Journal des débats 1994-nov-16 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Il fut un temps où l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario était beaucoup plus active et faisait mieux son travail, qui consiste à examiner des mesures destinées à faire avancer les choses en Ontario.

Le 18 novembre 1986, par exemple, l'Ontario dans son ensemble a fait un pas de géant. En effet, il y a huit ans, l'Assemblée législative adoptait à l'unanimité la Loi sur les services en français. Cette loi avait et a toujours une importance énorme pour la communauté francophone. Plus que n'importe quelle autre mesure prise à leur endroit, la Loi sur les services en français signifie clairement que les francophones de l'Ontario ont leur place et leurs droits dans cette province. La Loi sur les services en français est entrée en vigueur il y a cinq ans, après une période de trois ans de dur travail pour la mettre en application dans tous les ministères.

Aujourd'hui, je n'entends parler que des reculs que connaît la mise en application de la Loi 8. Les francophones me disent qu'il y a eu trop peu de progrès et beaucoup trop de reculs. Ils savent qu'ils ont subi beaucoup plus que leur part de coupures durant la récession.

La Loi sur les services en français a été conçue par un groupe de gens qui voulaient contribuer à bâtir notre pays et qui rêvaient d'un Ontario meilleur pour tous. Je demande encore une fois au Président et au ministre des Affaires francophones de s'intéresser à ceux qu'ils doivent représenter.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): While my colleagues and I remain supportive of the principle of enhanced access to community-based health services, we still have a great deal of difficulty with several aspects of Bill 173.

Restricting the amount of services that can be provided by agencies outside of the new multiservice agencies to just 20%, and the creation of multiservice agencies, does more to enrich NDP ideology than to improve the quality and accessibility of community-based health services.

Bill 173 will result in a decline in volunteerism and signals the end of charitable, community-based agencies. Associations such as the VON, the Red Cross, Meals on Wheels, the Catholic Health Association and Saint Elizabeth Visiting Nurses' Association will be put out of business by a faceless, bureaucratic and government-directed multiservice agency.

You have recently tabled labour amendments giving priority to unionized workers. Your constant refusal to respond to the concerns raised by service providers and consumers alike leads us to conclude that there is an ulterior motive lurking behind the mask of long-term-care reform. Bill 173 is not about taking into account what seniors want. It's not about improving access or coordinating service. It's about one-stop unionization.

KITTLING RIDGE ESTATE WINERY

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise to pay tribute to the winner of this year's Grimsby Chamber of Commerce outstanding business achievement award to Kittling Ridge Estate Winery wines and spirits.

Since going into business three years ago, Kittling Ridge has gained a strong foothold in the highly competitive wine and spirits market -- not an easy task, but president John Hall and his 40 employees have risen to the challenge and now they're reaping the rewards of success. Kittling Ridge recently won awards in London, New York and Brussels for its tasty ice wine and brandy product.

I'm proud to say that the NDP government was there when Kittling Ridge needed help. Last spring, Mr Hall told me that the Ontario distillers were getting a bad deal from the government. He said the government was stopping them from operating onsite retail outlets. These onsite outlets, he said, would help distillers survive.

The NDP government acted quickly. Last June, we amended the Liquor Control Act with Bill 113 and onsite retail outlets became a reality in July. That has saved the jobs. In the past 10 years, 17 distillers have closed down in Canada. Seven distillers and 1,500 jobs were lost in Ontario. But Bill 113 helped reverse this disturbing trend. Just ask the 40 people who work at Kittling Ridge wines and spirits.

Since opening its onsite retail store last July, Kittling Ridge has enjoyed increased sales and exposure. More business for Kittling Ridge means more business for the community of Grimsby.

Congratulations to the fine people at Kittling Ridge wines and spirits for a job well done. I sincerely believe they are worthy of their outstanding business award.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): In Cambridge yesterday, we saw another example of the results of four years of poor NDP economic mismanagement. Whirlpool announced that it will be closing its Inglis clothes dryer manufacturing plant at the end of 1996, eliminating 600 jobs in Cambridge.

In 1993, Whirlpool said it could save the plant by making the plant a world-class facility. Now Whirlpool has decided to throw in the towel. Why? Ralph Hawke, Whirlpool's executive vice-president said, "We simply couldn't get there." The overhead costs were too high for the Cambridge plant when compared to Whirlpool's facility in Ohio. The Minister of Economic Development and Trade has a different answer. She blames free trade. She says if Canada had not signed the free trade deal five years ago, Whirlpool would be keeping its Cambridge plant open today.

In my 25 years in private business, I know why plants open and close: It's costs. If they're too high, you can't make a decent profit. The minister should be looking at the high cost of workers' compensation in Ontario, the increasing tax burden on business and individuals in this province and the soaring deficit, which the Provincial Auditor says will be in excess of $10 billion.

It is these increasing costs and the continuing climate of economic uncertainty that ruined Whirlpool's chances in Ontario, not free trade. We need a plan for getting costs down for business and keeping jobs in this province, not more rhetoric.

1340

SNOWMOBILING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I stand today on behalf of snowmobilers across the province who wait patiently in anticipation of a snowy 1995 season.

Last year the government gave money to northern Ontario for the purpose of enhancing its snowmobile trail systems and promoting area tourism. Since tourism and recreation are vital to the economy of our province, this was certainly an admirable move. However, unfortunately, and most certainly due to an oversight that will be rectified in the future, the remainder of Ontario's snowmobile trail systems and tourist associations were overlooked.

To prove why we in southern Ontario should not be overlooked, I am pleased to say that the Grey-Bruce snowmobile clubs have been awarded Snowfest '95. The three-day event will take place in February and will provide an opportunity for visitors to enjoy the scenic beauty of Grey and Bruce. Local businesses will enjoy a boom of sorts as a wave of snowmobilers descends on the area. Last year, over 8,000 headed for Sudbury.

The Grey-Bruce clubs expect even more participants this year. However, using a conservative estimate of 6,000, the association would generate over $200,000 in direct revenue from registration fees, not to mention the countless spinoff effects to area businesses.

Snowmobiling represents the greatest untapped winter tourism opportunity available to our local economies. It needs to be recognized that this activity is not exclusive to the north, but rather includes southern Ontario as well. With the help of volunteers, Snowfest '95 will generate thousands of dollars for Grey-Bruce and neighbouring counties.

We look forward to a successful winter season and in the future, if help is on the way, would appreciate not being overlooked.

JIM ASHTON

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise today in commemoration of the passing of Jim Ashton, one of London's most high-profile trade union leaders, a dedicated unionist who died recently in his sleep at age 47.

His death came just a week after he was named a national representative in the Canadian Auto Workers regional office in London, and he had just started his fourth term as president of the London and District Labour Council, which he had headed since 1988. He had also completed nine years as president of the 4,000-strong CAW Local 27 in London, one of the largest locals of the union.

He is survived by his wife, Lucy; three daughters, Amanda, Jessica and Tonia; and his parents, Evelyn and Lynn. Archie Bailie, the financial secretary of Local 27, described Jim Ashton as a "dedicated father and good family man." He also had a lighter side, because he played drums in a rock and roll band and also enjoyed baseball.

I attended a very moving memorial service for Jim Ashton and I know he will be missed greatly. He leaves behind a gaping hole in the trade union movement, but fortunately the torch he lit will be carried by others in solidarity in the future.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I would like to congratulate the former member for Markham, Don Cousens, on his mayoral victory the other night. I am sure the people of Markham will be well served.

I followed the Markham race with great interest and last weekend I was somewhat shocked to learn that Mr Cousens said that he was a victim of "American-style politics." You know, for a long time I wondered why Don Cousens would leave the warmth of this place, but now I think I know. He, like many of us around here, was concerned that his leader, Mike Harris, was going to Americanize Ontario politics.

After all, Mr Harris has hired Oliver North's spin doctor, a man more famous for smearing his opponents rather than fighting on the real issues of crime and jobs. Mike Harris's Republican American spin doctor is famous in political circles for divisive, nasty, dirty campaigns.

But Mike Harris's American-style politics don't stop there. The Common Sense Revolution is a plagiarized version of the Republican Contract with America. Newt Gingrich, the big Republican mover and shaker, wanted to start a Republican revolution in the States that sounds just like the revolution Mike Harris has been trying to start in Ontario.

Coincidence? I don't think so. The entire Conservative strategy has Republican American fingerprints all over it. Even the press gallery thinks Mike Harris is turning into an American. It's my guess Don Cousens thought so too and he bailed out just in time.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Tomorrow morning at 11:30 the Alliance of Breast Cancer Survivors will be holding a news conference calling on the Minister of Health to take immediate action to ensure that women have access to the new drug Taxol.

I would like to indicate to the minister that I strongly support their call for action. I am extremely concerned that the Ministry of Health has abandoned its responsibility to show leadership on this issue and has left it to hospitals to decide for themselves how and if this innovative drug will be made available to breast cancer patients.

The minister will know that treatment with Taxol is currently available free of charge through the eight regional cancer centres but not through local hospitals. This is a particularly disturbing aspect of this issue. One of the fundamental principles of our health care system is that patients should be able to receive treatment in their own communities. By failing to develop a coherent policy on Taxol, the government has denied women the ability to obtain this drug through their own hospitals and has forced them to travel to other communities to receive treatment in strange surroundings, often at a time when they are already suffering stress.

This is an issue which affects us all. The fact is that one in four people will be touched by breast cancer during their lifetime, either by developing this disease or through the death of a loved one. I urge the Minister of Health to heed the call of the Alliance of Breast Cancer Survivors and ensure that all women have access to this drug in their own communities.

TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): "Bombardier won the big one, a $560-million mass transit contract that will bring enough work to the Kingston area to employ roughly 300 people for four years."

This is how the Whig-Standard began its account of the announcement of Bombardier's Kingston UTDC plant's success in the highly competitive mass rail transportation equipment industry. It is a success that demonstrates strong partnership for economic renewal involving government, industry and labour in this province. Our government's commitment is clear.

In May, Premier Rae led an Ontario trade delegation, including representatives of Bombardier, to the Asia-Pacific region to expand Ontario's established business base in the fast-growth economies of Malaysia, China and Hong Kong. Attorney General Marion Boyd followed up the Bombardier proposal with the Malaysian government and transit officials while attending a conference in the area last month.

Our confidence in UTDC is long-standing. When Lavalin, the previous owner, went broke in 1991, we negotiated a new arrangement for UTDC with Bombardier, a deal which has created new jobs and investment not only in Kingston, but $41 million invested by Bombardier in Thunder Bay, with an increase of over 200 jobs. This is in stark contrast to the Liberal government's approach, which ended up costing the Ontario taxpayers over $400 million.

I think this $560-million contract puts UTDC's financial troubles in the past. Also, I think it shows that eastern Ontario is a good place to do business and that our plan to creates jobs, protect services and live within our means has helped to create conditions that business finds attractive. The jobs that follow will benefit all Ontarians.

VISITORS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could I beg the indulgence of the House for about 30 seconds to recognize the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario, who are in the members' gallery. They've been meeting in the Legislature for the last two days on their agenda of important issues to that council.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Durham East does not have a point of order, but none the less the guests are most welcome to be here in the chamber.

I would invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon, and seated in the members' gallery west, a former member who represented the riding of Lanark, Mr Doug Wiseman. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PREMIER'S VISIT TO CHINA AND HONG KONG / VISITE DU PREMIER MINISTRE EN CHINE ET À HONG KONG

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to report to the House on my recent trade mission to China and Hong Kong with the Prime Minister and the first ministers of eight other provinces and two territories.

I want all members of this House to appreciate that this was by far the largest and most ambitious trade mission ever undertaken by Canadians and it was by any measure an unprecedented success.

The overriding priority of our government is quite simply jobs for Ontarians, and to me that was the fundamental importance to Ontario of last week's Team Canada mission.

To meet our goal of providing jobs, we had three objectives: first, to establish clearly that Canada could work together as a partnership between business and government and between different levels of government on a mission of this kind; second, we wanted to make clear to Asian governments that Canada takes its role seriously as a member of the Asian-Pacific community and wants to expand greatly its economic presence in this part of the world where opportunities are growing so dramatically; third, we wanted to do whatever we could to encourage the Canadian business community to look to Asia for new markets and new investment opportunities.

1350

I am proud to report that we achieved all three objectives. In China, the delegation met with the Premier, the President, the Vice-Premier and the Minister of Foreign Trade. As well, I had the opportunity to have private discussions with the Minister of Railways, the minister responsible for nuclear power and the minister responsible for aviation, as well as other senior officials in the transportation field. I also met with provincial representatives from our sister province of Jiangsu and with the governor of Liaoning province.

This trip represented unprecedented access to those at the highest decision-making levels, and it will result in many, many thousands of jobs for Ontarians, even beyond those that have already been announced.

J'ai également assisté à un forum important avec le milieu des affaires du Canada, et j'ai participé à plusieurs rencontres avec des leaders du secteur privé. Les contrats qui ont été annoncés la semaine dernière en Chine, dans les domaines des transports, des télécommunications, de la haute technologie, des installations d'énergie et de l'énergie nucléaire, représentent le résultat non seulement de la mission commerciale la plus efficace dans l'histoire du Canada, mais également de la mission la plus efficace dans l'histoire récente de tout pays ayant des rapports avec la Chine.

If I can focus on Ontario aspects of the trip, businesses based in Ontario did extremely well on this trip. The contracts which were signed will mean many thousands of jobs in the province. The sale of two Candu reactors, for example, which are worth over $3 billion, will see the majority of that work done in Ontario.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Jenny, do you hear this? Candu.

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, if I could have the attention of the members opposite, I'd like to list the names of the Ontario-based firms, because many of them will be in their constituencies, and those with substantial investments in Ontario that successfully concluded agreements with the authorities in China during our stay, together with the estimated value of these contracts:

-- Agra Industries Ltd, Mississauga: a $35-million agreement to provide project management and technology transfer to the Three Gorges Development Corp.

-- Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd: a $3.5-billion deal for two Candu nuclear reactors.

-- AKD International, Toronto: a $140-million contract to develop a petroleum and gas pipeline mill in Shanghai.

-- Advanced Material Resources Ltd: an $8-million joint venture to produce industrial metals in Sichuan province, and a $6-million contract to expand similar production in Jiangsu.

-- Bennett and Wright International: a contract to manage the construction of a 40-storey real estate development in Tianjin, with more than $60 million in Canadian construction materials eligible for tender; also, a contract to procure steel for a $140-million building in Pudong, near Shanghai, that the company is designing and building.

-- Bethune International Group, Toronto: a joint venture to build a telecommunications tower, worth $135 million, in Chengdu.

-- Canadian Agra Corp, in Kincardine: an agreement to sell $47 million worth of technology and to help build a fuel ethanol plant worth up to $110 million.

-- Can-Alm International, Toronto: an agreement to build four power plants in China worth more than $170 million.

-- Casco Engineering, Toronto: joint venture agreements to build affordable modular homes. Canadian exports will be about $15 million a year.

-- Delorme Group Inc: a memorandum of understanding to design, develop and build an industrial park in Chaozhou city.

-- Innovative Board Technologies: a joint venture agreement to build and operate a $30-million fibreboard plant in Shenyang.

-- Inter-Canada Far East Trade Centre Inc: an agreement for six hockey games in 1995 between the Chinese and Canadian national hockey teams that will open a market for Canadian hockey products and equipment.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): If they're back.

Hon Mr Rae: We're back.

-- Manufacturers Life Insurance Co of Canada, which sold its first policy in Shanghai in 1893, has worked closely with the Chinese government for the past 10 years and has now opened its fourth office in China.

-- Mitel Corp of Kanata: a joint venture agreement to distribute digital fibre optics-based technology.

-- NASIA Group of Toronto: a letter of intent to upgrade a 40-kilometre section of the Beijing-Shenyang road to an express highway. This project is worth $270 million.

-- Nordion International from Kanata: a letter of intent for a joint venture to design, manufacture, market, supply, install and operate radiation processing systems.

-- Northern Telecom from Mississauga: a contract to supply up to $250 million worth of telecommunications equipment to Guangdong province.

-- Pacific Entertainment Group Inc: a joint venture contract to build and operate indoor ice sports complexes in Chongquing and Shanghai worth $25 million.

-- RES International in Ottawa: an agreement for a joint venture to export Canadian computer software and related products and services to a projected value of $100 million over five years.

-- Spar Aerospace: a letter of intent to set up a joint venture providing satellite communications technology and services.

-- Vickers and Benson Companies: a joint venture with Chinese television to co-produce 26 English-as-a-foreign-language TV programs.

-- The Webb Zerafa Menkes Housden Partnership, Toronto: a contract to design a headquarters building for the People's Insurance Co of China in Shanghai, worth some $74 million.

This list, as long as it is, is not the end of the story, because there are other contracts that are being negotiated as I speak today. As well, Bombardier UTDC successfully concluded its contract negotiations for a light rapid transit line in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, just last week. I spent several days in Kuala Lumpur, together with the chairman of Bombardier, last May and met with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and the chairman of Renong Corp over a period of several days. We worked closely with the Canadian High Commissioner, John Bell, and his very capable staff and the local representatives of Bombardier and SNC Lavalin. We persisted and we won, and that means putting our technology on display in Asia, an investment of $560 million in the province of Ontario, and 300 jobs for four years in Kingston, Ontario.

As well, two Ontario environmental service companies, Aer-O-Flo Environmental of Burlington and CMS Rotordisk of Concord, signed agreements worth about $11 million during the trade mission of the Environment minister in September to provide municipal water and waste water treatment in China.

And opportunities to continue to flow. We learned yesterday that U.S.E Hickson Products Ltd of Scarborough has signed a letter of intent to provide construction sealant and coating technology, valued at about $2 million, in Nanjing.

In addition, Toyota, as the members will know, has announced a major expansion of its investment in Cambridge, which will mean an additional 1,200 long-term jobs after a $600-million construction project which will start in the spring of 1995. This brings to a total of $5 billion the investment by auto manufacturers in this province, the province of Ontario, since 1990. As everyone knows, an investment of this kind by a major Japanese corporation is made only after long discussion, both here and in Japan. I want to express my personal thanks to Mr Tim Armstrong, the former Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade, whose ongoing work in this area has proven invaluable to the people of Ontario.

Canada's trade in Asia and Asian investment in Canada are going to be key features of our growth as a province into the 21st century. Our high schools, colleges and universities are already engaged in extensive programs in Asian studies, and we shall continue to encourage the development and expansion of these approaches, in cooperation with the federal government. The recent announcement of several new Canadian education centres being established in a number of Asian capitals in cooperation with the Asia Pacific Foundation is a good example of this renewed emphasis on common marketing and promotion and the possibilities for expanded linkages with Asia.

The same will be true in health and other services. Key partnerships between the private and public sectors can produce more results and more opportunities for Ontarians. The interhealth initiative, our work in land registration and our skills in the natural resources field are only three examples where we can already identify enormous opportunities for export and development, and that means jobs, that means jobs, that means jobs for the people of Ontario.

1400

The federal government signed two major agreements with the government of China, both of which have major implications for Ontario. The first, on nuclear cooperation in peaceful fields, will obviously be important for Ontario Hydro, where our work with AECL will continue to be close and productive. The second, on the work of CIDA, is equally significant. There will be a number of projects in the fields of development education, women's rights, and the development of legal institutions, where Ontario's colleges and universities will naturally be heavily involved.

