Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO BORDER COMMUNITIES

Mr Cleary: Last week I informed the House that the congestion on the Seaway International Bridge at Cornwall had gotten to the point that cars are often held up for two hours. Canada Customs figures show that this past Easter weekend more than 14,200 cars crossed the Seaway bridge -- two and a half times as many as made the crossing at the same time last year.

There is a loss of faith in this government. While losing millions annually in revenue and taxes, this government has failed to take a proactive stance on the cross-border issue and its causes.

I would remind the House that the Treasurer of Ontario told the Toronto Sun on 30 March that he was considering a three-cent reduction in gas taxes in northern Ontario. The Treasurer is surely aware that the economic picture in eastern Ontario is not much rosier.

Just a few days after the article appeared in the Sun, the Treasurer cautioned that Ontario border communities should not get their hopes up for tax breaks. I do not contend that tax breaks for all border communities should solve the problem once and for all, but they would go a long way to assist areas like the one I have the opportunity to represent in dealing with the recession. The Ontario Border Communities Mayors' Task Force on Cross-Border and Sunday Shopping has secured a commitment from the federal and provincial governments to discuss cross-border communities' unique problems. A graduated gas tax system may be one of the answers.

I would like to remind the Treasurer that he should not forget about eastern Ontario when drafting his budget next Monday.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Cousens: There is an old saying that says, "They who hesitate are lost." I feel that those who are involved with the crisis of Metro's waste cannot but feel a little lost with the Minister of the Environment's waste management plans.

Yesterday, Metro's works committee was struggling with waste management, trying to discern what role the Minister of the Environment wants it to play. There has been much confusion as to just what the minister's strategy is.

Is the province going to assume control and operation of Metro-area landfill sites? Would this mean that the province would pocket the tipping fees for this garbage? How are the municipal recycling programs supposed to be paid for, if this is the case? Metro currently uses the tipping fees it collects to subsidize Toronto's blue box program. There is a real fear that this excellent program may have to be paid for out of property taxes, given the changes the minister is making.

What are her ministry's intentions? Is she trying to create confusion? Some are so frustrated that they have suggested that her ministry should take over waste management completely and end the confusion that way.

The minister must show some leadership. She must do something to end the confusion and contradiction in her policy on waste management in Metro and elsewhere. It is Earth Week -- now is the time to act. Would she please do something about it, rather than just create more and more confusion?

BACKUS CONSERVATION EDUCATION CENTRE

Mr Jamison: This past Saturday, it was my pleasure to attend the opening of the new, $1.3-million Backus Conservation Education Centre in Long Point. This project was the result of a joint effort by federal, provincial and local authorities.

The new centre will not only serve to inform visitors about the rich and diverse natural environment of the Backus woods and Long Point area but will also provide a location for education programs about conservation for all kinds of groups, from local schools to nature societies.

This week in particular we should recognize what a special achievement this is. This is Earth Week and this is a special time for all to reflect on how precious our environment is and how little we really appreciate and understand this precious resource. That is why projects such as this are so important, as they combine concerns for the natural environment with the concern for the education of the community.

Not only this, but this centre also stands to remind us what can be achieved when all levels of government come together in a joint effort in the interests of serving the community. I would like to express my special appreciation to those involved in making this happen and I would thank them all individually.

1340

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr Mancini: Today is Public Transit Day. In order to meet the needs of tomorrow, our public transit systems must continue to grow. Our linkages and gateways between new and existing services must be planned now and adequately funded to sustain economic development.

The structures we design today for our local, regional and interregional transit services of tomorrow will have a dominant impact on what our communities will be like in the future.

While in opposition, the NDP talked a lot about the need for more transit, and we are pleased that the NDP has decided to at least reannounce previous Liberal funding for transit planned under the $2-billion transportation capital plan and the $5-billion Let's Move program. These Liberal programs covered the development of over 140 kilometres of new rail transit in the GTA, more than doubling the existing rail transit. But the NDP has not yet announced its strategy for expanding GO train service as was promised during the campaign. The NDP has reneged on its promise to extend GO train service to Peterborough. The NDP has cancelled plans announced by the Liberal government to extend GO train service to Kitchener-Waterloo and also to Orillia.

Interjection.

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, I cannot continue because the honourable member has constantly barracked through my entire statement, and I ask you to see if you can add a few seconds to my time.

The Speaker: It would certainly be helpful if all members could listen attentively while others are making what they are entitled to make, members' statements.

Mr Mancini: A barrage like that is unnecessary.

The Speaker: Would the honourable member just take his seat for a moment. You were at your conclusion, I believe, at the point where there was some difficulty. Would you continue with the last paragraph of your statement.

Mr Mancini: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The NDP has broken its promise to increase the province's share of Toronto Transit Commission funding above 16%. This is especially critical at this time, as spiralling welfare costs have restricted Metro's ability to pay for the TTC, and at a time when the TTC is forced to cut back service. We need the NDP to keep its promise on the transit issues of the day.

TAXATION

Mr Stockwell: Late last week my party launched a campaign to warn the Ontario Treasurer about raising taxes, running up the deficit and increasing spending in his upcoming provincial budget. We are distributing thousands of brochures asking Ontarians to fax or mail a form urging the Treasurer to say no to any further tax or spending increases in the 1991 provincial budget.

Since the Treasurer announced that his budget would be tabled on 29 April, I thought he would be most interested in knowing how the Fax Floyd campaign is progressing.

This morning, members of the Conservative caucus handed out hundreds of brochures, including the Fax Floyd form, at various transit stations throughout Metro. To date we have received almost 500 responses from all across Ontario telling the Treasurer they are ticked off with sky-high taxes, big-spending government, massive debt and wasted tax dollars.

We know that the previous government, which introduced some 32 new and increased taxes throughout its five-year term, never listened to the people of Ontario. I can only hope that this government, the so-called open and accessible government, will listen to the people and that the Treasurer will keep his hands out of the pockets of the Ontario taxpayers.

The NDP may have given us An Agenda for People, but with our Fax Floyd campaign, this party is giving the people of Ontario what they really need -- this party is giving the people of Ontario An Agenda for Taxpayers.

BELLE RIVER CONSTITUENCY OFFICE FIRE

Mr Hayes: Last weekend I witnessed an overwhelming display of community outreach and support.

As many members may have already heard, my Belle River constituency office was destroyed in a fire last Friday. Not only was the building gutted and the furniture unsalvageable, but the files and paperwork -- seven months of sweat and hard research by my staff -- were sopping wet and blackened. This is when an amazing thing happened. The community of Belle River pulled together.

Acting on advice from Archives of Ontario, which gave specific instructions on how to save fire-ravaged documents, about 20 people gathered on Saturday to remove the papers and dry them in a painstaking and delicate process to save as much work as possible.

Phil Charrette, the principal and custodian of staff of Belle River High School, opened up the facilities for volunteers; the Salvation Army staff served food and refreshments; and the Becker's staff across from the constituency office lent support and put up with the large crowd at the scene of the fire. The Belle River community information centre greeted us with open arms, and we are using that centre now as a temporary location.

I also want to make a special note of the efforts of the five fire departments in attendance, the Belle River, Rochester, Maidstone, Tecumseh and Windsor detachments.

Last, a very special thanks to the staff from Steven Langdon's office who helped us. Right now, we are in the midst of looking for a temporary location which we will have, hopefully, within six weeks.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Sola: Peel regional council approved the following resolution at its meeting held on 28 March 1991:

"Whereas the waste disposal issue is building to an even greater crisis month by month, since the Minister of the Environment arbitrarily removed our responsibility for developing a new landfill site; and

"Whereas we are still very much in the dark as to the minister's plans to deal with this issue; and

"Whereas the minister's action on this issue is in our opinion, extremely detrimental to the citizens of Peel as it relates to the cost of garbage disposal; and

"Whereas we are gravely concerned about the dictatorial attitude of the Ministry of the Environment which is evident by the order made under the Planning Act, 1983 dated 27 March 1991 which is the result of the minister discovering the impact of her decision to take over responsibility for waste disposal of the greater Toronto area;

"Therefore be it resolved that the regional chairman arrange an emergency meeting with the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of the Environment and the heads of the local governments in the regions of Peel, York and Durham to enable us to obtain answers on this very grave crisis situation;

"If the minister is consulting affected regions, as claimed, then how come the region of Peel feels the decision she reached is 'arbitrary'?

"If she has consulted, then how come they feel 'very much in the dark'?

"If she has met with affected groups, then how come they consider her attitude 'dictatorial'?

"If they have been informed, then how come they have to request an 'emergency meeting' to obtain answers on this 'very grave crisis situation'?"

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs Marland: Today is Public Transit Day. As part of Earth Week, we are encouraged to leave our cars at home and use public transit. While it is a day to focus on converting drivers to transit users, we must not forget those persons who already rely on public transit. In particular, I am concerned about disabled persons.

Most persons with disabilities would like the choice of using conventional transit. However, they are denied this choice because trains, buses and stations are inaccessible to them.

Last week, I raised the lack of safety for blind users of Toronto's subway system and the slowness of installing edge markers to make our subways safer for blind persons.

There are several other issues which must also be addressed: The easier access program will require changes to the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act which have yet to be introduced. In our urban centres, disabled persons rely upon parallel transit systems which are often overbooked. Rides must be scheduled in advance, and even then cannot be guaranteed. Accessible taxi services would help solve this problem, but so far only 28 communities in this entire province operate only 52 accessible taxis. Disabled persons need accessible public transit to lead full and rewarding lives. I hope this government will take action to resolve the issues I have raised today.

In closing, I hope that today being Public Transit Day, the Minister of Transportation will be in attendance, as he is not presently.

ASSISTANCE TO ROMANIAN ORPHANS

Mr Fletcher: Most of us have heard of the plight of Romanian orphans. Children die from congenital heart disease, diabetes, severe malnutrition, respiratory problems and pneumonia. There is a scant supply of drugs and diagnostic equipment. Children even die of high fever because there is no aspirin. At the hospital in Resita, the paediatric intensive care ward has a weigh scale, an obsolete sterilizer and a makeshift oxygen tank -- it is merely a holding tank to die. At an orphanage in the same city, staff of four care for 140 children up to the age of three.

I would like to draw attention to a humanitarian relief effort undertaken by my community of Guelph. Since last May, a family doctor, Dr Derrick Paquette, and a Guelph lawyer, Lorna Lee Snowie, have spearheaded a drive to take medical equipment and supplies to Romania.

Their efforts have gained support from the Lions, Rotary, Kiwanis and Optimist clubs of Guelph, from the Guelph General Hospital and from St Joseph's Hospital. In fact, the Sisters of St Joseph's, who run the five southwestern hospitals, have devoted their energies to help with this local relief effort.

Some pharmaceutical companies have donated antibiotics, hepatitis vaccine, analgesics and skin ointments. McNeil Consumer Products of Guelph, formerly Johnson and Johnson, is shipping a 40-foot container of vitamins this weekend, and Searle Pharmaceutical has paid for air fare and has undertaken fund-raising.

In January, I drew the Romanian relief effort to the attention of the member for Beaches-Woodbine, then Minister of Government Services, in the hopes that this government might be able to assist. I have received word from the minister that she has instructed the external asset program to look into what might be of help in this humanitarian effort.

1350

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before proceeding, members may wish to welcome a visitor to the west gallery, a Canadian member of Parliament, Harry Brightwell, from Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Ontario, and his wife, Dorell.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Hon Mr Farnan: Yesterday as I left the House, I was presented by members of the media with a copy of a letter, written on constituency office stationery, that indicated a member of my constituency office staff had communicated with a justice of the peace on behalf of one of my Cambridge constituents. Although my name appeared on the letter, and was initialed by a constituency staff member, I had never seen the letter before; neither had I personally signed it.

I looked into this matter immediately and I have learned that the letter was written by one of my constituency staff who was on probation and who sought direction from a more experienced staff member,

I was also informed that a second letter was written, in March of this year, to another justice of the peace by another member of my constituency staff. This letter had my name attached in a similar fashion and was initialed by that staff member. In this case also I had never seen the letter before, nor had I personally signed it.

In both of these cases, I recognize the serious inappropriateness of the action taken. I have turned over to the Attorney General's office the facts and documents relating to both cases and all of my staff have been directed to make available all correspondence to any investigation that takes place.

I believe that the Solicitor General must be at arm's length from the judiciary. As a member of the provincial Parliament, and more recently as the Solicitor General of Ontario, I have been guided in my actions by this principle. I have never in the past, including either of these occasions, made any direct or indirect contact with a member of the judiciary.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Today I delivered a letter which I wrote to Alan Tonks, the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, to advise him that the government has completed its review of Metro council's market value reassessment plan.

Routinely, ministry staff will continue to update their records by conducting the required interior and exterior property inspections in order to ensure that our records are as accurate as possible. This information will enable us to prepare market value estimates for all property in Metro. The assessment impact study will be based on updated records.

The Ministry of Revenue will continue to take all the necessary steps to prepare an assessment impact study for Metro council's consideration in 1992, as requested in Metro council's resolutions of September 1989 and March 1990. In the interim, the staff of the Ministry of Revenue will support the Ministry of Housing in its work with Metro staff to ensure the pass-through of tax decreases to tenants of multiresidential properties.

Provision of the impact study will enable Metro council to make its final decision whether or not to request the province to pass the appropriate legislation. We will await this final decision before proceeding to the next step of the process.

In conclusion, I want to assure the House that the government, in taking this decision, clearly recognizes that the overall fairness of the property tax system is an issue that must continue to be addressed.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Hon Mr Allen: I wish to announce today that important adjustments are going to be made to student assistance programs. These improvements will reflect increases in students' costs and correct inequities that have been felt for some time by certain student groups.

The eight changes will go into effect immediately and will apply to the coming academic year.

First, OSAP will be adjusted to accommodate tuition fee increases and students will receive a 5% increase in allowable costs to offset escalating living costs.

Second, grant maximums for disabled students will be increased, to $3,550, to help them cover disability-related expenses that they cannot meet under current grant maximums. Generally, present maximums vary from $1,550 to $2,550, depending on the student's circumstances.

Third, married students with children will benefit from an improved child care allowance. The new allowance for each child will be raised to $700 per term from the present $100 per term.

Fourth, contributions expected from the spouses of married students will be decreased to the same level as those expected from the parents of dependent students. For example, in 1990-91 a couple earning $28,000 was expected to contribute $3,900. In 1991-92, under these changes, the same couple will be expected to contribute about $1,100.

Fifth, OSAP residency requirements for students who are permanent residents will be the same as those for Canadian citizens. Previously, in certain situations permanent residents faced more stringent criteria than did Canadian citizens. They were often, if not usually, families and students from other provinces.

Sixth, part-time students will receive larger transportation and personal living allowances. In previous years, part-time students got a percentage of the full-time allowance, based on what percentage of a full course load they were taking. Now they will receive the same amount as full-time students.

A seventh adjustment, changes to the way Ontario utilizes the Canada student loan program, will make an extra $36 million in loans available to Ontario students. Because we will now be allowing additional expenses, single students will receive a $28-per-week miscellaneous allowance and married and sole-support parents will be eligible for an additional maintenance allowance of $634 per child if they have one or two children and $1,248 if they have three or four children.

I would also like to announce that the number of Ontario graduate scholarships will be increased by 100, from 1,200 to 1,300. This is the first time the number of scholarships has been increased since the program's inception. The amount of the scholarships will also be increased, to $3,953 from $3,766 per term.

Students will be more fairly treated as a result of these adjustments, and that is why I am pleased to be able to make these changes immediately. Nevertheless, we recognize that there is need for a major overhaul of the Ontario student assistance program in more basic ways than can be accomplished in a few months' time. Therefore, I want also to announce today that my ministry is undertaking a major review of the Ontario student assistance program.

Some of the issues that the review will look at include: financial eligibility criteria; the way student aid is allocated, including an examination of student debt loads; and measures to help non-traditional students, including part-time students, those with special needs, single parents and adult learners.

1400

This review will be done in consultation with students faculty, administrators and others who have an interest in the Ontario student aid program. I expect the review to be completed by August of this year and I intend to implement fundamental changes in the system by the time university and college students go back to school in the fall of 1992. I want to assure members that this review will be thorough and that I am determined to do whatever has to be done to make access to higher education fair and equitable for all Ontarians.

ALGOMA STEEL CORP

Hon Mr Pilkey: On 7 March --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would you stop the clock, please?

Interjections.

The Speaker: You are relaxed now and you are all ready to listen to the minister's announcement. All right.

Hon Mr Pilkey: On 7 March 1991 the Premier announced the establishment of a task force on the Algoma Steel Corp, chaired by Tim Armstrong, Deputy Minister, Industry, Trade and Technology, with members from the community, the company, the salaried employees, the Steelworkers' union, Algoma's creditors and the federal and provincial governments. The task force has been working to assist the development of a comprehensive and viable solution to Algoma's business situation by examining alternatives and dealing with issues that must be resolved to restore the company to financial health. Today I would like to take a few moments to advise the honourable members of the progress made to date.

The first meeting of the task force was held on Tuesday 12 March in Sault Ste Marie. Two subcommittees were established: one to review the business plan options and another to monitor the company's short-term financial results.

At the second meeting, which was held on 17 April in Toronto, the company and each of the major stakeholders represented on the task force presented progress reports, indicating the main areas of activity where the work is proceeding and identifying the internal and external experts involved.

A third committee was created to explore ways of creating a vehicle for some degree of employee ownership in the company. Both Algoma and representatives of employees on the task force have indicated that they are open to discussions on this topic.

In addition to the formal meetings of the task force and its subcommittees and the analytical work being carried out by the company and other stakeholders, there have been frequent and generally productive meetings and contacts between Algoma and the various members of the task force.

I am pleased to report that the task force has assembled a rather impressive group of experts in all the necessary disciplines to work towards a successful resolution of Algoma's current situation. The Steelworkers have set up advisory committees within each local union to provide for two-way communication about Algoma's future plans to unionized employees. The salaried employees at Algoma have also set up a steering committee to provide advice and ideas to the task force and the company. The government of Ontario, acting through the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, has engaged Price Waterhouse of Toronto to review the company's short-term operating results, Burns Fry of Toronto to advise on the financial aspects of the restructuring and Beddows and Co of London, England and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to review structural and marketing prospects in the North American steel industry.

Over the next two weeks, the task force subcommittees and individual task force members will continue to meet and exchange information as required. The next meeting of the full task force is scheduled for May 3, at which time the company's initial restructuring proposal will be presented. The chair of the task force reports to me that all the interested parties are co-operating fully in the goals of the task force and that good progress is in fact being made. While much remains to be done, it is clear that all parties are dedicating their time, resources and expertise to arrive at an acceptable solution to Algoma's programs, with a view to ensuring its survival as a viable enterprise and at maximum employment levels.

