from you, attacking the government from another point of view.

The fact of the matter is that you were wrong when you made the point that he's chairing the committee that will make a decision. You know that's wrong if you remember from when you were minister. The Council of Regents will make a recommendation to the government on policy for board appointments. We will make the decision and we will take responsibility for that decision. You know the process. You should; you used to be the minister.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I read with interest and approval your press release last week about the forest sustainability act. In it you said, "I believe our sustainable forestry agenda is crucial to the future economic health of communities that depend on forest industries." You went on to talk about your objective for the ministry. "We also want to prove to the world that forest products from Ontario come from sustainably managed forests."

Mr Minister, as Natural Resources critic for my party, it's a very important issue to the people of Ontario, and particularly the people of Victoria-Haliburton. I find rather inconsistent with this release what you've done in the last year with regard to private forest lands. Little more than a year ago, you discontinued the managed forest tax rebate program, which encouraged sustainable development of private forests. As you know, approximately 40% of the timber coming out of central Ontario is from private lands. How can you reconcile these conflicting policies of your ministry with your stated objective to show the world that all forest products coming out of Ontario come from sustainable forests?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member for his question and I welcome him to his new job as the Natural Resources critic for the Conservative Party.

The member should know that 80% of Ontario is crown land, and the crown land in Ontario is responsible, by and large, for the timber which is the natural resource for many of our mills: sawmills, manufactured wood products mills, pulp mills and paper mills. We are working now as hard as we can, with the cooperation of the forest industries in Ontario, to put in place a sustainable forest agenda with respect to crown lands.

The member brings up the issue of private lands. We have known for some time that Ontario's private forested lands require some attention. We know that some of that attention must be dealt with by means of regulation, some by means of public information and education and some by means of tax incentives. We are working with a number of interest groups to do that. But if the member is suggesting, as I think he is, that all it requires is greater tax incentives and that we should throw money at the problem, he should talk to his leader, who advocates a 20% cut in what the Ministry of Natural Resources would get for its budget.

Mr Hodgson: It's all in how you cut. If the object is to have sustainable forests -- and this government is more interested in looking at $10 million for sustainable forestry in Costa Rica instead of sustainable forests in Ontario -- that's what we should be looking at as priorities of the government.

This is not only inconsistent with the Minister of Natural Resources's stated objective to have sustainable forests -- we agree with that -- but it also shows that there's little consistency in the course this government is taking.

The Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation has poured millions of dollars into developing trail networks throughout rural Ontario and all of Ontario to help the tourism industry. This is a worthwhile program.

Because of the assessment situation in Ontario, where there was a mistake made in the 1970s which recognized forested lands as residential lands, not agricultural, the rebate program was put in to encourage sustainability. It's been improved over the years and includes the managed forest tax rebate program.

Management plans were under way, and with no consultation they were ripped out. The savings are minuscule when you take into account the economic impact of sustainable forests and also the tourism initiative. There are hundreds of people who work in small business and tourism across our riding and across the province.

Mr Minister, will you commit today to reinstating the managed forest tax rebate program -- it's not a question of just throwing money at it, but the managed forest tax rebate program -- as an interim measure until forest lands can be given fair treatment under Ontario's tax structure?

Hon Mr Hampton: The Ministry of Natural Resources has a limited capacity to control what people do on their private land. We will work with any bodies and organizations that want to work on this issue with respect to all aspects of the issue: the public information aspect of it, the issue of generating some management plans, the issue of better regulation, and finally in terms of tax rebates.

If the member is suggesting that the answer to this is simply to reinstate the tax rebate and increase the tax rebate, that may help generate some funds for some land owners, but it will not generate sustainable forests on private lands. There's got to be a far greater area of cooperation. When we see the willingness to work towards that cooperation, then I think we will begin to make progress in the area of private lands.

SUBSTITUTE DECISION-MAKING

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is to the Attorney General. Madam Attorney, there's been a great deal of concern in my riding about the new Substitute Decisions Act. I know you have done your best in terms of trying to get information out there, but just one more time, could you please explain for my constituents how they will be affected by the new Substitute Decisions Act?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I thank the member for her question. In direct answer, the law has not changed with respect to the intervention of the public trustee, who continues to manage the financial and personal care affairs of a person who has become incapacitated without a power of attorney having been signed.

The new Substitute Decisions Act makes the process for a family to regain control of an estate quicker and less expensive. It provides a way for family members to take over the guardianship by applying directly to the public trustee rather than going through the court, as is the current practice. If a spouse, a partner or a family member is willing and available to make decisions on the incapacitated person's behalf, or if a power of attorney has been assigned, there would be no need for the public trustee to act.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you, Madam Attorney. I appreciate that.

The second part of the concern that constituents had expressed had to do with that guardianship. The concern was that information had come, and I'm not even sure from where, that in order for a family member to indeed be a guardian, that family member had to have assets equal to those of the person for whom they were taking over that trusteeship. Could you explain to me if that is in fact the case?

In terms of this misinformation, I know your office has made a great effort to try to turn that around. It's been somewhat successful, but not as successful as I had hoped. Have you any figures connected to how much it has cost this government, your office, in order to correct that blatant misinformation that seems to be out there?

Hon Mrs Boyd: In answer to the last question, I can get those figures for the member, I don't have them with me. It certainly has been disappointing that this campaign of misinformation has in fact resulted in a great deal of effort by members on all sides of this House to try and correct an impression of a bill that was passed unanimously in this House for the benefit of people.

1450

In answer to the first part of the question: If a person holds the power of attorney for an individual who becomes incapacitated, then there's no reason to provide security, because that person has had the ability to choose before becoming incapacitated and, of course, chooses someone they trust to act in good faith.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: But if the person becomes incapacitated without a power of attorney, then it is the responsibility, as it has always been, to ensure that the guardian is someone who will in fact be very clear about maintaining the trust of the person who is involved. The court can reduce or waive the requirement for a security if it decides to do so, but it needs to be very clear that the best interests of the person involved are being followed by the guardian appointed.

PETITIONS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): "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.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here 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 provisions that the Ontario government reserves the right to regulate 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 a 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 Canadian public health;

"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 Canadian government to introduce and enforce legislation calling for plain packaging of tobacco products at the national level."

You see by today's front-page news more women are dying of lung cancer today. Thank you.

HEALTH LEGISLATION

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition signed by 18,000 people, who write as follows:

"The Canada Health Act is perhaps the most important social legislation in our country's history. As such, it is a contract between the people of Canada and their governments, and between themselves, to foster and protect the health of all Canadians with fairness and equity.

"The Canada Health Act also serves to draw our diverse peoples in regions together and to bind us cooperatively in the protection and fulfilment of a truly national objective, mutual good health and wellbeing;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, urge and demand that you:

"(1) preserve and protect the intent and integrity of the Canada Health Act as it was originally envisioned; and

"(2) do so within the framework of fairness and equity combined with fiscal prudence and responsibility."

I could not agree more with the content of this petition and I have affixed my signature to it.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Hundreds of petitions continue to come in on this subject.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy in his private member's Bill 45, and supported by his leader, Lyn McLeod; and

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

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

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

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

"I, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

I submit this, I've affixed my signature, and may the government do something about it rather than just continuing to ignore these people.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a petition which reads:

"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 the 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."

I affix my signature to that.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"We believe there will be an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, but since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all references to sexual orientation should be removed from the Ontario Human Rights Code and Bill 45.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

I've also signed my name to this petition.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition from various churches in my constituency signed by over 500 members. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas spousal benefits have been given to husbands and wives because the marriage of one man and one woman is the biological, psychological, legal and spiritual foundation of society; and

"Whereas the recognition of the marriage of one man and one woman and the support of such marriage is in the best interests of society because of its contribution to a stable society, including the most effective rearing of children and provision for the most health-promoting emotional and social networks of our citizenry and workforce,

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

"Oppose and defeat Bills 45 and 55 regarding same-sex spousal benefits and future legislation of a like nature so that marriages of one man and one woman and like traditional family values may not be weakened and their real contribution to society may not be undermined, diluted, confounded or lost because of confusion created by promoting inferior alternatives and values which have no proven contribution to the welfare of society."

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Mr Speaker, when you receive this petition, don't worry about the red substance on the back; it has already dried. The petition reads:

"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, not the business community, not the leaders of community organizations, not the 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 proudly affix my signature to this petition.

1500

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have more petitions that I would like to read into the record.

"To the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"Whereas it is a basic right of every adult human being to form a committed spousal relationship with another adult person of their choice under the protection of the law and without discrimination based on whether the individuals are of the same or opposite gender;

"Whereas persons in this province who are members of same-sex families are improperly denied basic fundamental protection, freedoms, rights and advantages accorded to families solely because they are not of opposite sexes;

"Whereas Ontario courts and tribunals, the Ontario Law Reform Commission and the Parliament of Europe have found that the denial of these rights is discriminatory and unfair; and

"Whereas an incorrect perception has been generated that members of faith communities oppose ending such discrimination;

"We, the undersigned, as members of faith communities, support the extension of full benefits and responsibilities accorded to heterosexual couples to persons in established same-sex relationships."

I've affixed my signature.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I have a petition here and it reads:

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

Interjection.

Mr Perruzza: He says that 2,000 jobs would be lost.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Read your petition.

Mr Perruzza: I'll continue with my petition.

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

I'm going to affix my name to this petition, which is signed by a number of people from Ontario.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to present a petition signed by thousands of my constituents from places large like Pembroke and small like Calabogie and La Passe. It reads in part:

"Whereas all students are entitled to the same educational resources regardless of where they live or which school they choose to attend; and

"Whereas most Catholic school boards and rural school boards do not have the assessment base of their urban school board counterparts; and

"Whereas these assessment-poor school boards are forced to spend far less on each of their students than assessment-rich boards;

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

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here that was unfortunately given to him by the many women of Mr Cousens's riding that he has passed on to me. It's a petition in support of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario's plain packaging legislation.

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use, some 6,000 women; and

"Whereas Bill 119, the Ontario tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and being held up by a few Tory members; and

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

"Whereas independent studies have proven" -- proven -- "that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people and, of course, to their eventual death therefrom; and

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

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

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

I affix my name thereto in support of the member from Markham, who was unable to support his constituents.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NAMDHARI SANGAT CANADA (SOCIETY) ONT. ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr110, An Act to revive Namdhari Sangat Canada (Society) Ont.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have a point of order under subsection 97(d) of the standing orders of the assembly. I raised this point of order on another occasion when Mr Speaker was in the chair. This point of order is with respect to written questions that are placed to the minister and the rule which requires responses within 14 calendar days or an indication from the minister as to the length of time that it will be available to present those responses.

There are numbers of these that are outstanding, but on March 28 -- the one I'm referring to is order paper question 103 -- I placed an inquiry to the Minister of Health with respect to the disposition of the $640 million which she continues to discuss as being available for long-term care. The answer I received was that a final answer could not be made available in the normal time period, but a final answer would be available on or about April 22.

We are close to a month after that date now, Mr Speaker, and I think you would agree that this ought not to be a difficult question to answer. The minister has spoken for several years with respect to the $647 million available for the reform of long-term care. We'd like to know where that money is, how it is being used, to what ends it's being put, over what time line that money will be dispersed. I have not received the answer.

The minister is in clear violation of the standing orders of the House, and I'd bring this matter once again to the Speaker's attention.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Your point was made very succinctly, very clearly, but unfortunately the Speaker cannot do anything in these circumstances.

1510

OPPOSITION DAY

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Ramsay, on behalf of Mrs McLeod, moved opposition day motion number 2:

Whereas 590,000 men and women in Ontario are currently unemployed and whereas we have seen record levels of unemployment in the last three years of NDP government;

Whereas Ontario's young people are now facing a real unemployment rate of 30% amidst the worst economic conditions since the Depression;

Whereas Ontario suffered the majority of Canadian job losses during the recession, and while once an economic leader in Canada, now lags behind the recovery seen in the rest of the country;

Whereas the NDP have killed jobs by raising taxes by $4 billion, the largest increase since the Tories were in office;

Whereas for every 27 people who went back to work in the rest of the country, only one person went back to work in Ontario in the first four months of 1994;

Whereas the NDP are content to allow unemployment to remain at 9% until 1997, an unacceptable level;

Whereas at a time when the people of Ontario are looking for bold new ideas and leadership, the NDP have decided to throw in the towel and accept high unemployment levels as part of Ontario's future for years to come;

Whereas NDP government policies, such as their anti-business legislation, have only made the employment outlook in Ontario worse;

Whereas the NDP budget is almost as full of more empty rhetoric and as unable to put people back to work as the Tories' economic framework;

Whereas Mike Harris and the Progressive Conservative Party have put forward an unrealistic plan that simply won't work;

Whereas the plan of the Progressive Conservative Party is based on unachievable promises, unsound calculations and flagrant contradictions; and

Whereas Lyn McLeod and the Ontario Liberal Party have set a target of reducing unemployment to 6% in five years and have put forward the only realistic plan for getting Ontario working again, which includes:

-- Reducing taxes by 5% over five years;

-- Reducing the paper burden by cutting the cost of doing business with government by 50%;

-- Balancing the province's operating budget within the government's first mandate without hiding debt off-book;

-- Scrapping programs that aren't working or are hurting business, including the failed $1.1-billion Jobs Ontario Training program, the job-killing sections of Bill 40, the $30-million bureaucratic advocacy legislation, the $30-million Interim Waste Authority, and over $5 million spent for increased NDP political staff;

-- Special help for small business such as examining the establishment of tax credits for new hiring and for venture capital companies and more help for small and medium-sized companies to tap into export markets;

Therefore, this House resolves that the recommendations contained in the Lyn McLeod Task Force on Jobs be immediately adopted and implemented.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, before the member proceeds with his comments, I believe we have an agreement among the three parties to split the time equally this afternoon, and I seek the consent of the House for that understanding.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): It's already registered in the rules that it is divided equally.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm very pleased to have moved the motion today on behalf of our leader, Lyn McLeod, and to stand in my place as the member for Timiskaming to speak to this motion and also to speak to some of the ideas that we have in our Lyn McLeod task force.

When I look at the task force report, Getting Ontario Working Again, which Lyn McLeod asked several of my colleagues to put together, notably the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, who is also our Finance critic, and the member for York Centre, who were co-chairs of this report, I and many of my fellow colleagues were privileged to be part of this.

It really started from what the very beginning of this motion reads today, that there are 590,000 people in this province who can't find work at this moment. We see that as a tragedy of unemployment. Like other tragedies in our society, it has touched just about each and every one of us these last few years. Thousands of men and women have lost their jobs and, more important, are finding it very difficult to support their families. That's why it is a tragedy.

We are very much aware of this in our day-to-day contact with our constituents and other Ontarians as we travel the province. To give a particular note, our young people -- many of us, as parents, have young people in our families -- have a particular sense of hopelessness right now, as about 30% of our young people between the ages of 18 and 24 are unable to find full employment.

That is a tragedy, because in my generation and all the generations before me we always had a very profound sense of hope, a great sense of confidence in this country; that while this country was a good place to work and to live, we always knew it would be even better for our children.

Now my generation is starting to question that and wonder about our children. I've got two daughters attending university right now and they're also questioning that. I hope that through a change of government in this province, we could get that hope back and get the economy rolling again.

With all that in mind, our leader, Lyn McLeod, decided we should gather our caucus members together in a task force to go out across Ontario and find some answers; not just to find out what some of the problems are, because I think those problems have been evident to us in the last few years, but also to find some creative solutions. In this report, Getting Ontario Working Again, I think we have found those answers, and today I'd like to talk about some of those solutions.

