Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): The standing committee on administration of justice has recently conducted public hearings on bills dealing with substitute decision-making, consent to health care treatment, living wills and provision of advocacy services. The hearings attracted more intervenors than those on Sunday shopping, and every single organization representing people who deliver health care services in Ontario asked that the bills be redrafted.

Doctors, hospitals, nurses, optometrists, dentists, the Victorian Order of Nurses, nursing homes and rest and retirement homes all provided evidence that timely and humane health care could not be provided were these bills to advance in their present form. Organizations such as the Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics and the Alzheimer Association of Ontario pleaded for major redrafting of these bills. Pharmaceutical manufacturers, individuals who are involved on a daily basis with medical-legal ethics questions and people who work with vulnerable people all asked for substantial and substantive change.

There is no time urgency to these bills. There is urgency, however, in ensuring that new laws are practical, affordable and reasonable, that they do not harm people and that their principles are respected. I am calling on the Minister of Health, the Attorney General, the Minister of Citizenship and the Treasurer to show some grace, judgement and flexibility with respect to these bills, to withdraw and to redraft, because this is bad legislation and it will hurt rather than help the people of Ontario.

CAMPAIGN WATERLOO

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): On Tuesday, April 7, I was pleased to join the University of Waterloo in launching an ambitious fund-raising campaign to raise $89 million. These funds will be used for teaching and research positions, for student projects and for establishing and enhancing research and training facilities in key areas such as environmental science and engineering, optometry and accounting.

What is most impressive about Campaign Waterloo is that they have already raised approximately $30 million, one third of their goal for this five-year campaign.

The students have pledged $12 million. They are to be commended for their commitment to the university's future. At a time when it is becoming more difficult to offer a quality education because of budget cutbacks and increasing costs, it is encouraging to see the leadership of the students and their recognition of the long-term value of their education.

One of the most important initiatives will be the creation of an environmental science and engineering facility. The Premier has indicated that he is looking into providing the university with assistance in establishing this important teaching and research facility. I would like to urge him to do so.

Universities play a very important role in the social and economic development of our province. Faced with decreasing provincial support, the University of Waterloo is to be congratulated for initiating this ambitious fund-raising campaign to help prepare our young people for jobs that will make for a better and more competitive Ontario and Canada.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I rise today to pay tribute in a sense to the members of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. I must say it was my pleasure as the Chair of that committee to work within a framework of non-partisan spirit. We were able, over a period of about a year in all, to be responsive to the questions, the themes and the issues that were raised by the people of Ontario. Now that the final report has come out from that committee, I have to say it is my hope that this report will be the groundwork for discussions in various ridings across the province.

Last week in my own riding of Victoria-Haliburton, I spoke with the students of the Lindsay Collegiate and Vocational Institute. At that time I was able to talk about the major issues that are confronting our nation and the future hopes to have a unified Canada. I was impressed by the things they said and by their commitment to the future of this country.

It is my hope that as we continue to discuss these things, a growing consensus will arise not only in Ontario but in this country so that we can continue to look forward to a united Canada and a prosperous future for all Canadians.

PAY EQUITY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The minister -- the member for Nepean.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I look forward to the day you can address me in the way you just did.

Yesterday my leader made reference to a letter to the Premier from Dr Peter George, president of the Council of Ontario Universities. In his letter, Dr George expressed the university community's extreme frustration at the Premier's unwillingness even to meet with the heads of our universities. Adding further insult to injury, the NDP government has just announced an $8-million cut in pay equity grants to universities.

"We were promised reimbursement for the cost of implementing provincial pay equity legislation. The money the Treasurer is now pledging is mere tokenism. It will not even partially meet the substantial costs of implementing the plan and adjusting employee salaries." These are the words of the president of the Council of Ontario Universities.

It's obvious the NDP government has abandoned its commitment to university education. Not one word was said in the throne speech about universities and how crucial they are on our road back to long-term economic recovery. Now they have been stung with yet another cutback in funding. The pay equity reduction comes on top of the $9.2-million cutback in university operating funds announced last fall.

ANNIVERSARY OF VIMY RIDGE

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Today is the 75th anniversary of Vimy Ridge, and we are reminded of what it means to be a Canadian. As Canadians, we are fortunate to know the meaning of freedom and democracy. Those who fought at Vimy Ridge did so to make the world safe for freedom of culture, religion and ideology.

We have not learned the lesson of the First World War, that living with each other is far better than killing. Today the world has become marginally tolerant of those who are different from us. Instead of learning about other cultures, there are those who opt for control through oppression or elimination through genocide.

1340

Canada is upheld as an example of how different cultures, religions and ideologies can live and work together. We are a model to the world. However, this international acclaim is being eroded because some persist in keeping alive hatreds once left behind in an old country. Canada offered refuge to many cultures since Vimy Ridge. We were here to let all people start over, to say goodbye to the pain and anguish of war. We must work together to end oppression and suffering of our fellow men and women. There are peaceful solutions. Killing is not the answer.

As Canadians, we should remember those who bravely fought and gave their lives at Vimy Ridge. Their heroic efforts allowed the Allied forces to succeed when all else failed. We should also remember that celebrating a victory came at the loss of lives on both sides. So as we remember all wars let us keep in mind those who lost their lives in battles, those who died at the hands of oppressors and those who died because of their culture or religion.

KEN MACINNIS

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Just a little over a week ago I had the pleasure of attending the retirement dinner in honour of Ken MacInnis, who was retiring from his position as chief administrative officer at the Ajax and Pickering General Hospital. Ken came to that position in 1957. Over that time Ken has had the privilege of working with many ministers of Health.

During his tenure as chief administrative officer of the Ajax and Pickering General Hospital Ken officiated over one complete expansion and began the current expansion of the hospital. For those people who had contact with Ken over the years, they know that he was always frugal with the taxpayers' dollars and was always looking for the most efficient way to achieve the goal of better health and wellbeing for the residents of Ajax and Pickering who from time to time came to the hospital for care.

As Ajax and Pickering grew in population, the need for a larger facility became apparent, and for the last decade or so Ken and the board of directors of the Ajax and Pickering General Hospital have been planning and working on the expansion of the hospital. To say that they have been persistent in their request for an expansion is an understatement and does not adequately describe the strength of purpose shown by the community and led by Ken MacInnis.

On a personal note, my political education about matters pertaining to the need for the expansion began almost immediately after the election. My first contact with the hospital board was almost right away.

I know the residents of Ajax and Pickering would like to thank Ken for his 34 years of loyal service, and I wish him, on their behalf and mine, a healthy and happy retirement.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Individuals and families in Niagara who have suffered the damaging and debilitating effect of alcohol and drug addiction are distraught by the news that the Ministry of Health will cut its financial support for the alcohol and drug treatment centre in St Catharines, eliminating programs which have rehabilitated people, restoring their sense of self-worth and helping them become responsible, productive members of the community.

With the withdrawal of OHIP funding for such services outside the country, referrals to Ontario centres have increased dramatically; at the same time, the ministry may terminate funding for aftercare services and severely restrict its allocation for other needed programs.

The dire social, medical and financial consequences for communities of the inadequate funding of this essential health care service are clear. With a waiting time of more than three months for the start of treatment and the possibility that our centre and others in Ontario will be forced to turn away patients needing medical care, the minister should review her priorities and assign appropriate funding to a highly successful treatment program performed by dedicated health care professionals in our part of the province.

It would be tragic indeed if the modest sum to meet this genuine need would be denied while thousands of dollars are spent on self-serving government advertising and on OPP investigations of embarrassing leaks of government secrets and on redecorating the government caucus room.

TOBACCO TAXES

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Yesterday the government of Canada did the right thing by removing the $8-a-carton tax on exported cigarettes. By using other methods to deal with smuggling, the removal of the tax will help preserve farms and jobs in the tobacco industry.

Surely this government, and this Treasurer in particular, must recognize that high taxes do not deter smokers. High taxes simply lead people to buy cigarettes in the US or even to purchase smuggled cigarettes where no taxes are collected at all.

The government of New Brunswick has realized this and in its last budget slashed tobacco taxes by 25%. This will definitely reduce cross-border shopping and will also be a positive move for tourism. We all know that the major reasons for crossing the border are gas, alcohol and cigarette prices.

The government of Ontario, according to rumours, is looking at another big tobacco tax grab in its upcoming budget. At this time of crisis in our tobacco belt, and indeed in agriculture, any tax increase would be tragic and a horrible mistake, Mr Treasurer. I hope you're listening.

Ontario would best follow the example of New Brunswick. High taxes have already led to stores being robbed for their cigarettes, and even duty-free shops are going broke. If the Treasurer wants to maintain income from tobacco sales and maintain jobs in Ontario, he must realize that increasing the taxes will not do it.

SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Today I rise to acknowledge the work of an agency that has contributed to the wellbeing of many of my constituents. For the past 10 years, Scarborough Community Legal Services has provided a variety of services to those in need. These services include summary legal advice, legal representation, community organization, community education and, most important, law reform work.

In an effort to make systemic changes, they actively lobby all levels of government, participate in test cases and provide educational programs. They have promoted changes to programs and legislation to benefit the people they serve. Some of the issues these dedicated clinic workers have confronted are domestic violence, immigration issues, income maintenance, tenant concerns in private rental and major tenant issues in the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority.

The staff of Scarborough Community Legal Services includes Merle Abrahmse, Maggie Bekele, Jacquie Buncel, Elizabeth Klassen, Linda Mitchell, Linda Van Deuren, Nancy Vander Plaats and Peggie Walden. All these individuals have worked diligently to provide legal services to the low-income people of Scarborough. In doing so, they bring dignity to those who live a most marginalized existence in this society.

I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to the House Linda Mitchell from Scarborough Community Legal Services and her daughter, Darron Bunt.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HEALTH SERVICES

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health and minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy): Over the past few months, I have been stressing how urgent it is for a number of reasons -- because of reduced federal transfer payments, because of the declining provincial tax revenues due to the economic recession and because of years of uncontrolled growth in health spending -- to fast-track the restructuring of our health system, and our hospital system in particular.

The three factors I mentioned I believe are a threat to our national health care system. We have been left with no other choice, in this province and in fact in every province, but to quickly become more cost-efficient, more affordable in the service we deliver, and to ensure that we maintain high-quality health care at all times.

The accelerated restructuring of Ontario's hospital and health care system is now under way in every region of this province. The process involves finding more ways to provide services and programs to avoid duplications in services to try and remove waste from our system, to look at more outpatient and day surgery procedures, to look at shorter hospital stays and a shift from hospital-based services to appropriate community-based care.

Those concepts aren't new. Those programs, those shifts, have been started in our system. We are now faced with pressures that mean we need to accelerate the moves in that direction. There are compelling reasons to proceed with this restructuring, and our objectives -- besides cost control, which is only one objective, and I want to stress that -- are to develop more appropriate, accessible, affordable, community-based health care to meet the needs of communities and regions, to improve the quality of health care in Ontario and to ensure the preservation of Ontario's medicare system.

Mr Speaker, you will remember that earlier this year, at the end of January, the Treasurer announced $160 million in transition assistance to assist the major transfer sectors, such as schools and universities, the colleges and the hospitals, in sustaining essential services and employment during this restructuring process. This money was in addition to the transfer payments the Treasurer provided to the sector this year.

1350

Today I am pleased to inform you that my ministry has been allocated $95 million from this fund. This will be allocated as follows:

There will be $49 million to meet the demands of essential services such as dialysis and bone marrow transplants; to meet designated life support program needs such as chemotherapy for cancer and cardiac surgery, and to cover costs for new programs that have recently been approved in the past year that will be coming on stream in the next year.

The additional $46 million will be to promote the accelerated shift from institution-based services to outpatient and community care; to meet hospital needs for increased demand for service in areas of the province that are experiencing high population growth and the pressures that this places on our institutions in that area, and to reduce the historical funding inequities faced by some hospitals that have been cost-efficient and productive in their operations.

This additional funding helps preserve both essential services during this restructuring period and jobs for people who provide those services. Earlier this year I called on hospital management and hospital workers to become full working partners with us in this difficult task of managing the change that is taking place in our health care system.

There are examples throughout the province of hospitals that are undergoing successful restructuring and have managed to close beds and cut some jobs through attrition without reducing the quality of services and the services available to their communities. Members heard about some of these examples in Monday's speech from the throne. However, for many hospitals it has been a very stressful time and there has not been as much partnership and cooperation among management and workers as I am seeking.

In the past few months we have worked closely with hospital workers and their unions, with representatives of hospitals and their association to create a sound labour adjustment strategy, a workable plan that will produce results for those whose jobs are affected by restructuring. But I am calling for a more uniform cooperation, more collaboration among management and workers in all hospitals in the province to tackle the restructuring task at hand.

To this end, my ministry has established a committee of ministry, union and hospital representatives to develop guidelines that can be adapted for the specific use of individual hospitals. These guidelines, among other things, will make very clear the level of employee involvement the ministry expects in hospital budget and operational planning.

To further encourage partnership and collaboration, I am pleased to announce today that my ministry will be contributing a $30-million fund for the labour adjustment plan. This plan will provide counselling and job search assistance for laid-off hospital employees and retraining and relocation assistance for employees once parties have successfully concluded contract negotiations.

I believe this government has clearly shown its commitment to labour adjustment. The $30-million fund is a visible incentive to all parties to continue discussions towards affordable collective bargaining outcomes.

I do understand that it has been a most painful transition for many people. I've talked to many individuals who have lost their hospital jobs. In the next few weeks I expect to meet with workers, unions and hospital officials to try to iron out the best choices possible for hospital employees. To succeed, all of us, health care consumers, providers, workers, district health councils, governments, must work together in a spirit of cooperation and partnership.

The managed restructuring of the hospital system is now necessary if we are to preserve the medicare system we cherish. It is an investment in the future on behalf of future generations of Ontario.

PLANNING APPROVAL

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and government House leader): This province is home to a host of builders, planners, architects, developers and tradespeople who over the years have built a strong and enviable industry. That expertise and those resources remain, but more than 70,000 jobs in the construction industry have been lost to the recession.

That's why it is now more important than ever to build on the industry's expertise and strength. One of the ways this government can help the industry and the people of this province is to remove unnecessary obstacles that thwart good public and private development projects.

While I toured the province over the last couple of months, local politicians, members of the construction industry, developers and municipal lawyers alike have echoed a common concern: The province's planning approvals process does not work. It is too long and too confusing and it is costing us jobs.

Representatives of some of the key organizations interested in the planning process are in the gallery today. Allow me to introduce David Weinberg of the CIBC Development Corp, Al Libfeld of the Ontario Home Builders' Association, Howard Moscoe of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and John Stefanini of the Labourers' International Union, Local 183.

The announcement I am making today is the government's land use planning contribution to the economic recovery. Allow me to tell the House about the immediate steps we are taking to speed up the planning decision-making process.

First of all, we are simplifying the way government approves development project applications. We need a quicker, smarter way of determining whether a project should be approved. We are establishing criteria for decision-making that means desirable, ready-to-go projects are not delayed.

Teams of planners across the province from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Culture and Communications will work together for the first time to decide on development applications. At the same time, each of those ministries will speed up its own turnaround time. This is an improvement over the current system in which builders often wait for many months for an answer to their applications.

These teams, led by Municipal Affairs, will set priorities for provincial decisions based on good planning, protection of the environment and job creation. They will prepare coordinated provincial positions on new official plans and identify major projects whose merits allow them to be fast-tracked.

The principles of good planning, including environmental safeguards, will continue to be the foundation of every land use decision. Let me be clear: Accelerating the decision-making process does not mean that projects will be approved that would not have been approved in the past. What it does mean, however, is that a decision will be made sooner.

Another frustration I've heard while meeting with people on the road or in my office is that the province has not clearly articulated its criteria for good planning. To address this, every ministry involved in the review process will release guidelines setting out standards and approval requirements for plans and projects. People will know up front what the rules are.

The commission on planning and development reform in Ontario is currently working on a new Planning Act. In the interim, however, we will set out for the first time basic principles for planning that are in tune with the direction the commission is taking. These principles will guide municipalities in preparing their official plans. By releasing our principles of good planning now, we will be able to apply them to the 200 new and amended official plans expected in the next two years while the commission completes its mandate.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs will soon be releasing its streamlining guidelines: a set of practical tips, recommendations and techniques to avoid delays and duplication in the planning review process. Builders whose projects are non-controversial -- that is, proposals which do not require policy changes or pose threats to the environment -- will get answers from the government agencies in 90 days. These guidelines will make the existing system more efficient as we wait for the Sewell commission to present its recommendations.

I will be introducing amendments shortly to the Planning Act that will enable municipalities to make certain planning decisions locally. In addition, amendments will be made to give the public 60 days after notification of adoption to refer an official plan to the Ontario Municipal Board. This initiative is meant not to discourage referrals but to prevent undue uncertainty in the approvals process. Currently, projects which have been in the pipeline for a long time have often been derailed at the last minute by appeals. My ministry will continue to delegate subdivision and condominium approvals to certain municipalities.

In response to concerns voiced by municipalities in the development industry, we will also review technical issues related to the implementation of the municipal development charges.

Members of the House heard in the speech from the throne earlier this week that the government had appointed a facilitator to move vital capital projects through the regulatory process. I am pleased to introduce in the gallery today Mr Dale Martin, who will lead the government's efforts to speed up decision-making on major priority projects.

1400

The Palladium project in Ottawa-Carleton, which still faces multiple approvals, is the kind of project Mr Martin will be working on. It is estimated that the Palladium project could generate $203 million in construction expenditures and create more than 2,000 jobs over the next two years. Mr Martin will facilitate that kind of project as well as other capital works such as public transit projects in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr Martin is well known for his contribution to Toronto and Metro councils, where his creative work succeeded in getting projects built while ensuring that environmental and social goals were met. His job will be to cut the red tape and get good projects moving. In case there is any doubt, the Palladium project is the first project that has been referred to Mr Martin.

The Ontario Municipal Board continues to play a vital role in land use planning matters. The number of cases it considers has increased significantly over the last five or six years. The board's current backlog is unacceptable and the lengthy hearing delays must be curtailed. The chairman, members of the board and the staff of the OMB are working to reduce these delays.

This government will provide the board with additional staff and almost $200,000 more to manage its case load and clear the existing backlog. The goal is to significantly reduce the backlog and cut the waiting period for a hearing from the current 15 to 18 months to six to nine months. The government has transferred the administration of the Ontario Municipal Board from the Ministry of the Attorney General back to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The reporting relationship is for administrative purposes only. The board will, of course, continue to operate as an independent tribunal.

It is clear we are committed to speeding up the planning approvals process so that important projects can come on stream quickly: We have appointed a facilitator to direct those projects through the system, we are putting resources into clearing up the backlog at the Ontario Municipal Board and we are simplifying the system.

This initiative could free up billions of dollars of private sector investment and create thousands of jobs in Ontario. While these steps simplifying the planning approvals process are an interim step, I look forward to the day when the new planning commission provides this province with a new, efficient and accessible Planning Act.

RESPONSES

PLANNING APPROVAL

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I'm pleased that Mr Dale Martin didn't have to wait too long for an appointment. Other NDPs have been on the waiting list for some time. I am pleased to hear the minister say that Mr Martin will become a facilitator.

Interjection.

Mr Grandmaître: Those are the words of the minister: "a facilitator." I've known Mr Martin for the last seven years and I know he is not an ally of the OMB; that's for sure. Project X is still in limbo because of Mr Martin. I find it very strange the minister thinks this man will improve the system.

I agree with the minister that the system needs to be streamlined and that the process and principles of good planning in this province need to be fine-tuned. I congratulate him for that, but I find it very strange that he would appoint such a man as Mr Martin, who has been an enemy of the OMB since his first day on Metro council.

I find it very strange that now that he's a member of the government -- finally he's a member of the NDP government -- he will be the facilitator to speed up the process of the Palladium project in Ottawa-Carleton. The government spent thousands and thousands of dollars to fight the project and now it is going to pay Mr Martin a handsome sum to speed up the process. I find this ridiculous.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): We note with interest that the Minister of Health has finally come forward with $95 million in transition funding for hospitals. I remind the minister that Ontario hospitals have indicated over a long period that at least $231 million was needed to meet the needs of their vital programs in small hospitals, in life support, chronic care, new programs, hospital incentives and growth and equity funding.