Mr Scott: We want a government that's as good as its word. You said you'd be better; you've been worse.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I shall keep the honourable members advised as the matter proceeds, and perhaps it may even get to be of interest, in terms of retaining business and employment to employees, to the member for St George-St David.

RESPONSES

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Nixon: The letter referred to by the Solicitor General in his statement reads in part as follows:

"3 April 1991. Mr Ramnarine, Justice of the Peace, Provincial Court House, Toronto.

"Re: Mr Richard Warne...my constituent. Mr Warne is very upset and alarmed at the fact that he will have to take time off work and also incur costs for a trip to Toronto for an offence that he did not commit" -- "that he did not commit" is underlined -- "Could you please review his file and advise me before the court date.... Yours sincerely, Mike Farnan" -- in writing -- "pp BL" and printed, "Mike Farnan, MPP. Copy Honourable Ed Philip."

The honourable minister would know for sure that if he was responsible for that letter, it would be cause for his immediate resignation or dismissal. There is no question about that. His defence is that he knew nothing about it; it was done by someone else for whom he had no responsibility.

The Premier's guidelines, 12 December 1990, in section 19, "Ministers...shall not communicate with members of the judiciary concerning any matter pending before the court."

Further, section 24, "Where a minister's constituency office undertakes activities in which members normally engage on behalf of constituents, ministers shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that their office as minister is not used to further the interests of the constituent." That is rule 24.

So it boils down to this: Assuming that the minister, who has been elected twice to this House -- and although the Premier indicated he is a neophyte, he is an experienced member of the opposition and the government -- must surely have been unaware of these directives, for him to say he has no responsibility for his office or for the people who work in his constituency office is strange indeed.

I only note in passing that the members of many of the ministers' offices were personally selected by the Premier's chief advisers in the Premier's office. Whether or not that was the case in this instance is not known.

But I do not feel that there is any question in the House or the community that no member, certainly not a cabinet minister, should interfere in any way with the judicial process and certainly should not be seen to be so interfering.

1410

It is difficult to respond to the minister's me a culpa: It was done, but it was not his responsibility.

I simply bring to the minister's attention something that I recall very well, and this was put forward in a report of the standing committee on public accounts to the Second Session of the 33rd Parliament, tabled Friday 1 October 1986, entitled Second Report on the Allegation of Conflict of Interest Concerning Elinor Caplan, MPP. On page 3 of that report under item 2 it says as follows:

"Her assertion of ignorance of her husband's activities is not a defence. It was her responsibility and obligation as a minister of the crown to know. Elinor Caplan was therefore in breach of the Premier's own guidelines governing conflict of interest."

The Premier was quoted as saying to the press this morning words to the effect, "Come on, let's be fair." I know the Solicitor General is an honourable man, and that is not in question. He is a colleague of all of us here and we regret the situation that his administrative incompetence has put him in. But the Premier says, "Let's be fair." As a result of this report from the committee in 1986, my seatmate remained out of the cabinet until she was reelected in an election and came back into ministerial responsibility.

I do not want to say to the Premier, "Let's be fair." I say, "Let's be responsible." He has guidelines which are well known. They must be enforced. It is not a question of the minister's judgement, but the judgement of the head of the government.

The Speaker: The member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I want to respond to the statement of the Minister of Revenue. The statement --

The Speaker: I understand how you feel. The leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: Perhaps the running out of time in response to statements points out that I think there were some discussions earlier about whether the Solicitor General's statement should have been made outside of normal ministerial statements. I do not think it was a statement about government policy and I think it is something that all would have wanted to respond to.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: I am also very cognizant of the fact that the NDP caucus this morning was told to be noisy, loud, applaud everything, put on a good facade to cover up the shame and the shambles that our cabinet is bringing down on our government, and I appreciate the marching orders they got. They are doing a good job.

Because I will be bringing this matter up in question period today -- there are a number of unanswered questions that we are going to have to get to the bottom of -- I will provide a little bit of time for my members to respond to the other statements. However, I want to say this in response to the statement by the Solicitor General: There is not one word in the statement today that admits or acknowledges that the Premier's guidelines have been violated -- not one word.

Clearly, the Premier's guidelines have been violated. Outside the House and again today we have heard, "We're going to blame this junior staffer." However, there is no admission that the guidelines have been violated. There is no sense that there has been any investigation carried out by the Premier about who else knew about this; who else in cabinet may have know about this; who authorized a staff member to sign a letter -- any letter. Who made that authorization? Who was responsible for that that prompted these guidelines to be violated?

Clearly there has been a violation of the Premier's guidelines, and unless the Premier, who must accept responsibility for these, is prepared to stand up and admit that, I find it very difficult to get to the bottom of this to find out who it is who should resign, because it is starting to get closer and closer and closer to the Premier's office itself.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mrs Cunningham: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities. With regard to the statement today, there are certainly some long-overdue changes the minister has responded to on behalf of students in the province of Ontario. I would like at this time to tell him about a few others that are just as important.

It is fine to talk about accessibility, and we are certainly not unhappy with what the minister has done for the disabled students, for the graduate students and for the increase in the number of scholarships. But at the same time, we would plead with him to take a look at the renewal both of faculty and our university system in Ontario.

I have before me the Ontario Universities' Recovery Plan Summary. While the minister was speaking, we had some seven phone calls with regard to the tremendous need for a serious look at the underfunding, the overcrowding of our classrooms, the obsolete equipment and the fact that our university system just is not competitive. For a student, we fund ninth out of 10 provinces in Canada. It just is not good enough.

There is a very responsible plan that asks for participation by students as well. We are hoping we will see that as part of the budget discussions.

With regard to the statement, I would say we are happy about the review that is to be completed by August. We think that may be a short period of time. We would hope that the minister would think about it very seriously, very carefully, and if we are not looking to the fall of 1992 for implementation perhaps more serious consideration could be made next September and October, when the students return, for serious input.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Stockwell: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Revenue on market value assessment.

The minister is tap dancing around the issue. The issue is whether her government is in favour of market value assessment. She has continued to tap dance and she is probably going to continue to tap dance. Her government was very clear before the election that it was not in favour. Today she is telling us they are doing studies to update the market value assessment rolls. Two days ago she was telling us they were not doing studies to update the market value rolls. It is not doing a revision there; it is doing a revision. She refuses to take a position. The question today is, what is the minister doing and when is she going to implement it?

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Nixon: The Premier is well aware of the situation involving the Solicitor General. He, along with every member of this House and everyone who knows anything about our parliamentary procedure, knows that members must not transgress into the responsibility of the judiciary. There have been many examples where members and cabinet ministers have done this and have immediately resigned or been dismissed.

Would the Premier agree that the evidence of the letter he has seen -- while it is signed "Mike Farnan" we are told it was signed by a functionary in his office -- would be evidence of such transgression and therefore would fall into the category I have described?

Hon Mr Rae: I do not accept one single premise the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward, not one single one.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: I have the word of the Solicitor General. We have the statement made by the individual in question that he never met the Solicitor General. I have the word of the Solicitor General that this is in no way, shape or form his letter. The comparisons the member is making are quite unfair and totally invalid with respect to this situation. The Solicitor General did not write a letter, he did not authorize a letter, he did not approve a letter and he did not send a letter. The notion that he should have to resign because of that is absurd.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will you stop the clock, please?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I have stopped the clock. I have stopped the clock for a reason. I am extremely aware, and very sensitive to the fact, that this is a highly charged issue. I think it would give all of us as well as the viewers at home some pleasure if we could discuss this in a calm and rational way. I appreciate the feelings are high on both sides of the chamber, but I also tell you that if we are to continue with question period today, we cannot continue the way we have in the last 30 seconds.

1420

Mr Nixon: The Premier's righteous indignation does not fit into the requirements of this debate. I agree with you, sir. The Premier has been under considerable strain in the last month. He has lost two cabinet ministers. He now should lose a third, and only by the assertion of his personal indignation and the support we have seen expressed by the people other than his principal ministers -- he would be lost in this as well.

I could say, as I have already said, that I consider the Solicitor General to be an honourable man, and when he says he was ignorant of what happened in his office I would agree with the Premier that this is correct.

When the same thing has happened previously, and I have read the report of the committee dealing with my colleague the member for Oriole, it said that ignorance is no excuse, that a cabinet minister is responsible and that the Premier is responsible for the cabinet minister. That report was signed by the Minister of Transportation, who is not in his seat today, and by the Minister of Natural Resources, who is.

I am not sure why a change in focus on that matter would arouse the Premier's indignation, but if he simply rejects the justice and fairness in that comparison, then how can he possibly defend the indefensible in a situation such as this?

Hon Mr Rae: I guess when it comes right down to it, I simply do not accept the fairness of the comparison. Others have raised instances with respect to other situations on ministerial resignations. Let me also remind the members, for example, that we had a couple of days in here when part of the former Treasurer Frank Miller's budget was found in a garbage can. I can remember the then Premier William Davis stating very clearly that in those circumstances it would be very unfair, given that it was a mistake that was completely unauthorized. When Michael Wilson's resignation was called for, even by my own federal leader, I said in this House I thought that was totally unjustified, given that he had no knowledge or inkling and could not be in any sense held responsible for that.

We have a clear instance here where there is no question that the Solicitor General was in no sense involved in this letter, was in no sense involved with the content of the letter, did not authorize it, had nothing to do with it at all and was totally unaware of it until he stepped out into the lobby yesterday. To demand somebody's resignation in those circumstances would be quite unfair, I believe, all things considered in terms of the fairness of the situation.

Mr Nixon: I ask the Premier to think about what was in the mind of the justice of the peace when he received a communication in the mail with the letterhead "Mike Farnan" signed "Mike Farnan," indicating that the Solicitor General expected him to review the matter and report before the trial date. That is exactly what it said. It is not in question.

Hon Mr Farnan: Point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has said the letter was signed by myself --

Mr Scott: You sit down. The Premier is going to deal with this.

The Speaker: It is not a point of privilege.

Mr Nixon: How would the justice of the peace know that he had not signed it. It was on his letterhead. There was his signature. It was an instruction from the minister of the crown to withdraw the ticket before there was any court appearance. How would the justice of the peace know about that? It was a transgression of the minister's responsibility through his staff.

Interjections.

Mr Nixon: I ask the Premier, if the multitude of backbenchers would give me an opportunity, where the responsibility of a minister ends. There are clear indications signed by the minister for certain members of his staff to affix his signature, presumably, or to take responsibility for decisions of the Solicitor General. Where does that stop? Where does the responsibility for the minister's staff stop? The overall responsibility for that letter lies with the minister, although he says somebody else did it and he knew nothing about. It was an intrusion into the administration of justice and that cannot be changed. How can the Premier justify that?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition a question. Is he saying --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The procedures we do have established give us difficulty from time to time without establishing a new one. Could the Premier respond.

Hon Mr Rae: Thank you, Mr Speaker: I will respond. I would like to say to the Leader of the Opposition -- this is now the third or fourth time, having heard him on the radio this morning as well as in the House -- that he keeps on referring to something being signed by "Mike Farnan." He knows that is not true. He has already said he accepts --

Mr Nixon: Is the Premier accusing me of lying?

Hon Mr Rae: No, I am not.

Mr Nixon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask the Premier to withdraw. He has seen a copy of the letter. It is on Farnan's letterhead. The signature is "Mike Farnan," and typed under it is "Mike Farnan." What is the justice of the peace to think? It says "Mike Farnan"; he is responsible for it.

The Speaker: The member rose on a point of order. There clearly is a difference of opinion.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: What the letter says is -- it was signed "Mike Farnan, pp BL." I think it is important to say that.

Mr Elston: It's the signature of Mike Farnan.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I think it is important for people to know it is not the Solicitor General's signature. He did not sign the letter. It was not authorized by him. He knew nothing about it until he heard about it yesterday. It was in no way authorized by him. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that I can think of many instances where staff people of various kinds have done things or have been accused of things. When Mr Ashworth resigned, did David Peterson resign as well? I do not recall that happening.

Interjections.

1430

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please. To all the members of the House, while I truly appreciate the sensitivity of the issue, including the history that goes with this matter and related matters and how members on both sides of the House feel about it, frankly I do not believe that we should continue to conduct the public business in this way. We have, I tell members, one more opportunity this afternoon.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, I do not intend to allow a House to be disorderly.

Mr Scott: I confess that when I came here this session I did harbour the suspicion that the new government would not be able to perform all the promises that it had made in the election: I understood that, though I did not accept it. I did believe, because I had known the Premier for many years and I have respect and affection for him, that the guidelines that he announced would be honoured by him.

I say through you, Mr Speaker, to the Premier and the people of the province that we face a reality -- and it is not too late -- in which the Premier's very integrity as the custodian of the guidelines he set for himself is squarely at stake. There is time to turn back from this lip and apply the rule that has universally been applied in the case of ministers of the crown, and it is not too late. The Premier has guideline 18, which speaks only of ministers. It does not speak of executive assistants or constituency staff, and that, of course, is the excuse that is used to exclude the minister from the guideline: It was not done by him; it was done by his staff, unknowing.

I want to ask the Premier -- before we get into the kinds of arguments that he has been making today which rather sound like those of a Philadelphia lawyer -- if he would be good enough to tell us if he will amend the guidelines so constituency and office staff and executive assistants will lead to ministerial responsibility, or failing that, will he tell us what advice he has given to his ministers in the event that this happens again?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I want to say very directly to the member for St George-St David that the letter that was written should not have been written. I do not think that is in question. That is admitted by everybody. It is certainly admitted by me. It is certainly admitted by everyone on this side. There is no question. A letter of that kind is not appropriate. I would ask the member for St George-St David to extend his imagination for a moment. It was a letter written by somebody who had been on staff in the constituency office in Cambridge for a very few weeks. The letter was not authorized by the minister. It was not seen by the minister. It was not signed by the minister. It was not known to the minister until he walked out of here yesterday.

I have to say, the guideline says very clearly that "ministers shall not communicate." The minister did not communicate. He did not communicate in any way, shape or form. Communication means you pick up the phone, as happened with George Kerr, as happened with John Munro, as happened with Bud Drury. It means that the minister has to do something, as happened with Ken Keyes and in other situations. In this situation the minister did not do anything. I have to ask myself the question, what have we come to in this Legislature when we are going to be demanding the resignation of ministers when they have not done anything at all?

Mr Scott: It is an important matter to hold a government together and a cabinet together. We have all been there. We understand these things, But the Premier understands well that his integrity as the first citizen of the province is clearly at issue and I encourage him: it is not too late to turn back. This is not the decision that the Premier would have made before 6 September and it is not the decision that his party would have made before 6 September. As my leader has pointed out, it was NDP members of the committee who said ignorance is no excuse.

I want to say this to the Premier: He knows it is not a question of fairness. It was not fair that the Minister of Health had to go. It is a question of responsibility.

An hon member: Responsible government.

Mr Scott: An important phrase. He knows that the most serious offence that can occur is an interference with the judiciary. There is no single recorded instance in our parliamentary history where a minister or his agent, knowing or unknowing, has interfered with a judge and who, whether it be fair or not, has not stood aside for the time being. When is the Premier going to, and I pray he will do it, save his reputation and do what justice and responsible government require?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say very directly to the former Attorney General that I believe as strongly in integrity and in justice and in responsible government as he does. I hope he would be broad-minded enough and dispassionate enough to recognize that one can have differing views in judging and in assessing an individual situation.

The examples which he has referred to are all examples where ministers themselves -- which he has referred to with respect to the administration of justice going back -- have either allegedly been involved or in fact been involved. In this instance I had to look at a situation and have today to look at a situation and ask myself whether in the circumstances it makes any sense in terms of what responsible government is supposed to be all about.

He makes the comparison with the member for Ottawa Centre. The member for Ottawa Centre spoke the words herself in this Legislature and she, with great dignity and with great speed, came forward and said that. So there is no question of our willingness on this side to take our lumps and to take responsibility, but there is a determination on our part on this side to be realistic and to be fair and to exercise a degree of common sense when looking at a situation. A five-week probationary employee writes a totally unauthorized letter, an inappropriate letter, to a justice of the peace. I do not happen to think that a minister of the crown should have to resign for that. I just do not think it is fair.

1440

Mr Scott: I challenge the Premier to look at the precedents which give the lie to the point he makes. There is simply no precedent in our parliamentary history where a minister of the crown or his agent, knowing or unknowing, has interfered with the justices before a pending trial. It is not a question of fairness. It is not a question of whether it is good for the Solicitor General or good for the Premier or not. It is not a question about survival of government. It has to do with the integrity of the justice system, and the Premier has the opportunity to say that.

The justice who received this letter is not a calligraphy expert. He did not know who signed it. It might have been signed by Mrs Farnan for all we knew. The reality is that there is no recorded instance in our judicial history or our parliamentary history of this. I ask the Premier, whose reputation I respect -- and this will be a turning-back point -- to please turn back. This is not the line that this government, or the people who elected it, should really take. I ask the Premier, will he consider issuing an apology to the judiciary for what has occurred in this instance, and issue new rules so it will not occur in the future?

Hon Mr Rae: Since the member has said some things about me, let me say that perhaps one's opinion of his reputation changed when he became the Attorney General of Ontario. I say very directly to him that we have a situation here --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: Well, the member for St George-St David --

Mr Scott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: What is that first observation supposed to mean, that my reputation changed when I became Attorney General of the province? All it is is a smear.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me answer the question very directly. I have already said to everybody, and I will say it again here, the letter should not have been written. Letters should not be written to JPs or to anybody else.

The point is this: The letter was not authorized in any way, shape or form by the Solicitor General. It was not authorized by him, it was not written by him, and it was not signed by him. It was not approved by him, and I think that is the essential fact of this situation, which members of the opposition continue to refuse to listen to.

Mr Harris: We would like to try to understand what it is the Premier wants us, and all those concerned about the integrity of the justice system, to believe.

He has said in response to one question today that we are talking about a junior employee of five weeks, on probation. I would like to deal with that first before we get to some other matters.

The statement that was made by the Solicitor General says today that the letter was "written by one of my constituency staff who was on probation and who sought direction from a more experienced staff member." So we are not dealing with somebody on five weeks' probation.

Second, the Solicitor General says as well, "I was also informed that a second letter was written, in March of this year" -- a similar letter -- "to another justice of the peace by another member of my constituency staff," so I presume that we are now dealing with three members of the constituency staff, and it sounds like at least two of them with significant experience, probably not on probation.

Clearly, I think the Premier would understand that the justice of the peace would have no way of knowing this letter was not authorized by the Solicitor General. I do not know anybody who signs letters that way, if it is not authorized. He may not have been available to sign what he knew was going out; otherwise, surely the constituency person would have signed his or her own name, and that was not the case.