The important thing that differentiates our party from the other two parties -- the governing NDP and the third party, the Progressive Conservatives -- is that we have a vision. We have a sense from the people of Ontario, through the thinking and the hard work of our caucus members, of where this province should be. Unlike the American Revolution, the so-called Common Sense Revolution of the third party, we have what we believe is a vision of where Ontario can be and should be, and we believe we have the ideas to implement that vision.

That vision is enunciated in a plan. The vision is to get the people of Ontario working again. The vision is to have North America's leading workforce, leading economy, developed right here in Ontario. Why shouldn't Ontario be the workforce of the 21st century around the world? Why shouldn't Ontario have the best-trained men and women in the workforce?

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Given that this is an opposition day and given that the member is reading his leader's resolution, and given that there are only two Liberals in the House, I don't believe there's a quorum in this place to listen to them and their resolution today. I would ask you to call for a quorum, please.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please verify whether there is a quorum.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1520

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Timiskaming.

Mr Ramsay: I'm glad to be back after being so rudely interrupted. I will try to continue.

What's important is that we bring forward some very positive ideas that are part of a vision of making Ontario the very best workforce in the world. We think the people of Ontario have contributed to the Lyn McLeod task force those very ideas, and I'd like to talk a little about them.

One of the main concerns we heard when we were out talking to the people of Ontario in January and February of this year is that people in business, who want to create the jobs, who want to make some money, who want to do business in Ontario and invest to create those jobs, have said to us that they'd like to have the government allow the economy to breathe a little. They have a sense that government regulation and taxation is suffocating entrepreneurial activity in Ontario.

In fact, those who are thinking of expanding business opportunities in Ontario or who wish for the very first time to invest in Ontario are now starting to look at other jurisdictions, and this really hasn't happened before. They have a sense of a stifling, suffocating economic climate here, and that's not conducive to good business.

What they'd like, first of all, is some certainty. They'd like a government in place that they understand would be consistent with their thinking about developing and nurturing a very strong and vibrant business climate. That's what the business people in Ontario want, and the business people are the ones who really create the jobs.

And it's not the big business people, it's the small people in business, the women and the men who start the small business or the corner store or small service industry or start to sell a product. It's those people who create the jobs, and we need to get off their back. We have to start to develop a more employer-friendly, and therefore I believe employee-friendly, government in this province. If we do that, I think we'll start to see the business opportunities grow and develop and therefore employment pick up.

One of the things we could do directly to get out of the hair of business, if you will, to get out of their face, as my teenage family would say, would be to reduce the government red tape paper burden that we as government impose upon business.

I just received a call today from one of my constituents who again has received his corporate filing application. Year after year, he has to send in $50 and say: "Yep, my company is still named Doc's Place, and I still reside on Whitewood Avenue in New Liskeard. Here's my phone number, and oh, by the way, Bob Rae, here's my cheque for $50. Yeah, I'm still in existence. Thank God, I'm still in business."

We would eliminate that. To have an annual corporate filing and charge $50 for that is wrong. What we would do instead is say to business that once you are in business, you notify us when you go out of business or when there's some change -- no cost. That's the way that should happen.

It's the accumulative impact of all these sometimes minuscule little bureaucratic bugbears, requirements that the government imposes upon business, that just really start to frustrate.

The other thing is the whole tax regime, and of course the tax regime is getting large now. We have $4 billion in new taxes that this government has brought on personal income tax and corporate income tax in this province. Business is starting to look at Ontario and say, "This is a very expensive place to do business."

The approach we would take as a new Liberal government in the future would be to redesign how government operates. Why is it we still have people lining up to get their driver's licence, having to use the mail to file their corporate filings, when we could be using modern technology?

I think of other institutions, some very traditional institutions in our country, like the banks, that have completely modernized themselves in customer service delivery. The automatic banking machines are a prime example of how a very traditional institution in our country can start to service its customers. You know something? Government should do the very same thing. Why don't we start thinking like the private sector and start using modern technology and equipment such as that, so you could go in after hours to the same banking machine, after we cut a deal with the banks, and get your Outdoors Card, get your driver's licence renewed and do that sort of thing?

I'm just starting to talk about a lot of the different ideas we have, and I know many of my colleagues want to talk about this today, so I will take my place, but I've been very pleased to be part of this debate today.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I didn't expect that the Liberals would be quite so short, and I expected that the leader of the Liberals might --

Interjections.

Mr David Johnson: Are you going to stop the clock?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, we'll stop the clock. Don't worry.

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Mississauga North has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given yesterday by the Minister of Environment and Energy concerning transportation of waste. This matter will be debated at 6 pm.

Mr David Johnson: As I was saying, I had expected that the leader of the Liberals would be here to give their resolution. Bear in mind that this is an opportunity for all the parties to speak about their plans for Ontario for economic purposes, financial purposes and job creation.

Nevertheless, I thank the Liberal Party for putting forward its resolution on this matter because it's of great importance to all the people of the province. We're talking about economic growth, we're talking about job creation, we're talking about the issues that are of the utmost importance to the people of Ontario. It would have been more helpful, though, if the resolution had a little less rhetoric and was a little more specific on what the Liberal platform would be to help the economy grow and to create jobs.

I read, for example, one of the resolution's "whereas" clauses, which says, "Whereas the NDP have killed jobs by raising taxes $4 billion." This is true; this happened. But it does raise to mind that we only need to go back some four short years ago, and who was in power? The Liberals were in power some four short years ago.

Mr Perruzza: Who was the Premier then?

Mr David Johnson: It was David Peterson, of course, and many of the members sitting in the Liberal caucus today were present at that time. One might ask, what did they do when they were in power? What was the Liberal approach to the economy? What was the Liberal approach to taxes, to the finances of the province, to job creation?

I'm a little surprised, not having been in this House at that point, to look back and check the record, because I've heard today how sincere the Liberals are with respect to cutting taxes and creating jobs. But I see that in 1989-90, for example, there were 16 tax increases brought in by the same people who today are telling us that there should be a tax decrease of some sort. I'm amazed when I read this. This must be a record in the province, to have had 16 tax increases.

I see there was a personal income tax increase; a gasoline and fuel tax increase; a tire tax, which the NDP have now rescinded, and I must admit it was a good endeavour on your part to rescind that; a gas-guzzler tax; the retail sales tax was increased; a container tax was introduced; the commercial concentration tax was introduced by the Liberal regime in 1989-90, and again rescinded by the NDP. Thank you very much again, because that tax didn't make any sense either. You were right twice; those two times you were right. The land transfer tax was increased; the passenger vehicle registration fee was increased; the driver's licence fee was increased, all under the Liberal government.

This is the kind of experience we have with the Liberal government, and it makes you wonder where the Liberal leader was then when all these taxes --

Mr Perruzza: He's a Raptor now.

Mr David Johnson: The present leader. Where was the present leader then? Where was the present caucus then? Do we believe what they're saying today about taxes, or do we believe what they did just less than five years ago in increasing all those taxes?

They take a swipe at the NDP by talking about $4 billion worth of tax increases the NDP brought in. You have to admit it, you did it: in last year's budget $2 billion, the year before that $1 billion, and the year before that another $1 billion -- tax increases of almost $4 billion by the NDP.

But there's a saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks, and if you look at the Liberal record from 1985 to 1990, during that five-year period, lo and behold, if you add up all the tax increases, some of the tax increases which I've related to you today, the full-year impact of all of the Liberal taxes was $3.1 billion, over a $3-billion full-year impact of the taxes under the Liberal government.

1530

Just for fun, I looked at the rate of inflation during those years and did a rough calculation and increased those taxes by the rate of inflation. Lo and behold, what do I find? That, adjusted for inflation, the taxes under the Liberal government totalled almost the identical amount as the tax increases under the NDP government. The only difference is that the Liberals took five years to do it and the NDP took four years, so we'll give the Liberals a little bit of credit. But both governments, during their periods in office, increased the taxes by about $4 billion. That's an interesting fact.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview, please.

Mr David Johnson: That's all right, Mr Speaker. He needs the attention. That's his usual approach.

I carry on with the resolution of the Liberal government. Again, I thank them for putting it forward, because we need to have these kind of debates. Following down further in the resolution it says, "Whereas the NDP budget is almost as full of more empty rhetoric and as unable to put people back to work as the Tories' economic framework...." That's a little bit of rhetoric itself, you have to admit. It says that the NDP is full of empty rhetoric and it says that the Progressive Conservatives, essentially, are full of empty rhetoric too.

Mr Perruzza: That's true.

Mr David Johnson: The member says that's true. Thank you.

I asked the people of Ontario to decide on which is empty rhetoric. I have in my hand the plan, because the member speaking before me, the Liberal representative, indicated that they have ideas and a vision, that the Liberals have a plan. I'm sure we all want to hear what the Liberal plan is. We didn't really get it from the previous speaker, but I'll tell you what it is, because I have it in my hand. It's the Liberal leader's task force on jobs. It is a five-part plan for success.

Part 1 is entitled "Charting a Bold New Course." "We are going to have to get the commitment of all of Ontario to the benefits of embarking on this vision of a bold new future -- one that embraces the future and gears the economy to that future." That's it; that's part 1. There we have part 1 of the Liberal plan. I ask you, what does that mean?

Mr Perruzza: I don't know; you tell us.

Mr David Johnson: The member opposite doesn't know what that means; I don't know what that means. Is this a plan? "We are charting a bold new course." However, there it is. Compare that -- I'm sure you're delighted -- with the Common Sense Revolution, which is the Progressive Conservative plan for the economy. This is a job creation plan; the Common Sense Revolution is a job creation plan. We've heard that the first part of the plan for the Liberals is to chart a bold new course, but that's all we know. Where that course is, what it is, we really don't know. "Trust us. If you elect us, we'll think of something."

The Progressive Conservative five-point plan has as its first point: "Cut provincial income taxes." Cut the provincial income tax, the personal income tax, by 30% over three years, with half of the cut coming in the first year. For the average middle-class Ontario household, this would mean a tax cut of more than $4,000 in the first three years.

That's specific. You know what that means. There's no misinterpretation of what that means. There's the difference we have between the two plans.

The second part of the Liberal plan is to let the economy breathe. That is the second part of their plan for success, "Letting the Economy Breathe." Now you might ask yourself, what does it mean to let the economy breathe? It explains. The Liberal plan says, "As difficult and challenging as this will be, we can -- and must -- find solutions to an economy that finds itself struggling with a heavy tax load and an environment hampered by complex regulatory and overlapping jurisdictional problems."

There you have it. Now can somebody explain to me what that means? Again, who knows?

Mr Perruzza: We don't know that.

Mr David Johnson: The member opposite says he doesn't know. In that, we are in agreement. However, the member knows the second part of the Progressive Conservative plan, the Common Sense Revolution. It's specific. It says: "Cut government spending. Total spending will be reduced by 20%" -- the total provincial government spending will be reduced by 20% -- "in three years." Now that's specific. You know what that means.

It says we will protect health care, we will protect law enforcement, we will protect classroom funding. These are the priorities of the people of the province of Ontario. We have gone out and spoken with the people of the province of Ontario. These are their priorities. We will protect these moneys.

Beyond that, government spending has to be cut. Government spending has climbed too high in the last 10 years under the Liberals, under the NDP, and has to be cut. We will cut it 20%. The reduction will be $3.5 billion in the first year and by the third year it will be $6 billion.

We talk more specifics. We talk about cutting the members of this Legislature. There will be 31 fewer politicians. We will decrease from 130 members of this Legislature to 99, thereby having the same number of provincial politicians in Ontario as federal politicians, and the provincial politicians can do the same amount of work as their federal counterparts.

Abolish the pensions of the MPPs and abolish the free tax allowance of the MPPs: This will save money. This will provide leadership to the province of Ontario.

Reform the welfare system: The payments in Ontario average 30% higher than the welfare payments in the rest of Canada. We are saying that we will revise those payments so that they are 10% higher, but we cannot afford 30% higher than the national average across our country.

Implement a province-wide computer system to reduce the welfare load, cut business subsidies: We need to cut right across the board and that includes the business sector. The business sector gets subsidies from this government today. I'm afraid we can't afford those subsidies. We need to cut the taxes and we'll need to cut expenditures, and one of those expenditures is subsidies to certain businesses and we need to cut that.

We need to put a moratorium on non-profit housing. The Provincial Auditor has said that non-profit housing is being subsidized by the people of Ontario to the tune of $1,000 a month a unit. The people of Ontario cannot afford this. We would implement a shelter subsidy instead.

These are some of the specific items that we're putting forward.

The third point on the Liberal plan is "Redesigning the Machinery of Government." The Liberals say that some of the structures and programs in government are more geared to the 1960s, and when I read that, I'm reminded that we had a Liberal government for five years, from 1985 to 1990, and yet they're telling us today that the structure of the government is geared to the 1960s. What did they do during those five years when they were in power? I don't know.

At any rate, somehow what they didn't accomplish during the late 1980s they would now apparently try to tackle, although again they don't tell us how. They simply say that they would redesign the machinery of government.

What the Common Sense Revolution says is that we would cut government barriers to job creation, investment and economic growth. We say we would abolish the payroll tax for small businesses, businesses of under $400,000 in payroll. We would freeze Ontario Hydro rates for five years. The Common Sense Revolution would cut workers' compensation premiums by 5%. These are specific items.

We would also repeal Bill 40, the labour legislation, and I can tell you when I talk to people across the province of Ontario, there is no doubt that Bill 40, the labour legislation, is a tremendous hindrance to investment in the province of Ontario. It's a message I'm sure the government doesn't like to hear, but it's a reality of life in Ontario, and I'm hearing that over and over again. We would repeal that bill.

1540

The Liberals would be "Making Ontario the 'Home of the Best Work Force.'" That's point 4 in the Liberal plan. What does that mean? Sure, we want to make Ontario the home of the best workforce, but how? Would you do it by tinkering, or would you do it by real action? The Liberals would do it because it would "involve a strong commitment to embracing the future economy." That's how they would do it. What does that mean? Who knows?

What would the Progressive Conservative Party do? Through the Common Sense Revolution: "Cut the size of government. We will provide the people of Ontario with better for less." Specifically, government spending would be cut by $6 billion in three years. We would downsize the bureaucracy in the province of Ontario by 13,000 positions during the course of the next term -- 13,000 positions. That's very specific.

The fifth and final point on the Liberal platform which comes out of their task force on jobs would be "Providing the Tools For the Future." They say, "For our job-creating private sector to thrive, we must ensure that the financial tools, as well as the important infrastructure for growth, are available." That's very correct; I have no dispute with that, but what does it mean? What specifically would they do?

The people of Ontario are beyond just these empty phrases. They want to know specifically what you would do behind those phrases, and I'm afraid it's not here. It's not there.

I encourage the Liberal Party to go back with the phrases that they have and put some meat on the bones, tell us specifically what they would do. I know it's painful, but it's a process that we've gone through in the Progressive Conservative Party and it works.

Our fifth and final point is that we would balance the budget. I can tell you, there is a cry across the province of Ontario. People understand that this province is in a poor financial state. People understand that when we, for four years in a row, have borrowed over $10 billion -- successively, four years in a row we have borrowed over $10 billion -- to pay for expenditures over and above the revenue that's coming in, driving up the debt, at the end of this year, by the government's own reckoning, to over $90 billion, there is a problem. Almost 18 cents out of every dollar collected in revenue will go to simply paying the interest on the debt, and that is a situation that cannot be allowed to carry on. We must tackle that deficit every year that has averaged over $10 billion for each of the last four years.