The hospital sector has also indicated its concern that the Minister of Health has failed to recognize the role of hospitals in community-based care. While the minister has indicated that part of $46 million will be used to promote the accelerated shift from institution-based services to outpatient and community care, we also note there are no parameters for that shift. There has yet been no indication of the place of hospitals in the government's long-term care strategy, nor have we seen the government's view of chronic care hospitals in long-term care delivery. The role study of chronic care sits quite apart and separate from long-term care strategy as a whole.

The minister has announced $30 million in a labour adjustment fund to cope with restructuring, which means downsizing. Fifty million dollars is what the hospitals told the minister was needed, and I remind her that the Service Employees' International Union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union are now in arbitration, creating additional dollar pressures which can only lead to additional increased downsizing.

Since 1990, 5,100 hospital beds have closed and 8,000 people have been put out of work. Most of them are women. With this announcement it's very interesting to note there's no funding for pay equity. Indeed, the fact that there is no funding for pay equity creates additional pressures on hospitals which will inevitably lead to increased downsizing. Once again women get short shrift from this government.

I hope when the minister goes out to speak with the workers, the unions and the hospital officials she will address those questions about who is being laid off and where additional funds are coming from.

The entire issue of downsizing brings us to another point, because with a 1% transfer it is very clear the minister is insisting on a restructuring. As I've indicated, that means bed closings across the province, yet we have seen no approach, no directive, no guidelines, no broad policy approaches from this minister that will ensure equity in hospital services across the province. What we will begin to see, and I believe we are seeing already, is a massive distortion in access to and equity in health services across Ontario.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I am pleased to respond to the Minister of Health's announcement today. Minister, I find in your own admission that your announcement today will do nothing to prevent the random service cuts, bed closures and job losses that have continued to plague the health care system in Ontario under your leadership and that of your government.

Not to let the Liberals off the hook, I want to mention that the 1990 figures for layoffs were 1,124 layoffs in the hospital sector and 1,228 bed closures. In 1991-92 we saw an additional 2,738 people laid off and an additional 1,570 bed closures, and in 1992-93 there is a projection from the Ontario Hospital Association of an additional 4,000 job layoffs and 2,300 additional bed closures.

Minister, in your announcement you say you're going to provide counselling and job search assistance for laid-off workers. I tell you, that does nothing to put food on the tables of those families who've experienced layoffs.

Finally, I want to say that the outcome of the current negotiations between SEIU, CUPE and OPSEU, some 60,000 workers, by anybody's estimate will likely result in more than the $30 million you've allocated today.

Again today, Minister, you've failed to provide leadership in the health care crisis. Repeated attempts by myself, my colleagues in the other party, the Ontario Hospital Association and other health care providers to press you for a comprehensive management plan have failed. Today you had an opportunity to bring forward that plan and you've not done so. Again, your announcement is too late for workers already laid off and it pays only lipservice to those who will be laid off this year.

1410

PLANNING APPROVAL

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'd like to respond with regard to the Palladium and the Ottawa Senators. After this government has held up the fans for about $2 million in the Ottawa area, after this government has held up the taxpayers for about $2 million, I find the minister's statement preposterous. I wish he'd made an apology to this Legislature. All I can say is, what a joke.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I cannot believe the Minister of Municipal Affairs does not have his act together. What kind of crap are you trying on us now? You picked somebody from the city --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. Take your seat, please. I find this word offensive. I ask you not to use it.

Mr Murdoch: Whatever it is, whatever you want to call it then, it's not worth the paper it's written on. Mr Minister, if you don't know what's going on in this province by now -- you've got Sewell running around and he doesn't know what he's doing. Now you appoint somebody else in the city who won't know what he's doing. You're not looking after rural Ontario at all. Where do you get the right to pick and choose who you feel should get to the OMB? This is totally ridiculous and I think you should withdraw this whole thing or resign.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'd like to read from the Toronto Star of September 15, 1990. The member for York South stated: "We want to appoint people of ability and talent without any regard to their previous political affiliation. We're trying to create a different atmosphere. We're very much aware of how the public feels about it. The key thing is public confidence, public trust. The public has to have a sense that the system is on the up and up."

Mr Martin, who was a known NDP member of the Toronto city council and Metropolitan Toronto council, who's going to facilitate the OMB, in fact took a development to the OMB. Let's examine the World Trade Centre. He went to the OMB with a vexatious and frivolous action and was dismissed at the OMB, costing thousands and thousands of dollars, and was accused of abusing the process. It was taken to the Supreme Court of Ontario. They upheld the decision. The man you've put in charge to speed up the OMB has spent a lifetime slowing the process down.

Mr Minister, there are some appointments I can buy into. I respect Mr Martin, but I do not respect the fact that you can appoint this individual to speed up a process that he has in fact spent immense time ruining at public expense. Finally, we talk about patronage and pork-barrelling, another NDPer appointed. These people are so deep in the trough they need snorkels to breathe.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONTAMINATED LANDFILL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Today's headline in the evening edition of the Toronto Star about our grim green future and the release of a new report saying that Canada's natural environment continues to be destroyed at an alarming rate leads to my question to the Minister of the Environment. It has come to my attention that a significant amount of petroleum-contaminated landfill is being dumped this week on the shores of Hamilton harbour with the concurrence of the Hamilton Harbour Commission. This is occurring despite regulations under the Environmental Protection Act requiring that contaminated landfill be disposed of in a licensed landfill site. I ask the minister to confirm that this is indeed an illegal activity under regulation 301 of the Environmental Protection Act and ask if she will advise the House what action she is currently taking to halt this illegal action.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and minister responsible for the greater Toronto area): I am not aware of the action that the honourable Leader of the Opposition identifies. I am certainly as concerned as she is. If the facts as she reports them are correct, I can give her my complete assurance that I will take whatever action is necessary to make sure that illegal dumping in Lake Ontario is discontinued.

Mrs McLeod: It's hard to believe that this is the same minister who, on an earlier day with a different hat on, so strongly chastised the Toronto Harbour Commissioners for exactly the same activity. It was just Monday of this week -- the same day, according to our understanding, that the trucks started to dump their hazardous waste -- that the minister introduced her new Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency Act, which, according to her comments to the Legislature, would champion the ecological integrity of the waterfront.

I do find it hard to believe that the minister is not aware of this reprehensible violation, given her long-standing opposition to this type of activity. I am also somewhat surprised that her officials in Hamilton whom we contacted this morning were also not aware of this activity and have not indicated to the minister that some investigation has begun. I would ask the minister how it is possible that she could not be aware of this activity, and what action she will now take to investigate and to pursue the issue.

Hon Mrs Grier: I appreciate the fact that the Leader of the Opposition identifies that when she contacted my Hamilton office today, it was not aware of it. That, I think, is why I am not aware of it, and I very much appreciate the member bringing it to my attention.

I don't know whether the rules of the House permit the Leader of the Opposition to stand down her third question until I immediately find out the situation and then can give her an answer. But I want to say to the House that if the facts are as she reports them, I entirely share her concern and want to make sure those actions cease if they are illegal and I would very much appreciate the opportunity to make myself aware of the fact and respond to the leader's questions as soon as I can do that.

Mrs McLeod: How can we begin to believe in the integrity of the commitments that the NDP government makes in presenting its Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency Act and in talking about preserving the ecological integrity of the waterfront if in fact the minister and her ministry are not even aware of this kind of activity taking place? Once again, the promises made in the Legislature and the realities in communities across the province just don't seem to fit, and the words don't match the music.

I would ask the minister to assure this House that there are not similar activities taking place in other areas and that this kind of activity in which this illegal violation can take place will not occur again.

Hon Mrs Grier: I wish I could assure the Leader of the Opposition that I was aware of every illegal activity against the environment that's taking place across the province. I am not. But I am very proud of the fact that when we are aware of illegal activity, the ministry investigates, the ministry prosecutes. Just this week an industry in the Niagara Peninsula paid a $300,000 fine for illegal activity. I appreciate that these facts have been brought to my attention. I will ascertain the facts as soon as I possibly can, and I will give the member an answer about what is happening in Hamilton harbour just as soon as I can.

Mrs McLeod: We'll look forward to the minister bringing that information back to the House.

CAPITAL FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask at this time a question of the Treasurer, again to pursue an issue about the relationship between statements that are made in the House and in the throne speech and what is actually taking place.

Earlier this week the Premier stated his intention, and again it was a headline in the local papers, that he would be spending billions on capital projects in order to create jobs. It certainly seems to be a good-news message and one that would be very welcome, yet once again we're not aware exactly of what the government is committing to.

The Treasurer will be aware that over the past number of years, the budget for capital spending has exceeded $3 billion, yet the Treasurer's worst-case scenarios of further deficit increases project a budget of $3.1 billion for capital, which would barely maintain existing capital-funded construction jobs. Would the Treasurer confirm that the Premier's billions of dollars in capital funding is nothing more than the status quo?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I wouldn't confirm any such thing. When the member opposite talks about the capital expenditures, I would ask her to keep a couple of things in mind. First, and I suspect it was the case when the party opposite was in power, is that built into the budgets of all the various ministries is a base capital budget, and beyond that, anything added above that would be added to the total capital expenditures for the province. An example would be last year, where there was a base capital budget for the various ministries and then on top of that the government introduced a $700-million capital works program all across Ontario, which was completely above what was already built into the ministries' budgets.

1420

Mrs McLeod: In anticipating what the expenditure in the next budget for capital projects might be, we were simply attempting to do a basic subtraction of the Treasurer's own projection of the estimated deficit and his own projection of what their operating costs would be. It seemed to indicate to us that the capital spending would fairly closely match what the total capital spending budget reported separately in all budgets presented by this House has been.

But I would still acknowledge the fact that expenditures for capital are important ways of creating jobs. I would like to ask the Treasurer then, given this commitment to capital spending to create jobs, whether the priority in the capital spending plans that are undertaken will be the projects that lead to long-term job creation as opposed to the temporary person-hours of employment that we saw in the expenditure of the anti-recession funds; and if so, would the Treasurer also comment on what strategy his government will use to set priorities on capital projects that provide long-term jobs.

Hon Mr Laughren: That is a good question and a very perceptive one, I might say, because I accept what the leader of the official opposition says about the importance of jobs being more than simply make-work projects. Last year there was a need to do a lot of catch-up on capital projects, and we used the $700 million to do that, but those were basically off-the-shelf projects, if I could put it that way, that were sitting there waiting to be done and were going to have to be done at some point anyway. We simply speeded it up and did it in the fiscal year 1991-92.

I would say to the leader of the official opposition that my view is that any major capital works projects should have more to them than that in the future; that we've got to build training into any such capital works projects and that they have to be strategically wise for the future and not simply creating work projects that put people back to work and then allow them to qualify for unemployment insurance and then when that ends they come back on social assistance and so forth. We are trying very hard to be much more strategic in the way in which we spend this province's money.

Mrs McLeod: I am very pleased that the Treasurer feels that this is the right direction for the government priorities to be taking. I would ask him to go back and review some of the expenditures on the anti-recession funds. Certainly some of those initial projects were ones which we were well aware had been waiting to go for some time, but as the spending went on I think the Treasurer would find that in many communities people were saying, "We haven't asked for this money but we'll do something with it if we're going to receive it." In fact, I find very few examples of long-term job creation other than perhaps some projects which would be supported by increased government funding.

If I could take the Treasurer from the general to the much more specific, last fall the Ministry of Transportation announced a new study on the Red Hill Creek Expressway, which included the possibility of resuming construction of the original route. The report is due this month. The immediate construction which is possible on the original route would meet the Premier's commitments to streamline government red tape, which was so clearly enunciated again today, as well as the capital spending that will promote job creation. The project would provide construction jobs, but it would also provide the kind of transportation infrastructure that is necessary for further economic and business development in the Hamilton area.

I would ask whether the Treasurer will confirm, based on his earlier comments in response to my questions, that the government will give this project the green light to allow construction to restart this spring when that report is presented.

Hon Mr Laughren: In view of the preamble to that question in which the member opposite engaged, I think I have an obligation to respond to that aspect of her question as well.

The $700-million anti-recession package from 1991-92 was not meant to be a strategic long-range capital program. I tried to say that and then in your preamble you seemed to be critical of that fact. It was simply a list of projects that had a very high priority at the local level. They helped establish the priorities. We did not establish the priorities here in Toronto; they were established at the local level, and I disagree with you that the local communities didn't appreciate that money. We've had a lot of very positive comments about that program.

When it comes to the Red Hill Creek Expressway I simply say to the leader of the official opposition that the budget will lay out some details of our capital works projects, but largely the announcements will be made by the ministries. But in reference to that particular expressway I would urge the leader of the official opposition not to hold her breath.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Perhaps that question should have gone to the Minister of Labour, who we understand is the one who canned the Red Hill Creek Expressway and threw thousands of people out of work and destroyed jobs for Hamilton.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is for the Minister of Labour.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Welcome back.

Mr Harris: Welcome back, exactly.

Mr Minister, the Globe and Mail reported this week that there is an ongoing investigation at the Workers' Compensation Board. Would the minister tell us when he was first aware of this investigation that has reportedly been under way since December and what information he can provide to the House?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I can tell the leader of the third party that I was first made aware of it two or three weeks ago and that the board initiated actions. The police are now moving and there are charges being laid or arrests being made. While that is in this situation, I am not prepared to comment on it any further.

Mr Harris: Are you not concerned that this investigation has been going on since December, your crony's in charge over there, and it's only in the last couple of weeks -- my sources tell me that as many as six employees have been suspended now without pay and that charges against some have already been laid. I thought when charges were laid that was a matter of public record, let alone informing your colleagues here in the House of what is going on. One case reportedly involves fraud in excess of $1 million.

Minister, will you share with us now here in the House the information that should be public about charges that have been laid, as is your job, I believe? Second, will you tell us if you have called for the Provincial Auditor to step in, and if not, why not?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the leader of the third party is aware that the actions in terms of the alleged frauds have been initiated by the board itself. The board is responsible for the operations of the board. As long as I am satisfied that they are on top of the issue, I am not going to try to move in and take over their responsibilities.

Mr Harris: It's your responsibility to make public what's going on when charges are being laid. You are the minister responsible and you are the minister responsible to this House.

We learned last month that a construction firm owner had been charged with defrauding the WCB. Obviously we have a huge system and a huge corporation that has run amok. Last December we raised issues. It seemed you were all too busy figuring out how the agencies related to the WCB could hire the labour leaders' cronies or their sons and daughters at $55,000 a year. Maybe that is where the effort has been going on over there.

Interjection.

Mr Harris: Well, the former NDP critic for the WCB is now the chairman. I would have thought he would know what is going on.

You must be aware how serious the situation is. What steps are you taking to ensure that the type of fraud reported a month ago, that the kind of nepotism in the hiring and that both the internal and external fraud we now see are not going to take place in the future at the WCB?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to assure the leader of the third party that I have no difficulty in taking actions if necessary, but I am not going to if the actions are being taken by those responsible at the board. I remind him once again, it was the board that initiated the actions in terms of the alleged frauds.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): New question.

Mr Harris: To the same minister about the same issue.

Interjection.

Mr Harris: The issue is, it's run amok. What's going on over there?

In December I wrote to you expressing my concerns about an individual who had received another person's medical records from the WCB. When CFTO-TV aired the story, it was flooded, as was my office, with phone calls from other claimants who had also received someone else's medical files. Minister, I asked you in December to immediately investigate this breach of confidentiality. Since, some four months later, you have not even bothered to respond to my letter, would you tell me now what steps you have taken to stop what appears to be a free flow of confidential information out of the WCB?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm not aware of any free flow of confidential information outside of the WCB. Once again, the actions in terms of the alleged fraud have been initiated by the board itself. That is ongoing now and you can see that by the actions of the police in the last 24 hours. It seems to me they are dealing with the issue. In the event they are unable to, then we will take a look at it.

1430

Mr Harris: I don't know. You're always a question behind. I mean, you are 10 years behind in your economic policies.

Tough economic times and increased costs, admittedly much of them as a result of the failed Liberal policies before you, have escalated the WCB's debt. Its unfunded liability is now $10.3 billion and growing every day; $45,000 is the unfunded liability for every company registered with WCB. Closest of any other province in the dominion is Quebec at $500 million, and we're at $10 billion -- $10 billion.

Minister, you've put out a white paper on this situation; obviously, it is not going to solve the financial mess. Your proposals don't even talk about reducing costs, as every other province is talking about. How do you intend to clean up this mess over at WCB?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: In terms of the unfunded liability, it goes back to about 1972, so maybe the leader of the third party could tell us what he was doing about the particular problem. I think the leader of the third party is also aware that actions are under way to deal with the unfunded liability. Once again, I think the board is taking positive actions in that respect.

Mr Harris: In 1981 it was $868 million; now it's $10 billion, going to $12 billion. You are now in charge. You are now in control. I believe it is clear that we have both a financial and an administrative cesspool over at WCB. It is affecting our competitiveness. The employers in our province are paying at least 50% more, in many cases double, triple, any other province in this land already, not even counting the unfunded liability. How much more evidence do you need before you will do something? I would ask you this, Minister: Will you immediately launch a full public review -- as you won't do it -- of WCB today?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It seems to me the approach of the leader of the third party is about as positive as some of the billboards I've seen around the province. I think the leader is well aware that the board is taking action on every issue he's raised. We will see what their proposals are. If they're not adequate, then it's time for this minister to move.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Education. First, let me in this House thank the minister for appearing via telephone on a cable television show in my community last night. I appreciate the fact that he came out and faced the music, so to speak. I thanked him on that show, which will be aired for all to see in Mississauga, Brampton and other parts of Peel tomorrow evening on cable 10.

Minister, while I appreciate the fact you phoned in to the show and talked to the representatives from the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and from the elementary teachers' federation and to some of the parents from Peel concerned about quality education, you've caused some confusion. In response to D'arcy Kingshott from the OSSTF, you stated that if boards and employee groups would get together now and give some indication on how they can reduce the salary and compensation levels of that board, the provincial government would be prepared to help.

The confusion is that on the other hand you've been quoted in the media as saying you're not talking about reopening contracts. You know the Peel board is in a two-year contract situation facing 10% salary increases, yet you're telling Mr Kingshott and others that you want them to get together and come up with some miraculous way of reducing salary and compensation costs. If they do that, the implication is that you will pull some money out of the government somewhere to solve the problem of the board having to cut in programs such as junior kindergarten.

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: This may not be important to you, but this is critically important to 6,000 kids, and this minister knows it.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. You have a question to ask. Please ask your question.

Mr Mahoney: I'm asking the minister, given his statements about reducing salary and compensation levels to solve the problem and you'll then give them some more money, could you clarify, sir, what exactly it is you mean?

Hon Tony Silipo (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and Minister of Education): I agree with the member opposite that the issue here is a very important issue, and I did appreciate the exchange we managed to have, albeit by telephone, last night on the program.

In trying to clarify, I will say to the member that I don't think there's an inconsistency, although I appreciate that there may be some confusion. What I have been saying to school boards and to the teacher's federation is that in addition to dealing with the non-salary areas of the budget, quite frankly we have to begin, in the area of education, the sector of education, to take a look at how we're going to rationalize the kinds of salary increases and compensation packages we've had over the last year, when we were dealing with increases in the 5% and 6% range, with the kinds of increases we believe are more in keeping with the kind of inflationary increases we have in place now. There is a period of adjustment we are all going through and that clearly the school board sector is going through.

One of the things we are doing in looking at the use of the transition funds, which, as I've indicated here in this House and on the program last night, we still have to allocate, is looking very much at how we can position some of those funds to assist with this transition. Quite frankly that means a number of different things, depending on whether boards and teachers' federations, in this case, have contracts that go to the end of this school year or in some cases beyond, and what may be possible in terms of looking at future years, and putting together some proposals we could look at that I think show us that in fact there's an effort being made to deal with that kind of transition in costs from a high range to a lower range. The details of that, I should say, we are trying to work out in discussions with representatives of both school boards and teachers' federations.

Mr Mahoney: I wish that actually clarified the situation, but I fear that to the parents, and the teachers particularly, in my community, it's going to simply add to the muddle.