Yesterday, the Premier will note, I said I thought we needed to hear a little more and get an investigation. I would like to ask him this, and surely he has found this out: Who authorized three staff people in the Solicitor General's office to sign letters, using the Solicitor General's name, on his behalf without any knowledge of what those letters were? Who authorized that?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only tell the member that, in this instance, the Solicitor General has told me very clearly that he never authorized the sending of the letter, that he never authorized the use of his signature. In that circumstance, I have to say to the member that I think the commonsense reaction of most people out there would be that a mistake was made in the constituency office, an error of judgement, and that to ask the Solicitor General to resign because of that, in the circumstances, would simply be a very exaggerated and unfair response to the situation.

Mr Harris: The question is very specific. The Premier has said that he accepts the Solicitor General's word, and so do I; I think he is an honourable man. His word is that he did not know this specific letter was going out with his name attached to it. I ask the Premier again: Who authorized staff members to sign any letter with the Solicitor General's name? Who was responsible for saying to staff, "Go ahead, sign my name to anything you want"? Did the Premier ask the Solicitor General that, because I have not heard him suggest that there is any denial of that? Clearly, if that is the case, he then, as Solicitor General, is responsible and has given that responsibility to staff members, including five-week probationary staff members.

Does that sound to the Premier like somebody who is deserving of responsibility as the chief law officer of the crown? I ask him as well, is that acceptable to him, that permission was given apparently by the Solicitor General for any of his staff members to sign letters with his name on his behalf, because I do not find that very responsible?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only tell the leader of the third party that the document that he is referring to is signed "Mike Farnan pp BL." I can only tell the leader of the opposition that I have the word of the Solicitor General that he knew nothing of this letter, that he did not authorize it, that he did not authorize the use of his name on that letter and that the letter went out without his approval. I think that point has to be made: The letter went out without any approval from the Solicitor General whatsoever.

Mr Harris: Does "BL" stand for blinkers?

Let me ask the Premier this. His guidelines have clearly been violated. I do not think there is any question of that. I am shocked that he has not admitted that and the Solicitor General has not admitted that. What the Premier has said is that he is blaming a five-week probationary employee. In 1972, Darcy McKeough, then the Treasurer, resigned because an official within his ministry stamped his name on a subdivision plan. Mr McKeough had a 1/12 interest in that subdivision property.

1450

An hon member: That was a different story.

Mr Harris: It is a different story. Mr McKeough was unaware that an application had been made for a subdivision. He had no knowledge that a plan had come forward. He resigned because an official within the ministry stamped his name on a subdivision plan.

He took responsibility for what a staff member did completely without his knowledge. He did not even know there was anything there, in a similar situation with the Solicitor General. The House was not even sitting, the Premier was out of the country, but he came forward and said, "Somebody has to be responsible when these things happen" -- not a staff member, not an official of the ministry; the minister.

Does the Premier not agree that his guidelines have been violated and somebody has to accept responsibility for that?

Hon Mr Rae: I am glad that -- not glad, but the member referred to the Darcy McKeough example. Let me refer him to the Globe and Mail, 28 August 1972, "Darcy McKeough Knew South Chatham Land Was Being Subdivided, Brother Stewart Says."

If the member wants to make the examples and wants to make the comparisons, we can do that. I do not know of any circumstance that fits into this particular category where somebody in a constituency office, in a way that is quite unauthorized, quite different -- the Darcy McKeough example, four days after it was revealed that he had approved plans for a subdivision in which he had a financial interest; it strikes me that that is a rather different instance.

The comparison that I made was with those situations where a member of the public service, or a member of a minister's staff, does something of which the minister is completely unaware, about which the minister knows nothing and which has been completely unauthorized by the minister. In that circumstance, I just think it is unfair to demand the minister's resignation, that is all.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party is entitled to place another question.

Mr Harris: I have here a letter dated 4 April to, "The Honourable Ed Philip, 3rd Floor, Ferguson Block," a member of this cabinet, presumably received around 6 or 7 April, given Her Majesty's improved mail service over the last number of years. This letter is signed, "Yours sincerely, Mike Farnan, pp BL." Written underneath is "Mike Farnan, MPP," similar to the way the other letter was signed. The letter begins:

"Dear Mr Philip:

"I enclose for your information a letter I have sent to Mr Ramnarine, justice of the peace."

The letter referred to clearly is a copy of the letter that was sent by Mr Farnan to the justice of the peace.

Could the Premier tell me when a member of his cabinet brought to his attention that he was aware and had a copy of a letter that was sent by his fellow cabinet colleague to a justice of the peace.

Hon Mr Rae: The minister has never seen that letter; never seen it.

Mr Harris: This is the member who was not here a little earlier when the Leader of the Opposition referred to the committee members who said "ignorance is no excuse." Here we have what appears to be a conspiracy of silence that is only coming to the public fore obviously through brown envelopes, not through the responsible people whom it should be coming through.

The Premier has a member of his cabinet who has had a copy of this letter in his office probably for two or three weeks. Nothing has come forward from that. Nobody has come to the Premier with that. I have not heard him today apologize to the justice of the peace, who had no way of knowing that the Solicitor General himself did not sign or authorize that letter. We have clearly brought the integrity of the relationship of the Solicitor General and the police into serious suspect and into question.

I again remind the Premier that whenever this has happened any time in the past, somebody has accepted responsibility. Is the Premier going to accept this responsibility, or is it his Solicitor General who has authorized staff to write letters, signing his name?

Hon Mr Rae: There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Solicitor General ever authorized this correspondence. There has not been one shred of evidence produced by the opposition in 40 minutes of questioning to indicate that the Solicitor General knew for one second about any of this until he stepped outside yesterday; not one shred of evidence to that effect.

Mr Harris: I have a letter dated 4 February to Miss Cindy Goodall of Orillia from the Office of the Premier of Ontario. It is signed, "Sincerely, Bob Rae."

When he was questioned about the contents of this letter, his director of policy told the Orillia Sun the Premier did not write it, did not see it, certainly did not sign it, and furthermore the letter did not accurately reflect the government's position. It was written by a civil servant and it was signed "Bob Rae" by an auto pen. The Premier does not even have control over his own office. The integrity of any letter now that goes out of his own office is, "We do not know whether he saw it, agrees with it or it is government policy." It means next to nothing.

Would the Premier not agree that this lack of control has contributed as well to the Solicitor General's laissez-faire attitude which has led him to be responsible for the breaking of the Premier's cabinet guidelines?

Hon Mr Rae: The guidelines say that a minister should not contact the judiciary. A minister has not contacted the judiciary. Let's be very clear about that. I think that at some point one has to try to make an assessment that deals with the reality of the situation. The Solicitor General did not write the letter. He did not sign the letter. He did not authorize the letter. He did not know anything about it. The letter should not have gone out. It is as simple as that.

Mr Elston: I have a question for the Premier. The explanation accepted by the Premier to guard against the dismissal of his minister is that a novice female employee must bear the responsibility for this transgression. As he allows his minister to hide behind his employees, I would like the Premier to tell me what the Solicitor General has told him that allows the Premier to believe that he is in compliance with section 24 of the Premier's guidelines, which specifically state that when acting on behalf of constituents, they "shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that their office as minister is not used to further the interests of the constituent"?

1500

Hon Mr Rae: I can only tell the member what I have already said, and that is that there is no evidence that the Solicitor General ever authorized the letter. There is no evidence that he suggested or that he did it. Let us try to look at this in a reasonable way and say that, in the circumstances, to suggest that the Solicitor General should bear the responsibility for everything that goes on all over --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: That is not the way the world works; it is not the way the Constitution works; it is not the way the realities work. When Frank Miller's budget was found outside, Frank Miller did not have to resign, because it was not his fault. The sending of this letter was not the Solicitor General's fault. It is as simple as that.

Mr Elston: As the Premier stands in his place and deserts the novice female employee to an unknown fate and allows his minister to hide behind this novice female employee, can he tell this House how it is that he is allowing the Solicitor General to stand in his place and say that the probationary employee is to be blamed when she was not in fact following instructions that were given down through the chain of command in the member's office, or is the Premier saying that, even though this person was a probationary employee, the Solicitor General gave her carte blanche to do whichever action she deemed appropriate for the constituent?

Either way, the Premier has deserted this female employee and has decided to stand up for the Solicitor General. Why is he willing to support this type of activity in this House at this particular time?

Hon Mr Rae: I am the first one to say that an innocent mistake was made. I have no reason to believe that it was any other than that. I would say to the member for Bruce that again he is asking me -- people are saying, "Well, what is your standard?" My standard is when people are at fault, they take responsibility for it. There is no evidence that the minister is at fault in this situation, none at all, none.

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Solicitor General. In his capacity as Solicitor General, as minister of the crown, as MPP for Cambridge, without any reference to the specific letters, without any reference to this specific case before us, can he tell this House whether he allows or has permitted in the past or authorized, any of the three, members of his staff to sign his name to correspondence that is generated in his constituency office?

Hon Mr Farnan: On matters of routine correspondence, I have given my permission to my staff to take this action. On matters that should be brought to my attention, I ask that they be brought to my attention when I visit the constituency office, and that is very clear.

Mr Harris: I thank the Solicitor General for the response. He has then authorized staff to sign his name, not constituency staff's, because he wants the weight of his name to go forward in these requests on behalf of his constituents -- not the constituency assistant, but something that will bring it to somebody's attention. He wants the weight of his name, minister of the Crown, Solicitor General of the province, in charge of all the police of the province, so this has been the practice in his office. This is in fact what he wants to happen. Otherwise, she would sign her own name.

Would the Solicitor General not agree with me that, having given this authority to his staff -- not the five-week staff, because it was a senior member whom she consulted before it was signed -- he is responsible for what goes out under his name? In this case, what went out in his name violated the Premier's guidelines, and to avoid any further embarrassment, he should do what every Solicitor General who has preceded him in government has done and offer his resignation.

Hon Mr Farnan: First of all, let me say that very consciously I have given direction that the stationery of the Solicitor General or the Ministry of Correctional Services should not be used in my constituency office on behalf of constituents. I draw that very clearly and indeed that my role as a minister should not be used, that I should be MPP, member for Cambridge.

I want to say this, Mr Speaker: I have never authorized such letters, I have never signed my name to such letters, and indeed I believe that it is absolutely imperative that the Solicitor General keeps at arm's length from all of this and from the judiciary.

I would finally make this comment: My conscience is clear because I did nothing wrong.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mr Dadamo: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Interjections.

The Speaker: There are a number of members waiting to place their questions. Would the member for St George-St David come to order, please?

Interjection.

The Speaker: At this point all I require is your attention. The member for Windsor-Sandwich is patiently waiting to place a question.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Dadamo: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. It is no secret that the province of Ontario loses over $1 billion annually to several US states by way of cross-border shopping and that mayors of border cities have banded together in hopes of trying to find a solution. People from my riding of Windsor-Sandwich are spending millions of dollars in the state of Michigan. What is the ministry doing to assist businesses and to keep shoppers on this side of the border?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Federal government policy, whether by design or not, seems to be encouraging shopping in the United States.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please.

1510

Interjections.

The Speaker: I am well aware of the numbering system. I am also aware that there seem to be questions that people do not like hearing and there are responses that people do not like hearing. But every person has a right to be heard. That at this moment includes the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Would you please supply him with your attention.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Thank you, Mr Speaker, but the opposition benches are not interested. I could certainly confer with my colleague after the session is over.

The Speaker: That would make me happy too. Would the member succinctly place an answer.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Notwithstanding that, given there is considerable interest of the citizenry in Ontario, I will continue to respond to the member for Windsor-Sandwich. We have a great concern about cross-border shopping, as I believe all members of this House do. As I indicated, by design or otherwise, many of the difficulties arisen or the circumstance that sets up this problem are the result of federal government legislation.

We, quite frankly, face a situation. We are limited to treating the symptoms, and it is the federal government that refuses to provide the cure. As recently as last Friday, I met with a delegation of mayors from the cross-border cities, headed by a former colleague of mine, John Millson, who is the mayor of Windsor. They sought my support and they received it.

In addition, through the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, we have, through Small Business Ontario, provided funds for a marketing framework for border communities to help safeguard their circumstance and to assist them in doing a greater volume of business.

All members of this House who have followed the media will recall reports from --

The Speaker: Perhaps the member has a supplementary. No supplementary? Decide. Leader of the Opposition.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Nixon: The Solicitor General, in response to a question from the leader of the third party, indicated that he had authorized his employee to sign routine correspondence. I think it is an indication perhaps of the inappropriate judgement of the minister's employee but also of the minister that such would be the case.

I ask you, Mr Speaker -- you have been a member of this House for many years -- and other members who would be listening to the question: Have they under any circumstances given the authority to any individual to sign their name to correspondence, routine or otherwise, unless the signature on the specific letter was authorized? I do not believe there is an instance.

The Premier, who is extremely busy, is availing himself of the modern technology and has some sort of machine to sign his name, probably, to 50th-anniversary letters and, in the instance raised by the leader of the third party, to some damned-fool letter about something that had to be retracted, and I know he would not do that again. But the Treasurer would understand that he has to spend a lot of time signing all sorts of documents that cannot be signed by anything except his own hand.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Premier through you, does he know of any other member of his cabinet or any member of this House or any person in business or with any responsibility of any significance who gives a blanket authorization for the signature of his name for any sort of correspondence without specific authorization of the letter?

Hon Mr Rae: The volume varies tremendously.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: No, it varies tremendously. No, listen to the answer. The range of correspondence varies.

The Leader of the Opposition has done it again. He has characterized something that the minister said as giving a blanket authorization. That is not what the minister said. That is not what the minister stated. The Leader of the Opposition stands up and says that is what he said. He did not say that. In the circumstances, let's be fair. I have said the letter should not have been written; the letter was not authorized; the letter should not have gone out. The minister is fully in agreement with that. There is no division of opinion on that.

Mr Nixon: The Premier once again has indicated that I am somehow distorting what the minister has said. The minister clearly said that he has authorized his junior employee to sign his name -- that is, the minister's name -- to routine correspondence. My question is, this is unheard of. Nobody does that, and if anybody does, he or she should be dismissed, because that is not the way you do business.

I would like to put a further question to the Premier. We now know that the Minister of Transportation, that arbiter of morality in this government, had received a copy of this letter and he whispered to the Premier, as the Premier turned to him for advice, that he had not seen the letter.

I would simply ask any member of the cabinet if he or she does not see all of the correspondence that comes to his or her office. If they dismiss that, then surely the responsibility is with their deputy or some other authority to review the correspondence and see that it is properly answered. Would the Premier not agree that a letter such as this, an interference purportedly signed by the Solicitor General, directed to a judge, would electrify Mr Morality, and if not him, every one of his employees, who would immediately ring the panic bells that would be heard all the way to the Premier's office? Would the Premier not agree?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say in answer and in direct response to the Leader of the Opposition, to simply give him the answer very explicitly that I gave before, that the Minister of Transportation never read the letter which he is referring to.

Mr Harris: I would like to ask a question directly of the Minister of Transportation. I have a copy of a letter that was written to him on 4 April in his capacity as Minister of Transportation. This is a letter that not only comes to the minister from an MPP; it comes to him from an NDP MPP and in fact it comes to him from one of his fellow cabinet colleagues.

He has indicated through his whisperings to the Premier that he has not seen this letter. Would the minister tell us what the procedure is in his ministry for letters that come directly to him as minister, in this case one asking him to fix a ticket, letters that come to him from his fellow cabinet ministers. Could he tell me the procedures of his ministry as to where that type of letter goes and how it is handled.

Hon Mr Philip: The inquiries concerning licences are routinely sent, not to me, not to my political staff, but to the bureaucracy. They are sent to the licensing assistance section. That is what happened with this letter, and I am told by the staff, after I made an inquiry into this, that this has happened under my ministry and under the previous governments -- both governments -- that this is a routine procedure that has always happened.

Mr Harris: What the minister is telling us is that letters directed to him as minister by fellow cabinet ministers are never seen by the minister or never seen by the minister's political staff, but in fact go directly into the bureaucracy, if I understand what he is telling us and he wants us to understand here. In light of that, does the minister see any reason why a member of my staff and the media cannot proceed immediately over to his office to see the log on this particular letter?

Hon Mr Philip: My staff have nothing to hide. They have done this for previous governments. Any correspondence that deals with process, that deals with the administration goes automatically to the bureaucracy. This has happened, I am told, under the Liberals and under the Conservatives and that is what I have been informed. Matters that deal with policy, matters that deal with specific decision-making go to me and those are the kinds of letters that go to me and those are the ones that should go to me.

1520

ONTARIO ROUND TABLE ON ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY

Mr Waters: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Following the release of the Brundtland commission report, local round tables began to form in communities as a means of looking at the environmental issues locally. What is the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy doing province-wide?

Hon Mrs Grier: The Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy was appointed by the previous government and I think was a very forward-looking initiative and one which we fully supported and which I am pleased to say our government has continued and expanded and appointed new members to.

The round table on the economy under the previous government had issued a very useful challenge paper which outlined ways in which environmental and economic decision-making could be integrated. Since then, six task forces have been created to look at different sectors of the economy and to consult as to how we can in fact achieve sustainability within those sectors. That public consultation is ongoing and is proving to be very successful.

Mr Waters: What about local groups? Can they get support?

Hon Mrs Grier: There is support for local groups. In fact, as the member, I am sure, is aware, a round table recently sponsored a workshop in Muskoka at which groups from 25 communities came together to discuss the various sectors and the consensus-building process that is occurring in their particular communities. We encourage that kind of on-the-ground initiative and are doing our best to support it and encourage it province-wide and I thank the district of Muskoka for its participation in this effort.

PETITIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Brown: "To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the cancellation of out-of-province contracts has resulted in more than 2,500 job losses in the mining community of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas the unemployment rate in Elliot Lake is at more than 62%; and

"Whereas economic diversification efforts require time before results can be experienced, and without a strong anchor industry in Elliot Lake, any diversification effort becomes tremendously difficult; and

"Whereas Ontario Hydro, which is ultimately responsible to this government, made commitments to Elliot Lake and its mining companies which resulted in the community's rapid and widespread expansion in the early 1980s; and

"Whereas Ontario Hydro has the means to stabilize the economy of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae and his New Democratic government made a specific promise to the community;

"We petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To fulfil that promise to the people of Elliot Lake by instructing Ontario Hydro to purchase all of its uranium requirements from within the province of Ontario, namely Elliot Lake, until economic diversification efforts in the community are successful."

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mrs Sullivan: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

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

"To complete an immediate and comprehensive decontamination of the site known as X-Pert Metal Finishing located at 1232 Dillon Road in Burlington, Ontario."