We do that through a realistic program of cutting expenditures by $6 billion a year, imposing tax reductions of about $4 billion a year, and thereby encouraging economic growth. When people are allowed to keep more of their tax dollars -- and that's what we're talking about; we're talking about allowing people to keep more of their hard-earned dollars -- they spend it, they create jobs, they create economic growth and our province will flourish. That is the specific plan in the Common Sense Revolution. I ask the people to stack that up against the Liberal task force on jobs. Which one is rhetoric? Which one is specific? Which one do you know what it means and which one do you cross your fingers and hope for the best?

If I can carry on with the resolution from the Liberal Party -- I'll go down to the bottom because I can see my time is fast expiring -- it says that they would reduce unemployment to 6%. The Liberals would reduce unemployment to 6% in five years and put forward "the only realistic plan." The plan is: "Charting a Bold New Course"; "Letting the Economy Breathe"; "Redesigning the Machinery of Government"; "Making Ontario the 'Home of the Best Work Force'"; and "Providing the Tools For the Future." That's the plan. That is the realistic plan that's being put forward.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): That's a good one.

Mr David Johnson: I'm being told that's a good one. Sure, that's a good one. If we only knew what it meant, it might indeed be a good one. Some day, maybe before the election, we'll find out. The people of Ontario should demand that we find out before the next election.

Specifically, beyond that, the Liberal Party does mention -- I'll give them credit for this -- that they would reduce taxes by 5% over five years. Just to put that in context, what a tax reduction of 5% -- we bring in $33 billion in tax revenue, so 1% of that is $332 million. That's how much we'd be talking about by 1% a year for five years: Each year it would be $332 million.

The NDP 1994 budget incorporates, according to the author, the Minister of Finance, a reduction of $325 million, primarily through a tax holiday on the employer health tax. So the NDP this year has said it has provided a $325-million tax reduction. The Liberals would up the ante to $332 million. Now, there is progress for you. They would actually reduce taxes by $7 million more than the NDP. That is real progress. When we're looking at a $90-billion debt and at unemployment the highest it's been in our history and so many people unemployed, a $7-million tax decrease beyond what the NDP have implemented this year is not going to cut it; it's not going to be effective.

Besides which, it's interesting that, again, if you look back during the five years the Liberals were in power -- when the Liberals came into power the personal income tax rate was 48% of the federal income tax. During their five years, they increased it from 48% to 50%, then from 50% to 51% and then from 51% to 53% in 1989. The Liberal Party increased personal income tax by five percentage points, which works out to be about a 10% increase on the personal income tax during those five years. Now they're saying they would take back half of the increase they implemented during their five years in power. They're saying: "When we were in power, we increased the personal income tax by 10%. Now, our great plan is to take back half of that. We're sorry we did it. We'll take back about half of that increase."

The people of Ontario know that if you're going to come to grips with the debt, you need to talk about expenditure cuts. If we're going to come to grips with the deficit of over $10 billion a year for four years, we need to cut the cost of government in Ontario. We need expenditure cuts. How would the Liberal Party cut the expenditures in the province of Ontario? What they would do is cut the failed $1.1-billion Jobs Ontario training program; they would cut out Jobs Ontario. What they don't tell you, which is somewhat relevant, is that $600 million of the $1.1 billion has already been spent. How do you cut moneys that have already been spent? It simply doesn't work.

In actual fact, this year, the budget for Jobs Ontario is about $192 million, so in terms of a year cut, we'd be looking at $192 million from Jobs Ontario, about $15 million from various bureaucratic advocacy legislation cuts, another $15 million from the Interim Waste Authority and some $5 million spent for increased NDP political staff. That's what the Liberals are saying. They would cut expenditures by some $226 million in one estimates year, by my reckoning; $226 million when we have a deficit of over $10 billion. That is equivalent to me, as an individual, running a personal deficit each year on my own personal accounts at $10,000 a year -- in other words, I was spending $10,000 more than my income -- if I decided to cut my spending my $226 and I thought that would solve the problem. It won't. It doesn't scratch the surface.

1550

I'd ask the people of the province of Ontario to make their own decision: Is that a realistic program? Is such minor tinkering that is being proposed by the Liberal plan, which is almost the same magnitude as the NDP plan, going to really tackle the problems we have in the province of Ontario?

With those comments, I will sit down and allow my colleagues to have their say.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): We're debating a resolution which is put forward by the opposition leader, Lyn McLeod. Most Ontarians say, who is Lyn McLeod? Well, 11% recognize the name, 89% don't know, and 100% wouldn't know her if she walked into a restaurant. So we have to spend $600,000 to develop and put a profile before Lyn McLeod in order for people to try to recognize her and to get recognition of the Liberal Party here in Ontario.

Spending $600,000 to improve her image could probably put 100 people back to work through Jobs Ontario. As of May 6, Jobs Ontario has created 46,000 jobs through 11,000 employers who have used the program. Some 45% of the people placed through Jobs Ontario were on social assistance, and 20% of those placements are youth. I recall the opposition party, during last year's opposition day, saying we weren't doing enough for the unemployed young people in our communities.

I listened to what this resolution talks to and I listened to what the Liberal leader puts forward when she says in her proposals that she'll reduce unemployment to 6%, and she blames this government for a lot of the economic issues that are there.

Let us not forget what happened to a lot of the workplaces that I represent in my communities. They were affected by the free trade agreement put forward by the Conservative government federally, which allowed a different marketplace which took away our Canadian content. I will no longer blame Brian Mulroney for the NAFTA agreement. It is now in the hands of the Chrétien government, which has now given royal assent to that deal, a deal that they stood so adamantly against but couldn't get enough members in the federal House to vote against, which could have defeated that bill that Brian Mulroney brought forward. It just shows you that it's the normal pattern of the Liberals: "Do as I say. Follow the Tory lead."

I think it's important that today we start to understand what we are faced with in job losses. This government has been trying to put forward programs such as Jobs Ontario program. The Jobs Ontario program has been effective in our community in Chatham-Kent. We've been successful through employer-employee relationships in making sure that people have been put back to work.

Using the Liberal leader's own statistics of creating 660,000 jobs, if they were to create them, it would lower the unemployment rate, really, in actual terms only to 8.5%, if you take into consideration the growth of the labour force that will appear. So I find it very hard to see how she is going to get to her 6% unemployment rate through this process.

I think it's also important to understand that when she talks about the Jobs Ontario Training fund, we're talking about removing an element that will help people on social assistance get back to work.

I believe the member in her papers talks about using the Futures program. She says she consulted severely with the small business community in and across rural Ontario. I believe if she consulted with the small business community in rural Ontario, she would get a clear idea of what they think about the Futures program, where it is incumbent upon the paperwork that has to be in place in order to make sure they can hire somebody, and then once hired, the paperwork still continues. Those employers don't want to be bothered by that process.

They believe that Jobs Ontario, and also the recent announcements in the budget about not charging the dreaded -- you want to talk about a business attack? -- employer health tax, which was levied against all employers throughout the province; our exemption on that, where they don't have to pay, will help stimulate even more jobs through this 1994-95 process.

One of the other parts the member keeps blatantly attacking is Jobs Ontario. I find it very ironic that the leader was in Chatham-Kent, and the deputy leader, Sean Conway -- I take it that's what he is -- was in the riding a number of times, but they never brought back the information that was portrayed to them about how effectively and how efficiently the Jobs Ontario project is working in our communities across Kent county.

I want to bring to the member's attention what's happening in her own riding, in Thunder Bay. The local brokerage, Confederation College, as of May 6, 1994, has created 505 jobs: 745 local employers have signed up with the program. The minister, Dave Cooke, attended a Jobs Ontario Training regional employers' conference on March 17, attracting 240 employers interested in getting on board. The minister had heard about the successes of employers such as Bombardier, J-D Video Recording Services and others in the community.

It is also important to understand that the Thunder Bay Times-News says, "The NDP have largely been doing what most people said needed to be done in order to get the economy back on track to prosperity." That was a quote by the Thunder Bay Times-News. Also, a quote by the North Bay Nugget, which is in the leader of the third party's tax revolt area, says, "Jobs Ontario Training, helping unemployed women shed the safety net of social assistance to gain greater independence through self-efficiency." That was a quote that was put forward in the North Bay Nugget.

I think it's important that the member who sits here and puts her resolution forward saying that it's destroying and hurting the business community -- I mean, for the Liberals, who have sat there and talked about the attacks on working people, let's talk about jumping from a 7% to an 8% provincial sales tax, which just hit everybody. Let's talk about the changes which occurred under the workers' compensation issue. Let's talk about the employer health tax, which went across and affected a lot of employers.

When this opposition motion says they'll get rid of the "failed $1.1-billion Jobs Ontario Training program," I find it very hard to believe that such a program that is even effective, that even my own mayor in the city of Chatham --

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Mayor Erickson.

Mr Hope: You've got it; well-known. He says:

"I am very pleased to say that the Jobs Ontario program has benefited the community as a whole through the creation of more than 300 jobs since September. Equally pleasing is the cooperation and participation exhibited between the business sector and the Jobs Ontario program staff in their efforts to create a value added position to contribute to the revitalization of our local economy."

The other one which I find very important right now, today, and he's also declared himself as one of the candidates who will be seeking to sit on this party which wants to kill the Jobs Ontario program, is the previous warden, Dennis Scott: "Everyone is aware the Chatham-Kent area has been severely affected by the recession. Consequently, we welcome the program, which will undoubtedly result in a positive implication for the community." That is by a person who is running for the Liberal Party.

I find it very ironic that the Liberal leader talks about killing a Jobs Ontario program which, number one -- and I remember very clearly that back in 1981-82 we tried to get similar programs that would help people get off the system and back into the workplace, one that would allow workplaces, employers, not only to allocate those moneys to the individuals to upgrade their skills, but allow a full workplace participation in education to make sure we can be competitive in a larger marketplace that, I must add, has been created by the Mulroney government under the free trade and by the Chrétien government, which did receive royal assent on the NAFTA agreement and which stood totally opposed to it, creating a more competitive marketplace, a more skill-added marketplace that we must compete in. This program that we did is able to combat those negative effects to our community and help employers achieve our ultimate goal of success of employment.

When they talk about "the job-killing sections in Bill 40," good Lord, we're on to partisan politics. "Over $5 million spent for increased NDP political staff"? Creative numbers. And being "more help for small and medium-sized companies to tap into export markets"? Well, if you're listening to a lot of the small business community in our area, they're talking about the notes being called back from the banks. They're considered high-risk if they're in the automotive sector. High risk is created by the marketplace which the Chrétien government and the Mulroney government have created upon us.

1600

All I can say, knowing a number of my other colleagues wish to speak to it, is I know the positive effects that Jobs Ontario has had in my community with employers like Navistar: high-paying, skills-added jobs, making our trucks still on the road today throughout this world, Navistar being the leader in truck manufacturing.

To our small employers who are participating fully in our communities, this resolution speaks of nothing but partisan politics. It does nothing for the people of the province of Ontario other than to try to continue their endeavour of spending $600,000 in creating a profile for the Liberal leader: 11% know the name, 89% don't know who it is, and 100% say, "If the person walked into the restaurant, I wouldn't know who she is."

With those points of view that I have, I will be voting against this resolution put forward by the Liberal leader.

Mr Miclash: I'm pleased to have this opportunity today to rise in my place in support of my leader Lyn McLeod's resolution.

I believe this resolution speaks for the many individuals who attended our jobs task force hearings which were held throughout the province recently. Our party is offering Ontario residents a balanced approach rather than the incompetent management of the present NDP government or the politics of intolerance of Mike Harris and the Tory party.

I'd like to focus my remarks today on a number of issues which are of concern to me, my constituents from the northern riding of Kenora and the people across the province. I would like to focus on the creation of jobs and the ability of people to play a major role in the province's economic growth.

The challenges we are facing in Ontario are real and complex, and I believe our leader, Lyn McLeod, and the Ontario Liberal Party will provide the sense of balance to manage these and other issues in an effective way.

One of the challenges we are now facing is a change in the economy, an economy that in large part has been forced to change because of the constant mismanagement of the present NDP government. I believe these changes have affected the government's ability to provide programs we value as Ontario residents.

It is essential for this government to understand the changes that are taking place and to respond immediately if people in places such as Dryden, Red Lake, Kenora, Sioux Lookout, Pikangikum and Show Lake, among other places, are to feel confident about the future.

It's clear that we as legislators must respond to the number one concern of Ontario residents, that of course being the creation of jobs. As our resolution states, over 590,000 men and women in Ontario are currently unemployed. This I find truly unacceptable. The recession of the last number of years has hit Ontario particularly hard and we in northwestern Ontario are still feeling the effects.

In order to address some of these changes, our leader established the Liberal Party jobs task force, entitled Getting Ontario Working Again. I think this is a document that many people are going to be interested in taking a look at, and in seeing an effort where we have come to grips with the problem of jobs, the problem of unemployment in this province and the unemployed, of course, who are facing some situations that are really unspeakable.

More importantly, we have set out to solicit positive and constructive ideas on how to fight the crisis that I talk about, the crisis in jobs. I believe that because of this process and consulting with people affected through the loss of a job, we have gathered some new ideas for creating prosperity and opportunity in Ontario.

The jobs task force travelled to over 16 communities in Ontario and heard from individuals, unions, community groups and business owners. The members of the task force heard from more than 200 witnesses from all parts of this province. They heard of course of the frustrations and the concerns of businesses that are overburdened by taxes and red tape. They heard the views of both the young and the old who fear for our future.

They also heard from the unemployed in the province who have lost hope in their search for employment. Many of these people live in my riding, and I can understand the frustration they are presently experiencing. Clearly our first priority must be to get these people back to work.

Furthermore, as an educator, I'm very troubled with the large number of students who are conveying to me their concerns for their future. I hear over and over from young men and women that they are unable to find summer employment, which will mean they will be unable to attend a post-secondary institution in the fall. Again, I find this very disturbing.

As members are aware, the number of unemployed young people rose last year to an amazing 162,000, that coming from a 1989 figure of 84,000, and the forecast for the future is no better. I think it is time for this government to listen to some of our young people, who have something to say but are continually ignored and cast aside.

People in Ontario today, in every region, share feelings of anger and frustration. They are angry about the increased taxes and decreased service. They are frustrated by the chaos and mismanagement they have witnessed with this government. Out of this sense of frustration and anger rise feelings of deep concern: concern about jobs, the economy and the future of our youth.

I'm also hearing from constituents throughout the Kenora riding who understand the hard realities that we face. My constituents, I must say, want to be part of the solution. They tell me they want to exercise their capabilities, they want to take on greater responsibilities and they want to be a part of the process that will ensure a brighter tomorrow.

My party and I have confidence in the ability of the people of Ontario to develop solutions that will deal with the challenges we all face. We have in Ontario an educated and skilled workforce, a strong resource and manufacturing base and the greatest primary resource, our people: people with different backgrounds and creative ideas who are willing to work hard and are willing to invest in the future of this province. To capitalize on these strengths, we need to create a positive environment that will foster economic growth and we must ensure that education and training are both up-to-date and relevant to today's demands.

One of the principles which lie at the heart of our party is that the role of government is not to direct and control people's lives, but to create the environment that enables people to solve problems for themselves. This government must understand that its role is to encourage people to invest in their future. Instead, we see a government that has become tired and unwilling to provide the necessary leadership to get Ontario working again. We believe the best solution for Ontario's problems comes down to working with people, something this government has chosen not to do.