Those of us who want to see a more open China and a more democratic Asia can only see these agreements as positive and constructive developments. We will succeed not by isolating China but by engaging in a broad-based and open dialogue on all questions. Our experience in Canada has been that economic rights, democracy and pluralism all go together. We present these values in everything we do and in all our interactions with Asian societies and governments.

In summary, I hope that beyond the catcalls from the other side, the members of this House, in a positive spirit, might recognize the importance to all of us of last week's trade mission. It has resulted in many thousands of jobs for Ontario and it will lead to many thousands more, and that reflects the fundamental commitment of this government.

On a personal note, I would just add a couple of comments. One is to say that it was for me -- and I know there'll be lots of catcalls on all sides, but I want to say this in all seriousness -- a very rewarding experience to work closely with the other premiers, with business leaders, as well as with the Prime Minister of Canada. I thought the Prime Minister represented the country with distinction and he did us all great credit. I also know he's going to be equally positive about our contribution to the mission.

I might also say to members who have a sense of the history of this place that it was a source of great pleasure for me personally that two other very distinguished former members of this House were active members of the delegation.

The former Premier, Mr Davis, who is now the chairman of the Ontario International Trade Corp, was a very active member of the delegation and made a very, very positive and constructive contribution. My colleague Mr McClellan was also on the trip, and many members with a sense of history will remember that he was for many years the member for Dovercourt. Finally, the chairman of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd is of course the former leader of the opposition, the former Deputy Premier and Treasurer in this House and member of the government from 1985 to 1990, Mr Robert Nixon. Those of us who have known and worked with Bob will recognize that his energy, his determination and his sense of mission helped very much to resolve some of the tricky issues that had to be resolved during the negotiations with respect to the Candu reactors.

I can say that working with former Premier Davis and former Deputy Premier Nixon, Team Ontario was a very significant part of Team Canada. I was delighted to be part of that team and I know I'll be joined in that spirit by members opposite.

SECURITIES LEGISLATION

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Later today I will be introducing the Securities Amendment Act, 1994. These reforms will provide the Ontario Securities Commission with the proper authority to protect investors and maintain confidence in Ontario's capital markets as a safe place to invest.

Traditionally, the Ontario Securities Commission has used policy statements to indicate the conduct expected of market participants and acceptable standards of market activity. However, recent judicial decisions in Ontario and British Columbia raised concerns about the use of policy statements by securities regulators.

To address these concerns, the government established the Ontario Task Force on Securities Regulation, chaired by University of Toronto law professor Ron Daniels. The task force consulted extensively with market participants and submitted its final report on June 30. The government has moved quickly to respond to its recommendations.

To preserve Ontario's high standards, the bill will give the OSC the power to make rules that would have the force of regulations in a large number of specific areas. This power will allow the OSC to respond quickly and effectively to changes in the marketplace.

Proposed rules will be subject to a 90-day public comment period, and the Minister of Finance will have the power to approve, disapprove or return the proposed rule to the OSC to be reconsidered.

In addition to these rule-making powers, the OSC will also be able to issue policy statements which would be guidelines and not have the force of law. Policy statements will also be subject to a period of public comment, in this case for 60 days.

The OSC will review all existing policy statements to determine which should be retained unchanged, redrafted but kept as a policy statement, or made into a rule.

To further enhance public participation in developing policy on securities, the bill requires that the chair of the OSC prepare an annual statement of priorities for the upcoming year and a status report on the previous year's initiatives. It also requires legislative review of the Securities Act every five years.

Ontario is the first jurisdiction in Canada to legislate rule-making powers for its securities commission. There are indications that other provinces will be following Ontario's lead. British Columbia recently announced that it intends to provide such powers to its securities commission next spring.

Ontario's high standards of regulation have been a key factor in attracting investment to companies that raise money in our capital markets. This investment supports growth and provides jobs to many thousands of people in this province.

In closing, I wish to thank Professor Daniels, the other members of the task force and the Ontario Securities Commission for their valuable work in this important sector of our economy. Professor Daniels is in the gallery visiting us this afternoon, and I want to publicly express my appreciation for the manner in which he carried out his task.

PREMIER'S VISIT TO CHINA AND HONG KONG

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to join with the Premier in congratulating the Prime Minister of Canada on the success of the trade mission to the Pacific Rim. There is no doubt that it was a very important trip and a clear statement of Canada's commitment to doing business in that part of the world.

We on this side were very pleased that the Premier was there. I think it was extremely important that the Premier of Ontario be there as part of Team Canada. I realize that the Premier initially was mildly reluctant to do that, but I think it was important that he be there and contribute to the success of the trip. We very much appreciated that.

It is particularly important for Ontario that we develop trade in that part of the world. I think all of us understand that here in Ontario almost 90% of our exports go to the United States. That's up, I might say, from four years ago when it was around 85%. It's around 90%, as the Premier knows, and our trade with the Pacific Rim has actually been declining.

I would say we're pleased to be doing that sort of business with the US, but to use your hockey analogy, Mr Premier, we can't have just one trade superstar on the team. We need to develop other trade superstars, and certainly the Far East, the Pacific Rim, is one of those potential trade superstars. The economy is growing there, as you know, at roughly 10%. Here in North America we're looking at 3% or 4% growth in the economy. That clearly has the potential to be another superstar in Ontario's trade portfolio.

I have no difficulty with the growth in the US trade; in fact, I encourage it. But when virtually 90% of all our exports go to one country, we are vulnerable: If that country suffers a recession, it really impacts our exports. So we very much support an aggressive development of trade, particularly in that growing Pacific Rim, and we will be very supportive of other measures that will help to ensure that.

I don't think we can underestimate the importance of the symbolism of the Team Canada trip. That made a very strong statement to that part of the world that Canada is open for business and wants to do business with that part of the world, and we're very supportive of that. We'll be very supportive of measures that ensure that our export industries have the proper finances and we will support measures that the government, I hope, is bringing forward.

1410

We also will be very supportive of the development of the skills necessary to develop our export business. I think we have a unique opportunity here in Ontario, I might say, for business in the Far East. Some of the strongest, most successful business people in that part of the world actually live here and have been educated here, Mr Speaker, as you know; they are an enormous asset to us.

I am pleased the trip was successful and I applaud the companies that are doing business there. We will continue to be supportive of measures that will help to build the business in that part of the world.

I think there was another message from that trip, and that was that the people of Canada are looking for cooperation between their levels of government. There is no doubt the people of Ontario and the people of Canada realized that the federal government and provincial governments working cooperatively was important, and we support that. We also think that in the months ahead they will be looking for the same level of cooperation in dealing with our fiscal challenges; they will be looking for that same kind of Team Canada approach.

Finally, on a personal note to the Premier, I simply want to say a note of thanks to him for the special effort he made in assuring the safety of our Prime Minister. There was probably never a moment when the Premier was not right by his side throughout the trip, and at those most dangerous moments when the TV cameras came rushing forward, there was a crush, the lights went on and the Prime Minister was in the maximum danger, the Premier was right there beside him, often shielding him from the glare of those lights. On a personal note, because I think we all appreciate the importance of the safety of the Prime Minister, we appreciate that part of the Premier's trip as well.

SECURITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): On behalf of Lyn McLeod and the Liberal caucus, I would like to applaud the effort to modernize such an important body as the Ontario Securities Commission, an organization that is vital to the efficient functioning of the capital markets in Ontario.

I understand that speedy passage is necessary for our capital markets to continue to function efficiently; however, I would like to reiterate that sufficient time should be allowed for concerns to be brought forward now that we have the actual legislation before us. It is our duty as legislators to ensure that such powers are granted with proper scrutiny.

PREMIER'S VISIT TO CHINA AND HONG KONG

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I am completely -- what should I say? -- at a loss to understand where the Premier is coming from on nuclear energy.

On November 20, 1990, in his throne speech, the Premier said:

"We will place a moratorium on...nuclear power facilities. We will ask Ontario Hydro to divert planned expenditures for...nuclear development towards a more comprehensive energy conservation."

I have been given information that political interference with Darlington by this government and the previous government cost the people of Ontario approximately $6 billion.

Tell me, Premier, how could you possibly go abroad now and tell the people that the Candu reactor is the best in the world, "but I won't have it in Ontario"? That's really what you're saying: It's the best in the world, but we can't have it in Ontario.

This is the kind of flip-flop understanding of policy that's going out to industry and to the people. We have electric cars coming on the market, we have an electric train waiting to go from Windsor to Quebec City and we have generators waiting to be put in place under the Candu reactor. And where is the Premier? He's promoting it abroad. How about coming home and giving us a little selling job?

SECURITIES LEGISLATION

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I'll be responding with regard to the Securities Amendment Act. What has not been said by the Minister of Finance here today is that this bill is proposed to be pushed through the Legislature without debate or without hearings.

This issue first came up in October 1993. It was raised again in June of this year because of the Daniels report. We have had time to understand that there is a problem with regard to the Ontario Securities Commission.

The government has not allocated any time. The government has allocated 20 days of hearings for this session to deal with all the important issues that face the province of Ontario, of which this is certainly one. This issue affects jobs in Ontario, it affects the security of the capital markets in Ontario, it affects the economic wellbeing of Ontario, yet no time in this Legislature has been allocated for this particular issue. I guess it's easier to travel abroad, to get photo opportunities and to talk about jobs in that context than it is to deal with the issues right here in the province of Ontario.

I say, number one, where are the priorities of this government? Why did this government not allocate sufficient time for a thorough debate of the problems of the Ontario Securities Commission?

Number two, I say yes, let's proceed, because we need a securities commission and a capital market that have integrity, that have the confidence of the investors, that have stability and that have predictability. The investors need to be protected. The Ontario Securities Commission has lost the authority that it felt it had because of court ruling, so there do need to be changes. So let's proceed, but we should have been able to proceed in a proper fashion.

Number three, I say let's be fair. Certainly the Investment Dealers' Association is in support of this bill. I'm in support of proceeding with this bill and many people are in support of proceeding with this bill, but let's recognize the issues of the security dealers, the issues of the dealers who tend to deal with what's called the penny stocks. They have problems and they have a message. They've conveyed that message to me and they wish to convey that message to the ministry but they have not been given that opportunity. I think they should be given that opportunity in a limited time fashion in a hearing.

I would propose, and I'd ask the Treasurer to consider this, that we have a limited debate in a committee hearing to allow all parties, to allow the Investment Dealers' Association, to allow the securities dealers' association, to allow everybody to have a say, yet we can still get it back to the House to proceed with this issue.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My first question today is to the minister responsible for water, the Minister of Environment and Energy. I was interested this morning to hear the Provincial Auditor being interviewed on a local radio station in Toronto. Mr Peters, the Ontario auditor, said that while he'd have no hesitation about drinking the water in Toronto, there were a number of places across Ontario where he would have some second thoughts.

Minister, the auditor's comment, together with the auditor's report, draws attention yet again to the fact that in recent months you and your ministry have had a report, a 1992 report, which indicated that of the 490 water treatment plants in the province of Ontario, 120 of those water treatment plants had, upon inspection, serious problems, and many of those could not or were not meeting Ministry of Environment guidelines.

Will the minister today table in this House the list of those 120 water treatment plants which according to that 1992 report done by and for his ministry did not or were not meeting ministry standards?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): In answer to my friend across the way who was listening to the radio this morning, I would indicate that he quoted rather selectively from a very significant interview. I would just point out that when asked by Mr Maychak, the interviewer, how he responded to the comment that I had made that water was safe in Ontario, the auditor responded by saying, "Well, I think he's right."

He also said in his interview this morning: "The ministry responded immediately. They have created a new proactive inspection unit in each district that will be responsible for plant inspections, along with other facilities. Inspection frequency will be based on risk assessment factors rather than a routine cycle so that the plant with historic problems will be inspected more frequently. Improved reporting and abatement follow-up is an important element of this new approach to inspection, and that's what they are doing right now."

We took the auditor's report very seriously and we have indeed responded immediately and are inspecting to ensure --

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

Hon Mr Wildman: -- that water in this province remains safe and clean for the residents of Ontario.

1420

Mr Conway: For the record, and quoting directly from the transcript of CBC Radio's morning show with Matt Maychak:

"Maychak: If I offered you," meaning Erik Peters, "a tall, cool glass of water right about now, would you even think twice about it?

"Peters: Not in Toronto.

"Maychak: But if you were out of town?

"Peters: There are some locations where I would have second thoughts about it."

The transcript is very clear. I come back --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: The report tabled by the auditor yesterday makes plain that you have a 1992 report that says clearly that of the 490 water treatment plants in Ontario, fully 120 were not up to standard; 113 of those plants, 23% of that total, are operated by you yourself in the ministry or through your clean water agency.

My question on behalf of the people of Ontario and particularly the nearly one million people who are served by those plants: Will you today table the list of 120 plants which were not meeting the standard in 1992?

Hon Mr Wildman: In response to the preamble, again referring to the interview this morning, it's interesting that the member does not quote this portion of the interview, where Mr Maychak asked Mr Peters if he was satisfied with the ministry's response. He said, "Are you satisfied that's enough?" Mr Peters: "Well, yes, I think I can't ask for more at this point."

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre is out of order.

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Peters said the report by the ministry indicated that 120 of the plants that we are operating, of the 490, had not done necessary testing, but then he goes on to say that the ministry immediately agreed that it will have to give priority additions to the drinking water surveillance program, which is in operation in Toronto, to the plants not meeting sampling guidelines. We have done that.

I'm quite pleased, in response to the question, to table today the summary of problems identified by the Provincial Auditor on the 23 municipal water supplies that he surveyed. He found when he surveyed them that eight were in compliance and 15 were not, and it shows that all of them are in compliance now, except for two with very minor problems, and that there is no problem with the water quality in any of them. I am pleased to table that here today.

Mr Conway: The auditor's report makes plain that the minister has a report from 1992. Well, I want to say to this government that Ruth Grier said for years we had to have a safe water bill, that Bob Rae said we had to have an Environmental Bill of Rights. We have now a government report that says there are a million Ontarians who may very well be getting poor quality from water treatment plants.

I want from the minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: Go back to China.

I want from you a commitment today that you will table today the list of the 120 water treatment plants that were identified in that 1992 report as failing to meet Ontario Ministry of the Environment water quality standards.

Hon Mr Wildman: That wasn't really a question, but I will respond. I will be happy tomorrow to table the list of the 120 with analyses of the current status of each. That is currently being prepared by the ministry and will be tabled tomorrow.

I would really caution the member, however, against playing politics with the concerns of the people for clean water in the province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Wildman: I think it's important for all members and members of the public to recognize that the auditor's report itself, and the auditor himself, did not say that water was unsafe. He said that there were a number of plants that were not in compliance. Since that report has been done, we have taken those recommendations very seriously, we've responded and he has said we have responded.

For those who are concerned because of questions that have been raised, I would just point out that Peter Elson, the executive director of the Ontario Public Health Association, has said that there is no reason now for the public to be concerned about the quality of their drinking water, but if they are concerned, the information is available through their municipality. That speaks for itself. There is no reason to be concerned. We have responded. We take very seriously the auditor's report and we are doing everything possible to respond to the questions raised in the House.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Conway: I guess if Bob Rae can sell nuclear reactors in China and join General Pinochet in buying a Peruvian utility, Bud Wildman can make the statement he made about other people engaging in scare tactics, knowing what some of us know.

The Speaker: Could the member place his second question, please.

1430

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My second question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Two weeks ago, my colleague Mr Murphy, the member for St George-St David in Toronto, raised concerns about a consultant who was acting as a middleman in obtaining Jobs Ontario training funds for a Toronto company.

Minister, will you today confirm that the situation to which Mr Murphy directed our attention some days ago is now under investigation by the Metropolitan Toronto fraud squad?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I can confirm that after the member gave us the information, which would have been helpful if he had given it to us the first day, the matter was referred for investigation. Of course, that's the appropriate way of dealing with it when someone releases information and makes an accusation.

Mr Conway: So the answer is yes, that the matter Mr Murphy raised some days ago is now under investigation by the Metropolitan Toronto fraud squad.

My supplementary question is that since Mr Murphy raised the case that has been mentioned, what have you done to ascertain how widespread is the problem that has arisen in the case Mr Murphy has raised?

Hon Mr Cooke: The example that was given was then followed up immediately when the information came from Mr Murphy's office. I must say that was after a press conference where there was information that was refused to be released by the member: no information, all just accusations; a question in the House where there was no information, just an accusation.

Finally, the member's staff called the ministry to say that they were concerned enough, even if the MPP wasn't, to pass on the information so it could be looked into. As soon as that information was passed on it was referred to the police.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Point of privilege.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): He can't say that kind of lie in this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. To the member for St George-St David, first he does not have a point of privilege, but also he will know that he has used unparliamentary language and I would ask him to withdraw the remark.

Mr Murphy: I will not withdraw the remark.

The Speaker: To the honourable member for St George-St David --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order. I will deal with this serious matter after the House has come to order.

The honourable member, whom I know has great respect for Parliament, has now an opportunity to withdraw the unparliamentary language he used.

Mr Murphy: Mr Speaker, it is because of my respect for Parliament that I cannot let the lie that the member told stand.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member will know that it is not up to the Chair to determine the veracity of statements made in the House, but rather to ensure that parliamentary language is used at all times. I'm sure that the member, in a calmer moment, would wish to withdraw the remark he unfortunately made.

Mr Murphy: I have too much respect for the truth to fudge what I believe and what is the case, that this member made an accusation that is a lie.

The Speaker: Well, I'm afraid that the honourable member leaves the Speaker with no alternative but to name him. Mr Murphy, you are named. You must remove yourself from the chamber and from the committees of this House for the balance of this sitting day, and I would ask that you voluntarily remove yourself from the chamber now. Sergeant.

Mr Murphy left the chamber.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Conway: I think the matter stands for itself and I have no interest in pursuing it further.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier, on social assistance. Today, Premier, we will be debating a motion which outlines our comprehensive welfare reform proposals. These proposals include workfare and learnfare, setting Ontario benefit levels to 10% above the average of the other provinces, a centrally computerized benefit payment system and $400 million in new Headstart programs for children and for the most vulnerable.

Premier, given that you yourself said last year, "The system as it is now isn't working. It isn't doing well enough," given those quotes from you personally, what I would like to know is, can we expect your personal support when we debate this resolution later today?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): No.

Mr Harris: I appreciate the definitiveness of the answer. I'm disappointed, of course, given the fact that 10 million Ontarians know the system is broken and not working, including the Premier, and yet you are not prepared to do anything about it.

On February 10, 1993, here is what you said, Premier: "It makes little sense for us to be simply transferring moneys to people so they can sit at home." Premier, you know that you and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of issues, but on this one, on this quote and on this statement, you and I agree. The current welfare system is not working for the very people it's supposed to help. That is why we want to break the cycle of dependency by tying welfare benefits directly to training and to education.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Is she coming today? Where is that woman?

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

Mr Harris: Premier, given your comments last year that it makes little sense to transfer money to people so they can sit at home, can I assume, since you're not supporting the whole package we've put forward, that you at least support our workfare and our learnfare proposals to give welfare recipients greater opportunities to re-enter the workforce?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say directly to the honourable member that when you look at what has happened in this area over the last 30 years, the problem is that the whole approach to people who are unemployed -- the federal government was supposed to have responsibility for unemployment insurance.