The petition is signed by something over 120 people from the city of Burlington. I am pleased to attach my signature, as I agree with the content of the petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT (TEMPORARY MEMBERS), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DU BARREAU (MEMBRES PROVISOIRES)

Mr Hampton moved first reading of Bill 75, An Act to amend the Law Society Act.

M. Hampton propose la première lecture du projet de loi 75, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur la Société du barreau.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mr Hampton: I am pleased to today announce the introduction of An Act to amend the Law Society Act. The purpose of this bill is to allow exchange programs between crown counsel and crown attorneys in the employ of the Ministry of the Attorney General and lawyers from foreign jurisdictions. This will enable the ministry to enhance its professional development programs.

The bill permits the law society, upon the request of the Attorney General, to admit to the practice of law in Ontario lawyers who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents. This temporary membership carries with it all of the rights and responsibilities accorded to lawyers, save the right to vote in law society elections.

FRAUDULENT DEBTORS ARREST REPEAL ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 ABROGEANT LA LOI SUR L'ARRESTATION DES DÉBITEURS EN FUITE

Mr Hampton moved first reading of Bill 76, An Act to repeal the Fraudulent Debtors Arrest Act.

M. Hampton propose la première lecture du projet de loi 76, Loi portant abrogation de la Loi sur l'arrestation des débiteurs en fuite.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mr Hampton: I am pleased today to announce the introduction of An Act to repeal the Fraudulent Debtors Arrest Act. The Fraudulent Debtors Arrest Act has been part of Ontario law in its present form since 1909. Its history can be traced back to pre-Confederation days, when property rights were often viewed as more important than the civil rights of people. This bill will remove from the statute book a method of arresting and imprisoning a citizen for civil debt, which outside the context of family law is archaic.

The creditors, lawyers and interest groups which the Ministry of the Attorney General has consulted unanimously endorse this bill. Fortunately, the act is rarely used now that numerous modern legal remedies which focus on the assets rather than on the person of the debtor are available. Of course, where spouses are in default of their family support obligations, the remedies provided in other legislation, including the use of imprisonment in appropriate cases, will continue to be available. The arbitrary arrest and imprisonment provisions provided in the Fraudulent Debtors Arrest Act can no longer be tolerated, and I am pleased therefore to put before the House a bill calling for its repeal.

1530

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if we might investigate the possibility of referring the matters which have been previously discussed here in the question period dealing with the Solicitor General to an appropriate committee of the House. I wonder if I might be advised at what stage you would entertain a motion to move the discussion of that particular issue into a legislative committee, particularly the standing committee on administration of justice, which is now dealing with the entire issue of conflict of interest. I believe that only there can we deal appropriately with the matter in all of its aspects, including calling the Premier, the Solicitor General and the woman staffer who is obviously being dealt with in this matter in front of the committee. I wonder if I might ask you when such a motion would be entertained.

The Speaker: I appreciate the matter which the member brings to my attention. It is not, however, a procedural matter, but it certainly is a matter for debate within the assembly. Of course, the members may wish to discuss it with various committees. That is up to the members.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION DAY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Harris moved opposition day motion 2:

That, given the continual upward pressure on provincial taxes and the continual offloading of programs on municipal governments and the ever-increasing size of the Ontario provincial debt and recognizing that these trends add to the tax burden on every citizen and result in lost jobs and lost economic opportunity, this House calls upon the Treasurer, in this year's budget, to hold the line on taxes, to freeze program offloading to the municipalities and to introduce a specific plan to establish a balanced budget and debt reduction targets over the next three years.

Mr Harris: I do not plan to speak at length right now. I wanted to get the motion introduced. I have many of my colleagues who would like to speak to this motion and I do plan to have some substantial remarks at the end of the day before this is voted on. At that particular point in time, my colleagues' arguments will have been put forward. I would like the opportunity to summarize those. I know that if any of the members of the opposition actually listen, either in the House or on their snappy new colour TV monitors in their offices, they will want to support this motion at the end of the day.

We will outline a number of concerns that we have with the lack of control over spending since this government has taken office. Quite frankly, we will point out that this has been the case for the past six years and that in fact the events and the realities of 6 September have really meant nothing towards lack of controls on spending by the Ontario government.

We also will point out that if this spending of double, two and a half times, three times the rate of inflation by the Ontario government over the past six years is carried out by this current government, and it appears as though it will be, this is not only inflationary but is the primary government cause of higher interest rates, the primary government cause of the higher value of the dollar in this country. That Ontario is the largest province with the largest budget in fact impacts on those factors more than any other government in this country save and except the federal government. The federal government, as we know, has increased its spending less than the rate of inflation each and every one of the past six years. We have concerns about some of their other policies, as we will express from time to time; however, we are in this House to talk about the irresponsible spending of the provincial government and of the budgets that have been brought forward by Treasurers over the last six budgets. We fear that unless this Treasurer learns something from that and is prepared to act on it, we will see the same situation this year.

The motion is calling upon this Treasurer to acknowledge the irresponsibility of the spending of these past six years and to show us that in fact something different has occurred, that perhaps there is a new fiscal management, somebody who cares about the fiscal situation of this province.

We will also point out that as you increase the deficit, if this happens to be an option that is chosen by the Treasurer -- we dearly hope that it is not because increasing the deficit is even worse than increasing taxes -- when you increase taxes, at least you are saying, "We will be held accountable, right now, for the spending that we are proposing in this budget." However, when you increase the deficit, what you are saying is: "We don't want to be held accountable for all the spending we are going to do. In fact, what will happen is we will have the next year or the next generation or somebody else pay at a later date." That is irresponsible, that is unacceptable, that is worse in fact than raising taxes.

We further will point out that if this option is chosen by the Treasurer or by the Premier as a new fiscal policy -- ie, "We'll carry on with the same spending of the past, but we will not tax people for it. We will defer the taxation by way of an increased deficit" -- several things will occur.

Number one, we will see the type of situation that developed federally, where more and more of the budgets, year after year after year, cumulatively must go into interest payments and less and less and less is available for infrastructure and for social programs to help the needy.

We think it is irresponsible to have a socialist government come into this province and -- if in fact the Treasurer, gosh forbid, decides to increase the deficit -- put into jeopardy the ability of a government to be able to make choices and to be able to respond to those least able to fend for themselves in this society: the poor, the handicapped, the disadvantaged, the homeless. Because nothing jeopardizes the ability of a government to respond to those needs more than an increasing deficit, thereby increasing the percentage of the money that must go towards interest payments as opposed to going into programs that many Ontarians deserve and need, particularly the neediest.

These are the points that we will be bringing out. We think they are simple common sense. Every small business person understands this, every taxpayer understands this, every home owner understands this, every apartment dweller understands this and every individual and every family who have to prepare a budget for themselves understand that if they do not live within their means this year that if they say to themselves, "We're going to spend more than we have," they are in fact jeopardizing their own future and their children's future. That is what happens if government embarks down that path as well.

So we welcome -- our party and I do -- the opportunity to be able to place this motion before the House. We encourage all members of the House to participate in the debate and I look forward to all members of this Legislature embracing and endorsing a straightforward, commonsense motion, the kind which we have heard the Treasurer and the Premier speak at great length about in opposition, that they think a balanced budget is important, fiscal responsibility is important.

Now they are in government they have an opportunity to do something different than what has been done federally over the last 25 years, particularly in that period of 15 years to 25 years ago. They are starting out at this same point in time when the Liberal government in Ottawa limited the choices, limited the options. No government now, federally, has any choices because so much is going into interest, and it is a shame.

1540

Here in Ontario, where we still have choices, we still have options, we still can say we are going to help the poor, we are going to help the needy, it would be a shame if this Treasurer embarks down a path whereby in the future we will not have those choices any longer. There will not be any choice. The big piece of the pie will go to pay interest and we will not have the option or the choices of providing assistance and help to those who most need it. I think that if all members understand that, they will want to support this motion.

Mr Christopherson: It is becoming a little tiresome -- not to get up and debate the issue, because nothing pleasures us more than to get up and talk about what we are doing and how we are handling the economy and indeed the recession that we face. However, particularly from the third party, we continuously hear the same simplistic formula that causes the same sort of response from us time and time again, and that is that there should not be any spending of public funds because it jeopardizes our financial position. The difficulty with that, as we have said before, is that it completely ignores the need of tens of thousands of Ontarians who are suffering because of this recession.

There are a number of initiatives which this government has taken which the third party continues to ignore except when it is fashionable for the question period of the day to stand up and speak out the other side of its mouth and demand to know where the funding is for this issue, that issue and the next, quite frankly trying to rake this government over the coals for not doing enough.

Interjection.

Mr Christopherson: It becomes tiresome continuously dealing with these kinds of resolutions and motions and then watching, day after day, as members of the third party stand in their place and talk the message of no expenditures, no tax increases, no increase in the deficit and yet they are fully prepared to stand up and say that not enough is being done in this area and that area and the next.

Interjection.

Mr Christopherson: As the government of the day, we are doing what I think the public in Ontario expects us to do, and that is very simply to do everything we can to address the needs of real people who are hurting without damaging the economic base of this province, not just for today but for the recovery, which we are doing --

Interjection.

Mr Christopherson: -- everything we can to accelerate, so that when that recovery comes we will have a strong Ontario and bring us not only back to where we were but even further and stronger, which is where we ought to be. Those are the kinds of measures that we have taken, and those, I believe --

Interjection.

Mr Christopherson: -- are the kinds of measures that we are going to see a week from yesterday when indeed the new budget comes down.

I think it was also important for all of us to take note that just the other day one of the leading bond-rating agencies, and I am paraphrasing because I do not have the clip right in front of me, talked about the fact that it understands a deficit in recessionary times and that by and large it considers the Ontario economy to be strong, to be healthy. Now I am paraphrasing, but I believe that is the essence of what that report said.

Mr Carr: They better be saying that a year from now.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Oakville South, the member for Grey. I would ask you to refrain from heckling.

Mr Carr: Sorry. I get carried away. It's an emotional issue.

Mr Christopherson: Mr Speaker, you take all the fun out of it. I am not used to speaking in this House with all that noise going on around me. Quite frankly, it will be a unique and new experience.

It also needs to be said, because indeed the opposition is going to take the opportunity to bash the other way, the importance of the kind of actions that this government has taken with regard to the recession: The $700-million anti recession fund is having and will continue to have an impact on municipalities and communities across this province. Again, that is not just money, make-work projects, money that is being thrown out there to try to cover over the recessionary problems, no. This money is targeted. It is an investment in the infrastructure of our municipalities.

That is going to put us in a much stronger position when the recovery begins to affect us and we can build on the kind of expenditures we have made. I, along with my caucus colleagues, am prepared to stand behind those results. Although we get a few shots here and there from the opposition, by and large there is still not a lot of serious criticism about that program, nor is there any evidence to say that it is not having the kind of impact that the Treasurer and this government said it would have.

Further to that, we cannot say enough. The importance of one of the first measures this government took was to keep $500 million in the pockets of consumers, not to tax the retail sales tax on top of the GST. That has kept $500 million in the pockets of consumers and that has gone a long way, or at least a good measure, to assisting people in being able to respond to the recession that we find.

In closing, I would just say that, rather than rehashing a lot of the old arguments today which is quite frankly what we are all going to do, but never deny an opportunity to talk about an important issue like the economy, the really important economic debates for all of us are going to come following the budget on Monday. I think we are prepared as a government and as caucus members to stand behind that budget and it is those debates that are much more relevant to the listening public than this particular debate, although I do say all of us enjoy and respect the opportunity to address opposition day issues, particularly when they talk about the most important issue facing us right now and that is the economy and the recession.

Mr Bradley: I am going to take a bit of a different approach than the previous two speakers have taken on this. I think the resolution is a useful one in that it allows the Legislature to focus on expenditures by government; those which are productive at the time of a recession and those which are less productive and certainly should be curtailed or restrained at a time when the government is attempting to find money to channel into areas which could in fact produce jobs in the province of Ontario.

Essentially what a lot of people in the province perhaps do not recognize is that most of that is done not in Treasury itself, though Treasury has a very important role to play, but in the Management Board of Cabinet. As we know, the Chair of Management Board has a new responsibility as Minister of Health as well. I hope she will have sufficient time to concentrate on her role and responsibility as Chair of Management Board, because it is going to be important if the government is going to have sufficient funds to be able to channel into productive and useful capital projects by either accelerating the date of those projects, or perhaps initiating projects which are beneficial to the province, particularly as they relate to the multiplier effect in each of the communities as these are initiated.

We think of such things as hospitals and I think of the Niagara region, the announcements which were made by the previous Minister of Health in the previous administration. I would hope that those would proceed quickly. I have not heard some of the announcements in that regard, but those are the kinds of projects that (a) are going to be useful to the community in the long run, and (b) are going to be useful in the short run in that they will create jobs in those communities. To do that, the Management Board has to look very carefully at the expenditures of each of the ministries because, particularly being a new government with a new agenda, the agenda for power, they will have each of the ministers coming in, asking the Treasurer and asking the Management Board chair if they can have all kinds of new money for that ministry.

1550

If they looked at it on an individual basis, one might be sympathetic to that. I can recall, as Minister of the Environment, I was always looking for all kinds of funds for the ministry and we indeed did have an increase of over 100% in the ministry when I was there, so I know what that is like. But I know as well that the government has to look at its priorities, and the Treasurer particularly, I think, would feel this to be important because he knows that he has to produce a budget. He has to deal with revenues and he has to deal with expenditures, so he has to have the assistance of other members of the cabinet in not proceeding with some desirable programs, perhaps, at this time, or perhaps ending certain programs which no longer have a usefulness as we are into the 1990s, except to look carefully at each of those expenditures. That is how you keep the deficit down.

I suspect, as I said in the House before, some of the friends of the government will try to float numbers that are high. They will say, "Oh, the deficit is going to be $12 billion, or something of that nature." I think the term for that is highballing, and that is so if the Treasurer comes in with his budget at some other figure. It reminds me of going to a clothing store where they have something on sale for $7.99. Now, everybody knows that after you get through with the tax, anyway, that is $8. You really fooled no one.

But I suspect this government will attempt to persuade people that the deficit is not as high. I know they will be involved in all kinds of schemes. They will look at British Columbia and try to take some of this debt away and put it somewhere else, so it does not show on the government books. Certainly W. A. C. Bennett was one of the people who did that, and I know many of the people who are sitting on the other side of the House are apostles of W. A. C. Bennett and others in British Columbia in those days.

The resolution deals with the deficit. I do not think anybody in this province realistically expects that the Treasurer of this province, in the midst of a deep recession, with unemployment at the rate it is at, at the present time, can reasonably expect that he will run no deficit and that he will run a surplus. That simply cannot be the case.

This year we saw, as the economy went, right across this country but particularly in Ontario, into a recession, the deficit began to increase. Next year he has got to be able to fight the recession, so one would anticipate some kind of deficit. What we really do not want to see on this side of the House, and I think what people in this province do not want to see, particularly those who are looking for business opportunities in this province, is that it goes completely out of control.

We had a suggestion from the member for Hamilton Centre that somehow there was a rating agency which said that everything would be fine and that we would not lose our triple A rating. I am wondering what inside information this rating agency must have to be able to determine this even before the budget. What hints have they been given? What materials have they seen? Have they had access to the books in the province of Ontario?

All of those are things one has to ask when the member for Hamilton Centre makes his claim, as he did one day in the House, that he was able to encourage the Minister of the Environment to speed up an environmental assessment over GO Transit in his riding. When you say that, you must say, well, what are the reasons this was said? Who had access to the books? What do they really know about the Ministry of Treasury and Economics in the province of Ontario, because they have to draw that conclusion from somewhere?

To go back to another issue, one thing I will not ask this Treasurer to do is to speed up an environmental assessment to generate economic activity in this province, because he has claimed to have been, for a long time, a person who cares about the environment. I see the Minister of Mines has entered the House. I know the Minister of Mines would not be a person who would want to see an environmental assessment speeded up just for the sake of economic activity. He would want to see a full assessment of any project coming forth, because I can well recall his environmental statements in years gone by.

The second aspect of it is that there should be no new taxes. I would say that people in this province will not be looking for new taxes, not in the midst of a recession. Now I know there are some politically attractive ones. You try to package it and you say, "Well, it's a politically attractive one and we are really doing this or we are doing that." I do not think, however, people in this province, as I say, in the midst of the deepest recession we have been in since 1982, are going to be looking for new taxes.

I encourage the Treasurer not to be raising taxes in this province at this time and discouraging people from spending, taking money out of people's pockets. In fact, he may find some taxes that are worth while cutting in the province. Members will say, "That will contribute to the deficit." It will not if it generates new economic activity. So the best brains in the Treasury department and within the government have to put their minds to what taxes they might cut which might in fact generate new revenues, even in the midst of a recession. I hope he comes forward with those kinds of tax cuts as he assesses his options.

I mention the specific capital expenditures and I will not dwell on that at some length, except to say -- and this is the same as the welfare expenditures -- there does not appear to be a pattern. If I were cynical, and I am not a cynical person, I might try to think that the money would simply be put into government ridings. I can recall, however, that the Treasurer of this province was long opposed to that in opposition and I would certainly say -- I would be surprised, let me put it that way, if that were the criterion to be used, that it goes into government ridings only. I would be very much surprised if that were the case. So I then have to ask what criteria are being applied, because in many of the areas where unemployment is the highest, we are not seeing the kind of economic activity being generated that should be generated in this province.

I also look at the issue of business, and particularly at keeping business here and future business locating here. Gord Wilson, who is the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, was in St Catharines making a presentation and visiting various places within our community and in the Niagara Peninsula just last week. One of the figures he put forward which I thought was rather interesting and compelling for all of us to dwell upon was that in 1981 and 1982 some 20% of the jobs that were lost were jobs that people would not come back to. He revealed a very startling figure, I think to most people in this province, that in this particular recession, the 1991 recession, 48.3% of the people whose jobs would be disappearing would not have a job to come back to.

That means that the government of Ontario, whichever government it is, and we have a government which has been duly elected by the people, has a responsibility to attract business to this province and retain other business. You do not do that by scaring the business away. So the Treasurer and the Premier will have to perhaps accept some chiding from the opposition from time to time, some of it in a jocular sense, others in a serious sense, about not steering a straight socialist line which is designed to simply encourage anybody who was thinking about staying in Ontario to head for Tennessee or somewhere else and to discourage new investment. He would want to avoid that. So we will say that he is wearing a grey suit and the Premier is wearing a blue suit and so on, and they are being quite conservative in their approach. Only the Minister of Natural Resources is in the original NDP brown, and I commend him for that this afternoon.