Minister, you also said you took exception to the fact that you were being painted as being in any way responsible for the decisions the boards are making with regard to cutbacks in programs. You have said that you don't want programs such as French immersion, the busing programs and junior kindergarten cut, you don't want contracts reopened, yet you want the boards to come forward with some kind of proposal that suggests they have worked with their employee groups. Those are your words, that they should work with their employee groups to give you some indication of how they're going to solve this problem by reducing salary and compensation cuts.

Please be specific. You have given them a 1% increase in their transfer payments. They're dealing with a two-year contract, facing 10% increases in salaries, and you know full well salaries represent 82% of the budget. Please, sir, tell me in clear words: How can you say you're not responsible for these decisions being forced upon the trustees when you only pass on 1%? How can you suggest they should come in with some new, miraculous reduction in salary and compensation costs and then you're going to turn around and give them some money we know or suspect you're simply holding back to give away to the unions?

These people want help. There are 6,000 kids. You and the Minister of Labour can have a good chuckle over this, but it's frankly not funny. There are 6,000 kids. Here's a report entitled Children First.

The Deputy Speaker: The question has been asked, thank you. Take your seat.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The procedures are very clear. When the Speaker stands, the member takes his seat. I would ask all members to respect the procedures. Minister.

1440

Hon Mr Silipo: I'll try to grapple with the various parts of that question, but in trying to keep the answer as brief as possible I will just say that, as the member knows, I was responding last night to the specific point I think he made about my being responsible for the decision the Peel board made with respect to the cut of the kindergarten program. Quite clearly, I take no responsibility for that action. That was a choice that board made out of a number of choices it had before it. The fact that there were other choices before them is supported by the fact that almost as many trustees opposed that direction as voted in favour of it, and I think that's an interesting point.

I would say, as I have indicated already, that I am meeting tomorrow afternoon with the chair of the Peel board. At my request, he has agreed to meet. We are going to discuss a number of issues related to decisions the Peel board has made and we will discuss within that what help we may be on a whole range of issues.

Clearly the question of how we can be of assistance through the transition fund is, as I have indicated, something on which we are working out the details, in conjunction with representatives from the school boards and from the teachers' federations and other support staff unions. We believe it's important that it be done in that way because that's the way in which we will have the level of buy-in we need to make that work as well.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health, and it concerns the arbitrary way in which the Minister of Health has been reducing access to health care and prescription drugs.

Seniors are finding out that drugs they are taking for heart problems are no longer covered by the Ontario drug benefit plan. A woman in my riding who needs kidney dialysis has been told that the program to fund an in-home attendant has been cut. Parents of children with heart disease are devastated that their children are losing access to oxygen services in-home. I also understand that you are seriously considering cutting in vitro fertilization, sterilization and many other medical services.

The worst thing about this is that people are only finding out about these cuts in services when they actually need the treatment. So I ask you, what do you say to children and seniors who have become victims of your backroom health cuts?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health and minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy): It's a very theatrical question. Let me say to the member that there isn't anything arbitrary about anything I've done.

Let's take your issue with respect to drugs. We have taken the advice of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee. We have had an expert panel review to make suggestions following on the Lowy commission recommendations about how those drugs are treated. We've put in place proper procedures for people to access the drugs they need and we've communicated to all the doctors in the province about how they can get that access.

With respect to home dialysis, you say the individual in your riding has been told the program has been cut. I am not aware of any cuts to programs. I have received a letter from you about a home dialysis program; we've in fact been proceeding with trying to obtain the funding for that for your constituent. I announced today enhanced program financing for a dialysis program across the province, and I think you'll find that we'll be able to resolve the problems you've drawn to my attention.

With respect to heart monitors, the restrictions on access under the assistive devices program were put in place in 1990, before this government came into power. I met with parents yesterday, and I am looking at the restrictions: whether those are effective, whether they are still required. Again, I would say that the former minister who put those restrictions in place did so on the advice of a panel of experts.

With respect to things like in vitro fertilization, let's not scaremonger. I have never said I'm cutting those services. What I've said is that we have to have a health care system that is based on good analysis of what the health outcomes of procedures are. There is a lot of debate around things like in vitro fertilization: whether it is an effective procedure, whether there are good health outcomes of the babies that are produced with that kind of technological intervention. All I have said is that we should do better evaluation. We have now put in place the kind of clinical evaluation through the Naylor Institute. I think we're building a rational system. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The question has been answered.

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, it is clear, even if you don't realize it, that the woman in my riding who needs an in-home attendant has had that service cut. It used to exist. She doesn't have access to that service any more. I call that a cut. I call it a cut when children who used to receive oxygen in their homes no longer have access to that service. I don't know what the minister calls it, but it is clear to me and to my colleagues that she is rationing health care behind the scenes and arbitrarily cutting services, and by doing so she is clearly moving towards a US style of health care.

After extensive public consultation, the state of Oregon, as honourable members know, has come up with a list of health care services it will pay for and a list of those it won't pay for. But unlike Oregon, the minister is not even consulting with the public when she makes her service cuts. The minister and a group of senior civil servants are rationing health care behind closed doors. It is time for the minister to come out of the back room and present this House with a list of services she has already cut and a list of services she will fund in the future.

Hon Ms Lankin: The member's allegations are completely unfounded. Let me say to the member that there have been no services delisted other than electrolysis, which was announced here in the House and which was widely advertised to the individuals receiving that service. We replaced access to that service through the private sector with a sliding scale in order for people to be able to get affordable service for what was a non-medical procedure.

The kind of allegations that are being made really make me wonder what it is the member would like. He wants more money thrown at a system which has been accelerating at a rate that is not sustainable? He wants to see the deterioration of our national health care system by throwing more money at it, maybe from user fees? Maybe he is arguing for user fees. His leader was arguing for user fees in the media over the last weekend. He talks about a US-style system. We will get there much faster if we listen to the Conservative Party and introduce user fees.

We have a vision for a redirection of the health care system. We are attempting to preserve medicare in this province. We are working with other provinces in a national drive to try to preserve this health care system. We need better management of the system. I am providing that.

CHICKEN INDUSTRY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Over the last year or so, constituents in my riding who produce chickens have been bombarding me with the unfairness of the Ontario Chicken Producers' Marketing Board, whereby it is not seen to be representative. I understand the minister has a new policy whereby the producer can deal directly with the farmer, and I am just wondering, Mr Minister, if you can relate to me the benefits of this so-called chicken unlock.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The concerns that the member raises from the chicken producers in his riding were shared by producers and processors throughout Ontario. We did change the live chicken marketing policy and I am very pleased to report that we seem to have done something right on this one.

I have two letters here that we have received, from both sides of this issue, which have congratulated us. One is from the Ontario Chicken Producers' Marketing Board and it says, "I would like to commend and congratulate you on your response to our board's request to terminate the present system and to institute the new system." I also have a letter from the Ontario Chicken Processors Association, the business side of this equation, and it says, "I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on the decision taken to end the 'chicken lock-in' and allow growers to contract with processors."

So both sides of the equation seem to be quite happy with the new system we have put in place. It allows for some flexibility. It allows the chicken producers the opportunity to select their processor, and it allows the processors the flexibility of dealing with the individual grower.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order, please. Answers should not be used for statements.

1450

Mr Mills: Minister, I am absolutely delighted to hear that, because I know the chicken producers will not be knocking on my door. Do you really see that this is going to solve the problem of the issue of producers versus the industry?

Hon Mr Buchanan: There are two components to this new system. First, it allows the growers to contract with the processor of their choice rather than being locked in -- thus the earlier comment about the lock-in -- so they can move their chickens around. There's freedom and flexibility in the system.

The second part of the system is in negotiating prices. Prior to this, the board set the price for chicken. Very often the processors didn't like the price and would appeal it to a tribunal. The new system we have in place allows the producers to sit down with the process and negotiate a price, coming to the table together. If they can't do that, there's a system in place for final-offer selection, an arbitrator to select the price. It's a very fair system. We have a system where the farmers and the processors are working together to make the system work better.

LAYOFFS

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): My question is to the Treasurer. Within the last few months, more than 1,000 people in my riding of Quinte have lost their jobs. Just recently Paperboard Industries in Glen Miller laid off 180 people and Nestle foods in Trenton laid off 130 people. Murata Erie, which once employed approximately 1,000 people, says it will close its plant by the end of June 1992, eliminating the last 400 jobs.

I am sending over to you, Treasurer, information listing thousands of other jobs lost in eastern Ontario. I'd also like to make you aware of the projections of the Ministry of Labour listing additional thousands of jobs that will be lost over the next few months in that same area.

The jobless rate at present in eastern Ontario now stands at approximately 11.8%, well above the province's 9.9% average. Can the Treasurer tell the House what help he is prepared to give to towns and cities in eastern Ontario that have been devastated by these job losses?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I appreciate the question from the member for Quinte. As a member who represents a northern Ontario constituency where we've had enormous difficulties over the years, I can appreciate how he feels when the economic infrastructure in his area becomes undermined that way.

I would say to the member as well that in the last year and a half or so, since the recession started, there have been losses of more than 250,000 jobs in this province. I know the member opposite understands very well how government is restricted in its ability to solve all the problems when the private sector lays off so many people. That's not meant in an accusatory way; that's just a fact of life. I urge the member opposite to be positive and to help his leader bring forward suggestions to us as to how we can best resolve some of these problems.

I remind the member opposite, however, that all the news isn't bad. There are quite a number of good-news stories coming out lately too. I just happen to have a couple here, one that would interest him in particular. This was a story in the Globe and Mail just two days ago, I believe. "Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co has announced a 75% increase in production at its Napanee radial tire plant," which will result in the hiring of 130 workers over the next year. I could go on because I have a very long list of good-news economic stories as well, but I am not for a minute discounting the problems the member has brought forward today.

Mr O'Neil: I can appreciate what the Treasurer is trying to tell me, but I'd also like to remind the Treasurer that, being a member from northern Ontario, he will remember the great things we did in the north to generate jobs there, the ministries we put there and the additional industries we put there. I would also remind you that the Goodyear tire plant was something that went in under this government and created those jobs.

Dealing again with eastern Ontario, which I bring you back to, Mr Treasurer, the former Liberal government had a cabinet committee which lobbied for eastern Ontario just as we lobbied for the north and you lobbied for the north. Since the NDP came into power, that cabinet committee no longer exists.

Our government also initiated a five-year community economic development program for the area worth $25 million. Funding for that program has been frozen by you three years before its 1995 deadline. Now there are rumours that the program will be cut. Scrapping the cabinet committee and the community development program is a short-sighted strategy for helping the region.

Now, Minister, can you tell the House if your government has any plans to reinstate the eastern Ontario cabinet committee and whether it plans to keep the community development program or eliminate it completely? Let's get some jobs in eastern Ontario. Let's get some action here.

Hon Mr Laughren: I can answer directly. Yes, the member for Ottawa Centre has agreed to reconstitute the cabinet committee for eastern Ontario.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Do something, Floyd, do something.

Hon Mr Laughren: In a very serious way, I would say to the --

Mrs Caplan: Fred will call her the lady from Ottawa Centre.

Hon Mr Laughren: If the member for Oriole would allow me to address the very serious problem in eastern Ontario raised by the member for Quinte, I would attempt to do that.

To the member for Quinte, I would simply say that when it comes to economic development programs at the community level, that was one of the areas the treasury board decided it needed to have a look at, because it seemed there was an incredible array of community economic development programs in all different ministries and there did not seem to be very much cohesiveness or logic to them.

We have taken a very serious look and are continuing to look at the way in which community economic development programs are delivered, whether it's in eastern Ontario, northern Ontario or whatever part of the province, so he is quite right that we are examining the whole question of how community economic development programs are delivered. I can assure him that eastern Ontario is always a very high priority with this government.

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is for the Minister of Skills Development. Mr Minister, you're very much aware of the consultation that is going on around the province with regard to the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, and you and the Premier have signed a letter inviting participants to be part of a communications process to give us the best advice they can on the makeup of boards and on the whole structure of delivering training and education in Ontario, a very much needed process.

On November 28 you announced your plans to restructure. At that time I responded to your position, and that was that OTAB's governing body will comprise eight business representatives, seven labour representatives, four representatives from social action groups, two representatives from education and training, and one provincial and one federal ex officio government rep.

In London this week and in the weeks preceding the meeting this Tuesday evening, the presenters were told that this is a done deal and that there will be no changes to this governing body. I'm going to ask today if that is so. As a result of the consultations, will you be making changes if in fact you are told there are problems with the makeup of this board in the eyes of the consumers you were asking the advice of?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities and Minister of Skills Development): The Ontario Training and Adjustment Board initiative is one that, in various degrees of consultation, emerged over a period of three years. In the course of time there has emerged a consensus between the various labour market partners about the approaches that should be taken.

What we are in at the moment, of course, is a refinement of the model that came out of that earlier stage. While there is some agreement among the partners about some aspects of the program that is proposed, we are listening very carefully and, as I responded to the member for Brantford the other day, if there are good arguments that come forward with respect to aspects of that model that need to be looked at again, we will be looking at them.

The model we proposed also grew to some measure out of the experience of the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, developed by the federal government, and its experience in bringing those labour market partners together and what would work best as an advisory body at that level. So we will be looking at the recommendations that come from the consultations in your community and across the province and we will be making some final decisions, but with the labour market partners together, some time in late May or early June, to put those things together.

1500

Mrs Cunningham: I am positively thrilled with the response from the minister, which is that he said he was listening, because, Mr Speaker, I should tell you that his own department has said it is a done deal. So I am sure he'll take care of it with his response today.

The other thing they're saying is that the federal government has made up its mind. That's not so. I have already spoken to the representative, to the minister's office, and I know this minister will be in touch as a result of this question to make sure we're all saying the same thing.

I have to say something to the minister and ask him a question. In these consultations across the province, do you know how long the public are given to make their presentations and we're supposed to be listening?

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Five hours?

Mrs Cunningham: Five minutes. In London this week and in other communities, 18 people spoke between 1:45 and 3:15 and 18 more people spoke between 6:45 and whatever the hour was, 8:15 or something like that. That's an hour and a half in the afternoon and an hour and a half in the evening. We wouldn't get away with this with regard to consultation.

My question to the minister is this: Will you be changing this process? This is not listening and looking for the best advice we can get. Will you be looking at every brief you can get? Will you be looking at every letter and will you be passing that on to the federal minister as well so that both of you can come up with the best joint training body we can administer for this province that needs it badly?

Hon Mr Allen: I'll certainly commit to coming up with the best possible training body we can produce. That's certain, 100%.

I want to clarify a possible misunderstanding in the preliminary part of the supplementary from the member for London North. It sounded to me as though she was suggesting there was a provincial-federal collaboration around the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. That is a purely provincial initiative. The local boards --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

Hon Mr Allen: If the leader of the thirty party wants to shout down Mr Mulroney some time, I'll give him that task. But let me explain that with respect to the local consultations, there are in effect three different consultations going on at the moment. One is that in every sector there's a labour consultation, there's an employer consultation, there's a trainer consultation and there is a social action group consultation around those who are out of the workforce and need to get in.

Cutting across that, there are the community consultations. The community consultations are set up on the basis of two teams going to 23 different communities. They will spend seven hours in every community, but they will divide their time into two parts, one a general discussion and the other formal presentations. The formal presentation time does have to be divided in terms of how many come forward by community. In one community, yours, it happened there were so many that each had five minutes; in Richmond Hill, 10 minutes; in some others, 15.

There are also my visits to the communities, and I listen as well. So there is a lot of cross-cutting and a lot of careful listening, and it is all coming back. Those people are invited to give us the longest written submission they want to supplement anything they say. We'll read them all and take them all into account.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr Minister, as you certainly know, the arbitrator, Mr John Brant, has submitted his report regarding the recommendations for the resolution of the boundary dispute between the county of Middlesex and the city of London. One of the recommendations addressed the need for effective planning and responsible land use.

My question relates to effective planning and responsible land use, specifically in regard to the protection of agricultural land. What mechanisms are available to ensure that the class 1 to 3 agricultural land in the area proposed for annexation will be protected for the long term?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and government House leader): I appreciate the involvement and concern the member has expressed on this very difficult issue. The other London members too have been very much involved in this entire process.

I want to assure the member that it is my view that the proposal and the arbitrator's report on the boundaries in the city of London and the county of Middlesex offer that area and the province a real opportunity to plan better than has occurred in the past. I and the ministry believe agricultural land can and will be protected.

In the report itself it refers to a minimum of 10 years that agricultural land will remain agricultural. In the development of a new official plan for that area, for the new city of London, it will be the expectation of our ministry and this government that agricultural land will continue to be protected.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer. I would like to get from the Treasurer his estimate of the impact of his transfer payments on the various colleges, universities, hospitals and school boards. We know the treasury department does estimates of the number of hospital beds or classrooms that might be closed. As a matter of fact, last year you will recall you personally came to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and outlined for us the exact number of classrooms that would close as a result of transfer payments and the exact number of hospital beds. I think you said last year that if you were to flat-line your transfer payments, 5,000 hospital beds would close, there would be 25,000 fewer students in colleges and universities and 6,000 classrooms would close. So it is clear those numbers are done and are available.

Are you prepared today to give us the same estimates you were prepared to give us a year ago on the true impact of transfer payments on your various agencies?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): There are a couple of problems with the assumptions built into the member's question.

Mr Phillips: One is that you know the answer.

Hon Mr Laughren: The fact that I have the answer is one of them, yes.

The member is assuming, as I made no secret of a year ago, that everything was business as usual, whether at the school boards, the colleges, the universities or the municipalities. What we have tried to indicate as clearly as possible this year is that it is not business as usual any more. When we announced the transfers to the transfer agencies out there, we indicated very clearly that the 1% this year was going to be supplemented by a transition fund, which my colleague the Minister of Health announced today for the hospitals, for example.

I want to take a minute to explain this, because I think the member asks a good question. The reason we wanted to have a transition fund and why we set up very particular criteria around accessing that transition fund is that we wanted all the hospitals, school boards and universities to restructure the way in which they deliver services to their clients, whether it is students, patients or services at the municipal level.

The numbers you had last year, which we discussed, were based on the assumption that there was no restructuring done, that the services were delivered in the same way and that there wasn't a meeting of the minds between the people who work in the institutions, the people who receive the services and the people who administer those institutions. We think that is all changing and that kind of thing will happen.

Mr Phillips: Frankly, the answer doesn't make sense. The reason it doesn't make sense is that it was clear a year ago, Treasurer, that you had the numbers. You were able to estimate. You may be able to fool your caucus, but you're not going to fool the people out there. You had the numbers because it was in your political best interests last year to do it. You got all sorts of headlines -- "Laughren Gives Tongue-Lashing to Deficit Critics." The fact of the matter is that you can do the estimates. I suspect the estimates have already been done.

Is the opposition going to have to simply use and interpret the figures you used last year? Are we going to have to assume that there are going to be 5,000 beds closed, 6,000 fewer classrooms? Or are you prepared to do what you did last year and give the Legislature your best cut at the impact the 1% transfer payment will have? Can we have answer today on whether you are prepared to do that or will we have to use your last year's estimates?

1510

Hon Mr Laughren: Since the member opposite has brought up my appearance last year before the standing committee, I was invited before that committee largely because that caucus was objecting to the size of the deficit in 1991-92. I am not sure what the member is saying now. Is he saying that he wants a larger deficit this year? I am not sure what he is saying.

I will repeat to the member, and I will try and make it as clear as possible, because I think it is a fair question, that the numbers that were presented last year to the standing committee were numbers based on the assumption that there was no restructuring at the local level, that there was no 1% increase, no transition fund.

Mr Phillips: You did it last year.

Hon Mr Laughren: You're not listening to me. You've already decided that the answer I will give you you will not understand. I don't think that makes any sense on your part. I simply tell you that the numbers last year were based on the status quo, business as usual, no restructuring at the local level, no attempts by people who work in the institutions, with the management, with the people who receive the services, to work out a different and perhaps even a more efficient way of delivering the service.

Just because it's been done one way for a long time doesn't mean that's the most efficient way to deliver the service. We think that by the institutions working with the people who receive the service and with the people who work in these institutions, a better, more efficient, a low-cost way of delivering those services is not only possible but desirable.