Since the recessions which began in the 1970s, the number of people who are employable and who are very trainable and who are now on social assistance has grown. It's grown for a number of reasons. We can discuss that. I'm sure that will be discussed in the course of the debate this afternoon, which I look forward to watching.

But I would say to the honourable member that I take exception to a couple of features of what he is proposing. First of all, I take exception to his approach of a draconian reduction in the level of benefit that is paid to families that are in need of social assistance. You are taking money out of the hands of children. You are taking food out of the mouths of children. That will be the impact, the necessary impact, of the reductions which you are imposing on the system.

You're shaking your head. You don't like to follow the consequences of your ludicrous so-called Common Sense Revolution. It's a document which was written somewhere south of the Mason-Dixon line. It's got nothing to do with conditions in the province of Ontario and it's going to end up creating more poverty rather than solving the problem.

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

Hon Mr Rae: We've got Jobs Ontario Training, we've Jobs Ontario programs which are intended to get people back to work and to get people into training programs. That is the approach we're taking. We prefer to take a positive and constructive approach rather than the kind of punitive approach which I'm sorry to say I associate with the reform party opposite.

1440

Mr Harris: The Premier is wrong. Our approach will in fact provide more help for children and the most vulnerable. Our proposals are designed to do just that. Secondly, I'm disappointed the Premier plans to watch the debate instead of participate in the debate. I think it's an important debate. Clearly, at least he and I agree the current system is broken, it's not working and it needs major change. I was hoping that this afternoon could be a productive debate on the kinds of changes we need to make.

By way of final supplementary, clearly what I have heard as I've travelled this province is that our welfare offices today are seen as cheque-processing offices, not employment offices, not opportunity offices, not counselling offices, not offices of hope. They are cheque-processing offices. Premier, would you agree with me that we need to change that attitude, that we need to change this system from a numbers-driven, dehumanizing and wasteful bureaucracy to one that offers hope, that offers opportunity, that offers assistance at the same time as it offers people a hand up to find a job or the training they need for the job?

The system today, because of this attitude, abuses the very people it is supposed to help. They have told us this, the users of the system, the demoralized, those who have lost hope.

Last month, Premier, your minister dismissed our proposals --

The Speaker: Could the member please place a question.

Mr Harris: -- and he told us the status quo was working.

Hon Mr Rae: No, he didn't.

Mr Harris: Well, he did, Premier. What I would like to ask you is, do you agree with your minister, who says the status quo is working, or do you stand by your original statements that it's broken, that it's not working, that it needs fixing? And if you do, will you participate in the debate today and help us in a non-partisan way to come up with constructive solutions to fix a system that's not working today?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say quite seriously to the member opposite that I recall my colleague Elie Martel describing the system of welfare under the Tory government as being a pay wicket system, and I think that's the problem with the old system of welfare, which we are committed to changing.

We have to do it in cooperation with the federal government because of the unprecedented attack on transfer payments with respect to welfare that has been launched by the Tory party and continued by the Liberal Party. So we need to take an approach -- and I would say in all seriousness to the honourable member that there are some things all of us in the House can agree on. We all agree we need a more active system. That's why we have Jobs Ontario Training. We all agree that we need to get people back into the workforce. That's why we have 60,000 positions that have been created by the private sector in response to the Jobs Ontario Training program, a saving of $200 million to the social assistance bill.

Where I part company with the leader of the third party, and I part company quite profoundly, is in his approach to the reduction of benefit levels to a point that is simply going to drive a lot of people into poverty, a lot of people deeper into poverty. When you've got 40% of the people on social assistance who are children, you can't make the kinds of changes in benefit levels that you're talking about and not have a very negative impact on kids. You can't do it. It can't be done. We've looked at it. We've obviously looked at a comprehensive approach. I will say to the --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- honourable member that we will continue, under the very able leadership of the Minister of Community and Social Services, to provide leadership in this area, that we will continue to make changes in this area and that we will continue to work with all parties, including even, I would say, the Conservative Party if it is prepared to come forward with positive and constructive ideas. I look forward to seeing what they are.

The Speaker: Could the Premier please conclude his reply.

Hon Mr Rae: The problem is that there's too much punishment and too little hope in the approach that's being offered by the members of the Conservative Party.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: Let's be very clear: The loss of hope is in the status quo. The hope, the opportunity, is in major change and we are proposing major changes.

The Speaker: Could the member place a new question, please.

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question as well is to the Premier. The Premier talked about his Bob's Ontario program. Premier, I'd like to ask you specifically about the program that you just talked about as one of the answers to welfare reform. I would like to ask you to tell us the purpose of the training component of your Jobs Ontario program. What are the training dollars of Jobs Ontario Training? What are they offered to businesses to do?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm going to refer that to the minister.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I think it's quite clear, and if the leader of the third party talked to some of the employers who are involved in the program or came out to the jobs fairs, they would make it very clear to him that the money that is used under the Jobs Ontario Training program -- there is upfront cost when a job is created to train an employee, to have the employee familiar with the operations of that company, and obviously if there's any technology that the individual needs to be trained on and so forth. As well, there are dollars under the Jobs Ontario Training program for the training of existing employees.

So it's to offset those costs and to make sure that those costs aren't getting in the way of creating jobs in this province. It's to help individuals and it's to help the private sector create those jobs.

Mr Harris: I have a copy of an ad from the November 2 edition of the Huron Expositor. It's a weekly newspaper in Huron county.

This ad outlines four different positions under the Jobs Ontario Training banner, for which you've just given us the purpose. However, to be eligible for these positions, the applicants must be fully trained. Job number 1: class A mechanic, "Must have class A licence." Job number 2: machinist, must have your certificate. Job number 3: architectural draughtsperson, "Must have manual drafting experience," must already have "knowledge of AutoCAD." Job number 4: millwright, "Must have ticket."

What we have are four jobs that are advertised under Jobs Ontario Training. Each one of these jobs requires the applicant to be fully trained or they're not eligible to apply for this job. Can you explain to me why Jobs Ontario is advertising jobs the classified way for those who must already be fully trained before they can apply for the job? Why is that?

Hon Mr Cooke: That is just a very superficial understanding of what's going on in the economy right now. The fact of the matter is that before you can even qualify to get into the Jobs Ontario Training program, you've either got to be an unemployment insurance exhaustee or on social assistance.

In this last recession, there have been thousands of Ontario citizens who did have training, but they went on welfare because they lost their jobs with the huge changes that have taken place in our economy. To get those people back into the workforce, sure, they've got that basic training, but they need additional training in order --

Mr Harris: No.

Hon Mr Cooke: Well, go into the workplace. Go and --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: Just last week during the constituency break, I spent a couple of hours in a tool and die shop in my riding and the owner was making the case to me that we can't just expect our graduates from either our college programs or our apprenticeship programs to move into his operation and not get additional training. For the technology that they need to use in his company, there needs to be additional training on the job and the Jobs Ontario Training program helps do that, helps offset those costs, allows him to create jobs. So the leader of the third party simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

1450

Mr Harris: Clearly, what we have is a straight ad that the Canada Employment office made before; it's not a new job. Somebody is saying, "I need a class A mechanic." Jobs Ontario is coming along and saying, "Hey, how would you like to get an extra 10 grand and a fully trained class A mechanic?" There is absolutely no explanation for this ad other than to hand out $10,000 to anybody who applies this way instead of going to Canada Manpower, not one reason. No one is being trained for these jobs; they already must be trained or they're not eligible. The job opening exists already; they've already notified that.

What these ads amount to are very expensive taxpayer-funded Help Wanted ads. Clearly, it's another example that your Bob's Ontario Training is nothing more than a pre-election ploy: You want to get another statistic to add to your 60,000. That's all it is.

I would ask you this: Instead of this waste of the ads, of the bureaucracy, of the 25% cost, of the 10 grand the businesses don't need, why don't you take that money, reduce the bureaucracy, cut the size of government, cut taxes, and have a truly meaningful job creation program in this province.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I don't know what position the Tories are taking today. I know what position they used to take in New Directions: A Blueprint for Economic Renewal and Prosperity in Ontario. Our program, Jobs Ontario Training, links government assistance to training. The Tory position has been titled, "Wage Subsidies to Employers Hiring Social Assistance Recipients."

Thousands of Ontarians now on social assistance are able to work, yet employers cannot afford to hire them. By linking social assistance directly to employment, as recommended in the SARC report, Queen's Park could effectively create a multibillion-dollar pool of money, topped up by employers, to put people back to work.

Our program, Jobs Ontario Training, is not a wage subsidy, it's not simply money given to the private sector. It's not just a wage subsidy, as the Tories promote. It's training for work. It answers the question the Tories always ask: "Training for what?" Training for jobs under the Jobs Ontario Training program. That's welfare reform.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the minister of economic development and interprovincial trade, Ms Lankin. Minister, in the past few days, I've been approached, along with my other colleagues from eastern Ontario, by a number of construction workers and construction businesses in and about eastern Ontario and the national capital area. All of these people are quite concerned about an advertisement which has recently appeared in certain media in eastern Ontario and western Quebec.

The ad to which I make reference -- and I'll send a copy across to the minister -- is a proposal call for the new $110-million Loto-Québec casino to be built in Hull, which of course is part of the national capital area. Minister, you'll see from the ad -- which is seulement en français, I'm sorry to say, but it does make plain that only Quebec-based companies can apparently bid on that particular project.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): You can't do that.

Mr Conway: The Premier says that can't happen. Well, it's in the ad.

My question to Minister Lankin is, are you aware of this situation and can you tell this House and, more importantly, all the men and women in eastern Ontario who might like to vie for a job on this project whether or not, to the best of your knowledge, this ad conforms with and complies with the interprovincial trade agreement which was signed last year by you, on behalf of the Ontario government, with the Johnson government in Quebec?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I appreciate the member drawing this to the attention of the House. Yes, I was aware of it and I have looked into it. As you can see, the proposal call is issued by Loto-Québec, which is the crown corporation responsible in this case for the proposal for the construction of this casino enterprise.

You may remember that in both the bilateral negotiations and in the multilateral negotiations that all the provinces were signatories to, Ontario pushed very hard to try and have all crown corporations included in the provisions of the agreement. There were a number of provinces which rejected that approach. If you remember, we at one point were even criticized for looking for reciprocal non-discrimination.

At the end of the day, and I've said this on many occasions, we signed an agreement which was a major step forward, but there was still more work to do. Crown corporations were not covered. All government ministries and direct enterprises are. There is a provision in the agreement for further negotiations over the course of next year to bring in crown corporations. We are very hopeful that we will achieve the coverage of crown corporations, but at this point in time they are not a covered entity, so in fact it is not in contradiction with the agreement. I don't think they should be doing this, I don't think it's in the spirit of where we want to be headed in this country, but their government is not violating the agreement.

I may also indicate at this point in time that because Quebec wouldn't list its crown corporations, we therefore did not list ours. Our casino corporation and like corporations are not listed either. I'm very hopeful that continued negotiations over the next year will bring these entities under the agreement, not just in Quebec and Ontario but in all provinces in the country.

Mr Conway: I appreciate the minister's full answer. The people I represent and other people across the eastern part of the province will be disappointed to hear that this exemption therefore justifies this particular proposal call.

Many of my colleagues, myself included, have been hearing in recent days from some of these very people who are concerned about this project that the new Parizeau government in Quebec may be planning to retreat from the interprovincial agreement that was signed between Ontario and Quebec just this past spring.

Because economic growth and job creation are obviously of enormous importance everywhere, most of all in eastern Ontario and western Quebec where we have some of the highest unemployment rates in the country, have you had any discussions with your new Quebec counterpart, Minister, as to the attitude of the new Parizeau government?

I know that Premier Rae and Premier Parizeau are meeting next Tuesday. I'm sure our Premier is going to be raising with Mr Parizeau the first order of importance of maintaining and hopefully improving that interprovincial agreement. But have you had any indication that the Parizeau government is planning to cancel its Bill 142 and pull back or pull away from this very important and positive interprovincial trade agreement signed this past year?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think that's an important question. At this point in time, I have not had any indication that the province of Quebec is intending to back away from the agreement that was signed. The most recent post-election statements that have been made indicate their interest in a common market approach in this country, and that would be consistent with maintaining support for the agreement that's been signed. But I have to say to you that I have had no direct indication. At an officials' level, work continues and is proceeding with respect to setting up the ongoing negotiations.

You're quite correct that Premier Rae will be meeting with Premier Parizeau next week. This is an item that we have placed on the agenda for discussion and that we will be raising, to offer our thoughts and hopes that this agreement will continue to be honoured, that we will have an opportunity to enhance the agreement through the course of the further negotiations that are set out, and that in the future we will be able to bring on crown corporations such as Loto-Québec and the Ontario Casino Corp to ensure that we are really opening the markets for free movement of goods, services and labour between our two provinces and across the country.

1500

USE OF COURIER SERVICES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Premier, I think a pretty straightforward question that doesn't require any briefing books. If someone from a government office on Bloor Street wanted to get a two-page press release from their office to a Queen's Park office, would you (a) suggest that they take a few seconds and fax the release at no cost to the taxpayer or (b) recommend that they pick up the phone, hire a courier, address and seal the envelope and have it delivered by hand at a cost of $2.50?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I don't have any idea to what the member is referring, since I don't have the notes and the briefing book which clearly the member has in front of him. I can only say that in the normal course of events, one would expect that the transmission of documents would be done in the most efficient and most cost-effective way possible.

Mr Harris: Right, but this is government, and the normal, most efficient, effective way doesn't seem to apply. Increasingly, all across the province -- I don't know how many times, as I've travelled the province during the breaks, of which we have more than we sit these days, I hear people say: "Why do they courier? Why send this routine stuff by Purolator special-delivery courier?"

Last Thursday the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation couriered a press release from its offices at 77 Bloor Street to our Queen's Park offices, I assume room 130. Ironically, it was on a project in Fort Erie. It came to the office of the member for Parry Sound about Jobs Ontario -- you know how they waste money. I don't know how many thousands of these went out, perhaps to tourism-related industries.

The courier company said delivering each envelope a few blocks down the street would cost $2.50. Faxing within local calling costs nothing -- no cost to the taxpayer. In fact, it's probably a little cheaper. Last year, according to the blue book, your government spent $30 million on courier costs alone. Can you identify any of those items that had to go out by courier, any of this $30 million? Can you explain to us why there seems to be no controls in place, no policy, why everybody in government seems to have unlimited access to courier for anything they want? Can you explain that?

Hon Mr Rae: The member opposite is obviously going to wax eloquent from one particular example. I'm sure there are ways in which we can all learn from the kinds of experiences which are being described, but if the member were being fair, I think he would recognize that the operating costs, for example, in this government have decreased dramatically since 1990. Since you asked a detailed question on courier service, I can say that last year we saved $2 million, government-wide, from reduced courier usage.

Mr Harris: No, you didn't, you wasted $2 million.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I'm sorry, these are the numbers that are here. They come from the Chair of Management Board, and he is the source of much wisdom and indeed often truth in these areas.

I say to the honourable member, since you have raised this question, I am going to look forward to releasing tomorrow information which will compare how much we have spent in terms of the operating costs of government compared to what was spent in the last years of the Peterson government and how, in per capita terms and in terms of the way in which we've managed government, in fact we've kept those costs coming down dramatically in comparison to what they were there and in comparison to what they were when you were the Minister of Natural Resources in the well-known Miller government.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a question for the Treasurer dealing with concerns of small business people who are Metro mall tenants about their property tax assessments.

Last year Toronto newspapers reported that an assessment board review decision shifted $14 million in taxes from anchor tenants on to smaller retailers. Subsequent reports said that the anchor tenants would forgo some of their tax break for 1994 in order to protect smaller tenants while stakeholders discussed the long-term solution. With the date fast approaching for the delivery of 1995 assessment notices, mall tenants are worried about their taxes. Can you tell us if the stakeholders have arrived at a compromise that addresses this issue?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I appreciate the question from the member because I've had a number of calls and inquiries about this matter myself.

The member is quite correct. The Assessment Review Board made a decision that transferred a lot of the taxes to what are known as the small tenants as opposed to the anchor tenants in the shopping malls in Metropolitan Toronto. In the spring, a voluntary agreement was reached between the anchor tenants and the smaller tenants in which they agreed that for the balance of this year a compromise would be worked out, and indeed it was worked out. However, that voluntary agreement is to expire at the end of this calendar year, and indeed it will.

Since then, the ministry has worked extremely hard in a facilitating and conciliatory way to bring the two sides together and to try to work out a way in which a more permanent solution could be found. I am happy to tell the member that this indeed has happened. It looks as though there is an agreement between the anchor tenants and the smaller tenants in which roughly $8 million will be absorbed by the anchor tenants to keep the smaller tenants from having to absorb the very substantial tax increases that would have resulted from the Assessment Review Board decision.

Mr Frankford: Thank you, Minister. I know your response will be welcome to many hardworking small business people in Scarborough and across Metro. How soon will I be able to tell constituents that their tax rates will be assured?

Hon Mr Laughren: I should have included that in my first answer, actually. It looks as though we may have to introduce legislation to accomplish this. I had hoped we could do it without legislation, but our legal folks tell us we're going to need legislation.

I have had conversations with the opposition critics, who have been most understanding in this regard, and there are still negotiations to go on among the House leaders and so forth. I don't want to be presumptuous in taking anything for granted from the opposition critics, because they've got their job to do as well, but my hope is that we'll be able to introduce legislation here in this session and get it through the Legislature before we adjourn for the break.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. I have been informed that tomorrow morning, at 10 o'clock, the media studio here at Queen's Park has been booked by the two vice-chairs or CEOs -- whatever it is they've declared themselves to be -- of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, where they'll be having a press conference to celebrate their vision of health and safety training in the province. I understand they are about to unilaterally declare the agency and their programs a great success.

At the same time as that is happening, the management caucus of the agency's small business advisory committee will be denouncing the agency, the two vice-chairs, the policies and the so-called training programs for small business, particularly for firms with high levels of part-time or seasonal employees or firms with staff where there's a high turnover.

The former Minister of Labour asked the agency to develop a modified training program for that sector. That was last May. The agency to date has not complied with the minister's request. There are no training programs, yet the agency-imposed deadline for training of January 1, 1995, is fast approaching.

Minister, will you call in your two vice-chairs today and instruct them to cancel this self-congratulatory press conference tomorrow morning and to work with the small business advisory committee to develop and deliver health and safety training to that sector?

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister of Labour): I thank the member very much for the question. No, I will not ask the two members to cancel the media conference, because I think it's very important that the public of Ontario know how important health and safety training is in this province. As I said two weeks ago, over 15,000 people have been trained, with over 8,000 graduates. This is very important.

When we are talking about workers' compensation, one of the serious problems we have is injuries in the workplace. When I was just the member for Niagara South, it used to sadden me when I heard or read in the newspaper about people being killed and injured on the job. But now, as Minister of Labour, those reports come to my desk immediately and the seriousness really hits home. We've got to have people trained. It's got to be done in the workplace. So I want them to do this press conference to inform people how successful the agency has been.