One of the key elements to getting people back to work is investment in research and development. In Ontario, we have the institutional framework to facilitate this investment. We are fortunate that we have a network of universities and community colleges throughout this province, and centres for excellence, the university research incentive fund and the centres for entrepreneurship. These structures have the potential to become pillars of growth, and I believe they can do that. I believe that government must help harness that potential by encouraging post-secondary institutions to substantially increase the focus on the commercial uses of research and development.

Job creation and sustainable economic growth require an investment in people. Our party is committed to working with the private sector to help young people be better prepared for the transition from school into the workplace. We will continue to propose measures to improve job training as well as provide the necessary leadership to get Ontario back to work again. I know we have the potential to succeed.

The people of this province have done great things together in the past, and I look forward to working with our leader, Lyn McLeod, and the caucus to address the many challenges facing us. Clearly we can do even greater things together in the future, but we need a government and a leader that will lead the way with ideas and solutions.

I would like to close by quoting the Right Honourable Lester Pearson, a former Prime Minister of this country whom I have long admired and respected. I believe this gentleman understood the worth of the individual and had a true northern spirit. I quote Mr Pearson:

"The fundamental principle of Liberalism is that the foundation of its faith is belief in the dignity and worth of the individual. The Liberal purpose remains the creation of opportunity for men and women to become self-directing, responsible citizens."

This statement still holds true today.

In closing, I call upon all of my colleagues from all sides to support this worthy and most realistic resolution put forth by my leader, Lyn McLeod.

1610

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Wellington this afternoon to make a brief speech in response to the resolution brought forward by the Liberal leader, which is harshly critical of the NDP government's policies over the last three and a half years, critical of its action on the economy, its record of unemployment, its tax record, its lack of leadership and so on. The resolution continues by being quite critical of the Conservative caucus in suggesting that our Common Sense Revolution plan will not work and is unrealistic, and then very briefly indicates what they would like to see done with respect to provincial policy today in Ontario.

Of course, we're in the season where we're getting close to an election campaign, and, quite properly, the parties are putting forward their observations, their beliefs about what the next government should do, the government that will assume power in 1994, this fall, or 1995, depending on when the government decides to have the election. I think the people will have a very good opportunity in the provincial election coming to assess and compare the record and the ideas for the future of the three political parties.

We've seen the government's budget of this year. It's received some mixed reviews. I'm sure the government members are out there in their ridings trying to sell it. It's very much a continuation of the status quo, the policies of the government over the last three and a half years. It's really no deviation from those, and I think the government members would agree. It's a status quo budget, and I think its greatest weakness is its debt projection.

I see the young people in the gallery. I was actually waving at one of the young lads up there. I'm sure they're enjoying this debate this afternoon. I'm sure they're wondering about their future. I'm sure they're not aware of the debt level in this province. We know that the debt when the Conservatives left office in 1985 was about $30 billion. It took about 120 years to reach that level of debt. Five years of Liberal government added about $10 billion to that debt, putting it at about $40 billion. Now, when this budget is finished its fiscal year, the debt of Ontario will be about $90 billion. So it's approximately tripled since the Conservatives left office, in about 10 years.

That concerns me personally. I'm 31 years old. People my age, my generation, will be paying for the excesses of the 1980s, the high spending, through the high taxes which were brought in to attempt to keep track of the spending of the Liberal government at that time. But this is the status quo idea of what the government thinks should be done.

We're able to compare this with the report of the Lyn McLeod Task Force on Jobs, Getting Ontario Working Again. This is the result of a task force that I believe many of the Liberal caucus members participated in. It makes some modest suggestions about what the government should be doing, and it indicates what I suppose the Liberal platform will be, which is in my view very much a continuation of the status quo with some minor changes, a very modest tax cut proposal which isn't very specific, talking about the fact that payroll taxes are probably inhibiting job creation. I think they recognize that. I wish they'd recognized it in 1988 when they brought in the employer health tax. They would argue that the economy was booming and so on and we were able to sustain it at that time. But the reality, and I think most honest Liberals would agree with this, is that those taxes could not be sustained except in an extremely booming economy. Now those tax levels are hurting our economic prospects.

I don't want to be overly critical of the Liberal plan, because if those steps were taken I think they would result in some modest improvement in the economy, but I want to get to our plan, the Common Sense Revolution. We've got a good picture of our leader on the front. We're proud of him. I'm glad he's out there selling it these past couple of weeks.

I believe in this plan. I think the proposals we've put forward are what's needed at this time. The people of Wellington whom I've talked to over the last three and a half years since they sent me here as their member have told me that all these things have to be done, that taxes have to be reduced.

What we've said is that provincial income taxes ought to be cut 30%. Some have said that's unrealistic. It's happening in other jurisdictions. The new Governor of New Jersey is reducing personal income taxes at the state level by 30%. We believe that would put more money in people's pockets, and we think it's a good suggestion. If the Liberals are against our proposal of a tax cut, I'm sorry about that, because I think it has to be done.

We've called on the government to reduce government spending significantly, dramatically, and that's where we're getting the greatest resistance. A lot of people who are dependent upon government spending would be very concerned about seeing a reduction in non-priority spending, which we have said is spending outside of (1) health care, (2) classroom education and (3) law enforcement. We've said that those areas ought to be exempt from the cuts.

We list about $6 billion worth of cuts specifically. I forget how much the Liberals suggest they're going to cut -- maybe the Liberal Finance critic will indicate later on -- but I think it's $1.1 billion for Jobs Ontario, half of which has already been spent for this year, I understand -- maybe I'm incorrect on that -- and about $65 million of additional spending. That really leads us to believe that taxes are likely to go up under a Liberal government, if it decides to endeavour to balance the budget over the course of its mandate, but I'm sure we'll hear more about that later.

We talk about cutting government barriers to job creation. As a small business advocate and as a co-chair of our small business task force, I've heard time and time again, and I'm glad the Minister of Economic Development and Trade is listening because I know she has heard this message as well, that small business needs a reduction in red tape. We need to see Bill 40 repealed. In my opinion, we need to eliminate the employer health tax for small business. Any business under $400,000 in payroll ought to be exempt from paying the employer health tax. That would be a direct stimulus to job creation.

We think that interprovincial trade barriers ought to be eliminated, to the extent that we can do that through discussions with the federal government on a bilateral basis. We've also called upon the government to reduce workers' compensation premiums by 5%. We think that would help with job creation.

We've called upon the government to cut its size. We believe government could do better by spending less; we believe very strongly in that. I've heard that from many of my constituents in Wellington. They believe that the level of government has grown too high and that we're not getting the service from government that we used to, even four or five years ago.

Of course, the fifth element of our plan, which to me is the most important element, the thing that is absolutely essential for everyone in Ontario, is a realistic plan to balance the budget over a period of four years. That's essential for restoring investor confidence. It's essential for restoring hope in Ontario for our future.

I'm very pleased that we have put this plan forward. We've received an independent endorsement from Dr Mark Mullins, who is the chief economist at Midland Walwyn, one of Canada's most respected securities firms. He has said that this plan will work, and he's put it through his economic model to demonstrate that the numbers do add up, that the numbers are internally consistent.

What we've done with our plan is we've costed everything. We've suggested what the cuts are going to cost, where the cuts will come from. We've been extremely specific. We've been more specific than any other opposition party. It's almost like a provincial budget in terms of its specific nature.

We've also received a endorsement, as much as we're ever going to get from a newspaper, from the Globe and Mail. Their editorial on May 7 was one of the best endorsements we've received, suggesting that this plan is something the people of Ontario want and need. They also indicate, and I think this is one of the greatest benefits of our plan, that this plan will define the issues of the coming election. I would predict the Liberals are going to have to come up with another plan to respond to what we have said in this document.

I don't think we've heard the last from the Liberals. When they go out and try to sell their plan and are asked by the people of Ontario, "The Conservatives are going to do this. What are you going to do?" I think we'll find that this is not the last plan the Liberals will bring forward. I'm very interested in seeing how the Liberals respond to this debate. I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the Liberals come forward to speak in this House. There aren't too many of them in the chamber at this time.

Interjection: There's one.

Mr Arnott: There's one, and we're looking forward to hearing from him. As I say, this agenda the Liberals have brought forward is something that would, in a very incremental way, assist in improving the economy of Ontario. I just say that it's not in any way far enough.

1620

Mr Sutherland: I'm pleased to comment on this opposition day motion put forward by the Liberal Party. In putting this motion forward, the Liberal Party ignores some of the history of how we've got to the situation we are in today. I think we need to recount some of that history.

Basically, what we ended up with when we took government in 1990 is that a structure had been built up that was no longer sustainable: a structure of public services that could only be financed if the economy continued to boom at 6% and 7% growth a year, a system of public services that, while generally working well, had not been modernized to the degree they should have been, had not been updated in a way they should have been; a system, as I say, that required a great deal of economic growth.

We also had some other public institutions that were on very unsustainable courses. I think of the $34-billion debt at Ontario Hydro. I think of the $10-billion unfunded liability at the Workers' Compensation Board. In 1980, the unfunded liability at the Workers' Compensation Board was only $400 million. When the Liberals took over it was $6 billion, and then it went to $10 billion. What was done with that in the 1980s? How was the Ontario Hydro debt that went to $34 billion by the time we took over created?

We had a structure that was no longer sustainable, and then we didn't have the finances to support all our public services when we went into the worst recession since the 1930s. We went through something that's been unprecedented since the 1930s: Government revenues dropped three years in a row.

The third party, the Tories, will say, "We did this during the last recession in 1982-83," but the revenues were still increasing. What this government faced was the challenge of trying to restructure these services, trying to restructure the economy, so that in the long run it will be sustainable, so that in the long run it will create the jobs so the young people in our galleries today will have the opportunity, the future and the hope to contribute to our province in a way that many of us have contributed, probably in greater ways than some of us have contributed.

That's what this government was faced with, and this government has dealt with significant changes. For example, we didn't have an adequate training and adjustment system. While we are going through the worst recession and more people are being laid off and losing their jobs permanently as manufacturing leaves this province due to restructuring, adjustments to free trade etc, there wasn't an adequate adjustment system. We've established the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, one of our most successful programs. The Jobs Ontario Training program, as my colleague for Chatham-Kent said, has provided great success.

I held a round table with some of the businesses in my riding that are participating in it, and one business person said to me, "Our company has not participated in any government training program for 20 years." I asked him why, and he said: "Because they don't meet our needs. This one does."

The Jobs Ontario Training program is meeting the needs of business people, getting people who were on social assistance off that and giving them the new skills. Yes, as the member for Kenora said, "People need to be empowered." They're going to be empowered through the Jobs Ontario Training program because they're getting the skills they need to be self-sufficient. That's what this government is doing to get people back to work, that's what this government is doing to support businesses, that's what this government is doing about creating jobs.

Not only are we empowering individuals but we're empowering communities, and we're empowering communities in a couple of different ways; one, through the Jobs Ontario Community Action program. This program is a very effective one. It wasn't developed by the Tories; it wasn't developed by the Liberals. The basic sense of the Jobs Ontario Community Action says that the local communities know what their priorities are, know what their needs are, and the provincial government needs to respond to that. We've taken some of the program funding out of four or five different ministries that you used to have to apply to separately, put that all together and said, "As a community, come together and say what your priorities are."

In my riding of Oxford, the city of Woodstock has a proposal to develop a community complex in conjunction with Fanshawe College campus, a child care centre; they're going to build two new arenas to replace one that's 85 years old; a new gymnastics club, a $12.5-million project. The government's committing $3 million, the city's committing several million and the people of the area are committing a couple of million through different fund-raising efforts.

You know what the deputy mayor said about the $3-million announcement? He said the project would not go forward without our contribution, and he said it's the best news the city of Woodstock has had in 25 years.

In the town of Ingersoll, the downtown was struck by a devastating fire two years ago. Jobs Ontario Community Action has also contributed funds there because they had developed a downtown revitalization strategy. The community had come together and said: "This is our priority for the downtown. We want the support." We're giving them more than $700,000. The town is matching that and, as a result of the investment we've made, local businesses are upgrading their businesses; they're investing; they're renovating; they're developing a heritage theme. There's been more investment made in the downtown since we made that announcement. Those are the types of things, those are the types of mechanisms, those are the types of levers that weren't in place before September 6, 1990. Those are the levers that are now in place that this government has developed, that empower individuals through Jobs Ontario Training, that empower communities through Jobs Ontario Community Action.

Let me say that I think we have seen this province go through a very, very difficult time period, but we put out very specific programs that support individuals and support communities. The Liberal job plan: Quite frankly I describe it as a warm, fuzzy document, and that's really what it is. Those who've been involved in high school student leadership programs know about warm fuzzies and they're basically to make people feel good. So the Liberal jobs plan document says all the right words, but there are no specifics. There's no clear plan there. It just says: "Well, we should work with small business. We should make the environment better for small business." It doesn't say how. It says a whole bunch of things like that. It says very vague, warm, fuzzy statements but no specifics.

I think the people of Ontario want specifics and they can see that from what this government has done. Through Jobs Ontario Training and Jobs Ontario Community Action, they see specific results in my community: The community complex project is getting under way; the revitalization strategy in Ingersoll is being implemented. Specific plans, specific approaches, a plan that is working and empowering individuals and communities, that's what this government has done.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): In speaking on this Liberal opposition day, I'd like to begin by offering some agreement with the Liberal motion. I think we really do have to look at the misery index for the people of Ontario. When you look at the alarming levels of the misery index, it is something that every one of us has to start to be concerned with and to deal with.

You realize there are 590,000 people out of work and the prospects of them getting back into the workforce diminish as time progresses, so the likelihood of those people being able to find a real opportunity again is a matter of great concern to all of us.

Anyone who's in the young age group who don't have experience have a tough time finding a job, their first job, and those over 45 -- it used to be 50 and 55, but now those people who are in their mid-40s, if they're dislocated, they have a very, very difficult job of finding a fresh start.

Young people especially, and I agree with the Liberals on this when the honourable Mr Phillips -- I still call him honourable -- talks about the 30% factor that youth are hurt by, that is a fact. All you have to do is talk to your own children who are in their late teens and early 20s and their friends are unemployed, can't find jobs. I'm worried about them and I say their misery index is high. Their frustration level is huge.

Then when you look at the 1.3 million people on social assistance in our province, every one of those people has a sense of concern about their future and they don't like their circumstance. They don't want that circumstance and they want to do everything they can to get out of it.

We, in the Legislature, have a responsibility to help those people who are hurting, those people who can't help themselves, those who are the have-nots of the province of Ontario. That is our obligation; that is our responsibility. The last thing we can do is abandon them and let them feel that there isn't someone who genuinely cares. I have to say on behalf of Mike Harris, our leader, and the PC caucus, we have a genuine sense of concern for those people whose misery index is so very high.

I also agree with the Liberals when they talk about the whole abandonment, on the part of Mr Laughren and his company, of the fight against the deficit. The fiscal policies of this government are discredited and this government really has to be ashamed of its failure to get Ontario back to work. There has not been any true stimulation of jobs in the province of Ontario. The high cost of these jobs has been somewhat artificial, because they're very short-term. When the government comes along and puts the money in to provide a job, it lasts as long as the government's money is behind that opportunity. If in fact you start it from another way and create the jobs through private enterprise expanding their business, opening up doors for people, then that is when jobs will last far into the future.

1630

I also agree with the Liberal motion -- and this is where it ends -- when it says that Ontario is looking for bold new ideas and leadership. I'm satisfied that is the case. This is where I start to show where I agree. That leadership will come from this man, Mike Harris, and what Mike has done and what he is doing today within our party and within the province of Ontario in bringing forward the Common Sense Revolution. He is bringing out the very things the Liberals were calling for, bold new ideas and leadership, because here is a person who has worked it through, understands the needs of Ontario, understands the balance you have to have between government and private enterprise, all private enterprise.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I do not believe there is a quorum present in the House.