But this is going to be extremely important. Even labour people in this province -- and they are perceptive people, they have had to deal in collective bargaining in tough times and in good times -- recognize that when they do their bargaining they have to do it with a company or with a business which is healthy, and they do not want to see those businesses disappearing. They do not want to see small plants and larger plants heading to other jurisdictions because they are afraid of what they are going to be facing in the province of Ontario. They want to see new investment coming to this province to generate jobs. That is what we will be looking for from this particular government.

1600

When the minister comes out of the recession, we expect that he is going to try to lower his deficit and eliminate that deficit, and that can happen as we pull out of that recession. One cannot realistically, in my view, express that hope in this particular fiscal year.

One of the things we do not want to happen, however, is to see some offloading taking place. They used to be critical on the other side, and the Treasurer himself when he sat on this side of the House was critical of previous governments. He has been here since 1971 -- it is hard to believe, but he has been here since that time -- and he has been critical, along with some of his colleagues, of offloading.

We heard the promises to the Ontario Teachers' Federation and others that they would be paying 60% of the cost of education. In fact, we find out -- and I found out from reading a newsletter from a teachers' federation, News Today by the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation -- that in fact the education funding has fallen from 41.5% to 40.8% in one year. This is what I call offloading.

What we are seeing is municipalities are having to cut important programs and projects and they are getting to have to raise their taxes locally because this government is prepared to offload that financial responsibility on those municipalities. I know my friends in the Ontario Teachers' Federation and each of the affiliates are not going to stand idly by while this happens, just as I know my friends on local labour councils and others who have expressed concern about this in principle in the past are going to be equally vociferous in their criticism of the present provincial government if it gets into that particular habit of offloading on to the local municipalities.

I want to leave sufficient time for my colleagues to participate in this debate. I could go on at some length about various aspects of this particular resolution, which will focus some attention on the issue of fiscal responsibility, and I do look forward to listening to my colleagues on all sides of the House debate these important financial issues of the day.

Mr Stockwell: I am happy to be standing today to discuss this motion put forward by Mr Harris on opposition day.

What I would like to deal with specifically is basically the deficit. We are into time constraints, and obviously we will have to deal with them individually.

I would like to talk about the trouble with deficits. The trouble with deficits is, it is beginning the slippery slope. The $3 billion is now applied to the debt of this province, and the slippery slope we are on is that it becomes very difficult in subsequent budgets year after year after year to start dealing with the amount of money we have borrowed to run the province.

In essence, deficits, debts, are living beyond your means. I suppose everyone understands that. It is when you spend more money than you take in.

Businesses do not have that luxury. Municipal councils do not have that luxury. The only people that have that luxury are provincial and federal governments, which may well have a very damaging effect on their capacity to be financially frugal. Businesses do not have that luxury simply because when they borrow they must in fact build in a process to pay it back. It is called interest and principal payments. The difficulty that government enters into is that when it borrows it does not build in principal payment reduction. They only service the deficit.

So what does that mean? That means very clearly that if a government does not build in a practice to retire principal, then all that happens is the debt simply increases, and that is the slippery slope.

You always begin with a small amount of money. You always begin with a manageable debt. But the dilemma, the difficulty is that when those days come when you should be retiring that debt, the government either does not have the ability or the guts to do it, simply because it cannot defend its spending increases if it was purely tax.

The simple solution is to ask governments to retire their debt within their mandate. So if the New Democrats felt it was important to run a $3- or $4-billion debt this year or next, it would be incumbent on them before their mandate elapses that they should have to retire that debt, simply because they absorb that debt on behalf of the taxpayers.

The problem is that government after government after government passes on a larger and larger and larger debt until you get to the situation that the federal government is in. The federal government is in the position where it cannot even service the interest on its debt. That is a very, very dangerous predicament, because what happens at that point is you start borrowing money to pay for the money you borrowed and you never, ever, ever get out of that spiral. You never resolve that issue, and if businesses ran into that predicament, they would eventually declare bankruptcy.

I caution the government today, when it examines its budget, when it examines the programs that it wants to institute, does it examine them in a full and comprehensive fashion? If these are programs that the Treasurer decides are important, then the Treasurer should tax the people. If these programs are necessary, then the Treasurer should tax the people. And if the Treasurer considers these programs to be worth while, then he should tax the people. If they are worth while, if they are reasonable and if they are acceptable, then stand up and defend them.

If he is not prepared to defend them, he should not spend the money. It is that simple, it is that clear and it is that concise, because if we adopt the attitude that some governments have adopted, we end up in the position of not being able to service our debt, and I do not think there has been any party in the last 20 years that has been oblivious to this attitude.

Mr Christopherson: Like the federal government. Like the Tory provincial party.

Mr Stockwell: I agree with the member. It has been shameful, it has been unfortunate, and it has been a financial disaster.

That is the problem facing the economic community today when it comes to government spending. The suggestion is that during the rough times governments can run deficits, and some Keynesian theories of economics are that you can deficit finance, thereby drive the economic engines of the regions that you represent in the House. The difficulty is that if you accept that logic and you deal with that theory, the theory also suggests that in good economic times all the debt that you have incurred during those not-so-good economic times should in fact be paid down. That is the dilemma that faces this government and has faced governments of the past. They have not paid down the debts that they incurred during the difficult times.

If the solution that this government thinks it has come up with, rather than defending spending, defending new programs and defending the rationale that it is using for increasing spending by this government, if its rationale is that it should run the deficit up, that is sadly mistaken. If he is going to spend the money, to the Treasurer, if they are going to spend the money, to the backbenchers, defend it. Have the guts to defend it to the people of this province and raise taxes. If they are not prepared to defend it, do not spend it.

Mr Bisson: I must say that I am very, very pleased to get up today and to speak on this motion, because I think it is important that people understand what exactly is this philosophy we are trying to be told in regard to right-wing economics. We have seen this whole process of Reaganism and Mulroneyism -- if I can pronounce those two words, with a certain amount of difficulty because it is one that I have a hard time saying -- we have seen that balance and we have seen what the effect to our economy has been, to the detriment of the people of Canada and I think generally the people of North America. We have had a situation over the past number of years, since the early 1980s, where we have practised the exact type of policy that is trying to be put forward to us to the detriment of this country.

I would like to speak on the motion itself. There are a couple of interesting points I think in the way that the motion was put together, one of them being the size of the debt. They speak in the motion in regard to the size of the debt and try to make it look as if governments for some reason are unable to operate unless they run strictly on the amount of money that is coming in every year into the Treasury of the province, or to the country, for that matter.

1610

I would like to take that whole principle and to try to bring it over into our own economy of Ontario in regard to the average person, the average people working out there, if we were to try to do that.

I was at a chamber of commerce dinner last Wednesday in my riding in the town of Iroquois Falls, where I met with a number of leaders within the business community of that municipality, and I asked them to think about it for one second. If every Canadian or every Ontarian was to follow that type of practice within their own budgets at home, that they would not have the right to have charge cards, that they must take all of their charge cards and just get rid of them -- for me, it would be a great thing; I could not spend any more -- the idea of not being able to go to a bank to borrow money to be able to buy a car, to be able to purchase a home, to be able to do whatever in regard to planning a holiday for their family or anything, I would say that the economy would come to a halt very quickly, because the reality is that our economic system in this country, and for the free world, for that matter, has been set up on a means by which people pay for what they need over a period of time. It is called amortization. But if we were to try to do that, if we were to ask the consumer out there to strictly spend the amount of money that he or she gets on his paycheque every week or two weeks and only to spend that money that is coming in and not to be able to borrow any money whatsoever, the economy would come to a halt, because I say not one individual out there would be able to buy a home, would be able to buy a car, would be able to do anything over a long period of time, and it would be to the detriment of our economy.

I put to you, Mr Speaker, and I put to this House and to the people of this province that the province of Ontario, like any other government, finds itself in a situation where there is a number of services and a number of things that we need to invest in for the long-term economic good of the province. And yes, some of those things are material things, such as buildings, such as being able to provide buildings to house the various people who need to work for the government, in order to buy the vehicles, in order to buy the equipment that it takes to run the government. The government, like everybody else, does not have an unlimited amount of money in its back pocket where it can just magically come up with it and be able to purchase this thing over a one-year period. They need to invest over the long term so that we are able to provide the services to the people of this province that they deserve, that they need, and indeed I would say that needs to be done.

As well, the province from time to time needs to borrow money in order to do other things that are not material, such as providing education to our children, such as being able to provide health care services and being able to pay the salaries of the people working within the civil service who provide all of those services for the people of this province so that we are able to have the system of care that we have developed over the years.

I ask members to think of another thing. Imagine a society, imagine an economy where the government itself would not provide any of those services that we are being told by the opposition members today are not necessary. Imagine if we were to say we will leave the whole economic situation strictly in the hands of the private sector and we were to say to them, "You're responsible for developing the infrastructure of this province, of this country, in order to be able to do the business that is necessary." What kinds of standards would we have in regard to providing the transportation link that is necessary for business to be able to do the things that it needs to do? I would ask, what would happen to the companies that would have to provide out of their own pockets and profits the health care service that is required by --

Mr Stockwell: Who said that? Unbelievable.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-West, you had your chance. You exposed your ideas. It is now the turn of the member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Yes, I have listened to his ideas, and I must say one thing. Between the Tory party and the NDP, at least we are speaking on something that we believe in. I appreciate the member's view, but this is my chance.

To finish on that thought, if we left strictly --

Mr Harris: Why don't you give my view then, instead of misrepresenting our view, instead of lying about our view?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Please resume your seat. Member for Nipissing, I heard you say that the member is lying.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, if in referring to the member, that he was misrepresenting my view, if that is not what he was doing, I will withdraw that and ask the member to give his views, not misrepresent my view.

Mr Ferguson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I did not hear the member for Cochrane South mention the member for Nipissing at all. In fact, he was using an example --

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order, please. The member for Etobicoke West, you had a point of order?

Mr Stockwell: No, he summed mine up quite well.

The Deputy Speaker: Okay. The member for Cochrane South, address your comments to the Chair.

Mr Bisson: I have been doing that, Mr Speaker. I have lost a bit of time on the clock. If possible, I would like to get it back.

The Deputy Speaker: Well, I think it is a matter of seconds.

Mr Bisson: The point I am trying to make is that the province of Ontario and the government need to provide the services and the infrastructure necessary for business to conduct itself within the province of Ontario or within the country. Yes, we need to be able to develop over a long period of time, over the future. Sometimes we must carry that cost into the future to provide the roads, to provide the hospitals and to provide the education that is needed so the workers and management can run the industry that creates the wealth within this province. Yes, in hard economic times such as we find ourselves in, in recessionary times, the government all of a sudden cannot say: "We will stop educating. We will stop building infrastructure because we're strictly in economic hard times and we have to forget what our long-term goals are."

I say that in hard economic times it is the responsibility of the government, and one that this government is taking, to make sure this infrastructure and those services over the long term remain in place and are not attacked because I say that in hard economic times it is people who get hurt. The New Democratic Party wants to make sure those people who need that help during hard economic times will get it.

We have done that in a number of ways, one of them being the anti-recession package my government announced back in November. We decided consciously to invest within the infrastructure of this province to an amount of over $700 million. The reason we did that was twofold: First, we recognized that as a government we need to invest within the infrastructure of this province so that we may be able to create the infrastructure that is necessary to sustain business, industry and people within this province. The second thing it does, I would say, is that it also gives the opportunity for people to get back to work. If you put money in peoples' pockets through the payment they will get for labour, by providing the development of the infrastructure of this province with that $700 million, they will then in turn have to go out and spend it to be able to buy groceries and make their payments on cars or whatever other things they need for their quality of life.

What that does, I would say, is to create a ripple effect within the economy, to be able to have other suppliers who need to supply the materials for these projects so they can get the contracts or sell the goods or services to the government. The whole thing is a ripple effect through the economy.

I say that this practice has been done in the past. This is not a new concept. It is not a concept the New Democratic Party invented last November. If we look back in our history to the time of the Great Depression -- I was not even around at the time, as members might notice by my young-looking appearance -- when we read the history of this country, the history of the economic situation, the governments of the day in the United States, in Canada and in other free world economic states decided they would invest money they did not have at the time to be able to put it back into their economies to get people money and get people back to work so they in turn could go out and try to rebuild the economy.

I put it to the members that if we look at the history, indeed that is what happened. The economy started to rebound and eventually things turned around. More specifically, this was done again in the late 1950s, when the American economy and the Canadian economy were going through very difficult times. The then American administration, under Mr Eisenhower, and our own Parliament of Canada, decided to diffuse money within our economies through the development of the infrastructure because they were going into a very difficult recession. If they did not put brakes on it, they felt it might go even further. They managed to put the money in at the right time before the thing got too far and the economy rebounded.

We know this practice works. At one point, yes, I agree with the members opposite that the government has to pay on the long-term debt, there is no question about it, and that is something this government will do, as any financially responsible government would.

The other thing that was said in the motion -- I found this quite ironic -- was that the motion speaks of offloading responsibility to municipal governments It was only 6 September that this government, the New Democratic government, was elected to office, but I must say that this practice was in place a long time before we got here. It was the governments before us, both Liberal and Conservative, that started that practice in the province of Ontario.

I would put it to the members that it was a Conservative Party that started to cut back transfer payments to the school boards. It was done successfully through the Liberal government to other programs. They did it for their own reasons, but the opposition should not come to us and tell us we are offloading our responsibility, because I say that is something we inherited that we certainly did not put in place. Our government has started to address that situation based on the economic situation we find ourselves in.

1620

As well, if we take a look at the federal government, it had started that practice a long time ago. They offloaded their responsibility to the provinces by cutting back on our transfer payments. I say that hurts not only the provinces, but the people within them, because it endangers our programs, to be able to provide the service to the people of this province.

We look at the last federal budget. The federal government has turned around and cut transfer payments to the people across the country through the provincial governments, and what we have seen is a Newfoundland government having to cut back 2,000 civil service workers, especially within the medical care system. That has been an erosion of our medical care system. The long-term effects can be drastic, so I find it quite ironic that this whole thing was put before us with regard to this motion of saying that somehow we are trying to offload our responsibilities on to the municipalities. I say this government has taken an opposite approach.

In closing, just one little note is that the member for London North got up in the House during question period, or just before, and spoke about our needing to invest within post-secondary education. I must agree. In the future, education is the key to making sure we have an economy that is vibrant, strong and able to change with the changing times. But members opposite should not speak to us from one side and then the other. What is it today? Are we saving or are we spending? The member should have some consistency when she comes to this government and tells us one minute that she wants us not to spend money, the next minute that she wants us to save money and the next minute that she wants us to spend money. She should be consistent in the way we should do things.

I think, unlike what we saw in question period today, if we work together as members of this House and try to solve the problems within this province, I would put to the members we might be much farther ahead. I say we must be very careful when we talk about economic issues and I think we should not mislead people into believing that the government cannot take its responsibility in providing the services to the people of this province.

This government is committed to making sure the people of the province of Ontario have in place the services that are required. We are also conscious of the fact that during hard economic times it is people who get hurt and that we need to infuse money within our social service system and also within the infrastructure, developing the infrastructure to put money in the pockets of people. With that, Mr Speaker, I would like to thank you very much and I will leave the floor to our colleagues.

The Deputy Speaker: I would just like to remind members that when you rise for a point of order you must do so from your seat.

Mr Ramsay: I am pleased to rise on the third-party motion of opposition day, the second opposition day we have the privilege to speak to in this session of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; a motion that I think speaks to what we all need to be talking about in government today and too few of us are speaking to, and that is the responsibility of financing a government, our fiscal responsibility to the people.

I think many times we forget that we work for the taxpayers out there, the people we are addressing our comments to today. They are the people who pay the bill and they are the people whom we are ultimately responsible to. I think it is time the politicians stopped feeling that it was an infinite well of funds, and we had better start being responsive to what the taxpayers are saying.

I am very sympathetic to this offloading point that the member for Nipissing has brought forward because, as the Speaker knows, I was a clerk-treasurer for a township for 10 years and suffered the slings and arrows of offloading from a previous government. It was a Conservative government at the time, but I accept the recanting of this member that we need to be readdressing that.

In fact, I would go farther to say that part of the constitutional difficulties to some degree in this country are being caused by an ill definition of roles and responsibilities among all three levels of government. What needs to be done as a first step in this country, to rebuild this country and form a new Canada, is to have all the provinces come to the table with the federal government, but I think for the first time to also invite the municipalities of this country to talk, because we have been in a dire competition with each other, all three levels of government in this past little while. We have been after that same taxpayer pocket.

We have had conflicting types of taxation and this GST is a prime example of that. Up until the introduction of the GST, direct sales taxes were the sole privy of provincial governments. We do not see that any more. We now see through the GST the federal government delving directly into the taxpayer's pocket. So we are in competition, all of us, all three levels of government, through those various taxation systems, for that same tax dollar the taxpayer is working so hard to hold on to.

I think we have to be holding on to that. We have to be redefining those roles. We have to be discussing among all three levels. I will tell the members why. I have been travelling a lot in this province -- I will not tell the members why -- talking to a lot of people, seeing what the people of Ontario are saying. I will tell the members one thing the taxpayers are saying. They have had it up to here with taxation. The people of Ontario do not want to pay any more taxes; they have really had it. I think governments have to be cognizant of that. I do not think we can be raising taxes for people any more. The answer is that we have to do better with what we have. That is the answer for government. I think that is what the member for Nipissing is getting at, that we have to be cognizant of our duties and be doing a better job.

I have some ideas for the government towards that and I would certainly hope it would listen to some of this. It might be a bit shocking for some of the members over there because of course politicians today have to make sure they say things that are politically correct.

Something that a lot of politicians do not want to address, and I am sure the politicians across the way do not want to talk about, is the issue of universality of social programs. I am sure this will get the interest of a lot of the members there. I think it will get a lot of the interest of the members in my party right here. Up until now this idea of universality has been sacrosanct. People do not want to talk about that. Politicians have to start to say that maybe we have to do better for the people who are really in need, that maybe today we no longer can have the luxury of the universality of social programs. I think all political parties are going to have to start to address that. That is very important.

We are charged by our bosses, the voters out there, with being fiscally responsible and I think we are going to have to start to look at these things. We have to make sure, with the increasing needs of people out there, that maybe it is our responsibility to start to redirect our resources to those who need them the most. I know there are a lot of difficulties in determining what that need is, but these issues have to be addressed. Politicians are going to have to have the internal fortitude to start to address these issues because the voters, again, our bosses, are crying out for that responsibility.