1510

On your second concern, that there hasn't been set up a modified program, my understanding is that the two leaders of this agency were working with the small business community to set it up and that there would be --

Mr Mahoney: They're right here.

Hon Mrs Coppen: No, this was my understanding, and that there would be some negotiations to delay --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude her reply, please.

Hon Mrs Coppen: -- the startup date of it, and I would be prepared, as minister, to work for that.

Mr Mahoney: Let me try to correct the understanding the minister says she has. The members of the management caucus of the small business advisory committee of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency are in the gallery today.

They have issued a release wherein the chair of this committee, Mr Paul Oliver, says, "There are thousands of workplaces in sectors like hospitality and retailing that need certification training that meets their circumstances and unique characteristics."

He goes on to say: "We have put forward detailed recommendations for an alternative delivery method. The unwillingness of the representatives of organized labour to agree to this makes it impossible for these firms to get on with the job and," most important, Minister, "puts employees at risk."

Minister, your understanding is obviously wrong. You've been misinformed. There is no agreement on the sector-specific training in the hospitality sector, in the retail sector, in the restaurant sector, in the tourism sector.

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

Mr Mahoney: They are asking you to live up to the request of the former Minister of Labour, and my question is to ask you to intervene in this matter and do one of two things -- in fact, you've got to do two things.

One is, instruct the two CEOs to sit down with these people and negotiate a training program and, second, extend the deadline for this training past January 1, 1995. That is a very short time away and even if the programs were designed today --

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Mahoney: -- they could not be implemented. Minister, this issue needs you to intervene and solve this problem. Will you do that?

Hon Mrs Coppen: To the member for Mississauga West, I am just as concerned as you about the safety of people working in the hospitality industry, in tourism. Remember, I've just come from the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation and have talked to all kinds of business people involved in that sector.

Of course I care about their programs, and I'm also saying to the guests here in the gallery that my understanding, the information I have been given, is that there are negotiations to change that date so that we can work in cooperation with the industry. I am prepared to work with that industry if they will please contact me.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Waterloo North.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is also for the Minister of Labour. Madam Minister, it's obvious that bipartism does not work, and you now know why. In only 44 days the deadline for registration for certification training runs out and there has still been no resolution of the major issues affecting small business.

This has occurred because the agency has refused to listen to the proposals and the recommendations that have come from the business representatives on the small business advisory committee. They have wasted almost a year and a half, and these people at the agency have simply not listened.

Given this fact, Madam Minister, will you commit to intervene to put in place a modified program for the workplaces in the hospitality and retail sectors? Will you intervene?

Hon Mrs Coppen: To the member, no, I will not intervene, but I will take your comments under advisement and find out more about the problem that you've brought to the House. Again, I am repeating, my understanding is that there is flexibility in changing the startup date for the certification. I've been told that since I've come to the ministry two weeks ago.

You and I both know the importance of health and safety training for all people, especially the small business community. We as a government appreciate what small business is doing for this province and we also appreciate that no one wants to put their health and their life at risk when they go into a workplace, whether it be a major industry or a small business. Of course, I will take that under advisement. No, I will not interfere, but I will consult.

Mrs Witmer: Madam Minister, your refusal to intervene will put at risk the safety of employees in this province. Given the fact that certification training is not working, given the fact that 75% of the businesses in this province have not yet registered for the reasons that I stated before, will you commit to delay the January 1, 1995, deadline for registration until what date?

Hon Mrs Coppen: I disagree with the member's written text of the problem. I care about the problem. I have told her repeatedly that there are negotiations on the startup date. I do care about health and safety and she knows that.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH SPENDING

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I have a response to a question previously asked by the member for Nipissing. The member, on November 1, indicated in one of his excoriations of extravagance on the part of this government that a number of forms that had been sent to physicians in this province were a waste and had cost us $300,000.

In fact, what we did when we reviewed the way that physicians ordered laboratory tests was find that a number of tests were routinely checked off whether or not they were required for the health of the patient. So, working with the Ontario Medical Association and with the Ontario Association of Medical Laboratories, we revised the form so that two specific tests now had to be specifically asked for, not just part of a checklist. We then issued one box of 500 new forms to every physician, because the vast majority of physicians order lab tests.

In the two months that physicians have been using the new forms, we have saved $100,000 a month on unnecessary lab tests. For the benefit of the leader of the third party, that is $1.2 million in savings a year from just one of those tests. From a business point of view, our investment of $50,000 in sending out the forms netted us $1.2 million. We think that's good management.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Hogwash, absolute hogwash. The fact that fewer tests are being ordered has nothing to do with the forms. I would like to ask you this: You're telling me that the doctors can't read the forms enough, that having a new form is going to cause them to order fewer tests than the old forms. Hogwash, an insult to the intelligence of the medical profession, absolute nonsense. It's like Bob's Ontario: Somebody hires somebody, you run around, give them 10 grand and take credit. Hogwash -- not even related.

You said the forms had to change because nobody could read physicians' handwriting. That's what you said when I raised the question before. Do you stand by that or are you prepared to retract that, which is also an insult to the doctors of this province?

Hon Mrs Grier: Part of his question was, why did we imprint the name of the physician on the form? I responded, because you sometimes can't read doctors' handwriting.

But the point is, laboratory costs were increasing at 15% a year under his government, under that government. Our government, in cooperation with the OMA, has reviewed the situation, managed the situation and saved a million dollars in the health care system.

1520

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 71 and 72.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

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

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

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

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

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

That's signed by many constituents from my constituency in the areas of Kenora, Sioux Lookout, Keewatin and Dryden, and I too attach my name to that petition.

VIDEO GAMES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have 48 petitions here with over 5,000 signatures on them. They have come from the Catholic Women's League of Canada chapters in support of Bill 135. They come from such places as Barrys Bay, Bolton, Bramalea, Brechin, Brentwood, Cumberland, Delhi, Mississauga, Nepean, Orillia, Oshawa, Ottawa, Perth, Petawawa, Whitby, Vanier, and Toronto, Agincourt, Scarborough and Etobicoke. The petitions read as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Theatres Act was amended in 1984 with the intention of keeping certain viewing materials away from children and advances in technology have occurred to such an extent that the concern for children covered by this legislation is negated as it does not cover electronically produced images that are part of video and computer games; and

"Whereas there has been a disturbing increase in the proliferation of violent and sexually explicit video games; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario should be making every effort to regulate the distribution of adult video games and ensure that games designed for adults are clearly marked as such; and

"Whereas Bill 135, the Theatres Amendment Act, 1993, a private member's bill introduced by Waterloo North MPP Elizabeth Witmer, would amend the definition of 'film' so that the electronically produced images that are part of video and computer games come within the purview of the act, particularly the classification system;

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

"That Bill 135 be passed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as quickly as possible."

I hereto affix my signature.

SICKLE CELL ANAEMIA

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition and I'd like to acknowledge the contribution of the Sickle Cell Association of Ontario in coordinating this. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas sickle cell anaemia is a serious medical condition with 10% of the population of African origin carrying the gene, and studies show that the identification of homozygotes in the newborn period permits the institution of comprehensive medical follow-up, demonstrated to prevent morbidity and mortality in these patients;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the ministries of Health and of Community and Social Services to support a program of newborn screening for sickle cell disease in Ontario hospitals."

I'm pleased to add my signature to this.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas Bill 173, the long-term-care reform bill, if allowed to pass without necessary and appropriate amendments, will result in a lower level of service to consumers in the province; and

"Whereas the enactment of this legislation in its present form will increase the cost of the provision of care to the elderly and those in medical need; and

"Whereas the passage of Bill 173 will bring about a decrease in the number of volunteers available to organizations now directly involved in providing service in the field of long-term care; and

"Whereas local communities will lose control and influence over the delivery of long-term-care services, even though they are best able to determine local needs;

"Be it therefore resolved that the government of Ontario be requested to amend Bill 173 to comply with the recommendations of service organizations who at present deliver home care to people in communities across Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition as I am in agreement with it.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

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

"Whereas any person applying for a job should be judged fairly on the merits of his or her qualifications, abilities and experience; and

"Whereas a person's colour, religion, race, gender or other such characteristics should not enter into the equation; and

"Whereas Bill 79 will establish a quota system of hiring based on race, colour, gender or other physical characteristics; and

"Whereas employers should be free to hire the most-qualified person for a given job;

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

"We demand that the government withdraw Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act."

It's signed by a number of my constituents, and I support this petition as well.

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

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

"Whereas we, the undersigned, are of the opinion that private insurance companies are exploiting Ontario motorcyclists and snowmobile operators by charging excessive rates for coverage or by outright refusing to provide coverage;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, understand that those insurance companies that do specialize in motorcycle insurance will only insure riders with four or more years of riding experience and are outright refusing to insure riders who drive certain models of 'supersport' bikes; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe that this situation will cost hundreds of jobs at dealerships and in the motorcycle industry and is contrary to the rights of motorcyclists and snowmobile operators,

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

"That the government of Ontario should study the feasibility of launching public motorcycle and snowmobile insurance."

I've read this and will support this. I affix my signature to it and send it down to the Clerk.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario has long represented a serious inequity between the two regions; and

"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario is often between 10 and 20 cents a litre; and

"Whereas residents of most northern Ontario communities have no access to public transportation options and are therefore dependent on private automobiles; and

"Whereas 1990 NDP election promises to 'equalize' the price of gasoline across the province of Ontario have not been kept; and

"Whereas Kenora Liberal MPP Frank Miclash has called upon the NDP government to keep these 1990 election promises; and

"Whereas the elimination of motor vehicle registration fees for northern Ontario residents does not compensate for the excessively high price of gas in the north;

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

"That the NDP government of Ontario fulfil its election promises to the people of northern Ontario by equalizing the price of gas across the province."

That's signed by many constituents from the areas of Golden, Red Lake, Sioux Lookout, Kenora, Dryden, Vermilion Bay and Minnitaki, and I too attach my name to that petition.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here from the Liberal caucus of Ontario in regard to gas prices, and I would like to table that petition.

1530

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a different group of people in the Niagara Peninsula regarding Bill 173. The wording is somewhat the same:

"Whereas Bill 173, the long-term-care reform bill, if allowed to pass without necessary and appropriate amendments, will result in a lower level of service to consumers in the province; and

"Whereas the enactment of this legislation in its present form will increase the cost of the provision of care to the elderly and those in medical need; and

"Whereas the passage of Bill 173 will bring about a decrease in the number of volunteers available to organizations now directly involved in providing service in the field of long-term care; and

"Whereas local communities will lose control and influence over the delivery of long-term-care services even though they are best able to determine the local needs;

I also affix my signature to this petition.

AIDS TREATMENT

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition from the AIDS Committee of Cambridge-Kitchener-Waterloo and Area.

"Whereas the high cost of drugs and other treatments remains the number one barrier people living with HIV/AIDS face in getting appropriate health care; and

"Whereas the urgent need for catastrophic drug programs for HIV/AIDS has been recognized by the Ministry of Health's advisory committee on HIV and AIDS and has identified access to drugs as a top priority; and

"Whereas the provincial government has been dragging its heels for several years in coming up with a comprehensive catastrophic drug policy;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the provincial government to act immediately to develop a fair, equitable, income-sensitive prescription drug policy that would ensure that anyone with life-threatening illnesses such as AIDS and HIV have access to the cost-effective prescription drugs he or she needs to enjoy a satisfying quality of life. Furthermore, this catastrophic drug plan also should cover non-allopathic treatments such as vitamins, Chinese medicine and herbal medications."

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is signed by -- I'm going to say several hundred people. It's to the Legislative Assembly:

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

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

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

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

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

I think the word they wanted to emphasize there was "broad-based." I am in agreement with this petition. I will sign it.

FEDERAL HEALTH LEGISLATION

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to defend the Canada Health Act.

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

"The Canada Health Act also serves to draw a diversity of people and regions together to bind us together cooperatively in the protection and fulfilment of a true national objective: mutual good health and wellbeing.

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, urge and petition the leader of our great nation to preserve and protect the intent and integrity of the Canada Health Act as it was originally envisioned, and to do so within a framework of fairness, combined with fiscal prudence and responsibility."

It's been addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada, which probably makes it out of order, but I'll sign it and send it down to the Clerk for his direction.

FIREARMS SAFETY

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : J'ai ici une pétition de quelques centaines de personnes de la circonscription de Cochrane-Sud qui se lit ainsi :

To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I've signed the petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee has carefully examined the following applications for private acts and finds the notices as published in each case sufficient:

Bill Pr118, An Act to revive Monpre Iron Mines Limited

Bill Pr121, An Act to revive York St. Peter's Evangelistic Organization

Bill Pr130, An Act to revive Brampton Bramalea Christian Fellowship

Bill Pr133, An Act to revive Community Network of Child Care Programs (Willowdale)

Bill Pr136, An Act to revive Peace Bridge Area United Fund Inc.

Bill Pr138, An Act to revive Berean Baptist Church of Collingwood.

The committee recommends that the fees and the actual costs of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on the following bills:

Bill Pr96, An Act to revive the Hamilton and Region Arts Council

Bill Pr114, An Act respecting The Hamilton Community Foundation

Bill Pr121, An Act to revive York St Peter's Evangelistic Organization

Bill Pr130, An Act to revive Brampton Bramalea Christian Fellowship

Bill Pr138, An Act to revive Berean Baptist Church of Collingwood.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and accepted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 31st report.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement, Mrs Marland? No.

Under the terms of standing order 106(g)11, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES VALEURS MOBILIÈRES

Mr Laughren moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 190, An Act to amend the Securities Act / Projet de loi 190, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): The Securities Amendment Act will provide the Ontario Securities Commission with the proper authority to protect investors and maintain confidence in Ontario's capital markets as a safe place to invest. The bill will confer on the securities commission the power to make rules that would have the force of regulations in a large number of specific areas. In addition to these rule-making powers, the OSC will be able to issue policy statements which will be guidelines but not have the force of law.

To enhance the public participation in developing policy on securities, the bill requires that the chair of the OSC annually prepare an annual statement of priorities for the upcoming year and a status report on the preceding year's initiatives. It also requires legislative review of the Securities Act every five years.

TD TRUST COMPANY ACT, 1994

Mr Marchese moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr131, An Act respecting TD Trust Company and Central Guaranty Trust Company.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

1540

OPPOSITION DAY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Mr Harris moved opposition day motion number 1:

Whereas in these difficult economic times, a fair and efficient social safety net is more necessary than ever to give people a hand up instead of a handout;

Whereas on average, Ontario's welfare benefit payments are 30% higher than the average of all provinces;

Whereas in the recession of 1982, welfare costs in Ontario were $930 million and, coming out of the current recession, costs have ballooned to $6.8 billion for 1994-95;

Whereas between 1985 and 1990, the Liberals hiked rates 60%;

Whereas caseloads increased steadily throughout the boom years of the 1980s and have doubled since 1989;

Whereas the current welfare system penalizes recipients who work to earn extra money;

Whereas the goals of welfare reform, as stated in the Common Sense Revolution launched in May 1994, should be (1) returning welfare to its intended role as a temporary support program, (2) streamlining the system to improve access and efficiency and (3) ending waste and fraud;

Whereas the Common Sense Revolution plan will save taxpayers $1.75 billion;

Therefore, this House calls on the Minister of Community and Social Services to implement the plan outlined in the Common Sense Revolution, including:

(1) Set Ontario's welfare benefits at 10% above the average level of all other provinces;

(2) Move 170,000 elderly and disabled recipients out of the welfare system to a new, separate income supplement program. Funding for this program will be guaranteed at current benefit levels;

(3) Replace welfare with a mandatory workfare and learnfare program that will prepare welfare recipients to return to the workforce by requiring all able-bodied recipients -- with the exception of single parents with small children -- either to work or to be retrained in return for their benefits;

(4) Included in this will be a Youth Jobs Corps to provide younger people with the opportunity to learn new skills while performing work for their community;

(5) Establish a $100-million joint public-private-volunteer sector program to ensure that work opportunities exist;

(6) As a transition measure, allow current welfare recipients to earn back the difference between the new benefit levels and the old rates, with no penalty or impact on eligibility;

(7) Eliminate an existing policy which grants benefits to 16- and 17-year-olds who simply chose to leave home, and expand the role of the children's aid society to provide foster care for young people up to 18 who are caught in abusive home environments;

(8) End direct deposit of benefits and require in-person pickup of cheques by recipients;

(9) Introduce a photo/smart-card ID system, reinstate home visits, centrally computerize the benefit payment system and enhance the authority of welfare review officers to conduct welfare fraud inquiries;

(10) Facilitate community nutrition programs for school-age children and introduce new programs for literacy, parenting and child support.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I am not going to speak at length today. My views are a matter of record. My party and my caucus have been in consultation with thousands of people across this province, many caught in the trap of the welfare system and in the cycle of dependency, with much of the advice coming from the front-line welfare workers themselves. We have listened.

The fact is that the current system is an unmitigated disaster, one of the worst in the world -- one of the worst for the taxpayers, one of the worst for creating a cycle of dependency, one of the worst for abuse and fraud, one of the easiest systems to rip off, if that's the goal of some people, but most importantly, a system with a horrendous cost to the taxpayers, seven or eight times the cost of just 12 years ago, that is actually, with all those dollars, doing a worse job today than it did just 12 years ago.

We cannot and must not accept the status quo. I think of the lost opportunities, particularly, I might add, between 1985 and 1990; so if the shoe fits and the Liberals are uncomfortable with this in the Legislature, so be it.

The Thomson report, or the SARC report, outlined major changes, which in fact were pretty clear, and said: "If all you're going to do is increase rates and not change the system, you will have done damage to those people currently trapped in the system. It will be worse than if you didn't increase rates" -- a powerful statement from poverty and welfare advocates crying out for reform. And what did the Liberals do between 1985 and 1990? All they did was increase rates. They made the system worse.

In fact, the system that was inherited by the current administration in 1990 was out of control. The lack of controls, the lack of empowerment of our professional social workers, who neither this administration nor the current one will even -- we're the last province in Canada to recognize, empower and register as a profession social work, which is another disgrace: the very professionals themselves, the experts who came forward, the will and the desire from business, from all three political parties throughout that period of 1985 to 1990 for reform, and not one step was taken.

As a result, not only have taxpayers been ripped off, not only have we contributed to a loss of work ethic; the massive loss of pride, of hope, of opportunity for some one million Ontarians is the real tragedy in doing nothing. Doing nothing, sitting there pretending to analyse, pretending to have compassion, making all the statements and doing nothing, is absolutely the worst possible thing that can be done.

My caucus colleagues and I, with the help of thousands of people across this province, consulted, we listened and we developed proposals and policies to fix what's wrong. It is a major change from the status quo. I realize some are attacking it. I heard the Premier today say he wouldn't participate in the debate, and I regret that, because I believe this debate today is the only significant piece of business we've had in this Legislature since we adjourned in June. The government really has absolutely nothing on its plate, nothing on its agenda. Today actually is a very topical agenda item, something crying out for reform, and for the Premier to not even participate in the debate I think is a disgrace.

The Premier and some of those want to attack the plan. Some have said it's mean-spirited. Is it mean-spirited to give some people the tools they need and the experience and the job experience they need, able-bodied people? I think not. I think it is mean-spirited by default to do nothing. I think that is a disgraceful action.