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

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: We may resume the debate. The member for Markham has the floor.

Mr Cousens: I was just having the pleasure of making sure that more people, along with the member for Mississauga South, understood what the Common Sense Revolution is. The one thing the Liberal motion calls for is new leadership and new ideas; they're to be found in this document. The Common Sense Revolution really begins to give us a sense of direction in this province.

One of the things in the Liberal resolution that we're dealing with today is that they're concerned that the promises are unachievable, that they're unsound ideas, and the flagrant approach by the Conservatives.

I can just tell you that if the Liberals would like a copy of this, we'd be pleased to give them an extra one to read in whatever language they want, English or French, and we'll certainly give them every assistance to understand that here is a party that is working to come forward with a strong statement for the future of Ontario.

Ontario undoubtedly has great challenges ahead of it. We've got a government that's in power and will have been in power as of September 6 for four years, which has just prolonged the recession with its policies.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would ask members to take their seats, please, if they are in the chamber. Would the members please take their seats. We'd like to listen to the debate.

Mr Cousens: Speaker, you're doing a fine job, thank you, bringing control into this unruly House, I tell you. Notice how well-behaved the Conservatives are and how ill-behaved the government party is. The Liberals are behaving today because it's their resolution.

The challenges that this government has not faced: They have prolonged the recession and you start to see how the whole revenue base in the province of Ontario has been eroded. We have seen the revenue that is generated through taxes and through the government programs lowered by $2 billion than what it was two years ago. This government has discouraged new investment in our province.

I have to believe, along with Mr Harris and our party, that this government neither has the intellectual nor moral capacity to overcome the problems and difficulties that surround the province of Ontario. In fact, since they've been in power, they have made things worse. We've had three downgrades in the credit rating for the province of Ontario. The quality of services continue to decline.

Look upon any of the services that are delivered to the people of the province: the roads are poorer; the health care is more difficult to get into -- and we know the difficulties there; school problems continue to abound; and are our communities any safer than they were before?

We are indeed concerned about all of the major issues that touch upon the people of Ontario. If you ask them today, are things better now than they were four years ago, the sense they have is, no, they're not, because all of those fundamental services, in one way or the other, are being impacted negatively.

What you've got is a government that has gone and shoved the money off the books and tried to hide it. The auditor has had trouble accepting the way the books are presented, and all you have to do is look at the way pension funds are being moved from one set of books to another.

A prime example was in OPSEU. It's just an example of tinhorn chicanery where this government has come along and done its own tricks. They have not begun to look at the overall picture or be honest either with ourselves or with themselves on really what it's all about.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Don, what was that, "tinhorn chicanery"?

Mr Cousens: That's what I said.

Mr Conway: Now, that's a line. Did you all hear that?

Mr Cousens: I don't think anyone did except you, Sean. They blow their horn. They make noises. They make it look as if everything is perfect, and it takes us in the Conservative Party to come along and call it for what it is, call a spade a shovel, and at that point, you begin to realize there is another side of the story, rather than what is being presented by the government.

We have problems, and part of the issue that underlines the opposition motion of the Liberals today is that we have serious money problems. We are exceeding expenses by $1 billion a month, and for the last 36 months, we're spending $1 billion more than we're taking in, and we're looking at ourselves in a deeper and deeper deficit all the time, because the government has not gotten control of its spending. It spends far beyond what it's taking in, and so when you have the high taxes and the high deficits that we have, pretty soon every person in Ontario will need two jobs to keep up with what the government's calling upon us. Indeed already people are working harder and longer than they have before, those who have jobs, in order to pay for all the taxes and all the levies that are being laid upon them.

Is there any doubt that we have problems in Ontario? We have a problem and the problem has to do with an economy that is just not back in drive again. We have a problem with confidence in government trying to do things but doing them in the wrong way. We're dealing with people who are saying, "Give us help; give us hope," and the people of Ontario have been grossly disappointed by the leadership they've had for the last nine years.

1640

That really leads me to the issue that is part of this motion. The Liberals have come in and said, "Okay, we have a number of issues." Well, I have to say the Liberals had five years of spectacular growth in the province of Ontario, and what did they do with all the money that came in? They spent it. The Liberals had to manage a boom. The PCs before them had to manage a depression, and there's the thing --

Mr Conway: Forty-two years?

Mr Cousens: Well, 42 years: You look what happened. At the end of 1985, when the Liberals took power, the total accumulated deficit was $30 billion. During the period of the five years, they went from $30 billion to $40 billion. It didn't take long to increase it, and they did it because all they could do was spend and spend and spend.

I repeat, for the sake of the Liberals, they managed in a time when there was a boom in Ontario, when things were growing, things were happening. The previous four or five years, during the early part of the 1980s, when I first came to the House in 1981, were tough times.

When Mr Peterson came, he said, "Boy, we have the sweet headaches of growth." He had the excellent opportunity of a lifetime to do something different, but he blew it. The Liberals absolutely blew it during their time. When they came to this government and they took over -- mind you, with the tremendous support of the accord and the New Democratic Party -- they added 10,000 civil servants during their term of office. Don't forget the $10-billion debt they added. They hiked taxes 33 times in their short period of office. They gave jobs to their friends like Mr Ashworth. And Patti Starr is a memory that we will all remember, not cherish.

There are stories that go deep into the history of Ontario during the Liberal time. They had their $1,000-per-day trips in Italy, when they were able to go there and spend great amounts of money. Larry, Curly and Moe running the province couldn't have screwed it up more than the Liberals did.

I come along and start asking what the Liberals have done. I ask people, "Name me one substantial measure that they did during their term," and I can't find it. You name me one substantial measure that they're promoting in the document they now talk about, and I say look hard for it, because it's not to be found. Again I have to agree with the parliamentary assistant for Finance when he said there is nothing substantive in the policy documents coming out of the Liberal Party here in Ontario.

When the Liberal Party comes along and says it's going to give a 5% tax break over five years, I would say that if you call that substantial, maybe you should give Girl Guide cookies out; there's more substance in them than in your 5% reduction over five years.

The fact is, this government over here has done it badly, but the Liberals come along, and when you start looking at their policies, there is not the substance to their promotion that really gives credibility to it.

I sit here and stand here in the House daily, watching what's going on. What we have to realize is that the Liberals had control of the government in the boom times. Things were great, but they did nothing to create the opportunity for the future after that. So in part I am sympathetic to the NDP, because when they came in, the cupboard was bare. Instead of there being a surplus, there was a deficit. Isn't that right?

Mr David Johnson: That's right.

Mr Cousens: The member for Don Mills will recognize that well, as former mayor of East York. All of us in the province thought, "Oh, the province is going to have a surplus this year," and it was a huge deficit; it was in the billions.

You start to understand that there's a magic to what goes on. It's called sleight of hand, or lapse of memory. If there's anything that's a lapse of memory, it has to do with the Liberal lapse in remembering when they left the province and how they left it in such a way that the NDP had little chance to correct the direction that ship of state was going, because to turn it takes a long time.

Unfortunately for the rest of Ontario, the NDP didn't have the wisdom to know when to start turning, and when they did start to turn, they turned towards the rocks. But that is all part of the life of Ontario as we have it today.

Everyone tries to rewrite history so that they look good in it. So I stand up and try to paint the NDP as black as I can, and then I'll paint the Liberals even blacker, and then they'll stand up and try to paint everyone else black, and the public comes out and they end up saying, "The whole bunch of you have mud on you, because all you keep doing is throwing it at each other."

What you have to look at are the facts, and the facts are rather simple. The NDP have messed it up badly over the last several years. In that regard, I agree with the Liberals. I wish the Liberals could remember how badly they left the ship of state when they left office ignominiously back on September 6, 1990. They went into that election feeling they had everything to offer Ontario, and the public remembered all that had gone on during the David Peterson years. They remembered that the single biggest tax grab before Floyd happened to be Mr Nixon himself. They remembered that in such a way that when they voted, they voted in this government we have today.

When I look at the proposals that are coming out of the Liberals, I have to say that it's good to see they're coming out with fresh thinking, but they haven't accepted responsibility for how they left this province when they departed. They have not accepted the fact that they increased our taxes so many times, that they overspent during that period of time, that they didn't create job opportunities, and that they brought in so many new programs that downloaded the taxes so that the local ratepayers were affected.

Now we have the very much holier-than-thou approach of the Liberal Party going out and saying, "We're going to reduce taxes by 5% over five years." Isn't that something? That should maybe keep up with inflation the way it used to be.

"Reducing the paper burden by cutting the cost of doing business with government": I think that's laudable. If only we could begin to change the whole system of government and re-engineer it. I don't hear anyone here in the Liberal document saying, "Let's run government like a business." That is not implicit to their thinking. Bring the business concepts to work here in government so we start having the sense of living within our means: Cost-justify things, measure results, some of the simple things, the hard things, I guess, that business people are doing on a regular basis.

When I look at the government, there isn't any doubt that the government has a failed Jobs Ontario Training program. I look at the Liberals saying they're concerned with the "job-killing sections of Bill 40." Why don't the Liberals say they'll get rid of Bill 40? Why don't they admit they have problems with Bill 40 and make a strong statement on it?

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): They never did before. Why would they now?

Mr Cousens: Well, that's a problem. We don't know what they mean by what they're saying, this "job-killing sections of Bill 40." Offer something else to make the labour situation in Ontario more favourable.

But there is one thing I do agree with in the Liberal motion: the $30-million Interim Waste Authority. It's more than $30 million. The costs of the Interim Waste Authority, my friends the Liberals, is over $100 million. You look at all the costs that have come into it.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Attaboy, Don.

Mr Cousens: Absolutely. We'll keep fighting that dump, Greg. There's no doubt that we'll do everything we can do to have a major landfill site in York, Durham and Peel. When you look at the Liberals, they have suddenly reached the point where they have been converted on the road to Damascus, but I don't believe it.

Interjection: The road to Markham.

Mr Cousens: Hey, there's a road to Markham, but the road to good health in the province of Ontario is with Mike Harris.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Cousens: Call 1-800-903-MIKE. That's the road to success for the province of Ontario.

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I want to join in this debate. I won't be speaking long, because there are a number of other members in my caucus who want to say a few things about this resolution, but there are a couple of things that I wanted to say with regard to the resolution, particularly as it affects northern Ontario.

I wanted to say that I'm pleased to participate not so much because I don't believe the Liberal targets can be met, particularly the target with respect to balancing the province's budget, because I think the upheaval you would have in our social service system, for example, would make it impossible to allow them to continue to cope, but because it allows me to reinforce a number of the things the government has done in our special part of the province to create work and stabilize communities.

I want to talk a little bit about our capital works program, because that has been very important in particular in northern Ontario as part of our effort to get people back to work during these very difficult economic times.

We have seen the capital works programs that we have instituted as fulfilling three promises: first of all, a promise to get people back to work, even if it is for a short period of time, to allow them to make a positive contribution to our society again. Secondly is to allow the purchase of goods and services in communities locally, to help those businesses supply services that will be necessary in the construction projects that are going on. Thirdly, to improve the quality of life in communities in our part of the province, what we've been trying very much to do is to ensure that communities right across the province, but in northern Ontario in particular, are good places to invest in and will be good places for long-term stability for those people who want to come and spend their money and relocate there.

1650

We have been very successful, through a number of programs like the anti-recession fund, like Jobs Ontario Capital, like Jobs Ontario Community Action and through the base budgets of all of our ministries, at ensuring that in our special part of the province we have a good amount of money set aside for badly needed infrastructure projects. Through the two programs in particular, through anti-recession and through Jobs Ontario Capital, in spite of the fact that our population is only 8%, we've received about 30% of all the funds that have been allocated. I believe that's a reflection and recognition by my colleagues of the special needs that we have in our part of the province and the necessity for the government to try to meet those special needs.

Through Jobs Ontario Community Action, we will have about 25% of all the funds that will be allocated, and in a number of communities again this summer and next summer we will have people working, we will have capital projects that will go in place, we will have the purchase of goods and services and we will have the improvement of the quality of life of a number of people across a number of communities.

I want to say that in the very early days of the anti-recession program, and Jobs Ontario Capital in particular, the Ontario government was the only group, the only government, that was really promoting job creation in any of the communities. Had we not been there, no one would have been working in a number of northern communities.

Secondly, we have been very successful, through the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp, which I chair, at working in partnership with northern entrepreneurs to expand businesses that are already in place or to create new ones. The Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp was set in place by the former government and we have continued with it. It provides for an allocation of $30 million on an annual basis over 12 years, with the purpose being to allow northern entrepreneurs in the manufacturing sector, in the farming sector, in tourism-related sectors and finally in the mining sector to have access to financial support from the provincial government in the form of loans or grants to allow them to hire northerners to work in our special part of the province.

Since I have been chair of Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp, we have spent our $30 million every year. We have provided for jobs in northern Ontario and we have gotten people back to work. Since the inception of the fund, we have spent about $200 million through 1,400 projects and we have employed or created jobs that will keep 10,000 people in place. At a very difficult time in our economy, when the private sector was very reluctant to come forward and have investment, when the traditional banking institutions and other financial institutions were reluctant to provide funds for the same, the board members and myself have been very diligent in ensuring that there is financial assistance in place for northern businesses to maintain and to create new jobs in northern Ontario. The fund has worked very well and we will continue, Madam Speaker, I can assure you, to spend that $30 million each and every year that I'm here.

As well, the government has spent a lot of time and has put aside a lot of resources, both financial and in human terms, to try to deal with communities in crisis in northern Ontario. Because of the recession, because of the effects of free trade, because of the very high interest rates that were in place when we came to government and because of the low commodity prices that companies are receiving both in the base metals sector and in forestry, we have seen a number of communities, most of them in northern Ontario, that have been in crisis. In those communities, the local mill, be it a sawmill, a pulp and paper mill, or a mine, have been in the position that they can't sell their goods and services, and there is major change that is occurring in that community.

In places likes Kapuskasing, in Sault Ste Marie at Algoma Steel, in Sturgeon Falls at MacMillan Bloedel, in Atikokan at Proboard, in Thunder Bay at Provincial Papers and in Elliot Lake, we have spent much time, we have spent much effort and in some cases we have spent a fair bit of money to help people manage that change. We have worked very well in conjunction with partners at the local level, be they business leaders, trade union leaders, or civic and educational leaders, to put together packages for survival that would ensure there would be long-term stability and jobs in the future for those communities.

We have been very successful in that regard, and one of the highlights of the time I've been here is when I saw the Algoma shares reach $18 just before Christmas, or when about three weeks ago in Kapuskasing there was the sod-turning for a new sawmill, a $150-million investment all financed by the private sector in a community that two years ago we all thought was dying and was going to be dead.

I really want to commend the people in our special part of the province who have worked with the provincial government to ensure they would have, in effect, in their communities a long-term future and jobs; even if in some cases it was for a smaller number of people, there would be jobs and there would be stability and there would be a future for the long term. This government has made a major investment. I certainly hope we are over with the communities in crisis, but for those we worked with, we have spent a great deal of time and effort and money to protect people and protect their jobs.

Finally, there is a great deal of work being done right now in the forestry sector between my ministry and the Ministry of Natural Resources, and in that respect I was very pleased to participate, yesterday in fact, in an announcement in Thunder Bay with my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources and my colleague the MPP for Port Arthur. We were there yesterday to announce a $21-million investment in a new hardwood mill in the city of Thunder Bay. The proponent is Buchanan Forest Products, and in that case we will have 89 people working in the new mill; we will have at least 100 more in both the transportation and the harvesting sectors. That's only one of a number of projects that we will be announcing.