Another idea, and I know the Treasurer will be very interested in this because it is an issue that is near and dear to his heart, as it is to my heart, is that I would hope this government brings in a universal accident and sickness program. We have a lot of different pensions in government, through all levels of government. We have a lot of pension programs and private programs out there to help people in need. We have to start to look at the consolidation of much of what we do as government in helping people.

Right now, if I were over there, I would be recommending to my government that we scrap the Workers' Compensation Board. I think we have to be doing that. We have to be looking at building a universal accident and sickness program. That is something I think this government should do. I know it is the policy of this political party, as we passed in a policy convention in Ottawa three years ago, and I know it is the policy of the governing party. I would challenge the Treasurer, as I would agree and support this move, that he bring in a universal accident and sickness policy. I think he can do this more efficiently than the system we have today. That is very important and he would get a broad base of support out there in the public for this beginning of the consolidation of many of the programs we have in place to help the people of this province.

This is the first step in working towards this consolidation and working towards a minimum income system that we would have in place in the next 10 years or so.

Hon Mr Laughren: Would it be no-fault?

Mr Ramsay: I have the attention of the Treasurer now and that of course has been the whole motive of my speech. With that I am so happy and will retain my seat and allow the Tories to do this.

1630

Mr Carr: I am pleased to rise and add a few points to this debate. I am going to talk about three things. I am going to talk about the tax situation; I am going to talk a little bit about the debt if I could, which was really just deferred taxes; and I am going to talk a little bit about accountable government.

To start off with, I am going to read a quote from the throne speech. It is from the throne speech that was introduced by this new government. "It is a government that will listen to the people and respond to their needs to the best of its ability."

Hon Mr Laughren: Right on.

Mr Carr: Well, I have an idea for the Treasurer -- and he is saying, "Right on." We commissioned a poll, and guess what 81% of the people said? That the taxes are too high. And 77% said that they do not believe their taxes are managed properly. I might add that this poll asked also what the person's affiliation was, whether they were NDP, Liberal or Conservative when they voted last time. Guess what, folks? The NDP were just as upset with taxes as were the Liberals and the Conservatives. So it crossed all party lines. When you get to 81%, you can see why. With that high number, it included all parties, and in fact probably some of the parties that were not elected.

Also they asked, "Do you receive value for your tax dollars?" To that, 75% said no. "A law should be passed limiting government spending." And 79% said yes. Because when you look at the deficit that we are facing now -- and I will just relay some of the facts that I got from legislative research. Before this government has even introduced this budget, we are now paying $4.3 billion on interest alone this year. That works out to be -- and I will round it off a little bit -- $362 million a month in interest. That is $83 million a week, or close to $12 million a day, in interest. That is not for new programs. That does not go to help kids in school. That does not go to help any more social programs. That goes right to interest. It works out to almost $500,000 an hour. So as we sit here, in approximately two hours' time we will have spent $1 million in interest alone.

If members do not believe that the deficits are a problem -- and I know the Treasurer has said the deficit is not scary -- I will quote to them what a famous writer said. Jeffrey Simpson says in the Globe and Mail, 27 February 1991, and unfortunately I believe we are heading down the same path in this province: "Ottawa became a fiscal cripple in the years 1975 to 1984, when the federal government" -- under Pierre Trudeau -- "accumulated nearly $200 billion of debt. Compounded interest on that...debt cost another $120 billion by 1989-90." In that period of time it almost doubles. So the total bill for these 10 nightmare years of economic mismanagement from 1975-84 is in the vicinity of $320 billion.

So when the other side talks about what happened federally, let's put the responsibility back on the person who was really responsible. Members do not have to believe me. Believe a chap by the name of Jeffrey Simpson, who is a very well-known and respected writer. The responsibility for the federal debt goes on a fellow by the name of Mr Trudeau. Well, guess what? He is long gone. He is long gone, and we are still paying for it. Years later we are still paying that back.

So when we talk about debts and deficits not being a problem, I say to the Treasurer that he is wrong, because deficits are nothing but deferred taxes, and some day we are going to have to pay them. We are still paying for Mr Trudeau. Do not make the same mistake in this province that we made federally between 1975 and 1984. Let's learn our lesson from history. The member for Cochrane South talked about history. Let's learn our lessons. Let's learn from some respected people who say the deficit that we have, that is crippling this country, was created by a man who is long gone. He gave us this debt, and guess what? He rode off into the night and left us with all the problems. I say to the Treasurer, do not do it. Do not make the same mistake in this province.

When it comes to taxes -- I am reading now from some of the submissions that were before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

"In order to enhance the competitive position of Ontario vis-à-vis Quebec, a lower corporate income tax rate should be introduced, as in Quebec, to promote expansion and productivity of business." That was said by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association.

We heard, if I look through here -- and they are all summarized -- page after page after page of groups that came before us. The bottom line is that they said: "No new taxes." That is what the groups are saying to the Treasurer. So if he goes back to the throne speech -- he applauded this statement, and I will read it again: "It is a government that will listen to the people and respond to their needs to the best of its ability." So there it is. The taxpayers, the people who came before that committee said -- guess what? -- "No new taxes."

If members look through some of the submissions that were there: "There should be no introduction of new taxes or tax increases." "The government should make progress towards implementing a more modern, sophisticated form of fiscal management." "A clearer statement of the government's financial position, through consolidated financial statements."

So I will sum up very clearly and say to the Treasurer, who I know is working very hard; I see him on the streets late at night working on the budget, and I say to him every night as I pass him: "Mr Treasurer, no new taxes. No new taxes, Mr Treasurer." We are going to hold it to you.

Mr Sutherland: It is a great pleasure for me to rise today and participate in this opposition day motion.

Looking at the motion for the first couple of times and reading it over and trying to get a handle on what the motion is all about, it seems very contradictory in the way it is worded. Not only does it seem that way; it definitely is contradictory.

First of all, the Conservatives have a request here to stop the continual offloading of programs on to municipal governments, and then at the same time they have a request to reduce the provincial deficit. Now, realizing that we are in a recession, realizing that provincial revenues are down and that provincial revenues are down for the first time in terms of actual dollars since 1932, it amazes me that we have a motion here saying at one time, "Don't spend," and then at the other time, "Don't offload those programs." If we are not going to be able to spend the money, if we are not going to support the municipalities, then of course the programs are going to be offloaded to them. So I think it would have been beneficial if some more thought had been given to how this motion was worded.

I want to talk about a few other issues. I want to talk about the deficit in general. We just heard the member for Oakville South talking about the deficit. He cited a column from Jeffrey Simpson, who is a very respectable member of the media, which talked about the federal deficit. He is quite right; we all should be concerned about the federal deficit. But the provincial deficit is nowhere near what the federal deficit is. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt points out on many occasions in committee about our debt servicing ratio being far lower than that of the federal government. I believe he commented that it was 10% at the time of the election. I believe the federal was around 34%. So we have some capacity.

That does not mean it is unlimited, and we have to try to find new ways of creating revenue. But how we create that revenue should be the real concern, and the fact that our revenue has decreased. Why has that revenue decreased? Because of our economic ability to produce the revenue. The fact is that we are in very difficult economic times. As was cited earlier, I believe by the member for St Catharines, about the number of permanent job losses, this time, compared to the last recession, there is 50% permanent job loss versus 20%. That has a very dramatic impact on the constituents in the riding of Oxford and I think in every member's riding; the layoffs. We have to try to deal with that and we have to try to help those people through this very difficult time. That does take money. That does take resources.

It is interesting, too. One of the other issues talked about costs, and I have heard some of the opposition members talk about the degree of accountability. There is no doubt that many people -- I would say the vast majority of Ontarians -- are concerned about accountability in government. It is a difficult problem with any large organization, how you develop a degree of accountability.

1640

We look at the area that takes up the most amount of cost, the health care system, and we have certainly heard in the past about people's concerns about accountability. Yet, I would suggest, when the third party was the government, it had ample opportunity to try and bring a management system into health care. We did not see that. The past government attempted and in some ways made some progress, but it was not the most successful.

I also want to come back to the other issue of economic viability.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): There are a lot of private conversations going on, a lot of heckling and that is out of order. The honourable member for Oxford has the floor. Please give him the respect of listening to him.

Mr Sutherland: Let us talk again about how we are going to create wealth in the future. Well, there are several ways we can do that. We could raise more taxes, but with the economic situation, the Treasurer has already indicated that he is not interested in raising taxes a great deal, and that is fair enough, so what we have really got to look at is how we generate the wealth. How do we generate the wealth to stimulate the economy, so that we can bring in extra revenue without raising taxes?

The way of doing that is through several means. One, I think this province has not invested enough money in research and development issues to keep us competitive in the global economy. We hear a lot about the global economy and how we have to be competitive. The third party takes a rather, what I consider, simplistic view about it. They say you cut taxes and the economy is just going to take off. That is not the reality. We live in a very competitive world, and we have to have the technology, the resources, the human resources.

I want to come back to the issue again, as the member for Cochrane South mentioned, about funding for post-secondary education. If you go and look where funding for post-secondary education started to drop off -- 1977 -- who was the government in 1977? Since that time the amount as a percentage of the provincial budget has declined.

If they were really concerned about generating wealth in the future economy, they would have been investing in the people, because if you look at the successful economies, they invest in the people. They resource in brain power and in the power of their people and their citizens. That is where we will be able to generate the wealth, because if we have very effective post-secondary education we develop the people with the ideas and they take those ideas and bring them to fruition and create jobs and keep the economy moving forward on a regular basis.

I want to talk about a few other concerns related to this motion and related to the economy as a whole. In the motion it talks about the issue of loss of jobs and loss of economic opportunity. Again, that comes back to the issue of investment. Now, we have heard people talk about investment in the infrastructure, but again, I want to state that in those successful economies where it has occurred, it has not just been in the infrastructure; it has also been in the people.

I think the other thing that we suffer from in this province has been a sense of confrontation. If you look at other successful economies, if you look at Sweden, if you look at West Germany, the main groups involved in their economic success have worked together. You have had business, labour and the government, all three of them, come together to work together for the benefit of their country and the benefit of their citizens.

In this province the history has not been that way. It has been a history of confrontation between labour and business and, in many cases, a lack of recognition of the contribution that labour makes, the fact that people who are working on shop floors have ideas on how they can be more efficient, how the business can run more efficiently, how you can produce better products. I really think that we need to develop the spirit of co-operation, that all parties have a vested interest in the health of this province, and that we can no longer afford a confrontational attitude because we are not competing against each other in this province; we are competing against the rest of the people in the world.

Finally, just to sum up a bit here and to talk about the motion one more time, as I say, the government cannot have it both ways. If it wants to hold the line on taxes and freeze the deficit and not increase it whatsoever, it cannot also deal with the problem of the downloading that has occurred over the last many years. There is just no way it is going to be able to do that and to meet the real needs of people out there, the single parents in my riding who do not have adequate day care so they cannot get off the social assistance program. They want to work, but there is not adequate day care for them, and other needs like that. The farmers of Oxford, who have been the backbone of my community for hundreds of years and still continue to be and who suffer due to high interest rates, have many needs.

I am going to leave it at that and let my other colleagues participate in this debate, but again I want to reemphasize the fact that we must be investing in people and we must develop a very co-operative spirit so that we can generate the revenue to fund the programs without having to raise taxes significantly.

Mrs McLeod: It seems almost self-evident in approaching this particular debate to recognize that the most fundamental challenge that faces this government as it approaches its first budget is the challenge of trying to determine how it is possible to fund the absolutely acute growing needs in social program areas at a time when we are in fact in recession, when the economy is in decline and when further taxation really is intolerable because of people's and businesses' inability to pay.

It is ironic that this challenge becomes even greater in this period of recession because, as the recession deepens, the needs in social program areas get greater and the costs necessarily become greater. Therefore, the question really has to be addressed, who can most appropriately pay these increased costs for needed, essential, mandatory social programs? That raises a question for me, one of the fundamental aspects of this challenge that has to be addressed, and that is referred to in this resolution as municipal offloading, the question of what municipalities can reasonably afford to pay as their share of the costs of social programs. That is the issue I would particularly like to spend a few minutes addressing today.

I think we know well, the members of this House, that the numbers of people on welfare are increasing at a rapid rate and that the municipalities bear 20% of the increased costs of social assistance. That is, of course, unless the numbers of people on social assistance exceed 4% of the population of that particular community, in which case they only have to assume 10% of the costs, and we can only hope that is not a situation that communities across Ontario might find themselves facing in this particular year.

But we have repeatedly asked in the House, as we have brought forward the facts of increased numbers of people on social assistance, what kind of response the government can make to the individuals who are unemployed certainly, but also to those municipalities and to the municipal ratepayers who are having to bear a truly significant portion of this increased cost.

I think it is probably worth repeating some of the facts that we have introduced in questions in the House, because those facts really do represent the reality of increasing unemployment and the increased costs of social assistance, when we see that in the year from January 1990 to January 1991 the numbers of people on social assistance have increased in Dufferin-Peel by 120%, in Hamilton-Wentworth by 56%, in Peel by 90%, in Timmins by 78%, and the reality of these figures just goes on and on.

One of the other real concerns is that, in addition to the share of the costs that is borne by the municipal ratepayer, the municipalities are experiencing such a significant financial stress in managing their budgets that they have very little flexibility in administering social assistance programs, so that we are finding -- I am sure each one of us, in our constituency offices -- situations where special assistance programs and supplementary aid programs are just not being made available to people in spite of the very real needs that are presented. That is a problem that the municipalities are struggling with because they have very little discretion when their share of the mandatory social program costs is getting greater and greater.

1650

There are other programs, quite clearly, that the municipalities have to share the costs of that are not seen to be mandatory, that are not an automatic increase in the budget for that municipality but nevertheless we would all agree are essential costs. I think particularly of the need for child care.

Here again the need is great, and it is not just a need for spaces; it really is a need for subsidized spaces. We know that the government introduced 5,000 new subsidies and made those subsidies available to municipalities, to begin to respond to that need for subsidized child care spaces. It was regrettable perhaps that the subsidies came at a time when, for many municipalities, it was too late to include their share of the costs in their particular budgets. I think it is an even greater concern that we have municipalities questioning whether they can even afford to accept a greater number of subsidized spaces because they just cannot manage their 20% share of the increased subsidies that have been made available to them.

We become extremely concerned when we hear about Metropolitan Toronto talking about having to raise the fees for parents who are availing themselves of child care because the real costs of child care are not being borne by the existing grant system. We were pleased to hear this morning that the Minister of Community and Social Services has now instituted a joint review of the real costs of providing child care in Metro and that hopefully some of those real costs will be addressed so that the cost to the municipalities can be lessened.

Some of the areas that are seen to be discretionary for municipalities surely must be recognized as mandatory. If we look at homemaker services, if we look at the municipal share in the cost of homes for the aged, if we look at the need for transitional houses for battered women, surely all these are not automatic, mandatory cost increases for municipalities or for the provincial government. We recognize them as being essential services that must be provided even in these very difficult times.

I think we have to recognize too that as municipalities face increased budget costs for social programs, that has a really significant impact on their ability to provide other services that are clearly the municipalities' jurisdiction, the cost of transportation and police and fire protection.

Obviously the question we come to is, who should be responsible for meeting the needs in social program areas and what is the most appropriate base of support? I think there would be unanimous agreement among all members of this House that the property tax base is not the most appropriate base for meeting the needs in social program areas. It may well be the most appropriate base for funding municipal services directly to property owners, but it is not a way that municipalities can deal with the increased cost of social programs, particularly when these costs are escalating at such a significant rate.

Members of the House may be aware of a study that was undertaken in order to address this issue of the provincial-municipal share of social programs. It was by the Provincial-Municipal Social Services Review Committee. The difficulty with that particular study, which I would certainly be prepared to acknowledge, is that it looked only at the funding for social programs, when in fact what needs to be looked at is the whole area of municipal-provincial funding.

Nevertheless -- and I recognize that the government has referred this matter, along with a number of other taxation measures, to the new tax commission -- I have to confess that while I think these issues do need to be examined, we do need certainly to look at the area of provincial-municipal cost-sharing in its full complexity, not just in the social services area. I am very concerned about whether or not it is possible for this particular tax commission to examine all the issues that have been referred to it and report on new approaches within my lifetime as a legislator.

These issues are complex. Many of them have been studied repeatedly. There have been a number of studies already addressed to the government that recommend that the province take a greater share of the social service costs, particularly in the areas where 100% is recommended for social assistance by three different reports, and the particular report on provincial-municipal social services also recommended that the province should assume 100% of funding of child welfare costs.

I would recognize the kind of pressures which the government faces as it approaches this particular budget, and I would recognize that current revenues are down, as other members have identified, and the scope for increasing revenues from new taxation is just not there when we are in a recession-battered and a GST-hit period. We know that the only real source of new revenue is economic growth and economic stability and job creation, and of course the benefit to that is that as the economy grows, as jobs are created, social assistance costs go down, health care costs go down, child welfare costs go down, so there are new dollars for social programs. For this to occur, there has to be economic stability and growth.

We can only hope that the government's priority as it approaches this fundamental question in this first budget is that we will see a program for economic recovery in Ontario so that we can have some optimism that the question of social program needs can be addressed even as we are able to provide the economic base for those social programs.

Mr Tilson: We have heard a great deal during the last election and even since then, particularly from the NDP Agenda for People, that Ontario should lead a tax revolt. We have heard over and over that Ontario is going to lead a tax revolt. My question is, where is this revolt? Is it in some of the policies that the government is coming out with? Is it in this tax commission that has been sent off somewhere? I do not know where it is or what it is doing, but is it in the tax commission?

There is no question in my mind that one of the greatest concerns that is going around this province, not only during the election -- and I am sure the government members found the same thing -- is the issue of downloading. They talked about it. We talked about it. We criticized the former Liberal government for it, and I really have not seen much change.

The recent unconditional grant announcement by this government, I submit, is totally unsatisfactory. This announcement gives no real commitment to end once and for all the issue that they promised, and that is the subject of the downloading: the downloading of programs, the downloading of costs, the downloading of responsibilities, and of course without commensurate funding to municipalities and school boards.

People in my riding and, I am sure, all around this province are continually raising the issue of their tax revolt. This government is not having a tax revolt, so they are starting their own tax revolt. I simply ask, when is this government going to announce a clear policy statement with respect to this subject to prove that it is different from the last government?

We have seen spiralling welfare costs, which have been referred to by other speakers, that have been passed off to county and regional governments. Municipalities and school boards are now cutting back on their programs. They have to cut back on their programs, on their taxes, simply to survive.