Some have told us -- we've had a number of writers, not the least of whom is Rory Leishman, national affairs for the London Free Press: "Higher benefits, More Dependency. The Ontario government is the principal author of the province's financial misfortunes. A large part of it is the attitude towards our entitlement programs and welfare" -- a large part of it. "The Ontario government is the principal author of the province's financial misfortunes." It's financial, it's a waste of dollars, it's the work ethic, it's attitude, it's the loss of hope and opportunity and dreams of so many people.

The Wall Street Journal: Now the international media are starting to notify people, "Welcome to Ontario: Welfare Haven," that if for some reason you feel you can't work wherever you are, see if you can get into Ontario, Canada, because you get the freest ride there, the least controls.

It is absolutely disgraceful that this province, Ontario, envied around the world, "Yours to Discover," known by so many as the place of opportunity, that if you came and worked hard you could succeed, could get ahead, is now known as the highest-taxed, with the fewest jobs and fewest opportunities, but if you want a free ride, see if you can get into Ontario, Canada. This isn't me saying this; it is what is being said about us around the world. I'm telling you to open your eyes and listen to how we're becoming known.

"Canada Not Alone in Social Program Reform." We're just the last. Axworthy and the Ontario government seem to be the last two in Canada to recognize that major overhaul of our entitlement programs was required, for three reasons: (1) so we don't go bankrupt, (2) so we don't lose every last respect of the work ethic and that pride that built this great province and country, and (3) so that we don't doom more and more children, more and more of the most vulnerable to a lifetime of dependency and a loss of hope.

1550

We've put a number of the programs and the proposals on the record. We invite the debate. We invite the other parties to work with us constructively, since we have the only plan out there that is comprehensive and detailed, to take our plan. If there are some amendments you want to make, if there are some suggestions you have, if there are some explanations you'd like to have, fine.

We're asking you in a non-partisan way. Never mind the misrepresentation and the nonsense. The Premier said today that children will be worse off under this program; the absolute reverse is true. Nobody, no able-bodied person, will lose a nickel, provided they participate in the programs. I think they want to participate in the programs, but we have to provide them.

The onus is on government, on society, on business, on companies, on charitable groups, on non-profit, on profit -- we have to show the leadership, we have to provide the opportunities, and this plan guarantees the opportunities. The onus is on government: us. If one single person in Ontario were to receive fewer dollars under our proposals, it would be the fault of government for not providing the opportunities, or if an individual given those opportunities said: "No, I won't do it. I won't work. I won't be retrained. I won't accept that. I won't do it." Under those circumstances, there could be fewer dollars.

I think it's fair for all able-bodied people to be given a range of options, and it is our onus to provide them. I think that is fair, but the onus is on all 130 of us. Stop the partisan politics. Stop the smugness of sitting in your places. Stop the holier-than-thou statements. Stop the empty, shallow, hollow, sympathetic words and get off your duffs and start moving on substantial reform of a system that is not working in Ontario, that is crying out for changes, and work with us to bring truly meaningful welfare reform to the province of Ontario.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I'm glad I'm able to participate in the debate because, before I begin in the debate, the leader who just spoke for the Progressive Conservative Party, the Tories, talked about welfare. I clearly remember that just a few years ago the leader came to my riding and made a mockery of the system of social services, talking about how people are making $17 and $20 an hour on social assistance, which was very misleading and which angered people in my community.

The member talks about social assistance recipients, figuring there's some category of individuals who by birth are on the system. For the member's information, let's refer to most of the people I am acquainted with in my riding and how they got to social assistance. They got there because of plant closures, companies taking advantage of the free trade agreement and currently the North American free trade agreement, jobs that have been lost because of Tory economic policies.

Brian Mulroney implemented a program which said that we would compete in the North American market, removing the protection we had in the automotive industry, in agriculture, removing those protections we had and entering us into a free trade agreement which caused a lot of people who had good-paying jobs to leave those jobs because of plant closures, move on to unemployment insurance, which was also reformed by the Conservative Party, which made drastic changes and which reduced their benefit levels and then moved them into social assistance.

These are the people we're talking about, people who contributed 10, 15, 20, 30 years in the workforce and are now dependent on social services. Why? The leader stands up here today, projecting that he can lead this province into good reform and good policies. Just take a look at what they've done federally. These are the people we're talking about.

When he says a loss of pride and hope, the loss of pride and hope came about because of a Conservative government federally which devastated, I must say, my community and the people I represent. And I know the people I represent who are on social services would love to have a good-paying job, would love to be able to provide for their family, would love to be able to participate.

But this member stands with this resolution and wants to put branded collars around your necks. It's like lining up -- when I hear of a Tory policy on social assistance reform, my first projection is -- you know how you see on TV on the police story shows, they show you with a sign in front of you, take your picture and you carry this ID around and you're posted all over the post office walls -- this is the type of system that this member wants to bring forward in this province.

If you want an example of the system that he wants to put forward, just look south of the border. You'll see it. It's there and it's in living colour. Tell me if those people on social assistance in the United States living in poverty, living in such demeaned housing -- you'll see it across the United States. Why will you see it there? Because of similar policies which want to be brought forward.

The member talks about a reduction of 10% above the national average of all the other provinces. Let's take a look at what that will do -- and the Premier clearly indicated today what that would do to families. Children we're talking about; we're not just talking about adults. Social assistance recipients also include children in our society, and I thought their critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services was such an advocate on behalf of children's mental health and children's services in this province he would stand and support his leader on this resolution.

But sole-support parents would receive a 19% to 22% reduction in their social assistance payment, which means in reality of dollars, in a rough estimate, about a $200 reduction would take place -- $200. Now, Mr Speaker, I know you have a family and know what it costs to put food on the table. I know what it costs for groceries this day for a family of four and I have two small children that eat constantly. It costs us about $150 and that's not buying steaks; that's buying the basic necessities of life to make sure you're providing for your children. So could you imagine a $200 reduction in the social assistance payments to that?

A single employable's reduction would be approximately 16%. An employable family would receive a reduction of 18%. So you're talking about close to, and I'm using approximate numbers, about $300 a month reduction for a family of four with two adults in the family. You're looking at a major reduction in their ability to provide for their children in their community.

This reduction to sole-supports and families with children potentially reduces the allowance for 540,000 children in this province. We have a crisis already we've identified with children in our communities getting proper nutrition. I mean, even the member opposite stood up and made a speech about providing nutrition programs in our schools. Then in the other breath he wants to take it away from actually giving the money to the parents so that they can provide for their children.

When he talks about measures, he's talking about elimination of a program called Jobs Ontario, the true meaning of getting people off social assistance and getting them into the workplace.

He talks about the special needs, about dealing with seniors and the disabled. Let's talk about the effects. The special needs of people with disabilities and seniors who are not eligible for old age security and guaranteed income supplement are met through the current social assistance system. So he again is talking about attacking seniors and attacking disabled persons through a policy initiative he's introducing today in which his document clearly supports an attack on seniors and an attack on disabled persons.

Let's look at what else he's bringing forward in this reform that he keeps touting as being so effective and efficient in what he's trying to do for the people that he's so-called representing. He's talking about volunteerism. Truly, volunteerism is an important part. It helps to regain work experience. But let's face it, volunteer work occurs in public agencies. Public agencies are going through a structural change themselves. We're trying to get away from the cost loads of implementing programs that are only short-term. That's why we created a program called Jobs Ontario, for long-term employment.

When this member stands up and says that workfare is a great opportunity, studies have proved it's not. Policies that were introduced by the federal government, the Tories at that time, by Brian Mulroney, have led us into a leaner, meaner society, which means that we have to improve the skill levels of people. We cannot have people out there continually dependent on the system if we're just to make them clean the streets, dig the ditches, shovel the sidewalks and do all those things. We've got to invest in training dollars and also in training programs to assist employers to help upgrade the skill level of those individuals.

I must say, in the short time I have, that I cannot support the initiative that is being put forward by the leader of the Conservative Party. This initiative is the wrong direction. An example I clearly use is what's going on in the United States. This action that he is talking about today counteracts what his critic has always been saying in the public accounts committee, "Spend, spend, spend." We've been spending, but we've also been managing the system and controlling costs.

1600

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I am pleased to take part in the debate on the opposition motion today. I must tell you that I find this motion which presents the third party's position on social assistance reform a simplistic attack on a very complex issue. The resolution is filled with worn-out phases, denies realities and is based on unsubstantiated figures. Indeed, this Progressive Conservative resolution is rife with contradiction.

As I read this afternoon's resolution and the Conservative documents on social assistance on which the resolution is based, I see a tendency in many circumstances to assume the very worst about the motives of people in need. I see a basket of punitive measures. The Conservative position lacks vision and offers no positive solutions and no hope for a better future for those individuals and families who are experiencing personal difficulties. Mike Harris seems to want to punish them simply because they're in desperate circumstances.

The Liberal caucus believes that real reform is needed to detect and stop individuals who are collecting social assistance in more than one province; detect and stop those who are collecting social assistance under more than one name; detect and stop individuals who in various ways underestimate their income, through a change in salary, becoming self-employed, a change in eligibility for benefits, whether that be workers' compensation or unemployment insurance; detect and stop individuals who, through reconciliation or separation, have changed their marital status or who change the number of or relationship with their dependants. Each of these eligibility criteria must be proven and verified in each case.

As you can see, social assistance is complex and administrative or systems errors resulting from a lack of real reform, outdated technological support or very heavy caseloads continue to be a significant cause of inconsistencies and inefficiencies within a social assistance program.

In 1994, the computers used by front-line workers are, in many Ontario locations, not compatible one with the other, making effective eligibility verifications impossible. The minister promised months ago to address this problem, but to this point we've seen little, if any, improvement in many communities across this province.

Fraud in any form cannot be tolerated. Front-line workers, intake workers, case workers, municipal politicians and provincial politicians must work together to build partnerships, teams that involve the Canadian immigration border patrol, unemployment insurance eligibility officers, Revenue Canada auditors, bank managers, registrars in post-secondary institutions, landlords, the police and the courts, which can assist in legal guidance in the establishment of practice for the collection of evidence.

Teams I describe have joined forces to ensure in their own communities that only those in real need receive assistance. Each and every municipality in this province must be encouraged to coordinate all data available, every possible relevant piece of information available from federal departments of Immigration, Revenue and the Unemployment Insurance Commission, from provincial and interprovincial jurisdictions, from judicial and educational sources, all data available on each and every individual who applies and who then enters the social assistance system.

A good example of this interagency cooperation took place in my own community of Ottawa-Carleton in the summer of 1992. The Legal Action Project provided a forum for the identification and investigation of potential fraud, as well as the facilitation of legal action in cases where fraud was discovered.

Sudbury and Hamilton, to name but a few, continue to build teams and computer networks within their communities to tackle the real problems of fraud. Hopeful results have already been achieved in some communities. In Northumberland the city council has just recently discontinued their welfare fraud hotline because it cost more to operate than it collected in fraudulent welfare claims. In Bruce county, the Owen Sound Sun Times of October 19 quotes social services commissioner Dick Verrips: "Based on our results so far, abuse isn't really rampant."

There continue, however, to be weak spots in the system. One such is overpayment, individuals who obtain funds in excess of their eligibility. In fact the 1994 auditor's report presented yesterday stated, "The ministry should develop and provide standardized training to all program review officers to ensure consistency and quality of work performed." Standardized training, evaluation tools and manageable caseloads are crucial to an effective and efficient social assistance system.

Home visits as a first intervention deserve serious reconsideration and reinstatement. Research has shown that first intervention or contact is crucial in both best serving needs and preserving the integrity of the system. Home visit blitzes, as suggested by the Provincial Auditor in his 1994 report, could in some municipalities reduce errors and abuse and would give front-line workers the opportunity to witness at first hand the actual circumstances of applicants with the application data as presented. Residency, marital status, the presence of dependants and/or boarders and the conditions of residential leases could be assessed on the spot to the satisfaction of both the applicant and the front-line worker.

Home visits, however, are expensive. Front-line workers are expensive. Where is the cost of this Tory promise within a 20% budget cut? I ask, are the Tories really willing to put money, real money, into social assistance to make it more effective? I think not.

If I might turn to another area of very general concern, the provision of social assistance benefits to 16- and 17-year-olds, the real need to provide income support to young people in cases of abuse and in some cases of family breakdown cannot be denied. Real concerns, however, are expressed by many Ontarians that eligibility criteria for this group of recipients are too broad, too unclear and too fuzzy.

Many municipalities -- my own, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, included -- have done extensive work in developing and refining eligibility criteria for this very vulnerable group of teenagers. The children's aid societies, the school boards and indeed the police forces in Ontario have important roles to play in assisting these individuals.

In each and every community, the needs of these 16- and 17-year-olds must be recognized. In each and every Ontario community, eligibility for assistance, regulations and criteria, whether it be mandatory job search, school attendance, or, under certain conditions, abiding by a curfew or a probation condition must be developed.

It's essential that accountability of recipients and case workers be a priority -- accountability on both sides, recipients and case workers -- when we are attempting to redirect the lives of 16- and 17-year-olds in need beyond the support of their family.

1610

Real facts about social assistance recipients are often hard to find. I believe it's essential that I place some on the record this afternoon during this debate.

The family benefits assistance rate in Ontario for a family of four, including shelter allowance, as of April 1994 is $1,823 per month. There are 26,316 children in Ottawa-Carleton alone in such families.

According to the 1994 ministry estimates, 61.8% of social assistance recipients live in private residential accommodation, not public housing, as many believe, and much of their income goes to rent. In October 1993, the average rent for a three-bedroom apartment in Ottawa was $844. What this means is that this very real family of four that I'm talking about in Ottawa has $979 per month left after they've paid their rent.

The Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton, as part of a study released this month, has calculated that for a family of four utilities cost $88, food $569, one monthly bus pass $150, totalling $1,651 in monthly expenses and leaving a grand total of $172 per month for discretionary spending on such things as child care, clothing, recreation, telephone, laundry, dry cleaning and other household items -- real "discretionary" spending. Do the Tories really think this is discretionary? These are today's figures. Tories, however, would suggest that $1,315 monthly would be sufficient for this family of four. What else can this cut into but the food and transportation budget of this very real family? This family would have to make even more difficult choices about whether they could have a telephone, whether they could buy a winter coat or a snowsuit, whether they could go skating.

The amounts the Tories suggest for these families to exist on are beyond the realm of reality. They just don't relate to the real world. Under these circumstances of bare survival, would anyone -- mother, father, or teenaged child -- really be able to make a transition to work? Would any family of four in Ontario adequately meet their basic need for food, clothing, personal and health care under these circumstances, with these meagre resources of $1,315 for four people for one month in this province? I would like to ask each and every member of the Legislature present to ponder that question.

The Progressive Conservatives' slash-and-burn policies attack, really attack, the general health and wellbeing of children and adults in difficulty, individuals with already frail physical and emotional conditions, and families under stress.

I quote from Transitions:

"The payment of insufficient benefits is profoundly counterproductive to transition. Not having the simple necessities of life isolates people from their community, adding a burden of stigma as well as reducing self-esteem, motivation and hope."

Liberals have long recognized the need for social assistance reform. You know and I know, Mr Speaker, even though this afternoon Mike Harris chose to selectively remember and thus to forget, that much work had already been done in this area before the fall of 1990. Liberal ministers of Community and Social Services introduced and began the implementation of the Social Assistance Reform Commission's recommendations. I refer to the Transitions report, which I and many others believe to be the real foundation upon which social assistance reform in Ontario must be built.

Again I quote from Transitions:

"The objective for social assistance must be to ensure that individuals are able to make the transition from dependence to autonomy, and from exclusion on the margins of society to integration within the mainstream of community life."

A key recommendation of the Social Assistance Reform Commission was the supports to employment program, which has been greatly frustrated by NDP cutbacks. STEP is a success story, encouraging people to enter the workforce by removing disincentives. It's a positive response to the problems faced by newly hired employees in the fragile period of transition from social assistance to full participation in the workforce.

As part of its expenditure control program of 1993, 1994 and again 1995, the NDP government has severely limited STEP as an exit from social assistance into the world of work for those in need. Incentives, especially those applicable during the first three months of entering STEP, have become disincentives.

The principles underlying the creation of STEP were real Liberal principles. It was conceived to be a positive, cost-saving program which provided choice, opportunity and dignity to those trying to re-enter, or indeed enter for the first time, the job market.

Today's resolution outlines the Tory philosophy of social policy reform which just reduces choice, which reduces opportunity and the protection of the dignity of the individual in need of assistance.

On October 15 of this year, when describing his Youth Jobs Corps proposals, the leader of the third party, Mike Harris, stated: "Community service work will be mandatory for able-bodied welfare recipients 29 and under, unless they are attending an education or training program, or are the single parent of a child three years of age or younger. Placement opportunities will match employment interests and labour market needs as much as possible."

This Mike Harris Progressive Conservative proposal makes communities into chessboards. This proposal totally ignores fundamental principles of the marketplace and denies reality, it denies choice. It's a vacant lot with no building plans for the future.

The Tories say this focus is on jobs, but workfare and learnfare beg many, many questions.

Are we training for and creating long-term or short-term jobs? What kinds of incentives and responsibilities can employers expect if they participate in a program? What are the responsibilities of educators and school boards and post-secondary institutions in this process? Is there a commitment -- the real question -- to make the program viable, a commitment of real dollars?

Do the Tories really believe that the vast majority of social assistance recipients do not want to work, that if jobs were available they would have to be mandated to take them? Do Tories not know that almost every training and retraining program in this province has pages and pages of waiting lists?

The NDP five-year record and today's resolution, as presented by Tories, have one and many similarities. They lack vision, respect for individuals in need, they eliminate choice, and they ignore realities.

For a moment, let's examine workfare. To begin, it costs money to look for and find a job, either as an individual or, in the case of workfare, as a government. A social assistance recipient's level of skill often limits placement opportunities.

Transportation, books, equipment and, in many cases, clothing and child care must often be provided for the new workforce.

And let's not forget new supervisory and appeal structures that must be developed within the existing workforce into which the social assistance recipient is to be integrated. Integration of an employee placed under a mandate is a very, very involved process.

Many, many studies and indeed experiences, both on this continent and abroad, show that as an expenditure control strategy, workfare simply doesn't work. It just doesn't work.

The social assistance system is very complex. Simplistic responses like workfare and learnfare are not the solution. Real reform they are not. We need reforms that work.

Many people seeking to re-enter or enter the workforce require child care services. Members will know that there are long, long waiting lists for child care spaces in almost every community in this province.

Here again are many similarities between both the NDP's five-year record and this Progressive Conservative resolution: no recognition of real needs, no ability to provide solutions, just ideology; no real support to individuals, no real recognition of facts, no placing real dollars where they would change lives.

1620

The long-term effects of poverty on the general health and wellbeing of those in need are a reality and must be recognized and acknowledged. Poverty does have its effects. Poverty, we all know, usually results in increased family stress, reduced physical and emotional wellbeing and increased demands for community support service. Waiting lists of people with real needs continue to grow in my community of Ottawa-Carleton and right across this province -- waiting lists for supportive housing, subsidized child care and long-term counselling, to name but three.