Earlier, in March or April, my colleagues and I were also in Sault Ste Marie. At that point, we were assisted by the proponents from Yeager Corp. That's a $110-million investment solely financed by the private sector, no government involvement whatsoever, with again a new mill being established in that case, the possibility of about 130 new positions in the mill and about 200 between the woodlands and the trucking operations.

We will, by the time we finish negotiating with the many proponents who have come forward who have an interest in hardwoods and new mills, have an investment of over $500 million in this province, all funded by the private sector, no government assistance, and the possibility of well over 900 and up to 1,000 new jobs in northern Ontario as a consequence. That's a major initiative of this government. It certainly is a major investment by the private sector, and I think it's a sign of the confidence the private sector has in our province and in our special part of the province and in the workers in northern Ontario that it would make that kind of financial commitment.

In closing, because, as I said, there are other members who wish to speak, I want to say that very clearly, in spite of the difficult economic times we have seen in this province and in spite of a lack of participation by the federal government, both the former and the present, in any of those initiatives, we have as a government done a great deal in northern Ontario to create jobs, to maintain jobs, to manage the restructuring that had been coming and to ensure that in many, many communities there will be a long-term future where there would have been none otherwise, and I am very proud of our record in northern Ontario.

Mr Sorbara: I'm particularly pleased to be able to participate in this debate, because it gives me an opportunity to put on the record a few remarks that arise from the resolution our party has put forward today and speak a little about the genesis of that resolution and the origin of some of the proposals put forward by the Ontario Liberal Party and our leader, Lyn McLeod, in the jobs task force report that I had the pleasure of co-chairing with my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, and to speak a little about what we learned over the course of almost three months of hearings, discussion, debate and analysis about the state of the Ontario economy and proposals to re-establish the kind of economic vitality that we in our party, certainly the member for Scarborough-Agincourt and I, agree still remains possible.

I tend to use the phrase "unlocking the enormous potential" that still resides in this province, and I firmly believe that the responsibility of the next government -- and there will be a new government in Ontario -- is going to be to govern imaginatively and creatively and with vision and with determination and courage in a way that unlocks that potential.

1700

Our history has been, on the whole, a rather magnificent one. In comparison, these past four years have been very difficult for so many hundreds and hundreds thousands of people and their families and their businesses, as jobs have been lost, as businesses have gone into bankruptcy, as whole communities have suffered the ravages of the most serious recession -- I call it a depression -- that Ontario has experienced since the Dirty Thirties.

I want to refer back for just a moment to the comments of my friend the member for Sudbury East, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I recall that in her closing comments, she was heaping yet more praise on her government and initiatives her government has been able to put into place, reminding us once again that there was no help from the federal government.

I get so offended by the increasing tendency of governments -- municipal, federal, provincial -- who are always looking for another level of government to blame. When Bob Rae's government was elected, assuming a little that this was something new for Ontario and there was going to be a somewhat different style, I was half-hoping and expecting that at least that part of political rhetoric could become, at least for a while, part of history.

But the recession was deeper than expected and some very serious mistakes were made, particularly in the early days of the Bob Rae government. The first budget is acknowledged, I think even by people in his own party, to have been a very serious mistake. Later on, there was the mistake of the labour legislation, not entirely bad in itself, as I've said in this House on many occasions, but the wrong recipe for the times. As we were losing more and more jobs, the government's determination at that time was to make Ontario the so-called toughest labour jurisdiction in North America. That sent one of the worst signals possible to the rest of the world, and the consequences were that the recession got even deeper, the economic difficulties got even more severe.

The Treasurer, in the budget after that, had to revise his deficit predictions dramatically and drastically. Ontario got even further in debt. The very fact that we were in a debt spiral then became worse, as fewer and fewer people took the government seriously. More and more people were paying attention to the fact that Ontario, which had always been the leader in economic growth and development in Canada, even in North America, was in a debt spiral and a recession spiral that was unparalleled. We became the economic cripple, if I could use that expression, in Ontario, rather than the province that was going to lead Canada out of a Canadian recession -- and a global recession, at that.

After that, unfortunately, I believe Bob Rae really got on an it's-all-Ottawa's-fault hobby horse. I point to that point as the point where Bob Rae's government really lost it. When you're looking for others to blame, you really know you're in trouble.

It's not as if the government in Ottawa, the current one and the previous one, is absolutely without fault, but what always struck me as really unconscionable is for Ontario to be complaining that other governments in Canada were getting more and that Ontario wasn't getting its fair share. We had a debate on a resolution to that effect in this Legislature last week, if I recall correctly. I couldn't even be here for the debate or the vote, because I would have been so angry at Bob Rae, once a champion of Canadian unity and Canadian solidarity, whining publicly in this Legislature about what cruel treatment Ottawa had given to Ontario over the course of the past five years, and indeed with the new government in Ottawa.

Bob Rae wanted more. He wanted a fair share. He wanted the federal government obviously to tax somebody more so that more money could be transferred to Ontario.

I just wonder, and I wonder out loud now, whether Bob Rae could take that message to the fishermen of Newfoundland and go and campaign in Newfoundland, which has been so terribly devastated by the disappearance of the fishery, and say to the people of Newfoundland that their obligation was to somehow be taxed more and work harder so Ontario could get more. Or even indeed go to the province of Quebec, where unemployment is so much higher and some of the entrenched economic problems are so much more severe than in Ontario, and say to the people of Quebec, "You're not contributing enough to Ottawa so as to allow Ottawa to transfer more here." Or to go to the farmers in the Prairies who have suffered so severely in a very difficult global wheat market, and say to them that somehow their obligation is to give more up to the national government so the national government could give more here.

Not to hear anything from Bob Rae about how we can figure out a way in Ontario to get back on the course that we've historically been on, so that we could do a lot more here in Ontario, so that Ontario could readopt its traditional role of providing for the more vulnerable parts of this nation who haven't had the kind of benefits and the kind of luxurious economic growth that Ontario is capable of -- I was appalled and embarrassed that an NDP Premier, any Premier in Ontario, could whine and whimper about not getting more from the national government.

After all, where does the national government get the resources, the economic resources, to provide transfer payments to Ontario? That's what Bob Rae wants; he wants more transfer payments from the national government to Ontario. Where would they come from? They could increase their deficit in Ottawa and then transfer more to Ontario so Ontario's deficit would be greater, or they could raise taxes in Ottawa and transfer more here. It's one or the other, and where are those taxes going to be raised? They'd have to be raised right here in Ontario --

Mr Perruzza: Or Newfoundland.

Mr Sorbara: Or Newfoundland, my friend from Downsview says.

Mr Perruzza: Or BC.

Mr Sorbara: Or BC, my friend from Downsview says.

Mr Perruzza: Or Manitoba.

Mr Sorbara: Or Manitoba -- asking Canadians in other jurisdictions to sacrifice more so Ontario can have more, and at the same time proclaiming that the Bob Rae economic plan is right on target.

I'll tell you what the Bob Rae economic plan is: a doubling of the Ontario debt in the course of four years, a doubling of the debt from $37 billion when he took over to $80 billion now -- even more than doubling that debt; a rate of unemployment in Ontario that is historically the highest we have ever had, save for the years of the 1930s when the entire world was in depression. That's the legacy and yet the NDP has the audacity to stand up and say: "We're right on course. We're doing all the right things. If only the national government would pour in more money, if only other Canadians would contribute more to Ontario, things would be all right."

Forgive me, Premier Rae, but that is not my view of Canada, and that is not my view of being on the right economic course in Ontario. I think in Ontario we should only be happy when our economy is functioning so strongly that we have the resources to assist those other, more vulnerable economies in Canada. Anything short of that is unacceptable.

1710

My friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt and I led a task force to try and examine what the real economic problems were in Ontario and how we would go about setting a new course, how we would go about really unlocking the potential that exists in this province and how we would go about articulating not the hocus-pocus of the so-called Tory Common Sense Revolution.

Forgive me, these guys every day sitting in their place or standing in their place and waving their brochures, saying, "Call 1-800-Michael," or whatever it is -- I'm sorry, it's the classic kind of two-bit TV evangelical horse doo-doo that just makes people so sick --

Mr Perruzza: They pay good money for that; I know it.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Sorbara: There's my friend from Downsview, shouting across the floor, saying absolutely nothing. What's new?

One can look at that whatever-it-is revolution. It doesn't take very long to understand that pie-in-the-sky economics are not the order of the day, that the real challenge in Ontario is to bring together a group of intelligent, competent, realistic, hardworking men and women who will put forward a plan and a strategy that will lead us over the course of four or five years to an economic course that unlocks that potential I talked about.

I think that's what we brought forward, if I might be so bold and immodest, in our task force report. It talks about a reduction in taxation. We all know that has to be part of the agenda. It talks about reshaping government to let the economy breathe, to allow the economic potential that is here to reshape regulations so that the potential for the entrepreneurial spirit in Ontario can be once again realized. If you go through that plan realistically, you see what is presented there, and what I think we will bring to the upcoming campaign is that kind of realistic --

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe there are not enough members in this chamber to listen to this diatribe.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Do we have a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Sorbara: I wonder if we might just have unanimous consent to dispense with quorum calls for the balance of the afternoon.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? No, we don't; sorry.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I'm just going to wind up my comments and, just as a preview, suggest to you that members in the House and you, sir, pay very careful attention to the remarks we'll be hearing from my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt who, I suggest, understands this business of job creation and new economic development in Ontario as well as anyone in this Legislature.

I believe the time for blaming others for economic problems must come to an end. The time to fairly and honestly and realistically evaluate Ontario's economic problems has now begun. I believe that in the next election, which we all hope will come sooner rather than later, Ontarians are going to be faced with clear choices. They are going to be able to evaluate the economic performance of the New Democratic Party in its term of government over the past four years, they are going to spend a few minutes, I believe, with the Tories' voodoo economics as presented in their revolutionary document, they're going to be able to look at the proposals that my leader and my party are going to be putting forward, and they're going to have to make some very tough choices.

I believe what is in this document, as summarized in this resolution, is worthy of consideration by the people of Ontario. When the people of Ontario continue that examination, I believe they are going to support it.

I thank you for the opportunity of speaking on the resolution today.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I'm pleased to be able to join in this debate because it highlights some of the things that in particular our government has been doing in response to something that, from what you've heard in the House today, all parties recognize is a new environment in Ontario.

The one thing that can be said is that our government recognized it a lot earlier than the other two parties. They've come up with some things of late that they seem to think are quite innovative and worth paying attention to, but a long time ago our government came up with a plan. We revealed this plan in the House last year, it is seen at this point to be working, and we're going to stick with it.

Mr Perruzza: It's working good.

Mr Gary Wilson: As my colleague says, it's working good, and we know that this plan will carry us through.

Let me give you some of the details of what this is doing for our area in eastern Ontario. I think you just have to look at the Jobs Ontario Training program to see some of the successes that are associated with our plan.

I see the member for Cornwall here. I think he will be very pleased to be reminded of Ridgewood Industries in Cornwall. On September 21, 1993, a Jobs Ontario program was approved for ready-to-assemble furniture. That amounts to 150 jobs, at a contribution by our government of $165,000. I think it's something the people of Cornwall are very happy to receive. They're very happy to see that this business will not be going under but will be reviving, according to this Jobs Ontario project.

Another one is Kriska Transportation in Prescott, May 27, 1993. Kriska's a long-distance transport company. It will be using $257,000 of Jobs Ontario Training money to support 26 jobs in long-distance transport. We know how important it is to have a good transportation sector in our province. I'm pleased to say I was at Kriska Transportation in Prescott to take part in the announcement and to get it started on this ambitious program.

In the few moments I have, I'd like to mention Metalcraft Marine Inc in Kingston, which is doing marvellous things in the boat-building field, reviving an industry that used to be thriving in Kingston. Now we're seeing its return, using the facilities in the Kingston area to produce a product that is valued not only in our community, but throughout the province and indeed throughout the country.

I was speaking with Bob Clark from Metalcraft Marine about the success of the Jobs Ontario plan. He has four workers under the plan. They are people who were either on social assistance or collecting unemployment insurance and who now have a future in this exciting field, one that we really have to develop.

1720

The other thing that Bob mentioned as being a strong feature of the program is that, as well as the money that's there to support the trainees, there's money available, up to $5,000, to train someone who's already working so that they can expand their abilities in a field they're already in and enhance their capabilities and therefore make that firm even more productive.

I'd like to read for the House just what Bob Clark of Metalcraft Marine has to say about the Jobs Ontario Training program:

"It's a real asset. It allowed us to hire people we otherwise wouldn't have been able to hire. Everybody should be looking at Jobs Ontario, because it applies to every business. It's a good deal. The way it's structured even helps businesses learn about the training process."

I think that's a significant thing. It encourages business to look at the training process again, or perhaps for the first time. We know how important the training process is, to make sure that we keep training our workers to have the skills and the abilities they will need in this new economy.

Our government has recognized the need to adapt to changed circumstances. We have come up with a plan. It's working, and we're going to stick to it. The results of our efforts are showing throughout the province.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable Minister of Trade and --

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Economic Development --

The Acting Speaker: -- Economic Development.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- jobs, economic renewal, all of those sorts of things, Mr Speaker, which is exactly what I want to talk about, and this provides me with an opportunity.

I have to say that I read the resolution which is before the House today. I'm not going to take time to go through it here -- I don't want to waste valuable debate time -- but it is full of rhetorical platitudes and not much beyond that. Actually, I'm not surprised, because many of the ideas in here I've seen before. They've come from the report of the Lyn McLeod Task Force on Jobs. It's very fashionable to have a book these days to hold up. Prime Minister Chrétien held up the red book all through the campaign. Now we have the Lyn McLeod book on jobs. I have to say this: The yellow stickers aren't part of the actual original product. I've added those, because that is the --

Interjections.

Hon Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I'm going to ask the members opposite to quiet down for a minute. I've only just begun.

The Acting Speaker: Yes, the honourable minister does have the floor.

Hon Ms Lankin: I might wind them up a little bit as we go on, but we are just at the beginning of this.

The yellow stickers are my notations here to help me come to the points in the document that I want to speak to.

The members opposite are talking and waving around the Agenda for People, which is a book. There's another book as well: Industrial Policy Framework for Ontario. This is the one I would like people to read. It's about two years old and it is the blueprint for what we're doing here in the province of Ontario, which is in fact turning around this province, which is contributing to economic renewal, to the creation of jobs and to creating a new framework for the future: an investment in jobs now, an investment in jobs in the future.

Let me come back to this document, the task force on jobs, the Liberal document. I have to tell you, it is a very, very shallow document in my estimation, and I don't use those kinds of criticisms lightly. Having looked through this and having looked at a document like this, produced by a party that was in government, they should have the discipline of having learned from the experience in government, I say to the member opposite, given the discussion we had earlier today. As I read this, I see this being the sort of partisan and empty platitudes that often come from opposition parties that haven't learned from their experience in government, and I think that's a shame.

I'm going to be specific. I want to go through this document, as I think people deserve to know what is being said by the various political parties and what is happening in Ontario, what's actually being done.

So I look to the summary of recommendations and I'll start there. First of all, in this document the Liberal Party proposes changes with respect to taxes. They say, "There is no doubt that economic growth in Ontario is being hampered by taxes." They're recommending "that we set a goal of actual tax reduction," and they set out specific amounts, a bit less than what the Tories are suggesting, but that it be done over a five-year period.