One example is the chairman of the regional municipality of Peel, who wrote the Premier on 16 October to express his strong objection to the impact of funding arrangements under the General Welfare Assistance Act. That subject has gone completely silent. Mr Bean wrote the Premier, saying: "I know from our recent meeting that you are aware of the impact the funding arrangements under the General Welfare Assistance Act are having on the municipal tax base. In Peel, net expenditures for this program in 1990 are expected to be 85.7% over those in 1989. The property taxpayer in Peel will contribute over $5,200,000 to the cost of providing assistance this year as compared to $2,800,000 in 1989."

Now, that is an unbelievable increase, and this government does not appear to be doing anything about that.

Mr Bean continued by saying: "Both the report of the Social Assistance Review Committee and the Provincial-Municipal Social Services Review Committee report recommend removal of the property tax base from the funding formula for welfare payments. Expenditures in this program are closely limited to factors that are beyond local control, such as economic and unemployment trends and federal and provincial policy directions, and therefore must not be tied to such a limited tax source."

Mr Bean pleaded with the Premier. He stated that he is therefore requesting that the Premier "move quickly to remove the requirement of municipal contribution to the cost of assistance under the General Welfare Assistance Act recognizing the adjustments as needed in the provincial-municipal social services report may need to be considered at a later stage." He clearly is expressing and has put this government on notice of a very serious concern that he has and that this government does not intend to be dealing with it.

There are a number of issues that are continuing on with respect to the issue of downloading that our party and the New Democratic Party debated during the last election, and the second issue is the escalating cost of court security. There have been requests made to the government and requests made through my office to deal with this subject to stop this type of practice. In fact, the Peel regional board of police commissioners last November passed a resolution specifically requesting that subject, that whole policy of downloading of costs be stopped. Specifically, it had to do with the resolution that was passed on 21 November 1990 which referred to the fact that the Ontario Provincial Police had indicated that the Ontario Provincial Police would be no longer carrying out investigations into family benefit frauds in Peel and other jurisdictions. That is another subject that has been passed on to the local municipalities. They felt that this would, no question, result in assumption of significant backlogs -- and there are backlogs in that whole subject -- resulting in an increase of workload for the Peel Regional Police, which will result in more administrative costs and the hiring of more staff to service this need.

1700

So the province of Ontario, through Bill 187, which the past government passed; the freedom-of-information legislation, which was Bill 107, the Police Services Act; and other initiatives continued to download costs to both municipal forces and municipalities in general.

I hope that the Treasurer in his budget that is coming up next week deals with this subject and makes clear his policy as to a change in the downloading policy of this government.

Mr Ferguson: I am pleased to join in this debate today because I think it talks about issues of concern not only to the paying public but to various levels of government, of course ours included.

Having had the opportunity, 12 years previous, to sit on council at the local level, I want to say that I cannot count the number of times that downloading has occurred. We call it the "bump and grind" effect at the local level, where the province would bump a program over to the municipality and we would have to grind in order to find the dollars to fund the program. Of course, there are some good reasons for that happening and there are some not-so-good reasons for that happening.

One of the good reasons was that the province at the time was trying to exercise some sort of leverage in order to accomplish its goals and objectives in having municipalities buy into a particular program. However, I think as a government we have attempted to talk to municipalities, we have attempted to get the views of municipalities, to tap their thoughts, their ideas, their suggestions and tried to work in a partnership so that we can achieve a common goal, and that is service to the public and that is service to various communities throughout Ontario. One example of that is the Ballinger-Hopcroft report, which talks about the municipal-provincial funding relationship and the course that that should take in the future.

I think we have very much become entrapped in a mindset. I remember growing up in the 1960s. At that time it was the "we" generation. Everybody seemed to express a concern for everybody else. Well, let me say the l990s have come full circle: It is no longer the "we" generation; it is the "me" generation. I think we have to look at some sort of major attitude adjustment. The prevalent thought in this place seems to be that if you do something for me and I benefit directly, then that is social progress and you are doing good things; but if the government does something for somebody else, well, it is no longer social progress -- my goodness, that is socialism. I think it is time for a major attitude adjustment on behalf of a lot of individuals in this place.

The priority of this government is not to throw good money after bad. The priority of this government is to assist those who, in the midst of this recession, need help the most, and we are going to do that. Not because we took an opinion poll and it told us that the public was on side; in fact, we are going to do that because it is right, it is just and I think we recognize it is the fair thing to do.

So on the surface this resolution looks extremely sound. It has a nice ring to it. It is politically popular. It has a politically popular message. It says, "Hold the line on taxes." It says, "Give the municipalities a break." It says, "Balance the budget in three years and, for goodness' sake, do all those things and at the same time retire the debt." I want to say that is an admirable goal. It is an admirable goal, but I think what we fail to recognize is that we are going to try to attempt to do all those things, or we are being told, "Do all these things," without taking into account what is happening in the real world and how the economic slowdown that we are experiencing today is affecting everybody. It is clearly not taking into account what is happening in the real world.

In the upcoming budget we are going to be very clear. We are going to be very clear about what we can pay for today and we are going to be very clear about what we can afford to pay for tomorrow. We are going to be very clear that we are going to help those who need assistance the most and that our decision to spend for the future will be done in order to assist those individuals who need help the most.

I want to tell members that is not a revolutionary thought. People make those kinds of decisions every day in their household. They decide what they can afford today and what they can afford to finance for the future. That is exactly the decision that we are going to make.

We could go down two roads. We did not have the luxury of sitting around for a couple of months while the economy picked up steam. Immediately on 7 September we were faced with a decision to make. We were at the fork in the road. We could either go down the road that said, "Spend, spend, spend," which I think would be most irresponsible, without any regard to the deficit; or we could have gone down the other road, which I think is the wrong road to go down, which would have been, "Cut, cut, cut." Clearly that is the wrong road to go down, because when you take that path you hurt those who need help the most in today's economy.

Let me just wrap up by saying that anyone -- and I want to tell members, anyone -- can captain the ship of state on calm seas, anyone. All you have to do is stand there, like my friends opposite did, and cruise and wave, just cruise and wave. That is all you have to do as the ship goes merrily along. Well, the seas today are not calm. I want to tell members that this government is going to do whatever it has to do in order to ensure that once the hurricane is over we have some survivors on board. We want some survivors on board.

Mr Elston: Hurricane Floyd.

Mr Ferguson: In conclusion, let me say that we are under some very, very trying circumstances. We are going to do the very best we possibly can. We are going to be financially responsible and we are going to do the best we can in what is an extremely difficult situation.

Mr Curling: What an honour it is for me to speak in the House today on this motion. I want to say at the start that I have full confidence in this Treasurer to understand the issues. I have worked with this Treasurer in the past on many committees, and he seems to listen. As a matter of fact his colleague has just named him Hurricane Floyd, and he seems to be the only one who may survive after the examination of this government.

I have concerns, though, about his colleagues, because he needs the support in order to put forward a very aggressive and good budget, a budget that, as members know, comes at a time of recession.

It comes at a time when we have massive layoffs. It comes at a time when we have many people whose dreams are shattered, many young people who are looking forward to going to university and finding out that they may not do so, many people who have even acquired some of their dreams, the dream of owning a home, and today they are losing it each day as they call my office, or my home.

As recently as last night, when I got home at 11:30 there was somebody in my home who told me that within a week the sheriff would be coming to lock them out because they have earned all these years to acquire this home of theirs, and because of a layoff and this recession, it is not theirs any more.

1710

The government actually in its short time has demonstrated that it has no plans, and I would say I am only judging it from the fact that when it introduced Bill 4, the reason for that -- I do not want to rehash the whole issue, but, again, I thought they would have some sort of strategy, some plan, some organization to it all. It lacked consultation. It lacked any kind of way of understanding the issue, and I am more disappointed than anyone else here because of that lack of planning and lack of strategy on behalf of the government.

The Treasurer's budget must be able to protect the most vulnerable people today in our society, because most of the time when there is a recession, or all the time there is a recession, there are those people who are last hired and the first to be laid off or to be fired. They are women, the visible minorities or native people, and many times when I hear this government speak, it is like it has just discovered people. They talk about it as, "We are anointed by God to understand people and the Tories and the Liberals don't understand people," and furthermore that the private sector is not people and everything should be done by government. Therefore, when they start to do any consultation, they lock other people out and feel, "We will have the answer to all the problems we have."

I would like to warn them that to represent people is to represent all people. We have one of the most resilient resources in this province. We have people from all parts of the world. All parts are coming here giving their service and giving their skills.

I have yet to see this government put forward any plan of training to utilize and to enhance the resources of these people. They speak about putting it in the hands of the private sector and the private sector should do the training on this. We were talking about offloading. We cannot offload our responsibilities of government to believe that the private sector is to carry through this. We have got to make sure that the government -- not the unions to do the training, and not only the private sector to do the training, but all of us, to work hand in hand --

Mr Elston: In partnership.

Mr Curling: -- private and public sector. Of course, as my colleague said, in partnership, in order to utilize our best resources here, not to come here, as I said, being anointed, "We understand the ordinary people and we understand the little man or the little woman," because each contribution, the private sector or whether the public sector, has that contribution to make.

The people are hurting. We want, around this budget that is being presented, that we understand the issue, that we do some consultation, not that make-believe stuff where we call a couple of our friends in the unions on the phone and say, "I've spoken to you, and if you are called by any members, tell them that you've spoken to these members."

We saw where the Police Services Act regulation was done in that kind of manner. I asked many of the people who had vested interests. All the people of Ontario have a vested interest in how the police behave and how justice is being done in this province. But the way we are seeing this, we are being called by a few interest groups and then told, "Here is the regulation."

I know they all are quite literate people, and as my colleague here would say to them, "Read the Hansard for some of the things that you have said in the past," because some of the things they have said in the past, if they go by it in detail, they would not go astray. As I always say, not only should they just talk about talk but do some action. If they walk the same walk that they have talked, I tell them they cannot go wrong.

In the meantime, there is the suffering of the people in the province, the suffering of the people in my constituency of Scarborough North, who have seen a tremendous amount of layoffs. The fact is that they need jobs, they need to be productive, they need to contribute, and this government, which has put itself up as understanding it all, does not seem to know what it is doing. Surprisingly enough, I think they have a good heart, but I think their will and their attitude have shown otherwise. Having just a good heart and giving these nice words in this House, or even outside or in news releases, does not help the situation.

We want money where we can put it into action. The people need that. They need jobs. They do not need to have $700 million recycled over and over and respent and reannounced and reannounced.

I must give credit to this government in some respects. Not all that they have done is bad. I have listened here in the short time and heard them reintroduce many Liberal policies, and I commend them for doing that. I commend them for recognizing good policies and following through on that. The Police Services Act is a good example. I say to them that that tells me there is intellect over there. Maybe it needs us to be more aggressive on the opposition side so that they can follow the rules and recognize the people who need to contribute.

Hon Mr Wildman: Substance.

Mr Curling: The honourable member, the Minister of Natural Resources, said he wants substance. Do members see what I have said? He cannot recognize it when he sees what there is to be done.

I say to the members in my summary that I still have confidence in this Treasurer, because I have worked with him, and I ask his backbenchers as they are hooting in the back there at times to listen to the constructive criticism that comes from here. Listen to the fact of people who understand the people too. They are not the only ones who understand people. As a matter of fact, I question if they do understand the people to that extent. Rhetoric will not get us anywhere; action will.

Mr Cousens: I would like to congratulate the leader of our party for presenting this motion and giving us an opportunity to remind the government of its responsibilities to the people of Ontario. We are doing it in time, because they still have an opportunity to consider what they are going to put in the budget. In fact, I commend the Treasurer for being here today. We will be listening to him on Monday. Let's hope he is listening to us today.

First of all, I would remind him not to listen too much to the Liberals, because they had a chance to do things right and they are the ones who began this whole process of offloading expensive items to the municipalities, just huge numbers of them, requiring the municipalities to increase their taxes to double-digit levels, making it next to impossible for people in our ridings to continue to afford to live in their own homes, in their own condos. So there is a precedent that I do not want this government to follow. Do not listen to what the Liberals are doing. The NDP should come along and at least remind themselves of what they said when they were in opposition and know for a fact that there are a number of things that they should be really considering carefully.

On the environmental subject, and as the Environment critic for our caucus, I am genuinely concerned with what is going to happen to Metro's waste reserve fund, this accumulated money that has come out of the tipping fees, which is now about to be dipped into in order to pay some of the high welfare bills of the municipality. Metro Toronto has a huge problem in trying to keep its budget under control. There is a little pot of money there. Then this minister is coming along and saying, "Well, maybe we'll have a shared program to handle the garbage in the province," and then Metro is looking at other ways of doing it. I really hope that there is some way in which we can start balancing budgets, balancing responsibility, accepting the accountability at different levels of the province for what they are responsible for.

I would like to remind the Treasurer as well that the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement guidelines are really causing a large cost to the local municipalities. There has never been any understanding at the provincial level on what it costs to implement MISA. I was at a large seminar that was being held in Metro Toronto this week. Across Ontario, representatives have gathered from the tricommittee and from -- I was one of the keynote speakers yesterday morning and brought up what is happening in Los Angeles. In the United States some 800,000 miles of sewer are disintegrating. It is like an Alka Seltzer tablet in water the way it is eating away at the concrete, because once they removed all the heavy effluents in the sewer system, all the heavy metals, the bacteria are gathering there now and it is now eroding in a huge way the sewers. So there is going to be a large replacement cost that is also going to be impacting the costs of our sewers and the infrastructure in our own province.

1720

Members should understand that for every action this government takes at the provincial level, it has an impact at the local level, and that the taxpayers cannot afford to pay any more. The government should not think it is doing them a favour to have an increased deficit. This government somehow has to balance the needs of the province with the ability of people in this province to pay for it.

My question is, who is going to be paying for Metropolitan Toronto's garbage when the Minister of the Environment has announced that York region is going to be the place where this government is going to be depositing Metro's garbage? And that is lunacy. First of all, I question the logic, I question the policy, but now I ask, who is going to pay for it? Who is going to pay for it? I certainly hope this government is not passing that down to the people at the local level.

When this government comes off with its environmental bill of rights, that too is going to be another instance in which the public ends up having to pay for its policies. I trust that this will be a budget that is balanced and that does not pass on more responsibility to the local taxpayer.

Mr Mahoney: It is a surprise to know that the Treasurer is going to give us his wisdom for almost 20 minutes. That will be fascinating. We will take notes. Well, there are 17 left on the clock.

I am pleased to rise to discuss this and I am very interested in some of the comments that have been made by some of my colleagues in this House. The issue that the Conservatives are the purveyors of truth and the only ones who are responsible for balanced budgets and that the socialists are going to take care of all of the social problems, frankly, that makes me laugh a little bit when I hear some of the nonsense.

Members should know that when we came into government, we inherited a real deficit of $2.6 billion -- the Liberal Party did. It was not manufactured. It was not created based on new programs or Liberal policies. Unlike this government's, it was not something we manufactured, but it was in fact a real deficit.

When the current Treasurer took office, he held a press conference and the very first question he was asked by the media was, "Did the Liberals lie?" in trying to discuss the $2.5-billion deficit that he was announcing. To his credit, he said, "No, the Liberals did not lie, the Treasurer did not lie." I believe he went on to explain how the deficit occurred, how we went from a balanced budget to a $2.5-billion deficit. I think the Treasurer will recall there was $700 million in lost revenue, due to the downturn in the economy, from retail sales tax alone. Anybody in the retail business would understand the impact that lost revenue had.

There was another $300 million in lost revenue due to the slowdown in the housing industry and the fact that our land transfer tax revenues were depleted by some $300 million. We were at $1 billion before they opened the books. That was not manufactured or cooked or made up. That was reality.

Then I think the Treasurer sat down and looked at it and said: "Well, let's see. We've got a UTDC loan here of $400 million which was instituted by our colleagues over here."

Hon Mr Laughren: It was due.

Mr Mahoney: It was not even due. It was a wonderful opportunity to pay off the mortgage even though the mortgage was not due and maybe blame the former government. But in all fairness, the Treasurer was honourable; he admitted that. He admitted that $400 million was indeed paying off the debt that was not currently due. So we are up to $1.4 billion.

Then there was the slush fund, and the Treasurer admitted that the policies of the NDP, since it took government, would add a $700-million deficit. Now we are up to $2.1 billion.

Hon Mr Laughren: That's silly.

Mr Mahoney: That is silly? Those are the numbers the Treasurer put forward and they are the facts, to the honourable minister.

An hon member: No.

Mr Mahoney: Yes, they are.

Then there was another $0.3 billion. We are up to $2.4 billion, all created either by the policies of this Treasurer and his left-wing government or by the downturn in the economy. They were not created, unlike when we took office and we inherited from the owners of Minaki Lodge, who only bought Minaki Lodge so they could fly in their water bombers and go on vacation up there, so we promptly sold the lodge to save the taxpayers the problem. We inherited that and of course fear of -- I mean, unbelievable.

Can members imagine a Conservative government, which is now calling for fiscal responsibility, which bought Suncor? I mean, going into the national gasoline business. Fascinating, a really difficult position to understand, but in any event they had Suncor on the books, they had Minaki Lodge, they had deficits that Mr Davis -- and we heard about McKeough earlier -- had left the people of this province. We as a Liberal government inherited that and for the first time in 20 years balanced the books, for the first time in 20 years balanced the budget, so we understand what this motion means.

I personally support it because I think it is very important to send a message of confidence to the people, to the business community and to the labour community in this province. Let me tell members that is not the message that is going out there. As a matter of fact, I believe, and it is very obvious to me as I talk to people around the province -- like my colleague the member for Nipissing I am getting around a little bit too, perhaps not quite as aggressively as he and others, but I am getting around a little bit just to spread the message.

I am hearing a real sense of fear. There is an atmosphere of fear out there. People are saying, "My goodness, have we really got four more years of this?" I say: "Actually, probably not. We may have five more years of this, four and half, somewhere around there." People are frightened. They go: "We didn't really vote for this. I mean, we thought maybe we were going to get a minority Liberal government. We were a little angry with Mulroney, we were a little fed up with some of the Peterson policies, but we didn't really vote for a socialist Ontario, we really didn't." The people are saying that and they are getting up and they are going --

Interjection .

Mr Mahoney: To the member for Oxford, honestly, it is true. He knows he got here by accident. He should admit it. Give me a break. The member was walking between classes when somebody called him and said he had won. It was the biggest shock. He had to leave the beer hall, for God's sake, to go and get sworn in. The member should admit it.

It was a shock, 6 September, and here we are. It was such a surprise that some members had even ordered a whole other year's supply of letterhead from their other job. Tell me that the member actually believed he would be here. Why would he have ordered the letterhead and the business cards? I understand that one member had his furniture in a van. He was going to Florida and he said, "Honey, don't worry, they just want me to put my name up." Our friend the member for Durham East said: "They just want me to put my name up. I won't win. No problem." They were moving to Florida. Guess what? He had to unpack the van. The member for Durham East is going: "Back the van up, dear, we got to unpack it. We won."