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICES

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Last October 21, and again on November 25, you stood in this House and assured the people of Ontario that the 293 vehicle licensing offices in the province were safe. You said, and I would like to quote you, "The system is working well and we have no intention of changing it."

I guess that was then and this is now, because your ministry is funding a pilot project to establish self-serve kiosks which would put the licensing offices out of business and 1,500 workers out of jobs. Will the minister tell us what his promise of the day is on this issue?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and minister responsible for francophone affairs): I do welcome the very current question. This is an open-minded government. This is a government that means what it says. This is also a government that looks to the future with a great degree of confidence, a government that blends its priority inherently with the technology that is available out there. Some of the people who live in the 1930s have a great deal of difficulty. Our mandate is one of convenience to the public. If the technology will give us and give them, more important, value for money, we cannot afford not to do it.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like the night shift on that one.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will make sure that you are considered. Consult with the table. They will explain to you exactly what to do. Please consult with the table and we'll make sure that your question is asked on the late show.

PETITIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

That is signed by some 246 people from my riding of Simcoe West, and it is in addition to the several hundred names I presented to this House yesterday. I too have affixed my name to this petition.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): The residents of my riding of Wentworth East, especially upper Stoney Creek and Glanbrook, want, deserve and need a high school.

"We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Ministry of Education to give the appropriate grants to the Wentworth County Board of Education for the purpose of building a new public high school in the upper Stoney Creek area on already owned land."

There are 870 names on this petition, and I affixed my name to the top of it.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition signed by 39 constituents of Hamilton, and it is self-explanatory.

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

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

"The 1991 federal Criminal Code, section 163, is clear and concise in its definition of obscenity. Mr Robert Payne, chairman of the Ontario Film Review Board, is mandated to review films and implement the law. We support the action of Project P and reject any undermining of the law through personal interpretation."

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I am presenting a petition signed by 87 constituents. It states:

"We, the residents of Line 1, in conjunction with the residents and staff of Pleasant Manor, would like to request that a stoplight or crosswalk be put up at Highway 55 and Field Road or Highway 55 and Line 1. Residents in the area feel that it is dangerous to cross the highway as it is now, and a stoplight or crosswalk would help ease the situation a lot. Please give this your utmost consideration."

I affixed my signature to this petition.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Isn't that a municipal issue? That's a municipal issue.

Ms Haeck: No, it isn't. It's a provincial highway.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I wish to put a few things on the record with regard to the throne speech.

[Interruption]

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I think that's a good sign.

Mr Harris: Yes, that's a good sign; even the carpenters are mad.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order, please. They are knocking on the walls, and I don't think it would be fair to you to have this noise. I think we should perhaps check. We'll stop for a while.

Le Greffier de la Chambre (Claude L. DesRosiers) : C'est déjà arrêté.

The Deputy Speaker: They have been advised already.

1520

Mr Harris: I am delighted that I am able to proceed right now because the most often asked questions I have had about my speech today have been: "When are you going to finish? How long are you going to be? Is this going to be another extravaganza?" So let me serve notice to all and sundry, those who don't wish to hear it all or those who may be up after me, that I plan to provide lots of opportunity for others to speak today. Second, I am attending the John Hopper roast in North Bay tonight, for which I must catch a plane at 4:45 from Malton airport.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Pearson?

Mr Harris: No, I don't call it Pearson. I refuse to do that. However, if you gauge yourself accordingly this will not be one of my longer dissertations in the House.

[Applause]

Mr Harris: I appreciate the applause on all sides in anticipation of some very poignant comments. As I may run out of time, I believe the critics in my caucus are easily capable of taking over and running the government today even though there are not as many of us. That would be a good sign, because we'd cut down the number of ministries, and that would be a great start in reducing the bureaucracy. I know they'll pick up on some areas I may not be able to touch on.

I want to start right at the end of the speech and tell you that this example alone is an indication of how this government is so out of touch with what is happening in this province, is so off base. It perhaps explains why everyone, including card-carrying union members, is so concerned with the changes they want to bring into the Labour Relations Act. Here's what they say on the last page:

"A critical component of these plans is labour relations. Public sector employees must find ways in which workers and their representatives can participate fully in designing new, more effective delivery systems for the high quality public services Ontarians deserve."

Great rhetoric; good rhetoric. We all agree. Then they say, here's the solution, here's the shining example everybody in the public sector, and the private sector, I guess, across this province should emulate. If only they could match this example:

"Creative collective bargaining, such as the settlement at Ontario Hydro with its employees, can produce solutions where no one loses."

No one loses? Just everybody who pays for hydro in the entire province is losing. It was some 12% last year and they want a 9% increase next year. The average salary is $65,000 a year. It is the most overpaid, bloated collection of bureaucracy you could ever have an example of in the whole province and you hold them out as an example. You want the rest of the civil service, the public sector unions, hospitals and municipalities to emulate Ontario Hydro.

What does Energy Probe say about Ontario Hydro? It says: "It's 33,000-person payroll, which is one third of the electricity bills, is bloated almost beyond belief. The average salary is an astonishing $65,000 a year. Utilities in the rest of the country average 24% fewer employees to produce the same amount of power."

I've not met one person, not one of 10 million so far, who thinks that Hydro isn't fat, overstaffed, overpaid, bloated or inefficient. And you hold them out as an example to the rest of the province. I rest my case: You are so out of touch with what is going on.

I said I'd better take a look at the settlement. Here it is. This is the settlement according to Hydroscope. It says: "Hydro, CUPE reach tentative agreement." Here's the tentative agreement you are so proud of: $65,000, already overpaid, 20% higher than any other average, 25% more employees than everybody else in the country needs to generate power. Here's what they get -- I guess you are talking about the 1%, 2%, and 2% program -- 1% in the first year and 2% in the second year on the basic wages. I suppose that is what you are referring to. They should be happy they've got a job. They should be happy they weren't cut 20% both in staff and payroll and in numbers. They would've been happy, in fact, to take a cut to keep their jobs. But no, you think 1% and 2% is a good move for the highest-paid already in the province.

But here's what else they get: in the second year a cost-of-living allowance would provide lump sum payments for every 1% increase beyond the increase of 2%. So it's not 2% in the second year, it's 2% guaranteed, and if inflation is more than 2%, whatever that is. If inflation is 10% you get 10%.

What else does it have? Effective April 1, 1994, increases in the consumer price index will be incorporated into the base rate. You get the lump sum payment, and then in 1994 all these guaranteed increases will be included and lumped into the base rate.

What else do we have? Forty-hour rated employees will have their hours reduced to 39. That's a 2.5% wage increase right there.

What else do we have? Employees with 16 years, instead of 17 years, get five weeks vacation. I don't know what that costs; probably another 0.5%.

Then we have 1.5 times the rate paid for overtime the first four hours and double time after that; there are changes there to make that more lucrative. Then we have a 10% increase for the shift differentials: nine cents an hour on an eight-hour shift and a 13-cent-an-hour increase on 12-hour shifts. All those on top, another 1% or 2%, I guess.

Pensions will be indexed to 100%, I think from 90%.

This is a good settlement. We wrestled them right to the ground here. Here's efficiency for us.

What else did they get? There's some more equity stuff within CUPE. I don't know how that works, but I know it won't save money.

Extended health benefit and dental: enrichment of those benefits in the deal.

What else do we have? The employer health benefits deductible is reduced. How much is that reduced by?: $10 for singles, $20 for families. It used to be $20 and $40. There's a 100% improvement in that fringe benefit.

What else do we have? Improvements in moving and real estate and legal costs associated with work-related moves: more money there.

It just goes on and on and on. It says "see page 4." I was so sickened I couldn't even go to page 4.

You're proud of this as a settlement. That's why we're scared, business is scared, labour is scared. Those who are employed are concerned about losing their jobs with you guys in charge of the ship. You put it in there as an example and held it up. That is how out of touch you are.

The throne speech: If I say that, I don't think I need to say anything else. That alone tells me you're out of touch and incapable of managing the affairs of this province.

What is in the throne speech besides that? There are things that scare the bejabbers out of me, I want to tell you.

Infrastructure renewal program: That's an honest, upfront admission that we're frittering away too much money on ongoing costs and not putting enough into infrastructure. Why do you need a new renewal program? Because you're behind. Because the Liberals put us further behind and last year you put us even further behind than that.

Not since there was a Progressive Conservative government in this province has the appropriate share of money has gone to infrastructure. You were not even close to the percentage of money we spent on infrastructure. Imagine, during our 42 years, there was no electricity system, and we built it from the ground up, the generation, the distribution of it; the road system; the schools, the hospitals. And since 1985 you've been destroying the infrastructure that was built in this province, the infrastructure that attracted so many people and so many industries, who said: "Ontario's a good place to do business. The government has provided the infrastructure, the education system and the health care system there." It was a good place wherein to live, to work, to bring up a family, to educate your children. You and your predecessors since 1985 are destroying all of that.

You say you're going to establish an Ontario investment fund, voluntary investment by Ontario pension plans in the Ontario economy. We really are interested to see how this will work. You see, you've slipped in the word "voluntary," which we agree with. I guess what you're going to say to the public sector unions is this: "Look, we want you to invest. Have we got a deal for you. Take your pension money which you're counting on for retirement." The banks won't touch it, the trust companies won't touch it. Nobody else will lend them money. The venture capitals won't. None of the business people, none of the bond agencies will. Nobody in the private sector will touch this. "But is it a good, safe place for you to put your pension money. Have we got a deal for you."

Do you think that unless you lean on them or coerce them or go on some quid pro quo anybody's going to put five cents into an investment that the Treasurer and the Premier think is a good investment? Do you think that is going to be the case? Go ahead and set it up. I think a lot of people want to invest in their own province. But do you think this is going to be a good investment?

1530

There is one of two ways it'll work. One, you will coerce them into it. That's what they are so afraid of and why the unions are now organizing, saying, "Stop this NDP madness before it goes any further." The unions are organizing, getting together, putting a campaign together. They've called me and said, "Mike, save us from the NDP." Bob White's calling me. The labour unions are saying, "Please stop this madness in its tracks." You wouldn't believe the letters I have in my office from the union members. They're saying, "They're going to destroy our pension money," because they think you're going to lean on them.

The only other way it'll work is if you lean on the taxpayer and say, "Go ahead and make this risky investment that nobody else will touch and we will guarantee you a return." If that is your plan, then the taxpayers of the province will be on the hook. We'll be watching very carefully to make sure you don't unfairly treat our brothers and sisters in the unions in this province, or the taxpayers in this province, because that's the only way it will work.

I looked at other things that you had: "Municipalities will be given increased flexibility to borrow and invest." What that means is, "We're going to continue offloading the way the Liberals did, but we'll let you go borrow the money and go into debt and become bankrupt like we are." That's what you've said. What the municipalities want to hear is: "We will stop the offloading. We will stop the silly promises of new programs when we know there does not exist within the province the money to pay for them."

You're putting off the inevitable. You're putting off what needs to be done. Federally, provincially, municipally, the jig is up. We're belly-up. We're bankrupt. The sooner we put our combined resources and energies and talents to spending smarter, to cutting the waste, to spending more efficiently, instead of pointing the finger at other governments or offloading or telling somebody else to borrow, the sooner we'll be on the road to recovery and the prosperity and hope and opportunity this province had for 42 years.

I was distressed when I saw that, because Bob Nixon did that in one of his budgets. He said, "Municipalities have more borrowing capacity than I have; therefore we're going to offload on them and tell the municipalities to borrow." Boy, oh, boy, that wasn't the parsimonious Bob Nixon; that was the Liberal-Party-David-Peterson-driven Bob Nixon that said: "Look, we're not going to stop spending, no matter what you say. So, Bob, figure out a way to pay for it." So he hiked taxes 33 times and made us the most heavily taxed province in all of Canada; in fact, in all of North America.

Now you rascals are starting down the same path. I don't blame you for that mess. I blame you for not changing direction and stopping that kind of government nonsense. This accord you and the Liberals had that brought you to power, that destroyed hope and opportunity in this province -- I guess you're just of the same mind when it comes to these kinds of things. I was distressed to see that in the throne speech.

New resources committed to the backlog at the Ontario Municipal Board: We heard today what those new resources are. Dale Martin's going to pick and choose the projects that will get moved up the list. I guess those will be the non-profit ones, maybe the big union job ones; I don't know. I don't trust Dale Martin to pick which projects should move ahead. They all should move ahead. Take them in order and let's give them the resources to move ahead that way, not pick and choose the NDP favourites. What a disgrace we heard today, if that's the way you plan to do it.

Task force to streamline regulations: We have too many task forces; just start streamlining. You don't need a task force. We know what the problem is. We know we cannot spend 10 years analysing a dump site and then at the end of 10 years and hundreds of millions of dollars of consultants and lawyers, say, "No, that's not it; try again." We know that doesn't work.

I'm not pointing fingers. I think it was my party that brought that in. You all supported it, though. We all thought it would work. It's been a disgrace and a disaster and it hasn't protected the environment. I said that previous to the last election; I said it during the campaign. The Liberals and the NDP said: "Oh, no. Harris is off base." Then right after the election you took over and your minister, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, said, "We've got to streamline the environmental assessment process" -- the same thing I said, the same thing she condemned me for saying.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: Now you understand the problem. You've been in there 18 months. Nothing has happened except the recommitment that you say you're going to look at it. We'll see when the time comes whether you're going to look at it.

The building code will be updated; I'm sure that means "streamlined." Give me a break. When has the building code ever been updated and that made it easier and more efficient for builders to know what they can do and can't do?

They don't mind the toughest environmental regulations in the world -- Ontario businesses have told me this, the people have told me, municipalities have told me this. But they want to be told yes or no. They don't want to be told, "Spend $100 million on hearings and hire lawyers and we'll see." Yes or no. Make your standards tough, stringent -- the toughest in the world, if you like. I think we can afford them; I think Ontarians can afford them. I think we want them, particularly if you'll put the money into meeting those standards instead of lawyers, instead of hearings, instead of consulting.

Madam Minister, if you will move in that direction you will have the support of me and my caucus, indeed our Environment critic, the member for Markham, who has been forcefully making this argument over the past couple of years but to no avail. There has been nothing happening.

"Planning Act Revised to Increase Supply of Basement Apartments": You're trying to go for these artificial quick fixes. Any home owner in Ontario would be foolish to turn over control of his family home, its principal residence, to somebody who is a stranger and whom he does not know and to the courts. They would be foolish. So if you expect basement apartments to work, to increase the supply, to put affordable housing out there, then you are going to have to look at the Landlord and Tenant Act, you're going to have to look at the rent review legislation and you are going to have to have different rules, because people's family situations could change.

They could say, "I'm prepared to have a basement apartment today," and then five years later have a couple more children or their family circumstances change, and they could say, "I want my home back." The current rules say: "Too bad; it's not your home any more. It belongs to the tenant." If you don't change that, anybody who creates a basement apartment is devaluing his property, mortgaging his future and taking away his own flexibility in his own family home, something that was sought after for years.

This dream of home ownership was within the grasp of most Ontarians and increasingly, since 1985, with you rascals and your coalitions and your big taxing, that dream is vanishing. So I say to you, if you want that to work, then you'd better look as well at the regulations governing basement apartments.

The environmental bill of rights: I told you I don't have all day today, and others will talk about that. I know the member for Markham will be talking about the environmental bill of rights and how pleased farmers are to see it coming along, where we're now going to turn over control again to a hearing process, to lawyers, to others. Basically what we're going to say to the people of Ontario is, "We'll give you access to all the lawyers, all the courts, everything you want, to enforce good environmental standards in this province, because we don't think we're capable of doing it."

That's your job. That is the government's job, the Minister of the Environment's job, your job on behalf of the people. They elect you to set tough standards and to enforce them. If you don't think you're capable of doing it, step aside and let those who are capable of governing come in and govern. Don't say, "We'll give the people more money for more courts and more lawyers so they can do it." What a silly way to proceed.

"Introduce Legislation for the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board": ie, take the $2 billion federally and provincially and give it to the big unions. Drive the private sector right out of training. Those who do it most immediately, most efficiently and most effectively now for the least number of dollars in the best response time to industry's need to create the jobs, to take people who need help and need training quickly, destroy all that.

1540

We know the agenda; we know what's happening there. Unfortunately you've got so many fires out there where you're heading in the wrong direction it's tough for us to fight them all at the same time. But we're going to manage. We'll slow you down and we'll change your direction. That's our goal. I want you to know that. Our goal isn't just to criticize and try to stay alive until 1995. This province is too dear to us; it's too precious to us. Our goal is to slow you down and stop you dead in your tracks if we can when you head off in these directions that are the wrong directions for this province. I serve notice to you today that this is our goal; it's not to wait till 1995.

The Labour Relations Act: Come on, guys -- I say "guys" in the generic, non-sexist sense.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and minister responsible for the greater Toronto area): I'm not a guy.

Mr Harris: You're acting like a guy, and a stupid one at that.

I tell you that at a time when we all know we must bring business, labour and government together to work more cooperatively, you are out there dividing like we've never seen divisions before -- and the rhetoric that you're part of.

Where is that Ontario statesmanlike leadership we had for 42 years that brought people together and business and labour together to solve problems? As I get letters from card-carrying union members concerned that they won't have secret ballot rights and that they're going to turn everything over to the three Bobs -- Billy Bobs I call them -- they say: "What about our rights? We're card-carrying union members. We're citizens of this province, we're taxpayers and we're workers. Mike, stand up there and fight. Defend us." I get letter after letter.

What happened to the kind of leadership that could bring unions and business to the same table to work cooperatively to provide the solutions for this province?

I've talked to a lot of Ontarians as I travelled this province in the last couple of years. Do you know what they tell me? They say: "Mike, we're not interested in right wing, left wing, NDP, PC or Liberal. We're not interested in ideology; we're not interested in this big union agenda that we see or in another agenda. We want commonsense solutions that work. We're not concerned whether government provides day care or the private sector provides it; we want it provided with quality and we want it provided efficiently."

Here you are hung up on the ideology that only government can provide it and only unions can provide protection for workers, instead of efficiency, instead of profits and instead of the company being successful so everybody can share in a growing pie. You seem to want to think: "Oh, no, it's better. Even if the pie shrinks it doesn't matter; we'll still try to argue in a confrontational way to get a bigger piece." There's no pie left. You get a bigger piece of nothing.

What happened to that kind of leadership? In this province it went out the window in 1985. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't stand here and say that for 42 years Ontario was governed without mistakes being made. Of course there were mistakes made. These leaders of great integrity and compassion, these builders of this province were human beings. They did make the odd mistake from time to time, but on balance they built this province. They had the right balance of how much would be spent on infrastructure and how much would be spent on services. We prospered and were envied across the country. We're not envied today.

I was out west last fall for a week, meeting with people in the streets and meeting with workers and business people. Not one person said: "We're envious of Ontario. You get all the jobs and all the investment." For 42 years they were envious because we did get the majority of the jobs and most of the investment. Most people wanted to come here. Immigrants wanted to come here because there was hope and opportunity for them. They could better themselves. There were jobs here and better jobs than there were in other provinces or other jurisdictions.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Then Brian Mulroney became Prime Minister.

Mr Harris: That's not the case today. In fact, those opportunities now are more alive in other provinces, with Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister of Canada. There is more opportunity in Alberta than in Ontario, more in British Columbia than in Ontario and more in Quebec than in Ontario. I hear the investors around the world like the Quebec bonds better now than Ontario bonds and are snapping them up faster than Ontario bonds.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You're joking.

Mr Harris: That's not a joke. You are a joke, sir.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order. The honourable member for Nipissing has the floor, and if other members want the floor, their turn will come later.

Mr Harris: Obviously the member for St George-St David was right yesterday in his comments -- provocative, but right.

The other thing that concerns us is what is not in the throne speech. There is no commitment to open Ontario for business. There is no commitment to say: "We want investment. We want you here. We welcome your entrepreneurship, your skills, your money, your dollars, your investment." In fact, everything in this throne speech says: "Go somewhere else. Government can do it better than you anyway. We don't want you." Those are the signals you are sending out.

Sunday shopping: There are people who want to work on Sunday. There are people who want to shop on Sunday. There are business people who want to open on Sunday, and you're saying no. "No, if you want to do that, move to the United States or Quebec or Manitoba," and so we lose 50,000, 100,000 more jobs.