No employment program, whether mandatory or voluntary, has any hope of success until these issues are meaningfully addressed. The NDP has failed to address them in its five-year mandate, and there is no indication in this Tory resolution that they intend to address them either.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. If you want to carry on a conversation, I invite you to go outside the House, please.

Mrs O'Neill: Liberals believe in social assistance reform that recognizes the complexities of the system and addresses them comprehensively. Liberals believe that providing incentives, rather than disincentives, to enter or re-enter the workforce is an underlying principle of social assistance reform.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have an opposition motion before us. There should be a quorum here to deal with it. I don't believe there is one.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please verify if there is quorum?

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Essex-Kent, please take your chair. The member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mrs O'Neill: Liberals believe in social assistance reform that recognizes the complexities of the system. Liberals believe that by providing incentives, rather than disincentives, the workforce will grow. Reform can be achieved without compromising the autonomy and dignity of those who receive services and without blaming the victims of poverty.

STEP and opportunity planning are but two of the possibilities through which effective transition to work has been and can continue to be achieved. The success of these programs, both begun under the previous Liberal government, are recognized by many municipalities and, more importantly, by hundreds of individuals and families as real stepping stones to hope and a change for the better.

Perhaps you, as I, have met individuals who are graduates of the Ontario opportunity planning program, who feel great about the new contributions they are able to make to their very own communities and in their very own families.

Community venture capital schemes to assist in the startup costs of new businesses, avenues to self-employment and municipal partnerships with for-profit and not-for-profit agencies to provide creative volunteer and employment opportunities are gateways into the workforce, gateways which are much healthier than workfare. These programs are springing up in communities right across this province.

The leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, Lyn McLeod, has stated, and I agree, "It's not the role of government to direct and control people's lives, but rather...to create an environment in which people can solve problems for themselves." Or as someone said to me the other day, "It's just politically incorrect to take away people's choices."

Liberal policies provide choices and are built on respect for individuals, no matter what their circumstances. Liberal policies are built upon initiatives and incentives and provide a range of opportunities and bridges to self-reliance and independence, such as STEP, opportunity planning, accessible child care and meaningful training.

I deeply regret that the bulk of the budget cuts suggested by Mike Harris and his Progressive Conservatives in this Legislature today will be borne on the backs of those who have the fewest opportunities in this province. The vulnerable children and adults, those in our society who cannot find the work they desperately seek, these are the ones who will bear the brunt of the Harris revolution. This is not common sense, this is uncommon cruelty.

Mike Harris promises a meaner and tougher Ontario. I dissociate myself, as do most Ontarians, from this hopeless, reactionary and out-of-date policy, a policy of cut and slash from the Progressive Conservative agenda.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'm going to be extremely brief, because I know there are a lot of people in our caucus who want to speak to this.

Applause.

Mr Stockwell: I know the member for Yorkview is very pleased about that.

I just want to say quickly, particularly in comments to the previous person who spoke for the Liberal Party, it's astounding to me that she can make the comments she makes when Ontario welfare recipients on average receive 30% more than anywhere else in this country.

Interjection: In North America.

Mr Stockwell: In fact, yes, North America. Are you trying to say to us in this Legislature and to the people across the province that Liberal governments in other provinces are raving right-wing Conservative-Republican operations that are allowing children to starve in the streets and people not to live a minimum standard of lifestyle? That's the situation. Our rates are 30% higher, and you're telling us that if we implement a program that brings our rates in line with those around the rest of the country, somehow children will be starving in the streets and terrible things will happen in this province.

I don't think Frank McKenna would agree with you. Now there's a Liberal, and his rates are significantly lower than ours. I don't think the Premier in BC would agree with you. That's a socialist in power and his rates are significantly lower than ours. Or Mr Romanow in Saskatchewan, another socialist. His rates are tremendously less than what we offer in this province. As far as I can tell, and I've watched the CBC recently, children aren't starving in the streets in those provinces. People aren't living below standards in those provinces like this.

When we offer up a sensitive document that deals with welfare reform and we talk about reduction in rates, you carp at us that people will starve in the streets, but that's just not the case in other provinces and jurisdictions in North America. So I think you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Quickly and finally, to be very direct, this Liberal Party simply wants to tinker. It doesn't want to lower welfare rates. It doesn't want to tighten up the qualifications for applying and receiving welfare. They don't want to change anything about welfare at all, except they want to say, "We want to relook at the whole situation of welfare, but we don't want to make any changes."

They were in power for five years. They had a long time to do all kinds of things with welfare. They did nothing except restrict home visits. They did nothing except direct-deposit cheques. They did nothing except make welfare easier to get and allow the fraudulent misuse of this system to continue. So I take those comments with a very large grain of salt, coming from a Liberal who simply ruined what was a fairly decent system under 43 years of Conservative rule.

1630

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak on this resolution today. This government is getting Ontario back to work. Our job creation program, Jobs Ontario, is having results throughout the province. We're committed to economic growth. That is why we have invested in jobs. That is also why we have continued to commit ourselves to a system of social assistance that is fair and equitable. Those who are unemployed need our support while they're looking for work. Not only the unemployed but everybody who's on social assistance -- the unemployed, children, single parents, seniors and the disabled -- deserve care and compassion.

The resolution introduced by the leader of the third party is neither caring nor compassionate. It is brutal and mean and it will not work. Instead of encouraging the unemployed, who have to use social assistance, to find jobs, it will punish them for being unfortunate. Instead of helping those who need help on a continuous basis, like children, seniors and some of the disabled, it will alienate and stigmatize them.

The vast majority of social assistance recipients are honest and hardworking. They're our families, our friends and our neighbours. They're people and people deserve to live in a society that is just and fair. That is what this government is working towards.

I want to talk about my local community. People who are on social assistance in Peterborough want to be working. The majority are not welfare cheats. They're hardworking men and women who have lost work due to the recession. Many of them are children. They're young people or older workers or single parents. They're also seniors and the disabled. These are the people who need social assistance. They need a system which is caring and compassionate. They deserve income security and to have their basic needs met.

Women on social assistance deserve economic justice. We need a system that is sustainable and a system that is fair. The last thing we need is the resolution put forward by the third party today. Children, seniors and the disabled merit our support.

The children of Ontario are our future. Our support for them guarantees our future. Here I think of the state in the USA where some children are going to be denied schooling. What kind of future will that bring?

The resolution of the leader of the third party proposes the facilitation of a child nutrition program and the introduction of new programs for literacy, parenting and child support. Those programs have already been initiated by this government. If the leader of the third party is suggesting he will do more, I would like to know how he plans to pay for it considering that this resolution would cut $1.75 billion out of social assistance.

The leader of the third party would like to separate seniors and the disabled from the current social assistance system. Their needs are already being met in the current system. This change would involve an enormous waste of money in its implementation. Has he considered that?

Furthermore, many disabled people are employable with appropriate support. Removing them from the current system would stigmatize them further and there would be greater disincentives to employment. Our Employment Equity Act guarantees them employment opportunities.

This government has gone to great lengths to make sure that the system we have is fair. Through case file investigation, we've uncovered some of the people who abuse the system and we're working on it. Fraud is a crime and criminals should be dealt with and welfare fraud does exist, but the number of cases is small.

The vast majority of welfare recipients in Peterborough and in Ontario are honest and hardworking. They should not take the blame for a small group of dishonest cheats, and that is exactly what will happen with this resolution. Deep cuts will only hurt those who we're trying to help. We want to encourage people who are on social assistance to find work. Why should they be punished for being unemployed or being children or seniors or disabled?

Mr Speaker, 15% of the population in Peterborough depends on social assistance, according to a report from the Peterborough Social Planning Council released last month. That number is high compared to the provincial average of 10%, but there are reasons for these numbers. Let me explain.

Between 1989 and 1993, there was a decrease in the total number of jobs provided by the top 10 employers in Peterborough of 1,127. That's 1,127 people out of work, not to mention the impact these layoffs have had on the local economy. Some of these hardworking people have not been able to find work, which is why welfare cases have increased in that period. General welfare cases have increased by 198%, and family benefits cases by 137%. These people need help, not punishment. They need encouragement to get them working again, and that's what our social system is designed to provide.

If Mr Harris thinks benefits are too high, I would like to see him try to adequately feed a family on less after fixed payments like rent and hydro have been met, even with his no doubt excellent life skills.

The member for Etobicoke West says no kids are starving in the street. I think he's thinking about some of the unfortunate countries where children are reduced to mere skeletons. I don't think we want to get to the point where we have that kind of visible starvation in this country. People can be hungry without it being obvious on the street.

This government is also providing encouragement with our Jobs Ontario programs, and they have been very successful locally. We have created 600 jobs in the Peterborough area using $3.8 million in provincial funds. In fact, Jobs Ontario Training has been so successful that they recently had to move to bigger quarters. Provincially, the program has been so successful that it has been extended to March 31, 1996. Jobs Ontario Training created 145,000 jobs last year and will create 165,000 this year province-wide.

In Peterborough the jobs created are permanent skilled jobs, helping those hardworking men and women I have been talking about take their rightful place as productive citizens. Some 357 employers have signed up with the program. Currently there is an 88% fill rate for registered employers; 67% of registrants are between the ages of 25 and 44, and 37% are female. To date, more than 2,500 workers have registered in the program.

This creative jobs program is a far cry from the Conservative workfare program. Jobs have already been created, good jobs. Also, there are excellent training opportunities for people on social assistance and they are encouraged to seek work or volunteer experience where appropriate. Our JobLink program was designed to help people on social assistance move back into the workforce. Workfare, in contrast, is an expensive, short-term solution that keeps people from preparing for and obtaining real sustainable jobs.

I'd like very quickly to tell the members of the House about some local success stories.

Gateway Manufacturing on Fisher Drive, which rebuilds fax machines and photocopiers, has hired eight workers through Jobs Ontario Training. I toured the factory last week with president Wally Seeley, who had high praise for Jobs Ontario and the workers who have joined his firm through it.

Quickmill Inc, formerly Compustep Products Ltd, located on Rye Street, has hired two employees.

The largest single number of participants was placed at NHB Industries shortly after the program began.

1640

Job creation is part of this government's plan for a fair and economically vibrant province. We're starting to see results in Peterborough. UI claims and welfare rolls are down in Peterborough. The labour market review compiled by Canada Employment indicated that UI claims over the last three months for Peterborough-Haliburton have dropped from 5,243 in June to 4,549 in September. In the city of Peterborough, welfare rolls have dropped from 3,916 in June to 3,782 in August.

I leave you with the numbers; they speak for themselves. More and more people in Peterborough are working. This caring and compassionate system is helping to get people back to work.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I welcome this opportunity to speak to the Conservative motion on welfare. There should be no doubt in anybody's mind that we must take a hard look at all government programs, including welfare, and ensure that only the people who need and deserve it are the ones getting it.

Surely there would be unanimous consent and unanimous agreement in this Legislature that welfare fraud must be eliminated, that any mismanagement of the welfare system must be corrected and that new rules of verification must be brought in or, as I will later point out, reinstated. But when the Conservatives talk about these goals of welfare reform, they're talking about a motherhood issue.

Liberals agree -- we all agree -- that welfare should only go to those who need it. Liberals agree that we have to make every effort to those on welfare to help them end dependency on the system. This can be done in many ways: by upgrading skills, by providing meaningful training, by ensuring that child care is available, by promoting job opportunities. Liberals also agree that the system should be revamped to ensure that it is administratively sound and managed efficiently. And of course Liberals agree that the government should be making every effort to eliminate fraud and abuse. These goals are not in dispute. The Conservatives may think they are new ideas, but they are not.

The real question we have to ask is whether the Conservative plan will actually achieve these goals. At first glance, you look at the Conservative motion and you think maybe it's addressing many of the concerns that real people out there have about current welfare system. But I'll tell you, it doesn't hold up to closer scrutiny. Closer scrutiny shows that the Conservative plan is overly simplistic, based on false assumptions, not well-thought-out, not properly costed and not adequately researched.

Let's start by looking at the Conservative statement that "caseloads increased steadily throughout the boom years of the late 1980s and have doubled since 1989." So you would deduce from Mr Harris's statement that caseloads dramatically increased during the terms of the Liberal and NDP governments, right? Wrong. Or, as my teenagers would say, "Not."

Let's do a factual comparison of welfare caseloads under the three governments. First of all, look at the statistics for welfare, which is a short-term program. In the last four years of the Conservative government --

Mr Perruzza: Oh, that's right, you're better than we are. She's not political either. Say it: "We Liberals are better than those New Democrats."

Ms Poole: Perhaps if the member would listen to what I'm saying he will say that this is an attack on the Conservative plan.

In the last four years of the Conservative government the caseload growth rate of general welfare assistance increased by an average of 10.28%. During the five years of the previous Liberal government, the caseload growth for welfare increased on average by only 1.56%. During the first four years of the current NDP government, the caseload growth rate of welfare increased on average by 32.75%.

But let's look at family benefits, which most people still call welfare, but it's a long-term program. In the last four years of the Conservative government, the caseload growth rate of family benefits increased on average by 6.1%. Under the Liberal government, family benefits increased on average by only 5.8%, lower than the Conservatives. During the first four years of the current NDP government, the caseload growth rate of family benefits increased on average by 12.6%.

Now what about rate hikes? According to the Conservative motion, between 1985 and 1990 the Liberals hiked rates 60%. But aha, again Mr Harris is quite selective and only gives you part of the story. Let's look at the rate increases for single employables; we're not talking families with children, we're not talking single moms or disabled or elderly. Let's look at single employables, the group with the fewest obstacles to going back to work. In the last four years of the Conservative government the rate paid to single employables increased by 70.4%. That's a far greater increase than either the Liberals or the NDP brought in.

Now let's take a closer look at the Tory plan, first of all the figures. According to the Common Sense Revolution, and this was released in May 1994, they're going to save $750 million by bringing in workfare, $250 million a year from administrative changes and fraud reduction, and $1 billion by reducing benefits. That's $2 billion. But I bring your attention to a second document called the Mike Harris Forum on Bringing Common Sense to Welfare. It includes a letter dated October 15, 1994, signed by Mike Harris, saying they'll save $2.35 billion.

But wait, I have yet a third figure for you. According to a speech by Mike Harris to the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers on October 27, they will save $1.75 billion from welfare reform. So we're not quite sure what the handy-dandy number that's floating around for today's Tory savings will be, but it does seem strange that they can't get their own figures straight.

The Conservatives' problems in getting their figures straight stem from their refusal to do their homework and look at all the facts. A perfect example occurred on September 21, 1994, when the government released an interim report about its investigation of welfare cases. Minister Tony Silipo reported that in the first 40,000 files examined, clerical error and fraud were uncovered in about 20% of the cases, adding up to $21 million. Immediately, Tory Finance critic Dave Johnson churned out a press release saying, "This could represent a loss to taxpayers of more than $1 billion annually." A billion dollars in fraud and mismanagement -- what a story.

What the Tories failed to do was look at all the facts, as they so often fail to do. They didn't bother to look at the fact that the first 40,000 files reviewed were targeted as the highest-risk files.

They didn't attempt to learn how much or how little money was involved in each case. One case, for instance, had an overpayment of only one penny. Mr Johnson made an elementary mistake: He applied the 20% figure to money, not cases. He made the erroneous assumption that every welfare recipient who was overpaid, even by one penny, was entitled to absolutely nothing, and he came up with a conclusion that was totally wrong.

When the final report on fraud and errors was released in October, the findings turned up 1,029 cases of fraud out of 266,000 welfare files. A total of $66 million was saved by tightening up administration. For half of that, $33 million, it was simply that people were on welfare when they should have been paid UI or CPP by the federal government. The report did point out that there's a need to tighten up on administration and it also clearly showed that the $1-billion figure claimed by the Tory Finance critic was way off base and irresponsible.

When I was in high school many, many, many years ago, they introduced new math, which seemed pretty confusing at the time, but I can tell you the Tories' new new math is even worse. For those of us who can do basic arithmetic, the figures just don't add up. And the Tories want to sell Dave Johnson as the next Finance minister of Ontario? Sorry, that's hardly likely. But then the Tory motion is riddled with erroneous assumptions and conclusions.

Let's look at item (1): "Set Ontario's welfare benefits at 10% above the average level of all other provinces."

At first blush it doesn't seem unreasonable; after all, it's 10% more than other provinces. But where in the Tory documentation is there any analysis explaining why 10%? Ontario recipients receive welfare benefits that are 30% higher than other provinces, but how much of that is because of the extraordinarily high cost of housing in Ontario and the high cost of living here? Is 10% above the national average enough? Is it too much? Should it be 5%? Should it be 25%? We don't know because there's no analysis behind the Tory figures. Ten per cent is a pretty number, but it doesn't mean much if there are no data to support it.

I believe we should take a look at benefits to ensure they are fair and adequate, but let's not be simplistic: Let's find out the facts, let's find out what the additional costs are instead of slashing and burning in an ad hoc way.

1650

"(2) Move 170,000 elderly and disabled recipients out of the welfare system to a new, separate income supplement program." That's fine, but this isn't going to save you money. It might make the welfare numbers look better, but it's simply transferring the costs to another part of government.

"(3) Replace welfare with a mandatory workfare and learnfare program that will...require all able-bodied recipients -- with the exception of single parents with small children -- either to work or be retrained in return for their benefits." Again, on the surface it sounds good, but there are a few elementary questions to be answered. Where are the jobs going to come from? By the way, Mr Harris, your point (5) does not provide any answers to that.

What happens if the jobs aren't available? Retraining for what? How much will the retraining cost? Are you proposing an expensive system like New Brunswick's or are you going to do it on the cheap? What about child care? Are you going to provide child care so people can go back to the workforce? How much will it cost? Will you allow volunteer work to qualify?

You've said you're committed to spending $500 million. How are you going to spend it, where are you going to spend it, and over what period? Mr Harris, your proposal hasn't given us answers. It's given us even more questions.

Number (4) is a proposal for the Youth Jobs Corps. It's a great idea, but it's not a new one. Greg Sorbara came up with this idea several years ago, in fact. The federal Liberals had a similar proposal in their red book called Youth Services Canada, and they are already implementing the program. I'd be very supportive of this program, but I must say it's not a new idea.

"(5) Establish a $100-million joint public-private-volunteer sector program to ensure these work opportunities exist." Again, how would this work? How are you going to entice businesses to put up the money? How much will be contributed by government? How much by the private sector? Without the details, we can't even evaluate your plan.

"(6) As a transition measure, allow current welfare recipients to earn back the difference between the new benefit levels and the old rates, with no penalty or impact on eligibility." First, we have to establish that the benefits are at the right levels, whatever that level should be. Once we've established that, then I agree there should be incentives to help people get back into the workforce.

But under the Mike Harris system, what happens? What happens if the benefits are inadequate and if people can't get part-time jobs to supplement? Do we really want to see more people begging on the streets or resorting to crime to feed their families? I think not.

Number (7) is a real problem for me. It says, "Eliminate an existing policy which grants benefits to 16- and 17-year-olds who simply chose to leave home, and expand the role of the children's aid society to provide foster care for young people up to 18 who are caught in abusive home environments."

This is typical of the simplistic Mike Harris thinking, where he bases his proposals on false assumptions and without consultation. I have talked to some children's aid societies and this is the first they've heard of that; he didn't even consult them.