Let's face it, it really was not intentional. The Treasurer won on purpose. He is an old pro. He has been doing this for a long time. But it really was not intentional to get a majority socialist government and we had better understand that, because now what is happening is that the public out there is saying: "My God, we're going to have a welfare state that will be out of control. We're going to have deficits in the $3 billion, $4 billion, $5 billion, $6 billion --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I do not know. How high can the member count? Is there any responsibility? Is there any accountability? Understand something. It is fine to say, "No more taxes," and I understand that they have to deliver services, but the Treasurer had better realize something, and I think he does even though he might not like to admit it because he wants to forget the old days when he wanted to nationalize Inco. That was then; this is now. He really did not mean that. He had better understand that we need places like Inco to be healthy, to be productive, to be creating jobs, to be paying taxes, to be generating wealth in this community. Under a socialist government, they are scared to death. They do not know what the Treasurer is going to do. I suggest there is a reason for that. The reason they do not know what the Treasurer is going to do is because he does not know what he is going to do.

1730

Mr Runciman: Those were interesting comments by the member for Mississauga West. He was trying to emphasize the point that the NDP is in government by accident. That may well be the case, but I want to remind him that the Liberals were in government by reason of going to bed with the socialists. We can say that we are faced with a socialist government in this province because of the actions of the Liberal government, not only in essence by going to bed with them --

Mr Mahoney: You looked under the sheets too.

Mr Runciman: -- but the fact that it ran the province so badly during the five-year opportunity it had that we are now the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America.

Mr Perruzza: Listen up, Mahoney.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview, I would ask you to refrain from heckling.

Mr Runciman: I did not even hear him, so obviously he was not having much impact.

I want to talk briefly about this, and I have a great deal of respect for the Treasurer. He is a fine gentleman. He knows something is coming here.

I think it was interesting when they talked about releasing our facts on our own personal incomes and our own personal status and it was revealed that the Treasurer does not have any Canada savings bonds, does not have any guaranteed income certificates, does not have any investments whatsoever. I want to ask him today, does he have a bank account?

Hon Mr Laughren: What you see is what you get.

Mr Runciman: We are talking about a man responsible for a $50-billion-plus budget in this province. I know he is a competent individual, but I want to look at that government totally.

We talk about great concerns on the part of people in this province about what is happening. We have seen the virtual collapse in the past few days of one minister. We saw the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Affairs go down the tubes; we are now seeing the Solicitor General quite possibly being faced with resignation. A lot of these problems stem from the fact that we do not have anyone in that government with any business experience. They do not know how to deal with a balance sheet. We have staff who have no real experience. We are drawing from union ranks; we are not drawing from people with business experience, we are not drawing from people who can really help them to manage a competent government in this province. I think that is creating a great deal of concern among a significant number of people in this province.

The bureaucracy is referring to this government as the Clampetts. We all recall that old TV show, the Beverly Hillbillies -- I think it is dead on.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have the responsibility to make sure that the procedures are followed. If I cannot hear, I cannot help. So I would ask you to refrain from heckling. It is in the procedures, section 20(b).

Mr Runciman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate your intervention.

I want to say that the socialist takeover of a province is a signal for economic disaster. We just have to look at what happened in British Columbia, what happened in Saskatchewan, what happened in Manitoba, and what is now happening in the province of Ontario: an unprecedented number of bankruptcies, people being laid off on a significant daily basis. It is a scary prospect that we are all facing.

Mr Pouliot: What is a socialist to you, Bob? Tell us what a socialist is.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no point in going on like this. There is no point at all, honestly.

Le député de Lac-Nipigon, je vous demande de vous modérer.

Mr Runciman: The unfairness of this is that I have limited time and they have chewed into it significantly. Maybe it pays off to heckle. I am not sure. I will try it again myself some time.

I want to say, in wrapping up, that things are happening in this province that many people are not aware of, things like the changes at the Workers' Compensation Board where we are having that packed with people from labour backgrounds. It is going to have a significant, one-sided impact. What do we have? Billions and billions of dollars of unfunded liability. What is the incentive for business to continue to operate in this province, for new investment in this province? The government is scaring them out of this place. We are faced with very difficult times ahead. We can only hope that this government collapses quickly, we have an election, and a Progressive Conservative government comes to power.

Mrs Marland: I wish it were not necessary to have this motion today. However, in speaking to it, I have a great deal of concern. The fact that already Ontario is the most heavily taxed jurisdiction in North America is something that everyone is concerned about. Our high rates of both personal and business taxation reduce our competitiveness and are contributing to the exodus of businesses out of Ontario to other provinces and to the United States.

Further tax increases, although they will help pay for government programs, will prolong the recession and delay economic recovery. Therefore, government must accept that it cannot be everything to everyone, that it can only collect so much in taxes and only offer so many programs. We must learn to manage revenues more efficiently. If we need more money for essential services like health care and housing, we must decide what else can be reduced in order to free up money for the essentials.

The government must also put its own house in order. That means restraint in wage negotiations and a freeze on any expansion of the public service. One of the worst habits of the previous Liberal government was to announce new programs and then to expect the municipalities and their property taxpayers to pay for them.

For example, in 1990, the Peel Board of Education had to budget over $13 million for provincially mandated programs by the Liberal government: $3.5 million for the employer health tax, $4 million for pay equity legislation, $1.32 million for reduced class sizes in grades 1 and 2 and $4 million for occupational health and safety legislation.

In addition to the expenses of provincial offloading, school boards have had to pick up a greater and greater share of education costs. Provincial cost-sharing with the Peel board declined from 30% in 1985 to 18.1% in 1990 under the previous Liberal government. As a result, last year the Peel Board of Education had to raise education taxes by 17.2%.

This year, Mississauga taxpayers who support the Peel Board of Education are a little more fortunate, since they face an education tax increase of 4.98%. I hope that this NDP government will live up to its promise not to download on to the municipalities and school boards. Municipal ratepayers badly need a chance to recover from the double-digit tax increases that they faced year after year when the provincial Liberals were in power.

The interest alone on the national debt will cost more than $43 billion next year. That is a very scary figure. The national debt is eating up more and more of the federal government's revenues and making it less and less possible to provide the social programs to which Canadians have grown accustomed. Ontario must not fall into the same trap. We must not mortgage our children's and grandchildren's futures to pay for our present greediness.

The province must follow the same commonsense rules of financial management that we use to make our own family budgets. If we cannot afford to pay cash for something and if the purchase cannot be financed within strict limits, then we do without it. The NDP government must set a target for a balanced budget and develop a scheme to meet that target. If the province does not demonstrate this fiscal responsibility, we run the risk of losing even more ground in our struggle to be competitive in a rapidly changing international market. For if we lose our triple A credit rating and the respect of the international business community, we will fail to attract and keep the innovators, the entrepreneurs, the leaders and the investors who are crucial to our economic wellbeing. Without a strong economy, we cannot do the other things we value, such as looking after vulnerable and sick persons, providing a world-class education to our children and protecting our environment.

1740

The time is now. I think that everyone in this House has a responsibility to recognize that the public is serious about tax revolt, and it is the decisions that are made in this Legislature that push them further and further against the wall. We hope that the budget next Monday will not push the people of Ontario further and further out of reality and into tremendous difficulty.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The Treasurer has the floor.

Hon Mr Laughren: Every now and again there are days that remind me of why I have stayed here 20 years, and this has not been one of those days, I hasten to add.

However, I have enjoyed the debate this afternoon and I think that the leader of the third party, by putting the debate before the House this afternoon, has done us all a service. It allows all of us to talk a little bit about how we think the province should be run. We think that that is an appropriate thing to have brought before the House.

I have particularly enjoyed the comments of all those members who spoke from different sides, and we on this side do take seriously the suggestions that members make, as long as they are positive. It does not mean that we have to agree with them all, but we do take them quite seriously.

I must say, though, that there were some aspects of the motion put forth by the leader of the third party that were a little bit hard to take. I think that for the provincial Tories to be giving us advice on how to manage the economy comes a little bit hard for us to accept. It is not that they do not make the odd good point, but I think they should at least acknowledge the fact that some of our problems, not all of them, but some of our problems in this province have their roots at the federal level. You simply must accept that fact. I would take their comments a lot more seriously if, from time to time, they acknowledged that fact, but they never do. They simply stand in their place and defend the indefensible.

Who would disagree that high interest rates have hurt the province of Ontario and pushed us into a recession? Who would disagree that the value of the Canadian dollar has been a factor in the recession? Who would disagree that the GST has had a dampening effect on the economy in the province? And who, of all things, would disagree that the free trade agreement has had a detrimental effect on the economy of the province as well?

There is a sentence in the motion by the leader of the third party about, "Given the continual upward pressure on provincial taxes and the continual offloading of programs on municipal governments...." I want to say, if anybody ever wrote the book on offloading on another jurisdiction it is the federal government in Ottawa, not the provincial government in Ontario. That is who wrote the book.

Mrs Cunningham: Wait till next Monday. We can hardly wait. We will see what you do on Monday, won't we?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am glad that the members opposite are looking forward with much anticipation to the budget next Monday and I hope that we will not disappoint them. I hope that we are able to bring forth a budget that treats people --

Mrs Cunningham: Wait till we see the big, billion-dollar deficit. Just watch.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- the way we think they should be treated in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for London North, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: I am not engaging in rhetoric when I say that the federal Tories wrote the book on offloading. They are the ones who did to us what they did on the established programs. They are the ones who did to us on the Canada assistance plan. They are the ones who did that. They are the ones who, at the middle of the worst recession since the 1930s, cut $100 million out of the Canadian job strategy program. How do they justify that?

At the same time they were doing that, cutting back on the job strategy, we were putting $700 million into job creation in the province of Ontario. We are very proud of that. We are very proud of the fact that we have taken. on the recession and combated the recession and created jobs, not cut back. That is what we have done in this province.

Mrs Cunningham: Give me a break. Tell me one person that you have trained. Talk about training, one person that you have trained, one union that is helping us with the training program in Ontario, just one.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for London North, would you please stop heckling the Treasurer?

Hon Mr Laughren: Let me remind the members opposite what the criteria were, because every now and again in the House someone questions the criteria of the $700-million program. These are the criteria. First of all the objective: The objective was to immediately create jobs through repair, renovations, and the upgrading of public infrastructure in the province. We think that is terribly important.

These were the criteria set out by the operations committee, chaired by my colleague the Chair of Management Board and now the Minister of Health: There had to be a quick start within six months of receiving approval; it had to be labour-intensive because we wanted to create jobs; they had to be communities with high economic need; and there had to be some job opportunities for designated groups in society; there had to be strong indications of economic hardship in those communities, and also the level of welfare case load growth in those communities. Those were the criteria. We think that they were the right criteria for establishing the decisions as to which communities would get their share of the anti-recession package.

I want to comment briefly on a comment, because this motion came from the third party, the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. I cannot help but quote something that the federal Prime Minister said in 1984. What he said was, speaking for his party at the federal level, "Give us 20 years and you will not recognize this country." We can barely recognize this province now because of federal policies. That is exactly what he has done.

I do not want to engage simply in rhetoric; I want to give some specific examples. When the free trade agreement was brought in, Canadians were promised 250,000 new jobs. Instead we have seen 226,000 jobs disappear since the free trade agreement was made. Canadians working in the food and beverage industry were assured that free trade would bring with it 6,400 new jobs. Instead they have seen 30,000 jobs disappear. Canadians were assured that employment in the forestry industry would remain stable under free trade. Instead more than 11,000 jobs have been lost. Canadians were told that there would be 1,600 new jobs in the clothing industry with free trade. Two years later, the industry has lost 26,000 jobs.

We do not need any lessons on offloading or any lessons on how to cope with the recession from the third party. All the lessons we need we are getting from the federal government, and we do not like any of them; none of them. As we bring down a budget next week, we are determined to do so in the best interests of all the citizens of this province. We have consulted widely leading up to the budget. The budget consultations were intensive, and I know that the former Treasurer will remember how intensive they were when he held this position as well.

We have listened all across the province to people's concerns. For those people who do not appreciate the fact, I think --

Mr Runciman: Who did you talk to besides Bob White? Gord Wilson? Dennis McDermott around any more?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, well, the member for Leeds-Grenville seems to think that we listen only to those people in the organized labour movement. That is simply not true. We listen to everybody across this province, and this budget was drafted having listened to interest groups all across the province, from all the various sectors, from the business community as well as from the labour movement and as well from non-profit organizations all across the province.

When members opposite speak and give us advice, we listen to them. We take their advice seriously. When people out there across the province give us advice on things that they think we should be doing, we listen very carefully. As a matter of fact, we have been saying since the day we were elected that we intended to consult like no other government had consulted, to consult more widely and to take into consideration the views of all the people of Ontario, not simply any one narrow interest group but all the people of Ontario.

1750

I know -- I trust at least -- that on next Monday afternoon and the days that follow members opposite will appreciate the fact that we are not able to satisfy everyone with this budget, not at all, but we are going to do the best we can --

Mr Elston: Hurricane Floyd.

Hon Mr Laughren: Not at all, but we are going to do the best we can. We are not prepared to throw up our hands and say: "The recession is upon us. There is nothing we can do." We are determined to tackle this recession head on, to create jobs when we can, because we think it is in the best interests of all the people of this province.

Mr Harris: I am pleased to be able to sum up this debate today. I thank all members for participating and for paying attention to the viewpoint that we are bringing forward in this particular resolution.

I agree with a couple of things that government members and the Treasurer have said: first of all, that the fiscal situation they inherited was not a healthy situation, that in fact the people of Ontario voted for a change on 6 September, that the type of spending, of lack of accountability, out of sync with every other jurisdiction in Canada and in North America and indeed around the world, was causing us serious competitive problems here in Ontario. The Treasurer may not agree with everything obviously that I say. At least I hope he does not. I will know I am in trouble if he does. However, clearly the people of Ontario were not happy with the fiscal direction that we had received.

The motion talks about offloading on municipalities, and the Treasurer tells us nothing about his government. He points to other governments. The people are tired of the finger-pointing around this province. We are interested here in Ontario in what is going on here.

Hon Mr Laughren: You are not tired of Brian Mulroney, Mike?

Mr Harris: The fact that the Treasurer points the finger at the federal government -- I assume both Liberal and Conservative ones over the past period of time -- says to me he understands that it is not fair, that it is not right, the principle of he or she who opens his or her mouth should pay. He understands that very well, and listening to his comments today, he should understand that the same principles should apply when we are dealing with a provincial government and the municipalities.

One of the most despicable things that the Liberals did when they were in government was they increased spending an average annual rate in excess of 10% per year, 10% per year for each and every year they were in office. Now all the averages for all the other provinces was 7.2%. The average for the federal program spending was 3.7%. The average annual inflation over the period they were in office was 4.4%, so what they did was they increased spending this amount of money. What did they do for it? They taxed. They taxed and taxed and taxed until we were not competitive in this province. We have seen the cross-border shopping problem. We have seen the other concerns that are worse in Ontario than in any other province.

The second thing they did was they said, "We can't tax any more, so we'll offload." I remember the charts of the Treasurer of the Liberal Party. He brought forward these charts and said: "Look, we're going to spend this money. We've promised it. We're going to announce it. We are going to see that it is spent." But he gave us these charts that said: "Municipalities have been more fiscally responsible than us and they have more capacity to borrow than we do now, so we're going to make municipalities pay. You go out and borrow for the infrastructure that we are promising." That was one of the worst things.

The people of Ontario voted for a change, so we are in this motion reminding the Treasurer that this offloading to municipalities must stop, that he or she who opens his or her mouth should pay. So if there are any promises to be made in this budget, we are asking him to accept responsibility for them.

The other part of the motion, though, deals with deficit financing, because what we fear is that the government has not learned a lesson from what happened over the past decade, quite frankly, in Ontario; not just the Liberals, this massive increase in spending. We fear the government is going to carry on with increases in spending of double the rate of inflation. We fear also that the government does not have even a sense of intestinal fortitude. Where I do give credit to the current Treasurer -- not the Liberal Party, not the Premier, but the Treasurer -- is that I believe he said to the Premier: "I'll offload everything I can. I'll do all of that. But we must tax for all your promises." He at least said that.

I believe the government is headed down a path to do something far worse. They will not be accountable in this year for their spending. They will not offload it, although I suspect there will be some of it. What they will do is run up the deficit. They will say, "We'll defer the taxing to another generation," and we fear that not only do they believe that this a responsible way to go, but they do not see the slippery slope that they are heading down.

We understand. We are not happy with the federal fiscal situation. We are not happy that they have no more options. We are saying, if this government heads down the slippery slope that they headed down with Pierre Trudeau and the rest 25 years ago -- carried on, yes, by some Conservatives as well -- it will take away the options before us.

We are most concerned about that, and we are asking the Treasurer to remember what happened to the federal fiscal situation. Twenty-five years ago, 10 or 11 cents on the dollar went to interest; today it is 36 cents. That is $45 billion a year not available for the needy, for the handicapped, for the poor, for social programs, to help those who need help. We do not want to see the government head down that slope here in Ontario as well, as we see it going.

The Treasurer talked today about the $700 million, as if we were opposed to that assistance. We told them we would spend $700 million as well. We told them how to get it. We said: "Bring in a 2% cap, not zero like Quebec. Bring in a 2% cap in the public sector, guaranteed, recession-proof jobs, and give that $750 million to those workers who need help." But no, the government decided to run up the deficit for it. They did not think that was responsible.

We have pointed out example after example of wasted spending. The government cannot throw the amount of money around. They cannot take the provincial budget from $25 billion to $50 billion in five years without having a substantial waste in the system. We have pointed many of those out to the government, which has refused to acknowledge them or deal with them in any concrete way.

What have they done to run up this deficit? I want to talk about a program -- and the Minister of Labour is here -- $175 million for the wage protection fund: Does he know what he is saying to workers? He is saying: "We give up. We can't find you work. We're going to pay you this money." If the government is going to help workers, why is that money not being spent on training, on retraining, on apprenticeship, on relocation to get jobs? The government has given up on the workers of this province. It has given up on the poor. It has given up on the disadvantaged.

I and my party and the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party are not prepared to give up. We are prepared to say: "We're going to put you back to work. We're going to help you. We've not given up on you. We've not given up on companies." All the government says to companies is: "We're going to tax you while you're leaving. You're going to Buffalo? We're going to kick --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Nipissing, please take your seat.

1807

The House divided on Mr Harris's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes-39

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Cleary, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Henderson, Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch, B., Nixon, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Runciman, Scott, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve.

Nays-64

Abel, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Pilkey, Pouliot, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The House adjourned at 1811.