Our children: With all the money you're spending -- and you have increased spending in this province, you and your Liberal partners, like no other province has. Here are the figures since 1984-85. Here are the increases in spending since you rascals took over. Alberta increased its spending from 1985 to 1992 3.8% on average each year, Saskatchewan 4.7%, Nova Scotia 5.7%, Manitoba 5.9%, Quebec, 5.9%, New Brunswick 6.7%, Newfoundland 7.1%, PEI 7.7%, BC 7.9%, Ontario 10.6%.

Why did you increase that spending for the seven years? It wasn't for infrastructure; your percentage to infrastructure is less than we provided in the early 1980s. In 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 a bigger percentage went to infrastructure.

Where did it go? In theory, it was supposed to go to the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the less fortunate; and with all that spending, there are more poor, more homeless, there is more need for food banks, there are more people on lists waiting for subsidized decent housing, more children in portables, more children doomed to an education inferior to what they had in 1985, more people on welfare, doomed to be unable to get the skills and the education and the retraining and the apprenticeship they need.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, that since 1985, with all the increases in spending, it has gone to theories, it has gone to bureaucracies -- 12,000 new civil servants and the kind of example I started with of Ontario Hydro. They're ripping us off and they're taking away hope for our children and they're taking away hope for those less fortunate in this province, the very groups we want to help: natives, women, visible minorities, the disabled people in this province, the poor people in this province, those who do not have the skills for a job or do not have a job. You are destroying their hope and faith and belief in this province, in this country, and certainly in this government.

There will be many other areas the critics in my party will want to talk about, such as the member for Carleton on taxes and the inefficiency of Treasury and Economics, the lack of control. The member for Parry Sound will want to talk about intergovernmental affairs, the Constitution, this change in attitude that puts Ontario first, not the country first.

What a disgrace. Never in 42 years, never even with David Peterson, a Premier who destroyed this province economically with taxes -- even David Peterson put the country first. Not this Premier. "Ontario wants its fair share," he said at the time of the first ministers' meeting at the most sensitive time in our country. "Ontario's paying more than it's getting." If Alberta and BC take that position, there's no country. I was embarrassed to be an Ontarian when your Premier spoke that way. I was embarrassed. I sent a letter to the Premier and I said: "I want to know what you're doing, I want to know what you're saying, or else we're not going to participate in that embarrassment," and I still haven't got an answer from the Premier.

1550

The member for Markham will be talking about the environment and how we're not helping the environment and what we can be doing in that area; and in citizenship, in race relations, in human rights, where we're falling behind.

The member for Simcoe East will speak on natural resources and mines and the disgrace now. Can you imagine? We're planting fewer trees. All this money -- you're going to increase the budget 10% -- and you're planting fewer trees? In fact, you're taking trees and saying, "Oh, we don't have enough money to plant them." I remember you rascals when you were over here saying, "You're not planting enough trees." You were right and we embarked on a program. The great Alan Pope, one of the best ministers of Natural Resources we ever had, got going, got the private sector growing trees. Now you're burying them, throwing them away, dumping them out. What a disgrace you are.

The member for Leeds-Grenville will be talking about the police and the lack of support you're giving to policing and enforcement and the disgraceful morale problems we're facing in this province. Sneaking in Susan Eng again for three years without telling anybody sent a signal to the police forces, not only in Metro but indeed across this province: "You don't count."

The member for S-D-G & East Grenville will speak on agriculture and our farm families, two million people in small-town and rural Ontario who are being ignored by this government.

The member for Burlington South will speak for seniors, who seem to be singled out for special punishment by this government, particularly those who've been successful.

Community and social services: The disgrace of ever-increasing thousands and thousands of people you're not providing programs for, to give them a hand up, to give them a hope that one day --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Spend, spend, spend.

Mr Harris: No, no, it's not "Spend, spend, spend," as the Treasurer says. You're spending the money. You're paying them to sit home and do nothing. You're paying them more and more money to sit home and do nothing when what they need is a training program, some work experience. In fact, it will cost you less money. You will have to put aside your socialistic ideology and say, "Let's help people get back to work." A good paying job is indeed the best form of welfare. That's what they need. Let's direct the programs in that way.

The member for Mississauga South will speak on housing and the disgraceful billions you're wasting with this ideology that government can build housing cheaper and better than the private sector. My gosh, you could help four times more people off those waiting lists if you'd simply help the people. Don't give the money to developers, to builders, to bricks, to mortar, whether it's non-profit or profit. Give the money to the people who need help. Give them a shelter subsidy so they can go and rent the existing units that are sitting out there vacant.

The member for London North will speak on colleges and universities and the deteriorating quality of education, the fact that we've abandoned excellence and we're falling farther and farther behind other provinces, other countries in education, skills development -- although there is one thing: I got a sense from the throne speech that maybe you're going to scrap the Ministry of Skills Development. I've been calling for that for the last five years. Maybe you have listened. We'll see what happens.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Frank Miller created it.

Mr Harris: You know where Frank is today. You talk about some of the things we created. We're proud of creating the health care system. We're proud of creating the community colleges. We're proud of the education system. We were proud of the skills ministry when we set it up, but you guys have destroyed it all. You're a disgrace in a lack of management ability, in taking what was once the best in the world and destroying it. That's the problem. That's what's happened in the last seven years, since 1985.

The member for Wellington will be advocating for poor small business, tourism and recreation -- the gas prices we have to pay and the deterioration there.

The member for Oakville South will speak on industry, trade and technology, practically the only spokesman there is in the province of Ontario. The member for Wilson Heights is a spokesman, but he's not in Ontario very much. He is knowledgeable. If he'd stay at home, he would be an ally to us, but certainly the member for Oakville South is the only one in this Legislature on a consistent basis advocating.

The member for Willowdale will speak on the Attorney General and the justice system and the unfairness there, and native affairs, the disgrace of our natives. The programs you say you're bringing in are not helping.

The member for Grey will speak on municipal affairs, our poor municipalities being off-loaded. We tell them, "Go borrow more money, go into debt." Instead of all of us trying to get out of debt, you're telling more people to go into debt, and he'll be raising those issues.

The member for Lanark-Renfrew will speak on energy policy. We used to plan ahead for our energy needs or electricity needs and it used to be affordable in Ontario. In the last seven years you've stalled project after project and there have been massive increases, two, three, four times the rate of inflation. What are you doing? You're building nothing, you're planning nothing ahead. We used to err on the side of having a little surplus. When you could sell it for more than it cost to generate it, it wasn't a bad policy. But now you're planning right to the line. You may be self-fulfilling. We may not need new generation. We might not need more electricity because you're destroying the economic activity in this province. It may be self-fulfilling that way, but that's not the way we want to plan.

The member for Etobicoke West will speak on the GTA and how this part of the province is deteriorating, that taxes keep going up, most of them off-loaded by you. The commercial concentration tax: You sat over here and opposed it, said you didn't agree with it, then you went over there and changed your mind. Some would call it something else, but I can't use that word in the Legislature.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Marteling.

Mr Harris: "Marteling" is the word; that's right. You were Marteling when you opposed it.

The member for Dufferin-Peel will be bringing forward consumer and commercial relations, financial institutions and the security and the integrity of our institutions here.

The member for York Mills will speak on transportation and government services, the tremendous inefficiencies there, the lack of commitment to infrastructure in this province.

The member for Simcoe West will be bringing forth the deterioration of our health care system and pointing out how you're heading in the wrong direction there, how since 1985 you rascals and your coalition have headed down this big spending way and destroyed the universal access we used to have in this province for 42 years.

The member for Waterloo North on women's issues and on labour will be bringing forth the disastrous direction the minister -- the Minister of Labour is here; I might as well say it now. I don't see any sign that you can last, sir. I don't think you can last. I don't think you're capable of bringing business and labour together. I don't know whether there's anybody over there capable. I know this: The member for Waterloo North is capable and we're prepared to explore new ways. I told you we can't wait until 1995. If you want the member for Waterloo North in your cabinet as Minister of Labour, I will facilitate that and make it happen and we will get things going in this province.

She gave me a look like, "Well," but I know she would do it for the sake of this province.

Many of my caucus colleagues and critics will be coming forth with specific areas. You are looking here at a caucus not only united, not only in tune with the times, but very capable, the 20 of us, of running this province, starting tomorrow, far better than it's been run for the last seven years.

I would like to move the following amendment to the amendment to the motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Mr Harris moves that the motion to amend the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor be amended by adding thereto the following:

"Failing to indicate that it will abandon the disastrous tax-borrow-and-spend fiscal policy pursued by successive governments since 1985 that seriously undermines the strong economic foundation that for 42 years provided equal access to the best social, education and health care programs in the world;

"Failing to provide effective leadership in the field of education required for excellence and ultimately to secure our children's futures;

"Ignoring the plight of those in border communities who are trying to keep their businesses open in order to make a living for their families and keep their employees working;

"Ignoring our besieged retail sector by not allowing Sunday openings and forcing thousands of retail workers, many of them women, out of work;

"Continuing to indulge in a pointless and futile attack on the policies of other levels of government at a time when a cooperative effort is required to resolve our nation's constitutional, social and economic policy;

"Creating an environment so hostile to private investors that Ontario is no longer the province of choice for job creators;

"Failure to understand the importance of agriculture and the values of small-town and rural Ontario to the province's prosperity;

"Failing to introduce policies and directions that will restore our confidence in the hope and opportunity that Ontario has traditionally enjoyed."

We will now move into further debate in the normal rotation. I want to remind members that we will now proceed with questions and/or comments for the speaker when he or she concludes his or her remarks.

1600

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I want to speak today in support of the throne speech of our government. Very clearly, it focused on the economy. We know our economy is in a very dreadful state today. Certainly the message was clear in the throne speech. The message said, "Invest in Ontario, invest in the people of this province, invest in the infrastructure." It encouraged all aspects of our society to invest in Ontario and be cooperative and creative, because this is a very difficult time.

Why are we in the predicament we're in and why do people like to focus on and blame this government for this terrible recession the province finds itself in? It's very difficult for me to understand, because I know it's something that's been cumulative; it's something that's taken a considerable length of time to arrive at and it's certainly something that's not our fault.

The recession right now is a global recession. It's a recession that has left many countries around the world wondering just what they're about, what they can do to improve their particular situation. As we look at North America we see that the United States, our largest trading partner to the south, is experiencing a very similar recession. Great Britain is experiencing a very similar recession. Many of the countries of Europe are experiencing a similar recession.

We here in Canada too are experiencing a very bad recession. Ontario, because it is recognized as the engine that drives the economy of Canada, is experiencing the worst recession of all. I think it is clear, again, that the recession is not our fault. There are many factions in society that would like to point the finger at this government and say that all the woes we are facing in Ontario today are the result of this government. I think it is clear that is not the case. In fact, when I sat on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and watched many experts in finance and economics come through, they made the message very clear to the committee that indeed it was not this government that was responsible for the recession we find ourselves in. They even said that some of the things we had done in our last budget -- not the budget we are expecting to see in another four, five or six weeks, but in the budget last year -- were very necessary in order to make sure the people of Ontario did not suffer during the very beginning of this difficult recession.

We know now from these same experts that the recovery from this recession is not going to take place to the breadth we would like to think a recovery could take place. Again, that has to do with many global factors.

During times of recession, people like to point fingers and say just who is at fault, who is to blame. As I already indicated, certainly this government is not to blame, but when people are having difficult times they don't like to accept blame themselves. They like to find scapegoats whom they can point their fingers at and say: "It's their fault. It's this segment of society's fault that we're having difficult times. It's this group of people. It's this government. It's these representatives. It's this municipality."

We all have to understand that no one individual and no one group is responsible for this recession, yet we know that during these difficult economic times we see more and more racial tension, and I might even say hate-mongering in our society. Even here in Ontario people tend to point their fingers at segments of our society they would like to blame. They like to say, "It's their fault." They'd like to blame new Canadians for this recession. I would like to say very clearly that it is not the fault of any of these individuals.

It is a very complex and cumulative situation which makes it very difficult for any one person to stand up and say, "Yes, it's my fault," but having said that, I would like to say there are some factors over which this province has no control. These are problems that indeed the federal government does have control over. These factors include the value of the dollar; interest rates, which clearly the federal government does have control over; the free trade agreement, which I will not blame it for completely, but certainly it was a factor that led to many manufacturing jobs in Ontario disappearing.

Within the scope of the free trade agreement, I think it is clear that on a larger scale, global trade is impacting on the recession in Ontario. It makes it very difficult for all those people, especially in the manufacturing industry, to see their jobs disappear to other parts of the world, even to the United States, and to have the expectation that these jobs probably won't be coming back.

The state of our economy is changing and the jobs that will be created in the future probably will not be, in the majority, manufacturing jobs. In fact, what we will find, I'm sure, is that in this new wave we are in the age of information, and information services are something that maybe we in Ontario will have some strength in, creating jobs and changing the focus and direction of employment in Ontario.

What will it take to turn this economy around? As I said earlier, it's not going to happen very quickly, it's not going to happen to any great degree very soon, and that certainly leaves a lot of people fretting. A lot of people are hoping the government will indeed do what is required in order to encourage investment in Ontario, in order to encourage people to go back to work.

Let me say that during these very difficult times, the government does not have many options or choices with regard to investment in Ontario. I know the Treasurer will be making some very important decisions and bringing down the budget in four to five weeks. I anticipate and look forward to hearing what he has to say, because I am sure many of the things that were mentioned in the throne speech will be better defined in the budget when that becomes available.

1610

In better times, it was easier for governments to make decisions. There weren't the great highs and lows in the economy that we are experiencing now. Certainly we are experiencing a low with regard to the deficit and great expectations of just what we can do.

Recently I had the opportunity have some pre-budget consultations. People from my community had the opportunity to come forward and share with me their concerns, concerns about the direction the province was going in, concerns with regard to the proposals we might make in the budget, and certainly concerns with regard to three things: with regard to taxes and whether we should increase them or not increase them; with regard to programs and whether we should cut them or maintain them, whether we should create new ones or wait, and certainly with regard to the deficit.

There were concerns about whether the deficit should be allowed to grow at all, be reduced or grow significantly. I think these concerns that people brought forward to me were very clear, but let me say that there was never a consensus. When people came forward to raise issues concerning their own employment or their own management areas, they would often consider that, yes, it could be advantageous to cut taxes, but they also knew it would impact directly on programs they were expecting the government to fund.

They were also concerned about the growth of the deficit. We know that as the deficit grows, it is certainly something we are going to pay down over a period of time. As we become more and more concerned about the future of this province, a large deficit is something we do not want future generations to have to be concerned with.

So what do we do? Do we cut taxes? Do we cut programs? Do we allow the deficit to grow? These are the questions that are plaguing the government and these are the questions that the people of Ontario want answered. The people of Ontario themselves are not sure exactly how these questions should be answered. I think it makes it very difficult for us too, as a government, to make these decisions.

When the Premier speaks of some of the very difficult decisions we are making as a government right now, it brings some interesting remarks from members on the opposite side of the House. Certainly where we have taken opportunities to cut and reduce some of the province's expenditures, it means that, yes, there have been some program cuts. Suddenly we hear members of the opposition, members of the third party saying: "We can't accept these cuts. They're unacceptable and you'll have to do something else." It is interesting to hear the people on the opposite side of the House say, "You can't cut these programs but you can't raise taxes, and you'll really be in trouble if you allow the deficit to grow."

There is a dilemma there that we have a great deal of difficulty with, and I don't know exactly what the solution is. We're going to have to grapple with that and just see what we can do.

The members opposite say, "Don't raise taxes." The members opposite also say, "Don't cut any programs." They also say, "Don't let the deficit go any higher." If you compare these three things, it's clear that what they're saying is something that is impossible for this government to do. I'm sure it would be impossible for them to do if they were in power, and I'm sure it would be impossible for the third party too if it were in power.

What will turn the economy around? It is very interesting. I watched the news last night and listened to an expert from the Royal Bank who said that in the scale of the global economy, with the fact that the world is watching Canada and watching Ontario right now, the biggest factor that's a hindrance to investment in Canada and in Ontario, because obviously Ontario is in Canada, is the fact that we can't get our act together with regard to the unity of this country. When other questions were put to this particular individual, he said, "No, clearly the number one thing is the problem we're having with our unity in Canada."

When we stop and think about that, I think he is right. The world's waiting, the world's watching and the world wants to see what we're going to do. Are we going to have a referendum? I don't know. What is Canada going to do with regard to its future? The world wants to know, and the sooner we collectively make that decision in Canada, the sooner we send the message to the world that we're going to stay together -- and God, I hope we do. Or if the choice is that we don't stay together, the sooner that message is sent out there, surely the better our economy will become sooner.

I often hear it said that people aren't willing to invest in Ontario, that investment is down, that people are leaving and that businesses are going to the United States. I understand that yes, indeed some businesses are going to the United States, but not many. In fact, investment in Ontario for the year ending February 1992 was up 3.5% from the year previous. I think that sends the clear message that people are willing and people are still investing in Ontario.

To those people who would like to suggest that business is not investing here, the amount it invested in Ontario last year, ending February 1992, was a little more than $21 billion. That is a significant amount and I think it sends a message. It tells us that regardless of what people who are opposed to this government would like to say, regardless of all the fearmongering the opponents of this government would like to have other people in the world and certainly people in Ontario believe, it's clear that people are still willing, businesses are still willing to invest in the province, and to a very large degree, I might add.

I would like to say too that everything isn't entirely bad in Ontario. In my riding an announcement just last Monday said that the Goodyear plant in Napanee, in Richmond township in fact, began to hire some 130 people at its plant. The Goodyear plant is a state-of-the-art plant. It's probably the best and most efficient tire plant in the world. They believe the economy is going to grow sufficiently so that they can indeed make these moves and hire additional people to work at their plant to increase their production from 8,000 to 14,000 tires per day.

So there are some signals out there that things aren't entirely bad -- difficult indeed, and certainly I would have to agree. I guess there isn't anyone here who would say our economy isn't in a difficult situation. Again, I want to say it isn't the fault of this government. The experts will reaffirm that statement. But yes, people are expecting the government to assist them and do some things that will help turn the economy around.

We have very limited opportunities to do that and we're expecting investment from the business community, we're expecting investment from other sectors of society. As the throne speech said very clearly, we're hoping that people are willing to invest in Ontario. The government is willing to invest in the infrastructure. We want to know that other people are willing to invest and that we can have cooperation in Ontario that will allow us to build a province that's productive, efficient and prepared to meet the demands that will be placed on it as the economy grows and as the world becomes a more competitive place. We want to see Ontario grow and flourish in the future.

In conclusion, I absolutely support the speech from the throne. It focused on the economy and gave some good direction as to what the government should do in order to improve things in Ontario. With cooperation from all concerned, I have no doubt that in time we'll see a province that is renewed, rejuvenated and ready to meet the future needs of the people of Ontario.

1620

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It's a pleasure, after a rather interesting winter season and the beginning of the spring season, to participate in the throne speech debate. I wonder if you wouldn't mind, Mr Speaker, if I just begin by offering my congratulations to our new leader, with whom I was contesting the leadership of the party. If I might say so, the entire process our party went through was not only very helpful to us; I think it set a very high standard for political campaigning for Ontario and indeed for Canada. All of us who were candidates are delighted with the result.

I put that forward with a grain of salt. Obviously each one of us was in the campaign in order to win, but I think it's safe to say that I and the four other candidates who didn't win grew in respect for one another during that process. I would commend the process to any party looking for a new leader. I'm not sure if the Tories are there yet or if they're going to be there soon, but of course those rumours are always floating around in this place. Although the leader of the third party did sound --

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Wonderful.

Mr Sorbara: My friend the member for London North says he sounded wonderful. I had to put in both my earplugs to moderate the volume somewhat, but I guess his style is his own.

Just to conclude in that regard, we are delighted with the way in which we went through the process, and every one of us is so proud about the way our new leader has taken office and the new standards she has set, but most important -- and I think this is worth underlining -- the new themes she has brought to our party that she has already brought to this Parliament in its opening days and that we know she will bringing to the province over the course of the next two and a half years and as the next Premier of this province.