First of all, where's the data on what this would cost the children's aid societies? Would a Mike Harris government commit to providing the extra money to the children's aid societies, which are already struggling financially to carry out their existing mandate? Do the Conservatives even realize that the financial cost of their proposal, utilizing the children's aid societies, would far exceed that of having these kids on welfare?

For example, the monthly cost of a child in care at the Metro children's aid society last year was $1,528 per child -- that is per month -- and that does not include any court costs. Mr Harris, this proposal will cost you big bucks and not save money.

I ask him, what evidence is there that there's widespread abuse by 16- and 17-year-olds of the welfare system? The latest statistics for 1994 show 1,163 16-year-olds on welfare and 2,772 17-year-olds on welfare.

I spoke to a senior youth worker at the children's aid society here in Metro, and she related that their experience is that it's very difficult for 16- and 17-year-olds to get welfare. In fact, she was concerned about the youths who remain in abusive situations because they couldn't get welfare.

The Harris resolution ignores the fact that most 16- and 17-year-olds on welfare are there for legitimate reasons. What we would encourage is for welfare offices to have the same standards across the province so that we can ensure that the kids who are in an abusive situation are the ones who get the help. It makes far more sense to tighten up the system we have than to impose another expensive burden on the children's aid societies.

The next two proposals, number (8) and number (9), are to tighten up on administration to prevent welfare fraud. Liberals certainly support having stronger controls and managements in place. We fully support reinstatement of home visits, which were done under the Liberal government and ended by the NDP. We would reinstate the verification process that was in place when the Liberals were in government. Liberal policy was that eligibility had to be renewed personally, not doing it by mail, which the NDP now allows.

I was quite puzzled by the omission in the Mike Harris resolution of fingerprinting of welfare recipients. I looked, because that's what Mike Harris said he was going to do, but it was strangely absent. Now, in the first place, I was really surprised that the Conservatives were supporting fingerprinting since I remember Margaret Marland, who is here with us right now, being totally opposed to it at public accounts committee hearings.

I'd like to quote from Hansard of June 3, 1993, when Mrs Marland said:

"I hope we're not seriously considering anything that incorporates fingerprinting. I think we would have an uprising in this province, and I would probably lead it, if we're going to start for any reason other than the reason that exists under the Criminal Code. I wouldn't support anything that was even discussing a fingerprint identification system because I really see that as an invasion of privacy."

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): That's true.

Ms Poole: Mrs Marland today confirms that's how she feels, yet I wonder where the Conservatives are on that, because that's not what the Conservative leader has said. He wants to fingerprint all welfare recipients. But where will it end? Will he want to fingerprint everyone who receives largess or funding from the government? Will he fingerprint seniors? What about the disabled? Will he want to fingerprint everyone with a health card?

The last item on the Conservative agenda is really something we can all support: nutrition programs, literacy, parenting and child support. These are all motherhood issues that for years have had widespread support from members of this Legislature from all three parties.

While there are some things in this motion that I can support, I cannot support a policy based on selective information, erroneous assumptions and a mean spirit.

Mr Harris assumes people are on welfare because they want to be. Mr Harris has characterized those on welfare as lazy and unmotivated. He should take a look at the profile of those going to the food banks, which the Daily Bread Food Bank distributed last year.

A good education is no longer a guarantee of employment. Having good skills is no longer a guarantee of employment. There are people on welfare who never, ever thought they would be there. They feel demeaned, they feel humiliated and they would desperately like to get off. So we cannot assume, like certain people do, that everyone on welfare is out to defraud the system and out to get what they can from the system when they don't deserve it.

I would bring members back to August 24, 1993, when Mike Harris held a press conference with Helle Hulgaard, a Metro Toronto Housing Authority employee who discovered she could make more on social assistance than on her $43,000-a-year job. And Mike Harris encouraged her to do this. He said she'd get a better deal on welfare, and he said: "It would be a mistake. Helle wants to work, but who can blame her for seizing the chance to make the same or more money while caring for her children at home?"

Again, in that particular situation Mr Harris's facts were wrong. It was very clearly shown after the fact that the moneys Helle Hulgaard would receive under social assistance did not meet what she would have earned in her job. So she quit her work, supported by Mr Harris, and then paid the price of being unemployed and then wanting her job back.

I will close by saying that Mr Harris said the Liberals did nothing in five years for welfare reform, they just hiked rates. What does he call introducing a winter clothing benefit? What does he call recognizing the realistic cost of shelter; improving benefits for the disabled; signing an agreement with the federal government to assist 20,000 social assistance recipients to prepare and find employment; appointing the SARC committee to review social assistance issues and make recommendations to bring in the supports to employment program, which helped 50,000 people in one year alone? What does he call streamlining existing employment support programs? These are positive initiatives to get people back to work.

We all agree with reform, but not the Conservative reform.

1700

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I listened very patiently to the debate so far and would like to commend both the member for Ottawa-Rideau and the member for Eglinton for their dwelling on the past, however accurate or inaccurate it was, and taking their 30-some-odd allocated minutes and not once telling us a specific plan that the Liberal Party under Lyn McLeod is prepared to do in Ontario.

I didn't even hear a real recognition that somehow a growth in the payment on welfare benefits in this province, that's gone from $1.3 billion to almost $7 billion in the last decade, which was predominated by the Liberal government, is a matter of concern for the taxpayers of the province.

But like all Liberal policies, it's long on rhetoric and short on specifics. It's fair ball for them to attack our plan, but we can't attack their plan because they don't have one. We can attack their record, because it's a pretty poor one. There are elements of their past performance which were extremely generous. They were the most generous in all of Canada and they are responsible for making welfare more wide open, more accessible, more inviting to our neighbours, more inviting to our neighbouring provinces, and that has been a cause for much migration to our province because that's what Ontario promises.

It promises for those persons, for whatever reason, whether they don't wish to look for work or whether they can't find work -- but if you're in either of those circumstances, boy, Ontario is the place to be. If you call any of the welfare offices in this province, especially in the border communities, they will tell you they're getting routine phone calls from Alberta, from New Brunswick, now from British Columbia, from those jurisdictions or those provinces, saying: "By the way, I'm a single mom with three kids. What are you paying? What's your rate? Do you give the full benefits?" They calculate the differences, and these differences are rather staggering.

Before I get into that, I wanted to comment a bit on a couple of specific statements made by the members for Eglinton and Ottawa-Rideau. The member for Ottawa-Rideau bowls me over when she says, "You know, I think we're going to have to revisit the issue of home visitations." I can't believe it. We argued with the government: "For God's sake, don't abandon this completely. You can't throw a welfare system wide open."

For all that's said and done, it wasn't so much that every person on welfare was given a home visit. The fact is that it was an administrative option for the government, which is charged with the responsibility of administering public funds for the needy, that where there are suspected cases or doubts, a home visit could occur. Everybody didn't get a home visit, but the threat of a home visit sure made applicants pause a few more minutes and give a second thought to what they actually put down on their application for social assistance.

I don't think anybody suggested that every person who requires social assistance must have a mandatory home visit. We don't have the resources to do it. But in jurisdiction after jurisdiction all across Canada they're still doing home visits because the implications are that the threat is there and, therefore, "I'll take a little more time and make sure I got all that information down accurately."

The Liberals also advocated the notion of direct deposit and supported publicly not requiring a permanent address to get social assistance. If you know anything about how welfare is administered around this country, you'll know that one of the fastest ways to check, without a lot of expense -- not hiring thousands of welfare police, if that's what the government starts calling them -- is simply to say, "If you want your cheque in the month of November, come to one of the following four auditoriums where you can discreetly come into a line, make an application, show your ID and pick up your welfare cheque."

I don't mean everybody. I don't mean the disabled. I don't mean the seniors. I mean able-bodied, 35-year-olds who've been on welfare for five years, who are employable but who just can't find work.

Why don't we just say to them, as they did in New Brunswick -- you know, the more I read about Frank McKenna, I sure wish he was our Premier today.

Interjections.

Mr Jackson: I kind of like some of the no-nonsense things Frank McKenna has implemented in the province of New Brunswick. He said: "You know, we have such a seasonal jump in welfare," and it's in this couple of target areas of identified groups. "Why don't we hire a few university students who have to pay the increase in the tuition fees that the province now has and let them interview people who come in and pick up their welfare cheques?" Great idea. You know, there was a whole bunch of people who all of a sudden had employment, who didn't come in and get their cheques, who phoned in and said: "Hey, I just was late calling, but I've got a job. Thanks a lot."

The member for Eglinton should remember -- now I'm not as familiar with her political career, and I apologize for that, but I know she's served a time on Metro or city council.

Ms Poole: No, I didn't. That's false.

Mr Jackson: That is false? Then I apologize. I thought you had served in public office before you arrived here, and I apologize. That's why I asked you.

The fact is that the last major postal strike in this province caused a huge uproar with respect to those persons requiring their social assistance cheques. Government, true to form, felt it had to create a plan convenient to those members of the public, so they could find a way to access their cheques as quickly as possible.

Various locations were set up around Metro Toronto for people to come in and pick up their cheques. Well, guess what happened. Thousands and thousands of cheques -- not hundreds -- not only were not picked up, they were never picked up. As a result, the city was quite thrilled. They saved millions, not thousands; they saved millions. They learned a very, very valuable lesson. They learned that the system occasionally has to have moments where it checks itself.

If there's anything I'm concerned about in the Liberals' approach, it is that I have yet to hear from them how they plan to make the system more accountable to taxpayers, the people who are paying for the social support services in this province. Maybe I could have discussed with them why the government in Ottawa now is saying we are spending too much on social assistance and maybe there should be a time limit on the amount of social assistance.

Quite frankly, I was disturbed to hear -- because I didn't want the public confused -- that perhaps Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister, and the federal Liberal Party were moving closer to Mike Harris's Common Sense Revolution plan. That's a frightening thought, that the Liberals in Ottawa are actually agreeing with Mike Harris that we have a system that requires some major overhauling.

1710

Mr Axworthy has put on a brave face, but we know he had a misstep in the media when it was discovered in a scrum that in terms of these cuts in the billions of dollars -- now we're talking the federal Liberal government, cuts in the billions of dollars -- in fact he was going to take three years to study it, maybe four years. Right after the next election federally, that's when they'd kick in and that's when the cuts would be felt. That's a typical Liberal plan: "We're going to talk about cuts, but then when you get right down to it, boy, oh boy, not anywhere near an election. We're not going to make any tough decisions."

Ms Poole: Why don't you talk about your plan?

Mr Jackson: The reason I have to talk about the federal Liberals in Ottawa is because the provincial Liberals here refuse to raise the issues. At least the NDP got up and started talking about transfer payment cuts. They have every right to talk about it. Now that we hear there are going to be more cuts coming, how are we going to deal with that?

Mike Harris has clearly indicated what a first, primary consideration is: that the disabled and our seniors who are receiving these benefits immediately are protected and are removed from this ratcheting down from the federal government. They have to be protected and they will be protected.

The second consideration is that sole-support mothers with children have to be given the opportunity to earn any losses back, and there's a whole series of creative, innovative and supportable ways in which they can do it.

I'll give you an example. We indicated, and we got a lot of criticism for this, that low-income families have specific challenges. Whether it be nutritional, whether it be activation, whether it be academic or educational, support services are required around low-income families with newborn babies, so we indicated that we would put some of the money saving in our social assistance reforms into targeting to get the money to the children.

I want to get the concept across to the members of this House. A welfare cheque or a social assistance cheque goes to an adult in this province and there's no absolute guarantee that the child gets his or her fair share of that cheque. If you want to analyse this issue just from the child's perspective -- that's what we've attempted to do in this Common Sense Revolution, because we're saying that part of the topping up is guaranteed access to a series of programs that are targeted at, for and to the direct benefit of those children.

Interjections.

Mr Jackson: The point is that we have some of these targeted programs. When the government criticizes some of these strategies, I want to remind them that one of these programs is educational programs, almost mandatory participation in these programs. I want to let you know, members of the House, that if you take this very interesting document from May 1994, the Premier's Council on Health, Well-being and Social Justice, it's a very good document. I highly recommend it. It deals with a whole series of problems involved with child poverty in this province and in this country, but on page 36 it talks about the specific problems associated with low-income families. I believe that when we in this House and in this report talk about low-income families, we're talking about families who have to live on social assistance. It goes on to suggest that these support programs should be coordinated and implemented and targeted towards the children.

So before the government criticizes -- mind you, in fairness, the government really doesn't criticize that part of it very much because they wish they had the money to do it. We're saying we have to find it somewhere else in the system, and we're finding it. We're saying target the money to those children, and not for the 30-year-old or the 25-year-old able-bodied, employable male who quite frankly shouldn't be sitting on social assistance for five or six years.

Mrs O'Neill: And they aren't.

Mr Jackson: Well, they are. The member for Ottawa-Rideau, listen, you're going to reinstate home visits. Maybe you should reinstate your own homework.

The fact is that the Premier's Council report makes several references to that, and we quite frankly agree. We would support the Premier if he could find the money, but I don't think he has found the money. We're indicating in the Common Sense Revolution where those moneys can be found and where they can be targeted to.

Interjection.

Mr Jackson: Do you want go over a couple? It seems the Liberals are very interested. In the absence of policy ideas, if they'd listen they might find these quite acceptable. I find it hard to believe that the Liberals -- and the member for Ottawa-Rideau herself is a former school trustee. We're putting money into homework assistance centres. She laughs, but maybe when she was a trustee homework was an important issue with her board.

Child support enforcement: We want to strengthen the current legislation and we want to address the whole issue of the Attorney General of this province writing off huge amounts of moneys owed to the minister responsible for social assistance because he's making payments to mothers with deadbeat husbands. I may as well discuss this issue at this point in my comment. When SCOE was implemented, oh yes, it was a great idea and everybody supported it, because deadbeat dads were not making their payments and women in increasing numbers were going on social assistance. The province would make the payments, but it still calculated that this money was owed to the government as it was paying it out because the father wasn't making the payment.

What we're finding out now is that millions of dollars are being written off by the Attorney General for the Comsoc minister, saying, "Fine, you don't have to pay that any longer when you're taken to court for SCOE." Although the government says it's really committed to dealing with this issue, quite frankly there's a misstep between the two ministries, the judiciary arm and the social assistance arm. The taxpayers are still not being adequately served and the sole-support moms with their children are not being adequately served.

The Liberals are still listening, and maybe they'll pick up some of these ideas and find them of value.

A community nutrition program for school-age children: We think that's an incredibly valid program. I have yet to hear from the Liberals how they overcome this issue of paying out the highest social assistance rates in all of North America and yet kids are still coming to school hungry. The fact is that you have to target the programs to the children, and the Liberals have missed that point completely.

The learning, earning and parenting programs I've discussed.

These are all programs which in fact are referenced in the Ontario's Children and Youth report from the Premier's Council. The Tories are committed to it. The Mike Harris Conservatives are prepared to lay out these programs for full public scrutiny and we're indicating where we'll find the money to implement them.

I wish I had time to discuss the mess that the Liberals in Ottawa are currently making with respect to a whole series of issues around social assistance transfer payments and the very sensitive issue of immigration. Sergio Marchi, the minister himself, has invoked some cross words from Lyn McLeod about the way he's handling certain matters with respect to immigration.

Ontarians are asking legitimate questions about, why is it that we have a federal appeal system for refugees that takes three and four years, with all the appellants, yet they're able to stay in Ontario and receive full social benefits for that entire period of time?

The question really is: Why is it that the federal Liberals have not cleared up this mess? Why is it that we've just discovered immigration files that were never exposed, deportation orders gone missing? What about the level of cooperation between the current NDP government in Ontario with the federal Liberal government, cooperation on the issue of issuing warrants for persons who are evading deportation orders but are collecting welfare in Ontario. There's no agreement or no cooperation between the two levels of government so that we don't tell those people, "You're not to be in this country," but they're still allowed to continue to get full drug benefits and full medical benefits, housing support and so on.

1720

Finally, I want to read very briefly into the record a letter from a constituent of mine, and I received this letter on November 14. It sums up the frustration of far too many of our citizens in this province who are coping with the difficult times we live in. They're coping with them by working harder, but they're confused. My constituent says:

"I'm writing this letter in disgust at our welfare system. I am a single parent on my own with two small boys. I leave for work every day at 6:30 to support people on welfare.

"I have an apartment in the basement of my home which I rented to a 30-year-old male in April of this year. Since he has moved in he has never paid any of his rent, and when I gave him his 60-day notice in writing" -- he'll be moving on November 30. She still has not received a penny.

"I got no rent for October, and now he says that he's being harassed. We are a prisoner in our own home, as the boys are afraid to even be near him. He accuses my children of doing things.

"I phoned the welfare office and was told there was nothing they could do about him not paying his rent. He got a welfare cheque, that was for sure, in the end of September. He got another cheque for GST in the middle of October. There is certainly something wrong with the welfare system. They get free rent, free dental, free prescription drugs, free everything, and I'm going to support this individual.

"In August, I phoned social assistance for some help to pay for my son's medication, which is going to cost me almost $100 a month. I was told I make too much money. I make $24,000 a year and I'm raising two boys.

"I have come to the conclusion that I am doing something wrong. I should quit my job, sell my house, hide the money and go on welfare. I'd get a low-rental apartment, I'd get free dental, free prescription, no babysitting expenses. I do want to work and I want to pay my way, but these people are making me feel that I should become dishonest."

The letter goes on, asking would this Parliament please do something about this situation.

I'll tell the member opposite what I think: I think these are the people who are keeping this province together. These are the people who built this province and these are the people who we'd better start listening to, who are asking legitimate questions and will ask more focused questions in the next provincial election. Why is it that we have a system so open and so loose that we aren't truly helping those in real need and yet those who are paying the bills are the ones who are suffering under this enormous burden?

I support the resolution, because it's at least an attempt to get us back on track.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I join this debate with a passion to talk a little about the so-called Common Sense Revolution. It's terrible that the Common Sense Revolution, what it truly means, what they're talking about, is the special interests of the business community, the right-wing agenda which would ignore the truly needy in our society, who are the disabled, the senior citizens and the working people of this province, those who do the actual work in this province. So I wish to join in the debate and talk about this.

Let's talk a little about the history of Ontario. We have a collective good in this province. Mr Mulroney, when he was the national government, talked big. He talked about a national day care program. We never got it. He talked and waxed eloquent on free trade and said it would bring prosperity to this country. It has not. The results are in the negative, and we saw the results of that in the last federal election. People rejected his agenda.

I would say to you that Mulroney's good old friend Mike Harris, who sits across the way, is a promulgator of that very same agenda, and also the Premier of Alberta, Mr Ralph Klein. You can see their records: what Klein is doing in Alberta, what Mulroney did to us federally and what Harris proposes to do to us in Ontario. It's the slash-and-burn policies and turn-your-back-on-them policies, the so-called Mike Harris Common Sense Revolution.

We have a number of proposals to talk back to the Common Sense Revolution on. This documentation is quite shocking, because it's very cleverly, very slyly written. It almost borders on dirty business. It's very, very carefully crafted to convince the people of Ontario to vote against their own interests. But no, we won't let you get away with it. We're going to speak out and we're going to challenge you on this.