I challenge the credibility of this statement coming from the Liberal Party. I do recall, during the period of time they were in office, 33 tax increases. I point out that we are not talking about a period of time in which there was a recession, in which there were incredible forces at work in the economy of restructuring which were bringing down government revenues and that you had to save up those revenues in order to maintain essential services in the public. We were talking about the boom times of the 1980s. We were talking about an economy that was growing. Good Keynesian economics would suggest that that's the time in which you plan for the future. That's the time in which you plan your expenditures and you understand that maybe these new revenues coming in you could put away.

But what happened? We had excessive increases in expenditures through that whole period, and in order to continue paying for them we had more and more taxes heaped on us, so we came into a recession at the end of the decade, the worst recession we've experienced in this province since the Great Depression, with huge, built-in increases and expenditures that we had to deal with and had already a tax burden on the people of the province of Ontario which was nearly unsustainable at that point. We had to deal with that during the period of the recession.

I'm interested in seeing a recommendation that taxes be reduced, but again there aren't any specifics here. It doesn't say which taxes. Perhaps -- oh, I was going to say the commercial concentration tax, that hated tax in downtown Metro Toronto that the Liberals put in, but we already removed that. It was this government that did that. I was going to say the tire tax of the Liberals, but we already removed that.

What taxes are they talking about? Perhaps it's the employer health tax. Sorry, our budget just put in place an incentive for new hirings in this province, where employers who hire people for the first 12 months won't have to pay the employer health tax. It's a real incentive tied to job creation, tied to new jobs. It's not just a giveaway to the corporate sector. It's tied to jobs -- very, very specific.

There are no specifics here in terms of what they're doing, and I've set out some of the taxes we've reduced. Neither is there any comment at all about tax fairness. Yes, we have increased taxes during the time we've been in office, during a very difficult recession, when we've lost revenues due to the job losses in this province and we've had to find a way to keep bringing the deficit down and maintain essential social services. We have increased taxes, but how have we increased taxes? We have increased tax at the very high-income end. That's where you see the new tax burden. In fact, we have taken more low-income people off the tax rolls than ever before in Ontario. There's a measure of tax fairness in the taxation we've brought in in this province, something we have not seen under either of the two previous governments.

Let me move on to another recommendation. I love the words here. They're going to do a dramatic reduction in the burden of regulation and paperwork. They believe we should set a goal of 50% reduction in the cost. It's a laudable goal. How are you going to do it? I read on. Oops, it's not here. There is no how in this document. It says, "At the risk of sounding simplistic, we believe this solution is possible." Well, that is pretty simplistic.

What is this government doing? We have initiated a project called Clearing the Path. We've put in place the advisory committee, we've got its report, and we've acted on it. It was announced in the budget two weeks ago that by this fall we will have moved to offices across this province that will be able to deliver service to new businesses.

This will be very important to small businesses. They will be able to come in and do all business registration, all permits, fees, licences etc, by the time this is fully operational, at one stop through technology. Business won't have to go to 17 different ministries to get licences and fees and permits etc to operate in this province. We will have a master registration system and one stop will do it all for them. That's value to small business. It allows them more time to do what they do best, which is creating business opportunities and creating employment.

That's only half of Clearing the Path. The other half is unified reporting. Again it's going to be most important for small business. It's a tremendous burden when they have to, at different times of the year, with different frequency, file various taxes and payments to government agencies. Whether it be workers' compensation premiums, the employer health tax or the corporate income tax, we will by next year have moved to a system which unifies the reporting on that and makes it very simple. In the future, I hope that will be supported by electronic commerce interchange in which people will be able, by technology, to interact with government and transfer funds and eliminate the paper altogether. Again, no specifics in the Liberal document. That's the record. That's what we've done. We've already accomplished that.

1730

Let me take a look at the next recommendation. This is quite popular these days and everyone talks about it: "Redesigning the Machinery of Government." They've decided they truly have a 1960s type of government apparatus that's trying to deal with 1990s problems, so for the next century they're going to redesign. A Liberal government must redesign government. How do they do that? I read the document and, oops, it's not there. We don't know what they're going to do.

What are we doing in government in terms of government operating in a different way? Let's take a look at sector partnerships, sector development. This is a very different approach on the part of the government. Instead of picking winners and losers in the economy, instead of throwing money at individual firms without any kind of screen in terms of how we're operating and what the competitive fundamentals are and what we're supporting, we have moved to a sector development approach.

We are bringing people around the table in sectors of this economy who normally only operate with respect to each other in a competitive way. Business, labour, government are sitting there within those sectors and together they are doing the very important analysis that's required to understand the nature of the problems facing their sector: What are their strengths? What are their weaknesses? What are the opportunities and what are the threats? That's the traditional SWAT, strengths, weaknesses, alternatives, tactics, that's done in a business analysis -- but not applied to a business; now applied to the whole sector. What they're coming up with are workable, practical, doable strategies that will help increase the competitiveness of the sector altogether.

These initiatives are rolling out daily. We've already launched the telecommunications sector strategy with the support of that industry. We were out a couple of weeks ago with aerospace. Just today, I was with the industry groups launching the computing sector strategy. Last week, I was with the Minister of Health and the Premier and we launched the health industry strategy. Tomorrow I will be doing something very similar with another sector of our economy.

The idea of working for jobs for the future is to work with sectors of the economy to help them improve their competitiveness. That will help strengthen the individual firms in that sector and, overall, help strengthen the economy of the province. That's the how, in terms of government operating a little bit differently.

We also have the Ontario innovation and productivity service, where we're turning government civil servants, public service workers, into client account managers, working with small, innovative growth firms, helping them take that next step, helping them get the marketing expertise they require, the management expertise or the technical expertise, helping them take that next step to grow from that small or medium-sized enterprise into the medium-sized or large enterprise.

We've been dealing with issues like establishment of the lead investment fund: banks and government putting their money together to create venture capital pools. On and on and on I can give you examples of how we are redesigning how government works and how we are trying to deliver services.

Those may not be the ideas that the Liberals have with respect to redesigning government, but the problem is that I don't know. I don't think they know either, because it's not here, not in their document.

Let me go on. Let me find another recommendation. I'll try this one. "We need to see fundamental change in access to financing. A major problem for job creation in Ontario is the lack of timely and appropriate financing for growth businesses." That's true. We actually agree with that. We think access to capital is a problem, so there's no disagreement here. Because this is an area of my portfolio, I very eagerly read on, because I want to see if there are some good ideas. We could cooperate with the opposition and perhaps we could do it.

Let me find the idea here. There actually is an idea. Here's what they're going to do: They're going to challenge the banks to improve their service. The next day, I don't know what they're going to do. I can tell you small business won't have any better access to capital than they do today after the Liberal government is in power.

There are some things we can do, and in fact this government has. Let me talk about what we've done. We've established the Ontario lead investment fund. We've brought banks together with the government and have established a pool of venture capital. Under that, there will be the establishment of expert investment corporations, where for the first time we will help the banking industry develop the expertise to invest in the new areas of the new economy.

One of the problems that we have out there is that some of the new knowledge-based industries have problems accessing capital because the banks are used to lending against assets that they can secure: equipment, bricks and mortar. It's very difficult for them to determine how to take that next step and understand how to finance knowledge-based industries. We've set up a structure. We've brought the people together to do that and there's a pool of capital there. That's action; it's not platitudes and it's not words.

We've also made major changes in legislation affecting provincially regulated financial institutions. It's a small part of the sector and a small part of the problem, but it shows leadership on the part of the provincial government that's affecting credit unions, co-ops, trusts and loans, helping them become more competitive and move into commercial lending.

We've also suggested in there where we'll work with those provincially regulated institutions to collect the data, to set up a system of accountability in terms of their loans and the sectors they're dealing with in which we'll be able to analyse and talk about what's actually happening there instead of all of these stories coming forward.

We expect to approach the federal government and the federally regulated banks to work with us on this, but we will set the leadership model by working with provincially regulated institutions.

I could move on and I could look at this. Here's a good one. You know how they said they wanted to redesign government and do things differently and not in the way of the 1960s? However, they want to renew their commitment to effective global trading by doing what? Reopening the international offices that we've just finished closing. Monte Kwinter lives, and he's very effective over in the Liberal caucus. I see him right here in this recommendation.

We've got letters of support from the Canadian Exporters' Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the chambers, others who think that what we did was the right thing. We have to do business differently. We don't want duplication of federal embassies. We don't want people out there on the diplomatic circuit. We want to use business networks, consultation networks, the banks, our bond rating agencies, all of those to seize commercial opportunities and respond to them. That's the way to go, not to reopen the international offices. That's the way of the past. That's the way of the government of the 1960s.

Here's another one: They're going to improve the use of government procurement policy as a way to extend technical knowledge for a range of small and medium-sized businesses. I found this one interesting because I'm involved right now in a major set of negotiations around bringing down interprovincial trade barriers. This is very important because we hear this is the biggest criticism from businesses out there, and the biggest area of cost to the economy that they identify are government procurement policies that differ from region to region.

Veiled in this document are suggestions that we're going to do preferential buying policies in Ontario to Ontario firms, which are erecting trade barriers, not bringing them down. So I ask the opposition where its commitment is to its federal colleagues who sit at the table with me and who seem to be supportive of Ontario as opposed to bringing down interprovincial trade barriers.

The last recommendation: This is a good one. This is innovative; this is new. I've never heard of a government doing this before. What is it? It is improving our infrastructure: roads, sewers, schools, hospitals.

There has not been a government in the province of Ontario who has done as much for investing in infrastructure as this government. Let me talk to you about it. This government has invested in jobs, and it's been our top priority since the beginning. There are 300,000 jobs that have been created since 1990, 116,000 jobs in the last year alone. We are continuing to invest in the infrastructure. In fact, we have the most aggressive, ambitious program of any jurisdiction in North America, and what do we have across the floor? A platitude that they're going to invest in the infrastructure.

We're creating jobs now, through direct infrastructure investment through Jobs Ontario Capital. We're investing in our human infrastructure through Jobs Ontario Training: 44,000 jobs so far. This is a program the Liberals would do away with. Those people are people who would've come through this recession with perhaps little hope of finding their way back into the workforce after having been unemployed for so long or on social assistance for so long. We have created opportunities and matched people with those opportunities to get them off the social assistance rolls and to help them re-enter the workforce as the economy grows. That's what the Liberals would do away with.

We're creating jobs with communities. In times when you hear all of the rhetoric about globalizing economy, which is true, surely we should be working at the provincial level to empower communities, and we're doing that through community economic development. This document has platitudes about economic development. We have community loan funds operating, community share funds being set up, we have Jobs Ontario Community Action. This is a government with a commitment to these issues and an action plan to look at it, not platitudes like the Liberal document.

1740

We're creating jobs with companies through strategic investment. We can look at Ford in Oakville or Chrysler in Windsor or Bombardier in Thunder Bay. We're also creating jobs for the future with sector development, and I talked about the framework of ensuring that we have competitive sectors of our economy for a competitive economy for the future. It's working in partnership, trying to put people back to work in this province.

I'm not the only one who's critical of the Liberals. I can look to what some of the people out there, the media, have said. This is a very interesting editorial:

"Ontario Liberal Platitudes," it's headed, "The Road to Nowhere.

"The Liberal Party of Ontario has set out its direction for the next election. There's a slight problem with the Liberal election road map, however: It doesn't seem to contain any concrete policies." I agree with that.

They go through and they outline a number of things here.

"Outlined in a recent speech by the leader of the official opposition, it was a middle road paved with clichés and meaningless political feel-good statements. In its desire to govern, the Liberal Party seems to have forgotten that it might be helpful to the poor voters of Ontario if it had produced a policy or two, just one or two."

This is a critical editorial which sets out much better than I can criticisms about the sorts of words and platitudes. This is right out of the document. Let me quote. The Liberals say, "But we also need to have effective leadership, to set the right directions, to make the tough choices, to implement the changes that are needed." What changes are needed they haven't figured out yet, but they'll have tough leadership and they'll implement them when they find it out.

As this wraps up, it says, "If the Liberals continue to deal in platitudes rather than policies, they may find themselves on the road to nowhere." I hope that's an accurate prediction.

This is a party across the floor that says it is committed to building Ontario. I'd like to show you, that they have tools for building as well. See, this says, "Building a Better Ontario."

You might wonder what this tool of construction, this hammer, is. It's actually from the Liberal Party. You might be able to see that. I said that the document and all of its recommendations was flimsy in terms of rebuilding the economy of Ontario. May I say that the tools the Liberals offer are very, very flimsy as well.

I hope I've set out in very short order the commitment we have to jobs in this province, the actions we have taken, concrete, specific, the kinds of details that people can actually judge, as opposed to feel-good, warm, fuzzy Liberalism. Warm, fuzzy Liberalism has never given anyone a job, it's never put food on the table, it's never helped people who are in need. Our policies are putting Ontario back to work and that's what we will continue to do.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I appreciate the opportunity to debate the motion and, for those who may be viewing this, we're talking about the issue of jobs.

I would say to the member who just spoke that we've now had four budgets from Bob Rae. Every single budget promised that jobs would be the number one priority. The Minister of Economic Development and Trade who just spoke has to understand that the people of Ontario understand that we have a record number of people out of work in this province. For four straight budgets you've talked about improving the job situation for people, and it is getting worse. The people who just heard you speak, Minister -- essentially you're saying: "Everything's just fine; don't worry about things. Everything's just fine." Record numbers of people out of work in this province -- and the minister's leaving. You may not want to hear this. The minister is leaving. A record number of people out of work in this province.

The second thing I would say --

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought it was unparliamentary to point out whether a member is in the House or not, and since the Liberals don't want to ascribe to these parliamentary -- they weren't here all afternoon.

The Acting Speaker: Order. It's not a point of order.

Hon Ms Lankin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would point out that taking materials to my staff is not leaving the House. I would appreciate that the member opposite, given that he hasn't been here all afternoon either, keeps to his speech.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has the floor.

Mr Phillips: We have had four budgets from Bob Rae, each promising jobs, and the people of this province I think understand that we have a record number of people --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: During this debate, I'm wondering what happened to the Leader of the Opposition, whose motion this is.

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

Mr Phillips: As you look in the budget, I think most people in the province will appreciate that the government's own document, the budget that was just produced a few weeks ago, indicates that we actually are going to see fewer jobs created in the province of Ontario in 1994 than we did in 1993.

Something's wrong here. The minister just got up and said, "Everything's fine" -- fewer jobs created in the province of Ontario in 1994 than in 1993. I am surprised the young people of this province are not marching on this place, to be honest with you.

Laughter.

Mr Phillips: The members may choose to laugh at that. I am surprised the young people are not marching on this place. It is fair to say that the unemployment rate among our young people in this province is reported at 20%. In reality it is much, much closer to 30%. There have been literally tens of thousands of young people who have simply completely dropped out, and we wonder why our young people are in many respects so disillusioned.

The minister says: "Everything's just fine. We're doing all these things" -- 30% unemployment among our young people and it's not getting any better. You wonder why, when we have a debate here looking for solutions and the people of Ontario hear from the government, "Everything's just fine; we're doing a great job" -- everything is not just fine, and if we don't realize that quickly, we are going to lose a whole generation. A 30% unemployment rate is unacceptable. I have said this many times. I don't know why the backbench members of the NDP are not daily on their feet, demanding action.

The reason I am dwelling on the numbers and the unemployment rate is because the minister essentially said, "Everything's just fine." It's not fine. As a matter of fact, I just happened to be looking at the numbers in January to April. We now are, as I think we all realize, a third of the way through 1994, and what is happening for our construction workers? Record numbers of them are out of work. We actually see, for our construction workers, 14,000 fewer working in January, February, March and April 1994 than the same period in 1993.