It's rather difficult to think of very much good to say about the throne speech. I am reminded of the comments made yesterday in question period, a quote in fact from the member for York South and now the Premier of the province describing his own view about throne speeches. This goes back to his days in opposition: "The throne speech is propaganda, an exercise in creative advertising. I think it is utterly irrelevant. It has got nothing to do with what governments do."

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and minister responsible for the greater Toronto area): That was your throne speech.

Mr Sorbara: My friend the Minister of the Environment says that was our throne speech. That of course is not the case. Those were the Premier's comments about throne speeches generally. Let's be fair and honest and acknowledge what he was talking about at the time. If that's the case, the throne speech of three days ago really succeeded and in fact reached new standards if you adopt and apply the standards applied to throne speeches by the member for York South, the Premier of Ontario.

My God, was it a media advertising exercise around here last Monday. All the documents were printed and ready to hand out. The Premier was there, after the throne speech was delivered, moving from CFTO to CBC to CTV to the local networks; a clip for radio, availability sessions. The paper was churned out. Here's the press release that tells how the throne speech is going to help education: one word in the throne speech about education, that we're going to have some reforms. Here's how the throne speech is going to make the environment our top priority. "Here's what we're going to do for women. Here's what we're going to do in the area of government reform." It was all laid out there ready for absorption by the media invited down there en masse to absorb it and send it over the air waves and the newspapers of the province. It's all propaganda. It's advertising. It doesn't have anything to do with what government really does, in particular what this government is going to do.

I want to point out one paragraph from the Premier's first throne speech back in November 1990; it was a classic in throne speech propaganda. The Premier began with a reference to integrity. He promised that his new government would set new standards in integrity: "We will bring in standards. We will bring in a law dealing with conflict of interest. We will set these new standards and we'll abide by them."

Almost a year and a half has passed. The member for Ottawa Centre, once the Minister of Health, resigned. The member for Cambridge, once the Solicitor General, resigned. For some reason we still haven't figured out, the member for Welland-Thorold, then the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, was thrown out of office. We've never quite understood that. You get your picture taken in the Toronto Sun -- not, in my view, the classiest of newspapers -- and you're thrown out of cabinet. The member for Kitchener, who was for a while the Minister of Energy, is gone. The member for Fort York, once the Minister of Culture and Communications, is gone. And the saddest part of all was the experience with the member for Sudbury East, still the Minister of Northern Development.

I feel badly about what has happened in respect of what is now described as the Martel affair because I had, and I guess continue to have, a great deal of respect for that member as a politician. I remember when I was the Minister of Labour and she was my critic and I brought forward a very controversial bill, Bill 162; it dealt with reforms to the workers' compensation system. She was aggressive and determined and forceful in her criticisms of the bill. She did what she had to do as an opposition member. Yet when she debases the office of a ministry of this government, she sets her own career and the Premier sets her career above the standards the Premier described in a throne speech that is only 17 months old.

Harry Truman said it best when he described the nature of the office of the presidency of the United States. He said it's not the office holder who is important. He said: "I personally should command no particular respect. It's the office that demands the respect. We just pass through. Governments change. New ministers are appointed. Our careers as individuals are singularly unimportant. It's the office that demands respect." If while holding the office you debase the office, then you step down for a while. You step aside. You acknowledge it publicly, because you want to maintain the high standards of the office for the next office holder.

She said: "I slandered a doctor. I lied. I lost my temper." All of us lose our tempers. I think all of us should admit now and again that we warp the truth or lie.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As I look through the orders of business for today, I thought we were debating the speech from the throne.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): That we are. It's not a point of order.

We need an announcement to be made before 5 of the clock, and I will take this opportunity while I have the floor.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Pursuant to standing order 33(a), the member for York Mills has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Transportation concerning vehicle and driver's licence offices. This matter will be debated today at 6 of the clock.

1630

Mr Sorbara: I'll tell my friend across the aisle that he stands up on a matter that is not a point of order. The traditions of this House are that throne speech debates are the very broadest kind of debates this chamber is allowed. The general thrust of where the province is going, what is happening in your riding or my riding, what has been happening in the province, what the content of the speech is or where we should be going, is valid subject matter.

I think I am talking very close to the matter. The point I am trying to make is that this throne speech is a perfect example of propaganda, advertising, non sequitur and irrelevant information that does not describe, on the one hand, the problems Ontario is facing, and on the other hand, the solutions the government really is preparing to put into place. That is the great sadness of it, that we bring all these media folks down here, write up these grand words, bring in a whole crowd of people and ask the Lieutenant Governor to read a speech and it has very little to do with anything. When a government like your government is at 28% in the polls, it is designed to raise us up a little bit.

The terrible regret I have is that this throne speech doesn't even reflect the true principles of a party that preaches social democracy. The Premier used to describe himself as a social democrat. Where are the social democratic principles in this throne speech? People are not very fond of politicians these days because we seem to be able to put on different clothes, take on different views, have different principles and express different attitudes based on the prevailing wind. Where are our principles? Where is a discussion of the plight of unemployed people in this throne speech?

The Premier says, "This is a jobs throne speech." He sounds like Mulroney, for God's sake, when Mulroney stood up and said, "Jobs, jobs, jobs." That is what he sounds like. It has nothing to do with the principles you really believe in. When the now Premier said, when he was Leader of the Opposition, "We will eliminate food banks," I expected he would come here and eliminate food banks. When he says, in opposition and in his first throne speech, "We're going to nationalize the automobile insurance industry," I expect to come to this chamber and see a bill. When he says, "We need to expand and extend the welfare system," as he has preached for years and years, I expect him to do something about that.

What do we read in the paper now? "Bob Rae doesn't want Ontario to become a welfare state." Who are we supposed to believe? You elect someone who says the welfare system needs to be expanded and needs to encompass more people. We did a study on it. The now Premier said: "That's not good enough. It even has to go further." Now he puts on the clothes of a Premier and different words come out of his mouth. That has the people of Ontario and Canada so terribly upset they do not know who to believe.

Look at what else happened, I tell my friend from Etobicoke, on the day of the throne speech. Not a word about lotteries, and yet all the press was about lotteries because the government, this social democratic government that used to describe our system of lotteries as a tax on the poor, is going to be putting casinos in Ontario. Hallelujah. Now our sons and daughters can be assured of full-time employment dealing cards to some bimbo from Baltimore all night long. This is a great employment opportunity. Just think of it, we can now have our kids dealing out the cards there to the bimbos from Baltimore who come to Ontario, the great casino capital of Canada. This is economic progress. We could even take on a little bit of Las Vegas glitter.

At the same time, do you know what the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is going to do? She is going to take the sexism out of beer commercials. This is another example of political pandering. Car commercials are all right, and perfume commercials can be as sexist and offensive as you want them to be, but the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, because it is politically opportune to say it, is going to bring in regulations taking out the sexism -- covering up the ladies in the beer commercials. Give me a break. Are we now going to censor all ads that appear on the televisions of our province because she's got a little bit of a political agenda?

But the casino thing really grips me, because even before I was in this place, those folks, when they were in opposition, used to shed tears when they talked about how offensive it was that we would have Wintario and Lottario in the province. We were taxing the poor. "Who's going to buy the tickets?" they would say. "It's the poor and the destitute, who should be given real opportunity instead of having to rely on a one-in-10-billion chance of winning the jackpot." Now they're going to bring us casinos.

But for me the very worst thing about this propaganda, this throne speech, this little bit of pandering, was its attack on the federal government. I don't think in my seven-year political career I have ever had occasion to defend the federal government and I don't intend to do so now. I want to make it very clear that I think the policies of the Mulroney government have so seriously damaged this country economically, socially, culturally, and particularly constitutionally, that we are now at risk of not being a country, and I lay that at the feet of the Prime Minister, because I believe he is chiefly responsible.

But what is worse than even what Mulroney has done is what the Premier of this province did just a few short weeks ago at the first ministers' conference on the economy. In the midst of all the difficulties we have in this nation, and in the midst of an economic situation which has virtually every government -- federal, 10 provinces, two territories and thousands of municipalities -- on the verge of bankruptcy, the Premier takes the opportunity at a first ministers' conference to begin a little game of name-calling, of slandering. The federal government, he says, is an absconding debtor.

I want to tell you something, my friend: We are all of us in debt. We are all of us in very serious debt. Our economy can no longer produce the kind of wealth that will pay for the goods and services we want. The provincial government in Ontario is in that situation. The federal government in Canada is in that situation. Municipal governments all over the country are in that situation.

But what is worse about what the Premier said when he started his little game of name-calling is that he said they had shortchanged us $3 billion, and in fact: "We want another $1 billion for capital works. What we want from the federal government is an additional $4 billion." That would satisfy him. Then Ottawa wouldn't be an absconding debtor. "We want another $4 billion."

I ask my friends over there, where will that money come from? I agree that we need it, but where will it come from? It will come from the taxpayers of Ontario. That's the only place where the federal government could raise that amount of money and spend it in this province. Surely the Premier is not suggesting that you tax the farmers who are being foreclosed in Saskatchewan or the fishermen in Newfoundland or the unemployed in British Columbia. Where is this money going to come from? It's going to come from the taxpayers of Ontario. That's the only source of money any government has, taxpayers.

So what the Premier was saying, in effect, if you clear away the rhetoric, is, "Mulroney, I want you to levy additional taxes in Canada" -- read Ontario -- "so you take the heat at the federal level for levying the additional taxes, and increase your transfers to us." He says: "We don't have any more tax room. We're down at 28% in the polls." Forgive me, I say to the Premier, but Brian Mulroney is at 15% in the polls. Is he going to levy additional taxes? There's no more tax room.

1640

Our systems are failing us. Our economy is not generating the kind of wealth we must have in order to maintain and enhance the quality of the services that we as governments provide for people. For the Premier, in the midst of the pressure that he is under, which is understandable, to get in a mudslinging match with Mulroney is offensive in the extreme. To say, "You in Ottawa tax my citizens, my residents, the people of Ontario; you take the heat for taxing, transfer it to us and we'll take the political credit for increasing our services," is the height of ridiculousness, stupidity and --

Interjection: Hypocrisy.

Mr Sorbara: Hypocrisy, yes. I thank my friend from Mississauga. But even worse than that, we're in such trouble in Canada. We're experiencing such difficulties: language difficulties, cultural difficulties; we can't figure out how to use the "notwithstanding" clause; we don't know how many societies need to be constitutionally entrenched as distinct.

The original peoples of this nation in the main live in a state of poverty and disaffiliation that is becoming part of our bad reputation around the world. Our economy is failing. The Premier in this throne speech gave us propaganda. He prefaced it with a stupid, unacceptable battle with the federal Minister of Finance, Don Mazankowski, which left a bad taste in the mouths of virtually every Canadian who experienced it.

Why not, in a throne speech, once in the life of this Parliament stand up and tell the truth? The truth is rather simple: that the winds of change sweeping the world are sweeping over Ontario as well; that the economic infrastructure we have had since the war no longer provides enough; that the structures of governments and the answers we used to provide to our problems no longer work; that we need inventive and creative new solutions.

Most especially we need to put people back to work. We need to move heaven and earth to put people back to work. We need to think from now on in Ontario about making full employment of our people the centrepiece of our policies, whether they be economic, social or cultural. To be without work in a modern economy and a modern society like Ontario's is a burden too heavy to bear, and we ought not tolerate it any more. To me, that is the standard you have to use in evaluating whether or not there is any substance in this throne speech.

Let's go to the heart of it: the amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act that are being promised in this throne speech. I was a Labour minister for about two years in this province. I understand the various themes behind and underneath the reforms that are, I guess, being proposed. We haven't seen a bill yet. I must say that objectively these reforms, even in total, don't represent a dramatically, radically different approach, and I agree with the Premier when he says that many of these reforms are already in place somewhere in some jurisdiction in North America. But how do they measure up against our current problems? Will they expand opportunities for people right now?

The answer -- and I say this particularly to those of my colleagues who were elected for the first time in the election of September 1990 -- resides in your constituency offices. I take my constituency office to be the pulse of the province because the problems I hear about in that office reflect what really is happening, not only in the riding of York Centre but right around the province in some respect or other.

Right now in my constituency office there's just one typical appointment: a man or a woman coming in to ask help to find a job. "What can you do for me, sir, Mr Sorbara?" they say. "What can you do for me to help me get a job?" "My mortgage is due." "I haven't paid my rent in the past three months." "I have sent out 200 résumés." "This is having a very bad effect on my family." "I'm desperate." "Should I be moving out of the province?" "Can you help me?"

I haven't heard one person over the past four years come into my office and say, "We tried to organize a trade union, but the rules that are in place didn't work and they defeated us." Not one person has said that to me over the past seven years. Nobody has said that. Nobody has said to me: "My goodness, we've got a great group of workers here. We tried to organize a trade union and we were almost there. We signed up the people but the rules defeated us." I haven't heard that complaint once, and yet we're going to bring in new rules. Is this going to move us closer towards full employment?

I say with all due respect to the Minister of Labour, who I know has a very difficult job, that his bill, which ultimately will pass in this House -- they have the majority -- is, in an abstract sense, not really a big deal, but frankly it is the wrong bill at this time. So too with most of the other stuff that is in the throne speech.

There is a good thing or two. The green strategy I applauded in the local press in my own community, and I applaud here. I think it's good. I think the technologies we can develop in Ontario can make us leaders in environmental technology, and we should be giving governmental assistance in that area. But for anything else I'm of the same view as most of the commentators who have written about this throne speech, whether it's Tom Walkom or the commentators in the Toronto Sun, the Globe and Mail or the local newspapers, and I've read many of them. Some of them say the government has no new ideas, and that's the sad reality. The great socialist experiment, the reformists, the people who were to be the conscience of the province and the conscience of the nation come to government and they have no ideas. Those that they had they abandoned, and having abandoned those, they can't think of anything else to do.

Most of the stuff in the throne speech are things that have been worked on in Ontario for some long time, and I guess we'll get some of those. Most of it won't be achieved. Most of it will just die in the battles that go on here. Much of it is unrealistic, and that's the sadness of it. If I had my way I think we would just throw out the whole throne speech process altogether. We don't need the propaganda. Governments shouldn't indulge in free advertising. If we eliminated it perhaps we could get down to the real business of the people, which is what we were elected to do.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I wanted to comment on a couple of the remarks made by the member for York Centre. He talked about the references in the throne speech to the federal government and the meeting a couple of weeks ago between the premiers, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. He talked about the exchange that occurred. I think it is important that the people of this province understand what the background is for that type of exchange.

The fact is that we all know the federal government has put caps on transfers to the so-called "have" provinces. They've done it in the areas of universities and colleges, health care and social assistance. That's while Ontario is going through the worst recession since the 1930s and we've been more affected, we've had more unemployment and more people on social assistance. At the same time, when they asked the premiers for some assistance on ideas, on some leadership, on how we can work together, the premiers came before and offered ideas. Then we saw a federal budget that said: "We're going to stand pat. We're not going to work with the provinces. We're not going to work together to help them through these difficult times."

I think it's important that all members and the people of this province understand that this government, as outlined in the throne speech, is prepared to work with the federal government.

What really irks the people of this province and irks me, as a member representing them, is the fact that the federal government doesn't want to participate. Then what does it go and do? It blames this government for having a high deficit. It says: "Do what we do: Don't do anything. Don't raise taxes. Have a low deficit." You can't have that both ways. The federal government is not providing any leadership, not by itself. The Premier never asked them to do it all by themselves; they asked us to join with them. That's what this government wants to do: work cooperatively with all levels of government and all sectors of the economy.

1650

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I would certainly like to commend my colleague the member for York Centre for his excellent speech in this House today. What he said is what my constituents in Eglinton are saying to me every time I go out to a meeting, every time I have a constituent in my office and every time we're on the telephone: People do not have confidence in this government.

They say, "Oh, but it's not our fault." This government says: "The federal government is to blame. It is the previous Liberal provincial government which is to blame. It is the business community which is just being very selective about what they want to believe and not giving us the opportunity to show our stuff." But what the member for York Centre pointed out was, people do not have confidence in this government because they don't feel this government is competent. Look at the number of ministers who have been either fired or have resigned since this government came into office a year and a half ago: nine ministers, and that doesn't count the ones who should resign because of incompetence or because they do not meet the standards of the people of this province for our cabinet.

When the member for York Centre says these things, he's not making up fairy stories; he's saying what the people of this province believe. When he talks about what people come into his constituency office and seek help for, it is on the matter of jobs, on the economy, on bankruptcy. They aren't coming in to say they're not getting the union benefits they need. We have very solid labour laws in this province that have been very protective. I think it's time this government put its priorities to work and talked about what the people of this province are talking about.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'm happy to enter into debate on this subject. I thought the comments were reasonably fair and well placed. I find it very interesting, depending on whose ox is being gored, how this Premier reacts to specific issues. He suggests at the time that the federal government isn't paying its fair share to the operation of this province. I direct this directly across the floor.

I come from Metropolitan Toronto and sat there for some eight or nine years. During that time we in Metropolitan Toronto, under all governments, including this one, have not received anywhere near an equitable proportion of the money we generate to operate this province. In fact, we in Metropolitan Toronto receive not dime one in education funding from this province. Proportionately across this province in boards of health, they receive up to 60% funding for their boards of health; only in Metropolitan Toronto do they receive 40% funding. Only in Metropolitan Toronto do you have a commercial concentration tax. That's a specific tax on a specific city for specific people.

If this Premier is going to go to Ottawa and complain about being unfairly treated, may I suggest that he clean up his own backyard and deal with all cities, all jurisdictions and all regions within the province equally? If not, then the Premier should not go to Ottawa and demand the same treatment that all provinces get.

Further, we in Toronto understand it. We were a wealthy city, and there are those less fortunate. We in this province should understand as well that we can't have as much as some other provinces because we are more fortunate. Shame on you, NDP. That's what you used to stand for.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I'd like to address what my colleague said about the question of the integrity and the image of politicians. I find it passing strange when a government with the huge majority the NDP has gets into power and in a throne speech doesn't address the most important issue in this province, our children, in terms of educational spending. Particularly in the region of Peel, people there are finding that their education is just going down the tube. It's not as a result of the trustees; the trustees are working very hard within the limited budgets they have.

This government can't cry -- I mean, it's one pocket. It can't say that because the feds won't pass it down to the province, it in turn is going to take it out on the municipalities and the school boards. That's not good enough.

The people of this province elected that government in September. They expected that the education system that had been maintained in a very fine and traditional fashion would continue. There's not one word in the budget that would encourage people whose children are going to have a deterioration in their educational system and the trustees who are working very hard to try to use the limited funds they have to keep the system at its best.

I find that incomprehensible, and I suggest that my colleague's comments about the integrity of politicians and the image they project are certainly not being reflected in that throne speech. I suggest that he's dead-on that a throne speech which does not provide for one of the most important commodities in our community, our children, is in fact a throne speech that should be thrown away, because it has absolutely no relevance in today's world. It does not address the most important features that are existing in this community.

With the polls putting them at -- what? -- 27%, the people out there are telling those people, "We put you in office to rule and govern and to look after this province, not to complain about what Ottawa is doing to you."

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): This completes the area of questions and/or comments. The honourable member for York Centre has two minutes in reply.

Mr Sorbara: I appreciate the comments of both the member for Brampton South and the member for Eglinton and indeed the member for Etobicoke West. My reply really is going to be directed to the member for Oxford. I guess I simply have a piece of advice for him, which is that he not continue down that line of rhetoric and fed-bashing about how we're being shortchanged and how we're providing 40% of the revenue to the federal government and we're only getting 32 cents in return.

If that becomes a major theme of the New Democratic Party government in Canada, we are finished. We're finished. We are saying, out of the mouth of the Premier of Ontario, that the fishermen in Newfoundland have no interest in the economic wellbeing of Ontario. We're saying to the out-of-work steelworkers at Sysco in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia -- wherever it is -- that they have no interest, and that can't be. That cannot be. We can't allow the debate in Canada to come down to that. The workers in Newfoundland and the workers in every province of Canada have an interest in us and our wellbeing, as we have an interest in theirs. If Bob Rae, for his politically expedient purposes, is going to engage in that kind of rhetoric and encourage his backbenchers to engage in that kind of rhetoric, we have problems even more serious than I thought before.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): I want to remind all members that, indeed, when referring to another member, it would be really appreciated to use his title, such as "the Premier" or "the minister" or "the member for such-and-such." Further debate on the speech from the throne.