You're saying that you want moneys for senior citizens and disabled people to be guaranteed at the levels they are now. You say that, but where is the real protection? You're saying you're going to protect them, but what that really means is that that freezes disabled people in that category and keeps them on welfare forever without any kind of real opportunity for a job. I think that's disgraceful.

To the members of this House and to the people in the gallery, do you remember that in the past we had good Tories? We had red Tories, people like Bill Davis, people like Larry Grossman and others -- Andy Brandt comes to mind -- who have since disassociated themselves from this so-called Common Sense Revolution. They do not want any part of this. Interesting, isn't it?

Also, we want to make sure that we not see large institutions built for disabled people and senior citizens. You would propose that they be stuck in there and stay there: institutionalized welfare. That's not something we want to see continue. To me this is a human rights issue, and we will speak out against that, just as you have spoken out against the Advocacy Act, which was an act our government brought into law that would guarantee the rights of vulnerable people. You spoke out against that progressive legislation. It's clear you want to institutionalize vulnerable people and want to keep them on welfare.

The document of the Common Sense Revolution and the goal, how you categorize the poor, the middle-income earners and the so-called wealthy -- while the wealthy may grow, what in fact will be the growing number is those who are poor, those who are disenfranchised, and the middle class will dwindle away to nothing while the wealthy get wealthier and the rolls of the poor will increase. Income in the pockets of people will dry up under a Tory regime.

We are trying very hard on this side of the House to put people back to work with our Jobs Ontario Training. You're saying that money is just being handed out willy-nilly. We're saying, "No, we have a plan and it's working."

You truly do ignore the participation of disabled people. Disabled people want to work. I'm very proud of our government's record in working with Jobs Ontario Training to ensure that people who are disabled or those who want to work will get work and training. JobLink is another golden opportunity for people to do that. As well, we will work with small business across this province to increase those golden opportunities for people to get back into the workforce.

The so-called Common Sense Revolution, the document, was well done, it was professionally prepared. It looks convincing, it's craftily done, but at the end of the day, it's a continuation of the Mulroney agenda. The results speak for themselves, and people know what those results are.

The situation of what's happening in Alberta: We only have to look to the west to see what Alberta's doing. They've cut back on health care. They want to cut back on just about everything that the common good suggests. People there are having a terrible experience. We're seeing demonstrations there. And that's what they want to bring to Ontario. I show people the experience in Alberta. That is what the Common Sense Revolution will bring to you here. Don't be fooled, folks. Don't be fooled by the so-called Common Sense Revolution.

The goal of our government is a commitment to keep people working, to get people off welfare and to keep people off that chain of dependency. We're very proud of our government's role and our record in getting people back to work.

Both federal governments, the Tories and the Liberals, have cut back on our transfer payments, and others have commented that we are right in our accusations to blame them for that. It's true, because at the end of the day it's the people who suffer. I am very proud that this government has been in office to build a base to help people get through this recession and to get people back working.

1730

We have one of the highest standards of living in the world and we are very proud of that as Canadians and Ontarians. The Common Sense Revolution would remove that. It is going to downgrade everything that we have worked for to the common good. The Common Sense Revolution waxes eloquent, but keep in mind its results. The benefits that we have worked for over the years will suffer. The security and wellbeing of our neighbours will suffer under a Common Sense Revolution.

It's important to protect the rights and security and the wellbeing of the vulnerable, the seniors, the working class, the disabled and those children who are currently on welfare. That is the debate we have before us today.

In my closing remarks, I wish to suggest to the people of this province that you have to look beyond the rhetoric of this so-called Common Sense Revolution and see it as nothing other than a Bay Street right-wing agenda, which it truly is, which was hastily done and dropped down on the desks of the opposition members. It's very harmful to working people, it's harmful to disabled people, it's harmful to the children of this province and it's harmful to the seniors of this province.

That message is going to go loud and clear. The so-called Common Sense Revolution means what? It means nothing but hard times. Tory times are hard times for Ontario. It's true; the wealthy right-wing business class will get wealthier. That is the true message of the Common Sense Revolution.

Mrs Marland: I am happy this afternoon to stand and speak on behalf of our caucus and in support of this resolution by Mr Harris. I note that while the member for York East was speaking, nobody interjected. I would like to have the same courtesy extended to me. I have not sat here this afternoon and interjected in anybody else's time and I am down to a mere eight minutes in what is a very important debate.

The member for York East talks about what the Mike Harris government would do. I do believe that when people speak in this House, they should know what they're speaking about. I think it's regrettable that the member for York East has said this afternoon that a Mike Harris government wants to keep people on welfare. If the member for York East had read the resolution, he would have read under item 2, "Move 170,000 elderly and disabled recipients out of the welfare system to a new, separate income supplement program." That is not keeping people on welfare and is doing what frankly should have been done years ago.

There is no reason that elderly people or disabled people should be on a welfare system at all.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Oh no, you're going to cut them off too.

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: I say to you, Mr Speaker, in spite of the interjections, that it is beyond me to understand how anybody can stand in this House today and defend the present system. How can you defend a system where we have 1.3 million people on welfare? How can anybody defend that system today in Ontario?

We have a system today that is three --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): They have nothing. She's attacking the poor. They don't have a voice.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Lake Nipigon is not seated in his rightful place. Order. I asked him to come to order.

Mrs Marland: We all have a democratic right to speak in this House, in spite of the fact that this government continually moves closure on bills so that we don't even get an opportunity to have a normal time span for debate on their legislation, let alone have enough time in committee to move amendments to remedy the legislation, and now when it's an opposition day and we have the opportunity to give our opinion on what today is the priority, which is what to do about the welfare system, they send in a cabinet minister to heckle me.

I guess I should be flattered really, but I think it's grossly unfair that we are not given an equal opportunity to speak without that kind of intervention when the Provincial Auditor identifies $700 million in welfare fraud and the Liberals and the government members today stand in this House and defend the system. We now have a welfare system that's three times what it was 10 years ago; three times as many people on welfare as 10 years ago, and double what it was four and a half years ago.

What we're simply saying is that we are not going to carry on with this farce known as welfare. We're going to get the people off welfare who shouldn't have been there in the first place, the elderly and the disabled. They should never have been part of a welfare system.

When the member for York East says he's proud of this government, I doubt very much whether there is any person in the disabled community who is proud of this government. If this government would talk to those people who work with the disabled community, they will know that the disabled community isn't happy either about how the Advocacy Commission and the appointments to it have evolved. That is a story and a debate that would take a very long time.

Yes, there are people in this province who will always need help. There are people in this province for whom we all have a responsibility, but we have to have a better system than the system we have today. We can't kill the work ethic of people while they are still in high school, and if you don't understand what is going on with student welfare, then please go out and speak to your secondary school principals, as I have done.

I can take you tonight to an address in Mississauga where a mother has five young women boarding with her who are on welfare while her own daughter lives across the street on welfare in another house. She has five people in her house who are unrelated to her, each of whom gets whatever the student welfare allowance is, which I think is close to $740 or $800 a month, and they choose not to live at home.

Don't we all remember when we were 16 and 17? Probably most of us at some point at that age would have wanted to have left home. Personally, I was working when I was 15 1/2. The point is these children -- and they are children today -- are being encouraged not to work, and in order to be eligible for welfare, they don't even have a home visit any more. There's no investigation as to what the situation is in their home. All they have to say is they can't tolerate living at home any more.

Well, I'm sorry. I and our Progressive Conservative caucus in Ontario today are not willing to start telling people when they're 16 and 17 years of age that all they have to do is say, "I don't get along with my parents, I can't tolerate living at home any more," and "Okay, you're on welfare," without a home visit, without any continuing monitoring to find out what the problem is, if indeed it is a problem. There are some people who need to be out of their home, but not $16 million worth in one region. We don't have to tolerate a system where the rest of the people who are working are having to pay this tremendous bill.

If people would concentrate on what the Mike Harris resolution says today, they would see that we were not advocating fingerprinting, as the member for Eglinton said earlier this afternoon; that is not a statement of fact. We are advocating a photo/smart-ID system. I don't appreciate it when people come into this House for a debate and say there are things in this resolution that are not a fact. They are strangers to the truth, and I do not like that kind of debate.

I will say simply in closing, because of the time, that I believe in the old saying that if you give a man a fish he will eat for a day, but if you teach that man to fish he will eat for a lifetime.

1740

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I am glad to have the chance to participate in this debate and in fact to bring the debate to a close.

I found it really interesting to listen to the speakers from both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. There are no Liberal Party members left in the House as I speak; there are still a few Conservative members left. I found it really interesting that when we started out this debate, the leader of the third party, Mike Harris, led off the debate and made some comments about the fact that the Premier wasn't going to be able to be here for the debate, and I think he was here for all of about 10 minutes.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There are Liberal members in the House, and that cheap shot isn't necessary.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order.

Hon Mr Silipo: Mr Speaker, there are clearly Liberal members in the House now --

The Speaker: Order. The member for Burlington South.

Mr Jackson: Mr Speaker, it is unparliamentary to refer to the absence or presence of members in the chamber. That is in our standing orders, and I wish the member would respect that. There are a lot of his members not here and --

The Speaker: The member for Burlington South will please take his seat.

The member indeed raises a point that it is really not appropriate to identify particular members who are not in the House.

Hon Mr Silipo: The other comments would not be acceptable under the rules of the House.

I was also wanting to make the point that I wished the leader of the third party, who expressed such great interest in this debate, had been able to arrange his schedule so he could be here for the balance of the debate, as opposed to the first 10 minutes of the debate, which is all he was present for, given that this is, I believe, an important discussion we are having.

Mr Stockwell: That's out of order, isn't it, Mr Speaker?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Silipo: What I found even more interesting was in listening to what was said in the debate by the members of the opposition. I found it interesting that although we have words in the actual resolution that is before us --

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When the minister is absent we do not say he has to be in this House to process one of his bills. We allow ministers to be absent when one of their bills is coming through this House. He continues to criticize the fact --

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. I ask the minister if he would resist the temptation to identify members of the assembly who are not present in the chamber, and would he now continue with his speech.

Hon Mr Silipo: I would be happy, Mr Speaker, thank you.

I will just say that what I found even more interesting was what was said and what wasn't said by the members of the opposition party. When you look at the resolution that's before us, it is a fairly draconian measure that the Conservative Party is presenting. It is quite interesting to compare the words that are printed in the resolution with the statements that were made by members of the Conservative Party; it is as if they are speaking to two different resolutions.

One gets the impression, quite frankly, that they are trying to have it both ways. They are trying to put policies in print which actually put them far to the right of the Reform Party. They present us with some fairly draconian measures that they would take to fix this and other problems that exist, and yet when they stand up and talk they don't talk about some of those measures, and I want to come to a couple of those in particular.

Then I find it really interesting to listen to my Liberal colleagues across the way. There too we heard a mixture, I think, of wanting to blame this government, if I understood the argument, for the fact that we've had in the last three years such significant increases in the caseload, because we heard a presentation of a comparison between the caseloads in past years and the increases there and the increases during the last three to four years, against a number of points made about things that they believe we should be doing, which we in fact are doing. I want to come to those as well.

We have with respect to the social assistance system in this province some significant problems. I, as the minister responsible now, my colleagues previously, the Premier and indeed many members of this government have made it quite clear that we have no interest in maintaining the status quo with respect to the social assistance system. In fact, we believe that very significant changes have to come about and that those changes have to be really based on a couple of fundamental things.

The first is that we owe it to the people of the province to be able to say we have a system that is run as effectively as is humanly possible, and that is what we have been in the process of doing. Secondly, if we can do that, then we can move to what really has to be the significant change in the system, which is to ensure that, on the one hand, people are given the skills and the supports and the training necessary to be able to make the exit from the system and to get, through training and other supports, back into the workforce and back into jobs, and secondly, that families should not have to go on welfare in order to be able to raise their kids adequately.

Those remain for us very clear and fundamental principles and very clear and fundamental objectives, but they're not things we just talk about, they're not things where we say, you know, they're going to happen some time in the future. They in fact are things that we are doing today. There are things that we are doing now that we have done and that we are continuing to do that address the problems and that put us, I think, in a good position to see some of the positive results that we in fact are getting from those particular steps.

We have put into the system a number of measures that fix the various problems that have been there, problems that haven't turned up simply in the last few years. They've become perhaps more pronounced in the last few years, but they've been there since the time the Liberals were in government; they certainly have been there since the time the Tories were in government.

We have put in place under enhanced verification, in effect, stricter rules for people who come and apply to social assistance. They will have to provide more information than ever before in order to ensure they are in fact eligible for assistance. Through the monthly reporting of income, we've added to the security within the system. Through the case file investigation process, we are reviewing each and every file in the system, because we believe that's something that needs to be done in order to be able to say to the people of the province that the system is being run as effectively as possible.

Some of our Liberal colleagues talked earlier about the need for a new computer system. Well, we agree. We're implementing it. By the end of 1995, large chunks of the province will be covered with the new computer system, and by 1996 the whole province will have a new computer system that will link all of the municipally run services and all of the provincially run services in the area of social assistance. We're not talking about it; we're doing it, we're implementing it.

That will allow for information to flow between those two levels of government and will facilitate as we move into one of the other areas, which is the information-sharing agreements between us and other provinces and between us and the federal government, and indeed between municipalities and those other levels of government. Again, all of those are steps we are taking to ensure the system is better run.

We've talked a little bit earlier today about the issue of 16- and 17-year-olds, an issue that remains a very important one, I believe. One could say that the fact that we have this year fewer 16- and 17-year-olds on welfare than we did last year, about 500 fewer than we did last year, might lead us to say that we don't have as much of a problem. But I believe we still do have an issue there that we have to grapple with, and we are.

We will have in place in very short order clearer rules with respect to 16- and 17-year-olds, rules that will delineate on the one hand that we are not supportive of young people moving out of their homes simply because they may have disagreements with parental rules, but that at the same time also make it sure and make it clear that we are going to provide support to those young people who have to move out of the family home for very legitimate reasons, where there are issues of abuse and other important issues like that. We will make the rules much clearer than they have been in the past under Liberal administrations or under Conservative administrations.

1750

We have in place now the tightest system of controlling overpayments than we've ever had in this system, and that has been brought about by the efforts this government has taken. Through the family support plan, despite what opposition members would want to tell us, we have in fact increased by over 250% the collection of funds for people on social assistance, and that in turn is reducing the moneys we have to pay out through social assistance.

Through those and many other measures that I could talk at length about, we are managing the system in a far more effective manner than has ever happened before. But we believe the real solutions to the problem lie in doing all of those things I've outlined, but in putting into the system significant measures that get people off welfare and back to work, because that really is the way to grapple with the problems that have caused so far the huge increases in the welfare rolls.

We know those increases have come about because of the economic policies we've seen through previous Conservative governments and continued through previous Liberal governments. We've seen the effects of the free trade agreement, the effects this is going to have and what the recession has caused, and that's why we have so many people on social assistance today.

We are putting a focus on creating jobs. Through Jobs Ontario Training, as we continue to remind opposition parties, 63,000 jobs have been created for people who either are on social assistance or who would very likely in short order be ending up on social assistance because their unemployment insurance benefits have run out. We are saving something to the tune of $200 million in social assistance benefits as a result of that initiative.

That's an initiative the opposition parties, the Tories and the Liberals, would do away with. When they talk about fixing the problems in the system, they also want to do away with one of the most fundamental changes we've brought about, one of the most fundamental improvements we've put into the system that actually gets people off welfare and into jobs. So let's put the rhetoric together with the facts and let's see who has the record in terms of what needs to be done.

Through JobLink, we are going to be adding to the initiatives under Jobs Ontario Training and we will provide to people on social assistance a number of supports, from basic information and basic supports to increased training and supports that will assist more people to move off welfare and into jobs.

Through STEP, the program that has been mentioned here today, we are assisting some 97,600 people who are either part-time or full-time employed and are also receiving some support still through the social assistance system. We are saving, through that program alone, $35 million a month or $420 million a year in benefits which we would otherwise have to pay if we did not have that program in place. And for the record, the number of people on that program has increased from some 47,000 people when we took office to the 97,000 figure that I outlined.

We have been putting those steps in place, we have been supporting those initiatives and we are going to do more. We're also going to do more to promote self-employment as an activity for people who are on welfare as a way of getting off welfare. We are going to be expanding the job search requirements to say that people who want to spend part of their time volunteering will be able to do that, because we know that is also a fundamental way in which people can gain access back into the workforce.

And we are going to be discussing very seriously positions we need to take with respect to the federal government to ensure that Ontarians get their fair share of funding that other provinces are getting, that we not continue to put up with, as the previous Conservative governments would have had us do and as the Liberal governments have continued to perpetuate through Ottawa, the lack of funding for Ontarians that we see and that we've seen for too long now. It's just unconscionable that the people of Ontario should receive 29-cent dollars from Ottawa when other provinces are receiving 50-cent dollars for the cost of welfare in this country, and that is something we are going to continue to move on.

That's the approach we believe we need to take: to fix the problems in the system, to get people on welfare off welfare and back to work, not to take the kind of draconian steps that Mike Harris, as leader of the Conservative Party, would have us do, which is to cut benefits, to slash benefits by 20%. That is the one thing that I didn't hear any of the Conservative members talk about, but that is at the heart of the proposals that the Conservative government presenting us with this resolution today would do.

They would dismantle the level of support that is provided to the poorest people in our society. If you just think about the fact that some 500,000 among the people who are on welfare are children --

Mr Stockwell: This is fearmongering and scare tactics.

Hon Mr Silipo: This is not fearmongering. This is taking the information that's in this resolution. They couch it in a way that says they would set the levels at 10% above the national average. Well, that results in a 20% cut in the present levels of benefits, and that means there would be 500,000 children in families whose benefits would be cut by 20%.

What does that mean? What does 20% mean? There are many ways to express it. One way to look at it is that people under the Mike Harris plan would get in effect the equivalent of benefits for nine and a half months, and what the leader of the third party would say to people on welfare is, "You cope by yourselves for the other two and a half months of the year."

That's not what we believe needs to happen. What we believe needs to happen is that the emphasis has to continue to be put on programs like Jobs Ontario Training, on programs like JobLink, which have as their purpose getting people off welfare and back to work, providing that link between training and jobs, creating jobs, as we have been doing as a government directly and indirectly by creating a climate in which jobs can be created in this province, and by continuing our efforts to ensure that the system is run as effectively as it can be. Those are the things we are doing. Those are the things we are going to continue to be doing.

The Speaker: Mr Harris has moved opposition day resolution number 1, a resolution which stands in his name. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1758 to 1803.

The Speaker: Would all members please take their seats.

All those in favour of Mr Harris's resolution should please rise one by one.

Ayes

Arnott, Carr, Cunningham, Eves, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Marland, McLean, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Harris's resolution should please rise one by one.

Nays

Abel, Bisson, Boyd, Bradley, Brown, Buchanan, Callahan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Cleary, Conway, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Daigeler, Duignan, Farnan, Fawcett, Fletcher, Frankford, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Mahoney, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Mathyssen, McClelland, McGuinty;

Miclash, Mills, Morin, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Poole, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Ruprecht, Silipo, Sullivan, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 17, the nays 75.

The Speaker: I declare the resolution lost.

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

The House adjourned at 1807.

16 novembre 1994