Again, although the government says, "Everything is fine," my friends in the construction trade, including my son-in-law, will find substantially fewer jobs in the first four months of 1994 than the same period in 1993. This is happening in Ontario, and in the rest of the country we are seeing significant job growth. If you look at the same period of time when we have lost jobs in Ontario, we've seen growth in the rest of the country of 150,000 jobs.

I dwell on this because when we went across the province, talking to hundreds and hundreds of people -- community leaders, people who are out of work, individuals who know this area -- essentially what they said was that we have to collectively understand this is an emergency. We have to, in our opinion, declare it an emergency. The problem we have here is that as this is allowed to drift -- and the minister's statement is a classic of, "Everything is just fine; we're doing everything just fine; why doesn't the opposition simply be quiet and let us handle it?" -- the reason people are getting angry out there is that things are not fine.

It is indeed time to declare an emergency. I guess the first conclusion the task force reached is that indeed this is a major problem, that the government is essentially saying: "Don't worry about it, because it's going to be handled. We've got all the plans. Don't worry about it." We don't agree.

What you've got here is the blueprint for our plan. I think people who have read it will understand this is the vision. Be careful in how you interpret the plan, because we say here very clearly:

"We believe that this plan provides the key direction that will be required for success. While we are convinced that we have the correct fundamental thrust, much more work still needs to be done to take the fundamental direction and put the detailed implementation plan together. We view that as a key next step and look forward to seeking the advice of Ontarians in developing the best possible solutions."

1750

To the people out there I would say, listen, we'll welcome specific ideas to ensure that the details of the plan completely meet the needs of the province. But the fundamental thrust of this is that we believe this province needs a vision. The vision we have for this province is that we are convinced Ontario can be the leading economy in North America. My colleague from York Centre I think said it well; that is, that this document has a sense of optimism and a sense of trust in the future for Ontario. We are convinced that if we implement this plan, Ontario indeed can be the leading economy in North America. We need to have that sense of optimism and that sense of confidence about Ontario.

Frankly, as we went around the province -- I hate to say this, but I suspect the NDP members themselves have found out -- there is a strong lack of confidence in the ability of the NDP government to lead us in that direction. I don't think there's any question of that. People in Ontario want to have the leading economy in North America, people in Ontario want to have a bright future, but frankly there is very little confidence in the ability of the NDP government to lead us there.

The fundamental thrust of this document is to say, "Listen, we have a sense of confidence and optimism about the future of Ontario and we are convinced that we can make this the leading economy in North America."

Then we say what are some of the goals of that. One of the key goals of that is indeed that we have to find a way to get our unemployment rate down substantially.

We suggest in this document that if we implement this plan, we believe the Ontario economy can grow roughly about half a per cent faster than planned. We believe if that were to happen, we can see 30,000 more jobs a year created. If we see 30,000 more jobs a year created, in five years the unemployment rate indeed will be down to approximately 6% and we will have achieved one of our major goals.

The plan goes on to outline the five major thrust areas. It talks about number one being "Charting a Bold New Course." This is where we need in this province to get a sense of commitment about the future and a sense of commitment by the people of this province to indeed reducing our unemployment rate to 6%. We propose in this document engaging some of our community leaders in what we call the Getting Ontario Working Again team. We think they, along with our leadership, can ensure that we get a commitment to 6% unemployment.

The second thing we talk about is "Letting the Economy Breathe," and we talk about a 5% tax reduction over five years. Frankly, I think that's a responsible position. As time unfolds, we will see the Conservative Party's plan where they talk about a different tax plan, one that we think will be very difficult for them to implement. They talk about a 30% reduction in personal income tax. That costs about $5 billion, roughly a little more than 12% of the revenue in Ontario. We think that's not achievable if we still are to get the fiscal house in order.

Our plan calls for a reduction of 5% in taxation over five years. We think that is a responsible position. We think it's achievable. We think it is a clear signal to the people of this province that they can look forward to a systematic reduction in taxation, 1% a year. Within that, we have some proposals on how we would ensure that we are able to also balance the budget in the first term of a new Liberal government. That's the second part of "Letting the Economy Breathe."

There is a need for us to attack vigorously what the business community would say is the regulatory and paperwork burden. We are convinced, having talked with the business community, that it is possible to look at a 50% reduction in the regulatory burden.

The third element of the plan is the issue of reinventing government, and we do say in our document that we are trying to deal with a 1990s economy with a 1960s-type apparatus. I don't think there's much doubt about that. Government looks like what it is, that is, institutions that have grown up over a century, literally. But there is the need for a fundamental redesign of government. Perhaps all parties agree to that. We heard that loud and clear, and certainly we're in agreement with that.

The fourth area is that there is no doubt that we need to focus on the skills and the talents of the people of Ontario. We talk in this document about making Ontario the home of the best workforce in North America. We think that's a key element to ensuring that the Ontario economy is indeed the leading economy in North America.

The fifth area in our document is having the tools for the future, and we talk about the need to, as we say, challenge the banks. One could say bash the banks, but we say challenge the banks. I don't think there's much doubt that the banks have not served our small and medium-sized businesses well, and there's a need for some substantial change there.

There is a plan. It is a vision the Liberal Party has, an optimistic view of the future of Ontario. If we can engage the people of this province in this plan, we are convinced we can have the top economy in North America. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, I don't think the people of Ontario have the necessary confidence in the NDP to follow its lead.

I will talk very briefly about the Conservative plan, because it's now becoming clear, as we look ahead, where the three parties will be staking out their ground for the next election. The Conservative plan is different from our plan. Frankly, a 5% reduction in taxation was our plan, which we thought was responsible.

There are questions we would ask about the Conservative plan. Is it possible to look at a 30% reduction in personal income tax -- which is about $5 billion, a huge part of the revenue of this province, about 12% of the revenue -- is it possible to look to having right now a budget with about an $8-billion deficit and cut revenue by $5 billion, which gets you to about a $13-billion number, and then cut spending by 20%? But be aware that when they say cut spending by 20%, they are excluding health, education, what's called the law-and-order side of things, public-debt interest and municipal affairs, so they are really looking at all the cuts occurring in about a third of the budget.

There's going to have to be some challenge on the numbers as we move ahead. You cut $5 billion of revenue, you have an $8-billion deficit, you are looking at cutting 20%, but only of a third of the budget, and 20% of a third of the budget is about $3 billion. So there will be some challenges, I think.

The last thing I would say about the plan in terms of questions is that the final page of their document indicates that the Ontario economy is going to grow slower than the New Democrats had predicted. It will be, as we move ahead, interesting to look at the plan of a $5-billion reduction in revenue, a 20% reduction in spending but only in a third of the budget, and an economy growing less than is predicted in the NDP budget.

I wanted to just touch on one last thing. I'm never one who brags about the Liberal fiscal record, but I don't mind comparing it to the Conservative record, I really don't. The reason I'm spending a little time on this is because in the earlier speeches the Conservative Party, the third party as we call it here, was talking about some of the financial things.

The Provincial Auditor had this to say about budgets. The Provincial Auditor, who is an independent individual, says, "Ontario has had only one surplus in the last 20 years," and this report was in 1991.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Who said that?

Mr Phillips: The independent Provincial Auditor. In other words, the Conservatives ran 15 straight years of deficits -- good years and bad years, good times and bad times -- and never balanced the budget for 15 years. There was only one surplus in the last 20 years, the auditor said. That was the year ending March 31, 1990.

Then, of course, the Liberals promised another surplus the next year and ended up with the $3-billion deficit, if you remember, which we've taken a lot of hits on. We went into the election promising a surplus and ended up with a $3-billion deficit.

The auditor explains that. The auditor says it was reasonable to expect the second surplus, two surpluses in a row, but what happened? He explains the $3 billion. He says, first, "The extent of the recession, which was obviously not foreseen at the time of the budget," meant revenues dropped by $1.1 billion. Revenues dropped by $1.1 billion because the recession wasn't foreseen when the budget was prepared.

Then he says that spending went up by roughly $1 billion because of social assistance payments.

Then he cites the third reason there was a $3-billion deficit. Remember, the revenues dropped by a billion dollars and spending on social assistance was up by about a billion dollars. The new government decided to write some things off, $200 million of teachers' pension payments that weren't due. They weren't due that year, they were due the next year, but they said, "No, we'll write the $200 million of teachers' pension off." They wrote all of SkyDome off, which was understandable -- and now they've taken some revenue into it -- and wrote off a UTDC loan.

In other words, the auditor explains in detail. As I say to all of my business friends, I realize you have difficulty in accepting what a politician says, but look at the Provincial Auditor, and the Provincial Auditor goes on to explain the reasons for the deficit being at $3 billion in detail.

As we now wrap up this discussion, we in the Liberal Party believe the issue of employment is the number one issue. We are convinced that the government is not solving the problem, in spite of the rhetoric. The government's own budget predicts that we actually are going to see more people unemployed in 1994 than we saw in 1993.

We have a plan that lays out our vision. We would welcome input from the public as we move forward to put the details around the plan, but there's no question that Ontario needs an optimistic vision of the future, and we happen to think we have that.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1804 to 1809.

The Acting Speaker: Would all members please take their seats. We are now voting on Mr Ramsay's opposition day motion number 2. All those in favour of the motion will rise one at a time to be identified by the clerk.

Ayes

Beer, Brown, Cleary, Conway, Crozier, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Kwinter, Mahoney, McClelland, McGuinty, Miclash, Morin, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Ramsay, Ruprecht, Sorbara.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time to be identified by the clerk.

Nays

Abel, Allen, Arnott, Bisson, Boyd, Carr, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Cousens, Dadamo, Duignan, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hodgson, Hope, Huget, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson (Don Mills), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon;

Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Runciman, Silipo, Sterling, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Tilson, Turnbull, Ward, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 23; the nays are 68. I declare the motion lost.

Pursuant to standing order 34, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

WASTE DISPOSAL

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The member for Mississauga North has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given yesterday by the Minister of Environment and Energy. The member for Mississauga North will have five minutes, at which time one of the parliamentary assistants for the minister will have five minutes in response.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Yesterday I indicated my dissatisfaction with the Minister of Environment's response to my question. To recap, my question dealt with the issue of the transportation of waste, specifically from a municipality located within the greater Toronto area to an area outside of the GTA.

I asked the question of the Minister of Environment because of a report that was in a newspaper, the Sault Star, and written by Lynne Olver, which indicated that Sault Ste Marie MPP Tony Martin had indicated, "If an environmental assessment shows that a Kirkland Lake mine would be safe for garbage, the province shouldn't be turning valuable farm land outside Toronto to dumps."

That has been the position not only of my party for the last four years but of many community groups within the greater Toronto area. Many groups have indicated that if it is in the best interests of the environment that waste be transported from a municipality within the GTA, such as Toronto or Mississauga or Durham, to a point outside of the GTA -- the example most often used is a mine in Kirkland Lake -- then that is something which the government should support.

The minister, in response to the question, indicated, and I read from Hansard: "The member asked me if I would support an environmental assessment. That is not news; I've said that repeatedly. If a proponent wishes to proceed with an environmental assessment on the transportation of waste outside of the GTA, they are quite free to do so and to proceed." So the minister is giving out the position that his party supports a decision by the Environmental Assessment Board that waste can be transported from a municipality within the GTA to an area outside.

Indeed, the minister has gone on. A report, again in the Sault Star, of April 28 reads, and this is signed by the Minister of Environment:

"Contrary to what some critics suggest, the government has not firmly rejected the proposal to ship waste by rail from Toronto to the former Adams mine site outside Kirkland Lake. What the government has said all along is that any proponent wishing to develop the Adams mine site as a site for Toronto or any other area's garbage is free to apply for an environmental assessment."

My dissatisfaction with the response by the minister yesterday is found in here, because that is not the position of the government. The government will not permit the transportation of waste from an area inside the GTA to one outside. For the minister to write this in papers such as the Sault Star and to respond in Hansard is just playing fast and loose with the truth.

The government's position is clear: There cannot be any transportation of waste from an area such as Toronto or Mississauga to an area such as Kirkland Lake, notwithstanding what any Environmental Assessment Board states. That is found in Bill 143, the government's own piece of legislation, because Bill 143, the piece of legislation which has been criticized by communities not only within the GTA but throughout the province, which has been the manifestation of the wrongheadedness of this government in environmental matters, clearly states that one landfill disposal site is to be located in the regional municipality of York or Metro Toronto, one is to be located in Durham and one is to be located in Peel. The transportation of waste from these areas to an area outside the GTA is clearly not permitted by the minister's own legislation. That is the basis for my dissatisfaction.

I would rather the Minister of Environment stand up and be clear that their policy is wrong and that they are ready to change it, that they are ready to listen to the communities' views throughout this province. But no, the Minister of Environment has been playing fast and loose with the truth. This letter and this position and his response clearly underline the wrongheadedness of their position.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Sarnia and parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment has up to five minutes in response.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Today the Minister of Environment and Energy is in Quebec City attending a conference of federal and provincial ministers responsible for native affairs. So he has asked me, as his parliamentary assistant, to appear here this evening to respond on his behalf to the member for Mississauga North, who is also the Liberal Party critic on environmental matters.

Our government established the Interim Waste Authority in 1991 to conduct an environmentally sound and consultative process to find waste disposal sites for the greater Toronto area. We believed then, and continue to believe, that the only way individuals, companies and all levels of government will act to reduce waste, to reuse and to recycle is if we are in the position of dealing with our own waste. We can't just ship it somewhere else and pretend it doesn't exist. Ontario's environment cannot afford the out-of-sight, out-of-mind philosophy that some others encourage.

We also believed, and continue to believe, that a process to site a landfill should include as many people as possible. It should listen to communities, elected representatives and individuals about their views on a site and should accommodate itself to those views. The Interim Waste Authority was set up to do just that and it has done so on an unprecedented scale.

Listening and consulting, however, do not mean changing course entirely or losing sight of the goal of an environmentally sound landfill site close to where the waste is produced.

We also believe and continue to believe that even the most thorough site search needs to undergo the Environmental Assessment Act. Experts should and will be challenged, and those who could be affected by a site must be allowed to put their case forward to an independent board to decide.

The previous government, the Peterson government, found landfill sites in a different, perhaps more politically expedient, manner. The site at Whitevale, for example, was decided; simply decided. There was no process for the determination of that site. There would have been no environmental assessment hearings; there would have been no thorough examination of the environmental consequences of that site, no examination at all of any kind of alternative, whether that alternative could have been Kirkland Lake, incineration, or the only alternative we think is viable: another possible landfill site.

When our government decided that that kind of non-process was inadequate, we also decided not to leave regional and local governments holding the bag. We decided to conduct a search according to the environmental and consultative principles we believe in. That was a decision that took courage, and that was and is the right decision.

Our view of Kirkland Lake -- and my colleague the Minister of Environment and Energy has said it many times -- is that the proponents are free to undergo an environmental assessment. We will not stop them from doing so if that's what it is they proceed to do. But there is no good reason why this government, having set up an environmental consultative process that it has faith in, should fund the assessment of a site that it feels is fundamentally at odds with our policy of supporting the 3Rs.

But if the proponents do undergo their own review and submit it to the environmental assessment process, the Environmental Assessment Board would have to take government policy into account. The board could and would, however, make its own views know and make a decision based on those views. As to how the government would or could react to those views, surely the members on all sides of this House recognize the ridiculous nature of that kind of speculation.

The Acting Speaker: It being well past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 18, at 1:30 pm.

The House adjourned at 1823.

17 mai 1994