1700

[Applause]

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I appreciate the applause and the opportunity to share a few thoughts. I must confess, though, when you get up to talk here a year or so later, it's difficult to know where to start. I'm going to set it up and then I'm going to get into some of this.

This is my mail since Christmas on a couple of issues, the responses on the economy; some of you may not have put it together quite like this. These are the replies I've seen, virtually 97% of them criticism of this government. Rather than get up here and speak about my thoughts, I'm going to talk a bit about some of the things in here, because these are the replies I've had on the most important issues of the day.

The people of this province were looking for a throne speech that was going to set a direction, and when we heard the throne speech on Monday it was very clear we have not changed direction. We've got a situation of high taxation, high government spending, high unemployment, low productivity, and nothing in the speech from the throne will do anything to help the people of this province.

Our social structure in this province is being stretched to the limit, with soaring costs for health, education and welfare. The issues of crime and poverty in this province seem to be growing faster than we can respond to them. In spite of everything, we in this province still have one of the highest standards of living of any of the people on this planet, but our time is short. As these pressures continue to mount, many of Ontario's blessings are now at risk. I want to share a few thoughts specifically on this and hope there will be time to get into some of these issues that are very pressing, and I'm going to talk a little on some of the industrial strategy that was outlined.

We've been hoping for about a year now that we were going to get some indication. This government came in and said it was anti-business. Everybody was looking for some type of assurance in the throne speech that finally they had put something together. Instead, we hear we're going to establish the Ontario investment fund, which is basically an admission that nobody is going to invest in Ontario so we've got to do it ourselves.

The member for Waterloo North and I went up and spoke to a Japanese company in her area, and they said: "Gary, Elizabeth, we know you're fighting for us. We used to get calls from all over the world about investing in Ontario. We used to tell them it was a great place to invest. We're telling them today, 'Don't come to Ontario, because it's not a good place to invest.'" The obvious question is, "Why don't you come out and say that?" They say, "We're afraid if we do that this government will hold it against us."

We met with German bankers and they said: "For obvious reasons, we're putting money into eastern Europe. Obviously, because of the close ties and with Germany reunited now, we're putting money in there, but if we have any more money, we're telling them, 'Don't come to Ontario, because it's not a good place to invest.'"

One third of the businesses in Ontario, according to a recent Canadian Federation of Independent Business study, say they are thinking of moving all or some of their operations out of Ontario, and 88% have scaled down their investment plans since that last disastrous budget a year ago.

This was an admission: "Nobody is going to invest in Ontario, so we're going to do it ourselves. We're going to take the pension money and then we're going to decide what sector and what companies are going to survive; we'll put the money into those." As recently as this morning, when I spoke at the Ontario Economic Council, the people who deal with these issues, they said one of the problems we get is that when you give company X money, company Y says, "Why didn't we get it?" That's what we're going to be into with this, and it's a clear admission that in Ontario nobody will invest, so the government's got to do it. I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

Municipalities: Today in Ontario, our accumulated deficit is costing us $15,000 a minute -- not for good roads or the health care system or the education system; just to pay the interest on the provincial deficit alone it is costing us $15,000 a minute. Federally it's costing us about $60,000. So what does this government do in this speech from the throne? They say the federal government's bankrupt; that started in the early 1980s. In the early 1990s this government bankrupted Ontario. So now we go to the next level, and we'll give municipalities more authority to borrow so they can become as bankrupt as we are.

We got new resources committed to the backlog of the Ontario Municipal Board. At the same time they do that, on the Sunday shopping law that came in they gave the appeal process to the OMB. At the same time they're bringing in Mr Martin to streamline the bureaucracy, they turn around and add new cases into it. It's little wonder we're backed up. What is it now, 12 to 18 months in that area?

We've got the introduction of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. That's going to be an interesting thing. Every party agrees we need to do more training in this province: 59% of businesses say they can't find the skilled people necessary in this province. So we've got OTAB and the discussion paper that is going to look at that. I've had more calls over the last couple of days about that. The member for London South was speaking about some of those issues today. The people of this province are going to let them know exactly what they want to see in it, because they don't believe this government will make the right decisions in that area.

I think of all the replies I got, and here they are. It was depressing reading going through a lot of these; people saying that when the labour legislation comes in, they're going to leave. The first one here is from a man who has 160 employees in my riding. He says:

"Dear Premier Rae:

"You're proposed new labour legislation will probably convince me to close down my operation and move to the US, as many other transportation companies have done. We will be taking with us 160 jobs."

I've received replies from companies with eight employees, 250 employees; I will be tabling these because I want the Premier and the Minister of Labour to realize exactly what the human tragedy will be if they bring in that labour legislation.

One chap sent me an economic reply to the Premier. This could have been the throne speech done in about 10 seconds. He says:

"You should adopt a zero-base budgeting plan. You should reduce taxes" -- it's all in point form; we didn't need to bring in the Lieutenant Governor to read it; we could have had this in point form -- "You've got to reduce government spending, reduce the provincial debt, reduce the government workforce, approve full-scale Sunday shopping, implement a sunset clause in new and existing government programs, cut the public service by about 15%" -- and this last one I really like -- "Bob Rae should get another job that he's more qualified for." That one I think I agree with more than anything else.

We've got page after page of replies that have come in from the people of this province who are discouraged and upset. If the anti-business strategy of this government is going to drive investment out, then just change it. If the labour legislation is going to drive businesses out of this province, then don't introduce it. This is not radical thinking; this is just common sense. This is literally what the people are saying in a pile about 12 inches high here, about what the government should be doing, and it isn't listening.

Instead we get this throne speech that talks about some of the things the government intends to do. It's a vague outline of a strategy. It's an admission that their industrial policy has died. They championed all the companies that were getting money. Each of the ones that they say are investing have done so with government money. Nobody else in Ontario will do it, so the government has to step in.

The Premier came out to my riding and had a big splash about the General Electric opening; they were going to be able to keep 200 jobs. On the same day he did it, he admitted he had spent about a year on that. Instead of getting in there and looking at the taxes and regulations to allow it, he spent virtually a year working on that. The same day that was announced, "We're going to keep 200 jobs," about 600 jobs in Mississauga were reported lost. So here's a Premier who spends all his time working on one particular project, and the same day it's announced that we lose three times as many jobs in the neighbouring riding of Mississauga.

Here's a Premier who went over to Europe to try to get people to invest in Ontario, and a lot of the people didn't even want to meet with him. I think most of them did it out of courtesy. What he should be doing is getting an investment climate here so that people would want to come to Ontario.

Our leader earlier talked a little about what it was like here in Ontario. I grew up in the greatest province and the greatest country in the world. Things weren't perfect for those 42 years, but on balance, we had lower taxes, we had fewer people on welfare, we had a health care system that was the pride and envy of the world, we had an education system that was the pride and envy of the world. On balance, we had prosperity. It was a land of opportunity, hope and prosperity.

Now all the other provinces look at it and it's gone down the tubes, and it isn't just because of this government. We started going down that road under the previous government. We had one philosophy over the last five years: anything that moved in this province, we taxed it; if it still moved after all this, we regulated it; then ultimately when it went out of business, we turned around and subsidized it.

This throne speech says: "That's the way we're going to operate. The only investment that will come in the province of Ontario is through the pension fund, because nobody else will invest in Ontario."

1710

I am a business person since I quit playing hockey and got thrown out of that profession; for the last 10 years I have been involved in business. I wanted to take this critic's position for Industry, Trade and Technology because I thought it was going to be an interesting position to get; to meet with business groups and talk about trade, industry and technology. It has become the most depressing critic's role because everywhere you go you get complaints from people: "This is a terrible government for business. We don't know why we want to stay here." That is a sad commentary on a province that used to be the pride of the world. People used to line up to come to this province. Now we are saying to them, "The only way you can come to this province is if we take the pension money and give it to you because nowhere else will anybody invest in Ontario."

We had a throne speech that was going to set the direction. We thought, when we came back after Christmas: "Okay, we'll give them a little time. They didn't realize they would be elected. They need a bit of time for that." That was the first session; then they did not have a game plan in place. So we thought we would give them a little extra time to get their throne speech together.

My goodness, I don't know what they've been working on since Christmas, but this is what we get. When I reflected on the last throne speech, I guess the only good thing about it was that they talked about how they were going to change. I think the wording was that they were going to listen to the people who had never had the levers of power before.

I sit on the committee that interviews the appointments. This government has moved faster than any government in the history of this province to get its NDP friends on every board, agency and commission. We saw the culmination of that today: Mr Martin is going to streamline the bureaucracy of the OMB.

It used to be that things worked in this province. We were talking on Friday, all of us and the previous speaker talked about what it's like in Ontario and the calls we get. You have the OMB backed up 12 to 18 months; you have the $10-billion unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board. We spend 60% of our time dealing with workers' compensation some days. That system doesn't work.

We had the pleasure of asking the chairman when he came in: "What're you going to do with the WCB? You have a $10-billion unfunded liability. What's your plan?" This was the appointment of the chairman. He said, "I really don't have a plan." I said: "When are you going to get a plan? You have the position now. You come in here and you want us to approve it. When are you going to have a plan?" "Maybe we will have one by the time the annual report comes out."

Here is a person who had spent some time on the WCB cause in the past, I understand, who came in with no plan of what he was going to do. We wonder why the unfunded liability keeps going up. Businesses are worried that this is going to be passed on to them in the form of a higher payroll tax. There was nothing in the throne speech to change any of that.

Over the last little while we have offered what we thought would be practical solutions. We talked about some of the things politicians don't want to talk about. We said, "If you're going to give your transfer agents 1%, 2% and 2% for municipalities, school boards and universities, when their costs are tied to salaries" -- as most of them are; school boards at 80% -- "you should have the political courage to stand up and say: 'We've given you 1%, 2% and 2% over the next three years. We're going to bring in legislation so we don't have what happens in Metro Toronto, where school boards are asking for four-point-whatever per cent increases.'" They got 1% this year. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize property taxes will go up in Ontario as a direct result of this government. But they stand up fed-bashing and talk about the transfer payments.

I went to a school board meeting last night. In my riding the transfers are going to be a little less; we are a so-called have region. The trustees there were not bashing the provincial government, and it would have been very easy, because every time they stood up and talked about an issue in education, it related back to something this government had done. But these trustees got up and explained the situation as best they could. They didn't stand up like this Premier does and blame other levels of government. Lord knows our trustees would have a better chance, because they could blame the provincial government and the federal government. They didn't do that.

This mindless finger-pointing that has gone on by the Premier is nothing but the fact that this socialist government was so used to whining when they were outside of government that it doesn't know how to do anything but whine on the inside when it has the levers of power in Ontario. I say the people of this province would want and expect a lot more. I was proud of those trustees last night at this meeting who didn't engage in that. Property taxes are going to go up, as a direct result of the policies of this provincial government, in my area, Oakville and Burlington, and they didn't engage in that. They said, "We're going to work with it and we have hard choices to make." They didn't do the mindless finger-pointing that this Premier did, and it's about time he stops that.

Over the last little while we have had an occasion to review a lot of the way we're looking at things in this province. We've got a health care crisis. We've got 4,000 fewer hospital beds than we did in 1985. The waiting lists for surgeries are longer now in this province. Cuts are being made on an ad hoc basis out of fiscal necessity rather than on a long-term management program. Right now, as we're sitting here today, we're rationing health care because of the waiting lists.

We've got a situation where the education system now is deteriorating in the colleges and universities; no mention in there about colleges and universities in education. The standard of living of the next generation will be in direct proportion to the skills and training we give it today, and their throne speech doesn't even talk about any direction of what they're going to do in education. We have a Minister of Education, and again also at the colleges and universities level, who has come in and offered no initiatives to Ontario on what is urgently needed to address a lot of the problems that are out there today.

We on this side have attempted to talk about some of these things and offer some of the solutions. We have listened and put together some of the programs. We've talked about some of the hard choices that need to be made.

You've got a different group over here, and I will just take a quick minute to talk about some of my colleagues. The member for Etobicoke West has a reputation for speaking his mind. I think if people would look at us, we certainly are not the stuffy old Conservatives of old in their three-piece pinstripe suits. Our hair is a little bit longer and we're a lot different.

We've got a group over here that is going to tell it like it is, because we are fed up and sick and tired with the type of leadership that used to happen in Ontario. This group over here is going to offer a lot of commonsense solutions. When the programs come in, as I said to the minister, whether they be labour legislation or some of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board things that we may disagree with, we are going to stand up and we're going to challenge this government on every issue, because I can tell you, a lot of you who are driven by ideology and have been confronted with reality now -- the Premier stands up and talks about partnership, which is a lot of rhetoric, but all that means is that he spends and we pay, partner. That's the way he has dealt with his business community and all the other people who are out there.

Over the last little while we have attempted to offer some of the solutions and some of the new directions that we put out. I guess it says it all when we had close to 20,000 phone calls after the speech in January, of people crying out, wanting to look for some of the solutions. These people weren't Conservatives or politically aligned; these were people saying, "We're glad we have an opposition party that is standing up and saying some of the things."

I want to review some of the things we've talked about because as an opposition party we're prepared to make the tough choices. We're prepared to offer some of the opportunities. We encourage some of the Liberals to do that as well. They've got a new leader in now. Up till now they've been content to blame Brian Mulroney and blame the Premier and hope the people will forgive and forget, and I hope we will get away from that as they've said here today; I'm sure we will.

We talk in here about skills training. We talk about environmental technology. We talk about investment strategy. We talk about taxes. Some of the solutions we're putting together here are some of the solutions we are advocating. We talk about some of the things governments don't want to talk about. We talk about some of the things like the legislation. When you do that, you get calls from teachers and some of the people who are involved, saying, "No, we shouldn't be helped."

But here's a government that last year turned around and gave the nurses big increases, and today we turn around and lay them off and close hospital beds, and then it turns around and wants to have some credibility. I say to the members on the other side that the people of this province can't be fooled. They look at us as politicians a little cynically and a little sceptically as it is, and for you to turn around and champion the cause a year ago and then lay those same people off -- let's have the political courage to make the hard choices and to say the things that need to be said.

1720

It was the same in the last period of time when they championed the anti-recession policy, the $700 million they were going to pump into the economy. Then they turned around and had to cut at least that on an ad hoc basis because of the pressures they are facing with their deficits. Here we are and you didn't have the political courage to make some of the tough choices: when it comes to day care, $130 million to drive the private sector out of that particular area; non-profit housing up 44% over the last little while. In 1985, 80% of the rental units used to be built by the private sector. Today less than 20% are built by the private sector.

What the Premier said in opposition is true: What you do is regulate them so they don't want to build, and then you take it over. Here is the Premier who said the deficit would go up no matter who was in power, and then non-profit housing goes up because they have driven out the private sector.

They've driven out the private sector in day care. With all the pressures out there, you would think you would know that the private sector, which does the job faster, better, cheaper and at no expense to the taxpayer, is being penalized, thwarted and shut out because it doesn't fit in with this government's trendy socialist ideology.

We are going to stand up for the private day care workers who come to my office en masse, as they did over that issue. We are going to stand up for the people of this province who want to invest and we are going to stand up for the people like these people who have written in to me offering some of the solutions that need to be done in Ontario. We get calls, as we often do at our riding offices, from people asking how much longer we have to put up with this government.

I go around and meet some of the people in the business community in my critic's responsibility. They are now talking about just surviving until this government leaves. They are saying they don't care who else comes in; nobody could be as bad as this government is today. That is where we have taken this province. It used to be the land of hope, opportunity and prosperity. Now people are saying, "Gee, I hope we can survive until we get rid of this government."

I've noticed a bit of a change here, as some of the members have. When this group came in, during the first year on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs they all jumped up and down with their ideology. A year later most of them sat silently.

We had the non-profit people in from Peel. The waiting list is 7,300. "We need 800 new rental units. That's what we're asking for. It will cost $1,800, probably, per unit, and even if they get that," the chap who came in before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs said, "next year our waiting lists will be longer. I'll try to quote him directly: "We realize that non-profit housing wasn't meant to be the entire answer to all our housing. We need to have the private sector." So in the year when they came in, the first year, they said the private sector was going to be thwarted, penalized and shut out. Now we've got people talking about, "We need them, because even if we attempt to get rid of the waiting list for non-profit housing, if we build 800, we are still going to have waiting lists that are longer the next year." They've got to admit now that the policies aren't working.

When you look at the rent review agency now, they came in and they said, "We're going to have this program, and if people don't like the rents, we'll just be able to take it to this rent review board." It's backed up 6,000 cases. It's well over a year now to get in front of that board.

The people of this province have looked over the last little while, and if you took what we were spending in 1981 when we were in government and we had all these programs that worked, increased it for inflation and an increased population, today we would only be spending about $31 billion. Instead, with all this massive investment, we have now spent $53 billion a year, yet in all these areas -- health care, roads, education and schools -- we are worse off now than we were in the early 1980s. Doesn't this tell you that this program and this ideology of the socialists don't work? We are going to be offering some of these solutions that we've outlined here in New Directions.

I believe there are a couple of other people who want to get up and speak about this. It is unfortunate because I would've liked to have heard, and I think it would have been helpful for some of the members to hear, some of the things that are being said by the men and women across this province, in fact some of them young children, in criticism of this government's economic policies. This is a sad commentary.

In closing, we are going to be vigorous in our opposition to this government. Our collective challenge in this province goes far beyond tinkering and trimming just to keep the deficit at $10 billion to $14 billion this year alone. My party and my colleagues often feel we are alone in the Legislature with regard to a lot of the solutions people want out there, but we know we are joined in the hearts and minds of countless Ontarians who know that this province can do better. We on this side are committed to making it happen. We are going to make it happen.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I'm the newest member of this House, but I'm certainly not the youngest and I've had many years of experience in some fields. I want to speak about why I was elected. I stayed particularly to hear the comments of the member for York Centre. I think his comments were particularly well made and I agree with them and I support him.

I feel the reason I was elected is that when I campaigned throughout the riding I heard the concerns of people. I had to do that because there were many concerns. I heard from people who were unemployed, worried about their future and the fact that they would never have a job in the future, and from those who were employed, afraid they would lose their jobs, from businessmen who were going to lose their businesses, from industrial leaders who were going to lose their industries, and indeed from ordinary citizens concerned that they might lose their very houses. Why? Because of the tremendous increase in their taxes. Why have their taxes increased? Because of the downloading of the provincial and federal governments. They know that.

I grieve for the members of councils who have been elected and for the members of school boards who have been elected because they have a very difficult task ahead of them. They cannot continue to provide the same level of services and they cannot give a larger continued level without increasing taxes.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): To comment on the member for Oakville South's speech this afternoon is really a particular pleasure for me because I feel this member has addressed very well the concerns the Progressive Conservative caucus has with this Bob Rae Ontario socialist government and the content of its throne speech.

I have been here seven years. I have never heard, first of all, such a short speech, and I have never heard a speech that was so lacking in content.

The member for Oakville South probably could have addressed many more areas, but he was limited in time. When he talks about his concern for what this government is not doing, I want to say to this government, in addition to his comments, that I really wish the people in this cabinet who are making the decisions would simply look in the mirror. I wish they would realize the responsibility they have for the future of this province and that their policies and their decisions are driving this province down the drain.

We have a Minister of Health who simply cannot prioritize in terms of who should have what medical treatments and what drugs. So we have a two-tier health system: one for the rich, one for the poor. We have chaos in the Peel Board of Education because this Minister of Education will not now give transition funds that he is holding in his back hip pocket to help them out of their crisis. In the meantime, programs and staff are being cut unnecessarily.

1730

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I want to thank the member for his participation. I think there maybe were a few spots he probably could have touched on and talked about a little longer. In the throne speech there was a lot of discussion around investing in infrastructure, new investment that is needed. There was also talk and discussion around regulatory problems that exist. We have seen, even in the statement earlier today, directions this government has taken to try to solve some of those problems.

In this province we produce $280 billion in goods and services for this country every year, 40% of the whole country's output. That is something we need to take a look at. This year the province of Ontario will spend about one fifth of that amount, nearly $53 billion, on its budget.

Yes, there are some problems. We heard some discussion around the changes to the OLRA. For 15 years there have not been any changes. It is time for some changes. We need to make sure we have programs that are going to be equitable and get rid of this antagonism we have seen far too often. We need to get people sitting down and talking. We talk about cooperation and the need to take a look at some of the budgetary problems we have in this province right now.

We hear an awful lot of rhetoric from members opposite about how the Minister of Health should be telling the hospitals where they should be cutting. Frankly, I just can't believe these members would think that's the way it should be done. We've got district health councils out there that should offer some direction. We've got hospital boards out there. They should be taking a look at it and involving the workers who work providing those services. That is where we have to start. We've got to get that sort of involvement. From there, we can start looking at some of the budgetary problems we've got. The Minister of Health has pointed that direction. That is what we need to do.

Mr Callahan: I want to speak to the address of the member for Oakville South. He mentioned Peel Non-Profit Housing. Peel Non-Profit Housing, as I think can be attested by my colleague the member for Mississauga West, is one of the finest in the country. I hear the member for Oakville South saying that even if they get the money being promised they're still going to have tremendous waiting lists. I think if there is one thing all of us, if we reflect truly on it and do not do it on a partisan basis, know from our constituency offices, the most agonizing thing is when we get a call from a family that has no place to go and has to be put up in a fleabag hotel. They rely on the non-profit housing program.

In fact, after giving this money to Peel Non-Profit Housing -- which is the finest in the province; there are not any around, I think, equally as good as Peel Non-Profit -- what is happening to the people in other parts of this province? Are there families that are being sent out on to the street or out into fleabag hotels with their kids to get accommodations?

I have to say this. We stand around here all the time being partisan and we are not getting on with the business of looking after the families, the single-parent families you people espouse to be in favour of. We all are, but you're not doing it. Your throne speech is a piece of junk. It doesn't address those problems. You could trip over people in the streets of the city of Toronto and other areas in this province. Get on with it. There are families that deserve to have housing. When the member for Oakville South tells me that about Peel Non-Profit Housing, I have to cringe, because I have to feel that elsewhere in this province these people have no hope whatsoever.

Mr Carr: I wanted to add a bit of a comment on some of the replies. My friend from Scarborough commented, saying they are offering some solutions, the solutions we heard. Just like in education, in Peel they said: "You can't get rid of this program. We've only given you 1, 2 and 2. You can't get rid of this program, and don't get rid of that program, and don't lay anybody off." Where do these people think the public is sitting? Do you think they're being fooled and conned by this, when you give the transfers to your agencies like that and you're talking to district health councils? It's all driven by money.

They can make whatever decisions they want, but if they don't have the money what they need to do is to be able to say and have the political courage to say, "Okay, we are going to, in the broader public sector, put a cap on it equal to the transfer payment," so that they don't go into the positions they are in now where they're going to have to lay off nurses and close more hospital beds. It will be a direct result of this Premier and this Treasurer in Ontario, because they didn't have the political courage to make the tough decisions and maybe get a few people angry at them. But in the broader public sector the fact of the matter is that if we don't, we will be shutting more hospital beds.

What we are saying is that they should be managed a lot better -- not by the district health councils; by the Treasurer and the Premier of this province, who didn't have the political courage to make the tough decisions when they should have had the opportunity to do it. I can tell you this: In my area I've had a letter from the mayor of Oakville and I've had a letter from a director of education and from the regional chairmen all supporting me on this. If you don't want to listen to the opposition, listen to your transfer partners who are saying that's what you should be doing. Mayors, regional chairmen and directors of education from the Halton region are saying you should have the political courage to do it. I say to this government, "If you don't, the people are going to see right through it." They see through you now and we're going to remind them every day that a lot of the problems in this province are the direct result of the Premier and this disastrous government of Ontario.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It's very much a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate in support of the throne speech.

Mrs Marland: We've waited a long time for this speech.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Christel Haeck): I'm sorry, but the member for Downsview at this point has definitely just started. He is entitled to say his piece. I do believe he is allowed the courtesy of continuing without the heckling that is going on at this time. I would suggest that we allow the member to continue in the same way that for the most part has been handled very quietly for the last hour.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I would suggest that if you're going to make those sorts of rulings then you would direct the government House leader not to heckle constantly.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haeck): I will be watching all sides of the House, and in fact have been paying very close attention to you all. Thank you very much for the reminder.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Just very briefly, I think the point was fairly well made that heckling takes place on both sides. I would simply ask you to look at that.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haeck): I thank you. The member for Parkdale may sit down. I understood his point and the other member's point very well, but I believe all members have the right to continue the debate. Thank you for your opinion.

Mrs Marland: Tony, apologize for being the worst heckler in the House and then be quiet.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haeck): Thank you, the member for Mississauga South, but your contribution is not exactly warranted. The member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: I am pleased to see that I incite such passion among the opposition benches. I have sat here and listened diligently to some of the speeches that have been delivered so eloquently in this House: the speech that was delivered to this House by the Lieutenant Governor, the Premier's throne speech, and the speeches that have been delivered by both opposition parties, the Liberals and Conservatives. They have spoken eloquently and well on the throne speech. I may not necessarily agree with their points of view, but I do agree with their right to express their views. They were duly elected to this House and they have that right. I hope they respect the government side's right to address this particular issue as well.

Quite some time ago, in one of my first statements to this House --

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haeck): The member for Brampton South.

Excuse me, would the member please sit down. There is a point of order.

Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I hate to get involved when he's on a flight of fantasy, but the time clock is looking as though -- is he now into a major speech on the throne speech or is he on a question?

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haeck): The member for Brampton South may sit down. The member is entitled to make his speech on the throne speech.

1740

Mr Callahan: I thought he was on a point of fantasy.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haeck): No, this is not the point of comment that he would like to insist. He's entitled to continue the debate.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haeck): That is not a point of order. That is your strict opinion.

Mr Perruzza: I would encourage some of the opposition members to go into their desks and to pull out their manuals on the standing rules and figure out when they actually do have a point of order instead of standing up and interrupting members as they are about to impart some words of wisdom.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): What page? I've got it here.

Mr Perruzza: The member for Mississauga West just pulled it out and I see he's reading it diligently, so I will contain my discourse to the subject matter at hand, and I'll try not to divert from that.

When I was first elected into this House one of my first statements here was a statement I read, and this was a year ago, and it referred to a first ministers' conference because, as you know, I represent a riding that has been essentially devastated by the downturn in the global economy and by the downturn in the economy here in Ontario. There have been a number of things that have impacted on my communities directly: primarily the introduction of the GST, high interest rates, the high level of the dollar and, I reiterate, the downturn in what is otherwise a very global situation.

The riding I represent has a very large contingent which is involved in the construction industry, in all phases of construction. I would just like to quote a figure in one particular sector of that industry. In talking to the bricklayers' union, one discovers that the unemployment rate in that sector has been between 40% and 55% for a little over a year now. This is an outrageous statistic, and I hope the opposition members pay attention to it. The people who are still working in some of these areas, and it's a very hard and cold kind of reality, are working four days for themselves and their families to put bread on their tables and one day for their employer. They work eight hours a day for themselves and their families; they work one hour at the end of the day for their employer. That is the kind of hard reality we're facing here in Ontario and I'm facing in my riding.

Again I say that roughly a year ago I issued a statement in here where I called on the Prime Minister to convene a first ministers' conference on the economy. Having been in government now a little over a year I realize that government moves rather slowly on some of these issues, but I'm glad to see that the Prime Minister of Canada has got the premiers of the provinces together and they're finally beginning to talk about one of the cruellest hoaxes that has been perpetrated on both the people of this province and the people in this country, and I'm referring to the joblessness and the high unemployment rates that continue to ravage both Canada and many other countries across the world.

I look to the throne speech as a document which outlines very clearly and builds on a solid record of employment; it continues to build on a solid record of creating jobs. Again I look at the ravages in my own particular riding and at some of the companies that because of free trade, because of the GST, because of the high level of the dollar -- Allatt Paving is one example -- ripped the technology out of this province, extracted the capital they garnered on the backs of working people in Ontario and decided to relocate south of the border.

What did it leave us? What did it leave behind? It left behind hundreds of people unemployed, hundreds of families which have had their breadwinners on the unemployment lines, and now they are about to roll over, and many of them have rolled over, on our welfare system.

I look at Braemore Convertibles, another company in my particular riding which has decided, for matters of expediency, matters of free trade, to relocate south of the border in Buffalo. They have been scaling back their operation as well, and they have done exactly the same thing. They are taking their capital, their technology, all the good things this province had to give them, and where are they bringing them to? They are bringing them to New York state, to Buffalo.

But the owner of this company isn't going to Buffalo, isn't going to New York state. No, he is going to locate and live in St Catharines. He's not going to give up his medicare system. He's not going to give up his education system. He's not going to give up our roads and our cities. No, he's not going to give up the fact that we have one of the best places to live in the world. No, he's going to continue to live there, but what he's going to do is take his capital and relocate it to Buffalo. I find this a deplorable act on behalf of many in our corporate sector.

When I look at this document, when I look at the throne speech, when I look at the heavy doses of investment in business -- and it recognizes that small business is the single biggest employer in Ontario, employing over 70% of its people. When I look at the small business committee that has been established by the Premier of this province to look at the kinds of things we can do for small business and in assisting small business to become a thriving and active player in Ontario and to continue to employ people in this province. I applaud that, because small business has been one of the sectors former governments have never really paid attention to. They have traditionally looked to governments to protect them, to spur them along, to use their means to make them vibrant and to keep them active in the province, and what have governments traditionally done? They received the last jolt about two years ago with the GST. What did they receive? They received a side kick in the head, that is what they received, and they are all tumbling over.

When I listen to my Conservative friends expound and pontificate about their pro-business policies, they are not a pro-business party. They are certainly not a pro-small-business party. They are, though, a pro-big-business party, and big business, we all know, has always been traditionally listened to in this province. Quite frankly, I think our government listens to big business as well, because it has the clout and the might to be able to command attention, and we have many cases in point. In fact, as is outlined in the throne speech, we have come to the aid of big business as well, as you can see by the numerous examples in Delcan, Sandoz, Babcock and Wilcox, Magna, the Kapuskasing-Spruce Falls mill, and in my own riding, and I would like to speak about that just a bit longer, if I may, de Havilland, which is an excellent case in point.

I can't talk about the throne speech and not talk about job training and establishing in this province, at long last, a job training system that works. As anyone can see, and I have had an opportunity to work with this particular issue for some time now, if you begin to look at our job training system, you will quickly discover that it is very confusing, that it's very scattered. It's located throughout 10 ministries. There are about 49 programs, and very few of them are accessible.

1750

Quite frankly the former governments, the Tories, who talk about and pontificate about their 42-year reign where in those 42 years you had a health care system -- and that's not true. All you need to do is to go to an elementary history book and you'll quickly find that health care came on quite late in their mandate. When they began to deal with some of the more complex issues in our society, they quickly plummeted. Quite frankly, I think this is where they're going to stay. They're around 24% or 25%. I don't suspect they will come back much further than that. They're going to be secluded as a motley crew of hecklers, and that's where I quite frankly think they're going to stay.

However, when you talk about job training and about OTAB, you quickly see that this is a major endeavour undertaken by this government to be able to ease the transition of people from workplace to workplace -- people who are unemployed, people who are on welfare, first-time people into the workforce, younger kids. This is going to be something that is going to be able to deal effectively with those kinds of transitions. Quite frankly, I think it's about time. It's this government, the NDP government, that has taken on this initiative and moved it forward.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I listened quite attentively. Would you kindly remind the member that we're interested in real solutions and not in party politics?

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haeck): I'm sorry, but that is not a point of order.

Mr Perruzza: Obviously the member, from somewhere in Metro, I think, hasn't read the briefing materials and the press releases and the announcement on the establishing of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. If he had, he would know that this is very substantial. It has very substantial content in terms of being able to deal with people who are unemployed, people who are on welfare and people who have never worked in their lives. It is very substantial in what it is intended to do, and I think it will go a long way.

Instead of promoting a destructive agenda, I quite frankly think that especially around this issue we should set aside our political differences, set aside our partisanship, and work together to ensure that the close to one million people currently on social assistance, the 500,000 or people who have been ravaged and are unemployed in the province, are returned to the workforce so that they and their families can continue to be vibrant, active, happy citizens of Ontario. I challenge both the Liberals and the Conservatives to work with us on this particular issue, because we really do need your help in order to make it work. The people of Ontario really need your help to make it work.

As a final point, I'd like to touch briefly on this theme of building on the record, a theme that started with our capital works strategy quite some time ago and is moving into a number of other areas I have outlined. I'd like to relate it briefly to my own particular community and my own particular riding and talk a little bit about de Havilland, about the Spadina subway extension and so on.

Quite frankly, one of the biggest scares we have received in Downsview was the announcement of de Havilland's potential folding. Quite frankly, in very early discussions, knowing there was an NDP government, the employees of de Havilland and the unions representing the workers of de Havilland were optimistic that a deal could be hammered out whereby over 3,000 people would continue to have their jobs in Downsview. But it's not just the 3,000 people we continue to employ in de Havilland. For every job we save in de Havilland, we continue to retain four jobs in and around the service industries that feed into de Havilland.

As you know, Madam Speaker, this particular area of enterprise employs roughly 64,000 people right across Canada. Quite frankly, if de Havilland had been one of those companies that would have been permitted to fold, we might have seen a very serious erosion in those people employed in that sector, in that industry right across the country.

It scared me to death when I attended a committee meeting and the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology for the Liberal Party happened to be at that committee. The issue of de Havilland arose -- this was before the deals had been done -- and he talked about the uncompetitiveness. We all knew that the federal government wasn't committed to de Havilland until the final days, the 11th hour as they say, but it scared me to death when the former provincial Liberal Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology stated, "Well, if it's not going to be profitable in the short term" -- forgetting about the long term, forgetting about some of the other peripheral issues and some of the other people who continue to be employed in this particular industry -- "de Havilland should be allowed to fold, allowed to cave in, sink down the drain." That is 3,000 jobs in de Havilland, 12,000 in and around de Havilland that feed into it and God knows how many others right across the country that also feed into that particular industry.

That made me quiver. As a new member of this Legislature, that kind of rhetoric made me quiver because of what it would have done to the lives of those families. The ravages it would have wreaked on them would have been unmentionable. I'm glad to see that this party and this government came to the rescue of that particular enterprise, and I suspect it will be a very vibrant, active and profitable enterprise in this province.

The Spadina subway line: again, another major investment both in jobs and in people continues to build on the record, another $185 million on top of the $600 million for de Havilland, and we're going to extend the Spadina subway line from Wilson station to Sheppard.

I'm glad to see that an announcement was made in this House about streamlining the land use approval process. What we need now is not just the jobs that the subway is going to bring, but a comprehensive land use policy along that line which creates more jobs and investment. I'm glad to see that our Minister of Municipal Affairs today announced a process whereby those jobs and approval processes are not going to be put on the back burner, but are going to be forefront and central to this policy. This continues to build on the record to create jobs and get Ontarians back to work, and I'm glad to see that.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haeck): Could I ask the member for Downsview to take his seat. He will be allowed to continue his comments next week. We have a business statement from the government House leader.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and government House leader): I would like to report on the House schedule for next week. On Monday April 13, Tuesday April 14 and Wednesday April 15, we'll deal with the throne speech, with the vote scheduled for Wednesday. On Thursday, April 16, we'll have committee of the whole consideration of Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Christel Haeck): It is now approaching 6 of the clock. Pursuant to standing order 33, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

1800

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICES

The Acting Speaker (Ms Christel Haeck): The member for York Mills has given notice that he is dissatisfied with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Transportation concerning vehicle and drivers' licence offices. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter and the minister or parliamentary assistant may reply for up to five minutes.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): The minister's not here.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haeck): Yes, I see that. Perhaps the member for York Mills will start the debate.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have repeatedly asked questions about this issue, and the issue is that on October 21 and November 25 of last year I asked in this House for assurances that the licence-issuing bureaus would not be taken over by the government. I received assurances from the minister and the minister said at that time, "The system is working well and we have no intention of changing it."

This is a minister who is very well known for being very eloquent and very photogenic, but I notice he's not here to answer the question. So I've taken the liberty of having a photograph of him put on his desk in his absence, which I'll address my comments to, and I do hope I get a reasonable answer from the parliamentary assistant.

The people who operate these offices have leases coming up periodically, and these leases have to be renewed. If the people who operate the offices renewed in their own name, which is the only way the ministry allows them to operate, then they would be held accountable for the five- or 10-year lease. After the assurances of the minister, several of them went out and renewed their leases, and in fact in one case somebody bought the premises. Now we have found that there is a pilot project funded by the ministry to establish self-service kiosks, and I ask the minister what his commitment of the day is, because based upon his previous commitment, as I said, leases were signed.

It is unacceptable that at a time of record unemployment the government is going to spend, by some estimates, in the region of $50,000 per machine. On top of that $50,000 there are going to be the credit card charges which will be involved, and all the attendant expenses are going to add up to considerably more than the 3% the operators of these offices now get. The 3%, I may say, covers the rent, the utilities cost, the staff and the profit for the operator of these offices. I dare say there is not one single ministry or agency of government that operates so efficiently in terms of administrative cost. That's an all-in 3%.

These people have a right to be told the truth, they have a right to be told whether they have a future and they have a right to be told what is going to happen to their offices if they renew leases. Every time I ask a question, I get answers like -- and I've had this more than once: "The system is working well. We have no intention of changing it." If that is not an unequivocal answer from a minister, I don't know what is. Notwithstanding that, the ministry is going out and funding this.

We have in Ontario 293 such offices, employing something like 1,500 workers. They want to know whether they have a job, and the people who operate the offices want to know whether they should go into leases. There is a responsibility of the minister to give a very clear answer, and so far, I am sorry, the credibility of the government is very poor, based upon the previous answers.

Notwithstanding when the minister made those statements in the House, we note that on January 20, Management Board approved the purchase of these machines. Surely to God, they already had this in the planning at the time the minister was saying they had no intention of changing it. How can business trust this government when these are the kinds of statements its ministers are making? The Premier talks about cooperation with private business. This is not cooperation; this is hoodwinking people, and we want a clear answer. There are many people watching tonight who operate and work in these offices who are waiting for an answer, and we insist that we have a clear answer tonight.

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm a little bit excited. You know I share common concerns with you on this particular issue, being parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation. I also have a new licence office which has just opened in the last three or four months in my constituency plaza, where we have done the ribbon-cutting, so it's very near and dear to us.

As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, I will endeavour to respond to the question raised by the member for York Mills. I know he has raised the same one on a number of occasions in this House.

I'm well aware of the valuable service provided by licence issuers located in more than 280 offices right across this province. They have been providing this service for many years.

As the Ontario economy restructures, we as a government must continually examine and re-examine the way we deliver this service. This is a responsibility we take very seriously. The Minister of Transportation is now in the process of examining the way we deliver services to the Ontario motorist. This is why we must draw upon the experience and expertise of the licence issuers to determine how to deliver this service in the most efficient way we can.

On January 17, 1992, the Minister of Transportation met with representatives of the association to discuss methods of improving the service delivery. The self-service kiosk pilot project was discussed and is proceeding in selected areas right across this province. The project will commence in 1992 and operate for about six months' time. It is modelled after automated banking machines and will deliver selected government services.

The project has the potential to enhance the issuers' role as service providers. Unfortunately, the issuers declined our invitation to participate in a discussion of the opportunities inherent in this new technology.

Business as usual does not mean we stop improving the services we provide to the taxpayers of the province. Our products and services must respond in order to meet the needs of our rapidly changing society. The important service the licence issuers provide will change in the future as it has changed in the past. This is a principle successful service providers have to recognize. This has to be the order of the day.

I am disappointed that the association refuses to partake in discussions, because the minister knows, having met with it, that we need to have its input. We need the benefit of their years of experience in dealing at first hand with the public, and their help as service providers in evaluating the pilot project. I know they share with us this common objective in providing the best possible service to Ontario's motorists.

I know the honourable member shares those same goals. I would ask him to use his good offices to persuade the licence issuers to partake in this project so we can continue with our talks.

The House adjourned at 1808.